Felsted - The Cromwellian (Issue 4, 2017)

The Cromwellian Issue 4

February 2017

THE CROMWELLIANISSUE 4 FEBRUARY 2017

Together we are team history…

1 | Page

CONTENTS PAGE P3- Mr Pathak’s inspirational introductory comments PP4-8- Tom Carrington analyses the career of Oliver Cromwell PP 9-11- Scarlett Coote analyses the causes of the First World War PP12- 14- Alex Manson considers whether James I deserves to be re-imagined as ‘James the Great’ PP14- 17-History Book Corner- Tom Carrington, Jana Stredanska and Jessica Mitchell review some great works of history PP18-22- History guru ‘Mr Patrick’ answers your historical queries PP23-24- Mr Pathak’s Quiz

INTRODUCTION 2 | Page

Mr Pathak reflects on a turbulent 2016…

History is, in one sense, an on-going struggle between change and continuity, but judging from the events of the last twelve months, change would appear to have the upper hand at the moment! When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the triumph of a new liberal order, reaching far into the future, was predicted.

From the perspective of 2016, such predictions now look rather hollow.

Already, I can picture the exam questions on the 2067 AQA A Level History paper: ‘The UK’s decision to leave the EU in 2016 was a turning point.’ Assess the validity of this view. At times, the news headlines have been so gloomy that all I have wanted to do is to take refuge under my desk in the Reekie Building, with a few satsumas, classic Motown playing in the background and some good history books in which to immerse myself. However, the study of History is perhaps best approached, not as a way of running away from an unpalatable present, but as a way of making sense of it. As Professor Venessa Waite commented in class this week, the parallels between the 17th century and the 21st century are too striking to ignore. Indeed, over the Christmas holidays I picked up Tony Claydon’s excellent biography of William III and the bitter divisions between Whigs and Tories in the 1690s immediately reminded me of the deep political fault-lines exposed by Brexit. So, what wisdom can the historians of the Reekie Building bring to bear on some of the upheavals of the last few months? My final thought is that the wisest assessments of the times in which we live might not be written by us, but by the next generation of historians, who will draw on the benefits of hindsight and critical distance.

However, in the meantime we have much to keep us busy in a world that has started to embrace dangerous fallacies such as ‘post-truth’ and ‘fake news’. As a counter-point to this blatant disregard for the facts, the methodology of the good historian, in terms of not rushing to conclusions, trying to look at an issue from a variety of angles, and building an argument based on evidence rather than bombast, has much to commend it!

3 | Page

DOES OLIVER CROMWELL MERIT A STATUE OUTSIDE THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ?

In the summer of 2016, Tom Carrington entered the Cromwell Association essay competition and re-produced below is his entry which was awarded a runners up prize by Professor Gaunt. Tom received a cheque for £25 but remember that knowledge and scholarship are their own rewards!

Ever since its proposal in 1885, Cromwell’s statue outside the Houses of Parliament has divided opinion, proving the former Lord Protector to be one the most contentious figures in world history1. Critics of the statue accuse the man who once supposedly ‘banned’ Christmas of committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing after the role he played in the conquest of Ireland, whereas others claim Cromwell- the only non-royal ever to hold the position of Lord Protector- to be the greatest man in our history2. It is also interesting to note that in a television poll broadcast by the BBC in 2002, called ‘100 Greatest Britons’, the British public considered Cromwell to be amongst the top ten British people of all time alongside names such as Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare and Charles Darwin. In establishing criteria on what it takes to deserve your own statue, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, Lord Hattersley, states that ‘only great individuals who changed the nation in some way are worthy of prominent memorials’. Whilst it is unquestionable that Cromwell satisfies the guideline of ‘changing the nation’, the adjective ‘great’ remains a topic for discussion even to this day. However, despite everything his belittlers hold him to, it is impossible to ignore the feats that he has achieved for this country; thus, the Houses of Parliament is perhaps the most fitting place to host a statue for the leader who had no interest in being a military dictator, but solely strived to seek a role for parliament within a broader settlement3. Furthermore, in winning the Civil War, he ensured that England was to be ruled by Parliaments and not by absolute kings4; one of his greatest legacies.

Although the ‘Oliverian days of liberty’, as referred to by the seventeenth century Baptists, is arguably his most substantial achievement, the current constitutional monarchy is not the Protector’s only lasting legacy. Hill, for 1

Professor John Morrill Dominic Sandbrook - MailOnline 3 David Farr - Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 4 Christopher Hill 2

4 | Page

example, highlights Cromwell’s impact outside the political system and mentions how ‘historians are beginning to appreciate how much the Interregnum in general and Cromwell in particular did for British education and British cultural life’. Hill corroborates his statement, describing how Oliver, a very keen mathematician himself, visited Oxford University in May 1649 and stated that ‘no commonwealth could flourish without learning’. He also assured John Tillotson that he was ‘ready to embrace all opportunities of showing favour to the universities’ and kept to his word; doing a great deal for Oxford as Chancellor, which is still commemorated today by the Bodleian Library5. He was also an emphatic promoter and advocate of science and Hill claims that ‘the history of science in England would be very different but for the Revolution which Oliver led’. The Royal Society, who describe themselves as ‘an independent scientific academy of the UK and the Commonwealth, dedicated to promoting excellence in science’6, emerged under Cromwell’s influence, originating at Gresham College, and the society’s second secretary Henry Oldenburg described Oliver as ‘the greatest hero of the century’. Therefore, it is no surprise that, during such a thriving period of British education and culture, the first actress performed on the London stage and by 1712, ‘when Richard Cromwell died, the world into which Oliver was born in 1599 had been modernised out of recognition’7.

However it was not just within the British Isles where Cromwell left his mark as his ‘Western Design’, described by Sir Charles Firth as ‘the most fruitful part of his external policy’, enabled England to become well respected abroad, with prestige at its highest since Agincourt in 1415; a significant contrast to his Stuart predecessors. Thanks to the success of Cromwell’s tax raising schemes, efficient spending on revenue and maintenance of a powerful Navy, Britain was able to become a leading military power for the first time in its history and his expansive and largely successful foreign policy, including the capture of Jamaica in 1655, enabled Cromwell to effectively found the British Empire, which would prove to become the largest in the world.

Arguably one of Cromwell’s greatest accomplishments was the introduction of the New Model Army, as although it was disbanded in 1660 after the Restoration, his policy of promoting on merit removed the social obstacles preventing lower class men, who perhaps had the most ability, from becoming top ranking officers; a legacy that remains today. The New Model Army was also important for being Britain’s first full-time professional army, as Stuart Asquith states ‘it was on the fields of Naseby, Dunbar and Dunes that the 5

God’s Englishman - Christopher Hill https://royalsociety.org 7 Christopher Hill 6

5 | Page

foundations of the British professional army were laid’8. Discipline in the army was strict and training was tough; however, the main reason for their victories such as Dunbar, where the Scots even outnumbered them with twice as many troops, was motivation. Cromwell, who was himself “a yeoman, a working farmer’ and had initially ‘moved down from the gentry to the middling sort’9 stated that “I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.10”. Cromwell was eager to have a new force full of strong believers like himself, fighting with the backing of God, rather than a force similar to the Royalists, with no real determination or belief in what they were fighting for.

Cromwell aspired to carry out God’s will on Earth and strongly emphasised the importance of being a ‘Doer’. Throughout his rise, Cromwell proved to be a man of action himself and his actions were inspired by his religion. The Holy Bible in Cromwell’s left hand on the statue is therefore most appropriate; representing his willingness to serve for God. Furthermore, his bravery has also been recognised by many historians, such as George Harney, who hails ‘a spirit of Cromwellian might’11, whilst supporters of Cromwell at the time abided by the phrase ‘‘where Cromwell dared to lead, we dare to follow12’. Thus the lion resting at the bottom of his statue is entirely relevant for a leader, who making his name through the army, showed great courage to lead from the front and has a lasting legacy on the British Army today.

The bloodthirstiness that typified Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland from August 1649 is something however that his critics will never fail to cite and is cemented in Irish history as one of its most scarring catastrophes; exacerbating the Anglo-Irish rivalry, with many lasting effects. Whilst a massacre of 3500 civilians in Drogheda alone cannot be completely excused, revisionists historians such Hill and Reilly-whose publications are still being dismissed by the Irish Times today-have put the event into historical perspective, seeing it through the eyes of Cromwell. In a recent article for HistoryToday magazine Reilly, a native son of Drogheda13, effectively ‘wipes the slate clean’ in an attempt to ‘get the story right’14. From first hand sources such as Drogheda’s municipal records, Reilly gathers no evidence or written details of the deaths of even one unarmed civilian, hence suggesting that Cromwell’s policy had no intention to kill the innocent at any stage of his conquest. Hill takes an 8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Army John Morrill 10 Christopher Hill 11 Red Republican 12 Christopher Hill 13 Simon Schama’s BBC TV series, A History of Britain (2000-02) 14 http://www.historytoday.com/tom-reilly/cromwell-irish-question 9

6 | Page

alternative approach to support the Protector by corroborating Cromwell’s statement that the Irish massacre was in fact ‘a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood’15. He does this through describing how Cromwell was not isolated in his thinking as even the poets and philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century such as Spenser, Bacon and Milton, ‘who believed passionately in liberty and human dignity’, all shared the same view that the inferiority of the Irish was so extreme that ‘their subordination was natural and necessary’. Hill also claims that the propertied class of Englishmen at that time also ‘spoke of Irishmen in tones not far removed from which Nazis used about Slavs, or white South Africans use about their original inhabitants of their country’. Therefore, this enforces the argument that despite the brutality of the massacre, Cromwell cannot have been any worse than the average Englishman and this is again supported by the fact that whilst his troops were in Ireland, despite some of them supporting the Levellers, there was no sign of fraternisation with the native Irish. Hill even goes as far as crediting Cromwell for the swiftness and decisiveness of the conquest as this meant he could return to England in time to remove the threat of Charles II, who was now leading a Scottish army southwards. Moreover, by avoiding a drawn-out war, the hostility of taxpayers was minimised. Thus, whilst the actions of Cromwell and his contemporaries appear excessively brutal on the surface, there was perhaps reasoning behind it and besides, historians such as J.C Davis profess that ‘there were those who expected him to be much harsher.’16 Perhaps one flaw of Cromwell’s, however, was his lack of consistency as he has been described by Blair Worden as being an ‘ideological schizophrenic’, often changing between the ideologies of political conservatism and religious radicalism. Whilst this was arguably a great strength, bringing together, under his leadership, a wide range of opinions, it also proved to be his greatest weakness. The most prominent example of this inconsistency was in his attitudes towards Charles; from being willing to make political proposals to the King in 1647, to eventually becoming one of the 59 signatories of his death warrant17. This gave Cromwell the title ‘a reluctant regicide’ by John Morrill as Peter Gaunt has commented that ‘neither in his letters nor in the army declarations do we find an unambiguous commitment to regicide’. Barry Coward suggests that Cromwell, amongst others, was driven to become a regicide by ‘a combination of functional and ideological pressures’. However, Cromwell’s rationality explains what was effectively a ‘switching of sides’ as he had to be certain of something before he pursued it, and once he was sure of 15

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cromwell_letter_to_William_Lenthall adapted from J.C Davis’ Oliver Cromwell by David Farr 17 UK Parliament website 16

7 | Page

something, he ‘threw himself into it with the vigour he always showed when his mind was made up, when God had spoken’18. One event that ‘is a mark of Cromwell’s political consistency’, according to Martyn Bennett, was Cromwell’s view on kingship and despite the offer of the crown in 1657, Cromwell turned it down; regarded by many historians as his finest hour and a touchstone of his greatness19. After fighting a civil war against the royalists, he believed that accepting kingship would be sinful and as the army, who Cromwell saw as God’s instrument, were strongly against it, it was clear this decision was yet another rational one.

Thus it is evident that despite claims of inconsistency and brutality in Ireland, Cromwell, who worked his way from ‘the middling sort’ to Lord Protector, played a major role in the enhancement of a country that would arguably look unrecognisable if it were not for his historical achievements. The British Empire, standing army and constitutional monarchy are only a handful of the legacies he has left behind, proving Cromwell to be one of the most dominant figures in Britain’s history. Therefore, he truly is a ‘great individual who changed the nation in some way’ and is axiomatically ‘worthy of a prominent memorial’.

WHY DID WORLD WAR ONE BREAK OUT IN 1914 ?

Scarlett Coote outlines why the origins of ‘the Great War’ have been the source of so much historiographical controversy…

17 million people dead, a generation traumatised, an overturning of old empires and a dramatic change in the world’s political order; we know the outcome of the First World War. Yet, the question of why war broke out remains clouded and disputed to this day. Put simply, the direct short-term 18 19

Christopher Hill http://www.historytoday.com/patrick-little/offering-crown-cromwell

8 | Page

cause of World War I was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife on 28 June 1914, by Princip, a Serbian member of the Black Hand. This triggered the implementation of alliance systems, meaning that after AustriaHungary declared war on Serbia, Russia felt compelled to declare war on Austria- Hungary and the political ‘chain reaction’ continued, causing the outbreak of war in the following month. However, many historians argue that war was almost inevitable by 1914 and would have taken place even without the assassination.

Why was war virtually inevitable though? The most viable answer is the role of Germany. It is clear that this was the view held in 1919 because under Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles-the war guilt clause- Germany was forced to accept full blame for the war, while paying £6.6 billion in reparations. Kaiser Wilhelm II was accused of harassing the Austro-Hungarian government into attacking Serbia; German militarism was condemned for triggering the pre-war arms race; and German nationalism was blamed for destroying foreign relations and diplomacy. French historian, Pierre Renouvin, asserted these views in 1925 in Immediate Origins of the War. Clearly, during this time the Germans worked tirelessly to counter this view and reverse the verdict of Versailles as seen in their release of 15,889 official documents in 54 volumes during the 1920s to accomplish this end. However, controversially in 1960, German historian Fritz Fischer, produced a thesis that Germany was, indeed, solely responsible for the outbreak of war in 1914. He argued that German elites endeavored to make a ‘grab for world power’, that their aggressive expansion policy could be traced back to 1890 and in particular, they ‘willed’ war with Russia to gain territory in the East and dominance over mainland Europe. His thesis was closely supported by evidence. One significant source revealed minutes of a German generals’ meeting in December 1912, where it was stated Germany should declare war before autumn 1914. The view of Sir Max Hastings is probably a more balanced and fair view than that of Fischer. He argues that no one nation deserved the blame but Germany was probably the most guilty as it alone had the ‘power to halt the descent to disaster at any time in July 1914 by withdrawing its 'blank cheque' which offered support to Austria for its invasion of Serbia." Therefore, one viable argument for why the

9 | Page

war broke out is due to Germany’s aggressive stance and its elites’ aim to become the strongest power in Europe.

Revisionists of the Marxist School also emphasise that war was inevitable by 1914 not because of a single state but the structure of an imperialist global order and capitalist economic system. The Great Powers battled for wealth, growth, power and survival within an imperialist world order. There was a sudden upsurge in imperialism in the 1880s, leading to 90 per cent of African land being under the rule of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Belgians.

This, naturally, led to disagreements over rule and territory, which were mostly settled peacefully, as illustrated at the West Africa conference in Berlin (1884-85) where many countries came together to negotiate the partition of West Africa. However, the problem of imperialism led to a heightened sense of confrontation in Europe, meaning, in the view of Marxist historians, that war was inevitable. Yet, this interpretation ignores the importance of individual decisions. The Great Powers’ obsession with gaining territory and therefore, strength, led to a heightened sense of patriotism, glorification of the army and the denial of self- determination for smaller powers, but it didn’t need to result in war. As Margaret MacMillian points out, for the individual ‘there is always choice.’ Moreover, the powers had averted war many times before 1914, for example, between the British and French in Fashoda in 1898. Thus, while there is truth in this interpretation, the imperialist global order and capitalist economic system cannot be viewed in isolation as the reason for the outbreak of WW1 but in conjunction with the critical decisions made by the powers.

Bernadotte Schmitt, on the other hand, blames the fragile alliance system for the outbreak of the First World War, stating that ‘the alliances which had originally served the cause of peace, when put to the final test, almost mechanically operated to convert a local quarrel into a general war.’ He argued that the true issue in the July Crisis was a struggle for the future balance of power between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. Most historians would agree that the alliance system encouraged a build-up of tension.

However, A. J. P. Taylor, according to McDonough, was probably right that they couldn’t be seen as a major cause of the war due to their fragility. Thus, McDonough highlights that a fundamental problem leading to the outbreak of war was the lack of a fully effective balance of power in Europe. Furthermore, 10 | Page

each power seemed to ‘base its decision for war on an assessment of national interests, which were linked to alliances, but were not, in all cases, determined by them.’ (McDonough) Therefore, the alliance system can be seen as a contributing factor in the break out of the First World War as they came into play during the July Crisis, but, as highlighted, cannot be seen as a major cause due to their fragility.

Over one hundred years later and the question of why the First World War broke out still continues to be tirelessly debated. In more recent years, the validity of placing the blame entirely on Germany and Austria-Hungary has been questioned and emphasis has been placed on decision makers in all major capital cities who felt a general European War in 1914 was a risk worth taking.

David Lloyd George’s statement, ‘we muddled into war,’ seems to perfectly underpin the outbreak of the First World War. No one knows exactly why it happened but arguably, such an intense rivalry for power was always going to have a catastrophic climax.

TO WHAT EXTENT DOES JAMES I DESERVE THE TITLE ‘JAMES THE GREAT’ ?

Along with William III and George III, the first Stuart king of England has long been one of our most scandalously underrated monarchs. Here, in a striking re-appraisal, Alex Manson begins to set the historical record straight…

11 | Page

The reign of James I over both England and Scotland can undoubtedly be recognised as successful for a number of reasons, including his religious tolerance and ability to maintain internal peace during a turbulent time in Europe. However, it is a different argument to consider whether he can truly be referred to as ‘James the Great’, as this is an honour reserved for only two English monarchs, Alfred and Cnut, both of whom had died by 1035. This means that for almost 1000 years, not a single English or British monarch has done enough during their reign to earn the title ‘the Great’. To assess whether James I has done enough to earn the title, we must look at his actions throughout his reign and the legacy he left on the country after his death.

A positive consequence that came out of James’ reign in England was how he dealt with the vast variety of religious denominations, from extreme Protestantism to violent Catholic plots. It has been noted, especially by modern historians such as Pauline Croft, how difficult a challenge this must have been and how successful he was in how he went about dealing with them. Durston recognises that James inherited a ‘broad but tense and divided church from Elizabeth’ but he was able to ‘preserve its wide boundaries and restored it to peace by negotiating skillfully with the various religious interest groups’. The way in which James was able to keep the peace between the various religious groups was an incredible feat at the time, especially due to the bitter religious divisions in Early Modern England and also noting how James’ son, Charles I, was unsuccessful in his dealings with religious groups as conflicts arose. James’ key belief when it came to religion was tolerance and this allowed peace to flourish between the crown and religious groupings. Even though James was a Calvinist, he allowed moderate Catholics freedom to practise in peace and so long as they did not ‘disturb the commonwealth’ in James’ words, he had no problem with them. On the other hand, he dealt with the Puritans in an equally peaceful manner as he heard their concerns at the 1604 Hampton Court Conference and rarely introduced harsh laws which restricted the rights and freedom of any religious denomination. A second, equally challenging problem which James dealt with successfully was the tension between England and Scotland. For centuries the two countries had experienced difficulties and as James was the first joint monarch of both nations, he would have had a tough job keeping the peace. However, James strived for a union between the two countries and whilst this was not achieved during his reign, historians, most 12 | Page

notably Pauline Croft, argue that without the work put in place by James, the union would have come about much later than 1707. James tried to push this union through and it was mainly due to the fears of a xenophobic English Parliament that it was blocked. This did not deter James as he used the title ‘King of Great Britain’ throughout his reign. These two points show the deep legacy that James left and he was certainly more successful than his son at containing religious divisions, whilst he also did his best to unite the Scots and English.

Whilst James’ reign shows the positive effect he had, there is evidence that his time on the throne were not entirely ‘great’. James’ extravagance almost decimated the crown’s finances as Kishlansky states he had ‘the financial acumen of a child in a sweetshop’. His extravagance, coupled with the lack of reform of a system that desperately needed it, meant that money was tight throughout his reign. It can be conceded that James was not helped by the lack of support from Parliament and questionable decisions by men such as Sir William Cockayne and Lionel Cranfield. However, it can be agreed that an improvement to the financial system would have been an action that would have helped the monarch present a viable argument for being called a ‘the Great’. Another action that is detrimental to James being known as ‘the Great’, was his desire for the Spanish Match for his son, Charles, with the Spanish Infanta. Whilst this plan had the potential of bringing in more income via a dowry and improving relations with Spain, Protestant England had a severe distrust of Catholic Spain, especially after the Spanish Armada at the end of the previous century. The plan proved a disaster as he was not able to engineer a marriage with Spain and it only raised anti-Catholic feelings in both Parliament and the rest of the country.

To conclude, the evidence suggests that unfortunately James did not do enough to gain the title, ‘the Great’. It can be agreed that his reign was on the whole successful as James’ policy of peace was fruitful in more ways than one.

The lack of war and conflict allowed crown finances some breathing room throughout his reign, especially whilst James overspent on everything from patronage to clothes. However, on the other hand, James was never faced with an insurmountable crisis during his reign. He did not have to deal with an attempted invasion from foreign forces like Elizabeth I and he did not have to 13 | Page

deal with world wars like George V or George VI. For these reasons, James I can be seen as a capable monarch but nevertheless, he should not be awarded the title, ‘the Great’.

HISTORY BOOK CORNER Jana Stredanska and Jessica Mitchell review a real-life love story between an East India Company official and a Mughal princess in 18th century India by an innovative, thought-provoking historian who has re-shaped the historiographical landscape of Indian and Afghan history with his work over the last twenty years….

The central character in White Mughals is James Kirkpatrick, the British resident in Hyderabad, who fell madly in love with a Mughal princess. He himself has been characterised as a ‘White Mughal’ in that he sympathised and empathised with Indian culture. He became the Acting Representative of the East India Company at the court of the Nizam of Hyderabad, where he met a beautiful young Khair un-Nissa Regum and fell in love with her. However, Khair was from a prominent Muslim family and initially, she was forbidden from marrying Kirkpatrick. Nevertheless, against all odds, Kirkpatrick married Khair un-Nissa and had two children with her. Kirkpatrick symbolised the end of an era for the East India Company official and he started to be criticised for adopting the customs and traditions of Indian culture. Kirkpatrick was sympathetic, in terms of adapting to Indian culture, in contrast to the confrontational Richard Wellesley, the full embodiment of British imperialism.

Another important character in the book is General William Palmer, a liberal and sympathetic British official who fell foul of Wellesley’s harsh political approach. Following James marriage to Khair they became a focus of scandal.

The book concludes by examining what happened to the couple’s descendants.

Their daughter, Kitty, was sent back to the UK and integrated into British society by marrying an army captain. The most poignant part of the book is in the last few chapters; when Kitty who was living in the England was put in touch with her Indian grandmother whilst she was still alive, thus marking the end of this ‘Indo-British loop’.

14 | Page

William Dalrymple studied History at Trinity College Cambridge and in order to further his research Dalrymple moved to Delhi in 1989.In 1999 he began to work on history books and White Mughals won him the Wolfson history prize in 2003. Since the publishing of White Mughals, Dalrymple has continued to immerse himself in Indian culture and he still lives in Delhi today.

We would definitely recommend this book as it provides a unique insight into life in India under the growing domination of the East India Company and the changing social attitudes of the era. The book also makes a wider point about how cultures should interact with one another. British and Indian culture had to coexist alongside each other in the 18th century, or not at all. Britons in India just could not just separate themselves from Indian customs and thus, the cultures had to mingle.

Tom Carrington reviews Roger Lockyer’s biography of James I, still one of the best ways in which keen Lower Sixth early modernists can stretch themselves beyond the syllabus. Check out this ‘classic’ in the School Library!

In his book, James VI & I, Roger Lockyer conveys an alternative interpretation of the first ‘British’ monarch right from the offset, which juxtaposes sharply with the traditional notion of the King as a political failure who ‘slobbered at the mouth and had favourites,’ according to Sellar and Yeatman. This overtly negative portrayal of the Scottish king, who ruled England from 1603 to 1625, had been established over many years, dating as far back as Sir Anthony Weldon in the 17th century, who Lockyer picks out in his first chapter as the most prominent source for later historians to base their interpretations on.

Lockyer corroborates his questioning of the redundancy of Weldon’s work by providing contextual detail of the former clerk’s private life, explaining how his dismissal from the royal service by James after being knighted in 1617 may have influenced or nurtured his writing with ‘grievances over what he regarded as unjust treatment,’ constantly playing at the back of his mind. Lockyer effectively blames Weldon for originating the attacks on James as his first book, Court and Character of King James I, published in 1650 as a form of revenge against James, became a best-seller thanks to the relaxation of censorship.

15 | Page

Throughout his book, Lockyer uses a variety of case studies on James’ handling of religious matters, finance and foreign policy to create a more positive conception of the king and to corroborate the work of revisionists such as Linda Peck, who attempted to put James in a better light. In terms of religious matters, Lockyer states that the fact that ‘his bark was worse than his bite, and he preferred unity to uniformity’ making him ‘by twentieth-century liberal standards, a far more appealing figure than many of his critics’. Lockyer backs up this argument, using the case study of the toleration of crypto-catholics and those who remained quiescent as an example. Lockyer picks out a statement by James- ‘a friend to their persons if they be good subjects’- in order to emphasise how James favoured a policy of leniency over persecution and despite a public proclamation that he would remove all those he thought were ‘popish’ from his Council, James retained a number of Catholics among his advisers, which enabled him to retain their support throughout his reign; after threats to reverse the Reformation such as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 came to an end.

As far as financial problems were concerned, Lockyer upholds many of the customary condemnations of James’s extravagance in a chapter entitled, ‘A Spendthrift King’. He identifies this character flaw as a factor which hindered the proposed financial reforms of 1610. However, Lockyer also blames the Commons for their ‘lack of vision’, which was ‘attributable to their ignorance of the true facts of the situation.’ Their vested interests prevented James from having a sustainable income despite James’ willingness to compromise.’

Lockyer also mentions that despite being granted only two subsidies in 1621, when a lot more was needed to compete with Spain, James welcomed the grants as a gesture of goodwill and thanked the Commons for ‘their free, noble and not merchant-like dealing’. This proves that although the king lacked concrete financial achievements, with the update of the Book of Rates in 1608 being his main attainment and yet another cause for tension with Parliament, he clearly had good intentions and Lockyer comes to the conclusion that it was in fact Parliament rather than the king who were most at fault for rising debts and lack of structural reform.

In the chapter ‘Blessed Are The Peacemakers’, Lockyer comments on James’ role as a peacemaker and mediator in Europe, with the aim of becoming a ‘rex 16 | Page

pacificus’. Lockyer is eager to mention that as soon as James inherited the English throne in 1604 he negotiated the Treaty of London with Spain, which brought an end to the war. Lockyer describes James as ‘a man of peace’, and corroborates this using the king’s announcement on the first day of the 1604 Parliament that he was bringing to his new kingdom ‘outward peace: that is, peace abroad with all foreign neighbours’. This foreign policy proved successful for the majority of his reign as war was a major source of expenditure, which a weak system of royal finances could not support. However, in his last few years, Lockyer picks up on the fact that James’ timidity was not all that popular with his subjects, who blamed him for failing to embrace the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War. However, although the author runs the risk of ‘reading history backwards’, he does persuasively argue that perhaps James’ avoidance of conflict with Spain was well-intentioned as only a few years later, Charles I’s active involvement against the Habsburgs would lead to humiliating defeat and virtual bankruptcy.

Thus, Lockyer’s use of the phrase ‘James the Just’ or ‘James the Well-Intentioned’ in his final chapter to sum up his reign is most appropriate, as although his concrete achievements are perhaps lacking compared to other monarchs, James did gain the support of both Catholics and Puritans, was willing to compromise with the arrogant Commons in order reform the economy and adopted the most suitable foreign policy in order to prevent crown finances from collapsing completely. Therefore, Lockyer’s assessment of the first truly British sovereign is perhaps one of the most accurate currently circulation.

‘Dear Mr Patrick…’

After an unsuccessful year spent batting at no 11 and bowling off-spin for the Tamil Nadu History teachers’ XI and a controversial spell as ‘historian in residence’/ stacker of shelves at a leading UK supermarket, we are delighted to welcome back Mr Patrick who, as ever, is more than happy to answer your History-related queries.

17 | Page

Dear Mr Patrick, My History teacher keeps boring me about the educational benefits of Quizlet. Are there actually any educational benefits in your opinion ?

Yours sincerely, sceptical IB student

Dear sceptical IB student, Quizlet is not necessarily an educational ‘silver bullet’ but as part of a ‘balanced diet’ including planning past paper questions, making sure that you are an expert on the relevant mark schemes, and making mind maps and timelines, working through the flashcards and Learn questions on a regular basis can really help consolidate your learning, ensuring that by the time you enter the exam hall, you have climbed the ‘mountain of knowledge’. There is also a cool and groovy Quizlet app that you can use!

Best Wishes, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, I am a keen historian who is contemplating studying the subject at university. What can I read that might impress a History professor ?

Yours sincerely, Keen Historian

18 | Page

Dear Keen Historian, You certainly seem to be heading in the right intellectual direction because nothing impresses a History professor more than having ‘read around the subject’ before you get to uni. In terms of your reading, I would advise you to try and achieve two things. Firstly, dig deeper into your A Level/ IB course by reading, for example, the biographies of key personalities. For instance, if you have read Pauline Croft’s biography of James I, try Roger Lockyer’s, or why not tackle Chris Clark’s excellent book on the origins of World War One. You might then want to range more widely by tackling some of the ‘big questions’ in history and to this end I would recommend John Darwin’s After Tamerlane, Ian Morris’ Why the West rules for now and Peter Frankopan’s Silk Roads. If you are a ‘digital native’ you might also want to download the HistoryToday app or start making use of the HistoryToday database of articles. As you read, it is important that you take brief notes on what you find interesting as these will then help when it comes to writing your UCAS personal statement.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, My History teacher keeps talking about making my arguments more nuanced. What is he going on about ?

Yours sincerely, William of Orange

19 | Page

Dear Wills, First of all, congratulations on the Glorious Revolution and I think you will go on and become a great king of England. I think what your History teacher means is that by developing your use of language, especially in the P and C parts of paragraphs, you can help make your arguments more sophisticated and thus more likely to secure high marks. If I can illustrate as follows: ‘James I was a successful king of England…’

‘James was a particularly successful king of England because he managed to maintain religious stability, although nevertheless, not all of his policies were successful, such as his failure to prevent Puritan criticisms of his foreign policy…’

The second sentence is clearly more nuanced than the first because it doesn’t over-simplify but uses the italicised vocabulary to develop a more complex, subtle thesis.

Best Wishes, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, Is it okay to disagree with my History teacher ?

Yours sincerely, Kaiser Wilhelm II

Dear Bill,

20 | Page

First of all, a warning from history: I would advise you to steer clear of weltpolitik, a naval arms race and issuing a ‘blank cheque’ to the Austro-Hungarian government. Of course, it all depends on what sort of issues you are disagreeing about! If it is a question of your general approach to climbing the mountain of knowledge via wider reading, using Quizlet, and writing analytically, then I would advise you not to disagree with such good pieces of advice.

On the other hand, one of the joys of History is the opportunity it provides for rigorous debate and as long you present your views on a historical topic in an academic way, supporting your arguments with evidence and avoiding the temptation to generalise, I am sure that your teacher will welcome and respect your interpretation.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, My History teacher keeps writing ‘narrative’ on my essays. Is this a good or a bad thing ?

Yours sincerely, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury

Dear Bob,

21 | Page

First of all, bad luck on the Great Contract of 1610- so near and yet so far! The meaning of ‘narrative’ in this context is to ‘tell a story’ and in some senses, there is nothing wrong with this as, in essence, this is the job of the historian. After all, Simon Schama has referred to historians as ‘storytellers of the tribe’ and many great works of history have illuminated our understanding of the past by providing a chronological ‘narrative’ explanation of key events.

However, in the context of passing exams, writing just ‘narrative’ is generally seen as a bad thing, so I suspect that your History teacher is trying to give you some constructive advice about essay technique. The danger is that by writing in a narrative fashion you can simply provide a descriptive outline that doesn’t really address the essay title explicitly. This is why History teachers often talk about the need to ‘link points back to the question.’ Of course, ‘narrative’ can be avoided by keeping to the PEC structure and even in the ‘E for evidence’ part of a paragraph, never lose an opportunity to link your points back to the question. Go forth and write great History essays!

Best Wishes, Mr Patrick

Mr Pathak’s History Quiz Nothing beats a good History quiz! As the dawn breaks over Pathak Towers, and once my children have completed their first three History essays of the day, you will often find us relaxing by taking part in a little light-hearted quizzing. Set out below are some of our favourite questions.

1) Which country disappeared from the map of Europe between 1795 and 1918 ?

2) What name links a West Indian cricket captain, a Russian tsar who failed to defend Moscow and one of the most famous British generals of World War Two ?

22 | Page

3) Which British general famously disliked wearing military uniform ?

4) What name links a British admiral, a British poet and a British traitor ?

5) In which year did the Holy Roman Empire disappear from the map of Europe ?

6) What links a Scottish rock band, the mother of George I and the most famous assassin in history ?

7) What links an Australian cricketer who has played for Durham, a British governor general of India and one of history’s most famous battles ?

8) Which one of William the Conqueror’s sons did not become king of England ?

9) Which three British ‘rulers’ had tanks named after them during World War Two ?

10) What links a British commander of the BEF in World War One and Pondicherry ?

11) What links Will Smith’s side-kick on such classics as Summertime and the guiding light behind one of the most successful British soul/ R&B groups of all time ?

12) What links a technical term used to describe the constitutional rights of monarchs and a top 10 hit by a former member of New Edition, one of the biggest soul stars of the late 1980s ?

Now, match up the following historians with the description below: a) Simon Schama b) Dan Snow c) Andrew Roberts d) Tristram Hunt e) Roy Jenkins

1) A TV historian, expert on the English Civil War and a former member of the Labour shadow cabinet

23 | Page

2) A reforming Home Secretary, gang-member and author of biographies of Gladstone and Churchill 3) Related to David Lloyd George 4) Author of acclaimed histories of Britain and the French Revolution and TV series on US and Jewish history- a former student at Haberdashers’ Boys 5) Author of books with Churchillian and Napoleonic themes

24 | Page

We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 4 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’…

25 | Page