NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so here it is the poll you've all been waiting for, greatest Brition. Is it Nelson? Wellington? Churchill? Thatcher? YOU decide. First lets have some nomination, the top 8 (With the most nominations)go through to get vote on in a NS poll.

Nominations:
King Harold1
5)Cromwell 2
1)Churchill 6
Gladstone 1
6)Brunel 2
Michael Faraday 1
2)Shakespeare 5
7)Hawking 2
3)Queen Elizabeth 3
Russel 1
4)Newton 3
8)Thatcher 1
Bell 1
Hotchkiss 1
Godgifu of Coventry 1
Keynes 1
Chaplin 1
Cleese 1
Darwin 1
Robert The Bruce 1
Queen Victoria 1
Faraday 1
Keynes 1
Dowding 1
Locke 1
Nelson 1

The top 8 are in, they are
Churchill
Cromwell
Brunel
Shakespeare
Hawking
Queen Elizabeth the 1st
Newton
Thatcher

King Harold; was a good king, dedicated to his kingdom and the last bastion against Norman feudal oppression.

Well that was unexpected. I'll put it up anyway.

Oliver Cromwell is undoubtedly the greatest man in British history. In 1640 he was nothing more than a Fenland farmer. He had played no major role in politics, yet 13 years later he was Head of State. He had no military training in 1640, and yet within 5 years, he would be second in command of the parliamentary army and would be the only commander of the Civil War to never have lost a battle. No Royal Blood was in his veins, yet he was one day offered the Crown. He is simply the most remarkable man in in British history simply because his background and upbringing was so unremarkable.

And yet without him:

Parliament would not have won the English Civil War. This is because at the crucial victories at Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645), it was Oliver Cromwell and his decisiveness and skill that turned what were until his actions going to be at best draws and most likely defeats for Parliament into the decisive military victories that they became. Without him, England would have reverted to being an absolutist country in which religious minorities were persecuted and in which the liberties of England were trampled over. This revolution as it was influenced not only Britain but also the whole world. george Washington's great-grandfather fought in the English Civil War and it was undoubtedly this conflict which influenced the American Revolution of 1776, which influenced the events in France of 1789.

Also, Cromwell saved England from becoming an anarchic state in which the army went on the rampage and in which executions, rape and pillage would have devastated an already exhausted country. After the execution of the King, Parliament quite quickly lost the the trust and goodwill of the Army. Many Army Commanders were planning military coup d'etats (as happened after Cromwell's death in 1658 and only stopped with the restoration of Charles II). Cromwell however, interceded. He dissolved the troublesome Parliament with the aid of the Army. Yes he was an autocrat, but he was not totalitarian. He believed in the authority of parliament but not a parliament that had no counterbalance in the constitution. He called several parliaments during his rule when he could have ruled without one quite easily. But Cromwell had fought the Civil War for the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty and unlike Charles I (who Cromwell had helped to destroy) and so unlike men like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin, Cromwell could never shake off the feeling of unworthiness for the role of Head of State. He was worried about political power and saw himself purely as an instrument of God. Real dictators think they are God. This is what saved England from a real dictatorship.

He also gave England for the first time, the idea that one should be free to receive God in one's own way provided that one did not disturb the peace and conscience of anybody else. Cromwell tolerated previously persecuted religious minorities like 'The Quakers', readmitted (after 300 years) the Jews to England and even Catholics (who Cromwell despised) were arguably better off under him than under both Charles I (who was married to a Catholic) and Charles II (who was married to a Catholic, whose brother and mother were Catholic and even converted to Catholicism on his deathbed).


Yes, he was a ruthless military operator but he was highly successful and not the only 'Great Man' who has committed acts that are nowadays pretty dubious. Also, the massacres at Drogheda and Wexford (Ireland) are remembered wrongly as the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children despite the fact that almost all the evidence counters this, (read "Cromwell: an Honourable Enemy" by Irish Historian Tom Reilly for proof of this.) What happened was nothing more than the brutal application of the rules of war at that time and at least 200 years on. Cromwell killed the majority (though not all) of a garrison that had been offered the chance to surrender and had refused. The town was taken by storm and the defenders knew that they could expect no quarter. It should be noted that these events are also remembered partly because they are so out of character with Cromwell's usual way of operating in England, Wales, Scotland and even most of Ireland.

Despite this blot on his reputation, it is in my mind an undeniable fact that Oliver Cromwell is the Greatest Briton Ever!

Cromwell, a great man for a great country!

Winston churchill. got us through WWII.

Oliver Cromwell is undoubtedly the greatest man in British history. In 1640 he was nothing more than a Fenland farmer. He had played no major role in politics, yet 13 years later he was Head of State. He had no military training in 1640, and yet within 5 years, he would be second in command of the parliamentary army and would be the only commander of the Civil War to never have lost a battle. No Royal Blood was in his veins, yet he was one day offered the Crown. He is simply the most remarkable man in in British history simply because his background and upbringing was so unremarkable.

And yet without him:

Parliament would not have won the English Civil War. This is because at the crucial victories at Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645), it was Oliver Cromwell and his decisiveness and skill that turned what were until his actions going to be at best draws and most likely defeats for Parliament into the decisive military victories that they became. Without him, England would have reverted to being an absolutist country in which religious minorities were persecuted and in which the liberties of England were trampled over. This revolution as it was influenced not only Britain but also the whole world. george Washington's great-grandfather fought in the English Civil War and it was undoubtedly this conflict which influenced the American Revolution of 1776, which influenced the events in France of 1789.

Also, Cromwell saved England from becoming an anarchic state in which the army went on the rampage and in which executions, rape and pillage would have devastated an already exhausted country. After the execution of the King, Parliament quite quickly lost the the trust and goodwill of the Army. Many Army Commanders were planning military coup d'etats (as happened after Cromwell's death in 1658 and only stopped with the restoration of Charles II). Cromwell however, interceded. He dissolved the troublesome Parliament with the aid of the Army. Yes he was an autocrat, but he was not totalitarian. He believed in the authority of parliament but not a parliament that had no counterbalance in the constitution. He called several parliaments during his rule when he could have ruled without one quite easily. But Cromwell had fought the Civil War for the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty and unlike Charles I (who Cromwell had helped to destroy) and so unlike men like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin, Cromwell could never shake off the feeling of unworthiness for the role of Head of State. He was worried about political power and saw himself purely as an instrument of God. Real dictators think they are God. This is what saved England from a real dictatorship.

He also gave England for the first time, the idea that one should be free to receive God in one's own way provided that one did not disturb the peace and conscience of anybody else. Cromwell tolerated previously persecuted religious minorities like 'The Quakers', readmitted (after 300 years) the Jews to England and even Catholics (who Cromwell despised) were arguably better off under him than under both Charles I (who was married to a Catholic) and Charles II (who was married to a Catholic, whose brother and mother were Catholic and even converted to Catholicism on his deathbed).


Yes, he was a ruthless military operator but he was highly successful and not the only 'Great Man' who has committed acts that are nowadays pretty dubious. Also, the massacres at Drogheda and Wexford (Ireland) are remembered wrongly as the indiscriminate slaughter of women and cjhildren despite the fact that almost all the evidence counters this, (read "Cromwell: an Honourable Enemy" by Irish Historian Tom Reilly for proof of this.) What happened was nothing more than the brutal application of the rules of war at that time and at least 200 years on. Cromwell killed the majority (though not all) of a garrison that had been offered the chance to surrender and had refused. The town was taken by storm and the defenders knew that they could expect no quarter. It should be noted that these events are also remembered partly because they are so out of character with Cromwell's usual way of operating in England, Wales, Scotland and even most of Ireland.

Despite this blot on his reputation, it is in my mind an undeniable fact that Oliver Cromwell is the Greatest Briton Ever!

Cromwell, a great man for a great country!

and i am related to him as well so hah! :D

I think its a straight competition between William Gladstone and Winston Churchill.
Churchill was the saviour of this country and he dedicated over 50 years of his life to public service. He was a man of devout loyalty, constant principles and high intelligence. His spirit of determination against overwhelming odds has become the embodiment of the British pysche and he helped a quavering nation recover to fight back against tyranny and oppression. Nor was he a Prime Minister who weakly submitted to America's every whim. He fought hard for British interests and battled against American folly wherever he found it. Had he been listen to then most of Eastern Europe wouldnt have fallen into Soviet hands and millions would have been saved from misery and oppression. Churchill never gave up: even when his own career was floundering he carried on battling for what he believed in. This spirit is the British spirit and never has it been so strongly. I would suggest that he was far greater than either Stalin or Roosevelt.
Gladstone was another long lived British politican serving from 1830 to 1893 (aged 90 he was Prime Minister!). However he has sadly been ignored. He advocated many wise policies and gave birth to the liberal Britain, where people would not just stand by and ignore poverty. Under him, government came to the aid of the people and ended the cruellty of the industrial revolution. No longer were masses to be uneducated or deprive dof vote because of financial disadvantage. Gladstone was a trully moral politican, incorruptable and brilliant. He never swayed from his principles for the sake of political advantage. He fought bitterly for his beliefs even when they were doomed like the Irish Home Rule bill. If he had been listened to in 1886 then Ireland may still have been proud to call itself a member of the United Kingdom today. The major problem with Gladstone was he never served as a wartime prime minister whereas Churchill (and Pitt) did.

King Harold; was a good king, dedicated to his kingdom and the last bastion against Norman feudal oppression.

The Normans came after Harold. (Well, yes, they came when he was here, but they killed him pretty quickly).

How about Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Greatest engineer that ever lived.

Michael Faraday. He was a one of the main reasons that electricity became a common power source. Everyone (except the new agers, amish and "druids") has benifited from this.

Why, me of course!

I'd like to nominate William Shakespeare, author of the most wonderful literature the world has ever seen.

I'd like to nominate William Shakespeare, author of the most wonderful literature the world has ever seen.

...and who has tortured more schoolchildren than any other.

Oliver Cromwell was also a madman who massacred thousands and banned Christmas. ;)

The greatest Briton is obviousy moi. :)

Churchill.

The Normans came after Harold. (Well, yes, they came when he was here, but they killed him pretty quickly).

How about Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Greatest engineer that ever lived.

They only could come because they killed him.
The Saxons had a more liberal feudal economy and the Normans came with a much more oppressive system.
It was only with time that the Norman system became less oppressive.
So essentially there was a point of a hundred years or so that could have been skipped.

Oliver Cromwell was also a madman who massacred thousands and banned Christmas. ;)

The greatest Briton is obviousy moi. :)

If you're referring to Ireland then that assessment can no longer be taken as a given.
Now historians dispute how many people he actually killed; many believe it's a case of the numbers and methods being exaggurated.
Also, in terms of people of the time he was no more exceptional than most leaders on this score.
The Christmas ban wasn't so much Cromwell; he had to rely on many other senior officers, including the Major Generals for a while, so he could not simply ignore those who thought showy Christmas celebrations should be banned.

They only could come because they killed him.
The Saxons had a more liberal feudal economy and the Normans came with a much more oppressive system.
It was only with time that the Norman system became less oppressive.
So essentially there was a point of a hundred years or so that could have been skipped.

So how does that make him great? Not trying to get at you, I just don't see your argument.

...and who has tortured more schoolchildren than any other.


meh, i liked shakespeare once i read it in my own time outside of school...if you admit to liking whilst at school, you head would have been flushed down the toilet!

meh, i liked shakespeare once i read it in my own time outside of school...if you admit to liking whilst at school, you head would have been flushed down the toilet!

True. I saw Hamlet in the theatre and it was brilliant. Who gives a shit that he used pathetic fallacy or juxtaposition when he probably only put it in because it sounded good?

So how does that make him great? Not trying to get at you, I just don't see your argument.

Because he was a leader who led.
He fought to the last from the front line of his army and did not just abandon his men as many 'great' leaders have done.
The danger was there and he faced it.
Consider that William was mounted and at the back of his men.
Just because he wasn't recent and didn't have a massive impact on society today doesn't mean that he wasn't great in his time.
He nearly won as well but then came that fateful (and fatal) arrow.

True. I saw Hamlet in the theatre and it was brilliant. Who gives a shit that he used pathetic fallacy or juxtaposition when he probably only put it in because it sounded good?

He was a playwright, not an English textbook writer.
Poor sod.

True. I saw Hamlet in the theatre and it was brilliant. Who gives a shit that he used pathetic fallacy or juxtaposition when he probably only put it in because it sounded good?


its because it sounds good half the time that people like it, his ability to take the play beyond the stage, both in reaching to the crowd and portraying his own philosophy is second to non...still prefer goethe tho ;)

Can we count Aussies, since they're in the commonwealth? How about Germaine Greer? She's lived in the UK long enough.

Second choice would be Stephen Hawking.

Guy Fawlkes.

Because he was a leader who led.
He fought to the last from the front line of his army and did not just abandon his men as many 'great' leaders have done.
The danger was there and he faced it.
Consider that William was mounted and at the back of his men.
Just because he wasn't recent and didn't have a massive impact on society today doesn't mean that he wasn't great in his time.
He nearly won as well but then came that fateful (and fatal) arrow.
It is the cause that makes Great men, and the FIght that makes Great Commanders.
Cromwell was a pig of a human being.
Good leader of soldiers, but hardly the Greatest thing to come from the Brits.
I would say one of their more embarrasing historical figures.

It is the cause that makes Great men, and the FIght that makes Great Commanders.
Cromwell was a pig of a human being.
Good leader of soldiers, but hardly the Greatest thing to come from the Brits.
I would say one of their more embarrasing historical figures.


oi, thats my ancestor you talkin about :mad:

It is the cause that makes Great men, and the FIght that makes Great Commanders.
Cromwell was a pig of a human being.
Good leader of soldiers, but hardly the Greatest thing to come from the Brits.
I would say one of their more embarrasing historical figures.

Actually, my nomination was King Harold and that is to whom I refer.
The Cromwell statement was helping out someone else.
The bit you referred to was referring to Harold.

OOps :D

Harold Godwinson wasn't a Brit. There wasn't a Great Britain then. He was English (from Wessex)

Nonetheless, how about another English person - Elizabeth I. She restored religious peace after Mary Tudor and Edward (Extreme catholic after extreme protestant), she fought off threats of invasion, she ran diplomatic rings around most of the other countries of Europe, she was incredibly well educated and well read, and shagged half the court without actually marrying any of them. (Virgin Queen my arse!)

Can I have a joint nomination for Elizabeth (no.1) and Francis Drake, partly because I think that although queenie was a great leader, maybe a bit frigid, she wouldn't have done anything with England if it wasn't for her sailors (Francis Drake represents them btw) making England international and burning those Spanish arses right around Scotland. I think that this period was a turning point in British history, because it's really when Britain first became Britain.

Can I have a joint nomination for Elizabeth (no.1) and Francis Drake, partly because I think that although queenie was a great leader, maybe a bit frigid, she wouldn't have done anything with England if it wasn't for her sailors (Francis Drake represents them btw) making England international and burning those Spanish arses right around Scotland. I think that this period was a turning point in British history, because it's really when Britain first became Britain.

Britain became Britain when James VI of Scotland (or was it James IV) became King of England as well.

I think its a straight competition between William Gladstone and Winston Churchill.
Churchill was the saviour of this country and he dedicated over 50 years of his life to public service. He was a man of devout loyalty, constant principles and high intelligence. His spirit of determination against overwhelming odds has become the embodiment of the British pysche and he helped a quavering nation recover to fight back against tyranny and oppression. Nor was he a Prime Minister who weakly submitted to America's every whim. He fought hard for British interests and battled against American folly wherever he found it. Had he been listen to then most of Eastern Europe wouldnt have fallen into Soviet hands and millions would have been saved from misery and oppression. Churchill never gave up: even when his own career was floundering he carried on battling for what he believed in. This spirit is the British spirit and never has it been so strongly. I would suggest that he was far greater than either Stalin or Roosevelt.
Gladstone was another long lived British politican serving from 1830 to 1893 (aged 90 he was Prime Minister!). However he has sadly been ignored. He advocated many wise policies and gave birth to the liberal Britain, where people would not just stand by and ignore poverty. Under him, government came to the aid of the people and ended the cruellty of the industrial revolution. No longer were masses to be uneducated or deprive dof vote because of financial disadvantage. Gladstone was a trully moral politican, incorruptable and brilliant. He never swayed from his principles for the sake of political advantage. He fought bitterly for his beliefs even when they were doomed like the Irish Home Rule bill. If he had been listened to in 1886 then Ireland may still have been proud to call itself a member of the United Kingdom today. The major problem with Gladstone was he never served as a wartime prime minister whereas Churchill (and Pitt) did.

Won't hold anything against you for listing those two. Churchill is with Pitt the Elder and William Ewart Gladstone, our greatest Prime Minister!

I never really liked Shakespeare. It's like a bad soap opera with appallingly overblown laguage.

\But I can't spell.

Oliver Cromwell was also a madman who massacred thousands and banned Christmas.:)

As I stated, the 'massacres' of legend are just not supported by this little thing we historians have to use, called EVIDENCE.

Also, yes he banned Christmas, but that is because it is not actually a Christian festival. It is the pagan 'Yuletide'. Cromwell never opposed theatres, taverns and dancing in principle. What he opposed was them replacing God at the center of people's lives and also the fact that playhouses, bars and brothels were often the meeting places for criminals, traitors and spies.

Personally I also feel that Elizabeth was the greatest brit as well. Not only did she overcome many issues that would have made most men tremble but she did it whilst the general opinion was very much against her. She had so much opposition because of he gender yet she is the one that really put England on the map. :cool:

Jane Austen as well. You cannot have shakespeare on the list and not Austen. Personally I find shakespeare really overrated. I did enjoy macbeth but I find Romeo and juliet reallly weak. I guess it is mostly because he seems to have been elevated to such a high godlike/genius status that he shall always disappoint. Also making pupils *read* his plays is a bad idea.
It's like reading the script to a film. It's meant to be *watched*. :mad:

Winston Churchill - by popular vote, officially the Greatest Briton. Not only an outstanding orator, inspirational leader and political mastermind (A Conservative), he was also immensly talented when it came to writing - actually winning the Nobel Prize for literature (History of the English Speak Peoples, I believe). Here's an interesting fact which you may not know: as a schoolboy, he sat down every day and learnt 2 pages of the dictionary - hence his amazing command of the language.

Though Mrs. Thatcher comes a close second!

Because he was a leader who led.
He fought to the last from the front line of his army and did not just abandon his men as many 'great' leaders have done.
The danger was there and he faced it.
Consider that William was mounted and at the back of his men.

Not totally true. William had three horses killed under him and there is even some evidence that he led the knights in the charge that left the already arrowstruck Harold disembowelled and caused his standard to collapse.

Harold was a great leader no doubt.

Unfortunately like Richard III, the fights he fought were at least partially his fault. Harold did, whether under duress or not, swear an oath in 1064 acknowledging William's claim to the throne. That does not make him in my opinion the greatest Briton we had.

William's legacy is far more longstanding and important.

Guy Fawlkes.

Why?

Britain became Britain when James VI of Scotland (or was it James IV) became King of England as well.


Thats what i was getting at. That James guy king thing, was directly after lizzie because she didnt have any children. Im avoiding the virgin debate.

Why?

Just to be a dick. :p

Just to be a dick. :p

In that case sir, you have succeeded!

In the interests of open disclosure, I am a citizen of the United States.

That said, I nominate Tactical Grace, GMC, Sirocco, and Myrth.

Oh, and I also second the nomination for Stephen Hawking.

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

In that case sir, you have succeeded!
:eek:

You heard!

Oh no!!! :eek: I has been PWNED!!! :eek:

Bertrand Russel is up there.

Surely there's no argument:
Sir Issac Newton.
His discoveries and mathematics changed the world far more than any other Brit (or indeed almost any other person) in History.

thatcher for sure...

Cromwell, a great man for a great country!

Cromwell was an utter bastard. He ran a civil war and banned Christmas. He did massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford, and lots of other places in Ireland. Without Cromwell, parliament would have sorted itself out sooner or later. Whatever he left behind him it can't have been that great because as soon as he died we got Kings back.

Cromwell was an utter bastard. He ran a civil war and banned Christmas. He did massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford, and lots of other places in Ireland. Without Cromwell, parliament would have sorted itself out sooner or later. Whatever he left behind him it can't have been that great because as soon as he died we got Kings back.

Then again, if the revolution had come later it probably would have been much bloodier, like in France. After Charles II the kings & queens had very little real power - parliament was the dominant force.

And it wasn't Oliver Cromwell's fault the kings came back after he died - it was more to do with his idiot of a son taking over. You look at anyone proposed as the Greatest Briton and he/she will have done something truly amazing, but most of them did pretty nasty things too - you have to take into account the culture of the times they lived in.

Cromwell was an utter bastard. He ran a civil war and banned Christmas. He did massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford, and lots of other places in Ireland. Without Cromwell, parliament would have sorted itself out sooner or later. Whatever he left behind him it can't have been that great because as soon as he died we got Kings back.


1. He led the civil war against the king to 'free' the people from a person who had closed parliament.

2. Christmas is based on a PAGAN festival, as is just about every other major christian festival, so in other words, he was banning a non christian event.

3. The massacres at the two places you mentioned are disputed, so there is no certainty in either.

4. Its very very doubtful the parliament would have been allowed back in session as they wanted to limit the kings powers, therefore having it all sorted out would not have happened in a few months...

5. Stop insulting my ancestors!!! :mad:

Now when you say brit, do you include scots? 'cause Alexander Graham Bell with his telephone is worthy of nomination.

Also, I second Newton.

Now when you say brit, do you include scots? 'cause Alexander Graham Bell with his telephone is worthy of nomination.

No he's not, because he didn't invent the telephone. He stole it.

No he's not, because he didn't invent the telephone. He stole it.
He does hold the patent. Besides, he's the one who commercialised it. Either way, he's worth mentionning.

Elizibeth and Churchill in the lead followed by HAwking and Newton.

Brunel then, for the reasons here....



http://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/brunel/kingbrun.html



so there you go

Brunel then, for the reasons here....



http://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/brunel/kingbrun.html



so there you go

Hurrah, the second nomination for the greatest engineer who ever lived!

We should bring him back to life, just to sort the railways out.

Hurrah, the second nomination for the greatest engineer who ever lived!

We should bring him back to life, just to sort the railways out.


NOBODY can sort our railways out! we need em all tearing up and putting down again...maybe by somebody with brains and a name that doesn't change every 6 months :D

After many battles, a second contest was held and one of Brunel's designs was accepted, although, owing to lack of funds, the bridge was not completed until after Brunel's death

and the suspension chains originally intended for the Avon bridge were used on another of his bridges (in Devon, I think, but I can't remember where). Just an interesting aside.

If his 7' railway gauge had become the standard rather than the 4' gauge, we'd have a decent railway too, and all our trains would be a lot more luxurious and faster.

NOBODY can sort our railways out! we need em all tearing up and putting down again...maybe by somebody with brains and a name that doesn't change every 6 months :D

Actually, about a year ago, someone worked out that it would be cheaper to build an entirely new railway infrastructure from scratch than it would to maintain the current infrastructure for just five years.

Nice.

I vote we scrap it all and build it new with wider, faster rails. Just like Brunel would have done, in fact.

You are clearly a person who is bereft of their last braincell.

Cromwell was an utter bastard. He ran a civil war

The Civil War had begun regardless of what Cromwell did. He really was not anyone important until 1644 (two years into the war) when he saved Parliament's day at the Battle of Marston Moor.

and banned Christmas.

Yes but he was not the only man who supported banning Christmas. I have already stated why he did so and shall not repeat myself.

He did massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford, and lots of other places in Ireland.

Grrrrr... as I stated in my post, the historical evidence of the time suggests that the 'massacre' as you call it was of soldiers in Drogheda and Wexford. Not ordinary people. Far worse happened in towns in the Civil War in England at the hands of both Parliamentarians and the Royalists (in 1645, the Royalists after taking it, ran around butchering indiscriminately in the city of Leicester).

Without Cromwell, parliament would have sorted itself out sooner or later.

Prove it!

Whatever he left behind him it can't have been that great because as soon as he died we got Kings back.

Actually the period between the death of Oliver Cromwell on September 3rd 1658 and the restoration of Charles II in April 1660 is complicated and the restoration of the monarchy was far from inevitable. A Royalist rising soon after Cromwell's death was easily crushed due to lack of popular support. People had grown used to the Protectorate that had brought them stability and peace. What caused the restoration of the Stuart dynasty was that the population because of events in the intervening period became convinced that only the restoration of a genuine Stuart monarchy (especially one under as charismatic a figure as Charles II) could bring back the stability of Cromwellian rule and of the pre-civil war period.

Cromwellian rule had its faults. Cromwell was not King and therefore was never recognised by many in the country as having right to govern. The Army didn't always like what Cromwell did because he was not as revolutionary and radical as they were and he always tended to want to maintain peace and stability under Parliament even if that meant the putting Godly Reformation on hold (look at the Major-Generals which he introduced and then removed). Parliament did not always like Cromwell's authoritarian attitude. They felt he was domineering and they did not like the influence of the army.
But what Cromwell could do was he could still retain their trust and he provided that fulcrum wherein the two would be prepared to co-operate because to the army he was still one of them and to Parliament he was, even if slightly more powerful than we would like, at least pro-parliament.

Under Richard Cromwell though this trust wasn't there and the army and Pariliament tried to play off the Protector against the other. The army, after Parliament had succeeded in influencing Richard, got rid of him and enforced their own form of martial rule on the country. As Army gave way to another Parliament and vice versa, it became clear to men like George Monck that only Charles Stuart could repeat the Oliver Cromwell trick, of uniting the Army and Parliament behind him even if they sometimes quarrelled with him.

Therefore it is the greatest of ironies that the restoration of Charles II came about not because England needed a successor to Charles I. It came about because England needed a successor to Oliver Cromwell.

Now when you say brit, do you include scots? 'cause Alexander Graham Bell with his telephone is worthy of nomination.

Also, I second Newton.

What's more important than inventing the first telephone, is inventing the second telephone. Otherwise what is one going to do if there is just one telephone.

I'm of the view that Scientists have made greater impact on the World as we know it than any politician.

So in no particular order:
John Logie Baird, Alexander Flemming, James Maxwell, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Edward Jenner, James Watt (actually, has anyone noticed most of these are Scottish? What does that say about the English? ;) )
Has anyone mentioned Charles Darwin? He'd be my second choice behind Newton. But only cause his theories would have come out probably around the same time if he had never existed.
Unlike Newton's mathematical theories, which would have taken decades or even centuries to have been discovered by others. And that would have set society back massively.

I'm of the view that Scientists have made greater impact on the World as we know it than any politician.

So in no particular order:
John Logie Baird, Alexander Flemming, James Maxwell, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Edward Jenner, James Watt (actually, has anyone noticed most of these are Scottish? What does that say about the English? ;) )
Has anyone mentioned Charles Darwin? He'd be my second choice behind Newton. But only cause his theories would have come out probably around the same time if he had never existed.
Unlike Newton's mathematical theories, which would have taken decades or even centuries to have been discovered by others. And that would have set society back massively.

Good post.

Francis Bacon not in the running huh?

Chaucer makes Shakespeare look like a bad blogger.

Then again I'm an American so I'm assuming my vote won't count. In that case I vote for one Samuel Hotchkiss, who left Shrewsbury circa. 1638 and landed in the Colonies at New Haven.

I suggest Godgifu of Coventry (Lady Godiva), wife of the Earl Leofric of Mercia.

Getting a heavy tax on the citizens of her locale lifted, by purportedly riding naked through the town.

You don't see that kind of dedication by the 'powers-that-be' nowdays...

I suggest Godgifu of Coventry (Lady Godiva), wife of the Earl Leofric of Mercia.

Getting a heavy tax on the citizens of her locale lifted, by purportedly riding naked through the town.

You don't see that kind of dedication by the 'powers-that-be' nowdays...

Oh please don't. (Dreams up horrid images involving Clare Short and a motorcycle.)

Newton on a spurt to joint first.

Oh please don't. (Dreams up horrid images involving Clare Short and a motorcycle.)

Aha... perhaps it's better that Godiva's antics are left in the past, yes?

:)

Aha... perhaps it's better that Godiva's antics are left in the past, yes?

:)

I just hope that a helmet wasn't involved.

You know those Anglo-Saxon types.

The Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

Not merely the greatest brit, the greatest man of the 20th century.

Aha... perhaps it's better that Godiva's antics are left in the past, yes?

:)


Perhaps it's better, you know, if you get me some chocolates, yes?

Perhaps it's better, you know, if you get me some chocolates, yes?

Someone say chocolate?! :)

I am utterly amazed that no one has yet to mention John Maynard Keynes or Adam Smith for that matter. Both of them were brilliant economists and both have had significant impacts on how the world works. Adam Smith and hisbook the Wealth of Nations was the first book to explain the invisible hand of the market and the merits of a low tariff laissez faire system.

John Maynard Keynes who I believe is the greatest of the two helped craft ideas to bring the world out of depression and his policies and principles were used in spawn the largest economic growth in the history of the world between 1949-1974, sometimes referred to as the age of affluence. While this affected North America more than Europe, his ideas of a liberal welfare state, government intervention in the economy to stimulate economic growth, and other such measures are still be used today in modified forms. John Maynard Keynes had brilliant foresight,perception, and understanding which often times wasn't heeded by the world leaders of the day. Two examples of this. In 1919 during the negociations of the Treaty of Versailles, Keynes wrote a pamphlet titled the Economic Consequences of the Peace where he condemned the heavy economic sanctions designed to cripple Germany, claiming it would cause such economic hardship, frustration, and anger in Germany that would cause the rise of a militaristic dictatorship and another European war. After the war when the nations were altering the valueof their currencies on the gold standard, Keynes wrote a piece called the Economic Consequences of Winston Churchill, critical of Churchill for setting Britain's pound too high on the gold standard and predicting it would have negative ramifications for British exports and the British economy. Both times he was correct.

Keynesianism, modified from the years of stagflation and reactionary economics espoused by economist Milton Friedman, still exists today and its impact is felt in the western world. Most social programs that were created were created during the years that the western world embraced Keynesianism and nations such as Sweden are relatively glowing example of its feesibility and success. His contribution to world economics helped rally depression economies and stimulate solid and rapid economic growth on levels never seen before in history. I think a man who can have such a profound influence on how world economies work and whos policies were so influential as to stimulate vast economic growth and a completely new way of understanding the way the economy works and a governments role in it should be considered great.

I am utterly amazed that no one has yet to mention John Maynard Keynes or Adam Smith for that matter. Both of them were brilliant economists and both have had significant impacts on how the world works. Adam Smith and hisbook the Wealth of Nations was the first book to explain the invisible hand of the market and the merits of a low tariff laissez faire system.

John Maynard Keynes who I believe is the greatest of the two helped craft ideas to bring the world out of depression and his policies and principles were used in spawn the largest economic growth in the history of the world between 1949-1974, sometimes referred to as the age of affluence. While this affected North America more than Europe, his ideas of a liberal welfare state, government intervention in the economy to stimulate economic growth, and other such measures are still be used today in modified forms. John Maynard Keynes had brilliant foresight,perception, and understanding which often times wasn't heeded by the world leaders of the day. Two examples of this. In 1919 during the negociations of the Treaty of Versailles, Keynes wrote a pamphlet titled the Economic Consequences of the Peace where he condemned the heavy economic sanctions designed to cripple Germany, claiming it would cause such economic hardship, frustration, and anger in Germany that would cause the rise of a militaristic dictatorship and another European war. After the war when the nations were altering the valueof their currencies on the gold standard, Keynes wrote a piece called the Economic Consequences of Winston Churchill, critical of Churchill for setting Britain's pound too high on the gold standard and predicting it would have negative ramifications for British exports and the British economy. Both times he was correct.

Keynesianism, modified from the years of stagflation and reactionary economics espoused by economist Milton Friedman, still exists today and its impact is felt in the western world. Most social programs that were created were created during the years that the western world embraced Keynesianism and nations such as Sweden are relatively glowing example of its feesibility and success. His contribution to world economics helped rally depression economies and stimulate solid and rapid economic growth on levels never seen before in history. I think a man who can have such a profound influence on how world economies work and whos policies were so influential as to stimulate vast economic growth and a completely new way of understanding the way the economy works and a governments role in it should be considered great.


This man makes a point.

Shakespeare, one of the best writers ever
or
Newton, changed science.

And Churchill was a complete alchoholic. He drank immeasurable amounts of brandy and scotch every day. Not to say he wasn't a great man, and he certainly did save us, but the whole dependancy on alchohol and his nasty disposition should detract from his "score"

Too many to pick one, but;

Charlie Chaplin.

churchill but i think that lou and andy from little britain will come close

Shakespeare

Charlie Chaplin.

Ha. Can't hold a candle to Stan Laurel.

Ha. Can't hold a candle to Stan Laurel.
I think we'd better agree to disagree there ;)

Perhaps it's better, you know, if you get me some chocolates, yes?

Hmmm, chocolates....

Yes, chocolates sound goooood, right about now...

Shakespeare, one of the best writers ever
or
Newton, changed science.

And Churchill was a complete alchoholic. He drank immeasurable amounts of brandy and scotch every day. Not to say he wasn't a great man, and he certainly did save us, but the whole dependancy on alchohol and his nasty disposition should detract from his "score"

We're all human.

I nominate John Cleese.

We're all human.

I'm the King of Mars.

I'm the King of Mars.

Can I have a castle?

I don't know. Could you have a castle?

I don't know. Could you have a castle?

In that case yes.

talking about cromwell...

As I stated, the 'massacres' of legend are just not supported by this little thing we historians have to use, called EVIDENCE.


That isn't what you said at all. What you said is that they were accepted military practice at the time. Which means he was an accepted militar bastard. But still a bastard.


Also, yes he banned Christmas, but that is because it is not actually a Christian festival. It is the pagan 'Yuletide'.


I don't care why he banned it. He still banned it. What a bastard.


Cromwell never opposed theatres, taverns and dancing in principle. What he opposed was them replacing God at the center of people's lives and also the fact that playhouses, bars and brothels were often the meeting places for criminals, traitors and spies.

So, not entirely against fun then, just against the fact that people having fun might be criminals, traitors and spies? What a reasonable bloke. I mean utter paranoid bastard.

Harold Godwinsson the last bastion of English resistance to the Norman invasion? I think not!

What about Hereward the Wake?

I don't care why he banned it. He still banned it. What a bastard.

:D

talking about cromwell...

That isn't what you said at all. What you said is that they were accepted military practice at the time. Which means he was an accepted militar bastard. But still a bastard.

I don't care why he banned it. He still banned it. What a bastard.

So, not entirely against fun then, just against the fact that people having fun might be criminals, traitors and spies? What a reasonable bloke. I mean utter paranoid bastard.

There's a pattern here, isn't there?

Now, if I could just put my finger on it....

:)

You are clearly a person who is bereft of their last braincell.



The Civil War had begun regardless of what Cromwell did. He really was not anyone important until 1644 (two years into the war) when he saved Parliament's day at the Battle of Marston Moor.



Yes but he was not the only man who supported banning Christmas. I have already stated why he did so and shall not repeat myself.



Grrrrr... as I stated in my post, the historical evidence of the time suggests that the 'massacre' as you call it was of soldiers in Drogheda and Wexford. Not ordinary people. Far worse happened in towns in the Civil War in England at the hands of both Parliamentarians and the Royalists (in 1645, the Royalists after taking it, ran around butchering indiscriminately in the city of Leicester).



Prove it!



Actually the period between the death of Oliver Cromwell on September 3rd 1658 and the restoration of Charles II in April 1660 is complicated and the restoration of the monarchy was far from inevitable. A Royalist rising soon after Cromwell's death was easily crushed due to lack of popular support. People had grown used to the Protectorate that had brought them stability and peace. What caused the restoration of the Stuart dynasty was that the population because of events in the intervening period became convinced that only the restoration of a genuine Stuart monarchy (especially one under as charismatic a figure as Charles II) could bring back the stability of Cromwellian rule and of the pre-civil war period.

Cromwellian rule had its faults. Cromwell was not King and therefore was never recognised by many in the country as having right to govern. The Army didn't always like what Cromwell did because he was not as revolutionary and radical as they were and he always tended to want to maintain peace and stability under Parliament even if that meant the putting Godly Reformation on hold (look at the Major-Generals which he introduced and then removed). Parliament did not always like Cromwell's authoritarian attitude. They felt he was domineering and they did not like the influence of the army.
But what Cromwell could do was he could still retain their trust and he provided that fulcrum wherein the two would be prepared to co-operate because to the army he was still one of them and to Parliament he was, even if slightly more powerful than we would like, at least pro-parliament.

Under Richard Cromwell though this trust wasn't there and the army and Pariliament tried to play off the Protector against the other. The army, after Parliament had succeeded in influencing Richard, got rid of him and enforced their own form of martial rule on the country. As Army gave way to another Parliament and vice versa, it became clear to men like George Monck that only Charles Stuart could repeat the Oliver Cromwell trick, of uniting the Army and Parliament behind him even if they sometimes quarrelled with him.

Therefore it is the greatest of ironies that the restoration of Charles II came about not because England needed a successor to Charles I. It came about because England needed a successor to Oliver Cromwell.
yes. Get rid of the King, set your self up in his place, but call your self something different then have your son step into your job on your death. So how was that different to what went before?
No, best thing he ever did for the country was die.

You are clearly a person who is bereft of their last braincell.
Well that insightful analysis of Cromwellian philosophy has certainly taught me a thing or two.


The Civil War had begun regardless of what Cromwell did. He really was not anyone important until 1644 (two years into the war) when he saved Parliament's day at the Battle of Marston Moor.

After which point he ran a civil war. Which would have ended much sooner had Cromwell not "saved Parliament's day". And by Parliament you mean "some people who were under the impression that they were the only people in a position to decide who ruled the nation".


Yes but he was not the only man who supported banning Christmas. I have already stated why he did so and shall not repeat myself.

I don't care why he wanted to ban it, nor do I care how many other people want to ban it. Tell me who they are and I'll call them bastards too.


Grrrrr... as I stated in my post, the historical evidence of the time suggests that the 'massacre' as you call it was of soldiers in Drogheda and Wexford. Not ordinary people. Far worse happened in towns in the Civil War in England at the hands of both Parliamentarians and the Royalists (in 1645, the Royalists after taking it, ran around butchering indiscriminately in the city of Leicester).

What about the destruction of Tralee? And is it evidence that Cromwell was a nice guy to say that he was party to much worse massacres? And does the wickedness of his enemy make it ok? No. I didn't say royalists were great. I said Cromwell was a bastard.



Prove it!

You prove that parliament wouldn't have sorted itself out sooner or later. I think the balance of probabilities is on my side, given the many paragraphs you write below which all add up to "After Cromwell died, we got a parliamentary monarchy back pretty quickly".



Actually the period between the death of Oliver Cromwell on September 3rd 1658 and the restoration of Charles II in April 1660 is complicated and the restoration of the monarchy was far from inevitable.

It took 19 months. Evitable or not, it happened.


A Royalist rising soon after Cromwell's death was easily crushed due to lack of popular support. People had grown used to the Protectorate that had brought them stability and peace.

And no christmas. Or fun.


What caused the restoration of the Stuart dynasty was that the population because of events in the intervening period became convinced that only the restoration of a genuine Stuart monarchy (especially one under as charismatic a figure as Charles II) could bring back the stability of Cromwellian rule and of the pre-civil war period.

The people were so keen on republicanism, the only thing they trusted to keep the country going was a king. nice one Cromwell


Cromwellian rule had its faults. Cromwell was not King and therefore was never recognised by many in the country as having right to govern.

So they liked his rule but didn't accept it? They must have been a lot less goal-oriented than people today. All sat around praying and saying "all this peace and stability is a bad thing, since it flows from an illegitimate ruler".


The Army didn't always like what Cromwell did because he was not as revolutionary and radical as they were and he always tended to want to maintain peace and stability under Parliament even if that meant the putting Godly Reformation on hold (look at the Major-Generals which he introduced and then removed).

So he was too keen on power to upset the populace by forcing them to be yet more drearily puritan.


Parliament did not always like Cromwell's authoritarian attitude. They felt he was domineering and they did not like the influence of the army.

And too keen on power to listen to parliament. What a fine parliamentarian ruler and much better than an autocratic King.


But what Cromwell could do was he could still retain their trust and he provided that fulcrum wherein the two would be prepared to co-operate because to the army he was still one of them and to Parliament he was, even if slightly more powerful than we would like, at least pro-parliament.

And yet he managed to be the lesser of evils for both the Army and Parliament. What a skilful leader.


Under Richard Cromwell though this trust wasn't there and the army and Pariliament tried to play off the Protector against the other. The army, after Parliament had succeeded in influencing Richard, got rid of him and enforced their own form of martial rule on the country. As Army gave way to another Parliament and vice versa, it became clear to men like George Monck that only Charles Stuart could repeat the Oliver Cromwell trick, of uniting the Army and Parliament behind him even if they sometimes quarrelled with him.


And being such a fine parliamentarian who held no truck with the divine right of succession, he gave the rule of the country to his son. What a guy.


Therefore it is the greatest of ironies that the restoration of Charles II came about not because England needed a successor to Charles I. It came about because England needed a successor to Oliver Cromwell.

It isn't even faintly ironic. The restoration of the monarchy came about because the people of power at the time would rather have a crap monarch than a crap non-monarch. It is a testament to Cromwell's political abilities that he gained and kept the protectorate. Doesn't make him a great guy. Their have been lots of violent revolutionaries, and on the whole they are bastards.

Well I've already nominated Gladstone and Churchill but I have to say something for the 3 great military Brits: Nelson, Wellington and Marlborough.

Nelson of course is most famous and rightly so. His many heroic victories came at a time when Napoleonic France seemed invincible and his daring exploits thwarted the tyrannical French plan to invade Britain. However his biggest contribution was that of Trafalgar where he essentially ensured British supremacy until the beginning of World War 1 (thats 109 years of British domination). He was man who always put his duty before himself: this too can be seen at Trafalgar where he proudly stood in full dress uniform while the ship was under attack from French snipers. His dying words were "I did my duty...". He was trully a hero.

Wellington in terms of military ability has been unsurpassed. He never actually lost a battle (apart from a very minor skirmish in Seringpatam when he was still a Colonel) and it was due to him that Napoloenic France was defeated. Unfortunately his politcal career pretty much destroyed the affection felt for him by many. His term as Prime Minister was disastorous, splitting the Tory Party and making unpopular policy decisions.

The 1st Duke of Marlborough is less well known because of the passage of time. He served in the War of the Spainish Succession against the French armies of Louis XIV (is it just me or are the French good at producing murderous despots?) and roundly beat them out of the Netherlands and Germany, concluding in the triumphant Battle of Bleinheim. In securing the Netherlands, Marlborough secured Great Britain from invasion (bit of geography: the best way to attack Britain isnt through the south as it is very cliffy. It is better to launch from Holland and land on the Norfolk broads which is very flat and easy land). However one fact damages Marlborough's chances: firstly was his loyalty. He was an opportunist and often made sure he defected to the winning side rather than stay with those he had pledged support. He abadoned James II after William of Orange deposed him.

I have seen many posts critising Cromwell (a man to whom I feel relative ambivalence). His actions in Ireland were quite despicable but they have been exaggerated by Irish nationalists. He was hardly a democratic man as he stormed in to one session and screamed "YOU ARE NO PARLIAMENT, I SAY YOU ARE NO PARLIAMENT" and after that he ruled alone. However he did set up the first professional army and navy and he did so on his own merits rather than by birth. However (as it is with most revolutions) he eventually took on the role of King anyway even if he didn't accept the title.

I cannot believe what I am reading.

After which point he ran a civil war. Which would have ended much sooner had Cromwell not "saved Parliament's day". And by Parliament you mean "some people who were under the impression that they were the only people in a position to decide who ruled the nation".

Cromwell did not actually run the civil war. He was Second in Command to Sir Thomas Fairfax until 1649. After both the First and Second Civil Wars had ended. That is not running it.

To say that the war would have ended much sooner had Cromwell not saved Parliament's day is no justification for why he is a bad bloke. WW2 would have ended sooner had Churchill not saved Britain. Does that mean that he should have just given up to the Nazis?



I don't care why he wanted to ban it, nor do I care how many other people want to ban it. Tell me who they are and I'll call them bastards too.

Hey, I love Christmas too. I was merely saying to you that you should understand why someone banned something before you criticise it. He didn't do it because he was a killjoy, but because he was a pious man. I don't support him banning Christmas, partially cos it was a political mistake but there you go.

What about the destruction of Tralee? And is it evidence that Cromwell was a nice guy to say that he was party to much worse massacres? And does the wickedness of his enemy make it ok? No. I didn't say royalists were great. I said Cromwell was a bastard.

No of course two wrongs do not make a right. And now of course such an act would not be advisable or desirable. I was merely saying two things:
A) That you should put this massacre into context. Drogheda and Wexford are remembered as being two of the worst massacres of the time. In fact they were comparatively, pretty mild, in comparison to the Twentieth Century.
B) You must not look at historical Figures with modern spectacles. Judge them not on how you are brought up and on your morals. But on the morals of the time. I am merely stating that in comparison to many at the time Cromwell was a part of a, in our eyes, sickening cycle of violence, but was not the cause of it. He was also pretty forward thinking in comparison to other Generals of even later periods.[/QUOTE]



You prove that parliament wouldn't have sorted itself out sooner or later.

Sorry but that is just childish. I cannot prove that Parliament would not have sorted itself without Cromwell, but I did not make so sweeping a claim as to say "Parliament would have sorted themselves out sooner or later" like you did you little bollocks. I am merely sticking by the facts.


I think the balance of probabilities is on my side, given the many paragraphs you write below which all add up to "After Cromwell died, we got a parliamentary monarchy back pretty quickly". It took 19 months. Evitable or not, it happened.

Yes it did. But I am merely saying that the reasons for the restoration of the monarchy are not purely down to Cromwell's failings. While you are saying that the monarchy was restored though, the monarchy was never ever as powerful or as able to govern in accordance with its divine will. And yes, while the monarchy was restored (like it was in France after the French Revolution), the monarchy was not the same institution that it was before.


The people were so keen on republicanism, the only thing they trusted to keep the country going was a king. Nice one Cromwell.

Sorry but that is just too simplistic. I never said that they were keen on republicanism, just that many people began to accept it. And also not many more people were keen on a restored monarchy. The monarchy was restored because of weaknesses in the Cromwellian system yes. But not all of them were down to Oliver Cromwell himself.

So they liked his rule but didn't accept it? They must have been a lot less goal-oriented than people today. All sat around praying and saying "all this peace and stability is a bad thing, since it flows from an illegitimate ruler.

You have clearly misread my post. I said that they may not have liked Cromwell himself,the way he came to power or the fact that he wasn't a Stuart King, but on the whole the people accepted and obeyed his regime because they saw that it brought peace and stability not just to England but to the whole of Britain for the first time in 20 years (Charles I prior to Civil War was at war with both the Scots and the Irish), relative prosperity and success and respect abroard (Dunkirk and Jamaica were captured). Most people did not think it was worth removing Cromwell because his rule had given them what they wanted even if they. It was sort of like disagreeing with the means but liking the result.

So he was too keen on power to upset the populace by forcing them to be yet more drearily puritan.

Not necessarily. Cromwell certainly did make decisions with the aim of keeping him in power. What I am arguing is that keeping him in pwoer was not such a bad thing. Many in the Army wanted far more religious dourness and religious uniformity than Cromwell. But remember Cromwell was a country gent. He enjoyed parties and drink (sometimes a little too much it is recorded). he did not not put through this reforms just for political power. he also had principles.

And too keen on power to listen to parliament. What a fine parliamentarian ruler and much better than an autocratic King.

I said he was autocratic didn't I? He liked doing things his own way and wanted to be in charge of things and to get things done how he wanted. But he still called parliaments. Also, think on this. Should parliament have absolute power and no check on it? Remember that a Parliament under Cromwell against his wishes, had a Quaker's tongue bored, his arm branded and himself thrown in prison for simply re-enacting Christ's entrance to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Cromwell wanted to let the man go free. Cromwell lost his way in the end even though he could have forced the issue. Cromwell seems genuinely to have wanted to abide by the rules of the Constitution that he had accepted and sworn on.

And yet he managed to be the lesser of evils for both the Army and Parliament. What a skilful leader.

So? What's wrong with that? Cromwell was able to prevent anarchy by being the main broker of power between two groups who mistrusted each other. Not only that but he managed to combine them together into a workable constitution in which he shareds control of the army with Parliament.

Also the fact that his son was heir does point towards ambition. I will grant that to you as well, as long as you will consider also that Oliver himself did not trust Richard Cromwell to run the country. He considered him to be a bit of a waster. However he made him his successor with the support of Parliament and the Army who both felt that Richard could be controlled by them (as he was.) The Army did not want Cromwell to name an M.P or politician succeed him and Cromwell did not want an intolerant and uncompromising Army officer to be Protector. Richard was the only choice that he could possibly make really, even though it was the one Oliver probably least wanted to. (Oliver was always scared of being accused of personal ambition.

I have not proceeded to pretend that Oliver Cromwell was perfect. That is ludicrous. But what human is? Yes he was a ruthless overbearing man, but he was also a man with an aoptimistic vision of an England in which Parliament ruled, but was checked and served the people and in which one's religion did not matter. It was a vision that he could never quite realise. Oliver Cromwell was not the worst of the men who could and wanted to have ruled England after the Civil War. Was he the best? Maybe not. But I still think that he did a good job.

"I would sooner have Mohammedism (Islam, duh) flourish in England than see any one of God's children punished for what he believed to be the truth." Oliver Cromwell.

Well I've already nominated Gladstone and Churchill but I have to say something for the 3 great military Brits: Nelson, Wellington and Marlborough.

Nelson of course is most famous and rightly so. His many heroic victories came at a time when Napoleonic France seemed invincible and his daring exploits thwarted the tyrannical French plan to invade Britain. However his biggest contribution was that of Trafalgar where he essentially ensured British supremacy until the beginning of World War 1 (thats 109 years of British domination). He was man who always put his duty before himself: this too can be seen at Trafalgar where he proudly stood in full dress uniform while the ship was under attack from French snipers. His dying words were "I did my duty...". He was trully a hero.

Wellington in terms of military ability has been unsurpassed. He never actually lost a battle (apart from a very minor skirmish in Seringpatam when he was still a Colonel) and it was due to him that Napoloenic France was defeated. Unfortunately his politcal career pretty much destroyed the affection felt for him by many. His term as Prime Minister was disastorous, splitting the Tory Party and making unpopular policy decisions.

The 1st Duke of Marlborough is less well known because of the passage of time. He served in the War of the Spainish Succession against the French armies of Louis XIV (is it just me or are the French good at producing murderous despots?) and roundly beat them out of the Netherlands and Germany, concluding in the triumphant Battle of Bleinheim. In securing the Netherlands, Marlborough secured Great Britain from invasion (bit of geography: the best way to attack Britain isnt through the south as it is very cliffy. It is better to launch from Holland and land on the Norfolk broads which is very flat and easy land). However one fact damages Marlborough's chances: firstly was his loyalty. He was an opportunist and often made sure he defected to the winning side rather than stay with those he had pledged support. He abadoned James II after William of Orange deposed him.

I have seen many posts critising Cromwell (a man to whom I feel relative ambivalence). His actions in Ireland were quite despicable but they have been exaggerated by Irish nationalists. He was hardly a democratic man as he stormed in to one session and screamed "YOU ARE NO PARLIAMENT, I SAY YOU ARE NO PARLIAMENT" and after that he ruled alone. However he did set up the first professional army and navy and he did so on his own merits rather than by birth. However (as it is with most revolutions) he eventually took on the role of King anyway even if he didn't accept the title.

Absolutely agree on John churchill, The Duke of Marlborough, poorly documented on in comparison to his descendant Winston.

Wellington and Nelson are two of England's finest men.

Will disagree on Cromwell, but as I have already typed a lot on him I shall not try and correct you again. Just perhaps try and read my earlier posts.

Excellent post (on the whole).

Oliver Cromwell was not the worst of the men who could and wanted to have ruled England after the Civil War. Was he the best? Maybe not. But I still think that he did a good job.

"I would sooner have Mohammedism (Islam, duh) flourish in England than see any one of God's children punished for what he believed to be the truth." Oliver Cromwell.

So in fact far from being the greatest britain who ever lived, he isn't even necessarily the greatest britain who was around to rule England after the civil war. Way to go.

Why must I not judge historical figures by my own standards? Someone who was considered a liberal and kind ruler in their own time is still a bastard if by the standards of the day, being liberal and kind means being a right bastard.
If he was a truly great man, he'd be able to think outside of the bastardly conventions of his time, and I'd be able to judge him by my standards.

He banned christmas, not just to annoy people because he was mean, but because he was a pious man. So? He was a pious christmas-banning bastard.

And he appears to think that islam flourishing in england is a bad thing (the bastard), though not quite as bad as one of god's children (does this include muslims?) being punished for what he believed to be the truth. So we've got Cromwell to blame for the current flourishing of Islam in england. Since Charles I believed that Cromwell's court had no right to try him, and so Cromwell's court punished him by removing his head.

Absolutely agree on John churchill, The Duke of Marlborough, poorly documented on in comparison to his descendant Winston.

Wellington and Nelson are two of England's finest men.

Will disagree on Cromwell, but as I have already typed a lot on him I shall not try and correct you again. Just perhaps try and read my earlier posts.

Excellent post (on the whole).
Interesting that you previously compared Cromwell and his influence on the war to Churchill and Hitler.
Then go on to give the good traits of Cromwell pretty much verbatum for those that defend Hitler. Meant the best for his people, brought stability and prosperity to the country. Was supported by the army etc etc.
There is also an assumption that what he did was good for the country long term, may be but there is no way of every knowing (parralel universe theories not withstanding)
Don't deny he had a profound impact on British history but could never think of him in the role of greatest Britain.

Charles Darwin for opening his and our minds!

I think William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy and later King of England was the greatest Brit.
He introduced the French culture into Britian and draging it into the European sphere if influance.

I think William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy and later King of England was the greatest Brit.
Hmm, wonder how 'British' can be defined.

I think William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy and later King of England was the greatest Brit.
He introduced the French culture into Britian and draging it into the European sphere if influance.
He isn't British.

1st vote for Darwin, churchill in the lead with 5, looks like he's in. Still 7 more places to be chosen. 2 days to go.

He isn't British.

Linford Christie and John Barnes aren't British, either, but I bet that never stopped you from cheering for them.

Where is Queen Victoria? Her and Churchill would have 2 defiantly be in the top 2.... She Build the British Empire while he Defended it... What more do you want?

Robert The Bruce
William Wallace
Robert Adam
John Anderson
Henry Bell
James Baird
Joseph Black
J J Burnet
Sir William Burrell
Andrew Cochrane
Miss Kate Cranston
William Cunninghame
David Dale
Robert Dinwiddie
William Dixon
John Glassford
Thomas Graham
David Hamilton
William Hunter
The Hutchesons
Joseph Lister
Charles Rennie Mackintosh
William Miller
The Napiers
Allan Pinkerton
Sir William Ramsay
James Ritchie
Alex Spiers
J Sellars
Adam Smith
William Smith
Alexander Thomson
William Thomson
James Watt
Charles Wilson
James Young

Linford Christie and John Barnes aren't British, either, but I bet that never stopped you from cheering for them.
How is Linford Christie not British?

(honestly I know nothing about athletics, which is what stops me from cheering them)

Most of Britians greatest Monarchs have not not been "British."
William introduced a culture that defines what is now considerd "British." That culture created Cromwell and Churchill and the others (for good or for bad).
The subsiquent british involvement on the continent through the hundred years wars transformed britian from an insignificant island backwater into a vibrant expanding culture.

Linford Christie and John Barnes aren't British, either, but I bet that never stopped you from cheering for them.
I count a British person as eather being born on the islands or in the commonwealth.

And I only cheered for barnes in the England games, at club level I hated him, he stopped my team from winning the FA cup.

Also did anyone of you see that incident where the liverpool fans booed Cloughs minuate of silance, terrable.

Faraday. Without his work on electrolysis we would not have discovered important alkali metals such as potassium and sodium.

You forgot John Maynard Keynes on that list, I went on at length about him a couple pages ago.

I vote Shakespeare. Anyone who can write "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! In form and moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel!" in the Elizabethan age of superstition, cruelty and heads-on-spikes is indeed a real piece of work.

Why must I not judge historical figures by my own standards? Someone who was considered a liberal and kind ruler in their own time is still a bastard if by the standards of the day, being liberal and kind means being a right bastard.
If he was a truly great man, he'd be able to think outside of the bastardly conventions of his time, and I'd be able to judge him by my standards

All I meant by that was that in 100 years time people may think of you as a bastard for believing in things that you believe in but that doesnt mean that you are one. I don't believe you are one. It's just you believe the things you do because that's a reflection of the circumstances in which you are born. That's what I meant.

By Cromwell not being the best, I actually never said that. I said that maybe there was someone who could have done a better job than Cromwell. I personally doubt it that's all but we will never know. And I believe that the long term ideas which he favoured and supported although could not apply them perfectly in practice, make him a man who deserves the title of Greatest Briton.
On the quote. You have to remember the way in which he was brought up. He was brought up to believe that Muslims were barbarians, were infidels. His quote though is therefore even more remarkable in that it is the basis for all truly Liberal Democracies in that you are not truly liberal for tolerating something that you don't mind, but you are truly liberal for tolerating things that you absolutely hate.

What is it with you and him banning Christmas. I haven't supported it, merely explained it. Name a historical figure who you would agree 100% with everything they have done or said.

Hmm, wonder how 'British' can be defined.

Surely, being the King of England made him English, by default... no matter where he was born?

Would that also make him British?

Was William not descended directly from a British line of succession, hence the challenge over the crown?

Someone is British either by birth, or by citizenship, yes? So, one assumes that British citizenship is inherent in the 'British' crown... since William is certainly not the only monarch of 'foreign' abstraction.

The final day of voting, before it goes to the polls, looks like the top 8 are nearly done.

Oliver Cromwell was also a madman who massacred thousands and banned Christmas. ;)



He didnt ban Christmas. He put leaders in charge of differnet areas of Britain so as to create a divided state. Some of those appointed were very Puritan and so banned Christmas. This happened in only small areas of Britain and the leaders were soon removed.

I vote for Churchill. :mp5:

Guy Fawkes, without whom Novembers would be boring.

Shakespeare, without hesitation. Perhaps the greatest dramaturge ever.

Gotta be Oliver Cromwell. Setup the Commonwealth he did (in its orignal form).
Also a vote for Air Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding, without him we would have lost the Battle of Britain and Churchills continuation of the war would never have happened!

Gotta be Oliver Cromwell. Setup the Commonwealth he did (in its orignal form).
Also a vote for Air Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding, without him we would have lost the Battle of Britain and Churchills continuation of the war would never have happened!

Yay. Charge on for Oliver!

Nice mention of Dowding. One of the most stressful jobs in the history of the world was being head of Fighter Command during the summer months of 1940.

Gotta be Oliver Cromwell. Setup the Commonwealth he did (in its orignal form).
Also a vote for Air Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding, without him we would have lost the Battle of Britain and Churchills continuation of the war would never have happened!

Add that to the poll then Aust!

Add that to the poll then Aust!
I wasn't online.

"I would sooner have Mohammedism (Islam, duh) flourish in England than see any one of God's children punished for what he believed to be the truth." Oliver Cromwell.[/QUOTE]


Wow, so he's a hypocrite too - the harsh, intolerant and oppressive manner in which he dealt with any religion aside from Protest orthodoxy gives lie to this point. As did the manner in which he massacred the Irish Catholics at Drogheda and Wexford.

Well I've already nominated Gladstone and Churchill but I have to say something for the 3 great military Brits: Nelson, Wellington and Marlborough.

Nelson of course is most famous and rightly so..


I'm flying to london for a week or so this winter and plan to pay homage at nelson's spire and tomb. Truly the most honorable and heroic figure the military history of the last 2000 years.

He sits in paradise with Leonidas.

I'm flying to london for a week or so this winter and plan to pay homage at nelson's spire and tomb. Truly the most honorable and heroic figure the military history of the last 2000 years.


'Honorable'? You obviously haven't looked too closely at his rather questionable personal life.

Gotta be Oliver Cromwell. Setup the Commonwealth he did (in its orignal form).
Ah, good to see someone with a strong policy of keeping the Irish in line getting a nomiantion. How many were slaughtered in Drogheda on his command? 3,500?

'Honorable'? You obviously haven't looked too closely at his rather questionable personal life.


He lost his "personal life" at the battle he won that saved england from Napoleon Bonaparte.

He lost his "personal life" at the battle he won that saved england from Napoleon Bonaparte.

So, years of mistreatment of his wife and the keeping of a mistress doesn't matter?

So, years of mistreatment of his wife and the keeping of a mistress doesn't matter?


No, they do not matter in the least. His wife lives in perpetuity in the magnificent glory of being married to the most honorable and heroic military figure since Leonidas.

No, they do not matter in the least. His wife lives in perpetuity in the magnificent glory of being married to the most honorable and heroic military figure since Leonidas.

Explain to me exactly what Nelson's particular honourable practice was then: it can't have just been his conduct in the Navy - such is not only expected but commanded and regulated.

Why isn't John Locke on the list?

Explain to me exactly what Nelson's particular honourable practice was then: it can't have just been his conduct in the Navy - such is not only expected but commanded and regulated.

England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty

You know dont you that in the middle of london there is a big tall spire with a statue of Lord Nelson on top. It was the 0-mile marker for the british empire.

The center of the world, so to speak.

I think i shall rely on the uprightness and good judgement of the british in matters of judging their own officers in terms of honour.
They seem to look favourably upon the good mr. nelson.

England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty

Indeed, on the field of battle Nelson did his duty, as did all those who served with him, but that is the role of the Navy, and not something out of the ordinary.



I think i shall rely on the uprightness and good judgement of the british in matters of judging their own officers in terms of honour.
They seem to look favourably upon the good mr. nelson.

I am one, and I don't particularly see anything excessively honourable about the man's conduct.

'Honorable'? You obviously haven't looked too closely at his rather questionable personal life.

His personal life isn't important. To be a Great Britain you should have done something of worth, something he did. To then say he isn't because he made some questionable decisions in his personal life is hardly any reason not to have him counted. If so, none of these Great Britains can be counted as truely great (though my vote stays with Cromwell!)

Monty Python.

Duh.

Monty Python.

Duh.

Lol! Here here!

"I would sooner have Mohammedism (Islam, duh) flourish in England than see any one of God's children punished for what he believed to be the truth." Oliver Cromwell.


Wow, so he's a hypocrite too - the harsh, intolerant and oppressive manner in which he dealt with any religion aside from Protest orthodoxy gives lie to this point. As did the manner in which he massacred the Irish Catholics at Drogheda and Wexford.[/QUOTE]

I have posted on Drogheda and Wexford numerous times and can not be bothered to respond to that again. He was just, let me say, less oppresive than most around at the time. far less oppressive than Charles I was towards Puritans, Charles II was towards Quakers and Louis XIV was to all Protestants. Oliver Cromwell was actually far more lenient towards other religious groups than any leader of the time.

'Honorable'? You obviously haven't looked too closely at his rather questionable personal life.

If we're picking people on how moral their personal life was then this is gonna be a very short list.

Monty Python.

Duh.
Though I agree with Monty Pythons brilliance, there wghgere more than 1 of them.

Robert The Bruce
William Wallace
Robert Adam
John Anderson
Henry Bell
James Baird
Joseph Black
J J Burnet
Sir William Burrell
Andrew Cochrane
Miss Kate Cranston
William Cunninghame
David Dale
Robert Dinwiddie
William Dixon
John Glassford
Thomas Graham
David Hamilton
William Hunter
The Hutchesons
Joseph Lister
Charles Rennie Mackintosh
William Miller
The Napiers
Allan Pinkerton
Sir William Ramsay
James Ritchie
Alex Spiers
J Sellars
Adam Smith
William Smith
Alexander Thomson
William Thomson
James Watt
Charles Wilson
James Young
You forgot McGlashen the poet!

I vote Shakespeare. Anyone who can write "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! In form and moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel!" in the Elizabethan age of superstition, cruelty and heads-on-spikes is indeed a real piece of work.
Richard E Grant wrote that! Duh!