[Reedus]

There is much debate amongst historians about how we can infer a label of character upon Cromwell to paint a picture of him as an individual.

Please discuss

[mahjongmagic]

Can we pick more than one interpretation? If so then religious zealot and social conservative because that was what caused his failure, his 'mutually exclusive, divergent' aims. Whilst I do think that he sought a settlement, he was far more interested in achieving Godly reformation and going through many different types of government to try and implement this system which was too specific to his needs and was never going to satisfy the majority of the people.

[navarre]

After studying Cromwell for my A level coursework, all I can say on the man is that he is thoroughly boring and all history that surrounds him and his life is inherently dull.

[khaiser turian]

I believe that Cromwell actions during the protectorate were motivated by his religious ideals, his aim of imposing a Godly reformation on England. His thorough belief in providence defined his rule as Lord Protector.
Although some interpret this as Cromwell acting as a military dictator through his use of the major-generals, this act was motivated out of his need to impose religious settlement on the nation

[geetar]

Oliver, Oliver, never before has a boy asked for more...

That's my contribution to this historical discussion. Enjoy.

[Martyn*]

Cromwell displayed all the signs of fascist tendencies. He massacred the Irish and cut of King Charles I's head.

[JacobW]

Many terrible things he may have been, but the idea that he was a military dictator is grossly misleading. As Lord Protector, he did not have the suspending and dispensing powers that Chalres did, he was obliged to call Parliament and allow it to sit for at least six months every three years, a majority vote was required in the Council of State for executive action, and the Commons was reformed to make the representation more equal and to remove the rotten boroughs. The rule of the major generals was a bizzare experiment in local government that was, ah, voted down by Parliament. Even had he attempted to, he simply didn't have the military strength to set up that kind of regime.

[Teofilo]

"A barbarous wretch who imbued his hands with so much innocent blood."

His words, not mine.

[Aethra]

His religious zealotry has been exaggerated. He apparently had some quite wild parties with music and dancing at Hampton Court when he was Lord Protector. He also increased religious tolerance towards all Protestant sects, and allowed Jews back into the country after hundreds of years of being excluded. He was, however, highly prejudiced towards Catholics.

[AntisthenesDogger]

They're not mutually exclusive. He can be more than one.

He was more fitting of a religious zealot/Social conservative. Hardly a dictator by definition, but evidently had despotism tendencies.

And if you look at anyone deemed "pious" during the latter medieval ages and further, none of them were exemplary of virtues professed as sacred. Just look at the Pope's themselves.