Oliver Cromwell

Profiles in Power

by Barry Coward

For all the countless studies that have been published about him, Oliver Cromwell remains a deeply puzzling and controversial figure. Many historical problems connected with his political career still await satisfactory explanation. In this book, an important addition to a series of growing impact, Barry Coward suggests answers to a number of these problems, using the wealth of fresh interpretations of seventeenth-century British history that have appeared in recent years.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, English Civil War

216 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

Reviews

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit, this book is a little dry in tone. Still perfectly readable, but it managed to make huge constitutional upheaval seem curiously unexciting. I wanted to read about Cromwell because Robespierre was accused of being a 'new Cromwell' as soon as he fell, which made me wonder to what extent the charge was accurate. Also, I wanted to know more about the short period during which England was a republic. This book is more of an account of Cromwell himself than his regime, nonetheless I feel much better informed for reading it. The strength of the book is that it brings out the conflicts between Cromwell’s religious priorities and his strong links to the army. Looking at things from a vaguely Marxist point of view, the key groups during the Protectorate period did not differ by social class so much as religious affiliation, although religious and political views seemed to be elided. Cromwell’s personal belief in divine providence was clearly important to the choices he made.

The highlight of the book is on page 60 and concerns the time in 1648 after the Putney Debates, when the potential for and details of a republican 'settlement' for England were being laboriously decided. Quote:

When pressed to give his views further by Ludlow, Cromwell ‘took up a cushion and flung it at my [Ludlow’s] head, and then ran down the stairs’.

I am delighted by this display of childish petulance from such an allegedly staid and humourless figure. Cromwell certainly comes off as a more ambiguous and interesting person than he is popularly assumed to be. That said, probably the most striking thing I noted was the wide acceptance of a republic as no worse than a monarchy. As long as the Protectorate functioned, there was little support for pretender kings, who pragmatic aristocracy and gentry assumed would just precipitate a return to civil war mayhem. It was Cromwell’s death that brought down the republic, although the book lacks the space to cover the details.

[Альберто Лорэдо · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a bad book that is marred by constant literal quotations that make more than a third of the book. This makes this historian look bad as one of the main rules that every historian learns at university is to minimise the quotes and paraphrasis to the minimum.

[W J · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ok as a book, probably worth three stars. However, reading it is made challenging by the fact that the author seemingly believes that paragraphs should be a full page long. The combination of small print and no breaks in the wall of text make reading what is actually a fairly decent book a tiresome task.

[Charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty center-of-the-road view of one of the most controversial, important, and enigmatic figures of modern England. I have personally only ever heard the negatives of Cromwell as he is portrayed in the popular imagination as Ollie the psychopathic regicide and military dictator, but I can say without making any excuses for his actions in Ireland (something I wish the author would have expounded upon more) or the Rule of the Major-Generals that this is just not the case.

Taking the author at face-value, it would seem that Cromwell's political and military ambitions were almost entirely univariate. A desire to see a "godly reform" of England. This was so much the case, according to the author, that he was often a political moderate, making deals with former opponents and siding with persecuted Protestant minorities in England when it was quite unpopular to do so. It is this religious zeal that also led him to commit regicide (believing that God was punishing England with civil wars because they allowed a sinful man to rule), but also to refuse the offers to be made King from both the army and parliament out of concern that it was a test from God and that if he chose to advance himself without a sign from Providence that God may exact vengeance on England.

His focus on the godly reform of England is also explored in an illuminating way. It also hints in a deeper way at a problem that is one of the greatest of modernity: The well-meaning reformer who, when his ideas show failure, do not correct course or engage in introspection but instead resort to authoritarian means to "make things right". With the author's description of Cromwell's understanding of this needed spiritual reformation of England there is a whiff of 20th century totalitarianism. Although Cromwell is no Hitler, Mao, or Lenin, his understanding of humanity is eerily similar. This also explains why reformation fails. Although he was a staunch proponent of religious tolerance (except for Catholics), Cromwell initially believes that the signs he is getting from Providence of practically self-evident and when the rest of the nation sees this there will be an increase in moral virtue and a newfound unity among protestant (and presumably the Jews he would like to invite to England under the assumption they would also convert). But it doesn't materialize because, like the 20th century totalitarians he gets everything wrong about human nature. This brings on the most authoritarian period of his regime which the author unfortunately does not describe the detail I would have liked.

Overall, I would definitely recommend if you want a short book on the rise and rule of Oliver Cromwell that is fairly balanced and gives credit and criticism wherever it is due.

[Bill38silver · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admit to bias(potentially) in reviewing this book as the late Barry Coward was my teacher in the second year of my very mature history degree studies in the early 2000s. There is no doubt in my experience that Barry was a talented, inspiring teacher who emphasised the importance of balance in the learning of his subject but in writing this profile of power he assumes prior knowledge of what was a complex person who continues to divide opinion. In his attempt to be even-handed through much of the text, I felt the one time President of the Cromwell Association skirted round the edges of events, Cromwell's part in them, and had too much respect for the views of other historians.

The second potential bias in reading this book is my lasting impression made by the film "Cromwell" and Richard Harris' portayal of the main man as a shouting, religious fanatic bullying his way through the politics of the times. As events proceed in the book in their chronological order, Cromwell seems increasingly to be obsessed with his personal calling to restore religious toleration (but excluding some groups like the Quakers and the Ranters) and to have a settled form of government, rather than lead this process of transformation as a king, as he could easily have become.

This book is a struggle to read and is geared to those already familiar with the Civil Wars and Cromwell. Not for the faintly interested, casual reader of mid-seventeenth century history.

[viv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adds more context to his life and the politics at the time rather than the standard stereotypes one would learn in a history class.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess it's a good study. Busts some myths and explains some other things. However, generally speaking, you need knowledge of the history of Cromwell before reading or else you will not understand it - which is the case with both books by Barry Coward I've read so far.

It works, but there isn't a great deal on the personality of Cromwell as I would've liked.

[Bev · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found the book tedious reading and the author seems to assume one already knows the history of Cromwell and the civil war etc. What was notable is that it is Cromwell's history from his letters and speeches telling how he perceived things and why he did what he did.