Reviews for Charles I and Oliver Cromwell

The average rating for Charles I and Oliver Cromwell based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-05-31 00:00:00 Manogaran Ekambram A very interesting comparison of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell which shows that, in the end the difficulties Charles I had with Parliament were inherent in any relationship between an executive and a Parliament that was growing in power and strength. Both Charles and Cromwell ultimately forcibly dissolved their parliaments and had/tried to rule as absolute ruler. The sole difference between the 2 was that Cromwell had the backing of a strong and veteran army. Cromwell was a better military leader but the author argues that Charles failed because he had been raised to believe that he was father to the nation and he made decisions that were militarily wrong but which were intended to avoid killing his people. Cromwell was far more ruthless. But both found Parliament and its demands exaspaerating and Cromwell, at the end, ruled as virtual monarch, which Charles I had tried and failed to do.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-03-24 00:00:00 Brandy Lauder Biographies are often segregated into Academic and Popular, the latter snubbed for being dumbed down for the unwashed masses, the former snubbed for being dull as dirt and twice as dry. Here is a biography that breaks those stereotypes, and does so with both style and substance. I know very little about Charles I (had pointy mustache, got head chopped off), and after reading this I'm keen to learn more. The English Civil War has never thrilled me, historically speaking, but maybe it's time to branch out. The attempt at wearing a psychologist's hat in the beginning chapters felt a little much to me, particularly the bits about homosexuality (gay men are promiscuous, their mommies didn't love them, etc. etc. weary sigh); but such haberdashery is limited. That's pretty much the only criticism I can think of – basically this is a damn good book, proof positive that academic writing don't have to be plodding and dusty, and popular history doesn't have to be shallow and sensationalized. We need more books like this.