It is very easy to point to one good thing that someone did. Mussolini, trains etc etc.
Oh, of course. And the example of Mussolini and trains isn't even true!
Yes, Cromwell was hardly a saint and his record in certain areas was certainly... patchy. But this thread reeks of bone china, suburban lawns, knick-knacks and the
Daily Mail.
Mind you, the interesting thing is that most of the 'charges' that can be made against Cromwell whether fair or not (so, war crimes in Ireland, military aggression, religious intolerance, running an authoritarian regime, etc) can be directed against nearly every monarch before the point at which the position ceased to have much in the way of real power (why Lizzie One has been mentioned a few times and did her forces not commit war crimes in Ireland? Did she not run a sort of proto-police state? And so on. She was clearly better at propaganda though. Give her that) and after that point, really, what's the point?
No, more an early example of the tendency of revolutions to result in rule by military strongmen. I would dispute the use of 'usurp', naturally. Unless it's being used to refer to the coup within the post-revolutionary government. I should have replied at an earlier hour.
