Felsted - The Cromwellian (Issue 2, 2015)

The Cromwellian Issue 2

January 2015

THE CROMWELLIAN- ISSUE 2 JANUARY 2015

Edited by Emilia Blyth, Isabelle Moore and Jasmine Moore

Together we are team history…

1 | Page

CONTENTS PAGE P3- Emilia Blyth’s editorial PP 4-5- Eliz Peck and James Taylor tell you about life at university ( almost as good as life in the Reekie Building…)

PP6-8- What sort of revolution was the French Revolution ? By Isabelle Moore PP 8- 12- Emilia Blyth’s essay on the Viking raids of the 9 th century PP12- 16- Jasmine Moore’s essay on the challenges facing James I and Charles I between 1603 and 1638 PP17-22- Book Reviews by Anastasia May, Jasmine Moore, Jimmy Reid and Marino Entwistle PP22- 24-Why did the Cold War come to an end ? By Hannah Barratt PP24-26- Mr Pathak’s ‘History All Stars’ Football XI PP27-28- Mr Pathak’s Quiz

EDITORIAL 2 | Page

by Emilia Blyth When asked why to study History, ask yourself what the world would be like without it. For starters, you couldn’t have a world without history because we are where we are because of past events. But also, life would be so one-dimensional; you wouldn’t be able to comprehend the deeper meanings to the things around us. We would continually make the same mistakes, never learning from our errors. From History we can learn an inexhaustible amount of things about an inexhaustible number of topics, from places and countries around the globe to prominent and ordinary people of the past. Without history, the full depth of knowledge about culture, literature and art cannot be unlocked. Put simply, history enhances our understanding of life. And what is history? At its most simplistic level, history is the study of the past. But calling it such is not giving the subject the value and credit it deserves. History is integral and people may not study it but everybody uses it. Politicians, artists, even builders in the design of buildings. Therefore, history is not only significant in terms of the past, but also in terms of the present and the future.

So even if you choose to not study History further (which would undoubtedly be a mistake), you cannot escape it, as it is all around us.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A HISTORY UNDERGRADUATE 3 | Page

by Eliz Peck Former editor, Eliz Peck, reveals how History gets even groovier once you leave Felsted…

Student life for me is perhaps slightly more intense than for students at other universities. However, this is manageable because terms are only 8 weeks, which means that I actually spend more of my year on holiday than at Uni. Luckily, by Cambridge standards, my workload is comparatively light - I am set one essay a week, and one small bit of reading on historical approaches every fortnight.

Although I have only been here for half a term, I have settled into bit of a weekly rhythm. I wouldn’t say I had a ‘typical’ daily routine; on the day my essay is due I obviously spend more time in the library than on weekends or on the day after I’ve handed it in.

As a general rule I get up anywhere between 9am and 10.30am, but it can be quite a lot later depending on what I’ve done the night before. I do a few hours work in the library before heading for lunch in the College Hall. Lunch itself is very sociable; generally people spend as long as possible eating and chatting to avoid returning to the library.

Once a week in the afternoon I have a supervision. During this hour, a top academic grills me on the arguments that I have made in my weekly essay.

Although this sounds quite intimidating, it is just an opportunity to elaborate upon arguments in your essay. The academics themselves are generally lovely: my supervisor always has a cup of tea ready for me on the table every week.

Sometimes the supervision is a bit of a life-saver, as it provides an opportunity to compensate for a slightly weaker essay through sophisticated vocal input.

Because the term is only 8 weeks, everything seems to be packed in so that you are constantly busy. Most nights I go out clubbing, but the collegiate system means that there is always an event in one of the College bars which is great if you are strapped for cash. On those nights that I’m not out, I usually work till very late. Not everyone does this, I’ve simply found that I work most productively late at night.

Weekends for me are spent playing sport: I am on the College tennis and netball teams. Alternatively, quite a few of my friends write for student newspapers or are involved with the Union. My College is great for chilling out in the cafe/bar, common rooms or on the wall that overlooks the River Cam. 4 | Page

Most people socialise in their staircases over lots of tea/coffee. In such a close environment, I found it easy socialise with everyone over food, drink and (not too much) work.

I really recommend studying History at University. Whereas my friends who study Sciences or Maths find that they are limited by a school-style syllabus, History provides an opportunity to learn about only those topics which you personally find interesting. There is such a wide range of areas to study that you are bound to find one that fascinates you. This means that you are never bored and are constantly motivated simply by your enjoyment of History.

UNDERGRADUATE HISTORY- IT’S TIME TO SPREAD YOUR WINGS… Former editor, James Taylor, is loving life at Durham…

Life as an undergraduate is a bit like flying the metaphorical nest of the Reekie building. For the last few years you have been coaxed and guided into implementing PEC more efficiently. You’ve climbed the mountain of knowledge…but you still want more. Well, fledglings, life as an undergraduate has more than you could ever imagine.

But, just like taking flight for the first time, the exhilaration of flying comes with the realisation that you are now the sole author of your historical destiny. No longer do you have hefty packs of helpfully articulated knowledge to guide you.

No, you have flown the nest now. It is up to you to start your own journey. To delve into books unread, to find frontiers unknown, to challenge historians face to face. This is your mission now.

Yes, there will be times when you think ‘Collinson, what even is the monarchical republic?’ or ‘Abelard, why did you succumb to Heloise?’ These questions may seem harder without heavily subsidised Costa on tap. If, however, the challenge of answering these questions fills you with nervous excitement and triggers exhilaration unparalleled, a History degree is for you.

WHAT SORT OF REVOLUTION WAS THE FRENCH REVOLUTION ?

By Isabelle Moore 5 | Page

If, like me, you have found the intricacies of the French Revolution occasionally unfathomable, allow Isabelle Moore to very capably ‘unpack’ the topic for you…

The French Revolution, which began in 1789, is infamous for its association with the overthrow of the monarchy. It changed Europe irrevocably, by demonstrating the power the public could wield. As a revolution that caused great global upheaval, it is unsurprising that there are many myths and assumptions regarding the nature of the revolution. For example the popular view of the revolution as an aristocratic bloodbath has been over-emphasised, because although the violence was a crucial stage, it was only for a short period of time and the amount of deaths has been largely exaggerated. The motto of the revolution, ‘legalité, égalité et fraternité’ and the symbol of the storming of the Bastille also fuel the opinion that the French Revolution was a fight for equality; however, French citizens did not all become equal as a result with nobles merely replaced by landowners and generals and the revolution was ultimately a cycle which ended with the autocratic rule of Napoleon.

One can argue the importance of economic and social factors when defining the French Revolution in accordance with the Marxist theory. Both of these factors contributed strongly to the causes of the Revolution, with several harvest failures and the disliked structure of privilege and exemption under the Old Regime. Abbé Sieyes’ pamphlet written in 1789 also illustrates the hatred of the hierarchical society, by describing the nobility as “alien to society”. The Marxist historians focused on the class conflict being the driving force of the revolution and Lefebvre, for example, promoted the French Revolution as a bourgeois revolution, with their desire to be equal in power and status with the nobility. However, these Marxist theories were criticised by revisionist historians, such as Cobban, who stated that the only difference between the nobility and bourgeois was the titles, because the majority of the bourgeois were just as wealthy, if not wealthier than the nobles so therefore didn’t want to lose their wealth with everyone becoming equal. Therefore, whilst officially the class system was destroyed, it was more or less the same people who remained at the top of the financial ladder.

The first stage of the revolution was ‘The Moderate Stage’, from 1789-1792, which began with the calling of the Estates General and was the founding act of the revolution. This provided the opportunity for the estates to present all of their accumulated grievances to King Louis XVI, because it was the first time it had been called since 1614. The Estates General was split into three estates: the first was clergy, the second nobility and the third, the remaining classes of French society; a few weeks after it convened the Third Estate formed the 6 | Page

National Assembly, which pledged to create a new constitution with the Tennis Court Oath. Consequently, a series of governmental reforms were forced through, with the key reforms being the conversion of France into a constitutional monarchy as opposed to absolute and the abolition of feudal privileges. The most famous piece of legislation from this stage was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which demonstrated the commitment to replace the old regime with a system based on equal opportunity, freedom of speech and representative government. France’s first written constitution was produced in 1791, thus confirming the advent of a constitutional monarchy. Therefore, we can see how political reforms are the fuel for this stage of the Revolution, enabling the Assembly to be centre stage.

However, it is important to note that at this stage, the revolutionaries were not planning on abolishing the monarchy altogether; they simply wished to reduce its powers.

It is the second stage of the revolution that is the most famous: ‘The Radical Stage’ from 1792-94. During these years, the Revolution reached its height and France saw the formation of a Republic. In the Assembly there were two main factions, the moderate Girondins and the radical Jacobins, and up until 1792 the Girondins were the dominant force. However, a rift developed between the groups, with the Jacobins wanting to abolish the monarchy completely, and this was swiftly accompanied by them taking control. The radical phase opened when Louis XVI and his family attempted to escape the country, with the king leaving behind an open letter denouncing much of the work of the Revolution.

They were captured and this document was used against Louis, declaring him as an enemy to the revolution and therefore to the nation. The Jacobins renamed the National Assembly the National Convention and their first act was to abolish the monarchy and put Louis on trial for treason. His execution was in 1793. This decision plunged France into war with other European powers and as a result the Revolution became violent. The leadership became more radical under the pressure of foreign war and military crisis, on top of the threat of civil war. The fundamental aim of De Robespierre, the leading Jacobin, was to preserve the Republic at all costs and so he initiated the ‘Reign of Terror’. This phase was a product of fear of a counter-revolution and therefore it was an act of consolidation and to ensure the revolution continued to move forward and progress. With around 30,000 guillotined within a year it is easy to presume that it was violence that defined the revolution, and Simon Schama argued in his book ‘Citizens’ that violence was the source of the revolution, describing it is a “holocaust for liberty”. However, this view can be challenged: the focus surely lies more on the emergence and subsequent dominance of the Jacobins and establishment of France as a republic, with the violence a by-product of fear and therefore a short-term solution and action.

7 | Page

The final stage of the Revolution was caused by the Thermidorian Reaction in 1794, which was a reaction against the Terror in favour of a more moderate style of rule. This paved the way for the Directory, which lasted until 1799. This was a more conservative phase. However, it was largely unpopular because it was viewed to be weak. Executive power was held by 5 directors, but it was riddled with political corruption and relied almost entirely on the military to maintain authority. It was Napoleon Bonaparte’s military coup in 1799 which ended this final stage, with France seeing the return of absolute rule.

HOW SHOULD THE VKING RAIDS OF THE 9 TH CENTURY BE ACCOUNTED FOR ?

By Emilia Blyth More than just grumpy men in funny helmets being nasty to the Saxons… Emilia Blyth tells you why in a brilliant piece of historical research which ranges far beyond the confines of the Felsted syllabus…

The Viking Age is one shrouded in mystery and in modern culture the Vikings are often portrayed with horned helmets, ruthlessly raiding and plundering their way through much of the known world. The Vikings were not in the habit of recording their raids and as a result the job fell on the shoulders of those who were on the receiving end of the Vikings’ brutality and violence.

Therefore, the contemporary sources that have been recovered were naturally one-sided, often giving a distorted presentation of the Vikings and their motivations. Thus, the importance of archaeological evidence must not be underestimated. The Vikings have come to be known as savage barbarians, and whilst the brutality of their raids is undeniable, their primary motive was not one of bloodlust, but was one of ambition and greed. In the context of Medieval Europe, the violence and atrocities of the Vikings were not singular to them. Similarly, the Vikings were not the first, nor the last, to fall victim to the desire and greed for wealth and power. Although the dominant force behind the Vikings’ raids was ambition and greed, there was interplay of social and economic factors, such as the trade expansion, that played a role in the Vikings venturing out from their homelands. The Vikings were certainly ambitious, displaying veritable determination and ruthlessness in their pursuit of wealth and power.

8 | Page

One theory as to why the Vikings were eager to leave Denmark, Norway or Sweden was the rapid growth in trade that had begun in the seventh century.

The Vikings coveted the flourishing trade markets and wished to claim it for themselves. This can certainly be seen when one looks at the targeted locations of the Vikings’ raiding, most often centres of international trade. One suitable example is the port of Dorestad, which had been ‘fought over again and again

by Franks and Frisians, it was a hub for trade goods moving in all directions’.1 The wealth and prosperity that was synonymous with Dorestad appeared too enticing to the Danish Vikings and it was continually plundered throughout the 830s. Trade expansion was not limited to the Continent, but indeed Scandinavia experienced an expansion of trade. The expansion of their trading networks is perfectly illustrated by the increase in trading posts in Scandinavia.

Established in the fifth century was the trading centre of Helgö, which was a forerunner for the larger trade centre of Birka, ‘which sprang up right at the start of the Viking Age in the ninth century’.2 This trade expansion widened the horizons for the Vikings, making them all too aware of the prosperity that lay just out of reach. The expansion of trade not only influenced the ambitious ‘rank and file’ Viking, but also the rulers of the Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

The increased royal revenue from international trade led the early, irregular and unorganised raids to evolve into larger, more focused expeditions financed by those who wielded the power, for example Harald Fine-Hair, the first King of Norway. Therefore, the increase in international trade played a two-part role in the Vikings venturing out from Scandinavia; the thriving markets made the Vikings envious of the subsequent prosperity and wealth and wanted to claim this for themselves and their families and trade expansion saw the evolution of freelance raids into organised royal expeditions.

As the expansion of trade contributed to the Vikings’ eagerness to pillage and plunder through the known world, so too did the rise in Scandinavian royal authority. As mentioned above, along with the consolidation of royal authority in Scandinavia came an increase in royally financed expeditions, which contributed to the Viking raids and piracy that took place in the ninth century.

Historian Alex Woolf explains: ‘A need among Westland chieftains to provide their followers and clients with the same access to foreign luxuries drove them overseas’.3 Additionally, the rise in kingships and authoritarian figures in control in Scandinavia contributed to the ninth century Viking raids by driving ambitious men away from their homeland in search of an opportunity to discover this power and status for themselves. This pursuit of power can be seen clearly in the study of the Great Heathen Army, which arrived in England 1

Neil Oliver, Vikings, iBooks edition (London: Phoenix, 2013), 287 Magnus Magnusson, Vikings!, (London: Bodley Head, 1980), 17 3 Alex Woolf, From Pictland to Alba: 789-1070, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 54 2

9 | Page

in 865 and by 874 had conquered ‘three out of four main kingdoms in Anglo-Saxon England’.4 Power was measured in terms of territory and wealth and one has to look only at the Alfred Jewel to understand ‘the abundant surplus of the society that produced him’.5 It is also clear to see that throughout the ninth century, the targets of the Viking raids shifted from vulnerable monasteries to entire kingdoms, with the Vikings casting their aspirations and ambitions for power, status and wealth even higher.

Additionally, other social and economic factors within Scandinavia played a role in the emergence of the Vikings as raiders of the known world. Some historians note the increased production of iron in Scandinavia as a factor that contributed to Viking raids in the ninth century. Archaeological evidence in Norway ‘suggests that there was movement in the seventh century to colonise new farmland higher up in the mountain valleys than before’.6 This is indicative of both an increased pressure on resources and land due to increased population and also an improvement in agricultural technology. These were effects of the improved iron production because iron production leads to new tools to make farming more efficient, thus leading to the population becoming healthier and better fed. In ninth century Scandinavia, the system of inheritance was one of primogeniture, and thus younger sons were left with unfulfilled ambition and a desire to gain the status and wealth that had not been given to them, but their eldest brother. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the quest for wealth and status was a dominant factor in the Vikings’ raiding and pillaging.

Undoubtedly, the common denominator between the above factors is the Vikings’ unrelenting pursuit of wealth, power and prosperity. This motive was continuous throughout the ninth century and beyond and becomes startlingly clear when one looks at the targets of the Viking raids. Religious monastic targets are considered by some to be evidence of the Vikings’ pagan aggression towards Christianity, but the monasteries were in fact ‘ill-protected centres of wealth’.7 An example of archaeological evidence of Viking raids on monasteries is the Gilt silver cup found at Halton Moor, Lancashire. This dates back to mid-ninth century and ‘was probably looted from a church or monastery’.8 This pursuit of wealth was not singular to the west, but was also characterised by the Swedish Vikings, who ventured east. In particular, Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, was a magnet for those who ferociously sought power and 4

Jayne Carroll, Stephen H. Harrison, Gareth Williams, The Vikings in Britain and Ireland, (London: The British Museum Press, 2014), 26 5 Oliver, Vikings, 334 6 Magnusson, Vikings!, 43 7 Graham-Campbell, Viking World, 19 8 Carrol, Harrison, Williams, Vikings in Britain and Ireland, 10

10 | Page

wealth. The ‘Great City’ was the physical manifestation of all that the Vikings had dreamed of claiming for themselves, with its plethora of towering buildings and bustling market streets. Those who ventured to Constantinople were not all of the single mind to plunder the city for all of its worth, but some found themselves as part of the ‘elite Varangian Guard of Viking warriors, bodyguard to the emperor himself’.9 Despite this, there is considerable evidence that the acquisition of wealth and precious goods was the dominating factor in the Vikings setting out from Scandinavia and leaving destruction and terror in their wake. They were ruthless in their pursuit of wealth and this is shown perfectly by actions of the Vikings in 865 in Kent. ‘In 865 the first payment of a Danegeld is recorded’,10 which the people of Kent exchanged for peace, only to later be betrayed when the Vikings went on to plunder all eastern Kent. Therefore, the force behind the Vikings’ raids, the wind propelling them forward, was their unrelenting ambition to secure the wealth and prosperity that they felt unable to obtain in their homelands.

In conclusion, the Vikings were motivated by more than the promise of afflicting injury on their Christian rivals. Each action and movement of the Vikings was underpinned by their ultimate goal of securing riches and power.

The Vikings were undeniably ambitious, travelling to end of the known world, even venturing to North America in pursuit of their all-important fortunes. The expansion of trade made the Vikings aware of the wealth that lay just on the horizon and the development of ships make the Vikings able to venture forth and attempt to capture this wealth and power. The Vikings were willing to obtain status and riches by fair means or foul, and the violence was a means to an end. Although population pressure and increased production of iron in Scandinavia no doubt contributed to the Viking raids of the ninth century, it was the strength of their ambition that meant the raids continued and they reached such a level of success. This determination characterised by the Vikings is in some ways admirable; they were literally willing to travel to the ends of the world in the hopes of attaining innumerable treasures and they were unrelenting in their pursuit. The Vikings are often disparaged by the theory that they were simply heathens on a crusade against the Christians, when in fact this is a caricature. They ventured out to seize riches and whilst they often achieved this, they also left those areas socially, culturally and politically enriched.

HOW SERIOUS WERE CHALLENGES TO THE POWER OF THE CROWN BETWEEN 1603 AND 1638 ?

9

Magnusson, Viking!, 120 Graham-Campbell, Viking World, 26

10

11 | Page

By Jasmine Moore Jasmine pilots you through one of the most controversial battlegrounds of English historiography- can the roots of the English Civil War really be traced back to 1603 ?

It would have been impossible to predict in 1603 that in less than 50 years England would be convulsed by civil war and the monarchy itself abolished.1 Or would it? This is a statement that has divided historians for centuries and by looking at the events and personalities from1603 to 1638 and the potential threats to the crown, whether civil war was inevitable from Charles I’s reign or even during James I’s reign becomes much clearer. According to Katherine Brice, the opposition that faced James and Charles, as it had faced the monarchs before them, did not appear to be abnormal or dangerously threatening, until the Long Parliament of November 1640. 2 However, although the Long Parliament is repeatedly seen as a turning point with regards to the increase in military preparations and in creating two sides, the events of 1637 in Scotland, as well as building resentments in England during Charles’ Personal Rule, cannot be ignored. Whether the ‘power’ of the crown was truly threatened is another question that must be considered. James, and particularly Charles, believed that the power of the crown lay in their belief in the divine right of kings, whereas, numerous MPs did not see this as the monarch’s fundamental source of power.

The belief in the divine right of kings is a belief that dictated several actions and key decisions in both James and Charles’ reigns. Both monarchs were certain that they had been chosen by God as his representatives on earth to lead God’s people and therefore they should be obeyed, without question; something that Charles followed so strongly that it is surely a factor in why he fell from power completely. However, the people of England did not disregard this belief entirely. For example, entrepreneurial landowners such as Sir Marmaduke Langdale and Sir Henry Slingsby may have been outraged by the misdeeds of royal government in the 1630s, but their alienation was not permanent as they went on to be significant figures in the royalist military campaign up to 1646.3 In James’ reign it appeared that some MPs did respect this belief, which reduced the threat of opposition from parliament significantly. However, if MPs did not attack the king in person, they hoped to attack some of his advisers.4 12 | Page

For example, the 1621 Parliament of James’ reign saw MPs targeting monopolists, who were the focus of a deep hatred for monopolies. Although the king had condoned these, for the Commons to attack their wise, respected king was unthinkable ! Therefore, monopolists such as Sir Giles Mompesson were stripped of their knighthoods and fined heavily, whilst the crown remained unscathed. This removal of a monopolist so swiftly was as a result of the Commons reviving the medieval practice of impeachment, which allowed them to be the prosecutors and the Lords the judges in a case. So, although James had remained secure during the attack on monopolies, the fact that the Commons had brought back such a powerful practice which was, especially in James’ opinion, at the very edges of their privileges, meant that although they weren’t attacking the crown itself-God’s representative on earth5-if the Commons stripped away all of James’ ‘evil ministers’, the King would be left very exposed underneath.

Religion stirred the deepest passions within the inhabitants of England, Ireland and Scotland during this period. The onset of The 30 Years War in 1618 exacerbated the divide that was rapidly appearing between the Puritans and the Catholics in England especially. James’ reign was plagued by religious opposition from the start and although plots like the Main and Bye plots were not successful and didn’t have a significant effect on the crown’s power, they were to worsen the ill feeling towards Catholics left in the wake of the failed Gunpowder plot of 1605. The majority of Catholics did obey their monarch in taking a new oath of allegiance, which denied the Pope’s authority to depose kings, to show their loyalty. It appeared that James had sorted any problem with the Catholics as he had ‘no more trouble’ from them during his reign.6 However, James had also offended the Puritans in his response to their 1603 Millenary Petition. The Hampton Court Conference of 1604 was a failure. The more radical Puritans felt that they had not been represented and it produced a background of discontent that was to come to fore under Charles I. This would be exacerbated by his increasing need to impose Arminianism on his people.7 Although, the crown’s power during personal rule seemed untouchable as Charles could put Arminian ministers where he liked, reinforcing his belief in the divine right of kings. Richard Montagu, who had been attacked by the Commons, had become a royal chaplain and then Bishop of Chichester and William Laud moved from Bishop of Bath to London in 1628 13 | Page

and to Canterbury in 1633 after Abbot’s death, who Charles and Laud had worked to undermine whilst Laud was in the position of Bishop of London.8 James was reputedly much better than Charles at introducing religious changes that didn’t provoke dangerous opposition, that would threaten his position, partly due to his faith in the Calvinist status quo. An example of this is the appointment of Abbot as Archbishop of Canterbury, and it received little protest. Overall, religious opposition was potentially a serious threat to the crown in the first half of the 17th century as people were willing to die for their beliefs, but as the monarch it was not hard for James or Charles to dispel it. For example, when the Commons attacked Charles’ Arminian supporter Roger Mainwaring who supported non-parliamentary taxation, they impeached, fined, imprisoned and barred him from office. After a few weeks Charles pardoned him and gave him a new living, demonstrating the power he could wield. The Commons could protest at the direction of religious affairs but could do little to alter it.9 The ongoing debate between the crown’s prerogative and parliament’s privileges was a constant theme throughout both James and Charles’ reigns and is often viewed as the producer of the most opposition and potential threats to the king’s power. The Commons tried to assert their importance early on in James’ reign and in 1610 presented a list of grievances that James described as ‘as long as a tapestry’12 James could not escape from having his decisions questioned by parliament and his patience was severely tested as the Commons targeted the hated impositions. Cases such as the Bate Case of 1606 presented potential opportunities for conflict between the Commons and the Crown, but the Crown was often successful in asserting its prerogative, showing his superiority and power. Much of the opposition in the Commons came out of the fear that James and Charles’ quasi-abolutist beliefs would cause them to get rid of parliament altogether and run an authoritarian monarchy, on the Continental model. This fear did not cause serious revolts or threats to the monarchs’ powers until the MPs began to use their control of subsidies to make their grievances heard, which to Charles was a direct attack on his power and prerogative, but it is still questionable whether this was the Commons’ intention or if they just wanted to have their say for their constituents and their country in government.

14 | Page

To reach a final judgement on a question that still divides leading historians today is something that cannot be done without the views of other historians.

Robert Ashton makes the point that ‘revolt even against a tyrant was unthinkable, for revolt simply compounded the disorder created by the tyrannical actions which produced it.’ This statement describes the mentality of the majority of the Commons, which is what fundamentally divided them, as most MPs were seen to recoil in horror at the radical ideas that John Pym began to introduce in the Long Parliament from the summer of 1641. But, if we remove the gift of hindsight and look at the period of 1603 to 1638, can we see a civil war brewing? Was the monarch’s power truly under threat? Charles’ eleven years of personal rule are described as a time of tranquility and peace in his reign and in the absence of parliament, there was little focus for opposition.14 Even with the Scottish drawing up a Covenant and preparing to invade, would this have caused the country of England to split into two sides?

Would parliament have thrown aside their xenophobia and prejudice against the Scots and joined them? The answers to these questions will never be known for certain, but from my studies and research I feel that I can say that the challenges to the power of the crown between 1603 and 1638, through religion, foreign policy and his prerogative, were not very serious at all.

1. Katherine Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640 (Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton, 1994), 1 2. Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640, 2 3. Robert Ashton, The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution 1603-1649 (Great Britain: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978), 79-80 4. Conrad Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History 1509-1660 (United States: Oxford University Press, 1971), 3 5. Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640, 1 6. Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640, 89 7. Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640, 19

15 | Page

8. Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640, 78 9. Brice, The Early Stuarts 1603-1640, 96 10.Ashton, The English Civil War, 14 11.Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments, 324 12.Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments, 278 13.Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments, 320

BOOK REVIEWS Put down your hand-held electronic device and pick up one of the fascinating History books recommended in the following excellent reviews….

Empire: How Britain made the Modern World by Niall Ferguson In Empire: How Britain made the Modern World, Niall Ferguson argues that the British model of an empire should be associated with bringing prosperity and modernisation, rather than having forced its rule upon weaker countries in order to extract their benefits for Britain. The book seeks to answer the question of whether the Empire was a good or bad thing, which Ferguson feels has not just become a question for historical judgement, but potentially a political and legal issue too. In my opinion, he does successfully address this contentious question. Obviously, the case against the British Empire is heavily supported by the history of the slave trade, which Ferguson, to his credit, does not ignore. His own view is clear in his presentation of the rule of the British Raj, in which he focuses on the economic benefits contributed by Britain, which 16 | Page

led to a ‘booming’ Victorian India as new industries materialised thanks to the investment of British capital.

Ferguson has often drawn attention to the conclusion of his book: ‘No one would claim that the record of the British Empire was unblemished. On the contrary, I have tried to show how often it failed to live up to its own ideal of individual liberty, particularly in the early era of enslavement, transportation and the “ethnic cleansing” of indigenous peoples.’ He uses this as a common response to critics questioning his own reference to what he refers to as ‘self-flagellation’, which he says characterises modern European thought, when viewing the rule of European empires. Ferguson strongly believes that in view of alternatives such as German or Japanese domination, the British Empire was preferable.

Ferguson ends with reference to the modern domination of the USA and its position in the world. For Ferguson, America certainly has the power to take on Britain’s past imperial duties, but if an empire on such a large scale will ever play a key role in the future remains to be seen…

By Jasmine Moore Mao , The Unknown Story- Jung Chang & Jon Halliday I decided to choose the book Mao, the Unknown Story because for IB Higher Level part of the course involves looking at the history of China and I realised that I knew absolutely nothing about Chinese history ! At first, when I got the book, I was slightly intimidated by the size of the book. Initially, what really helped me were the three maps , one of China and the layout of its provinces at the time of Mao’s regime, the second of Mao’s activity between the years of 1927- 1937 , and the third of the route of the Long March. These maps were extremely helpful in the understanding of the historical content of the book as prior to reading this book I had no geographical knowledge of China , its provinces and surrounding countries. The maps also helped me to realise the vast territory of China and put Mao’s accomplishments and strategies that he used to take over China into perspective. The beginning of the book really 17 | Page

helped me to understand many of Mao’s decisions in his later career and particularly his attitude towards the peasantry. Diving deeper into the book, I learnt that Mao, was in fact an extremely clever man in the way he manipulated people and situations to gain what he wanted, which was mostly power. We see his ability to do this in many events including sidelining opponents during the Long March and throughout the Cultural Revolution. At the end of the book, we learn how Mao’s decline in health made him weak and vulnerable and at times hindered as dictator of Communist China. However Mao’s attitude of not caring for the future of China after his death meant that he was able to obtain almost full power until the day he died, by not loosening the grip in even the slightest way and creating no solid foundation for the future of Chinese politics. In conclusion I enjoyed the book and learnt a lot from it, not only in terms of historical content, but also about the psychology of people, and in particular, political leaders.

By Anastasia May

The Myth of the Blitz by Angus Calder Angus Lindsey Ritchie Cadler is a historian, writer and Scottish academic who is revered for his work in analysing many events in the past. This book, The Myth of the Blitz, focuses on the Blitz in World War Two and the author explains why this event can be classed as a myth. Each chapter focuses on a different part of the Blitz, as well as different views of the public and the government at the time. The first chapter is probably one of the most important, entitled ‘Myth Making’; one can see that the author already wants to show us why he thinks the Blitz is a myth and gives reasons behind his thought processes. The author asks us a rhetorical question, ‘What is a myth?’ and he then tells us about Greek myths and legends, which are filled with elements of gods, and selfish men, heroes and evil creatures. I have never read such an in-depth historical book before but the author here sometimes refers to other books to back up their point. As a historian, this is useful as if you want to read on about something that interests you elsewhere, and can add an extra layer to the book. The end of the first chapter concludes with a very odd, but thoughtprovoking fact: Britain is different to every other country, but the ‘Old Country’ 18 | Page

view of cricket, tea and a glass of sherry, which everyone associates with what is natural to Britain, only belongs to the better off classes. Each chapter in the book has a quote or statement at the beginning and we can see the variety of different people, to name a few; Anne Stevenson, Hugh MacDiarmid and a German Artillery Officer. All of these people have a link to either the view of the Blitz, the feeling after the war, or something linking to the war. The second chapter shows a timeline of the Blitz in the view of the author. The interesting thing is that the author takes an ordinary member of the public, who participated in the Blitz, but who recorded it in a diary. Therefore, this is a timeline that any member of the British public might have been able to connect with. This chapter is entitled ‘Finest Hours’, and connects to the Few, and Fighter Command who fought in the Battle of Britain. The chapter also focuses on the creation of the Local Defence Volunteers (LDV) by Sir Anthony Eden, who would be so important to the Blitz, as they helped the ARP save lives. The author also tells us what the public might have been thinking by including Churchill’s ‘we will fight them on the beaches…’ speech, which reduced the percentage of people who thought they would lose the war to a trifling number. I think when you think of the Blitz, you think of the bombing of London and perhaps Coventry. Immersed in all the chapters however, you can start to gather a list of how many other places were actually bombed. These include: Glasgow, Bristol, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Belfast, Hull, Nottingham, Exeter, Bath, Norwich, York, Canterbury and Kendal. Another interesting fact about the Blitz, which I discovered, is that it was a really large financial worry for the government, who had to pay for all the repairs due to the bomb damage. A culmination of the Great Depression, the Wall Street Crash and debts to America meant that Britain was low on cash. Public disappointment could also cause a loss in morale, for example the tactical withdrawal and evacuation of British, French and Belgian troops from Dunkirk.

Many thought that it was surrender, and a famous quote was “To ask a French soldier to abandon it (Dunkirk) was like asking and Englishman to abandon Liverpool”. I also enjoyed analysing the chapter titles that can tell us a lot about what the chapter is about. For example, ‘Celts, Reds and Conchies’ which tells us that the chapter is going to be about what the Scottish, the communists and the conscientious objectors thought about the war.

19 | Page

In conclusion, we see that the author has many reasons why he believes the Blitz can be counted as a myth, and he has commented on them in detail in this book. The author analyses the Blitz and gives us a timeline of what the Blitz meant to many different types of people, through each chapter. After reading this book, the historian looks at the Blitz in a different light, and thinks how much of the Blitz is still unknown. I really enjoyed this book, as it showed me that it was a turning point in the war and has shown how complex and interesting the lead up and the consequences of the Blitz are. I personally believe that the book is both riveting and enjoyable, and adds complexity to my previous thoughts of what the Blitz was.

By Jimmy Reid Virtual History edited by Niall Ferguson Niall Ferguson’s Virtual History is a collection of essays written by various historians applying counterfactual arguments to European and American historical events, with essay topics ranging from the English Civil War during the reign of Charles I, the American Revolution, JFK’s assassination through to the First World War. The range of topics within the book is interesting, even though in my opinion some of the major historical events outside of Europe or the USA, such as Mao’s leadership of China, the impact of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 on the Middle East or the massive impact of the abolition of slavery had on the history of both Europe and America, have been over looked.

Prior knowledge of the topics covered in the book is definitely helpful, if not essential, so the reader can understand the arguments put forward by the authors. However, putting aside Ferguson’s choice of historical topics, I find the main premise of the book which is the use of counterfactual arguments for analysis, rather difficult to accept. For the uninitiated, the idea of counterfactual/virtual history, is introduced in quite a lot of detail at the beginning of the book, so if you did not know what ‘virtual history’ meant, after the first 90 pages you will ! There certainly is a point in analysing the past 20 | Page

in terms of the benefit it could have relating to the future. There is a lot to learn but taking the counterfactual route is a very risky policy. How are we to decide that Ferguson, or Andrew Roberts’ presentation of what might have happened is actually the most likely outcome ? Therefore, Mr Ferguson’s attempt to look at the past from various angles using counterfactual arguments, even though valid in terms of learning to view history from different perspectives and perhaps learn to consider the effects a change of circumstances would have potentially have on the future, is somewhat flawed as it runs a risk of becoming a version of the “butterfly effect”, equally spectacular in its effect as the Hollywood version but nevertheless still fictional.

I wonder, if it is really necessary to provide alternative histories in pursuit of a genuinely original insight ? As a whole the book is intriguing to read, forcing the reader to perhaps change their view on the inevitability of the past. It is certainly fascinating to consider how much sometimes seemingly minor events can potentially lead to major turning points !

By Marino Entwistle

WHY DID THE COLD WAR COME TO AN END ?

BY HANNAH BARRATT Twenty five years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Hannah Barratt looks again at the dramatic events which led to the end of the Cold War…

21 | Page

The most important factor in the end of the Cold War was the collapsing Soviet economy as although the policies and attitudes of Mikail Gorbachev were key in ending the Cold War it was the economic problems which prevented the USSR from continuing to pursue the USA in the arms race and translated into a poor quality of life for those living in the USSR, which encouraged the revolutions against the USSR. This stagnation in the Soviet economy was the result of Central Planning and a corrupt nomenklatura controlling the affairs of the USSR and siphoning off funds for personal benefit. This stagnation can be seen in the fact that the USSR was lagging behind the USA in IT amongst other areas with the amount of computers in the USSR at less than 1% of those in the USA in the 1980s, which prevented them from competing with initiatives like SDI which required the more advanced technology. Also between 1961 and 1972 the average annual increase in Soviet national income was 3.4%; however, this figure dropped significantly to 1.1% between 1976 and 1990.

Therefore, it can be seen that the most important factor in the end of the Cold War was the failing Soviet economy as it prevented the USSR from competing with USA in the arms race, forcing them to halt the Cold War as they simply did not have access to the necessary funds or technology.

The second most important factor in the end of the Cold War were the attitudes and policies of Gorbachev as without those, the revolutions in the satellite states would most probably have been crushed in a similar fashion to those put down by Brezhnev and Khrushchev in Czechoslovakia and Hungary in 1968 and 1956. The key policies of Gorbachev were glasnost and perestroika, which involved the introduction of freedom of speech and amendments to censorship and economic reforms, introducing small amounts of capitalist concepts into the Soviet economy in an attempt to revive it. The economic reforms failed as they simply raised the prices of goods, causing more public unhappiness with the USSR and the introduction of freedom of speech meant that people could now openly oppose communism. Gorbachev’s attitude can be seen in his refusal to use overwhelming military force in Lithuania when he removed military forces in response to their secession from the USSR after 14 civilians were killed in Vilnius. His refusal to offer military support to the communist leaders in the satellite states, such as Honecker, allowed the people to revolt without fear of Soviet invasion: therefore, it could be argued that the policies and attitudes of Gorbachev were the second most important factor in 22 | Page

the end of the Cold War as the revolutions they allowed led to the end of the Warsaw Pact and ultimately the USSR, ending the Cold War. The influence of “people power” was the least important factor in the end of the Cold War as the success of these revolutions must have been down to the circumstances which allowed them, namely the weakness of the Soviet economy and the passive attitudes of Gorbachev towards popular unrest.

Examples of this “people power” can be seen in the public demonstrations of 70, 000 in East Germany opposing Honecker’s repressive regime which led to his fall from power and the introduction of more lenient travel restrictions between the East and the West and then the 300, 000 strong protests against communism which led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and in the end German re-unification. Therefore, it could be said that “people power” was the least important factor in the end of the Cold War as whilst it did actively topple the communist regimes in Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany they were only made possible by the passive approach taken by Gorbachev.

In conclusion, the most important factor in the end of the Cold War was the collapsing Soviet economy as it prevented them from continuing to attempt to match the USA in the arms race, meaning that they could no longer compete with the USA and so were unable to sustain superpower status. The second most important factor was the policies and attitudes of Gorbachev as it was the leniency of these that enabled the revolutions to take place which caused the end of the Warsaw Pact and so also the USSR, effectively ending the Cold War. However, without the failing economy it is less likely that policies such as glasnost and perestroika would have been introduced, giving the people less freedom to revolt. The least important factor was “people power” as it had already been attempted but had failed, implying that it was the circumstances that allowed the success of the revolutions in overthrowing the communist regimes in satellite states such as Czechoslovakia, which then led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and also the USSR itself, ending the Cold War. The factors can be seen as linked, as the success of “people power” was reliant on the passive approach taken by Gorbachev and the necessity of this approach was down to the failing Soviet economy and also the poor living standards caused by the dying economy, would have caused public support for communism to drop dramatically, increasing the likelihood of revolution.

23 | Page

MR PATHAK’S ‘HISTORY ALL STARS’ FOOTBALL XI Lining up in an ‘old school’ 4-4-2 this eleven would be a match even for Joe King’s all conquering 1st XI… Goalkeeper- Frederick William IV A bit of a selector’s hunch this one, as I have not seen the King of Prussia in competitive action since the 1847-8 Budesliga season, but he is surely the man to deal with insurrections in the penalty area…

Centre Back-Oliver Cromwell

Oliver ‘bite yer legs’ Cromwell is a traditional centre half who can be guaranteed to boot the ball into the stands at the first sign of trouble, especially if you say that the ball belongs to a Leveller or a royalist…

Centre Back-Henry Ireton

A club team-mate of Cromwell’s from ‘New Model Utd’ so they should have a telepathic understanding. Just don’t ask him to thread through a long ball to Charles I up front…

Left Back- Karl Marx

Not the most mobile of full backs, especially given the amount of facial hair he is carrying, but you can always rely on Karl for a full-blooded display or a diatribe about blood-sucking capitalists. Football is a proletarian game after all…

Right Back- Marshal Blucher

Now over seventy, the Prussian general’s best days are perhaps behind him, but put him on a horse, tell him the French are coming, and then watch him rampage down the touch-line with or without the ball…

24 | Page

Central Midfield- Napoleon I Probably the most talented player on the park. The original galatico, ‘Boney’ has it all, but tactical indiscipline tends to cost him dear. He finds it impossible to resist making his relations kings of small European countries or invading Russia. Such a shame as he can strike a memorable free kick…

Central Midfield- Clemens Metternich

A scheming midfield terrier- watching him ‘pull the strings’ in the centre of the park is like witnessing the Congress of Vienna all over again…

Left Wing- Gerrard Winstanley

It’s been an epic journey from ‘non league’ for the former corn chandler. Fired up with a utopian vision of a property-less republic, could he be the best English left-winger since Tony Benn or Chris Waddle ?

Right Wing- John Pym

A much under-rated player but get this cunning MP out of Westminster and give him a decent pair of football boots and you will find why they call him the ‘Puritan Beckham’. His spat with star-striker, Charles I, has had social media in a frenzy but let’s all hope things can be resolved amicably without recourse to civil war…

Striker- Peter the Great

The archetypal ‘big lad up front’- although he is not the most technically gifted player he will take a lot of stopping, as Charles XII of Sweden will be the first to admit. On the pitch, he is best known for shouting ‘Poltava !’ when he scores with a header, or failing that, ‘on me head, son !’

Striker- Charles I

Although his refusal to run, as it is beneath his royal dignity, has led to accusations that he can drift out of the game, he has really prospered in a ‘little and large’ partnership up front with Peter the Great. Language has been something of a barrier, although both men have recently bonded over their

25 | Page

shared love of absolute monarchy. Charles I is the dressing-room joker and can always be relied on for a cheeky gag about the Political Presbyterians.

Picking a manager to deal with this disparate group of left wing intellectuals, generals and egotistical monarchs was no easy task, but in the end there was only one person for the job; especially as Roy Hodgson has ruled himself out following his much publicised spat with Karl Marx, over whether the dictatorship of the proletariat can be achieved via the medium of the sweeper system. Consideration was also given to Otto von Bismarck but players have reportedly tired of his constant references to ‘blood and iron’ and his barbed references to Napoleon III in half-time team talks. In the end, we went for the proven track record of Elizabeth I, or the ‘Tudor Wenger’ as she is known by the fans: since her 1588 defeat of the all-conquering Spanish team of Philip II she has proved herself adept at managing monstrous egos and religious and political differences. Her volcanic temper has reduced even Marshal Blucher to a quivering wreck and she is referred to by all and sundry, ‘Her Royal Highness, the Gaffer…’

MR PATHAK’S QUIZ Are you brave enough to try Mr Pathak’s ‘history-tastic’ quiz ? Go on, give it a go !

1) 2)

In which year did the last Roman legion withdraw from Britannia ?

Allegedly, how did William Rufus, the 2nd Norman king of England, die ?

3) 4) 5)

6)

26 | Page

Who was the father of the Black Prince ?

What was the name of James I’s eldest son ?

Who commanded the New Model Army in the 1st Civil War ?

Which Mughal Emperor ordered the construction of the Taj Mahal ?

7)

Give the names of five monarchs commonly referred to as ‘…the Great’?

8) 9)

What was the name of Charles II’s wife ?

Who was the last English king to personally lead his troops in battle ?

10)

11)

Which French Queen allegedly talked a lot about ‘cake’ ?

What was the name of the English prime minister assassinated in 1812 ?

12)

What connects the process of German unification and a 1941 naval battle in the north Atlantic ?

13)

What connects a fashionable way of getting around London in the 18th century and the Franco-Prussian War ?

14)

What was the last imperial dynasty to rule over China ? ( Pinyin spelling please ! ) 15)

16)

What nationality was Kaiser Wilhelm II’s mother ?

Who talked about the ‘lamps going out all over Europe’ in 1914 ?

17)

Who was the last Liberal prime minister of Britain ?

18)

19) 20)

Who was the last British Viceroy of India ?

In which year did the Falklands War take place ?

How many members of the European Union are there ?

75% +- wow, have you considered a career in History teaching ?

65%-74%- get out the tweed jacket with the patches on, you’re on your way to stardom !

50%-64%- good but more single-minded devotion to historical knowledge is required !

Below 50%- doesn’t the Head of History teach you anything these days ?!

27 | Page

We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 2 of the Cromwellian. If you would like to get involved in editing or contributing to subsequent editions, please get in touch with Mr Pathak or another member of ‘Team History’…

28 | Page