[captain_price7]

The article says things got worse not because cromwell was worse than Charles 1, but rather he inherited the mess caused by charles' policies and a country broken by civil war. Naturally it was worse for many people (specially Irish). But I wonder what would happen if characters like Cromwell weren't there at that time, Charles was allowed to continue bypassing parliament and ruling like a tyrant, and Britain turned into an absolute monarchy like France and Prussia. I'm not defending Cromwell. But I think if he was an evil, perhaps it was a necessary evil.

About Iran, while it's absolutely not a perfect country, I can not agree that things got worse for average Iranian after revolution. Iranians dead from starvation was a common scenery in Tehran's street during shah. Things did get worse for a tiny ruling-westernised-urban elite, who were forced to go into exile and now vocal in western countries against the regime, but for an average Iranian I do believe things got better.

Btw, I'm from Bangladesh, meaning I'm neither British nor Iranian.

[notahacker]

He certainly inherited a country broken by civil war, but it is difficult to argue that his own decision to bypass Parliament and rule like a tyrant was the only possible course of action, or an improvement on his predecessor. Ultimately if Cromwell helped steer the country away from despotism - a matter of great debate - it was less by example and more because he, like Charles I, ended up having his head lopped off to popular acclaim (posthumously after a natural death, in his case) and subsequent leaders largely chose not to emulate him.