Felsted - The Cromwellian (Issue 5, 2018)

The Cromwellian Issue 5

May 2018

THE CROMWELLIANISSUE 5 MAY 2018 EDITED BY ARABELLA PRIOR, BEN DIXEY AND ALEX MANSON

Together we are team history…

1 | Page

CONTENTS PAGE P3- inspirational introductory comments by this year’s editors PP4-5- Mr Pathak ponders on why he became a History teacher PP5-9- Arabella Prior analyses the career of Oliver Cromwell PP 9-12- Alex Manson examines the causes of the English Civil War PP12- 14- Peter Hipkin reviews Pauline Croft’s biography of James I P15- Tom Carrington tells us what life is like studying History at university P16- Alex Manson gives some advice on how to get the most out of Sixth Form History P17- Hist O’Ree- a new superhero for dangerous times ?

EDITORIAL 2 | Page

Ponder these words of wisdom from three of our finest historians…

The year 2017 has been a tumultuous year with the impact of Brexit continuing to be felt, abhorrent terrorist acts and a General Election that shook British politics to the core. However, one thing that has managed to stand the test of time is the study of History, although it poses the question that if a day should come where History is seen as a redundant subject in a world where subjects that are viewed as more relevant take precedence such as Economics or Business, what would be History’s justification for remaining as a part our country’s education system?

Firstly, studying History gives people skills that are transferable to a multitude of careers, such as the analytical skills gained from studying various historians’ interpretations. These skills, gained from studying History to a high level, can be used by business leaders such as former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, who studied Medieval History when she was at university. Secondly, History enables people to learn about the past and the events that have shaped and will continue to shape the future. This is an important thing to do as we can gain an understanding of our past mistakes and look to not make them again, a skill that is now more relevant than ever before. Next, many view subjects such as Economics as more valuable as they can provide people with A degree to quickly provide a country with more tangible rewards. However, History provides people with rewards which may seem less palpable, such as an ability to appreciate various viewpoints, develop the analytical skills necessary to be successful in whatever career they may choose, and a rich understanding of the complexities of the past, surely a crucial component of what it means to be truly well educated ?

WHY DID I BECOME A HISTORY TEACHER ?

3 | Page

Apart from money and fame, Mr Pathak reminisces about what other factors drew him towards teaching in the Reekie Building…

Right from my very first History lesson at secondary school in September 1986, I knew that History was going to be my favourite subject. After primary school, it was so exciting to have two hours a week devoted to nothing but History! I remember being so fascinated by the Battle of Hastings and the feudal system that on the bus home, I started to read my text-book. This is what independent learning amounted to in the 1980s.

From this point onwards, I resolved to put History books at the top of my birthday list, a policy I still try and enforce with my own children. Gradually, I started to acquire a small library of History books and thirty years later, some of these seminal texts still occupy particularly dusty corners of my classroom. In my defence, it should be remembered that we are talking about the 1980s here: we were still getting used to the novelty of having a colour TV- which made watching snooker less of a challenge-and apart from county cricket and eighties soul legends, Kool and the Gang, there were few other distractions for a bespectacled pseudo-intellectual intent on climbing ‘the mountain of knowledge’.

I would probably not have become a History teacher without the influence of my grandfather to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. He was a former primary school headmaster with a passion for history and fascinating memories of life in the first part of the 20th century. Anecdotes about life in London or the 1920s or army life in World War Two sparked my interest and even better, I got to raid my grandfather’s bookshelves, which were piled high with works of military history. In hindsight, what I was really doing was getting ready to be a History teacher and this year, I have found myself returning to some of my grandfather’s books when preparing lessons on the new GCSE model on wars and warfare.

What also undoubtedly accelerated my immersion in matters historical was the fact that I lacked a flair for most other areas of School life. However, in History lessons I found my niche. What then really deepened my affinity with the subject was the kindness, generosity and wisdom of my History teachers.

Historians will always remind us that our memories are not infallible and that 4 | Page

to an extent we construct an ideal past, rather than remembering things exactly as they happened. However, long after I have forgotten many of the intricacies of the French Revolution that I was taught at A Level, I will still treasure memories of the fun and camaraderie of 6th form History lessons; in many ways, the incomplete story of my own journey as a teacher has been to try and re-create the happy and inclusive ‘team history’ vibe that I originally experienced as a student myself in the early 1990s. Of course, the music was better then and in all probability, so were the History lessons…

HOW WE SHOULD REMEMBER OLIVER CROMWELL ?

Arabella Prior gives a scholarly assessment of the motivations of one of our most notable and controversial statesmen. The essay below received some very positive feedback from the Cromwell Association.

Since the seventeenth century, historians have been divided in how to view Oliver Cromwell, some portraying him as a ruthless and selfish leader, whilst others argue his motives were reputable and his actions just. The thesis of this essay is that the latter description holds most true, and consequently Edward Hyde’s assessment is flawed, at least to an extent. Although Cromwell was responsible for the loss of lives of many soldiers and civilians, as seen in the massacre of nearly 3,500 people, including 2,700 Royalist soldiers, during his capture of Drogheda in September 1649: he was also the leader of a populist revolutionary movement, and regarded as a champion of liberty by many Englishmen at the time.

At the heart of the debate regarding Cromwell’s personality, lay his motives and the reasons behind his rise to power comparable to that of a monarch, with Cromwell as both chief executive and head of state. Cromwell’s critics consistently argue that ‘he had wanted power for its own sake, and at the very least he had been an opportunist, taking advantage of situations for his own benefit’, according to Dale Scarboro. A particularly pertinent example, is his dismissal of what remained of the Long Parliament on the Morning of 20th April 1653 through the use force ‘with musketeers to drive out the MPs’; possibly because of the prospect of Parliament ‘planning to perpetuate itself by adopting Sir Henry Vane’s scheme to allow sitting MPs to remain and to fill vacant places with “recruiter elections”, according to David Plant. The dismissal of the Rump placed a vast amount of political power into Cromwell’s reach and 5 | Page

by December 1653, the power had been seized, with Cromwell taking the title of Lord Protector. To many seeking to condemn Oliver Cromwell, his rapid ascent from a minor landowner in East Anglia to a powerful leader akin to a King, cannot be without whole-hearted intent, hence having his best interests at heart rather than those of the country. This is the interpretation of Cromwell that the Royalist writer and politician Edward Hyde, the 1st Earl of Clarendon, would have believed encompassed Cromwell, portraying him as a shrewd character who worked for himself, not his country. However, particularly the ‘Godly party’ whom believed Cromwell ‘was elevated by God through a series of providential events’ would have readily disagreed with this argument.

According to Dale Scarboro, Cromwell certainly put this forth by stating at Putney on 1 November 1647, ‘I am one of those whose heart God hath drawn out to wait for some extraordinary dispensations’. This quotation illustrates Cromwell’s reputable intentions; whether or not he was divinely influenced is beside the point, his belief that he was, is evidence that he believed what he was doing was right. Although the ‘godly’ argument seems difficult to believe, particularly for atheists, many non-believers argue that Cromwell’s elevation to power, may have been a by-product of events that necessitated he step in as a leader of the MPs against the royalists in order to avert an outcome that Cromwell would have viewed as intolerable. The latter argument is a much more steadfast one in comparison to the first, because Cromwell endangered his own life in order to fight for a just future of the country; if he had not been successful, there is no doubt that he would have been publicly executed. This is evidenced by Charles II’s action of placing Cromwell’s severed head on a spike above Westminster Hall, as a forceful warning to onlookers not to challenge the monarch: which Cromwell did to a formidable extent. Therefore, it seems unconvincing to state that a minor landowner would so tumultuously risk his life and family name with such selfish intentions, when the outcome of painful death was just as likely as success. This means that although Hyde’s assessment that Cromwell was brave is sound, his argument that Cromwell is a ‘bad man’ is not corroborated by his arguably legitimate motives.

Cromwell’s violent massacres throughout his battles with the opposition, particularly in Ireland, are unavoidable when analysing the key characteristics of his personality, and are strong evidential proof that he could arguably be ‘a brave, bad man’. Micheál Ó Siochrú stated that Cromwell was "A warrior of Christ, somewhat like the crusaders of medieval Europe, he acted as God's executioner, exacting revenge and crushing all opposition." However, it is possible to convincingly argue that Cromwell’s violent approach, to not only defeating, but also eliminating his enemy were necessary: at least he believed them to be so. According to Michael Lynch, ‘the most notorious examples of Cromwell’s merciless approach are the English army’s massacres of the Irish at 6 | Page

Drogheda in September 1649 and at Wexford a month later’. Both civilians and troops gathered in Drogheda, and post victory, Cromwell ordered his army to kill all the inhabitants of the town, having prior knowledge that many occupants were merely civilians. Of course, this evidence, taken at face value, would lend authentication to Hyde’s assessment of Cromwell: he was brave in battle, but a ruthless murderer even after the fighting ceased, epitomising the phrase a ‘bad man’ in the context of Cromwell. Despite this judgement, counter evidence provides a juxtaposing view of Cromwell. According to Michael Lynch, ‘there are modern scholars who suggest that the massacres may not have been on so large a scale that has been customarily believed, and that at Drogheda there may well have been no civilian fatalities’. In Cromwell’s report to parliament in which he described his attack on Drogheda, he admitted that the violence was not consistent with his customary conduct, and went to great lengths to provide explanation for his actions. He wrote ‘I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future’. Cromwell clearly considered his actions in Drogheda and recognised their significance, ultimately showing he was not a calculating killer, rather a pragmatic leader able to place higher importance on his beliefs for a better country, than the lives of the enemy. Whether the enemy was civilian in nature, or trained soldiers, their motives were still the same and both had to be eliminated. According to Michael Lynch, the historian Ronald Hutton ‘has accepted Cromwell’s contention that his harsh measures did cow the Irish into a quicker submission… thereby saving lives’; this quotation supports the argument that although severe, Cromwell’s actions were tactically necessary, and his chance of victory would perhaps have been hindered if he had not taken such a harsh approach. Additionally, it would be inaccurate to compare 17th century conduct in war with that of today; the former saw a much more brutal and violent approach, with Tom Reilly in his book ‘Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy’ proposing that Cromwell’s actions at Drogheda were not unusually severe by 17th century standards. In addition to this, Cromwell’s actions would not have been viewed as ‘war crimes’. Michael Lynch quotes Ronald Hutton’s viewpoint on the extent of Cromwell’s brutality; ‘Hutton has further suggested that judged by the European standards of his day Cromwell was not notably severe, and with reference to Ireland Hutton states, ‘to magnify the actions of Cromwell remains a glaring example of bad history’.

This argument is in outright contrast to Hyde’s assessment of Cromwell as a ‘bad man’ and is a much stronger one; evidence in history can be altered to fit both opposing sides of an argument, depending on how it is presented. In Hyde’s case and others whom are critical of Cromwell, his battles are being viewed without context and are compared to modern standards of war by current historians, therefore seeming much worse than they really were when 7 | Page

compared with other European battles of the time, and the generally held view of the time, that a much more brutal form of warfare was acceptable.

In conclusion, although Edward Hyde’s assessment of Cromwell as a brave figure in history is accurate, his latter assessment is flawed when describing him as a ‘bad man’. This conclusion can only be reached if one uses selected pieces of evidence, and without contextualising Cromwell’s actions, particularly in battle. His actions in Ireland were merciless; however, these were done for the greater good of the country, which outweighed the loss of between three thousand to four thousand lives of the opposition. To add to this, Cromwell’s recognition of the severity of said actions in his letters, thereby further adds to the argument that Cromwell believed these to be absolutely necessary. Post victory, Cromwell was viewed by many as a hero of the people, and clearly had their best interests at heart, rather than simply seeking power, as he did not accept the title of King when offered it in 1657, instead becoming 1st Lord Protector of the Commonwealth; seeking to lead the country justly.

Bibliography ‘God's Executioner: Oliver Cromwell and the conquest of Ireland’, authored by Micheál Ó Siochrú. Published by Faber&Faber, 21st August 2008 ‘England 1625-1660, Charles I, The Civil War and Cromwell’, authored by Dale Scarboro. Published by Hodder Education, 2005.

David Plant, Dissolution of the Rump Parliament, 1653, BCW Project. Text updated 2nd March 2009 http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/dissolution-rump -parliament ‘The Interregnum 1649-60’, authored by Michael Lynch. Published by Hodder & Stoughton, 1994.

‘Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy’, authored by Tom Reilly. Published by Phoenix Press, 2000.

WHY DID THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR BREAK OUT? 8 | Page

A true Reekie Building legend, Alex Manson tries to answer one of most complex questions in British history…

The English Civil War beginning in 1642 came about in the short term due to the events of the disastrous Long Parliament. However, it can be clearly seen that the causes of the Civil War date back to at least the beginning of Charles I’s reign and cover a wide range of factors that were prevalent in 17th century English society. It can be convincingly argued that the causes of the English Civil War from 1625 onwards were primarily religious but we must also consider other factors that would have undoubtedly contributed to tensions. The causes of the Civil War were primarily religious as not only did religion cause an active opposition to the crown but also served to establish a group that was willing to support the crown and defend its rights, thus arguably leading to greater tension. On the other hand, the ideological differences would have stemmed from opposing interpretations of the ‘ancient constitution’ and how the king should rule. Charles’ personality undoubtedly created tensions with many MPs as he created an environment for war as his kingdoms were religiously divided, the crown was bankrupt and there was widespread distrust in the king.

Nevertheless, it can thus be seen that the divide in religious views between the Parliamentary opposition and the crown was the primary cause of the English Civil War in 1642.

It can be argued that the religious divide caused by Laudian reforms during the 1630s played a crucial role in causing the English Civil War as it effectively split most of the country into two camps that would make up the two sides in the upcoming war. Laud’s reforms that were implemented after his appointment to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 were Arminian in nature and seen by many as being pro-Catholic. Laudian reforms that would have certainly been seen as pseudo-Catholic would have included moving the altar to the east end of the Church and the emphasis on bowing at the name of Jesus. This caused tension within the country as Laud was seen as an innovator of religion. What must also be considered is the Puritan nature of many of the leaders of Parliamentary opposition, especially during the Long Parliament. The religion of men such as Pym holds importance, as the religious changes would have been one of their major grievances coming into the Long Parliament. The Root and Branch petition was introduced on the 11th December 1640 that looked to 9 | Page

abolish episcopacy, something that Charles would have wished to ensure did not happen. When the Root and Branch Bill was defeated in the House of Commons in June 1641, it serves to show how religion had led to the creation of two opposing camps, one that wanted rid of bishops and the creation of a Presbyterian system of synods, and another that wanted to keep the bishops to ensure social order was kept and that Presbyterian clericalism was not introduced. What must be accepted is that no other cause served to divide the nation into two camps as religion did and its role in causing the Civil War cannot be overlooked for this reason.

Another cause of the Civil War that must also be accepted is how the ideological differences and interpretations of the ‘ancient constitution’ increased tensions in the years leading up to 1642. Johann Sommerville takes this view as he writes that ‘differences of constitutional principle contributed to political conflict’. The ‘constitutional principle’ that Sommerville refers to is how the two opposing views clashed over how the king should run his kingdom. Charles’ use of Personal Rule from 1629 until 1640 angered many MPs for a number of reasons and none more so than the lack of Parliaments called by the monarch. It can be argued that Pym’s Junto would have looked to restrict Charles’ power by perhaps amending the constitution, a move that would have greatly angered a monarch who believed very deeply in his powers as ruler of the kingdom. There are some examples of how the opposition went about pushing their concept of restricting royal prerogatives through Parliament such as Ship Money being declared illegal on the 7th December 1640 and in February 1641 the Triennial Act was passed that ensured Parliament would meet at least every 3 years, curbing the monarch’s power to call Parliament whenever he wished. However, there is also evidence of opposition to the Junto’s ideological plans as Pym’s Grand Remonstrance, which stated a plethora of grievances from the 1630s, only passed by 11 votes in the House of Commons.

Charles’ personality and decision making cannot be underestimated when deciphering the causes of the Civil War as they undoubtedly had an effect on creating a division between the political nation and the crown and creating an atmosphere of distrust between the two. This can be seen in Charles’ 10 | Page

contention of divine right and that Parliament was completely under his control through his statement at the beginning of the 1626 Parliament, ‘remember that Parliaments are altogether in my power for their calling, sitting and dissolution’. Another aspect of Charles’ personality that indisputably caused anger amongst the opposition was his drive for religious uniformity, especially with Laudian reforms that were vastly unpopular amongst his three kingdoms.

Charles also isolated himself during the 1630s so that the political nation could not air their grievances and he surrounded himself with a close group of advisors who would not give Charles the broad, balanced counsel he needed in times of crisis. The consequences of Charles’ so-called Army Plot on the 3rd May 1641 cannot be underestimated, as the ramifications were catastrophic for the crown. Perhaps an even greater miscalculation was Charles’ attempted arrest of 5 MPs on the 4th January 1642 in response to rumours that there was going to be an impeachment of Henrietta Maria. However, Charles never made any concerted attempts to become an absolute monarch or establish a Catholic Church of England, meaning it was unlikely his personality alone would have led to a civil war. Whilst Charles’ personality certainly played a key role in creating distrust between crown and opposition, it was not important enough to play a primary role in causing the English Civil War. To conclude, it can be clearly seen that there is not one defining cause of the English Civil War but the view that the causes of the War were primarily religious is a decidedly valid one. This is due to the fact that no other cause served to divide the country into two sides as religion did and as this was coupled with Charles’ insensitive handling of the religious situation in his kingdoms, it is clear to see how religion played such a crucial role in leading to war. A historian who takes this interpretation is Derek Hirst who believes that fundamentally, it was religion that not just caused tension between crown and the opposition but drove men to arms and fight for what they believed in. It can also be argued that the economic rise amongst the gentry did not inevitably lead to civil war and it required a divisive cause such as religious conflict to lead to war. Whilst it can be seen how constitutional differences did also lead to heightened tensions between the crown and the opposition, they cannot be seen as the primary cause as they required the practical problems of the 1630s to draw them to the surface and become an issue.

11 | Page

HISTORY BOOK CORNER Peter Hipkin, one of team history’s ‘rising stars’, reviews Pauline Croft’s biography of James I Pauline Croft provides a balanced and clearly written overview of the life of James that has been hugely beneficial to my understanding of the period. In the following review I will pick out aspects of the book that I found interesting and memorable.

Firstly, a point to note in my opinion is the controversial circumstances in which James was born and raised. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, the cousin and enemy of Elizabeth I, who many (especially in the Catholic world) believed was the rightful heir to the English throne. Moreover after Mary’s marriage to Henry Darnley had deteriorated, Mary was found to have been having an affair with her secretary David Riccio. Disgusted, Darnley and others allegedly stabbed him 50 times in the chest. What followed was the Kirk O’ field plot in which Darnley was strangled and blown up inside his home. Therefore, controversy and rumour surrounded James throughout his early life especially with regards to a rumour that David Riccio was actually his father. Furthermore, James was essentially raised as an orphan following 1567; as he never saw Mary after this time, and she was eventually executed in 1587. Instead he was raised by the Earl and Countess of Mar and taught by George Buchanan.

A key feature of James’ dual rule of England and Scotland was his inability to control his finances. Upon acquiring the more substantial wealth that the English crown possessed, it was a habit of James’ to donate pensions to his favourite nobles, particularly in Scotland. It is said that by 1607 James had donated £88,000 in pensions to 11 nobles in Scotland. This caused substantial debts to amass in the royal reserves. Before 1610 James’ debts totalled £735,000. Essentially, James viewed finance as a matter for his Privy Council and so did not feel obliged to be frugal with his finances. Robert Cecil, James’ most trusted advisor, submitted a plan for James’ finances known as the Great Contract. It was a plan to concede some of James’ royal prerogatives in

12 | Page

exchange for a grant of £600,000. Following much debate in Parliament the plan was eventually rejected by both James and Parliament.

Though James was initially fond of his wife, Queen Anne of Denmark, she soon became estranged following James’ refusal to allow Anne to raise their son, Henry. Instead, it is known that James preferred the company of men; and thus many favourites emerged in James’ Court, the first of which was Robert Carr, soon to be Earl of Somerset. Somerset became one of the King’s closest advisors in his Privy Council until 1615 when a scandal emerged in which allegedly Somerset had consorted with the Howards to poison Overbury, a friend of Somerset who had tried to dissuade him from marrying Frances Howard. Another favourite emerged following Somerset’s downfall; George Villiers. Villiers rose to become the Duke of Buckingham and forged a close personal relationship with James. It was even believed that the pair were in a physical relationship as well. In contrast to Somerset, Buckingham did not seek to challenge the King on any matters and once the Howard family had been removed from office, he began to implement a series of reforms.

While in Scotland, James was confronted by the Kirk in their attempts to introduce a fully Presbyterian system run by ministers and elders. In contrast, James sought to introduce an episcopal polity, in which bishops and priests were loyal to the King. Having ascended to the English throne, James was impressed with the episcopal system in place and the loyalty to the King; however, Catholic irredentism was still a pressing issue and there was a growing number of Puritans who demanded reform to the religious system in England. In terms of treating Catholics, James originally took a flexible standpoint; however, following the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 James took a harsher stance, introducing an oath of allegiance that anyone could be asked to swear to the King. Upon arriving in England, a petition allegedly signed by 1000 clergy asked for reforms in the English Church in what is known as the Millenary Petition. James rejected all but one of the demands as he likened English Puritans to Presbyterians in Scotland. James did oversee the translation of the Bible into English, dubbed the King James Bible.

James viewed himself as a peacemaker in Europe and wished to make allies with Protestants and Catholics alike. He married his daughter Elizabeth to Frederick the elector-Palatine, from a Calvinist background. Frederick took the 13 | Page

Bohemian crown instead of the emperor-elect Ferdinand, from Habsburg Germany. A war for the Bohemian crown soon broke out and the Spanish Habsburgs also joined soon after to aid their cousin Ferdinand. James believed he could stop Spain from committing to the war by seeking a Spanish match for his heir, Charles. This disgusted the English public and the Spanish people also saw no reason for the match other than to resurrect Catholicism in England. Of course the match failed and James instead was forced to ask Parliament for a sum of money to arm for war. Parliament typically denied the request.

LIFE AT UNIVERSITY Having achieved some truly outstanding A Level resultsespecially in History- Tom Carrington lets us know about what it is like to be an ‘undergraduate’ historian…

After a hectic week of freshers’ events, a 9am lecture on my first Monday morning was an impactful way for my academic university experience to begin!

However, now that I am one week into my lectures and seminars, the history course is certainly living up to what I imagined it to be and has been thoroughly interesting so far. This term I will be studying the history of the British Empire, introducing myself to medieval history, and developing my historical skills through a third section of the course titled ‘Approaching the Past’, in which we 14 | Page

have had lectures and seminars on essay writing, using the library to your advantage and making notes efficiently. I will then be able to select an optional unit from an extended list, in which I will be looking to try something new and broaden my horizons. In terms of the format of my course, whilst lectures seem alien in comparison to the structure of the school system, the transition to university life has been smoothened through the existence of seminars, which are not so different from a lesson at school, with no more than 10 people in a class. I also have a personal tutor and a peer mentor, therefore any questions I have can be easily answered. This has hence made adapting to university life much less difficult. Outside of the lecture theatre, I have also settled into university life through joining the hockey club and have already played two matches for the men’s 2nd team against Warwick and Swansea. Sport is one of the best ways to meet new people and the weekly socials on a Wednesday night are unmissable. I will also be looking to try new things this year though and having visited the Freshers’ Fair last week, the opportunities seem endless, with societies ranging from skydiving to ultimate frisbee. Therefore, only a week into my first term, I still have a lot to discover !

HOW DO I GET THE MOST OUT OF HISTORY IN THE SIXTH FORM ?

Now that he has climbed to the top of the ‘mountain of knowledge’, Alex Manson gives some valuable advice to a new generation of Felsted historians…

Sixth Form History has the potential to be the most rewarding two years of your academic career and can provide you with the skills and knowledge necessary to achieve at the highest level, at the end of the course. However, Sixth Form History requires you to do a few things to really get the most out of it and secure another success for Team History!

15 | Page

1) Ask questions - whether you are unsure about something or are interested in finding out about something beyond the syllabus, asking questions is a must in History, so be sure to ask away!

2) Read books - reading books is a great way to learn about a wide array of historical topics as well as extending your vocabulary; some of my favourite history reads have been Sleepwalkers by Chris Clark and Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan.

3) Learn from your mistakes - as Mr Pathak has told us on many occasions, “A history essay can always be improved”. When you receive a piece of work back, read your teacher’s comments and ensure that you do not make the same mistakes on your next essay.

4) Put the hours in - Sixth Form History perhaps more than any other subject requires you to put the time in, both in the classroom and outside the classroom. A great history essay cannot be written in 45 minutes the night before it is due!

5) Enjoy History - Sixth Form History is so much harder if you are not interested in what you are studying, so enjoy learning and finding out about what you are learning - it will improve the quality of your work as well.

HIST O’REE- A NEW SUPERHERO FOR DANGEROUS TIMES ?

Coming soon to a multiplex near you- in a ( desperate ? ) bid to make the History Department appear more trendy, Mr Pathak plans to tap into the current trend for ‘blockbuster’ movies about super-heroes by unveiling Hist O’Ree, a crime-fighting maverick from Ireland with the following special powers and attributes: ● Magic red pen which means that Hist O’Ree can swiftly destroy baddies ( and irrelevant narrative ). ● A cloak of invulnerability made of tweed ( also with patches ). ● Laser vision that enables Hist O’Ree to read a History book without even opening it!

16 | Page

● Telepathic skills which means that no pupil can ever again, afford not to concentrate in a History lesson. ● Break-dancing and eating chips ( I just added this in as all super-heroes have skills that help them blend into ‘normal’ society outside of the Reekie Building…) ● Having failed his driving test four times, Hist O’Ree will catch the bus on the way to lots of exciting adventures…

SMELL THE KNOWLEDGE !

17 | Page

FREE JOHN LAMBERT !

We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 5 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’…

18 | Page