It is a historical biography of Oliver Cromwell. The comparison only came in those passages I've quoted. However, the book is really good on Cromwell.
Yes, it is interesting to make comparisons between the two. They are so different and they lived in different times. Yet, I think the comparisons are there because both were very influential leaders and were both geniuses as military Generals. They also both lived in very influential and world-changing times. Also, as you mentioned, in both eras there were strong spiritual awakenings and revivals. I love these eras I'm very Sorry, about the link, Shaz.
I'll fix it right away I was probably sleepy:-D. If you go back to it now, it should be right. I've also done a specific post on Cromwell.
Love in Him, Sarah. Dear Koda, I took the liberty of posting your comment with the other comments. Hope you don't mind. I really don't know why you couldn't post. I hope it works next time: Thanks very much for your encouragement.
I hope your studies are going well. God bless, your friend, Sarah. This was such an interesting post! I loved the comparisons you gave here, Sarah, thank you! I agree with you very much. Napoleon was far from knowing the Lord Jesus. He was a great man in the world's terms but very little when it came to things that are most serious. I have not done much study on his stay on St. Perhaps he did come to know the Lord though The Lord bless you! Dear April, I'm glad it has blessed you.
I really like to study historical personalities. A teaches us a lot. Yes, only eternity will tell whether Napoleon was really saved in the end or not. Style "Empire" vs. OTOH, taking into an account that Empire style is rather tasteless and obnoxious, perhaps Cromwell ends as a winner by not authoring any trend in fashions. Weren't they both a--holes?
Each in his own way. Mad Bad Rabbit. Mad Bad Rabbit said:. The Napoleonic Wars were not wholly Napoleon's fault. And I wouldn't judge Napoleon by the body count, but by his morality. Wars are wars. He conducted war as his contemporaries did. With some crimes he committed again, like his contemporaries , he was morally average for his time. While some portion of human suffering can be explicitly pointed to Napoleon, a lot of it was simply part and parcel of European warfare, which would have occurred with or without his existence.
Well, there were areas in which the French armies were worse than most of their contemporaries -- e. And on the other side, of course, Cromwell's wars weren't entirely his fault, and he fought much as his contemporaries did. Last edited: May 19, Cromwell did have a big fondness for practical jokes. At one of his daughter's weddings, for example, he put sweetmeats on the chairs, so all the guests got wet bottoms; at another, he sprayed champagne or whatever the 17th-century equivalent was over the guests.
Whether this makes him more or less of an a-hole is left as an exercise to the reader. In all honesty, i think Cromwell is a pretty under-analyzed and sometimes overlooked historical figure, notwithstanding all that He was the one to carry out the execution of the British king, which for its time was a very radical occurence and by itself sent a message for future British monarchs.
During his political tenure, he helped create a truly modern, less aristocratic army in the form of the NMA, which showed interesting organizational elements and components that would years later be replicated by the French revolutionary and napoleonic armies. He oversaw the creation of a permanent standing navy with its own discipline and drilling systems, which set the stage for the rise of the Royal Navy.
Quite frankly, the English Civil War and the Cromwellian dictatorship were very important periods of transformation for Britain, its politics, and economic system, which i feel are often ignored by the mainstream; it's not like Cromwell needed to go on an ambitious conquest spree right then to be historically important. On a side note, " I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" sounds like something straight out of Blackadder.
More interesting A minor backbencher who rose to become effective king of England. He, therefore, chose many Englishmen as role models. Regarded by many as the first King of England, Alfred was an inspiration to Napoleon in many ways. Like Napoleon, he allegedly overcame physical maladies to rule a kingdom that drove back invaders and then expanded its own territory, as Alfred first defended his kingdom of Wessex from the Danes and then expanded at their expense.
Alfred invested heavily in rebuilding London, just as Napoleon did Paris. Though Alfred did not found Oxford University, Napoleon had read sources saying he did and founded his own Imperial University of France in His coronation symbolically involved other kings from across England paying homage to him as high king. Following the failure of his Egyptian campaign, Napoleon reflected upon the example set by Richard the Lionheart.
Richard is famous as a crusader king, taking his armies on an epic expedition to the Holy Land, and his successes there created a point of positive comparison for Napoleon.
0コメント