2026년 10월 9일 금요일

Oliver Cromwell - Wikipedia 올리버 크롬웰

Oliver Cromwell - Wikipedia

올리버 크롬웰

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.
올리버 크롬웰
Oliver Cromwell
잉글랜드 공화국의 호국경
임기1653년 ~ 1658년
전임(신설)
후임리처드 크롬웰
신상정보
출생일1599년 4월 25일
출생지영국 헌지치
사망일1658년 9월 3일(59세)
사망지잉글랜드 런던 화이트홀
국적잉글랜드
학력시드니 서식스 칼리지 졸업
부모로버트 크롬웰(부)
엘리자베스 크롬웰(모)
배우자엘리자베스 바우처
자녀로버트 크롬웰
올리버 크롬웰 2세
브리짓 크롬웰
리처드 크롬웰
헨리 크롬웰
엘리자베스 크롬웰
매리 크롬웰
프랜시스 크롬웰
직업농장주, 군인, 정치가
종교청교도
묘소잉글랜드 타이번
서명
런던 의회 광장에 있는 올리버 크롬웰 동상

올리버 크롬웰(Oliver Cromwell, 1599년 4월 25일 ~ 1658년 9월 3일)은 잉글랜드의 정치가이자 군인으로 브리튼 제도의 역사에서 두각을 나타낸 사람 가운데 한 명으로 꼽힌다. 1639년부터 1653년까지 있었던 삼왕국 전쟁에서 의회파의 군사지휘관으로 명성을 얻었으며 이를 발판으로 정치가가 되었다. 1649년 1월 찰스 1세의 처형을 주도하였고 이후 수립된 잉글랜드 공화국에서 호국경이 된 그는 1653년 12월부터 1658년 9월 사망할 때까지 잉글랜드의 공위시대 동안 호국경 정치의 최고 권력자였다. 크롬웰은 신형군을 동원하여 정치 권력을 장악한 것과 1649년 시작된 크롬웰의 아일랜드 정복에서 보인 잔혹함으로 역사적 평가에 논란이 있다.[1]: 1–2 

케임브리지 대학교의 시드니 석식스 칼리지에서 수학하였고 1628년 헌팅던 선거구에서 의원으로 선출되었다. 그는 40세가 될 때까지 그리 특별하지 않은 삶을 살았고 한 때 뉴잉글랜드로 이민을 고려하기도 하였다. 크롬웰은 1630년대에 독립파를 지지하는 청교도가 되었다. 이후 크롬웰은 자신의 성공이 신의 섭리에 따른 결과라고 믿었다. 당시 개신교는 매우 다양한 분파로 나뉘어져 있었고 크롬웰은 여러 종파에 대해 관용적인 태도를 지지하였지만 퀘이커나 제5왕국파와 같은 종파는 이단으로 간주하여 반대하였다.[2]: 71–73  1640년 크롬웰은 단기의회와 장기의회에서 케임브리지 의원으로 의회에 복귀하였고 1642년 8월 잉글랜드 내전이 시작되자 의회군에 합류하였다. 그는 자신의 군사 지휘 능력을 재빨리 입증하였고 1645년 토머스 페어팩스 휘하의 신형군 기병대 사령관이 되어 내전 기간 동안 왕당파를 물리치는 핵심 전력으로 활동하였다.

찰스 1세가 처형되고 그의 아들인 찰스 2세가 추방된 후 1649년부터 1651년까지 잉글랜드 의회군은 스코틀랜드와 아일랜드를 상대로 전쟁을 벌여 승리하면서 크롬웰은 새로운 공화국인 잉글랜드 연방을 장악하였다. 크롬웰은 1653년 12월 잉글랜드 연방의 호국경으로 지명되어 1658년 9월 사망할 때까지 이 직위를 유지했다. 그의 사후 아들 리처드가 호국경의 지위를 계승하였으나 1660년 왕정복고로 호국경 정치가 막을 내리게 되었고 웨스트민스터 사원에 안치되었던 크롬웰의 시신은 당시 사형집행장으로 쓰이던 타이번으로 끌려가 부관참시되었다. 이때 참수된 크롬웰의 머리는 30년 동안이나 런던탑 밖의 창끝에 매달려 놓였고 이후 케임브리지 시드니 석시스 칼리지에 재매장되었다.

크롬웰에 대한 평가는 논란이 있다. 정토웅 육군사관학교 명예교수("올리버 크롬웰은 처음에는 사회개혁을 주장하는 개혁주의자였으나, 군사 독재라는 오점을 남겼다.")와 윈스턴 처칠은 그를 군사 독재자로 평가하였고[3]: 314 [4]존 밀턴(시인), 토머스 칼라일(역사학자) 및 사무엘 로슨 가디너와 같은 청교도 지식인들은 자유를 쟁취한 영웅으로 묘사하였다. 이후 역사적 평가에 대한 논란은 여전히 진행되어 1856년 의회에서 제안된 크롬웰의 동상의 제작 기금은 로즈베리 백작 아치볼드 프림로즈기 대부분을 감당하였을 뿐이고 결국 완성 뒤에도 웨스트민스터궁 앞에 세워지기까지 수 많은 논란을 낳았다.[5] 크롬웰의 동상에 대한 철거 논란은 오늘날에도 계속되고 있어 2020년 영국 의회에서도 논의된 바 있다.[6]

성장 배경과 교육

올리버 크롬웰은 1599년 4월 25일[7] 헌팅던에서 로버트 크롬웰과 엘리자베스 사이에서 태어났다. 로버트 크롬웰은 첫 부인 사별 후 윌리엄 스튜어드의 딸인 엘리자베스와 재혼하였다.[8] 올리버 크롬웰의 가문은 글러모건 출신 양조업자였던 고조부 모건 앱 윌리엄이 퍼트니에 정착하여 캐서린 크롬웰과 결혼하면서 시작되었다. 1482년생인 캐서린 크롬웰은 헨리 8세의 총리였던 토머스 크롬웰의 누이였다. 그는 헨리 8세의 수장령 이후 시행된 수도원 해체로 인해 주인을 잃은 수도원의 재산 처분 과정에서 막대한 부를 거머쥘 수 있었다.[9] 모건 윌리엄의 가계는 리처드 윌리엄스, 헨리 윌리엄스, 그리고 올리버의 아버지 로버트 윌리엄스로 이어져 왔으며 그사이 어느 시점에 가족의 성으로 크롬웰을 함께 사용하였다. 로버트 윌리엄스(크롬웰)은 1591년 엘리자베스와 결혼하여 10명의 자녀를 두었으나 성년이 될 때까지 무사히 자랄 수 있었던 이는 다섯번째 자녀였던 올리버가 유일하였다.[10]

올리버 크롬웰의 할아버지 헨리 윌리엄스는 헌팅던셔에서 가장 부유한 지주 둘 가운데 한 명이었다. 그러나 많은 자식에게 재산을 나누어 주어 윌리엄의 아버지 로버트는 선대에 비해 많이 줄어든 재산을 물려받았다. 로버트 윌리엄은 젠트리의 지위를 유지하고 있었지만 연간 수입은 약 300파운드로 당시 화폐 가치를 고려하면 젠트리 계층 가운데 가장 소득이 적은 축에 속했다.[11] 1654년 만년기의 크롬웰은 어린 시절을 회상하며 "나는 태어날 때부터 젠트리였다. 높은 지위도 아니었지만 그렇다고 장삼이사 취급을 받지도 않았다"라고 말했다.[12]

올리버 크롬웰은 1599년 4월 29일 세인트 존스 교회에서 세례를 받았고[13] 헌팅던 문법학교를 나온 후 케임브리지 대학교의 시드니 서식스 칼리지로 진학하였다. 당시 시드니 서식스 칼리지는 청교도 운동의 중심지 가운데 하나였다. 1617년 6월 아버지 로버트가 사망하자 올리버 크롬웰은 학위를 마치지 않고 학교를 그만두었다.[14] 올리버 크롬웰의 초기 전기들은 그가 학교를 그만 둔 뒤 런던의 법정 변호사 협회 네 곳 가운데 하나인 링컨스 인에 소속되었다고 기록하고 있지만 링컨스 인의 기록에는 그에 관한 게 남아있지 않다. 다만 그의 할아버지와 아버지, 그리고 두 삼촌이 모두 링컨스 인에 등록되어 있었고 훗날 올리버 크롬웰의 아들 리처드도 이곳에 등록하였기 때문에 전기 작가가 혼동할 여지는 있다.[15]

아버지가 사망할 당시 크롬웰에게는 결혼하지 않은 누이 일곱이 있었기 때문에 홀로 된 어머니를 돕기 위해 급히 집으로 돌아갔을 것이다.[16]

결혼과 가족

크롬웰은 1620년 8월 22일 런던에서 엘리자베스 부르시에(1598년–1665년)와 결혼했다.[17] 엘리자베스의 아버지 제임스 부르시에는 에식스에 광대한 토지를 소유한 가죽 상인으로 청교도 젠트리들과 강한 유대 관계가 있었다. 이 결혼으로 크롬웰은 장인의 인맥을 통해 정치가인 올리버 세인트 존을 비롯하여 런던 상인 커뮤니티의 핵심 인사를 알게 되었으며 그의 인맥 형성에는 워윅 백작 로버트 리치와 홀랜드 백작 헨리 리치 등이 배후에 있었다. 올리버 크롬웰의 정치 및 군사 경력은 이러한 인맥이 뒤를 받쳐주는 상황에서 형성되었다. 올리버 크롬웰와 엘리자세스 부르시에 사이에는 아홉 명의 자녀가 있었다.[18]

일리에 있는 올리버 크롬웰의 집
  • 로버트(1621년~1639년), 기숙 학교 재학 중 사망
  • 올리버(1622년~1644년), 국회의원으로 재직 중 장티푸스로 사망
  • 브리짓(1624년~1662년), 헨리 아이어턴과 결혼하였으나 그의 사후 찰스 플릿우드와 재혼
  • 리처드(1626년~1712년), 올리버의 뒤를 이은 제2대 호국경[19] 도로시 메이저와 결혼
  • 헨리(1628년~1674년), 아일랜드 총독(재임: 1657년~1659년), 엘리자베스 러셀과 결혼
  • 엘리자베스(1629년~1658년), 존 클레이폴과 결혼
  • 제임스(1632년 생/몰), 유아기에 사망
  • 메리(1637년~1713년), 토머스 빌러시스와 결혼
  • 프랜시스(1638년~1720년), 로버트 리치와 결혼하였으나 그의 사후 존 러셀과 결혼

위기와 복귀

크롬웰의 초기 종교적 신념에 관해서는 별달리 알려진 바가 없다. 다만 1626년 아르미니우스주의 목사였던 헨리 다운홀에게 보낸 편지를 보면 당시까지는 청교도 급진파와 거리가 있었음을 알 수 있다.[20]: 34  그러나 1620년대 말에서 1630년대 초 사이 크롬웰은 심리적 위기를 겪었다. 1628년 크롬웰은 헌팅던의 의원으로 선출되었지만 그해 말 우울장애를 비롯한 다양한 신체적 정신적 문제로 스위스 출신의 의사 테오도르 드 메이어른에게 치료를 받았다. 이듬해인 1629년 크롬웰은 헌팅던의 새로운 조례 재정을 두고 분쟁에 휘말렸으며 1630년 추밀원에 소환되었다.[20]: 24–33 

당시 분쟁에서 크롬웰은 정치적 위기에 처했던 것으로 보인다. 1631년 크롬웰은 헌팅던의 재산 대부분을 매각하고 세인트아이브스에 있는 농장으로 이사하였다. 개인의 심리적 문제와 정치 활동의 위기를 겪으며 크롬웰은 종교적 각성을 경험하였다. 1638년 올리버 세인트 존의 아내였던 사촌 누이에게 보낸 편지에서 크롬웰은 지난날의 자신을 "죄인들의 우두머리"로 표현하며 과거를 부정하고 이제 "장자들의 회중"으로 들어갈 것이라고 언급한다.[21] 이 편지에서 크롬웰은 성경 구절을 수없이 인용하며 신의 자비로움으로 자신이 지은 죄에서 구원받았노라 밝히면서 독립파에 동조하는 자신의 믿음을 천명하고 있다. 또한 지금까지 이루어진 종교개혁은 불철저하여 여전히 로마가톨릭의 신앙과 관행에서 벗어나지 못하고 있으며 이를 완전히 제거하여야 한다는 신념도 밝혔다.[21] 1634년 크롬웰은 아메리카 대륙의 코네티컷 식민지로 이주하고자 하였으나 정부가 승인하지 않았다.[22]

세인트아이브스에서 크롬웰은 형 헨리와 함께 직접 닭과 양을 키우며 생계를 유지하였고, 젠트리라기보다 소규모 자작농인 요먼에 가까웠다. 1636년 크롬웰은 외삼촌으로부터 엘리의 십일조 징수원 지위를 상속받아 교구의 여러 재산에 대한 관리권을 행사하게 되었다. 이로서 크롬웰의 연간 수입은 약 3-4백 파운드로 증가한 것으로 보인다.[23] 1630년대 말 무렵 크롬웰은 인정받는 젠트리 계층으로 복귀하였다. 위기의 시간을 보내며 독실한 청교도가 된 그는 런던과 에식스의 청교도 가문들 사이에서 두각을 나타낼 수 있었다.[24]

의회활동: 1628–29년 및 1640–42년

크롬웰은 헌팅던 선거구의 의원으로 1628년~1629년 의회에 등원하였다. 초선 의원으로서 크롬웰은 힌칭브루크 파벌 가운데 몬태규 가문의 후원을 받는 위치였다. 이 당시 크롬웰의 의원 활동은 그다지 특기할 만한 것이 없다. 의회 기록에는 아르미니우스파 주교였던 리처드 네일에 반대하는 한 차례의 연설만이 수록되어 있을 뿐이다.[25]: 25–26 

1629년 의회 해산 이후 찰스 1세는 11년 동안 의회 없이 통치하였다. 당시까지 잉글랜드 의회는 명시된 임기나 회기가 없었고 왕권신수설을 주장하며 전제 군주로서 국가를 통치하고자 하였던 찰스 1세는 의회를 거추장스럽게 여겼다. 그러나 찰스 1세가 장로제로 운영되던 스코틀랜드 교회에 잉글랜드 성공회와 같은 주교제를 도입하여 장악하려고 시도하여 1639년 일어난 주교 전쟁에서 전쟁 자금이 부족하게 되었고 결국 추가 징세를 위해 의회를 소집할 수 밖에 없었다. 1640년 다시 소집된 의회에서 크롬웰은 케임브리지 선거구의 의원으로 의회에 복귀하였다. 그러나 이 의회는 불과 3주 동안 개최되어 단기 의회로 불리게 되었다. 이 해 크롬웰은 가족과 함께 런던으로 거주지를 옮겼다.[26]

1640년 말 다시 의회가 소집되었다. 두 번째 의회는 이후 1650년대 말까지 지속되었기 때문에 장기의회로 불린다. 이 의회에서도 크롬웰은 케임브리지 의원으로 출석하였다. 크롬웰의 정계 진출은 처가를 비롯한 여러 가문의 후원이 있기에 가능했고 크롬웰은 자신의 인맥을 적극적으로 활용하며 정치 경력을 쌓았다. 장기의회 첫 주에서 크롬웰이 존 릴번의 석방을 위한 탄원서를 제출하는 일을 담당했던 이유 역시 이러한 인맥 형성과 관련이 있다. 존 릴번은 네덜란드에서 금서를 들여 온 혐의로 체포되었고 청교도라는 점이 논란이 되었다. 장기의회에 참석한 첫 두 해 동안 올리버 크롬웰의 활동은 베드포드, 에식스, 워윅스 백작 및 올리버 세인트 존, 세이엔셀 자작과 등의 상원과 하원에 포진하고 있던 청교도 귀족들과 궤를 같이 하고 있었다. 이들은 1630년대부터 이미 크롬웰과 인맥을 형성하고 있었고 이 무렵 이들 그룹의 개혁 목표는 입법을 통해 양심의 자유, 즉 종교적 자유를 온전히 획득하는 것이었다. 크롬웰도 이 그룹의 활동을 함께하여 1641년 5월 연례 의회 법안의 재검토를 제안하였고 이후 주교제 폐지를 위한 뿌리와 가지 청원의 작성에도 참여하였다.[27]: 53  주교제 폐지는 청교도 독립파의 핵심 목표였다.

군사령관: 1642–46년

내전 참전

장기의회 초기부터 해결할 수 없었던 찰스 1세와 의회 사이의 의견충돌은 결국 무력 충돌로 이어져 1642년 말 잉글랜드 내전이 시작되었다. 내전이 일어나자 크롬웰은 의회군에 입대하였다. 입대 이전에 크롬웰의 군사 경험은 각 카운티별로 일정 기간 소집되어 훈련받는 민병대인 트레인드 밴즈의 훈련 참여가 전부였다. 그의 지역구인 케임브리지셔에서 찰스 1세가 은괴를 밀반출하려고 시도하자 올리버 크롬웰은 이를 저지한 후 기병대를 모집하여 내전에 참전하였다. 그러나 그의 기병대 결성은 1642년 10월 23일 왕당파 기사당과 의호파 원두당 사이에 일어난 회전인 엣지힐 전투에 참전하기는 너무 늦은 상태였다. 크롬웰의 기병대는 해를 넘기며 계속 모병되어 이듬해 초에는 완전한 연대로 편성될 수 있었고 맨체스터 백작 휘하의 동부연합에 배속되었다. 크롬웰은 1643년 이스트앵글리아 전역에서 무훈을 세우며 선전하였고 특히 7월 28일 게인스버로 전투에서 예상을 뛰어넘는 대승을 거두었다.[28] 이 무훈으로 크롬웰은 아일오브일리의 지사[29] 겸 동부연합의 대령으로 임명되었다.[30]

1644년 마스턴 무어 전투

1644년 7월 마스턴 무어 전투 당시 크롬웰은 맨체스터군의 기병 중장으로 승진했다. 그의 기병대는 왕당파 기병대를 무너뜨리고 후방에서 보병을 공격하여 의회파가 승리하는 결정적 역할을 하였다. 크롬웰은 이 전투를 선두에서 지휘하다 목에 경미한 부상을 입고 잠시 후송되었지만 치료를 받고 다시 전장으로 돌아가 승리를 확보하였다.[31] 이 전투에서 크롬웰은 조카가 전사하자 처남 왈튼에게 아들의 전사를 알리는 편지를 썼다.[32] 크롬웰은 이 편지에서 전투의 승리가 신의 섭리임을 강조하였다.

Sir, God hath taken away your eldest sonn by a cannon shott, itt brake his legg, wee were necessitated to have itt cutt off, wherof he died.

(왈튼)경, 신께서 당신의 맏아들을 데려가셨소. 그는 대포를 맞아 다리가 부러졌고 우리는 그것을 잘라낼 수 밖에 없었는데 그만 죽고 말았소.

마스틴 무어 전투의 대승으로 그 해 말까지 내전 종식을 낙관하고 있던 의회파는 10월에 있었던 제2차 뉴베리 전투 결과 찰스 1세의 군대가 맨체스터군의 포위를 벗어나 도주하자 비관적 전망과 함께 내분에 휩싸였다.[33] 크롬웰이 먼저 군사령관인 맨체스터 백작을 전쟁 승리에 대한 열망이 없는 듯하다고 비난하자 맨체스터 백작은 크롬웰이 "천한 출신"을 기병 장교로 앉힌다고 반발하였다. 그러자 크롬웰은 "나는 당신이 신사들이라 부르는 사람보다 무엇을 위해 싸우는 지 아는 평범한 황갈색 '러셋코트'를 입은 기병 장교가 필요하다"고 응수하였다.[34] 당시의 분열은 청교도 내의 종교적 파벌 사이의 갈등도 작용하였는데 크롬웰이 비정통 독립파와 재세례파 병사들을 격려하자 맨체스터군의 스코틀랜드 언약도인 로렌스 크로포드 소장이 크게 반발하였다.[35] 이 여파로 스코틀랜드 장로교의 신학자인 새뮤얼 러더퍼드는 1645년 크롬웰을 당시 이단으로 간주되던 사랑의 가족 신봉자라고 의회에 기소하였다.[36]

신형군

전투 부진으로 내분이 일었던 의회파는 1645년 초 자기부인조례를 통과시켜 의원이 군사지휘관을 겸직하는 것을 금지하였다. 이는 맨체스터 백작이나 에식스 백작 등 전투에 소극적이거나 패전한 정치가들에 대한 불만이 극에 달했기 때문에 이루어진 조치였다. 다만 크롬웰은 예외적으로 군지휘권과 의원직을 모두 유지할 수 있었다. 이 조례는 또한 군 조직을 "개편"하여 기존의 카운티를 기반으로 한 지역 민병대를 대체할 신형군의 조직을 결정하였다. 크롬웰은 고위 귀족의 영향을 받을 수 밖에 없는 지역군 대신 종교적 열망을 앞세운 상비군인 신형군의 결성에 크게 기여하였다. 1645년 4월 토머스 페어팩스이 신형군의 사령관이 되었고 크롬웰은 부사령관 겸 기병대 중장이 되었다.[37]

1645년 네이스비 전투

네이스비 전투 현장의 크롬웰. 19세기 영국화가 찰스 랜드시어의 작품.

1645년 6월 잉글랜드 내전의 중요한 회전이었던 네이스비 전투에서 신형군은 왕당파를 격파하였다. 이 전투에서 크롬웰은 기병대를 이끌어 왕당파 기병을 상대로 큰 승리를 거두었다. 7월 10일 랭포트 전투에서 크롬웰은 왕당파를 상대로 대승을 거두었고 이로서 찰스 1세가 군사력으로 의회를 굴복시킬 수 없다는 것이 분명해졌다. 이후 의회파는 영국 서남부에서 농성하고 있는 왕당파의 요새들을 포위 점령하는 일에 주력하였다. 1645년 10월 크롬웰은 요새화된 베이싱하우스를 점령하였는데 점령 후 항복한 수비대 3백 명 가운데 1백여 명을 처형하였다는 혐의로 기소되었다.[38] 크롬웰은 브리지워터 , 셔번, 브리스틀, 데비저스, 윈체스터 등의 포위에도 참전하여 승리하였다. 이러한 소탕전은 1646년 상반기까지 이어져 크롬웰은 데번과 콘월을 돌아다니며 전투를 치렀다. 전황은 이미 의회의 승리로 굳어져 찰스 1세는 결국 1646년 5월 5일 스코틀랜드서에 항복하였다. 이로서 제1차 잉글랜드 내전은 사실상 종식되었고, 6월에 들어 옥스퍼드에서 왕당파는 공식적으로 항복하였다.[39]

군사지휘의 특징

전문적인 군인이었던 페어팩스와 달리 크롬웰은 내전 이전에 군지휘 경력이 없었다. 크롬웰은 당시 기병의 보편적 운용 전술인 3열 횡대를 주로 사용하였으며 화력보다는 돌격에 의한 돌파 전술에 의존하였다. 특별한 경력도 없고 전술도 평이하였던 크롬웰이 뛰어난 성과를 보인 이유는 그의 도덕적 권위에 있었다. 그는 기병들에게 엄격한 규율을 요구했고 전장에서 마주친 병사들 대부분이 진영을 막론하고 그저 징집된 일반인에 가까운 상황에서 질서를 강조한 그의 지휘는 강점으로 작용했다.[40]

크롬웰은 두 기병의 무릎이 서로 닿을 정도로 밀집대형을 유지하는 전술을 택했다. 이러한 밀집대형은 강력한 돌파력으로 적의 대열을 무너뜨릴 수 있었다. 당시 유럽 기병대의 일반적인 전투 양상은 적이 대열을 무너뜨리고 도주하기 시작하면 이를 추격하며 섬멸하고 적진을 약탈하는 것이었다. 그러나 크롬웰은 돌파로 적진을 무너뜨리면 곧바로 재정비를 지시하여 기병이 다시 대열을 갖추도록 하고 약탈을 금지하였는데 이로서 기병대가 지휘 통제에서 벗어나 전장을 마구잡이로 돌아다니는 것을 막고 추가적인 교전에 바로 대응할 수 있도록 하였다. 크롬웰의 이러한 지휘 방식은 마스턴 무어 전투와 네이스비 전투에서 큰 장점으로 작용하였다.[41]

정치: 1647-49년

제1차 잉글랜드 내전이 종료되고 국왕 찰스 1세가 의회에 의해 감금되어 있었던 1647년 2월 크롬웰은 한 달 넘게 질병을 앓으며 정계에 참여할 수 없었다. 그가 의회에 복귀하였을 때 국회는 왕의 처분 문제를 놓고 분열되어 있었는데 상하 양원 모두 다수파의 입장은 주교전쟁의 결과에 따라 스코틀랜드에 보상하고 신형군은 해체하자는 것이었다. 또한 찰스 1세가 장로교를 인정하는 조건으로 복위 협상을 추진하고자 하였다.

신형군을 주도하였던 독립파와 수평파는 의회가 신형군 해체와 국왕의 복위를 추진하자 배신감을 느꼈다. 거기에 의회가 병사의 급여를 채불하자 불만이 급상승하면서 급진적 주장이 쏟아지게 되었다. 의회가 신형군의 요구를 불법 청원이라며 거부하자 1647년 5월 크롬웰이 새프런 월든의 육군 본부에서 협상을 시도하지만 결렬되었다.[42]

1647년 6월 코넷 조지 조이스가 이끄는 기병대가 감금되어 있던 국왕을 포위하였다. 국왕이 직접 모습을 드러낸 가운데 크롬웰은 국왕 복위가 이루어질 경우 자신들의 요구가 어디까지 받아들여질 지 알고자 하였다. 찰스 1세가 협조적인 자세를 보이자 크롬웰은 사위인 헨리 아이렌턴을 실무자로 고용하여 헌법 초안을 작성하였다. 이 초안은 크롬웰이 만족할 때까지 여러 차례 수정되었다.[43] 크롬웰의 헌법 초안은 행정부의 권한에 대한 견제, 임기를 명시하여 정기적으로 선출되는 의회, 그리고 주교제로 관리되는 교구의 비강제성과 장로제의 허용 등을 담고 있었다.[44]

한편 존 릴번이 주도하는 수평파는 이러한 크롬웰의 개혁안도 충분하지 않다고 여겨 모든 남성 성인에 대한 보편적 선거권 등을 주장하였다. 수평파의 요구를 수용하는 문제로 1647년 가을 푸트니에서 열린 페어팩스, 크롬웰, 아이렌턴 등과 수평파의 대표 레인버러 대령 사이의 논의는 긴장이 감돌았고 결국 합의에 도달하지 못한 채 중단되었다.[45][46]

2차 내전

1649년 1월 4일에 열 찰스 1세의 재판.

찰스 1세는 스코틀랜드와 같이 잉글랜드에서도 장로교를 허용할 수 있다는 등 의회파의 요구에 긍정적인 태도를 보이는 듯 했지만 자신의 재기를 위한 시간을 벌기 위한 것일 뿐이었고 의회와 국왕 사이의 정치 협상을 결국 합의점을 찾지 못하였다. 이렇게 1년 넘는 시간 동안 지루한 협상이 진행 되는 사이 1648년 2월 스코틀랜드의 왕당파들이 국왕 구출을 위해 잉글랜드로 침공하여 제2차 잉글랜드 내전이 일어났다. 2차 내전은 국교인 잉글랜드 성공회뿐만 아니라 자신들의 신앙이 잉글랜드 청교도에 의해 탄압받고 있다고 여겼던 스코틀랜드 언약도가 주축이된 인게이저들도 가담한 것이었다. 왕당파가 침공하자 웨일스와 콘월 등에서도 왕당파가 호응하여 봉기하였고 봉기 주도 세력의 일부는 1차 내전에서 의회파로 참전하였던 장로교 신도였다. 제1차 내전 당시 의회파로 참전하였던 롤랜드 로안이 왕당파로 돌아서며 웨일스에서 봉기하자 크롬웰은 5월 25일 쳅스토성을 함락시키며 이를 진압하였다. 이로부터 6일 후 크롬웰은 웨일스의 가장 서남쪽 끝인 텐비를 굴복시켰다. 2차 내전 와중에 웨일스의 펨브로크 성은 8주간의 공방전 뒤에 항복하며 파괴를 면하였지만 카마던의 성은 불에 타 파괴되고말았다. 크롬웰은 항복한 왕당파에게는 차라리 관대하였지만 1차 내전에서 의회파였다가 돌아선 사람들에게는 그렇지 않았다. 그는 본보기를 삼기 위해 추첨을 통해 처형자를 골라 존 포이어를 런던으로 압송하여 처형하였다.[47]

웨일스를 진압한 크롬웰은 북쪽으로 진군하여 인게이저와 교전하였다. 그는 프레스턴 전투에서 9천 명의 병력을 단독 지휘하여 그의 두 배가 넘는 상대를 궤멸시키는 결정적인 승리를 거두었다.[48]

1648년 내전 동안 크롬웰은 전투에 성서적 의미를 부여하였다. 프레스턴 전투 후 크롬웰은 시편 17편과 105편을 들며 "불구대천의 원수가 이 땅을 떠나지 않으니 그들이 속히 멸망될 것"이라 연설하였다.

주님, 일어나십시오. 그들을 대적하시고, 굴복시키십시오. 주님께서 칼을 드셔서, 악인에게서 나의 생명을 구하여 주십시오.

— 시편 17편, 13절 (새번역 성경)

1648년 9월 크롬웰은 올리버 세인트 존에게 보낸 편지에서 이사야서 8장을 언급하여 유다가 앗시리아에게 멸망당하여도 신실한 자는 살아남았듯이 왕국이 무너지더라도 오직 경전한 자만이 살아남을 것이라 주장하였다. 그는 1648년 편지에서 네 차례에 걸쳐 기드온이 아인 하롯에서 3백 명으로 수 많은 미디안 군대를 격퇴한 이야기를 언급하였다.[49] 이 편지들은 크롬웰이 청교도 내 급진적 파벌의 정치적 목적보다는 자신의 종교적 신념때문에 당시 의회와 국왕 사이에 진행되던 뉴포트 조약에 반대한다는 것을 정당화하기 위한 것이었다. 그는 스스로를 신이 선택한 도구로 여겼고 왕국의 파탄도 신의 뜻이라면 결행해야 한다고 생각하였다.[50] 이러한 일들은 크롬웰이 섭리주의를 확신하였다는 것을 보여준다. 신이 "선택된 자"를 통해 세상에 적극 개입하고 있으며 선택된 자인 자신의 승리가 바로 그 증거라는 것이다.[51]

국왕에 대한 재판과 처형

1648년 12월 신형군 내의 급진파인 토머스 프라이드가 주도한 쿠데타인 프라이드의 숙청 사건이 일어난다. 이들은 독립파와 수평파를 지지하지 않는 의원들을 장기의회에서 축출하였다.[52] 이로서 의회는 신형군의 입맛에 맞는 일부 의원만 잔존하어 잔부의회로 유지되었다. 프라이드가 쿠데타를 일으켰을 때 크롬웰은 잉글랜드 북부에서 왕당파와 전투를 벌이고 있었지만 소식을 듣고 런던으로 돌아왔다. 사태를 파악한 크롬웰은 내전을 종식할 유일한 수단이 국왕의 처형이라고 여기고 재판 추진에 찬동하였다.[53] 크롬웰은 민수기 35장, 특히 33절의 "땅에 흐른 피는 그 피를 흘리게 한 자의 피로서만 원한을 씻을 수 있다"라는 말을 언급하며 국왕 처형을 주장한 토머스 브룩의 연설을 정당화하였다.[54]

찰스 1세에 대한 사형 결정문에는 재판을 관할한 사람들 가운데 59명이 서명하였으며 크롬웰은 3번째로 이름을 올렸다.[55] 국왕의 처형은 전례가 없는 일이 아니었지만, 찰스 1세가 주장한 왕권신수설이 아니더라도 시역이라는 비난에서 자유로울 수 없었다.[56] 서명자들은 펜을 들고 사형 선고에 서명하는 것을 머뭇거렸다. 크롬웰은 서명을 마친뒤 부관에게 펜을 넘기며 "이제 처형이 진행될 수 있다"고 말하였다.[57] 한편 페어팩스는 명백히 서명을 거부하였다.[58][59] 찰스 1세는 1649년 1월 30일 처형되었다.

연방 수립: 1649년

잉글랜드 연방의 문장

찰스 1세의 처형 이후 공화국인 잉글랜드 연방이 선포되었다. 잔부의회는 행정권과 입법권을 모두 행사하였고 호국경 추밀원도 일부 행정 권한을 가지고 있었다. 크롬웰은 잔부의회의 의원으로 있으면서 내전이 일어나기 전부터 자신의 정치적 배경으로서 인맥을 형성하고 있었던 독립파의 통합을 시도하였다. 당시 독립파의 주요 인물들인 세인트 존, 세이, 셀레는 국왕 처형을 둘러싼 문제로 분열되어 있었다. 그러나 크롬웰의 의회 복귀 요청에 응한 것은 세인트 존 뿐이었다.

한편 왕당파는 아일랜드 맹방을 중심으로 재집결하였고 1649년 3월 의회는 크롬웰을 사령관으로 한 원정군을 구성하였다. 이 원정군의 주축은 신형군이었지만, 당시 신형군은 해결되지 못한 급여 채불 문제와 정치적 요구 때문에 어지러운 상황이었다. 신형군 내의 정치적 요구는 수평파가 주도하였으며 이들을 대표하는 "선동가"들은 1647년 《인민협정》이 선포한 국민 주권, 참정권 확대, 법 앞의 평등, 종교적 관용을 요구하였다. 크롬웰은 스스로가 젠트리였고 대지주들인 "그랜디"의 입장에 서서 이들의 주장이 너무 많은 자유를 요구한다고 생각하였다. 당시 잉글랜드의 선거권은 토지를 소유한 지주들에게만 부여되어 종종 썩은 자치구 문제를 일으켰다.

1649년 4월 신형군 내의 수평파는 참전을 거부하며 비숍스게이트 항명사건을 일으켰다. 크롬웰은 이를 진압하고 주도자인 로버트 로키어를 처형하였지만 이후로도 항명과 반란이 계속되었다. 크롬웰은 밴버리 항명을 진압한 후 5월에 앤도버와 버퍼드의 수평파 반란을 진압한 후에야 7월 말 브리스톨에서 아일랜드로 출발할 수 있었다.[60]

아일랜드 침공: 1649-50년

크롬웰의 아일랜드 정복은 1649년 시작되어 1650년까지 이어졌다. 당시 의회파의 주요 목적은 아일랜드 남부를 거점으로 한 아일랜드 맹방과 왕당파의 동맹을 격파하는 것이었다. 당시 아일랜드는 로마가톨릭 내에서도 왕당파와 의회파에 대한 지지를 놓고 내분이 있었고 개신교도 사정은 비슷하였다. 크롬웰은 3월 23일 군사위원회의 연설에서 "스코트인들에게 전복당하느니 기사당에게 무너지는 것이 낫고, 아일랜드인들에게 당하느니 스코트인들에게 무너지는 게 낫다. 내 생각엔 이들이야말로 가장 위험하다."고 연설하였다.[61]

크롬웰의 이와 같은 아일랜드인에 대한 적대감은 종교적 이유가 컸다. 왕당파인 기사당이나 의회에 반기를 들었던 스코틀랜드 교회는 그나마 모두 로마가톨릭에 반발하여 수립된 개신교인데 반해 아일랜드는 크롬웰이 가장 증오한 적인 로마가톨릭 세력이었던 것이다. 크롬웰이 신봉한 청도교를 비롯한 칼뱅주의 개신교는 로마가톨릭이 성서보다 성직자의 권위를 앞세우며 개신교를 박해한다고 여겼다.[62] 여기에 더해 게일인에 대한 인종 차별적 인식으로 크롬웰은 무자비한 원정을 감행하였다. 의회는 이 원정을 되도록 무혈입성으로 끝내고 싶었으나 크롬웰은 복잡한 아일랜드 내의 종교적, 정치적 상황 속에서 잔인한 학살을 벌이며 원주민을 토지에서 쫓아내었다.[63]

잉글랜드 의회파와 아일랜드의 충돌은 이미 1641년부터 진행중이었고 1647년 선발대가 아일랜드를 침공한 바 있었다. 1649년 크롬웰의 침공은 이전의 것보다 훨씬 더 큰 규모로 이루어졌고 잉글랜드 내전이 진행되고 있던 이전 상황과 달리 내전이 종식되어 보급이 더 원활해졌기 때문에 장기적인 전투 지속이 가능해졌다. 이미 더블린과 데리를 교두보로 삼고 있었던 의회군은 1649년 8월 15일 최근 아일랜드 맹방과 왕당파의 협공으로부터 방어에 성공한 더블린에 상륙한 후 항구 도시인 드로이다와 웩스퍼드를 점령하여 보급망을 확보하였다. 1649년 9월에 있었던 드로이다 공방전이 끝난 후 크롬웰은 3천5백 명을 학살하였다. 이 가운데 약 2천7백 명은 왕당파의 군인이었지만 그외에 민간인과 로마가톨릭 성직자를 비롯하여 무기를 들 수 있는 모든 남자가 학살의 대상이었다.[64] 크롬웰은 나중에 다음과 같이 썼다.[65]

나는 이것이 자신들의 손에 그토록 많은 무고한 피를 묻힌 죄인들에 대한 신의 의로운 심판이라 확신하며 이는 앞으로 흘려질 피를 미리 방지하는데 도움이 될것이다. 그렇지 않으면 훗날 후회 밖에 할 것이 없다.

10월에는 웩스퍼드 공방전 와중에 또다시 학살이 발생하였다. 웩스퍼드의 수비대가 크롬웰과 항복 조건을 협상하는 사이 군인들이 마을을 습격하여 수비대 2천 명과 민간인 1천5백 명을 살해하고 마을을 불태웠다.[66]

드로에다를 점령한 후 크롬웰은 북쪽 얼스터를 확보하고 남동부의 워터퍼드, 킬케니, 클론멜을 포위하였다. 킬케니는 맹렬한 공방 끝에 항복하였지만 워터퍼드는 농성을 계속하였다. 1650년 5월 클론멜 공방전에서 크롬웰은 2천 명 이상의 병력을 잃고서야 요새를 함락시킬 수 있었다.[67]

아일랜드 전역에서 크롬웰의 중요한 승리 가운데 하나는 외교적인 것이었다. 그는 오레리 백작 로저 보일의 중재로 코크에서 왕당파 편에 섰던 개신교 군대를 의회편으로 포섭할 수 있었다.[68] 이 때 처형당한 찰스 1세의 아들 찰스 2세가 프랑스의 지원으로 스코틀랜드에 상륙하여 언약도에 의해 국왕으로 선포되었다는 소식이 들려왔고 크롬웰은 이 위협에 대응하기 위해 1650년 5월 26일 잉글랜드로 회군을 시작하였다.[69]

크롬웰이 잉글랜드로 복귀한 뒤로도 의회군은 아일랜드에서 3년을 더 싸웠다. 정규전에서 잉글랜드를 상대하기 역부족이었던 아일랜드는 요새에서 농성을 하는 사이 게릴라를 구성하여 유격전을 펼쳐 잉글랜드 의회군을 괴롭혔다. 그러나 아일랜드의 군사적 열세는 만회할 수 없었고1653년 4월 캐번에서 마지막 가톨릭 저항군이 항복하였다.[70]

잉글랜드 연방은 아일랜드 정복 이후 로마카톨릭의 공개적 활동을 금지하고 가톨릭 성직자를 색출하여 살해하였다.[71] 가톨릭 소유의 모든 토지는 1652년 아일랜드 정착법에 따라 몰수되어 스코틀랜드와 잉글랜드 출신의 개신교 이주민에게 불하되었다. 의회가 발행한 채권의 지불에도 이 토지가 쓰였고 의회파 군인들에게도 지급되었다.[72] 아일랜드의 가톨릭 지주들은 코노트의 척박한 땅만을 가질 수 있었다.[73]

학살

아일랜드 원정에서 보인 크롬웰의 잔혹성[74][75]은 논쟁의 대상이었다. 일부는 크롬웰의 민간인 학살 자체를 부정하기도 하지만[76] 당시 기록에 "많은 주민"을 죽였다는 것이 명시 되어 있기 때문에 이 자체를 부정하는 경우는 드물다.[77]: 83, 90  크롬웰은 내전 시작 이전인 1641년 가톨릭 교도들이 얼스터에서 개신교 정착민을 먼저 학살하기 시작하였다고 하면서 자신의 행동을 "신의 심판"이라고 정당화하였다.[78] 그러나 1641년 아일랜드 봉기는 드로이다를 점령하지 못하였고 당시 얼스터 수비대의 상당수는 잉글랜드의 왕당파였다. 반면 크롬웰이 이끄는 군대는 아일랜드 곳곳에서 학살을 자행하였고 남녀노소를 가리지 않고 5만 명 이상의 사람들을 살해하거나 버뮤다와 바베이도스와 같은 카리브해의 식민지로 추방하여 노예로 부렸다.[79] 일부는 크롬웰이 약탈을 금지하고 필요한 물품은 구매하도록 지시하였다고 그를 옹호하지만, 이러한 지시는 중세 시기부터 이어진 형식적인 명령일 뿐이어서 실제 잉글랜드 신형군의 행동에 별다른 제약을 주지는 못하였다.[80]

스코틀랜드 원정: 1650-51년

크롬웰은 찰스 2세가 국왕 즉위를 선포하자 이에 맞서기 위해 스코틀랜드로 원정하였다. 스코틀랜드 전역은 1651년 우스터 전투까지 이어졌고 의회군에 패배한 찰스 2세는 간신히 탈출하여 죽음을 모면하였다.

스코틀랜드의 찰스 2세 옹립

로열 마일에 있는 모레이 하우스. 크롬웰이 스코틀랜드 교회에 찰스 2세 지원 중단을 요청하기 위해 에딘버러를 방문했을 때 머무른 곳이다.

크롬웰은 1650년 5월 아일랜드를 떠났고 몇 달 뒤 찰스 2세를 국왕으로 옹립한 스코틀랜드로 향하였다. 그는 로마가톨릭을 신봉하는 아일랜드에 비해 1차 내전 당시 동맹이었던 스코틀랜드 장로교에 대해 그다지 큰 적개심을 지니지는 않았다. 크롬웰이 보기에 이들은 "속임수에 속았으나 신을 두려워 하는" 자들이었다.[81] 그는 스코틀랜드 교회에 국왕 옹호를 중단할 것을 촉구하며 이들의 행동이 "그리스도의 복심"을 오해한 것이라고 여겼다.[82] 스코틀랜드 교회는 매우 강력하게 반발하여 "우리의 믿음을 의심하는가?"고 크롬웰에게 반문하였다. 찰스 2세와 크롬웰의 협상은 결렬되었고 전쟁은 불가피하게 되었다.[83]

던바 전투

협상이 결렬되자 크롬웰은 정예병을 이끌고 스코틀랜드 원정을 시작하였다. 원정 초기 잉글랜드 의회군은 보급 부족과 질병으로 고전하였다. 크롬웰은 던바 항구를 통해 군대를 일단 철수 시키고자 하였으나 그곳엔 이미 스코틀랜드 군이 진을 치고 있었다. 1650년 9월 3일 예상치 못한 교전으로 시작된 던바 전투에서 잉글랜드군은 스코틀랜드군 4천 명을 죽이고 1만 명을 포로로 잡으며 대승하였고 이 여세를 몰아 수도 에든버러를 점령하였다.[84] 애초 승패를 가늠할 수 없어 퇴각하려던 상황에서 오히려 대승을 거두게 되자 크롬웰은 이를 신의 섭리로 여겨 신이 잉글랜드의 편에 서있기 때문에 승리하였다고 보았다.[84]

우스터 전투

제3차 잉글랜드 내전이기도 한 이 전쟁에서 열세에 놓인 채 1년을 고전한 왕당파는 잉글랜드의 주력군이 스코틀랜드 전역에 있는 사이 배후를 교란하고 오히려 런던을 점령하고자 하였다. 이 소식을 들은 크롬웰은 군대를 돌려 1651년 9월 3일 우스터에서 왕당파와 마주쳤고 우스터 전투를 통해 왕당파에 궤멸적인 타격을 주었다. 이 전투에서 찰스 2세는 간신히 사로잡히는 것을 피하고 프랑스로 탈출할 수 있었고 이후 크롬웰이 사망할 때까지 프랑스와 네덜란드에서 망명 생활을 보내야 하였다.[85]

결과

스코틀랜드 원정의 막바지에 조지 멍크 휘하의 의회군은 던디를 약탈하면서 1천여 명의 남성과 140여 명의 여성과 아이를 학살하였다.[86] 전쟁이 잉글랜드 의회의 승리로 끝난 뒤 스코틀랜드는 잉글랜드 연방의 점령지로서 지배되었다. 이후 간헐적인 반란이 계속되었지만 의회는 6천명의 잉글랜드군을 파견하여 이들을 진압하였다.[87] 스코틀랜드 교회는 여전히 장로교로 남았지만 독자적인 사법권의 행사와 같은 이전의 자치를 허용받을 수는 없었다.[88]

크롬웰은 아일랜드에서의 잔혹함과 다르게 스코틀랜드를 유화적으로 대했다. 잉글랜드의 엄격한 퉁제는 게일인이 몰려 있는 고지대로 제한되었고 토지나 재산을 몰수하지도 않았으며 독자적 사법권 행사를 금지하는 대신 치안 판사 4명 가운데 3명을 스코틀랜드인으로 등용하여 큰 불만이 일어나지 않도록 하였다. 당시 스코틀랜드는 잉글랜드 당국과 스코틀랜드의 국무원이 공동으로 통치하였다고 평가할 수 있다.[89]

잔부의회 해산: 1651-53년

국왕이 처형되고 크롬웰이 원정을 떠난 1649년 중반부터 1651년까지 잔부의회는 각종 파벌의 대립이 이어지고 있었다. 한편 크롬웰은 스코틀랜드 원정을 끝으로 삼왕국 전쟁이 마무리되자 세 나라를 통합할 하나의 의회를 구성하고자 하였다. 그러나 잔부의회는 자신들의 지위가 불확실하게 될 선거일자 확정에 소극적이었고, 주교제 아래서 이루어졌던 십일조의 폐지와 그 대안에 대한 논의에서 합의점을 찾지 못하였다. 이러는 사이 크롬웰의 권위에 대적할 세력은 더 이상 없었고 일각에서는 국왕의 자리를 차지하려는 것 아닌가 하는 의심을 하기도 하였다.[90] 1653년 4월 크롬웰은 40인의 대리인으로 구성되는 정부 설립 법안을 의회에 요구하였으나 이 역시 지리한 논의만이 이어질 뿐 결론이 나지 않았고[91] 이에 분노한 크롬웰은 1653년 4월 20일 무력으로 의회를 해산하였다. 전하는 말에 의하면 당시 크롬웰은 "이것은 의회가 아니고 당신들은 의원이 아니다. 내가 당신들의 의회를 끝내겠다"고 말하였다고 한다.[92] 당대에 남겨진 기록에서는 크롬웰이 의회 권력의 상징인 직장을 낚아채며 이 "장신구"를 치우라고 하였다고 한다.[93] 크롬웰의 오른팔이었던 찰스 워슬리가 의회의 직장을 넘겨받아 치웠다.[94]

베어본 의회: 1653년

잔부의회가 해산당한 이후 권력은 일시적으로 재헌위원회에 쏠리게 되었다. 그들은 천년왕국의 도래를 주장하는 제5왕국 신도였던 토머스 헤리슨 소장의 제안에 따라 스스로를 로마 제국 시기 유대 사제들의 협의체였던 산헤드린으로 여겼다. 크롬웰은 제5왕국의 묵시론적 믿음에 동조하지는 않았지만 이들의 정치적 지지는 필요하였다. 1653년 7월 4일 이들을 중심으로 개최된 의회에서 크롬웰은 "잉글랜드가 이 지점까지 오게 된 것은 모두 신이 사람의 아들들에게 선사하신 크나큰 섭리"라고 주장하였다.[95] 스스로를 "성도들의 의회"라 부르고 싶어하는 극단주의적 제5왕조 신도들이 의회를 장악하였지만 당시 사람들은 제5왕국의 신도로 이름을 알린 프레이즈갓 베어본의 이름을 따 베어본 의회라고 불렀다. 베어본(Barebone)은 뼈만 앙상한 약골이라는 의미가 있어 그 자체로 극단적으로 적은 인원으로 구성된 의회를 풍자하는 데 쓰였다. 한편 제5왕국의 종말론적 믿음에 두려움을 느낀 다른 의원들은 1653년 12월 12일 의회 해산 투표를 진행하였다.[96]

호국경: 1653-58년

올리버 크롬웰이 주조한 금화. 호국경의 이름으로 제작되었으나 형식은 국왕의 것을 취하고 있다.

베어본 의회가 해산된 뒤 신형군의 실력자였던 존 램버트가 기초한 《제안요목》 을 바탕으로 《통치장전》이 작성되었고 이를 통해 크롬웰은 "최고위 장관 겸 행정 수반"인 호국경이 되었다. 1653년 12월 16일 수임 선서식에 참여한 크롬웰은 평범한 검은 옷을 입고 자신이 왕위에 오르는 것이 아니라 공화국 수반이 되는 것이라는 점을 부각시켰다.[97] 그러나 수임 서약서에는 '올리버 P(Oliver P)'라고 서명하였는데, 이는 군주들이 대관식에서 렉스(Rex, 군왕)을 뜻하는 약자 R을 이름 뒤에 붙이는 것과 비슷하였고, 얼마 지나지 않아 다른 사람들은 그를 "전하"라고 부르게 되었다.[98] 호국경은 의회의 소집과 해산 권한이 있었지만 제출된 의안은 과반수의 찬성을 얻어야 하였다. 그러나 군대의 지지를 등에 업은 크롬웰은 점점 더 절대적인 권력을 지니게 되었다. 호국경의 연봉은 10만 파운드로 2021년 가치로 환산하면 대략 1천7백만 파운드(약 283억 원)의 막대한 금액이었다.[99]

크롬웰은 내전 이후 혼란에 빠진 사회를 안정시킬 필요가 있었고[100] 국가나 정부의 형태는 그 보다 부차적인 문제였다.[101] 이 때문에 수평파 등 혁명적 세력의 지지로 권력을 잡았지만 사회 개혁을 시도하지 않고 기존의 질서를 유지하고자 하였다. 크롬웰이 보기에 "귀족, 젠트리, 요먼의 구분은 국익에 부합하는 것"이었다.[102] 크롬웰을 지지한 신형군의 사병은 대부분 요먼 출신이었고 참정권 요구가 컸지만 좌절되었다. 크롬웰에게는 네덜란드와의 전쟁을 종식시키는 것이 더 큰 과제였다.[103]

당시 잉글랜드의 해외 식민지에는 뉴펀들랜드[104] , 뉴잉글랜드,로드아일랜드, 버지니아 식민지, 메릴랜드 식민지 및 서인도 제도의 섬들이 포함되어 있었다. 내전으로 식민 모국의 영향력이 줄어들자 식민지는 자치적인 지위가 강화되었다. 크롬웰은 이들 식민지를 통제하고 있던 "청교도 동지"들을 억압하고 통제권을 다시 잉글랜드에 귀속시켰다. 그는 이를 위해 평생에 걸쳐 적으로 여겼던 로마가톨릭과의 협력도 마다하지 않았다. 크롬웰의 이러한 태도에 아메리카로 이주한 청교도들은 분개하였는데 특히 버지니아의 반발이 컸다.[105]

1654년 9월 3일 제1차 호국경 소집 의회의 개원식에서 크롬웰은 "치유와 안정"만이 "의회의 대미"라고 연설하였다.[106] 그러나 더욱 급진적이고 공화주의적인 개혁 요구하는 의원들이 빠르게 의회를 장악하였다. 개원 이전에 크롬웰이 임명한 인사들에 대한 사후 추인을 마친 의회는 《통치장전》 개정을 비롯한 개혁을 추진하였다. 크롬웰은 의회가 의결한 법령에 거부권을 행사하는 대신 차라리 의회 자체를 해산하기로 결정하여 1655년 1월 22일 의회는 해산되었다. 제1차 호국경 소집 의회의 피선거권은 하원의 경우 연간 200 파운드 이상의 소득이 있는 성인 남성에게 있었으며 각 선거구의 선거권을 지닌 주민의 투표로 선출되었다.[107]

크롬웰의 또 다른 목표는 종교적 개혁이었다. 그는 영국 전역에서 "양심의 자유"에 따른 종교의 자유를 보장한다고 선포하였다.[108] 호국경 집권 초기에 성직자의 자격을 심사하고 부적격자를 퇴출하는 일련의 기관과 절차가 마련되었다. 성직자에 대한 심사와 퇴출은 제1차 호국경 소집 의회의 해산 이후 크롬웰이 국가를 장악하기 위한 수단이기도 하였다. 의회 해산 후 잉글랜드는 소장들이 지역을 나누어 지배하는 군정을 실시하고 있었고 이 15 명의 "신실한 총독"이 크롬웰 지배하의 잉글랜드에서 실권을 장악하고 있었다. 장군들은 민병대와 보안위원회 같은 치안 부대들을 감독했을 뿐만 아니라 세금을 징수하고 정부의 잉글랜드와 웨일스의 치안 장악을 보장하였다. 이들은 모든 선거구에서 열정적인 청교도들이 차지한 자치위원회와 함께 활동하였으나 임기가 1년도 채 되지 않아 지역 실정을 파악하기 어려웠고 자치위원회는 이들이 자신들의 개혁 정책을 억누르기 위해 파견된 것이라 여겼다. 1655년 3월의 왕당파 반란 이후 크롬웰은 각지의 소장들이 오로지 자신의 명령에만 응할것을 법제화하고자 하였다. 1656년 9월 개회된 제2차 호국경 소집 의회의 의원들은 이러한 크롬웰의 제안이 영구적인 군사 정권으로 이어질까 두려워 이를 부결시켰고 이는 크롬웰과 의회의 갈등을 심화시켰다.[109]

한편 크롬웰의 서인도 제도 공략은 계속되어 1654년 후반 스페인령 서인도 제도에 대한 침공을 감행하여 1655년 5월에는 자메이카를 점령하였다.[110]

크롬웰은 국제 무역에서 잉글랜드의 주요 경쟁자였던 네덜란드를 견제하기 위해 유대인의 잉글랜드 재정착을 지원하였다. 잉글랜드에서 유대인은 에드워드 1세 시기 추방된 이래 350년 만에 다시 거주할 수 있게 되었다. 이는 당시 청교도의 다수가 보인 유대인에 대한 차별적 인식과는 다른 태도였기에 반발이 있었지만, 크롬웰은 내전 이후 무너진 잉글랜드의 경제를 되살릴 필요가 있었다.[111] 크롬웰은 유대인 재정착에 반대하는 청교도들에게 성서를 인용하며 이들을 장기적으로 개종시키는 것이 기독교인들의 의무라고 정당화하였다. 1655년 12월 화이트홀 회의에서 크롬웰은 전도와 개종의 필요를 강조한 로마서 10장 12-15절을 인용하였다. 그러나 청교도 신학자였던 윌리엄 프린은 크롬웰의 이와 같은 주장에 극렬히 반대하였다.[112][113][114]

1657년 3월 23일 잉글랜드는 스페인과 맞서기 위해 내전 당시 찰스 1세와 2세를 지원하였던 루이 14세와 파리 조약을 체결하였다. 크롬웰은 프랑스에 6천 명의 병력과 전함의 공급을 약속하였고 프랑스는 이에 대한 댓가로 마르디크와 됭케르크를 잉글랜드에 양도하여 스페인의 사략선에 의한 통상파괴를 방어할 수 있도록 하였다.[115]

1657년 의회는 크롬웰에게 왕위 즉위를 권하였다. 크롬웰은 6주 동안이나 고민하며 군주가 되고 싶은 욕망이 없지 않음을 보였지만, 스스로의 지위인 호국경의 명칭 자체가 그가 천명한 군주제 폐지의 "도구" 역할을 자임하고 있었기 때문에 결국 포기할 수 밖에 없었다. 1657년 4월 13일 크롬웰은 자신이 국왕에 오르는 것은 신의 섭리가 아니라고 연설하였다.[116] 대신 크롬웰은 1657년 6월 26일 웨스트민스터궁에서 호국경에 재임되면서 국왕의 대관식에 쓰이던 에드워드 왕의 의자에 앉았다. 이 행사에서 크롬웰은 왕홀을 들고 보라색 망토를 입어 사실상 대관식을 연상시켰다. 이로서 크롬웰은 왕과 다름 없는 지위를 누리게 되었는데 다른 점이 있다면 법률상 호국경의 지위는 세습되지 않는다는 것이었다.[117]

죽음

올리버 크롬웰의 데스 마스크. 워윅 성소재.

1658년에 그는 갑자기 말라리아에 걸렸고 당시 유일한 치료약인 퀴닌은 로마가톨릭의 예수회가 독점 판매하고 있었기 때문에 그의 평소 태도를 생각해 보면 투약을 거부했을 수도 있다.[118] 이어서 비뇨기 질환이나 신장 질환이 원인인 것으로 보이는 증상이 발생했는데 신장결석일 수 있다. 잉글랜드에 주재하고 있던 베네치아 공화국의 대사는 크롬웰의 병세가 급속히 악화되는 것을 보고 무언가 흑막이 있을 수 있다는 의심을 베네치아 총독에게 보고하였다. 크롬웰은 1658년 9월 3일 화이트홀에서 59세의 나이로 사망하였다.[119] 임종을 하며 크롬웰은 토머스 굿윈과 대화하면서 자신의 믿음이 신의 섭리에 따른 은혜라고 확신하였다.[120] 잉글랜드는 국왕의 서거에 따른 국장과 같은 격으로 성대한 장례식을 치르고 크롬웰의 시신을 웨스트민스터 사원에 안치하였다.[121]

호국경 지위는 법률상 세습되지 않는 것이었으나 크롬웰 사망후 그의 아들 리처드 크롬웰에게 계승되었다. 그러나 리처드는 아버지와 달리 군대 내의 지지 기반이 없었기 때문에 권력을 유지할 수 없었고 1659년 5월 사임하여 호국경 시대는 끝을 맺게 되었다. 다양한 파벌들 가운데 뚜렷하게 두각을 나타내는 집단이 없는 사이 왕당파이었다가 패전후 의회파로 전향하였던 조지 멍크는 왕정복고를 결심하고 신형군을 이끌고 런던으로 진군하여 장기의회를 복원하였다. 1660년 망명 생활을 마친 찰스 2세가 잉글랜드로 귀환하여 군주제가 부활하였다.[122]

찰스 2세는 자신의 아버지인 찰스 1세가 처형된 지 12주년이 되는 1661년 1월 30일 크롬웰의 시신을 웨스트민스터 사원에서 끄집어 내어 부관참시하였다. 크롬웰의 몸은 타이번의 구덩이에 던져졌고 머리는 의회가 열리는 웨스트민스터궁 밖의 기둥에 전시되었다. 아무도 감히 이 처분을 반대할 수 없는 상황이었기 때문에 크롬웰의 머리는 1685년 찰스 2세가 사망할 때까지 그 자리에 걸려있어야 하였다. 웨스트민스터궁의 기둥에서 내려진 크롬웰의 머리는 여러 차례 이 사람 저 사람의 손에 넘겨졌는데 종종 경매의 대상이 되기도 하였다. 1814년 조시아 헨리 윌킨스라는 사람이 경매에서 크롬웰의 머리를 사들였다는 기록이 남아있다.[123][124] 크롬웰의 머리는 1960년이 되어서야 그의 모교였던 케임브리지 대학교 시드니 서식스 컬리지에 안장될 수 있었다.[125][126] 정확한 안장 위치는 도난이나 훼손에 대한 우려 때문에 공개되어 있지 않다.[127]

크리스마스 금지

크롬웰은 청교도 정신 곧 성서주의에 근거하여 성탄절을 금지하였다. 마태복음서, 누가복음서에 예수의 탄생설화가 나오기는 하지만, 예수가 12월 25일에 태어났다는 이야기가 없기 때문일 것이다. 이러한 크롬웰의 종교적 원리주의는 사람들이 크롬웰에게서 등을 돌리는 원인들 중 하나로 작용했다.

같이 보기

각주

  1. Ó Siochrú, Micheál (2008). God's Executioner: Oliver Cromwell and the Conquest of Ireland. Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-24121-7.
  2. Worden, Blair (2012). God's Instruments: Political Conduct in the England of Oliver Cromwell. OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-957049-2.
  3. Churchill, Winston (1956), A History of English Speaking Peoples, Dodd, Mead & Company, p. 314
  4. 정토웅 (1998년 8월 27일). 《전쟁사 101장면》. 가람기획.
  5. Burch, Stuart (2003). On Stage at the Theatre of State: The Monuments and Memorials in Parliament Square, London. Nottingham Trent University. 18 August 2022
  6. Rejected petition - Remove the statue of Oliver Cromwell from outside Westminster., UK Government and Parliament
  7. Plant, David. “Oliver Cromwell 1599–1658”. British-civil-wars.co.uk. 2013년 7월 31일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2008년 11월 27일에 확인함.
  8. Lauder-Frost, Gregory, F.S.A.Scot., "East Anglian Stewarts" in The Scottish Genealogist, Dec.2004, vol.
  9. Morill, John.
  10. Carlyle, Thomas 편집 (1887). 《Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches》 1. 17쪽. 2023년 3월 19일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 7월 6일에 확인함.
  11. Gaunt, p. 31.
  12. Speech to the First Protectorate Parliament, 4 September 1654, (Roots 1989).
  13. British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Proctectorate 1638–1660
  14. Firth, Charles Harding (1888). "Cromwell, Oliver" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 13. London: Smith, Elder & Co. p. 156.
  15. Antonia Fraser, Cromwell: Our Chief of Men (1973), ISBN 0-297-76556-6, p. 24.
  16. John Morrill, (1990). "The Making of Oliver Cromwell", in Morrill, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (Longman), ISBN 0-582-01675-4, p. 24.
  17. British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Proctectorate 1638–1660
  18. “Cromwell's family”. The Cromwell Association. 2017년 9월 12일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  19. Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (1901).
  20. Morrill, John (1990). "The Making of Oliver Cromwell", in Morrill, John (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution Longman, ISBN 0-582-01675-4.
  21. Morrill, John (1990). "The Making of Oliver Cromwell", in Morrill, John (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution Longman, ISBN 0-582-01675-4.
  22. “A unique leader”. BBC. 2019년 3월 20일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2019년 4월 13일에 확인함.
  23. Gaunt, Peter (1996). Oliver Cromwell Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-18356-6. Short biography. p. 34.
  24. “Oliver Cromwell”. British Civil Wars Project. 2017년 8월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  25. Morrill, John (1990). "The Making of Oliver Cromwell", in Morrill, John (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution Longman, ISBN 0-582-01675-4.
  26. Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, by Antonia Fraser, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1973
  27. Adamson, John (1990), "Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament", in Morrill, John (ed.), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, Longman, ISBN 0-582-01675-4
  28. David Plant. “1643: Civil War in Lincolnshire”. British-civil-wars.co.uk. 2008년 12월 11일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2008년 11월 27일에 확인함.
  29. “Fenland riots”. 《www.elystandard.co.uk》. 2006년 12월 7일. 2019년 1월 13일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2019년 1월 12일에 확인함.
  30. “Oliver Cromwell”. British Civil Wars Project. 2017년 8월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  31. Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, by Antonia Fraser, London 1973, ISBN 0297765566, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, pp. 120–129.
  32. Oliver Cromwell’s letter to Colonel Valentine Walton, conveying good and bad news arising from the battle of Marston Moor, 5 July 1644
  33. “The Battle of Marston Moor”. British Civil Wars. 2015년 4월 30일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 6월 21일에 확인함.
  34. Letter to Sir William Spring, September 1643, quoted in Carlyle, Thomas (ed.) (1904 edition).
  35. “Sermons of Rev Martin Camoux: Oliver Cromwell”. 2009년 5월 16일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서.
  36. 《A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist Opening the Secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichristian Doctrine of John Saltmarsh and Will. del, the Present Preachers of the Army Now in England, and of Robert Town》. 1648.
  37. “Oliver Cromwell”. British Civil Wars Project. 2017년 8월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  38. Kenyon, John & Ohlmeyer, Jane (eds.) (2000).
  39. “Oliver Cromwell”. British Civil Wars Project. 2017년 8월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  40. Woolrych, Austin (1990).
  41. Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, by Antonia Fraser, London 1973, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-76556-6, pp. 154–161
  42. “A lasting place in history”. Saffron Walden Reporter. 2007년 5월 10일. 2017년 8월 6일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  43. Ashley, Maurice (1957). 《The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell》. London: Collier- Macmillan LTD. 187–190쪽.
  44. Although there is debate over whether Cromwell and Ireton were the authors of the Heads of Proposals or acting on behalf of Saye and Sele: Adamson, John (1987).
  45. Woolrych, Austin (1987).
  46. See The Levellers: The Putney Debates, Texts selected and annotated by Philip Baker, Introduction by Geoffrey Robertson QC.
  47. “Spartacus: Rowland Laugharne at Spartacus.Schoolnet.co.uk”. 2008년 10월 25일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서.
  48. Gardiner (1901), pp. 144–47; Gaunt (1997) 94–97.
  49. Morrill and Baker (2008), p. 31.
  50. Adamson, pp. 76–84.
  51. Jendrysik, p. 79
  52. Macaulay, p. 68
  53. “Oliver Cromwell”. British Civil Wars Project. 2017년 8월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  54. Coward 1991, p. 65
  55. “Death Warrant of King Charles I”. UK Parliament. 2017년 8월 6일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  56. Hart, Ben. “Oliver Cromwell Destroys the "Divine Right of Kings"”. 2015년 11월 7일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  57. Gentles, Ian (2011). 《Oliver Cromwell》. Macmillan Distribution Ltd. 82쪽. ISBN 978-0-333-71356-3.
  58. “The Regicides”. The Brish Civil wars Project. 2018년 2월 22일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  59. “Oliver Cromwell”. British Civil Wars Project. 2017년 8월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  60. David Plant (2005년 12월 14일). “The Levellers”. British-civil-wars.co.uk. 2008년 5월 13일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2012년 6월 14일에 확인함.
  61. Quoted in Lenihan, Padraig (2000).
  62. Fraser, pp. 74–76.
  63. Fraser, pp. 326–328.
  64. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.98.
  65. Cromwell, Oliver (1846). Thomas Carlyle (편집). 《"Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, with elucidations"》. William H. Colyer. 128쪽. 2023년 3월 19일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2010년 1월 22일에 확인함.
  66. Fraser, Antonia (1973).
  67. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.100.
  68. Fraser, pp. 321–322; Lenihan 2000, p.113.
  69. Fraser, p. 355.
  70. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.100.
  71. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.314.
  72. “Act for the Settlement of Ireland, 12 August 1652, Henry Scobell, ii. 197. See Commonwealth and Protectorate, iv. 82-5.”. the Constitution Society. 2008년 5월 9일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2008년 2월 14일에 확인함.
  73. Lenihan 2007, pp. 135–136
  74. Christopher Hill, 1972, God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, Penguin Books: London, p.108: "The brutality of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland is not one of the pleasanter aspects of our hero's career .
  75. Barry Coward, 1991, Oliver Cromwell, Pearson Education: Rugby, p.74: "Revenge was not Cromwell's only motive for the brutality he condoned at Wexford and Drogheda, but it was the dominant one .
  76. Philip McKeiver, 2007, A New History of Cromwell's Irish Campaign
  77. Ó Siochrú, Micheál (2008). God's Executioner: Oliver Cromwell and the Conquest of Ireland. Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-24121-7.
  78. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.98.
  79. Lenihan 2000, p. 1022; "After Cromwell returned to England in 1650, the conflict degenerated into a grindingly slow counter-insurgency campaign punctuated by some quite protracted sieges...the famine of 1651 onwards was a man-made response to stubborn guerrilla warfare.
  80. Carlyle, Thomas (1897). “Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches II: Letters from Ireland, 1649 and 1650”. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London. 2017년 8월 14일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  81. Lenihan 2000, p. 115.
  82. Gardiner (1901), p. 184.
  83. Stevenson, David (1990).
  84. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.66.
  85. Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, by Antonia Fraser, London 1973, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-76556-6, pp. 385–389.
  86. Williams, Mark; Forrest, Stephen Paul (2010). 《Constructing the Past: Writing Irish History, 1600–1800》. Boydell & Brewer. 160쪽. ISBN 9781843835738.
  87. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.306.
  88. Parker, Geoffrey (2003).
  89. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer, p.320.
  90. Fitzgibbons, Jonathan (2022). “'To settle a governement without somthing of Monarchy in it': Bulstrode Whitelocke's Memoirs and the Reinvention of the Interregnum”. 《The English Historical Review》 137 (586): 655–691. doi:10.1093/ehr/ceac126. 2022년 8월 16일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2022년 8월 16일에 확인함.
  91. Worden, Blair (1977).
  92. Abbott, p. 643
  93. Abbott, pp. 642–643.
  94. “Charles Worsley”. British Civil Wars Project. 2016년 3월 7일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  95. Roots 1989, 8–27쪽.
  96. Woolrych, Austin (1982).
  97. Gaunt, p. 155.
  98. Gaunt, p. 156.
  99. 《A History of Britain – The Stuarts》. Ladybird. 1991. ISBN 0-7214-3370-7.
  100. Hirst, Derek (1990).
  101. Quoted in Hirst, p. 127.
  102. “Cromwell, At the Opening of Parliament Under the Protectorate (1654)”. Strecorsoc.org. 2011년 9월 26일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2008년 11월 27일에 확인함.
  103. “First Anglo-Dutch War”. British Civil Wars project. 2017년 7월 15일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  104. Lieutenant Governors of Newfoundland and Labrador 보관됨 22 9월 2019 - 웨이백 머신 at geni.com.
  105. Fischer, David Hackett (1991) [1989]. 〈The South of England to Virginia: Distressed Cavaliers and Indentured Servants, 1642–75〉. 《Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America》. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 219–220쪽. ISBN 9780195069051. 2023년 3월 19일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 8월 6일에 확인함.
  106. Roots 1989, pp. 41–56.
  107. Aylmer, G.E., Rebellion or Revolution?
  108. Hirst, p. 173.
  109. Durston, Christopher (1998).
  110. Clinton Black, The Story of Jamaica from Prehistory to the Present (London: Collins, 1965), pp. 48–50
  111. Hirst, p. 137.
  112. Coulton, Barbara. “Cromwell and the 'readmission' of the Jews to England, 1656” (PDF). 《The Cromwell Association》. Lancaster University. 2017년 4월 20일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2017년 4월 23일에 확인함.
  113. Carlyle, Thomas, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches with Elucidations, London, Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1897, pp. 109–113 and 114–115
  114. Morrill, John (editor), Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, 1990, pp. 137–138, 190, and 211–213.
  115. Manganiello, Stephen, The Concise Encyclopedia of the Revolutions and Wars of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1639–1660, Scarecrow Press, 2004, 613 p., ISBN 9780810851009, p. 539.
  116. Roots 1989, p. 128.
  117. “Hereditary Succession and the Cromwellian Protectorate: The Offer of the Crown Reconsidered”. 《academic.oup.com》. 2022년 8월 15일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2022년 8월 15일에 확인함.
  118. 보관됨 7 8월 2019 - 웨이백 머신The New Yorker, 5 August 2019 How Mosquitoes Changed Everything by Brooke Jarvis
  119. Gaunt, p. 204.
  120. Goodwin, Thomas. (2009). 《A Habitual Sight of Him : the Christ-Centered Piety of Thomas Goodwin.》. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. ISBN 978-1-60178-231-1.
  121. “Cromwell's head”. 《Cambridge County Council》. 2010. 2010년 3월 11일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 7월 5일에 확인함.
  122. “MONCK, George (1608–70), of Potheridge, Merton, Devon. – History of Parliament Online”. 2016년 3월 6일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 7월 30일에 확인함.
  123. Staff.
  124. Terri Schlichenmeyer (2007년 8월 21일). “Missing body parts of famous people”. 《CNN》. 2020년 9월 15일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2008년 11월 27일에 확인함.
  125. “Cromwell's head”. 《Cambridge County Council》. 2010. 2010년 3월 11일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2016년 7월 5일에 확인함.
  126. Gaunt, p. 4.
  127. Larson, Frances (August 2014). “Severance Package”. 《Harper's Magazine》 (Harper's Magazine Foundation) 329 (1971): 22–5.

참고 문헌

외부 링크

전임
잉글랜드 호국경 추밀원에 의한 통치기		잉글랜드, 스코틀랜드와 아일랜드 공화국의 호국경
1653년-1658년		후임
리처드 크롬웰


Oliver Cromwell

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
His Highness
Oliver Cromwell
1656 portrait by Samuel Cooper
Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland
In office
16 December 1653 – 3 September 1658
Preceded byCouncil of State
Succeeded byRichard Cromwell
Member of Parliament
In office
29 February 1640 – 20 April 1653
Preceded byThomas Purchase
Succeeded byRichard Timbs
ConstituencyCambridge
In office
31 January 1628 – 3 March 1629
Preceded byArthur Mainwaring
Succeeded byParliament dissolved
ConstituencyHuntingdon
Personal details
Born25 April 1599
Huntingdon, Kingdom of England
Died3 September 1658 (aged 59)
Westminster, The Protectorate
Resting placeSidney Sussex College, Cambridge (head)
Spouse
​
(m. 1620)​
RelativesCromwell family
EducationSidney Sussex College, Cambridge
OccupationSoldier and statesman
Signature
Nicknames
  • Old Noll[1]
  • Old Ironsides
Military service
AllegianceKingdom of England (pre-1642)
Parliamentarian (1642–1651)
Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1651–1658)
Branch/service
Years of service
Pre-1642 (militia service)
1642–1651 (civil war)
Rank
  • Colonel (1642 – bef. 1644)
  • Lieutenant-General of Horse (bef. 1644 – 1645)
  • Lieutenant-General of Cavalry (1645–1646)
Commands
  • Cambridgeshire Ironsides (1643 – bef. 1644)
  • Eastern Association (bef. 1644 – 1645)
  • New Model Army (1645–1653)
Battles/wars
See list

Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English statesman and soldier, widely regarded as one of the most important figures in British history. He came to prominence during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, initially as a senior commander in the Parliamentarian army and later as a politician. A leading advocate of the execution of Charles I in January 1649, which led to the establishment of the Commonwealth of England, Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658.

Although elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Huntingdon in 1628, much of Cromwell's life prior to 1640 was marked by financial and personal failure. He became a religious Independent in the 1630s, and thereafter believed his successes were the result of divine providence. In 1640, he served as MP for Cambridge in the Short and Long Parliaments. He joined the Parliamentarian army when the First English Civil War began in August 1642 and quickly demonstrated his military prowess. In 1645, he was appointed commander of the New Model Army cavalry under Thomas Fairfax, and he played a key role in winning the English Civil War.

The death of Charles I and exile of his son Charles II, followed by military victories in Ireland and Scotland, firmly established the Commonwealth and Cromwell's dominance of the new regime. In December 1653, he was named Lord Protector,[a] a position he retained for the remaining five years of his life. After his death in 1658, he was succeeded by his son Richard, whose weakness led to a power vacuum. This culminated in the 1660 Stuart Restoration, after which Cromwell's body was removed from Westminster Abbey and hanged at Tyburn on 30 January 1661 as a posthumous execution. His head was cut off and displayed on the roof of Westminster Hall. It remained there until at least 1684, then spent the next three centuries in a succession of private collections before being reburied in 1960.[2]

Cromwell's historical reputation is continually debated. He is a controversial figure due to his use of military force to acquire and retain political power, his role in the execution of Charles I, and the brutality of his 1649 conquest of Ireland.[3] Winston Churchill described Cromwell as a military dictator,[4] while others view him a hero of liberty.[5]

First proposed in 1856, his statue outside the Houses of Parliament was not erected until 1895, with most of the funds privately supplied by Prime Minister Archibald Primrose.[6]

Early life

Cromwell's House in Ely

Oliver Cromwell was born in Huntingdon on 25 April 1599[7] to Robert Cromwell and his second wife Elizabeth, daughter of William Steward.[8] His birthplace, the Grade II listed Cromwell House, was at that time the site of Huntingdon Priory, and is commemorated by a plaque.[9] The family's estate derived from Oliver's great-great-grandfather Morgan ap William, a brewer from Glamorgan, Wales, who settled at Putney and married Katherine Cromwell, the sister of Thomas Cromwell, who would become the famous chief minister to Henry VIII. The Cromwells acquired great wealth as occasional beneficiaries of Thomas's administration of the Dissolution of the Monasteries.[10]

Oliver's father Robert Williams, alias Cromwell, married Elizabeth Steward, probably in 1591. Cromwell's paternal grandfather, Henry Williams, was one of the two wealthiest landowners in Huntingdonshire. Cromwell's father was of modest means but still a member of the landed gentry. As a younger son with many siblings, Robert inherited only a house at Huntingdon and a small amount of land. This land would have generated an income of up to £300 a year, near the bottom of the range of gentry incomes.[11] In 1654 Cromwell said, "I was by birth a gentleman, living neither in considerable height, nor yet in obscurity."[12] They had ten children, but Oliver, the fifth child, was the only boy to survive infancy.[13] Oliver Cromwell was baptised on 29 April 1599 at St John's Church,[14] and attended Huntingdon Grammar School. He went on to study at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, then a recently founded college with a strong Puritan ethos. He left in June 1617 without taking a degree, immediately after his father's death.[15] Early biographers claim that he then attended Lincoln's Inn, but the Inn's archives retain no record of him.[16] Antonia Fraser concludes that it is likely that he did train at one of the London Inns of Court during this time.[17] His grandfather, his father and two of his uncles had attended Lincoln's Inn, and Cromwell sent his son Richard there in 1647.[17]

Cromwell probably returned home to Huntingdon after his father's death. As his mother was widowed, and his seven sisters unmarried, he would have been needed at home to help his family.[18]

Marriage and family

Portrait of Cromwell's wife Elizabeth Bourchier

Cromwell married Elizabeth Bourchier (1598–1665) on 22 August 1620 at St Giles-without-Cripplegate on Fore Street, London.[14] Elizabeth's father, James Bourchier, was a London leather-merchant who owned extensive lands in Essex and had strong connections with Puritan gentry families there. The marriage brought Cromwell into contact with Oliver St John and leading members of London's merchant community, and behind them the influence of the Earls of Warwick and Holland. A place in this influential network proved crucial to Cromwell's military and political career. The couple had nine children:[19]

Crisis and recovery

Little evidence exists of Cromwell's religion in his early years. His 1626 letter to Henry Downhall, an Arminian minister, suggests that he had yet to be influenced by radical Puritanism.[22] But there is evidence that Cromwell underwent a personal crisis during the late 1620s and early 1630s. In 1628 he was elected to Parliament from the Huntingdonshire county town of Huntingdon. Later that year, he sought treatment from the Swiss-born London doctor Théodore de Mayerne for a variety of physical and emotional ailments, including valde melancholicus (depression). In 1629 Cromwell became involved in a dispute among the gentry of Huntingdon involving a new charter for the town. As a result, he was called before the Privy Council in 1630.[23]

In 1631, likely as a result of the dispute, Cromwell sold most of his properties in Huntingdon and moved to a farmstead in nearby St Ives. This move, a significant step down in society for the Cromwells, also had significant emotional and spiritual impact on Cromwell; an extant 1638 letter from him to his cousin, the wife of Oliver St John, gives an account of his spiritual awakening at this time in which he describes himself as having been the "chief of sinners", describes his calling as among "the congregation of the firstborn".[22] The letter's language, particularly the inclusion of numerous biblical quotations, shows Cromwell's belief that he was saved from his previous sins by God's mercy, and indicates his religiously Independent beliefs, chief among them that the Reformation had not gone far enough, that much of England was still living in sin, and that Catholic beliefs and practices must be fully removed from the church.[22] It appears that in 1634 Cromwell attempted to emigrate to what became the Connecticut Colony in the Americas, but was prevented by the government from leaving.[24]

Along with his brother Henry, Cromwell had kept a smallholding of chickens and sheep, selling eggs and wool to support himself, his lifestyle resembling that of a yeoman farmer. In 1636, Cromwell inherited control of various properties in Ely from his uncle on his mother's side, and his uncle's job as tithe-collector for Ely Cathedral. As a result, his income is likely to have risen to around £300–400 per year.[25] By the end of the 1630s, Cromwell had returned to the ranks of acknowledged gentry. He had become a committed Puritan and had established important family links to leading families in London and Essex.[26]

Member of Parliament: 1628–1629 and 1640–1642

Cromwell became the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon in the Parliament of 1628–1629, as a client of the Montagu family of Hinchingbrooke House. He made little impression: parliamentary records show only one speech (against the Arminian Bishop Richard Neile), which was poorly received.[27] After dissolving this Parliament, Charles I ruled without a Parliament for the next 11 years. When Charles faced the Scottish rebellion in the Bishops' Wars, lack of funds forced him to call a Parliament again in 1640. Cromwell was returned to this Parliament as member for Cambridge, but it lasted for only three weeks and became known as the Short Parliament. Cromwell moved his family from Ely to London in 1640.[28] A second Parliament was called later the same year and became known as the Long Parliament. Cromwell was again returned as member for Cambridge. As with the Parliament of 1628–29, it is likely that he owed his position to the patronage of others, which might explain why in the first week of the Parliament he was in charge of presenting a petition for the release of John Lilburne, who had become a Puritan cause célèbre after his arrest for importing religious tracts from the Netherlands. For the Long Parliament's first two years, Cromwell was linked to the godly group of aristocrats in the House of Lords and Members of the House of Commons with whom he had established familial and religious links in the 1630s, such as the Earls of Essex, Warwick and Bedford, Oliver St John and Viscount Saye and Sele.[29] At this stage, the group had an agenda of reformation: the executive checked by regular parliaments, and the moderate extension of liberty of conscience. Cromwell appears to have taken a role in some of this group's political manoeuvres. In May 1641, for example, he put forward the second reading of the Annual Parliaments Bill, and he later took a role in drafting the Root and Branch Bill for the abolition of episcopacy.[30]

English Civil War begins

Failure to resolve the issues before the Long Parliament led to armed conflict between Parliament and Charles I in late 1642, the beginning of the English Civil War. Before he joined Parliament's forces, Cromwell's only military experience was in the trained bands, the local county militia. He recruited a cavalry troop in Cambridgeshire after blocking a valuable shipment of silver plate from Cambridge colleges that was meant for the King. Cromwell and his troop then rode to, but arrived too late to take part in, the indecisive Battle of Edgehill on 23 October 1642. The troop was recruited to be a full regiment in the winter of 1642–1643, making up part of the Eastern Association under Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester. Cromwell gained experience in successful actions in East Anglia in 1643, notably at the Battle of Gainsborough on 28 July.[31] He was subsequently appointed the governor of the Isle of Ely[32] and a colonel in the Eastern Association.[26]

Marston Moor, 1644

By the time of the Battle of Marston Moor in July 1644, Cromwell had risen to the rank of lieutenant general of horse in Manchester's army. His cavalry's success in breaking the ranks of the Royalist cavalry and then attacking their infantry from the rear at Marston Moor was a major factor in the Parliamentarian victory. Cromwell fought at the head of his troops in the battle and was slightly wounded in the neck, stepping away briefly to receive treatment but returning to help secure the victory.[33] After Cromwell's nephew was killed at Marston Moor, he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law, Valentine Walton. Marston Moor secured the north of England for the Parliamentarians but failed to end Royalist resistance.[34]

The indecisive outcome of the Second Battle of Newbury in October meant that by the end of 1644 the war still showed no sign of ending. Cromwell's experience at Newbury, where Manchester had let the King's army slip out of an encircling manoeuvre, led to a serious dispute with Manchester, whom he believed to be less than enthusiastic in his conduct of the war. Manchester later accused Cromwell of recruiting men of "low birth" as officers in the army, to which he replied: "If you choose godly honest men to be captains of horse, honest men will follow them ... I would rather have a plain russet-coated captain who knows what he fights for and loves what he knows than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else".[35] At this time, Cromwell also fell into dispute with Major-General Lawrence Crawford, a Scottish Covenanter attached to Manchester's army, who objected to Cromwell's encouragement of unorthodox Independents and Anabaptists.[36] He was also charged with familism by the Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford in response to his letter to the House of Commons in 1645.[37]

Battle of Naseby, 1645

Cromwell at the Battle of Naseby by Charles Landseer, 1851

At the critical Battle of Naseby in June 1645, the New Model Army smashed the King's major army. Cromwell led his wing with great success at Naseby, again routing the Royalist cavalry. At the Battle of Langport on 10 July, Cromwell participated in the defeat of the last sizeable Royalist field army. Naseby and Langport effectively ended the King's hopes of victory, and the subsequent Parliamentarian campaigns involved taking the remaining fortified Royalist positions in the west of England. In October 1645, Cromwell besieged and took the wealthy and formidable Catholic fortress Basing House, later to be accused of killing 100 of its 300-man Royalist garrison after its surrender.[38] He also took part in successful sieges at Bridgwater, Sherborne, Bristol, Devizes and Winchester, then spent the first half of 1646 mopping up resistance in Devon and Cornwall. Charles I surrendered to the Scots on 5 May 1646, effectively ending the First English Civil War. Cromwell and Fairfax took the Royalists' formal surrender at Oxford in June.[26]

Politics: 1647–1649

In February 1647, Cromwell suffered from an illness that kept him out of political life for over a month. By the time he recovered, the Parliamentarians were split over the issue of the King. A majority in both Houses pushed for a settlement that would pay off the Scottish army, disband much of the New Model Army, and restore Charles I in return for a Presbyterian settlement of the church. Cromwell rejected the Scottish model of Presbyterianism, which threatened to replace one authoritarian hierarchy with another. The New Model Army, radicalised by Parliament's failure to pay the wages it was owed, petitioned against these changes, but the Commons declared the petition unlawful. In May 1647 Cromwell was sent to the army's headquarters in Saffron Walden to negotiate with them, but failed to agree.[39]

In June 1647, a troop of cavalry under Cornet George Joyce seized the King from Parliament's imprisonment. With the King now present, Cromwell was eager to find out what conditions the King would acquiesce to if his authority was restored. The King appeared to be willing to compromise, so Cromwell employed his son-in-law, Henry Ireton, to draw up proposals for a constitutional settlement. Proposals were drafted multiple times with different changes until finally the "Heads of Proposals" pleased Cromwell in principle and allowed for further negotiations.[40] It was designed to check the powers of the executive, to set up regularly elected parliaments, and to restore a non-compulsory episcopalian settlement.[b]

Many in the army, such as the Levellers led by John Lilburne, thought this was not enough and demanded full political equality for all men, leading to tense debates in Putney during the autumn of 1647 between Fairfax, Cromwell, and Ireton on the one hand, and Levellers like Colonel Rainsborough on the other. The Putney Debates broke up without reaching a resolution.[43][44]

Second Civil War & King's execution

The trial of Charles I on 4 January 1649

The failure to conclude a political agreement with the King led eventually to the outbreak of the Second English Civil War in 1648, when the King tried to regain power by force of arms. Cromwell first put down a Royalist uprising in south Wales led by Rowland Laugharne, winning back Chepstow Castle on 25 May and six days later forcing the surrender of Tenby. The castle at Carmarthen was destroyed by burning; the much stronger castle at Pembroke fell only after an eight-week siege. Cromwell dealt leniently with ex-Royalist soldiers, but less so with those who had formerly been members of the parliamentary army, John Poyer eventually being executed in London after the drawing of lots.[45]

Cromwell then marched north to deal with a pro-Royalist Scottish army (the Engagers) who had invaded England. At Preston, in sole command for the first time and with an army of 9,000, he won a decisive victory against an army twice as large.[46][47]

During 1648, Cromwell's letters and speeches started to become heavily based on biblical imagery, many of them meditations on the meaning of particular passages. For example, after the battle of Preston, study of Psalms 17 and 105 led him to tell Parliament that "they that are implacable and will not leave troubling the land may be speedily destroyed out of the land". A letter to Oliver St John in September 1648 urged him to read Isaiah 8, in which the kingdom falls and only the godly survive. On four occasions in letters in 1648 he referred to the story of Gideon's defeat of the Midianites at Ain Harod.[48] These letters suggest that it was Cromwell's faith, rather than a commitment to radical politics, coupled with Parliament's decision to engage in negotiations with the King at the Treaty of Newport, that convinced him that God had spoken against both the King and Parliament as lawful authorities. For Cromwell, the army was now God's chosen instrument.[49] The episode shows Cromwell's firm belief in Providentialism—that God was actively directing the affairs of the world, through the actions of "chosen people" (whom God had "provided" for such purposes). During the Civil Wars, Cromwell believed that he was one of these people, and he interpreted victories as indications of God's approval and defeats as signs that God was pointing him in another direction.[50]

In December 1648, in an episode that became known as Pride's Purge, a troop of soldiers headed by Colonel Thomas Pride forcibly removed from the Long Parliament all those who were not supporters of the Grandees in the New Model Army and the Independents.[51] Thus weakened, the remaining body of MPs, known as the Rump Parliament, agreed that Charles should be tried for treason. Cromwell was still in the north of England, dealing with Royalist resistance, when these events took place, but then returned to London. On the day after Pride's Purge, he became a determined supporter of those pushing for the King's trial and execution, believing that killing Charles was the only way to end the civil wars.[26] Cromwell approved Thomas Brook's address to the House of Commons, which justified the trial and the King's execution on the basis of the Book of Numbers, chapter 35 and particularly verse 33 ("The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.").[52]

Charles's death warrant was signed by 59 of the trying court's members, including Cromwell (the third to sign it).[53] Though it was not unprecedented, execution of the King, or regicide, was controversial, if for no other reason than the doctrine of the divine right of kings.[54] Thus, even after a trial, it was difficult to get ordinary men to go along with it: "None of the officers charged with supervising the execution wanted to sign the order for the actual beheading, so they brought their dispute to Cromwell...Oliver seized a pen and scribbled out the order, and handed the pen to the second officer, Colonel Hacker who stooped to sign it. The execution could now proceed."[55] Although Fairfax conspicuously refused to sign,[56] Charles I was executed on 30 January 1649.[26]

Establishment of the Commonwealth: 1649

Arms of the Commonwealth

After the King's execution, a republic was declared, known as the Commonwealth of England. The "Rump Parliament" exercised both executive and legislative powers, with a smaller Council of State also having some executive functions. Cromwell remained a member of the Rump and was appointed a member of the council. In the early months after Charles's execution, Cromwell tried but failed to unite the original "Royal Independents" led by St John and Saye and Sele, which had fractured during 1648. Cromwell had been connected to this group since before the outbreak of civil war in 1642 and had been closely associated with them during the 1640s. Only St John was persuaded to retain his seat in Parliament. The Royalists, meanwhile, had regrouped in Ireland, having signed a treaty with the Irish known as Confederate Catholics. In March, the Rump chose Cromwell to command a campaign against them. Preparations for an invasion of Ireland occupied him in the subsequent months. In the latter part of the 1640s, Cromwell came across political dissidence in the New Model Army. The Leveller or Agitator movement was a political movement that emphasised popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance. These sentiments were expressed in the 1647 manifesto: Agreement of the People. Cromwell and the rest of the "Grandees" disagreed with these sentiments in that they gave too much freedom to the people; they believed that the vote should extend only to the landowners. In the Putney Debates of 1647, the two groups debated these topics in hopes of forming a new constitution for England. Rebellions and mutinies followed the debates, and in 1649, the Bishopsgate mutiny resulted in the Leveller Robert Lockyer's execution by firing squad. The next month, the Banbury mutiny occurred with similar results. Cromwell led the charge in quelling these rebellions. After quelling Leveller mutinies within the English army at Andover and Burford in May, he departed for Ireland from Bristol at the end of July.[57]

Irish campaign: 1649–1650

Portrait of Oliver Cromwell by Robert Walker, c. 1649, on display at the National Portrait Gallery

Cromwell led a Parliamentary invasion of Ireland from 1649 to 1650. Parliament's key opposition was the military threat posed by the alliance of the Irish Confederate Catholics and English royalists (signed in 1649). The Confederate-Royalist alliance was judged to be the biggest single threat facing the Commonwealth. However, the political situation in Ireland in 1649 was extremely fractured: there were also separate forces of Irish Catholics who were opposed to the Royalist alliance, and Protestant Royalist forces that were gradually moving towards Parliament. Cromwell said in a speech to the army Council on 23 March that "I had rather be overthrown by a Cavalierish interest than a Scotch interest; I had rather be overthrown by a Scotch interest than an Irish interest and I think of all this is the most dangerous".[58]

Cromwell's hostility to the Irish was religious as well as political. He was passionately opposed to the Catholic Church, which he saw as denying the primacy of the Bible in favour of papal and clerical authority, and which he blamed for suspected tyranny and persecution of Protestants in continental Europe.[59] Cromwell's association of Catholicism with persecution was deepened with the Irish Rebellion of 1641. This rebellion, although intended to be bloodless, was marked by massacres of English and Scottish Protestant settlers by Irish ("Gaels") and Old English in Ireland, and Highland Scot Catholics in Ireland. These settlers had settled on land seized from former, native Catholic owners to make way for the non-native Protestants. These factors contributed to the brutality of the Cromwell military campaign in Ireland.[60]

Parliament had planned to re-conquer Ireland since 1641 and had already sent an invasion force there in 1647. Cromwell's invasion of 1649 was much larger and, with the civil war in England over, could be regularly reinforced and supplied. His nine-month military campaign was brief and effective, though it did not end the war in Ireland. Before his invasion, Parliamentarian forces held outposts only in Dublin and Derry. When he departed Ireland, they occupied most of the eastern and northern parts of the country. After he landed at Dublin on 15 August 1649 (itself only recently defended from an Irish and English Royalist attack at the Battle of Rathmines), Cromwell took the fortified port towns of Drogheda and Wexford to secure the supply lines from England. At the Siege of Drogheda in September 1649, his troops killed nearly 3,500 people after the town's capture—around 2,700 Royalist soldiers and all the men in the town carrying arms, including some civilians, prisoners and Roman Catholic priests.[61] Cromwell wrote afterwards:

I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.[62]

At the Siege of Wexford in October, another massacre took place under confused circumstances. While Cromwell was apparently trying to negotiate surrender terms, some of his soldiers broke into the town, killed 2,000 Irish troops and up to 1,500 civilians and burned much of the town.[63][64]

After taking Drogheda, Cromwell sent a column north to Ulster to secure the north of the country and went on to conduct the Siege of Waterford, Kilkenny and Clonmel in Ireland's south-east. The Siege of Kilkenny was protracted but was eventually forced to surrender on terms, as did many other towns like New Ross and Carlow, but Cromwell failed to take Waterford, and at the siege of Clonmel in May 1650 he lost up to 2,000 men in abortive assaults before the town surrendered.[65]

One of Cromwell's major victories in Ireland was diplomatic rather than military. With the help of Roger Boyle, 1st Earl of Orrery, he persuaded the Protestant Royalist troops in Cork to change sides and fight with the Parliament.[66][67] At this point, word reached Cromwell that Charles II (son of Charles I) had landed in Scotland from exile in France and been proclaimed King by the Covenanter regime. Cromwell returned to England from Youghal on 26 May 1650 to counter this threat.[68]

The Parliamentarian conquest of Ireland dragged on for almost three years after Cromwell's departure. The campaigns under Cromwell's successors Henry Ireton and Edmund Ludlow consisted mostly of long sieges of fortified cities and guerrilla warfare in the countryside, with English troops suffering from attacks by Irish toráidhe (guerilla fighters). The last Catholic-held town, Galway, surrendered in April 1652 and the last Irish Catholic troops capitulated in April 1653 in County Cavan.[65]

In the wake of the Commonwealth's conquest of the island of Ireland, public practice of Roman Catholicism was banned and Catholic priests were killed when captured.[69] All Catholic-owned lands were confiscated under the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652 and given to Scottish and English settlers, Parliament's financial creditors and Parliamentary soldiers.[70] Remaining Catholic landowners were allocated poorer land in the province of Connacht, facing execution if they refused to relocate, and thus giving rise to the phrase "To hell or to Connacht."[71]

Scottish campaign: 1650–1651

Scots proclaim Charles II as King

Moray House on the Royal Mile, Cromwell's residence in Edinburgh where he implored the Assembly of the Kirk to stop supporting Charles II

Cromwell left Ireland in May 1650 and several months later invaded Scotland after the Scots had proclaimed Charles I's son Charles II as King. Cromwell was much less hostile to Scottish Presbyterians, some of whom had been his allies in the First English Civil War, than he was to Irish Catholics. He described the Scots as a people "fearing His [God's] name, though deceived".[72] He made a famous appeal to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, urging them to see the error of the royal alliance—"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."[73] The Scots' reply was robust: "would you have us to be sceptics in our religion?" This decision to negotiate with Charles II led Cromwell to believe that war was necessary.[74]

Battle of Dunbar

His appeal was rejected. Cromwell's veteran troops went on to invade Scotland. At first, the campaign went badly, as Cromwell's men were short of supplies and held up at fortifications manned by Scottish troops under David Leslie. Sickness began to spread in the ranks. Cromwell was on the brink of evacuating his army by sea from Dunbar. However, on 3 September 1650, unexpectedly, Cromwell smashed the main Scottish army at the Battle of Dunbar, killing 4,000 Scottish soldiers, taking another 10,000 prisoner, and then capturing the Scottish capital of Edinburgh.[75] The victory was of such a magnitude that Cromwell called it "A high act of the Lord's Providence to us [and] one of the most signal mercies God hath done for England and His people".[75]

Battle of Worcester

Citadel Archway built by Cromwell soldiers in 1656 in Leith, Edinburgh

The following year, Charles II and his Scottish allies made an attempt to invade England and capture London while Cromwell was engaged in Scotland. Cromwell followed them south and caught them at Worcester on 3 September 1651, and his forces destroyed the last major Scottish Royalist army at the Battle of Worcester. Charles II barely escaped capture and fled to exile in France and the Netherlands, where he remained until 1660.[76]

To fight the battle, Cromwell organised an envelopment followed by a multi-pronged coordinated attack on Worcester, his forces attacking from three directions with two rivers partitioning them. He switched his reserves from one side of the river Severn to the other and then back again. Cromwell's success at Worcester relied on a degree of manoeuvre that the English parliamentary armies had not been skilled enough to execute at the start of the war, such as at the Battle of Turnham Green.[77]

In the final stages of the Scottish campaign, Cromwell's men under George Monck sacked Dundee, killing up to 1,000 men and 140 women and children.[78] Scotland was ruled from England during the Commonwealth and was kept under military occupation, with a line of fortifications sealing off the Highlands which had provided manpower for Royalist armies in Scotland. The northwest Highlands was the scene of another pro-Royalist uprising in 1653–1655, which was put down with deployment of 6,000 English troops there.[79] Presbyterianism was allowed to be practised as before, but the Kirk (the Scottish Church) did not have the backing of the civil courts to impose its rulings, as it had previously.[80]

Return to England and dissolution of the Rump Parliament: 1651–1653

Cromwell was away on campaign from the middle of 1649 until 1651, and the various factions in Parliament began to fight amongst themselves with the King gone as their "common cause". Cromwell tried to galvanise the Rump into setting dates for new elections, uniting the three kingdoms under one polity, and to put in place a broad-brush, tolerant national church. The Rump vacillated in setting election dates, although it established a basic liberty of conscience, but it failed to produce an alternative for tithes or to dismantle other aspects of the existing religious settlement. According to the parliamentarian lawyer Bulstrode Whitelocke, Cromwell began to contemplate taking the Crown for himself around this time, though the evidence for this is retrospective and dubious.[81]

Cromwell demanded that the Rump establish a caretaker government in April 1653 of 40 members drawn from the Rump and the army, and then abdicate but the Rump returned to debating its own bill for a new government.[82] Cromwell was so angered by this that he cleared the chamber and dissolved the Parliament by force on 20 April 1653, supported by about 40 musketeers. Several accounts exist of this incident; in one, Cromwell is supposed to have said "you are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting".[83] At least two accounts agree that he snatched up the ceremonial mace, symbol of Parliament's power, and demanded that the "bauble" be taken away.[84] His troops were commanded by Charles Worsley, later one of his Major Generals and one of his most trusted advisors, to whom he entrusted the mace.[85]

Establishment of Barebone's Parliament: 1653

After the dissolution of the Rump, power passed temporarily to a council that debated what form the constitution should take. They took up the suggestion of Major-General Thomas Harrison for a "sanhedrin" of saints. Although Cromwell did not subscribe to Harrison's apocalyptic, Fifth Monarchist beliefs—which saw a sanhedrin as the starting point for Christ's rule on earth—he was attracted by the idea of an assembly made up of men chosen for their religious credentials. In his speech during the assembly on 4 July, Cromwell thanked God's providence that he believed had brought England to this point and set out their divine mission: "truly God hath called you to this work by, I think, as wonderful providences as ever passed upon the sons of men in so short a time."[86] The Nominated Assembly, sometimes known as the Parliament of Saints, or more commonly and denigratingly called Barebone's Parliament after one of its members, Praise-God Barebone, was tasked with finding a permanent constitutional and religious settlement (Cromwell was invited to be a member but declined). However, the revelation that a considerably larger segment of the membership than had been believed were the radical Fifth Monarchists led to its members voting to dissolve it on 12 December 1653, out of fear of what the radicals might do if they took control of the Assembly.[87]

The Protectorate: 1653–1658

Coat of arms of the Protectorate
Banner of Oliver Cromwell

After Barebone's Parliament was dissolved, John Lambert put forward a new constitution known as the Instrument of Government, closely modelled on the Heads of Proposals. This made Cromwell undertake the "chief magistracy and the administration of government". Later he was sworn as Lord Protector on 16 December, with a ceremony in which he wore plain black clothing, rather than any monarchical regalia.[88] Cromwell also changed his signature to 'Oliver P', with the P being an abbreviation for Protector, and soon others started to address Cromwell as "Your Highness".[89] As Protector, he had to secure a majority vote in the Council of State. As the Lord Protector he was paid £100,000 a year (equivalent to £19,586,229 in 2025).[90]

Although Cromwell stated that "Government by one man and a parliament is fundamental," he believed that social issues should be prioritised.[91] The social priorities did not include any meaningful attempt to reform the social order.[92] Small-scale reform such as that carried out on the judicial system were outweighed by attempts to restore order to English politics. Tax slightly decreased, and he prioritised peace and ending the First Anglo-Dutch War.[93]

England's overseas possessions in this period included Newfoundland, the New England Confederation, the Providence Plantation, the Virginia Colony, the Province of Maryland and islands in the West Indies. Cromwell soon secured the submission of these and largely left them to their own affairs, intervening only to curb other Puritans who had seized control of Maryland Colony at Severn battle, by his confirming the former Roman Catholic proprietorship and edict of tolerance there. Of all the English dominions, Virginia was the most resentful of Cromwell's rule, and Cavalier emigration there mushroomed during the Protectorate.[94]

Cromwell famously stressed the quest to restore order in his speech to the first Protectorate parliament.[95] However, the Parliament was quickly dominated by those pushing for more radical, properly republican reforms. Later, the Parliament initiated radical reform. Rather than opposing Parliament's bill, Cromwell dissolved them on 22 January 1655. The First Protectorate Parliament had a property franchise of £200 per annum in real or personal property value set as the minimum value which a male adult was to possess before he was eligible to vote for the representatives from the counties or shires in the House of Commons. The House of Commons representatives from the boroughs were elected by the burgesses or those borough residents who had the right to vote in municipal elections, and by the aldermen and councilors of the boroughs.[96]

Cromwell's signature before becoming Lord Protector in 1653, and afterwards. 'Oliver P', standing for Oliver Protector, similar in style to English monarchs who signed their names as, for example, 'Elizabeth R' standing for Elizabeth Regina.
Broad of Oliver Cromwell, dated 1656; on the obverse the Latin inscription OLIVAR D G RP ANG SCO ET HIB &c PRO, translated as "Oliver, by the Grace of God of the Republic of England, Scotland and Ireland etc. Protector".

Cromwell's second objective was reforms on the field of morality and religion.[97] As a Protectorate, he established trials for the future parish ministers, and dismissed unqualified ministers and rectors. These triers and the ejectors were intended to be at the vanguard of Cromwell's reform of parish worship. This second objective is also the context in which to see the constitutional experiment of the Major Generals that followed the dissolution of the first Protectorate Parliament. After a Royalist uprising in March 1655, led by John Penruddock, Cromwell (influenced by Lambert) divided England into military districts ruled by army major generals who answered only to him. The 15 major generals and deputy major generals—called "godly governors"—were central not only to national security, but also viewed as Cromwell's serious effort in exerting his religious conviction. Their position was further harmed by a tax proposal by Major General John Desborough to provide financial backing for their work, which the second Protectorate parliament—instated in September 1656—voted down for fear of a permanent military state. Ultimately, however, Cromwell's failure to support his men, sacrificing them to his opponents, caused their demise. Their activities between November 1655 and September 1656 had, however, reopened the wounds of the 1640s and deepened antipathies to the regime.[98] In late 1654, Cromwell launched the Western Design armada against the Spanish West Indies, and in May 1655 captured Jamaica.[99]

As Lord Protector, Cromwell was aware of the Jewish community's involvement in the economics of the Netherlands, now England's leading commercial rival. It was this—allied to Cromwell's tolerance of the right to private worship of those who fell outside Puritanism—that led to his encouraging Jews to return to England in 1657, over 360 years after their banishment by Edward I, in the hope that they would help speed up the recovery of the country after the disruption of the Civil Wars.[100] There was a longer-term motive for Cromwell's decision to allow the Jews to return to England, and that was the hope that they would convert to Christianity and therefore hasten the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, ultimately based on Matthew 23:37–39 and Romans 11. At the Whitehall conference of December 1655, he quoted from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10:12–15 on the need to send Christian preachers to the Jews. The Presbyterian William Prynne, in contrast to the Congregationalist Cromwell, was strongly opposed to the latter's pro-Jewish policy.[101][102][103]

On 23 March 1657, the Protectorate signed the Treaty of Paris with Louis XIV against Spain. Cromwell pledged to supply France with 6,000 troops and war ships. In accordance with the terms of the treaty, Mardyck and Dunkirk—a base for privateers and commerce raiders attacking English merchant shipping—were ceded to England.[104]

In 1657, Cromwell was offered the crown by Parliament as part of a revised constitutional settlement, presenting him with a dilemma since he had been "instrumental" in abolishing the monarchy. Cromwell agonised for six weeks over the offer. He was attracted by the prospect of stability it held out, but in a speech on 13 April 1657, he made clear that God's providence had spoken against the office of King: "I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again".[105] The reference to Jericho harks back to a previous occasion on which Cromwell had wrestled with his conscience when the news reached England of the defeat of an expedition against the Spanish-held island of Hispaniola in the West Indies in 1655—comparing himself to Achan, who had brought the Israelites defeat after bringing plunder back to camp after the capture of Jericho.[106] Instead, Cromwell was re-installed as Lord Protector on 26 June 1657, at Westminster Hall, and sitting on King Edward's Chair, he imitated a royal coronation as he wore many royal regalia, such as a purple robe, a sword of justice and a sceptre.[107] Cromwell's new rights and powers were laid out in the Humble Petition and Advice, a legislative instrument which replaced the Instrument of Government. Despite failing to restore the Crown, this new constitution did set up many of the vestiges of the ancient constitution including a house of life peers. In the Humble Petition, it was called the Other House as the Commons could not agree on a suitable name. Furthermore, Oliver Cromwell increasingly took on more of the trappings of monarchy. In particular, he created three peerages after a Petition and advised Charles Howard to be appointed as Viscount Morpeth and Baron Gisland in July. Meanwhile, Edmund Dunch being appointed as Baron Burnell of East Wittenham in April next year.[108]

Death and posthumous execution

Oliver Cromwell's death mask at Warwick Castle
The posthumous execution of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and Ireton, depicted in a contemporary print

Cromwell is thought to have suffered from malaria and kidney stone disease.[109] In 1658, he was struck by a sudden bout of malarial fever, and although one view is that he may have rejected the only known treatment, quinine, because it had been discovered by Catholic Jesuit missionaries,[110] another view is that the remedies of the time, which included an early form of quinine, were tried, but possibly not administered in sufficient quantity because of their side effects; there was even a suggestion that it was the side effects that killed him.[109] This was followed directly by illness symptomatic of a urinary or kidney complaint. The Venetian ambassador wrote regular dispatches to the Doge of Venice in which he included details of Cromwell's final illness, and he was suspicious of the rapidity of his death.[111] The decline may have been hastened by the death of his daughter Elizabeth Claypole in August. He died at age 59 at Whitehall on 3 September 1658, the anniversary of his great victories at Dunbar and Worcester.[112] The night of his death, a great storm swept England and all over Europe.[113] The most likely cause of death was sepsis following his urinary infection. He was buried with great ceremony, at what is now the RAF Chapel, with an elaborate funeral at Westminster Abbey based on that of James I,[114] his daughter Elizabeth also being buried there.[115]

Cromwell was succeeded as Lord Protector by his son Richard. As Richard had no power base in Parliament or the Army, he was forced to resign in May 1659, ending the Protectorate. There was no clear leadership from the various factions that jostled for power during the reinstated Commonwealth, so George Monck was able to march on London at the head of New Model Army regiments and restore the Long Parliament. Under Monck's watchful eye, the necessary constitutional adjustments were made so that Charles II could be invited back from exile in 1660 to be king under a restored monarchy.[116]

Burial place of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster Abbey from 1658 to 1661

Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey on 30 January 1661, the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I, and was subjected to a posthumous execution, as were the remains of John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton (the body of Cromwell's daughter was allowed to remain buried in the abbey). His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn, London, and then thrown into a pit. His head was cut off and displayed on the roof of Westminster Hall at the Palace of Westminster until at least 1684. Afterwards, it was owned by various people, including a documented sale in 1814 to Josiah Henry Wilkinson,[117][118] and it was publicly exhibited several times before being buried beneath the floor of the antechapel at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960.[115][119] The exact position was not publicly disclosed, but a plaque marks the approximate location.[120]

Many people began to question whether the body mutilated at Tyburn and the head seen on Westminster Hall were Cromwell's.[121] These doubts arose because it was assumed that Cromwell's body was reburied in several places between his death in September 1658 and the exhumation of January 1661, in order to protect it from vengeful royalists. The stories suggest that his bodily remains are buried in London, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, or Yorkshire.[119]

The Cromwell vault was later used as a burial place for Charles II's illegitimate descendants.[122] In Westminster Abbey, the site of Cromwell's burial was marked during the 19th century by a floor stone in what is now the RAF Chapel reading: "The burial place of Oliver Cromwell 1658–1661".[123]

Character assessment

A contemporaneous satirical view of Cromwell as a usurper of monarchical power

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.[124] 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.[125] 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.[126][127][128][129]

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.[130] 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".[131] 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.[131]

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.[132]

I hope to render the English name as great and formidable as ever the Roman was.[133]

— Cromwell

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.[134] 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".[135] Gardiner stressed Cromwell's dynamic and mercurial character, and his role in dismantling absolute monarchy, rather than his religious conviction.[136] 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".[137] Calvin Coolidge described Cromwell as a brilliant statesman who "dared to oppose the tyranny of the kings".[138]

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.[139]

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.[140] 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.[141][142][143]

Irish campaign controversy

The extent of Cromwell's brutality[144][145] 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".[146] 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".[147] 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".[148] 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.[149] 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."[150]

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,[151][152] 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.[153] The scale of the deaths at Basing House was much smaller.[154] 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."[155] 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.[156][157] The refusal of the garrison at Drogheda to do this, even after the walls had been breached, was to Cromwell justification for the massacre.[158] Where Cromwell negotiated the surrender of fortified towns, as at Carlow, New Ross, and Clonmel, some historians[who?] argue that he respected the terms of surrender and protected the townspeople's lives and property.[159] 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.[160][161][162][163]

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.[164] 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.[165][166][167]

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:

[U]pon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. 'Hell or Connaught' were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred 'The Curse of Cromwell on you.' ... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'.[168]

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.[169] In this he was scathing about Catholicism, saying, "I shall not, where I have the power... suffer the exercise of the Mass."[170] 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."[170] Private soldiers who surrendered their arms "and shall live peaceably and honestly at their several homes, they shall be permitted so to do".[171]

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.[172]

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.[173][174] The song Young Ned Of The Hill by The Pogues which includes a direct curse onto Cromwell has the lyrics:

A curse upon you Oliver Cromwell. You who raped our Motherland. I hope you're rotting down in hell, For the horrors that you sent. To our misfortunate forefathers, Whom you robbed of their birthright. To hell or Connaught, May you burn in hell tonight.[175]

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.[26]

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.[26] Some authorities maintain that the army's organisation and the thorough training of its men were accomplished by Fairfax, not Cromwell.[176] 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.[177][178] 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.[177]

As a battlefield commander, Cromwell followed the common practice of ranging his cavalry in three ranks and pressing forward, relying on impact rather than firepower. His strengths were an instinctive ability to lead and train his men, and his moral authority. In a war fought mostly by amateurs, these strengths were significant and most likely contributed to the discipline of his cavalry.[179] Cromwell introduced close-order cavalry formations, with troopers riding knee to knee; this was an innovation in England at the time and a major factor in his success. He kept his troops close together after skirmishes where they had gained superiority, rather than allowing them to chase opponents off the battlefield. This facilitated further engagements in short order, which allowed greater intensity and quick reaction to battle developments. This style of command was decisive at both Marston Moor and Naseby.[180]

Alan Marshall was critical for Cromwell's approach to warfare i.e. the "war of annihilation" style which usually brought swift victory but also contained high risk.[181] 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".[181] Marshall and other historians saw Cromwell as less proficient in the field of manoeuvre, attrition warfare and at siege warfare.[181] Marshall also argues that Cromwell was not truly revolutionary in his war strategies.[181] Instead, he observes Cromwell as a courageous and energetic commander, with an eye for discipline and logistics.[181] 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.[181] Marshall also points out that Cromwell's political career was shaped by his military career advance.[181]

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.[182]

Monuments and posthumous honours

1899 statue of Oliver Cromwell, Westminster by Hamo Thornycroft outside the Palace of Westminster in London

During the opening of the American Revolutionary War in 1776, the Connecticut State Navy commissioned a corvette named the Oliver Cromwell, one of the first American naval vessels. It was captured in battle in 1779 and renamed HMS Restoration before being commissioned as HMS Loyalist.[183][184][185]

The 19th-century engineer Richard Tangye was a noted Cromwell enthusiast and collector of Cromwell manuscripts and memorabilia.[186] His collection included many rare manuscripts and printed books, medals, paintings, objets d'art, and a bizarre assemblage of "relics". This includes Cromwell's Bible, button, coffin plate, death mask, and funeral escutcheon. On Tangye's death, the entire collection was donated to the Museum of London, where it can still be seen.[187]

In 1875, a statue of Cromwell by Matthew Noble was erected in Manchester outside the Manchester Cathedral, a gift to the city by Abel Heywood in memory of her first husband.[188][189] It was the first large-scale statue to be erected in the open in England, and was a realistic likeness based on the painting by Peter Lely; it showed Cromwell in battledress with drawn sword and leather body armour. It was unpopular with local Conservatives and the large Irish immigrant population. Queen Victoria was invited to open the new Manchester Town Hall, and she allegedly consented on the condition that the statue be removed. The statue remained, Victoria declined, and the town hall was opened by the Lord Mayor. During the 1980s, the statue was relocated outside Wythenshawe Hall, which had been occupied by Cromwell's troops.[190]

Bust of Oliver Cromwell (1762), by Joseph Wilton, at the Victoria & Albert Museum[191]

During the 1890s Parliamentary plans to erect a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament turned controversial. Pressure from the Irish Nationalist Party[192] forced the withdrawal of a motion to seek public funding for the project; the statue was eventually erected, but it had to be funded privately by Lord Rosebery.[193]

Cromwell controversy continued into the 20th century. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty before the First World War, and he twice suggested naming a British battleship HMS Oliver Cromwell. The suggestion was vetoed by King George V because of his personal feelings and because he felt that it was unwise to give such a name to an expensive warship at a time of Irish political unrest, especially given the anger caused by the statue outside Parliament. Churchill was eventually told by First Sea Lord Admiral Battenberg that the King's decision must be treated as final.[194] The Cromwell tank was a British medium-weight tank first used in 1944,[195] and a steam locomotive built by British Railways in 1951 was named Oliver Cromwell.[196]

Other public statues of Cromwell are the Statue of Oliver Cromwell, St Ives in Cambridgeshire[197] and the Statue of Oliver Cromwell, Warrington in Cheshire.[198] An oval plaque at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, refers to the end of the travels of his head and reads:[120][199]

Near to
this place was buried
on 25 March 1960 the head of
OLIVER CROMWELL
Lord Protector of the Common-
wealth of England, Scotland &
Ireland, Fellow Commoner
of this College 1616–7

In 2026, it was reported that the Cork City Council was satirically considering erecting a statue of the mosquito that gave Cromwell malaria as part of the city's public art scheme.[200]

See also

Notes

  1. The period from Cromwell's appointment in 1653 until his son's resignation in 1659 is known as The Protectorate.
  2. Although there is debate over whether Cromwell and Ireton were the authors of the Heads of Proposals or acting on behalf of Saye and Sele[41][42]

References

  1. Dickens, Charles (1854). A Child's History of England volume 3. Bradbury and Evans. p. 239.
  2. Fitzgibbons, Jonathan (2008). Cromwell's head. Kew: National Archives. ISBN 978-1-905615-38-4.
  3. Ó Siochrú 2008, pp. 1–2.
  4. Churchill 1956, p. 314.
  5. Smith, Ashley; Carmichael, Emma; Barnes, Jack. "Oliver Cromwell: Regicidal Dictator or a Hero of Liberty?". New Histories. 3 (7). Retrieved 14 November 2025.
  6. Burch 2003, pp. 228–284.
  7. Plant, David. "Oliver Cromwell 1599–1658". British-civil-wars.co.uk. Archived from the original on 31 July 2013. Retrieved 27 November 2008.
  8. Lauder-Frost, Gregory, F.S.A. Scot., "East Anglian Stewarts" in The Scottish Genealogist, Dec. 2004, vol. LI, no. 4., pp. 158–159. ISSN 0300-337X
  9. Historic England. "Cromwell House, Huntingdon (1128611)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 26 May 2025.
  10. Morrill, John S.; Ashley, Maurice (10 February 2025). "Oliver Cromwell (English statesman)". Britannica Biographies.
  11. Gaunt 2004, p. 31.
  12. Speech to the First Protectorate Parliament, 4 September 1654, (Roots 1989, p. 42).
  13. Carlyle, Thomas, ed. (1887). Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches. Vol. 1. p. 17. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
  14. British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate 1638–1660
  15. "Cromwell, Oliver (CRML616O)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
  16. Firth, Charles Harding (1888). "Cromwell, Oliver" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 13. London: Smith, Elder & Co. p. 156.
  17. Fraser 1973, p. 24.
  18. Morrill 1990b, p. 24.
  19. "Cromwell's family". The Cromwell Association. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  20. Gardiner 1901, p. 4.
  21. Gaunt 2004, p. 23.
  22. Morrill 1990b, p. 34.
  23. Morrill 1990b, pp. 24–33.
  24. Morrill, John S. (17 February 2011). "A unique leader". BBC. Archived from the original on 20 March 2019. Retrieved 2 December 2023.
  25. Gaunt 2004, p. 34.
  26. "Oliver Cromwell". British Civil Wars Project. Archived from the original on 9 August 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  27. Morrill 1990b, pp. 25–26.
  28. Fraser 1973.
  29. Adamson 1990, p. 57.
  30. Adamson 1990, p. 53.
  31. Plant, David. "1643: Civil War in Lincolnshire". British-civil-wars.co.uk. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 27 November 2008.
  32. "Fenland riots". www.elystandard.co.uk. 7 December 2006. Archived from the original on 13 January 2019. Retrieved 12 January 2019.
  33. Fraser 1973, pp. 120–129.
  34. "The Battle of Marston Moor". British Civil Wars. Archived from the original on 30 April 2015. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
  35. Letter to Sir William Spring, September 1643, quoted in Carlyle, Thomas (ed.) (1904 edition). Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, with elucidations, vol I, p. 154; also quoted in Young, Peter; Holmes, Richard (2000). The English Civil War. Wordsworth. p. 107. ISBN 1-84022-222-0.
  36. "Sermons of Rev Martin Camoux: Oliver Cromwell". Archived from the original on 16 May 2009.
  37. A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist Opening the Secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichristian Doctrine of John Saltmarsh and Will. del, the Present Preachers of the Army Now in England, and of Robert Town. 1648.
  38. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 141.
  39. "A lasting place in history". Saffron Walden Reporter. 10 May 2007. Archived from the original on 6 August 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  40. Ashley, Maurice (1957). The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell. London: Collier- Macmillan Ltd. pp. 187–190.
  41. Adamson 1987.
  42. Kishlansky, Mark (1990). "Saye What?". Historical Journal. 33 (4): 917–937. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00013819. S2CID 248823719.
  43. Woolrych 1987, ch. 2–5.
  44. See The Levellers: The Putney Debates, Texts selected and annotated by Philip Baker, Introduction by Geoffrey Robertson QC. London and New York: Verso, 2007.
  45. "Spartacus: Rowland Laugharne at Spartacus.Schoolnet.co.uk". Archived from the original on 25 October 2008.
  46. Gardiner 1901, pp. 144–147.
  47. Gaunt 2004, pp. 94–97.
  48. Morrill & Baker 2008, p. 31.
  49. Adamson 1990, pp. 76–84.
  50. Jendrysik 2002, p. 79.
  51. Macaulay, James (1891), Cromwell Anecdotes, London: Hodder, p. 68
  52. Coward 1991, p. 65.
  53. "Death Warrant of King Charles I". UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 6 August 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  54. Hart, Ben. "Oliver Cromwell Destroys the "Divine Right of Kings"". Archived from the original on 7 November 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  55. Gentles, Ian (2011). Oliver Cromwell. Macmillan Distribution Ltd. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-333-71356-3.
  56. "The Regicides". The Brish Civil wars Project. Archived from the original on 22 February 2018. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  57. Plant, David (14 December 2005). "The Levellers". British-civil-wars.co.uk. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 14 June 2012.
  58. Quoted in Lenihan 2000, p. 115.
  59. Fraser 1973, pp. 74–76.
  60. Fraser 1973, pp. 326–328.
  61. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 98.
  62. Cromwell, vol. 1, p. 128.
  63. Fraser 1973, pp. 344–346.
  64. Woolrych, Austin (2002). Britain in Revolution 1625–1660. Oxford University Press. p. 470. ISBN 978-0-19-927268-6. OL 20998530W.
  65. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 100.
  66. Fraser 1973, pp. 321–322.
  67. Lenihan 2000, p. 113.
  68. Fraser 1973, p. 355.
  69. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 314.
  70. "Act for the Settlement of Ireland, 12 August 1652, Henry Scobell, ii. 197. See Commonwealth and Protectorate, iv. 82–85". the Constitution Society. Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2008.
  71. Lenihan 2007, p. 135–136.
  72. Lenihan 2000, p. 115.
  73. Gardiner 1901, p. 184.
  74. Stevenson 1990, p. 155.
  75. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 66.
  76. Fraser 1973, pp. 385–389.
  77. Encyclopædia Britannica 11th ed., article "Great Rebellion" Sections "4. Battle of Edgehill" and "59. The Crowning Mercy
  78. Williams, Mark; Forrest, Stephen Paul (2010). Constructing the Past: Writing Irish History, 1600–1800. Boydell & Brewer. p. 160. ISBN 978-1843835738.
  79. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 306.
  80. Parker, Geoffrey (2003). Empire, War and Faith in Early Modern Europe, p. 281.
  81. Fitzgibbons, Jonathan (2022). "'To settle a governement without somthing of Monarchy in it': Bulstrode Whitelocke's Memoirs and the Reinvention of the Interregnum". The English Historical Review. 137 (586): 655–691. doi:10.1093/ehr/ceac126. ISSN 0013-8266. Archived from the original on 16 August 2022. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
  82. Worden, Blair (1977). The Rump Parliament. Cambridge University Press. chs. 16–17. ISBN 0-521-29213-1.
  83. Cromwell 1929, p. 643.
  84. Cromwell 1929, pp. 642–643.
  85. "Charles Worsley". British Civil Wars Project. Archived from the original on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  86. Roots 1989, pp. 8–27.
  87. Woolrych, Austin (1982). Commonwealth to Protectorate. Clarendon Press. chs. 5–10. ISBN 0-19-822659-4.
  88. Gaunt 2004, p. 155.
  89. Gaunt 2004, p. 156.
  90. A History of Britain – The Stuarts. Ladybird. 1991. ISBN 0-7214-3370-7.
  91. Quoted in Hirst 1990, p. 127
  92. "Cromwell, At the Opening of Parliament Under the Protectorate (1654)". Strecorsoc.org. Archived from the original on 26 September 2011. Retrieved 27 November 2008.
  93. "First Anglo-Dutch War". British Civil Wars project. Archived from the original on 15 July 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  94. Fischer, David Hackett (1991) [1989]. "The South of England to Virginia: Distressed Cavaliers and Indentured Servants, 1642–75". Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 219–220. ISBN 9780195069051. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  95. Roots 1989, pp. 41–56.
  96. Aylmer, G. E., Rebellion or Revolution? England 1640–1660, Oxford and New York, 1990 Oxford University Paperback, p. 169.
  97. Hirst 1990, p. 173.
  98. Durston 1998, pp. 18–37.
  99. Clinton Black, The Story of Jamaica from Prehistory to the Present (London: Collins, 1965), pp. 48–50
  100. Hirst 1990, p. 137.
  101. Coulton, Barbara. "Cromwell and the 'readmission' of the Jews to England, 1656" (PDF). The Cromwell Association. Lancaster University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 April 2017. Retrieved 23 April 2017.
  102. Carlyle, Thomas, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches with Elucidations, London, Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1897, pp. 109–113 and 114–115
  103. Morrill 1990, pp. 137–138, 190, and 211–213.
  104. Manganiello, Stephen, The Concise Encyclopedia of the Revolutions and Wars of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1639–1660, Scarecrow Press, 2004, 613 p., ISBN 9780810851009, p. 539.
  105. Roots 1989, p. 128.
  106. Worden 1985, pp. 141–145.
  107. Fitzgibbons, Jonathan (2013). "Hereditary Succession and the Cromwellian Protectorate: The Offer of the Crown Reconsidered". The English Historical Review. 128 (534): 1095–1128. doi:10.1093/ehr/cet182. Archived from the original on 15 August 2022. Retrieved 15 August 2022.
  108. Masson, David (1877). The Life of John Milton: 1654–1660. Vol. 5. p. 354.
  109. Fraser, Antonia (1973), Cromwell, Our Chief of Men, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-2977-6556-6, p671
  110. Jarvis, Brooke (5 August 2019). "How Mosquitoes Changed Everything". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 7 August 2019.
  111. McMains 2015, p. 75.
  112. Gaunt 2004, p. 204.
  113. Simons, Paul (3 September 2018). "Winds of change on the death of Cromwell". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Archived from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  114. Rutt 1828, pp. 516–530.
  115. "Cromwell's head". Cambridge County Council. 2010. Archived from the original on 11 March 2010. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
  116. "MONCK, George (1608–70), of Potheridge, Merton, Devon. – History of Parliament Online". Archived from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
  117. Staff (6 May 1957). "Roundhead on the Pike". Time. Archived from the original on 7 April 2010.
  118. Schlichenmeyer, Terri (21 August 2007). "Missing body parts of famous people". CNN. Archived from the original on 15 September 2020. Retrieved 27 November 2008.
  119. Gaunt 2004, p. 4.
  120. Larson, Frances (August 2014). "Severance Package". Readings. Harper's Magazine. Vol. 329, no. 1971. Harper's Magazine Foundation. pp. 22–25.
  121. Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys: Diary entries from October 1664. Thursday 13 October 1664. Archived from the original on 21 August 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2017. When I told him of what I found writ in a French book of one Monsieur Sorbiere, that gives an account of his observations herein England; among other things he says, that it is reported that Cromwell did, in his life-time, transpose many of the bodies of the Kings of England from one grave to another, and that by that means it is not known certainly whether the head that is now set up upon a post be that of Cromwell, or of one of the Kings
  122. "Westminster Abbey reveals Cromwell's original grave". Westminster Abbey. Archived from the original on 6 April 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2011.
  123. pixeltocode.uk, PixelToCode. "Oliver Cromwell and Family". Westminster Abbey. Archived from the original on 3 May 2020. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
  124. Morrill 1990c, pp. 263–264.
  125. Morrill 1990c, pp. 271–272.
  126. "RPO – John Milton : Sonnet XVI: To the Lord General Cromwell". Tspace.library.utoronto.ca. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  127. Calabresi, S.G. (2021). The History and Growth of Judicial Review, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-19-007579-8. Retrieved 13 June 2025. Colony in 1607, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was given its royal charter in 1629.21 King Charles I authorized, in ... Cromwell's parliamentarians. The New England colonists quietly supported Cromwell in his fight against Charles
  128. "Stephen Winthrop (1619-1658) Colonel in Cromwell's Army & Deputy to the General Court of Massachusetts". American Aristocracy. AmericanAristocracy. 2025. Retrieved 12 June 2024.
  129. "First Church in Boston History". First Church Boston. 2025. Retrieved 3 May 2025. First Church in Boston was established on July 30, 1630. When John Winthrop and his party stepped off the Arbella, their first official act, even before drawing up a charter for the city, was to create by themselves, and sign, a Covenant for the First Church in Boston. In this document we find these words: "[Wee] solemnly, and religiously...Promise, and bind ourselves, to walke in all our ways...in mutuall love, and respect each to other..."
  130. Morrill 1990c, pp. 279–281.
  131. Gaunt 2004, p. 9.
  132. Worden 2001, pp. 53–59.
  133. "The Life and Eccentricities of the late Dr. Monsey, F.R.S, physician to the Royal Hospital at Chelsea", printed by J. D. Dewick, Aldergate street, 1804, p. 108
  134. Carlyle, Thomas (1897). Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (PDF). Vol. 2: Letters from Ireland, 1649 and 1650. Chapman and Hall. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 November 2006. Retrieved 5 October 2006.
  135. Gardiner 1901, p. 315.
  136. Worden 2001, pp. 256–260.
  137. Gardiner 1901, p. 138.
  138. Coolidge, Calvin (2004) [1929]. The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (Reprint ed.). Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-4102-1622-9.
  139. Morrill, John S. (1990a). "Textualising and Contextualising Cromwell". Historical Journal. 33 (3): 629–639. doi:10.1017/S0018246X0001356X. S2CID 159813568.
  140. Woolrych, Austin (1990a). "The Cromwellian Protectorate: a Military Dictatorship?". History. 75 (244): 207–231. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.1990.tb01515.x. ISSN 0018-2648.
  141. Morrill, John S. (2004). "Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658)", in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press) Oxforddnb.com Archived 13 September 2019 at the Wayback Machine
  142. Worden 1985.
  143. Davis, J. C. (1990), Cromwell's religion, in Morrill 1990.
  144. (Hill1970, p. 108) "The brutality of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland is not one of the pleasanter aspects of our hero's career ..."
  145. Coward 1991, p. 65, "Revenge was not Cromwell's only motive for the brutality he condoned at Wexford and Drogheda, but it was the dominant one ...".
  146. McKeiver, Philip (2007). A New History of Cromwell's Irish Campaign. Manchester: Advance Press. ISBN 978-0-9554663-0-4.
  147. Ó Siochrú 2008, pp. 83 & 90.
  148. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 92.
  149. Lenihan 2000, p. 1022, "After Cromwell returned to England in 1650, the conflict degenerated into a grindingly slow counter-insurgency campaign punctuated by some quite protracted sieges...the famine of 1651 onwards was a man-made response to stubborn guerrilla warfare. Collective reprisals against the civilian population included forcing them out of designated 'no man's lands' and the systematic destruction of foodstuffs"..
  150. Carlyle, Thomas (1897). "Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches II: Letters from Ireland, 1649 and 1650". Chapman and Hall Ltd, London. Archived from the original on 14 August 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  151. Woolrych 1990, p. 112, "viewed in the context of the German wars that had just ended after thirty years of fighting, the massacres at Drogheda and Wexford shrink to typical casualties of seventeenth-century warfare".
  152. The Thirty Years' War (1618–48) 7 500 000 Archived 11 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine: "R. J. Rummel: 11.5M total deaths in the war (half democides)"
  153. Gardiner 1886, p. 345.
  154. Davis, J. C. (2001). Oliver Cromwell. Hodder Arnold. pp. 108–110. ISBN 0-340-73118-4.
  155. Cromwell 1929, p. 124.
  156. Woolrych 1990, p. 111.
  157. Gaunt 2004, p. 117.
  158. Lenihan 2000, p. 168.
  159. Gaunt 2004, p. 116.
  160. Stevenson 1990, p. 151.
  161. "Eugene Coyle. Review of Cromwell – An Honourable Enemy. History Ireland". Archived from the original on 21 February 2001.
  162. Ó Siochrú 2008, pp. 83–93.
  163. Schama, Simon, "A History of Britain", 2000.
  164. Citations for genocide, near genocide and ethnic cleansing:
    • Axelrod, Alan (2002). Profiles in Leadership. Prentice-Hall. p. 122. Archived from the original on 10 October 2012. As a leader Cromwell was entirely unyielding. He was willing to act on his beliefs, even if this meant killing the King and perpetrating, against the Irish, something very nearly approaching genocide
    • Breton, Albert, ed. (1995). Nationalism and Rationality. Cambridge University Press. p. 248. Oliver Cromwell offered Irish Catholics a choice between genocide and forced mass population transfer
    • Ukrainian Quarterly. Ukrainian Society of America 1944. "Therefore, we are entitled to accuse the England of Oliver Cromwell of the genocide of the Irish civilian population...."
    • Levene, Mark (2005). Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. Vol. 2. London: I. B. Tauris. pp. 55–57. ISBN 978-1-84511-057-4. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. A sample quote describes the Cromwellian campaign and settlement as "a conscious attempt to reduce a distinct ethnic population." and later: "[The Act of Settlement of Ireland], and the parliamentary legislation which succeeded it the following year, is the nearest thing on paper in the English, and more broadly British, domestic record, to a programme of state-sanctioned and systematic ethnic cleansing of another people. The fact that it did not include 'total' genocide in its remit, or that it failed to put into practice the vast majority of its proposed expulsions, ultimately, however, says less about the lethal determination of its makers and more about the political, structural and financial weakness of the early modern English state."
    • Lutz, James M.; Lutz, Brenda J. (2004). Global Terrorism. London: Routledge. p. 193. The draconian laws applied by Oliver Cromwell in Ireland were an early version of ethnic cleansing. The Catholic Irish were to be expelled to the northwestern areas of the island. Relocation rather than extermination was the goal.
    • Morrill, John S. (December 2003). "Rewriting Cromwell – A Case of Deafening Silences". Canadian Journal of History. 38 (3). University of Toronto Press: 553–578. doi:10.3138/cjh.38.3.553. Archived from the original on 24 June 2015. Retrieved 23 June 2015. Of course, this has never been the Irish view of Cromwell. Most Irish remember him as the man responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians at Drogheda and Wexford and as the agent of the greatest episode of ethnic cleansing ever attempted in Western Europe as, within a decade, the percentage of land possessed by Catholics born in Ireland dropped from sixty to twenty. In a decade, the ownership of two-fifths of the land mass was transferred from several thousand Irish Catholic landowners to British Protestants. The gap between Irish and the English views of the seventeenth-century conquest remains unbridgeable and is governed by G. K. Chesterton's mirthless epigram of 1917, that 'it was a tragic necessity that the Irish should remember it; but it was far more tragic that the English forgot it'.
    • Norbrook, David (2000). Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627–1660. Cambridge University Press. In interpreting Andrew Marvell's contemporarily expressed views on Cromwell Norbrook says; "He (Cromwell) laid the foundation for a ruthless programme of resettling the Irish Catholics which amounted to large scale ethnic cleansing."
  165. Faolain, Turlough (1983). Blood On The Harp. Whitston Publishing Company. p. 191. ISBN 9780878752751. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  166. O'Connell, Daniel (1828). A collection of speeches spoken by ... on subjects connected with the catholic question. p. 317. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  167. Brantlinger, Patrick (2013). Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800–1930. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801468674. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  168. Churchill, Winston S. (1991) [1957]. A History of the English Speaking Peoples. Vol. III: The Age of Revolution. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company. p. 9. We have seen the many ties which at one time or another have joined the inhabitants of the Western islands, and even in Ireland itself offered a tolerable way of life to Protestants and Catholics alike. Upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. "Hell or Connaught" were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred "The Curse of Cromwell on you". The consequences of Cromwell's rule in Ireland have distressed and at times distracted English politics down even to the present day. To heal them baffled the skill and loyalties of successive generations. They became for a time a potent obstacle to the harmony of the English-speaking people throughout the world. Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'
  169. Cromwell 1929, pp. 196–205.
  170. Cromwell 1929, p. 202.
  171. Cromwell 1929, p. 205.
  172. Irish Times (10 October 2008). "Ahern says he did not leave Cook's office over Cromwell". The Irish Times.
  173. Ye Banished Privateers. A Final Toast for Oliver Cromwell Lyrics. Genius, genius.com/Ye-banished-privateers-a-final-toast-for-oliver-cromwell-lyrics. Accessed 27 Nov. 2025.
  174. The Wolfe Tones. The Men Behind the Wire Lyrics. Genius, genius.com/The-wolfe-tones-the-men-behind-the-wire-lyrics. Accessed 27 Nov. 2025.
  175. The Pogues. Young Ned of the Hill Lyrics. Genius, genius.com/The-pogues-young-ned-of-the-hill-lyrics. Accessed 27 Nov. 2025.
  176. "New Model Army". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 7 January 2025.
  177. Ashley, Maurice; Morrill, John S. "Oliver Cromwell: Military and Political Leader". Britannica. Retrieved 7 January 2025.
  178. "Oliver Cromwell: Lord Protector". National Army Museum. Royal Hospital, London, SW3. Retrieved 7 January 2025.
  179. Woolrych 1990, pp. 117–118.
  180. Fraser 1973, pp. 154–161.
  181. Gaunt (2006, pp. 222–223)
  182. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer 2000, p. 320.
  183. Hahn, Harold H. Ships of the American Revolution and their Models. pp. 74–101. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis Maryland, 2000.
  184. Middlebrook, Louis F. "History of Maritime Connecticut During the American Revolution 1773 - 1783 Vol. 1, Oliver Cromwell". langeonline.com. The Essex Institute. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  185. "NMM, vessel ID 370602" (PDF). Warship Histories, vol ii. National Maritime Museum. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
  186. "Death of Sir Richard Tangye" (PDF). The New York Times. 15 October 1906. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
  187. "War websites". Channel4. Archived from the original on 10 April 2010. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
  188. "Greater Manchester Photographic Memories". Francis Frith. Archived from the original on 11 January 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2011.
  189. "Oliver Cromwell". Public Monument and Sculpture Association. Archived from the original on 9 February 2012. Retrieved 12 January 2012.
  190. Moss, John. "Manchester during the Reformation, Oliver Cromwell & the English Civil Wars". Manchester2002-uk.com. Archived from the original on 23 May 2011. Retrieved 29 July 2011.
  191. Wilton, Joseph (2 January 1762). "Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658)" – via Victoria & Albert Museum.
  192. "Statue of Oliver Cromwell". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). 25 April 1899. Archived from the original on 20 September 2011. Retrieved 29 July 2011.
  193. "The Cromwell Statue at Westminster – Icons of England". Icons.org.uk. Archived from the original on 14 March 2009. Retrieved 29 July 2011.
  194. Rose, Kenneth (1984). King George V. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 160–161. The King also vetoed the name HMS "Pitt", as sailors might give the ship a nickname based on its rhyming with a "vulgar and ill-conditioned word".
  195. "Cromwell Mark I". On war. Archived from the original on 6 August 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  196. National Railway Museum (May 2004). "Oliver Cromwell on the move again!" (Press release). Archived from the original on 18 January 2009. Retrieved 13 April 2008.
  197. Historic England, "Statue of Oliver Cromwell, Market Hill (1161588)", National Heritage List for England, retrieved 5 February 2016
  198. Historic England, "Statue of Oliver Cromwell, Bridge Street (1139417)", National Heritage List for England, retrieved 18 February 2016
  199. Comerford, Patrick (6 July 2009). "Is Cromwell's head buried in Sidney Sussex Chapel?". Patrick Comerford: my thoughts on Anglicanism, theology, spirituality, history, architecture, travel, poetry and beach walks. Archived from the original on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 16 July 2014.
  200. Dunphy, Liz (14 May 2026). "'World's smallest public statue' proposed for Cork mosquito linked to death of Oliver Cromwell". Irish Examiner. Retrieved 17 May 2026.

Sources

Further reading

Biography and policies

Military studies

  • Durston, Christopher (2000). "'Settling the Hearts and Quieting the Minds of All Good People': the Major-generals and the Puritan Minorities of Interregnum England", in History 2000 85(278): pp. 247–267, ISSN 0018-2648. Full text online at Ebsco.
  • Firth, C. H. (1921). Cromwell's Army Greenhill Books, ISBN 1-85367-120-7 online
  • Gillingham, J. (1976). Portrait of a Soldier: Cromwell Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-77148-5
  • Kitson, Frank (2004). Old Ironsides: The Military Biography of Oliver Cromwell Weidenfeld Military, ISBN 0-297-84688-4
  • Marshall, Alan (2004). Oliver Cromwell: Soldier: The Military Life of a Revolutionary at War Brassey's, ISBN 1-85753-343-7

Surveys of era

  • Coward, Barry (2002). The Cromwellian Protectorate Manchester University Press, ISBN 0-7190-4317-4
  • Coward, Barry and Peter Gaunt. (2017). The Stuart Age: England, 1603–1714, 5th edition, Longman, ISBN 113894954X. Survey of political history of the era.
  • Davies, Godfrey (1959). The Early Stuarts, 1603–1660 Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-821704-8. Political, religious, and diplomatic overview of the era.
  • Korr, Charles P. (1975). Cromwell and the New Model Foreign Policy: England's Policy toward France, 1649–1658 University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-02281-5
  • Macinnes, Allan (2005). The British Revolution, 1629–1660 Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-59750-8
  • Trevor-Roper, Hugh (1967). Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments, in his Religion, the Reformation and Social Change Macmillan.
  • Venning, Timothy (1995). Cromwellian Foreign Policy Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-63388-1

Primary sources

Historiography

  • Gaunt, Peter. "The Reputation of Oliver Cromwell in the 19th century", Parliamentary History, Oct 2009, Vol. 28 Issue 3, pp 425–428
  • Hardacre, Paul H. "Writings on Oliver Cromwell since 1929", Journal of Modern History 33#1, 1961, pp. 2–14. online
  • Lunger Knoppers, Laura. Constructing Cromwell: Ceremony, Portrait and Print, 1645–1661 (2000), shows how people compared Cromwell to King Ahab, King David, Elijah, Gideon and Moses, as well as Brutus and Julius Caesar.
  • Mills, Jane, ed. Cromwell's Legacy (Manchester University Press, 2012) online review by Timothy Cooke
  • Morrill, John S. (2003) "Rewriting Cromwell: A Case of Deafening Silences". Canadian Journal of History 38(3): 553–578. ISSN 0008-4107 Fulltext: Ebsco
  • Morrill, John S. (1990) "Textualizing and Contextualizing Cromwell", in Historical Journal 1990 33(3): pp. 629–639. online. Examines the Carlyle and Abbott editions.
작성자: 시간:

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기

피드 구독하기: 댓글 (Atom)