Help support TMP

"Rate Cromwell" Topic

41 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

Action Log

03 May 2017 6:49 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board

1,168 hits since 20 Oct 2016
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian20 Oct 2016 12:28 p.m. PST

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

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 12:42 p.m. PST

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

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 12:43 p.m. PST

That seems about right.

Zargon Inactive Member20 Oct 2016 12:49 p.m. PST


Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 12:51 p.m. PST

"A great, bad man."

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 1:22 p.m. PST

Agree with a Private Matter: 7-8.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 1:25 p.m. PST

I dunno. Ask the Irish.

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 1:27 p.m. PST

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

Ostrowski20 Oct 2016 1:35 p.m. PST

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

mumbasa20 Oct 2016 2:28 p.m. PST

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

Personal logo herkybird Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 2:30 p.m. PST

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

14Bore20 Oct 2016 2:39 p.m. PST

I thought Richard Harris played him well in the movie

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 3:08 p.m. PST

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

nsolomon99 Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 3:20 p.m. PST

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

Old Peculiar20 Oct 2016 3:24 p.m. PST

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

Personal logo wrgmr1 Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 3:58 p.m. PST

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

Ragbones Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 7:16 p.m. PST

He was a fink.

BobTYW20 Oct 2016 9:31 p.m. PST

7 – 8, tough as nails.

Personal logo Unlucky General Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2016 9:53 p.m. PST

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.

JCD196420 Oct 2016 10:22 p.m. PST

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


Eleve de Vauban Supporting Member of TMP21 Oct 2016 7:00 a.m. PST

He won.

Personal logo John the Greater Supporting Member of TMP21 Oct 2016 8:23 a.m. PST

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."

The Hound21 Oct 2016 11:24 a.m. PST

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

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP21 Oct 2016 12:27 p.m. PST


Wackmole9 Supporting Member of TMP21 Oct 2016 3:12 p.m. PST

over rated and a evil man

Ostrowski21 Oct 2016 3:22 p.m. PST

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).

Pirate190021 Oct 2016 8:37 p.m. PST

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

Timmo uk22 Oct 2016 2:55 a.m. PST

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.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP22 Oct 2016 4:29 a.m. PST

Very efficient at the job of General.

Lapsang22 Oct 2016 4:35 a.m. PST

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

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP22 Oct 2016 8:39 a.m. PST

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.

mollinary22 Oct 2016 12:27 p.m. PST


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


Yesthatphil22 Oct 2016 1:31 p.m. PST

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 …


VCarter Supporting Member of TMP22 Oct 2016 2:08 p.m. PST

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

arthur181523 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m. PST

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

Supercilius Maximus24 Oct 2016 4:10 p.m. PST

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".

Personal logo herkybird Supporting Member of TMP25 Oct 2016 12:49 p.m. PST

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.

Whirlwind02 Nov 2016 4:55 a.m. PST


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.

hagenthedwarf Inactive Member06 Nov 2016 9:34 a.m. PST

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.

Patrick Sexton Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2016 3:51 p.m. PST

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

Lobsterback Supporting Member of TMP08 Nov 2016 2:44 p.m. PST


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.