Winstanley College History October Edition

Winstanley College

History Magazine October 2014 Edition

Contents:

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.

1.

Editorial:

'You must always know the past, for there is no real Was, there is only Is.' -William Faulkner Welcome to this year’s first edition of the Winstanley History Magazine! 2014 so far has seen a number of events that have shaken the world, the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of flight MH17 and the rise of Islamic State in Iraq to name a few. Closer to home we have also seen the referendum on Scottish independence and the subsequent resignation of Alex Salmond.

neiform, as covered by Emma Porter.

Moving away from the ancients, in this edition we also challenge the concept that celebrity scandal is reserved for the 20th Century, with articles on a number of scandalous historical figures such as Isabella of France and the Borgia family. The Renaissance period is also expanded upon through an engrossing exploration of the effects of the Reformation on the monarchy.

Most of these events have their groundings in the past, Crimea as a former territory of the USSR, the rise of Islamic State in the 2006-7 Iraqi civil war and possibly even stretching back to the colonial era, and arguments over Scottish independence from the medieval period to the 1707 Act of Union, and these recent developments will most likely continue to shape our perceptions and the ways in which the world works for many years to come.

More modern topics covered include the civil rights movement, especially poignant with the events currently unfolding in Ferguson after the shooting of Michael Brown, and a case study of the effects of the Nagasaki atom bomb.

Two other fascinating articles on The Seven Years War and how it related to WW1, and the Kwangju uprising also pose the age old question– do we ever learn from history?

Keeping with the theme of Scotland, in this edition we have a fascinating article on why the Romans never managed to take Scotland, or Caledonia as it was known back then. On the theme of Ancient History, similarly intriguing is the debate over which form of Ancient writing came first: hieroglyphics or cu-

Enjoy!

Maddie and Sally Editors.

2.

On 6th October 1762, as part of the Seven Years' War, the British beat the Spanish at the Battle of Manila, only to occupy the Philippines' capital until the end of the war, by then just a year away. This was a war that reverberated across continents and whose effects may be seen in the outbreak of war in the 20th century.

sia and Austria. The various alliances between the aforesaid countries cooked up a huge conflict which culminated in the Seven Years' War. This feature alone foreshadows the events in the build up to WWI, where the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance played a vital role in the spread of war across Europe.

The Seven Years' War is called many names across the nations and continents it affected, which included Europe, North America, Central America, the West African coast, India, and the Philippines. Despite technically lasting nine years, its fever pitch lasted the seven year period from 1756 to 1763 hence the name 'The Seven Years' War'. The war was primarily driven by the colonial and imperialistic tendencies of Europe's greatest powers such as Great Britain, France and Spain, as well as the power disputes of Prus-

Not only in its outbreak are the similarities to WWI particularly striking: the outcome bears a remarkable likeness, too. First of all, the post-war negotiations of the Seven Years’ War between the great powers were held in Paris and the subsequent treaty drawn up as a result of these negotiations is known as the 'Treaty of Paris': Versailles, the scene of the post-WWI negotiations, is itself a district of Paris.

3.

As at Versailles there were notable absentees at the Paris negotiations in 1763 who had contributed to the build-up of war, though at Paris it was Austria and Prussia, as opposed to Austria-Hungary and Germany at Versailles. Even so, the actual land area covered by the former and the latter countries hardly differ, despite the 150 year time lapse between them. The only difference is that the biggest losers in the Seven Years’ War were involved in the subsequent negotiations, as France and Spain teamed up with the victorious Britain to form the Treaty.

and Paris is that the Paris negotiations encouraged colonialism, whereas Wilson's insistence at Versailles encouraged European self-determination. Britain's occupation of much of North America as a result of the Treaty of Paris could also be viewed to be of huge significance in 20th century wartime and the inter-war years. After WWI, the American move towards Harding's 'normalcy' in the 1920's was born partially out of the desire to return to a White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) society as created by their British ancestors, which in turn kept them out of the League of Nations - a factor many believe to be crucial in the fact As in the wake of Versailles, the landscape that WWII was not prevented. This can of Europe changed with the Treaty of Paris therefore clearly be linked to the British ocand the subsequent treaty, 'The Treaty of cupation of most of North America after Hubertusburg’, which did include Prussia the Seven Years' War, in that their occupaand Austria. Like after WWI, European bor- tion would have encouraged British emigrader disputes were resolved and they retion to the USA, and hence established the turned to the 'Status quo ante bellum' - as WASP ancestry of the USA. they were before the Seven Years' War The economy of Britain verged on bankbroke out. In a sense, important countries ruptcy following the Seven Years' War. In that would play a significant role in the fuattempting to pacify the French and the Roture were formed: the negotiations created man Catholics based in Canada - which Britthe modern Germany as it is now known, as ain acquired as a result of the Treaty of ParPrussia gained huge influence in Europe at is - the British were forced to keep Canada the expense of the Holy Roman Empire. and appease their needs, which came at This was a move of paramount importance huge expense. Economically, these postfor the future of European relations, espe- war events again strike chords similar to cially when considering the unequivocal that of WWI’s aftermath where Britain was role played by Germany in the two world forced to pacify the Americans who were wars of the 20th Century. keen to end their ties with Europe and Moreover, Britain gained colonies and ex- were demanding Britain to pay up the huge panded her Empire. Perhaps an interesting contrast between the treaties of Versailles 4.

outstanding debts caused by the borrowing of money from the US to invest in the war effort. The difference was that Britain began to recover within a decade of The Seven Years' War due to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, where industrialists such as Richard Arkwright came to the fore to establish an era of economic excellence for Britain, even on an international stage. This harshly contrasts to the stagnant economy of the 1920's where the effects and the debts of the war loomed over the British economy, followed up by the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange and the start of the Great Depression within a decade of the Treaty of Versailles.

ty, but it certainly seems unlikely that a pre-Industrial Britain would have borne these costs easily. Furthermore, the mass transfer of territorial ownership and land that would later be the cause of dispute does reflect much of the controversy of the Treaty of Versailles a century and a half later. In addition, the unquestionable links between the political mood of North America post-WWI and the British occupation of land masses in North America as a result of the Treaty of Paris 1763, and the transferral of power to Prussia that would later form the Germany at the heart of WWI, to me seem to prove that the Seven Years' War not only foreshadows but lays the foundations for the First World War. Obviously, the Seven Years’ War is followed by revolutionary social and economic changes in Europe and other political conflicts that have an impact on the course of history that leads inevitably to WWI, but the link remains.

And so I pose the question: was the Seven Years' War a warning to the world of what was to come in the future? Is it even comparable to WWI in its aftershocks and effects, and from a British perspective is it worthy of comparison when we gained massively as opposed to the losses of Can we therefore pin the First World WWI and its negative impact on the econ- War’s causes on events one hundred and fifty years prior? I think not. This being omy? said, undeniably, the Seven Years' War To attempt to answer his vast question, bears some influence on international the context must be considered. Without events and theatre of war that struck up the Industrial Revolution, with financial the calamitous world wars of the 20th outgoings and investments going to Canacentury. da, and new colonies, I doubt whether the British economy could have survived hav- By Harry Griffiths. ing neared bankruptcy immediately after a war of this scale - naturally, one would require an astute understanding of eco5. nomic to make such a claim with certain-

Ok, I know what you’re thinking: why should I care about two dead languages which I can’t read, and have no intention of ever learning to read? “I’m interested in WWII”, you might scoff, or, alternatively, you may be thinking “Cuneiform, you idiot!

Are you just plain stupid?”

Cuneiform

it’s….because it’s just cool alright? Go with it. For me. Please? Thank you!)

Cuneiform was developed from a Mesopotamian accounting system of clay tokens.

Around 8000 BC, clay counters were used to count goods in agricultural communities.

To start, if you’re wondering what cuneiform and hieroglyphics are, I’ll give you a brief (ha!) introduction. Firstly, the word cuneiform means “wedge-shaped”, as all cuneiform symbols have wedges in them.

Essentially, any wedge-shaped text/symbols can be classed as cuneiform. Also, it wasn’t However, while it’s widely accepted by a language. It was a picture-writing system some historians and language specialists that Cuneiform came first, others say it did- that used symbols, like hieroglyphics. In Ann’t and that there is no reason to go mak- cient Mesopotamia, it was universally uning wild accusations and hurting the hiero- derstood, whether the reader was Akkadiglyphics feelings. It’s just plain rude. (And an, Sumerian, or Babylonian. Each symbol you should totally care about hieroglyphics was the same word; just in different languages. vs. cuneiform because it’s…because

6.

An early form (not fully developed) of cuneiform script was used on the tokens and on containers of tokens to show how much there was inside. Goods such as cattle, cereal and textiles were documented on these tokens and later on clay tablets.

(The Sumerians don’t agree – they say that the god Enlil created writing. Well, each to their own, eh?)

Egyptian Hieroglyphics

Hieroglyphics on the other hand are much less well documented than cuneiform.

Around 3100 BC, the symbols developed.

They seem to have appeared suddenly Mesopotamian authorities seemed to have around the time 3100 BC. This is 100 years made it law to have the names of the indilater than cuneiform coming into being. viduals buying or selling the goods to be (‘Cuneiform came first!’ ‘Be quiet!’) recorded on these tablets. It was extremely Egyptian Hieroglyphics were the writing syshard to do, as the current state of cuneitem of the Ancient Egyptians. According to form was logographic (1 symbol=1 word). the Egyptians themselves, hieroglyphics Therefore, there were too many names, too were given to them by the god Thoth, many words to remember what all of them (Dhwty in Egyptian); the scribe and historimeant. That meant it had to be developed an of the gods. There are three types of Hiso that scribes wrote people’s names logoeroglyphics: hieroglyphic, hieratic, and dephonetically (1 syllable = 1 symbol). This motic. Hieroglyphic is inscribed on stones in took a few centuries to develop, but evenmonuments; Hieratic is the "priestly" script, tually, cuneiform developed into this form, used on manuscripts and paintings, and a used by Babylonians and Assyrians. form of monumental hieroglyphics; and fiBut the cuneiform I’m talking about is Sunally, demotic is a cursive script that replaced hieratic as the script for everyday merian script. (I know, I’m confusing you.

Sorry!) At this time, 3200 BC, Sumerian cu- use from 600 BC onward. Got it? Good. neiform was read and written from top-toHieroglyphics were also logophonetic, howbottom and the symbols weren’t wedge ever the Ancient Egyptians wrote only in shaped. At this time, it wasn’t fully develconsonants. This meant that the same oped, but it was advanced and a form of glyphs could be used to write a word, but proto-writing. This is the script we’re talking the word had different vowels in it – came about. Over 200 years it developed into the and come for example, would be written wedge shaped Sumerian cuneiform we with the same glyphs as they have the same know and love and became read from left consonants. How would it be separated you to right. So, cuneiform as a true writing ask? Well, I answer. The signs in Egyptian form came into being around 3200-3000 hieroglyphics were separated into 3 groups BC, agreed? Agreed.

– logograms, phonograms and definitive.

7.

Don’t worry; I’ll walk you through the jargon. Logograms were signs that wrote out the consonants or morphemes (smallest meaningful part of a word i.e. in-com-ing making incoming. The separate parts of the word are morphemes). Phonograms were the signs that represent the sound or sounds, and the definitive weren’t spoken, but they helped determine the meaning of the words that preceded them i.e. finding out if the word is come or came.

(Phew, glad that’s over!)

The Argument and The Evidence The development of Egyptian Hieroglyphics is less well documented than that of cuneiform. The fully formed words seem to have suddenly appeared in history. One of the ideas on how hieroglyphics formed was that Mesopotamian writing influenced it and brought about the idea of a more complex system of writing and recording, around the time of 3100 BC. This is evidenced by certain styles of architecture, use of cylinder seals and decorative patterns which show fantastical animals, all of which are connected to Mesopotamia and could have influenced it.

It’s quite damning evidence of Mesopotamian influence on Egyptian culture. However, there is little to no evidence of Egyptian influence on Mesopotamian culture, suggesting the idea that Mesopotamia influenced Egypt, but Egypt didn’t influence Mesopotamia. It leads credence to the idea that Mesopotamia helped create Egyptian writing, or certainly the idea of it.

8.

The dates are particularly damning

when deciding which came first. Mesopotamian cuneiform has tablets dating to 3200 BC. Hieroglyphics, 3100 BC. Therefore cuneiform came first. There. End of. Language experts agree with me, such as Geoffrey Sampson, who says that Egyptian hieroglyphics “came into existence a little after Sumerian script and is thought probably to have been invented under the influence of the latter”. So there.

“Aha!” Says the other side. There is proof that it may not have come from the Mesopotamians. So there!

Pottery vessels, bone and ivory tags, clay seal impressions, all discovered in Abydos in Egypt in the 1990’s, depict hieroglyphics which were dated between 3400 and 3200 BC. That doesn’t compute with the theory that Sumerian Cuneiform came before Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Cuneiform came about in 3200 BC. If the cuneiform influenced the hieroglyphics, how can they be dated 3400 BC?

By Emma Porter

Born in 1431, Alexander VI, formerly Rodrigo Borgia, would come to be one of the most scandalous Popes in history, his name forever interwoven with the greed, corruption and nepotism that was rife in Renaissance Italy in the 15th century. Made Cardinal of the Holy See of Valencia at just 25 by his uncle Calixtus III, Rodrigo quickly rose through the clerical ranks to the position of Vice Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church at just 27. His securing of the post was less than noble, largely achieved through nepotism, bribes and underhanded favours; however he was described by Calixtus’ successor Pius II as “an extraordinarily able man.” He used both his intelligence and connections to amass an extraordinary fortune and enhance his influence within the conclave, playing a vital role in the election of Sixtus IV in 1471. He also managed to amass the bishoprics of Albano, San Nicola and 9.

Santa Maria, as well as being appointed

the Papal legate to Spain in 1172. Rodrigo’s personal life was equally intriguing and even more scandalous; despite his vow of chastity, he was a renowned womanizer and fathered four legitimized children by his mistress Vannozza de’ Catanei and countless illegitimate ones by a number of women.

In 1492, Rodrigo was elected Pope and became Alexander VI. His election was secured largely through bribes; with Florentine author Francesco Guicciardini writing in the 15th century that “his election was due to the fact that he had unashamedly bought the votes of many cardinals in a manner that was unprecedented in those times.” Despite coming to power through largely unscrupulous means, it was accepted that the Papacy needed a strong, competent and intelligent heir to calm the anarchy that had emerged under the ineffective leadership of Innocent VIII, and Alexander VI matched all of these

qualities. He was also committed to restoring order in Rome and the Papal States, setting up prison inspectors and police commissioners, whilst ordering complete administrative reorganisation. However, Alexander was also determined to establish his family among the elite European nobility and was willing to use any of the means at his disposal in order to achieve this.

Before Alexander had been elected as Pope, he had already promised his daughter Lucrezia to two different men, first to a young Spanish nobleman, Don Juan de Centelles, a match abandoned as soon as a more advantageous one arose, and second to a Spanish grandee, Don di Procida. The contract with di Procida was still being arranged when Alexander was elected Pope, meaning he could set his sights much higher, and so he “gave the young man 3000 ducats to buy his silence and break the contract” according to Buchard, the Vatican’s Master of Ceremonies. A match was then arranged with Giovanni Sforza, cousin to the Duke of Milan, whom Lucrezia married in June 1493. However, after three years the match had declined it its political usefulness and Alexander demanded a divorce, another practice forbidden by the Catholic Church. This divorce was justified by the loose claim by Lucrezia that the marriage had never been consummated; with Sforza being told to declare that he was impotent. At first, he refused this humiliating demand and requested the support of his uncle, Ludevico of Milan, in retaining his marriage and po- 10. sition. However, Ludevico was reliant on

the Pope for protection against the impending invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France, and therefore on the threat of being disowned, Giovanni was forced to agree to the divorce and declared himself impotent. He did not take this indignity lying down, and spread vicious rumours about incest between Lucrezia, her brother Cesare, and Alexander himself, an allegation which would follow all of them for the rest of their lives and was a source of endless disgust throughout Europe. However, this was only the beginning of the intrigue surrounding Lucrezia’s marriages. Whilst still embroiled in her divorce, Lucrezia, the ‘virgo intacta,’ was already pregnant, either by Giovanni or a valet she had been having an affair with.

Sadly the child was stillborn, although this opened the way for a match to be arranged between her and Alfonso of Aragon, the illegitimate son of the King of Naples, whom she married in July 1498. This marriage cemented the alliance of Naples, Spain and Italy against the adamant claims of the French monarchy to Naples. However, as the military supremacy of France became apparent, Alexander VI once again changed his mind. In Rome on July 15th 1500 Alfonso was strangled to death by Lucrezia’s brother Cesare, leaving the Pope able to negotiate with France. The lack of outrage at his murder further demonstrates the absolute power and absolute corruption of the Renaissance Papacy.

However, Alexander was not done with his daughter yet. He decided on a new husband, Alfonso d’Este, son of the Duke of Ferrera, as his estate bordered the Romagne where Cesare was currently undertaking a campaign of conquest for himself.

When the Duke declined Alexander’s offer, he persuaded him through both bribery and the threat of Cesare invading his territory.

However, this was to prove a much more lasting union, from 1502 until her death in 1519, as Alexander turned his attention from Lucrezia to Cesare.

bret. And so Cesare, driven purely by the pursuit of power, cast away his devotion to the Church and to old allies, and began his secular career. From 1499, Cesare used his connections to France and to the Papacy to bring most of Southern Italy and the Romagna under his control state by state, his conquests usually following the same pattern.

The Pope would declare some miniscule wrong committed by the region’s leader, and Cesare would swoop in to right this wrong, adding the territory to his ever growing empire in the process. Cesare’s army was financed by Alexander, who raised Cesare Borgia, born around 1486, was an funds by creating new Cardinals in exequally controversial figure in European change for gold, often at the despair of the politics, and not just for the aforemenCollege of Cardinals, who saw the increase tioned allegations of murder and incest.

Cesare inherited his father’s love of extrava- in numbers as a threat to the prestige and sanctity of their position. However, when gance and decadence, his devotion to his father died, Cesare was imprisoned in which was completely uninhibited by his Spain and his lands were reclaimed by the selection as a Cardinal at just 18 years of Papacy under Julius II. After managing to age. Wherever he travelled, wild parties often followed, as did frequent bouts of the escape, he was killed whilst fighting to regain his lands in July 1507. mal de francese, known today as syphilis.

However, at 22, with Alexander’s other Alexander VI died in August 1503, allegedly male heirs either dead or considered impo- after drinking poisoned wine. Whilst many of his predecessors could not be described tent, Cesare became the first Cardinal in history to leave the Church, or “put off the as paragons of virtue, it is Alexander and his robe” as Buchard referred to the highly un- children who have come to embody the liusual situation as. Cesare left the Church so centious and unending scandal of the Rethat he could take up an offer made to him naissance Papacy. An autocratic ruler in his own right, Alexander simply ignored all of by the new King of France, Louis XII, in which if Cesare betrayed his old allies, the the conditions of his position, engaging in Sforza’s, and helped France to conquer Mi- murder, incest and betrayal along with exlan, he would provide him with his own ar- traordinary shows of glamour and decadence. Alexander was not greatly loved, on my, and an advantageous marriage to a 11. his death many criticisms of him were French noblewoman, Charlotte d’Al-

voiced, for example Machiavelli once said “in the Pope’s saintly footsteps came his three servants and beloved handmaidens, extravagance, simony, and cruelty,� but the trail of scandal and intrigue that followed him all of his life has ensured he will never be easily forgotten.

By Madeleine McDonagh

12.

In 55 BC, the Roman army fought its way onto British shores for the first time, under the command of Julius Caesar. Poorly equipped and under-prepared, they won only token victory. One year later, they tried again, this time succeeding in their mission (to return the ousted King Commius, Caesar’s ally, to the Atrebatic throne). Still, Caesar returned to his campaigning in Gaul disappointed. In a letter to the philosopher, Marcus Tullius Cicero, he complained that there was nothing of value to be had in Britain. Then, less than a century later, Britain was invaded again.

The Emperor Claudius launched his full scale invasion in AD 43, lighting the flames Roman occupation in Britain for the next 400 years.

Yet, in all this time, the occupation was never complete. Ancient Scotland, known to the Romans as Caledonia, was never fully subdued. It is one of history’s greatest mysteries that this country, populated only 13. by disparate, less-advanced tribes,

seems to have been host to one of the few Roman failures.

Some scholars and, indeed, many people like to believe that the Britons of the North were too warlike for the Romans. Cassius Dio said the tribesmen were ‘fond of plundering; consequently they choose their boldest men as rulers.’ He goes on to paint a pictures of this war-based society, in which men are reared to be ferocious fighters, under the command of strong powers. But, Dio, like all Roman contemporaries, is frustrating in that he is very fond of spouting hyperbole. To see the truth, we must pick out the finer details and look at them in context.

Tacitus wrote: ‘they [the Caledonians] go into battle in chariots, and have small, swift horses; there are also foot-soldiers, very swift in running and very firm in standing their ground.’

We can probably accept that the Britons were war-like, but they were certainly not as disciplined or skilled in combat as the Roman fighters, even the auxiliaries (soldiers recruited from conquered lands). Moreover, it is a fact that the Chariot, by the time of Agricola’s campaign (of which Tacitus is wrote), was an obsolete machine, abandoned in the rest of Western Europe. Whatever the case, the Roman army had definitely encountered more organised, wellequipped foes and bested them, the Gauls being just one example.

Another suggestion is that the geography of Northern Britain was too treacherous for the Roman force to endure, but this is, perhaps, an even weaker argument. Tacitus mentions the ‘roughness of the ground’ and says ‘our infantry had only a precarious foothold.’

However, as precarious as the terrain may have been, it did not match the danger of that found elsewhere in the empire. Spain and Dalmatia, for instance, have much higher mountains and much hotter climates.

If physical factors did not stop the Romans, what did? It may be that the Romans did not place enough value in Britain to motivate a total conquest. Caesar was certainly deterred by Britain’s lack of value to him. Tacitus imagined the speech of a Caledonian leader: ‘What men know nothing about they always assume to be a valuable prize. But there are no more nations beyond us; nothing is there but waves and rocks.’ It is unlikely that Tacitus would entertain a contradictory viewpoint like this without purpose. 14.

Perhaps, then, Tacitus genuinely thought the campaign was, to some extent, a wasted effort. The uneven land and alien tribes had little to offer the Romans in the long run, not least because they had no coinage, and would struggle to pay taxes. Groenman van Waateringe suggested a successful occupation was only possible in ‘regions where the Romans were confronted with a wellorganised proto-urban or urban structure, which they could utilise for the supply of their armies and… project gradually their social and administrative system.’ Northern Britain was no such place. It was an agricultural regime, in which farmers grew just enough to sustain themselves, with a small excess for the ruling classes. However, to suppose that the Romans could not bend their system to accommodate for a strange culture is, perhaps, to underestimate the Roman ability. Even if a revolt occurred, the Romans did not struggle to deal with such things. The question is, if Caledonia had no value, why were so many attempts made to take it?

Agricola, Severus and Antoninus all led or commissioned campaigns in the north for one reason, to bolster their prestige. For them, Caledonia needed no value. Provided its inhabitants put up a fight, it was a victory worth having. Even Julius Caesar first came to Britain in an attempt to garnish his victories on the continent with another beyond the sea. Politics played a central role in Roman conquest and, as such, may be the cause of this Roman failure.

Following Agricola’s climactic battle at Mons Graupius, in AD 84, the Emperor Domitian put a stop to the campaign. ‘If the valour of the Roman army and the glory of the Roman name had allowed it, a stopping place would have been found within Britain,’ writes Tacitus, clearly insinuating the Emperor’s intervention, by reference to the ‘glory of the Roman name.’ Domitian ordered the withdrawal of Legio II Adiutrix and, soon after, recalled Agricola to Rome under mysterious circumstances. It is commonly believed that the emperor was jealous of the governor’s achievement. Unlike Agricola, Antoninus Pius never intended to conquer the rest of Britain. He simply wanted to out-do his predecessor, Hadrian. This was accomplished by the building of the Antonine Wall, on the Forth-Clyde line. As for the Emperor Severus, he was in failing health even before his campaign. He also made the fatal mistake of bringing his sons on campaign, so that when he died, at York, in AD 211, they made peace with the Britons and hurried back to Rome to quarrel over the throne. Herodian said that Severus’s favoured heir, Caracalla, ‘paid little attention to the war, but rather attempted to gain control of the army.’ It seems that, in bringing his sons, politics doomed Severus’s march from the outset.

Thus, it seems, the strongest argument, gives us our ultimate reason for this failed conquest. Politics was the reason for every expedition to Caledonia and, as a result, it was the reason for its loss.

By Nathanial Lamb

15.

Although Isabella of France is often described as a ‘She-Wolf’, was she really that bad?

In terms of the political arena that was occurring under Edward II’s reign – her husband- she can be seen as the voice of the people; Edward was far more interested in his ‘favourites’ Piers Gavestone, and later Hugh Despenser than retaining the control over Scotland that his father, Edward I had gained.

Earls who felt drastic action needed to be taken to wake Edward II from his ‘love struck’ dream and face the realities of turbulent Scotland rebelling and taking back their land.

With Gavestone gone and Isabella the mother to a son, Edward III, she finally had the power to become the Queen she so desperately wanted to embody.

However, this was impossible with Edward II finding a new ‘favourite’ soon after Isabella could be seen as unfortunate in her Gavestone’s death; Hugh Despenser the coronation as queen to Edward II. She was Younger. Isabella found herself marginalised ultimately overshadowed on her own coro- in her own rule and subsequently she neednation day to become the Queen of England ed to assert her power and she had the peras it was abundantly clear who his attention fect tool for this; her son as the heir to the belonged to; Piers Gavestone, whom he throne. dressed in imperial purple silk embroidered She used her opportunity whilst in France to with pearls. Witnesses described Gavestone publicly declare her power. Contemporaries as ‘more splendidly dressed than the king report that Isabella publically declared that himself’. The King’s questionable relation‘someone has come between my husband ship with Gavestone was ended when, on and myself’ the 19th June 1312, Gavestone was bru16. tally murdered and decapitated by the

and she would not return to England until ‘this intruder has been removed’.

Isabella challenged the whole view of women in the political arena in the medieval era; she imprisoned her husband and acknowledged him as dead, ruling in his absence as her son, Edward III’s regent.

However, her need for control which caused her to be described as the ‘she-Wolf of France’ ultimately led to her downfall. With Edward III feeling that he was being derived of his rule, he rebelled against his mother and came to power.

Isabella is one of the strongest female characters in the medieval era, should this really be embodied with the negative term of a ‘She-Wolf’? Rather, I believe she is a political genius.

By Sally Dickens.

17.

The declaration of martial law and the assassination of the then acting President and Dictator of South Korea, Park Chung-Hee, as well as the now new found freedom of the ROK (Republic of Korea) army General Chun Doo-Hwan led to the unlawful massacre of reportedly 2,000 South Korean civilians and students in the city of Kwangju in the year of 1980. The uprising is considered a major landmark in the struggle for South Korean democracy, it also marked the beginning of anti-American sentiment in South Korea.

1980 when some 200 Chonnam university students had gathered and began demonstrating in the morning and by 2:00 PM had been joined by more than 800 additional demonstrators, when the city police were unable to control the crowd the army were dispatched and so unlawful violence ensued, a deaf 29-year-old, Kim Gyeong-cheol, became the first fatality; he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the soldiers beat him to death. “A cluster of troops attacked each student individually.

They would crack his head, stomp his back, and kick him in the face. When the soldiers In the frenzy after Park’s demise students were done, he looked like a pile of clothes and some professors led a huge movement in meat sauce." (Lee Jae-Eui, Kwangju Diary: for democracy, however General Chun Doo- Beyond Death, Beyond the Darkness of the Hwan had seized power and threatened vio- Age, p. 46) lence if the protests were to continue, and with the approval of the United States mili- Through-out the next two days more and more infuriated citizens of Kwangju would tary some of the most well trained paratroopers were dispatched to teach the city join the protests out of sheer disgust for the violence and unjust murder that littered the of Kwangju a lesson. The first confrontation began on the morning of May 18th in 18. streets

On May 19th people from all walks of life marched with the students, some throwing Molotov cocktails at the soldiers whilst other demonstrators hurled rocks, however it escalated to the point where soldiers would beat to death anyone they came across in the streets. By the morning of May 20th more than 10,000 people were protesting in downtown Kwangju, that day the army sent an additional 3,000 troops to ‘control the situation’, what ensued was no less than barbaric. The Special Forces beat and mutilated people with their bayonets, troops shot dead twenty girls at Kwangju’s central high school, one hundred students who took shelter in the Catholic centre were slaughtered and university and high school students that were captured had their hands tied behind their backs with barbed wire and many were then later executed, even taxi drivers and ambulances trying to help the wounded were shot.

May 21st can be seen as the climax as the violence reached all new heights, people fought back with bats, pipes, iron bars and hammers. Students and civilians even broke into police headquarters and gathered ammunition to fight back against the army, students mounted one of the machine guns on the roof of the medical university. The local police refused to help the army, subsequently many were beaten to unconsciousness for attempting to help the injured.

However, by 5:30 that evening the army were then forced to retreat from downtown Kwangju and by the morning of May 22nd the army were forced to withdraw from 19.

Kwangju, however they kept a blockade

around the city, when a bus of civilians attempted to escape the army open fired killing 17 of the 18 passengers aboard, that same army-troops accidently killed 13 of their own in a friendly-fire. Meanwhile in the city of Kwangju students and professionals came together to form committees to provide medical care for the wounded, funerals for the dead and even compensation for those who had lost their loved ones. Influenced by Marxist ideals, some of the students arranged to cook communal meals for the people of the city. For five days, the people ruled Kwangju. Word of the massacre spread fast leading to anti-government protests in neighbouring cities like Mokpo, Gangjin, Hwasun and Yeongam.

Such peace didn’t last long, as on May 27th at 4:00 AM the army moved back in downtown Kwangju, students attempted to stop their entering the city by lying in the streets whilst the armed civilian militia prepared for a new fight, after only an hour and half of desperate fighting the army took control of Kwangju.

Concerning the number of casualties, the new Chun Doo-Hwan government issued a statement saying that 144 civilians, 22 troops and 4 police officers had been killed during the uprising however census reports reveal that nearly 2,000 Kwangju citizens went missing during this time. A small number of students who mostly died of May 24th are buried in a cemetery just outside of Kwangju, however several eyewitness accounts report seeing hundreds of bodies piled into mass graves on the outskirts of the city.

In the aftermath of the massacre, the then government lost a lot of its legitimacy in the eyes of the Korean public, and antigovernment, pro-democracy protests continued to run throughout the 1980’s demanding that the perpetrators for the Kwangju massacre be punished. Kim DaeJung, a politician from Kwangju who had previously been sentenced to death on charges of formulating the rebellion ran for president but did not serve as president until 1998 to 2003, and went on to receive a Nobel peace prize in 2000. The former president at the time was then sentenced to death in 1996 for corruption and his part in the massacre.

The slaughter at Kwangju paved the way for democracy in South Korea and though it would take nearly a decade to obtain, Kwangju was the turning point in the long struggle. However, the horrors of those few days will never be forgotten as historian George Katsiaficas said “The liberated reality of the Commune in Kwangju contradicts the myth that human beings are essentially evil and therefore require strong governments to maintain order and justice. Rather, it was the forces of the government, not the ungoverned people that acted with great brutality and injustice.” Even now in Hong Kong protests for democracy rage on, I only hope that the government has learnt from past events and refrains from acting with “great brutality and injustice”.

By Sophie Scott 20.

Black Americans make up about 12% of all Rights Movement was desegregation, voting US citizens. They are descended from the rights, civil rights and an end to discriminaslaves brought over from Africa to work the tion. The methods which they used in order tobacco, cotton and sugar plantations. They to try to obtain these aims included legal were supposedly at liberty in 1863, but still action through courts, violent protest, nonsuffered from poverty, segregation and dis- violent protest and civil disobedience. crimination of all kinds. In the southern Firstly, legal action through courts was parstates of the USA, for example Mississippi tially successful in trying to achieve the aims and Alabama, black American citizens had of the Civil Rights Movement. In order to try their own transport, cafes, cinemas, toilets to force industry to employ blacks, Rooseand schools. There were even posters put velt, the President of America from 1933 to up on shop windows exclaiming ‘Whites on- 1945, issued Executive Order 8802 in 1941. ly’. This was all because of Jim Crow Laws, This prevented discrimination in industrial which prevented blacks from voting and en- and governmental jobs. In 1941, Roosevelt forced separate, and unequal, schools. also set up the FEDC (Fair Employment PracThese were state laws that forced, for exam- tices Committee) to enforce the order. Howple, blacks to pass tests in order to vote, ever, he had no power to force companies which they obviously were not going to pass to follow his policy. After Roosevelt died in due to the fact that they were less well edu- 1945, he was succeeded by Truman. In cated than white children due to the segre- 1946, Truman formed a President’s Comgated, unequal schools. Thirty-two states mittee for Civil Rights and he produced had segregated schools. The aim of the Civil 21.

a programme of reforms in 1947. This included a proposal to outlaw lynching and also ban Jim Crow laws. However, this was crushed by congress. In 1948, Truman issued an Executive Order which ended segregation in units of the armed forces. This came into effect in 1950 and was in force during the Korean War. Also, in 1950, the Supreme Court declared that black and white students could not be segregated in the same school and that the education provided in segregated schools had to be equal in every respect. This gave the NAACP an important foothold because segregated schools were rarely equal in every respect.

The whole point of segregation was to ensure privileged for some. Their big opportunity came in 1954, with the Brown V Topeka Case in which Oliver Brown was told by the Topeka board of Education in Kansas that his seven year old daughter, Linda, could not attend her nearest school. This proves that the Supreme Court ruling was not effective. Brown used the Supreme Court ruling to take the City of Topeka to court for forcing his daughter to attend a school a far away, instead of being allowed to go to the nearby whites’ only school. The NAACP supported the case and Brown was represented by Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first black member of the Supreme Court. Eventually, Oliver Brown won his case. In 1954, the Supreme Court declared that all segregated schools were illegal, because separate must mean unequal.

The following year, the Supreme Court 22. ordered all states with segregated

schools to integrate black and white school children. However, this was easier said than done. In 1956, the University of Alabama refused to accept Authorine Lucy as a student despite a government court order.

Therefore, equality in education was not achieved.

Secondly, violent protest was moderately successful in trying to achieve the aims of the civil rights movement. Race riots broke out in Detroit in June 1943 and thirty-four people were killed and $2,000,000 worth of damage was caused. Black soldiers also rioted in nine army training camps because they were receiving unequal treatment. By the end of the war, some units of the army were desegregated. General Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, personally supported integrated units. At the beginning of the war, there were only twelve black officers in the US army and black soldiers were often given routine tasks to perform. By the end of the war, much had changed. Black officers were appointed in all three services and the Air Force began to train black pilots, six hundred in total, by the end of the war. Altogether, about 1,000,000 black Americans served in the armed forces. They found themselves involved in a struggle against a racist dictator, while they were themselves subject to racist discrimination at home. However, many were sent to Europe where they had no racial bars. When they returned to the USA in 1945, it was even harder to accept the return to discrimination.

Whatever the experience of black Americans during the war, in 1945 they returned to the USA where many were unable to vote and were condemned to be second class citizens.

In this respect, the war was a big boost to the civil rights movement, motivating black Americans to fight harder for their rights.

get around the President’s action by closing all the schools in Arkansas in September 1958, but he was forced to reopen them to black and white students by the Supreme Court. Despite these events at Little Rock, progress on integration was slow. By 1963, there were only 30,000 children at mixed schools in the South, out of a total of Thirdly, non-violent protest was partially successful in achieving the aims of the civil 2,900,000 and none at all in Alabama, Misrights movement. In 1957, Elizabeth Eckford sissippi or South Carolina. along with eight other black students tried Fourthly, non-violent civil disobedience was to enrol at Little Rock High School in Arkan- the most successful method in achieving the sas. She was stopped by the state governor, aims of the Civil Rights Movement. One inciOrval Faubus, who surrounded the school dent was the Montgomery Bus Boycott in with the state National Guard. When the 1955, in which Rosa Parks was arrested in th nine students tried to enrol on 5 Septem- Alabama for refusing to give her seat up on ber, they were faced by a crowd of more a bus to a white man. The Montgomery Imthan 1,000. After lunch, they were escorted provement Association (MIA) was set up to home by the police. Press and TV coverage organise a boycott of buses, led by local in the USA and across the world was a seri- church minister, Martin Luther King. Martin ous embarrassment to the USA – a country Luther King organised a boycott of the buses which apparently championed freedom and which lasted a year. All the Black Americans equality. President Eisenhower sent federal in Montgomery and the surrounding area troops to escort and protect Elizabeth Eck- walked rather than use the buses. Eventualford and the other students. After a month, ly, the bus company was compelled to give the federal troops were replaced by National in and desegregate the buses. Throughout Guardsmen under the orders of the Presithe boycott, there were appeals to the Sudent. They stayed at the school for a year. preme Court challenging segregation on This caused Eisenhower to finally introduce buses. In 1956, the Supreme Court said that the first Civil Rights Act since 1875. It set up segregation on buses was also illegal. A a commission to prosecute anybody who peaceful approach had brought about a sigtried to deny American citizens their rights. nificant victory. It had shown that black The demonstrations were seen on television Americans could organise themselves. The and in newspapers across the world. Many boycott established King as the leader of the US citizens saw, for the first time, the racial Civil Rights Movement. His energy and enhatred that existed in the southern 23. thusiasm were a major reason for the sucstates. Governor Faubus attempted to cess of the campaign.

King set up the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and became its president in 1957. He organised sit-ins with the first one being at Woolworth’s in Greensboro North Carolina, in which eighty-five students demanded to be served at a white’s only counter. When they were refused, they sat at the counters waiting to be served but did not react to intimidation, threats or abuse. Altogether, 70,000 took part and 3,600 went to jail. When whites turned violent, there was widespread television coverage and support for Civil Rights. Other variations of sit-ins developed to try to end segregation for example ‘kneel-ins’ in Churches, ‘wade-ins’ in swimming baths and ‘read-ins’ in libraries. By 1961, 810 towns and cities were desegregated. The civil rights movement gained much publicity when television highlighted the non-violence of the protestors in the face of violence from some white racists. Martin Luther King additionally set up the Freedom Riders. The Supreme Court decided in December 1960 that all bus stations and terminals that served interstate travellers should be integrated. In 1961, King and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) wanted to test that decision by using the tactic of the freedom ride. The Freedom Riders began to make bus journeys to break Jim Crow Laws. The first of the freedom riders was in May 1961, when thirteen CORE volunteers left Washington DC by bus to travel to New Orleans. At Anniston, Alabama, a bus was attacked and burnt. In Birmingham, there was no protection and 24. the freedom riders were attacked by an

angry mob. The police chief, Bull Connor, had ‘conveniently’ given the police the day off. Nevertheless, they had gained tremendous publicity. The Freedom Riders wanted to put pressure on Kennedy. They succeeded – later the same year, all railway and bus stations were desegregated by the Interstate Commerce Committee.

In conclusion, the most successful method in achieving the aims of the Civil Rights Movement was non-violent civil disobedience, organised by Martin Luther King. He followed the methods used by Gandhi when campaigning for independence for India.

Martin Luther King created so much publicity about the civil rights movement that President Kennedy even began to appoint black Americans to important positions.

John F Kennedy’s brother Robert, who was Attorney General, prosecuted people who tried to prevent blacks from voting.

By Emma King.

Henry VIII was no Protestant. In fact, he hated the tenets of Protestantism and fancied himself as an amateur theologian and wrote and published a response to the reformist preacher Martin Luther. For this, the Pope was most grateful. So, how did Henry get from here – being the Pope’s pet – to the Reformation? As most of you will know this was bound up with his wish to marry Anne Boleyn. After many years of trying to get a divorce, he turned to Protestantism. As Supreme Head of the Church of England, he could marry and divorce whomever he pleased. And he did. This involved shutting down the monasteries, confiscating Church lands, and virtually declaring himself at war with every kingdom in Europe. Worst of all, this meant change. If Henry wanted to make England a Protestant country, then he would have to change England irretrievably 25. and beyond recognition.

The trouble was that, because this change of the established religion occurred over night and not for religious reasons, nobody really had any idea what to change. Thus, Catholics were killed, Church treasure looted, preachers flooded in, but there was no common direction to it all. And this was understandable. Even if Henry had turned England Protestant because he felt swayed by the arguments of the Lutherans, this would mean that England had converted to Lutheranism and not the various other versions of Protestant worship. Catholicism is Catholicism, or, rather, it is what the Pope says it is, whereas Protestantism at the time of the English Reformation could be Lutheranism, Calvinism, or Presbyterianism – today the choice is wider still. This makes any kind of top-down Reformation – one imposed by the king or parliament – difficult, because it excludes the other kinds of Protestantism,

but at least if Henry had picked one of them, he would have chosen a door for England to go through. Instead, what he did was he boarded up the door of Catholicism and simply pushed the English down the corridor of Reformation. And for at least a hundred and fifty years, we paced up and down, unsure of which handle to turn.

Henry’s son and heir, Edward, was brought up a fanatical and zealous Protestant and, backed by the Greys, he acted where he thought his father had dithered; the last years of Henry’s reign had been seen as a stalling of the Reformation, with a drifting back to more conservative values. Iconoclasm – smashing up churches and religious art – became the order of the day in true Protestant fashion. On top of this, a new Book of Common Prayer was written, stripped of all Catholic-leaning worship. Only a few years later, the Holy Communion was dramatically simplified as were the vestments – clothing – of English priests.

The Church was now becoming strongly Calvinist.

With Edward’s premature death came the accession to power of a Catholic Queen.

England once again became a Catholic country: Protestants were burned; a new Book of Common Prayer was written; and the English monarch was now married to a Spanish king. What could go wrong?

and the last of the Tudor monarchs, learned from the mistakes of her siblings, Mary and Edward, and aimed for an equilibrium between Catholicism and Protestantism in England, knowing that Catholicism was still very much alive and kicking, and that Protestantism would have to be appeased to some extent to make up for the wrongs of the preceding reign.

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement was made into law by the Act of Supremacy – making her Supreme Governor of the Church of England – and the Act of Uniformity – republishing the 1552 Book of Common Prayer with minor alterations and enforcing church attendance once a week.

In addition to these Acts, the harsh laws against Roman Catholics were repealed, attacks on the Pope were removed from Anglican prayers, and belief in the Catholic concepts of transubstantiation and Real Presence during the Holy Communion was permitted by changes in the litany. Elizabeth allowed for the foundation and development of Anglicanism: a rich, diverse, liberal form of Protestantism, unique to England is this respect, with a High Church and a Low Church, which every one of her successors preferred immensely to any of the purist alternative forms.

However, during Elizabeth’s reign the lines of fire became clearer: on the one side were the Puritans who wanted to scrap the Book of Common Prayer and governance of Mary I died on the 17th November 1558, the Church by bishops and archbishops – the last openly Catholic monarch England known as episcopacy; on the other side, was to have for almost one hundred 26.

Catholic-minded, yet anti-Roman Catholic and thirty years. Elizabeth, her sister,

Episcopalians, meaning those who believed in rituals and in bishops, who came to be known as Anglicans. It was to be the abolition of the Book of Common Prayer and episcopacy that was the main rallying cry of the Puritan dominated Parliaments of the late 1630s and the 1640s leading ultimately to the English Civil War. During the reign of Charles I, William Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud had more in common with the pre-Reformed Catholics than with the Protestant nonconformists in England. Since the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559, the predominant theological makeup of the English Church had been a mixture between Calvinism and Lutheranism, with the idea of predestination being one central unifying feature of this theology. Laud was not a predestinarian, but an Arminian – one who believes in the free will of all men to achieve salvation.

Laud managed to upset a balance which had been shown to work, for the most part, since 1559. The Puritans, at the same time, were quickly becoming paranoid and hysterical: the Protestant states in the Thirty Years’ War were taking a thrashing; the ecclesiastical hierarchies were shown to be incredibly corrupt; and Laud was transforming the Church in England into something almost Catholic.

Events came to a head when King Charles I tried unsuccessfully to impose the Anglican Book of Common Prayer on the Scots.

27.

The Scots had had a much more thor-

ough Reformation than the English, with the established church – or Kirk – in Scotland being Presbyterian – both Calvinist and without bishops. The Puritans perhaps had every reason to be frightened that they would be the next targets of some large antiProtestant conspiracy.

The Puritans were not drawn from the nobility, but were largely members of a new class of men: the gentry. The gentry had been on the rise since the early 17th century and by the late 1630s the Puritans had some control over the House of Commons. Now, with the Scots invading England over the Book of Common Prayer, the King needed the support of Parliament to fight them off. But when Charles called a Parliament, he found that the Scottish invasion was the last thing they wanted to discuss: they would rather call for the abolition of episcopacy and a curtailing of the feudal rights of kingship. Here, Charles seems to have been unable to choose between a compromise with the Scots and a compromise with his own Parliament; neither were very promising. Any compromise would involve the abolition of the bishops and a more reformed version of the Anglican Church.

The Puritans succeeded in seizing power – not that it is clear whether this was ever their aim. In fact, the lack of any clear direction in the Puritan Commonwealth would suggest that they had never planned to do what they actually did.

The Great Rebellion, as it was known, would not have occurred without the Reformation.

The Reformation gave legal sanction to the kinds of ideas which brought down the monarchy in the mid-17th century, but, luckily for the monarchy, not to the kind of men who would keep it down – the Puritans were largely unsuccessful in holding on to power. The monarchy came back in 1660 stronger than before and the Puritans were brought into disrepute by the horrors of Cromwell’s Lord Protectorship. The Anglicans, too, came back and in a much stronger state than before: everyone was tired of conflict and needed something reliable to fall back on. The Anglicans could now say that they had been right all along about the Puritans and they now more than ever supported and were supported by the monarchy.

These Anglicans, too, were partly responsible for the Glorious Revolution of 1688: a cross-party coup to remove James II in favour of William of Orange. James was a Catholic and managed even to annoy the Anglicans and the Tories – the political party most closely aligned with the monarchy.

However, James’ two daughters had been raised Protestant and so the established authorities took it as read that the next monarch would be a Protestant.

On 10th June 1688, James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales, was born. This was a disaster for the political and religious authorities and they began to become quite hysterical about this birth, claim- 28.

ing that the child had been smuggled into the Queen’s bedchamber in a warming pan.

The handling of the birth was perhaps not very tactful on the part of the king: those to witness the birth were few, and Catholic.

Still, whether the child was the Queen’s or not, this was irrelevant; the future of the Anglican Church and the freedom of the aristocracy to do as they wished were now in danger, according to the Tories and the Whigs. Again, had the Reformation not taken place, the key players in this event – in this case the Anglicans and not the Puritans – would not have even existed.

The result of the Glorious Revolution was undoubtedly as step in the direction of democracy and parliamentary superiority for England. In the early 17th century, it was not uncommon for the King to rule without parliament for long periods, whereas after 1688, parliament was in almost continuous session. Not only this, but parliament decided to abrogate to itself the right to change the succession laws, suggesting that parliament was now very much the senior partner in the relationship between crown, lords and commons. After 1688, taxes, debt, and government spending rocketed due to the fact that government was no carried out mainly by ministers – elected representatives or aristocrats –who: weren’t personally liable for the debt incurred; weren’t spending their own money, but the crown’s; and who knew the king would take the blame when times were bad. In conclusion, then, the Reformation changed the nature of English government irreversibly.

First we saw attempts at violent and radical further reform under Edward and then an equally violent, reactionary counter-reform under Mary. Some balance was achieved under Elizabeth which lasted almost a century, but ultimately the ‘broad church’ was made up of warring parties: the Anglicans and the Puritans. Roused by the action of Charles I and his Archbishop of Canterbury and a general lust for change, in the 1640s the Puritans brought down the monarchy.

Roused by the threat of change, the Anglicans played a leading part in the removal of our last Catholic monarch James II. Only the Glorious Revolution, however, set a new precedent: that of ‘legally’ removing a king through parliament. This precedent signalled the end of the theory of the divine right of kings and absolute monarchy and clearly showed that parliament and the Anglicans had won in the long drawn out internal religious conflicts of the latter half of the 16th century and the majority of the 17th century. England henceforth was a constitutional monarchy – as we remain to this day.

By Keir Martland.

29.

At 11:02am on the 9th of August in 1945 a bomb exploded 503m above the city of Nagasaki in the South-West of Japan. The radiation, intense heatwaves and blast force that followed the explosion created massive and instantaneous destruction, that year 70,000 people died.

One building that mostly remained standing was Shiruyama Primary School. It was made from reinforced concrete and withstood most of the effects of the blast. That day 138 people died on campus leaving only 20 survivors, the Vice-Principal Hideo Arakawa was one of the twenty. There were two wings to the school, the North and the South, the North was where the lessons were held, however this particular day the children were told to stay at home so it was mostly teachers in that building. However, the South Wing was at this time used as the Mitsubishi Arms Factory where many 30. students had gotten jobs, this is the

building that held the most casualties; one part of the Northern building still stands today, preserved. Inside shows the scars of what happened, the marks from the heat waves and intense pressure and extreme heat that destroyed the iron window frames and scorched the wood black.

Vice-Principal Hideo Arakawa kept records of interviews that he held with other survivors as well as the relatives of victims and his own experience of the explosion. “The blast blew away the windows, scattering shards of glass like sharp knives, the roof and the ceiling collapsed and the thick plaster crumbled as a result many people died from the initial blast or burned to death�. So where was Arakawa when the explosion occurred?

He was in a meeting with four other teachers, including the principal Sukeo Shimizu, concerning procedures to take during an airstrike.

He recounted his experience in his notes “Mr Kinoshita – wounds on the back of his head, glass shards were embedded there.

The principal was on the floor face down under a massive square timber, lying across his neck and lower back. He’d been crushed to death under the rubble of partition walls and shelves smashed by the blast. Ms Ogawara was also crushed, she was grasping the Principal’s trousers calling for help when she died, later when someone tried to unclench her tight grip the skin of the palm suck to the hem and her hand couldn’t be removed”.

The Principal’s office was in a corner towards the back of the school, so how did it retain so much damage? The school itself was hit by a horizontal wall of force at around 8400 tonnes, this horizontal wall is called the Mach Stem, the Mach Stem was created when the bomb exploded 503m above the ground of Nagasaki, the shockwaves of the explosion expanded in a balllike shape, when the waves hit the ground they were reflected and when the two waves merged they more than doubled the individual pressure and expanded horizontally, as it did so it grew in height and strength. This Mach Stem began 300m from ground zero and hit Shiruyama Primary School 0.9s after the bomb exploded. The Principal’s office is next to the courtyard in the school, so the Mach Stem hit the front wall of the school and passed through the building, when it came to the back wall it reflected and turned back on itself, 31. strengthening the force before com-

bining with the waves from the courtyard and annihilating the office, killing 4 of the 5 people there.One month after the explosion, American troops went to investigate and survey the damage done, they also interviewed survivors and relatives of victims to gather as much detail as possible. They made records of casualties, one of which was for Shiruyama Primary School, deaths were identified as a circle, if black they died instantly, if half black and half white, they died later on. The records made consisted of numbers for the deceased with name, age and cause of death just after. For example: No 33 – Aiko Tenaka – Died from the blast – Age 22 No 07 – Wayata Fujiwana – Crushed – Age 30 No 34 – Sachiko Yamazaki – Didn’t distinguish corpse/Body unidentifiable – Age 20 The U.S. Military used this data in their nuclear weapons development programs to improve the damage made by Plutonium bombs like that used on Nagasaki.Another survivor was Hiroko Kanaya, she was 17 at the time of the explosion and was working with three other girls Chiyoko Nakamura, Hisako Nomoto and Sanae Oku, as accountants in the Mitsubishi Arms Factory, in the southern wing of the school. Just a few minutes before the bomb exploded, Kanaya had made her way to her shift in digging out the air raid shelter, there she survived the explosion but but still experienced the shockwaves “I heard this tremendous noise

and was flung off my feet to the back wall” after she dragged herself out of the shelter she described what she saw “Everything looked completely different, all the glass was gone it was like a warzone with everything incinerated and all the people had terrible injuries, their clothing was in shreds stained red with blood, they’d stagger out and collapse, some were crawling on their stomachs, it was a scene from hell”. She also recounted finding the three other friends she worked with who were on the 3rd floor at the time “Nakamura had shattered glass stuck all over her body I said ‘Oh no, that must hurt so much’ she said something like ‘I feel numb beyond pain’. Nomoto too, I told her ‘Your eyeballs are sticking out a bit, are you alright? Can you see?’ she said ‘No, not really, your face looks a bit blurry I can see only half of it’ her eyeballs were protruding by about 2cm, I’d never seen anything like that” As for her friend Sanae Oku, she was number 63, she died from the blast. When Kanaya asked about her during the final moments of her friends’ lives, they told her she could not move her body and gestured with her eyes to them ‘go on without me’.

which destroyed Nagasaki. One of the documents is minutes from a meeting of the Target Committee which were primarily focused on picking a city to bomb, in such meetings the strength of the Mach Stem was intensively discussed. U.S. Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell, a member of this committee said “Correlate the data on the size of the bomb burst, the amount of damage expected and the ultimate distance at which people will be killed”. The American Government wanted to create the largest amount of destruction they could and so calculated the perfect height to detonate the bomb. At 1,000m the explosion would spread too large and the Mach Stem would cause little damage, at 100m the Mach Stem was created too near ground zero, and although the damage would be substantial it wouldn’t spread far enough, and so it was decided on 503m from the ground, where the optimum amount of damage was created. Assistant Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology; Alex Wellerstein said “they were measuring success on how many metres of the city they t was also recently discovered through redestroyed…they considered the blast effect search found by Tetsuya Fujita, a scientist to be the primary effect, it will destroy alwho invented the F-Scale for measuring the most everything”, the U.S. forces fully inintensity of tornadoes, who visited Nagasaki tended for this intensity of destruction to eleven days after the explosion that the take place. most destruction was done on the outskirts Every morning, when students of the newly of the blast. Also, top secret documents renovated Shiruyama Elementary School arfrom the U.S. government were uncovered, rive they bow and say good morning to a a revealing the meticulous calculations that shrine commemorating those lost due to the went into creating the nuclear bomb, nickexplosion, and on the 9th of every month named ‘Fat Man’ as it caused 30% more 32. destruction than that in Hiroshima,

the children pray in front of the preserved building and listen to survivors’ accounts of the event. Only until July 2014 has the sister of Sanae Oku been able to visit the site where her sister died, meeting Kanaya for the first time and taking some of the schools soil as a memento of the site. Such an event will never be forgotten when thousands of innocent lives were unnecessarily taken, unfortunately things such as this continue to happen, and so I wonder, will humanity ever really learn from mistakes of the past?

By Sophie Scott

33.

Want to get involved in the History Society?...

History society events!

Come and see how you can get involved by joining the History Society; keep an eye out for any changes on the History notice board outside of A4...

34.

Winstanley College History Society 2014-2015…

PRESIDENTS

Cameron Fleming & Zara Andrews

SOCIAL MEDIA

Harry Griffiths

HISORICAL DRAMA

Vanessa Holt

TOTAL WAR TOURNAMENTS!

Dominic Doran

HISTORY MAGAZINE COEDITORS

Maddie McDonagh &

MAGAZINE EDITORIAL TEAM

Keir Martland, Ethan Freeman, Elizabeth Cunliffe & Emma Porter

Sally Dickens

35.

Come down to mentoring at 1:30 at Thursday lunchtimes in A4 For more information contact: Anya Lyon-Fraser W4652 Saffy Lowsley W4101

36.

Then join the History Society’s Social Media pages!

Find us on

Featuring:

Twitter & Facebook:



Articles



Revision Hints



Event updates



Topical news



@WinHist



www.facebook.com/ WinstanleyHistory

NEW VACANCY We are looking for an enthusiastic, social-media-active student to help run the pages. Please email Harry via the History Society or speak to any of the History staff for details!

37.

WIGAN FAMILY and LOCAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Meetings held at St. Andrews Parish Centre Woodhouse Lane - Wigan - WN6 7LZ On the nd 2 Wednesday of the month at 7:15pm.

Wednesday 12th November 2014.

SPEAKER : David Fearnley

The Lancashire Fusiliers and their links with the Gerard’s of Ashton.

Wednesday 14th January 2015.

THEME : Researching your Family Tree

Interested in your family History? Would you like discover more? Why not join us this evening when members will be on hand to help you get started, attempt to iron out any problems and point out the best way forward. NOTE This meeting will be held at the Museum of Wigan Life, Library Street, Wigan., from 4:00pm to 8:30pm.

Wednesday 11th February 2015

SPEAKER : William “Bill” F Ashurst.

Ex Wigan, Penrith Panthers, Wakefield and Runcorn Rugby League Player, who will share thoughts of his playing days in contrast to present day.

Wednesday 11th March 2015

SPEAKER : Alex Miller

Alex is the Archivist Manager for Wigan and Leigh Archives who will talk on the Archives and how to use them.

Thursday 26th March. 2015 1:30pm Visit to the Wigan and Leigh Archives Further information will be given nearer the time.

Wednesday 8th April 2015

SPEAKER : Mrs Marion Howell

Marion is the Community Heritage Manager for the LCC and will give a talk on George Lyon, Highwayman.

Wednesday 13th. May 2015

SPEAKER : MRS KATE HURST.

Catholics Priests in Wigan.

NON-MEMBERS MOST WELCOME TO ALL MEETINGS A small charge will be made for Tea, Coffee & Biscuits

38