Was Cromwell a Hero or a Villain?

Authors Avatar

Was Cromwell a Hero or a Villain?

Oliver Cromwell, English and political leader, was thought to be both a hero and villain by many of the citizens at his time. His actions and motives caused the rather controversial topic - still talked about to this day. What he did in his life as a cavalry officer and as many of the roles he took upon himself will be revealed in this essay, backed up by strong and realistic evidence – even through the use of voices.

Firstly and foremost in 1645, around the time of the Battle of Naseby, many people had a lot to say about Cromwell. He had taken the role of the Lieutenant/ General of The New Model Army. Before the battle, Cromwell said:

“I could not go riding out alone about my business, but smile out to God in praises, in assurance of victory because God would, by things that are not, bring to naught things that are.”                                                                        1645

The Parliamentarians ended up victorious and Cromwell was more than pleased with what the Parliamentarians had achieved. In fact, he was so grateful that he proclaimed:

“I routed the army and this shows God is on our side. I look to God and God has answered my prayers.”                                                                1645

Furthermore, many people were on his side. Once again, after the battle, a Parliamentarian Soldier said:

“Cromwell has won us the battle and he will too win us the war. He is a skilful leader: He doesn’t run for the baggage train; he routes other armies and keeps his going. This shows that I want somebody next to me who is strict; not posh. They will tell me what to do. I want ability; not nobility.”                                1645

Alongside that, Colonel Okey strongly said:

“Cromwell is the one who kept us together throughout the course of the battle.”

                                                                                        1645

These two quotes clearly support each other as they are both more or less saying the same thing. Therefore, two pieces of similar evidence can be relatively strong.

However, these texts aren’t adequate evidence. The reason for this is that the people saying them are both Parliamentarians. They are on his side and are not against him. But there are two occasions in the year 1645 in which Parliamentarians go against Cromwell. The first person to do so was Sir John Hotham. He furiously said:

“Cromwell gets poor people off the street to fight. The paupers he gets might get promoted even and replace good people like me.”                                1645

The second to do so was The Earl of Manchester. Like John, he too was a Parliamentarian and said:

“Cromwell brings terrible fellas into the army. That is ridiculous.”                1645

The texts are almost similar and give the impression that is strong evidence; not propaganda.

And finally, arrived a Royalist Lady. She hated Cromwell and angrily said:

“Cromwell is a villain. He promotes his own family such as his son-in-law. That’s pathetic!!! Also, he’s not powerful because of his skill; it’s because of his massive army. Anyone can win a battle with a massive army.  He was gathering dust in the House of Commons seven years ago and now he’s the most popular person in England.”                                                                                1645

Once again, as mentioned before, this is a feeble piece of evidence because she is Royalist, and as far as the war is concerned, the Royalists hate Parliamentarians and vice-versa.

The year is 1649. King Charles is being trialled and Cromwell has come to a decision. He wants the king to be executed but has to find a way of encouraging the rest of the Parliamentarians to agree with what is happening. And so he does by recapping all of the bloody events in the past that have occurred. The Parliament, furious by knowing this, decide the execution of Charles should be done under any circumstances. Following the notion, Charles is executed on 30th January 1649. Many people blamed Cromwell for the death of the King. Some people thought it was a bad move – some thought it was a good move. Those who liked what had happened thanked Cromwell but those who didn’t totally hated Cromwell. Here is what the same Royalist Lady had to say:

Join now!

“Cromwell put the king on trial; his own king. He destroyed God’s man on earth and so he is a villain. Cromwell’s place is rightfully reserved in hell.”                1649

However, the same Parliamentarian Soldier came up with a stronger argument saying:

“Cromwell did what was right for the country. He killed the king but he had no choice. Everyone realizes he was God’s man on Earth; but how can God’s man on Earth be a man of blood at the same time? How can God’s man on Earth start wars? Charles was a man of blood and such ...

This is a preview of the whole essay