History society magazine christmas 2013 by Winstanley College

Christmas 2013 Edi on

Contents: Page 3……….Editorial Page 4……….Could There Be Another Adolf Hitler? Page 7……….The Islamic Revolution in Iran Page 11……….The End of Apar heid: Who Was Responsible? Page 14……….Did the Allies Cause World War Two? Page 17……….Mahat a Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’ Page 20………Wigan’s Roman Inheritance Page 22……..The Ba le of Staling ad: A Tur ing Point? Page 24…….Did Byzantine Aid Enable the Success of the First Cr sade? Page 26……..Life as an Infant

an in Napoleon’s Ar y

Page 28……..Meet Marc Mor is Page 30……..EXCLUSIVE Inter iew with Marc Mor is Page 32……..St dying Histor at the Universit of Bir ingham Page 33……….Meet the Histor Societ Page 34……...Histor Societ Events

Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of the au‐ thor, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its History Society

Editorial As 2014 draws ever nearer, the world is beginning to turn its attention to the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War One. Sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo, the death toll of civilians and servicemen during the war mounted 6 million. Somewhat naïvely, it was dubbed ‘the war to end all wars.’ The debate as to how the war should be remembered is ongoing – Jeremy Paxman recently sparked controversy by referring to David Cameron as a ‘complete idiot’ over his plans for the commemoration, saying ‘people get the idea that this is going to be celebrated’. There is, of course, a fine line between commemorating the bravery of soldiers, and the legacy of war, and appearing to ‘celebrate’ a conflict. This debate demonstrates the palpable presence of history on today’s society: as American author David McCullough pointed out, ‘a nation that forgets its past can function no better than an individual with amnesia’. In short, a nation’s very being is determined by its past.

don’t change the course of history by turning the faces of portraits to the wall’. This edition of the Winstanley History Magazine includes an incredible variety of articles, ranging from a fascinating insight into Wigan’s Roman Heritage, to a thought-provoking assessment of the scope for the rise of ‘another Adolf Hitler’. See Page 32 for a first hand account of what it’s really like to study History at degree level, written by exWinstanley student Ted Griffiths. Also in this edition, is an exclusive article with prominent historian Marc Morris, presenter of the BBC series ‘Castle’. Articles for publication in the Winstanley History Magazine are always welcomed; many thanks to those who have written for this edition! Enjoy! Phoebe McGibbon (Editor)

The debate concerning how the past should be commemorated is fraught with difficulties. In openly remembering the past, it’s easy to be seen as disrespectful, or insensitive. However, in not remembering the past, one can appear just as disrespectful, or even ignorant. In Israel, for example, the horrors of the Holocaust have been remembered through a silence on the annual Holocaust Memorial Day, since its instigation in 1951. More recently, Germany have begun to commemorate the loss of soldiers in World Wars One and Two. As hotly debated as this is, it is widely accepted that the past should be remembered, and, wherever possible, learnt from. But, as Jawaharlal Nehru explained, ‘you

Could There Be Another Adolf Hitler? By James Knowles

In this article, I aim to outline the various

6.4 billion in reparations, a reduction in

possibilities of another rise to power, like

the German army to 100,000 men, 6 bat-

Hitler’s, that could be so devastating it

tleships, no submarines and air force. In

could plunge the whole world into anoth-

addition, the de-militarisation of the

er war. For me, the two most current

Rhineland and the loss of key areas like

threats are North Korea and their constant

the Saar coalfields, Danzig and the Polish

threat on our allies, the United States of

Corridor had a large negative impact on

America; and also the situation in Syria.

the German people. Hitler despised this

Could the outbreak of civil war expand, as

and later vowed to rip up the treaty of

more and more countries debate and

Versailles - and that was a promise he

choose sides?

kept.

When studying Hitler’s rise, it is very

Post war Hitler began working for the po-

complex. His journey to totalitarianism

lice, spying on potentially ‘dangerous’ po-

wasn’t so easy. Most would argue that for

litical parties, however he found one to be

Hitler, this hunger for revenge began at

of particular interest… The N.S.D.A.P..

the end of the first world war, where the

This of course became the Nazi party. Hit-

Germans were forced to surrender, and

ler found some success, with his powerful

not only that, they were also forced to sign

and emotive speeches; these later become

and therefore accept the Treaty of Ver-

part of a monumental campaign, involv-

sailles. This forced Germany to pay a huge

ing Joseph Goebbels. As the party began to

grow, Hitler deployed the SA, SS and the

President Hindenburg had no choice, but

formidable Gestapo. These groups were his

to appoint Hitler, after increased election

personal bodyguard and secret police

successes for the Nazis.

force, all of which seem to be vital in any dictatorship.

All this, lead to start of the Second World War; and Hitler’s promises to the people of

It wasn’t all so easy for Hitler though, the

Germany were being kept. The lack of

failed ‘Beer-Hall’ Putsch of 1923 came as

punishment from the League of Nations on

a great shock for Hitler. It accentuated an

Germany meant Hitler could re-arm, take

arrogance about him, but also showed off

back the rhine-land, Sudetenland and

a lack of preparation. This saw him tried

continue his journey east to Poland, when

for treason and jailed. However another

Hitler attacked, Britain and France knew

powerful speech within the courtroom,

they had to step in.

managed to secure Hitler the empathy of the jury, as he blamed his need for a takeover, on the ‘November Criminals’ of 1918. He was ‘rewarded’ with large cell, allowed visits from influential Nazis, and was free to write his book- Mein Kampf. The book that outlined the threat of the Jews, the need to gain Libensraum (Living space) by expanding in the east, and the desire to rip up the treaty of Versailles.

The question is, nowadays, could this type of rise to power take place, unpunished, until it was too late? For me, currently there are two main threats to world safety, and they come from the current civil war in Syria, and the tyrannical leader ship in Korea of the seemingly volatile- Kim Jong Un. The Syrian threat is a strange one? If you compare this with the unrest in Germany before Hitler came to power, some

Power though, finally came in January

may argue similar, maybe worse? Bashar

1933, when Hitler was named chancellor

Al-Asad succeeded his father, Hafez Al-

of Germany. For Hitler, his hard work had

Asad, who led the county for thirty years.

paid off. The influential propaganda cam-

This country’s leadership is very much a

paign set up by Goebbles, involving torch

family affair. Hafez al-Asad prepared his

lit marches, posters, speeches and the pog-

son for leadership. It is the decline in hu-

rom of Jewish shops (Kristallnacht) all

man rights that catches the attention first.

aided Hitler’s campaign, along with the

Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia were

depression of 1929. The hyper-inflation

censored. Could this be compared to the

lead German people into desperation;

burning of Jewish books and censorship of

newspapers and radio broadcasts? More

Kim Jong Un is also similar to Hitler, with

recently however the chemical attack on

his extremely aggressive foreign policy.

civilians really caught the attention of two

The only difference is, Hitler promised,

of the major world powers, America and

and then executed; Kim on the other hand,

Russia. This is where the main threat came

has only threatened Missile strikes on The

from, Russia are Syrian allies and America

United States of America and disavowed

threatened to fire miles in order to punish

armistice with South Korea. I say ‘only’ as

Asad and his regime for using chemical

its only hypothetical threats, but how seri-

weapons on the civilians, Russia were pre-

ous is the Korean leader? Hitler certainly

pared to step in and stop the Americans. It

was very serious with his threats on the

is questionable if this old rivalry could re-

lost countries from the Treaty of Versailles,

emerge and could these countries have

but should this modern day threat be con-

more international disputes?

sidered serious?

The other threat, in my opinion, comes

To conclude, the debate is still open. The

from North Korea. Similar to the Syrian

policy off appeasement by the then world

rise to power, the Korean is another suc-

powers would not work today and is not

cession of leadership. The current leader

tolerated, Syria is a great example, where

Kim Jong Un, seems to be a lot more radi-

the leader Gadaffi was running a regime

cal, not just with his propaganda, but his

unacceptable to run in junction with hu-

threats on foreign countries. The dictator-

man rights, Nato got involved and he was

ship seems a lot more totalitarian in North

stopped. The League of Nations back then

Korea, than the government that leads

continued to let Adolf Hitler off, and the

Syria. The obvious reason being the people

sanctions imposed upon Germany had lit-

aren’t fighting back in North Korea,

tle effect as Hitler was so driven and intent

whereas in Syria they are? This didn’t

on revenge. If these strikes were to happen

seem to happen in Germany back When

from North Korea, or the civil war contin-

Hitler had secured the chancellor position.

ues, I feel the world powers of today

The control of the people along with their

(America, China, and Russia) would have

indoctrination is seemingly key to a suc-

to step in and due to their severe powers,

cessful dictatorship. The North Korean

the trouble would be stopped, and another

people are forced to sing Pro Kim-Jong Un

Hitler would be easily preventable.

songs, to make sure they avoid disrespecting their ‘great’ leader.

Was Western involvement responsible for Iran’s Islamic Revolution? By Peter Lyon

The 1979 Iranian Revolution took many international observers by surprise. It bore none of the hallmarks of a typical uprising; there was no financial crisis or military defeat. Instead, it was a spontaneous religious revolt against an oppressive monarch. It had wide-ranging consequences for the region, including the Iraq-Iran war and United States foreign policy. Perhaps more importantly, it resulted in today’s Islamic regime, which has pursued a nuclear programme to international condemnation. So what caused this revolution? The failing economy, conservative disgruntlement with the secularising regime and incidents of political oppression were all significant, but fundamentally it represented widespread anger at continued British and American involvement in Iran, particularly in relation to the 1954 coup. The Iranian people overwhelmingly viewed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a puppet controlled by the US, and this ultimately led to his downfall.

First of all, it is necessary to understand the history of Western participation in Iranian politics. Influence in Iran was appealing to the United States and Britain due to its oil fields, as well as its border with Russia, which made Iran strategically important during the Great Game and the Cold War. Examples of Britain seeking to exert influence on Iran in the face of Russian expansion and regional fighting include the Anglo-Persian War of 185657, the Reuter Concession and the creation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1908 to control the newly discovered oil fields. The Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-07, leading to the establishment of an elected Parliament, was a reaction to ever-growing British control of the Tehran government. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the British feared a Red Army advance on Iran and helped Reza Kahn come to power in a coup d’état in 1921. A 1932 British Embassy document, supported by the memoirs of Anthony Eden, states that Britain put Reza

Kahn “on the throne.” Reza Shah implemented policies in line with AngloAmerican interests. Nevertheless, Reza Shah’s rule came to an abrupt end during the Second World War. The security of supply routes through Iran was crucial to the Allied war effort and in 1941, following the Shah’s refusal to annex Iranian Azerbaijan to the Soviet Union, the Allies occupied the country. Reza Shah’s perceived friendliness with the Axis Powers led him to be ousted by the Allies in favour of his son. On the whole, the Iranian public viewed the Second World War as a foreign conflict and the British occupation was met with widespread dismay as yet another unwanted intervention. After the war, Iran became united in the desire for a future decided by Iranians alone. Yet ten years later their hopes were dashed when the US Central Intelligence Agency instigated a coup to overthrow their democratically elected government. In 1951, the public’s outrage towards ongoing British control of oil revenues led the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, to nationalise the oil industry. The British, infuriated, banned sugar and steel exports to Iran, along with the import of Iranian oil, crippling the Iranian economy. President Truman was sympathetic to the Iranians, but, claiming that the Soviets were looking to expand into Iran and fearing a Communist Revolution, Britain persuaded his successor Eisenhower to commit to a coup d’état in 1953. Yet the historian Gasiorowski claims that the CIA had been “carrying out covert activities” in Tehran against Mosaddegh since the summer of 1952. In any case, with the Shah’s agreement, the coup was carried out, Mo-

saddegh imprisoned and many activists killed. The details of the coup reflect the Americans rather unfavourably. Iranian businessmen, journalists, mandarins and street thugs were bribed in an effort to engineer social unrest. Several members of the new government, including the Prime Minister, General Zahedi, had had links with the Nazis. The CIA sent Norman Schwarzkopf to train the security forces, who would become the notorious SAVAK secret police. It appears that the Eisenhower administration had resolved to do whatever it took to ensure the Shah stayed in power. The Iranian public came to believe that their leader was beholden to a foreign regime intent on destroying the country’s culture and democracy, and that it was necessary to rise up and take the country back. At the heart of the Iranian Revolution was a nationalist movement, fundamentally opposed to the influence of the West in Iran. One of the revolutionaries’ key aims was to prevent the political, economic and cultural “plundering” of Iran by foreigners. The impact of the long -running interference by two countries with cultures incomparable with Iran cannot be underestimated. On the other hand, it could be said that the ambition of the Pahlavi dynasty for a secular Iran in itself angered the largely Islamist Iranian public. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi extended his father’s secularisation policy, falling out of favour with the religious population. His White Revolution of 1963 (a series of modernising policy changes) offended some Shi’a clerics as it undermined the social status of clergy, gave women the vote and allowed religious minorities to hold office. The popularity of

Ayatollah Khomeini increased after his arrest in 1963 for publicly denouncing the Shah as a “wretched, miserable man” who had “embarked on the destruction of Islam in Iran.” Many Iranians came behind his vision of a theocracy based on Sharia Law and the guardianship of senior clerical jurists. An efficient network of religious opposition developed, spreading books and sermons. In 1976 the government ended the use of the Islamic calendar to the indignation of religious leaders. Widespread protests commenced shortly after the deaths of the popular Islamist leader Ali Shariati and the son of Khomeini, Mostafa. However, this aspect of Iranian history relating to secularisation is of lesser importance, considering the fact that there was no revolt during the 1930s when Reza Shah pursued a more aggressive secularisation programme. Perhaps more significant was the charisma and shrewdness of Ayatollah Khomeini in uniting the disparate political groups behind his Islamist ideas. Regardless, the root of the move towards a secular state was the influence of the United States. The Shah’s close alliance with the liberal President Jimmy Carter was certainly a key trigger to the religious protests of the late 1970s. A third cause of the 1979 Islamic Revolution was the failure of the regime to allow for political debate, instead suppressing dissidents through the SAVAK secret police – described as “Iran’s most hated and feared institution” – which executed over 100 political opponents. The security forces responded to protests using live ammunition, most notoriously on 9 September 1978 (Black Friday). Although this authoritarianism angered some revolutionaries, for the most part it came to an

end after Carter came to power in 1977, so it was probably not a major cause of the revolution. The Shah’s focus of repression towards the Communist Tudeh Party possibly left a gap for the Khomeini’s religious groups to break through. This point reflects the incompetence of the Shah in running government. He insisted on signing inconsequential legislation, instead of leading the country at a time of social unrest. His growing reclusiveness was primarily due to declining health from cancer. He was also paranoid of being forced out by some ministers and often dismissed officials at random. Moreover, he was seen as living an extravagant lifestyle with no consideration for poorer Iranians. For example, $100 million was spent on the 2500th anniversary of the Iranian monarchy in 1971. Students and liberals were particularly critical of the rise in social injustice and income inequality. He also failed to court the traditional business leaders, the baazari, who criticised the regime for the failing economy. The government’s increased reliance on oil (79% of total government revenue by 1977) led to a large trade deficit and rural industries suffered. In 1974, the regime ambitiously attempted to meet oil expectations raised by the effect of the Yom Kippur War on other oil supplies. Yet this move failed and squandered valuable resources. The economy declined in 1977 -78 causing shortages, inflation and austerity measures. Certainly, this contraction was a trigger for the protests, although it would be wrong to imply that an improved economy was the demonstrators’ principal demand. That said, Khomeini used the recession as a way of furthering his own political message of a better

future. Overall, the American policy of interference in Iran, mainly during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi created an image in Iran of the Shah as a tyrannical US puppet who had contempt for the Iranian religious population. Still, an ongoing theme is the success of the Ayatollah in inspiring many Iranians to fight the regime. The failing economy, social injustice, government inefficiency and suppression of protests were not irrelevant but their significance to the 1979 revolt is small compared to the legacy of Western interference for many decades, most importantly the 1953 Iran coup, which only succeeded in turning the Iranian people against Western powers.

The End of Apartheid: Who Was Responsible? By Alex Gore

68 Years Later: Did Germany Really Lose The War?

Throughout history there have been many protagonists which certain events have been revolved around. Most often the end of apartheid is seen as the sole work of Nelson Mandela; which is usually due to the hype made by the press at the time. But in fact contrary to popular belief ‐ Mandela was not the sole person who brought the end to the mighty venomous apartheid laws which were placed upon the people of South Africa. Since the Dutch and British presence in South Africa, the native Africans have been treated as second class citizens by Afrikaners. When the African Nationalist Party came to power in 1948, they brought a campaign which was known as Apartheid. The Apartheid laws separated the majority Black Africans and the white minority. This completely changed the lives of Black South Africans. For example; Black South Africans were divided into re‐

gions. These regions were known as town‐ ships, townships had awful living condi‐ tions. These Townships were over‐ crowded and disease often spread very easily in these townships, only making liv‐ ing conditions worse for the native Afri‐ cans. One of the biggest economic factors which aﬀected the Black South Africans most was the job opportunities ‐ these job opportunities were highly sought after, but most often hard to find. Most people had to travel from a popular township re‐ gion called Soweto to Johannesburg every day to work (this would be approximately from Winstanley College to Manchester Airport). By introducing these laws it made sure that the Native Africans were constantly under control by the Afrikan‐ ers. Mandela was introduced to the anti‐ apartheid movement when he met Walter Sisulu in 1944. Mandela and Sisulu formed

the youth league which was a branch of the ANC (African National Congress). The ANC are a political party in South Africa, which was originally set up to bring down apartheid laws. In 1951 Mandela was elect‐ ed president of the ANC, where he led peaceful protests and talks raising aware‐ ness of apartheid. When Mandela was arrested he used his trial as an opportunity to spread the anti‐ apartheid movement and after this speech he became a figurehead of the anti‐ apartheid movement. He stated to the world that he was “prepared to die” before he would give up trying to end apartheid. This speech motivated and inspired hun‐ dreds of people to fight against the racist government in South Africa at the time, the way that Mandela spread the word of the anti‐apartheid movement is one of the main ways in which he helped the cause. After Mandela was released in 1990, he became involved in negotiations to end apartheid. His role in these final stages was vital and he played a huge role. He and F.W. De Klerk (who was the president at the time) came to an agreement that the ANC and the African Nationalist Party should share power for five years and then after this period there would be an elec‐ tion. In this election the ANC won full power, with Mandela as the leader. Man‐ dela's appointment as president was cele‐ brated across the whole world, as this was a step forward in the movement against racism. This is one way that Mandela's role wasn't exaggerated by the press, as he was recognised by the world for his role in the end of apartheid resulting in him gain‐ ing a Noble Peace Prize. Some would ar‐ gue that De Klerk’s contribution was more

substantial than Mandela’s. In February 1990, De Klerk lifted the ban on anti‐ apartheid organisations, which made or‐ ganisations like the ANC illegal. In May of that same year, De Klerk ended the Groups Areas Act; The Land Act; the popu‐ lation Registration Act. By ending these apartheid laws De Klerk lost members of his government party and lots of Afrikan‐ ers trust, but that didn't stop De Klerk. De Klerk went ahead with ending these laws regardless of the stigma which he would face, this shows that De Klerk felt strongly that South Africa had to move forward in order to progress as a society. This shows that the role of Mandela has been exag‐ gerated as De Klerk did have an important role as he weakened the apartheid laws himself and without De Klerk then Man‐ dela wouldn't have been released from prison at all. Another person which played a major part in the end of apartheid was; Desmond Tu‐ tu, he was a Bishop at the time of the Apartheid laws. Tutu used his position in the church to travel around the world (a privilege that other black South Africans would not have had). While travelling around the world he spread the word of apartheid and the perils that apartheid brought to thousands of South Africans. Tutu never promoted violence and he nev‐ er claimed to be a political leader. Because Tutu was not a political leader and he was a key figure in the church, the government couldn't send him to prison like they would do with other activists. After the Soweto riots, Tutu organised a peaceful march which brought 30,000 South Afri‐ cans onto the streets of Cape Town. I think Tutu didn't play a major role in the role in

the physical end of apartheid, but he did play a huge role in bringing awareness of apartheid to the world. And the result of this was that people then knew the harsh living environments that people were liv‐ ing in. This makes me think that Mandela's role was exaggerated because Tutu's role was fundamental in bringing awareness of apartheid to the world, which then conse‐ quently would have meant that other countries would have started to apply pressure to South Africa to end apartheid. Many people believe that the ANC was the only anti‐apartheid movement, but there are lots of other organisations who were vital in the end of Apartheid.

tion of events and people who brought peace finally to South Africa after many years of hardship. It was only Mandela who in the final stages was a key negotia‐ tor finalising the transition from anti‐ apartheid laws to a free country. Although Mandela's role was undeniably exaggerat‐ ed ‐ the accomplishments he has complet‐ ed throughout his life cannot be discredit‐ ed, resulting in Mandela being always re‐ membered for the amazing things he has done in aiding those who were a part of a minority group of society.

Allan Boesak was a minister of the Dutch reformed church. In 1983 Boesak suggest‐ ed that all anti‐apartheid groups should come together to form one organisation, which was called the UDF. The UDF was an umbrella organisation, with 700 anti‐ apartheid organisations branching oﬀ from it. The UDF was the largest and most powerful organisation in South Africa, this was vital in showing how South Africa could come together and unite. I believe that the UDF was vital in the end of South Africa because it showed to the govern‐ ment at the time how black people could work together to reach a common goal. This makes me think that Mandela’s role was indeed exaggerated as Boesak played a major role in ending apartheid by creat‐ ing the UDF. Many people despite the evidence pre‐ sented, still believe that Mandela was the sole person who brought an end to the apartheid system. However, I believe that it wasn't just Mandela but an accumula‐

Did the Allies Cause WW2? By Zara Andrews Historically, Britain and France declared war on Germany on the 3rd of September 1939 a er Hitler invaded Poland two days before. The fundamental reason for World War II by major historians such as AJP Taylor and Allan Bullock has been o en been seen as Hitler’s aggression was the catalyst of the inevitable war to come. The best quote of this is from the historian Donald Wa in 1989 who describes, ‘In the end the war was Hitler's war. It was not perhaps the war he wanted. But it was the war that he was prepared to risk, if he had to.’ However things are not as they seem; to solely blame Hitler would mean pu ng 50 million deaths on his heavy shoulders, not including the 10,860,000 deaths that were prosecuted in the Holocaust which already hang heav‐ ily on him in hell. Alterna vely, the blame can be balanced out onto the shoulders of the Allies; America, Canada, Rus‐ sia, China, Britain and France. Each in their own way con‐ tributed to the lead up to the Second World War, o en through the own self‐interests of their leaders. The underlying reason for many conflicts during the inter war years has o en been due to high debt and poor econo‐ mies in countries, an example of this can be seen in the Manchurian Crisis in 1931. The 29th of October 1929 has always been iconically presented as the day of the Wall Street Crash which plummeted Northern America alongside Europe and Asia into the economic Depression. Japan in par cular was badly hit by the Depression through exports decreasing by 50% from 1929 to 1930 causing their industry to fall to the brink of collapse. Due to this crisis, Japan’s

primary concern became their lack of resources and build‐ ing space. Many of the resources that Japan exported came from Manchuria (belonging to China), which was transport‐ ed by the Manchurian railway (owned by the Japanese). The financial crisis in Japan caused alarm, crea ng a need for more land. A er allega ons that the Chinese had tried to blow up part of the railway in Mukden the Japanese invad‐ ed Manchuria. Within five months of invading the Japanese had gained the whole of Manchuria, se ng up a puppet Government to rule there. The significance of this is that it determined the weaknesses of the League of Na ons therefore implica ng Britain and France. The pressing problem of Britain was that there was an unwillingness to act (mainly due to the government wan ng isola on from the rest of Europe); a refusal to use the Royal Navy to blockade ports in Manchuria would have caused the invasion of Manchuria to be worthless. Similarly, major countries such as Russia and America had not joined the League meaning that military force could not be used to force Japan out of Manchuria. It also implicated that whilst the League of Na ons imposed sanc ons on trade with Ja‐ pan, it was s ll able to trade with its main trading partner, America. A full year a er the invasion, a report by the League of Na ons was published, sta ng that Japan should leave Manchuria. A Special Assembly of the League of Na‐ ons was held to vote on the issue, in January 1932, with only Japan vo ng against leaving Manchuria. In reac on to this the Japanese simply decided to leave the League of Na ons, announcing further plans to invade more parts of China. Overall, the dysfunc on of the Allies in their incapa‐

15 bility to work together allowed Japan to become a greater power, gaining military experience as well as crea ng war with China. Furthermore, on the 23rd of March 1933 Hitler himself was able to ascend to power through the Great Depression which had gripped the Northern Hemisphere. In Germany especially where millions of people had become unem‐ ployed and hyperinfla on had made money worthless, with so li le money the repara ons of £22 billion that were be‐ ing paid only increased tensions. The Treaty of Versailles was o en described by the Germans as a ‘diktat’ (meaning dictated peace); along with the repara ons there was the War Guilt in Ar cle 231, entailing that Germany had accept full responsibility for World War One. Another ar cle of the treaty seized land away from Germans, giving it to other countries who had been aﬀected by the war. Most signifi‐ cantly, Alsace‐Lorraine was given back to France, however land was also given to Austria (displacing 5 million Germans) and Germany was split by the Polish Corridor to weaken it. This unjust treatment to specifically the Germans caused widespread anger by them over the Treaty of Versailles, allowing Hitler to become a prominent figure in the inter‐ years of war. Thereby implying that Britain, France and America’s involvement in the Treaty did go some way to causing the outbreak of World War II. The backset of the economic Depression allowed Hitler to come to power through the chancellor of March 1930 was Heinrich Bruning who opted to increase taxes and imple‐ ment wage cuts. In the July 1932 the Nazis won 230 seats a er promises to increase the high unemployment as well as reverse the Treaty of Versailles. Historian Alan Bullock views that Hitler’s charisma allowed him to seize advantage of the power struggle between Von Schleicher and Von Pa‐ pen for Chancellor of Germany, eﬀec vely handing over power to Hitler in 1933. Immediately a er being given pow‐ er it is well known that Hitler ordered the rearming of Ger‐ many, even though as part of the Treaty of Versailles Ger‐ many was meant to stay disarmed. The rearmament of Ger‐ many’s army was well known and was, in fact, encouraged par cularly by the Bri sh. The Anglo‐German Naval Agree‐ ment was signed on June 18th of 1935 to allow Germans to increase their navy by 35%. Crucially, if this agreement had not been made it would have enabled the French and Bri sh to react to the rearming with a jus fied manor. Yet by suppor ng Hitler in rearming it meant that France would have not had the support of Britain if they protested. Already by 1935 there was a clear problem with many of the Allies coping with inter‐rela ons. Eminently, the lack of collabora on between France and Britain is the main prob‐ lem. Similarly, problems in collabora on by League of Na‐ ons between America and Russia created the case of ap‐

peasement and beli lement of power. The best example of this is in 1935 during the Abyssinian Crisis. The Italian dicta‐ tor, Benito Mussolini, saw this problem in the Northern Hemisphere, and took advantage of it, commen ng at the League of Na ons once, ‘The League is very well when spar‐ rows shout, but no good when eagles fall.’ The invasion of Abyssinia was carried out by Mussolini a er (on November 22nd 1934) the Italian fort at Wal Wal was surrounded by 1,000 Abyssinian soldiers who ordered the garrison be re‐ turned to the Abyssinians. Both Abyssinia and Italy were original members of the League of Na ons, so France and Britain had to get involved as prominent members in the league. A er a small me of peace on January the 25th it was reported that 5 Italian soldiers had been killed near to the base at Wal Wal. When full scale war began, Haile Sailessie (Emperor of Abyssinia) asked the League for help. However instead of helping Abyssinia, Britain pulled its navy out of the Mediterranean Sea to allow the full scale invasion to go ahead. Moreover, the invasion had to cross down the Suez Canal which was owned by France and Britain. The historian R.J.B Bosworth says in his biography about Musso‐ lini, ‘Mussolini knew that, in pressing on with an adventure in Ethiopia, he was risking much. The lack of detailed plan‐ ning was also evidence of the inadequacy and danger of charisma c decision’. Inferring from this extract, if Britain and France had chosen to close the Suez Canal the invasion would have halted and Mussolini would have been unsuc‐ cessful as well as humiliated. Furthermore, it would have meant that Hitler would not have looked to Mussolini as a poten al ally so would have broken down the Axis before they had formed. Another historian, Buchanan supports this theory in his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War in saying that the sanc ons by the League of Na ons drove Fascist Italy into an alliance with Nazi Germany .Therefore Britain and France can be seen as a fundamental ally to causing World War II. In contrast though, it was not completely France and Brit‐ ain’s fault. The Abyssinian Crisis mirrors the invasion of Lib‐ ya by Gioli (five mes Prime Minister of Italy) from the 29th September 1911 to 8th October 1912 as a post‐war in‐ vasion to gain land before a serious World War. This warn‐ ing of another World War was probably not seen at the me by most countries, although possibly by France. During the Abyssinian Crisis there were sanc ons put in place by members of the League however there was a refusal on coal sanc ons by Britain as it would have meant that 300,000 jobs would have been lost. Another reason for the ineﬀec‐ veness of sanc ons was that France saw Italy as a poten‐ al ally against Germany, most famously the Hoare –Laval Pact allowed Mussolini two thirds of Abyssinia in return for appeasement. This ul mately never came to pass due to being leaked by press, crea ng public outrage. Meanwhile,

16 all the me in America the sales of arms to Italy were in‐ creasing. A er frustra ng talks with the League of Na ons the result was that America only further increased its sales, making sanc ons completely ineﬀec ve. The disarray was only further added to when in 1936 Hitler ordered the rearmament of the Rhineland. The significance of this in the lead up to World War II was that Hitler ad‐ mi ed that, ‘If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tail between our legs.’ France’s refusal to act without the support of Britain and Britain’s refusal to act meant that Hitler was enabled to gain the confidence he needed to be able to later progress onwards to his Anschluss with Austria, the invasion of the Sudetenland then Czechoslovakia and causing the unneces‐ sary war by invading Poland on the 1st of September 1939. This was a domino eﬀect which could have easily been halt‐ ed at the rearming of the Rhineland with no causali es. The Abyssinian crisis was s ll centre stage in the world, but this new threat caused France to panic. This me though France did not ally with Russia (like previous to WWI at the threat of Germany) because of fear of communism. On the other hand, the growing threat of Hitler in Nazi Ger‐ many also caused Russia to look for alliances against Ger‐ many. Repeatedly the Bri sh refused any alliance with the Communist enemy, both Lord Halifax and Lord Chamberlain declined. Moreover, when Lord Halifax (reluctantly) actually tried to create an alliance between the USSR and Britain, Stalin opposed it as a trick. Already it could be seen that an alliance with Britain would have meant war for Russia either way as Hitler aimed to destroy Communism. The conflict between Britain and the USSR meant that there was dys‐ func on and controversy on how to actually control Germa‐ ny, pushing Stalin instead to make the Nazi‐Soviet Pact in 1939. This pact was overall more preferable to the USSR as it had the secret promise of spli ng Poland into two, mean‐ ing a gain of land as well as immediate war with Hitler to be avoided. Alterna vely, this also led to Hitler’s push to in‐ vade Poland on the 1st of September, to create the ul mate Second World War as a result. Perhaps most ironically, the country that claimed to have saved Britain from losing the Second World War can be also seen as the underlying reason to why it happens. The Eco‐ nomic Depression led to the Manchurian crisis, the rise of Hitler, the Abyssinian crisis and the Second World War. Yet it was ironically caused by America; previous to the Wall Street Crash, the 1920s is well known as the ‘Boom’. Mass produc on first came to industry lines with Henry Ford us‐ ing it to create the ‘Tin Lizzy’. In 1927, the 15th million ‘T Model Ford’ was produced. The first sound movie was pro‐ duced in 1927, giving way to famous stars such as Charlie Chaplin. Ordinary people could buy shares in businesses and

‘buy on the margin’ to make quick money from profitable industries. The only problem at the me was the Canadian farmers who had developed high efficiency wheat which had a high crop yield so could be sold far cheaper than American wheat. Unfortunately, everything changed when people who could afford to, had bought modern luxuries such as radios and refrigerators. Near to the end of the 1920s a surplus of luxu‐ ries began to build up at factories, these goods were unable to be sold to other countries due to tariffs which had been placed on American goods. The sudden drop in industry meant that millions of people went out of work, leaving many s ll needing to pay off mortgages and money bor‐ rowed. People who had been ‘buying on the margin’ saw their shares in companies significantly drop and major banks became bust as a result. Panic selling became an im‐ mediate concern as people tried to sell their worthless shares, causing the Wall Street Crash by Black Thursday and Black Tuesday. This consequently engulfed the Northern Hemisphere also into the Economic Depression too. The highly effec ve Canadian wheat alongside the Dust Bowls caused a large amount of American farmers to move to Cali‐ fornia in a search for a be er life. Overall, therefore the crea on on the Boom in America and the Wall Street Crash that was created by it causes America to take a significant amount of the blame for the crea on of the Second World War. To conclude, the Allies did help to cause World War II. Alt‐ hough countries such as Canada have a far smaller role to play in crea ng the Second World War. The crea on of the Second World War should not be blamed fundamentally on Hitler, or likewise the Axis but on also the Allies. America plays the most powerful role in contribu ng to the cause of the Second World War. The Wall Street Crash’s global effect far outweighs any other cause, yet it is worsened by Ameri‐ ca’s refusal to join the League of Na ons. Following suit, the second main responsibility of crea ng the Second World War falls onto the dysfunc on of Britain and France in their inability to work together. Repeatedly they do not work together in crises which could have been stopped, the best example being the Suez Canal in the Abyssinian Crisis. Moreover, Lord Halifax’s incapability to work with the USSR to defend against the growing Nazi Germany means that there was no solidarity formed. Countries such as China and the USSR also contributed to crea ng World War II perhaps most significantly in the Manchurian Crisis which caused Japan to find allies in Germany and Italy. To sum then, the Allies are just as much at fault for the crea on of the Se‐ cond World War as the Axis.

Mahatma Ghandi: ‘My Life is My Message’

By Phoebe McGibbon As Sir Walter Romilly once commented in the House of Commons, when people think of great and successful men, they tend to think of men like Napoleon: men of war, violence and conquest. There is perhaps no greater antithesis to the man Romilly describes, than Mahatma Gandhi. A tireless fighter, a man of irresolute conviction, Gandhi’s battle was fought with truth, hope and compassion. The small Indian man dressed in flip-flops and loin cloth remains arguably one of the greatest statesmen of the 19th Century, and reminds us that, as he once said himself, ‘in a gentle way, you can shake the world’. Mohandas Gandhi (the term Mahatma actually means ’great soul’ and was acquired later) was born in the coastal town of Porbandar, India on October 2nd 1869. In keeping with his father’s Hindu beliefs, Gandhi was married at the age of just thirteen to Kasturbai Makhanji. Their marriage lasted until her death in 1944.

Although he showed no real academic flair at school, Gandhi’s father wished him to train as a barrister, so that he would be able to take up his own post as Chief Minister of Porbandar. In 1888, Gandhi travelled to University College London to read law and jurisprudence (theory of law), and in 1891 trained as a Barrister. In 1893, at the age of twenty four, Gandhi travelled to South Africa, where he was employed by an Indian law firm, as a legal representative for Muslim Indian traders based in Pretoria. He was appalled by the treatment of Indian immigrants in South Africa, and, being coloured himself, suffered discrimination and humiliation. When he had first arrived in South Africa, Gandhi was forcefully thrown from a train at Pietermaritzburg, having refused to leave the first class compartment for which he had purchased a ticket blacks were not permitted there. He was also barred from hotel rooms on several occasions, and beaten for refusing to remove his turban. Gandhi’s experiences in South Africa shaped his ideals in the years to come, and aroused

the political activist within him. For twenty years, he joined with the Indian immigrants in South Africa, in their attempts to win basic rights. Seen as a danger, Gandhi was imprisoned several times whilst in South Africa. Here began his commitment to satyagraha’ (truth). This was the basis for his non-violent activism in the years to come; an unusual combinatiton of Hindu, Christian and Muslim ideals. The values Gandhi held are held by many strong and powerful men - a devotion to truth, a dislike of violence and an ultimate aim to bring about love, are arguably human values. But few would be able to remain true to these values in light of such persecution and opposition. Most men hold these ideas, and indeed profess to believe in them, but when put to the test, would succumb to violent retaliations. Gandhi’s human values, coupled with his almost superhuman strength of character, present a baffling paradox. In 1914, Gandhi’s efforts were rewarded: the South African government conceded to his demands for the increased rights of Indian immigrants. Indian immigrants in South Africa were thereafter granted citizenship. Soon after this victory, Gandhi returned to India, carrying his experiences of South Africa with him. But Gandhi had been involved in more than just politics. Whilst in South Africa, he had read many religious texts, developing a childhood interest. Although raised as a Hindu, Gandhi’s beliefs reflected a mixture of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. Soon after returning to India, Gandhi realised that Indians could never truly have equality within their own country, until they cast away the rule of the British Empire. Although he believed that the British colonial influence was a positive one, he saw the ever increasing necessity for independence. By 1920, Gandhi was an internationally recognised figure in Indian politics. Having largely won the support

of the Indian National Congress (where his understanding of both Hinduism and Islam was of huge benefit), his non-violent refusal to co-operate led to thousands of arrests. However, even at the Amritsar Massacre; an attack by British troops on Gandhi’s supporters, Gandhi instructed his supporters to make no violent retaliation. He explained simply, that, ‘an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.’ In 1922, Gandhi was imprisoned for two years, seen as a threat to the British Empire (his initial sentence had been six years). For a while, he faded from the political limelight, choosing to devote his time to the improvement of Hindu Muslim relations. However, in 1930, Gandhi led the largest organised challenge to British authority in India; a symbolic, non-violent protest against British Salt Tax Policies: The Salt Satyagraha, commonly known as ’The Salt March’. Gandhi marched 240 miles over 24 days, supported by over 80’000 Indians. Upon reaching the sea at Dandi, Gandhi and his followers produced salt from the sea-water without paying the tax. Gandhi was arrested once again at midnight on the 5th May 1930. When World War Two broke out in 1939, Gandhi was once again prominent in Indian politics. Initially having been in favour of offering Britain ‘non-violent moral support’, Gandhi soon became disillusioned with this course of action. He realised that India could not support a war in which Britain was fighting for a democratic freedom she would not allow India herself. As the war continued, Gandhi’s demands for Indian independence became ever louder, until, in August 1942, Gandhi and the entire Congress were arrested by the British at Bombay. Gandhi was released from prison in 1944, following a malaria attack. The British understood that should Gandhi die in prison,

Indians would be furious. In 1945, shortly after victory in the war, Britain declared that power would be transferred to Indian hands. On the 15th August 1947, the Indian Independence Act was finally invoked. The battle was won. But India’s troubles were not at an end. The Mountbatten Plan of June 1947 created a partition between the new Muslim country, Pakistan, and the Hindu country, India: the creation of two independent states. Gandhi himself had been opposed to partition, foreseeing the tensions it would cause. Violence erupted between Indians and Hindus, and in an attempt to ease the troubles, Gandhi himself fasted. A frail, elderly man; the Bapu (father) of India, Gandhi refused to eat until the fighting and killing stopped.

the world. India gained independence, Britain lost one of her major imperial colonies. And the world saw a small man dressed in his famous loin cloth, standing beside international statesmen; having won the respect and love of his own country, and the rest of the world. The tale of Gandhi’s achievements is a beautiful one: it is incredible that this one man was able to lead his country to freedom from the British Empire, never once resorting to violence. As Albert Einstein once said, ’generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood’.

It is perhaps arguable, up to this point, that Gandhi was merely the face and figurehead of the campaign for Indian independence, and that another leader could have stepped into the breach at any point. However, following the Mountbatten Plan of 1947, and the violence that ensued, it was purely India’s love for Mahatma Gandhi that brought peace. The people ended their fighting to save the life of their leader, their ‘father’. After ending his fast, Gandhi worked for the rest of his days to bring harmony between Hindus and Muslims throughout India and Pakistan. He was assassinated in New Delhi on 30th January 1948 by a Hindu fanatic, who felt betrayed by Gandhi’s willingness to engage and co-operate with Muslims. Almost 100 years since Gandhi’s first victory in South Africa, his legacy remains unparalleled. In 2013, India’s economy is blossoming. Although currently an uneasy hybrid of commercial cities and poverty-stricken slums, India is set to rise as a major world influence in the coming years. Gandhi quite simply, changed

Wigan’s Roman Inheritance By Nathaniel Lamb

Voguing: Standing Out to Fit In If you come from Wigan, like me, reading this may give you a new sense of pride. Either way, it might surprise you. Looking at it now, Wigan, a place with its history rooted firmly in industry, seems one of the most unlikely candidates for a Roman settlement. But, in the last couple of years, archaeologist have found heaps of evidence to suggest otherwise. For a long time now, there have been a decently large amount of findings to suggest Wigan had a Roman past, but it is only recently that some experts have had enough confidence to conclude that Wigan was the Roman station of Coccium. This minor settlement called Coccium has always had a certain mystery about it. It was mentioned only once in the Antonine Itinerary (a register of all the roads, cities, towns and other settlements in the Roman empire), and was noted as being 17 miles from Mancunium (Roman Manchester) and 20 miles from Bremetenacum (Roman Ribchester). As it turns out, the distances match up quite well with modern-day Wigan. Still, it was the results of numerous digs that set this theory in stone for many people. In 2008, an excavation near to George street, Incein-makerfield, was the trigger for much excitement within the Wigan archaeological society. There, in the dig site, at about 1m deep, a large band of gravel, clay, cobble and flat stone was found. For those working the site, this all pointed towards one thing -- a Roman road. A spokesman noted that, as the exposed section was 4.5m wide,

assuming the thickest end is the centre, the road could be around 9m wide. Encouragingly, Edmund Sibson, a local Reverend in the 19th century, traced three Roman roads into Wigan, one of which passed very close to George street. Vast amounts of artefacts were uncovered well before this discovery, which probably inspired archaeologists to look further. In 1822, Roman cremation urns were found during the gas-works construction, suggesting it was the location of a Roman cemetery. When the Parish Church was rebuilt in 1846, a Roman altar was found beneath the High altar. Roman coins, such as a hoard of 137 silver were stumbled-upon near the Boar’s Head Inn, in 1926. Even a rare gold coin of the emperor Vitellius was found in Mesnes park, during 1850. Yet, it wasn’t until the early 1980s, when excavations took place in Wiend, that Wigan’s real Roman heritage became fully apparent. Manchester University spent two seasons revealing strong evidence of metalworking and militarystyle wooden buildings. By this time, it was was finally conclusive, Wigan was settled by Roman invaders. Further still, in late November of 2004, sites of archaeological interest were investigated again. Evidence quickly emerged of extensive Roman occupation from as early as the 2nd century AD. Samian-ware (Roman pottery) of fine quality was discovered in plentiful amounts this time, and excavation work continued for months.

However, none of these finds come close to what was unearthed in early 2005, and that’s why I’ve decided to leave the best till last. As work continued, Oxford Archaeology North team (the team working the dig sites in Wigan, at this time) unearthed something extraordinary. A well-intact, Roman hypocaust. This was essentially the Roman equivalent of underfloor central heating, formed of a stone floor suspended on pillars made from stacked brick tiles. When these were in use, hot air from a furnace room was forced under the floor and rose through box flues built into the walls of the building. For the Archaeologists, this was all the evidence they needed to confirm their beliefs; they had uncovered a Roman bathhouse. Now, bare in mind that in Britain, Roman bathhouses are few and far between. They’re rare. To discover this, meant Wigan was amongst the ranks of Bath, Shrewsbury, Newcastle and a few other cities housing the remains of Roman baths. Needless to say, this find allowed excavation work to continue for an extra six weeks.

bygone era of industry -- was once a small, yet still significant, part of the Roman empire in Britain is simply astonishing. I felt nothing but pride when Wigan won the FA cup, and I feel nothing less again when I consider my hometown’s real historical heritage.

The dig team surely amazed themselves, because in this short period a further two hypocausts saw the light of day, along with a possible plunge pool. The stoke holes in these rooms were welldefined and one was still filled with burnt materials from its past firings during the Roman occupation. A deep trench found running away from the main site was suggested as the water supply to the baths. In another part of the site, scrap pieces of lead were found, indicating a possible workshop, where Romans would have been producing the lead used in lining pools and water tanks. There was no denying that this was the site of a Roman bathhouse, and more investigations indicated that it was probably attached to a mansio (the Roman equivalent of a hotel), where dignitaries would have stayed when travelling between the various settlements. In effect, it could well have been the Travelodge of its day. What is most fascinating, is that all of the findings could point towards Wigan, or Coccium as it was called, being a Roman fort. Not long ago, the remains of the hypocaust were rebuilt and restored, using as much of the original materials as possible, in the Concert Square, one the of the community areas in Wigan’s Grand Arcade. You may have seen it already, as it is completely open to viewing by the general public! The idea that Wigan -- standing today with the remnants of derelict mills and old factories from a

The Ba le of Stalingrad The Turning Point of WW2 in the East? By Cameron Fleming

Voguing: Standing Out to Fit In Many highly credited historians value it as a fact that Stalingrad was the major turning point of world war two and partly they are right as in many ways the USSR was on the upper hand after Stalingrad. However, I believe with strong evidence that this may not be the case. The battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943) saw Paulus’ 6th German army face off against the soviet 62nd and 64th armies under chuikov. The battle which started as the guarding of army group A’s flank quickly morphed into the ideological war for “Stalin’s city” and became synonymous with the “rattenkrieg” of the underground and savage building to building fighting and famous snipers such as Vassilly Zaitsev portrayed by Jude law in the film “the enemy at the gates” the title however refers to the battle of Moscow and not Stalingrad. This brings us to the first possible turning point in the east. Moscow. In 1941 the German army fresh from success in the east in 1939 and in the west in 1940 aided by Italian and Rumanian forces steamrolled across the western USSR (modern Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Moldova and parts of modern day Poland) in an operation named Barbarossa this enveloped soviet armies and despite stiff resistance particularly at Brest and its fortress there was no stopping the German war machine while the red army fled and was eaten

up by axis forces and surrounded, in greater numbers than the Germans were at Stalingrad, at Kiev. By late autumn 1941 fighting near Rzev slowed the German onslaught but it wasn’t stopped. Only at the outskirts of Moscow were axis forces first halted. A scouting detachment on motorcycles marked the high watermark for the German advance in the east. The soviets threw all remaining reserves into the battle throwing the Germans off the advance with weight of numbers alone. This was not a pretty victory for the soviets but it did allow them to make good defences for the winter. However the Germans had not been defeated only a minor setback and although “general winter” took their toll the German spring offensives threw the soviets out of their winter positions in the lead up to case blue however even after Stalingrad and Stalin’s infamous order no.227 “not one step back” the Germans still held a slight advantage and were still on the initiative. This was proven at Kharkov in its third battle in 1943 when the German army retook the city and the city of Belgorod. In the offensive they inflicted 86,469 casualties to the loss of just over 11,000. This showed the Germans had recovered from Stalingrad and although their invincible reputation was broken they still had, at this time, a capability of going on the attack and beating the soviets.

No further major German attacks came and with the exception of army group Courland and the defence of Poland and Germany itself not much resistance came. The significant breakthrough for the soviets came in the summer of 1944 when the Stavka secretly amassed a huge army for an operation codenamed Bagration in the Byelorussia region. This operation is largely forgotten by western history due to its proximity to the western main offensive, D-day. However, bagration was even more a success seeing soviet troops to the Baltic in one offensive and obliterating most of the remaining German resistance this was supported by offensives in the Ukraine and eventually in the Balkans. Overall, the turning point wasn’t where many historians put it, at Stalingrad, but judging on German resistance Moscow stopped the Germans, Stalingrad beat their confidence, Kursk was check and checkmate came at Bagration which inevitably led to Nazi Germany’s demise in the east. Therefore I would put the turning point at Kursk because that is the last point where the Germans made any actual ground into the USSR and the first point the Russians could follow up their major victory with another major victory and in short saw the red army progress from the lambs to become the lions and the mighty war machine which would control eastern Europe for 55 years.

Arrows from the top: bagra on 1944, Moscow 1941, Kursk 1943, Kharkov 1943, Stalingrad 1942‐43

Did Byzan ne Aid Enable the Success of the First Crusade?

By Holly Browe ‐Woolnough The First Crusade began in 1096, the beginning of the Crusading period. But how can what is essen ally a widespread pilgrimage end as a successful military endeavour? There are various reasons for the success of the first crusade, a key one being Byzan ne aid, but there was also the religious mo va on and the prow‐ ess of the military and the key leaders, which are im‐ portant to consider. At the beginning of the first crusade, Byzan ne aid played a key role in furthering the crusade. At the first obstacle of Nicaea, it was an eﬀec ve collabora ve venture. Alexius, emperor of Byzan ne, provided food, supplies and weapons to encourage them to con nue. When it seemed as though the Chris ans wouldn't succeed, Alexius sent ships to blockade the lake through which the people of Nicaea were gaining supplies. Through this, he managed to nego ate a truce, and the city was surrendered to him, showing how central Byzan ne aid was to the crusade's first successes, which are crucial for boos ng morale. Then, at the ba le of Dorylaeum in 1097, Alexius pro‐ vided them with a military advisor, Ta kios, who would be able to guide them as he understood the land be er than the Crusaders. At Dorylaeum, his guidance played a key role in the Crusaders' victory, proving the importance of Byzan ne aid. However,

the Byzan um‐Crusader rela onship seems to break down a er this, as at An och, Ta kios eventually de‐ serts them, causing resentment and the supplies that Alexius sends to them are minimal, and barely help them get through, showing how Alexius was seemingly becoming less interested in the Crusaders' welfare. Then, a er the success of An och, it seems that the final straw was when Bohemond claimed the land for himself , instead of giving it to Alexius, as promised in his oath. This severed the links and the aid disap‐ peared from there. A er this, the crusaders went on to success in Ascalon and Jerusalem, sugges ng that Byzan ne aid was not crucial to the Chris ans' victory. Another explana on for their success was their im‐ mense spiritual mo va on and religion. These were most substan al a er the Byzan ne aid disintegrated. The first occurrence was at An och, when Peter Bar‐ tholomew had a vision of the holy lance, that pierced Christ's side and when the Crusaders found this, they marched on the Turks, carrying it, and the enemy fled in fear. The second was at Jerusalem, when a priest had a vision of Adhemar Le Puy telling them to fast, pray and walk around the city barefoot, and in doing so they managed to enter the city. These spiritual ap‐ pearances gave the crusaders the mo va on that they needed to con nue with the crusade, as it suggested that they had God's support and that he would assist

them in success. The Crusade would have halted at An och were it not for the lance and the peniten al march refocused the Chris ans' energies. Without the element of ideology and spiritual exhilara on there would have been no march to Jerusalem. (Tyerman.) Another alterna ve reason for the Crusaders' success is the Muslim disunity of the Eastern world. In general terms, the division of the Sunni Abbasids and the Shia Fa mids meant that neither would defend the other against the Chris ans, almost enabling the Crusaders' success. Earlier events in the Muslim world, for exam‐ ple, the death of Malik Shah in 1092 made the com‐ muni es disintegrate. Jo schky cites that the quarrels for inheritance of Malik Shah's empire depleted the dynasty's resources, meaning that the Muslims were not fully prepared or focused for figh ng oﬀ the Chris‐ ans, making success much easier for them. More short term disunity is apparent at An och when the Muslim leader, Kherbogha delayed his a ack as his soldiers were coming from various towns (Mosul, Da‐ mascus and Aleppo) meaning that he couldn't eﬀec‐ vely co‐ordinate an a ack with them, giving the Cru‐ saders more of an opportunity to a ack a less well defended An och. The instability of the Muslim reli‐ gion also enabled and directly assisted Crusader victo‐ ry. At An och, Bohemond found a recent Muslim con‐ vert, Firuz, whom he convinced to let them into the city, successfully almost handing An och over to them.

Crusaders' early successes, but it is incorrect to say that it was the most important factor, as the Crusad‐ ers survived without it a er the allegiance deteriorat‐ ed. It seems that the religious visions were the most importance, as they boosted morale when it looked as though they were going to give up, and it ul mately showed that the Chris ans had God's support, which drove them to success.

The final key reason for the Crusaders' success would be their military techniques. The leading knights con‐ sistently made key strategic decisions that created success. At the ba le of Dorylaeum, the army was split into two, so the Turks would be unprepared. When the first army had almost been defeated by the Mus‐ lims, the second one came forward, revitalised, and easily defeated the Turks who were shocked at the sudden reinforcements. This technique is exercised at Ascalon as well, when the crusaders launched a sur‐ prise a ack on the sleeping Muslims a er they caught Turkish spies who revealed their plans. The supreme cunning and intelligence that was employed by the military leaders was central to the success of the ma‐ jority of the ba les and sieges, and really boosted mo‐ rale. Conclusively, Byzan ne aid played a key role in the

Life as an Infantryman in Napoleon’s Army

By Cameron Fleming Nafziger summed it up best that "The army's in‐ fantry is its most essen al component. Even to‐ day, no army can take and hold any ground with‐ out the use of infantry." And it was especially true in the era of Napoleon Bonaparte and the French revolu on. Even with napoleons revolu onary use of massed ar llery and the “glorious” cavalry charges of the era it was the humble fusilier de ligne who did the real hard work in the armies of France and Napoleon knew this and admired a “brave soldier who has undergone a bap sm of fire” and righ ully so they brought him to be em‐ peror twice and marched from Portugal to Aus‐ tria, Moscow to Berlin and back again and it is this soldier that fought against the armies of Britain, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, the o oman empire and fought oﬀ internal threats from the beginning of the French revolu‐ on in 1789 un l napoleons exile to St. Helena in 1815. In 1789 the rights of man and ci zen was pub‐ lished out lining the rights that all men had cre‐ a ng, from the masses of poor peasants, ci zens

(although the document ignored slavery and de‐ nied women the same rights it led to more equal treatment of the third estate and to a period of banned slavery) and by the me of Napoleon Bo‐ naparte’s take‐over of France the ci zens were transformed, through conscrip on, into soldiers. At first, the volunteers wore the tradi onal white of the royal era with the conscripts in blue (which is where the term bleu for an inexperienced sol‐ dier comes from) but Napoleon saw with the weight of conscripts and volunteers cap vated by “the li le corporal” led to the decision to clothe the whole Grande Armée in blue. This trend was temporarily broken in 1807 when Napoleon gave the army white but the look did not last and he saw its tac cal flaws (in s cking out like a sore thumb) at the ba le of Eylau and so the French returned to blue. It was not just the French who fought in Napole‐ ons armies; his truly interna onal army saw Sax‐ ons, Bavarians, Hanoverians, Neapolitans, Span‐ ish, Portuguese, Irish, Poles, Austrians, Westphali‐ ans, Dutch and Belgians fight in an army which entered Russia in 1812 at a strength of 550,000 and these allies’ quality varied as much as their

uniforms with the fearsome Vistula legion from Poland and their tradi onal czapca shakos to the poten ally compromising Neapolitans in white uniforms. “An army marches on its stomach” as Napoleon said and in his own era this became one of the most significant factors in the survival of the ar‐ mies of the Napoleonic wars with techniques mimicking those used for centuries before. The armies of Napoleon o en foraged for food where they went leading some mes to the forceful loo ng of food from locals this led to some mes shortages like in Russia in 1812 where a scorched earth policy led to the French army slowly being strangled to death by shortages or some mes this hos le treatment of local popula ons led to armed resistance like in Spain and their “robbers and smugglers” (captain Blaze) guerrilla or “li le war” tac cs. The job of controlling the growing mass of fusi‐ liers, vol geurs, chasseurs and grenadiers fell to the officers. Although the French army contained sergeants like the Bri sh army they were relied on much less and it was the junior officers who led the men into ba le. Also in strong contrast to the o en eli st Bri sh army of the me, the offic‐ ers were o en raised from the ranks and despite some s ll being from aristocra c families, they were more o en than not fana c supporters of the emperor and fearlessly led from the front leading to a high mortality rate in junior officers and also a huge success rate for skirmishers in the Napoleonic wars in demoralising the men by de‐ stroying the chain of command in the army. Fur‐ ther up the chain of command, the officer be‐ came more reliant upon the inspira onal leader‐ ship of napoleon with their tac cs lacking both the vision of the situa onal needs of the ba le and the ming that napoleon had perfected to win a ba le. The soldiers’ life transi oned during the period from a life based on drill and fire prac ce

(without ammuni on) and the forced marching which led to tac cs of firing lines and focused a acks generated from a lower level of military ac vity and urgency for soldiers to be trained to a quick training for the Marie Louise’s of the later campaigns where the reduced skill and tac cal flexibility led to an almost lazy use of infantry as a solid mass in an a ack column which would march wearily towards the enemy and aim to smash into their line and crush the shallower for‐ ma on. This made their 1777 pa ern musket use‐ less as a ranged weapon as it only allowed the first two or three ranks to fire meaning it became used as a melee weapon primarily with the bayo‐ net and so the infantry had to rely on ar llery de‐ stroying the enemy lines and the cavalry a acking at the right moment. Despite this, elite light infan‐ try like vol geurs were s ll used to cover the ad‐ vance of the infantry. In conclusion, the life of a soldier in Napoleons army varied by era, theatre of conflict and com‐ mander but his life anywhere was less than com‐ fortable and it is fascina ng to remember that at the beginning of the era, Napoleon pulled money out of his own pocket to give his men in Italy food and shoes whereas in contrast, in Russia many of the men went bare foot or had makeshi shoes showing us not only that napoleon may have be‐ come out of touch with his men but that he had over reached himself from a manageable force that could be supplied to an unwieldy beast col‐ lec vely that was simply too big to manage the consequences of this fact being felt most harshly upon the ordinary soldiers. To put this into per‐ spec ve the 550,000 strong army which entered Russia in 1812 le with less than 60,000 men and the diseases they brought back killed many more. So, next me you watch Sharpe or listen to “Waterloo” by ABBA, remember the humble François the fusilier and his harsh life on the field of ba le.

Meet Marc Morris! By Sophie Stradins and Luke Hoskisson Dr Marc Morris is a historian and broadcaster, specialising in the Middle Ages. Following the suc‐ cess of his bestselling biography of Edward I, A Great and Terrible King, he has recently complet‐ ed a major new book, The Norman Conquest. In 2003 Marc presented the highly acclaimed six‐ part series Castle for Channel 4 and wrote an ac‐ companying book. He has also contributed to his‐ tory programmes such as Time Team, as well as other shows on both television and radio. You may have, perhaps, listened to the debate on BBC Radio 2, involving Marc, on the topic of the au‐ then city of the Ba le of Has ngs’ loca on. In addi on to this, Morris has wri en numerous ar‐ cles for History Today and the BBC History Mag‐ azine, as well as Heritage Today. As you can imag‐ ine, teachers as well as students were excited to have such a fantas c and notable Historian at Winstanley College, for a lecture on the Norman Conquest. Equipped with power point and projector, Dr Morris began with the Bayeux Tapestry. He told us of the famed embroidery’s magnificent jour‐ ney. We learned of how it avoided being used as wagon‐rags during the French Revolu on and then of how Napoleon got wind of it and used it as a symbol of French military prowess. Then the

Second World War came and once again the em‐ broidery survived despite almost impossible odds. In Nazi hands the tapestry evaded the bombs and the fire to emerge unscathed. As Dr Morris wrote himself ‘that it [the tapestry] successfully avoided destruc on during the modern era is nothing short of miraculous.’ A er sharing with us all the story of The Bayeux Tapestry, Dr Marc Morris moved on to tell us the story on it. We learned of Edward the Confessor’s brilliant, 11th century‐mortality rate defying, reign of 24 years ‐ ruling from his corona on on the 3rd April 1042 un l of course the beginning of that fateful year, 1066. Despite the mediaeval norm of royalty having many children (in fact, Henry I had a child ‐ legi mate or not ‐ for every single year of Edward the Confessor’s extraordi‐ narily long reign) Edward the Confessor bore no children. It is uncertain as to why Edward the Confessor stayed celibate or even if he did. Did Edward resent the Godwin fac on enough that he’d sacrifice his own dynasty in order to keep the Godwin’s out of royal household. Was he or his wife, Edith, genuinely unable to produce chil‐ dren? The ques on s ll remains, and the mystery s ll looms but what is certain is that he provided no clear heir to the throne of England. Lack of an heir is a long term failure of any King, a failure

of any King, a failure which eventually lead to the Norman Invasion of October 1066 and the Ba le of Has ngs.

of images ensured that we ‐ usually sleepy, lazy teenagers ‐ were not once tempted to check our watches to see when it was over.

We’re sure you know what happened on that fateful day on the 14th of October 1066 but what people forget is that things tend to happen a er ba les, especially if the ba le is to determine who rules an en re country. The ba le began at 9:00 and ended at Dusk the same day (with a half me rest in between) and so, a er this rela vely microscopic amount of me things changed for England, or Land of the Angles. It is this change that Marc Morris pushed, and not just the few hours of figh ng near Has ngs, in the south of England.

As history students ourselves we are biased and undoubtedly we all enjoy the subject. However, for anybody, whether math student, geo‐chemist or even an Anglo‐Saxon, it would have been easy to find Marc Morris’ lecture very interes ng and enjoyable. Instead of just chronologically re‐ pea ng the events of the Norman Conquest, Dr Marc Morris finely tailored his presenta on.

We could just sit and type up all the changes brought and directly influenced by the Norman’s invasion, in chronological order but we are not going to this, because a lot of the informa on would already be known to you, the reader, but also, it is not what Marc Morris did. Marc Morris made a point e.g. he said: ‘Architecture was mas‐ sively revamped. A great example of this is Win‐ chester cathedral which the Normans rebuilt to be the longest cathedral in the world, and also it competed for the tle of ‘biggest cathedral in Eu‐ rope’ at the me only to be ever so beaten by St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.’ These carefully selected facts, with their superla ves and content of pure grandeur are what kept the lecture refreshing; that and anecdotes about arguing with old people at his previous speech in a care home. It wasn’t all just smile and listen though. He kept both the students (and the teachers) on their feet with ques ons ranging from the topic of the Dan‐ ish skirmishes on the North East coast to engaging us in a game of ‘Can You Guess the Castle from the Picture?’. A er the first few ques ons were met with self‐conscious fuelled silence, the thea‐ tre hall quickly became a compe on of who could shout the answer loudest and quickest. All the lecturer‐student engagement, humour and us

As an A level history student applying to read His‐ tory at university as well as a member of the His‐ tory Society, I recognise the importance of univer‐ sity standard lecturers, especially from published and recognizable historians. A personal statement with the likes of Dr Marc Morris imbedded on them are dis nc ve and will high light it from the rest. There are also prac cal applica ons of a lec‐ turer coming into college. Any extra knowledge picked up straight from a historian’s mouth may be the diﬀerence between a standard and an ex‐ cep onal grade. You don’t even have to study medieval history, in fact, if you study, in the class room, a diﬀerent point in history to the mediaeval era, then you may benefit even more. You may fall in love with a new area of history or you may get that university place you really want because the interviewer, who teaches the Modern History degree, asked you: What is the Domesday book? and you knew it. The extra brownie points we got, however, were only secondary to the fact we a ended a funny, interes ng and deeply engaging, informal lecture. Buy Dr Marc Morris’ book ‘The Norman Conquest’ published by ‘WINDMILL’. It’s an easy read which doesn’t lack detail or depth ‐ great for revision or just for entertainment.

An EXCLUSIVE Interview with Marc Morris... At what point in your career did you choose to specialise in the Middle Ages and what made it stand out for you from other areas of History? Pre y much the minute I arrived at university (King’s College London, back in 1993). I had done the late Middle Ag‐ es/Tudors for A Level, and WWI and WII for GCSE, so I was ready for something diﬀerent. I was delighted to discov‐ er a lecture list about the Norman Conquest, Becket, Magna Carta etc, because I hadn’t covered that period since I was about 12. It sounded fun.

Could you describe your wri ng process – how do you go about researching a topic, then wri ng it, and how do you manage to edit your work? Research, I begin by reading [or o en re‐reading] the most obvious, general books on a subject, and moving on to journal ar cles etc. It’s important in the early stages of research to read as widely as possible, just to see what’s out there. E.g. on the Conquest I simply skimmed through everything in Anglo‐Norman Studies, the proceedings of their annual conference. But research and wri ng are complimentary. At some stage you have to start wri ng, just to organize your thoughts and get something on paper, and that raises ques ons which send you back to do more fo‐ cussed research. In terms of wri ng, structure and planning are essen al. I begin by crea ng a master meline cov‐ ering the en re chronological span of a book [e.g. for the Conquest, from about 975 to c. 1100], and entering in all the relevant events from one year to the next. Once I’ve got that, I start to look for obvious chapter breaks. For ex‐ ample, if a major character like Simon de Mon ort or King Harold dies, that’s a chapter break. Spo ng these is very important, because then other parts of the structure fall into place. This too is an ongoing process, subject to revi‐ sion as you work out the fine detail in the course of wri ng. It can also be immensely frustra ng and tedious when you can’t see a way forward. But once you’ve got the structure nailed, wri ng is rela vely straigh orward, and can on occasion be enjoyable.

Could you describe your experiences of presen ng the TV series ‘Castle’? It was great fun. It was also hard work, because the scope kept ge ng enlarged. E.g. it was supposed to be 6 x 25 minutes, but a few weeks before filming started this was increased to 6 x 50 mins. The whole thing was researched and shot in about 8 months, 2001‐2, but then transmission was delayed by 6 months, which gave me the chance to write the book. I think it’s good if historians are able to present their own stuﬀ, because [assuming they’re consci‐ en ous] it acts as a quality control. Many mes I was presented with a revised script into which new info had been inserted, so I had to say ‘excuse me, where has this fact/data/sta s c come from please?’. TV presenters generally don’t do that.

What 3 ps do you have for people who wish to study History at degree level? 1. Be prepared for the fact that, at an undergraduate level, your job is to answer essay or exam ques ons as bril‐ liantly as possible. I was reasonably interested in past socie es as a teenager [s ll am, for that ma er], but I also enjoyed being asked a ques on and finding out the answer, regardless of the subject ma er. E.g. I remember en‐ joying answering a long essay ques on for my MA about Anglo‐Saxon coinage, and having to read lots of obscure numisma c journals. I’m not par cularly interested in coins and coinage, but I was interested in answering the ques on. Conversely, I’ve met lots of people who are more passionate about the past than I am, but have li le ap ‐ tude for answering essay ques ons.

2. Being intelligent about what you read is important. You can read every hour of every day and s ll do poorly if what you’re reading is rubbish. Equally you can probably do really well by reading for only 3‐4 hours a day if your choices are well‐informed. Make sure the books and ar cles you are reading are up to the minute. Read the intro‐ duc ons and conclusions first to get the general thrust of an ar cle. 3. Reading is important, but so too is thinking. Make notes, and think about the ques on you’ve been set as you make them. You should be interroga ng books and ar cles as you read them as you would an interviewee. Don’t leave the thinking and wri ng un l the night before a deadline.

With the current debate about what should be taught in schools, why would you say that History is so essen al? History is essen al for two reasons. First, the past gives you the ability to understand the present. Someone, I for‐ get who, said that to know no history is to remain forever a child. I think that about nails it. Knowing no history leaves you at the mercy of poli cians, journalists and others who want to shape your opinions for their own ends. Which leads me to my second, more general reason, which is that history as a discipline teaches you to ask ‘how do we know that?’. It teaches you to weigh evidence, to judge, to discriminate. Or, as another wise old owl once said, ‘the purpose of educa on is to determine when a man is talking rot’.

Could the harrying of the north ever be jus fied? To summarize: the Harrying of the North was a campaign conducted by William the Conqueror’s troops during the winter of 1069‐70, during which they laid waste to northern England, especially Yorkshire, by burning the grain har‐ vested in the barns and killing all the livestock. They killed lots of people in the process too, but many thousands more perished in the months that followed as a result of starva on. Clearly by our standards this would amount to genocide. But medieval rulers had different standards. Targe ng your enemies’ economic resources in this way [harrying] was standard prac ce across all of Europe. Some histori‐ ans have argued that the Harrying was nothing special, no different from other episodes of harrying carried out during the eleventh century in England and elsewhere. But then other historians have followed contemporaries in poin ng out that, while the prac ce of harrying was commonplace, the scale of what occurred in 1069‐70 was shocking. Clearly William felt it was jus fied because the people of northern England had three mes rebelled against him during the period 1066‐69. His chaplain, William of Poi ers, evidently wrote an account of the episode which jus fied William’s conduct in just such terms. Sadly it has not survived, but we have the reac on of Orderic Vitalis, who was copying Poi ers’ chronicle, and departed from it at this point to insert his own condemna on of the Harrying. Orderic lamented the suffering of the defence‐ less – women, children and the eldery – and guessed that the death toll had been 100,000. Modern es mates from Domesday Book suggest we could well be looking at a death‐toll of that kind of magnitude.

What would you say to someone who disputes the site of the Ba le of Has ngs? Get well soon.

Was the Norman Conquest merely a hos le takeover by an illegi mate claimant? The Conquest was certainly a hos le takeover. The ques on of legi macy is altogether more moot. William based his claim on nomina on by Edward the Confessor; so too did Harold. Harold also claimed elec on by the other Eng‐ lish magnates, and he certainly had enough supporters to get himself crowned when the Confessor died. But it seems clear that many people thought the crown should have gone to Edgar Aetheling, the only claimant who could claim by hereditary right. So who had the be er right? Once a king was in power, most people accepted him as being God’s choice, so might was o en right in this period.

Studying History at the University of Birmingham By Ted Griﬃths

Meet Marc Morris!

9 weeks into my course (Economic and Social History) at Birmingham can be summed up as follows: It’s a complete change from being at Winstanley! Studying at Birmingham and at university in general is all about self‐mo va on. I have 8‐10 contact hours per week and the rest is just reading, making notes and essays. I aim to work 30 hours per week including contact hours (lectures and seminars) so you have to be extremely self‐disciplined in order to get the work done. Although first year for the majority of universi‐ es doesn’t count and you only need 40% to pass, ge ng yourself into a good rou ne definitely helps when it comes to essay deadlines so you’re not cram‐ ming at the last minute. It is a huge adjustment moving away from home but the amount of support available is immense. Any que‐ ries I’ve had have been sorted straight away. Everyone thinks that Lecturers are scary and you can’t talk to them. This is far from the truth. Every lecturer has free hours during the week which you can make an ap‐ pointment to go over things you didn’t understand in the lecture or for further guidance about reading. I’ve been to 3 lecturers for help and they’ve all been really helpful and approachable. The main thing I would say is don’t be afraid to ask for help. It’s a big change both socially and educa onally and all the staﬀ understand this and are willing to help. There’s a department

dedicated to advising you on essay skills, note taking revising etc. which has been a huge help for me. My degree consists of 5 modules: Making of the mod‐ ern world 1500 – 1800, Economic History of Modern Britain, Social History of Modern Britain, Prac cing History skills and a Module outside the main discipline which I chose Economics. If you took a single honours history it’s the same except the economic and social modules are replaced by a medieval module. The main thing from A level history which has bene‐ fi ed me the most for Uni is the coursework e.g. skim reading, and individual research in books. Uni essays are basically mini A2 courseworks. Don’t let that put you oﬀ as you have plenty of me to do it and you get to choose from a wide range of ques ons and you an‐ swer it exactly how you want, there’s no boundaries. Finally, as the saying goes “all work and no play…” is definitely true. You need to get a good work/life bal‐ ance otherwise you burn out too quickly. First year is about finding your feet and adjus ng to Uni life. I’ve already made some amazing friends and the nightlife at Birmingham is electric. I couldn’t recommend Uni‐ versity of Birmingham enough. If you have any more ques ons about Birmingham or just Uni in general, halls, Uni life anything at all get in touch with Silvia who can forward them to me.

Meet the HisPresident

Joe Gaﬀney

Vice President

Cameron Fleming

Magazine Editor

Phoebe McGibbon

Magazine Assistants

Holly Browe ‐Woolnough Isaac Tweedale Georgia Sampson Georgia Ascro Megan Owen James Knowles

Quiz organiser

Lucy Weir Lewis Williams Julia Taylor Rachel Burgess

Debates coordinator External speakers re‐ searcher (work in collabo‐ ra on with Elaine P) Guest Speakers & Muse‐ um Coordinator Internal speakers coordi‐ nator Social Media coordinator

Robyn Yates

History Mentor coordina‐ tor Trip researcher (working with Ma )

Joe Gaﬀney

Medieval Total War organiser Display coordinator

David Farrimond

Adver sing overseer

Lucy Weir

Discussion group leader (films/ar cles…)

Silvia Marques Kayleigh Gibson

Oﬃcial photographer

Zara Andrews

Robyn Yates Jack Lunt Harry Griﬃths

Lucy Weir Chris McLauchlan Connor Simms‐Page

Hannah Brady Amy Pla

History Society

Christmas Term

On Friday 15th November, David Atherton came into college to deliver a talk on a WW1 Soldier’s Diary eam ‘Nein t o t s n o la Congratu o won the h w ’, Marxism Talk in e N Nein uiz on Q y t ie c o S y by Ma Fisher Histor ber 20th! m e v o e N h T ‘ on on a t n e s Pre erman Congratula ons G f o n to o u l o ! s Ev d o o th e V W ice‐President y Mike b ’ s k n Ta Cameron Flemin

Crusades Lectu re by Andrew Jo sch ky

g on his elec on victo ry!

Debate: “Are p eople who simply follow o rders person‐ ally responsible ?” Coming so on: Christm as Drama!

d to receive We were privilege m Crusades ro f rm e t is th s re u lect nd History Mentorin a s, p ili h P n a th a n o g: Each Historian J is rr Marc Mo Norman Historian Crusades ‘catch‐up classes’

Thursday

Don’t forget ‐ Historical Dress Up Day: 11th December

Baﬄed by the Crusades?

Struggling with an essay?

Finding it diﬃcult to manage Meet Marc Morris! revision?

Need some advice? Contact one of our email mentors, or come along to a mentoring session… Help is on hand each Thursday, in A5! Email mentors... Isaac Tweedale: V3004@winstanley.ac.uk Joe Gaﬀney: V2796@winstanley.ac.uk Robyn Yates: V2689@winstanley.ac.uk Bradley Renouf: V2636@winstanley.ac.uk Sophie Connelly: V2779@winstanley.ac.uk