Charles I and Oliver Cromwell: A study in contrasts and comparisons

by Maurice Percy Ashley

Originally published in 1987, this book compares and contrasts the characters and careers of two great protagonists in the English Civil War and its aftermath. The book shows how Charles I and Oliver Cromwell were confronted with the same problems and therefore, to a surprisingly large extent, were obliged to deal with them in much the same kind of way. The book re-examines their military methods, their approaches to religion, their diplomatic manoeuvres, their domestic policies and the manner in which they handled their parliaments. Above all, it considers how their vastly different personalities determined their actions. Finally it debates how far a revolution, of which Cromwell was the instrument and Charles the victim, can be said to have taken place in the mid-seventeenth century or whether what occurred was simply a political rebellion sparked off by religious passion.

256 pages, Hardcover

First published September 3, 1987

About the author

Maurice Percy Ashley, CBE, was a noted historian of the 17th Century and a former editor of The Listener.

Reviews

[bkwurm · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting comparison of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell which shows that, in the end the difficulties Charles I had with Parliament were inherent in any relationship between an executive and a Parliament that was growing in power and strength.

Both Charles and Cromwell ultimately forcibly dissolved their parliaments and had/tried to rule as absolute ruler. The sole difference between the 2 was that Cromwell had the backing of a strong and veteran army.

Cromwell was a better military leader but the author argues that Charles failed because he had been raised to believe that he was father to the nation and he made decisions that were militarily wrong but which were intended to avoid killing his people. Cromwell was far more ruthless.

But both found Parliament and its demands exaspaerating and Cromwell, at the end, ruled as virtual monarch, which Charles I had tried and failed to do.