A small documentary on one of the most mysterious characters in English history. But the film that is difficult to find does not answer the mystery with any clarity.
Cromwell was a good general or military leader. He knew soldiers were to be motivated by ideology not by birth and privileges. But he was a very poor politician, at least political leader. He could speak Parliament into taking controversial yet crucial decisions, but he could not manage the country, the government, the Parliament, or whatever.
He was slightly more well-off than said, since he had the privilege of an education at Cambridge, but that is not what is important here. The film reduces Lutheranism and Calvinism to being Puritanism in England. That is wrong. Puritanism was one trend but an extreme trend as compared to Lutheranism for example, generally referred to as the chapels, because there were many branches to that shrub. The film more or less reduces the religious debate to predestination and hence does not explain why they were working hard these predestined people: they were working hard because social, economic and educational success was the sign of being chosen. This is social Darwinism before Darwin. That explains why in fact Cromwell was a political failure. Politics is an arena for mediocre people, for those who are able to beg and to bow and to do all these things that respect power in order to eventually get a share of it. That is the contrary of being chosen, at least not by God.
There is a long development on Ireland and Scotland, the two historical military successes of Cromwell, besides the Civil Wars. But in the long term they have brought the Irish war or even wars and many other things along the way, and they have brought Scottish independence activism, though this one is not violent. It will take four centuries for that brutal colonization and then integration to be corrected, and it is still not finished in Ireland. The film is light on the subject.
Even lighter with the development of the English fleet. It is hardly military but completely commercial. Cromwell liberated the merchants and the commercial entrepreneurs to start building a world wide, we would say global today, commercial empire that will be the backbone of the British Empire later on and is still in many ways the backbone of the Commonwealth of today. The film is light on that subject again, and hence why Cromwell had to go to Parliament to "finance" his war against Spain, like Queen Elizabeth I before him: he had to borrow the ships and the sailors of the merchants and Parliament at that time, as it is not said in the film, only represented those who had an estate or a commerce and who paid taxes in a way or another. Very few tens of thousands of people indeed. But MPs controlled the ships and their sailors, since these were their working tools and employees outside Parliament. They were the bourgeoisie of the time in England.
It is really a very first step towards Cromwell. The film does not even speak of the introduction of censors appointed by the state for all publications, in spite of some protest, particularly of John Milton, who accepted though to be the head of that censoring department.
As a timid introduction, you can get it and decorticate it properly.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Cromwell was a good general or military leader. He knew soldiers were to be motivated by ideology not by birth and privileges. But he was a very poor politician, at least political leader. He could speak Parliament into taking controversial yet crucial decisions, but he could not manage the country, the government, the Parliament, or whatever.
He was slightly more well-off than said, since he had the privilege of an education at Cambridge, but that is not what is important here. The film reduces Lutheranism and Calvinism to being Puritanism in England. That is wrong. Puritanism was one trend but an extreme trend as compared to Lutheranism for example, generally referred to as the chapels, because there were many branches to that shrub. The film more or less reduces the religious debate to predestination and hence does not explain why they were working hard these predestined people: they were working hard because social, economic and educational success was the sign of being chosen. This is social Darwinism before Darwin. That explains why in fact Cromwell was a political failure. Politics is an arena for mediocre people, for those who are able to beg and to bow and to do all these things that respect power in order to eventually get a share of it. That is the contrary of being chosen, at least not by God.
There is a long development on Ireland and Scotland, the two historical military successes of Cromwell, besides the Civil Wars. But in the long term they have brought the Irish war or even wars and many other things along the way, and they have brought Scottish independence activism, though this one is not violent. It will take four centuries for that brutal colonization and then integration to be corrected, and it is still not finished in Ireland. The film is light on the subject.
Even lighter with the development of the English fleet. It is hardly military but completely commercial. Cromwell liberated the merchants and the commercial entrepreneurs to start building a world wide, we would say global today, commercial empire that will be the backbone of the British Empire later on and is still in many ways the backbone of the Commonwealth of today. The film is light on that subject again, and hence why Cromwell had to go to Parliament to "finance" his war against Spain, like Queen Elizabeth I before him: he had to borrow the ships and the sailors of the merchants and Parliament at that time, as it is not said in the film, only represented those who had an estate or a commerce and who paid taxes in a way or another. Very few tens of thousands of people indeed. But MPs controlled the ships and their sailors, since these were their working tools and employees outside Parliament. They were the bourgeoisie of the time in England.
It is really a very first step towards Cromwell. The film does not even speak of the introduction of censors appointed by the state for all publications, in spite of some protest, particularly of John Milton, who accepted though to be the head of that censoring department.
As a timid introduction, you can get it and decorticate it properly.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
