Winstanley College Summer History Magazine 22 by winstanleycollege

Contents Page Page 2: Contents Page. Page 3: Editor’s Note Pages 4-5: The rivalry between the Donati and the Cerchi families in Florence, Italy—Alexandria Gridley Pages 6-7: Exam Answer: ‘By 1166 Henry II had solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession.’ - Alexandria Gridley.

Pages 8-10: A Review of Land of Mine / Under Sandet (2015) - Phoebe Woodard Pages 11-14: The Development of The Modern British Legal System—Harry Marsh Pages 15-17: The life and legacy of Diana, Princess of Wales - Holly Nash Pages 18-19: Caravaggio - a reputation tainted by murder? By Debbie Gregory Pages 20-22: Exam Question: ‘How far was Baldwin of Boulogne (Baldwin I) the most important individual in determining the success of the Latin Christians in the Near East in the years 1097 to 1118?’ By Megan Radcliffe Pages 23-27: Exam Question: 'By 1166, Henry II had solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession.’ By Megan Radcliffe Pages 28-30: A Brief History of The Peaky Blinders - By Holly Nash Pages 31-32: Exam Question: Bevan was the reason why Labour remained in opposition for 13 years between 1951 and 1964. Assess the validity of this view—By Holly Nash Pages 33-34: Exam Question: To what extent was the establishment of Outremer by 1131 due to failures within the Islamic World from 1099? By Aidan Rogers Pages 35-36: Was the sack on Constantinople in 1204 inevitable? - By Aidan Rogers Pages 37-40: The Evolution of Male Fashion from 1940 to Now - By Holly Nash Pages 41-42: Closeting in the Music Industry—By Holly Nash Pages 43-45: Crusades Essay - By Daniel Corrigan-Bond Pages 46– 48: The Battle of Xiangyang - By Morgan Payne

Editor’s Note: Alice Rushton Welcome to the final edition of the Winstanley History Magazine for this academic year! It is unbelievable how fast the year has gone! On behalf of myself and the History Society, we wish all Upper Sixth good luck for their results day this summer; we know you will all progress to do some fantastic things! Also, good luck to my fellow Lower Sixth students who are working tirelessly to prepare for their A Levels next year. It is an exciting but scary prospect which is why this magazine includes model answers to key question found in our History syllabus to help you with revision. See the contents page to find these examples. There have also been some fantastic article submissions this summer and I thank everyone who submitted such well-articulated, insightful work! I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Silvia Marques for hosting History Society for us; without her, we wouldn’t have the magazine, the quizzes, the debates or the meetings to run an effective History Society. Also I would like to thank Maggie Appleton and Charlotte Whittaker for all your support with the development of this magazine and commend you for all the hard work you put into the History Society. I would also like to thank Railey Morton who has helped with the editing of these articles and Debbie Gregory who has made our spectacular front cover! I hope you all have a wonderful summer and you are able to take some breaks from revision and work!

The picture above showcases the 3 winners of the High School Article competition (who all coincidentally went to the same high school). Take a look at our previous magazine to find these articles on Chernobyl, Greek Mythology and Jack the Ripper! Congratulations to Anya Butterworth, Sharahan Arumainayagam and Luca Mawson.; we hope to meet all 3 of you at one of our open days in the fall!

The rivalry between the Donati and the Cerchi families in Florence, Italy—Alexandria Gridley Between the 11th and the 14th century, Northern Italy was politically divided between two competing parties: the Geulphs and the Ghibellines. The capital of the Geulphs was situated in Florence as they were sympathetic to the papacy (pro-papal), often representing wealthy merchants, whilst the Ghibellines positioned themselves in Siena, honouring the Holy Roman Emperors (pro-imperial) and often represented feudal aristocrats. Rivalry between these two parties formed a particularly important aspect of the internal politics of medieval Italy. The struggle for power between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire had arisen with the Investiture Controversy, which began in 1075 and ended with the Concordat of Worms in 1122. The division between the Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy, however, persisted until the 15th century. However, peace began to arise after the Ghibellines defeat at the Battle of Campaldino in June 1289. The Guelphs came to battle with 10,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, while the Ghibellines brought 10,000 infantry and 800 cavalry. Most of the Guelphs were Florentines, with most of the rest coming from elsewhere in Tuscany. They had the advantage of better weapons and armour, whilst the Ghibellines boasted better military training .

Aimeric II de Narbonne officially led the Guelphs, although he lacked military experience and was fairly young, he tactically had several sub-commanders to serve under him. They decided to pass through Casentino valley on their way to Arezzo, which subsequently was very successful as it meant they arrived first and could choose defensive tactics. Therefore, the Guelphs gained the upper hand and closed in on the Ghibellines in pincer movements. This sent the Ghibellines into confusion and disarray, and they fled to the rear. The battle ended when a storm broke out. About 1,700 Ghibellines had been killed, and 300 Guelphs. The Guelphs’ victory assured their dominance in Florence, though later infighting between Black and White Guelphs created a new kind of trouble and condemned many people into exile.

Now that the Geulph’s had exerted their power over Florence, it didn’t take long for internal rivalries to arise. Two important military figures at the battle of Campaldino, Vieri dei Cerchi (who fought as a knight) and Corso Donati, (who was a military commander) each fought for the leadership over the 152 powerful families in Florence, named “magnates”. In doing so, Cerchi adopted a compromise, leaning towards the acceptance of the Ordinances of Justice, which was passed in 1293 and ensured that no group or individual could gain control of the state, whilst Donati wanted them repealed. Therefore, this created a schism in the Geulf party, as they both became heads of the two parties: the Blacks (Donati) and the Whites (Cerchi).

As a result of this political conflict, his Black faction split, and as a leader, he was considerably weakened. When he plotted for a second time to become Lord (Signore) of Florence, an uprising resulted, and he died whilst attempting escape by Catalan mercenaries in 1308. Consequently, this was the end of the rivalry between the Blacks and the Whites.

Interestingly, the Cerchi had moved into the Donatis “neighbourhood” in the early period of their feud. Living in such close proximity the city council decided to separate the two territories by creating a gated alley between Via del Corso and Via degli Alighieri. The alley was first called Vicolo del Panico (Panic Alley) and was later renamed to Vicolo dello Scan-

However, in 1300, the Signoria (the ruling body of Florence), seeking to bring peace to the city, exiled both Donati and Cerchi. The exiled Donati sought Pope Boniface’s intervention and convinced him to send Charles of Valois into Florence in 1301, supposedly in order to pacify the city. Whilst Charles occupied the city, soon after in 1301, Donati and a group of exiled Black Geulphs stormed the city in triumph and established a Black government until 1308. However, Donatis presumption was deemed excessive even by many members of his own party.

Exam Answer: ‘By 1166 Henry II had solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession.’ Alexandria Gridley.

By 1166, Henry II had solved the problems of justice and law he had inherited to some extent. At Henry’s accession in 1154, his royal land had been reduced from ¼ to an 1/8, which caused many land disputes. Autonomous barons had taken punishment into their own hands and many sheriffs had become corrupt. In order to overcome this, Henry set out a series of assizes, including: the assize of Clarendon, the assize of Northampton and Novel Dissessin, all in an attempt to solve these issues caused in the reign of the previous king – Stephen. By 1166 Henry had begun to solve these problems, however he had not completely eliminated them. During the reign of Stephen, criminal law had been taken into the hands of autonomous barons, such as William d’Aumale who was said to be more king than Stephen. To overcome these barons, Henry introduced the assize of Clarendon in 1154. This was an inquiry into all criminal offences since 1135 that had been tried by presentment. This was where “twelve of the more lawful men of the hundred, upon oath” were to “speak the truth” and testify against the suspect. Sheriffs had the duty to take the suspects to the justices and no one could prevent them from entering their lands, not even the lords. However, by 1154, barons and castellans had taken punishment into their own hands as barons mistreated their subjects in return of money or teneserie (which was where someone could pay for protection), whilst the castellans frequently engaged in imprisonment and torture for the same reasons - money and teneserie. Therefore, the assize of Clarendon set out new punishments, including: an increase in fines for different crimes, trial by ordeal of water, which if found guilty, you would lose your foot. Therefore, Henry was successful in reducing the power of some barons and regaining criminal law. However, in 1176, Henry introduced the assize of Northampton. This assize clarified and improved the same laws within the assize of Clarendon. This included: an increase in punishment, for example, losing your hand and your foot if found guilty (opposite hand to foot), and the sheriff’s responsibility of dealing with more serious crimes was taken away and given to justices in the Eyre instead. Due to Henry II having to modify and clarify his assize 20 years later, it suggests that he begun

Henry II also made changes within the civil law. In 1154 the Terra Regis (royal land) had been reduced from ¼ to 1/8. This was due to Stephen handing out his land in return of loyalty, without taking into account the later consequences of this, which were the land disputed that would arise. For example, Hugh Bigod and William of Blois disputed over the Earldom of Norfolk. In an attempt to solve these disputes, Henry introduced Novel Dissessin in 1166. This now meant that plaintiff could buy a writ, costing 1 mark each, to file their dispute and begin the route to gaining their land back through jury of presentment. This was very successful as it allowed men who had been victims of dispossession to undergo a way to regain their land. However, again Henry introduced a new assize in 1176 in regards to novel Dissessin, called Mort d’Ancestor. Novel Dissessin was only relevant when the land holder was alive, when they died there was no way for their heir to gain their hereditary land. Therefore, Mort d’Ancestor meant that the heirs could now also buy a writ, which would allow them to go to a jury and proceed to regain their rightful land. Similarly to criminal law, the problems within the civil law had to be re-addressed in 1176 and therefore also suggest that Henry had begun to make important changes, however he was not completely successful as he had to clarify and make improvements later on. Furthermore, in 1154 sheriffs gained their title through hereditary right, meaning they didn’t earn or gain their title, so many became corrupt. For example, Geoffrey de Mandeville claimed he was a sheriff from hereditary gain and that he owned the sheriffdom of London Middlesex. In this territory he disallowed any justices to enter his land, he established his own criminal punishments and pardoned his debts to the exchequer. To try to conquer these corrupt sheriffs, Henry II replaced 2/3 in 1156 and then 1/2 again in 1158. He also introduced an Eyre in 1166 which meant that the justices went around the whole country, assuring law and order was being set out properly. However, this was only a temporary fix as Henry had to improve these laws later on. In 1170 Henry introduced the inquest of sheriffs, in which 22 out of the 29 sheriffs were replaced. Instead, Henry strategically chose men of a lower status to ensure loyalty and decrease the chances of corruption. Furthermore, in 1175 Henry introduced a general Eyre, which similarly to the Eyre of 1166, justices ensured proper justice was being carried out across the country, but now it was every two or three years. Again, this further shows that Henry began to make changes within the corruption of the sheriffs by 1166, however he had to reinforce these laws up to 9 years later. Overall, Henry had made excellent solutions to the problems of justice and law by 1166 in which he had inherited by 1154. This includes regaining control over autonomous barons, reinstating the laws for punishment if found guilty of a crime, replacing the corrupt sheriffs with loyal men and solving land disputes caused by his lack of royal land. However, many if not all of his first assizes had to be re-established and clarified up to 20 years later. This leads me to believe Henry had begun to make changes, but he still had a while to go in the year 1166.

A Review of Land of Mine / Under Sandet (2015) - Phoebe Woodard

Synopsis and Overview Written and directed by Martin Zandvliet Produced by Malte Grunert and Mikael Reiks Cast Roland Møller as Sgt. Carl Rasmussen Mikkel Boe Følsgaard as Cpt. Ebbe Jensen Louis Hofmann as Sebastian Schumann Emil Belton as Ernst Lessner Oskar Belton as Wener Lessner Joel Basman as Helmut Morbach Music by Sune Martin Cinematography by Camilla Hjelm Knudsen

Running time 90 minutes Release date 10 September 2015 (TIFF) Budget 35.5 million DKK Box office $3.1 million Critical acclaim nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 89th Academy Awards

AFTER THE WAR, MORE THAN 2000 GERMAN PRISONERS WERE FORCED TO REMOVE OVER 1.5 MILLION LANDMINES FROM DENMARK'S WEST COAST. NEARLY HALF OF THEM WERE KILLED OR SEVERELY WOUNDED.

MANY WERE BARELY MORE THAN CHILDREN. War in Europe is over, but many German POWs still live with their lives in danger - this film follows their journey as they are forced to clear and defuse mines from the Danish coastline - with little or no training. We follow a group of such boys and the sergeant who oversees them, in a story of hope, trust and injustice.

conscripted into the national militia the Volkssturm as a last resort against the Allied invasion. This leads us to question if Denmark committed war crimes by violating the Geneva Convention, which is Article 32 states that ‘it is forbidden to employ prisoners of war in unhealthy or dangerous work’.

Historical Context

As part of their defensive Atlantic Wall, Nazi Germany placed between one and two million landmines along the coast of Denmark. An invasion along the coasts of Varde and Oksbøllejen (where the film was shot on location) was anticipated, as Denmark offered the Allies a short route to Berlin. However, in the aftermath of the war over 2,000 German prisoners of war were forced to remove these land mines, in dangerous conditions, with little to no training - half of these soldiers would lose their limbs, or their lives. The majority of these German soldiers were not hardened Nazis atoning for the crimes of their state, but prisoners; young boys and elderly men

“The film vividly depicts the cruelty German prisoners of war faced from people in countries they had previously occupied, and the huge psychological pressures faced by those who had to defuse landmines by hand, particularly when they were no more than children. The film is laced with tension and chilling suspense throughout, making for a harrowing but thought-provoking watch.” - Thomas Cunliffe

Accountability and Moral Responsibility Who should pay for the atrocities and risks taken in war? Should these soldiers, drafted into the army at a young age be responsible for cleaning up after their countries’ rulers? If not them, who? It is undeniable that the experiences highlighted in this film are atrocious, so how were they allowed to happen? It has been pointed out that British and Danish compadres labelled the commanders as ‘voluntarily surrendered enemy personnel’ to dodge violating the Geneva Convention.

Additionally, the lack of background given on the young troops’ actions and loyalty during the war encourages a presumption of innocence and significant lack of discussion of the corresponding ideologies of the war they fought in - there is no guarantee that the boys portrayed did not, directly or indirectly, perpetrate the crimes committed under the Nazi regime - so with missing context, it is difficult to judge the moral responsibility of the soldiers to help rebuild the countries they destroyed, with the same enthusiasm as they talk about going home to rebuild Germany.

However, it is impossible no to feel some sympathy for the young soldiers, especially when they continue to hope and imagine their futures and hopes in the face of a futile mission. As we watch the Sergeant’s dwindling hate as he comes to understand, and even act as a fatherly figure to the soldiers he oversees, the cruelty and injustice of their situation comes clear - it is not fair for the teenage experiences of these boys to be replaced with hard labour and watching their

It was a gripping film and the fact the characters were played by German/ Dutch speaking actors only portrayed the story in a more realistic light that allowed you to get a better insight into the real setting of digging for land mines. The young actors playing the soldiers showed the harsh reality that there wasn't always experienced, older men diffusing the mines. The fact the soldiers were just boys helps us empathise with them more as they are our own age and their life is at risk before it has begun. - Alice Rushton

The Development of The Modern British Legal System— Harry Marsh The British legal system is as complex and often misunderstood as it is praised. It has it’s roots long back into history and even to fully understand the law as it stands today, one would have to flick through thousands of pages of writing, far back into the statute book. For that reason, below is just a brief overview of the development and historical changes that have occurred through time to reach the flawed yet still praiseworthy system present today. Pre Norman-Conquest Before the Norman invasion of 1066 by William the Conqueror, the law of the land was mostly passed down through oral tradition and sometimes codified by leaders of the various regions of a not yet united England. For example, the Kentish King Ethelbert (c. 550 – 24 February 616) wrote a legal code to bring oral tradition and norms into a written code. Feuds and disputes were settled with the use of payment to the wronged party, known as wergild, or to their family if they were deceased. Saxon kings did begin to take further measures to interfere with the formerly more decentralised system and were know to set laws (also known as ‘dooms’). Trials for more serious crimes, such as treason and theft, eventually were settled by a sort of trial where the accused, having not found sufficient numbers of people to swear on the defendant’s innocence, would be subject to a trial by ordeal – the defendant’s guilt would be decided ‘by God’ through the medium of excruciating bodily harms to

determine innocence (such as a defendant being required to grab a stone from a cauldron of hot water). Other cultures around the globe shared similar practices such as swallowing a poisonous plant (used by the Efik Uburutu people) or the ordeal of carrying a hot iron for a given distance or number of step, with guilt being determined by the resulting injury (used in parts of Europe). Post Norman-Conquest Norman kings introduced new reforms, such as trial by combat as a new form of trial ordeal. Sentences remained mostly based on corporal punishment and fines rather than prison sentences seen in present day, with some of the first prisons being built to contain hold prisoners awaiting trial, almost a form of remand.

Justice continued to be dispensed by the king in London and his lords and stewards elsewhere in the country, causing inconsistencies depending on where a case was held. This was altered by Henry II in 1166 when he sought to introduce a ‘common law’ applied by judges who would roam the land and apply the law in pop-up courts known as ‘assizes’. These judges would also interpret legislation and fill in the necessary gaps, with the precedent created being binding on lower courts. To illustrate the growth of the legal system since then, it is important to realise that there were 18 judges when Henry II came to the throne. The number in 2020 was 3,174. Henry II also introduced the concept of the jury, though it differed greatly from the jury used in 21st Century criminal trial proceedings. This was a collection of 12 men originally intended to settle land disputes but was extended to criminal proceedings in 1166 by Henry. These men were asked to report any serious crime they knew of or suspected, having a more investigatory role than the modern jury who are the single deciders of fact (ie Bushel’s case 1670). After having presented the evidence, the practice of trial by ordeal would then be underway.

Trial by ordeal eventually collapsed after the church banned the participation of members of the clergy in the practice, removing it’s religious legitimacy. Along with other signs of the initial forming of a modern democracy, the first signs of the rule of law came about via the Magna Carta of 1215. With the signing of the agreement, the king now became subject to the common law of the land and would be treated in any such proceeding in the same manner as one of his subjects. It also enshrined the right to a trial by jury and the right to justice under chapters 39 and 40 respectively: “No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land. “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” The period after the Norman conquest can therefore be seen to be crucial to laying the foundations of the modern British system of justice.

The 20th Century The 1900s proved another key time for British justice, with post war governments taking on the task of reforming the law to fit a more modern, liberal society. One such government was the Wilson administrations of 1964-1970, who introduced swathes of liberalising legislation; the most notable of these are likely The Sexual Offences Act of 1967, legalising homosexuality for men in private (although this still caused issues as ‘in private’ was interpreted harshly to include nobody in the same building) and the Abortion Act of 1967 which legalised abortion under certain conditions. Such acts managed to gain royal assent through the support of the Home Secretary of 1965-1967, Roy Jenkins, who gave Parliamentary time to private members bills to be debated. A three-tier system had also developed for criminal cases with a Magistrates’ court similar to that of the present day dealing with the least serious offences, followed by Quarter Sessions where untrained magistrates presided over trial by jury, and the final, most superior tier being the assizes, hearing the most serious crimes and being presided over by professional judges. The modern 2 tier system (comprised of the Crown Court and Magistrates Court for trials of first instance) was created in 1971 with the merging of the assizes and the Quarter Sessions into the Crown Court.

The Modern Day Much of the legal reforms passed under Blair and subsequent Prime Ministers have made changes to the UK constitution. Blair introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998, taking into domestic law the rights enshrined by the European Convention signed by Winston Churchill in 1953. Consequently, it became much cheaper and easier to challenge breaches of rights as this could now be done in UK courts rather than the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Blair also introduced the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which created new judicial roles such as the Lord Chief Justice and also created the Supreme Court, removing judicial power from the House of Lords which formerly carried out the court’s role and taking a step closer to separation of powers.

Sources/Further Info: https://revisionworld.com/a2-level-level -revision/law-level-revision/british-legal -system-timeline The Secret Barrister – Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken

More rights were also enshrined under this government such as the freedom to access certain information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The result of the constitutional changes to the legal system have been a more modernised system, following more along the lines of liberal philosophy than the small ‘c’ conservative thought that the system is mostly built upon. However, they did not completely overhaul the system. A lack of a codified constitution and the presence of Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament always has the power to change laws as they wish, including possibly repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights, as is currently being proposed by the Conservative government. The doctrine of separation of powers has also not yet been fully met as members of Parliament have the ability to join the executive branch whilst retaining their elected office in a sort of dual mandate. This goes to show that, despite it’s reforms and historical significance, British law still has a long way to go before justice can be truly administered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngloSaxon_law#Development_of_law_in_Britai n https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3% 86thelberht_of_Kent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Law_of_%C3%86thelberht https://www.britannica.com/topic/ wergild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Trial_by_ordeal#:~:text=Trial%20by% 20ordeal%20was%20an%20ancient% 20judicial%20practice,or%20at% 20least%20an%20unpleasant%2C% 20usually%20dangerous%20experience. Diversity of the judiciary: 2020 statistics (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The life and legacy of Diana, Princess of Wales - Holly Nash Marriage and divorce She renewed her contacts with the Royal Family, and her friendship with Charles grew in 1980. On February 24th, 1981, their engagement was announced, and her beauty and shy demeanor earned her the nickname ‘Shy Di’. This made her an instant sensation with the media and the Diana, Princess of Wales, her original name public. The couple married in St. Paul’s th Diana Frances Spencer (July 1st 1961 – Au- Cathedral on July 29 1981, during a gust 31st 1997), former consort of Charles, globally televised ceremony, watched by Prince of Wales; mother of the heir second an audience in the hundreds of millions. in line to the British throne, Prince William, They had 2 children: Prince William Arst Duke of Cambridge (Born 1982) and one of thur Philip Louis of Wales (Born June 21 1982) and Prince Henry (‘Harry’) Charles the foremost celebrities of her day. Albert David (born September 15th Early life and education 1984). Diana was born at Park House, the home that her parents rented on Queen Elizabeth Princess Diana rapidly evolved into an II’s estate at Sandringham and where Diana’s childhood playmates were the icon of grace, elegance and glamour. Exqueen’s younger sons. She was the third uding natural charm and charisma, she child and the youngest daughter of Edward used her celebrity status to aid numerous John Spencer and his first wife Frances Ruth Burk Roche. Her parents’ troubled marriage charitable causes, and her changing hairstyles and wardrobe made her a fashion ended in divorce when Diana was a child. She, along with her brother and two sisters, trendsetter. remained with her father. She became Lady Diana Spencer when her father succeeded to the earldom in 1975. Her schooling was provided in the UK and she also attended a school in Switzerland. Diana returned to England and became an assistant at the then fashionable Young England Kindergarten in Pimlico.

Behind the scenes, however, martial difficulties between the princess and prince were growing. Diana struggled with severe postnatal depression, low selfesteem and eating disorders. She also had to deal with the mounting strain of being constantly pursued by both the official media royal-watchers and the tabloid press, particularly the paparazzi. The martial breakdown became increasingly apparent through tell-all biographies and admission of infidelity on both sides. The couple formally separated in 1992. Diana presented her side in an unusually candid television interview in 1995. After prolonged negotiations that left Diana with a substantial financial settlement but with the title Her Royal Highness, the couple’s divorce became final on August 28th 1996. ‘The People’s Princess’ and Charity work Diana maintained her high public profile, even after the divorce. She continued many of the activities she had earlier undertaken on behalf of charities. This included supporting causes as diverse as the arts, children’s issues and AIDS patients, willing to shake hands with them when no one else would. She was also involved in efforts to ban land mines.

This included supporting causes as diverse as the arts, children’s issues and AIDS patients, willing to shake hands with them when no one else would. She was also involved in efforts to ban land mines. To ensure that William and Harry had ‘an understanding of people’s emotions, their insecurities, people’s distress and their hopes and dreams’, she brought her sons with her to hospitals, homeless shelters, and orphanages. To acquaint them with the world outside Royal privilege, she took them to fast food restaurants and on public transportation. Her compassion, personal warmth, humility and accessibility earned her the sobriquet ‘the People’s Princess’.

Death and Funeral Being one of the most-photographed women in the world, Diana’s unprecedented popularity both in Britain and abroad continued after her divorce.

She used her celebrity status to great effect to promote her charitable work whilst the media (in particular the paparazzi) were often intrusive. It was while attempting to evade a pursuing journalist that Diana was killed, along with her companion, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul, in an automobile accident in a tunnel under the streets of Paris in 1997.

Diana’s death produced unprecedented expression of public mourning, testifying to her enormous hold on the British Nation’s psyche. The Royal Family, caught off guard by the extraordinary outpouring of grief and by criticism of their emotional reticence, broke traditions and arranged an internationally televised Royal funeral. The image of Prince William, age 15 and Prince Harry, age 12, walking solemnly with their father behind Diana’s casket became iconic. At her funeral, Sir Elton John performed a version of his classic song ‘Candle In The Wind’ with lyrics that had been revised by his songwriting partner Bernie Taupin to reflect on the life and death of Diana.

Good Films, Books and Documentaries to watch for Revision:

Ancient History: •

Roman Empire Drama Series— Netflix.

•

Mary Beard Caligula Documentary - YouTube.

•

Overly Sarcastic productions— YouTube.

•

The rest is History Podcast— Spotify.

Medieval History: •

The Crusades Book by Thomas Asbridge.

•

Rise of Empires: Ottoman.

•

The Plantagenets by Dan Jones.

•

The Crusades by Jonathan Philips.

Modern History: •

The Last Czars—Netflix Drama Series

•

Meltdown: Three Mile Island—Netflix Documentary

•

Thatcher: A Very British revo-

Caravaggio - a reputation tainted by murder? By Debbie Gregory Caravaggio’s influence on western art has been immense in the 17th century with his remarkable realism which captured the finest details. He used extreme contrasts of light and dark which is a technique he became renowned for. However, did one fatal mistake forever condemn him to a life of misery and exile? Did it change people’s opinion of him as an artist? Michelangelo Merisi of Caravaggio (Caravaggio’s’ actual name) was born near Milan. When he finally made a name for himself as a painter in the late 1590s, he was already known by the name of his hometown, Caravaggio. When he came to Rome in 1592, he was fatherless, motherless, and penniless. However great Caravaggio was, he was an incredibly difficult person; in the early years of the 17th century, he was brought to trial on at least eleven occasions. The charges include swearing at a constable, penning satirical verses about a rival painter, and chucking a plate of artichokes in a waiter’s face in 1604.

The Taking of Christ

The Fortune Teller—depicts real life During his time, Italy was a violent and horrid place, but Caravaggio’s real teacher was the streets of Italy; he began to depict real people in his paintings such as the drunkards from a tavern, hustlers and soldiers looking for work: he painted them directly as he saw. Caravaggio illuminated a society that was usually cast in shadow and hidden away, the reality of that was often barley acknowledged. According to Letizia Treves, “Artists had always drawn from life, but no one posed their models and painted directly from life onto their final canvas. Caravaggio did not bother with the academic study of drawing. He skipped that stage because he believed in the importance of looking at nature.” As a result, this led to an exceptional use of light and dark and realism which had

Caravaggio was given a prestigious commission in the Church of San Luigi dei Francesi in Rome in 1597. The commission provided an opportunity for him to lift the traditional religious scenes and shroud them with his own dark interpretations. His biblical scenes became swarmed with the prostitutes, beggars, and thieves that he had encountered on the streets of Rome. This commission led to recognition and success. Yet, as that success grew, as did Caravaggio’s own inner turmoil. He was a violent man that had drastic mood swings and had a love for gambling and drinking. He was also a frequent fighter; he eventually served a short prison sentence in 1603 after another painter complained that Caravaggio had attacked him. Caravaggio’s temper only grew worse in the next few years, his litany of assaults includes an attack on Roman guards with stones in 1605. According to one early biographer, the Flemish writer Karel van Mander, ‘after a fortnight’s work he will swagger about for a month or two with a sword at his side...ever ready to engage in a fight or an argument.’ His violence finally escalated in 1606, when he killed a man named Ranuccio Tomassoni in a brawl. Historians have long speculated what caused the root of the crime. Some suggest it was sparked by a dispute over a game of tennis while others claim it was over unpaid dept.

The calling of St Matthew In July 1608, he attacked Fra Giovanni Rodomonte Roero, one of the senior knights in the Order of St. John in Malta. Caravaggio was arrested and jailed for the assault but was able to escape one month later. But even as Caravaggio fled from the punishment for his crime, fame still followed him. In Malta, he was received into the Order of Malta as a Knight of Justice, an award that he was soon stripped of when the Order learned of the crime he committed.

Caravaggio attempted to gain a pardon from the Pope; he travelled back from Naples to Rome in 1610, but on his way he died. It is unknown how he died, some say syphilis, some lead poisoning or murder. But despite Caravaggio’s tragic life, it would be foolish to ignore the vital impact he had on western art, he was a ‘man of the night. He used to wander around in the shadows… drinking and fighting alongside prostitutes and petty criminals.’ According to Collishaw, which gave him the perfect inspiration for his paintings and was the reason he became a profound influence for future artists.

As a result, he spent the rest of his life on the run after the murder he committed, but this was not the end of his violence.

Exam Question: ‘How far was Baldwin of Boulogne (Baldwin I) the most important individual in determining the success of the Latin Christians in the Near East in the years 1097 to 1118?’ By Megan Radcliffe Baldwin I was an especially important individual and determine the success of Latin Christians in the Near East in 1097 to 1118 to a significant extent due to his military skill and political development in East, however individual such as Godfrey were also particularly important and success of questions in the East and provided the foundations of success on which Baldwin could build. One reason Baldwin I was important in the years 1097 to 1118 to the success of Latin Christians in the Near East was his military skills during and after the crusade. During the crusade Baldwin was vital in securing the first crusader state of Edessa. He broke off from the main army and helped the Armenian leader of Edessa to defeat a Turkish force attempting to take the city. In return, he was adopted by Thoros (the leader of Edessa) and became count of Edessa in 1098 after he died. This was important as Crusaders now had a secure base to get support from and to attack Muslim forces. In addition, whilst travelling to Edessa, Baldwin and his knights slowed down and diverted Kerbogha’s relief force heading to Antioch, had he not done so they may have made it in time and defeated the crusader army outside the city’s walls. After the crusade, Baldwin I secured and expanded territory in the east, including marching with Godfrey to Azaz and defeating Ridwan of Aleppo there and securing major seaports and coastal cities like Haifa in 1104. These coastal towns were vital in the defence of the Outremer as they provided access to trade, pilgrims, and a means of communication to the West. Therefore, Baldwin’s military successes make him an especially important individual to the success of Latin Christians in the Near East as securing and expanding territory allowed the Christians to focus on building the economy as they had protection from the Muslims.

Baldwin was also an important individual through his political developments in Jerusalem. Baldwin reigned as King of Jerusalem as Primus inter pares (first among equals) meaning Jerusalem had primacy over the other states and intervened in disputes between them.

For example, in 1104, Baldwin of Bourcq was captured at the Battle of Harran, leaving Tancred in control of Edessa, however once he was released in 1108, Tancred refused to relinquish control causing Baldwin I to intervene and solve the dispute. This position allowed him to keep control over and order in his territory. In addition, he implemented a feudal system in the East like the one in the West. He gave territory to lords but also made it so they could defend themselves independently of the crown. Jones says that Baldwin seemed to have, overall, created a ‘loyal and effective noble class that was largely subservient to the crown.’ This is important as it kept order and stability in the Outremer, allowing to flourish in the years 10971118 under Baldwin I reign.

However, there were some problems which limits the extent to which Baldwin I was the most important individual in determining the success of Latin Christians in the Near East in 1097-1118. One such problem was that his political system was only successful and stable if there was a strong leader who kept land in the domain of the crown as nobles could act autonomously, to a certain extent, so could be a threat to the crown’s overlordship of the states. This problem was exacerbated in 1118 when Baldwin I died without producing a male heir meaning there was initially a succession crisis and political instability, a situation which nobles could have easily taken advantage of had it not been resolved quickly enough. Another issue was that Baldwin I was often rash with his military expeditions, almost failing on several occasions to make it out alive. For example, the battle of Ramla in 1102 was a complete failure after Baldwin underestimated the size of the Muslim forces and had to escape, all 200 knights died as a result and Baldwin barely escaped with his life, being forced to flee in the night. This highlights how Baldwin I made irresponsible decisions that almost led to disaster, particularly with an unclear succession and a political system which relied upon said succession being stable. This thereby could have damaged the potential successes of the Latin Christians in the Near East.

There were other individuals who were also important in determining the success of the Latin Christians in the Near East in 1097 to 1118. One individual was Godfrey of Bouillon. Godfrey’s military prowess both during and after the crusade was a key reason for success. He was vital in capturing Jerusalem when he tactically dismantled a siege engine and rebuilt it where the defences of the wall were weaker, he then proceeded to climb the walls and let the other crusaders in. This was crucial

because without Godfrey, Jerusalem may have never been captured or it would have taken a lot more time, leading to failure due to Muslim reinforcements arriving. Additionally, after the crusade Godrey expanded Jerusalem and secured important ports for defence. For example, he defeated Ridwan of Aleppo at Azaz and expanded territory there. He also intimidated the Muslim held towns of Acre and Tyre using a naval fleet, securing annual payments from the towns. This was vital to the initial success of Latin Christians in the Near East in securing territory and fortifications whilst the Muslims were disunited and weakened.

To conclude, there was a series of individuals who were particularly important to the success of Latin Christians in the Near East 1097-1118. This includes Baldwin I, especially important for his political policies which established a feudal structure, keeping the area stable. He was also vital in expansion to the coast and securing key ports. However, without the efforts of Godfrey, during the crusade in capturing the city of Jerusalem, which was the real end goal of the crusade, Baldwin would only be the Count of Edessa and not King of Jerusalem. Moreover, Godfrey initialised the expansion of territory and the process of building defences to protect Jerusalem, which Baldwin continued. Thus, whilst Baldwin I was certainly the most important individual in maintaining the success of the Latin Christians, Godfrey’s initial military capabilities and actions taken to secure territory set the foundations for the success of Latin Christians in the Near East in the years 1097 to 1118 for Baldwin to continue.

Exam Question: 'By 1166, Henry II had solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession.’ By Megan Radcliffe When Henry came to the throne in 1154, he inherited a position in England of diminished royal authority over law and justice, for example barons had become autonomous and controlled criminal law in their areas. Henry aimed to solve these problems by introducing laws, such as the Assize of Clarendon and Novel Dissessin, which aimed to make the justice system more efficient and increase the power of the incorporeal crown. However, Henry had to introduce new laws which improved upon the old ones after 1166, for example the Assize of Northampton. Therefore by 1166 Henry had partially achieved his aim to solve the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited in 1154, but not completely.

One problem Henry II inherited when he came to the throne in 1154 was in relation to criminal law. Henry inherited a country demoralised by violence, lawlessness, and disorder, for example, law and order was maintained during the anarchy by individual barons in the land they controlled (e.g., Scotland and the North by King David) but was not centralized or in crown hands. This diminished royal authority over law and justice in these areas. To try and combat this, Henry introduced the Assize of Clarendon in 1166. This was an inquiry into criminal offences (robbery, murder, theft) committed since 1135 (before Stephen’s reign), to ensure that justice had been done. This inquiry was completed using Juries of Presentment, twelve men had to testify about the crimes and suspects, and this was done systematically throughout the country. This allowed Henry to ensure justice had been served fairly and equally for all. The Assize of Clarendon also set out definite punishments for crimes (for example, trial by ordeal of water to determine innocence or guilt and then loss of a foot if found to be guilty.) Ordeal by water sped up the process of determining innocence or guilt as it gave immediate results. Henry did this to lay down measures of uniformity in the law in England, as his grandfather, Henry I, had done. The fact that Henry was able to do this suggested that he had more power and control over the country than he had in 1154. Also, in the 1166 Assize of Clarendon, sheriffs were giv-

accession in 1154 in relation to criminal law by 1166 due to the Assize of Clarendon which set out uniform punishments for criminal offences and ensured everyone had equal justice for crimes they may have been victim to or committed which clearly shows Henry had solved the state of lawlessness and disarray in England that he inherited from Stephen.

However, there is evidence to suggest that Henry II had not completely solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession by 1166. For example, the Assize of Northampton which was introduced in 1176. This was a new law which improved and modified the Assize of Clarendon from 1166. It increased the severity of punishments such as losing a hand as well as a foot, but it also took responsibility for serious criminal offences away from the sheriffs to the justices in Eyre. This gave the incorporeal crown more power and authority over justice throughout the country as it was the King’s loyal men who decided in cases of serious crimes. As Warren says, Henry ‘reached across the feudal structure to forge links between the central government and the shires which were never thereafter to be shattered.’ This again suggests that Henry II, by introducing this new law, aimed to extend royal authority further than simply restoring it after the anarchy. This could imply that the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 had not solved the issue of criminal law just temporarily placated it and so the laws for dealing with criminal offences needed to be clarified and required further modifications to solve the issues completely. Therefore, this suggests that, as far as criminal law is concerned, Henry II had temporarily solved the problems he inherited at his accession, but the need for the extension of the Assize of Clarendon means that criminal law still needed further modification to solve the problem completely.

Another issue that Henry II inherited at his accession to the throne in 1154 was civil law. Under Stephen’s reign the Terra Regis (Royal land) had been reduced from one quarter to one eighth as Stephen had given away so much to the barns to gain their loyalty. Also, the anarchy had caused disputes over land inheritance, for example Hugh Bigod and William of Blois disputed right to Earldom of Norfolk since Stephen had promised the position to his son William but Hugh Bigod already held the Earldom making the situation ambiguous. Henry II aimed to sort out land disputes such as this by implementing the Assize of Novel Disseisin in 1166. The purpose of the law was to check that land had been acquired fairly. If a plaintiff felt he was unfairly deprived

of his rightful land, then he could buy a writ from the chancery to get a trial date to begin proceedings to regain their land. A jury of recognition was asked to supply evidence in answer to two questions: Had the plaintiff been disseised of the land, unjustly and without judgement? Did the alleged person commit the disseisin? The sheriffs would collect evidence and the judgement was made by the justice in Eyre. This made the process very quick and easy, accessible to everyone. As Garnett says, it created ‘common law justice accessible to all the king’s vassals, not just his tenants-in-chief.’ This suggests that Henry aimed to make a standard form to the writ and process, so it was fair for all, which it had not been when he came to the throne in 1154. Therefore, Henry II had solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession in 1154, in relation to civil law, by 1166 as land disputes during the anarchy were being reconciled efficiently and in a way that was accessible to everyone, which conveys that Henry was in control of civil law once again by 1166.

On the other hand, there were many land disputes outstanding from Stephen’s reign and Henry was only making a start on dealing with these in the Novel Disseisin in 1166. Therefore, Mort d’ancestor was introduced in 1176. This law meant that if a landholder or title holder died and his heir did not receive the land or title (was disseised) he could apply for a writ to begin the proceedings to regain his land or title. This was remarkably like Novel Disseisin, however, what makes Mort d’ancestor different was that this could even be a writ against the baron except using the same process as in Novel Disseisin. The writ asked if the plaintiff was the adult heir of the previous deceased tenant who held the land as a fief. Garnett said that Mort d’ancestor ‘had fundamentally altered the balance of power between lord and tenant and made it possible for a lord to deny the claims of an heir, or to exploit them.’ This clearly implies that Henry had extended the control he had over the barons by giving tenants the right to go above their heads straight to him. Also, the limitation of novel dissesin that it only dealt with the issue of landownership during the plaintiff’s lifetime, therefore when the landholder died there was no system for the heir to claim their right to the land if it was dispossessed, especially as the original landholder held no deeds to the land was dealt with in Mort d’ancestor. The fact that Henry felt the need to introduce this new law to improve upon the previous Assize suggests that he felt that the problems of justice and the law he had inherited at his accession in relation to civil law had not been solved completely by 1166, if they had then why would he need to introduce Mort d’ancestor? Therefore, the problems of civil law had started to be solved in 1166 with the Assize of Novel Disseisin, but had not been solved completely, as evidenced by the implementation of Mort d’ancestor in 1176.

Finally, a significant problem of justice and the law that Henry II had inherited at his accession in 1154 was the issue of the enforcers of justice themselves. The position of sheriff was vital to royal authority over justice in that it represented the king in each of the shires of England, however, during the anarchy of Stephen’s reign the position of sheriff was passed on through hereditary right instead of the most loyal and able men taking on the role. This made it easy for the sheriffs to become corrupt, for example Geoffrey de Mandeville said that he held the sheriffdoms of London-Middlesex and Essex-Herefordshire by hereditary right: he said that no justices were to enter the areas of which he was in control, therefore he intended to give justice independently of the crown. Henry completed two inquests of the sheriffs, in 1155 and 1162, in which he acted quickly to stop the position of the Sheriff from becoming hereditary or concentrated in the hands of the nobility. In 1155, Henry II replaced two thirds of the sheriffs across the country with trusted supporters, suggesting that they were corrupt or ineffective and were not doing their jobs properly. Then again in 1162, Henry removed about half of the sheriffs and replaced them. This implies that Henry was in control of the sheriffs as he removed and replaced them so easily. In addition to the Inquest of the Sheriffs in 1155 and 1162, Henry also introduced the Eyre in 1166. This was a general check around the country to see if justice was being carried out properly. This was particularly important given the amount of corruption in the shires as it allowed the king to keep an eye on all areas of the country. This may suggest that Henry had solved the problem of justice and the law, he inherited at his accession in 1154 by 1166 as he had replaced the corrupt sheriffs and introduced Eyres to keep a general eye on all the shires which meant that the King’s law was more likely to be dispensed in the localities than regional baronial justice.

However, the Inquest of the Sheriffs in 1155 and 1162 were not the only ones to be required, there was also one in 1170. This was an inquiry into the sheriffs to discover how much money had been collected from the royal demesne since 1166. It had the aim of a) checking sheriffs were collecting taxes and fines correctly and that they were being received by the exchequer, b) stopping the office of the sheriff passing by hereditary right from father to son and c) replacing incompetent or corrupt sheriffs with his own loyal men. Henry rose men within the feudal system to positions of sheriff, which not only altered the nature of the feudal system but created a loyal administrative class, showing that he was willing to make major transformations to the social system to ensure loyalty and efficiency in law and justice. In the end, twenty-two out of twenty-nine

sheriffs were replaced. This clearly demonstrates how little the previous inquests had done to solve the problem of corruption and inefficiency present in the shires before 1166 and after as another inquest was not only needed but resulted once again in replacements. This implies that this problem had not been solved by 1166. Likewise, the findings of the 1166 General Eyre demonstrated great irregularities in the dispensing of royal justice across the country, which led to the development of the ‘justices in Eyre’ system in the General Eyre of 1175. The findings of the 1166 Eyre showed that sheriffs were not doing their job correctly, which led to the 1170 inquest of sheriffs. The Justices-in-Eyre system was as follows: 1) the country was divided into circuits made up of several shires, 2) groups of itinerant justices toured each shire on their circuit to hear legal cases, 3) each visit was known as an Eyre. This system was crucial as it standardised justice, according to a centralised system rather than relying on local officials who had previously been proven to be unreliable, especially when they could be easily influenced by barons into acquitting an ally or prosecuting an enemy. General Eyre also decreed that these Justices-in-Eyre would travel the whole country about every two or three years. Thus, the problems involving those who enforce justice had started to be solved in 1166 with the Inquests of 1155 and 1162 and the General Eyre of 1166 but had not been solved completely. There was still a lot of work to be done as shown in the General Eyre 1175.

By 1166 Henry had created an efficient, nationalised legal system which ensured that barons no longer had control over criminal justice in their territories. Furthermore, land disputes, which had been a cause of baronial discontent in 1154 now had a quick, cheap, and effective remedy. Finally, Henry had begun the process of ensuring a loyal legal administrative class, which prior to 1154 had been corrupt. However, his work in solving the problems of law and justice that he had inherited was not completely solved by 1166. Criminal law, whilst being the most successful of his reforms, required minor adjustments, as shown in the implementation of the Assize of Northampton in 1176 and the limitations of novel dissesin required a further assize, as demonstrated in Mort d’ancestor in 1176. The least successful of Henry’s attempts to remedy the problems he inherited by 1166 was that of corrupt sheriffs; this was not addressed until the grand inquest of sheriffs in 1170 and the general Eyre of 1175. Therefore, Henry II had succeeded in beginning to improve the law and justice system to be more efficient and fairer for all but had not fully solved the problems of justice and the law that he had inherited at his accession in 1154 by 1166.

A Brief History of The Peaky Blinders - By Holly Nash frequently robbed and picked the pock-

ets of men walking on the streets of slum areas of the city. These efforts were executed through assaults, beating, stabbing, and manual strangulation.

The Peaky Blinders were members of a street gang based in Birmingham operating from the 1880s until the 1910s. The group grew out of the harsh economic deprivations in Britain. They consisted of largely of young criminals from lower to middle class backgrounds. They would engage in robbery, violence, racketeering, illegal bookmaking and control of gambling. Members wore signature jackets, lapelled overcoats, buttoned waistcoats, silk scarves, bell-bottomed trousers, leather boots and peaked flat caps. Their ethnicity was English/Irish, with an estimated 1,000 members which fluctuated widely with alliances and joined forces.

The Blinders’ dominance came about from beating rivals, including the ‘Sloggers’ (a pugilistic term for someone who could strike a heavy blow in the ring) whom they fought for territory in Birmingham and its surrounding districts. They held control for nearly 20 years until 1910 when a larger group (the Birmingham Boys gang led by Billy Kimber) took over. Impoverished youths

The origins of this subculture can be traced back to the 1850s, in a time where Birmingham’s streets were filled with gambling dens and youths playing rough sports. When police started to crack down on these activities due to pressure from the higher classes, the youth fought back, banding together in what became known as ‘slogging gangs.’ These gangs frequently fought the police, and assaulted members of the public walking in the streets. During the 1890s, youth street gangs consisted of men between the ages of 12 and 30. The late 1890s saw an organization of these men into a soft hierarchy. They were likely founded in Small Heath, possibly by a man named Thomas Mucklow as suggested by a newspaper article titled ‘A murderous outrage at Small Heath, a man’s skull fractured’ (printed in the 24th March 1890 edition of The Birmingham Mail). This article is the earliest evidence of the Peaky Blinders in print.

The Peaky Blinders, after they established controlled territory in the late 19th century, began expanding their criminal enterprise. Their activities included protection rackets, fraud, land grabs, smuggling, hijacking, robbery, and illegal bookmarking. Historian Heather Shore of the University of Leeds claims that the Blinders were more focused on street fighting, robbery, and racketeering, as opposed to more organized crime. The group was known for its violence, not only towards rival gangs, but also against innocent civilians and constables. Gang wars between rival gangs frequently erupted in Birmingham, which led to brawls and shootouts.

The most powerful member of the Peaky Blinders was a man known as Kevin Mooney. His real name was Thomas Gilbert, but he routinely changed his last name. Other prominent members of the gang were David Taylor, Earnest Haynes, Stephen McNickle and Harry Fowles, known as ‘Baby-faced Harry’ - who was arrested at age 19 for stealing a bicycle in October 1904. McNickle and Haynes were also arrested at the same time for stealing a bicycle and home invasion respectively.

Each were held for one month for their crimes. West Midlands police records described the three arrested as ‘foul-mouthed young men who stalk the streets in drunken groups, insulting and mugging passers-by’. Taylor was arrested at age 13 for carrying a loaded firearm.

In addition to guns, the Peaky Blinders used an assortment of melee weapons, such as belt buckles, metaltipped boots, fire irons, canes, and knives. In the case of a man named George Eastwood, he was attacked and beaten with belt buckles. Percy Langridge used a knife to stab Police Constable Barker in June 1900. Firearms such as Webley revolvers were used, such as in the shooting and murder of a Summer Hill gang member by Peaky Blinder William Lacey in September 1905.

Gang members frequently wore tailored clothing, which was uncommon for gangs of the time. Almost all the members wore a flat cap and an overcoat.

The Peaky Blinders wore tailored suits usually with bell-bottomed trousers and button jackets. Wealthier members wore silk scarves and starched collars with metal tie buttons. Their distinctive dress was easily recognizable by city inhabitants, police and rival gang members. The wives, girlfriends, and mistresses of the gang members were known for wearing lavish clothing. Pearls, silks and colourful scarves were commonplace.

After nearly a decade of political control, their growing influence brought on the attention of a larger gang, the Birmingham Boys. The Peaky Blinders’ expansion into the area’s racecourses led to violent backlash from the Birmingham Boys gang. Peaky Blinder families began to physically distance themselves from Birmingham’s centre into the countryside. With the Blinders’ withdrawal from the criminal underworld, the Sabini gang moved in on the Birmingham Boys gang, and solidified political control over Central England in the 1930s. As the specific gang known as the Peaky Blinders diminished, their name came to be used as a generic term to describe violent street youth.

The BBC television drama series Peaky Blinders, starring Cillian Murphy, Paul Anderson, Sam Neill, and Helen McCrory, premiered in September 2013. It presents a fictional story in which the Peaky Blinders contended in the underworld with the Birmingham Boys

and the Sabini gang. It follows a single fictional gang based in Birmingham’s Small Heath area, post WW1. The gang had houses located in and around Birmingham, ranging from Longbridge to Sutton Coldfield. Many of the show’s exteriors have been filmed on location at the Black Country Living Museum.

Exam Question: Bevan was the reason why Labour remained in opposition for 13 years between 1951 and 1964. Assess the validity of this view—By Holly Nash Bevan’s left wing views caused him to clash with several other Labour politicians giving the superficial impression that Labour was divided and therefore unelectable. However other factors such as affluence under the conservatives, Labour’s poor economic reputation and most importantly Labour’s image played a part. Labour had divisions within the party, the Bevanites represented the more radical strand of thought, they spoke for the working class and large trade unions, many of the left were unilateralists they didn’t want to burden Britain with the expense of the nuclear arms production. Bevan was all for nationalization. Gaitskell was a moderate centre right conservative, he resisted both trade union domination and the lefts drive toward unilateralism, he wanted to drop clause IV and supported the CND (Pro-nuclear deterrent), because of the Korean War there were charges placed on NHS prescriptions. However in 1955 Bevan reconciled with Gaitskell and became the Shadow Foreign minister (Bevan and Gaitskell axis).

Labour’s image caused problems, due to how the public viewed them. Labour as a party struggled to appeal to the youth, in 1951 they were viewed as old and worn out with no new ideas. Atlee felt as though he let down the people by not being able to fully deliver, he resigned after the election. Labour was criticized over the decolonization of the British Empire to pay off the debt to the USA, they failed to revamp their image after austerity. They were an outdated party and the divide was open to the public, shown through cartoon drawings in newspapers. Another issue with Labour’s image was created by Gaitskell lacked personality.

Problems for the Labour party occurred through affluence. Austerity caused Labour to become associated with high taxation, rationing until 1954 when the conservatives came into power and ‘Make do and Mend’ which caused people to make hats out of bath mats. In 1959 Labour lacked economic credibility.

Gaitskell made a promise Labour could increase pensions without increasing taxes; this was proven wrong by the Conservatives. Labour had high taxes and low expenditure.

The revival of the Conservative party caused issues for the Labour party as they were much younger MPs, bringing in reforms and keeping the NHS and welfare state from the post war consensus. The Conservatives used the weakness of the Labour party against them. The Conservatives ended rationing and lowered taxes. Against Labour the Conservatives were viewed as more united to the public.

Overall, the most important factor is Labour’s image. This caused divisions as they were viewed as an outdated, old and worn out party with no new ideas and internal divisions that were open to the public view.

Exam Question: To what extent was the establishment of Outremer by 1131 due to failures within the Islamic World from 1099? By Aidan Rogers The failures in the Islamic World after the 1st crusade was a significant factor in how well Outremer had been established by 1131. However, there are also other significant factors such as the Frank’s defences and trade with the West.

After the 1st crusade, the Muslim world was still fractured like it had been beforehand. The death of Malik Shah inn 1092 was still causing issues with succession, to the point of some Seljuks becoming independent and even forming alliances with the crusaders out of fear of other Seljuks. For example, the emir of Tripoli made an agreement to provide the Franks with gold, honey and money in exchange for Tripoli not being invaded and protection if it were ever needed. These internal conflicts with the Muslims would’ve made it far more difficult to damage the establishment of Outremer. However, the Muslims did, despite these conflicts, win some victories against the Franks, such as the battle of Harran in 1104 and the battle of the field of blood in 1119. Before the Battle of the field of blood, Roger of Salerno did not wait for any reinforcements from Jerusalem before fighting the Muslims, leading to one the worst losses for the Franks and the death of Roger of Salerno himself. Afterwards, the Frank’s lost some territory against the Muslims in Antioch, clearly showing that despite there being many failures within the Muslim World, they could still damage the establishment of Outremer.

Trade with the West had a significant impact on the establishment of Outremer. Trade with the Italians through Acre, that had been captured in 1104 and Tyre, that was captured in 1124, would’ve greatly boosted the economy, allowing for the Franks to make better defences against the Muslims, such as new castles. This was done through trading rugs, clothes and honey with the Italian maritime merchants. These ports also allowed for more pilgrims to visit Outremer. The vast number of pilgrims would’ve caused a huge increase in the economy due to the sheer amount of people visiting Jerusalem. There were that many pilgrims that hospitals were

of Jerusalem as he didn’t want the church to have more influence in the Near East than he did. Trade could also bring soldiers from the west to assist the Franks, who had very little manpower because only three hundred knights stayed in Jerusalem after the 1st Crusade. This clearly shows that trade was very important, but the failures of the Islamic world were still more important.

The survival of Outremer was also heavily assisted by the assimilation of the Franks into Eastern culture. Assimilation would’ve greatly helped as the Eastern cultures would’ve made it easier for the Western Franks to adapt to the Near East. It also greatly improved relations with the Muslims, for example the ‘Terre de seuth’ was a demilitarised zone of land in the Near East where the Franks and Muslims could farm together. However, Baldwin II called the council of Nabulus in 1120 that promoted segregation between the Franks and the Muslims. For example, sexual relationships between a Christian and a Muslim were banned, the punishment for which was the castration of the man and the removal of the woman’s nose. It was also made illegal for a Muslim to wear Christian clothing, this segregation would’ve heavily damaged relations with the Muslims, but due to the failures within the Islamic world, Outremer was barely affected.

Overall, the failures of the Muslim world were incredibly significant as they posed no real threat to the Franks, apart from the battle of the field of blood in 1119. The schism between the Sunni Abbasids and the Shia Fatimids was

Was the sack on Constantinople in 1204 inevitable? - By Aidan Rogers On the 8th of January 1198, Innocent III was elected as the pope, 6 years after the 3rd crusade, which had failed to take Jerusalem. He wanted papal authority over all Christians and wanted to recover Jerusalem. Innocent decided to call a 4th crusade in the Papal Bull ‘Post miserable’, which was issued in 1198 thinking it would achieve these goals, however “this lapse of judgement would have tragic consequences for Christendom” (Thomas Asbridge, the Crusades). Boniface of Montferrat agreed with the Venetians that for 85,000 silver marks, the crusaders would be provided with transport to Egypt. The Crusaders had planned to embark from Venice, but only around 13,000 Franks actually turned up, forcing the crusaders to come to an agreement with the Venetians as they could not afford to pay off their debts due to the lack of support from monarchs, who Innocent had hoped would contribute to the crusade like in previous ones. The Franks would attack the Christian city of Zara in exchange for the Venetians providing boats, more troops and relieving the crusaders of the debt they owed. In 1202, the Crusaders sacked Zara, to the horror of Innocent III who immediately excommunicated the crusade. Stupidly, Innocent revoked the excommunication on the crusaders after they promised they regretted their actions. Due

to the wealth from Zara being insufficient for the Venetians, the Crusaders decided to attack Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. They began a siege of the city in July 1203 and on the 12th April 1204, the Crusaders finally broke into the city.

The sack of Constantinople could have been seen as inevitable due to the damage the previous crusades had done to relations between the Byzantine Empire and the Franks. But the fate of Constantinople was not set in stone until the 4th crusade itself.

The call of the 1st crusade did not cause relations between the Franks and the Byzantine Empire to fall apart, leading to the sack of Constantinople, because the Byzantines actually asked for aid. By 1095 the Byzantine Empire faced external threats, such as the Seljuks, and internal threats such as other important dynasties.

Because Alexius and Pope Urban II had been improving relations and trying to end the great schism, Alexius was able to call western Christendom for aid, and many answered due to the promise of papal indulgences and because Urban described the holy land as “the land of milk and honey”. However, some events during the 1st Crusade itself caused relations between the Franks and Byzantine empire to become very damaged. During the siege of Antioch in 1197, Stephen of Blois fled and met with Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantine emperor, and told him the siege was lost. Alexius , thinking that the Franks had already lost the siege, ordered his troops to stop marching to aid the crusaders and return to Constantinople. After the crusaders eventually won the siege, Bohemond of Taranto, took control of the city, arguing the oath made at Constantinople was no longer valid due to Alexius not assisting the crusaders. This dramatically damaged relations and led to Bohemond attempting to go on a crusade against the Byzantine empire, however this failed and in 1108, Bohemond had to sign the treaty of Devol and was made a vassal to the empire. After the death of Bohemond II of Antioch in 1130, Alice of Antioch refused to give up power and attempted to marry off her daughter, Constance to the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel Comnenus. However, King Fulk of Jerusalem forced Constance to marry Raymond of Poitiers instead to he could regain control over Antioch.

This would’ve damaged relations between the Franks and the Byzantines, further increasing the chance of future conflict. The relations between the Franks and Byzantines also plummeted due to the 2nd crusade. The main reason as to why the relations further soured was because Alexius had not asked for a 2nd crusade. The Franks turned to the Byzantine Empire to ask for advice when they didn’t even know of the crusade. The Byzantine Empire forged alliances with the Seljuk Turks, which would’ve definitely helped contribute to the relations collapsing as they would have been seen as conspiring with the enemy. During the crusade, they lied to King Louise VII of France about the fate of the king of Germany, Conrad III. They also told Louis to stick to the coasts rather than go through Anatolia like the crusaders during the 1st crusade, but Louis was still attacked by Seljuks. During the 3rd Crusade, the Franks seized control of Cyprus, which was under the Byzantine Empire, further damaging relations. However, despite relations between the Franks and the Byzantine Empire constantly being damaged, there were good outcomes for relations during the crusades, such as the calling of the 1st crusade itself. Despite everything that had happened previously, the sack of Constantinople was not inevitable until the treaty with the Venetians in 1201, which led the crusaders to think they had to attack Constantinople in order to reclaim the holy land and extend the authority of the Papacy.

The Evolution of Male Fashion from 1940 to Now - By Holly Nash

1940-49 The 1940s are considered to be last decade of gentlemanly style and elegance. With the severity of the war hanging over society, strict fabric rationing and demand for practicality over style began to have influence over the fashion world. If you were seen to be wearing something that would be considered flashy or elegant, it was seen as a lack of patriotism as the money and the fabric was needed to help those in uniform. As a result, suits were made without vests, pocket flaps and trouser cuffs. The men that stayed behind from the war aimed to look as austere as possible and adopted a style of simplicity with little or if any detail.

After the war, men’s fashion saw a small revival but would never reach the elegance of pre-war style. Double breasted jackets made a return as well as wider trousers. Colours returned, and hand painted silks were all the rage. Men wore ties as a way of expressing individuality after so many years of not being

able to. Wider, shorter ties in colourful patterns were a hot item, and men would wear decorative tie pins to further convey their style. It can be safely assumed that the period following the war was a big exhale for society after years of holding its breath: people were able to relax again, fun was not only allowed but encouraged and everyone embraced a more leisurely pace. Casual Hawaiian shirts became a huge trend in menswear towards the end of the ‘40s thanks in part to Elvis Presley.

1950-59 At the beginning of the decade, menswear was decidedly simple. Most businessmen adhered to a uniform of dark flannel suits and conformity became ideal once more. Since returning home from the war - a new moniker – ‘head of the household’ – became synonymous with ‘husband.’ The threat of the Cold War loomed over everyone’s heads, and men wanted to look like good Americans. Thus, everyone looked alike. Suits no longer had shoulder pads - if they did, they were minimal. Ties became slimmer, shirt collars were less pronounced, and the brims of hats were narrower. Trousers, however, remained mostly unchanged.

The 50s became more leisurely as travel began to boom as well as an interest in sports. Fashion adapted with these interests, and casual, athletic attire (like the polo shirt) grew in popularity. Short shorts in pastel colours took centre stage in men’s casual wear. Sports blazers cut in more comfortable shapes and made with lighter materials became a staple of everyday wear. Additionally, sunglasses – which were previously considered a luxury item – became more affordable and thereby grew in popularity. Wayfarer and Clubmaster style glasses were worn by everyone throughout the decade, and are still popular today. For teens and young adults, the ‘50s were boring. The overall sense of post-war calm that permeated society wasn’t all that stimulating and so the Greasers subculture was born. Named after the iconic greased-back hairstyles of rock and roll musicians, Greasers were typically working-class youth, hoodlums, and motorcycle gangs. Greasers became a popular subculture in both pop culture and fashion because of Marlon Brando, Elvis Presley and James Dean. The standard Greaser look consisted of fitted white and black T-shirts, baseball shirts, black or blue rolled up denim, leather jackets, bomber jackets and letterman jackets. Teens would complete the look with fedoras, motorcycle helmets, vintage leather caps, flat caps, army boots, winklepickers, creepers, and Converse Chuck Taylor AllStars.

1960-69

Many consider the ‘60s to be revolutionary to men’s fashion. Formality gave way for skinny and flared trousers, flower shirts, wide lapels, and other adventurous trends. Men’s fashion took more of an effeminate approach with long hair, bright colours, thin silk scarves, paisley prints, velvet pants, puffy sleeves and men’s jewellery all taking their turn in the fashion spotlight. Suits became tight fitting, trousers became narrow, and vests were a thing of the past. Suits were even often (if the job permitted) abandoned in place of army coats and denim jackets. Following the examples of the previous decade, the youth continued to branch off and lead when it came to fashion. The ‘60s were considered ‘youth driven’, with trends set by subcultures: Mods, rockers, hippies, etc, and fashion, as a result, was as bold as it was light-hearted. During this time, the British music scene grew in popularity. Any trend that looked like it came from the high streets of London became desirable.

In fact, some say the Beatles singlehandedly made clean, straight cut business suits a stylish wardrobe essential. From suits to skinny ties; skin-tight turtlenecks, to their signature haircuts, and everything in-between; if the Beatles wore it, it became a staple.

1970-79 The ‘70s were crazy times; styles that would have been laughed at 10 years prior became big. As synthetic fabrics came about, materials dropped in price and travel and shipping became easier - fast fashion was the name of the game. Causal menswear and the ‘wash and wear’ evolution of men’s clothing became abundant and widely available at extremely low prices. This was a direct reflection of the era’s air of spontaneity and indulgence. By 1972, platform shoes and bell-bottom trousers were menswear staples. Leisure suits and tracksuits became more popular. Bell bottoms were characterized by a high waist, a tight fit through the thighs and a flare at the knee extending outward. They were paired with suits and wide collar shirts in varying patterns from floral to polka dots, to checked and plaid.

Chunky cable knit turtleneck sweaters (often with matching belts or hats) were also all the rage. Three-piece disco suits circa 1977’s hit flick Saturday Night Fever were every man’s dream look.

1980-89

Continuing along with the trend of snug-fit and casual clothing, the ’80s clothes were another quirky decade in fashion. However, clothing was already becoming more subdued and less outlandish. Activewear – think matching sweatshirts and sweatpants, pro-sports (NFL) branded clothes, and athletic shoes like Nike Air Jordans – was “in.” If a man wasn’t wearing sportwear he was wearing a denim jacket, a long-sleeved velour shirt and a pair of Levi’s. With the economic boom, coupled with the new found attitude towards success and power, dressing made for a very selfconscious and gluttonous decade. Men’s suits were surprisingly conservative. Suits in neutral colours were paired with skinny ties, and knit square-bottomed ties were the “it” thing. When men weren’t working, they would pair graphic-print buttondowns with slacks for a go-to ensemble that was appropriate almost anywhere.

The youth began to embrace the hip hop trend, following the fashion trends of artists such as The Beastie Boys.

1990-99

2010-2015

The 1990s experienced another huge fashion transformation as men ultimately banished any and all trends from the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s in an attempt to redefine themselves. Casual was here to stay and minimalism was the new thing. Mainstream fashions were influenced by three significant youth subcultures of the decade: rave, hip-hop, and grunge. T-shirts, shorts, jeans, trainers, sweatshirts, hoodies, tattoos, piercings, and prominently displayed brands comprised the majority of any man’s closet.

The 2010s experienced a revival of ‘20s prep style, along with a rise in fast fashion and globalization. Smart casual looks, athleisure, along with hipster fashions were on trend.

2000-2010 With globalization , and the ability to cut costs through outsourcing, brands such as H&M and Forever 21 were able to mimic runway looks at a fraction of the cost. This resulted in the collapse of class structures defined by fashion. High and low trends became mixed as clothing became cheaper, and everyone was able to afford more designer accessories. In the beginning, men’s clothing experienced a ‘futuristic’ look. In the mid-2000s, styles sobered as the US entered war. Distressed denim became popular, along with military wear as everyday clothes. Youth fashion was inspired by hip-hop and skater culture, mixing sportswear with high fashion. Sneakers, from Chuck Taylors to Nike Air Jordans, became hot items. At the same time, goth and indie pop subcultures developed. People started to have an interest in vintage thrift shopping and adopting a darker, rocker aesthetic.

Fashion has become genderless - the lines between men and womenswear have started to blur. Many different fashion trends and styles are being accepted. Celebrities play a huge part in the fashion world. Men such as Billy Porter, Harry Styles, Timothee Chalamet, Elton John, Freddie Mercury, Boy George and Adam Lambert have paved the way for more men to wear clothing that at one point would have been considered too feminine. Harry Styles was the first male on the cover of American Vogue, where he wore his now famous blue dress. Billy Porter has worn many stylish dresses on the red carpet at the Tony Awards, such as a dress that was made using the curtains from his run on the show Kinky Boots. He also wore a dress in the colours of the pride flag that was made from a material called organza. Timothee Chalamet wore an outfit that resembles something Harry Styles had previously worn; the outfit was debuted at the 2022 Oscars red carpet.

Closeting in the Music Industry—By Holly Nash Olly Alexander was told to stay in the closet to protect his band Years&Years. He was told this by his media trainer as the time of when he and the band were receiving a record deal. When he spoke to his trainer about his sexual “she said, with very good intentions I’m sure: ‘why does anybody Closeting means to be LGBT and hide their need to know about your sexuality? What true sexual orientation or gender identity business is it who you go to bed with? Do some will choose to do this but for some you really want to invite personal quespeople have it forced upon them often for tions like that? Maybe it’s better not to say the fear of persecution, rejection or other anything about your sexuality at all.’” reactions. Closeting can be a result of the contracts they sign on to. Many LGBTQ+ musicians get told that their albums won’t Mark Feehily, member of Irish boyband, sell and their fan base would deteriorate if Westlife was shown in a PR stunt relationthey came out as anything but straight. ship with Laura Hinton, to avoid speculaInstead of relying on an artist’s musical ca- tion about his sexuality and boyfriend Kevpabilities, too many “professionals” still in McDaid, he’d been dating since 2005. believe that sex sells more than talent. This type of relationship in his case with Laura Hinton is nothing more than a Publicity Stunt, as the word himself implies; Jaymi Hensley, a member of the 2013 boyit’s aimed to get people and media attenband Union J opened up about how you tion. Publicists and Celebrity management ‘can’t come out’ in the music industry and mangers set up these fake public relationperhaps giving an explanations as to why ships to avoid speculation and to make band member George Shelly and other fans and the general public believe it’s this music talents choose not to share their is a common way to closest artists. sexual identities with the public as ‘it’s not going to do well for your sales.’ Jaymi went on to say ‘I think I’m a testament to stay that it mean bugger all, it doesn’t matter. I have just as much if a female fan base as my other three band members. I just like boys.’

Adam Lambert, lead singer of Queen and solo singer drew controversy with sexually charged performance at the American music awards, his goal to promote freedom of expression, due to him being explicit about his sexuality over the time he spent on American Idol and coming second in the final. During this performance he was imitating sexual acts on stage with male members of the band, including kissing his bassist. If this had been a female artist with a male dancer or member of her band it wouldn’t be classed as a sexually charged performance.

Lance Bass, ‘N’ Sync member openly admitted keeping his sexuality under wraps so as to not overshadow the popularity of the boy band. He stated in an interview ‘in base line is what the record labels look at, they just want to make money, if this artist isn’t going to pull in this many fans because they are gay, they are not going to support him this much. And I see that with so many people.’ And he added ‘it was very torturous because I didn’t want people to find out who I truly was. I thought especially in the 90s that if anyone knew I was gay that my life would be over. People would hate me, ‘N’ Sync would be over. It was a lot of pressure. You become very lonely.’ Closeting still exists, the label changes

the image of a person. Contracts are very difficult to escape once signed, the artist is stuck with the label even if they don’t want them, they own the artist and they have to wait years to get their voices back (Reason why One direction have been on Hiatuis for so long). The music industry is very homophobic, privacy does exist, everything fans see is for a public purpose, when they are gay or in a gay relationship, the label will place them in a long term relationship and bearding still exists.

Simon Cowell’s former publicist Max Clifford stated in an interview ‘We, the label, don’t feel like pushing your records anymore, or we don’t feel you’re going to sell, we’re not going to let you go. We’ll just kind of put you on the shelf over here and won’t really let you work, but we’re not going to let you leave either.

Crusades Essay - By Daniel Corrigan-Bond Baldwin of Boulogne was one of the main leaders of the First Crusade, and became the first Count of Edessa and first King of Jerusalem. He played an important role in the establishment of a political system and economic stability in Outremer.

Baldwin led one of the Crusader armies with his older brother, Godfrey de Bouillon. He and Tancred de Hauteville separated from the main Crusader army after the Battle of Dorylaeum, and travelled north through Armenian Cilicia until they came to Edessa. The Armenian ruler of the city, Thoros, requested Baldwin’s support against the Seljuks who surrounded and constantly threatened the city. Baldwin helped strengthen Edessa’s defences, and in return he was allowed to marry Thoros’ daughter and was adopted as his heir. Thoros was murdered shortly after, allowing Baldwin to establish the first Crusader state – the County of Edessa. This gave the Crusaders a base from which they could expand further south in the Levant.

Despite this, Baldwin did not participate in the rest of the First Crusade. He indirectly helped the Crusaders by distracting Kerbogha, who had been marching from Mosul to Antioch. Kerbogha, fearing that Baldwin would attack him from behind, besieged Edessa for 3 weeks before giving up and continuing to Antioch, as Baldwin’s army was strong enough to hold the city for months. This delay meant that Antioch had fallen by the time Kerbogha arrived. Therefore, although Baldwin was vital for the establishment of the first Crusader State, he played no role in the establishment of Antioch or Jerusalem. Due to being landlocked, isolated and surrounded, Edessa would not have been able to survive without support from the other Franks.

Baldwin would only come to play an important military role upon Godfrey’s death in 1100. Baldwin swiftly marched to Jerusalem and was crowned the first King of Jerusalem. At the time of his accession, the Kingdom only controlled Jerusalem and Jaffa, and was surrounded by the Fatimids and Damascus. Baldwin immediately started to attack the Muslim-controlled ports on the Syrian coast, with Genoese support – Arsuf and Caesarea fell in 1101, Tortosa and Gibelet in 1102, Haifa in 1108 and (with King Sigurd of Norway’s support) Beirut and Sidon in 1110. These ports were vital for trade and emigration between the East and West. In 1116, Baldwin would also establish a small outpost at Aqaba, in Transjordan, which allowed him to intercept trade and communication between Syria and Egypt. Baldwin would also successfully fight off several Fatimid invasions between 1100 and 1115. Despite these successes, Baldwin failed to capture the important port of

Tyre, as well as Ascalon (the base for Fatimid attacks on Jerusalem). In spite of this, Baldwin’s military expansion was vital for the long-term survival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Baldwin also established the Kingdom’s political system. He established a feudal system (adapted to the East), granting land to marcher lords who would help defend Jerusalem whilst maintaining a powerful royal domain. He introduced money fiefs and landed fiefs, in which knights would be given an annual payment or a grant of land in exchange for providing military service, which partially alleviated Outremer’s manpower shortages. He also created a legal system, with a High Court (consisting of his vassals), seigniorial courts, courts of the burgesses, maritime and commercial courts and courts for the native Syrians. One of the main obstacles he had to deal with was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Daimbert of Pisa, who had tried to prevent his accession and desired Jerusalem for himself. Baldwin was able to exile him, as he had seized his position unlawfully. Baldwin also acted as Primus Inter Pares, dominating the other Crusader States to keep the peace between the Frankish leaders (e.g. in 1108, he forced Tancred to return Edessa to Baldwin of Bourcq) to ensure they didn’t waste what little manpower and resources they had on each other instead of the Muslims and Byzantium. Although these reforms were necessary for Outremer’s political stability, Baldwin did face some setbacks; he had no heir, leading to a succession crisis and dispute between Baldwin of Bourcq and Eustace of Boulogne, and the feudal system he established relied on the presence of a strong King, which would cause instability under his weaker successor, Baldwin II.

When Baldwin became King, he faced a severe manpower shortage and an almost nonexistent economy. To alleviate these issues, Baldwin turned to the West for aid. A massive propaganda campaign was started to encourage people to emigrate to the East in search of a better life and land, which many did. The Italian merchant republics of Pisa, Genoa and Venice regularly provided military support to Baldwin, especially in his coastal offensives. Although they demanded significant concessions in terms of an independent legal system, Italian quarters in each port and reductions in taxes, the partnership was still beneficial for Baldwin, as it meant he could trade with the West, exporting sugar and spices, and importing metals, cotton and food. Western Europeans were also encouraged to travel to the East on mini-Crusades, which thousands did. For example, the 1101 mini-Crusade helped Baldwin defeat a Fatimid invasion and the 1110 Norwegian Crusade led by King Sigurd helped capture Beirut and Sidon. However, the mini-Crusades weren’t always successful, such as in the invasions of Rum in 1101 and Byzantium in 1104-1108, though Baldwin played a very minimal role in organising these military campaigns. There were other Frankish leaders who were important in the establishment of Outremer – Bohemond of Taranto, for example. Bohemond led a Norman army on the First Crusade with his nephew, Tancred.

Bohemond had the most experience of the Byzantine situation due to his close proximity and invasion of Durazzo in the previous decade, and was a seasoned and talented military commander. His experience helped the Crusaders at Nicaea (where he organised a supply system with Alexius) and Dorylaeum (where he and Robert of Normandy held next to a swamp for hours against the combined forces of Kilij Arslan and Il-Ghazi). If the Crusaders had been defeated at Nicaea, they would have had a massive enemy fortress behind them, and Dorylaeum could have resulted in the destruction of an entire Crusader army. Either of these events would likely have caused the collapse of the First Crusade before they even reached Outremer. Bohemond also played a pivotal role at Antioch, bribing Firouz, an Armenian, to allow the Crusaders into Antioch via a tower. Kerbogha arrived shortly after this, and the Crusaders likely would have been annihilated if they hadn’t taken Antioch by then. He then established the Principality of Antioch, an important Crusader state, as it was an economic and academic centre, controlled the port of St. Simeon, and created a land route between Anatolia, Edessa and Tripoli. Although he did not participate in the Siege of Jerusalem, the siege would not have even happened if not for his earlier victories.

Despite this, Bohemond was of little importance for Outremer’s survival after the First Crusade. He was defeated by Il-Ghazi in the Battle of Melitene in 1100, and imprisoned until Baldwin of Bourcq ransomed him in 1103. Just one year after being released, he travelled to the West, where he was received warmly as a Crusader hero, married Constance (daughter of Philip I of France) and raised an army of 32000 to invade Byzantium, who had refused to accept Antioch’s independence on the basis of the oath Bohemond swore to Alexius to return former Byzantine land. Bohemond again besieged Durazzo, but this time he was defeated and forced to sign the humiliating Treaty of Devol. Bohemond became Alexius’ vassal and was forced to accept the installation of an Orthodox Patriarch in Antioch. Bohemond would never return to Antioch, and died in Italy in 1111. He didn’t even secure a stable succession, as his son, Bohemond II, was a young child, and Antioch would be ruled by a regency until 1128. Bohemond spent less than half a decade in Antioch, despite reigning for 13 years, lost large amounts of land, manpower and resources to the Damishmends and Byzantium, and relied on Tancred to rule Antioch for him after 1100.

The Crusader States would not have been established if not for the victory in the First Crusade, and Bohemond of Taranto was the most important person in the success of this Crusade. However, Outremer was still weak, isolated and unstable after this Crusade, and Baldwin I’s reign was vital for establishing political and economic stability. Therefore, Baldwin I was the most important individual in Outremer’s success 1097-1118.

The Battle of Xiangyang - By Morgan Payne

The steppe of Mongolia is often perceived to be a barren and inhospitable landscape, however, in the mid-12th century, an indestructible force rose from the heartland of Mongolia. Genghis Khan, a warrior from obscure and insignificant beginnings rose to power amid the unification of nomadic tribes in Northeast Asia which was spearheaded by his efforts, eventually resulting in him being proclaimed universal ruler of the Mongols. From the beginning of his reign as Khan, he had a clear doctrine of Mongol expansion, launching a series of campaigns throughout the world, carrying the Mongol army as far as the Adriatic sea in Europe as well as the Pacific coast of China. This led to the establishment of the Great Mongol Empire which was one of the largest continuous empires ever conceived.

Kublai Khan was a Mongolian General and statesman who was also the grandson of Genghis Khan, becoming the fifth khan of the Mongol empire in 1260 following his appointment at the Grand Kurultai. It is

argued that Kublai is one of Genghis’s most distinguished successors as he wished to continue his grandfather's doctrine of Mongol expansion. The Song Dynasty of Southern China had been in power for over 300 years by this point and had evaded the Mongols for over 80 years by the time Kublai had launched his assault on Xiangyang in 1273 as its 11-metre high walls had deterred Mongol armies for decades. Despite the Song Dynasty's strong physical strength, the internal political structure was deteriorating rapidly as the new emperor, ZhaoBing, ruled as a minor being only 6 or 7 years of age as well as being the son of Lady Yi, a concubine of his father Emperor Duzong. Although acceptable in society to be the son of a concubine, he was still perceived to be inferior, facing prejudice as he was not the son of an empress (first wife).

At the time of the assault in 1273, Emperor Bing was effectively a symbolic ruler, possessing little to no power over daily affairs. The authority of the imperial seal lay with the chancellor JiaSidao who usurped control of the empire from centralised imperial control and the regency of the Empress Dowager. Sidao rose to power in the Song Court as a result of his sister who was a favoured concubine to Emperor Duzong. Kublai had attempted to establish peaceful co-existence with the Southern Chinese by extending an offer of Parley through his ambassador Hao Jing, however, he was apprehended at the border and regarded as a simple spy. He was arrested by the Song government, infuriating Kublai and subsequently provoking an assault on Song Territory. Jia Sidao had ignored the offer of peace that was offered by Kublai and instead tried to hasten military preparations against a possible Mongol assault.

Sidao’s plan had many faults, even though he had secured military provisions through land reform from large owners, this had alienated the aristocracy and official class.

The military commanders and generals also had grievances as to the efficacy of his plan, a possible reason why a portion of them had surrendered to the Mongols without fighting. From 1273 the Mongols besieged the city of Xiangyang for 5 years. They gained control of the Han and Yangtze Rivers which deprived the Song from two natural defences. The gateway to conquering all of China was now in Mongol hands, the ultimate goal of the Mongol forces, as Kublai’s grandfather was now insight.

Kublai warned his troops not to engage in indiscriminate slaughter as they travelled down the Yangtze River, securing the surrender of numerous prefectures, with others being taken by brief conflict. It is irrefutable that the Mongol position was extremely strong at this time as both Kublai and hist troops were inspired by the legacy of Genghis. Their reliance on mounted archery and their highly adept skills in this form of warfare rendered the indestructible against the divided Song who Kublai himself said would ‘ make better slaves than soldiers’

In January 1276, Mongol forces reached Lin’an prompting the remaining Song Court to make a last attempt at peace, however, this olive branch was not accepted and Mongol forces took Lin’an in February of the same year. Empress Dowager Xie and Emperor Bing were taken to Dadu (modern-day Beijing) and granted an audience with Kublai. It would be the first time that the leaders of China and Mongolia had met. There is much debate and speculation surrounding historians studying Asian history; as the exact reason why Zhao Bing came to his end is unknown, what can be said however is that his death cleared the way for Kublai across the entire continent.

The fall of the Song Dynasty insighted great fear in the west. The news quickly spread along the Silk Road, an expansive and inhospitable trail which encouraged trade and greatly enriched the west through the trade of silk, spices and gunpowder. The most poignant of these fears came from Pope Gregory X. Never before had the spiritual leader of Christendom been in contact with an Asian emperor. On March 13th 1245, Gregory X sent a letter to Kublai known as ‘CumNon-Solum’ which appealed to the Mongol emperor to refrain from persecuting Christians. There was no evidence of any persecution other than Song prisoners. Kublai was widely known for ethnic and religious tolerance as his mother Sorkaktani was a Christian, and Kublai’s adopted son, who was also vice-regent of the empire, was originally from Persia (The Golden Horde).

Ultimately, the fall of Xiangyang in 1273 initiated a global shift in world politics. The Mongol Empire stretched from the shores of China to the Adriatic sea, rivalling the British and Russian Empires for the spot of No1 it was one of the largest empires ever conceived. The conquering of Southern China by Kublai Khan had varied effects. It unified northern and southern China under one singular ruler which allowed for centralisation and replaced the unpopular leadership of Song officials. It did however meet some resistance from those who remained loyal to the Song Dynasty and opposed the brutality of Mongolian troops. It is irrefutable that the unification of China allowed for continuity of trade that had begun under the Han Dynasty, allowing the west to economically grow, as well as allowing advanced medical and engineering knowledge to improve the conditions of the west.