Winstanley College
History Magazine Christmas 2014 Edition
1
Contents: Page 4… The Cult of Santa Claus Page 6... Britain’s Last Trial for the Customs of the Sea Page 8… What is the truth about Christmas 1914? Page 10… Does the Whig theory of History hold true? Page 14… What happened when the Normans invaded college… Page 15… Calvary in World War 2 Page 18… A story of Reconciliation Page 21… Mussolini v Franco Page 24… Was Richard I a model for the modern general? Page 27… What Roman slaves did for Christmas! Page 32… The Real Scrooge Page 35… Tudor Fototball Page 37.. What’s been happening in the History Society...
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:
‘People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them’ James Baldwin It appears that in this run up to Christmas, history is everywhere; with bonfire night lighting up the sky and reminding us of Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot with a group of Catholics. He wished to assassinate the Protestant King James and replace him with his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, by blowing up the Parliament house with gunpowder!
All of us from the History
Furthermore, with the Centenary commemoration of the Great War on the 11th November- which we acknowledged at college with a deeply moving two minute silence– we all remembered the tragedies of World War One. We were reminded how we are all connected to the Great War in some way; be it through our relatives, our heritage or the long term impact it has on the way we live today.; in this edition we have a brilliant article that recognises the 1914 Christmas truce by Cameron Fleming… 100 years since the most devastating war we have seen must be remembered for generations to come so that it is never repeated.
Society wish you a Merry Christmas!
In this edition we are also exploring the origins of Father Christmas through an article named ‘the Cult of Santa Claus’!
3
The Cult of Santa Claus...
among the most senior bishops who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and created the New Testament, the most notable work of his life. The text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil” who sentenced Jesus to death, and this antiSemitic view was supported throughout the centuries and became motivational literature for discrimination against Jews.
The notorious Santa Claus has many aliases – Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Papa Noel, and my personal favourite, Dun Che Lao Ren in Chinese (which directly translates as ‘Christmas Old Man’) – but all of these names derive from the religious figure of St Nicholas. Today, the image we have of St Nick in our collective consciousness may be an old man in a red suit with a white beard that shakes his belly like a bowl full of jelly, but what do we really know about the actual St Nicholas? Nicholas was born in Parara, Turkey in 270 CE and later became Bishop of Myra, but was only named a saint in the 19th century, and is the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, children, pawnbrokers and students in various cities and countries around Europe. He was also a patron of the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors. Nicholas was
Nicholas died in 345 CE on December 6th, but in 1087, a group of sailors who idolized Nicholas moved his bones from Turkey to a sanctuary in Bari, Italy and was protected by the Varangian Guard. There, Nicholas supplanted a female boon-giving deity called The Grandmother, or Pasqua Epiphania, who used to fill the children's stockings with her gifts. The Grandmother was ousted from her shrine at Bari, which became the centre of the Nicholas cult. Members of
4
this group gave each other gifts during a pageant they conducted annually on the anniversary of Nicholas’ death. The Nicholas cult spread north until it was adopted by German and Celtic pagans. These groups worshipped a pantheon led by Woden (Oden or Odin) –their chief god and the father of Thor, Balder, and Tiw. Woden had a long, white beard and rode a horse through the heavens one evening each Autumn. When Nicholas merged with Woden, he shed his Mediterranean appearance, grew a beard, mounted a flying horse, rescheduled his flight for December, and donned heavy winter clothing. In a bid for pagan adherents in Northern Europe, the Catholic Church adopted the Nicholas cult and taught that he did (and they should) distribute gifts on December 25th instead of December 6th. In Rome, where winters were not as harsh as those in the far north, Saturnalia – a holiday in honour of Saturn, the god of agriculture – was celebrated. Beginning in the week leading up to the winter solstice and continuing for a full month, Saturnalia was a hedonistic time, when food and drink were plentiful and the normal Roman social order was turned upside down. For a month, slaves would become masters. Peasants were in command of the city. Business and schools were closed so that everyone could join in the fun.
It was believed that Mithra, an infant god, was born of a rock. For some Romans, Mithra’s birthday was the most sacred day of the year. By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated. By the Middle Ages, Christianity had, for the most part, replaced pagan religion. A tradition developed St Nicholas would supposedly visit homes on Christmas Eve and children would place nuts, apples, sweets and other items around the house to welcome him. As the reformation took a hold of much of Europe, however, the popularity of St Nicholas dropped in most Protestant countries, with the exception of Holland where he was referred to as “Sinter Klaas.” After this tradition went to the United States, it would eventually be corrupted to “Sancte Claus.” A Visit From St Nicholas, a poem written by Clement Clark Moore contributes to our image of Santa driving a sleigh pulled by eight reindeers, and after the poem became so popular it was renamed to The Night Before Christmas. Additionally, American artist Norman Rockwell has done a number of paintings with Saint Nick wearing red and white including A Drum for Tommy which appeared on the cover of The Country Gentleman in 1921. So, by the time the Coke adverts came out in the 1940s, Santa, in the public's mind, was already wearing only the modern version of his colors, and so it is from this converging of figures, customs and mistranslations that we arrive at Santa Claus today.
Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honouring the children of Rome. In addition, members of the upper classes often celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25th. By Elizabeth Cunliffe 5
Britain’s last trial just for the Richard Parker—not the Bengaliof Tiger. Customs the Sea
I’m sure that many of you reading this have seen the blockbuster Life of Pi, and have subsequently familiarised yourself with Richard Parker- the Bengali tiger in the Hollywood edition of the book. however, the name of Richard Parker isn't just a coincidence, it has a much greater relation to the history of law regarding the sea.. History is very obviously influenced by law and we historians study judicial changes. In this case, the precedent that necessity is not a defence for murder was identified by the tragic end to Richard Parker’s life. The English yacht, the Mignonette, set sail for Sydney from Southampton on 19th May 1884 with the crew; Tom Dudley, the captain, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks and Richard Parker, the cabin boy. Richard Parker was merely 17
and inexperienced at sea. Catastrophe struck when on the 5th July, a wave struck the yacht and Dudley knew that the mignonette was in danger. After the crew had safely got into the flimsily built life boat (with only 2 tins of turnips, basic navigational tools and no fresh water), the mignonette sank before their eyes. Being around 700 miles from the nearest land, the crew knew their situation was disastrous. After devouring a turtle that they caught and consuming their last provisions, the crew’s situation was fatal. Without catching any rainwater, they were forced to resort to other measures and it was Richard Parker who first became ill due to drinking seawater. the situation became so fatal that they decided to draw lots on who would be the sacrificial victim on 6
around 16-17th July, however the matter was put off until Dudley and Stephens decided - because they had wives and families - that Parker should be killed as he was already in a coma.
poned. At the final trial, it was established that there was no common law defence of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality. therefore, the defendants were charged of murder and sentenced tot he statutory death penalty with recommendation for mercy. This case shows the changes in the law of England, and hopefully now you will realise that Richard Parker isn't just a character from a book, but a real teenager who was subject to death because of the need for human survival.
And so it occurred, Parker was killed and an act of cannibalism occurred, and the crew even managed to catch rainwater. Dudley later described the scene; ”I can assure you I shall never forget the sight of my two unfortunate companions over that ghastly meal we all was like mad wolfs who should get the most and for men fathers of children to commit such a deed we could not have our right reason.” The crew finally had some luck and sighted a By Sally Dickens. sail on the 28th July, after 23 days in the life boat. When they returned, the survivors expected their barbaric act to stay alive to be protected by the customs of the sea. however, they were imprisoned and faced magistrates on 11th September, the defendants (Dudley, Stephens and Brooks) had public support in the masses, especially after Richard Parker’s brother had shook hands with the three. When a trial occurred on the 3rd November, it was established by the judge that necessity was not a defence for murder, and neither was the insanity plea. The judge ended the trial with "But whether upon the whole matter, the prisoners were and are guilty of murder the jury are ignorant and refer to the Court.”, and 7. with that, the case was post7
100 years ago this Christmas, all along the frontline on the western front troops on both sides of the western front lay down their arms and began an informal truce that lasted all day in which the exchange of cards, gifts and a game of football took place. Well, that is what we are led to believe anyway… The popular anecdote of the Christmas truce has crept into the British nation’s subconscious of how we perceive the First World War but is the image of soldiers of both sides having a game of football as shown most recently in the Sainsbury’s Christ-
mas advert, a valid portrayal of what actually happened on the 25th December 1914? It is definitely true that the truce existed as there are too many accounts to deny it, and its chief instigator was Pope Benedict XV who wanted at least a temporary truce for his obvious religious motives. However an ordinary soldier’s motive would have stretched far beyond a simple truce to honour the birth of Christ. It is more likely that it would have been put to the more grisly business of burying the dead who at this point could be beginning to 8
rot in the shell holes encouraging the spread of disease and stench, not to mention the psychological trauma of seeing your comrade’s bodies on the battlefield. The truce would (and did) give troops a chance to bury the dead at least.
explore for evidence. Peter Snow has a conflicting story of the truce. In his more balanced view, the Germans began to sing and the truce occurred in the morning however his sources may be put under similar scrutiny as Nash’s story before. Hastings gives more evidence against the truce that in some places it did not exist at all like in the raid upon German naval positions at Cuxhaven and Sheffield gives the example of the 2nd grenadier guards who lost around ten casualties in the bitter fighting that day, yet in other places in catastrophe by Hastings the view by Snow is reinforced; the second German division for instance began to sing “stille nacht”, instigating a truce. Also; Hastings interestingly gives the example of tsarists, whose calendar was behind the Germans’, who were allowed their truce when their Christmas fell. However, French units of the 99th infantry regiment had a truce which lasted until New Year’s Day and was only broken by shell fire.
The Wigan observer of January 1915 contains an article named; “Christmas day in the trenches” and gives the first -hand account of Private T. Nash who claimed that at noon the Germans seized firing and a few emerged from their trench who were greeted by some of the men of the 1st Battalion, East Lancashire regiment who, despite urges from officers that it was a “trap”, went into no man’s land to greet them. There they “fraternized” and traded cigarettes and cards before organising a photograph and a game of football. This account seems to tick all of the boxes however it is from a wounded soldier (they were notorious for embellishing their stories) who would have heard the myth of the Christmas truce and could have “amended” his story to make it more exciting. Therefore we should take this primary source account with a pinch of salt.
This sort of occurrence was not uncommon, many troops refused to fight their new friends in the opening days of 1915 and commanders in the following years were anxious not to repeat the truce due to fears of mutiny
Historians give us another aspect to 9
in the army. In regards to the story of the football match, a recent article from the daily mirror describes how it helped to send footballs to the front as part of aid that was sent to frontline soldiers, making the story seemingly plausible. However these footballs could have been destined for reserve units in the rear where football leagues were often set up within divisions or fighting units which were especially popular in pals battalions. Also the article gives evidence from both sides of the fraternising behaviour displayed; like trading cards and giving each other haircuts. Yet Stephens gives insight into British troops trading tobacco from their Christmas princess Mary tins for the stronger German tobacco in the truce. However grim evidence is also provided about how the truce was not repeated by heavy shelling of no-man’s-land on Boxing Day to ensure no one emerged from their trenches.
poor state of the German troops is noted. The Christmas truce was a welcome distraction from the bitter fighting not only of the enemy but of the surroundings and conditions troops on the frontline were facing from periods of two weeks like British troops to months like the French. Therefore, it is fit to go in to Saul David’s book; 100 days to victory as it is an event which raised morale and despite it being a nuisance to the upper echelon of the officer class; minor fraternisation saw to aid troops getting through the winter and regardless of the religion of the troops be they orthodox, catholic, protestant or even like the Hindu 2/39th Garhwali riflemen to whom German Christmas trees reminded them of Diwali, the truce managed to bring together people regardless of nationality or political situation to engage in what friendly conversation they could have had had the events of a few months previous not occurred. Yet, simultaneously was a time of fear for those brought into slavery in German occupied France and Belgium (Hastings) and also for troops who realised that the war that would end at Christmas could go on for years.
Overall however, the view given by Le petit journal of Sunday 9th January 1915 is correct in its view of the general winter enveloping armies; the winter of 1914 was cold and muddy in the trenches and in all accounts, the By Cameron Fleming 10
19th century of the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. He argued that the Whigs saved England from “despotism…anarchy…childish theories…blood and confusion.” To an extent, this is true. The English early modern revolution really was ‘glorious’ in one respect: no blood was shed. The Revolution simply involved replacing one king with another. ‘The king has left for France; God save the king’, one might have said at the time. The absence of bloodshed might Not only this, but the Whigs set out to have given the English revolution what re-tell history. This is not to say that the historian Professor John Kersey has they re-wrote history or that they lied, termed “the veneer of continuity” – in but they set about doing what they reference, however, to the Restoration saw as necessary to correct the standof 1660. The Glorious Revolution in ard interpretation of history. In pracfact represented a profound change in tice, it did involve re-writing history the way that all revolutions are a kind and the most famous Whig historian, of profound change. The profound Macaulay, wrote romantically in the change represented by our Revolution, To answer such a vast question, it would help if we knew who the Whigs were. Essentially, the Whigs began as a political faction opposed to James II becoming King. The Whigs were mostly aristocrats who viewed monarchy as a tiresome added extra to their hegemonic rule over England. And in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when they finally got their way and deposed James, they cemented their hegemony for the coming centuries.
11
though, was brought about bloodlessly. On the continent, their revolutions were rather different. In fact, the French had numerous violent and destructive revolutions which tore apart all existing political and social structures and replaced them with nothing obviously better. My basic point is that ‘life went on’ after the Glorious Revolution and this is at least one way in which the Revolution differs from the ones on the continent. Our revolution was comfortable and predictable and, in this respect, unique.
Provisions of Oxford, and, of course, Magna Carta. The Whig theory of history, then, is one of progress: every generation slowly and surely accumulating more and more knowledge and wisdom of how to govern, how to make profits, how to enrich the soul, and how to tap into natural resources. Over time, things improve – this is the message of the Whigs. The theory first was applied to politics and then, as we became richer and more confident, it was applied to every aspect of life.
With what a great crash our civilisation would have fallen, then, to paraphrase Macaulay, had the Whigs not ousted James II, united the nation behind a comfortable and predictable Anglicanism, and exercised a comfortable and predictable aristocratic rule.
Does the Whig theory hold true, then? The Whig theory of history was the orthodox interpretation of the past right up until the Great War. The theory was dealt a shocking blow by the First World War and what followed it. How could such a supposedly perfect politiThe Whigs, to legitimise themselves, cal and economic system allow for though, for what they were doing was such a disastrous and seemingly pointrevolutionary, evoked what was, in less enterprise? Why didn’t we avoid it Macaulay’s words, already “engraven and why couldn’t we bounce back on the hearts of all Englishmen”: the from it? ancient constitution. Our constitution, While it is undoubtedly true that we according to the Whigs, was and is a have benefitted enormously from the very vague and general compilation of Internet Revolution and from a considsuch liberties as freedom of contract, erable increase in living standards, no taxation without representation, people in the 1900s would have exparliamentary democracy, limits on the pected us in the 21st century to each monarchy, and so on and so forth. own a flying car, to have to perform raThey even cited historical illustrations ther less manual labour than we presof this self-sustaining and selfently have to, and to have made a lot regulating constitution in action, e.g. more progress towards Utopia. Yet, in the Constitutions of Clarendon, the 12
2008, we entered the longest recession for a hundred years. In 2001, we began our longest modern war, the war in Afghanistan, lasting 13 years and costing over 450 lives. And, far from those in the 21st century experiencing no scarcity and living the high life, the lowest rate of income tax in Britain is still 20p in the pound. I could go on: the House of Lords may soon be abolished; the monarchy wields no power; and more laws have been made since 1997 than in the two thousand years before then. The aim of this paragraph is not to put a political spin on the article, but to show that the ‘ancient constitution’, that perfect unwritten set of laws engraven – supposedly – on the hearts of us all, is dead and has been dead for years. As it is, no other interpretation of history has risen from the wilderness to take the place of the Whig theory of history. There was a brief period when a Marxist interpretation held some sway, but it was by no means orthodoxy and did not endure. Is it good that we are living in an age when no single over-arching Grand Theory is imposed upon budding young historians like ourselves? Or is it symptomatic of a decline in the quality of historians? I would agree with the former and disagree with the latter, although I do like the idea of a theory which explains all of history, or at least all of a given aspect of it. Certainly, some attempts have been made. In my own
opinion, the closest thing to such a Grand Theory is provided by Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his ‘Democracy: The God that Failed’, however even Hoppe will concede that such a priori theories as his only work with certain provisions made, such as the ceteris paribus proviso, and cannot explain everything. In short, then, I think that the Whig theory of history, while it may have once had some truth about it, ceased to be useful on that fateful day, July 28th 1914, when the world as it was then and had been for centuries was smashed to smithereens.
By Keir Martland
13
On the 12th November, Winstanley College was invaded by Normans! They came from across the North West to show students of the Norman way of life and to fight to the death. In the name of history, of course! Historia Normannis is a nationwide group that aims to educate and keep alive the way of life for people in the 1070’s focusing particularly on armaments and social artefacts from board games to kite shields, tunics to chain mail the Normans brought it all. B1 and 2 were a hive of activity throughout the day awash with eager students wanting to expand their knowledge of medieval life and warfare. However the pinnacle of the day had to have been the full contact warfare in the quad at lunchtime. Huddles of students gathered to watch sword,
spear (and even a farm tool!) clash in the highly accurate portrayal of medieval combat with the knight often coming out the victor. Yet the entire day was a fabulous insight into Norman life for medieval and modern students or anyone with a passion for learning more about medieval history and many were so inspired that they are joining the normans at their bases in wigan and st helens. Many thanks to the normans for coming in and loads of pictures are available on the Winstanley history facebook page. For more information about joining the normans please visit http:// www.normannis.co.uk/wp/ By Cameron Fleming
14
Calvary in World War Two
The mounting of soldiers upon horses and other mounts was common practice from before the classical era, but with the advent of fast-firing rifles and machine guns the use of cavalry in the charge was seen as obsolete by the end of the First World War and, despite the use of cavalry throughout the war, casualties were far too high to justify its use. This fact twinned with the use of armoured cars and then tanks meant that cavalry regiments in many armies replaced their mounts with armoured vehicles. Despite this, two uses of horses were still important; the use of dragoons dismounting at an enemy’s flank to cover 15
infantry and its use in supply and the movement of artillery. However, as nations began to experiment with faster vehicles and systems such as the Christie chassis used on soviet vehicles it looked even more so that cavalry had been permanently lost on the battlefield along with horses as armies mechanised replacing limbers with tractors and cheap trucks. Nevertheless at the advent of world war two, there was still military staff that saw horses as viable means of
waging war. The first to use it were really the soviets and Japanese in the border incidents
around Kalkhin Gol and Lake Khasan between May and September of 1939 where Mongolian and Japanese cavalry did fight head to head. However, often the horses
get the mechanical faults that early vehicles were prone to. However, too many of the Polish staff had faith in the cavalry charge given its success in the polish-soviet war of 1920 with cavalry charges taking a key role in the battle of Niemen. However its role had changed to a mobile reserve that filled in gaps in the lines and provided support with 75mm guns and new antitank rifles. These formations maintained traditions of the polish ulhans while enabling the polish army to attempt to fight overwhelming odds from two sides.
were used to quickly move men and artillery across the plains and were therefore used instead of trucks due to the lack of mechanisation in the Mongolian army and the lack of raw materials that the Japanese had at their disposal. However, at the same time an army was using cavalry not simply as a means to move men or through a legacy of horsemanship but as a means to This was not the end for the role of fight more mechanised opponents; horses in the Second World War as The Polish. during the battles on the eastern front The Polish high command during Auhorses were needed for supplies by gust 1939 was very confident they both the Soviets and Axis powers. Also, could force any German invasion back although the use of charging cavalry with “a cavalry ride to berlin” alongwas saved now exclusively for propaside Britain and France on the western ganda films, the soviets excellently front and given the amount of light used cavalry in the Ukraine when detanks available to the poles (that were fending from the axis invasion in 1941 880 TK & 7TP tanks) and only one by dismounting and providing the role mechanised cavalry brigade, 11 large that dragoons did in the 18th and 19th unmechanised cavalry brigades that century. Furthermore, many of the could be used to counter-attack GerCossacks, people from the Ukraine man infantry or give flanking fire with a tradition of horsemanship, beseemed like a sensible option also concame “hiwis” or those willing to help sidering that horses were in greater that aided the German war effort and supply than trucks and horses do not 16
could be seen with mounted men in Italy and even France as well as on the eastern front. Furthermore, the Italians utilised horse power in a similar way by having some mounted units. This became useful in the hilly terrain of Italy that could be challenging for many vehicles. A similar use was found for donkeys in the Far East by both commonwealth and Japanese forces using said animals to transport supplies where planes and motor vehicles couldn’t reach in the jungle. Nearer to the end of the war, however, German industrial output began to diminish. Heavy allied bombing and the loss of thousands of trucks, AFV’s and other equipment in Russia, meant that the army facing the allies at D-day was short of vehicles of any sort and were reliant on horses to pull artillery across Normandy. Also horses provided an easy way for troops and ammunition to be carried in the same theatre of war with wagons being utilised also. This shocked the allied armies in France who by this time where almost completely mechanised due in part to the availability of American trucks that were produced quicker and more cheaply than the German counterparts. 17
Overall, the role of horses in world war two was a mix of desperation and ideals that belonged in the age of napoleon and as the war ended it saw all armies fully mechanise in the west and exposed the futility of horses against fast, reliable armoured vehicles and especially the machinegun.
By Cameron Fleming
A story of reconciliation... Years later when Lomax received newspaper clippings from his fellow POW, Eric recognised the man in the photograph to be the interpreter Takisha Nigase, the man who had tormented him all those years ago. Eric Lomax finally decided to meet him, his intentions were not of revenge and hatred, but more for finding closure, ’ Some time the hating has to stop,’(a quote from the last line of his book.) This shows that hatred cannot carry on forever and like everything it must come to an end. If Eric had not shown the courage to reconcile with Takisha his life would never have moved forwards and he would have forever been looking back at his past. Perhaps we could all learn from this lesson
be killed shortly.’ By knowing admission would seal his fate, Lomax stayed steadfast throughout his ordeal. The fluting voice of the interpreter haunted his dreams for years to come. ‘He was center stage in my memories. My private obsession, He stood in for all the worst horrors.’ (From Eric Lomax’s book-The Railway Man)
The interpreter for the Ministry of War of Japan was Takashi Nigase, and he was one of the officers in charge of the construction of the ‘Death Railway.’ The Japanese Bushido code demanded they should die rather than surrender, so when the allied Europeans forces surrendered in Singapore on the 15th February 1943 they were deemed disAs part of the interrogation they would honorable and worthless. Soon after demand he confessed to espionage re- their capture they were forced to peatedly saying “Lomax, you will tell work, as slaves, on labour projects us,’ following it with ‘Lomax, you will 18
such as the Burma Railway. This is where Nigase met Lomax after he was caught with the radio and the map, thus leading to his involvement in the interrogation. There are thousands of stories from the construction of this railway, but the one I have chosen is the story of Eric Lomax, ‘The Railway Man.’ The Thai-Burma railway, known as ‘The Death Railway,’ was started in October 1942 and was completed in October 1943. It was built to supply the Japanese forces in Burma and the railway stretched for 415km. This rail connection was proposed by the British decades before World War II, however when the British surveyed the possible route, they abandoned the idea due to the challenges posed by thick jungle, endemic diseases and the lack of adequate roads. The railway was deemed too difficult to build and would require huge numbers of manpower in awful conditions with thousands of lives lost. This did not deter the Japanese who commenced with the construction after they had carried out their surveys, which they completed in early 1942. With the disposal of a large working force of the allied Prisoners of war (POW’s), who had surrendered in Singapore along with other forced labour. They endured horrendous conditions and many died during the construction, hence to why it was nicknamed the ‘Death railway.’ Eric Lomax, who joined the war at the age of 19, was a Royal signals officer attached to the 5th regiment Royal Artillery. Following the surrender of Singapore in February 1942, he and thousands of others were forced to build the Burma Railway. During the time he was there Eric built a radio receiver, from scraps, and he drew a map of the ‘Death Railway.’ when he and his fellow POWs were caught they were tortured. They were made to stand for hours on end in the burning sun, they were stamped on, and he had his arm broken and ribs cracked with pickaxe handles. Later he was water boarded, where his head was covered and water was pumped into his mouth and nose to make him feel as though he was drowning. During the night he was confined to a cage, and when a doctor examined him later, they said there was not a patch of unbruised skin visible 19
from his shoulders to his knees.
By Hannah Lomax
In his darkest hours Eric would recite this poem in an effort to isolate his mind and his feelings during the most horrific times. ‘At the beginning of time the clock struck one Then dropped the dew and the clock struck two From the dew grew a tree and the clock struck three The tree made a door and the clock struck four Man came alive and the clock struck five Count not, waste not the years on the clock Behold I stand at the door and knock.’
Nationalities
Workforce
Deaths
British
30,000
6,540
21.8%
Dutch
18,000
2,830
15.7%
Australian
13,000
2,710
20.8%
American
700
131
18.7%
Other forces
1,000
413
41.3%
Asians
200,000
80,000
40%
Total
275,000
94,000
Estimated fatalities from the construction
20
↑
Mussolini v Franco... Both Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco were powerful dictators in Europe before the Second World War. They both took power of countries in chaos, albeit through differing means. Franco was pronounced Head of State in Spain in 1939, with Mussolini achieving the equivalent position 14 years beforehand. Despite this, Mussolini was overthrown in 1945, with Franco ruling until his death 30 years later. Why was this the case? The first thing we need to explore is how both men carried out controlling their populations. With neither man being very popular with the masses (Franco did have to win a civil war to
get power in the first place), this step was crucial in order to retain power. Whilst Mussolini had used a secret police force and the threat of exile in order to remove opposition, Mussolini’s main method of control was his use of propaganda. Being a former journalist himself, Mussolini recognised the significance of the media in garnering popular opinion. This was done in two ways; indoctrinate the people and regulate journalists. Mussolini’s 1926 Press Laws forced all journalists to be part of an official register, which forbade any articles which suggested problems with the regime. This, inevitably, led to a monopoly on the provi-
21
sion of information from the Fascists. However, it wasn’t all about what people weren’t told; often the press would over-exaggerate Italian victories from all walks of life. Everything, from the success of Italy’s football side in the 1934 and 1938 World Cups, Carnera’s reign as World Heavyweight Boxing Champion, even foreign victories such as the acquisition of Fiume, Albania and the war in Abyssinia (Ethiopia), was publicised as a victory for the people, and for Fascism. Also used were constant parallels drawn to the greatness of Ancient Rome. Mussolini was compared to great Roman Emperors, such as Augustus and Julius Caesar, architecture harked back to the old Roman style, and the very date of Rome’s founding was celebrated as a national holiday. All of this helped create the image of Mussolini as the man to lead Italy to a new golden age, which helped spur the nationalist feelings he was hoping for.
violently put down opposition during the early years of his reign. An estimate of the number of deaths is difficult, but the overall figure probably lies in the region of 15,000 to 50,000 people. This state of martial law remained in effect for 12 years from 1936 to 1948. Prison sentences and executions were punishments for those found guilty of trying to start a revolution, although the number of executions began to decline after 1944. Once the initial phase of violence was over, Franco used propaganda in a similar way to Mussolini; he suppressed negative views of the regime being publicised, and created a similar sort of cult around himself. Much like Mussolini, this was centred on Franco leading a united Spain to global success. Since Franco appeared in public less frequently than Mussolini, his presence was maintained in the form of posters, portraits and pamphlets, which were displayed everywhere. Conversely, Franco had no such herit- Since Franco had protected the Cathoage or achievements to draw upon. As lic Church during the Civil War, the he had come to power through a civil clergy had more than enough reason war (aided by Mussolini and Hitler), he to add to this myth, calling the Nationknew that he needed to institutional- alists’ victory “a true Crusade in favour ize his Nationalists’ victory. As a result, of the Catholic religion.” he used the army and police force to 22
Of course, these aforementioned points are what kept Franco and Mussolini in power. There was, however, one event which toppled Mussolini and left Franco relatively unscathed; World War II. Italy entered on the side of Nazi Germany, whereas Spain remained neutral. Franco opted not to enter the conflict for one simple reason; at the time the war broke out, his position was not as secure as that of Hitler or Mussolini. As a result, a failure in the war could easily have seen him ousted from power. What’s more, Spain’s civil war only ended on April 1st 1939, only 6 months before the outbreak of war in Europe. This leads to a belief that Franco did not feel he had time to gather enough fresh troops to fight a second war so soon after securing victory at home. The more common reason is a breakdown in negotiations with Hitler; for Spain’s entry into the war, Franco wanted food and equipment for his forces, as well as control of Gibraltar and French North Africa. These demands weren’t met by Hitler, and Spain remained neutral. Italy’s relationship with Germany meant that they followed Germany into the war. As the failures mounted, support gradually turned against Mussolini and
the Fascist regime, leading to his removal from office in July 1943 and his death two years later.
So why was Franco more successful than Mussolini? Was it his refusal to enter into World War II, or was it the fact that he had eliminated his opposition more effectively than his Italian counterpart? What is certain is that Franco would not have got into power to begin with if it wasn’t for Mussolini. Not only for the Fascists’ military assistance during the Civil War, but also because Mussolini came to power in 1922 (he only assumed the title of “Head of State three years later). This meant that many of the measures Mussolini used were mimicked by Franco; the oppression of opponents, the use of propaganda, and even the silencing of industrialists’ concerns. Ultimately, Franco’s decision not to take part in World War II was what saved him long term. Had Hitler agreed to Franco’s demands in September 1939, and allowed Spain to fight on the side of the Axis forces, Franco may not have been in power for as long as he was. In the end, Franco is another example of a dictator who based his system on Mussolini’s Italy, but could con-
23
trol it more effectively than Mussolini was ever capable of.
By Tom Baxendale
24
Richard I—is he the model of a modern major general?
Richard the Lionheart’s legacy has been one of huge debate. His legacy as one of a ferocious warrior in battle is often opposed by many modern historians viewing him as reckless Anglophobe and a greedy King who put his own desires of a Crusade above the stability of the Angevin Empire. Many historians also view him as someone who contributed to the huge discontent experienced in his successor King John I’s reign. Many think he was an ‘absentee King’ who failed to improve the laws and administration of his empire once made great by his father Henry II and whose economic ruin left the people of the Angevin empire poor and angry at the idea of a Monarchy. His legacy has, perhaps more than any other English King, been debated and conflicted over, his reign truly one of extreme parallels and interest. And yet prevailing over all this historical controversy and heated debate is a legacy of him being Lionhearted, which is a legacy that lasts today. Surely that is
proof positive that if anything his reign brought everlasting glory to England and the Angevin empire? But who was Richard the Lionheart? Richard I was born on the 8th of September 1157 to his father Henry II and his Mother Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry had been coronated only 3 years previous and Richard as the third legitimate son to the throne was never meant to inherit. He was born in Oxford but he spoke ‘langue d’ oïl’ which was a French dialect. Richard I was educated in Oxford also and far from being the military fuelled brutish character of which he is often portrayed, he enjoyed writing poems and singing in a true troubadour style. Richard I was also a sterling son who was a ‘mommy’s boy’ at heart as well as being “tall, of elegant build; the colour of his hair was between red and gold; his limbs were supple and straight. He had long arms suited to wielding a sword. His long legs matched the rest of his 25
body”, as one Chronicler once wrote. Richard I became the successor to Henry II and served as the second Plantagenet monarch. He was coronated on the 3rd of September 1189 following the death of his father. Richard’s reign had its baptism of fire as he took the throne by force from his ailing father during the 4th July 1189 Rebellion. This would set the precedent for Richard’s reign, a reign which was characterised by war. Richard I, I would argue should be remembered mainly for his gallantry in battle. And why not? Richard I was not, nor did he need to be like, his Father: a lawgiver and sharp administrator. While Henry, post Great Rebellion was titled as the greatest ruler in all of Christendom, Richard I would set the bar even higher for his successor and Brother John I by bringing England perhaps even more glory than Henry II had restored to it. Richard’s Crusade left a lasting legacy, one of him being the defender of all of Europe and all of Christianity, an impossibly great title to hold. Furthermore, Richard’s reign should be characterised by war because war ticked off many of the boxes that a great medieval ruler needed to do. A King should try to extend the boundaries of his empire which is what Richard I spent his life and eventually his death trying to do. Richard’s great skill in battle is perhaps his greatest attribute and is the reason we remember Richard I by his romantic epithet of
Lionheart rather than his regal number. But is this more hyperbole than truth? Was Richard I truly the Warrior king we know and love? Richard I initially showed his military skill during Henry II’s reign from an early age, as punishment for Richard’s participation in the 1173 rebellion, Richard I was sent to quash rebellions in Aquitaine. He swiftly conquered the rebellious barons and executed a forced demolition of their castles to pre-rebellion strength. It was on this conquest that he gains his namesake ‘Lionheart’. During his reign, many historians have agreed on one thing; the lethality of the warrior King on the battlefield. While some historians think that the 3rd Crusade was a failure, it could be considered that Richard I actually achieved far than what was considered possible. Richard I alone defeated Saladin at the Siege of Acre and the Battle of Arsuf; his actions allowed the Crusader states to remain for another 100 years. He also secured Cyprus and Sicily which served as strong bases to be used a staging posts for further crusades. Richard I also understood the importance of Ascalon and Egypt to the security of Jerusalem. Even Historians who view Richard I as a bad King concede that he was a great warrior. Ranchman perhaps sums up this breed of historian by saying about Richard I: “he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad King, but a gallant and splendid soldier”. I would argue however that being a ‘splendid soldier’ 26
partly made Richard I into great King. It is no coincidence that John I, Richard’s brother and successor, is almost unanimously considered a bad King when he was appalling as a general. Richard I is often viewed as using England as an inexhaustible cash cow to fund his crusade; apparently he boasted that he would ‘sell off London if I could find a buyer’. There is also a view that, to pay for his crusade, Richard I started to sell land and titles off to the highest bidder. This however is not true. In reality Richard’s actions were far less reckless than you might expect. Contemporaries saw the Crusade as Richard’s highest duty while it was not unusual for Kings to sell offices and titles. Richard’s economic actions to fund the crusade were effective also, impressive and justified. It took Richard I just 6 months to raise a total of £31,000 which was doubled from the previous year (1189). He was also justified in raising the money as he sold Scotland back to the Scots for £6000 during the ‘Quit-Claim of Canterbury’ which proved a smart move as it secured peace with Scotland until 1215 and ensured their support even during John’s reign when England rebelled. Richard’s administration abilities of England are perhaps a less talked about quality that I would argue he had in droves. He understood the fine art of delegation. Richard I placed four
Co-Justicars in charge; they were William Marshal, William Briwerre, Hugh Bardolf and William Longchamp. Three of these men were second generation civil servants and would prove a great success in the running of the country in Richard’s absence on Crusade. It could be argued therefore that Richard I left England confident that it would be able to manage without him who shows he generally did care about administration and order. The word ‘reckless’ is often used to describe Richard’s reign but this is also a little cruel. In 1193, Hubert Walter was appointed as Chief Justiciar. He was called by Brooke “a great man of the world” and “a man of unusual ability”. This proves that Richard I above all else appointed men to lands and titles upon great consideration and while he himself, unlike Henry II, was not skilled at administration and lawgiving, but he did understand the importance in doing so. Richard I was also as wise as he was strong willed as he understood how to mediate conflict within his family, particularly John I. Unlike Henry, Richard I understood how to delegate power effectively. Richard I granted John I six counties, estates and castles. John I swiftly made a strong power in England and was given the responsibility of maintaining the peace in England on Richard’s absence. Richard I was also a shrewd negotiator. His Treaty with Saladin at Jaffa (2nd December 1192) showed that he could compromise
27
while his crusade in general boasted the crown’s support from the English church and repaired relations with the Pope that Henry II had damaged during the Becket Crisis. When I judge a King, I am reminded of the royal seal, which shows a King to be a lawgiver on one side, and a warrior King, defending his people and his interests by force, on the other. Maybe therefore we should stop comparing Henry II and Richard I and instead view their reigns as one. Richard I showed through his great delegation of power that he could continue the lawgiving of Henry II whilst he alone could take the idea of a warrior King to new levels. As you could say, “if it ain’t broke don't fix it”. And this was certainly true for Richard’s reign. You could argue, that Richard I didn’t need to be the lawgiver King, in the sense of Henry II because Henry II had already achieved this, Richard I instead played to his warrior strengths while understanding his weaknesses. Together Henry II and Richard I can be seen as the amalgamation of the perfect King.
By Thomas Hindley
28
Q: How Do You Have An OK Christmas As A Slave In the Roman Empire? A: Celebrate Saturnalia
Io, Saturnalia! Welcome to our revelry, and I hope you have a good time. Now, the drunkenness is to your right, gambling to your left and if you want to take part in the feast, the Master of the House is currently serving the slaves in the dining hall. Enjoy!
Ready? Let’s go… We’re now in the Roman Empire, take a look, say hello, be ignored by the Latin speaking populace, maybe be kidnapped into slavery. Done?
Now to start to lecture. Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honour of By now your face is probably going: the Roman God Saturn. He was seen as Huh? What’s that girl blathering on the god of (*heh hem*) agriculture, about this time? Wasn’t hieroglyphics generation, dissolution, plenty, wealth, the end of it? periodic renewal, liberation and, in latRaised eyebrow, creased brow, and be- er years, time. He was an important fuddled eyes, right? You're not the only figure in Roman Mythology with his one. reign being called the “Golden Age” So I’ll take it slow, and you can tell me and his temple in the Roman Forum all about how boring you find Roman housing the state treasury. The planet Christmas celebrations later. Seriously, and the day “Saturday” are named after him. His influence echoes down It’s around 2-3 of pages of 12-pointthe ages. font. You’ll survive. 29
His festival was celebrated originally on the 17th of December, and then later expanded to about a week. It was a day/week of revelry and included several forms of celebration including role reversal, decorations, and feasts. It is said to have originated as a farmer’s festival and dedication to Saturn’s temple.
Another aspect of the role reversal was that slaves were allowed to comment and criticise their masters. Nothing like, “Hey, Pustilius, your mother gave birth to the ugliest baby ever, didn’t she?” OK, it was nothing like that. Slaves could experience “December liberty” as the poet Horace called it and enjoy the facade of disrespect for their The festival contained several elemasters without fear of punishment ments. Let’s go through some, and I promise it won’t take long. You can go during the time (I’m saying nothing for back to your politics and revolutions in after). There were limits to their revelry, as the festival would end. It could another 900 words, ok? put quite a downer on your ideas for free speech and social equality when Thank you! there's a likelihood you could be killed To start there was the major element after the holiday. Oh, well, keep trying of role reversal during Saturnalia. to buy back your freedom. You’ll get Slaves and servants experienced a there! (*cough* when your 68 slight increase in their freedom during *cough*) this time, depending on their masters. Finally, in role reversal, there was a There are various ancient sources King of Saturnalia. Likened by some to which mention that during Saturnalia, the Lord of Misrule during the medieslaves could expect to either, be waited val Feast of Fools, or the Boy Bishops, on at a meal by the masters, eat first, he presided over the ceremonies duror eat with their masters from the ing the festival and his word was law. same table during Saturnalia. The pracHe said do this, you did this. He said tice may have varied over the years it you do that, you do that, He said you was celebrated, but it wasn’t all fun throw the master of the house in the and games for the slaves - the slaves lake, stark naked, you threw the maswould still have to prepare the meal. ter of the house in the lake, you 30
guessed it, stark naked. He was appointed by a lottery, and was a member of the familia which included the slaves. He had to be obeyed by all guests to the ceremonies. It is reported Nero was one in his youth. Bet he had fun. The Emperor still ruled, make no mistake, but isn’t it fun, the idea you could tell you parents to do anything and they had to do it? It’s like your baby/toddler years all over again. Seen it all? Moving on to the next stop, no flash photography and no sneezing. No seriously don’t sneeze. Yes, I’ve got a very important reason why you can’t sneeze. You’ll ruin the magazine. Carrying on (*ducks flying tomato*), there were other elements involved with Saturnalia, such as gift giving. In later years, when saturnalia spanned several days, Sigillaria fell in with it. Sigillaria was on 23rd December, which was when gifts were given. Some emperors were devoted to the occasion and presents could include the traditional wax figures made especially for the event (called - funnily enough- sigillaria) or candles, later silver, or it could be a gag gift, which Augustus liked, such as a sausage. Gifts took many forms from the expensive like slaves, to the inexpensive, such as a
spoon. Some “patrons”, sort of like sponsors or your boss, gave money to those under them to get gifts. This money was called sigillaricum. Verses could often come with these gifts, sort of like labels or greeting cards today (link!). Another point of celebrating Saturnalia, for the notes you’re diligently taking, is the relaxing of rules. I already told you about the gambling. Gambling wasn’t really allowed in the Roman times (hark me), and was frowned upon. Not the case during Saturnalia, with even slaves being allowed in on the games battling it out for coins and nuts. Roman women (freeborns at least) are reported as participating in the events, though later on in time, probably during the republic, when it was more common for men and women to mingle. There are certainly reports of women getting gifts, and female entertainers at parties. Clothing was also an aspect relaxed during the chaos. Togas were replaced by more socially inappropriate synthesis, dinner clothes, which were seen as inappropriate for everyday wear. Everyone, or well people who engaged with the celebration who were male, donned a pilleus, a conical felt cap that 31
was usually the mark of a freedman, instead of their usual bare-head of a citizen. Slaves were also allowed to wear the pilleus, so there were no distinctions between classes (yeah right) in the spirit of Saturnalia. They were taken back after the event, like, but I bet they felt like special snowflakes for the duration.
celebrations. You have your own time machines right? You can make your own way back. “Where’s the turkey?! Can’t you do anything right!”
By Emma Porter
It wasn’t all fun, games and general lawlessness however. There was potential for cruelty in the festival, most specifically in the role reversal in mocking and patronisation. It is conceivable of masters to refuse to take part or take the fun too far. Several emperors were spoil-sports too. Both Augustus and Caligula wanted to shorten the days of merry-making, Augustus to three, Caligula to 5. Think they got too worn out during the days and wanted to make the most of it. They both failed. Party wildness winning out against logic sensibility once again - the epic battle showing its inevitable conclusion. So there you have it. 2-3 pages in 12point-font about a boring Roman festival you’ve never heard of and you never will hear of again. It was fun, wasn’t it? (Your cue to nod). But at least I’ve had my say. I can go yell at my slave now to hurry up in time for December 32
The original scrooge… In January 1649, Charles I was executed after a long, bloody Civil War which had torn England apart, splitting families, friends and entire towns into warring royalists and parliamentarians. The 1640s had seen a difficult transition of power from the monarch, who during his reign had only convened Parliament in order to raise taxes, to what became known as the Long Parliament, nicknamed such because it forced Charles I to accept a bill which said it could only be dissolved with the members’ position. 1642 had seen the beginning of the fighting, with the figurehead for the whole movement, Oliver Cromwell, leading the Parliamentarians to victory in 1648. Cromwell is renowned today for his fanatical Puritanism and rejection of all luxuries in terms of diet, dress
and celebrations, with his most famous cancellation being the celebration of Christmas. The measures taken throughout the 1640s and 50s which led to the clampdown on Christmas were in fact executed by the Long Parliament, which was dominated by Puritans. However, Cromwell’s support and strengthening of the measures after he became Lord Protector of the Realm in 1653 show that he both agreed with and actively supported the prohibition of the most anticipated Christian holiday of the year. Puritans opposed the celebration of Christmas because that they felt it was a Catholic, Papal sponsored holiday which promoted excess, waste and sin. They also rejected Christmas 33
on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the Bible, about which their interpretation was strict constructionist. They felt that Christmas should have all forms of “mass” removed, with only fasting and reflection of past sins being permitted. In 1642, the last Wednesday of every month was declared to be a fast day by Parliament, with Christmas always being celebrated on this date, therefore removing the celebration and feasting associated with the holiday. Instead of closing for the holiday, on the 25th December, Parliament convened as usual and urged other institutions and businesses to do so. In 1644, both houses attended intense fast sermons on Christmas Day, urging the population to follow their example. In January 1645, a group of ministers appointed by parliament produced a new Directory of Public Worship which declared that ‘festival days, vulgarly called Holy Days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued.’ This was reinforced in 1647 by the passing of an ordinance which officially banned the celebration of Whitsun, Easter and Christmas. As a driving force in Parliament, Cromwell supported these measures, although they were based on a wide consensus
of approval from the members. When Cromwell became Lord Protector in 1653, he became a monarch in all but name. Whilst he stressed his role as only a constable or watchmen, his dominance in Parliament, creation of Baronages, and coronation in all but name at Westminster Abbey prove the extent of his power. However, his Puritanical views remained as staunch as ever and throughout the 1650s he introduced specific penalties for anyone holding clandestine Christmas services such as fines and even prison sentences, and ordered shops and markets to stay open on the 25th. In London, he went even further, ordering soldiers to patrol the streets and seize food from anyone preparing a Christmas feast. However, he did not feel that he himself had to adhere to such austere principles, enjoying hunting, feasting and musical celebrations, even holding a quasi-royal banquet for his daughter Elizabeth’s wedding. The banning of Christmas was extremely unpopular with ordinary people, for some because they harboured Catholic sympathies, but for most simply because they resented the removal of an opportunity to celebrate and have a week off work. Many con-
34
tinued to celebrate secretly, holding By Maddie McDonagh masses in houses or other public buildings, and others showed more open acts of defiance, as seen in 1656 when MPs complained that on the way to Parliament on the 25th December they heard ‘not a shop open, nor a creature stirring.’ When Parliament demanded shops stay open and public Christmas celebrations were banned there were violent clashes in many towns, including London, Canterbury and Norwich between Puritans and celebrators, demonstrating the divisions in English society at the time. When Cromwell died in 1658 and Charles II was invited to become King, the Directory of Public Worship and all the other legislation of the period 1642-60 was declared null and void. Charles’ restoration ushered in a new period of decadence and vibrancy in which people rejected Puritan ideals, and so Christmas was reborn with even more luxury, feasting and greed than before. Cromwell’s legacy has come to be one of tyranny, repression and, above all, failure, the man who overthrew the monarchy only for it to be restored, and the man who banned Christmas, only for it to bounce back ten times more extravagant. 35
Tudor Football...
It seems that across Europe, in this modern age, everybody is talking about one sport: the sport so fascinating it was named twice. Of course, I can only mean football - or soccer.
was no time limit (games could sometimes last for more than 24 hours), no rules, the pitch was sometimes a mile in length, endless fights broke out and, in some cases, people lost their lives. The rivalry between the villages made But when did this game become so popular? Well, let’s go back to Britain the West Ham vs Millwall derby look like puppies squabbling! Knives were in the 1500s when members of the kept in the players pockets and every public lived dangerously and passtimes were needed. Villages loved to single person from the village was incompete with one another other and volved. I don’t know why it was even originally competed in battle scenario remembered as football as the bladder could be thrown and carried, not just events such as archery until one day kicked. The game also had a “Capture someone spontaneously decided to cut out a pig’s bladder and smother it the flag” air to it as once somebody on your team received the bladder they in hair. This then created an oval-ish shape which could be kicked, thus cre- didn’t score by shooting into a net, ating the “beautiful game”. However, they scored by bringing the ball back Tudor football was not so beautiful; in to their own goal which was like a base. Even though the game was infact it was even uglier and more viocredibly fun for peasants it only haplent than modern day rugby! There 36
pened on certain days, one of which being Shrove Tuesday as a way of marking the religious occasion.
pass-times the world has ever seen claiming international recognition.
Unfortunately, football back then didn’t have the tendency to unite everyBy Jamie Keene one as it does today, the reason for this being it was only seen as a game for peasants (you would never see Henry VIII playing with a pig’s bladder, unless he was just about to eat it!!) whilst the upper class tended to play more civilised games such as Tennis. In 1540 the sport was banned by Henry VIII as he was concerned about the amount of casualties young men were experiencing and didn’t want a shortage of future servicemen. Some people even went so far as to publicly speak of their hatred for the game such as Thomas Eliot, a Puritan preacher who explained, in 1531, that football caused, “beastly fury and extreme violence”. Later on in 1572, the Bishop of Rochester wrote about the sport in his book ‘Anatomy of Abuses’ saying that it was an “evil game”.
Yet, the buzz of the game and the rivalry between villages made it irresistible and so the game continued and has grown into one of the most popular 37
What’s been happening...
Poetry Reading The Norman Re-enactment
New Vice President
Centenary Week
38
The Norman Re-enactment...
39
Winstanley College History Society 2014-2015… PRESIDENTS
Cameron Fleming & Zara Andrews
SOCIAL MEDIA
Harry Griffiths
HISORICAL DRAMA
Vanessa Holt
TOTAL WAR TOURNAMENTS!
Dominic Doran
HISTORY MAGAZINE COEDITORS
Maddie McDonagh &
MAGAZINE EDITORIAL TEAM
Keir Martland, Ethan Freeman, Elizabeth Cunliffe & Emma Porter
Sally Dickens
40