If Richard Cromwell had been as capable as his Dad?

I have always wondered what if Richard Cromwell had been as effective as a ruler/dictator as his notorious yet very successful father. Would any semblance of monarchy have been restored and if so when? Would a modern democracy been closer to happening than in our OTL? How would have this new style/form of rule been accepted abroad and how would the established powers of Europe have reacted to this prolonged dictatorship? Would other European nations throw off the shackles of monarchy and the divine right of Kings far sooner than in our OTL? Would England be more of a player on the European continent in military terms?

Also please remember I am new to this site and this is a subject which I do not know every detail. That is why I am posting here.

Thanks
 
It probably wouldn't have helped democracy much compared to OTL. Cromwell was a dictator who, although technically chosen by Parliament, in practice owed his rule to the support of the army, and whose government borrowed many of the trappings of monarchy. IOW, his rule wasn't noticeably more democratic than the Stuarts he'd replaced.
 
If Richard isn't ousted, then Commonwealth becomes just oddly named Kingdom, and its ruler is just king with unusual title.
You have absolute hereditary rule, that's pretty much monarchy.
 
Personally, I don't think it was so much that he was less effective as a political leader, but rather that he didn't have the same skill or experiences as a general. The army was often Cromwell's go to card, or appeal, or threat, and it got him out of many situations where he'd otherwise likely have faltered. Richard didn't have that card, and in fact it was in other people's hands. I think you can argue that, on paper, Richard actually had political ability at least the equal of his father, just nothing to back it up when the rubber hit the road.
 
If Richard isn't ousted, then Commonwealth becomes just oddly named Kingdom, and its ruler is just king with unusual title.
You have absolute hereditary rule, that's pretty much monarchy.
You are probably right but do you think the army would have been more of a meritocracy and therefore more efficient and potent?
 
Personally, I don't think it was so much that he was less effective as a political leader, but rather that he didn't have the same skill or experiences as a general. The army was often Cromwell's go to card, or appeal, or threat, and it got him out of many situations where he'd otherwise likely have faltered. Richard didn't have that card, and in fact it was in other people's hands. I think you can argue that, on paper, Richard actually had political ability at least the equal of his father, just nothing to back it up when the rubber hit the road.
Thanks for the reply so WI Richard had possessed those martial abilities his father had? How do you think this may have/or not affected continental Europe?
 
Thanks for the reply so WI Richard had possessed those martial abilities his father had? How do you think this may have/or not affected continental Europe?
Honestly, I think the experience mattered more than the ability. Kinda like cache. Cromwell could point to his military experience/ability to raise his status, imply a threat, and demonstrate his resolve to take extreme measures without necessarily having to take those measures. You knew if you oppose him you probably made enemies with the NMA. Whereas if Richard had to reach for the same sword, his actual skill would probably become irrelevant because the sword might not be there, or he'd be overthrown just for reaching. Not sure if I'm expressing this well.
 
You are probably right but do you think the army would have been more of a meritocracy and therefore more efficient and potent?
I don't think it would make any noticeable difference. British aristocrats weren't idiots or arm-chair generals, they made rather good field commanders.
Post-Restoration British army was already an superb fighting force. I think the only pre-1900 time they lost war was American Independence war.
 
I don't think it would make any noticeable difference. British aristocrats weren't idiots or arm-chair generals, they made rather good field commanders.
Post-Restoration British army was already an superb fighting force. I think the only pre-1900 time they lost war was American Independence war.

There was the First Boer War, although the Boers were pretty good fighters themselves.
 
I don't think it would make any noticeable difference. British aristocrats weren't idiots or arm-chair generals, they made rather good field commanders.
Post-Restoration British army was already an superb fighting force. I think the only pre-1900 time they lost war was American Independence war.
That's a good point and maybe Oliver Cromwell's existence had played a role in laying the foundations for this future success? One of the reasons I have created this post is because in a tenuous way is Cromwell, England's "Napoleon"? Could a longer lasting Cromwellian dynasty have shook European politics and military history more so than in our OTL?
 

Deleted member 97083

Could the Cromwells have become, essentially, Roman emperors? Since the Roman Empire was at its essence, a very long lived military dictatorship.
 

ben0628

Banned
I don't think it would make any noticeable difference. British aristocrats weren't idiots or arm-chair generals, they made rather good field commanders.
Post-Restoration British army was already an superb fighting force. I think the only pre-1900 time they lost war was American Independence war.

They lost the first Boer War as noted, as well as the initial war with Madhist Sudan and arguably they lost the War of Spanish Succession but most people I know consider that a draw rather than a real French Victory. To be honest though the British army did get its ass kicked a lot and British naval superiority is really what is responsible for their victories in war.
 
There was the First Boer War, although the Boers were pretty good fighters themselves.
And before that,this.;);)
HITH-charge-of-the-light-brigade-H.jpeg
 
Charge of light brigade is irrelevant to my point, they are allowed to lose individual battles. And they still won that war.
 
Charge of light brigade is irrelevant to my point, they are allowed to lose individual battles. And they still won that war.
They won the wars not because of their aristocratic generals,but because of their admirals from the middle class.
 
They won the wars not because of their aristocratic generals,but because of their admirals from the middle class.
Erhm, what?
Russians won naval battles of Sinop and of Petropavlosk. Allies won only Battle for Kilburn, and that's because French brought in Ironclads. British admirals did not exactly shine in that war.
 
Erhm, what?
Russians won naval battles of Sinop and of Petropavlosk. Allies won only Battle for Kilburn, and that's because French brought in Ironclads. British admirals did not exactly shine in that war.
I'm not talking about Britain's involvement in Crimea alone.I'm talking about how they repeatedly got their arses kicked in the initial phases of wars and only won in the end usually by getting a massive coalition against their enemies and tagging along.The only reason they weren't knocked out of wars was because of their navy.
 
I'm not talking about Britain's involvement in Crimea alone.I'm talking about how they repeatedly got their arses kicked in the initial phases of wars and only won in the end usually by getting a massive coalition against their enemies and tagging along.The only reason they weren't knocked out of wars was because of their navy.
But that didn't change at all even after they ditched the aristocratic generals.
 
Top