Editor’s Note
In this issue of the history journal, we delve into the lives of a multitude of groups and individuals from various backgrounds and periods of time who have defied the status quo and have left an immeasurable mark upon history. From the Mughal Empire to the much more recent success of Leicester City in the Premier League, each article published this year has exhibited the stories of individuals who have flourished in the face of adversity and have gone on to achieve the seemingly impossible. We hope from these stories you are able to take inspiration from their legacies and reflect upon the qualities that make these individuals so successful. During editing, both Aryaman Singh and myself have been astounded by the standard and versatility of articles that have been submitted to the journal this year with themes ranging from politics to football; we hope there is something in this journal that is able to interest you!
Suzanna Wade and Aryaman Singh Co-editors of the History JournalThe study of History is changing to reflect our more modern, inter-connected world. Historians are working hard to research and place the stories of previously marginalised peoples into their rightful place within the bigger picture. Works such as ‘The Silk Roads’ by Frankopan, ‘Black and British’ by Olusoga and ‘Black Tudors’ by Kaufmann have played important roles in bringing this change to popular perception. Within the History Society at Saint Olave’s we have worked to diversify our topics, focusing previous journals on ‘Untold Stories’ and this edition seeks to build upon this by looking at the stories of the underdog. History is a dynamic endeavour that has been reflected in the articles printed here. It is great to see work from all sections of the school. We hope that from this you learn something about underdogs in history, people who faced incredible odds.
Mr WearnContents Page
Page 3-5: Japan: A time when the Red Sun (Nearly) Rose By Shaan Goli (Year 10)
Page 6-7: Leicester City: From Relegation Battle to Premier League Winners–
By Aryan Sanka(Year 10)
Page 8–10: Afghanistan: A Country Exploited - By Amrita Selvaraj (Year 12)
Page 11-13: How William the Conqueror Became King of England—
By Koushik Rajesh (Year7)
Page 14-16: The Mughals: From 300 Soldiers to 300 Years of Rule–
By Aryaman Singh (Year12)
Page 17-20: Martin Luther: Religious Innovator or Underdog?- By Mr Wearn
Page 21: The Battle of Thermopylae (the story behind ‘300’)-
By Aryaman Singh (Year12)
Page 22-24: From Above The Grocer’s to The Steps of Number 10: The Rise of The Iron Lady—By George Clements (Year 12)
Japan: A time where the Red Sun (nearly) rose
By Shaan Goli (Year 10)Background: Hiroshima after being atomically bombed (1945)
In contemporary society, Japan is a well-known and well-respected country with the 3rd largest economy; a strong soft power through its anime, manga, and cuisine; and one of only two developed countries in Asia. However, it was not always like this, she had rough beginnings after the Second World War, which saw her capital, Tokyo being firebombed into dust and later suffer the tragic landing of the two atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which still have adverse consequences on generations of Japanese people even today... Absolutely no one at the time expected to see such a strong, rich Japan, which now has the possibility of overtaking the United States in GDP in the decades to come. From dust to diamond; from underdog to unrivalled, a tale of sheer brilliance and planning from the Japanese.
September 2nd, 1945 was the date that Japan officially signed to surrender. Approximately 2.6 million Japanese perished during the Second World War. As a result of the war, Japan had to concede its territories such as the Kuril Islands, the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa was given back to Japan in 1972), the island of Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, and the puppet state of Manchuria and was not allowed to build another Empire. The United States, led by General Douglas McArthur, started the occupation of Japan for 7 years. The emperor lost all political power and was meant to be a symbolic figure and zaibatsus, which were family conglomerates, were dissolved. The aim for the Americans was to rebuild Japan, from a militaristic society to one of democracy. The United States needed a strong, prosperous power in the East to act as counterbalance towards the Soviet Union and a Communist China, following Mao’s revolution.
The first step towards Japan’s rise was the Korean War. The War was fought between two authoritarian nations, a communist north backed by China and the Soviet Union, and a capitalist south backed by the United States and a UN coalition. The United States however, faced a huge logistical problem: Asia is a whole continent away and shipping supplies and resources there is not ideal. So, the USA invested huge amounts of money to Japanese industrialists, and then Japan produced munitions, food, fuels and many other supplies. Japan was used as a stop and go station. Whilst the war may have been satisfactory for the Americans, for Japan this was the first step... the first step to becoming a manufacturing supergiant!
By 1952, America helped Japan enter onto the world markets and restructured the economy of Japan, ending its occupation. Japan also started a policy of Inclined Production Mode by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). This focused on the production of steel, coal, and cotton. However more importantly, we move onto the Ikeda administration. Hayato Ikeda practiced a policy of heavy industrialisation and over-loaning which essentially was where the Central Bank of Japan issues loans to city banks who then loan back to industrial conglomerates. However, due to little capital in Japan, they borrowed so much from the city bank which then borrowed so much from the central bank, which meant that the central bank had complete control. The government also relaxed anti-monopoly laws which led to a re-emergence of conglomerate groups that behaved like repackaged zaibastus: the keiretsu. These keiretsu groups helped Japan become competitive on world markets and become more globalised.
Picture to the right: Japan unveils first ever high speed rail to the world (1964)
However, whilst this was going on, there was a specific keiretsu, called the Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation, founded by Masaru Ibuka and later Akio Morita. This was an electronics shop in the Nihonbashi Area of Tokyo, which built Japan’s first tape recorder, the Type G. This keiretsu will become more famously known as Sony Corporation. In general, the keiretsus worked closely with the MITI, cross placing shares with each other and making sure it protects against foreign take-overs. For instance, 83% of Japan's Development Bank's finances went toward strategic industries: shipbuilding, electric power, coal, and steel production. The keiretsu also planned for the long term and placed priority upon maximised market shares over short term profits, both of which were able to happen. The Ikeda administration also added one more policy, the Foreign Exchange Allocation Policy, which were import controls to further help Japan markets not fall to foreign goods. This also helped Japan’s export-oriented policies.
By now we have reached the Golden Sixties for Japan. Ikeda, now the Prime Minister, made an ambitious Income Doubling Plan. The plan had an aim of doubling the size of Japan's economy in ten years through a series of tax breaks, targeted investment, an expanded social safety net, and increase exports and industrial development. To achieve this, Japan had to hit an economic growth target of 7.2% per annum. However, Japan did more than expected and the economy increased by 10% each year and doubled in size. With this Income Doubling Plan, Japan improved the citizen’s lifestyle by building megaprojects like highways, railways, subways, ports, dams and helped urbanise Japan. They become a huge producer of automobiles. Another factor was Ikeda’s push for trade liberalisation. With the added motivation of the Olympics being held in Japan 1964, he used that to show the world Japan’s soft power and unveiled the first ever high-speed rail, the Shinkansen, colloquially known as the bullet train. Trade liberalisation reached 41% in 1965 but the ambitious aims for 80% were scrapped due to protests. His founding of foreign aid agencies allowed Japan to enter the OCED in 1964. In the span of twenty years, destruction and chaos in Japan was all but eradicated, despite rising on the global stage once more.
In 1973, Japan faced its first massive crisis, the oil shock crisis where the production of raw materials decreased by 20%. What’s more, it faced further oil shocks in 1978 and 1979 where the price of a barrel of oil significantly increased. This put an end to rapid Japanese economic growth, but it made Japan turn towards a technologically focused economy and this soon made the Japanese rise steadily once more. Even till today, Japan’s production of transistors has been so high for a while, with Sony leading from the front. However, Japan needed to produce something complex and something that can really put it out there next to the USA. They were the second largest economy and wanted more.
The Japanese started to produce popular media such as the Godzilla movies and other forms of media which are shown left and below:
At the start of the 1970s, the Japanese focused closely on semiconductors. Soon they started a VLSI project which linked five of the largest Japanese computer industries, NEC, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, and Hitachi, most commonly rivals, came together to put down foreign lead in high-tech. Started in 1976, this group made over 1000 patents for the micro-fabrication process which helped boost Japan’s semiconductor industry. This soon became in the middle of the 1980s, Japan’s domination. They overtook USA in production of semiconductor products, producing 90% of the number of D-RAMs in the world at that time. The thought that Japan, a country that came from the rubbles and ruins of the Second World War, now have the possibility of overtaking the United States in technology and economy, started to cause worry for the USA. The trade deficit for USA with Japan was at around 90 billion USD .
However, with all this going on, the United States along with Western Europe and Japan signed the Plaza Accord in 1985. This made the yen and other European currencies appreciate for the dollar. This made the yen seem unattractive for investment and for an export-oriented economy, that is a huge loss. So, the Central Bank cut interest rates and set off on the biggest bubbles. Japanese citizens went on a spending spree and Tokyo was a huge party. The Imperial Castle was worth as much as the entire state of California at the peak of the bubble. Although in 1991, the bubble popped, and this led to the Lost Decades of Japan. However, all was not to be blamed on the Accord as the demographics of Japan started to show signs of ageing, the trade war with the USA had a huge effect on Japan’s export, and, simply, the once invincible system of Japan’s model of hard-work and effort has shown cracks and inefficiency. However, the Plaza Accord marked the decline of Japanese exports as the rising demand for other Asian economic miracles began. So, Japan went through a period known as the Lost Decades which really put the nail in the coffin for Japan’s chances of reaching number one and caused Japan lots of demographic, social and economic issues.
So, present day Japan really has undergone the whole journey. The devastation of WW2, being a small archipelago with limited raw materials and unfriendly neighbours, no one expected a nation like Japan to reach its peak on par with the United States and being so close to becoming the upmost economic power. But the bubble and later the Lost Decades has restricted Japan to third place and the yen is currently facing troubles. But even with all that considered, Japan is still third place, still has huge soft power and influence, has the respect of many nations. So, the Land of the Rising Sun is still rising over the world in many cases and the once underdog country is now a global player in manufacturing and technology.
Leicester City: From Relegation Battle to Premier League Winners
By Aryan Sanka (Year 10)
By 2016, just five teams had won the Premier League in its 24-year history. Since the turn of the millennium, the chasm between the top flight’s elite and the rest of the division had become seismic - few sides looked capable of breaching the top six, let alone mounting a title challenge. However, during the 2015/16 season, minnows Leicester who had narrowly avoided relegation the previous season and were 5,000-1 outsiders to win the league at the start of the campaign emerged as surprise title contenders. Pundits and experts insisted that they would eventually falter, and the pressure would get to them, but week after week the Foxes kept on winning. Confirmation that they had achieved the unthinkable came when second place Tottenham were held to a draw by Chelsea, handing victory to hard work and togetherness as Claudio Ranieri’s plucky underdogs were crowned champions of England. Leicester’s run during the 2015-16 Premier League season may go down as the biggest longshot championship in sports history. How’d they pull it off? The small market club took advantage of the down years that the “big” teams like Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, and Arsenal were going through to become the most unlikely champions in English football. Right is the winning team line-up of the 2015/16 season:
For all the headline-grabbing exploits of top scorer Jamie Vardy and twinkle-toed winger Riyad Mahrez, Leicester City's fairytale Premier League title success has been very much a collective effort. What is amazing is that the starting eleven that was responsible for this collective effort cost just £22m, according to a report by BBC, an amount that is less than half the amount Manchester City paid for Kevin de Bruyne at the start of the season! Their best players came in the form of the French midfielder N’golo Kante, English striker Jamie Vardy, Algerian winger Riyad Mahrez and Danish goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel...
The Key figures (all written from a 2015/16 perspective):
Kasper Schmeichel arrived at Leicester in 2011. Now 29, the Denmark international did not possess his father's extraordinary physicality, but was ever-present for Leicester this season, helping his low-scoring side record 15 vital clean sheets on course to Premier League glory. The young goalkeeper, who was signed from Leeds, cost Leicester just £1.25m. Schmeichel was miffed that Leeds decided to sell him- as reported by the Telegraph. Wonder what he feels now
Riyad Mahrez (Winger: £400,000)
The impish inspiration behind Leicester's success, Mahrez symbolises the fairytale journey that the club have overtaken over the past 12 months. Signed from Le Havre for just £400,000 in January 2014, the rakish, velvet-footed Algerian winger flitted in and out of the team 12 months ago as Leicester fought to stay in the division. But this season, he has been a sensation. His 17 goals including stunning strikes against Chelsea and Manchester City, and a hat-trick against Swansea City – as well as 11 assists- set up countless wins and saw him become the first African to be elected as England's Player of the Year by his peers. "Riyad is our light," said manager Claudio Ranieri. "When he switches on, Leicester change colour."
Kasper Schmeichel (Goalkeeper: £1.25m)
Leicester's talisman, the hard-running and prolific Vardy has become the snarling face of Ranieri's team. The wiry Yorkshireman's rags-to-riches tale has seen him rise from non-league obscurity to top-flight record-breaker, England international and Football Writers' Association (FWA) Player of the Year in just four years, even attracting the attention of Hollywood scriptwriters (a true underdog story). Despite scoring 22 goals, he looks poised to miss out on the Golden Boot, but he created Premier League history in the autumn by scoring in 11 consecutive games. Kudos to the Leicester scouts who managed to sign Vardy for just £1m.
Quite a lot of the players in this Leicester team were supposed to have been failed talents, a few of them from the Manchester United academy, free agents or from other places around the world, up for sale. But the real deal was N’golo Kante, who was named the ‘best player in the premier league’, after joining the club from the French side Caen. Even on the bench they had some wonderful superstars in the form of Andrej Kramarić, Ben Chilwell, Daniel Amartey and Demarai Grey who each play for some of the best teams or are even more well known since when they were a young talent on the substitute bench at Leicester City.
A £5.6 million ($8.2 million, 7.2 million euros) capture from French side Caen last year, Kante has astonished observers with his relentless energy, driving runs and extraordinary knack for recovering possession. Legendary former Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson described him as "by far the best player in the Premier League" and he was shortlisted for the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) Player of the Year award. He won his first France cap in March and is a near-certainty for a place in Didier Deschamps's Euro 2016 squad.
By the end of the season, after drawing against 10th place Chelsea (2-2), Leicester City were 10 points clear of second place Arsenal. They defied the odds of 5000-1 by finishing before the likes of Arsenal, Manchester City and Manchester United and winning the premier league, establishing themselves as the best team in England.
Even after a stunning season from Jamie Vardy, he could not achieve the Golden boot after sending the ball in the back of the net 22 times. But, he did achieve an award after scoring in 11 consecutive games for the Wolves All that for just £1m was truly a game changer for Leicester.
This just goes to show that anyone can achieve the unthinkable with passion, a tank full of energy and even win as the underdogs, just like this cheap and inexperienced Leicester City team. The moral is that if you put your mind and all your energy towards your dreams then anything is possible. You might not have the talent that some of these footballers have but the passion and effort will drive you a long way and one step closer to achieving your goal (No pun intended)...
Jamie Vardy (Striker: £1m) N'Golo Kante (Central midfielder: £5.6m)Afghanistan: A country exploited...
By Amrita Selvaraj (Year 12)
For many decades, Afghanistan has been almost exclusively known internationally on account of its involvement in war after war, and its political instability: most recently, on account of the country’s government collapsing and being taken over by the military group, the Taliban. However, what is largely forgotten - or ignored - is the origins of this instability, which is rooted in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
From 1926, Afghanistan had been ruled by a monarchy, and in the 1960s, was ruled by King Mohammed Zahir Shah. However, on July 17th, 1973, Shah was overthrown by his cousin Mohammed Daoud Khan in a bloodless coup, who declared the country a republic, and himself the President. Whilst in power, Khan attempted to perform several modernisation programs for the country - including a harsh land reform policy - which was widely rejected by the rural population, who saw the reforms as incompatible with traditional Afghan (which were largely Islamic-based) values. Furthermore, his administration was marked by an increasingly violent suppression of anyone who criticised his policies - particularly the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, or PDPA. Thus, dissatisfaction was almost universal amongst Afghanistan’s population, which led to what became known as the Saur Revolution, in which insurgent troops led by the PDPA overthrew Khan’s government. The PDPA declared the country a communist state, known as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA), and was led by Nur Muhammed Taraki.
From its inception, the DRA was unstable. Taraki attempted to establish more progressive reforms - including women’s rights to education, and a more secular state - but once again, this was met with anger from the rural population. Counterproductive agrarian reforms only further incensed the rural people. Arguably the most universal factor for the government’s unpopularity was the atheist component to communism - almost of the country’s population were devout Muslim, with Islam perhaps the only commonality between the Afghan people, who were largely split between different tribes, different social statuses, and even different ethnicities. However, much like his predecessor Khan, Taraki’s government was hugely aggressive towards dissenters, resulting in massacres of villlagers, mass jailings, and mass executions. Estimates for the number executed at the Pul-e-Charkhi prison (a prison in Kabul, the country’s capital) between April 1978 and December 1979 is as high as 27,000. As a result, anti-communist insurgencies began rising amongst both tribal and urban groups, who collectively became known as the mujahideen (Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad [holy war]”).
Across the country, rebellions ensued. In an attempt to regain control, Taraki’s government asked for aid from the Soviet Union - who bordered Afghanistan to the north, and who they had formed close ties with. However, on September 14th, 1979, Hafizullah Amin - the deputy prime minister and fellow member of the PDPA at the time - overthrew Taraki (who was later killed) and seized control of the government. This only worsened the revolt against communist rule. The mujahideen declared a jihad on Amin - who was far more radical in policies than his predecessors - and his supporters. Communist rule became increasingly unstable.
Reasons behind the Soviets’ invasion of Afghanistan varied, but of course, centrally focussed on protecting communist rule - and thereby Soviet influenceAfghanistan. Firstly, the political chaos in Afghanistan increased the odds that the Afghan leaders might turn to the US for help, undermining communist influence, and Soviet power. It was even alleged by the USSR that Amin was an agent of the CIA - once again, American influence could not be permitted, especially on the USSR’s own southern border. The Brezhnev Doctrine (1968) also largely justified the need for invasion to the USSR’s leaders. The doctrine was a Soviet foreign policy, which proclaimed that any threat to socialist rule in the Soviet bloc was a threat to all fellow socialist states, thus justifying the need for military intervention in any state where socialist rule appeared to be unstable. Soviet leaders realised that if they didn’t intervene, it could call into question Soviet willingness to uphold other regimes in the Eastern Bloc, thus potentially inspiring other anti-communist uprisings. Furthermore, the large Muslim population of the satellite states (particularly the rapidly-developing Central Asian states now known as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan) shared ethnic identity and religion with Afghanistan - any dissent from Afghans, particularly on the basis of defending Islamic values, could easily spark similar anti-communist moves in these adjacent states, again, directly threatening Soviet control and communist rule. Finally, many Soviet leaders felt they were helping Afghanistan stabilise its government, who had (under Tariki) asked them for aid initially, and which, by now, had suffered more than half a decade of violence and political turbulence.
Consequently, on the 24th December, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. A massive military airlift was organised into Kabul, which involved an estimated 280 transport aircraft and three divisions of almost 8,500 men each. Within less than three days, the Soviets took Kabul, assassinated Amin, and installed a moderate and pro-Moscow leader, Babrak Karmal, in his place. The reforms the Soviet Union attempted to put into place to modernise the DRA were once again rejected by the population, who viewed the atheist Soviets as invaders, defiling Islam and their traditional culture. Consequently, the mujahideen declared a jihad on the Soviets.
Initially, the USSR underestimated the consequences of their invasion - which was meant to be a quick intervention to firmly establish a cohesive and successful communist government - and left suppression of the rebellions to the Afghan army. However, this underestimation was short-lived. The Afghan army was hugely ineffective: it suffered from mass desertions, and the troops who did remain largely lacked morale. The Soviets, now forced to establish control with their own troops, were met with widespread and fierce resistance when they moved out of Kabul, and into the countryside. The Red Army was ill-prepared for the desert and mountain landscapes of Afghanistan; the mujahideen, on the other hand, knew their territory extremely well, and used the deserts and mountainous terrain to their advantage to wear down their opponents. The mujahideen were also extremely motivated, as they were fighting to defend their home country, religion, and identity from a foreign invader. In addition to this, opposition against the Soviets extended beyond the mujahideen: Marxist groups, moderate Islamic groups, and Islamic extremist groups all participated in violence against their common enemy. In retaliation, the Soviet Army began increasing the violence against their enemies, destroying entire villages to weed out individual soldiers, and murdering surviving civilians to cover up the war crimes they had witnessed. It is estimated that one-and-ahalf million people - including up to one million civilians - were killed during the war.
Image right: Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989
Picture above shows Pul-eCharki prison
Picture above shows the flag
Despite the huge losses of the Afghan people, for the Soviet Union, the war became increasingly expensive, and also hugely humiliating, with their infamous Red Army being repeatedly defeated by local guerrilla forces. Pressure from outside Afghanistan to step down also increased. The UN - which had debated whether Soviet involvement was invasion or intervention - eventually condemned the USSR for their actions and requested that the USSR remove their forces. The US began placing economic sanctions on the USSR and abolished most US-Soviet trade. Furthermore, many Middle Eastern countries condemned the invasion, and states within the USSR with Muslimmajority populations began to dissent. Approximately 15,000 Soviet troops were killed. The economic, political, and personal cost of the conflict was profound. The war persisted for almost a decade, until 1988, when Mikhail Gorbachev (the Soviet leader at the time, who would be the last leader before the collapse of the USSR) signed a deal to end the war. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in February 1989.
However, what was overlooked about the war at the time - and still is today - is the fact that the mujahideen were by no means isolated in their war against the Soviets. In fact, their victory was largely due to support from external powersmost notably, the US. Through what was known as ‘Operation Cyclone’, the US funnelled huge amounts of weapons and money to the mujahideen through Pakistan: by 1987, 600 million dollars were being sent per year to the fighters. Pakistan acted as an extremely powerful middle-man in this situation, having the power to pick and choose which groups would be funded, and increasingly provided support to extremist groups (who were then only considered by the US and Pakistan as anti-Soviet freedom fighters). The US also gave the mujahideen military training as part of Operation Cyclone. Additionally, many other Muslim nations, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, provided financial aid to the mujahideen. Whilst these nations did help, it was undoubtedly the US who supported the mujahideen the most. US aid provided to the mujahideen to counter the Soviet invasion was essentially just part of the wider Cold War game played between the two superpowers, in which Afghanistan was nothing more than a pawn. The eventual Soviet defeat is regarded by most historians as significantly contributing to the complete fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 (notably just two years after the end of the Soviet-Afghan War) and the establishment of America as the world’s sole superpower.
Therefore, despite their huge involvement in the war, as soon as Gorbachev signed the deal to end the conflict, the US and USSR completely backed out of any Afghan politics, and the war-ravaged country was left to fend for itself. The mujahideen - the supposed victors - formed a coalition government with many of the other groups who had fought against the Soviet forces. This hastily-assembled government naturally resulted in huge in-fighting, largely based on ethnic and nationalist divides. It was this in-fighting that led to the birth of the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban group, who were economically supported by Pakistan based on nationalist support for the Pashtun (an ethnic group that the Taliban members were part of). Initially, the Taliban were hugely supported by the Afghan population, who were weary of the corruption, brutality, and the incessant infighting between the mujahideen warlords. The mujahideen was eventually overthrown by the Taliban, who seized Kabul in September 1996: by the end of the year, Afghanistan was an Islamic emirate, largely controlled by the Taliban, and largely funded by Pakistan.
The Soviet-Afghan War undeniably transformed the political landscape of Afghanistan, and the lives of its citizens, who have faced almost constant, immeasurable levels violence and political instability since the late 1970s. The blame for this cannot be totally attributed to the USA and the USSR - the population of Afghanistan, largely divided by tribalism, nationalism, and ethnic conflict, were repeatedly resistant to any reform, thus creating huge political instability. However, both the USA and the USSR were undeniably responsible for exploiting and exacerbating the country’s political instability to an end for their own gains, destroying countless lives in the process. This is, in many ways, an underdeog story with tragic consequences. The anger and nationalism within Afghanistan and their historical ability to deter invading forces from staking a claim to their land (as early as the late 1800's where neither Britain nor Russia could ever truly control the area) has in turn led to extreme fractionalisation amongst their own people, harboring the growth of much more extremist ideologies.
How William the Conqueror became King of England
By Koushik Rajesh (Year 7)
England in 1066 was one of the best governed countries in Europe and the known world. It had plenty of wealth, food and overall abundance. Alas, this all changed in one of British history’s biggest turning points, one that, at its heart, is a true underdog story...
There were four main candidates who had a good shot at getting the throne...
The first was Edgar the Atheling, son of the late King’s brother. His father had been promised the throne after Edward died. However, Edgar’s father died under suspicious circumstances, and, at just 15 years of age, Edgar lacked both the experience and necessary support to rule England.
The next candidate was Harald Hardrada, the King of Norway and a formidable Viking warrior. He was a descendant of Harthacnut, the first Viking king of England. England was ruled by Vikings for a brief period and Hardrada alleged that his father was supposed to inherit the throne, rather than Edward, and thus Hardrada believed that England was his country to rule.
The next claimant to the throne was Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, who was an Anglo-Saxon. He was also the late King’s advisor. He had governed the city while Edward was busy. Edward had even married Harold’s sister Edith. Harold also claimed that Edward had promised him the throne on his deathbed.
Finally, there was William, Duke of Normandy. Edward had lived in Normandy for 25 years prior to his coronation. Therefore, he knew William better than most of his colleagues in England. William also claimed that Edward had promised him the throne. William had many supporters, including the Pope in Rome, which also meant that he had the backing of God through the Papal Banner. To top it all, William claimed that Harold had sworn loyalty to him on sacred relics when he supported the Confessor during a conflict in 1053.
None the less, the Witan chose Harold Godwinson as the King of England. Fearing an attack, Harold was promptly crowned on the same day as Edward’s funeral. However, this didn’t mean that Harold would stay the King.
After Harold was crowned, he expected an invasion from Normandy and so he placed troops on the south coast. However, the Normans did not attack. With supplies running low, Harold disbanded his troops, most of whom were peasants, so that they could carry out the harvest. But an invasion was coming; not from Normandy in the south, but from Scandinavia in the north.
Hardrada had prepared his army and had started sailing to England. He was encouraged to do so by Tostig Godwinson: Harold Godwinson’s own brother. He had been the Earl of Northumbia. However, his high taxes and brutal treatment made him a hated man and, to keep peace in the north, Harold had turned against his brother and exiled him. In replacement, Harold had named a nobleman called Morcar the new Earl of Northumbia. Morcar was the younger brother of Edwin: Earl of Mercia. These two were very popular at the time and their sister Edith was married to King Harold.
The image above exhibits Harold Godwinson being crowned as King of England
Hardrada brought a massive fleet of 300 ships and an army of over 10,000 men. Together they ravaged the coast before heading to York on foot and leaving 3,000 men to guard the fleet. Edwin and Morcar bought their armies to meet Hardrada. The battle ground was in a place called Fulford. Hardrada placed Tostig with the least experienced warriors facing the English. He and his army of experienced warriors were covered by hills, with a plan of ambushing the Saxons. At around midday, the flood water dried up and the battle began. However, now Hardrada was free to take his troops around the river and surround the English. Hardrada killed everyone in his path. The Viking had won. Following their victory, Hardrada and his troops settled at Stamford Bridge to rest from their battle before heading south to seize their new kingdom.
When Harold heard the news, he was furious, rapidly assembling his most skilled warriors and beginning the journey up north, recruiting more troops along the way. On the 25th of September they started the long march to Stamford Bridge, travelling 300km (about twice the distance from Washington, D.C. to New York City) in a matter of days, in what is a spectacular achievement. Hardrada and Tostig did not expect any trouble as they had just won a battle against the two Earls of the North.
Godwinson chose to ambush the enemy from behind a hill, taking the Norwegians completely by surprise. The only thing that separated the two armies was the river Derwent with a narrow bridge to access the other side. It is believed that a Viking named Berserk blocked the English from crossing the bridge. It is estimated that he killed about 40 warriors until a cunning Saxon decided to go under the bridge and thrust his spear into Berserk. The plan was successful, killing the axe man and allowing both armies to collide. The English started storming the Vikings from both sides. Hardrada sent his three fastest horsemen to get his reserve troops, before he ordered his warriors to make a strong shield wall, a traditional technique adopted by medieval horses- but also a tactic that our underdog William was able to exploit later... Harold’s army also formed a shield wall and advanced up the hill. Before the battle commenced, Harold gave Tostig a chance to join him. However, Tostig did not take the offer and thus the battle began.
The Norwegians were heavily outnumbered, and the English kept advancing. Eventually the Norwegian’s line started to break. Then Hardrada leaped into the battle, swinging weapons in both hands. This meant he had no shield for protection, and he didn’t wear the long-mail shirt either. That was a bad move. An arrow struck Hardrada in the throat and he died. Tostig was also slain. With the reserve warriors too far away to save their King, the last warriors retreated, and some others were taken as prisoners.
Hardrada's son Olav managed to survive the fight. Olav gave himself up to the King. However, in an act of mercy, Harold let Olav and his remaining troops back to Scandinavia, if he swore an oath never to invade England again. Of the 300 ships that had come to England, there were only enough Vikings to sail 7 back home.
However, Harold’s fight to hold onto the English throne was far from over and a new adversary arrived on the horizon.
When William was told of Harold’s coronation, he was outraged. Therefore, he began to gather support and build an army. Whoever chose to support him was promised land in England as well as a place in heaven, making this a holy war.
William had a huge army of approximately 7,000 men and a fleet of 700 ships. However, the day he was going to invade, northerly winds hit so he had to delay his fleet by several weeks. Had William left on time, perhaps Harold would have already been ready and waiting for him with a prepared army in the south, as was originally Godwinson’s plan... None the less, in late September, the Normans landed in England. When they landed, instead of advancing, William provoked Harold by destroying his former Earldom, Wessex.
When Harold heard about this (already battle weary) he gathered another army and quickly sped south. On October the 14th William marched his army just over 10 km to confront Harold, whereas the Saxons had travelled all the way from the North to South of England in just a matter of a few days.
At 9am the battle for the English crown began. The English were on a hill flanked with two streams on the side and a forest behind them, making it difficult to retreat. They created a shield wall with Harold at the center. While the English had the Dane Axe and used a Defensive Shield Wall tactic, the Normans had 2,000 cavalry which the English had never seen before as well as a line of archers. The Norman Archers attacked first but the distance was too great, so the arrows mostly just rebounded off the English’s shields or zoomed over their heads. Then the mounted Norman knights attacked, but the horses found it impossible to charge up the steep slope. Eventually the horses retreated. A rumor was starting to spread that William had been killed. It is said that William lifted his helmet and shouted that he would win. William understood that the Normans could not win unless they penetrated the shield wall. Therefore, William used an old Norman tactic called the feigned retreat the horses would pretend to retreat but when the English started to chase them, they would turn around and surround the shield wall. Slowly but surely, the shield wall started to wither. William then ordered his archers to attack. This time many of the arrows hit home and Harold was finally killed. We don’t know exactly how Harold was killed but most ancient drawings show him getting shot in the eye or being cut down. However, what we do know is that William had now won the throne.
Although he won the battle, it didn’t mean he would become King immediately. The Witan would have to choose him. They chose to support Edgar the Atheling. William would have to make them change their minds. After waiting for two weeks at Hastings he knew that the nobles were not coming to crown him, King. Therefore, he went to them instead. On his way, he took control of Dover, Canterbury, Winchester before going to Walingford. This was where the Archbishop of Canterbury submitted to William realizing that resistance was futile. Not soon after the Archbishop of York and the Earls, Edwin and Morcar also submitted to William. England had finally accepted defeat. On Christmas day 1066 William was crowned as the first Norman King of England, a true underdog story that saw a Duke from such a small kingdom raise an army of 7000 men, get the support of the Pope and use tactics that were advanced for their time to strategically defeat the mighty Saxon army and secure a foreign crown.
The Mughals: From 300 soldiers to 300 years of rule
By Aryaman Singh (Year 12)
At the height of its power the Mughal empire ruled an estimated ¼ of the Earth’s economy. It’s massive population of over 150 million people was over double that of the European continent at the time and yet not many have heard about just how far the influences of this Empire lay or how it’s rise from the scarce remnants of the lost Timurid Empire is a true underdog story...
One year after Christopher Columbus found the new world, an 11-year-old fugitive by the name of Zihar Al Din, or as he would later be known, Babur (The Tiger) had just inherited his father’s tiny kingdom of Ferghana. But, as soon as he came to power, both his maternal and paternal uncles raised armies in the hopes of seizing his kingdom from him. On his father’s side, Babur was a descendant of the once vast Timurid Empire, but on his mother’s side he was in fact descendent of the Great Genghis Khan.
Throughout his teen years, Babur repeatedly gained and lost control of the old Timurid capital of Samarkand and his home of Ferghana. Eventually, after years of his disunited family butchering each other, the weakened remnants of the once mighty Timurid Empire were swept aside by the Turks and Iranians.
After suffering a series of defeats, Babur was thus left homeless and surrounded by enemies yet again. Accompanied with his mother, a few disloyal mercenaries and just 300 of his dead father’s men, Babur took refuge in the Afghan mountains (it is believed that the travel company had just 1 tent between them, which Babur’s mother used), slowly building up his forces and eventually capturing the strategic city of Kabul in 1504.
Throughout his teen years, Babur repeatedly gained and lost control of the old Timurid capital of Samarkand and his home of Ferghana. Eventually, after years of his disunited family butchering each other, the weakened remnants of the once mighty Timurid Empire were swept aside by the Turks and Iranians.
After suffering a series of defeats, Babur was thus left homeless and surrounded by enemies yet again. Accompanied with his mother, a few disloyal mercenaries and just 300 of his dead father’s men, Babur took refuge in the Afghan mountains (it is believed that the travel company had just 1 tent between them, which Babur’s mother used), slowly building up his forces and eventually capturing the strategic city of Kabul in 1504.
This city was crucial in Southeast Asia at the time as it was a hub for the trade of weapons, war horses and other resources and a point of connection between the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In a rapid shift of luck, Uzbek attacks across the remaining Timurid Empire had now left Babur as the last ruling Timurid prince. With all the deposed princes in his support, Babur took up the role of Badshah: the supreme ruler. However, after failing to retake Samarkand or secure Kabul, Babur now turned his attention to the declining but still incredibly wealthy Delhi Sultanate. Unlike others before him, his motivations were not to plunder, but to rather rule a vast kingdom in the area.
Babur’s use of advanced canons and cavalry at the battle of Panipat in 1523 saw him defeat a much larger traditional Indian army with over 1000 war elephants and overrun the Sultanate. In the years to come, Babur solidified control over Northern India by defeating a confederation of Rajput states. He embraced Delhi, guaranteeing its safety and not looting its people. But Babur did not get to enjoy his dreams of a vast Empire for very long as he died of suspected poisoning at the age of just 47...
Babur’s death was followed by an intense power struggle between his successor, Humayun, and his brothers. Humayun was ultimately defeated and driven out by his own general. This in fact led to a very brief new Suri Empire being established in Northeast India from 1540-55. Humayun became a fugitive just like his father, by which time the once vast Mughal army had been whittled down to just 40 men. And yet, the Mughal Dynasty refused to come to an end... In return for converting to a Shia Muslim, Humayun was granted 12,000 men by the Shah of Iran, ultimately retaking both Kabul and Northern India in one of history's most remarkable comebacks, in 1555. Humayun died a year later after falling down some stairs.
But it would be under his son Akbar that the Mughal Empire would truly rise to glory. During his nearly half a century reign from 1556-1605, he greatly expanded the Mughal Empire. In true Mongol fashion, he is known for dealing with any threats or dissent against his rule extremely severely. And yet, Akbar's progressive religious tolerance make him an exceptional leader for the time. He encouraged peaceful religious debate, outlawing forced conversions and granting non-Muslims the same rights as Muslims.
His heir, Jahangir was in fact a son whom he had had with a practicing Hindu wife. Much like his father, Jahangir reign was largely peaceful, lasting 22 years, and he also in fact married a Hindu Rajput wife. However, his execution of a Sikh Guru near the end of his reign was a sharp contrast from his father’s religious tolerance, eventually resulting in a civil war and famine that killed 2 million people.
His only surviving son, Shah Jaha, took up the throne. It was during his rule that the Taaj Mahal was constructed as a tomb for his deceased wife. Shah Jaha's reign is widely considered the peak of Mogul prestige, internal stability and prosperity, the foundations for which the 4 generations before him had laid out. But, as was often the case, his death spiralled into yet another power vacuum and conflict for the throne between his sons.
His eventual heir, Aurungzeb, took the Empire to its territorial zenith, however, this came at a great cost as he cut funding for courts, art religion and academics and basically everything that wasn’t to do with military and nature conservation Many unpopular taxes were introduced, including a tax on all non-Muslims called the Jisiah; this was a poor tactical decision by the Emperor as the Muslims were in fact a minority within India- evidenced by their overdependence on military action to establish and maintain their control- and thus such taxes turned most of his subjects against him. His policies significantly encouraged rebellion from Sikhs, Marathas and Rajput's. Aurungzeb's campaigns to end these conflicts again resulted in widespread famine and destruction and his eventual death caused yet another costly civil war.
In the years to come, Mughal efforts to reclaim the lost land from the Sikhs in turn resulted in the separation of the prosperous region of Bengal from the Empire in 1717. This was the start of huge political uncertainty within the Empire. In 1 year alone (1719), 4 different Emperors sat on the throne.
As costly wars continued with the Sikhs and Marathas, the distracted Mughal capital in Delhi eventually fell to a force from Persia in March 1739, which saw the enemy slaughter civilians and plunder the cities riches. This truly marked the beginning of the end for the Mughal Empire, with further attacks from the French in the south leading to the death of the last secure Mughal emperor, Muhammad Kahn.
As costly wars continued with the Sikhs and Marathas, the distracted Mughal capital in Delhi eventually fell to a force from Persia in March 1739, which saw the enemy slaughter civilians and plunder the cities riches. This truly marked the beginning of the end for the Mughal Empire, with further attacks from the French in the south leading to the death of the last secure Mughal emperor, Muhammad Khan.
Bengal was also eventually annexed by the British East India Company in 1757 and became a base for their conquest against the Maratha Empire, whom by now were a much more powerful force within India and had already taken the south of what was left of the Mughals. The Northern parts of the Empire would also eventually fall at the hands of the Afghan Dirani Empire.
The remaining fragments of the Empire petitioned for Afghan support against the Marathas, but even in the conflict that followed where many men from both sides were killed, this only caused new problems for the Mughals as an old enemy in the Sikhs regained land by pushing back both the Afghans and Marathas. Eventually the Marathas captured Delhi in 1771, declaring themselves the
The last gasp of Mughal relevance came during the Indian rebellion of 1857 where many nobles and commoners alike declared the Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar as the legitimate ruler of India. In the aftermath, Zafar was exiled to Burma and his sons were executed by the British. After his death in 1865, Queen Victoria became Empress of India and the British Raj began, ending the Mughal dynasty once and for all.
None the less, the Mughal dynasty certainly had a profound impact on shaping the modern-day Indian subcontinent. It was the first collective force to nearly bring the entirety of India under one banner, significantly increasing India’s overland and sea trade routes and providing the area with an entirely new level of economic autonomy. Under Akbar, the Empire also introduced one of the earliest forms of ”universal toleration” with open discussions between different religions and philosophies and paving the way for a modern, secular India. They also substantially increased the representation of Islam as a religion within India (now making up 15% of India’s religious demography), although they were not the first Muslims within India. They also helped establish a well-defined system of bureaucracy and taxation within India, the likes of which had never been seen before. This also links to their creation of the Rupee coin, which still functions as the main currency in that part of the world. The transport routes they created (such as the Grand Trunk Road in what is now New Delhi) still function as central components of the current transport network. Lastly, contrary to popular opinion and patterns associated with large empires, the Mughals in fact increased India’s GDP from 22% of the world to 24% (placing it as the world’s largest economy). This was much unlike the subsequent British Raj, which reduced the GDP to just 2% by 1947. Thus, the Mughal underdog rise to control certainly helped the catalyse immense change within India, most of which was for the better...
Martin Luther: Religious innovator and underdog?
By Mr Wearn
Martin Luther is regarded by many as the initiator of the Reformation; a movement which created an alternative to the Roman Catholic Church and a new avenue for religious confession. From the publication of his 95 Theses, his life appears to be one of innovative change, but also one that lead to conflict and “suspected heresy”. How innovative was he? And just how far did he break the mould of convention at the time?
It is important to establish just how innovative Luther was, in context. To do so, we can examine Luther’s views on key events and how they differed from other reformers- allowing us to understand the extent to which Luther can be considered an innovator. This is crucial because the Reformation was not solely a German phenomenon but shows signs of encaptivating global socio-political change over the course of history.
With this in mind, the definition of the word “innovate” must be determined, and that is “to introduce changes and new ideas” and so, if Martin Luther is to be considered an innovator, he must have introduced new ideas and perspectives. In my opinion, it is fair to say that the evidence available shows Luther to be an innovator to a certain extent; however, the spread of his ideas was often accidental...
Firstly, the areas where Luther is regarded as being innovative must be examined, principally his thinking on indulgences. In his 95 Theses, Luther argues that “papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins”. This suggests that he was- at this point- challenging the established views found within the Church. Moreover, his stance becomes more radical when he argues within his “Sermon on Indulgence and Grace” (1518) that indulgences “help no one to improve”. From this evidence it is clear to see that Luther set out to change the traditional statusquo, and that his ideas were an obvious break from the conventional, widely accepted, religious thinking of the time. Therefore, it can be argued that, in his attempt to bring about change, Luther was acting to improve life within society, who, during this period, were still deeply religious. Furthermore, the effect that this view had on the established Church meant that Luther cannot be considered as someone who lacked innovation, or indeed a religious underdog, because teaching and objections like this shook the foundations of the religion he sought to change, and eventually led to Luther’s excommunication.
Further evidence to the innovative nature of Luther can be found if his statement that “indulgence-peddling remained a staple component of worship in Christian Europe” at the time is taken into consideration. This suggests that not only did Luther hold a different view to the Church hierarchy, but he also differed in opinion to the ordinary people, who, at this point, had no choice but to conform to the teachings of the Church.
Luther’s conflict with the Church’s overindulgences was closely related to his ideas about Justification in the eyes of God, and how people become worthy. This is because part of his thinking resulted in the creation of a new doctrine, which differed from the established idea that good works could earn you the grace of God. Luther believed that no amount of good works could earn the grace of God, as people were given grace through their faith. Therefore, the positions of works in a person’s life changed because, according to Luther, these works were not a necessity to earn grace, but were the result of grace, where the love that God showed the believer led to an outpouring of what society considered as ‘good works.’ Consequently, Luther’s ideas on justification can be considered as “faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone” where the only prerequisite of being saved is believing in the fact that Jesus died on a cross for humanity, and that in a break from traditional thinking, the good works you do have no consequence in earning God’s grace because all Christians have already received it. This resulted in Luther believing that only through believing in this truth (that God had promised salvation and grace through His Son) could people gain eternal life in heaven.
In addition to this, Luther’s ideas did not just stop at the belief that people should not perform good works to gain the grace of God. In fact, he justified his beliefs by arguing that people should have known that they were saved based on their belief, and nothing more. However, this required people to be able to interpret the Bible themselves, a concept which has become known as a “priesthood of all believers” and subsequently implied that as most of the lay population did not speak Latin, the Bible had to be translated into the vernacular language so everybody could read it. Luther can be considered to be an innovator because it was, he who first translated the New Testament into German in 1522. Besides this point, there is also further evidence to be found in the fact that if “justification by faith has been rightly selected as the cardinal doctrine of the Lutheran theology” then Luther himself must have been the innovator of the movement and the change in thinking as, if it was not for the force behind the movement, he would not have gone to the Diet of Worms and refused to refute the suggested allegations. As a result, it is possible to argue that Luther, in terms of his thinking, was an innovator because he changed the ideas that had previously been established.
However, despite this wealth of evidence, the case is not as clear as could be assumed because there is also evidence to suggest that Luther himself was not as radical an underdog as some would argue...
For example, perhaps the biggest and strongest argument against the claim that Luther was an innovator is the fact that, during the entire period, he never actually intended to bring about a split with the established Roman Catholic Church, in fact “he was committed to the unity of the Roman Church” and therefore, it can be argued that he was not as innovative as people believe because he never intended his ideas to have such a large impact. Furthermore, it is believed that the publication of the 95 Theses was only intended for “academic circles” because they were written in Latin, the scholarly language, which, as already mentioned, was not understood by the majority of the population. Consequently, some have argued that Luther only intended for them to be used by the Church because if he wished for them to be generally known he would have written them in the vernacular so that people could understand them.
The Roman Catholic Church
In addition to this, the fact that today “most scholars of religion put less emphasis on Luther alone as the source of religious change” suggests that he himself was not as innovative as first thought. This is the result of the role of the other reformers, from whom Luther diverged, being examined more fully and them being seen as greater innovators in comparison. In addition to this evidence, it has also been suggested that the other, more radical reformers- particularly the Calvinists- criticised the Lutherans (who followed Luther’s doctrine) “for having made compromises with the old religion and not having carried reform far enough”.
This raises another important issue, although Luther is considered to be the first person to break away from the traditions of the Roman Church, it has been shown that this is not true, as in Bohemia this had already been achieved and therefore the idea that Luther was an innovator because he brought about new thinking to religious ideas- by suggesting that it was possible to follow God in a way that was different to the Roman Church- is inaccurate because it had already been seen to exist and in addition it was considered to be a viable option by those in Bohemia. However, this idea is subject to the view that although Luther himself never actively sought a split, it occurred as a result of his innovation in the first place, and therefore it is inconsequential to argue that he was not an innovator because there was already an established independent church within Europe (as Luther’s innovation brought about the first independent confession within the Holy Roman Empire). Image above: shows the Holy Roman Empire
Also, although innovative in some areas, Luther was still subjected to the traditional views on certain topics. For example, his position regarding the Jews remained like those views held by people within the Catholic Church. It is this respect which to some represents the least innovative area of Luther’s teaching because he saw the Jews as “stiff-necked” for rejecting the message of Jesus Christ. This was common for people within Catholic Europe, as in times of economic troubles the Jews, as they were easy scapegoats, were often blamed because, by rejecting Jesus, they became outsiders. This is seen to be the case before Luther became a prominent figure as, in 1492, the Jews were expelled from Spain which gives further weight to the idea that it was commonplace within the Catholic countries of Europe. Moreover, Luther’s opinion on this issue is highlighted once again in his writings, when he called the Jews “disgusting vermin” and recommended that they be expelled from the Empire” once again refuting the idea of innovation because it can be seen that Luther was still tied to the prehistoric ideas of the Roman Catholic Church and its predispositions. This once again suggests Luther’s unwillingness to break with the Church because there is evidence which shows that, had Luther been able to foresee the effects of his actions, he “would have taken due precaution... to make them more easily understood” once again limiting extent of his desire for innovation and change within the Roman Church.
In conclusion, whilst many see Luther as an innovator, it cannot be overlooked that he “remained a child of his time” in the fact that he remained committed to his belief in God. It is within this restriction that the notion of Luther as an innovator must be considered; therefore, he can be seen as an innovator by the standards of the period because he brought about a change in the everyday thinking of many people. However, his value as an innovator in modern times can be questioned more because, although he changed the religious thinking of the day, he never questioned the idea that God exists, and therefore many people today would argue that he was not innovative in the strongest sense of the word because he merely sought to reform the existing ideas, not radically change them into something completely different, for example a system based on science rather than belief in God.
Moreover, his position within the reformation can be seen by the fact that “his writings formed such significant propaganda” because if he was not seen as an innovator, the people involved with the reformation would not have pointed to his works for justification. In addition, the Roman Church would not have excommunicated him had it not been for the innovative nature of his works. Furthermore, the techniques that were used to distribute the ideas that had come from Luther can also seem to be innovative because Luther used the newly invented printing press to such an extent that some have argued that the printed book was “absolutely paramount in creating public knowledge of reform”.
Finally, Luther’s desire to see reform within the Catholic Church can be interpreted in two ways, which will ultimately lead to different opinions of the extent of his role as an innovator. The first of these is the fact that he was not an innovator because he was unwilling to break from the established Church and only parted ways when it became clear that there was no chance of the reform he wanted. This idea is in direct contrast with the argument that Luther was an innovator for the sole fact that he pushed for change. This is because the definition of an innovator is not someone who brings about change deliberately, but someone who brings about a change in thinking through their actions, whether these are accidental or purposeful.
Therefore, the weight of evidence and the fact that the result of Luther’s actions brought about a change in perspective for many people within the Holy Roman Empire suggests that he was in fact an innovator, although not to the extent of some of the other reformers, notably Zwingli and Calvin, with whom Luther argued with over the status of Sacraments, leading to him being considered by some in the nineteenth century as a “great conservative religious teacher”24 as he restrained from the complete innovativeness of the other reformers.
The Battle of Thermopylae (the story behind '300')
By Aryaman Singh (Year 12)
One famous moment in history where an underdog won is the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The battle was fought between the Persian Empire, one of the largest and most powerful empires in the world at the time, and a small coalition of Greek city-states led by King Leonidas of Sparta.
Despite being vastly outnumbered, with estimates ranging from 7,000 to 10,000 Greeks against a Persian force of over 100,000 soldiers, the Greek forces held their ground and fought valiantly for three days. King Leonidas and his 300 Spartan warriors, along with their allies from other Greek city-states, managed to hold off the Persian forces at a narrow mountain pass known as the "Hot Gates."
On the third day of the battle, a local resident and traitor named Ephialtes informed the Persians of a small path that would allow them to outflank the Greek position. Leonidas realized that his forces would be surrounded and ordered most of his army to retreat. He stayed behind with 300 of his most elite soldiers, the Spartans, along with a few hundred other soldiers from other Greek city-states.
The Spartans fought bravely and were able to hold off the Persian army for a short while, but they were eventually overwhelmed and killed. None the less, their bravery and sacrifice inspired the rest of Greece to unite and fight against the Persian Empire, eventually leading to a Greek victory in the Persian Wars. The Battle of Thermopylae became a symbol of heroic resistance against overwhelming odds, and its legacy has inspired many underdogs throughout history to never give up and to fight for what they believe in
The Battle of Thermopylae has become famous for the courage and sacrifice of the Greek soldiers, particularly the Spartans, who fought against overwhelming odds. It is also notable for the strategic significance it had on the overall outcome of the Persian Wars, as it bought the Greeks valuable time to prepare for further Persian invasions. The Battle of Thermopylae has become legendary in Western culture, with many films, books, and other media portraying the events and the bravery of the Greek soldiers. The battle is considered a significant moment in ancient Greek history, marking the resistance of the underdog Greeks against a powerful empire and setting the stage for the eventual Greek victory over the Persians.
From above the grocer’s to the steps of Number 10: The Rise of the Iron Lady
By George Clements (Year 12)
It seems only appropriate that, shortly after the 10th anniversary of her passing, we should remember and pay homage to Margaret Thatcher, the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. There can be no denying that during her decade-long tenure as PM, she oversaw significant changes to our country’s identity, both socially and economically; the footprint she left behind following her departure was certainly not a faint one. Whatever your views on Mrs Thatcher, she was undeniably a woman of principle, and her strong, decisive leadership gave rise to her being commonly referred to as “The Iron Lady” by many. But how did it all begin? In this article, we explore how a middle-class grocer’s daughter from Grantham became such a prominent and influential figure in politics and British society.
From Grantham to Oxford
Margaret Hilda Roberts was born on 13th October 1925. She was the daughter of a successful small businessman, who owned a tobacconists and grocery store in the Lincolnshire market town of Grantham. She attended Huntingtower Road Primary School and won a scholarship to Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, a grammar school, serving as Head Girl from 1942-43. Roberts was accepted for a scholarship to study chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford, a women's college, starting in 1944, although after another candidate withdrew, Roberts entered Oxford in October 1943. It was here that she began to become involved with politics, serving as the President of the Oxford University Conservative Association in 1946. Despite the scientific nature of her degree, it is believed that she drew significant inspiration from Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom while studying at university. This book is widely known for condemning economic intervention by government, which may have influenced her to strive towards the “Thatcherite” economic policies for which she is so well known. She graduated in 1947 with a second-class degree, specialising in X-ray crystallography.
Picture above left exhibits Sommerville College Oxford
From Oxford to Westminster – the dawn of a political career
After graduating, Roberts moved to Colchester in Essex to work as a research chemist for BX Plastics. In 1948, she applied for a job at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) but was rejected after the personnel department assessed her as "headstrong, obstinate and dangerously self-opinionated". Roberts joined the local Conservative Association and attended the party conference at Llandudno, Wales, in 1948, as a representative of the University Graduate Conservative Association. One of her Oxford friends was also a friend of the Chair of the Dartford Conservative Association in Kent, who were looking for candidates. Officials of the association were so impressed by her that they asked her to apply, even though she was not on the party's approved list; she was selected in January 1950 (aged 24) and added to the approved list. It was during this time that she met her husband-to-be, Denis Thatcher, a wealthy businessman.
In the 1950 and 1951 general elections, Roberts was the Conservative candidate for the Labour seat ofDartford. The local party selected her as its candidate because, though not a dynamic public speaker, Roberts was well-prepared and fearless in her answers. A prospective candidate, Bill Deedes, recalled: "Once she opened her mouth, the rest of us began to look rather second-rate." She attracted media attention as the youngest and the only female candidate; in 1950, she was the youngest Conservative candidate in the country. She lost on both occasions to Norman Dodds but reduced the Labour majority by 6,000 and then a further 1,000. During the campaigns, she was supported by her parents and by her future husband Denis Thatcher, whom she married in December 1951. Denis funded his wife's studies for the bar; she qualified as a barrister in 1953 and specialised in taxation. Later that same year their twins Carol and Mark were born. After a by-election loss in Orpington in 1955, it was at the 1959 election when, after a tireless campaign, she was finally elected to parliament as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Finchley.
From MP to PM – rising through the ranks
Thatcher’s talent and drive led to her being promoted to the frontbench as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for the Pensions by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan. After the 1966 election defeat, she was not appointed as a member of the shadow cabinet, although her influence remained strong, with regular speeches criticising Labour’s high-tax policies “as a move towards communism”. During this time, she also voted in favour of decriminalising male homosexuality and in favour of abortion, one of only a few Conservative MPs to do so. She was appointed as a transport minister in the Shadow Cabinet in the late 1960s, before being promoted to Education Secretary following Ted Heath’s election victory in 1970. In this role, she supported the retention of grammar schools, and was famously involved in the 1971 decision to discontinue the provision of free milk to all children aged 7-11, which gave rise to her well-known nickname “the Milk Snatcher”. However, it later emerged that she herself was not in favour of this policy and was instead persuaded by the Treasury to introduce it. Following Heath’s election loss in 1974, Thatcher was not initially seen as the obvious replacement, but she eventually became the main challenger, promising a fresh start. Her main support came from the parliamentary 1922 Committee and The Spectator, but Thatcher's time in office gave her the reputation of a pragmatist rather than that of an ideologue. She defeated Heath on the first ballot, and he resigned from the leadership. In the second ballot she defeated Whitelaw, Heath's preferred successor. Thatcher's election had a polarising effect on the party; her support was stronger among MPs on the right, and also among those from southern England, and those who had not attended private schools or Oxbridge. She became Conservative Party leader and Leader of the Opposition on 11 February 1975. During her time in this role, she continued to push for a wide range of neoliberal economic policies, criticising the Callaghan’s Labour government for the high unemployment rate and hundreds of public-sector strikes impacting local services in the 1978-9 “Winter of Discontent”.
With much frustration at the high rate of inflation and lack of confidence about the direction of the country, support for the government began to weaken. A vote of no confidence in Callaghan’s leadership was called in early 1979, which he lost, resulting in a general election being called. Throughout her campaign, she continued to exploit the failures of Callaghan’s government, promising a new style of leadership, a reduction in the size of the state, and various other neoliberal economic reforms, focusing on tackling inflation and the militant unions who had caused so much havoc the previous winter, and of course, advocating the Right to Buy scheme whereby tenants would be able to purchase their council-owned homes. Her campaign was also centred around attracting the traditional Labour-voting working class, amongst whom her promises of major social and economic reforms proved popular.
Her election manifesto was published on 11th April 1979, outlining 5 key policy pledges:
1) "to restore the health of our economic and social life, by controlling inflation and striking a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement"
2) "to restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy"
3) "to uphold Parliament and the rule of law"
4) "to support family life, by helping people to become home-owners, raising the standards of their children's education and concentrating welfare services on the effective support of the old, the sick, the disabled and those who are in real need"
5) "to strengthen Britain's defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world"
The general election was eventually held on Thursday 3rd May 1979. Opinion polling suggested a substantial albeit decreasing Conservative majority during the final few weeks prior to the election, with many polls indicating a hung parliament with neither of the main parties achieving a majority in the House of Commons. Despite this, the Conservatives ended up achieving 43.9% of the popular vote, a vote share which has yet to be matched by a Conservative leader at any general election since. She also won 339 seats to Labour’s 269, a substantial majority of 44, which would go on to be increased significantly in the following election. Thatcher became Prime Minister on 4th May 1979, the start of an 11-year period as leader which would see countless economic reforms, 2 general elections, a major shift of Britain’s position on the world stage, and substantial alterations to the way British society operated. It is, perhaps, no surprise that during her premiership, she was often referred to as the most powerful woman in the world.
Image above: Thatcher outside Downing Street following her election victory