February 2016 by Winstanley College

Winstanley College

History Magazine Easter 2016 Edition â&#x20AC;&#x153;One damned thing after anotherâ&#x20AC;&#x153;

Contents: Editorial ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 China: An Age of Reform………………………………......................................................................………….4 - 6 Eizabeth Bayory: Women or Vampire?............................................................................................7 - 9 Adolf Hitler: What Made the Man Behind the Misery………………………………..…….……………..…..10 - 13 If This is a Man: The Life of Primo Levi………………………………………….…………………………..…………..14 - 15 The Secret Beginnings of the New York Subway…………………………………………………….………...……16 - 18 The Holy Roman Empire…………………………………………………………………………………….…………....……….19 - 21 Henry II: A Medieval Margaret Thatcher?………………………..………………………………………………..….22 - 24 Medicine and the Church…………………………………………………………………………….……………….…….……25 - 27 OPINION: Top 5 Women that Pushed Boundaries in the 20th Century…………………..….…..28 - 30 The Belgian Revolution……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………...…31 - 32 Cicero: The Greatest Orator or the Worst Windbag?...............................................................33 - 37 Why Were the Mongols So Successful?……………………………………………………………………….….……..38 - 40 Breaking News in the History Society………………..……………………………………………………………..……………35 Who’s Who in the History Society……………………………………………………………………………………………………36 Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its History Society. 2

Editorial: “To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain

forever a child ” Cicero Hello, once again, to the bastion of historical opinion!

pondered by the minds of A-Level students as they navigate crusades, Britain, The UK is hotting up over the questions Angevins, Stuarts and Civil War (Whilst of the European Union. The importance also drowning in their A2 coursework!) of the referendum falls hard on the Ahem. Moving on. shoulders of the over eighteens, this We also welcome our high school histopossibly being the first time their voices rians, who have laboured over their count in the political process. Furthercompetition submissions. The best one more, should we be worried of the US from three have been chosen, and it was Elections? Is Donald Trump, a reformer harder than ever to judge because of the (no), a joker or a threat? high quality of submissions. However, I But enough of all the serious politics, (it’s not my style anyway) and on to the fun-packed (and late as always) Easter edition of the History Magazine!

have to commend the runner’s up, Chloe Promfitt from Byrchall High School on her engaging style and Jack Wilson from Fred Longworth on his use of historical detail. Furthermore Jack Cooper First, apologies, but due to technical difficulties, the promised Jotishcky inter- and Ben Pritchard should be proud of the level of historical judgement in their view is not available. Sorry to all who articles that is usually not explored till Alooked forward to it. Level . Nevertheless, please enjoy the However, our pages are still filled with efforts of Olivia Rigby, James Whitfield, the latest questions that caught the Richard Johnson and Ben Betts! attention of our writers. Is Henry II inWell done to the winner’s, and I hope deed a Medieval Margaret Thatcher? What are the origins to one of the worst you enjoy all our efforts! dictators in history? Was Cicero a whiny Emma Porter little brat? All these questions are being Editor—in—Chief 3

China: An Age of Reform This sovereign state in East Asia stands today as a testament to the volatile nature of our era, defying thousands of years of imperial dynasty and fast becoming a global power in its evolution. Yet China’s most significant changes have occurred most recently upon contemporary reflection. These are in the form of its radical economic restructure.

failure in instituting “The Great Leap Forward” campaign, then China would simply not be where it is today. A more liberal leader assumed power: Deng Xiaoping who was inspired by the economic performance of neighboring countries such as Japan and therefore endeavored to emulate the market-oriented economy with a socialist makeup, known as the “Reform & Opening up” program. However, in contrast to a “shock Born from the most humble of civilizations, therapy” approach as implemented by the the Chinese political system was based on former Soviet Union, (where both the econhereditary monarchies until 1911 when the omy and government collapsed under the last reigning dynasty was overthrown by the strains) China undertook its transition proRepublic of China- later replaced by the gressively. Communist Party following the war. Preceding this was an extensive communist rule, where an independent industrial state grew. Initially, the country targeted its rural sectors The means of production and ownership re- with systems that linked agricultural workers mained under tight bureaucratic control as a income to their output instead of receiving shares from the whole proportion; this decommand economy. collectivization marked the start of change. Then came more political transformation in If it were not for the death of Communist the urban spaces: the decentralization of Party Chairman Mao Zedong in 1976 and his governance with the 1980 fiscal reform al4

lowing local bodies to gain more authority over their own development and policy environments. Next, tackling the mass privatization of state-owned enterprises, the expansion of non-state firms was a logical and critical next step where the township and village enterprises (TVEs) emerged into becoming the catalyst of China’s economic growth in the 1980s. This proved a very successful policy in the transitory period and was only incentivized by the provincial governments, now more autonomous in selecting such beneficial initiatives. They were so driven towards investment (especially officials who presided over economically growing areas) that they competed to reduce regulations and internal barriers with the TVEs to boost prosperity and their own careers in Chinese politics.

induced disasters at the time, were continuing to shape attitudes in favour of change.

Such dramatic changes to the infrastructure of the society were remarkably contained in their subsequent impacts. Although opponents to Deng’s regime were apparent, the nature of his reforms prevented any major civil unrest at a time when such “Western” influence on China would have been seen as ideologically subversive. Yet the population appeared to welcome the reform, memories of the famine in which an estimated 20-43 million died under Mao’s prohibition of farm ownership, which had exasperated nature-

Once these policies had all been integrated, China entered the next phase of its transition, launching an array of new measures such as the establishment of the National Tax Bureau as well as local tax offices in 1994, which provided greater macro control. It forced provincial sectors to comply with national tax and fiscal systems as opposed to the reductions that had previously been carried out independently by local governments. Then came the unification of foreign exchange rates and promotion of account

Deng was not content just there however, and the cementation of China’s new direction came in 1981 with the dual-track system. This saw most consumer goods effectively left to the market mechanism for prices to be determined while state monopolies in key commodities remained. By 1985, the government had started to deregulate the prices of most goods and China boomed with economic growth in the same year at 13.5%. TVEs now began to gain more market share at the expense of the state sector but this promoted corruption and combined with inflationary pressures led to growing discontent. Consequently, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 symbolized a conservative backlash in society, threatening to During this period, Deng commenced his reverse many of Deng’s reforms but he did Open Door Policy with the aim of attracting not relent and in 1992 affirmed the need for more overseas investment and set up Spe- continuity for the sake of progress. Privatizacial Economic Zones in 1980, which offered tions even began to accelerate after this near tax exemption and low wages to secure point forcing the recognition of the private foreign capital. This marked another turning sector as an important component of the point for the country not only as a domestic socialist market economy and finally elimireform but also in its position in the global nating skepticisms of the reforms since their economy. inception.

convertibility of the currency. This increased foreign investment and more importantly allowed China to succeed the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. What theme emerges historically is that the country slowly stripped away the command economy, and then moved to reinstate a more functional market-oriented design. This is further evidenced by the monetary centralization in 1995 where the central bank gained more control to reduce local government influence over monetary policy. It is clear that what began as complete decentralization in the 1980s came full circle and once the economic structure of China was streamlined, regulatory decisions fell back to the state in a brand new model. Therefore by the new millennium, China had become unrecognizable from the strict communist state it once was. What this government had accomplished was an administrative success on all levels, demonstrating the significance of institutional reforms in maintaining social stability and robust economic growth. Despite Dengâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s death in 1997, his legacy followed through under his successors of similar reforming belief allowing China, through the process of economic transition, to pursue a path of development in line with the reality of the country. JAMES MULVEY

Elizabeth Bayory: Woman or Vampire?

Described as one of the most vicious serial killers, Elizabeth Bathory, one of the most powerful, prolific females of her time, was known by another title,

things on her own, which increased her power, as her independence grew. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Elizabeth had absolute power, but was it this power that led her to inflict excruciating torment, and wild like obsessions onto her servant girls?

“Countess Dracula”. Born 7th of August 1560, Nyírbátor, Kingdom of Hungary, Elizabeth Bathory was born into wealth and power of the Bathory family. At the young age of 10, Elizabeth was engaged to Ferenc Nádasdy, and the couple married when she was age 14 at the palace of Varann on 8th May 1575. As Elizabeth's social standing was higher than that of her husband, she refused to change her last name, remaining a Báthory. Elizabeth moved to Nádasdy Castle in Sárvár and spent much time on her own, while her husband studied in Vienna.

Because Elizabeth and Ferenc owned masses amount of land in Hungary, it gave them the power to take over minor villages, which meant that they could pick peasants to work for them in their castle. It is said, this is where Elizabeth became almost obsessed with inflicting pain and torment onto these servant girls. Some say its because she was jealous of their beauty, and wanted to kill them, and others say, she just enjoyed to see them suffer.

Elizabeth lived in Csejte Castle, Upper Hungary, now in Slovakia, where many of her cruelty acts took place. The absence of her husband meant that Elizabeth had to run

As the years passed, Elizabeth's beauty began to fade. Word was beginning to spread about her sadistic activities. She believed that drinking the blood of young girls would 7

preserve her youthfulness and her looks. Witnesses told of her stabbing victims or biting their breasts, hands, faces and arms, cutting them with scissors, sticking needles into their lips or burning them with red-hot irons, coins or keys. Some were beaten to death and some were starved.

Elizabeth was arrested and so were four of her favorite servants and intimates, who were accused of being her accomplices. They were tried and found guilty. Three of them were executed and the fourth was sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, Elizabeth herself was confined to a four walled room in her home of Csejte Castle in northern Hungary (now know as northern Slovakia) where she was sentenced to live out the rest of her wrenched life, cut off from humanity in that small, repugnant room, with only small slits left open for ventilation and the passing of food. She remained there for four years, until her death. On 21 August 1614 in the evening Báthory complained to her bodyguard that her hands were cold, whereupon he replied "It's nothing Mistress. Just go lie down." She went to sleep and was found dead the following morning. She was buried in the church of Čachtice on 25 November, but according to some sources due to the villagers' uproar over having "The Tigress of Čachtice" buried in their cemetery, her body was moved to her birth home where it was interred at the Báthory family crypt.The location of her body today is unknown.

Legend also says that Elizabeth became obsessed with her victims blood, and would bathe in it, to preserve her beauty. Some would say that this is just speculation, and that Elizabeth was actually trying to help her servant girls. If they became injured, she would use something called “a healing instrument” which is used to burn the flesh to stop the bleeding. So ,was she really a killer?

Well, in 1610, George Thurzo, the top politician had heard about the strange goings on a Elizabeth’s castle, about the torment she had been inflicting onto these peasants, so decided to pay her a surprise visit. In which doing so, he discovered, for himself, “a dead girl at the house, and another one with wounds and dying from torture. And another one that that damn women was keeping imprisoned to torture.” (these words are his own, written by himself, as a letter to his wife. These documents can now be found in the Budapest national archives.) So this supports the fact that she really was a cold blooded killer. It is said that she killed up to 650 peasants, and left their bodies in her castle to rot.

Elizabeth Bathory may have been one of the most evil women of her time, and has been nick named things like: “The bloody countess” and “Countess Dracula” because of her lust for blood, but nobody will know what she was really like. Though the evidence stacked up against her, doesn't give her A Lutheran minister went to the Hungarian name positive light. In my opinion, I think authorities, who eventually began an inves- she was a cruel killer who had this evil old soul, that she tried to attain by bathing it in tigation in 1610. In December of that year blood, to keep young. 8

Today, Bathory is remembered mainly in the musical background. In 2010, Swedish heavy/doom metal band Ghost released "Elizabeth" as the first single of their debut album Opus Eponymous. The track is inspired by the alleged crimes of Elizabeth. So, what exactly was Elizabeth Bathory? Woman or vampire... OLVIA RIGBY BYRCHALL HIGH SCHOOL

Adolf Hitler: What Made the Man Behind the Misery? Throughout history there have been many evil, utter ********. Stalin, Bin Laden, Thatcher never failed to cause misery. We continue to have bad people like ISIS, Kim Jong-un and Lady Colin Campbell (perhaps not as much.) No matter how bad these people are, none of them could be worse than Adolf Hitler. Hitler is no longer a name but a symbol of evil. Once the Taliban are long gone in people's memories, Hitler will continue to be remembered. No matter how much time passes, Hitler’s dreadful actions will never be forgotten. But what created him? How could one man become so evil? Was he born evil or did something make him bad? What made the man behind the misery?

unimportant date, the 20th April 1889 certainly is significant. 1889 would also see Charlie Chaplin’s birth, a man with a very similar moustache to Hitler (the only similarity). Chaplin brought joy to the world with his comedy, whilst funerals bring more happiness than Hitler.

Hitler grew up with five siblings but only he and his sister lived to adulthood. As a child, life was financially secure with his dad, Alois, working as a customs official whilst his mother, Klara, remained at home looking after the six children. Alois’ christened surname was Schickelgruber before changing it to Hitler, the name of the man his mother married. His actual father is believed to be a Jew called Frankenberger being part of specth On the 20 April 1889, when Adolf was an ulation that Adolf Hitlers grandfather was acceptable name for a child, Hitler was Jewish, the religion that suffered most beborn. Not a particularly important date. Not cause of him. Something that Alois definitely a date remembered like Christmas or Halcontributed to was Adolf's anger. A young loween (but why would we celebrate this Hitler felt the full effects of his dad’s short date?) Due to actions of a child born on this temper, his aggressive manner making Adolf 10

the hateful person he was. Despite being popular and intelligent at primary school, at high school Hitler preferred to reenact battles from the Boer war alone over studying (basically choosing Xbox over revision.) Due to his lack of work, Hitler left school with no qualifications. Adolf clashed with his father after deciding Art was the career he wanted to take, with Alois wanting his son to join the Habsburg civil service. Alois’ hostility towards Adolf’s aspirations was one of many knock backs Hitler would suffer, making him the evil, bitter man he was! Shortly after moving to Linz, the capital of Upper Austria, Alois Hitler died in 1898. Following this, Adolf once again attempted to follow his dream of going to art school (a small, simple and innocent aspiration, unlike what he actually did). Hitler persuaded his mother to allow him to apply for the Vienna Academy of Arts. In December 1907, whilst Hitler took (and failed) the entrance exam his mother was on her death bed dying from breast cancer. Following the loss of his beloved mother and rejection from the Vienna Academy of Art in short succession, Hitler chose to move to Vienna (where the man everyone knows would be made) in another attempt to be accepted into art school. Hitler drew postcards to practice and make money (the evil, murdering dictator used sell postcards to tourists in Vienna, did Kim Jong-un sing and dance?) After wasting away his inheritance within one year, Hitlers time in Vienna was spent living in hostels and on the streets. By the end of 1909, despite being short on cash, Hitler remained determined to be an artist. Determination that would make him German Chancellor one day (shame the art

school didn't accept him.) Hitler painted scenes of Vienna to make money, a business dependant on the custom of Jews. Being surrounded by German Nationalists with antisemitic views and Vienna’s anti-Semitic mayor Karl Lueger labelling Jews as enemies of working class Germans (sounds familiar) shaped Hitlers views. Through racist political influences and Hitler looking for someone to blame for his hardships his hateful ideology was created. Despite his mothers lower class background, Hitler had a middle class upbringing and had never been surrounded by a mix of cultures before. He wasn't a fan of Austria’s multi-ethnic composition ruling of the Habsburg Empire. After moving to Munich in 1913 to avoid signing up for Austrian civil service, within a year Hitler had signed up to the German army for the ‘Great War’, a war like no other. Hitler showed loyalty to Germany, believing in everything being fought for. In 1916, Hitler suffered a painful loss at the battle of the Somme. After returning to the front line in 1917, Hitler’s life could've ended. A popular rumour says that Hitler’s life was spared by a British soldier. No matter how unlikely or reliable this story is, Hitler had been reported to say that Henry Tandey refused to kill him and other injured men. Whether this story is fact or fiction (can we really believe something Hitler said) why couldn't Hitler learn from Tandey’s kindness instead of acting on the actions of the bad, showing Hitler could learn only from the bad and not the good. Plenty of men went to war, many good men died. Many suffered worse than Hitler but no one else did what Hitler did after. 11

The First World War was horrific, but not as horrific as the events that would follow it. Hitler had been temporarily blinded in a gas attack when Germany surrendered. Angry by his country giving in, Hitler blamed this surrender on Jews and Socialists. Germany took responsibility for the war on the 28th June 1919, signing the treat of Versailles with the parties passing blame amongst them. During his time at war Hitler became very patriotic, wanting revenge on whom he blamed for Germany's downfall as well as his own personal problems. It was during World War One that Hitler grew his famous toothbrush moustache. Despite preferring the longer tash, Hitler had the weird little slug on his face (that everyone pictures him with today) to make his gas mask tighter. Like his tash, the First World War gave Hitler the chance to grow to power.

‘revolution’ but, days before, the two others pulled out. Hitler didn't give up. The SA forced one of the politicians Gustav Kahr to pledge support (at the event known as the Beer Hall Putsch.) The following day, violence burst out with Kahr informing the police. 16 Nazis were killed but Hitler escaped, only to be arrested two days after. During his nine months in prison, Hitler wrote his famous book ‘Mein Kampf’. Time in prison helped make Hitler worse than he'd been before giving him time to think about his perfect Aryan image and his hatred for Jews. Most of all, that book allowed him to spread his evil by outlining his political aims.

For the first time in Germany for seventy five years Hitler’s book, full of his evil, is being republished with historians notes. Is it a mistake giving a new generation the influential words that caused so much pain? Will After the war, Hitler was asked to report on history repeat itself? Will reprinting this a suspicious emerging right wing political book continue Hitler’s misery? Could this group called ‘The German Workers Parbook influence people again? These questy’ (very much like UKIP) but Hitler did more tions are for another day, that only time can than report. Hitler was influenced, agreeing answer! with the party’s views and the anti-Semitic leader Anton Drexler. Signing up to the party that would become the Nazis, this was the Hitler wasn’t born evil but the things that start of Hitler’s political career. Hitler didn't happened to him from the moment he was born certainly did. His dad's anger, his mothjust join the party, he took over. He was a ers death, his time on the streets on Vienna, great publicist, speaking to a crowd of failing to become an artist, are all things 6,000, handing out leaflets with swastikas on them creating awareness. His rise was so that made him the man he was. ‘My Strugquick even Anton Drexler was scared, with gle’ is the translation of Mein Kampf, meaning Hitler’s life. No matter how bad things him unsuccessfully trying to decrease Hitler’s power; giving him more control of the were for him, it wasn’t as bad as it was for the Jews and the people of Germany beparty. cause of what he did. Everyone in the world has tough times (worse than being a rubbish As leader, Hitler started a rebellion against artist) but Hitler made the world tougher for the collapsing government. Hitler and two others. Hitler’s life was tough, many people other politicians agreed to take part in their would've affected his opinion but it was Hit12

lerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s choice to be evil and to create the misery. AMOS WYNN

If This is a Man Primo Levi, a holocaust survivor, recalled having a recurring dream after his liberation from Auschwitz in 1945. He had come home from the camp and he was telling his story to a loved one, but they did not believe him and would turn away, without speaking, and refuse to hear him. It was a dream born out of the fear of many survivors that they would not be believed because the scale of the atrocity that had been committed against them was so beyond comprehension. Driven by the need to tell the world what had happened, Levi began work on ‘If This is a Man’, a record of his experiences, barely a year after his liberation.

took to the hills of Amay with his mother and sister and joined a partisan group in an attempt to fight back against the fascist government. His belief was that if he did not fight back against fascism then he could not expect others to do so, and that if it was not done at that moment then it might never be done. This act of heroism turned out to be fruitless; completely unprepared for the venture, he and his companions were arrested by the fascist militia in 1943 and during the course of interrogation he was forced to confess to being Jewish. It was the beginning of the most trying fourteen months of Levi’s life.

Even before the war Primo Levi was an extraordinary man; during the 1930s he became a notable chemist and was later recognised as a considerable talent in both the fields of science and literature. There was, however, a considerable snag in that Levi was Jewish and living in Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic. Forced to flee for his life, he

When the camp where Levi was interned was taken over by the Nazis he was transported to Auschwitz, where he survived against the odds for eleven months. It was his knowledge as a chemist that essentially saved his life, enabling him to work in a laboratory so that he avoided much of the forced labour in freezing conditions under-

gone by other prisoners. By stealing materials from the laboratory to trade for food he managed to scrape enough nutrition to survive until the liberation of the camp. He also had an incredible stroke of luck, oddly, by falling ill with scarlet fever just before the camp was liberated so that he was not forced on a death march by the SS in which the majority of the remaining prisoners died. Out of the 650 Jews who had been transported with Levi from Italy, he was one of only twenty survivors.

the thought process that may have led him to it is in his books and poetry. ‘The Drowned and the Saved’ is in parts particularly difficult to read as Levi analyses the nature of memory and survivors’ guilt in relation to himself so closely. As he himself said, the act of persecution does not end when the victims are liberated and the offenders punished. The mental trauma of incarceration continues for many years afterwards and most people never fully recover from it, especially since after WW2 in particular survivors were given so little support. In Levi's case, he was persecuted still by the Nazis at a distance of forty years, when the Nazis were all but gone and the camp was nothing but a tourist attraction. There must be some hope, however, in Primo Levi’s legacy, the books he left behind acting as the reminder Levi meant them to of the path down which intolerance leads us.

As one of the survivors Levi was tormented by the thought of the people he termed the ‘sommersi’, the drowned, who had perished in the camps. In his essay ‘The Drowned and the Saved’ he railed against the idea that he had been saved so that he could write about his experiences because the thought that he had been saved in the place of somebody CAMILLE HOUGHTON-GRIMSHAW else, perhaps somebody more worthy, horrified him. Another idea that repulsed him was the revisionism of the Holocaust that took place in later years, which fed his fears that his story would not be believed or could not be comprehended. He recalled the frustration he felt, for example, when asked why the prisoners of the camp did not rebel against their German captors and when the interviewer elaborated on how he would have escaped in Levi’s position. By giving talks and gathering the testimonies of other survivors, however, Levi felt he was making some progress in having their experiences properly recorded.

The manner of Levi’s death was violent and sudden, occurring so many years after his liberation when the only threat he should have had to fear was old age. His suicide is made more tragic by how widely recorded 15

The Secret Beginnings of the New York Subway

In 1904, New York’s modern subway system was officially opened, which is now a renowned and central part of American history... But did you know that it was not the first subway?

One of America’s first attempts at underground transportation was powered by steam, built in secret and was illegal! In 1869, a young man called Alfred Ely Beach thought of an idea he called ‘The Beach Pneumatic Transit’ – building an underground railway, which used a giant fan using pneumatic power of the wind from the fan to propel and suck a railcar back and forth through a tunnel. 16

It is said that he was inspired when looking out from his window in one of the city’s tallest buildings and being able to look out to the water and see the parade of boats floating past in the New York harbour. More and more frequently, Beach was seeing a new type of boat dominate the harbour - ferry boats, powered by a fan on the surface of the water. An inventor at heart, Beach patented all manner of ideas during his life, like a typewriter for the blind and an improvement to the cable car. Writing in Scientific American in 1849, Beach first proposed a horse-drawn railcar to run under Broadway in Manhattan. However, after paying close attention to develop-

ments of pneumatic transport in England, he quickly adapted his ideas. At the 1867 American Institute Fair, Beach unveiled a demonstration consisting of a tube made of laminated wood, six feet in diameter and 100ft in length, that could accommodate a car holding ten people. The car would be moved through the tube by the steam from a fan making 200 turns per minute.

group of men began digging a tunnel under Broadway in the dark of night.

The work went well, but just before they could complete their first rail line, local newspapers had found out and it became known to the public. Beachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s team worked extra hard to finish the subway which, in total, took 58 working days to complete. Then, in grand style, they opened to the public on However, before March 1, 1870. According to some, he built making his model a a 120-foot-long waiting hall decorated with reality, he had to get fine lamps, frescoes, and a goldfish fountain, consent from William hoping that officials would be too charmed M. Tweed. Tweed re- to object. fused to grant Beach the consent to begin work on the system People lined up around the block just to get because of potential a glimpse of it. The New York Herald called it profits he would get Aladdinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cave, and marvelled at how peofrom his own idea of ple could miraculously transport from one an elevated railroad end of the tunnel to the other. In fact it was through Manhattan. Beach created a cover via air pressure from a 48-ton fan. Then the story, which stated that it was purely for fan reversed, sucking the car back to the transporting and dispatching mail for the start of the rail line. He charged twenty-five city, not for human passengers. cents per passenger to travel from Warren Street to Murray Street, and because it was not yet a distinguished franchise, the money When he received consent for this supposed was donated to charity. It was a huge sucplan, Beach began building his subway in se- cess â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it sold over 11,000 rides in its first two cret with $350,000 of his own money, beweeks of operation and carried over neath a rented store front located right 400,000 passengers in its first year. It lasted across the street from City Hall, and dirt from 1870 until 1873. from digging the tunnel was hidden in the basement of a building Beach bought specifically for that purpose. Beach and a small Unfortunately, Tweed was outraged and re17

be accessed by a manhole on a nearby jected extensions to the subway. It was planned to run about 5 miles (8.0 km) in to- street. tal, to Central Park, if it was ever completed. However, Tweed was imprisoned for his cor- KATHRYN MURPHY ruption in politics, and after two years of Beach trying, in 1873, he finally gained approval to resume work extending the subway, but unfortunately his private investors were fast disappearing, due to the beginnings of an economic crisis in America. After the project was shut down, the tunnel entrance was sealed and the station, built in part of the basement of another building, was reclaimed for other uses. The entire building was lost to fire in 1898. The underground subway itself was not completed and remained hidden under the city completely sealed up. Between 1900 and 1904, a subway line was finally built in NYC. The pneumatic tunnel was long forgotten by most New Yorkers until, in 1912, sixteen years after Beach's death in 1896, workers excavating a new branch of the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit found a bricked up tunnel that housed Alfred Ely Beach's well-preserved, almost fully intact tunnel and subway car. They even discovered the piano from the subway's waiting room. The old tunnel was almost completely within the limits of the present day City Hall station under Broadway as part of the modern underground rail system we all know of, but it is rumoured that a small portion could still

The Holy Roman Empire ‘The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy,

term for. The term for this ruling type was nor roman nor an empire’, these famous translatio imperii (Latin for ‘transfer of rule’) words of Voltaire are not well known outwhere the title of emperor would be passed side of historians who study medieval and down from each emperor to the next, to renaissance Germany. As one of the longest keep Europe stable in the medieval age (as surviving institutions of Europe (From 800 to at the foundation of the HRE, most of the 1806, or 962 to 1806, depending on the his- ruling class of men just wanted to fight othtorian you ask) the Holy Roman Empire is er men like them, succession, laws and mione of the worlds strangest, and most unnor dispute might have been settled with known, constructs. combat).

Founded either by Charlemagne or Otto the 1st, the empire was a continuation of the Western Roman Empire (fallen to the Ostrogothic kingdoms and lost to the Byzantines after Justinian’s retaking of Rome) by the Pope and western kings. In exchange for complete divine control, the Pope endowed the emperor with the right of the Caesars, to rule over Western Europe, however, the pope was always above the emperor, the 19

During the High Middle Ages, the empire evolved into a terrible political condition, for the emperors. The princes of the empire became more rebellious and started to stop choosing the favoured heirs of the emperors (usually they were in the same dynasty to promote their dynasty’s power). The Pope fought against the Emperor too by excommunicating Henry IV after he refused to remove bishops from his administration in the

Investiture reforms.

The most important emperor however, is probably Charles the V of the Holy Roman Empire and Carlos the 1st of Spain, who was Over the centuries the house of Hapsburg a member of the Hapsburg dynasty (because (famous for inbreeding and chins) fought almost all the emperors were). His reign is against the Pope to claim the Imperial (not as) famous because he governed the throne, however, the pope fought back and production and agriculture of Germany, the in the Golden Bull of 1356 the position bebanking of Italy and the Netherlands and the came a formally elected position, with a set silver and gold mines of the Americas, he of electors deciding who would become the hosted the Diet of Worms, at which Martin next Emperor, which showed how independLuther debated with him over the formation ent the princes were becoming from the Emof Protestantism. He fought against Francis peror. the 1st of France several times and Suleiman the Magnificent, and even stopped him at Vienna, halting Ottoman expansion into EuAs Europe emerged into the early renaisrope (Although losing the former territory of sance, the true Roman Empire, controlled Hungary to the Ottomans) from Constantinople, fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1554, and ending the great schism from 1054 (as orthodoxy’s seat now went to The empire carried on, however, it never had the Third Rome of Moscow (this can be seen the nationalism that other states at the time in Russia’ Czar being a Cyrillic stylisation of had, as it was made up of so many different Caesar)), at this time, the empire began to peoples (a problem Austria-Hungary would try to reform to fit into the time, as a rising later face) where France and England (And class of the rich, but non-aristocratic began later Great Britain) people started to identify to emerge, and agriculture began to be with their country and believed in their measured in wealth, not duty, land ownercountry more than their local ruler, the Holy ship changed to be based on purchasing. The Roman Empire never experienced this due empire had several problems however to its decentralised and disparate nature. adapting into the new times ahead: 1) It could not levy direct taxes; unlike other nations at the time, the divide of the princes Another crisis arose due to the fact that meant the emperor could not tax their king- there was no male heir for the empire in doms, and instead had only his own coin to 1740, and triggered the Austrian war of sucrely on, which eventually bankrupted the cession, and led to the empire’s second most empire 2) It could not levy a direct army, it famous ruler, Maria Theresa Hapsburg, ascould only use the Emperor’s army. sisted by Britain against France, to prevent French hegemony by installing another king 20

into the empire. This can be seen as a continuation of the Anglo-French rivalry from 1689-1815.

The empire was eventually dissolved on 6th of August 1806, when Francis the 1st of Austria abdicated after a defeat by Napoleon at Austerlitz. The new French republic had been at war with several parts of the empire at the time, and that defeat ended the empire. The former HRE German lands were consolidated into the Confederation of the Rhine, a French satellite, the Dutch republic (which was a former part of the empire) became the Batavian Republic, another satellite under France, and Spain (a part of the empire due to Charles the V) became a French client state.

The Hapsburg dynasty carried on as Emperors of Austria and Kings of Hungary (Forming the Austro-Hungarian empire in the 1800â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) until 1918, when the Austro-Hungarian empire formally split into Austria, and Hungary, and the Hapsburgs ceased to rule anywhere in Europe.

JAMES WHITFIELD CANSFIELD HIGH SCHOOL

Henry II: A Medieval Margaret Thatcher?

Henry II is known affectionately as the Father of the English Common Law. Undoubtedly, he introduced reforms to government and administration, but what motivated him?

a number of pressing problems. The Church had become powerful, with its own reforming agenda, its power often exercised at the expense of royal power. The barons had usurped royal authority in the localities, with the one earl, William d’Aumale, described as the King of YorkWas he the medieval equivalent of Lord shire. Royal revenue was down by two Justice Coke, that great defender of English thirds since the glory days of Henry I and, liberties in the 17th century? Or was Henry worst of all, the English monopoly on coinII the medieval equivalent of Margaret age – once the envy of Europe - had comThatcher, who, while raising revenue pletely broken down. through Laffer Curve inspired tax reforms, also shut down much of local government and replaced it with centrally administered Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, and unaccountable quangos? also faced with a number of problems. The trade unions had, over a number of decades, grown powerful with successive govThe Margaret Thatcher analogy is stronger ernments since Wilson’s first administrathan it seems prima facie. Let me explain. tion effectively being dominated by some unions. The problem seemed insoluble and Henry II came to power in 1154 faced with by 1978/9 during the Winter of Discontent, 22

bodies were left unburied in the streets as gravediggers came out on strike! Taxation, while at an all-time high, with a top rate of 83% income tax for earned income and 98% for unearned income, was not yielding increased revenues. Inflation was rampant due to there being, as Friedman argued, too much money chasing too few goods.

Thatcher was not reversed by Blair or Brown and is now being completed by Cameron.

Henry reasserted royal authority first by weakening the rebellious barons. Almost immediately, the adulterine castles built during Stephen’s reign came tumbling down. Next, Henry’s reforms. Through his weakening of baronial authority, Ralph of Diceto argues The parallels are there. Both Henry II and that Henry ultimately caused the Great ReMargaret Thatcher faced a number of prob- bellion of 1173/4 by “trampling upon the lems on their accession to power and these necks of the proud and haughty.” Just like problems have their similarities. Both lead- Thatcher, Henry confronted his problems. ers faced at least one very powerful group which was seen as causing problems for the Another problem for him was the Church, bulk of the population: for Henry it was both which, at the Council of Clarendon, he the barons and the Church, for Thatcher it attempted to reduce in much the same way was the trade unions. Both leaders were as Thatcher’s union reforms did. Churchmen short of cash. Both leaders faced monetary would lose their immunities from legal pen(currency) problems. alties after conviction in a church court. Henry played on the resentment of the cleriAnd both leaders would go on to tackle cal murders as much as Thatcher played on these problems head on through innovative the resentment of frequent and disruptive reforms to government, while at the same strike action, in order to make his case. Intime appealing to those at the bottom. deed, Thatcher faced opposition from the Church of England herself, far from being the ‘Tory Party at Prayer’ as it was someFor Thatcher wasted no opportunities to times labelled, with some Anglican prelates crush the unions. Whether by violent speaking out against her policies. means, such as the so-called Battle of Orgreave, or by legal means, such as the “democratisation” of the unions, forcing Thatcher, by cutting the top rate of income them to elect middle class busybodies as tax from 83% to 60%, increased government their leaders rather than real workers, she revenue in the way Arthur Laffer predicted put the unions on the road to where they would be the case. Henry, similarly, by exare today. The process which started under ploiting less overt, less direct, less estab23

lished methods of taxation, also increased royal revenue substantially, from roughly £10,000 a year at the start of his reign to roughly £24,000 by the end of his reign. Like Thatcher, perhaps Henry was conscious of the Laffer Curve, not levying excessive taxation, seen in his taking only 7 scutages in 35 years and exempting many individuals such as Hugh de Lacy from taxation on knight’s fees. Through less harsh direct taxation and more inventive indirect taxation, both leaders increased their revenues.

both of them share traits common to a number of leaders: an obsession with work, with Henry II often continuing his governance of the kingdom during Mass, and Thatcher requiring very little sleep. Both of them inherited a country beset with problems and both of them had their own solutions to these problems which, at the same time, greatly strengthened their positions.

Ultimately, both of them ended their rule stabbed in the back by those whom they loved most: for Henry II, it was his son, John; While Thatcher got to grips with inflation by for Thatcher, it was her party. massively reducing the money supply through interest rate hikes, Henry restored the English monopoly on coinage, stamping KEIR MARTLAND out unauthorised mints.

While Thatcher shut down Livingstone’s Greater London Assembly, weakened local government, and ruled the country through quangos, Henry also made an assault on the independence of the localities. His Inquest of Sheriffs of 1170 made sheriffs royal officials, directly dependent upon him. His petty assizes of novel disseisin and mort d’ancestor ignored the courts of the barons, weakening lord’s vis-à-vis their tenants but ultimately strengthening the Crown over the nobility.

Of course, it is easy to over-state this. Of course, there were manifold differences between Margaret Thatcher and Henry II. But 24

Medicine and the Church

Despite all the recent advancements within medicine, relatively little was done within the field in the UK before the Industrial Revolution (c. 1750-1850). This was due to the work of Hippocrates and Galen being followed for nearly 2,000 years, as it was viewed as containing the correct information of the body, its functions and how to treat illnesses. This stagnation within the field was partly caused to the influence of the Christian Church within the UK and Western world.

too much or too little of one led to the contraction of an illness.

Galen then later developed the ‘Theory of Opposites’ which was based upon Hippocrates’ work. This theory stated that the eleHippocrates, who was born in Ancient ment of Greece, added to the ‘Theory of Four Huthe sympmours’. He noticed that his patient’s symp- toms should be treated with an item of the toms varied with the seasons, therefore Hip- opposite element (e.g. phlegm linked with pocrates linked each ‘humour’ (blood, the cold should then be treated with a pepphlegm, black bile and yellow bile) to a sea- per). son and element. A person would be healthy if their humours were balanced 25

Despite his reputation within the field, much of Galen’s work was incorrect. He was interested in the observation of the anatomical working in the human body but the power of the Church stopped him from being able to make much advancement due to the Church banning the dissection of human bodies. This meant that he had to resort to the dissection of animals instead, which he incorrectly applied to the anatomy of humans. The Church, however, viewed Galen’s work as the truth and believed it helped prove the existence of God. They therefore spread this incorrect information to the western world.

The Theory of Four Humours continued into the Middle Ages and was combined with the ideas that diseases were caused by bad smells and astrology. The Black Death, which arrived in Britain in 1348, was seen as mainly being caused by foul air - so much of the population used strong smelling smells (like posies) which they believed would keep the bad smell away and therefore also the disease itself. The training of doctors disappeared from 400-1000AD but the founding of universities by wealthy land owners (who were also typically bishop or abbots), starting with Oxford in 1167, began creating trained physicians.

were only held to prove Galen’s points – so nothing new was learnt from the dissections because they weren’t held to find new knowledge, so traditional beliefs and ideas weren’t challenged. Those who challenged Galen’s work were usually imprisoned because they were seen as working against the Church. A clear example of this was Roger Bacon who suggested doctors should do their own research and not rely on Galen, so he was thrown into jail.

More progress was made during the Renaissance than in the Middle Ages but many ideas on the causes of diseases still lingered.

Knowledge on anatomy improved with Andrea Vesalius, who described faults in Galen’s work. Vesalius proved the jaw bone was made from one bone and not two. Further improvements were made by William Harvey who showed that the heart acts a pump and therefore proved that the body had a one way system for blood. The training of physicians also improved in the late 1700s with the help of William Hunter who set up a medical school specialising in anatomy and obstetrics and taught students to look at urine samples to diagnose illness.

Despite these improvements, no-one was able to make the links between anatomy and disease and therefore no treatments could be produced.

Due to the Church control of universities, students were taught how the planets would affect the balance of the four humours and any dissections that took place 26

The Church began to lose its control on medicine in the Industrial Revolution and newer theories led to methods of treatment and prevention. Edward Jenner developed the vaccine for smallpox in 1798 after noticing that milkmaids did not contract smallpox after they had been infected with cowpox. However, Jenner didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how this vaccine worked and therefore could not apply it to other diseases to create more vaccines.

otic cures were made and improvements within technology led to equipment like MRI scanners.

Whilst the Church started the training of doctors, it limited the growth of medicine for hundreds of years by controlling the education of many and the knowledge that people received about disease. Without this control, the knowledge on the anatomy of the human body would have been known from Galenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s era or earlier rather than from he Germ Theory was the work of Louis Pas- the Renaissance, and possibly treatments teur that stated that diseases are caused by themselves would have been found earlier as well. microorganisms that are able to invade a host, where they replicate and grow to ROSE MENNELL bring about illness. This explanation of disease led Pasteur to develop vaccines for anthrax and rabies and for Robert Koch to create even more for diseases like typhoid, cholera and pneumonia. Cleanliness, especially in hospitals, became more prevalent as the idea that diseases could easily be contracted from dirt which was shown through the work of Florence Nightingale.

Since the 1900s, the understanding of the causes of disease increased to where we began to learn of other causes of diseases (e.g. inherited diseases) and more methods of prevention and treatment. The World Wars led to advancements in surgery (both plastic and general) and allowed for blood transfusions which had previously been unsuccessful due to the lack of knowledge on blood types. The first chemical and antibi27

Top 5 Women Who Pushed Boundaries in the 20th Century

In history, women are often overlooked for their achievements so I have took it upon myself, in no particular order, to highlight the importance of just some of the women who need to be celebrated.

tion laws were now illegal. Parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actions also inspired her male counterpart Martin Luther King into changing the nation. It proved to other southern cities, like Montgomery, that protests worked and everyday people could make a real difference.

Rosa Parks Sick and tired of being treated like a second class citizen, African American Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat for a white man on a bus. This bold move got her arrested and arguably inspired the rest of the civil rights movement into taking action against public segregation. As a result it immediately kickstarted a yearlong bus boycott which led to the Supreme Court declaring that segrega-

Marie Quant In the fast changing society of the 1960â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Marie Quant helped revolutionise the way women dressed. Starting off on a small budget (that restricted her meals to only a couple a week) business savvy Quant saw an underserved market and opened a low priced boutique that would leave an everlasting legacy. The miniskirts she created left an incessant influ-

ence on the fashion industry as it still uses her designs today, as well as allowing young girls to liberate themselves through the way they dressed. Even though the conservative members of society criticized her creations and branded them as ‘vulgar’, it never stopped her from obtaining her award from royalty with an ‘Order of the British Empire’.

derstanding that she had choices and was under no obligation to do what they said, in May 1975 she decided to ignore the oppressive expectations and coordinate an all-female team of climbers to take on Mount Everest. She became the first woman to sucBenazir Bhutto cessfully do so and also became the first to Benazir Bhutto, who was reach all of the highest points in every contiborn in Pakistan, broke nent which truly proved women are capable almost every boundary of anything. that could face a woman in the Middle East in the Emmeline Pankhurst 1900s. Bhutto worked tirelessly towards her Obviously I couldn’t education at Oxford Uni- write about the most versity, which astounded the people in Paki- ground-breaking womstan, where she was able to achieve a nota- en in history without ble and respectable reputation. Inheriting a mentioning the mothlegacy from her father, Bhutto wanted to er of the suffragette tackle the political system. She became the movement, Emmeline leader of the People’s Political Party (PPP) Pankhurst. She wanted and fought for democracy through imprison- to unionise all women under the cause of ment and stereotypes to finally become the women’s rights by founding the Women’s youngest prime minister ever elected and Franchise League and the Women’s Social the first female PM of a Muslim state. and Political Union which were both powerful and militant movements that demanded change by ‘deeds not words’. She rallied all Junko Tabei kinds of women together which differentiatNative Japanese woman, Junko Tabei was ed from other female groups which would told by her male counterparts it was impos- only be aimed at single or widowed women. sible for women to succeed and survive the Even though she died of natural causes two climb of Mount Everest and that she was weeks before the vote for women was made better staying home to raise children. Unlegal, she was still one of the main icons that 29

made it happen. The New York Herald Tribune called her â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the most remarkable political and social agitator of the 20th century and the supreme protagonist of the campaign for the electoral franchisement of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; which is a pretty accurate description by anyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s point of view.

I could write for hours about the women in history who inspire me every day to work harder and aim high in life but in fear that I would never do anything else but that, I must stop at my favourite 5. They demonstrate how women from all various backgrounds and global location can overcome expectations in a patriarchal society to make changes to the perception of women regarding human rights, political regimes, image and physical challenges. So remember, if you are facing any barriers in your life no matter how big or small, you can probably find a female icon to inspire you on too.

JENNY HAMPSON

The Belgian Revolution

Following the overthrowing of Napoleonic rule in 1813, The Netherlands was renamed to the United Provinces of the Netherlands as part of the British-Dutch Treaty of 1814.The defeat of Napoleon in 1815 allowed the congress of Vienna to create a kingdom for the house of Orange-Nassau through the bonding of the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the formerly Austrian Netherlands. This also created a stronger state to the north of the recently incapacitated France; the United Netherlands became yet more powerful with the unification of all the provinces.

During the negotiations of the treaty The British Empire proclaimed that it was to retain the former Dutch Governorate of Ceylon and the Cape Colony (a territory seized during the Napoleonic wars). In order to compensate for this loss of land The United

Provinces of the Netherlands was given the Belgian lands, these were owned by the United Kingdom of the Netherlands during the 16th century.

One of the main causes for the revolution was religion. The Catholics of the southern provinces found the Protestant north to be suspicious and a danger towards the rival branch of Christianity, because of this working for the new Government was forbidden by Maurice-Jean de Broglie, the French nobleman and Bishop of Ghent. This rule resulted in a distinct lack of southern citizens partaking in government activities .

Furthermore, the Catholics of the south greatly despised the freedom of religion proclaimed by William I. Another cause of the revolution was the fact that many of the 31

industrialised areas were found in the north of the Netherlands; this forced the south to trade with more basic, less expensive products like food. The north was ripe with free trade while the more rural and simplistic south demanded the protection of taxes for imports and exports. The free trade policy lowered the price of bread due to the fact that the wheat could import from the port of Antwerp. This made the farmers of the south’s more expensive wheat useless due to the access of cheap imports.

On the 25th August 1830 an uprising was orchestrated at the Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie in Brussels, in a form of poetic justice a special play took place celebrating the birthday of William I named the mute girl of Portici. The opera was designed to inspire patriotism in the Dutch and Belgian people. Many audience members left the theatre in order to join the riots occurring outside, the revolt took place on the streets of Brussels with many rioters seizing government buildings and pillaging shops and factories in order to steal munitions. The main force of Soldiers sent to quell the unrest was stationed near the royal palace; any small groups of soldiers were quickly forced to surrender.

After peace negotiations took place between the leaders of the united provinces and the revolutionaries William I was convinced that the separation of the two sides of the state was the only way to end the cri32

sis. The treaty of London established Belgium as an independent nation and though William and his sons attempted to retake the lost land by force during the ten day’s campaign the intervention of the French military forced the king to withdraw his army. RICHARD JOHNSON STANDISH HIGH SCHOOL

Cicero: The Greatest Orator or the Worst Windbag? Yes. It’s me. Here to expound on the wonders of the ancient world and broaden your minds further than the curriculum ‘the man’ has enforced on us (in other words, produce a 1,500+ word rant about whatever caught my eye).

I mean, for god’s sake, sometimes he’s like Mrs Bucket (pronounced Bouquet, dear) on steroids, it’s ridiculous! He wouldn’t be out of place in a posh gala hat worrying if the dress he’s wearing will set of the scandal mongers! The little rat of a…

So this time it is:

OK, calm down, he’s dead, no use getting worked up.

Cicero. Reputedly the greatest orator in the Roman Republic. The genius of Roman Law. But he just rubs me up the wrong way! The man who could talk his way out of anything. The traditionalist who stuck up for Cicero is a major figure in the history of the olden values… Roman Republic. He was born in 106BC and rose to become the star of the Roman ReOr, as I like to call him: publican law courts. He started off in defence, gaining an immaculate reputation at the bar. He toppled the then top dog of the The Spoiled Little Brat with a Silver Tongue. orators around 80BC, assuming the position for himself. His rhetoric was reputedly a 33

thing of beauty. He became a praetor, a consul, an exile. He was a prominent voice in politics, managing to get a bloke called Cataline executed, who had planned an armed uprising in Rome. He was a staunch traditionalist, and very much a supporter of Pompey, even trying to extricate Pompey from the First Triumvirate with Caesar. Didn’t work and he ended up having to support the three in politics. He ruled his province in Anatolia quite well, though didn’t get the triumph he was angling for (hah!). His support of Pompey, and his actions against of Ocatvius, Caesar’s heir got him killed though, and he was executed in Caieta on December 7 43BC, with his head and hands displayed prominently on the speaker’s platform, rosta, in the Roman Forum.

how this went. One speech, that’s all Cicero did. One speech. And Hortensius refused to respond and persuaded his client to flee. And a new orator king was born. (To rub it in, afterwards he published the other speeches he had prepared called his Verrine Orations, after the prosecuted client, Gaius Verres.)

Furthermore, he’s one of the main reasons we know anything at all about the Roman Republic, the time leading up to the civil war, and the civil war in particular to be honest. You know those Verrine Oratations I talked about? Only our best source for determining the state province administration in late Republic. Around 58 of his speeches still exist today in some form or another, with 48 lost to the abyss of time – a lot of There are some good things I’ll admit about information in how the Republic worked in him. For one, he’s one of the main reasons the later period. Cicero was also a prolific we know anything at all about the Roman writer of letters. Over 900 of his letters still Republic, the time leading up to the civil survive to this day – and he wrote more war, and the civil war in particular to be than that that didn’t survive from antiquity. honest. The collections of letters are such a unique source for ancient history, and enable, due to Cicero’s dating of the letters, to date For one, I know he was good at his job. events with a precision unheard of for anAround late 80BC/ early 79BC, he first tried cient history. his hand at prosecuting a case. Before then, he had been gaining a solid reputation in the Roman bar for defending. The case involved See? the prosecution of the governor of Sicily for corruption. To make this even more of a I can be grateful. challenge for his first time, he was up against Hortensius, the then star of the bar – the best orator in the business. You know However, despite my appreciation of the ev34

idence he’s gifted us about the Roman Republic (which has calmed my annoyance with him somewhat), and my admittance that he was skilled about what he did, I don’t much like him as a person.

more than if he had voted for all the triumphs in the world”.

“I shall deposit with you any moneys I may collect, for the equipment of the triumph I anticipate”.

We probably shouldn’t personify the ancient historical figures in some people’s view, as they’re already dead and gone. Some people will have the view only their actions that shaped the world are what they should be judged by. But I just cannot be objective about a guy who worries more about his self -standing than the war that’s happening around him! Take his letter to his friend Atticus in October 50BC for example. 50BC was the year just before Caesar crossed the Rubicon and attacked Rome. But whilst he does make some mention of tensions and problems that of course “Nevertheless they will try to extract [his] opinion”, he’s more concerned with whether or not he’ll get a triumph (a military parade celebrating his achievements) than the conflict. See this – every other word appears to be about trying to get a triumph:

“I feel strongly inclined to devote my energies to my triumph, a most reasonable excuse for staying outside the city”.

Witter ,witter, witter, witter!

What a ****, excuse my language.

And this, to be honest, is what is most offensive – the self-serving attitude means his evidence is questionable. I mean, most written evidence has a provenance that suffers a bit in the reliability area if we’re being frank (ideal of truth in history or not), but Cicero’s. Cicero’s. With his attitude, we can’t really trust some of his representation of events as he is prone to selfcongratulation and enhancement. Also, probably not remembering accurately, but I can (graciously) forgive him that because I usually can’t remember what I had for tea last night.

But, to return to my main point…

His arrogance just sets me on edge. Just take this letter to Pompey. Pompey was a great “the matter of my triumph, which, barring political obstacles, seems to me easy to get”. figure in Roman Republican history, born to a prominent family in 106BC, consul (highest position in government) several times over “For the man who voted against it, voted for his lifetime, even a member of the First Tri35

umvirate in 60BC. Historian Tom Holland said he had “a genius for selfpromotion” (though he also said he had an “almost childlike relish for the perks of success”) and Cicero has the cheek to write this: “I did expect some congratulation in your letter on my achievements, for the sake at once of the ties between us and of the Republic. This I presume to have been omitted by you from a fear of hurting anyone's feelings”.

“I did expect…presume to have been omitted…”

How up your own **** can you get?

I mean, for sure Cicero’s all that and a bag of chips when it comes to the law, but Pompey was so far ahead of Cicero in terms of politics Cicero couldn’t even see the dust. He was a triumvirate! He was Caesar’s rival (though the man didn’t do much of a good job – he ran away). If someone said that to me, I’d probably sock them in the face.

first Roman emperor) as his heir. Now, Octavius was a wily little thing, but he was young, only 19 years old at the time of Caesar’s death. In the Roman Republic’s eyes, it was only the older men that had the wisdom to sit on the senate or hold a magistracy, even the position of quaestor, the most junior magistracy that dealt with finances. Despite this, Octavius was showing some real potential, and was a member of the Second Triumvirate, a ruling party of three, along with Mark Anthony and a man called Lepidus. Cicero saw his potential, but remember Cicero is a staunch traditionalist, (bleugh) and his opinion of Octavius was thus “the young man should be given praise, distinctions—and then be disposed of”. I can’t respect that kind of attitude, no matter his historical justification.

(Though Cicero did get his comeuppance – the remark got back to Octavius in May 43BC, the Second Triumvirate formed in August 43BC and Cicero was executed by December. Can’t say I blame him, though I fully acknowledge I’m being hypocritical).

I’m probably doing the wrong thing, judging him through my 21st Century morals, and I highly accept that. I probably shouldn’t do He’s also quite self-serving, to be honest. He it… has no qualms in using someone, then dropping them when he was done. In 44BC on 15 They’ll probably have my university place for March, Julius Caesar was assassinated. He had appointed his adopted nephew, Octavi- this (though since I’m angling for Ancient st us, (better known, perhaps, as Augustus, the and Modern, and they mentioned 21 cenWouldn’t you?

tury ideas illuminate the past I might be on safe grounds... )

Probably not the best of traits in a budding historian…

I’ll probably be sacked from my editorial position…

Still hate him though.

EMMA PORTER

Why Were the Mongols So Successful?

Over the course of history there have been countless empires with the goal of conquering as much land as possible; Alexander the greatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empire, the Roman Empire and the British Empire of the Victorian age are some of the most notorious. These empires were major forces in shaping the modern world, however a very prominent empire is often overlooked, an empire which at one point amassed almost a quarter of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land making it the second largest in history. This empire is, of course, the Mongol empire.

The Mongols were a group of nomadic tribes brought together by Genghis Khan, but how is it that they were so successful?

In most depictions of a Mongolian fighting force the soldiers are largely mounted on

horseback, this is because almost every Mongol soldier utilised the advantages of horses during battle.

Six out of every ten Mongol troopers were light cavalry horse archers and the other four were more heavily armed lancers. The archers were extraordinarily lightweight when compared to the majority of soldiers in that era, allowing them to execute military tactics which for most other armies would be impractical and yield no results. The Mongolian horses were a massive contributor to the rise of the Mongol Empire and this was recognized by the Mongolians with their horse being protected the same way they protected themselves. The Mongolian horses (a small but hardy breed) wore five piece lamellar armour, protecting every part of their body. The Mongolians were extremely skilled at utilising these horses with 38

all of the light cavalry having the ability to ride with just their legs, leaving their hands free for a bow; this made them an extremely deadly fighting force.

tremely useful for the Mongols since almost all of their soldiers used a small composite bow in accompaniment with small battle axes for close range encounters.

Another massive contributor to the success of the Mongols was their superb discipline, this was clear throughout all levels of the army from generals to the lowest soldiers; all received punishment for blunders. The main difference between the Mongols and other armies of the time (in terms of discipline) was that Mongol soldiers all received a share of the spoils after a battle. This meant there were few arguments within the army, creating unity amongst soldiers and all making them an all-round stronger fighting force. The Mongolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approach to promotion through the military ranks was revolutionary (at the time) with soldiers being promoted purely on skill and not birth right. This created competition amongst the soldiers with each striving to be as impressive as possible and making them all reach their full potential as warriors.

Even though to their opposition they appeared weak at first, wearing lightweight leather armour into battle and wielding nothing but small bows and axes, these factors allowed them to be extremely lightweight and versatile and what appeared to be a massive weakness was in fact their biggest strength.

The Mongols were clearly a brutal and savage fighting force however it may not be as obvious that they were in fact extremely intelligent and employed very advanced military tactics.

One of their favoured tactics was feigning retreat, this entailed the Mongols turning during the heat of battle and pretending to be defeated. This meant the opposing force, believing they had the Mongols beat, would give chase, however the horses used by the Although it was previously believed that Mongols were much faster than any other Mongols relied on their sheer size to defeat armiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; meaning they would never be armies, it is now clear that this is far from caught. Once they had gained some ground the truth. In fact the Mongols quite heavily the light cavalry would turn to face their enrelied on quality over quantity, with all of emy and fire upon them leaving them comtheir forces being far superiorly skilled to pletely open to a frontal assault by the Montheir foreign counterparts. This was due to gol lancers. This tactic was just one of many the fact that young Mongolian men were genius strategies employed by the Mongols trained to hunt with a bow as soon as they which included: hostage taking, psychologicould ride a horse. This skill proved ex39

cal warfare and human shields just to name a few. These advanced military tactics were a huge contributor to the success of the Mongols as they left their opposition in confusion. To conclude, no single factor can be attributed to the success of the Mongol empire however it can be said that a plethora of reason engineered the huge success of this small group of nomadic tribesman. These reasons include: their superior use of horses, strict discipline, equipment and advanced military tactics. These factors all led to what is quite possibly the most successful empire in history which rose from nothing to being the most feared army in the world. BEN BETTS Y9, FRED LONGWORTH HIGH SCHOOL

)

ety i c So y r sto i H (

BREAKING

NEWS!

Oxbridge Success!!! This year, the History Department has 5 students heading to Oxford and Cambridge doing History or History related courses. This has come on the back of a lot of hard work on the part of the students and the department, in conjunction with the Academic Challenge Team. Georgia Lavin, Keir Martland and ex-Student Madeline McDonagh, have all scooped a place at Cambridge to do History, whilst Jenny Carter and Emma Porter have managed to gain offers from Oxford for Professor Selina Archaeology and Anthropology and An- Todd (left) with cient and Modern History respectively. History Student A big well done to all!

From Front to Back: Georgia Lavin, Keir Martland, Jenny Carter, Madeline McDonagh and Emma Porter

Bradley Fisher (right)

Gold Star for the History Selina Todd Lecture! Department!! The historian, Selina Todd from St Hilda’s The History Department at Winstanley College College, Oxford University presented her has won The History Association Gold Award. views about politics and society on the It’s a ? Award, and the tutors at Winstanley working class on 5th February 2016. Her College are immensely proud of the achieve- riveting lecture about the periods of workment. Head of Department Phil Duckworth ing class power and disadvantage and the commented, “It is a fantasitic achievement changing nature of politics over the years and is testimony to the hard work, dedication to modern day left a huge impact. She left and expertise of our staff, and the inquisitive us with the question are the students of diligence and capability of our pupils.” Wintoday willing to fight for their future?. Prostanley College is the only Sixth Form to have fessor Todd commented she was “very imgained this Gold Award, marking it a huge pressed with how imaginative and topical achievement. Well done! the questions were” from out modernists. 41

Who’s Who in the History Society 2015-2016 PRESIDENT

Keir Martland

VICE PRESIDENT

Camille Houghton-Grimshaw

SOCIAL MEDIA CO-ORDINATOR Hannah Scholes DEBATE CO-ORDINATOR

Oliver Callaghan

QUIZ CO-ORDINATOR

Corinne Campbell

DRAMA/SCHOOLS COORDINATOR

Kathryn Murphy

HISTORY MAGAZINE EDITOR

Emma Porter

MAGAZINE EDITORIAL TEAM

Ryan Boorman, Rose Mennell, Holly Conway, Victoria Hadfield, Ellie Wright, Corinne Campbell, Kathryn Murphy

PHOTOGRAPHER

Martha Lloyd