God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution

by Christopher Hill

This is a nuanced biography of Oliver Cromwell, breaking down Cromwell's life into different fenland farmer and humble backbencher; stalwart of the good old cause and the New Model Army; key figure of the Commonwealth; and, finally Lord Protector. Hill leads the reader unsentimentally through Cromwell's life from his beginnings in Huntingdonshire to his brutal end. Hill brings all his considerable knowledge of the period to bear on the relationships God's Englishman had with God and England. Such a detailed understanding of the workings of providence is vital to understanding Cromwell.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, British Literature, English Civil War, Politics, Biography Memoir

324 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

John Edward Christopher Hill was the pre-eminent historian of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English history, and one of the most distinguished historians of recent times. Fellow historian E.P. Thompson once referred to him as the dean and paragon of English historians.

He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford. During World War II, he served in the Russian department of the British Foreign Office, returning to teach at Oxford after the war.

From 1958-1965 he was University Lecturer in 16th- and 17th-century history, and from 1965-1978 he was Master of Balliol College. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the British Academy. He received numerous honorary degrees over the course of his career, including the Hon. Dr. Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1979.

Hill was an active Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from approximately 1934-1957, falling out with the Party after the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprisings of 1956.

In their obituary, The Guardian wrote of Hill:

"Christopher Hill…was the commanding interpreter of 17th-century England, and of much else besides.…it was as the defining Marxist historian of the century of revolution, the title of one of the most widely studied of his many books, that he became known to generations of students around the world. For all these, too, he will always be the master." [http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/...]

Reviews

[Owen Hatherley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pulls its punches in places but a great book, on someone who seems to have epitomised almost everything good and awful in English culture at the time, and since.

[MadgeUK · Rating 4 out of 5]

The late Christopher Hill was possibly England's greatest historian of the Civil War and of Oliver Cromwell in particular. For those who wish to learn more about this period I thoroughly recommend this well written, lucid history of a period which saw the birth of many political ideas which we value today. It will also help to explain the political background, not often appreciated, of Cromwell's chief propagandist, John Milton, the poet, and his comments on the various Parliaments of this period in his great post-war epic Paradise Lost.

[zed · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but not to my taste. Christopher Hill no doubt forgot more in his life time about Cromwell than I would have read but the class struggles of recent times for me were not the same as those of the Civil wars of Great Britain and Ireland. For mine the struggle was religious. Class had less impact. I also found that this book read as several essays pieced together as opposed to a narrative. I am in the minority in this view and would never suggest that others with an interest in Cromwell not read this book. Just I feel that later books, see Gods Fury, do a lot better.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

not really a biography, more a cool and cute series of essays about ol' oliver at the various stages of his career with some stuff on his wider influence and how he's been subsequently viewed. his personality still comes across as a little opaque to me after reading this but i suppose if i wanted more personality i should have picked up an actual biography, so that's fine

[Chris Wray · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an excellent introduction both to Oliver Cromwell and to the time he lived in. Christopher Hill introduces his subject by explaining the importance of the seventeenth century to both English and world history, and the centrality of Oliver Cromwell to that crucial period: "The seventeenth is the decisive century in English history, the epoch in which the Middle Ages ended. England's problems were not peculiar to her. The whole of Europe faced a crisis in the mid-seventeenth century, which expressed itself in a series of breakdowns, revolts and civil wars. The sixteenth century had seen the opening up of America and new trade routes to the Far East; a sudden growth of population all over Europe, and a monetary inflation which was also all-European. These phenomena are related (both as effect and as cause) to the rise of capitalist relations within feudal society and a consequent regrouping of social classes. Governments tried in different ways to limit, control or profit from these changes, and with varying results...Only in England was a decisive breakthrough made in the seventeenth century, which ensured that henceforth governments would give great weight to commercial considerations. Decisions taken during this century enabled England to become the first industrialised imperialist great power and ensured that it would be ruled by a representative assembly. Within the seventeenth century, the decisive decades are those between 1640 and 1660. In these decades, the decisive figure is Oliver Cromwell. Any study of Cromwell is therefore not merely the personal biography of a great man. It must incorporate the major events of his lifetime, which proved so crucial for the later development of England and its empire."

In examining the environment that led to revolution and regicide, Hill highlights three contributory factors. First, he examines the political and constitutional problems that resulted from the relationship between the executive and the wealthy men of property (or "natural rulers"). In the sixteenth century, the other two main power bases had been tamed: the great feudal lords had been disarmed, and the church had lost its international connections, property and immunities. What was left was "the crown, and the gentry and merchant oligarchies who ran local affairs. So long as there was any danger of revolt by over- mighty subjects, or of peasant revolt, or of foreign-supported Catholic revolt, the alliance between crown and 'natural rulers', though tacit, was firm." However, the events from the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 to the peaceful James I on Elizabeth's death in 1603 showed "the stability of protestant England. It was now possible to fall out over the distribution of authority between the victors." Once James' son, Charles I, ascended to the throne and sought to establish an absolute monarchy of the continental type, the stage was set for violent revolution.

Commercial considerations led to the question of whether the King alone or the King in Parliament should control commercial policy. James and Charles did little to reassure gentlemen investors, leading to the conclusion that the monarchy was endangering England's national security and independence. Related to this was the extent to which, in light of increasing commercialisation, the Royal High Commission came to be resented as an outmoded and self-interested interference.

Finally, there was a significant religious component to the rising unease with Charles as king. His sponsorship of "Arminian theology, and the Laudian attempt to elevate the power and social status of the clergy, seemed to many protestants to be abandoning basic tenets of the Reformation."

Oliver himself was born near the end of Elizabeth's reign, when "The great achievements of the reign were in the past. Protestantism had been re-established; religious wars had been avoided; the nobility had been disarmed; there was no longer any danger of feudal revolt. England's national independence had been secured by victory over the Spanish Armada, and by the establishment of friendly relations with Scotland."

At the same time, national unity had been impaired by the split between Puritans who wished to see further reformation of the English church and those who supported the compromise ecclesiastical settlement of 1559. From then until the 1590s, the government had tolerated the Puritan opposition as they were "the most uncompromisingly anti-Catholic and so the most staunchly anti-Spanish of all the Queen's subjects. But in 1588, the Armada was defeated. England was in no danger of Spanish conquest. This at one stroke removed the government's fear both of papists and Puritans." The bishops mounted a counter-attack which had a knock on effect on the protestant gentry, who wanted "to be free to control their parishes and their parsons without supervision from bishops or High Commission." This was reinforced by the general effect of Protestantism, which tended to train "consciences which would stand out against any attempt to regiment them or dictate to them."

Fast forwarding to 1640, Hill concludes that "Most of the lasting achievements of the English Revolution came during the first two hundred days of the Long Parliament's existence." The prerogative courts (such as the High Commission) were abolished, and taxation without the consent of parliament was declared illegal. "The indefinite prolongation of the life of Parliament was clearly an infringement of the royal prerogative, a revolutionary step. Yet how else were the initial achievements to be secured? Charles would certainly feel it to be his conscientious duty to reverse them at the first possible opportunity, whatever promises might be extorted from him. So there was continuous pressure to carry the Revolution further, in order to consolidate what had already been attained. There was, moreover, much pressure from outside Parliament from men who had few of the traditional inhibitions of MPs belonging to the propertied class."

In terms of the war itself, the Long Parliament was almost certain to win a long war - its support came from the richest areas of the country. Parliament was also able to call on the loyalty and enthusiasm of lower-class radicals in a way that the King could not - it would have been politically unacceptable for Charles to mobilise large-scale Catholic support to defeat his Protestant subjects. As the war progressed, Oliver's skill as a soldier and military organiser ensured that his political capital grew, and by 164,5 he was in a very powerful position. He also demonstrated an admirable and thoroughly modern pragmatism: 'Sir, the state in choosing men to serve them takes no notice of their opinions; if they be willing faithfully to serve them, that satisfies.'

As a soldier, Hill concludes that "Cromwell's greatness lay in that he adapted the military revolution which had started in the Dutch Republic fifty or sixty years earlier to English conditions, equally revolutionary. The essence of this military revolution was its reliance on 'the free way' as against 'the formal'; a recognition of the fact that free men consciously motivated by a belief in their cause could get the better of mere professionals simply by superior morale and discipline. Cromwell's troopers, originally, were picked men, well drilled, well equipped, well horsed, well paid. All these factors enabled him to use the cavalry charge as a battering ram instead of as a mobile infantry lightly armed with pistols."

In 1647, the army, under Oliver's direction, intervened in politics in a decisive new way. Oliver saw this as a means to the end of holding the nation together, but by 1649, "There could no longer be any doubt where real power lay...The Levellers felt that they had been outwitted by the officers in that the purge of the House of Commons, the execution of the King and abolition of the Lords had not been accompanied by a realisation of the aims of the Agreement of the People...There was no sign that the House of Commons would dissolve itself, no extension or even redistribution of the franchise, no law reform or abolition of tithes, nor any of the other social reforms they had argued for. Instead, there was naked military dictatorship, and they feared Oliver's further ambitions."

Hill then looks at the conquest of Ireland, which had long been an "open back door to foreign invasion...If Charles Stuart was to be restored to the English throne, his likeliest route seemed to be via Ireland." Hill concludes that "The brutality of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland is not one of the pleasanter aspects of our hero's career, and I have no desire to whitewash his conduct." He also contends that the campaign and its aftermath need to be set in historical perspective. Although Cromwell bears responsibility for the military conduct of the conquest, the policy behind it was that of the whole government. Furthermore, "The hatred and contempt which propertied Englishmen felt for the Irish is something which we may deplore but should not conceal...all shared the view that the Irish were culturally so inferior that their subordination was natural and necessary. Religious hostility reinforced cultural contempt...What Cromwell does seem to have decided, as military commander who was also a leading member of the English government, was that Ireland must be suppressed as swiftly, decisively and cheaply as possible."

By 1653, "He no longer hoped to realise the rule of God's people in England: he saw himself as a constable whose task was to prevent Englishmen from flying at one another's throats. He was forced back upon the support of an Army purged of radicals, an Army which in the last resort had to be paid by taxes collected from the propertied class, the natural rulers of the countryside. The Revolution was over. Oliver Cromwell was the saviour of the propertied society...The Protectorate meant the victory of conservatism in church and state...The whole army was under constant process of transformation from the ideologically committed force of the 1640s to the formidable professional arm of the later 1650s." Hill also gives some fascinating insight into Cromwell's foreign policy in these years, which was fantastic in its scope and which set the pattern for the future.

In the early months of 1655, Oliver accepted his generals' scheme for direct military rule, which ended up making "the executive too strong, and yet created the possibility of regional fission. What the natural rulers wanted was a federation of counties securely ruled by themselves, with no power, central or regional, strong enough to counterbalance their territorial influence." Flirting with the possibility of accepting the crown, he eventually decided to focus on maintaining the peace between rival factions: " 'When shall we have men of a universal spirit?' he asked in December 1654. 'Everyone desires to have liberty, but none will give it.' 'Nothing will satisfy them unless they can put their finger upon their brethren's consciences, to pinch them there,' he told Parliament in the following month. So he came to see himself 'as a constable to part them and keep them in peace' when 'men falling out in the street would run their heads one against another'."

Hill notes that, "Historians are beginning to appreciate how much the interregnum in general and Cromwell in particular did for British education and British cultural life. But the legend of the philistine Puritan, hostile to art and culture, dies hard in popular imagination...Cromwell was very far from being the Puritan killjoy of vulgar convention. 'To keep wine out of the country lest men should be drunk' seemed to him an utterly absurd suggestion." He concludes that Cromwell had no use for democracy, and in so far as he thought about social structure, it was in wholly traditional terms: "So whereas the trinities of the later revolutions- liberty, equality, fraternity; peace, bread and land - demanded something new, something to be fought for and achieved in the future, the trinity of the English revolutionaries - religion, liberty and property- was intended to defend what already existed, or was believed to exist...Cromwell - and it is one of his very great contributions to English history - clung tenaciously to this belief that truth was not certainly possessed by any sect." He also links this, fascinatingly, to the Puritan idea of providence, which "overthrew the doctrine of passive obedience to divinely constituted authority." However, in the long run, "What had been a revolutionary theory was transformed into a banal conservatism."

In moving towards a close, Hill contends that "for good and for evil, Oliver Cromwell presided over the great decisions which determined the future course of English and world history. Marston Moor, Naseby, Preston, Worcester - and regicide - ensured that England was to be ruled by Parliaments and not by absolute kings...Cromwell foreshadows the great commoners who were to rise by merit to rule England in the eighteenth century...The man who almost emigrated to New England in despair of old England lived to set his country on the path of empire, of economic aggression, of naval war."

This very significance leaves us to contend with an ambiguous legacy: "The British Empire, the colonial wars which built it up, the slave trade based on Oliver's conquest of Jamaica, the plunder of India resulting from his restitution and backing of the East India Company, the exploitation of Ireland; a free market, free from government interference and from government protection of the poor; Parliamentary government, the local supremacy of JPs, the Union of England and Scotland; religious toleration, the nonconformist conscience, relative freedom of the press, an attitude favourable to science; a country of landlords, capitalist farmers and agricultural labourers, the only country in Europe with no peasantry: none of these would have come about in quite the same way without the English Revolution, without Oliver Cromwell. If we see this revolution as a turning point in English history comparable with the French and Russian Revolutions in the history of their countries, then we can agree with those historians who see Cromwell in his Revolution combining the roles of Robespierre and Napoleon, of Lenin and Stalin, in theirs."

Whether we see Cromwell as a hero, villain, or somewhere in between, we cannot doubt his significance to history or the fascination that he inspires. I leave the final word to Christopher Hill: "I sympathise with the ageing, disillusioned man who struggled on under the burden of the protectorate, knowing that without him worse would befall: who wanted to be painted 'warts and all'. But it is the boisterous and confident leader of the 1640s who holds my imagination, and whose pungent, earthy truths echo down the centuries."

[E Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cromwell is undeniably a difficult figure in history. He is loved by some, loathed by others and his brief “reign” is ignored altogether or treated as a brief intermission between the end of the Civil War and the return of the Stuart dynasty.

The book does well to intermix the pertinent political and religious ideas and identities of the time: the diplomatic and economic situation, puritan beliefs, national identity and general disenfranchisement. Upon this foundation is overlaid the life and career of Cromwell, from an obscure East Anglian squire to Head of State over Britain and Ireland.

The difficult truth is, Cromwell was neither good nor bad, he was both and has created a paradoxical legacy. Cromwell fought heroically in England against tyranny on the battlefields but committed near-genocide in the towns of Ireland. He was a bible-bashing Puritan who banned Christmas and maypoles, but also enjoyed music and worked on Sundays. He amassed a huge personal fortune, but was noted for wearing shabby clothes. He made a case for religious tolerance and welcomed Jewish people back to England, but detested Catholics and continued to persecute non-conformists. He campaigned for a fairer nation, but executed Levellers who argued for equality. He subdued the Dutch threat and presided over an economic boom, whilst simultaneously shipping his own citizens in chains to toil in Jamaican plantations. He refused the crown, but made himself an uncrowned king. We shouldn't celebrate Cromwell, but commemorate his atrocities and note his positive actions with caution.

What I did enjoy about the book is the overview of the Commonwealth and the review of how far the constitutional settlement changed after Parliament won the Civil War. England underwent a staggering transformation from a king “ordained by God” directing the nation by his whim to one administered by common men, through a parliament and in accordance with consideration and agreement. The English Republic has been airbrushed as the “Interregnum” which makes it sound like an awkward blip to royal lineage rather than a state of being. The usual narrative is that our freedoms and liberties were tenderly handed to us by the King via the Magna Carta - nonsense. Our freedoms and liberties were fought and won by the commoners in Marston Moor and Naseby. I’d say the first and last codified English constitution (the Instrument of Government) is what we need to look back to as it shaped further constitutional reform. Never again from that point could a monarch enjoy absolute power. In relation to England and Cromwell one man does not make a revolution, and the French Revolution is not wholly framed by Robespierre and his slaughters. Despite this, France is proud with what it achieved constitutionally. England achieved all of this over 100 years before France and should celebrate its own revolution in similar way. This spirit of reform was carried forward as Hill points out through Whiggism and Chartism. Sadly England’s revolution doesn't get the acknowledgement it deserves as it makes the Windsor family nervous, which is a shame. Trust God and keep your powder dry.

[Smiley]

This book was the start of our friendship between Aziza and me. I first met her as my Australian great reader and book collector in a bookshop when she saw this book on the floor and said Oh, I read this book. I was a bit surprised so after a brief introduction, we became friends and one day she kindly took me to the city (Brisbane) to visit some good second-hand bookshops because I told her I rarely found few of them there in 1999.

[Richard Bartholomew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit donnish and heavy-going in places if don't enjoy easy familiarity with the field, but worth the effort nonetheless. It puts Cromwell in his historical and international context , and corrects a few common misconceptions. According to Hill, the idea that Cromwell led a "Puritan revolution" is something of a distortion - wine still flowed during the Commonwealth and opera was performed. Cromwell also apparently wasn't too keen in capital punishment, and political gains against the Dutch outweighed Protestant solidarity (and more: Cromwell refused to assist Venice against Turkey, to protect English capital). There is also a section on the decline of magic and the psychological aspects of Puritanism.

Interesting side-note: Cromwell apparently seriously considered emigrating to New England, and he had links with the Puritans there, in particular John Cotton. New England returnees also served in his regiments.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a well written biography and generally is a good introduction to Cromwell. You get a feel to the man he is and the conditions of the country he was raised in. It serves well in this respect and indeed in drawing the picture of Cromwell. However in parts the events are a little unclear in their significance and I would say that to maximise your reading you would need to have background knowledge of the English Civil War and the significant events to understand the references more clearly that are made throughout. However, apart from that, it's good.

[Jack Glynne-Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

For anyone who enjoys the tension which arises from the contradictions and complexity within historical figures, and the associated problems with passing judgement upon them, Cromwell is your man.

He was the radical who oversaw huge constitutional, intellectual and artistic changes, but also the conservative who desired the preservation of monarchy and hierarchy. He was the violent imperialist in Ireland, where he oversaw eviction and massacres, yet also the moral idealist who desired to bring benefits and justice to the 'poor people' of Ireland, developed propaganda calling for the liberation of Native Indians from Spanish slaughter, and who Jews called to as the man, above all others, who could protect and re-admit them into England. This book carefully faces these apparent contradictions, and many more, and offers us moral judgements according to both a modern lens and the lens of Cromwell's period.

It is not a biography as such, but an account only of Oliver's most important activities, all of which are contextualised in depth. Also contextualised are his country, and the time in which he lived against the centuries before and after it. Sections II to VII are chronological, whilst sections VIII to X are long essays, each on a different aspect of Cromwell's influences and influence. Through this structure and the style within each section, the book perfectly treads the middle ground in which to appeal to both beginners and experts on the period.

Aside from the purely fascinating nature of Cromwell and his times, his influence means that he is still relevant today. John Adams, French radicals, prominent Chartists, Jeremy Bentham, and the Nottingham branch of the First International, who met at the Oliver Cromwell pub, are just a few examples of figures who admired and were influenced by the man. Equality, monarchy, capitalism and imperialism are examples from the long list of topical themes which further keep Cromwell at the forefront of historian's minds.

As one example, there has been in the past year a lot of debate about Cromwell as imperialist and the suitability of his statue outside the Houses of Parliament. This is nothing new, although the identities of his opposers and defenders is interesting, and helps to justify my point about Cromwell's complexity; this past year or so it has been the conservatives defending Cromwell against the left, whereas in, for example, the 1890's it was the radical leftists defending Cromwell against moderate leftists and conservatives.

No doubt these almost unnoticed switches of allegiance will continue to happen as we grapple with this astonishing figure well into the future. Those with an interest in British history will continue to feel his presence and influence whether they like it or not, and this will continue to provoke admiration, hatred and disappointment at his actions and impact, as expressed so hauntingly by W.B Yeats in his poem 'The Curse of Cromwell'.

The only solution, in my opinion, is to realise that to understand history is to wield a full acceptance of an individual's achievements, moral failures, consistencies and seeming contradictions, and to appreciate the importance of moral standards both modern and of the age in which the person lived. This is summed up nicely by Marvell, in his poem ‘The First Anniversary of the Government under Oliver Cromwell’, which seems to me to express both admiration and regret, and is quoted at the end of the book:

‘If these the times, then this must be the man’.

[David C Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very sharp interpretive biography by one of England’s greatest historians. Sets Cromwell in the context of the English revolution and shows the interplay of his radical and conserving tendencies: radical in making the revolution and conservative in maintaining it even to the point of military rule. Recognizing that Hill is not writing a traditional biography, I would have liked more detail on Cromwell’s religious awakening not least because of the religious impetus behind the rise of the new men and the revolution itself. The concluding summary chapter on Cromwell and (religious) providence is excellent; the one on Cromwell in English history/historiography is more cursory (if someone hasn’t written it, this would be an excellent book topic).
Also: in this era of essayistic micro history it is chastening to be reminded just how much of their subjects earlier historians (Hill, Plumb, Stone, Thompson et al) mastered; their interpretive and empirical range is extraordinary.

[Steven R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent biography. Great focus on the social and economic problems of the time and how Cromwell, and his contemporaries and co-thinkers responded to them.

Particularly like Hill's analysis of Puritan thought, how they weren't entirely wrong that God (historical development, which some puritans even began to see as similar) was on their side. And how this was not contradictory to their obsession with action and self improvement. "Previous theologians had interpreted the world: for Puritans the point was to change it"

[Mickey Dubs · Rating 4 out of 5]

CROMWELL DID NOTHING WRONG!

[Cadan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Certainly one of the greatest Briton’s that has ever lived

[Adolfo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oliver Cromwell, al igual que la Revolución que coprotagonizó, fue un precursor y un antecedente histórico de otras figuras y eventos con más prensa. Se dijo que este hombre fue a la vez el Robespierre y Napoleón de su momento.

Este libro, narrado con brevedad pero con detalle, como es habitual en otros libros de Cristopher Hill, nos muestra de manera impecable la Inglaterra política, económica y religiosa que le tocó vivir a nuestro protagonista, así como el papel que desempeñó como agente en este contexto y como su fe, su situación socioeconómica y vivencias le impulsaron a tomar las atrevidas pero aún así calculadas decisiones que le llevaron a ser la principal figura del bando parlamentario que ejecutó al Rey y que se convirtió en autoridad máxima en forma de Lord Protector.

La comparación con Napoleón no es superficial. Fue un hombre que dirigió muchas de las políticas que a la larga cambiarían para siempre su país y que derrumbarían el feudalismo, el derecho divino, la sociedad por estamentos medieval y permitirían un desarrollo económico y social. Sin olvidar una mayor tolerancia y aperturas política y religiosa. No obstante se encargó con entusiasmo también de contener y, llegado el momento, de reprimir a los elementos más progresistas y rupturistas de su revolución; fue responsable de atrocidades militares en Irlanda y terminó por arrogarse poder vitalicio en su nuevo gobierno.

Una figura así tiene un legado a posteriori complejo y controvertido. Un gran mérito de Hill es saber mostrarnos las luces y, a ratos aterradoras, sombras de este hombre, pudiendo servir al mismo tiempo como un modelo de asertividad revolucionaria en sus primeros años como un ejemplo de los peligros del personalismo después.

En resumen, un buen libro que enriquece y enseña. Lo que se pide a todo buen libro de historia

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unfortunately I can’t give this the review it deserves, as I don’t have it with me to refer to. Perhaps this will prove a test of how memorable the contents were? In any event, I’d only read one other book about Cromwell and found this one fascinating. It was published in 1970 (or 1971?) and has remained very readable, with only a couple of slightly dated references. It covers the life of Oliver Cromwell chronologically, before devoting two chapters to his religious beliefs and influence upon historians. Give my scant prior knowledge, I was especially struck by Cromwell’s influence on foreign policy, which amounted to launching the British empire. ‘God’s Englishman’ also conveys how Cromwell operated effectively as a negotiator and mediator, conciliating and making vague promises before turning against groups when convenient. He appears to have been very much a pragmatist, believing that god favoured those who got on with the job in hand. The book also draws some fascinating contrasts between the English and French revolutions and the roles of the peasantry/working class therein.

The chapter on how Oliver Cromwell has been interpreted by history was a definite highlight. A conversation between HG Wells and Stalin on the subject of Cromwell is quoted as follows (I cheated by googling this for exact wording):

STALIN: Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?

HG WELLS: Cromwell operated on the basis of the constitution and in the name of constitutional order…

STALIN: In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded others!

Touché, Stalin, touché. I only lost the thread of this book slightly at one point in the discussion of religious doctrine, otherwise it was highly enjoyable and thought-provoking.

[Chris Royals · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable history from an old Marxist. You do not need to agree with his framing of the Civil Wars as the English Revolution in order to learn much about Cromwell, one of England’s most continually fascinating leaders

[Dan Griswold · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot from this book. The language and structure did make it hard to follow at times.

[Moravian1297 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Now, I only read this book because someone recommended it and kinda forcibly foisted it upon me, and ironically, they hadn't blimmin’ read it themselves! But because they knew I was already reading up on the history concerning the English Civil Wars of 1642-1651 and specifically books by the author and historian, Christopher Hill, they thought I'd be very much of a mind to read God's Englishman.
Although I very much appreciate an historian with the socialist credentials of Comrade Hill, I do find his work a bit on the heavy side and left somewhat, 'of its day'.

Take the penultimate chapter of this book for example, where the author was delving deep into the doctrine and theology of Calvanism. He was mainly just repeating the vast scrolls of religious text that was used by seventeenth century Calvanists without much relatable context whatsoever! It was, Thou's here, and Thy's there, with Thee's, Thine's and Arts every bloody where!
I can't stand organized religion of any feckin description, and growing up in the North East of Scotland in the 1970's we had our fair share of Calvanist, Wee Free type psychopathic ’hell, fire & damnation’ nutjobs, that tried to brainwash us children, on an almost daily basis, with their bullshit fairy stories and mind controlling fear mongering. So you'll forgive me for my visceral hatred of all things religious, especially, Christianity and even more specifically, Protestantism and its myriad of cults, sects and schismatic offshoots! So this type of seventeenth century biblical interpretations and religious writing, which had almost zero context of how it does or doesn’t fit into modern thinking or indeed, even summed up in the author's own words of contemporary parlance and then related back to me, just rips my knitting!
Unfortunately I've found this in most of Christopher Hill's work that I've read so far.
So, I wasn't overly enthusiastic about reading this book, but I was too compunctious to refuse it and so my hole had been well and truly dug haha.

However, on saying all that, I did manage to take a few things from the book.
Ever since I first came across the religious sect of 'Anabaptists', if I remember correctly it was in a C.J. Sansom, Matthew Shardlake novel, where they've since been popping their heads up here and there every so often, in both fiction and non-fiction that I've read, I'd wondered if they were a religious equivalent of 'anarchists' or as near as anything religious could get to adherents of that particular ideology? They've always been portrayed as the lowest of the low, as far as hated medieval religious thinking and sectarianism was concerned, one rung up from atheism and atheists. When I had a cursory Google research however, it certainly didn't seem that way, until I read works by Hill that is, he did seem to paint them very much in that picture.
So, when I read this in 'God's Englishman',

"At the very beginning of the war, Charles I had tried to smear all the supporters of Parliament as Congregationalist followers of Robert Browne (Brownists) or Anabaptists - the seventeenth century equivalent of 'Reds'"

I felt somewhat vindicated (I appreciate that generally communists and anarchists are seen as enemies, but to an outside eye, that's just semantics and ’the left’ as a whole can be described as ’Reds’) in my original analysis of Anabaptists.

I also had further confirmation that the most likely modern parable to Oliver Cromwell for me, would be Adolf Hitler. They share many characteristics, not least their unshakeable belief in providence, a propensity for self aggrandizing and using, although they both thoroughly despised the idea, 'democracy' or in Cromwell's case the idea of democracy to achieve dictatorships. This book best summed it up by telling us that, Blair, the Leveller, Colonel Hutchinson and Ludlow all described Cromwell as, 'an egregious dissembler and a great liar!', very much an accolade often leveled, quite justifiably, at Hitler.

I'll finish up by relating this great passage from the book's best chapter, and I honestly say this without a single hint of facetiousness, the summarising final chapter,

"Nineteenth century radicals and socialists were divided over him (Cromwell). The dispute was summed up after a speech was made not so long ago by an eminent Liberal member of the Cromwell Association, 'The question we must all ask ourselves', he thundered, as he reached his peroration, 'Is on which side I would have stood at Naseby?'
'Yes' said a voice from the audience, 'And which side would you have stood at Burford?'"

Brilliant! Love it! ✊

[Frank Jacobs · Rating 4 out of 5]

England is not just the land of kings and queens – for a brief period, it was a Commonwealth under a Lord Protector. Even more fascinating than that semi-republican interlude is the culture that gave rise to it: a ferment of social, religious and scientific upheaval that killed off what remained of the Middle Ages and gave rise to modernity. Under Cromwell, ability gained precedence over nobility: “He sought out men for places, not places for men”.

Christopher Hill's picture of Cromwell (“warts and all”, but mainly sympathetic) and his time is at once foreign and familiar: the religious fervour that motivated English politics in the 17th century is now best observed elsewhere. Some quotes ring true through the ages, though:

“If there be any one that makes many poor to make a few rich, that suits not a Commonwealth”.
- Cromwell, in a letter to the Speaker of Parliament, before leaving for Ireland.

“I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken”.
- Cromwell to the Scottish Kirk.

“It was your pride that begat this expression (clergy and laity, - Ed.), and it is for filthy lucre's sake that you keep it up, that by making the people believe they are not so holy as yourselves, they might for their penny purchase some sanctity from you; and that you might bridle, saddle and ride them at your pleasure”.
- Cromwell, to the Irish clergy

Edmund Calamy, offering advice to Cromwell about to dissolve the Rump Parliament: “'Tis against the will of the nation: there will be nine in ten against you”. Cromwell, in reply: “But what if I should disarm the nine and put a sword in the tenth man's hand? Would not that do the business?”

“The tyranny of princes could never be grievous but by the tameness and stupidity of the people”.
- London merchant George Cony, to his friend Cromwell

“When shall we have men of a universal spirit? Every one desires to have liberty, but none will give it”.
- Cromwell

“A man never rises so high as when he does not know where he is going”.
- Cromwell to the French Ambassador in 1647

“These very persons would shout as much if you and I were going to be hanged”.
- Cromwell to John Lambert when cheered by the inhabitants of Northampton in 1650

The Commonwealth did not long survive Oliver Cromwell; after his death, the monarchy was restored. His corpse was dug up and hanged at Tyburn. But much of what he achieved, survived him. As did his reputation. As Christopher Hill writes, “The symbol (of English patriotism) in the eighteenth century was to be the unattractive figure of John Bull – Oliver Cromwell minus ideology”.

[Fhsanders54 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this a rather heavy, donnish book to read, though it may well be a defining biography and celebrated book about Oliver Cromwell. It takes a chronological approach from his pre-revolutionary days as a Fens gentleman farmer though the regocide and civil war to his untimely death in 1660. Many quotes from contemporary historians, writers and poets (including an avid supporter in Milton) slightly complicate rather than elucidate because of the language of the time. However as a whole it gives a fuller and more sympathetic view of Cromwell whose views were not so black and white as some think. Religiously tolerant, supporting arts and theatre, ultimately politically conservative and not intrinsically anti-monarchist it may surprise some. He was clearly driven by his religious beliefs that he was acting as the instrument of God as one of the chosen, though it is hard to reconcile this with the bloodshed he introduced to Ireland and Scotland. Things changed for ever. Monarchy may have returned but parliament was supreme. Also his foreign policy and world wide trading was a precursor of the British Empire and of the forthcoming industrial revolution.

[Carolyn Cash · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this biography back in high school and re-read this book after all these years, again for research.

It covers Oliver Cromwell's humble beginnings as a fenland farmer in Huntingdon, a back bencher in three parliaments, as a soldier during the Civil Wars and developing the New Model Army and eventually Lord Protector of England.

He died on the anniversary of his two victories at Dunbar and Worcester.

A very detailed account of one of Britain's most controversial figures, the era in which he lived, and his relationship with both God and his country.

Oliver Cromwell also presided over an economic boom and welcomed the Jews back to Britain after they were banished during King Edward I's reign.

However, he is often wrongly blamed for banning Christmas (which was an Act of Parliament in 1644). Oliver Cromwell wasn't the party pooper that some have portrayed him, but he did enjoy music and works of art.

He left a legacy, including the groundwork for Britain becoming a constitutional monarchy, the creation of the New Model Army where many regiments can trace their origins back to the Civil Wars.

And the Irish still hate him.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good introduction to Cromwell and the English revolution as a whole, I think the restoration in 1660 can lead to some thinking his effect on English history is fatally undermined but this isn’t the case at all, it’s hard to imagine the Glorious revolution or the act of union happening without him, also I’m glad the author recognises the importance of the execution of Charles on future monarchs, it’s a simple point but so often overlooked, would James II had been so willing to give up the crown in 1688 if his uncle hadn’t had his head chopped off 40 years previously?

There are also plenty of amusing anecdotes, my favourite being that while signing the Kings death warrant, Cromwell and a fellow regicide were attempting to smear each other in ink (boys just wanna have fun)

Ireland is the elephant room here as it’s barely discussed, the topic is introduced as so: ‘I have no desire to whitewash his conduct. But….’ So I guess I’ll have to read a different book about that

[Mark Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps this has not stood test of time since it was written. Not fluently nor engaging written, and I think it presumes a fair bit of existing knowledge. Perhaps it earns its reputation by providing a counterpoint to other books about Cromwell.
It is interesting but that comes from the events it describes rather than the style of writing. It's quite short so a reasonable place to find some basic facts.
Cromwell seems hard to pin down. He doesn't seem to have had a grand plan nor was he adhering to some overarching ideology. It's almost as if he stumbles into various situations. This is the impression given, yet I can't tell whether this picture is from an overall lack of evidence.

[Christopher Potter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dreadful. I made it to page 100 and won't waste any more time on this. I'm sure it's all factually sound, but the telling of it is about as dull as it gets. It also effectively presumes that the reader has already received a course in this era of British history at the level of detail you would probably only get at a British university. If you want to read about a brilliant iconoclast of this era, turn instead to the fantastic "Roger Williams and the Birth of the American Soul," which begins in England with a fascinating look at the English royal court that you won't find in this book.

[Frank Ashe · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's too long since I've read this to give it a faithful review; two things I remember:
* a great quote from Cromwell to the arrogant Presbyterian bishops: "I beseech you in the very bowels of Christ, think it possible you are wrong!"
* the contingency of history - if Cromwell had been born 20 years before or after his actual birth we might never had heard of him. He was a man fit for that time.

[Herb Hastings · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a decent biography of Cromwell married to an economic analysis of the English Civil War. A bit dry in places and it is helpful to already have a working knowledge of the characters and events of the era.
If you will excuse the pun, someday if you write a book about Cromwell feel free to use the title: The Man Who Should be King.

[Janet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a biography or introduction, I didn't know a lot about Oliver Cromwell so it might have been helpful to know a bit more about the history first. But this was a profound book. I think Hill did not villianize or canonize Cromwell, but explained his skills as a leader, especially as a military leader, and his contributions to shaping Great Britain as a nation and as a imperialistic power.

[Enrique Wedgwood · Rating 2 out of 5]

sometimes interesting but generally impenetrable to the non-specialist

[Kate · Rating 2 out of 5]

No coherent narrative and way too many actors make this book dry and boring for someone who’s not super passionate about this area of history.