"Was Oliver Cromwell really the most controversial leader?" Topic

"In the history of Britain's rulers, there is an uncomfortable 11-year gap between the reigns of Charles I, which ended in 1649, and Charles II, which began in 1660. The reason for that gap – and for the discomfort – is that Charles I remains the only English king to have been executed for high treason, a controversial event at the time, and ever since. The man responsible was the Parliamentarian general Oliver Cromwell, who later founded the first (and, to date, last) English republic and established himself as Lord Protector of England.

Today, Cromwell remains the most polarising of figures in British history. His defenders applaud him as a just and righteous man, who attempted to rebuild his country on moral and egalitarian lines. His detractors, meanwhile, condemn him as a sadistic and power-crazed totalitarian who created an aggressive political fundamentalist group in 17th-century England. But is either of these an accurate account of the country's sole non-regal ruler, or is the truth more complex? …"

link

Armand

I think a British historian got it right when he called him "A great, bad man." He deserved to be dug up and beheaded.

I have al and thought, he was a more capable military than political leader.

For British history Cromwell is, elsewhere could argue different.

Have been wanting to watch Cromwell with Richard Harris lately again.

Thanks

Armand

Cromwell betrayed the revolution by wanting to make Lord Protector an hereditary position.

There's no point removing absolute monarchy if it is replaced by an hereditary head of state.

I would define controversial as someone who at least had support from some of the population or had at one time but lost it.
That being the definition, another might be Stalin
And as 20thMaine says might be Napoleon

Just pointing out others who could be considered controversial

Thanks also…

Armand

Movies don't do pike and shot era much justice either I see

(smile)

Armand