Oliver Cromwell

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Would you not agree that if Charles I won the Civil War, the power of the parliament would have been set back a couple of decades?

However, Ole Oliver also set back parliamentary development by purging the Parliament until the creation of the Rump Parliament. And the Rump Parliament had to share both legislative and executive powers with the Protector's Privy Council making the "republic" a bureaucratic mess and something England didn't try to replicate again.

 

[Masada]

Pride's Purge babei.

 

[aronnax]

However, Ole Oliver also set back parliamentary development by purging the Parliament until the creation of the Rump Parliament. And the Rump Parliament had to share both legislative and executive powers with the Protector's Privy Council making the "republic" a bureaucratic mess and something England didn't try to replicate again.

Yes that's true. But when England overthrew tumbledown Dick and invited King Charles II to return, didn't the Charles II agree to a number of concessions to his power as King which paved the way for the slow chipping of the power of the Monarchy?

As compared to say King Charles I, winning the war and then entirely abolishing and reducing the Parliament to a shell and then passing on the same power to his children.

 

[sophie]

Yes that's true. But when England overthrew tumbledown Dick and invited King Charles II to return, didn't the Charles II agree to a number of concessions to his power as King which paved the way for the slow chipping of the power of the Monarchy?

As compared to say King Charles I, winning the war and then entirely abolishing and reducing the Parliament to a shell and then passing on the same power to his children.

Yes, but those concessions were almost immediately ignored as soon as Charles was put in power. If you want to point to one king's fall contributing to an expansion of the power of Parliament you're much better off looking at the concessions William and Mary (mostly William) made during his reign, but even then you're rather pushing it.

 

[aronnax]

Yes, but those concessions were almost immediately ignored as soon as Charles was put in power. If you want to point to one king's fall contributing to an expansion of the power of Parliament you're much better off looking at the concessions William and Mary (mostly William) made during his reign, but even then you're rather pushing it.

They were?

*Googles

Well that was a wasted 5 years.
Oh well... at least Charles I didn't win.

 

[IrishDragon]

I've heard Cromwell was genocidal towards the Irish, can anyone confirm this is true, or will this simply be one of the many mysteries surrounding him?

There's a saying in Ireland that still exists 'To hell or to Connaught', because people were either forced to move to Connaught in the west or die. The population of Ireland was reduced by around a third during his conquests

 

[Flying Pig]

Hipster Cromwell?

I regret my terrible Paint skills and absolute lack of photoshop skills.

The internet can do it for you, as far too long being on here has taught me:

 

[LightSpectra]

The internet can do it for you, as far too long being on here has taught me:

Well, I asked Sulla what he thought about that, and he was like

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, I asked Sulla what he thought about that, and he was like

Ah, damn it, well done. Cincinnatus, of course, sniffs at the interloper.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There's a saying in Ireland that still exists 'To hell or to Connaught', because people were either forced to move to Connaught in the west or die.

Yes, very well armed, very powerful people.
Connacht did not like this.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Well, he did get rid of the Monarchy which is a positive.

So long as by "get rid of the Monarchy" you mean "temporarily interrupt the rule of the House of Stuart".

and led a revolution against the monarchy.

Led? Most, if not all, of Cromwell's political importance came after the Parliamentary victory in the First Civil War.

His bad parts is that he himself was as bad an absolutist king and was probably the most tyrannical head of state since Henry VIII.

I wouldn't call him an absolutist king - from what I've read a fair amount of the excesses of his rule were carried out more under the thumb of the Major-Generals (e.g. I think the banning of Christmas celebrations was more at the M-G's behest)

Yea, because evidently Parliament didn't exist till then and there is an actual written constitution now. Didn't you know Dachs?

I don't see how you can construe this from Dach's post.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I don't see how you can construe this from Dach's post.

That was just a joke between us, sorry.

 

[Traitorfish]

Rainsborough was cooler.