efeat of Charles I, the legacy Cromwell envisioned leaving the country never even formulated because of the corruption of others. Gaunt's work, a rather weak source to base such lofty claims as Cromwell's advance of the political freedom, lacked clear presentation and focused more on the appearance of Cromwell than his influence. At most, the only legitimate claim that can be made is that Cromwell served as a hero to the people and a man of God and he fought for a fair and just society in accordance to the "word of God." Professor Blair Worden of the University of Sussex offers some clarification:For him the earlier Cromwell, the warrior-hero and agent of divine destruction, had transcended politics. As protector, charged not with destruction but with reconstruction, Oliver was obliged, as a merely mortal ruler would have been, to haggle with parliament... Cromwell merely as the most heroic representative of that heroic movement, which itself was the representative — because it represented the best — of England. Thus, it is clear that Cromwell commanded the respect of the people. Unfortunately, he also faced a political system unwilling to change.Essentially, John Morrill presents arguments that are just as unfounded; however, his overall conclusion provides a foundation for true insight into the situation. John Morrill makes preconceived judgments on the character of Oliver Cromwell. Throughout his introduction to Cromwell, Morrill focuses on undermining every aspect of Cromwell, all in order to make a seemingly well-founded conclusion. Because very little first hand information remains on Cromwell, Morrill makes belligerent assumptions of historically weak evidence. Such a strategy proves to only undercut the authors credibility to educated readers. Granted that the Cromwell's policies did not produce the results that he intended, his successes and influence on the government remain historically strategic in ch...
