>abolish monarchy>also abolish parliament as a meaningful power broker What exactly was his end goal? Permanent military Dictatorship? Total paddy death?
The boy on the left tells it all.
>>18059495Nothin lol. It's one of those pronto-dictators. Kind of like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc. Where you really had no goal but to secure power, and now that you got it, you don't know what to do
>>18059495Well if he abolish monarchy and parliament that meant that he wanted to rule the country by himself and the people he pointed out. Basically a dictatorship.
>>18059495He wanted a North Korea style hereditary dictatorship. Too bad his son was utterly incompetent and wasn't even 10% of the man his father was.
>>18059495>Total paddy death?Its a sad matter of fact that he wanted no such thing and the irish just kvetch about what was normal state of warfare at the continent, which the more conservative branch will also glorify at the same time when they bring up the irish who went to serve for spain and burned down half of Holland
>>18059526That's why you need a monarchy to do survive incompetent sons. People would respect more an incompetent king just because he is the king than the son of a dude that took power recently.
>>18059495>What exactly was his end goal?Saving Protestantism and restoring the Commonwealth in England. Simple as.>nnnooo he banned ParliamentThey weren't ready to put their big boys pants on and actually protect the Commonwealth, he did the right thing.
>>18059526Anyone else think it's ironic how Cromwell was more totalitarian than the English kings before him? One of those real situations like >>18059503 had mentioned with Stalin where some rando in the Civil War comes to power who nobody originally wanted
>>18059495He and Napoleon are very similar in the sense they replaced a monarchy only to then make one of their relatives their immediate successor. Why aren't they both considered monarchs in themselves?
>>18059605I think Napoleon is often considered a monarch, the House of Bonaparte is very much a thing even though other nobles like to pretend like it doesn't exist. The title "emperor" is correlated with "king" in nearly everyone's mind unless you're talking original Roman Emperors
>>18059591Carl J Friedrich's "Age of Baroque" talks about this. He spends a few paragraphs comparing Cromwell/Louis XIV, how Cromwell was even more totalitarian than Louis, how Louis leaned more on his advisors and statesmen more than Cromwell, etc.
LET THE MICKS HIT THE FLOORLET THE MICKS HIT THE FLOORLET THE MICKS HIT THE FLOOR
>>18059495Both
>>18059665comparing a guy who achieved power through traditional, formal means to a guy who did it through revolution seems a bit unfair
>>18059715Based
>>18059645roman emperors weren't kings too?
>>18059526>>18059545Perhaps duke-like power in Italian cities
>>18059943They were divine citizen
>>18059943umm no sweatie Rome doesn't have a king there we just first citizen and dictator for life
>>18059715>LET THE PADDIES HIT THE FLOORftfy
>>18060004Nowadays it's all the same, God forbid a hereditary dictator to call himself a monarch. It's always president for life with fake elections. I hope this clownery will end and the regular monarchy will be back in style.
Roman emperors put their sons in the throne, they were kings.Maybe if when they died a new dictatorship had been picked by the senate you could say they were dictatorships.
>>18060032Hereditary succession is total ass though. One because sometimes the kids are bad 2 because they're nearly always brought up wrong through incompetence or over pressure or decadence or conniving. Roman kings had no problems choosing a successor that was best suited for the job.>>18059943Rome went from kings to republic to emperors.
>>18060037Emperors whe inherited the throne were almost always the worst ones.
>>18059943Roman succession being hereditary was more an aspiration of emperors than a general rule, at least after the Julio-Claudians
He was a bit of a hypocrite. Effectively a king in all but name, though styled as a Protectorate.
>>18060037>Roman emperors put their sons in the throne, they were kings.Happened a lot less often than you might think. It wasn't uncoming for them to "adopt" an heir (who would be like 35 when they're adopted), but an actual biological son taking the throne peacefully and a stable transition was pretty rare
>>18060151An adopted son is also the same for me. It's someone that the current ruler chooses by himself and without the senate.
>>18060057counterpoint:
AWAY WITH THIS POPISH IDOLATRY
