[kezkel]

i know that everyone has been asking about this and i should do my own homework but i am really stuck and confused. I have to write an essay on the fact that cromweel was both ahero and a villian if its not to much trouble plese could you help me.

thankyou

[Miss Buxton]

Hi

Try this thread...another student asked the same question a few days ago

click here

[Cyfer]

Now what i do not understand about History is that it views Oliver Cromwell as the long term leader of parliament. Yes he played a short part in Charles' downfall but in my opinion John Pym did most of the work before, campaigning the grand remonstrance, making lengthy yet cleverly phrashed speeches, rallying parliament etc.

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 3 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

Now what i do not understand about History is that it views Oliver Cromwell as the long term leader of parliament. Yes he played a short part in Charles' downfall but in my opinion John Pym did most of the work before, campaigning the grand remonstrance, making lengthy yet cleverly phrashed speeches, rallying parliament etc.

You are absolutely correct, and even Cromwell would have agreed heartily.
He took part in politics unwillingly.

Cromwell rose to prominence during the war, especially with the Self-Denying Ordinance.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 3 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 3 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

Now what i do not understand about History is that it views Oliver Cromwell as the long term leader of parliament. Yes he played a short part in Charles' downfall but in my opinion John Pym did most of the work before, campaigning the grand remonstrance, making lengthy yet cleverly phrashed speeches, rallying parliament etc.

You are absolutely correct, and even Cromwell would have agreed heartily.
He took part in politics unwillingly.

Cromwell rose to prominence during the war, especially with the Self-Denying Ordinance.

Hmmm, so if he took part in politics unwillingly why did he take part in Charles' prosecution? Was it simply the hatred of what Charles had done, or was it a religious argument for him or both?
Now if Cromwell wasn't they key figure all the way why do we study him and not John Pym? John Pym did all the work and he is getting no credit for it!
Maybe we will study John Pym and deeper into this topic into later years?

[MrJohnDClare]

Maybe it needs a historian (ie yourself in a few years time) to revise our interpretation of history?

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Maybe it needs a historian (ie yourself in a few years time) to revise our interpretation of history?

I'd like to do that, but sadly my true talent lies in Science/English. Maybe Historian by Hobby?

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

my true talent lies in Science/English

Enjoy - I teach mainly English nowadays.
You need to be an historian to study either of these subjects properly, I think.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

my true talent lies in Science/English

Enjoy - I teach mainly English nowadays.
You need to be an historian to study either of these subjects properly, I think.

I disagree with this, especially with English as it's two totally different things, well for me.

English comprehension is basically understanding how the writer uses the language he is using and for what purposes he is using.
To do English writing, which is just writing multiple short stories, maybe as a hobby, you just need to understand or create a basic formula for what you are writing and have a large vocabulary and be able to aim at your target audience.

In Science it is less so, as you do need to know things discovered before and what impact they made on today, but it is related a lot more to modern research.

In a nutshell, i don't understand what skills you would learn from history that would help you in either of those two subjects. Apart from finding large amounts of information and compiling it.

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

I disagree with this, especially with English as it's two totally different things, well for me.

Shakespeare? Dickens? The English language itself?

Quote

In a nutshell, i don't understand what skills you would learn from history that would help you in either of those two subjects. Apart from finding large amounts of information and compiling it.

Methodology? Background?

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

I disagree with this, especially with English as it's two totally different things, well for me.

Shakespeare? Dickens? The English language itself?

Quote

In a nutshell, i don't understand what skills you would learn from history that would help you in either of those two subjects. Apart from finding large amounts of information and compiling it.

Methodology? Background?

I admit defeat in English although, to be pedantic i think in science you do not need to know the people who discovered these things. I know quite a bit about science and various things in it (favorites being work on anions and cations ) but i barely know anyone scientific or when they discovered their discoveries apart from hugely known ones such as Ptolemy, Galileo, Copernicus (actually it might be that i know them jsut because they are in the Renaissance Period).

[MrJohnDClare]

I'll admit defeat in Science also a bit because I think that sometimes Scientists to advance need to break OUT of the mould of History and to develop something completely new.

However, in the parallel matter of the ethics of Scientific research, and good grasp of History is essential.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

I'll admit defeat in Science also a bit because I think that sometimes Scientists to advance need to break OUT of the mould of History and to develop something completely new.

However, in the parallel matter of the ethics of Scientific research, and good grasp of History is essential.

true but we may need some of the past to help us advance such as what Leonardo Da Vinci did.

In Katiee's thread you stated why Oliver Cromwell is a hero. Just to be balanced, i'd like to go against some of your points.
12 Reasons Cromwell is a HERO

Quote

Oliver Cromwell is my hero, so here's some things he did that are great:
1. He substantially won the Civil War, when the rest of the Parliamentary commanders - posh, half-baked lords - would have lost it.
2. He set up the New Model Army which has to be one of the best armies the world has ever known - merciless and motivated fighters.
3. He could be ruthless when needed (eg against the Levellers, and at Drogheda and Wexford). Nowadays, in our politically-correct, wishy-washy liberal society, everybody goes 'ooo no, what a nasty man - he is the 'British Stalin'' at this. But AT THE TIME that was what people responded to (compare what was happening in France and Spain at the same time). The result was that England and Ireland HAD PEACE, because of Cromwell. Only someone of immense strength and imposing character could have FORCED such a warlike situation into peace.
4. He absolutely wopped the Scots AND the Irish - always a crowd-pleaser.
5. He pushed through the execution of the king, thus getting rid of a TOTAL TYRANT and establishing in English politics that a king CANNOT be absolute. Thus we owe our democracy to him - he is sometimes called 'the daddy of democracy'. How's about that for a hero?.
6. He threw out the old corrupt Rump Parliament in 1653. Everybody agrees that they deserved it. He really tried to establish a 'righteous' parliament in its place (eg the Barebone's Parliament).
7. He refused the crown when it was offered him - he genuinely did not want power for power's sake - just to get ENGLAND safely through this troubled period. Decent guy.
8. He abolished bear-baiting, and punished drunkenness. Perhaps he went too far for our tastes nowadays (he also abolished dancing, Christmas and the theatre) but this is what godly people wanted in those days. He was just trying to make people be good by the lights of the time.
9. He allowed Jews to return to start living in England, and allowed them religious toleration. He allowed everybody else to believe what they wanted - in their own homes - this was religious toleration way ahead of its time.
10. He built up the British navy - this was the real start of England's naval supremacy.
11. He captured Jamaica from the Spanish - and thus began the British Empire.
12. He was a good, decent family man, who enjoyed a joke and was kind to his children, and he always spent the day in prayer before he did any really outrageous thing. When he had lords to a meal, he would let them eat for so long - after which he would bang a drum, at which the ordinary soldiers were allowed to come in and take anything they wanted off the table.

2- The Model Army was definitely the best in terms of loyalty, skill, ruthless and motivated. The Japanese Samurai, when banded under a leige lord were the most powerful force ever of their time. As in before guns were introduced.
5- 'Total Tyrant' is an opinion and therefore not a point . Yes he pushed through it but he didn't set it up in the long term.
7- Unless we use hindsight, at the time i would not have trusted him a bit if he did that, as he has already proved he is a clever man, he may refuse the crown so he can exercise even more power over the ever growing parliament which was STRONGER than the monarchy. So he would have 'trust' and power. Note that what i am saying can only be added if you were there at the moment. In hindsight it is invalid.
10- I disagree, i say the Tudors first started it

~Cyfer/Cipher

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

I'll admit defeat in Science also a bit because I think that sometimes Scientists to advance need to break OUT of the mould of History and to develop something completely new.
However, in the parallel matter of the ethics of Scientific research, and good grasp of History is essential.

true but we may need some of the past to help us advance such as what Leonardo Da Vinci did.

In Katiee's thread you stated why Oliver Cromwell is a hero.
Just to be balanced, i'd like to go against some of your points.

2- The Model Army was definitely the best in terms of loyalty, skill, ruthless and motivated. The Japanese Samurai, when banded under a leige lord were the most powerful force ever of their time. As in before guns were introduced.
5- 'Total Tyrant' is an opinion and therefore not a point . Yes he pushed through it but he didn't set it up in the long term.
7- Unless we use hindsight, at the time i would not have trusted him a bit if he did that, as he has already proved he is a clever man, he may refuse the crown so he can exercise even more power over the ever growing parliament which was STRONGER than the monarchy. So he would have 'trust' and power. Note that what i am saying can only be added if you were there at the moment. In hindsight it is invalid.
10- I disagree, i say the Tudors first started it

~Cyfer/Cipher

Good points - absolutely valid!
Do they destroy the whole argument, however?
You yourself accept that Charles was a twit.

[Cyfer]

Quote

Good points - absolutely valid!
Do they destroy the whole argument, however?
You yourself accept that Charles was a twit.

no there is always an argument for historians
I'll have to research more into this topic before i continue with my argument sorry, and that will be probably in a week because of exams

~Cyfer/Cipher