During his lifetime, some tracts painted Cromwell as a hypocrite motivated by power. For example,
The Machiavilian Cromwell and
The Juglers Discovered are parts of an attack on Cromwell by the
Levellers after 1647, and both present him as a
Machiavellian figure. John Spittlehouse presented a more positive assessment in
A Warning Piece Discharged, comparing him to
Moses rescuing the English by taking them safely through the
Red Sea of the civil wars. Poet
John Milton called Cromwell "our chief of men" in his
Sonnet XVI. The 1640s also saw support for Cromwell in his fight against
Charles I from
Massachusetts Bay Colony's First Church whose members included the colony's founder,
John Winthrop, and his son Stephen, a
colonel in
Cromwell's Army. Several biographies were published soon after Cromwell's death. An example is
The Perfect Politician, which describes how Cromwell "loved men more than books" and provides a nuanced assessment of him as an energetic campaigner for liberty of conscience who is brought down by pride and ambition. An equally nuanced but less positive assessment was published in 1667 by
Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon in his
History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England. Clarendon famously declares that Cromwell "will be looked upon by posterity as a brave bad man". He argues that Cromwell's rise to power had been helped by his great spirit and energy, but also by his ruthlessness. Clarendon was not one of Cromwell's confidantes, and his account was written after the
Restoration of the monarchy. During the early 18th century, Cromwell's image began to be adopted and reshaped by the
Whigs as part of a wider project to give their political objectives historical legitimacy.
John Toland rewrote
Edmund Ludlow's
Memoirs in order to remove the Puritan elements and replace them with a Whiggish brand of republicanism, and it presents the Cromwellian Protectorate as a military tyranny. Through Ludlow, Toland portrayed Cromwell as a despot who crushed the beginnings of democratic rule in the 1640s. During the early 19th century, Cromwell began to be portrayed in a positive light by
Romantic artists and poets.
Thomas Carlyle continued this reassessment in the 1840s, publishing ''
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches: With Elucidations'', an annotated collection of his letters and speeches in which he described English Puritanism as "the last of all our Heroisms" while taking a negative view of his own era. By the late 19th century, Carlyle's portrayal of Cromwell had become assimilated into Whig and Liberal historiography, stressing the centrality of puritan morality and earnestness. The civil-war historian
Samuel Rawson Gardiner concluded that "the man—it is ever so with the noblest—was greater than his work". Gardiner stressed Cromwell's dynamic and mercurial character, and his role in dismantling absolute monarchy, rather than his religious conviction. Cromwell's foreign policy also provided an attractive forerunner of Victorian imperial expansion, with Gardiner stressing his "constancy of effort to make England great by land and sea".
Calvin Coolidge described Cromwell as a brilliant statesman who "dared to oppose the tyranny of the kings". During the first half of the 20th century, Cromwell's reputation was often influenced by the rise of fascism in
Nazi Germany and in
Italy. The historian
Wilbur Cortez Abbott, for example, devoted much of his career to compiling and editing a multi-volume collection of Cromwell's letters and speeches, published between 1937 and 1947. Abbott argues that Cromwell was a proto-fascist. However, subsequent historians such as
John Morrill have criticised both Abbott's interpretation of Cromwell and his editorial approach. Late-20th-century historians re-examined the nature of Cromwell's faith and of his authoritarian regime.
Austin Woolrych explored the issue of "dictatorship" in depth, arguing that Cromwell was subject to two conflicting forces: his obligation to the army and his desire to achieve a lasting settlement by winning back the confidence of the nation as a whole. He argued that the dictatorial elements of Cromwell's rule stemmed less from its military origin or the participation of army officers in civil government than from his constant commitment to the interest of the people of God and his conviction that suppressing vice and encouraging virtue constituted the chief end of government. Historians such as
John Morrill,
Blair Worden and
J. C. Davis have developed this theme, revealing the extent to which Cromwell's writing and speeches are suffused with biblical references, and arguing that his radical actions were driven by his zeal for godly reformation.
Irish campaign controversy The extent of Cromwell's brutality in Ireland has been strongly debated. Some historians argue that Cromwell never accepted responsibility for the killing of civilians in Ireland, claiming that he had acted harshly but only against those "in arms". Other historians cite Cromwell's contemporary reports to London, including that of 27 September 1649, in which he lists the slaying of 3,000 military personnel, followed by the phrase "and many inhabitants". In September 1649, he justified his sacking of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in
Ulster in 1641, calling the massacre "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands with so much innocent blood". But the rebels had not held Drogheda in 1641; many of its garrison were in fact English royalists. On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as prisoners of war and indentured servants to
Bermuda and
Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England. Some point to his actions on entering Ireland. Cromwell demanded that no supplies be seized from civilian inhabitants and that everything be fairly purchased; "I do hereby warn ... all Officers, Soldiers and others under my command not to do any wrong or violence toward Country People or any persons whatsoever, unless they be actually in arms or office with the enemy ... as they shall answer to the contrary at their utmost peril." The massacres at Drogheda and Wexford were in some ways typical of the day, especially in the context of the recently ended
Thirty Years' War, although there are few comparable incidents during the Civil Wars in England or Scotland, which were fought mainly between Protestant adversaries, albeit of differing denominations. One possible comparison is Cromwell's
Siege of Basing House in 1645—the seat of the prominent Catholic the Marquess of Winchester—which resulted in about 100 of the garrison of 400 being killed after being refused quarter. Contemporaries also reported civilian casualties, six Catholic priests and a woman. The scale of the deaths at Basing House was much smaller. Cromwell himself said of the slaughter at Drogheda in his first letter back to the Council of State: "I believe we put to the sword the whole number of the defendants. I do not think thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives." Cromwell's orders—"in the heat of the action, I forbade them to spare any that were in arms in the town"—followed a request for surrender at the start of the siege, which was refused. The military protocol of the day was that a town or garrison that rejected the chance to surrender was not entitled to
quarter. The refusal of the garrison at Drogheda to do this, even after the walls had been breached, was to Cromwell justification for the massacre. Where Cromwell negotiated the surrender of fortified towns, as at Carlow, New Ross, and Clonmel, some historians argue that he respected the terms of surrender and protected the townspeople's lives and property. At Wexford, he again began negotiations for surrender. The captain of Wexford Castle surrendered during the negotiations and, in the confusion, some of Cromwell's troops began indiscriminate killing and looting. Although Cromwell's time spent on campaign in Ireland was limited and he did not take on executive powers until 1653, he is often the central focus of wider debates about whether, as historians such as Mark Levene and
John Morrill suggest, the Commonwealth conducted a deliberate programme of
ethnic cleansing in Ireland. Faced with the prospect of an Irish alliance with Charles II, Cromwell carried out a series of massacres to subdue the Irish. Then, once Cromwell had returned to England, the English Commissary, General
Henry Ireton, Cromwell's son-in-law and key adviser, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation. Total excess deaths for the entire period of the
Wars of the Three Kingdoms in Ireland was estimated by
William Petty, the 17th-century economist, to be 600,000 out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000 in 1641. The sieges of Drogheda and Wexford have been prominently mentioned in histories and literature up to the present day.
James Joyce, for example, mentioned Drogheda in his novel
Ulysses: "What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the Bible text 'God is love' pasted round the mouth of his cannon?" Similarly,
Winston Churchill (writing in 1957) described Cromwell's impact on Anglo-Irish relations: A key surviving statement of Cromwell's views on the conquest of Ireland is his
Declaration of the lord lieutenant of Ireland for the undeceiving of deluded and seduced people of January 1650. In this he was scathing about Catholicism, saying, "I shall not, where I have the power... suffer the exercise of the Mass." But he also wrote: "as for the people, what thoughts they have in the matter of religion in their own breasts I cannot reach; but I shall think it my duty, if they walk honestly and peaceably, not to cause them in the least to suffer for the same." Private soldiers who surrendered their arms "and shall live peaceably and honestly at their several homes, they shall be permitted so to do". In 1965 the Irish minister for lands stated that his policies were necessary to "undo the work of Cromwell". In 1997, Irish
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern later said, he voiced "forthright" views to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook when his delegation saw a portrait of Cromwell in a room in the Foreign Office. Multiple Irish Folk Songs mention Cromwell in a negative light. A few examples of songs mentioning Cromwell include
The Men Behind the Wire which has lyrics about Cromwell harming England's global reputation and
A Final Toast for Oliver Cromwell by
Ye Banished Privateers which is a modern take on Cromwell's legacy. The song
Young Ned Of The Hill by
The Pogues which includes a direct curse onto Cromwell has the lyrics:
Military assessment Cromwell has been credited for the formation of the New Model Army. As a member of Parliament, he contributed significantly to the reforms contained in the
Self-Denying Ordinance, passed by Parliament in early 1645. The ordinance was enacted partly in response to the failure to capitalise on victory at Marston Moor. It decreed that the army be "remodeled" on a national basis, replacing the old county associations. It also forced members of the
House of Commons and the
Lords, such as Manchester, to choose between civil office and military command. All of them except Cromwell chose to renounce their military positions. In contrast, Cromwell's commission was given continued extensions and he was allowed to remain in Parliament. In April 1645 the New Model Army finally took to the field, with
Thomas Fairfax in command and Cromwell as Lieutenant-General of cavalry and second-in-command. In contrast to Fairfax, Cromwell had no formal training in military tactics. However, he is generally accepted to have been a capable military leader, particularly as a battlefield commander. In recruiting, he sought loyal and well-behaved men regardless of their religion or social status. He required good treatment and reliable pay for his soldiers, but also enforced strict discipline. Marshall notes Cromwell's shortcomings in Ireland, highlighting his defeat at Clonmel and condemning his act at Drogheda as "an appalling atrocity, even by seventeenth-century standards". Marshall and other historians saw Cromwell as less proficient in the field of manoeuvre, attrition warfare and at
siege warfare. Marshall also argues that Cromwell was not truly revolutionary in his war strategies. Instead, he observes Cromwell as a courageous and energetic commander, with an eye for discipline and logistics. However, Marshall also suggests that Cromwell's military proficiency had improved significantly by 1644–1645—and that he operated efficiently during the operations of those years. Marshall also points out that Cromwell's political career was shaped by his military career advance. Cromwell's conquest left no significant legacy of bitterness in Scotland. The rule of the Commonwealth and Protectorate was largely peaceful, apart from the Highlands. There were no wholesale confiscations of land or property. Three out of every four Justices of the Peace in Commonwealth Scotland were Scots and the country was governed jointly by the English military authorities and a Scottish Council of State. ==Monuments and posthumous honours==