Felsted - The Cromwellian (Issue 1, 2014)

The Cromwellian Issue 1

January 2014

Winter 2014- Long live History !

THE CROMWELLIAN ISSUE 1- JANUARY 2014

Edited by James Taylor and Eliz Peck

The magazine by and for Felsted History students…

1

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Contents Page P 3-4: Mr Pathak’s good History reads P4-10: When and why did the Ottoman Empire decline ? By Eliz Peck P11-15: History guru ‘Mr Patrick’ answers all your History-related queries P16-24: The causes of the English Civil War by James Taylor P24-26: Why do political revolutions happen ?

By Eliz Peck P27-32: Why did the Cold War start ? By Marino Entwistle

2

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Now that Strictly Come Dancing has finished, Saturday night TV is a bit of a cultural desert. Perhaps there is too much knitwear and angst in Scandinavian detective thrillers ? However, never fear ! Equipped with Mr Pathak’s History book recommendations you need never be bored again. My top five History reads of the moment are as follows:

After Tamerlane - The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400-2000 by John Darwin If you just read one book on modern world history, read this one, as it jumps effortlessly from the Middle Ages to the 21st Century. It addresses in elegant and compelling fashion some of the ‘big questions’ of history, such as why did the West rise ?

1066 and All That - W C Sellar and R J Yeatman This is a comic classic featuring many a History gag. It is a book which has stood the test of time. Some of the historical analysis is surprisingly accurate. I particularly like the description of James II; ‘although a good man, James II was a bad king and behaved in such an irritating and arbitrary way that by the end of his reign the people had all gone mad…’

Europe- The Struggle for Supremacy - 1453 to the Present - Brendan Simms This much lauded book by the Professor of the History of International Relations at the University of Cambridge, gives an erudite overview of the history of Europe from the end of the Byzantine Empire to the Greek debt crisis. He makes a persuasive case for the central importance of Germany, even in the domestic politics of Britain-a must for all you 4X coursework aficionados.

3

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Return of a King - The Battle for Afghanistan William Dalrymple Dalrymple is one of the best historians currently writing and he is an acknowledged expert on the Indian subcontinent. Making use of a wide range of sources in Afghan languages he explores Britain’s military humiliation in Afghanistan between 1839 and 1842 and in the final chapter he journeys to Afghanistan, finding some disturbing parallels between the past and the present.

Russia against Napoleon: The Battle for Europe, 1807-1814 - Dominic Lieven I’m a bit of a military history geek so I really enjoyed this book, especially its revisionist interpretation of the Russian Army, which is often only accorded a ‘walk on part’ in most Napoleonic histories- the first chapter which surveys European politics in 1807, is magisterial.

When and why did the Ottoman Empire decline? By Eliz Peck Eliz explores the reasons behind the slow decline of one of History’s greatest empires and one which has done much to shape the modern Middle East…

The Ottoman Empire transformed from being at the height of its power in 1566, until by the end of the First World War, Ottoman authority had withered, and in 1922 the Sultanate was abolished - signifying the official end of what was once the most feared Empire in Europe. The main reason for this lengthy period of decline was the poor dynasty of Sultans; who allowed economic and social conditions to deteriorate without any significant attempts to reform, which resulted in vast social discontent. Decline was then 4

Winter 2014- Long live History !

accelerated rapidly with the emergence of West Europe as a strong power, particularly in the early 18th century. This exacerbated pre-existing problems with the pressures of early capitalism and modern warfare, resulting in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The fundamental reason the Ottoman Empire declined was the reduction in the quality of Sultan. Achmet I’s break with the Fratricidal Law in 1603 was a central cause of this. Previously, the most able royal prince had been prepared for the Sultanate by ruling military provinces and, by law, all other male relatives of the Sultan were executed to prevent power struggles.

Yet, Achmet’s change resulted in the male relatives of the Sultan being kept in the Kafes, with the eldest male relative rather than the ablest son succeeding.

Of the first 10 Sultans, each ruled on average 27 years, earning names such as ‘the Magnificent’, ‘the Conqueror’ and ‘the Ferocious’. Yet, the abolition of this law meant more and more uncles, sons and nephews of the Sultan built up in the Kafes, where their existence was far from reality. Thus, their aptitude for rule declined dramatically, as shown by the Sultanate of Ibrahim (1640) who is described as ‘the very maddest of this increasingly mad and morbid family’. Now, the Sultans had lost sight of their role as the padishah; he no longer concerned himself in the affairs of the state. Sultans lost interest in the Porte and became more interested in building their personal wealth, hence ‘Out of the next 10 Sultans, five were deposed, and 2 assassinated’ and they averaged a mere 12 years rule apiece. Yet, the poor rule of these Sultans is not merely explained by the inadequacy of the Sultan himself. The abolition of the Law of Fratricide meant ‘power slid from the Sultans to their slaves’.

The Valide Sultan and Grand Vizier used their increasingly powerful positions to promote their own personal interests. The contamination of the Palace was so absolute that even the ulema themselves were influenced by something other than God. Since there were ‘no breaks or limit on the exercise of power’, the consequences proved ‘even more disastrous’. Koçi Bey agreed “Women without faith or religion entered the imperial Harem. Order and discipline were ruined, laws and decrees ceased to exist”. Impurity grew in the heart of the Empire; factional rivalries developed in the Palace due to different support for the many heirs that were now competing for the Sultanate. The brutal execution in 1651 of the Valide Sultan Kosem is evidence of the severe extremity to which factional rivalry had developed by the mid 17th century. Moreover, so bad had this corruption and dishonesty become by 1608, that Sultan Achmet I was compelled to criticise it in his ‘Justice Decree’.

This corruption further exacerbated pre-existing economic problems for the Porte, who already faced a deficit; as a result of costly wars and the lavish Palace.

5

Winter 2014- Long live History !

When a capable Sultan did come to power, the Empire showed green shoots of recovery. In the early 17th century, in less than ten years, the rule of Murad IV meant that ‘order and discipline were re-established in the army, town and country again became safe’. The same was true again when the Koprulu dynasty of Grand Viziers controlled the country. This dynasty ‘brought an end to disorder and corruption, discipline was re-established and the budget balanced’. Therefore, it was clear a capable leader was needed for the Empire to thrive, and without one there was weakness at its very heart. Thus, the later conditions of European threats, economic decline and military weakness were able to injure the Empire more than if it had a capable leader.

Economic decline was also crucial to the decline of the Empire, since economic prosperity mirrored military success and vice versa. Fundamentally, the economy declined due to systemic problems. Years, during which reliance upon military success to fuel the timar system was plausible, were numbered.

The failure to capture Vienna during the siege of 1529 is indicative that even during the 16th century, the vast Ottoman Empire was beginning to reach its natural limits. Thus, when colonisation slowed to a halt and the empire began retracting in the middle of the 17th century, the timar system collapsed and the economy suffered massively. The rapid expanse of the army within half a century in the late 1500s coupled with a slowing military success generated large socio-economic problems, and undermined the timar system. The Porte now had no new resources with which to pay the ever-expanding army; there were no new regions to tax, nor was there more land available to reward for a timar. Moreover, disparity existed between the pay-out of annual salaries according to the lunar calendar, and tax revenue according to the solar calendar. This meant that ‘every thirty-two years the state undertook to pay thirty-three annual salaries’; over time, this amassed to undermine the already struggling treasury. By 1590, payment was in arrears for thousands; functionaries, provincial governors and those in the palace. In the late 1500s, conflict with both the Habsburgs and Safavids, combined with economic decline, had forced the Porte to rely on financial expedients such as tax farming. This method proved disastrous, augmenting the already existing corruption. With inflation eroding the value of money, tax collectors exploited the tax-paying population for their own personal wealth. This massively increased burden on the peasantry, as well as the appropriation of land from the timars by Palace officials, meant that there was widespread social discontent, and many migrated from the rural regions into urban areas.

Inflation across Europe during the early 16th century devalued the Ottoman currency, especially after the impact of Spanish American silver and gold.

6

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Here, the government cannot be criticised in their role, as they did attempt to stifle the effects of inflation, but still the aspers “were as light as the leaves on an almond tree and as worthless as dew drops”.

Yet, the collapse of the economy was inferior to the role of the Sultan in causing the decline of the Empire. For many years the economy was struggling; arguably even before the death of Suleiman the Magnificent, when there were telltale signs of ‘cracks’ in the Empire. However, this was not a condition from which the economy could not recover. Inflation is a common problem within economies, and one that does not usually cripple them entirely. The Ottoman system itself then, was the major problem, and this could have been easily reformed with the unlimited powers of the Sultan. Yet, due to their indolence, the line of Sultans from Selim the Sot onwards failed to do so.

Widespread social discontent contributed to the decline of the Empire, yet this factor is of relative unimportance compared to those previously mentioned. Social discontent can be seen as a referred symptom of the Sultan’s ineptitude and economic downturn, which accelerated decline; making it even less likely that the Ottomans could recover from the significant challenges that they were facing.

Military failure caused discontent in every class; since there were ‘important psychological repercussions in an army and a people where traditions of religious expansion were deeply rooted’. The introduction of the Kafes meant that the ‘warrior blood of the earlier Sultans had been diluted’; they no longer took their duty as ‘God’s shadow on earth’ as seriously. Before Mehmet III’s campaign against the Habsburg army in Hungary in 1596, no Sultan had accompanied his troops since Suleiman’s death – 30 years previously. Instead, now Sultans sought to avoid war, perhaps explaining the slowdown of military conquest. Consequently, the military became alienated from the Sultan; they were no longer the ‘fighters of the faith’ - the lack of conquest and economic squeeze on the Empire meant that pay to the increasing size of the janissary army was unsatisfactory. Their attachment to the Sultan broke; the failure to colonise, thus pay the army, meant that janissary rebellions broke out. As early as 1584, the janissaries revolted against the government for their devalued pay. When the janissaries were sent to deal with the Celali revolts in Anatolia in the late 16th century and early 17th century, they used this as an opportunity to compensate for their pay, and corruption became rife. Along with extortion of many towns and villagers across the Empire, many seized land; creating a new class with a 7

Winter 2014- Long live History !

detachment from the Sultans. Many of this new land-holding class in the provinces sought political power reducing the central authority of the already weak Porte. Eventually by the 17th century, the Porte resorted to granting political legitimacy to vassal rulers. For example, in 1720 the case of when Hasan Pasha took over Babylon. This decentralisation weakened the Ottoman government.

Economic decline caused social discontent; financial expedients now became ‘permanent burdens on the people’. Combined with population increase and lack of new territory to cultivate, this caused growing unemployment in overpopulated rural regions. Mass urban migration became increasingly popular; more people entered into state service seeking permanent employment on annual salaries. Thus, ‘more and more janissaries appeared on the books, less and less effective as a fighting force’. Significantly, this depleted the quality of the army severely when military might was desperately needed; firstly, to pay the increasing size of the janissary army with timars, and secondly, in order to contend with the growing power of the European armies that were beginning to threaten the Ottomans.

Social discontent in the Ottoman Empire arguably was not entirely due to the weakness of the Sultan. The general population expansion in Europe affected the Ottoman Empire; here, the population rose from 12 million in 1520 to 35 million in 1600. A rapid population rise served only to worsen the inflation and overcrowding in rural regions, increasing the likelihood that many would flee and form brigands, or resort to dishonest methods to accumulate wealth. Nevertheless, the Sultan failed to manage this efficiently.

Instead of reforming the Empire to mirror the West, the Ottoman leaders became obsessed with replicating the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, which they saw as the ‘Golden Age’. A dynamic leader would have modernised the backwards economy, and this would have improved the socio-economic problem of mass unemployment. Claiming that this was too dramatic a feat to be performed so quickly is disproved by Russian development in the early to mid 18th century. This failure to recognise the need for dramatic change weakened the Empire in the greatest way. The obsession with the nostalgia towards the Golden Age blinded the Ottomans to their systemic weaknesses, especially in the economy, which was too heavily reliant on the success of war and timar system. Pride of the past led the Ottomans to believe that a return to the system of military conquest was essential in restoring the greatness of the Empire. ‘From the 17th century the empire went into it’s shell’, just when it needed to open its eyes to the changing economic, bureaucratic and military systems of the West.

8

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Another crucial reason for the declining Ottoman Empire was the emergence of the West, just as the inherent Ottoman problems were beginning to weaken the Empire. The end of Ottoman expansion had significant outcomes, yet ‘the impact all the greater because the crisis ensued at the very moment when profound changes were taking place in the Western world’. Whereas during the mid 16th century, the might of the Ottomans had instilled fear in their Christian neighbours, at the end of the 16th century the army had been diluted with peasants and was now weaker; less disciplined, badly trained and poorly armed. Europe enjoyed a series of victories over the Ottomans resulting in the 1699 Treaty of Karlowitz where the Ottomans lost much of their Empire. European powers benefitted ‘from coming late to the imperial feast’; they could ‘arrange their command structure, their tax gathering efforts, and their technology to suit the modern style of warfare’.

Thus, the West could fund modern warfare and weaponry, whereas the Ottomans were unable to invest in training and weaponry, such as the musket. They failed to undergo systemic reform; their bureaucracy remained inefficient and their economy rudimentary. Moreover, early capitalism and the beginnings of industry in West Europe created a price revolution with which the Ottomans, because of their fixed system of guilds, were unable to compete. The fanatic pursuit of profit undermined the Ottoman economy; a lack of innovation and personal initiative reduced trade of domestic goods.

Meanwhile, the lack of reform to establish early capitalism meant European trade damaged the Ottoman economy even further. They merely exported raw materials, losing out on profit that could have been made from refining them. This meant the Porte was unable to generate the revenue needed to implement the vast reform that was needed to prevent complete collapse of the Empire. Thus, it was the failure of the Sultans to address the inherent weaknesses that delivered the Empire into the hands of the European states.

Poor administrative bureaucracy decentralised power to local notables, meaning European attempts to take over these regions were more likely. Even as early as the 17th century, villages had ‘frequently paid tax or tribute…to whichever side arrived to levy payment’. The failure of the ‘Tanzimat era’ from 1839 to 1876, during which the Sultans attempted to implement various changes based ‘more or less on the model of an ‘advanced’ European state’ demonstrates the failure of the Sultans. Most profoundly, Darwin describes the benefits of this reform as ‘meagre’; its heavily dependence on foreign loans with annual interest rates of 30%, bankrupted the economy by 1875.

Evidently then, reform by the late 19th century was too late and should have been attempted by earlier Sultans in order to prevent the Ottoman Empire from declining.

9

Winter 2014- Long live History !

In conclusion, the dynastic deterioration of the Sultans was fundamental in causing Ottoman decline. The head of the Empire was now no longer concerned with its economic or social conditions. The combination of high taxation and rural overpopulation caused widespread social discontent, pushing the peasantry to move to the provinces; eventually seeking independence from the Empire in the late 18th century. Since the timar system was central to the military and economy, social discontent and economic decline began with the end of the military conquest and inflation during the late 16th and 17th centuries. A weak bureaucracy meant the increasingly rebellious janissary army and new land-holding classes were replacing the Sultan’s influence. A capable Sultan would have recognised the need for systemic reform long before things had escalated to this extent. Instead an obsession grew with the need for a restoration of the Golden Age. The Empire found itself attempting to maintain an expanding, increasingly rebellious, weak army on an underdeveloped economy well into the 17th and 18th centuries. It was in this deplorable state that it had to face the external challenge of the emergence of West Europe. By this point, Europe - as a more modernised and effective military, and early capitalist economy - rapidly accelerated the Ottoman decline by exacerbating pre-existing problems, demonstrating that it was clearly ill-adapted to the new age of early industry.

The European catalyst had weakened the Ottoman Empire greatly by the late 19th century. Victory during the First World War was used as an opportunity for the West to divide up the Empire that had once been an immense European power. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.

Your History problems answered by mystery History-teaching guru, ‘Mr Patrick’…

There seem a lot of facts to learn in History- do you have any advice on how to go about learning the subject matter ?

10

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Yours sincerely, Keen young historian

Dear keen young historian, Over and above the obvious, such as eating more satsumas and listening to a varied diet of hip hop, soul and modern pop classics, I would recommend picking one book from your course reading list each term, to look at independently. In other words, don’t just rely on the notes you make in class. Try and get into the habit of reviewing your class notes for at least ten minutes each evening- you might want to call this ‘History time.’ During ‘History time’ see if you can ‘verbalise’ your learning by explaining the topic to somebody else.

I hope this helps ?

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

I am loving History in the Sixth Form and I am really keen to study the subject at university- what advice would you give me about preparing a strong UCAS application ?

Yours sincerely, Year 12 History legend

Dear Year 12 History legend, This is great news and a History degree from a well regarded university is still very much an educational ‘gold standard.’ University tutors will expect to see evidence of you having ‘gone beyond the syllabus’ so seize these 11

Winter 2014- Long live History !

opportunities when they come along ! For instance, have you signed up to the Year 12 Book Club and are you reading all the articles that you should from the desk of knowledge ? Are you taking brief notes on what you read ? You should also consider entering one of the many History essay competitions run in the summer term of Year 12, such as the Julia Wood or the Robson Prize competitions. These provide a really good opportunity to take your learning to the next level.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

I have a brutal totalitarian History teacher who expects me to read History books and take notes from them- how do I do this ?

Yours sincerely, Stressed out Year 13 student

Dear Stressed out Year 13 student, Please don’t worry- wider reading is a stern intellectual challenge with which even university students struggle, but one that can be tackled successfully with the right approach. First of all, when researching a topic, start in the academic foothills with a Lancaster pamphlet, text book or an ‘Access to History’ before attempting to climb the mountain of knowledge.

You should write down notes rather than highlighting, as the latter can quickly become rather mechanistic. Remember the ‘golden mean’- don’t copy out the whole book, but equally, you cannot summarise the whole of a History book in 2 sides. As a very rough guide, 100 pages of text should produce 5- 10 sides of notes. Look for specific examples, details and quotations- in other words, things that ‘flesh out’ what you already know.

12

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Also, be on the look out for quotations which you think get to the heart of a historian’s interpretation. Get into good habits early- put the name of the book, its author, the publisher and the date of publication at the top of each page. Finally, be prepared to use a dictionary and to read a complex passage of text more than once.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

I am planning a dinner party. How important is a knowledge of History in order to successfully host such an occasion ?

Yours sincerely, James Taylor

Dear James, What an interesting question ! A knowledge of History is of course vital to the success of any dinner party. First of all, History provides you with an almost inexhaustibly supply of slightly dull anecdotes with which to fill that awkward pause in conversation between courses. Secondly, all historians should heed the lessons of the past and History can certainly provide a good guide as to the kind of guests not to invite. Avoid Stuart monarchs as their table manners are terrible and they may consume more than their fair share of alcoholic beverages. Levellers can be charming but may shout a lot and try and write pamphlets while the starters are being served, whilst Diggers and Marxists are to be avoided, as they may try and turn your house into a utopian republic. Finally, never allow Bismarck to sit next to Napoleon III, unless you wish to see your crockery used for an unseemly re-enactment of the Franco-Prussian War. Kind Regards,

13

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Mr Patrick

I am looking for a new fashion look with which to cut a dash at the next Felsted School Social ? Can you help ?

Yours sincerely, Felsted fashionista

Dear Felsted fashionista, Happy to help ! May I recommend History teacher chic ? This is both cheap, practical and ‘street’. Get yourself down to your nearest supermarket or discount warehouse and buy a pair of corduroy trousers and lots of tweed. You may also want to invest in a novelty bow tiepolyester rather than silk obviously. One warning- patches on jackets should be avoided by the under 35s.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

I am finding it very difficult to balance my social life with my historical commitments- what should I do ?

Cavalier Party Animal

Dear Cavalier Party Animal, I once had a social life but misplaced it under a pile of marking, at some time during the last millennium. My advice would be to give up the hectic social whirl and devote yourself to matters historical. On the other hand, you could try and combine the two by staging a ‘knowledge party’. A ‘knowledge party’ combines some of the ‘fun’ elements of a traditional 14

Winter 2014- Long live History !

social engagement ( crisps, unnamed pieces of dead animal covered in breadcrumbs, witty banter, pizza and house music ) with an exciting ‘history quiz’ element. Believe me, this is a craze that will soon be sweeping the nation. One final piece of advice- remember not to combine break dancing and essay writing as implementation of PEC is impossible when you are spinning on your head.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

The causes of the English Civil War by James Taylor Below is James’s prize-winning entry to the Robson Competition at Cambridge University…

The English Civil war undoubtedly has its roots in the dramatic unforeseen events following the failed implementation of the Scottish prayer book, which placed greater strain on the ideological differences between king and parliament. The transpiring events in the short and long parliaments especially catalyzed the prospect of war aided by the unforeseen Irish rebellion. However it would be naïve to suggest that the English rebellion has its sole origins in seemingly random nonspecific events. Its foundations have blatant influences from the preceding decade of 1640. Perhaps speculatively, in accordance with the Whig argument, murmurings of rebellion have been suggested to exist since the early 16th century, but certainly events from 1629 onwards had a significant impact in dividing the population of England.

During the decade preceding 1640 a series of developments took place that can be regarded as directly influential to the outbreak of the civil war of which these can be assessed categorically. All categories include 15

Winter 2014- Long live History !

the common theme of underlying resentment against the Crown, the source of which can be seen to be the uncompromising and ruthless policies post 1629, which drove the quiescent majority into fierce opposition.

Religiously there was a great divide for which Laud was partly to blame.

His influence became especially prominent after becoming Archbishop in 1633. Finding his way to the title of Archbishop of Canterbury through a road heavily paved with excessive royal patronage it comes as no surprise that the relationship between King and Archbishop was symbiotic, indeed their views were aligned in parallel. The revival of hieratic ritual and visual ornament instilled by Laud rang tones reminiscent of Catholicism. This was a particularly combustible combination causing suspicion as well as resentment towards Charles because of the prominence of the anti-Catholic attitude during this time. Reforms such as Laudian Episcopal appointments, emphasis on the “beauty of holiness”, catechizing sermons, adherence to the prayer book, additional emphasis on sacrament and on the altar, wearing of the surplice and the dismissal of predestination were so popularly perceived to be evocative of Catholicism that Laud was even offered a Cardinal’s hat in 1633, declined as he could not accept “till Rome was other than it is”. Therefore Laudianism was greatly despised as it was seen to be overthrowing the stable and righteous religious order as well as being fundamentally affiliated with Catholicism in an age of anti-popish hysteria. As well as rudimentary ideological controversies surrounding Laudianism, more logistical ones also existed. For instance there was a deep-rooted contempt for Laud as a result of the monopoly of patronage he held within the church. Furthermore the uncompromising manner in which Laud’s reforms were instigated also caused friction. As Lawrence Stone comments, “Those who expressed disagreement with Laudian measures or doctrines were harried into persecution which was worse than in the days of Whitgift” . Because of this persecution there was an underlying theme of resentment angled at Laud and as a result of the undeniably close nature of his relationship with Charles , a lot of the acrimony for religion found its way back to the crown. Religion during this time was so bountiful in igniting controversy between the Puritans and Catholics that some historians hold it as the fundamental reason for the outbreak of the civil war. John Morrill went as far as to declare in 1984 that “the English civil war was not the first European revolution: it was the last of the Wars of Religion”. Morrill’s argument is strong when considering the 16

Winter 2014- Long live History !

scope of influence religion held. Pym, who is thought to have led and inspired the parliamentary cause against the Charles, was highlighted as to having a puritan obsession with “true religion”. Perhaps as Hexter argues it was the “emotional basis of his policies”, for instance it could have arguably made him more fixated with the Irish rebellion. In addition, local studies by historians like Lawrence Stone would appear to bear out the view that religion was the cause for the Civil war. For instance, in Yorkshire 90% of all Catholic gentry became royalists and 72% of all Puritan gentry became parliamentarians. With such numerical dominance and negative correlation in the opposing sides of the Civil war, surely religion must have been influential in the events that transpired leading up to Civil war. However it must be recognised that the English Civil war is more complex than just having just one cause. The role religion has in causing the Civil war is unquestionably an influential one; it forced neutrals to choose sides. As Trevelyan points out “neutrals everywhere were forced to abandon their neutrality”. But whilst it was the cause for encouraging polarity between neutrals, it cannot be argued that it was the only cause for polarity, which would be to say it was the sole cause of the English Civil War. Without religion as a factor, Civil war would surely have been ignited through other means.

The fiscal policies of Charles were also effective in inciting a deep indignation between crown and the people of England as a whole. On paper the financial expedients were successful in raising money. Crown funds were up to £899,000 in the latter end of the 1630’s in contrast with approximately £600,000 at the beginning. However the effectiveness of raising capital does not diverge from the fact that that the money was levied in an unconstitutional and arbitrary manner popularly conceived by most as immoral. Such strong feelings are justified when contemplating the sheer sum of unprincipled money collection. Charles raised money through methods such as the Distraint of Knighthood, Forest Fines, Draining the Fens and most controversially of all the renewed collection of Ship Money. Traditionally Ship Money was a tax levied in times of emergency in coastal counties to fund the navy. However in 1635, against all precedent, this tax was extended to the whole country in a time of peace (although Charles infamously justified its collection because of a supposed threat of piracy!). Most notably demonstrated by ship money, Charles’s financial expedients were not only intellectually insulting to the people of England but also financially crippling as the agriculturally dominated economy of 17

Winter 2014- Long live History !

England was suffering at this time due to failed harvests and an economic depression. As a consequence because of the lack of political accountability in the ways Charles had collected his funds, the resentment between Charles and his parliament strengthened. Even when considering the view that unparliamentarily taxes were collected with “petty annoyance” rather than “fierce tyranny” as Gardiner expresses, it is evident that fiscal feudalism was a real area of constitutional dispute, rising above the status of petty annoyance, distinctly exampled by the Hampden case. The Hampden case of 1637 detailed John Hampden, a wealthy landowner from Buckinghamshire, refusing to pay ship money. Charles took him to court and won, but only by the narrowest of margins (7 to 5), resulting in the ship money collection rate falling by 20%. This demonstrated the unified distaste of the English people against Charles as well as the political cost of fiscal feudalism. However again it must be acknowledged, in the same way as it was for religion, that fiscal feudalism was not a cause of the Civil war on its own. Fiscal feudalism was limited in the direct influence it had in sparking revolutionary tones in England. It can only be held responsible for magnifying the eroding trust between King and Parliament and more widely the population of England, all of whom bore the pain of his innovative expedients. This meant that when crisis struck, in the form of the Scottish and later the Irish rebellion, Charles did not have the trust he needed from his parliament to successfully mobilize a structured and effective response.

Economically Charles also incited division, especially between the gentry and the lower classes. The way in which he did so centres around interpretations of Marxist historians like Christopher Hill and R H Tawney, who argued that the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII, and changes in population and price inflation created economic opportunities for rising gentry (Tawney calls them “enterprising country gentlemen…agricultural capitalists who were making the pace”), who found the monarchy to be an obstacle to their political and economic development. Therefore the gentry kick-started the English rebellion because they were angered and deterred by economic suffering. Hill particularly advocates this view stating that the gentry were “rising” through the use of increasingly capitalistic methods. He goes on to highlight the Court as full of ‘aristocratic, commercial racketeers…sucking the life blood from the whole people by methods of economic exploitation…Charles’s government tried to perpetuate a feudal social order when the conditions existed for freer 18

Winter 2014- Long live History !

capitalist development.’ However all-inclusive theories for the cause of the Civil war can be dismissed. Particular to the Marxist view, recent research has shown the situation to be more complex with no substantial correlation between the economic fortunes of the gentry and their support for either King or Parliament. Hugh Trevor-Roper has produced numerous examples of ‘declining gentry’ who fought for Parliament, and therefore it is difficult to argue that the Civil War was a ‘class war’ between economically empowered gentry aiming to impose their will on the lower classes. Anderson seeks to strike the balance about the influence the Marxist view really holds. According to Anderson, “the result was that the gentry in the early 17th century was probably more numerous, more articulate and more confident than ever before.” However, she also goes on to argue, “at most they could explain a level of tension and destabilisation.” This certainly rings true, socio-economic factors may certainly explain why in particular the gentry and higher classes were drawn to either the royalist or parliamentarian cause, but as to where economic reasons stand in regard to the origins of the Civil war, economic reasons can only be seen to be partly responsible.

Whilst these policies as a whole were being implemented the governing elite began to divide ideologically. These ideological differences soon began to manifest physically. In the Privy Council Protestants fought Catholics as well as crypto-Catholics and the aristocracy split apart as more were ejected or refused entry to court. Furthermore the Episcopal bench was split as Laud’s reforms forced the English into contrasting religious camps. Additionally the merchant class was offended and strained by the opportunistic and selfish reforms made by Charles. The City of London also saw a rise in anti-Caroline hysteria.

Monopolies crippled genuine businesses and the interference and meddling of internal affairs in businesses inevitably bred resistance and resentment.

Despite the visible tensions between Charles and his people, upon which the Civil war was built, Civil war was by no means inevitable during the 1630’s. Charles’s experiments in personal rule were going well. He enjoyed some success in the 1630's- his constitutional experiments in Ireland under the leadership of Thomas Wentworth had been going well and he was able to raise sufficient money for the everyday running of his government through his financial expedients.

This relative success proves that although there were areas of Charles’s 19

Winter 2014- Long live History !

government disliked by the entire spectrum of social class, civil war was in fact not a certainty based on long term causes as perhaps suggested by 19th and early 20th century Whig historians. Such historians like Trevlyan and Macaulay argue that the origins of armed conflict in 1642 can be traced back to the parliamentary conflicts during the reign of James, particularly through areas in which parliament itself was “rising” to the challenge of royal prerogatives. According to Trevlyan and Macaulay the 1604 Apology of the House of Commons, the Bate Case, the revival of the impeachment of royal ministers in 1621, the 5 Knights Case and the Petition of Right were key ‘staging posts’ in this rise of parliament. Despite elements of legitimacy, the Whig argument cannot be wholeheartedly accepted. It is limited to some extent as it moves into the dangerous territory of reading history backwards through extravagant speculation. In reality logistics give a contrasting account to the Whig argument. In the House of Commons during 1642 MPs in their 20s were royalists by a factor of 2-1 and MPs in their 50s were parliamentarians by a factor of 2-1, contradicting the Whig view that opposition was something borne from past decades alone. The Whig interpretation is also deterministic; for instance, can a civil war really have been inevitable if Charles came extremely close to being able to dissolve Parliament in the latter stages of 1641? Therefore it can be concluded that the causes of the Civil war lie within many reasons combined: the Marxist theory alongside the effect of religious innovations and the way in which Charles raised funds all have their place in causing the Civil war. However short term causes also play a key role, specifically elements of the Revisionist and Post revisionist theory.

Revisionists such as Fletcher, with justification, argue that other theories for the outbreak of the civil war (in particular the Whig) can be dismissed on the grounds that the roots of the English Civil War are in short term functional factors rather than long-term reasons. This view is based on the effect day-to-day interactions of personalities, coincidences, miscalculations and misunderstandings are recognized to have; all of which led to the development of constitutional royalism.

Fletcher highlights that the English Civil War was “a war that nobody wanted, a war that left men bewildered, and that they marveled as it broke out by fits and starts all over England in the summer of 1642”.

Trevelyan also refers to how neutrals were “forced” out of neutrality.

These accounts detail that the English Civil War was not something passionately encouraged by all as neutrals were “forced” out of 20

Winter 2014- Long live History !

neutrality. It also suggests it was to a degree unforeseen as men were left “bewildered” when it broke out. This directly contradicts the Whig theory, which argues that the Civil war was inevitable before the 1630’s and that people had already come to a fixed polarity before even the reign of Charles.

The revisionist theory would support the argument that Charles’s personality was a (short term) trigger in causing the English Civil War. Without doubt it can be said that Charles’s personality was inspiration for the parliamentarian movement. According to Russell, “he had no knack for smoothing over crises with ambiguities and above all, he had not the saving laziness of James I.” Hirst helpfully summarises the conventional argument about the role Charles’s government had in the Civil war by saying; ‘Charles I was ill suited to kingship and must rank amongst the most inept of all English kings - while it would be foolish to conclude that the civil war occurred simply because he was king, it would be equally foolish to underestimate the part played by his personality.’ It must be concluded that Charles had a disastrous inability to comprehend how his policies were perceived by the political nation; was inclined to deviousness and intrigue; saw parliament simply as a ‘rubber stamp’ for his preconceived plans and also had a disastrous obsession with religious order and uniformity across the three kingdoms (England, Ireland and Scotland). Hirst strikes the balance delicately in his analysis, he shows whilst Charles’s personality was clearly influential in causing the English Civil War it was by no means the most influential factor.

Charles’s afore mentioned success during personal rule was dependent on avoiding parliament, a medium in which the grievances stored up since the beginning of personal rule could be voiced with potentially constitutionally disastrous effect, and also in avoiding war, which after the military revolution was especially costly. Due to some miscalculations, misunderstandings and coincidences these terms, fundamental to successful personal rule were not kept, hence rendering short-term factors as a key reason for Civil war. In 1637 Charles and Laud tried to impose religious conformity by enforcing the Anglican prayer book in Scotland as well as England, controversially bypassing the Scottish Kirk and parliament, inciting riots and a rebellion. The impact of this meant Charles was in dire need of funds to fight the rebellion and so was forced to call parliament multiple times, in which grievances stored during his personal rule were voiced. The 21

Winter 2014- Long live History !

leader of the anti-royalist movement, John Pym, attacked the King’s royal prerogatives. The recognition of the grievances they posed physically manifested in the form of legislation and impeachment notably including the “Triennial Act” and the impeachment of Strafford (aka Thomas Wentworth). Civil war was now becoming a more likely prospect as parliament, a medium for grievances to be voiced, now had to remain in session as it was the only hope for Charles to raise needed funds. Also as a result of the criticism Charles and his government faced, a royalist cause was formed. Opponents for possible war now existed. Therefore miscalculation and misunderstanding were key in the roles they had in causing the Civil war. If it wasn’t Charles’s poor judgment in introducing the Scottish prayer without consulting the Scottish parliament and Kirk, the Long and Short parliaments of England would never have been held, grievances would not have been aired in the manner they were, and speculatively the English Civil War would not have occurred. The crisis of 1640 brought long term problems into the open, intensifying hostility and mistrust between crown and parliament, so that a single event such as the Irish Rebellion could act as a trigger to begin the slide towards civil war Coincidence also had a part to play in the Civil war. When parliament went into recess in the summer of 1641, it appeared at superficial glance that parliament’s voice had been heard, Strafford had been hung and the grievances of Pym had been aired with resulting watertight legal ramifications. However some bad fortune meant that Pym and his followers would have another chance to attack the Crown, this time with revolutionary consequences. When parliament reconvened in November 1641, the rebellion in Ireland added a new dimension and strain to the tensions between Charles and Parliament. Debate in session became focused on what could be done to solve the situation in Ireland, whether the solution was raising an army and, more shocking to the ancient constitution, whether the king could be trusted with an army, something normally accepted as given (as part of the ancient constitution). This air of constitutional revolution was summarized in the Grand Remonstrance; a document that aimed to comprehensively enlighten all that Charles had done wrong since he ascended the throne in 1625 in order to justify severe restrictions to be imposed on royal prerogatives. Civil war was now inevitable, King and Parliament could no longer co-exist peacefully because of the invasions of the prerogatives Pym and the parliamentarian movement had enforced.

This was visibly evident during March 1642 when parliament passed an 22

Winter 2014- Long live History !

ordinance (legislation not requiring the king’s signature) known as the 'militia ordinance' in order to gain legal backing - they could now gather a military force and appoint military commanders. Therefore the element of coincidence in the form of the Irish rebellion sparked the Civil war because of the political and constitutional groundbreaking ramifications it held. In July 1642 parliament voted to raise an army, and on the 1st of August Charles, having rejected Parliament’s terms of the 19 propositions, raised his banner in the city of Nottingham and called all true subjects to come to his support. And so in July/August 1642 England was at war, war with itself.

In conclusion, the cause of the Civil war cannot conveniently rest on a single factor as utopian theories from historians like Hexter and Lawrence Stone suggest. It must be recognised that the roots of the civil war do not lie solely in the long term causes, as the Whig view advocates, but equally that short term triggers and catalysts are not exclusive in causing the civil war. In reality it was a combination of the general predisposition of despise for the crown and an abundant lack of trust that had been built up through the policies implemented, coupled with the unpredictable events post 1638 that caused the English Civil War.

Why do political revolutions happen? By Eliz Peck In this essay Eliz analyses whether different revolutions in history share common patterns…

Revolutions are abundant throughout history; whether they are political, social, economic or a combination of all three. It is true that a political revolution is the overthrow of an old government by a new regime, which brings about significant changes. But the key difference between a political coup and revolution is that, in revolutions, the new regime has sustained success. For example, the Munich Putsch of 1923 is not considered to be a revolution, whereas the replacement of Tsarist Russia with Communism during the Bolshevik revolutions in 1917 are recognised as a revolution. With 23

Winter 2014- Long live History !

countless examples of political revolutions throughout history, is it therefore possible to identify any trends between the causes of these? Is there perhaps a perfect combination of causes, a ‘recipe’, for a revolution? Could we use this to predict future revolutions?

One factor that is largely a common feature in revolutions is the presence of a weak and ineffective leader in the existing regime. The indecisiveness of Louis XVI undermined the credibility of his reign, spurring the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Similarly, Charles I’s repeated failure to compromise with political opposition led to the First Civil War, and the ‘interregnum’ from 1649-60 after his execution. Yet, these weak leaders will only be overthrown if an alternative ideology exists. Otherwise, the people would have nothing to fight for, thus would be willing to tolerate reigns of such leaders until the next rectifies the mistakes of their predecessor. The French were inspired to overturn the ancien regime by the Enlightenment ideals spread by philosophes such as Voltaire. Even so, the existence of such ideas is not sufficient to guarantee a successful revolution. Indeed, movements require a leader. Radical opposition representing the ideology of the people allows this to be voiced. For example, Pym’s Junto was instrumental in uniting Parliament against the King by airing their grievances and calling for reform more forcefully than had previously been suggested.

However, the leaders that represent an alternative ideology are unlikely to have much success in instigating a revolution unless they have the support of a significant proportion of the population. Hence, a broad level of socio-discontent is usually required as a prerequisite to a successful revolution. Bread riots on the streets of Paris in 1879 were indicative of the widespread peasant dissatisfaction with their socio-economic welfare, explaining why the overthrow of the ancein regime was so popular. Likewise, the popular support of Strafford’s execution in 1641 occurred amidst a general rise in the levels of socio-economic discontent in London, with many MPs fearing ‘mob rule’. Considering this point, perhaps it was the failure of the liberalist and nationalists to represent the socio-economic discontent amongst the lower orders in the German states, deriving from the 1847 economic downturn, which explains why the revolutions of 1848 had a limited impact. Yet, support of the masses is of negligible use should the existing government have the army at their disposal, allowing them to suppress potential revolutions as mere riots. However, should the army desert the existing regime, a revolution is likely to be successful. A most recent example of this occurring is in Egypt; here, despite the protests of millions of Egyptians, the people were not able to depose Morsi until the army intervened to remove the President from power in July of this year.

24

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Equally the opposition may be successful against the existing regime provided they have adequate military strength, as demonstrated by the defeat of Charles I at the hands of the New Model Army in the First Civil War. It is certainly true that for a revolution to be successful they need to have sufficient military means with which to overturn the existing leader, and implement their new regime thoroughly and effectively, preventing anarchy as a result of a ‘power vacuum’. Again, indicating a potential reason why the 1848 revolutions across the German states were not lasting.

Finally, another consideration is – most obviously demonstrated by the reactionary period after the 1848 revolutions – does every revolution end in a counter-revolution? Even those we consider to be ‘successful’ and ‘lasting’ have arguably had a counter-revolution. Republican Britain ended in 1660 with the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II. The ideals of French enlightenment overcoming the ancien regime were undone with the absolutist leadership of Napolean, and led to the return of the Bourbon dynasty in 1815. Russia perhaps exists as the best example of a successful political revolution, with the Soviet Union prospering until 1991, but even this was undone with the creation of the Russian Federation after the fall of Communism.

Why did the Cold War start ? By Marino Entwistle In this essay, Year 11 student, Marino, analyses the key events which led to the start of the Cold War: The Cold War refers to the strategic and political competition between the USA and its western Allies on the one hand and the Soviet bloc on the other, which created a sustained state of political and military tension ,but not an actual direct military conflict, during the period from the end of the Second World War to 1991. The term is mostly used to classify the period from 25

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Churchill’s Fulton speech on 5 March 1946 to the fall of the Berlin Wall and consequent breakup of the USSR. Even though the Cold War era is seen as the result of World War Two, in fact it was World War One that created the breeding ground for the revolutionary alternative to capitalism. Russia became the “first socialist state of the world” inspired by Lenin’s revolutionary Marxism. Not only did Lenin understand that for the complete victory of socialism, it was necessary to expand this ideology on an international level, but the idea of communism also became one of the triggers for the emergence of fascism. For instance, one of the key elements of Nazism was Hitler’s hatred of what he called ‘Bolshevism.’ It is also important to remember how incompatible American capitalism and Soviet communism were and in this difference can be detected the seeds of the Cold War. During World War Two, the Soviet Union suffered enormous human and economic losses; as a result, the Russians wanted to build a buffer zone that would protect them against another possible invasion from the West.

Therefore, as the Red Army continued to push the Nazis back it the USSR gained access to large parts of Eastern Europe which consequently became the actual buffer zone. Stalin’s main aim towards the end of World War Two was for the Western Allies to accept the new Western borders of the USSR and the buffer zone behind this line. He was acutely aware of the advantages that Soviet “occupation” of these areas would bring in the future. He is quoted as saying, “this War differs from any other in the past. Those, who occupy land, impose on its inhabitants a social system, if it is in the power of its army. It cannot be otherwise.” Equally, Britain, having gone to war to protect Poland, was anxious not to abandon eastern Europe entirely to its fate. President Roosevelt’s aims were to strengthen American position in the world by the means of economy and politics. Eastern Europe was not his priority and therefore Stalin was able to establish a stranglehold here.

26

Winter 2014- Long live History !

The question of Germany’s future became another major point of dispute.

Since 1943, the Allies were preparing plans for the eventual division of Germany and for the possible destruction of its industrial potential. In 1945, Germany was demilitarised and eventually divided into four zones – Russian, American, British and French, as was agreed at the 1945 Yalta Conference.

Furthermore, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt also agreed to allow free elections in the Eastern European countries, although Stalin’s interpretation of what was meant by ‘free elections’ was rather different to his Western counterparts. In 1945, the USSR agreed to join the US side in the war against Japan when Germany was defeated. During this time the USA were working on the development of the atomic bomb. On the 12th April 1945, President Roosevelt died and Harry Truman became the new American President.

Churchill lost the July 1945 general election; therefore Clement Attlee, the new British prime minister attended the Potsdam Conference in July 1945.

The three major players, Truman, Stalin and Attlee, disagreed on numerous points of the post war arrangements. In particular, Truman was unhappy about the size of German reparations to the USSR and both Attlee and Truman were very concerned over the rise of the power of communism in the countries of Eastern Europe. On 26 July, Allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. Truman did not make Stalin aware of the fact that the US had an atomic bomb. The Japanese government rejected the declaration and as a consequence the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th August. Stalin was furious with Truman as he was not told about the atomic bomb; this also stopped the USSR invading Japan and completely destroyed the opportunity to gain influence in Japan.

Therefore, by the summer of 1945 tensions in the Grand Alliance were already being exposed.

The pressure between the USSR and the Allies now started to mount up. At the end of 1945 arose the situation in northern Iran, which became one of the first topics discussed by the newly formed UN. Since 1941 Iran had been occupied by the British, Indian and Soviet forces whose invasion was justified by the need to use Iran’s vital oil supply sources as an important supply line to 27

Winter 2014- Long live History !

the Soviet war effort against Nazi Germany. The ‘Tripartite Treaty’ of January 1942 was to ensure that the Allies respected the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence of Iran, and they would withdraw all their military forces from the country within six months after the end of the war. Further assurances were given in 1943 in the Teheran Declaration, which was a proof of their "desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran" as well as a promise to assist Iran’s reconstruction after the war. The US and Britain withdrew their forces within the agreed six month period: however, Soviet Union refused to withdraw its troops and started to provide military support to the separatist movement in the northwestern part of the country, which led to the establishment of the Azerbaijan People's Government and the Republic of Kurdistan, in late 1945. This was a breach of the treaty not only on the point of withdrawal date but also on the point of additional military presence. The main two reasons for this move from the USSR were to obtain oil concessions in northern Iran and crucially protect their influence in the region. Even though the Soviet government managed to secure the concessions, they were never realised and the Russian troops eventually left in 1946. However, the Soviet attempt to gain influence in the Middle East was regarded in Washington as another worrying sign of Stalin’s imperial ambitions.

In February 1947 Britain, bankrupt and enduring the coldest winter of the 20th century, announced withdrawal of aid to Greece where its government was fighting a civil war against the Greek Communist Party. Turkey was also refused further economic help. As a result, on 12th March 1947 President Truman asked the US Congress for $400 million economic and military assistance for the two countries, inaugurating the Truman Doctrine. The reason for this statement was the belief that if the communist led freedom fighters in Greece and Turkey seized control; it was likely that communism would spread around the Mediterranean. Therefore, the Truman Doctrine was the start of 40 years of the Cold War policy that would be the basis of the US diplomacy and the beginning of an era of the US global leadership.

28

Winter 2014- Long live History !

In Europe, the post war economic situation led to strikes and unrest. In Germany, the food and housing conditions were bad. Its industrial growth was severely restricted by the agreements at the Potsdam Conference which led to the abolition of German armed forces, munitions factories and civilian industries that could support them; additionally all other civilian industries were severely restricted. The Western Allies became concerned with this situation and as the relations between Russian and the Allies cooled down, their policies on the future of Germany changed. The functioning West German industry was not only essential in the restoration of the whole European economy but also the West German military capabilities were a key element in the protection against the USSR. By 1 January 1947 the American and British German zones were joined and formed the basis of the West German state. On 5 June 1947 The US government developed the so called Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe. US Aid was offered both to the European economies and USSR and its allies. Stalin rejected the offer as the use of US economic aid would allow American influence on the communist economies. The plan came into operation in 1948 and its currency reform and introduction of the Deutsche Mark stopped the crippling inflation.

As a response, the Soviet government which did not agree to the currency reform initiated the Berlin Blockade, completely isolating the western half of the city. The Blockade lasted 11 months during which the western Allies supplied the city by air- it was during this period that World War Three became a real possibility for the first time.

The overall situation in Europe only sharpened the conflict between USSR and the Western Allies. In particular, the emergence of communism in Eastern European countries that were liberated by the Red Army became a great concern to the West. This was reflected in Churchill’s 1946 speech at Fulton in which he outlined the extent of Soviet power in these countries and pointed out to the level of Russian control and influence in the region. He stated that ‘from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." This “iron curtain” became the symbol of the division between the two systems and a declaration of the Cold War. 29

Winter 2014- Long live History !

On the 19th January 1947 the Polish elections were, thanks to rigging of the votes and intimidation, won by the communists and consequently Poland became part of the area which was controlled by USSR- one of the so-called satellite states. In 1946 Bulgaria became communist and in 1946 Romania also became part of the buffer zone. By 1948, Albania, Hungry and Czechoslovakia were also all governed by communist led governments. The political map of Europe had changed for the next 40 years.

On 4 April 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed as a strong message to Stalin’s USSR. Its first members were Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, the United Kingdom, the USA, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The basis of the treaty was that in the event of an armed attack against any one of the member states, the other member states would consider it to be an attack against them all and would assist, if necessary, taking a military action to protect the security of the North Atlantic Area. Europe was now effectively divided into two armed camps and the events since 1945 had paved the way for a further forty years of ideological and military tension between the USA and the USSR. Further Reading Ambrose, S E, and Brinkley, D G, Rise to Globalism- American Foreign Policy since 1938, Penguin, 1993 A very accessible introduction to the US perspective on the Cold War from a former Professor of History at the University of New Orleans; the chapters on Reagan and the end of the Cold War are particularly useful.

Braithwaite, R, Afgantsy- The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89, Profile, 2011 A detailed and readable account of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by a former British ambassador to Moscow.

30

Winter 2014- Long live History !

Gaddis, J L, The Cold War, Penguin, 2007 One of the most well argued, well written and compelling accounts of the end of the Cold War ( amongst other things ) currently in print Isaacs J and Downing T, Cold War, Transworld Publishers, 1998 An accessible overview of the Cold War, which is particularly strong on events in eastern Europe and the USSR in the 1980s; written to accompany a seminal TV series.

Mason, J W, The Cold War 1945-91, Routledge, 1996 A clear, concise and academic overview of the events of the Cold War. We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 1 of the Cromwellian. If you would like to get involved in editing subsequent editions please get in touch with Mr Pathak or another member of ‘Team History’…

31