In April 1653 Cromwell angrily denounced the Rump parliament and threw it out. People have always argued about why; what were his intentions, why at that point? Historians can come to no agreement either. For many, this was all part of Cromwell’s ambition and desire to rule, the culmination of dissimulation , planning and plotting – the move of a budding tyrant. For others, it was the burst of the damn of frustration at the Rump’s lack of reform and dissatisfaction of the Army.
What do you think?
Loading ...
More complicated than a simple yes/no
I did think of adding a third option; something like, ‘He disolved it on impulse but then found it impossible to go back…or found he liked power…or some such. But in the end I think for this point in time – 20th April 1653 – it IS a yes or no. Had he planned it, had he been working towards this? or not? Or this part of amaster plan to become Protectoror something like it?
I think the question is right to focus on the distinction between a long term plan to take dictatorial power vs improvisation that led Cromwell there, but could question could be formulated a bit differently. The ‘acted on impulse’ phrasing sort of suggests the key distinction was if he woke up on April 20 knowing he was going to chew parliament out and bring in the soldiers, or if he literally just lost his temper in the moment. I think the more interesting question is did he at some point during the wars decide that England was his for the taking and engage in years of maneuvering to make that happen, with dissolution of Parliament just a step on the way? Or did he always expect to be one leader amongst many, grumpily asking himself ‘Must I do everything?!’ as the Rump fell into dysfunction and then getting trapped in an escalating spiral of concentration of power while he flailed about for a stable form of government that didn’t involve a hereditary king?
Yes you are quite right, Sam; that is what I was trying to get to in the questions; did he plan this and work towards it; or simply lose patience and his head explode when the Rump committed another outrageous bit of monkey business.
Fully agree. My humble opinion is that he went as far as he could go, realized the rump wouldn’t deliver and only then, he decided to dissolve it; the rage show in parliament was not made up, but not a spur of the moment thing, either.
Being an experienced general and politician, I find it hard to believe that he went ahead with no planning, but things probably didn’t go as planned and he had to improvise thereafter.
Yes that sounds very likely to me
I think he acted on impulse. It was against his previous actions and indications. I think that once the waggon had started rolling he could not stop it, but also he believed it was what God had directed. He then began to enjoy the power.
I have a hard time believing that this was planned from the start although i am a man with very little imagination. it seems to me that he became frustrated and perhaps took advantage of his position of power but nothing more sinister.
I think Cromwell acted on impulse, or rather, circumstances led him to have an epiphany that the current situation was headed for disaster unless someone took charge.
For me, his lack of planning is evident by the fact that 1) he didn’t really build up a loyal faction within parliament or the army, and 2) he is subsequently paralysed by indecision and a lack of vision during the Protectorate.
Those who claimed he was betraying the revolution were wrong: Cromwell never betrayed the revolution, because his political goals were different to theirs. He was never an idealist, but rather a practical man who believed in the necessity of the executive to balance the legislative function. His politics throughout the civil wars were obvious for everyone to see.
Yes I agree with you. Also Ithink that lack of vision thing is really important.One of the most limiting things for me about Cromwell is that he really doesn’t have a strategy and vision for the republic. And therefore never prioritised and ensures its survival
In politics, he was a far better tactician than he was a strategist.
Although, the same could be said for everyone else in this period. There’s no Stalin here.
Sadly, still unable to vote. It’s almost as if the site knows how simplistic and uninformed my answer is, and is trying to protect my integrity by preventing me from showing myself up.
Ha! I’m sure that’s not true! How would you vote and I will do it for you?
Power corrupts.
Despite being a Cromwell-hater, I can’t bring myself to believe he planned it all along. Rather, I tend to think he was gradually corrupted by power, as power does tend to corrupt.
That’s a shame, Ken. Oliver always spoke very highly of you.
While Cromwell may have always been interested in his own personal power, it seems that while he may not have wanted a king above him, he also did not want to be king himself. He kind of reminds me of myself, I don’t particularly want to lord over others but i definitely don’t want to be lorded over by anyone else. And when forced to choose, I reluctantly choose to take power myself if only to avoid being made powerless by others (only in a work or family context – not in government).
Thanks for your excellent podcast David, glad you’re past your health problems, I’ve been a loyal listener since season 1.
Thank you David, and very interesting.I am really enjoying all the comments
If Cromwell were the sneaky, Machiavellian villain who planned all along to take over a king. he would have planned a way to implement his plans. Obviously Cromwell possessed no such plan (I’ve been reading ahead).
Ah, you swot Dan!
I do not believe that Cromwell had “greatness thrust upon ’em”. He rose to power because he wanted to rise to power (and was capable it must be said). He achieved greatness, and it is a little unlikely he did so without planning. Those soldiers were awfully handy at just the right times.
They were indeed, awfully handy.’oo, fancy meeting you here…’!
I fear the poll comes to early in the narrative. We have to judge him also for what he does afterwards. But then he does ignore the Self-Denying Ordinance
My personal view is he was the sanest person when everyone had just gone religiously nuts. I’d rather the politicians we have today, warts and all.
He was originally given a dispensation of course; but yes then after 1646 everyine essentially ignores that; Ireton returns to parliament too and others. And you are quite right it would be good to have a poll when all the shouting is over. I was interested in this, now, though because it seems to me that if you want to believe Cromwell was always out for himself, then yoiu need to believe it at this point, as well as in, say, 1657
I went with the first option as it is closer to my take but I have an in-between take.
I do think that Cromwell’s behavior earlier on precludes some kind of long-term conspiracy to make himself head of state but I also think that, between his little ”its time” remark and how convenient the presence of some units around Parliament was, it wasn’t truly a spur of the moment thing.
I think he was honestly seeking a compromise that both assured his aims and enshrines parliamentary sovereignty until fairly late but that, at least sometime before the coup, he had decided to ensure that, should push to shove, he could pull off a coup, make himself head of state and keep himself there until he could get a Parliament that he felt he could work with.
That’s the one explanation that I can think that, in my opinion of course, align with all of his actions both before and after the coup.
I agree almost completely with the latter of David’s comparative summaries on the episode.
Cromwell = like most historical figures – did plenty of immoral things (depending on your view of morality, sure, but things which in general we today would view as immoral) without us having to agree with propaganda, biased views, or simply things for which there is little to no evidence – for example, no Napoleon wasn’t short (British propaganda and conversion of units, as he was roughly average height for a Frenchman or Corsican) or a 100% warmonger (don’t forget just how many times was was declared ON France, though the reasoning for that is complex) … but he DID send an expedition to re-install the worst kind of slavery on the island we now call Haiti+Dominican republic, an act which no excuse or justification can be found if you were an olympian level mental gymnast.
Cromwell wasn’t the starter of, or worst offender against, Ireland, but he did continue such practices there as can not be justified in any way regardless how expedient someone thinks it to be – but the idea that Oliver was a scheming cynic who was planning to take a crown for years is just not supportable.
Simply the magnitude of what he would (and many would) consider “sin” to slowly lie, deceive, and allow – or even organize/order – so many premeditated deaths to occur just seems so out of character what by all reasonable measures seems to be an incredibly pious man.
My take is that he fought extremely hard for what he believed in, was absolutely willing to work within parliament to get the things he truly thought best for the nation, and then when it seemed like everything he had fought for – and seen countless people die whom he respected and many who were personal friends- were about to be pissed away by a parliament he believed some mixture of incompetent, greedy, ignorant, and corrupt was about to act against the best interests of a vast number of people (they wouldn’t be instating the rather benign and fairly tolerant modern C of E, but something i’d hope the vast majority of us find repugnant, such as we can see in far too many parts of the world where the idea of “one true faith” is enshrined into law, custom, education, etc) – he hit his limit, rustled up some muscle, and decided that the god he believed so deeply in (“providence” if you prefer) had put him in the position he found himself in to get a job done, and that he had to be the man to do it.
He never acted in the way which such a vast majority of those who have sought absolute power tend to do – indeed I reckon that some of what few monarchical trappings he did enact were at least partly done for the sake of appearances.
TLDR: Did a bunch of nasty things, his motivations seem if not uniformly moral !by his own moral compass if not others! then at last rarely of anything we would view as sadistic and cruel, he got fed up with parliament and afraid (not without decent cause IMHO) that if he didn’t act IMMEDIATELY all that had been fought and bled for would be lost. Neither saint not demon.
If
Brilliant Tim. I love it and agree with pretty much every word. I may use some of it later if that’sOK, when I come to the summing up – when ever that will be!
I think that while Cromwell had not planned it, he was conditioned to believe that “might was right” and that he had the right to wield the might… or something like that. We now believe that democracy requires that military authority MUST be subordinate to civil authority.
So, to our modern eyes Cromwell cannot be seen as a “democrat”.
So, it is not hard to ask why his validation of the use of force to enforce God’s will is any different than Charles’.
Does premeditation make that much difference?
I agree, Cromwell was no democrat in the modern sense. And I think there are very clear paralells between him and Charles under Protectorate with Cromwell’s dissolution of parliament. And Cromwell has an army which intervenes in politics in a way Charles never had. Plus Cromwell will rule according the a codified constitution. But yes, I think intention is very important; just as we make the distinction in law between Premeditated and unpremeditated; in this context it’s more interogating whether the accusations that Cromwell was a duplicious, ambitiousmeglomanic who planned a route to power from early in the civil wars.