Oliver Cromwell Saga as an Infinite Game

In his book, Finite and Infinite Games, says finite games have an end – and hence a winner. Whereas infinite games don’t have a clear victor:

“Who, for example, won the French Revolution?”

 

I was reminded of that line as I was reading the Hourly History take on Oliver Cromwell. It was the 1630’s, the decade of British King Charles I’s Personal Rule, when the monarch ignored Parliament and ruled as he pleased. Until he had to make concessions to defuse the growing resentment. Had Charles won?

 

But had he made enough concessions? The country was split down the middle on that question, a situation ripe for Civil War. And so in 1642, Charles declared war on Parliament. Cromwell supported Parliament. Though a man with no military experience, Cromwell learnt on the job. As a quick, decisive win looked unlikely, Cromwell switched modes to also becoming influential politically. The armies under control of different factions of Parliament were unified to form the New Model Army. Eventually, the parliamentarians achieved a total military victory over the royalists, and Charles surrendered. Had the parliamentarians won?

 

Yes and No. They’d won the military battle, but it was also the beginning of a “bitter war of words” within Parliament. Cromwell wanted freedom of religion to be a central tenet of the constitution (though he himself was a Puritan Protestant). Another set in Parliament wanted monarchy re-established, but with additional constraints on his power. Yet another faction wanted Charles back in power if he would share power with the Church of England. The last group had the numbers in Parliament. Except for one problem - the not-yet-disbanded New Model Army subscribed to Cromwell’s stance. To make matters worse, Parliament hadn’t paid the army yet. And the army was loath to the idea of restoring Charles to the throne –what had they been fighting for?! Who had won?

 

Thing came to a head when Parliament tried to disband the army, who in turn took Charles as a prisoner to a place they controlled. After failed attempts to broker a peace, Cromwell threw his lot with the army. Charles, meanwhile, promised the Scots that if they restored him to the throne, he’d give them greater autonomy. Even as Cromwell and the army fought the Scots, Parliament was busy negotiating a deal with Charles. This was an “unforgivable sin” as far as the battle-hardened army was concerned. They abolished the monarchy, beheaded Charles, dissolved the House of Lords and declared England to be a Republic.

 

A second Civil War followed, with Cromwell and the army triumphant. Cromwell grew frustrated as Parliament still wouldn’t impose his religious reforms. He dissolved Parliament, which left him as the only one left to run the country (since the army backed him). Uncomfortable with so much power, he constituted an appointed (not elected) body of men to govern. This new body soon got deadlocked, and many of its members resigned, effectively handing power back to Cromwell. This time he was appointed the Lord Protector of the country, with unilateral power over almost all aspects of the country. Had Cromwell won?

 

Cromwell wanted the country to be governed based on religious principles he cared about, something he couldn’t achieve despite his attempts to purge the church and schools of ministers subscribing to views he abhorred. After his death, the new head of the army undid everything he had done by bringing back Charles’ son from exile and restoring the monarchy. Back to square one?

 

An excellent example of why politics and governance are infinite game… they never end.