Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain?

Cromwell the biggest hypocrite in history. Claimed to get rid of a corrupt despot and was then worse then him. Genocide in Ireland, religious fanatic and then dissolved Parliament because they were too difficult. seems like he had more in common with Charles I then he knew

Quite a bit of applying modern values to events 350 years ago in some of the arguments here. On Ireland for example, I don't think it's proven that he was the evil madman he is characterised as - he plays a key role in Irish myth making, a sort of ultimate British bogeyman oppressor. The truth is that he did carry out some pretty vicious actions during his campaign there and was also oppressive in his general outlook towards Catholics, but he was in this country too. Judged by the standards of warfare of the day and during the 30-years war, of which our little civil war was just a part, he wasn't all that extreme. He is also often wrongly blamed in Ireland for the subsequent starvation, but this has been shown by historians to at least partly be down to the activities of Irish landlords and also down to the activities of people Cromwell or Parliament appointed, rather than Cromwell himself. Not saying there isn't truth to the allegations, just that they have become somewhat overblown and mythic.

On the "he became a despot replacing a despotic king" line of attack, there is a complicated story. He did repeatedly try to negotiate with the King and he appears to have decided on the course of regicide out of a kind of political desparation. He only reluctantly accepted the role of Lord Protector and became more of a dictator when he determined that Parliament was chaotic and unable to govern - he was also pressured by many of his supporters to accept the role.

What I do think is utterly clear though is that he represented, not the working people of England, the ordinary soldiers or those who had campaigned for real change, but a particular class of wealthy landowners. His harsh retaliations against the officers who demanded real change and democracy in the Putney Debates demonstrate that he was acting to preserve the interests of the landed gentry. The war against Charles, in which he was a skilful and effective commander, but not the top commander, was a war between this class and the Monarch.

You make the point of not being anachronistic in the first paragraph but then go on to commit a similar fallacy in the last paragraph .

I don't think Cromwell had any explicit class interests; he was responsible for great strides made in English Poor Law during his time.
Also, there wasn't any harsh retaliation against officers in the Putney Debates. The moderates of the debates, including Lambert, were much ideologically akin to him, and he was even prepared to listen to the more radical officers.
The only harsh retaliation was against rank-and-file soldiers responsible for mutinies and disorder in the ranks - which again reinforces my previous argument that he was a pragmatic man trying to appease both the conservative and radical elements of the revolution; bringing back law and order while at the same time carrying on his franchise of social change.

He only reluctantly accepted the role of Lord Protector and became more of a dictator when he determined that Parliament was chaotic and unable to govern - he was also pressured by many of his supporters to accept the role.

Yes, it's true that in my last para I was reflecting on a sort of modern neo-Marxist analysis of his class situation, I was really seeking to counter the view that he was somehow a "revolutionary", whereas a better analysis is that he was seeking to advance the class interest of Protestant Gentlemen.

I think he did to some extent get lulled by the trappings of supreme power in his last years and did become mildly tyrannical and was judged as such in his own times.