Barry Coward’s Oliver Cromwell: A Revisionist Evacuation of History

Barry Coward’s Oliver Cromwell (1991), released at the peak of revisionist influence in British scholarship, exemplifies a systematic tendency to diminish the driving forces of history. The biography emphasises moderation, balance, and empirical rigour, but these qualities conceal a deeper political and methodological conservatism. Coward portrays Cromwell as a man shaped by circumstances rather than class, a figure overseeing revolutionary events without fully understanding or embodying their revolutionary significance. Consequently, the narrative remains factually accurate yet lacks any true engagement with the historical revolutionary content.

Coward’s framing clarifies this point. His main argument is that Cromwell was not a revolutionary in any deliberate or systematic way. The biography supports this perspective by portraying Cromwell’s actions as pragmatic responses to immediate pressures: the king’s obstinacy, the army’s demands, and the disintegration of parliamentary alliances. His serious religious beliefs are the primary explanation. Providence substitutes for political strategy; conscience replaces class conflict. This approach is not merely interpretive but is central to revisionist understanding.

The Revisionist Method: Contingency as Ideology

Revisionism emerged in the 1970s as a deliberate rejection of the Marxist interpretation of the English Revolution, which viewed it as a bourgeois revolution involving a fundamental shift in property, state, and ideology. Scholars like Conrad Russell, John Morrill, and their followers argued that the Civil War was not a true revolution, but rather a tragic clash caused by misunderstandings, religious fears, and constitutional concerns. Coward’s biography offers a gentler version of this view but stays closely aligned with its main ideas.

The revisionist approach is based on three main principles: first, rejecting the idea of long-term social causes, viewing tensions such as those between Crown and gentry, landlord and tenant, or capitalist agriculture and feudal remnants as outdated or insignificant. Second, simplifying class to mere factions, with Parliament seen as a gathering of personalities and interest groups rather than a reflection of a rising social order. Third, emphasising contingency, suggesting that events happen simply because they happen and decisions are made because they are; thus, history is seen as a series of accidents.

Coward’s Cromwell exemplifies this worldview: he is devout, adaptable, courageous, and often conflicted—yet never placed within a specific historical context. He takes action, but these actions lack social significance. He leads, but not on behalf of any particular class. His destruction of the monarchy occurs only because Charles I leaves him with no other choice. This is not an analysis; it is a rejection of analysis.

Cromwell Without Revolution: A Hollow Centre

Coward’s biography is most compelling in its factual aspects, where revisionism poses minimal risk. His descriptions of the Protectorate’s constitutional experiments are clear, his portrayal of Cromwell’s military career is proficient, and his treatment of providentialism is respectful and earnest. As noted, “He presents Cromwell as a figure of genuine complexity: capable of both extraordinary political courage and brutal repression.” However, complexity without explaining causes leads only to confusion.

Coward’s narrative omits the English Revolution. The Levellers and Diggers—who advocated for popular sovereignty, broader voting rights, and communal land—are pushed to the sidelines. The New Model Army, historically the most politically aware military in England, is portrayed as a professional fighting force instead of a class-based tool. The Irish campaign, where Cromwell’s forces massacred thousands at Drogheda and Wexford, is seen as a tragic mistake rather than as colonial violence by a rising bourgeois state. Coward’s portrayal of Cromwell reflects his era, but the revolutionary spirit of that period has been largely erased.

Hill vs Coward: Two Histories, Two Worlds

The contrast with Christopher Hill is clear. Hill’s book, ‘God’s Englishman’ (1970), remains the most insightful Marxist analysis of Cromwell because it recognises the dialectical unity of ideology and class. Cromwell’s view of providence is not a personal obsession but the ideological framework through which the bourgeoisie interpreted its historical role. His purges of Parliament were not merely personal outbursts but deliberate class actions. Similarly, his suppression of the Levellers was not an inconsistency but a necessary step, as the revolution had reached the limits tolerable to property interests.

Coward dismisses all of this. His depiction of Cromwell is not that of a revolutionary leader but an accidental figure. Cromwell is shaped by events rather than shaping them. This approach isn't just a different interpretation—it abandons interpretation entirely. It shifts focus from structure to personality, from class to conscience, and from revolution to improvisation. Hill describes why the English state changed, while Coward explores Cromwell's personal feelings about these changes.

The Political Moment: 1991 and the Ideological Offensive

Coward’s biography was published in 1991, a year that marked the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This timing is notable because many scholars saw the collapse of Stalinism as proof that Marxism had been invalidated historically. As revisionist ideas gained influence, they became the prevailing view. Scepticism and even hostility toward the concept of revolution increased. To deny that the English Civil War was a bourgeois revolution was, in effect, to deny the legitimacy of revolution as a whole. "It was the product of an intellectual climate in which the very concept of revolution was under sustained assault.”

Coward is not a polemicist; he is a meticulous scholar. However, his biography is influenced by this atmosphere. His moderation reflects his political stance, and his caution reveals an ideological perspective. His reluctance to interpret acts as an interpretation itself suggests that history lacks driving forces, class lacks agency, and revolution lacks significance.

Conclusion: A Useful Book, and a Useless One

Coward’s Oliver Cromwell provides a solid factual overview suitable for students. However, it doesn't serve as a guide to the English Revolution. It doesn't explain why the monarchy collapsed, how the state was transformed, or why the 1640s stand out as one of history’s major revolutionary upheavals. To understand these aspects, one must look to Hill—and beyond Hill, to the Marxist approach, which uniquely captures the dialectic of ideology, class, and historical necessity. Coward presents Cromwell as a person. Hill presents Cromwell as a historical actor. Only the latter represents Cromwell as he truly was.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• Cromwell, Oliver. Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. Edited by W.C. Abbott. 4 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937–47.
• Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. History of the Great Civil War, 1642–1649. London: Longmans, Green, 1886–91.
• The Clarke Papers. Edited by C.H. Firth. 4 vols. London: Camden Society, 1891–1901.
• The Putney Debates, 1647. Edited by Michael Mendle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Marxist Historiography & Social Interpretation

• Hill, Christopher. God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1970.
• Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1972.
• Hill, Christopher. The English Revolution 1640. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1940.
• Hill, Christopher. Puritanism and Revolution. London: Secker & Warburg, 1958.
• Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714. London: Nelson, 1961.
• Brenner, Robert. “The Agrarian Roots of European Capitalism.” Past & Present 97 (1982): 16–113.
• Dobb, Maurice. Studies in the Development of Capitalism. London: Routledge, 1946.
• Morton, A.L. A People’s History of England. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1938.
• Manning, Brian. The English People and the English Revolution. London: Heinemann, 1976.
• Manning, Brian. The Far Left in the English Revolution, 1640–1660. London: Bookmarks, 1999.
• Manning, Brian. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in England, 1658–1660. London: Bookmarks, 2003.

Revisionist Historiography

• Coward, Barry. Oliver Cromwell. London: Longman, 1991.
• Coward, Barry. The Stuart Age: England, 1603–1714. London: Longman, 1980.
• Russell, Conrad. The Causes of the English Civil War. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
• Russell, Conrad. Parliamentary History in Perspective, 1603–1660. London: Hambledon Press, 1981.
• Morrill, John. Revolt of the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 1630–1648. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976.
• Morrill, John. “The Religious Context of the English Civil War.” Like the English Revolution, edited by Morrill. London: Longman, 1993.
• Woolrych, Austin. Britain in Revolution, 1625–1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Sharpe, Kevin. The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
• Hexter, J.H. The Reign of King Pym. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941.

General Scholarship on Cromwell and the English Revolution

• Durston, Christopher. Cromwell’s Major-Generals: Godly Government During the English Revolution. London: Bloomsbury, 2001.
• Durston, Christopher, and Judith Maltby, eds. Religion in Revolutionary England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.
• Gentles, Ian. The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
• Gentles, Ian. Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
• Hughes, Ann. The Causes of the English Civil War. London: Macmillan, 1991.
• Hughes, Ann. Gangrene and the Struggle for the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Reid, John G. Cromwell and Scotland: Conquest and Religion, 1650–1660. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018.
• Lenihan, Pádraig. Consolidating Conquest: Ireland 1603–1727. London: Routledge, 2014.

Contextual Works: Ideology, Revolution, and Historiography

• Anderson, Perry. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: Verso, 1974.
• Anderson, Perry. Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London: Verso, 1974.
• Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Gollancz, 1963.
• Kaye, Harvey J. The British Marxist Historians. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
• Hill, Christopher, et al. The Communist Party Historians’ Group: Its Work and Legacy. Various essays.
• Talbot, Ann. “Christopher Hill and the Socialist Tradition.” World Socialist Web Site, 2003.
• North, David. The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century. Oak Park: Mehring Books, 2014.
• Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Armed. London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
• Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Revolution, 1789–1848. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962.

Works on Historiographical Method

• Carr, E.H. What Is History? London: Macmillan, 1961.
• Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. 1852.
• Marx, Karl. Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 1859.
• Trotsky, Leon. History of the Russian Revolution. 1930–32.
• Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953.