why is that when ever some one thinks of radical republic revolutions they dont think of the long parliament and the commonwealth of england?
>execute the king
>abolish social classes
>ostracize the people by sharply leaning towards one branch of religion
>eventually revert back into a monarchy anyway
they beat the french in all these things by more then a century
>>1700739
>Revert back
You answered your own question.
>>1700747
napoleon the "emperor" wasn't a monarch?
>>1700739
Because England reverted back to traditional monarchy.
Meanwhile no such thing happened in France. Napoleon and France convinced themselves that they were creating an empire of liberty, with Napoops emperor not by Dynastic Legitimacy/God's will but by National Consent & Acclamation.
Also what happened in England after Charles I was less of a Republican revolution and more Christian ISIS coming to power.
>>1700739
Because smug Whigs made themselves feel superior by insisting that "England never had a revolution"
>>1700770
The English historiographic approach to the Glorious Revolution is bewildering.
>It wasn't a dynastic coup, we invited William of Orange over
>We don't care what you do, just save us from those evil Papists
>Haha, long live England! Never conquered!
>>1700782
is it really a conquest if they were invited over?
can't rape the willing after all
>>1700739
Because Cromwell's reign had more in common with ISIS than the French Revolution.