"Rate Cromwell" Topic

On a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate Oliver Cromwell as a general?

7 to 8 but more for his management of his troops than his battlefield tactics.

That seems about right.

Warty.

"A great, bad man."

Agree with a Private Matter: 7-8.

I dunno. Ask the Irish.

9, he didn't go in for losing battles.

His track record is impressive and for that reason alone he's got to warrant an 8.

He is the Darth Vader of the ECW because I play the Royalists (I like Rupert's dog).

I concur with a good 8-9, in a religious age he managed his men well, and was a decisive and inspiring commander.

I thought Richard Harris played him well in the movie

Agreed that he is a very bad man but still a solid commander. 8 is about right.

Actually Sir Thomas Fairfax was CinC in many of Cromwell's battles and he just led a wing of horse.

Fairfax was C in C of some of Cromwell's actions, not many, and not really after the 1st Civil War

If I remember correctly probably a 6 early on, then a solid 8 later.

He was a fink.

7 – 8, tough as nails.

How bad could Cromwell have really been? I mean, he had the support of the country. Now King Charles the first was so bad his parliament rebelled, they fought him for years and his people finally cut his head off. Poor Oliver. I think him terribly misunderstood.

The people didn't think too much of Cromwell either;

link

He won.

Since the question is "as a general" I agree with the 6 rising to at least an 8. Between his actions in Ireland and his establishing a military dictatorship I would rate him as a person to be: "A very, very bad man."

For someone with no prior military training, he was pretty good 8 probably. Not a nice guy though

8

over rated and a evil man

He 'did the business' at Dunbar and Worcester. In the Irish campaign he did exactly what any other commander of the era would have done. The opposition refused to surrender Drogheda and elsewhere and suffered the inevitable consequences. Cromwell: "Harsh but fair." I say '8'. A real soldiers' general (as opposed to a generals' general).

A fink… yes but still a 7-8. Not to good on loong term planing.

He didn't do too well at Second Newbury.

I give him a 7 overall but I suspect he was a 9 at recruiting and training his troops.

Very efficient at the job of General.

6. 8s and 9s are for the likes of Gustavus, Turenne, and Conde.

His books are ok, if a little contrived. But just because his books aren't great literature. I do find it excessive to chop his head of.

Gunfreak,

At least he was already long dead before they cut his head off!

Molllinary

More people died after the Royalists took Leicester than at Drogheda … nobody turned it into a cause celebre however …

Cromwell helped Fairfax deliver the victory posterity required of them. He probably gets an 8 but it is an 8 that reverberates through history …

Phil

As a soldier good – as a human being what pond scum fears in may become.

Better than Matilda, Crusader and Covenanter; probably as good as Sherman.

I think he is slightly above average as a general within the context of a series of internal wars that really produced nobody whom we should regard as an outstanding captain of the status of Marlborough or Wellington (as someone said, probably a better recruiter/trainer of men than a battlefield leader). In the TYW European armies of the period, he would have been a very adequate cavalry commander, but not much more. His reputation in Ireland is more the product of Royalist propaganda (and the extra gene for martyrdom we Irish seem to possess) than actual atrocity – read Tom O'Reilly's book "Cromwell: an honourable enemy".

History rarely judges fairly, I personally admire Oliver Cromwell, but accept the fact that others disagree.
I honestly believe he himself was a good man.
The Royalists attempted to vilify him pre and post mortem, but I believe they were wrong to do so.
As with so many Generals, when he turned to politics with all the best intentions, he made mistakes.

8.

In the context of the time, I think some of the opprobrium attached to him is unfair. Perhaps people are unaware of how barbaric the Confederate Wars were long before Cromwell turned up.

History rarely judges fairly, I personally admire Oliver Cromwell, but accept the fact that others disagree.
I honestly believe he himself was a good man.
The Royalists attempted to vilify him pre and post mortem, but I believe they were wrong to do so.
As with so many Generals, when he turned to politics with all the best intentions, he made mistakes.

Agreed. However, was he not a politician FIRST? His great weakness seems to have been his being unable to create an effective Parliamentary government with the other MPs of his era. As a result he lost widespread support.

But as the query is AS A GENERAL then my view would be that he would be rated highly but perhaps not as highly as the best in Europe.

arthur 1815- not as good as a Sherman but definitely faster.

8-9