History society december 2015

Winstanley College

History Magazine Christmas 2015 edition “One damned thing after another“

1

Contents: Editorial ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 STAR ARTICLE: Bah Humbug! A Puritan’s Perfect Christmas………………………………....………….4 - 7 The Confederate Army’s Best Christmas Present…………………………………………..…….…….…………..8 - 10 Up the Tics The History of Wigan Athletic………………………………………….…………………..……………..11- 14 The History of English…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……15 - 17 OPINION: A Perspective on Terrorism………………………..…………………………………………………….…….18 - 20 INTERVIEW: An Interview with Anne Grist, Chief Examiner……………………………………….……21- 22 BOOK REVIEW: A Review of ‘A Russian Journal’………………………………………………………….……..23- 25 REVISION: “Why was the Byzantine Empire weak by 1095?”……………………………………………….26-29 RESIT REVISION: Effective Leadership in the Crusader States 1096-1154……………………..…30-32 UCAS HELP: Example of Written Work for University College, Londo……………….…………..33-34 Breaking News in the History Society………………..……………………………………………………………..……………35 Who’s Who in the History Society……………………………………………………………………………………………………36

Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its History Society.

2

Editorial: “Historians do not, as too many of my colleagues keep mindlessly repeating,

"reconstruct" the past ” Arthur Marwick Welcome to the newest edition of the History Magazine; Our Christmas special! (Brought to you by many overworked editors and frantic writers— just kidding!)

views with historians, to book reviews to our typical articles for you to peruse!

Perhaps the first on the shelf will catch your attention? A star article First, apologies to Liam Jennion and that earned itself a bar of chocolate?

Camille Houghton-Grimshaw for the Maybe after that, you’ll browse furgross misspellings of their names in ther into our shop and embrace the the last edition— the first time out of Christmas Spirit, or not, to find out the gate is always going to be tricky. about the Confederate Army’s Christmas present?

Now, it’s been a momentous term, with many recent events causing our Or you could skip straight to the back historical brains whirring. of the shop, in the dusty little corner, The Paris Attacks struck at our hearts where an astounding interview with Chief Examiner Anne Grist awaits and minds, and increasing numbers looked to us historians for an explana- there to intrigue you? tion of the factors that led us to today. There’s all that and more in this issue of the History Magazine.

Further, Mein Kampf is being republished with historian’s notes.

Tempting fate or innocent scholarship?

So, Merry Christmas and I hope you have a fabulous half-term!

I wonder what the future will bring?

Editor—in—Chief

Emma Porter

There’s a wide variety in the magazine this time, with anything from inter3

STAR ARTICLE!

Bah Humbug!

A Puritan’s Perfect Christmas Christmas.

a time of good will, when children dream of Father Christmas coming down the Chimney, a time that everyone can’t fail to enjoy.

It’s a time of joy.

That’s not strictly true though.

It’s the time of year when you always hear the crap about it being better to give than receive. It’s when you tolerate family for one day. It’s when you see the John Lewis advert so many times you’d wish that you were the man on the moon so you wouldn’t have to see it ever again. It’s a day where you eat so much turkey you won’t need to eat for rest of the week. It’s a time that now seems to start in October. It’s a time where Coco Cola rub their hands in glee that people still love there advert. It’s a time when we celebrate the birthday of some child born in Bethlehem, with children in dressing gowns pretending to be kings. Most of all Christmas is

Long before Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol, there was a group of people in Britain that could only be described as ‘Scrooges’. This group of people were the Puritans, led by Oliver Cromwell. These miserable bastards couldn’t stand Christmas and everything it stood for.

As reformed Protestants they wanted to make the church pure once more and make church ceremonies a simple act again.

Throughout the 16th and 17th century they attempted to protect the church from Ro4

man Catholic practises, with Christmas (and fun in general) being something they disliked. They saw no reason for the celebration of Jesus’ birth believing that Christmas was nothing more than a Pagan celebration.

special.) They didn’t think Christmas should be a celebrated day of festival so they ordered all the shops and markets to remain open on Christmas day (an offer that supermarkets would jump at if it meant more money.)

Apart from the Puritans, Christmas was loved and celebrated, like now, just with less John Lewis and Christmas repeats of Only Fools and Horses. People would decorate their houses like we still do now, but with less tinsel and more ivy. People still gave presents out and enjoy a huge Christmas dinner. Instead of sitting round the TV, people would play games and sing songs which would have been a lot more entertaining than watching Text Santa. The thing that the people then have most in common with us now is that Christmas was a time to get pissed. With all the celebrations people just couldn’t avoid having a drink and like in many houses at Christmas one drink led to many drinks. It was this side of Christmas that the Puritans hated and wanted to change.

This started in 1643 where Puritan shops opened in London on Christmas day, and even Puritan politicians sat in Parliament, something that the MP’s today could learn from instead of the six weeks they have off at Christmas.

They took their chance to change Christmas as they took power in the 1640’s through Civil War, with Cromwell taking control of England. Even before Civil war, Puritans had hated Christmas but had been willing to tolerate it. As the war started between them and the Royalists they decided not to stand for it anymore.

Under the Puritan parliament Christmas was cancelled and the destruction of the festive period began. Christmas became a time of division in England. In 1644 Parliament said that people should fast on Christmas day due to it being the last Wednesday in the month. They believed that fasting on the last day of the month was important to remember their sins, whether it was Christmas or not. The misery continued as in 1645 a Directory of Public Worship said festival days would become holy days that should be

They believed the events at Christmas were now disrespectful to God and that more trouble was caused at Christmas than rest of the year. The worries were that children were not truly appreciating Christmas, with their love for toys and other activities blocking the true meaning. Everything that people enjoyed was hated by the Puritans. They believed all the drinking, games and music were sins against the church and God (they would really hate Top of the Pops Christmas 5

done only in the name of God.

enjoyment for everyone.

The Puritans believed Christmas had gone against the church and no longer stuck to its beliefs and that needed to change. Cromwell’s parliament discussed a bill to stop the celebrations taking place in London, a debate much different to the ones that taking part in Parliament now.

By 1660 the time of puritan rule was over.

Following the death of Cromwell in 1658 the monarchy returned to power and Christmas could return to a time of joy. The civil war between the royalists and the puritans had seemed pointless, things where no different to twenty five years before as a Charles was In 1647, Christmas became a crime. Parlia- king of England and Christmas was a time ment decided it would become a punishable for a piss up. event to celebrate the event. This was the final straw. Royalists decided to fight back The Puritans where the original Grinch’s, with a number of riots taking place across they helped to destroy what Christmas is the country wanting Christmas to begin about. Perhaps people had forgotten the reagain. The Royalist supported the king; they ligious aspect of Christmas but that didn’t were happy joyful people who enjoyed thea- mean they’d forgotten its meaning like the tre, music and Christmas (all the things that puritans had. Christmas should be a time of pissed off the Puritans.) The fight back con- joy and forgiveness and beer and food, but tinued up until execution of Charles the first focus mainly on the first two. Surely the Puin 1649, after which they celebrated Christ- ritans could’ve tolerated that for two weeks mas privately. of the year, like we tolerate shite films on In 1653 Cromwell was appointment as Lord Protector, which was another nail in Christmas’ coffin. Although he was not entirely behind the destruction of Christmas in this period, he did support the removal of it.

tele throughout Christmas? Surely they could have enjoyed themselves for one day of the year and be miserable for the other 364 days? Surely they could have sat through it, like we sit through the Queens speech?

Throughout the Puritan’s reign of misery, despite their efforts to send Christmas back to its true religious meaning, the number of churches that opened its doors on Christmas day decreased. What they didn’t understand was that Christmas is a day for joy, a day of

If the German and British soldiers in World War One can have peace on Christmas day and play a football match surely the Puritans could’ve enjoyed themselves for one day. If Noel and Liam Gallagher ‘Don’t look back in Anger’ for one day (more like one hour) of 6

the year then surely the puritans could sit through the festivities. The Puritans were just selfish and that’s not what Christmas is about.

I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas (not happy holidays I’m not frigging American.) I hope everyone enjoys the Christmas repeats on the tele and thank God the crap known as Downton Abbey is finishing. 2015 has been a tough year for many across the world, so let’s hope that Christmas day can bring at least a small amount of peace for those people. Once again, “Merry Christmas” to everyone and “Bah Humbug” to any Puritans.

AMOS WYNN

7

The Best Christmas Gift What has been the best Christmas present you’ve ever gotten? Has there ever been a time when you’ve gotten something you didn’t think you would ever receive? Do you think you deserved that present? Because what the Confederate army got for their Christmas in 1968 has to be one of the most astonishing gifts of all time.

The American civil war was one of the most tragic wars in all of American history. Like most wars that happen, the civil war began due to a conflict in ideologies. Whilst the north of America believed all people should be free and given the right to life the south did not and still believed it was their right to own another human being as a slave.

The southern states relied on such slaves to do their farm work as most of the southern 8

economy came from agriculture. Rich families that lived on plantations built their fortunes on the backs of slaves and felt that they would lose all they had if the slaves were to be freed.

No wonder they were panicked when Abraham Lincoln won the election in 1860 as he had pledged to keep slavery out of America’s territories. It troubled them so much that seven pro-slave states in the Deep South seceded and formed a new nation.

This new nation was known as the Confederate States of America and the North became known as the Union states. In fear that this split would discredit democracy, weaken and fragment the US, the Northern people and the Lincoln administration disregarded the legitimacy of the divide.

This tension came to boil on April 12, 1861.

The Confederate army invaded Fort Sumter in Charleston Bay, claiming it as their own they opened fire on the federate quarters and forced it to lower the American flag in surrender. This victory encouraged a further four states to join the Confederacy.

The long, painful process of rebuilding a united nation free of slavery began.

Hundreds of thousands died of disease and roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's popLincoln’s first aim was to limit the amount of ulation, the toll would have risen as high as action against the South. He hoped it would 6 million people. restrain the impact and size of the war so it would be easier to solve afterwards when At this cost you would think the defeated restoring the union. would have been treated like any other criminal or traitor or loser and be rightly However, campaigns and battles in subse- punished for the crimes they committed. quent years, from Gettysburg in Pennsylvania to Vicksburg on the Mississippi to Chickamauga and Atlanta in Georgia meant that The US Constitution defines treason as levythis original goal was abandoned to a new ing war against the government and aiding strategy of "total war". He now wanted to and abetting its enemies. By that definition, destroy the Old South and its basic institu- every Confederate soldier in the Civil War— tion of slavery and to give the restored Un- as well as every political leader—was a traiion a "new birth of freedom," as President tor. Therefore, according to the law, every Lincoln put it in his address at Gettysburg to confederate soldier should’ve been pundedicate a cemetery for Union soldiers ished for treason in which the penalty for treason is execution. killed in the battle there.

This new tactic appeared to be effective as by the spring of 1865 all the principal Confederate armies were outnumbered and surrendered. When Union cavalry captured the fleeing Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Georgia on May 10, 1865, resistance collapsed and the war ended.

However, not a single Confederate member was executed. Confederate soldiers of all ranks were generally paroled and faced no formal charges of treason.

Northerners took a pragmatic approach to the war’s end. They realized the impractical9

ity of trying thousands of Southerners for disloyalty in states where juries were unlikely to deliver guilty verdicts, and that continued cries of treason would interfere with the more important task of nation-building.

So the confederate soldiers weren’t punished but were they forgiven? Well, this is where the Christmas miracle comes in. On Christmas Day 1868, Johnson granted an unconditional pardon to all Civil War participants.

It’s fair to say that the confederate army got away with waging Americas bloodiest war based on moral disagreements without any consequences. Could this be why America still faces a major race divide problem today because open and aggressive discrimination was so easily forgiven in the past? It shows that America would rather protect the prestige and appearance of a united and strong country rather than to fight for the rights and freedom of the individual.

Now look back at the questions I asked you at the beginning about your best Christmas present and apply them to the Confederate army for comparison.

JENNY HAMPSON

10

Up The Tics—A Brief History of Wigan Athletic It is frequently debated that there is only one team in Wigan. Many argue that the town belongs to its "most successful" team, a team that has become one of the most successful in Rugby League. However for a so-called "rugby town" Wigan also boasts a well-established football team with an equally promising and enthralling history.

The story of Wigan Athletic F.C. is one filled with the highs and lows and joys and woes of football.

ever fixture against Port Vale reserves on 27th August 1932 at Springfield Park (which they had bought for ÂŁ2,850 from a previous Wigan side) in the Cheshire County League.

Not long after their founding, the Latics began to dominate their new league- winning it for three consecutive years- and also made history in the F.A. Cup beating the football league side Carlisle United 6-1, setting the record for the biggest victory by a non-league club over football league opposition.

The story begins in 1932, when Wigan Athletic F.C. was formed after a number of attempts to create a successful football club in had Wigan failed. The Latics had been preceded by teams such as Wigan United, Wigan Town and Wigan County but all of these teams folded, leaving the town in need of a football club.

Following the Second World War, Wigan Athletic made what was possibly one of their most significant changes. Previously they had worn a red and white strip (more commonly associated with the rugby team nowadays) but due to shortages, they were forced to adopt a blue and white shirt which was available at a local sports shop. The Blue and White Army had been born!

The newly formed outfit played their first 11

pointing end. for the next thirty years, the club moved between different leagues including the Cheshire League, Northern Premier League and Lancashire Combination, whilst continuing to accumulate awards and gain a reputation as one of the largest non-league clubs in the country. Eventually, after 34 failed attempts and even a surprise attempt to join the Scottish Second Division, Wigan Athletic were voted into the Football League and the Fourth Division of English football on 2nd June 1978.

After their election into the football league, the Latics gained promotion for the first time in 1982 into Division Three, where they remained until 1993. During this period, Wigan also gained their first major piece of silverware following a 3-1 victory over Brentford at Wembley in the Freight Rover (Football League) trophy.

However, the situation at Wigan soon began to deteriorate leaving the Latics struggling financially and floundering near the base of the football league. In 1995, the club was rescued by a local hero whose ambitions proved to be the catalyst for one of the most extraordinary rises in the history of football.

If you didn’t already know, in the 1960 FA Cup final, young Blackburn Rovers left-back Dave Whelan was stretchered off with a broken leg and in the following seasons, saw his dream football career come to a disap-

With the compensation he received, Whelan purchased JJB Sports, creating an empire of sports stores that spanned across the country. The multi-millionaire local businessman decided to purchase Wigan Athletic in 1995 for a fee of around £400,000 and (to use the old cliché) as they say the rest is history…

Immediately, Whelan signalled his intentions by completing the signings of the ‘Three Amigos’: Spanish sensations Jesús Seba, Isidro Diaz and future manager Roberto Martinez. Whelan confidently declared that one day Wigan Athletic would reach the pinnacle of English football and play in the Premier League- for which he was ridiculed. In addition, the traditional home of Wigan Athletic, Springfield Park, was replaced by the 25,000 -seater JJB (now DW) Stadium in 1999again, demonstrating the clubs desire to grow. Thanks to the financial backing and leadership of Whelan, the club went from strength to strength, dramatically rising up the football league and claiming the Football League Trophy for the second time along the way.

Bizarrely, in this period, it was also alleged that the club had also gained the admiration of a famous football fan- none other than former Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev!

Only a decade after he had purchased the

12

club, Whelan’s impossible dream became a reality when Wigan Athletic conquered their very own Mount Everest, clinching automatic promotion to the Premier League!

in an 91st minute winner clinching little Wigan a 1-0 victory against the heavy favourites, a mighty Manchester City team featuring some of the most talented and expensive players on the planet.

In the season that ensued their ascension to the top flight, the Latics secured their highest league finish of 10th in the Premier League and finished runners-up in the League Cup to Manchester United. Under the command of managers Paul Jewell, Chris Hutchings, Steve Bruce and Roberto Martinez, the club staved off relegation for seven seasons whilst achieving many historic victories and entertaining the proud people of Wigan. At the same time, Wigan Athletic famously boasted the cheapest tickets in the Premier League and, perhaps unsurprisingly, held the title of cheapest priced pies in the division!

In the days that followed, euphoria and FA Cup fever swept across Wigan and countless hats, scarves and items of FA cup merchandise were sold. Unfortunately, Wigan fans fell from cloud 9 quite abruptly when the club’s 8 year stay in the premier league was cut short at the hands of Arsenal; Wigan became the first club to win the FA Cup and be relegated from the top flight of English football in the same season. Despite this, if you ask any Wigan supporter they will tell you their triumph at the home of football was worth relegation.

At the end of that historic season, manager Roberto Martinez and many of his team dePerhaps Wigan’s best day came on 11th May parted the club. A new-look side under Ow2013. That season, in a strong FA Cup cam- en Coyle and then Uwe Rosler enjoyed a paign, the Latics had claimed the scalps of campaign in the Europa League, which was Bournemouth, Macclesfield, Huddersfield, the first time any Wigan side had played in a Everton and Millwall, reaching the FA Cup European competition. That season, Wigan Final for the first time in their history. That came within touching distance of returning day, around 30,000 pie eaters descended on to the premier league, only to be defeated Wembley stadium- mainly there to enjoy the by QPR in the play-offs. occasion but nonetheless dreaming of their own David and Goliath moment. In the 90 In a turbulent 2014-15, under the leadership minutes that followed, Wigan sent shock of Rosler, the controversial Malkay Mackay waves around the footballing world and and former club captain Gary Caldwell the made the dreams of 30,000 fans and a full town come true. "Sir" Ben Watson, nodded club had a disaster season, falling down to 13

league 1.

Now under the "New Era" title and a new chairman, Caldwell and his squad have started their quest for promotion in a positive fashion and hope to climb back to the Championship and possibly, one day, return to the promised land of the Premier League.

Some will always say that Wigan is a town that is only known for, a sport known to some as, ‘Egg-chasing’. However the inspiring story of Wigan Athletic is one of the most thrilling in football and has won the hearts of many a football fan. From very humble beginnings and through endless determination, the club has reached unimaginable heights, exceeded expectations and achieved unbelievable things. The small club with big aspirations has defied the odds many times before, who says they can’t do it all over again...

MATTHEW GRADY

14

The History of English

Ever wondered how we acquired our lanGermanic: 26% guage? With many historical facts having Greek: 6% been discovered through literary articles, and with diaries, like that of Anne Frank and Others: 10% Samuel Pepys, predominantly being the main reason for our depth of understanding, I decided to investigate how English lanOld English guage has changed through time.

The percentage of modern English words derived from each language group is as fol- After the Anglo-Saxon settlement, original Celtic languages remained in parts of Scotlows: land, Wales and Cornwall, where Cornish was spoken into the 18th century (yes, Cornish was a separate language!). Latin also remained in these areas due to the influence of the Church and remnants of the Romans legacy. The most famous surviving work from the Old English period is the renowned poem Beowulf.

Did you know, approximately half of the most commonly used words in Modern English have Old English roots?

The words strong and water, for example, derive from Old English. Water came from 'wÇŁt', and strong came from Old English

French: 29% Latin: 29% 15

'strang' which came from the German 'strengi' which originated from the Latin 'stringere' (meaning to bind tight).

ly in vocabulary related to the Church, government and the legal system. For example, the political field includes many words of Having said that, English borrowed approxi- French origin like money, treasury, finance, tax, capitalism, nationalism, state, adminmately two thousand words from the Old istration, constitution, and jurisdiction. The Norse period when, in the 10th and 11th centuries, northern Germanic Norsemen in- judicial professional language has been vaded and settled mainly in the North East heavily influenced by French with words like of England. The words taken from them in- justice, judge, jury, attorney and court. It is estimated that 45% of all English words have clude anger, bag, both, hit, law, leg, same, skill, sky, take, window, and many others. It's a French origin. This fact suggests that 80,000 words were introduced. all very complicated!

Even more interesting, is that the Scottish accent is actually the correct pronunciation of words that originated from Old English.

Old English was spoken until approximately the 12th or 13th century.

Early Modern English

Early Modern English is dated from around 1500. The most famous examples of literary pieces of this nature are Shakespearean plays. The Early Modern English language Middle English was international. It was exported to other parts of the world through British colonisaThe Old English of the Anglo-Saxon era de- tion, and became the dominant language in veloped into Middle English, the language Britain and Ireland, the United States and spoken between the Norman Conquest and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many the late 15th century. smaller colonies, as well as being widely spoken in India and parts of Africa.

A significant influence on Middle English came from contact with the Germanic lan- In 1604, the first English dictionary was pubguages spoken by the Scandinavians who lished and called the Table Alphabeticall. conquered and colonised parts of Britain English underwent extensive sound changes during the 8th and 9th centuries. Another during the 15th century due to the Great important influence came from the conVowel Shift, which was when, due to travelquering Normans, who spoke a form of ling and the Renaissance, English people’s French called Old Norman, which in Britain accents began to blend and we moved away developed into Anglo-Norman. from foreign pronunciation and it became recognized as the English Accent.

Many Norman and French words entered the English language in this period, especial- Late Modern English 16

Late Modern English accumulated many more words as a result of two main historical factors: the Industrial Revolution, which necessitated new words for things, and ideas that had not previously existed; and the rise of the British Empire, during which time English adopted many foreign words and made them its own.

The USA continued the growth of the English language, with the inventions of new technology like electricity, the telegraph, the telephone, the phonograph, the sewing machine and the computer. Lens, refraction, electron, chromosome, chloroform, caffeine, centigrade, bacteria and claustrophobia are just a few of the science-based words that were created during this period, along with an abundance of “-ologies” like biology, psychology, histology, palaeontology. Also, old words were given entirely new meanings for example: vacuum, cylinder, apparatus, pump, locomotive and factory. New words were created by blending existing English words for example railway, horsepower, typewriter, cityscape and airplane.

English today

words in the dictionary, but because of influences of technology, there are also now entries in the dictionary of slang words such as ‘twerk’, initialisation phrases such as ‘LOL’ and ‘YOLO’, and fusion words such as ‘chillax’. There is even a new sub entry in 2015 for the phrase ‘do you feel me’!

Today, English is one of the most popular languages in the world, with an estimated 350-400 million native speakers.

The English Language has developed significantly over time, with around 120 foreign languages, and the developments of indusThe latest full revision of the “Oxford English try, technology and science influencing our Dictionary”, published in 1989 and consid- vocabulary dramatically. Who knows what is coming next... maybe you could coin a new ered the premier dictionary of the English language, contains about 615,000 word en- word? tries. The English language today is mindKATHRYN MURPHY blowingly diverse in its vocabulary. Not only are there still conventional and ‘proper’ 17

OPINION: A Perspective on Terrorism

The Truth about terrorism – the greatest construct of History?

only perceive that this is because the shooter was white, not an Arab. When politicians speak of national security, I ask, In light of the recent attacks in Paris, one what is national security? Is a nation sestudent offers their view on the threat of, cure when the only threats it faces come and response to, terrorism. from inside? It seems that when we have gun shootings, like those in the US, or Our society for a long time has been when US-UK forces invade Iraq, killing infobbed off on the pretence that terrorists nocents, it’s called ‘murder’ and ‘collateral pose the biggest threat to our lives and our damage’ but then when we have Muslims national security. Terrorism is omnipresent: commit almost identical acts it’s called on the news, at airports, in TV shows, ‘terrorism’. books, magazines and even in our social life. But what is terrorism?

Now back to my main point. Terrorism is not a major threat to us westerners. Our Well the definition is ‘the unofficial or un- major threats include climate change, nuauthorized use of violence and intimidation clear weapons, the upcoming crash in in the pursuit of political aims’. So what is emerging markets and the threat of more defined as an authorised or official use of sophisticated technology. All of these have violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the potential to kill much more than a few political aims? What makes IS less author- hundred. Our counter terrorism efforts, ized to kills innocents than the US Govern- not only having caused more suffering and ment? Also, if we’re defining it as having a pain than terrorism (mainly though innopolitical aim then the Charleston Church cent Muslims being referred to the governshooting was terrorism, but it was reported ments prevent programme by their own as a shooting not an act of terror. One can teachers and other public sector workers 18

causing unnecessary stress and the feeling of persecution), have made us think terrorism is a bigger threat than it is. We hear it on the news all the time and airport security, recently having been proved largely theoretical and cosmetic, has made us perceive terrorism as our number one threat. Counter-terrorism efforts are also violating our right to privacy, like the Snoopers’ Charter, that allows the government to more extensively track our online activity.

tactics and even those the US has illegally held in Guantanamo Bay I apologise and say, not in my name.

When we should be helping the people of this region we’re bombing them. We should be showing compassion and empathy but no, just yesterday a school in IS territory was bombed – about 20 children are estimated to have been killed (or ‘prosecuted’ as the military say). And it’s not just Syrians and Iraqis we should be there to help; it’s our What we don’t understand is that by becom- own people too. Young Muslims, who have ing a more conservative and reactionary so- gone over to Syria and Iraq should be treatciety, being less democratic and silencing ed as victims not criminals. They’re the vicslightly ‘extremist’ views we are allowing the tim of IS propaganda. We should be rehabiliterrorist to win. We are becoming, or have tating them, not following them out of the become, one of them. country and using them as bait before assassinating them along with high ranking memIt’s easy to blame terrorism on our perbers of IS (as was the case with Jihadi John). ceived view of Arabs as ruthless barbarians, but hard to be honest with ourselves about After the attacks in Paris, many people have the real causes. In 2003, when we invaded changed their profile pictures on various soIraq, we got rid of a ruthless, yes, but none- cial media to the peace symbol with the Eifel theless effective dictator who promoted sta- Tower in it. However, there’s a great irony. bility in the region. Saddam Hussein effecTheir profile picture implies that they want tively stopped fighting between the different world peace. However, statuses, tweets, sectors of Iraq (Kurds, Sunnis and Shia etc.), captions are marked with phrases like kill/ using admittedly harsh methods. Neverthe- nuke/behead/slaughter/torture them. And less, he kept these people at peace. When these are common views, held by reasonawe invaded, we toppled him and kept the ble and intelligent people. Saying this is now peace with our troops. Then we left, leaving viewed as perfectly acceptable by the gena power vacuum behind due to the weak eral public. It’s also ‘acceptable’ to blame Iraqi government we hastily constructed. Is- the refugees for what happened in Paris. lamic State has filled this vacuum. So if it What the public need to understand is that was caused by us, don’t we have a duty to those who committed the attacks in Paris help the people of Northern Iraq and Syria? are the same ‘terrorists’ these refugees are Well according to our leaders, no. Our answer is with bombs. Many Muslims around the world have responded to the Paris attacks saying ‘not in my name’. Well, to all those who have lost loved ones from US air strikes, drone strikes, ruthless US military

fleeing from.

By shutting the door to them, we let IS win.

We prove that IS was right, the west hates them. We give IS a recruiting tool and give refugees a reason to join up. We should be showing our compassion for refugees, not 19

blaming them for something that is commonplace in their homeland. IS could easily get their men in through other routes so, for them, the refugee crisis is a convenience at the very most.

As the commons prepares for an upcoming vote on UK military intervention, I watch in despair as I see my country make the same mistake it has made many times before. As I see History repeat itself. The same arguments about a different place. We watch from the comfort of our sofas, fooling ourselves that our nation is making a difference.

That each bomb dropped takes us closer to defeating IS and saves lives. But no. We just make IS stronger by giving them a recruiting ground and all too often kill the innocent people of the Middle East. Yes, IS needs to be stopped. But bombing just paints over the cracks, and as we saw in Iraq, the paint isn’t strong enough to withhold the tide of extremism.

OLIVER CALLAGHAN

20

INTERVIEW: An Interview with Anne Grist: Chief Examiner

Interview with Anne Grist – Chief Examiner society in Southern Italy and Sicily, where Q: Who is your favourite historical person- Jews and Arabs and Normans and so on, all work together. There are also the systems; ality and why? he adopts people’s – other cultures – govA: Henry II. Partly because he comes across ernmental systems and so on and so forth, as such a real person in many ways and he and you get this huge flowering of art as was a man of principle and a man of high well. That’s my point of view. His attitudes ideas and he did his best to try and put to women were terrible! But apart from these into action. He made mistakes, but that… that only makes him more human and I suppose there is always that thing that in the end he’s abandoned. I suppose it makes you Q: What do you feel historian’s gain from feel sorry for him. There’s always that ‘aww’ studying the past? at the end.

A: I always used to say to my students “You don’t know where you’re going until you The other one is Roger of Sicily, who you’ve know where you’ve been”. So, although I wouldn’t say that the past dictates our fuprobably never heard of. He is related to ture, the past certainly informs our future. It Robert Guiscard, he’s Robert Guiscard’s grandson – great grandson. He became king gives you the tools to make decisions. So of Southern Italy and Sicily after the Norman that. takeover, but he established this polyglot 21

Q: What do you believe is the most important skill or ability a historian should possess?

ry’s argument, there’s much more to the Constitutions of Clarendon than ‘criminous clerks’.

A: It’s a difficult one, isn’t it? To have an open mind, I think, to an extent. To be able to, well, to be able to take things on board and balance them out and think things through in their context. To accept that there’s no right answer, that it depends. Not to come to a decision before you can…well, you need the facts in order to move on to a decision. You might change that decision later on but it’s important. I actually live my life like that too. I like to have everything there, laid out, before I make a decision based on anything. I don’t know whether I’m an historian because I’m like that, or I’m like that because I’m a historian! But…an open mind.

Henry’s great mistake is in putting it down in writing. Because when it’s only verbal, which was what it was before; you’ve got so many loopholes. But when it’s there in black and white, people can start taking it apart and that’s his greatest mistake, putting it down in writing. But that was the person he was.

Q: Finally, do you have any advice for alevel students?

A: At Winstanley, I’d say, certainly, listen to your teachers, because they’re the best. Really, they really and truly are. I’ve known all of them for a long time, Ruth probably longer than any of them, and I even taught Phil!

Then again, don’t take any notice of what Q: What would you say to someone who he says; it’s neither here nor there! But serithought history was boring? ously, they really are the best. You also have A: Only boring people are ever bored. That’s the greatest resources here, but not just what I’d say! books and things. The greatest resources are your teachers and I think that’s the most important thing. They’re your greatest Q: Is Becket grossly misinterpreted? resource.

A: I don’t think he’s grossly misinterpreted, there’s a lot of it I don’t agree with, but I think he is misinterpreted. People over sim- INTERVIEWED BY EMMA PORTER plify and get hung up on the best friend thing, and they certainly get hung up on the whole ‘criminous clerks’ thing. There’s much more to Becket’s argument than ‘criminous clerks’ and I think that’s what they fail to see. There’s much more to Hen22

BOOK REVIEW: ‘A Russian Journal’

A Russian Journal; A Review One might have said that it was fate that in March 1947 John Steinbeck, that giant of GCSE literature, and Robert Capa, World War Two’s most preeminent photographer, should end up sat next to each other in a bar in New York.

Steinbeck found himself at a loose end. He had long lost interest in the play he was writing and longed for a project such as those he had undertaken during the Great Depression and World War Two. Although Robert Capa was happy by his own admission to be an unemployed war photographer he was also anxious to unroll his film and set about what he was best at. With their fascination for the minutiae of human experience and the compassion with which they reported on people in crisis the two were artistic soul mates and born journalists.

catapulted into the midst of the Cold War. A year previously Winston Churchill had coined the term ‘Iron Curtain’ and in the meantime relations between Washington and the Kremlin crumbled, with the rhetoric on both sides of the Pacific condemning the threat of Communism and Capitalism respectively.

During the course of their discussion Steinbeck and Capa came to realise that they knew relatively little about ordinary Russian people that was not conjecture or mere sensationalism. So it was that they set off for Moscow two months later with several hundred rolls of film, a camera, a notebook and no preconceived conceptions to honestly record the lives of ordinary Russian people.

The result of their collaboration was ‘A Russian Journal’.

The portrait they built was primarily of a country still reeling from the German invasion of the Western territory in World War At the time the pair met the world had been Two. Two years after the defeat of Nazi Ger23

many the countryside was still littered with craters, burnt out equipment and the wreckage of homes and livelihoods. The majority of the inhabitants of Stalingrad, for example, lived in holes and cellars beneath the rubble because everything for miles around- their world as they had known it- had been destroyed.

Mentally the citizens of these areas were just as badly scarred. Every person Steinbeck and Capa talked to had been irrevocably affected by the war, whether it was the loss of a son from a Ukrainian farmer (“graduated in 1940, mobilized in 1941, killed in 1941”) or the story of an ex- soldier who had survived the defense of the city. In the living rooms of every family that had a house were invariably the photos of sons, young and stern in their uniforms, now dead. In one dance hall girls danced with each other because the men that should have danced with them were all but gone, an entire generation killed in the fighting.

That is not to say that Steinbeck and Capa did not encounter a great deal of optimism about the future of the USSR. During the war a spirit of resistance had manifested itself amongst the people of Eastern Europe and there were many stories of heroism from ordinary citizens. For example, the workers at a factory the pair visited had reportedly carried on manufacturing tanks even when the fighting entered the city, downing tools to defend the factory when the Germans came too close and then carrying on with production when they withdrew a little.

This determination to carry on against the odds had not stopped with the end of the war and, like American and British people, many citizens of the USSR were determined

to build a future that would make the fighting worthwhile. Repeatedly people said to Steinbeck and Capa, “come back in a few years and see what we have achieved”.

It was clear that the people the group encountered were keen not to repeat the horrors they had experienced during the war by entering another war with America. Several times they asked the American visitors some variation on “will America invade us? Will we have to defend our cities again? Do the American people want war?” and Steinbeck and Capa found themselves unable to answer.

The leader of one farming village memorably pointed out a couple who were working to lay the beams of a house to Steinbeck and Capa and said, “This winter those two will have a house for the first time since 1941. They have three small children who have never had a house to live in. There cannot be in the world anyone so wicked as to want to put them back in the holes in the ground where they have been living”. The people the Americans met wanted peace very badly, but would be prepared to defend themselves again if it came to it. This could be said to be the same attitude expressed by most of the Americans that Steinbeck and Capa knew.

Although he deliberately avoided any close analysis of the Russian government, leaving comments on Communism and Stalin to other writers, Steinbeck did record the ways in which politics affected the lives of ordinary citizens.

Likenesses of Stalin and Lenin pervaded every home and brooded over every public place. When asked about the American system of government Steinbeck and Capa

24

tried to explain that it was based upon a series of checks and balances designed to keep one person from gaining too much power, but their Ukrainian and Russian counterparts could not understand this.

Though incredibly politically educated the people they spoke to saw current affairs through the filter of propaganda, which encouraged a sort of worship of Stalin, so they could not understand the American desire to prevent an absolute dictatorship.

feed them to death.

The most definitive part of the book is undoubtedly the conclusion, or rather Steinbeck’s refusal to draw one. Over the course of their trip, he said, Capa and himself had discovered that “Russian people are like all other people in the world. Some bad ones there are surely, but by far the greater number are good”. This message is a valuable one to take away in our own age, as Putin asserts himself in the Ukraine and reports of The same issue arose when Steinbeck and spies and political intrigue and polonium Capa were asked why the American govern- abound. The government of a country and ment did not keep tighter control of the the people of a country are two entirely press. In looking at ordinary citizens the pair different things, so that if the government is were forced to look at their lack of rebad it does not necessarily mean that the sistance, tragically, to the dictatorship that people are bad as a whole. had gained control over them, in spite of It can feel at times as though Russia has not their incredible resistance to another dictamoved forward, with some of the good torship that had threatened them from outwork done by previous leaders now being side of their borders. undone by Vladimir Putin and a totalitarianism eerily reminiscent of Stalin’s developing Most of the people that Capa and Steinbeck as Putin clamps down on freedom of promet wanted much the same things as Amertest. Despite this, we must shy away from ican people did; security for the future, and, generalisations about Russian people, just where possible, such luxuries as Comas Steinbeck and Capa did in 1947. munism would allow. As the Russian economy geared itself towards peacetime produc- CAMILLE HOUGHTON-GRIMSHAW tion more commodities began to be produced and queues would form every time a new record came out, or a new book, or even when ice cream came into stock in a store. Traces of American culture were not hard to find in the places they visited. For example, the Georgian band the pair watched during their visit attempted to play American swing music, without much success.

Everywhere they went they were welcomed enthusiastically by their hosts, who were so hospitable that Steinbeck concluded that the main tactic of the Russians must be to 25

REVISION: “Why was the Byzantine Empire weak by 1095?”

In 1095 the Byzantine Empire was really weak and in a real mess, the army was majorly depleted after losing Asia Minor (where they got most of their troops), the economy was a disaster and there were many internal rivalries between important families (internal dynastic rivalries). The weakness of the Empire is due to four main factors: internal dynastic rivalry, the state of the economy, military issues and the strength of the Seljuk Turks. The main cause of the weakness of the empire by 1095 is the internal dynastic rivalries within Constantinople and the empire itself.

One factor that contributed to the weakness is the internal dynastic rivalries within Byzantium. The first issue was that the position of emperor was not hereditary and this led to people wanting to take over and coups taking place. A family would do almost anything to get into power and one 26

example is Andronicus Ducas who was put in charge of the rear-guard in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 but told them that the emperor had been killed and to retreat which led to the humiliating defeat of the Byzantines, putting the Ducas family in power.

The rule of Michael VII Ducas was destroyed by civil war by rival such as Nicephorus Bryennius (who rebelled in 1077, marched to Adrianople and crowned himself Emperor) and Nicephorus Botaneiates (who subdued the Seljuk invasion and was crowned emperor after triumphantly marching into Constantinople on Michael VII Ducas’ abdication in 1078). This contributed to the weakness of the byzantine empire because it meant they would have been too busy fighting each other to sort out other problems within the empire and they would have also used some of the army to fight back

which would have meant that they would have used more money to pay the army (contributing to the dire economic situation) and it meant that they wouldn’t have had enough troops to see to the threats from the Seljuks, Petchenegs and southern Italian Normans, making them an easy target.

However, by 1095, Alexius Comnenus had already been in power for 14 years and by then he had already sorted out most of the economic problems by introducing a new, high value, coin, encouraging venetian traders to invest in Byzantium, making the monasteries pay tax and reducing government salaries so therefore, the weakness of the A second factor that contributed to the weakness is the state of the economy at the Byzantine empire was not a consequence of time. People in the empire were discontent the Economic situation because we know with rising prices and this led to riots in 1078 that Alexius had improved the economy by and many government buildings were burnt 1095 and Venetian traders had settled in Bydown. The rising prices also led to inflation zantium. because of the debasement of the coinage to the point where it lost a quarter of its val- Another factor that contributed to the weakue, causing the emperor to be known as Mi- ness of the Byzantine Empire is the military chael ‘minus-a-quarter’. Because the Byzan- and territorial problems in the empire. The tines lost Asia Minor to the Seljuks, they had empire faced many threats from other counto pay other people and armies tries such as the southern Italian Normans, (mercenaries) to fight for them but this put the Petchenegs and the Seljuks. They had financial pressure on the empire as there also lost Asia Minor to the Seljuks which were lots of mercenaries needed to deal meant that they could no longer recruit with all the threats and it consequently put a troops from there, seriously depleting their massive strain on Anatolia’s resources and army. meant that they were unable to gain taxation from the area.

Their military organisation was also inferior to the likes of the Seljuks and they system of his contributed to the weakness of the em- ‘pronoia’ had ceased to function meaning pire because if your currency loses value that land owners weren’t obliged to give then traders are going to be less likely to their military service. This contributed to the want to trade with you and mercenaries are weakness of the Byzantine Empire because if paid and therefore, they are not loyal to you the army was seriously depleted then they so they could turn on you at any moment wouldn’t have had enough troops to deal and fight for the other side (like in the Battle with all the threats at the same time, making of Manzikert). them easy to take over and they could easily 27

be beaten in battles if their tactics and organisation weren’t as good as the other ar- This contributed to the weakness of the mies.

Byzantine Empire because the more places in their empire the larger their army can be On the other hand, the leader of the South- and the stronger they can become and their ern Normans (Robert Guiscard) died in 1085 military tactics always took enemies by surprise making them easy to defeat. which caused the threat from them to cease and Alexius had dealt with the threat from the Petchenegs by 1095. As for the Seljuks, their threat had lessened because Seljuk Amir Sulyman had helped the Byzantines with some of their military struggles and their Empire was in disarray because after the death of Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah in 1092 because there were lots of civil wars occurring over who would be his successor. Therefore, the weakness of the empire was not a consequence of the Military and Territorial problems because the most of the territorial threats had been dealt with by 1095 and the Seljuks helped the Byzantines with their military problems.

The final factor that contributed to the weakness of the Byzantine Empire is the strength of the Seljuk Turks. The political problems in the Byzantine Empire gave them opportunity to increase the size of their empire and take control of Anatolia.

Alp Arslan died in 1072 who was followed

by Malik Shah who provided strong leadership, The Seljuk Empire continued to growth with them taking Jerusalem in 1071 and Syria and Palestine in 1079 and their military tactic were far superior.

28

However, if there weren’t any political problems in the Byzantine Empire then it wouldn’t have been as easy for them to take over Anatolia, they didn’t agree with actual fighting in a battle so were screwed if an enemy suddenly attacked them and the Death of Malik Shah in 1092 caused the Seljuk empire to fall apart which meant that they would have been more focused on fighting each other for control of the empire than gaining more land. Therefore, the weakness of the Byzantine Empire was not a consequence of Strength of the Seljuk Turks because they had problems themselves by 1095.

I feel that it was the internal Dynastic rivalries within Byzantium that caused the weakness of the Byzantine Empire because if it wasn’t for the internal dynastic rivalries then the Seljuks might not have taken over Anatolia, Andronicus Ducas wouldn’t have told the rear-guard to retreat, inflation wouldn’t have occurred because they wouldn’t have needed as many mercenaries so prices wouldn’t have risen and they wouldn’t have been fighting each other for

control so wouldn’t have been as easy a target so may have been able to keep some of their land. In short, most of the problems with their economy and military etc. wouldn’t have occurred if there weren’t any internal dynastic rivalries.

GEORGIA MARRIOTT-LODGE

29

RESIT REVISION: Effective Leadership in the Crusader States 1096-1154 To what extent was effective leadership re- dom. Through a clever use of clemency sponsible for the establishment of the cru- mixed with ruthlessness, Baldwin was able sader states in the years 1096-1154? to take Arsuf, Caesarea, and Acre in quick succession by 1104. As there was a real threat to Baldwin’s kingdom from Egypt, he There are a number of reasons why the cruhad to not only pacify the region between sader states were successfully established in Egypt and Syria, but also create a loyal and the years 1097-1154, but by far the most subservient aristocracy, which he did. important of these reasons was that they had effective leadership, for the most part.

Later on, the crusader states received effective leadership from Fulk of Anjou and later From the outset, the crusader states relied Baldwin III. Fulk, for example, allied with on effective leadership. For example, on the Unur of Damascus and in 1140 successfully First Crusade, the leadership of Bohemond repelled Zengi. Baldwin III, at the Battle of of Taranto was pivotal both at the Battle of Aintab in 1150, repelled Nur al-Din. During Dorylaeum and the Siege of Antioch. Even both of these kings’ reigns, there was great after the First Crusade, when the crusader potential for an unravelling of the kingdom, states were “little more than a loose netas there was hostility between Fulk and work of dispersed outposts” (Asbridge), the Melisende and Melisende and Baldwin III, leadership of Baldwin I of Jerusalem was imbut in both cases a settlement was reached. portant in establishing this nascent king30

Another factor in the successful establishment of the crusader states was that the Muslims were not united. On crusade, during the Battle of Nicaea, Kilij Arslan was away fighting the Danishmends and in Syria, Ridwan and Duqaq would not attack at the same time due to their ongoing civil war. For a time after the crusade, too, calls for a Muslim counter-crusade fell on deaf ears, with only six people on one occasion turning up to hear Al-Sulami preach jihad. Yet, Muslims were prepared to fight one another. In some cases, independent Muslim emirs preferred an alliance with the Franks rather than lose their independence, e.g.

Unur of Damascus preferred an alliance with Fulk to repel Zengi in 1140. This Muslim disunity doubtless profited the crusader states.

However, during the period under discussion, it is not the case that the Muslims were always at war with one another or unwilling to unite. While independent emirs may have resisted Zengi, he did succeed in uniting parts of the Muslim world. After defending the Seljuk Sultan from the Abbasid Caliph in 1126, Zengi is rewarded by being made atabeg of Mosul. By 1128, Zengi succeeds in uniting Aleppo with Mosul. The first blow to the crusader states was struck in 1144, with the loss of Edessa to Zengi.

was unprepared to lead the northern Syrian barons to the aid of Edessa and at the time of Zengi’s attack, Joscelin had been away to the south helping the Artuqids. Therefore, what we see here is a lack of any strong correlation, so to speak, between Muslim unity and the fortunes of the crusader states. Rather, what was paramount always was effective leadership; when it was absent, the crusader states foundered.

Another factor which contributing to an extent in the establishment of the crusader states in these years was aid received from Byzantium and the West. Tyerman describes the aid provided by Byzantium as “pivotal” to the success of the First Crusade, with ships provided at the Siege of Nicaea, and Manuel Boutoumites and Takitios providing their military expertise.

The Genoese also provided aid during the First Crusade. Afterwards, a number of smaller crusaders were launched, including the 1101 crusade which featured the disgraced Stephen of Blois and the 1105-6 crusade led by Bohemond. The crusader states sometimes did have good relations with Byzantium and thereby received aid from them.

However, it is arguable whether the aid provided on the First Crusade was pivotal after However, this defeat only occurred as it was all. Byzantium’s aid stopped at Antioch and coupled with a lack of effective leadership in it was a culmination of Muslim disunity and the crusader states. Raymond of Antioch 31

strong leadership which helped the crusaders to victory in 1099. Also, smaller crusades were not that important after all as crusaders would not stay in the Holy Land, but would return home afterwards.

A major problem of the crusader states was that they needed a standing army. This was provided by the Military Orders, whose effective leadership was crucial. Also, relations with Byzantium were not always good.

Bohemond’s crusade was led against Byzantium itself and later on the Byzantines would effectively wage war against the Principality of Antioch in an attempt to force Byzantine suzerainty on them. Furthermore, not just any aid was needed. Aid was needed that would help, rather than hinder, the crusader states. The best example of aid which hindered rather than helped was the Second Crusade, whose chief flaw was that it lacked effective leadership which evidenced itself in the lack of agreement over a target.

However, the strategy of assimilation still relies on an effective leader to put it in place.

Fulk of Anjou also represents an effective leader, as his reign shows. While the second generation of crusader castles, as Ellenblum argues, were in rural areas and tended to be designed for administrative and agricultural purposes, this must be understood as the result of effective leadership which had already secured the kingdom. Assimilation, also, was not the only strategy. The Military Orders and castles were important, too.

What mattered was not which strategy was followed, but whether these were carried out by an effective leader.

In conclusion, effective leadership was pivotal to the establishment of the crusader states as without it there would have been no hope of taking advantage of Muslim disunity or any aid provided. Also, while the Franks undoubtedly assimilated, this assimilation was often carried out by strong leadAnother factor which was important to an extent in the establishment of the crusader ers such as Fulk of Anjou. His willingness to states was assimilation. A good example of a assimilate into the politics of Outremer may have been behind his decision to ally with willingness to assimilate into Outremer is provided by Fulk of Anjou, who leaves Anjou Unur against Zengi in 1140, but it is best understood as evidence of him being an effecto marry Melisende. There are also examtive leader. ples of architectural assimilation provided by castles such as Krak des Chevaliers. For example, two important features of this castle Furthermore, while the Islamic Middle East are stone machicolations and a ramp dewas not united at the time of the First Crusigned to draw attackers in. These features sade, Zengi and Nur al-Din were beginning are not crusader, but Islamic and Byzantine to unite the Muslim world by force. While respectively. they did this, the crusader states still sur32

vived and it was only when there was an absence of strong leadership, or any leadership at all in the case of the fall of Edessa, that the Muslims triumphed.

KEIR MARTLAND

33

UNIVERSITY HELP: How Do Historian’s Prove Their Arguments?

I was invited to submit a 500 word essay for my application University College London with the titled ‘How do historians prove their arguments? Answer in relation to a history book you have read.’ The following is what I sent. They have since offered me a provisional place.

One reason for the Arab Conquest of Egypt and Syria rather than Turkey was because of the Monophysite heresy, seen when the Persians successfully “courted the Egyptians by recognizing a purely Monophysite hierarchy.” (Treadgold, W, A History of the Byzantine State and Society) One reason why the Egyptian and Syrian heretics became dominant in their provinces was because the An historian does more than describe and plague of the previous century had wiped explain. Any extended piece of historical out most of the cultural Greeks leaving Sewriting involves a narrative, or argument. mitic rulers, “Because the part of Syria hardThe question of how we prove those arguest hit by the disease was the most Hellenments depends on the nature of the eviized and Chalcedonian, the Monophysite midence available. nority…increased.” Both these arguments from Treadgold are contestable and so need The history of early Byzantium is a set of ar- to be justified, which, for the early Byzantine period, is very difficult. guments. Facts are scarce. We look at the facts, construct a narrative, and try to justify it by looking for confirmation or falsification.

If we are looking at the 17th century, we have a wealth of statistical data. If we want 34

to know how big the population of London was in 1650, we have a mass of indirect evidence that allows us to work out with some certainty how big London was. If we want to know the average age of marriage for women in London, we can look in the surviving church records. If we want to find out how many people died during the Great Plague of London, we can find out to within a few hundred by looking at the bills of mortality and to see how quickly the plague spread we can look at the bills of mortality throughout England. Since about 1700, we have a mass of literary and statistical evidence which is probably good enough for proving or falsifying most arguments.

plague’s “first known appearance in the Mediterranean world.” This may be dubious, but it is necessary, so Treadgold argues, “By analogy with the recurrence of Bubonic plague in the fourteenth century, the disease should have caused a population decline approaching a third over the next two generations.”

KEIR MARTLAND

For the early Byzantine period, things are different. The government did not collect statistics and those incidentally collected have mostly been lost. We are looking at coin hordes, incidental statements in saints’ lives, archaeological evidence or the statistical distribution of names. Sometimes, argument from analogy is required. If we want to reconstruct the plague of the 6th century, we are thrown back on recycling the evidence from the Black Death of the 1340s because our evidence is richer for that period.

Once we have established it was the same bacillus by looking at the physical remains of the plague victims, it seems legitimate to recycle the evidence, even though we are making an assumption that the disease had the same impact, as 541 was the Bubonic 35

)

ety i c So y r sto i H (

BREAKING

NEWS!

Jotischky Comes!

Wednesday 2nd December, was a huge occasion for History, as Andrew Jotischky, Professor of History at Lancaster University, and a foremost expert in the Crusades, gave a lecture to our students about the historiographical debate surrounding the causes of the First Crusade, and the situation surrounding the Byzantine Empire and the European context. What a riveting lecture it was! It was a great hour and was sure to have given all the AS Crusades students and A2 re-sitters food for thought!

Professor Andrew Jotischky

The History Magazine also managed to snag a surprise interview just before the lecture began, with Professor Jotischky giving us his opinions and thoughts about history in general, teaching at university, and his own research. Look out for the interview in the next issue!

THINKING OF STUDYING HISTORY OR A RELATED SUBJECT AT UNI?

Teachers Knocked Off Quiz Top Spot!

To the amazement of all A2 and AS, the teachers were finally knocked from the top spot in a History Quiz on 4th November 2015. By answering a tie-breaker question on Finland. History students, Adam Emerson Joe Farrell and friends managed to scrape the first win for the students. There was shocked surprise followed by cheers from the winning team after a gruelling half hour of questions.

Well done!

WANT SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR UCAS? The Advanced Historical Thinking Group is soon to be opening it’s doors to AS students wanting to expand their historical imagination and explore history beyond the curriculum. With student talks, artefact investigation and more, it’ll be worth coming along just to see.

FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE SILVIA MARQUES 36

Who’s Who in the History Society 2015-2016 PRESIDENT

Keir Martland

VICE PRESIDENT

Camille Houghton-Grimshaw

SOCIAL MEDIA CO-ORDINATOR Hannah Scholes DEBATE CO-ORDINATOR

Oliver Callaghan

QUIZ CO-ORDINATOR

Corinne Campbell

DRAMA/SCHOOLS COORDINATOR

Kathryn Murphy

HISTORY MAGAZINE EDITOR

Emma Porter

MAGAZINE EDITORIAL TEAM

Ryan Boorman, Rose Mennell, Holly Conway, Victoria Hadfield, Ellie Wright, Holly Glover, Corinne Campbell.

PHOTOGRAPHER

Martha Lloyd

37