Felsted - The Cromwellian 2022

1 | Page

CONTENTS PAGE P3- inspirational introductory comments by Mr Pathak.

P4- Helen M explains what fascinates her about the study of the past.

PP5-10- Laila S explains why Kurdistan has never become a sovereign state.

PP 10-15- Oscar C considers whether the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939-40 can provide any historical clues as to the outcome of Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine in 2022…

PP15- 19- Issie C explores the intellectual foundations of one of the central events of modern history- the French Revolution.

PP19-24- Oscar D places the recent political upheavals in Sri Lanka in historical context.

P24-27- Zara D explores the transition of the East German economy from communism to capitalism in the 1990s.

PP28-33- Chloe H gets to grips with one of the most contentious events in modern British history- the Peterloo Massacre.

PP34-37- Hamish I uncovers the little-known story of an 18th century Scottish adventurer.

PP38-43- Mathieu H shines a light on the Middle Ages, considering whether it is really fair to dismiss the lives of our medieval ancestors as ‘nasty, brutish and short’?

2 | Page

EDITORIAL As ever, Mr Pathak offers a few musings on matters historical.

Please feel free to skip this section!

I am sometimes asked by new arrivals in the Reekie Building whether there is any point in studying History as it’s so irrelevant to our lives today? ‘Who wants to know about the Saxons anyway, Sir?’ Sometimes, I will just sigh and look faintly disappointed. At other times, I might explain how the study of History is the very stuff of life. Just occasionally, I might refer to how the study of History has enriched my own life. Indeed, a highlight of the Pathak family’s ‘summer of history’ was our visit to Sutton Hoo, which now features some priceless pieces from the Staffordshire Hoard. The history of Britain really does not get any more exciting than this! Without History we would forget who we are, where we have come from and become even more susceptible to purveyors of ‘fake news’ who try and twist history for their own ends. If proof were needed of the subject’s relevance it came just a few months ago when President Putin launched his invasion of the Ukraine. The liberal world order that seemed so secure when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 now seems more fragile than ever and historians are suddenly being called upon to explain why European states in the 21st century are resorting to settling their differences on the battlefield. In some ways, one of the lessons that we are learning in the Ukraine is a harsh reminder that whatever our technological advancements, in some ways we are not that different from our ancestors.

Wars and aggression have characterised much of human history and it would perhaps be naive to assume that the 21st century would be any different?

However, amidst all this doom and gloom we should remember that what the study of History also shows us is wonderful examples of the greatness and potential of the human spirit. Studying the past- and trying to make sense of italso remains a crucial component of what makes a civilised society and with that thought in mind I would like to extend my hearty congratulations to this year’s Cromwellian contributors- and all round ‘team history’ legends- for playing their own part in this vital process of scholarship, discussion and debate. I hope that you enjoy this year’s edition- you really do have an intellectual treat in store!

3 | Page

WHY HISTORY MATTERS Helen M explains what fascinates her about the study of the past…

History matters to us because it is a way of seeing and understanding the way that past societies connect with current societies. When I was much younger, I absolutely loved ‘Horrible Histories.’ I devoured every single book in the series, and obviously, a big reason for why I loved them was because of the gruesome facts and silly drawings. But my favourite parts were the short stories Terry Deary wrote, like one about a Christian prisoner during Nero’s reign who had to make peace with his inevitable death. Sometimes they’d be contemporary sources: a soldier who described in apathetic detail the massacre of a Native American village, including the murder of a toddler trying to escape. Or the reports during WWII of evacuees from London not knowing what toilets, or baths, or cows, were. As I’ve gotten older, it’s those snippets that stuck with me. And whether they were hilarious: the time my grandma, working for the British government in 1960s Moscow, wrote a letter home to her family about ‘how lovely this new job is, and I didn’t even know I’d be doing it when they got me on the plane, it’s all very hush-hush’; or tragic: the discovery that Tutunkhamun, who died at 18, loved ducks, and had his clothes and shoes emblazoned with tiny duck patterns; they are the parts of history I love learning about. It can be very alienating researching societies that are radically different from our own, but finding small and often insignificant things humanise them deeply. Despite my love for studying massive societal changes and events, and the ramifications they’ve had, there is something disconcerting but very humbling that I find when looking into individual moments. Ultimately, the past is not at all different from the present: it’s all just people.

4 | Page

WHY HAS KURDISTAN NEVER BECOME A SOVEREIGN STATE ?

Kurdistan, a region in the Middle East, has had a troubled history in the 20th and 21st centuries. In this article, Laila S explains why, despite their best efforts, the Kurds have never been able to establish a sovereign state.

Kurdistan is a region in North-east Asia spanning across four nations: SouthEastern Turkey; Northern Iraq; North-Western Iran; and Northern Syria. All four nations rely heavily on the suppression of the estimated 45 million Kurds living in the region, in order to secure their grip on this territory. This distinct ethnic group is united by its common desire for either the establishment of an independent, sovereign Kurdish state, or at least the granting of greater autonomy within the existing borders- desires that became particularly prominent in the 20th century, thanks to an increase in Kurdish nationalism.

Arguably, Kurdistan has never been an entirely independent nation: it has always been under the administration of a foreign power, regardless of the uprisings launched by Kurdish leaders such as Mehmûd Berzincî. Despite this, there have been multiple attempts to run the region as a state, primarily during the 20th century, which witnessed the establishment of short-lived state independence. Between 1918-1919 the 'Kurdish State' was created after the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, however under British supervision. The leader of this brief autonomous Kurdish government was Mehmûd Berzincî, designated by the British as the governor of 'Kurdish area B', who sought to break free from the Ottomans and create a sovereign southern Kurdistan. Inevitably, due to his nationalistic policies, Berzincî began to try to expand his influence outside of his allocated zone, enabling him to briefly raise an army of Kurds, who fought against British rule: British supervisors were expelled and Berzincî used his position to declare independence from the British state. This revolt against the British was far from successful in achieving a sovereign Kurdistan, and resulted in not only the exiling of Berzincî, but also the deterioration of the Kurdistan State. 1 1

Kurdish State (1918-1919), Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_state_(1918%E2%80%931919)

5 | Page

Shortly after this dissolution, the Kingdom of Kurdistan was established, lasting from 1921 to 1924, with Berzincî being pardoned and reinstated as governor of Sulaymaniyah. The British did this, hoping that Berzincî, who evidently was an individual possessing great influence in the region at the time, would aid them in their fight against government opposition groups in Turkey. However, Berzincî's nationalism overrode any fragment of loyalty to the British Empire: he wanted an independent Kurdistan, and therefore was willing to make necessary sacrifices in order to achieve this. Berzincî had again declared the Kingdom of Kurdistan to be an independent state free from British authority, and had even incorporated a Kurdish government into the state's new capital, Sulaymaniyah, consequently leading to the commencement of a war between the British and the Kurds. The unrecognised kingdom endured several hardships, as well as militaristic action and chemical attacks conducted by the British, which forced approximately 95% of the civilian population situated in the capital to temporarily flee between March 1923 and May 1924 2. Berzincî intended to extend his influence outside of the city once more and even further across southern Kurdistan; however, this failed due to his incompatibility with tribes who opposed his leadership. This friction between the Kurds and the British was ongoing; however, with the Kurds’ inevitable defeat the British withdrew from Sulaymaniyah in July of 1924, then partook in the 1926 League of Nations conference, which granted the Mosul province to Iraq- posing as a great irritation to Turkey, as they considered it their right to possess this territory- Iraq was only granted this on the basis that particular Kurdish persons’ rights were met. 3 Evidently, through these two events, one can see that the assortment of attempts made by Kurdish citizens to gain sovereignty in the form of state independence, were rejected by foreign powers such as the British Empire. They lacked the freedom to express their identity and were, and still to this day are, subject to ethnic suppression- arguably primarily due to friction created by the risk of the loss of territory that would be suffered by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, 2

Kingdom of Kurdistan, Kurdishpeople, https://kurdishpeople.org/kingdom-of-kurdistan/

3

Kingdom of Kurdistan, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kurdistan

6 | Page

if the region was to be designated as a sovereign state. This suppression was witnessed during the period of the Kingdom of Kurdistan, and was even more prevalent during the existence of what is colloquially referred to as 'Red Kurdistan'. This was in reference to an area of land annexed by the Soviet UnionCaucasus- which also had a high population of ethnic Kurds within this region, and had had since the 19th century thanks to high levels of migration. 'Red Kurdistan' existed from around 1923 up until 1929, before the beginning of Stalin's Great Terror. Through this, any citizens of the USSR who were considered to be ''enemies to the people'' were imprisoned or deported. Stalin branded specific ethnicities as ''unreliable'' elements of the nation: this included ethnic populations whose numbers were greater over the border, which applied in particular to Kurds. In fact, in 1937, in the midst of this 'ethnic cleansing', approximately 3,101 Kurds were deported to Kazakhstan. By 1944, these deportation figures of Kurds, had risen to around 8,694 to central Asia, alongside Muslim Armenians and the entire Meskhetian Turkish population of Georgia4.

The reason for the migration of so many Kurdish people to this province initially in 1916 was to escape the ethnic cleansing being conducted by the Ottomans.

However, Kurdish people were being subject to the same treatment now in the Soviet Union also, demonstrating this inescapable, discriminatory hardship. 5 It is interesting to note that not all regions of Kurdistan collaborated in order to achieve sovereignty as one, and instead acted via bursts of rebellion occurring in each region. For example, again during the period of 'Red Kurdistan', rebellions fuelled by Kurdish nationalism, were sparked in eastern Turkey, leading to the establishment of a self-proclaimed Kurdish Republic of Ararat between 1927-19316. This is an example of another attempt made by the Kurds to become a sovereign state, led by the central committee of the Xoybun Party: a pan- Kurdish nationalistic party, responsible for the leadership and one may argue the initiation of the rebellion. At the party's first formal meeting, leaders were appointed and a capital city was incorporated into the new republicKurdava- embodiments of a sovereign state. Xoybun even made appeals to the great powers and Wilson's League of Nations, as well as to other Kurds in 4

The 1920s 'Red Kurdistan', Workers' Liberty, https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2021-0622/1920s-red-kurdistan 5 Kurdistansky Uyezd, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistansky_Uyezd 6 Republic of Ararat, Academic,https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1557115

7 | Page

surrounding countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria, requesting cooperation.

However, under pressure from the Turkish government, already angered by this, the British and French decided to neglect this plea for cooperation and instead imposed sanctions on the region, restricting the actions of the Kurds inhabiting the area. The Kurdish Republic of Ararat was eventually defeated by Turkish forces in 1931, again destroying any aspect of sovereignty the Kurds had hoped to achieve. 7 Despite consistent knockbacks from previous attempts to adopt a sovereign Kurdish state, the Kurdish nationalists refused to surrender to the ethnic suppression that they were enduring. An even more crucial aspect of this battle for sovereignty was that the majority of the rebellions mentioned within this article, all occurred across different borders of the Kurdistan region, accentuating the Kurds' united desire for autonomy. A later attempt made by Kurds to establish a sovereign state during the 20th century, was the one shortest lived: The Kurdistan Republic of Mahabad. This survived a total of approximately eleven months from January 1946 to December 1946, when Iranian forces invaded and overthrew Kurdish tribes. Interestingly, some of the Kurdish tribes actually collaborated with the Iranian army, not so because they did not seek independence, however more so because the region had close ties with the USSR, and according to the son of former American president, Theodore Roosevelt, the Kurds relied too heavily on the protection of the USSR, and were unable to assert themselves in situations as such 8. These close ties stemmed from the events of the Second World War, which witnessed the AngloSoviet invasion of Iran in 1941, granting the Soviet Union clear access to supply routes. It can be argued that although there was a universal desire across Kurdistan for sovereignty, thereby unifying the Kurds, there were also great divisions amongst them. In this circumstance, the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad was the embodiment of a sovereign Kurdish state and one may describe it as an opportunity for the Kurds to become autonomous with the aid of a global 'superpower'- an opportunity which a large proportion of Kurds sought to seize.

However, whilst some Kurds viewed this as an opportunity to become

7 8

Republic of Ararat, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ararat kurdish Republic of Mahabad, Kurdishpeople, https://kurdishpeople.org/kurdistan-republic-mahabad/

8 | Page

recognised as a sovereign state on an international scale, others viewed this as a way for the Soviet Union securing a firm grip over the region. 9 From these previous events, and attempts at achieving national sovereignty, it can be insinuated that the reason why these attempts were not successful, aligns with the words of former President Theodore Roosevelt's son: inhabitants of Kurdistan were unable to assert themselves. This may have been the core reason for their failure to gain complete independence; however, it was not the only one. This lack stemmed from the incapability or unwillingness of foreign nations to intervene and ensure that Kurdistan was granted sovereignty- as the initial treaty presented to the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, the Treaty of Sevres, required.

This evident suppression of ethnic Kurds did not stop at the significant attempts made by Kurds to achieve sovereignty, it extends to the modern day. As of this current moment there are ongoing cold conflicts between the Kurdish region and the surrounding nations of which it expands over. For example, due to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, there have been a series of human rights abuses which Kurdish minorities have been subject to. These include the torture; forced displacement; destroyed villages; and murders and disappearances of Kurds, as well as disappearances of Kurdish journalists10; politicians and activists- many of whom have been subjected to arbitrary arrests by the Turkish government. The issue is so prominent and in desperate need of acknowledgement. For example a Kurdish tradesman was detained in Erbil, after referring to his city as part of 'Kurdistan'11, following the 1980 laws imposed by the Turkish government, which implemented the banning of the words 'Kurds', 'Kurdish' and 'Kurdistan'further accentuating this deliberate and unnecessary clampdown on this ethnic minority. As well as this, the use of the Kurdish language within Turkish borders

9

Republic of Mahabad, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Mahabad The ECHR and Human Rights Violations Against Kurds in Turkey, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/projects/success-stories/all/echr-and-human-rightsviolations-against-kurds-turkey 11 Kurdish Man Arrested in Turkey for saying 'Kurdistan', RUDAW, https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/turkey/291020211 10

9 | Page

was prohibited, with towns and cities being stripped of their Kurdish-related names, and changed to have more Turkish connotations. 12 This is only one example of a nation that has a determination to strip the Kurds of their identity, and minimise their existence; so much so that they are unable to be recognised and their voices projecting their need for an autonomous Kurdistan, are unable to be heard and acted upon by foreign nations. Kurdistan has not yet been able to become a sovereign nation, not because the Kurds do not have the determination or a strong enough desire to, but because they do not possess the required aid to break through these suppressive barriers inflicted upon them by the nations with which their ethnic-identity clashes; rendering them as continuously victim and ultimately defenceless, to the human rights violations mentioned previously.

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THERE PARALLELS BETWEEN SOVIET ACTIONS DURING THE ‘WINTER WAR’ AGAINST FINLAND AND RUSSIA’S INVASION OF THE UKRAINE IN 2022 ?

One of our foremost military history gurus, Oscar C, considers whether the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939-40 can provide any historical clues as to the outcome of Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine in 2022…

As Putin’s invasion of Ukraine began, launched on the 24th of February 2022 against a non-belligerent democratic state that posed no serious threat to Russia, many began to draw circumstantial comparisons between this asymmetric war and the Soviet offensives against Finland in 1939-1940. These comparisons were only fortified as the Russian assaults - particularly along the Kyiv axis - began to show signs of faltering due to poor logistics, incompetent and corrupt leadership and weak morale, in spite of overwhelming armour and aviation capabilities. A few months into the invasion the vast casualties of the aggressor resulting from ferocious local resistance further solidified the innate connection of these two wars in the minds of many. While it is impossible to

12

Restrictions on the use of the kurdish language, Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/turkey/turkey993-08.htm

10 | Page

deny any connection between the justification, context and events of these two wars, some fundamental differences still exist and must be understood before a final decision can be drawn. However, the overwhelming similarities lead to a judgement that these two wars hold some phenomenally strong correlations with each other.

One of the strongest connections between these conflicts can be found in the origin, particularly the justification as opposed to strategic and tactical actions during the conflicts. The Soviet justification for the Winter War proceeded in two main phases; the first was the demand for territory from the Finnish government, citing the need for improved security prospects, while the second was military escalation marred by lies and disinformation in order to provide a final justification for warfare. Anderson reports in the journal, Origins of the Winter War: A Study of Russo-Finnish Diplomacy, published by the Cambridge University Press, that after months of negotiation with the Finns, Stalin ‘urged the Finnish delegates to impress upon their government the need for greater concessions’ (Anderson, 1954, pg181), particularly in the form of the borderlands of Karelia under the sham excuse to ‘guarantee the security of the sea and land approaches to Leningrad’. However, this demand can be understood to be a smoke-screen for Soviet expansion into Finnish territory as the vastly smaller, less armoured and less technologically advanced Finnish army posed no real threat to Stalin nor his regime nor his nation. A more likely explanation for this drive to claim Karelia is possibly linked to Russian irredentist views as Finland had formerly been a Grand Duchy under the Russian Empire but had broken away during the chaos of 1917 Revolution.

Upon the Finnish refusing these ever expanding demands from the Soviets the next phase leading to the war began; military justification. Anderson states that Molotov - the Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union and one of Stalin’s closest allies - had claimed that ‘Finnish artillery on the frontier … had fired upon bivouacked Soviet troops’ (Anderson, 1954, pg 186): once again this was almost certainly a falsehood that provided the Soviets with a nominal justification for retaliatory action. This justification was later fortified by further mistruths and exaggerations with ‘Soviet claims that it was the American and British governments that provoked Finnish reactionaries to attack the USSR … into a crusade into the land of socialism’ 11 | Page

(Anderson, 1954, pg 189) and that the Finns had ‘Nazi intentions’ (Anderson, 1954, pg 188). Such rhetoric blatantly set out the propagandistic idea that Western Europeans and Nazis were arming and supporting reactionary extremists along Russian borders in order to crush and destroy not only Russia but Russian identity itself- does this sound familiar?

Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine provides an uncomfortable and eerie reflection of the aforementioned events that follow an extremely similar course of action. Firstly, Russia took action to seize land in 2014 for the supposed safety of ethnic Russian and Russian culture in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This was followed by years of rhetoric supporting a buffer state between Russia and the West - this being in the form of denying Ukraine NATO membership - for the supposed safety of Russia. Upon failure of this self sabotaged form of diplomacy Russia recognised the puppet states of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic as independent states on 21st February 2022.

As Stalin did in 1939, Putin pumped out lies on an industrial scale to justify military action to his own people. A key argument was the promise of deNazification and de-militarisation, arguing that independent neo-Nazi militias in the form of the Azov battalion had compromised and gained control Ukraine’s armed forces - despite only counting 800 men out of a Ukrainian standing army of 200,000. The second echelon of Nazi extremists in Ukraine’s power hierarchy were the political puppet masters who had supposedly entered Ukraine’s parliament and were running the country and scheming to destroy Russia. Despite the fact that in the 2019 election the National Corps, the political party associated with the Azov Battalion received only 2.15% of the vote and no seats in a parliament- and that the Ukraine was led by a Jewish president- the Russian propaganda machine continued and continues to push this increasingly untenable narrative, regardless of supposedly arbitrary factors like logic and reality. Over the next few days Russian authorities reported intentionally erroneous reports of increased Ukrainian artillery strikes on Donetsk and Luhansk, followed mere days after on the 24th when Russia decided to start a war. The final layer of justification placed alongside the supposed presence of Jewish-led Ukrainian Nazis was the aggressively pushed narrative that Western forces were controlling Ukraine and arming them with weapons in order to ‘split Russian society and ultimately destroy it’ as reported 12 | Page

by the BBC’s Europe Editor (Kirby, 2022). As can clearly be seen, both Putin and Stalin feigned interest in diplomatic solutions to provide an image of a reasoned administration followed by an attempt to paint themselves as the victims through use of false flag or faked attacks, in tandem with such a weight of propaganda that the concept of objective truth is undermined, allowing malign, irredentist and nationalist ideology to flourish; hence building the required domestic support to wage a bloody, bitter war of aggression.

Somewhat mirroring the justification, the events of the wars themselves provide an astounding degree of similarity between these two individual conflicts. Both offensive campaigns of the Soviets and Russians have exuded an air of overconfidence, catalysed by a noxious cocktail of corruption, nepotism and willingness to sacrifice vast numbers of troops to meet arbitrary objectives. An overview of strategic plans of these two nations invading Finland and Ukraine is where an uncanny likeness can be found. The overarching plan of the Soviets at the beginning of the war was to overwhelm the Finnish defenders upon three key vectors, the Karelian Isthmus leading to Helsinki, the encirclement and capture of the Arctic city of Petsamo and a force invading from the geographic centre of Finland intended to cut the Finnish state in two - hopefully leading to a full collapse of the state itself. The Russian premeditated invasion plan was to follow roughly three main vectors of attack into Ukraine; the first being a shock troop formation of mainly VDV paratroopers was to push from Belarus into Kyiv to decapitate the government, the second was a large armoured formation supplemented with separatist militias to push from the East towards the Dnieper river, the final was a formation sent from occupied Crimea to establish a land bridge to the East and potentially towards the pro-Russian Moldovan separatist state of Transnistria. Both these plans, marred by Soviet/Russian self delusion and rank overconfidence quickly fell apart with poorly equipped invading forces being butchered en masse by highly motivated local defenders. Punishing losses compounded by the painful realisation of their own miscalculations, Russian forces mirrored their Soviet ancestors by appointing a new commander, General Dvortnikov who surrendered two of their three axis of attack to refocus on a limited objective; for the Russians it was to focus on the heavily defended and dug in Donbas. This was in likeness to their Soviet forefathers 13 | Page

who under the newly installed command of General Timoshenko, redirected forces from two of the three offensive positions to concentrate solely on the heavily defended Mannerheim line.

It is at this point that some differences can be observed in the wars themselves as the Soviets had seen some success after their reorganised forces managed to achieve localised breakthroughs, exhausting Finnish defenders in the area.

The vast Soviet armour formations continually wore down the Finns who could only draw upon a population of 3 million against the Soviet 180 million and who possessed many fewer tanks, planes and artillery systems.This eventually began to exhaust Finnish manpower and equipment reserves, ultimately forcing them to the negotiating table. The Soviets exacted their pound of flesh from the Finns in the Moscow Peace Treaty, forcing the cessation of Karelia and the Gulf Islands to Soviet control. This made the whole ordeal a nominal pyrrhic victory for the Red Army despite the fact that they had effectively lost 350,000 dead or wounded troops, thousands of destroyed tanks and hundreds of planes for a piece of a sparsely populated tundra. However, while the Russians comfortably outnumber the Ukrainians they are not blessed with anywhere near the same ratio the Soviets enjoyed in manpower, nor firepower. Ukrainian ability to marshal large troop volumes and at least somewhat contend with Russia’s tank and artillery capabilities is likely the most significant contributing factor to why Russia can not make any meaningful breakthroughs, even along a single revised axis of attack.

Unfortunately, Russia continues to attack Ukraine at the time of writing and without my crystal ball at hand a comparison can not be drawn up to establish similarities or differences to the end of these brutal wars. However, even negating the closing events of Putin's war, the events so far clearly demonstrate a striking similarity to Russian dictators of old, hallmarked by the ill advised and delusional decisions one would make if surrounded by sycophants fearful of letting even the smallest glimpse of reality into the dark recesses of the Kremlin.

Bibliography:

14 | Page

Anderson, A.T. (1954). Origins of the Winter War: A Study of Russo-Finnish Diplomacy. World Politics, 6(2), pp.169–189. doi:10.2307/2008988.

Kirby, P. (2022). Is Russia going to war with Ukraine and other questions. BBC News. [online] 13 Apr. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldeurope-56720589.

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND REVOLUTION: AN EXPLANATION OF HOW ROUSSEAU AND LOCKE INFLUENCED THE FRENCH REVOLUTION Issie C explores the intellectual foundations of one of the central events of modern history- the French Revolution.

In the 18th century the French Revolution saw the overthrow of King Louis XVI and an end to the ancien régime. This regime can be characterised by the principle that everyone was a subject to the King. The period of revolution was marked by political and societal change that can be seen to have been influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers of the time. Both Locke and Rousseau’s concepts of the Rights of Man and Social Contract theory, provided the backbone of the radical movement in the French Revolution known as the Terror. This piece of work will seek to explain the political, social and historical relevance of these Enlightenment thinkers, and their impacts on the revolution of 1789.

After the disappearance of the feudal regime in the West, it can be argued that the French Revolution sought change and the end to the social system in which people worked and fought for nobles who gave them land and protection in return. The reasoning for the end to feudalism in Britain can be traced back to a few factors: cultural interaction, economic and political structures as well as human-environmental interactions. The bubonic plague can be seen to be central to the decline of feudalism as it caused trade and commerce, from Asia and Western Europe, to slow down but the deaths of one third of the British 15 | Page

population meant that job opportunities increased for peasants, thus altering the economic and social interactions of the time. Furthermore, the political structure had previously been altered with the signing of the Magna Carta, by King John, which contributed to ideas about individual rights and liberties in England. An example of an increase in rights can be seen in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 which looked directly back to clause 39 of the 1215 charter, ensuring that no one could be unlawfully imprisoned.

Along with the decline of the feudal system in the West, the French Revolution can be seen to have been influenced by Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and Locke. Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract focused on the relationship between a society and the individual. Rousseau’s theory looked at the ‘general will’ which can be known as popular sovereignty. With the feudal system the King was supreme, given the idea of ‘divine right.’

Rousseau’s theory objected to ‘divine right’ and changed the relationship between the King and the people. The Social Contract promoted the idea that the people were supreme, and all state authorities were servants to the people. Freedom, for Rousseau, was achieved by a communal forfeit of some rights so that all were equally free due to the protection granted from society.

Rousseau’s revolutionary Social Contract began with the statement that 'Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains.’ His criticism argued that French society repressed freedom of the individual, given its hierarchical feudal structure. The only legitimate authority that Rousseau promoted was one where the ‘general will’ was upheld; where citizens mutually agreed on the rules by which they were governed, as he argued that this was the only real freedom. This is supported by Rousseau’s belief that the hereditary nature of monarchies promoted ‘monsters or imbeciles for rulers.’ Rousseau did not believe that monarchs should give up their hereditary right to be King.

However, he believed in direct democracy in which everyone voted and expressed the ‘general will.’ Additionally, he promoted civil religion as he was of the belief that “it is impossible to live in peace with people you think are damned.” This can be seen to influence the French Revolution as there was the dechristianization of France during the Revolution which ended up forming the basis of French laicité today. Rousseau was also strongly influenced by Voltaire, 16 | Page

another Enlightenment thinker. Voltaire was a deist, who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church. This is significant as in pre-revolutionary France, the Church played a major role in legitimising the authority of the Monarch.

Locke preceded Rousseau and was influential on his work of the Social Contract. His Two Treatises of Government, published in 1690, refuted the belief in ‘Divine right’ of Kings and equally refuted the people’s subservience to a monarch as sovereign. The first of the two treatises arguedagainst Sir Robert Filmer’s ‘Patriarcha’ on the Divine Right of Kings. The second, outlined his ideas of natural rights and contract theory. Natural rights are believed to be rights entirely separate to the laws and customs of particular governments or cultures. Locke believed there are three fundamental natural rights: ‘life, liberty, and estate.’ Locke’s influence on the French Revolution can be seen through the famous motto ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’, that is synonymous with his ideas of natural rights. The right to freedom and liberty, is both a natural right outlined by Locke, and a fundamental part of the Revolution, showing the desire for natural rights to be upheld.

Locke’s contract theory can be seen to have influenced the events of the French Revolution, as King Louis XVI failed to uphold the natural rights of French citizens, which led to the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’ in 1789. In 1789 the French government was indebted because of its contributions to aiding the American government in the Revolutionary war. The Third Estate were forced to contribute through taxes. However, the clergy and nobles were exempt from paying taxes. Arguably, the unjust laws and taxes in French society that benefitted the monarchy and aristocracy to the significant detriment of the people, can be seen as a breakdown in that two-way contract between the people and their government.

Popular sovereignty was one of Locke’s most revolutionary ideas within the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Popular sovereignty is the principle that the state gets its authority through the consent of the people, via voting.

Interestingly, it could be argued that ‘natural rights' as considered by Locke, and then later thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire, often seemed really 17 | Page

only to extend as far as men. In regards to women’s right to vote, Mary Wollstoncraft's 'Vindication of the Rights of Woman' published not long after the French Revolution in 1790 outlined the development in ideas concerning suffrage. Therefore, the Enlightenment period saw the desire for equality; however this viewpoint was not shared by all philosophers. Rousseau outlined, in his book ‘Emile,’ the differences women and men needed in education and he argued that men desired women but did not need them for survival; however women desired men and needed them. Wollstonecraft examined Rousseau’s work, questioning if it was written ironically or if Rousseau believed in the subservience of women to men.

When considering the Enlightenment thinkers’ effect on the French Revolution, it is critical to observe the actions of Robespierre as an architect of ‘The Reign of Terror.’ Robespierre was a leading member of the ‘Committee of Public Safety’ from 1793. He encouraged the execution of c 17 000 enemies of the Revolution. Rousseau’s idea of the ‘general will’ was vital for Robespierre and thus Fayçal Falaky, a specialist in 18th-century French literature, culture and politics, observed that, ‘The adoration surrounding Rousseau did indeed reach religious and cultish dimensions, [approaching] a Christ-like magnitude.’

Ultimately, James Read explored the relationship between Rousseau's philosophy and the actions of Robespierre, concluding that ‘Robespierre’s political ineptitude’ can be more to blame for his failures– rather than Rousseau’s ideas. This says something interesting about power of any sort.

Overall, the French Revolution was undoubtedly influenced by Rousseau and Locke. Locke’s argument that the government's legitimacy came from the citizens' delegation of rights to the government was influential, not only on Rousseau's Social Contract, but the development of the Republic, post revolution. Additionally, the ‘natural rights,’ expressed by Locke, can be seen to form the basis of the motto which encapsulated the desires of the revolutionaries, ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.’ Lastly, what I believe is most critical to understand is the ‘General will.’ This collective will for common interest outlined that legitimate laws were made through direct democracy.

This movement away from an absolutist monarchy, the end to the feudal

18 | Page

system and establishing civil laws, united France, giving power to the people and changing the political landscape that we see developed today.

HOW ONE POWERFUL DYNASTY HIJACKED SRI LANKAN POLITICS… Street protests and ‘people power’ have characterised what has been a tumultuous, chaotic and extremely significant year in Sri Lanka’s modern history. In this article, Oscar D places the recent upheavals in historical context…

They say if you want to enter politics it helps to come from the right family; Sri Lankan politics is definitely no exception. Over the past 8 decades since gaining independence, dynastic politics has played a prominent role in Sri Lanka's political landscape. This trend of political dynasties ruling a nation is not unique to Sri Lanka; for example, the Philippines has had its own political dynasty in the form of the Marcos family. The Marcos dynasty started life with Mariano Marcos in 1925 when he became a part of the nation's House of Representatives. Later on, his son Ferdinand went on to be President of the Philippines13. Furthermore, Sri Lanka's so called “big brother” India, also has its own major political dynasty in the Nehru- Gandhi family14. However, where the similarities with Sri Lanka end, is when you look at the unparalleled power which its very own Rajapaksa family has wielded. As of 2021, the Rajapaksa family occupied 8 out of possible 15 senior ministerial positions, thus allowing them to control over 70% of the country's national budget15. In response to this family's unique level of control, this article aims to explain just exactly how the Rajapaksa family managed to infiltrate and ultimately hijack the Sri Lankan government.

13

Roces, Mina. “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez Family, 1945-1989.”

Joshi, Anik. “India’s Congress Party Can’t Afford the Nehru-Gandhi Clan.” Foreign Policy. December 9, 2020.

15 Ishaan Tharoor. “How One Powerful Family Wrecked a Country.” Washington Post.

14

19 | Page

The name Rajapaksa first entered the Sri Lankan political landscape in 1947 during the British colonial occupation with the uncontested election of Don Alwin Rakapaksa to the Sri Lankan parliament as representative of the Hanbantota constituency. The Rakjapaksas continued to dominate Hanbantota’s domestic politics for the following 3 decades, with two other Rajapksas, George and Mahinda, securing positions in Sri Lanka's parliament as regional representatives for Hambantota.The family's political ventures were then revived in 1989 with the election of future prime minister and president Mahinda and Chamal Rajapaksa as representatives of Hambantota to the Sri Lankan Parliament16. Following the resurgence of Rajapaksa political dominance another three Rajapaksas entered the Sri Lankan parliament with the election of Basil, Namal and Niru Pama Rajapaksa; thus highlighting how the Rajapaksa family have had a strong foothold in Sri lankan politics since the end of the colonial period. However, during the period of supposed dominance the Rajapaksas’ only experienced dominance at a district level as the family were able to utilise their status as a wealthy land owning family in order to gain substantial leverage over their competitors. Despite this we can still see how the Rajapaksa family has a long history of packing Sri Lankan parliament with its family members.

Although the Rajapaksa family had dominated Hanbantota’s regional politics since the establishment of the Sri Lankan Parliament, national politics had been dominated by Sri Lanka's other political dynasties such as the Senanayakes and the Bandaranaikes. However, this all changed following the 2005 presidential election with the election of Mahinda Rajapaksa as president. Following Mahinda's landslide victory which was won on a wave of Sinhalese ethnic nationalism, Mahinda installed his brother as Secretary of Defence which is one of the most influential and prestigious positions within Sri Lanka's government. Furthermore, Basil Rajapaksa was also offered a position as a senior presidential advisor. From a majoritarian Sinhalese perspective the formative years of Rajapaksa rule were marked with military success as Mahinda oversaw a series of brutal military campaigns which subsequently defeated the long running and ruthless insurgency lead by the News Desk. “Family’s Fall from Grace: How Rajapaksa Brothers, Seen as Heroes, Became Villains in Sri Lanka.”

16

20 | Page

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Following the Sri Lankan army's brutal defeat of the LTTE in Killinochi in 2009, which saw the death of over 6,500 civilians and the subsequent end of the Civil War, Mahinda Rajaksa appeared to style himself as an unofficial warrior king17. This subsequently put him in good stead with the nation's many Sinhalese nationalists and gained him large amounts of support from the nation's Buddhist Sinhalese population. It is no surprise that in the following years Mahinda and his family's support grew, which ultimately resulted in his re-election in 2010 despite facing the fierce opposition of the triple coalition which consisted of the United National Party, the Tamil National alliance and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna.

Following the reelection of Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010 we began to see the family cement themselves into the very core of the nation's political machinery. Upon Mahinda's re-election, Chamal Rejapaksa was appointed Speaker of the Commons and his brother Basil Rajapaksa was appointed Minister of Economic Development. Following Mahinda's series of questionable appointments the three Rajapaksa brothers; Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil were in control of 5 government ministries. The 5 government sectors included, Defence , Urban Development, Law and Order, Economic Development, Finance & Planning, and Port and Highway management. It is estimated that following the Rajapaksas’ victory in 2010 the brothers controlled 70% of the national budget18. In addition to this other members of the dynasty were also granted minor ministerial roles which lead to allegations of corruption and nepotism being targeted towards the family. In the midst of these allegations the Rajapaksa administration attempted to intimidate and censor journalists in an attempt to restore their once positive public image. In fact in 2010 Sri Lanka, under the leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa ranked 127th out of a total 178 countries, making it one of the world’s most difficult countries for journalists. A prime example of the Rajapaksas’ utilisation of intimidation and censorship was in October of 2012 when two correspondents for the Tamil Guardian were attacked and mugged by a group of militant Buddhist nationalists. Furthermore the journalists’ attackers threatened to kill Burke, Jason. “Mahinda Rajapaksa: Sri Lanka’s Saviour or War Criminal?”

Theguardian.com. The Guardian, October 26, 2013.

18 Ishaan Tharoor. “How One Powerful Family Wrecked a Country.” Washington Post.

17

21 | Page

both of them if they continued to report on the smuggling of illegally sourced timber in Mirrupu19; thus highlighting how the Rajapaksa family were willing to suppress the media in order to maintain a favourable public image. It is for this reason that many people began to refer to Mahinda Rajapaksa as a quasiautocrat as his willingness to suppress the media through the medium of intimidation via the utilisation of paramilitary forces drew parallels with other questionable political figures of the past.

Despite their fairly uncontested dominance of both regional and national politics, it is not fair to say that the Rajapaksa family has not faced any adversity over the course of their political history. This is due to the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa suffered a surprise defeat in the 2015 general election, in which he lost to Maithripala Sirisena who was once an ally of the former incumbent. Furthermore, following the rather surprising defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa the family were faced with multiple allegations of utilising public resources in their election campaign; for example, the family's Air Force campaign which reportedly utilised $20,000 worth of public funds. The Sirisena administration also reportedly uncovered a major money laundering operation which was being run by the Rajapaksas in which the family utilised ties with Ajith Nivard, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, in order to take $5.5 billion out of the country illegally20. This money was reportedly deposited in a Port Victoria offshore bank account. These findings lead to the subsequent arrest of Basil Rajapaksa in April 2015. The arrest of Basil Rajapaksa incentivised many remaining members of the political dynasty to flee the country in order to avoid arrest. As a result of this series of political scandals the Rajapaksa family suffered an immense downturn in public sentiment in favour of the family. Despite this, the Rajapaksa family was about to make an unprecedented political resurgence which would shape Sri Lanka's history for decades to come.

As the Sirisena administration came to an end in 2018, Mahinda Rajapaksa's younger brother Gotabaya announced himself as a potential candidate for the CRUX. “How Rajapaksa Family Has Taken Complete Control of Sri Lankan Politics & Runs Govt like Family Firm.”

20 Ishaan Tharoor. “How One Powerful Family Wrecked a Country.” Washington Post.

19

22 | Page

2019 presidential election. Gotabaya launched a campaign which appealed predominantly to southern Sri Lanka's ethnic Sinhalese Buddhist majority. In addition to this Gotabaya utilised his past military experience and role in ending the civil war in order to gain extremely loyal support from the nation’s Sinhalese and Buddhist nationalists. In addition to this Gotabaya Rajapakasa put a large deal of emphasis on economic development and heightened security spending; this appealed to the nation in its entirety as many were still recovering from the turmoil inflicted by the Easter bombings in which 269 civilians were killed. As a result of Gottabaya’s cleverly implemented campaign, he secured a 52% majority thus allowing him to secure the position of president once again for his family21. Following Gotobaya’s victory in the 2019 presidential election, Gotobaya wasted no time in filling his cabinet to the brim with family members. Gotabaya swiftly appointed Mahinda as his prime minister, while also appointing his other two brothers, Chamal and Basil, as Ministers for Irrigation and of Finance, thus meaning the four brothers were in control of the nation’s top three ministries. However, the family’s grip on power didn't end here; the prime minister's eldest son 35 year old Namal Rajapaksa was appointed youth&sports minister, while his eldest son, Yoshitha, aged 33, was made the prime minister's chief of staff. In addition to this, the irrigation minister's son, Shasheendra Rajapaksa, was appointed state minister for agriculture, while the second son Shameendra Rajapaksa was given the role of director of Sri Lankan Airlines. This meant 8 out of a possible 15 cabinet positions were occupied by members of the same family; thus highlighting how Gotabaya Rajapaksa utilised the very wide executive powers vested to him in order to bypass cabinet delegation procedure in order to pack the nation’s executive branch with his close family; thus meaning the executive was run more like a family firm as opposed to a government of a supposedly democratic state. As a result of this rather questionable cabinet reshuffle many new allegations of nepotism emerged. However, at the time of writing, the Government has done little to address such claims. Most recently, we have seen the Gotabay-lead Rajapaksa government succeed in passing legislation which amends the constitution and grants the resident unfettered power; thus granting him full presidential powers over parliament, emphasising how the

21

Bbc.co.uk. “BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Hardliner Wins Sri Lanka Election,”

23 | Page

Rajapaksa administration has taken another step towards becoming a fully fledged autocracy.

To conclude, the Rajapaksa-led government's decisive victory over the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam in 2009 gained the wealthy political dynasty large amounts of unwavering support which allowed them to be consistently elected throughout the early 2000s. The family then utilised the strong powers possessed by the nation's president to appoint members of the extended family into influential government positions. Many Rajapaksas, especially Basil Rajapaksa, utilised their roles to extort the nation’s public funds and syphon the money to offshore bank accounts in the Seychelles in order to fund their lavish lifestyle in the United States while many of the nation’s poorest struggled to pay for the bare necessities. This therefore explains how the Rajapaksa political dynasty was able to infiltrate and ultimately hijack Sri Lanka's government.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE EAST GERMAN ECONOMY AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE BERLIN WALL ?

Zara D explores the transition of the East German economy from communism to capitalism in the 1990s…

Germany is a state that many consider to have a booming economy, carried by the automotive industry, producing countless Mercedes-Benzs, Volkswagens and BMWs to name a few. However, arguably this is still a recovering nation, at the very least on a social level, in particular regarding the rebuilding and reintegration (Wiedervereinigung) of East-Germany into the nation as a whole.

Despite occurring approximately 32 years ago, it is important to note that there is still a tangible division between the German people. In regards to the history of Reunification, there has often been great focus placed on the political situation of the former state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), yet the economic baggage that came along with the introduction of capitalist government is often a neglected topic. However, it is important to recognise that the transition of the GDR from communism, and a relatively closed economy, to merge with the capitalist West-German Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), led to a host of problems.

24 | Page

In order to orchestrate this economic overhaul, several politicians travelled across to the former (ehemaligen) GDR, working in tandem with ex-GDR ministers such as finance minister, Christa Luft. The key West-Germans who travelled over for the ‘restructuring’ project included Theo Waigl - the minister of finance and Detlev Rohwedder, head of the Treuhandanstalt (often referred to simply as ‘Treuhand’). The Treuhandanstalt or Trust Agency is an independent government organisation designed for privatising state owned assets, in line with the principles of a social market economy. The idea of the organisation was to make potentially viable state owned enterprises competitive and then to transfer them into private ownership. Treuhand took over four key types of state-owned property: “around 30,000 small retail and catering outlets, hotels and warehouses, more than 8,000 manufacturing and mining establishments, one third of all agricultural land and two thirds of all forests.” (Kaser, 1996). However, when assessed by Treuhand approximately 90% of state enterprises were insolvent. Therefore, in the eyes of the German leadership, as stated by Rohwedder “privatisation is the most effective rescue operation…the closure of enterprises should form the core of new activity.”

Therefore, in principle this concept of overhauling a nation and its economy seemed like a genuine, and effective plan. However, when taken in a wider context, it is important to note that the key - to some extent only - benefit of living in the GDR had been that there was guaranteed job security. Now for the first time in 41 years citizens were being forced to queue for hours at job centres to apply for jobs that had either not yet been created or that many lacked qualifications for, with those made redundant by Treuhand being known as ‘outsiders’ and those purchasing the industry being known as ‘insiders’. This was largely a result of the liquidation or restructuring of firms yet to be privatised which brought approximately 3 million redundancies to a workforce of 4.5 million. Therefore, this led to the rise of the motto ‘sell or slaughter’, as 27% of East German citizens began to voice their opinion that reestablishing socialism would be better for Germany than the existing free enterprise system that was being promoted by Treuhand. Domestic anger rose and demonstrations in the street against the organisation began, until, on the 1st of April 1991 Detlev Karsten Rohwedder was assassinated.

Unsurprisingly, the details of the assassination are marred by conspiracy theories, as although it is not clear who, or what group was responsible for his death there are a series of coincidences that highlight either the lack of care taken by several civil servants or an enraged terrorist organisation aiming to take out the Treuhand agency, or rather West-German presence in the former 25 | Page

GDR. Firstly, there was a lack of protection on behalf of Rohwedder although placed as a K-106 person by the German Anti-Terrorism authorities, one of the highest levels of protection, more could arguably have been done to prevent the assassination. A key example of this would be an incident involving Rohwedder’s wife and her request for bulletproof glass to be put into the windows on the top floor of their house as they had already been installed on the ground. The request was denied, suggesting that instead guards should be placed outside of Rohewedder’s Düsseldorf home. However, Düsseldorf was notorious among the civil service to have the worst counter-terrorism and police regulation in the entirety of Germany at the time. Then in the early hours of the morning of the first of April, three bullets penetrated the top floor window, shot with a Belgian G1 rifle from a distance of 63 metres, from a garden diagonally opposite the house. There is much speculation about on whom the responsibility for his death falls; Stasi involvement, other WestGerman politicians or into the hands of the Red Army Faction or RAF. The RAF in this sense refers to the left-wing terrorist group that claimed initial responsibility for Rohwedder’s assassination. A letter was discovered at the site where the assassin would have been placed, and in the morning it was discovered. The controversy arises as to whether the RAF took responsibility for these actions as they may have believed that it would have increased their support. However, the idea that the assassination was indeed a planned attack by the RAF has been further emphasised in a 1997 article in the German Newspaper ‘Der Spiegel’, where 3rd Generation former Red Army Faction member, Birgit Hogefeld, was interviewed. Hogefeld stated that her terror group had deliberately targeted Rohwedder to align its cause more closely with what she called the concerns of the “legal left”. Therefore, although still unclear, it is widely accepted that responsibility should fall on the RAF despite several challenges to this belief.

However, the effects of the assassination arguably caused the key push towards reform as Birgit Breuel took over the Treuhandanstalt and began to quickly privatise, focusing solely on the economic aspects of privatising businesses, and shortly after Rohwedder’s death 94% of business in the GDR had been privatised; and as a consequence in January 1996 unemployment reached 9%. The economic problems of the former GDR were termed as a ‘shortage economy’ where everything that was produced was absorbed, not dissimilar to most of the countries that had breen a part of the Warsaw Pact.

However, possibly the most striking thing about the restructuring of the GDR was the fact that although a recipient of much foreign direct investment its unemployment levels were only lower generally than those of former 26 | Page

Yugoslavian nations, in terms of other European countries. Therefore, in my opinion there is most definitely a benefit of hindsight that one has when discussing this, as there has been many articles, books and other media that criticises the Treuhand model, seeing what it has meant in modern terms to restructure a nation and make it efficient.

In conclusion, I believe that although we often hear of the struggling East German economy in the years when its government was led by communist leaders like Erich Honecker; however, the Reunification was not an act of Western saviours. In my opinion it was an honest attempt to reform East Germany. However, it had several key limitations and was viewed at a purely economic level until the problems got out of hand. Furthermore, if you find yourself interested in this topic at all, personally I highly recommend watching a subtitled version of ‘A Perfect Crime’ (available on Netflix) as it will further explain some of the key themes involving the Treuhandanstalt and the assassination of Rohwedder.

Bibliography 1. Baylis, T., 1986. Explaining the GDR's Economic Strategy on JSTOR. [online] Jstor.org. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706841?seq=1> [Accessed 8 June 2022].

2. Kaser, M., 1996. [online] JSTOR. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/40729648?searchText=treuhand&search Uri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dtreuhand%26so%3Drel& ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastlydefault%3Afc3019f6b9efcecd55d9eab0b5793e33&seq=1> [Accessed 8 June 2022].

3. Steiner, A., 2011. The Plans That Failed: An Economic History of the GDR. [online] eh.net. Available at: <https://eh.net/book_reviews/the-plansthat-failed-an-economic-history-of-the-dr/> [Accessed 8 June 2022].

4. Böick, M., 2020. In from the socialist “cold,” but burned by the capitalist “heat”? The dynamics of political revolution and economic transformation in Eastern Germany after 1990. [online] Taylor & Francis.

Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15487733.2020.17926 19> [Accessed 8 June 2022].

5. Rohwedder - Einigkeit, Mord und Freiheit. 2020. [film] Netflix.

27 | Page

WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PETERLOO MASSACRE? Chloe H gets to grips with one of the most contentious events in modern British history that is still generating strong political passions over two hundred years later…

Arguably, the Peterloo Massacre significantly impacted today’s politics; the context was an opposition movement protesting for reform in Parliament. The massacre took place during a period of oppression and mass poverty, where fewer than 2% of the population could vote and the Corn Laws, introduced in 181522, made food highly unaffordable for the masses. Due to the fact that Britain was thrown into an unpredictable economic depression after the Napoleonic Wars, it severely affected all aspects of the British economy, making life a lot more expensive and the need for parliamentary reform a lot more pressing. This series of events were arguably major contributors to the Peterloo Massacre and the events that followed. Had it not been for the Peterloo Massacre, Britain arguably may not have universal suffrage or it may not be the democracy that it is today, given that Peterloo was arguably the catalyst for parliamentary reform.

Opposing the radical protesters were a bench of magistrates, supported by the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, who ‘communicated that the authorities would be justified in suppressing reform meetings by the law or by the sword’23. Sidmouth originally indicated caution to the magistrates given that the justices’ ‘anxious belief in the revolutionary potential of the movement

22 23

(“History of the Peterloo Massacre”, n.a.) ("Memories Of A Massacre | History Today", 2019)

28 | Page

determined their actions’24. Arguably, the yeomanry that attacked the crowd on Monday 16th August 1819, felt threatened by a crowd of 60,000, who some argue were armed, whilst other accounts suggest otherwise. Although the need for violence probably wasn’t so urgent, a crowd of 60,000 can be intimidating for anyone; however it could be interpreted that the yeomanry perhaps jumped too quickly at the prospect of violence, rather than assuming that the peaceful protest could be contained. From another perspective, the politicians in power could have been hesitant of change, refusing to see the need for parliamentary reform, especially since they were the ones dictating the lives of the British public; as they were the people with money and patronage. It was threatening for them to be in the position of losing their power and control over the British nation.

However, one question to ask is what caused the charging of the cavalry; was it because the yeomanry felt threatened or that they saw weapons, or was it out of pure malice that they charged into a crowd? However, it is not purely the politicians’ or yeomanry’s fault. The 19th-century was the time of the Industrial Revolution and life had significantly changed for the majority. The crop failures arguably led to the introduction of the Corn Laws, and whilst this can be argued as a catalyst for the Peterloo Massacre, the government were only trying to protect their own domestic goods by introducing tariffs and restrictions on corn, meaning it would protect English farmers from inexpensive foreign imports of grain. However, this also meant that the price of corn increased, and this was not affordable for the majority25. There was also the expensive war against Napoleon which led to a rolling economic depression. Therefore, although the yeomanry were responsible for a number of deaths, and around 650 casualties, the government cannot be solely responsible for the Peterloo Massacre as many of the actions that they were taking, were with the intent of helping the British public. However, that does not excuse taking responsibility for the deaths or the casualties, and the fact that parliamentary reform was needed; but instead perhaps the protesters misjudged Parliament’s initial intentions for something more malicious than it really was.

24 25

("Memories Of A Massacre | History Today", 2019) ("The Corn Laws Of 1815 | COVE", n.a.)

29 | Page

Arguably, the protesters felt that there was a significance to their protests and that this was a ‘class war’26 between the working class and the upper class politicians. The massacre initially began as a peaceful protest from the working class, who felt that the Corn Laws in 1815 made life unaffordable for the majority and that the severe class divide was exacerbated by the Tory government, led by Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool. These Corn Laws were exacerbated by the end of the Napoleonic Wars as Britain was thrown into an economic depression; this meant that the working class, who could not afford to live, were in need of a parliamentary reform where democracy might become common practice. Another significant reason for the protest was the campaign for universal male suffrage. This campaign for universal male suffrage was significant given that only around 7% of the adult male population had the right to vote27; although, the process of granting universal male suffrage only began in 1832, with the First Reform Act. However, the amount of men that could vote was still limited, as only men who occupied property with an annual value of £10, were granted this right. Unfortunately, universal suffrage for both men, and women to a certain extent, did not arrive until February 1918. It is also interesting to note that at the protest, not only were there around 60,000 protestors, many of whom were presumably men, but they were also joined by a large number of women and children, despite the fact that there was no campaign for female universal suffrage and that women were not granted the right to vote until 1928, through the Equal Franchise Act28, they still attended the protest which is significant in itself. From a protester's perspective, this meeting, otherwise known as the Peterloo Massacre, was a result of agitation following the end of the Napoleonic Wars, which ended in 1815. The end of the Napoleonic Wars called for a reform in Parliament given that large industrial cities, notably, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds had no representation in Parliament; each city had a population of around 150,000, whilst there was no representation in parliament to speak on their behalf; this highlighted that the British electoral system was ‘unrepresentative and outdated’29. This was of concern to many people given 26

("Memories Of A Massacre | History Today", 2019) ("Memories Of A Massacre | History Today", 2019) 28 (“Women get the vote”, n.a.)

29 ("The Struggle For Democracy", n.a.)

27

30 | Page

that these manufacturing centres rapidly became the engines of the Industrial Revolution in 19th-century Britain. As a consequence of these cities' minimal representation, there was even more pressure for political change, especially when the economic depression that lasted from 1815-1832, hit the textile industries after the Napoleonic Wars. These pressures for parliamentary reform were also influenced by the French Revolution and Thomas Paine’s two volume “Rights of Man” (1792-93), which interpreted the potential for democracy in a British setting. Given that the vote was monopolised by the upper class and those in parliament, Britain was currently not very democratic, Paine’s “Right of Man” saw the potential for democracy, and was arguably a catalyst for the Peterloo Massacre. The push for parliamentary reform and the campaign for universal male suffrage then began this class war, represented by Henry ‘Orator’ Hunt. Despite the fact the Peterloo Massacre was a peaceful protest, where according to accounts, no one was armed, it is hard to justify from a protestor’s approach, why the local yeomanry attacked the crowd, being solely responsible for the death of 11 people. The historian, E.P. Thompson, wrote ‘The Making of the English Working Class’ which saw ‘the actions of the magistrates and of the Home Office as premeditated, intent on crushing what they regarded as the revolutionary ambitions of the working class’30. It could be argued that there was political disapproval of the Peterloo meeting and so the yeomanry’s ‘intent’ to crush, was based on their partisan views that the British electoral system should not be changed.

What started as a peaceful protest quickly turned into one of the most significant political events in the 19th century. This meeting began as an urge by the working class to push for parliamentary reform; however, as Reid describes in his book, “The Peterloo Massacre”31,Peterloo became ‘one of the darkest days in Britain’s social history’. It is often argued by historians, for example the likes of Robert Poole, whether Peterloo was a massacre or a conflict. Revisionist historians argue that the Peterloo was in fact a conflict and not a massacre; despite the fact that Peterloo is known as a massacre, given the dozens of peaceful protesters that were killed and the hundreds that were injured. From a protester's perspective, Peterloo was a massacre, given the 30 31

("Memories Of A Massacre | History Today", 2019) (Reid, 2017)

31 | Page

tragedies that occurred, but despite their efforts to remain peaceful, the Manchester Yeomanry still attacked the crowds. Although the protesters were peaceful, the local magistrates were terrified of the number of them. They had in fact shouted out from their windows for them to disperse and go home32.

However, due to the size of the crowd, no one heard. The next step for the magistrates was to arrest the lead speaker, Henry Hunt, and physically remove the protesters. Peterloo quickly descended into a bloodbath and is now remembered as ‘one of the darkest days in Britain’s social history’33.

Historian Robert Poole has called the Peterloo Massacre ‘the bloodiest political event of the 19th century in English soil’ and a ‘political earthquake in the northern powerhouse of the industrial revolution’. This can be inferred to suggest that the Peterloo Massacre, was hugely significant as it ‘paved the way for parliamentary democracy and particularly the Great Reform Act of 1832’34.

The Great Reform Act of 1832, or the Representation of the People Act 1832, not only introduced significant changes to the electoral system, given that it created 67 new constituencies, but it also ‘disenfranchised 56 boroughs in England and Wales and reduced another 31 to only one MP’35. Not only did the parliamentary electoral system change, but it also ‘paved the way for parliamentary democracy’ which is something that would make Britain entirely different today if we lived without it. Therefore, it is obvious that the Peterloo Massacre was a hugely significant event in British politics; as previously mentioned, there were some huge changes that occurred in Parliament after the Peterloo Massacre, which likely would not have occurred, had it have not been for Hunt and his protestors, standing up for themselves due to their lack of representation in Parliament. Although Hunt received 2 years in prison for his actions, the British public have a lot to thank him for nowadays.

Bibliography: "History Of The Peterloo Massacre". 2022. Peterloomassacre.Org. http://www.peterloomassacre.org/history.html.

32

("The Peterloo Massacre: 5 Facts To Know I Oxford Open Learning", n.a.)

(Reid, 2017) 34 (Pidd, 2019) 35 ("The Reform Act 1832", n.a.)

33

32 | Page

"Memories Of A Massacre | History Today". 2019. Historytoday.Com. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/memories-massacre.

"The Corn Laws Of 1815 | COVE". 2022. Editions.Covecollective.Org. Accessed June 7. https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/corn-laws-1815.

"Women Get The Vote". 2022. UK Parliament. Accessed June 8. https://www.parliament.uk/about/livingheritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/.

"The Struggle For Democracy". 2022. Accessed June 7. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democra cy/getting_vote.htm.

Reid, Robert. 2017. "The Peterloo Massacre". Google Books. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QBcqDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg =PT3&dq=peterloo+massacre&ots=3M5uWkh3LG&sig=2bu5QjyHFMakrW_xw PPAYyahTl8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=peterloo%20massacre&f=false.

"The Peterloo Massacre: 5 Facts To Know I Oxford Open Learning". 2022.

Homeschooling. Accessed June 7. https://www.oxfordhomeschooling.co.uk/blog/the-peterloo-massacre-5-factsto-know/.

Pidd, Helen. 2019. "The Peterloo Massacre: What Was It And What Did It Mean?". The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2019/aug/16/the-peterloo-massacre-what-was-it-and-what-did-it-mean.

"The Reform Act 1832". 2022. UK Parliament. Accessed June 7. https://www.parliament.uk/about/livingheritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/refor mact1832/.

33 | Page

THE JACOBITE WHO RULED UKRAINE… In a fantastic piece of historical detective work, Hamish I uncovers the little-known story of an 18th century Scottish adventurer…

If one was to make the long and gruelling journey to Peterhead in Aberdeenshire you would eventually come across the statue of somebody who I believe has to be one of the most interesting Scots in History. This Scot was born to a Jacobite family which explains his name which was a homage to the Great Pretender; however he was destined to become so much more than a simple Jacobite. Being of noble, Protestant birth went against the incorrect stereotype that many have of Jacobites which is that they were both Highlanders and Catholic. In fact, Keith was born to an Episcopalian family in a majority Episcopalian Jacobite area. Moreover, he was educated by an episcopalian Bishop uncle before taking himself to Aberdeen University and Marischal College, which was founded by his ancestor George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal; and he was destined to become a solicitor. Whilst all of this is indeed interesting it does not answer the questions of how exactly a man from Aberdeenshire who sold his sword, found himself receiving great honours from those whom he served for his masterful martial skills, which he utilised throughout his life.

Though he was a very learned individual and aspired to become a solicitor, this did not happen as when Queen Anne, the daughter of James the II and VII, died without any direct heirs there was obviously a question of the succession.

34 | Page

The Jacobites saw the obvious solution as to bring back her half brother James from the Continent; however, the decision makers in London saw fit to choose 59th in line, George, Elector of Hanover. This decision to place a German on the throne enraged Keith and other like minded young Jacobites. This phobia of the Germans in retrospect is rather humorous as Keith would later go on to serve the Prussians in the Seven Years war. Nonetheless, Keith embarked upon his storied and illustrious military career in the Jacobite uprising of 1715 at the ripe old age of 19. However, his military career began in defeat and failure for the Jacobites after the inconclusive battle of Sherifmuir and the subsequent sham of a war effort on behalf of the Jacobites led to government troops pursuing Keith and others as far as the Isle of Skye. Whilst the failure and defeat of his Jacobite movement was a very dark time filled with negative emotions he was able to learn his lessons militarily. More importantly, the aforementioned pursuit undertaken by government troops meant that Keith and other Jacobites ended up in St. Pol de Leon in Britany and due to his actions in the uprising he was compelled to stay and explore the Continent, selling his sword wherever he went.

A new beginning for Keith on the Continent was one might say where his story really began. The well born Scotsman’s story on the Continent began in Paris where he struggled to make ends meet and even flirted with poverty, living off his furnishings that he had sold. This was the case until Mary of Modena granted him a great gift of 1000 Livres. Mary was the mother of the “Great Pretender” and this grant allowed him to finish his studies in Paris. Months later in June of 1717 he met Peter I of Russia and Keith promptly offered the Tsar his sword as Keith believed it was a good time to establish himself somewhere. However, the Tsar apparently saw no need for the young Scottish soldier of fortune, which is yet another irony in Keith's story which shall be addressed later in this essay.

With a burning appetite for action, Keith plunged himself into continental subterfuge. He and his brother crossed from France to Spain with both money and authority to buy military equipment. Leaving his brother in Madrid, he returned back to Paris in disguise and eventually embarked upon a journey to the Isle of Lewis in a small ship from the mouth of the Seine. The Jacobites 35 | Page

successfully evaded the English war ships and linked up with his brother and Spanish ships for what would become the Jacobite uprising of 1719 where Keith fought alongside Spanish troops and Scottish folk hero, Rob Roy. However this uprising much like its predecessor was full of bickering among the noble leaders and despite the Jacobites’ best efforts, the government troops prevailed. For Keith this meant that he had to take to the mountains to evade the Government troops; however, this was of little issue to Keith as this was country where he had grown up and in September of that year he took passage via Peterhead to Holland.

From Holland he could travel through France and back to Spain, but unfortunately France and Spain were involved in the war of the Quadruple Alliance. Thus, Keith and his brother were thrown into jail, somehow managing to hide the letters of commission from the Spanish which if found would have landed Keith in even more trouble. He was once again financially badly off and hitch-hiked his way through France facing many trials and tribulations during the way until he finally reached Spain. Once back on Spanish soil he was granted the title of Colonel in the Spanish army as part of the Irish Brigade, and he went on to fight in the failed Siege of Gibraltar which had just fallen into British hands after the War of the Spanish Succession. However, his time in the Spanish army was short lived and he did not climb the ranks the way he would have wanted to; this is probably because there was little prospect for a Protestant in the Spanish Military. This led to Keith once again reinventing himself and trying his luck once more with Russia.

Unlike his predecessor, Peter II of Russia did not refuse Keith's sword and this acceptance was aided by the King of Spain who graciously recommended Keith to the Tsar; thus, Keith set his foot on the first rung of the ladder of Russian influence. Keith was initially assigned two regiments to command, belonging to Prince Dolgorukov’s Brigade in 1728. Keith thought it wrong to jump in straight away and requested a three month delay so that he could learn the language, the values, culture and even the intricate political systems of Russia. This is testament to Keith's learned mind, determination and desire to succeed. Keith utilised his courage and skills of diplomacy to rise through the ranks and become one of Russia’s most talented generals. For his efforts Keith was made 36 | Page

regional Governor for the Tsar in Ukraine. For a time he was the de-facto Viceroy to Finland where he was also famed for treating the Finns well; this may however be the case because he had fallen in love with a prisoner of war, the daughter of a local mayor and she later became the mother of his children.

Later in 1741 there was a palace coup and Elizabeth Petrovana installed herself to power with the help of a certain Scotsman hailing from Aberdeenshire.

Because of this, James Keith was awarded the highest and oldest honour in Russia, the Order of St Andrew, which is another interesting point to raise as Russia and Keith’s homeland shared a patron Saint. It is believed that the Empress had a large amount of admiration for Keith, so much so that she did not allow him to leave and lead Bonnie Prince Charlie’s army for the cause he had spent his whole life fighting. How interesting it is to think how different the future may have been if Keith had led the Jacobite forces. However, Keith’s time in Russia had come to an end when he and his brother changed alliances to Russia’s rival, the Prussians in 1747; whether Keith did this to evade the Empress's advances or seek gains of his own, is unknown.

Frederick the Great immediately granted Keith the role of Field Marshal of Prussia and granted the further title of Governor of Berlin. During his time under Frederick he had many great victories in the Seven Years’ Wars such as the seizure of Prague and the defence of Leipzig to name but a few. He was also integral in brokering the alliance between Prussia and Britain, thus taking us to the peak of the mountain of irony. Keith’s journey all began because he would not stand to have a German parachuted onto the British throne and now he was breaking bread with the very same Georgians on behalf of another German ruler! Keith had also developed a very close and personal relationship with Fredrick during this time, leading to Frederick commemorating Keith after Keith’s death. Keith’s demise came at the battle of Hochkirk where he was shot several times, the last shot knocking him off his steed.

For Keith to meet his demise on the field of battle was the correct end to a long life of selling his sword to different dynasties around the Continent; and was perhaps the most poetic way to go, after a lifetime fighting for Princes, Tsars and would-be Kings. One wonders if the locals of Peterhead are familiar with Keith’s story because he deserves to be better known and the story I have 37 | Page

sought to tell surely makes him one of the most interesting and storied Scots in the nation’s great History.

EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES- NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT? Mathieu H shines a light on the Middle Ages, considering whether it is really fair to dismiss the lives of our medieval ancestors as ‘nasty, brutish and short’?

The fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD launched Europe into the Middle Ages, and the collapse of that governmental system left many people without the structures they needed to innovate. Subsequently, society in Europe, for the most part, simply stagnated. Traditionally, there has been a widely held belief that the Middle Ages was a period of lawlessness, where vagabonds roamed freely, life was brutal and short and people lived in constant terror. However, is this all really true?

While evidence suggests that there were tribes of people who did roam, and the people along the coast did sometimes live in fear of Viking invasions, life for the most part in the Middle Ages was not defined by this. During the early Middle Ages, which lasted from about 476 AD to 1000 AD, most people's lives were defined by a lack of technological advancement. After the Roman Empire collapsed, the Germanic tribes and local peoples were plunged into an unstructured world. In the struggle to survive in the early Middle Ages, people were not as concerned with literacy, technology or engineering. Instead, all they wanted to do was survive. For the poor people living in the villages, the collapse of the Roman Empire didn't change their lives much. Although there were tribes and battles to worry about, they had similarly worried about those under the Roman Empire, so it wasn't exactly a surprise. As the elites fought for land, the poor took oaths of loyalty to lords and became part of the 38 | Page

growing feudal system. Although difficult to put an exact number on, the vast majority of people were poor during the Early Middle Ages. These poor farmers grouped together in villages, and as the feudal system grew, many of these villages came under the power of elite lords. The farmers worked the land and gave a modest portion of their crops to their landowners. In exchange, the landowners would give the farmers protection from wandering tribes who might try to plunder their homes. The poor didn't have much to plunder, though. They lived in cramped huts with thatched roofs and few or no windows. Their animals lived in the hut with the family in pens that occupied about one-third of the hut. The little furniture the family had usually consisted of a few stools, a trunk and some cooking pots. Everyone in the family worked, including children, who unless possessing a wealthy background, did not have the time nor luxury to receive a good education. Life expectancy was short because the people lived hard lives threatened by instability from warring tribes and potential starvation from bad harvests.

The fall of Rome affected the elite more than it affected the everyday villager.

After Rome fell, the lands formerly controlled by Roman authorities were divided up amongst smaller tribes. These tribal leaders fought amongst one another to create new boundaries and acquire as much land for themselves as possible. This power vacuum allowed many of the tribal leaders to step into a stronger authority position in their area. Throughout the Early Middle Ages, the different tribes fought one another over land, resources and religious beliefs. Although a few strong leaders were able to bring people together, they were still a long way from being formally established nations. During this period, many of the rulers were ineffective, and Europe continued to splinter into smaller groups as tribes fought for the power they had never had under the Romans. All of this fighting affected everybody as the communal system that the Romans had set up - such as roads and irrigation systems - were no longer maintained, so they deteriorated and eventually collapsed. Many welleducated people had fled to Constantinople and the Middle East when Rome fell, and the people who remained were too busy trying to survive to worry about infrastructure. Although some Roman laws were still enforced, the ‘Roman Way’ of life was over as occupation ceased. The elite began to collect land for themselves, which allowed them to form estates and establish the 39 | Page

feudal system. Although they were amassing land and wealth, education was haphazard at best during the early Middle Ages. Some Kings such as Charles the Great, pushed for education to improve government, but not everyone shared his views. The elite had more access to education than poor villagers, but their education was often limited to theology, military strategy and few works of literature. Not everyone could read during this time, even among the elite, thereby making education extremely valuable. Overall, though, the elite had a higher standard of living than the rest of the people during the Middle Ages. They grew wealthy from trade - even during the early Middle Ages, people still travelled on boats and along deteriorating roads. Trade did not cease just because the Roman Empire had fallen, and the elite took full advantage of the wealth that trade could bring.

The second Period of the Middle Ages is called the High Middle Ages which lasted from approximately 1000 AD to 1300 AD. This is the period best embodied in Hollywood and general stereotypical depictions of the Middle Ages. There were knights and jousting, and the moral focus was on chivalry.

The High Middle Ages also saw the Great Schism in the Christian Church, which led to intolerance and fighting among the different groups. The growing wealth and power of the Church allowed it to launch the Crusades, which were Christian attacks on the Holy Land - modern-day Israel and Palestine - to free the land from Islamic control. The Crusades continued for about 200 years, and the Church continued them for several reasons. The Crusades allowed the Popes to consolidate power. It also helped the Church handle the increasing number of knights. Knights were not quite the gallant, chivalrous characters that Hollywood often portrays. In reality, they were trained soldiers who had their own weapons. Left to their devices, they could ravage a village or cause trouble for their lords, so the best way to control all of the knights was to make sure there was a war for them to fight in for glory. Of course, this didn't mean that Europe was free from wars due to the absence of knights. Europe still experienced nasty wars as the elite fought over the rights of succession. People were beginning to develop national identities, which would be necessary for developing countries. Still, the constant warring eventually saw the end of the high Middle Ages as knights became obsolete. Standing armies became the backbone of military defence. During the High Middle Ages, the poor people 40 | Page

began to see some improvements in their lives, especially in the later High Middle Ages. Some people moved into the growing towns and became part of the growing trade networks, allowing them to amass significant wealth of their own. Other people remained in farming villages, and their lives revolved around the agrarian calendar. Although the work was still hard, the peasants began to see improvement in their daily lives because agriculture was changing. The people were learning how to farm more efficiently with better harnesses for animals and crop rotations which allowed farmers to grow more food. As farmers began to produce more food, many people began pursuing trade and relied on the farmers to produce enough food to feed everyone. The High Middle Ages also saw the stratification of the elite into the nobility structure that we remember today. The elite spent their time in leisure activities like games and music, but even they didn't have the most comfortable of lives. Castles were cold and drafty, furniture was unyielding, and beds often had lice. The dominance of the nobility grew during the HIgh Middle Ages, built on controlling the land and military forces.

The Late Middle Ages is the last period of the Middle Ages, spanning from approximately 1300 AD to 1500 AD. The Late Middle Ages was marked by disasters such as the Great Famine from 1315 to 1317 and the Black Death, which affected Europe in waves for decades. The Black Death killed people regardless of social class, which had a huge impact on how the elite was viewed; if they could also catch this mysterious and deadly disease, were they really better than the rest of society? Historians estimate that Europe lost over a third of its population to the Black Death, and the people began to doubt the power of the nobility and clergy, which had gone unquestioned for centuries prior - but were now powerless to save the sick. At the time people lived closely together in small farming villages or port cities, and their sanitation left much to be desired. Although most people had access to baths, they tended to do so in public baths. The water wasn't very clean, which helped increase the spread of the disease, particularly aided by the cramped living conditions which were common amongst the people. Even before the plague arrived, most people lived hard and uncomfortable lives, working their trades all day and worrying about roaming bands of marauders. Their homes were not secure, and the elite told the poor that suffering would be rewarded in heaven 41 | Page

without bothering to do anything to help ease the people’s suffering at that moment. Instead of embracing suffering like they were telling the poor people to do, some members of the elite tried to use their money to run away from the Black Death. They owned much of the farmland that the poor farmers worked, and trade continued to bolster their wealth. They were more able to institute quarantines to protect themselves in their lonely castles or monasteries, but even they couldn't completely hide from the virus. The Black Death came in waves, and although it tragically wiped out an estimated onethird of Europe, there were a couple of good things which came out of this horrific experience. The most notable was the labour shortage which followed.

There weren't enough farmers to grow the necessary food, so the elite began to offer higher wages to anyone willing to work. For the first time in Europe, the job market favoured the people, and anyone capable of working could have a job. The people could now work together to demand high wages, which gave them opportunities to get education and training that would become profitable.

Although the elite did not see these increased wages as a good thing, it was very good for the rest of Europe and was actually a key factor in helping Europe finally move out of the Middle Ages. Eventually, these social changes would lead to the Renaissance. The Black Death also began paving the way for the Reformation, along with the Church’s poor handling of the Black Death which began widespread questioning of the traditional practices, which had grown more corrupt over time, leading to the Reformation about 150 years after the Black Death rocked Europe to its core.

The Middle Ages lasted about 1,000 years, but it was hardly the stagnant, dark period that many people believe it was. Instead, it was a time full of rebuilding after the Roman Empire. Tribes fought for dominance, countries began to be formed, and the way people saw life began to change. Although life was generally hard and short during the Middle Ages, it was foundational to the development of Europe today. Even though we might not know in detail the names and stories of everyone who lived during this time, their lives and determination to survive still echo down to us today.

42 | Page

Reading List -

Trevor Dean, Crime in Mediaeval Europe Ian Mortimer, The Time Traveler's Guide to the Middle Ages Dan Jones, The Templars Julius Ruff, Violence in Early Modern Europe Joel Harrington, The Faithful Executioner Hilay Zmora, The Feud in Early Modern Germany Frances Gies, Life in a Mediaeval City History Extra Podcast BBC History History Today Magazine

43 | Page

SMELL THE KNOWLEDGE !

FREE JOHN LAMBERT !

We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 9 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’…

44 | Page