Winstanley College
History Magazine February 2014 Edition
Page 3……….Editorial Page 4……….I Could Have Been King
Contents:
Page 7……….Is There Truth in the Legend of King Arthur? Page 10……….William Wilberforce: One Voice that Spoke for Millions Page 13……….Partisans: The Unsung Heroes of World War Two Page 17……….Edward Heath: Wrong Place, Wrong Time Page 21………The History of Solitary Confinement in the USA Page 23……..The History of Faberge Eggs Page 25…….The Role of Fidel Castro in the Cold War Page 27…..Why Were the Military Tactics of the Swedish King Carolus Rex So Successful? Page 30….Should We Be Proud of the First World War?
Page 34….Tutankhamun (COMPETITION WINNER!) Page 37…..Yet Another Quirk of Fate (COMPETITION WINNER!) Page 39…..Rwandan Genocide: Inequality Breeds Inequality (COMPETITION WINNER!) Page 42….Why Was the American Civil Rights Movement So Successful? Page 45…….Frederick Barbarossa: The Man Who Drowned in a Puddle?
Page 48…..What Makes History So Interesting Page 49……Jonathan Phillips Visits Winstanley College Page 51…...EXCLUSIVE Interview with Jonathan Phillips Page 53…..Winstanley College’s Historical Drama Page 55…..Meet the History Society Page 56…...History Society Events 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
Editorial 2014 is set to be an interesting year for historians, marking in particular the centenary of the beginning of the First World War. This year will also mark one thousand years since Pope Benedict VIII recognized and crowned Henry of Bavaria as King of Germany. Seven hundred and fifty years since the Second Barons' War (an English Civil War) broke out. One thousand two hundred years since the Bulgarians laid siege before Constantinople. Ten years since the launch of Facebook. Five years since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. As John Gardner so rightly pointed out, ‘history never looks like history when you are living through it. ‘ This edition of the Winstanley College History Magazine provides a fascinating selection of articles, ranging from an analysis of the trials and tribulations faced by British prime minister Edward Heath (see page 17), to a thoughtprovoking insight into whether Britain should be proud of its achievements in the First World War (see page 30).
winning articles were: ‘Tutankhamun’ by Eoin Bowden (page 34); ‘Just Another Quirk of Fate’ by Rose Mennell, (page 37); and ’The Rwandan Genocide: Inequality Breeds Inequality’ by Nathaniel Wood, (page 39). Many thanks to Standish Community High School for their fantastic contributions, and congratulations to our competition winners! Also in this edition is an EXCLUSIVE interview with historian Jonathan Phillips (see page 51). As ever, articles for publication in the Winstanley History Magazine are always welcomed and can be on any history related topic - email your article to the History Society or speak to a member of the editorial team. Many thanks to those who have written for this edition. Enjoy! Phoebe McGibbon (Editor)
We are also delighted that this edition contains three competition winning articles written by students from Standish Community High School. Students entered a competition to have their articles published, and the standard of the articles we received was incredible! The ‘History, that excitable and unreliable old lady.’ - Guy de Maupassant
I Could Have Been King... By Harry Griffiths If only he hadn’t died so early, I could be King of England… Edward ‘The Black Prince’, son of King Edward III of England, is a very distant relative of mine, and despite his heroic name, has gone under the radar of many historians. Had he not died a year before his father, you may not have known me as a Winstanley College student... Born at Woodstock Palace in Oxfordshire in June 1330, Edward was Earl of Chester aged 3, Duke of Cornwall aged 7 (the first English duke), and Prince of Wales by the time he was 13. He even acted as a symbolic regent for a spell whilst his father was on campaign. What’s more, in 1337 he acted as a prime negotiator with the papacy about the Edwardian War. In 1361, he married his cousin, Joan ‘The Fair Maid of Kent’, having gained permission from Pope Innocent VI to marry a blood relative. A controversial marriage, many deemed this a missed opportunity: marriage to an Englishwoman wasted a chance to form an alliance with a foreign power. Moreover, this would be Joan’s third marriage, having married Thomas Holland (1st Earl of Kent) & William Montacute (2nd Earl of Salisbury) previously, and so
such marital history saw many raise concerns about Edward marrying her. Edward represented his father in Aquitaine, France, holding a court with Joan which itself was held in high esteem, dubbed one of the best at the time. Having been exiled from the Castile throne by his brother, Pedro of Castile offered Edward the lordship of Biscay in return for Edward’s help in recovering the Castile throne. Edward was successful in the Battle of Nájera, outclassing the combined French and Castilian forces led by Bertrand du Guesclin, although Pedro did not pay fully and excused to yield Biscay alleging lack of consent of its states. In the same year, 1367, Joan had given birth to a son, Richard, who was therefore second-in-line to the English throne. Edward returned to Aquitaine, where he made himself unpopular with the nobility by levying taxes to pay for his Spanish expedition. They rose in revolt against him and in 1370 Edward besieged the city of Limoges. When it fell, 3,000 of its inhabitants were massacred. A year later, Edward returned to England due to ill health. His death came to him a week before his 46th birth-
day, on 8th June 1376 at Westminster Palace. Despite requesting to be buried in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral rather than next to the shrine, Edward was buried on the south side of the shrine of Thomas Becket behind the quire. His tomb consists of a bronze effigy beneath a tester depicting the Holy Trinity, with his heraldic achievements hung over the tester. Though the achievements have since been replaced by replicas, the originals remain nearby. The tester was restored in 2006. A
title has its origins. The French soldier Philippe de Mézières refers to Edward as the greatest of the "black boars" – those aggressors who had done so much to disrupt relations within Christendom.’ Often associated to The Black Prince is his ‘shield for peace’, (below left), of three ostrich feathers, which has since inspired the heraldic badge of the Prince of Wales (below right).
chapel had been prepared at Canterbury Cathedral as a chantry for him and his wife Joan, Countess of Kent. However, this is now the French Protestant Chapel, but still contains ceiling bosses of her face and of their coats of arms. His death meant that he never lay claim to the English throne, as his death preceded that of his father, King Edward III by a year, and so the Black Prince’s In terms of my relation to Edward, The Black Prince, son, Richard, became Richard II of England in 1377. my family traced back our family tree to as long ago ‘The Black Prince’s’ claim to fame was his remarka- as 1500, where a relative of ours, John Owen is ble military leadership, seeing victory in many a found. His ancestry can be further traced to The battle, including his victories over the French at the Black Prince via Joan’s children from her first marBattles of Crécy (aged just 16) and Poitiers. Both of riage to Thomas Holland: a marriage existed bethese enhanced his reputation, and in 1348 he be- tween the Holland family and the Owen family of came the first Knight of the Garter, of whose Order whom I am related to, and therefore (though farhe was one of the founders. fetched and an entire parallel universe away) should As regards his distinguished title as ‘The Black history have fallen in my favour (entirely), I could be Prince’, it is believed to have only come into exist- King of England now - I stress, EXTREMELY farence over 150 years after his death. There are two fetched. Members of my family, including my mothmain reasons for such a title being branded which er, have visited the tomb of The Black Prince, as are: 1) due to his black armour/shield that he often well as found the grave of the relative of whom prosported in battle, or; 2) due to his brutal reputation vides the link to the Prince himself. as a military warrior. According to Wikipedia, ‘there To finish with, the Epitaph on his effigy reads: is no sound evidence that Edward ever wore black ‘Such as thou art, sometime was I. armour, although John Harvey (without citing a Such as I am, such shalt thou be. source) refers to "some rather shadowy evidence I thought little on th'our of Death that he was described in French as clad at the battle So long as I enjoyed breath. of Crecy "en armure noire en fer bruni" – in black But now a wretched captive am I, armour of burnished steel".’ Wikipedia further apDeep in the ground, lo here I lie. pears to favour the brutality association, claiming My beauty great, is all quite gone, ‘Edward's brutality in France is also well documentMy flesh is wasted to the bone.’ ed, and David Green believes that this is where the
Above: a timeline of the life of the ‘Black Prince’
Is There Truth in the Legend of King Arthur? By Megan Anderton
King Arthur is one of the most famous British kings in history, despite almost certainly being at least partially fictional. The legend of the heroic king of Britain is also mirrored in folklore in France, Iceland, Hungary, Norway and Italy, showing just how powerful the legend is. Though King Arthur himself may be just a legend, can any truth be found in the legend? He is said to have lived in the late 5th and early 6th Century, led the British in the defence of Britain against invading Saxons. One of the most famous aspects of the legend is the Knights of the Round Table, where Arthur’s most trusted knights such as Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad sat as equals. The round table first appeared in 1155 in the work of the French poet Maistre Wace. Many places have claimed the round table as their own, including the round table at Winchester Castle. Tree ring analysis of the round table at Winchester show that it was probably made around 1290 for a tournament near Winchester, but although the credibility of the legend linked to this particular table has been lost,
the legend still remains. In 2010, historians researching the legend of King Arthur announced that they believed they had found Camelot on the site of a Roman amphitheatre in Chester. The site contained what they believed to be the ‘round table’. Rather than being a wooden piece of furniture for the 24 knights, it is a vast, circular stone structure and would also have had wooden installations, which would have allowed over 1,000 of his followers to gather. It is believed that regional noblemen would have sat in the front row, with the lower ranks sat on stone benches around the outside. The most compelling piece of evidence is the discovery of an execution stone and a possible wooden memorial to Christian martyrs. In the 6th Century a Welsh monk called Gildas referred to the ‘City of Legions’ with a shrine within. One of Arthur’s main battles is said to have been fought at the City of Legions, and it is known that there were two places with this name. One is St Albans, but the other has remained a mystery. Researchers concluded that the discovery of the shrine in the amphitheatre proved that the second City of Legions was Chester. Peter Ackroyd, in the introduction to his retelling
By
of Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur suggests that there is other truth behind the legend. Malory’s collection of tales was first published in 1485. He was born, therefore, into a time of mass violence and uncertainty after Richard II was overthrown in 1399. The disorder during the reign of his successor, Henry IV, sets Sir Thomas’ writing into a context of a time of suspicion and almost continual violence which is mirrored in the legends of King Arthur, most particularly in the conflict between King Arthur and his traitorous nephew Mordred. It is interesting that Malory, like many other writers of the Arthurian legends, places Arthur within his own time. King Arthur is not mentioned in early English chronicles, but is referenced in Welsh chronicles. This is good evidence for the original King Arthur being a leader of the Britons. Between the years 500-550AD, the Britons appeared to successfully hold back the Saxon advance, but were later pushed back in to Wales and Cornwall. The land taken by the Saxons eventually became known as England, and they referred to the people in Wales as ‘Welsh’, which comes from the Saxon word ‘weala’ meaning ‘foreigner’. This could be an explanation as why Arthur as King of the Britons is not mentioned in early English chronicles, as the Saxons were unlikely to record the exploits of a king who was successful at holding them back. Indeed, the earliest reliable reference to King Arthur in the ‘Historia Brittonum’, written by a Welsh monk called Nennius around 830AD, refers to Arthur not as a King but as a warrior, making it possible that the legend has a factual basis on a warrior leader the Briton’s defence. Other theories of the origins of the legend of the “once and future King” have been explored by historians through the use of archaeology. It is little to find much hard evidence during the supposed era of King Arthur (367-734 AD), particularly after Britain was Christianised in the 4th and 5th Centuries and therefore grave goods were no longer used. It was also uncommon for a tombstone to
be used, and it therefore becomes difficult for archaeologists to verify sites like Cadbury Hill-fort, Glastonbury Abbey and Tintagelas the grave or living place of Arthur, however, combined with the literature surrounding King Arthur it is possible to track down plausible origins for the legend. One man who has been associated with the legend of King Arthur is Riothamus, the ‘King of the Britons’. The name Riothamus can be roughly translated as “Supreme King”, which leaves room for speculation that Arthur or Artorius could have been given as his British name, as it was common at the time for people to have two names. There are many similarities between the recorded life of Rigothamus and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of Arthur’s life in ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ , By Harry Griffiths for example; Riothamus led an army of Britons in to Gaul, and like Arthur, was the only British King to do so.
Riothamus was betrayed by one of his deputies, who cooperated with their barbarian enemies, much like Arthur, who is betrayed by his nephew Mordred. Riothamus disappears from history after a fatal battle, and has no recorded death. His last known position was near the Burgundian town of Avallon, which is very possibly the inspiration for the island of Avalon, where Arthur was taken after he was mortally wounded by Mordred in their final battle. However, the fact remains that this is largely speculation, and there are many flaws in the theory, for example, Riothamus died in 470AD, placing him outside the timeframe of the late 5th Century as in Nennius’ writings. Also, in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s writings Arthur leads his armies against Rome, but Riothamus and the Romans were allies. However it is not uncommon for heroic stories to change the enemies to suit changing political and social attitudes, and also Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing much later, in 1136. In conclusion, it still remains likely that the stories of King Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of the
Round Table are mostly fiction; however historians do seem to have found a very plausible inspiration for the legend in Riothamus. It is likely that there are many elements of truth hidden within the stories of chivalry and honour, of epic battles and of magic. Perhaps Riothamus, despite probably not having a magician for a guardian or a dragon for a pet, perhaps Riothamus was so inspirational himself that people down the ages felt the need to honour him in their epic tales and legends. King Arthur continued to inspire a nation, so much so that future kings of England would claim that their ancestry could be traced back to Arthur in order to show their legitimacy. The continued influence of the legend shows just how powerful a figure Arthur was, whether he was real or not.
By Harry Griffiths
William Wilberforce: One Voice That Spoke for Millions By Phoebe McGibbon
At four o’clock am on February 24th 1807, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Howick, was asked by the speaker to move the second reading of the Slave Trade Abolition Bill. For twenty years, the slave trade had been debated by the commons, and bills in favour of its abolition had been abandoned and defeated time and again. But this night, something was different. The Slave Trade Abolition Bill was passed in the Commons by a majority of 283 Ayes to just 16 Noes, having already been passed by the House of Lords. This Bill would change the practises of the British Empire: the capture, transportation and sale of enslaved Africans was from this moment illegal. The House of Commons rose to its feet in applause that night, as it has done on few occasions in history. The members cheered, saluted, and paid tributes to a small, hunched figure, who sat, overcome with emotion. His name was William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was born in Hull, in 1759, the son of a wealthy merchant who traded with Russia and the Baltic States. Following his father’s death in 1768, Wilberforce was sent by his struggling mother to live with an aunt and uncle for three years. Returning in 1771, he was discovered to be of excep-
tional intelligence; intellectual beyond his years. In October 1776, Wilberforce earned a place to study at St John's College, Cambridge. Following the deaths of his grandfather and uncle in 1776 and 1777, he inherited a considerable wealth, and thus had little need or incentive to devote himself fully to his studies. He became absorbed in the University’s social life, enjoying activities such as gambling, cards and drinking. Entertaining, compassionate, and a charming conversationalist, Wilberforce soon became popular. He befriended in particular the studious William Pitt the Younger, who was to become an outstanding Prime Minister in his later life. In spite of engaging rather enthusiastically in some of the less academic aspects of student life, Wilberforce achieved a Batchelor of Arts Degree in 1781. He embarked upon a career in politics, becoming MP for Yorkshire in 1784. However, in 1784, Wilberforce’s life changed rather dramatically. He was travelling on the continent when he met with an old school tutor, a devout Christian. The influence of his old tutor drew Wilberforce’s interest to the Christian faith. He read ‘A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life’ by William Law.
The book made him question his own lack of faith, and stirred a deep change within him. Wilberforce found himself being drawn to the Christian faith but was unsure as to whether he could serve both God, and his country in parliament. He sought the advice of a dear friend, John Newton, a retired slave ship captain who by this point recognised the horrors of the slave trade. Newton advised Wilberforce that God had intended him to go into politics, and had work for him there; that his life had purpose and his task now was to discover that purpose. Newton inspired Wilberforce to pursue both a political career and a devotion to God, believing that the two were intertwineable. This marked a turning point in Wilberforce’s political career. John Newton is best known for his famous hymn, ‘Amazing Grace’, the lyrics of which reflect his devotion to God, and remorse at his own involvement in the slave trade: Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see. 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed. Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; 'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.
Wilberforce had to this point, proved himself to be an intellectual, dynamic character. It was clear to many that he and his close friend Pitt were to be the celebrities of British politics in the years to come. Witty, young, and passionate, Wilberforce’s eloquence and zeal made him one of the most commanding debaters in the House of Commons, even in its ‘greatest age of eloquence’. The Quak-
ers, a Christian movement of long-standing abolitionists, formed an Abolition Committee in 1787, along with other anti-Slave Trade campaigners. However, they needed a figurehead within the House of Commons, to bring about an "Inquiry into the Slave Trade". It seemed that Newton had not been incorrect in telling Wilberforce that God had a purpose for him. The Quakers believed that Wilberforce was the man they needed. Wilberforce had found his cause. He and his friend Pitt, who was by this point Prime Minister, shared a famous conversation under an oak tree on his country estate, in which Pitt advised Wilberforce to take up the cause. A young man named Thomas Clarkson, a founding member of the Abolition Committee set about travelling the United Kingdom, gathering information on the Slave Trade. Wilberforce presented the horrors that Clarkson had discovered, in his first ardent and deeply moving speech to Parliament. Having exposed the realities of the trade, Wilberforce famously declared to the law-makers ‘Having heard all of this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say that you did not know’. Within three days of Wilberforce’s speech, parliament resolved that it would eventually ensure the abolition of the Slave Trade. However, the opposition was fierce: much of Britain’s wealth was dependent on the continuation of the trade, and its defenders were every bit as zealous as the abolitionists. Wilberforce was physically assaulted, and at times had to travel with personal security. The promise of gradual abolition began to look more and more like empty words. But Wilberforce’s belief in his cause was unshakeable. The Abolitionists were a dynamic movement, and consistently brought their cause to public attention. Appealing to the humanity and compassion of the public, Wilberforce and his movement organized sugar boycotts, petitions, and at one point a march on the prime minister's office. Wilberforce’s battle for the abolition of the slave trade marked a
new era of public pressure campaigns. The public response was positive; it seemed that a large proportion of the population now recognised the barbarity of the trade. Petitions were signed by millions, and by 1796 the Abolitionists believed they had sufficient support in Parliament to succeed. However, the internal politics of the House of Commons complicated matters. The Abolitionists’ parliamentary opponents gave free opera tickets to some of those who were intending to vote in support of the bill, for the night of the vote. The result was that the Bill was defeated in the Commons by 4 votes. Wilberforce was, for the time being, defeated. He suffered a nervous breakdown and a collapse of his health. His old friend John Newton, however, offered inspiration and spiritual reinvigoration when Wilberforce needed it most. Comparing Wilberforce’s situation to the Biblical tale of Daniel in the Lion’s Den, Newton explained to Wilberforce that "the God whom you serve continually is able to preserve and deliver you, he will see you through." It seemed that this reinvigoration was precisely what Wilberforce needed. Refreshed, he returned to the political battlefield. From this point on, Wilberforce’s proposed Abolition Bill was brought before the Commons each year. Failed bill after failed bill did not deter his passion, or utter devotion to his cause. On the 23rd February 1807, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Bill was once again debated in Parliament. After years of resilience and efforts, when Wilberforce saw that the most of the speeches given in the debate were in favour of the Bill, he realised that the Bill was going to be passed. Wilberforce, by this point in ill health and a mere shadow of the young man who first adopted the cause, bowed his head and wept. Wilberforce’s battle had taken twenty long years. His dear friend Pitt had passed away in 1806, leav-
ing Wilberforce more determined than ever to fight for the cause in which they had so fervently believed together. William Wilberforce passed away on 29th July 1933, poignantly just two days after hearing that a second Bill which would abolish slavery throughout the rest of Britain’s colonies would be passed through parliament. Wilberforce is buried in Westminster Abbey, close to William Pitt the Younger. His legacy is cherished, and he is remembered as a man whose ability, faith, humanity and determination changed the lives of millions across the globe, and brought about the end of the Slave Trade throughout the British Empire. Respected in the end even by those who strongly disagreed with him; Wilberforce’s achievements are perhaps best reflected in his own words: “We are too young to realize that certain things are impossible... So we will do them anyway.”
Partisans: The Unsung Heroes of World War Two
By Daniel Foster
would only receive resources by raiding stockpiles, and air drops from other countries. Partisans were a communal effort and almost any kind of resistance weather it’s the shopkeeper tampering with restrictions to get more food to the people or taking to the street barricades in armed resistance and whilst all occupied nations had partisan groups there are some main.
When we think of those involved in World War 2, we immediately think about the leaders, soldiers and civilians on the home front, yet there is a 4th group who has members from all these groups and in my opinion had one of the most pivotal contribution. In this article I will be explaining how ordinary plain clothed people were able to deal serve blows to the most of ad- The French resistance or as known in some vanced and powerful army at the time. rural areas the Marquis, It’s suggested A partisan is a member of an irregular mili- there were 300,000 members with most betary force formed to oppose control of an ing members of left wing politics there were area by a foreign power or by an army of oc- members from all walks of social class and cupation by some kind of insurgent activity. professions but also, Women, Jews escaping Unlike the other movements such as the persecution as well as volunteers who fled Free French Forces they did not have as from Poland, Spain and Italy. Initially there strong a structure as a normal army and op- was little resistance in France as the Southerated on much more on a local level and ern part (Vichy France) was left as a Nazi
puppet and seen to be safe to live in however soon the persecution and brutality began after being made to pay taxes for the upkeep of 300,000 German soldiers resistance began at first it was passive. Coal miners going on strike and similar protests shortly it lead to arm conflict with many hit and run raids crippling enemy supply lines. Through the war the resistance was greatly helped by the British Secret executive orders (SOE) that almost nightly were conducted high risk air drops containing supplies and agents to help train and co-ordinate attacks. By 1943 their threat was so serve that not only had reserve German forces been sent but the Vichy government created the Milice (Militia loyal to the Nazis) because these men were recruited from the same areas some partisans came from, many knew where their hideouts were and ultimately betrayed their countrymen. However their finest hour came in 1944 when months prior to D-Day they began destroying enemy locations and transport routes but also mapped out the remaining concentrations to be sent to allied aircraft for bombing raids. Finally in 1944 the citizens of Paris who had been preparing for 4 years had finally sensed their moment to strike and launched a full uprising in Paris, after the support of the 2nd Free French armoured division and the loss of 1,000 operatives Paris was liberated and respect for the partisans cemented.
Poland.The original members were experienced soldiers and officers who refused to surrender and went into hiding, yet soon like the French, all members of society had joined the ranks. The poles went for a different approach in their actions as all though they did carry out some missions in the countryside the concentrated on gathering resources for an eventual uprising centred in the capital, Warsaw the Poles quickly learnt they could not rely on air drops and captured enemy supplies and so by using the vast amount of skilled engineers they began producing their own weapons including an Armoured car called Kubuś. The Warsaw army was referred to as the underground state as in the sewers and cellars entire settlements began complete with markets, hospitals workshops and schools to educate children whose education was disrupted by the war. In a way Poland’s Home army has an element of Romance, amongst its ranks who fought were many, writers, artists and other leading cultural figures, yet it was full of young teenagers determined to after the war rebuild their democratic capitalist state and experience a time of peace and prosperity that they had never known. For years they too had waited but in August 1944 they saw their chance, soviet offensives had pushed the Germans back in Poland and they had reached the banks of the Vistula river by Warsaw, citizens could hear the Similarly is perhaps the best organized sound of battle and felt the time was now. Group yet unfortunately due to Politics the A broadcast was made on the Underground most ignored , The Polish Home army, set up radio and the uprising began on August 1st almost immediately after the surrender of Initially the 20,000 insurgent met great suc-
cess and one unit captured a German tank which then supported a liberation of a concentration camp resulting in hundreds of Jews to immediately join the struggle. Unfortunately Due to historic tensions Russian aid never came and Stalin forbid the allies dropping in supplies saying the Home army was full of Capitalist nationalists that would be just as bad as the Nazi’s. The home army fought on against impossible odds showing the true resilience of Partisans and after Two months the Germans had recaptured Warsaw with 85% of the city destroyed and 150,000-200,000 civilians killed in reprisals. The Final Group is without question the largest with some estimates suggesting half a million members but also proves a point that one of the Germans greatest strengths was also a crucial weakness, When Blitzkrieg had swept through Russia vast amounts of soldiers and civilians had managed to escape and settle in the vast woodlands of Soviet republics, especially Belorussia. The soviet High command thought partisans could be an effective weapon and began to send in political commissars to act as leaders for units however they received little training, no radios and no co-ordination between other units, as a result in 1941 2,800 units were created but in 1942 only 270 survived. In 1942 a Partisan headquarters was set up which started to send in experts in Guerrilla warfare who also supplied radios, a final measure was to include trained medical and craftsman to support the partisan settlements. However due to the mass refugees when the Germans found the locations the
partisans were often unable to evacuate and have to fight to the death. However it was sabotage they excelled in one incident a single saboteur was able to destroy an entire rail junction filled with 120 supply wagons and 8 tanks. Further proof is during the battle of Kursk, many German reinforcements being brought in by rail were being delayed due to sabotage, further delays occurred when repairing the lines would often lead to ambushes meaning many German units suffered casualties hundreds of miles behind the front. Perhaps more importantly if you look at the battle of Kursk which was a major a turning point on the Eastern front at some point there was real deadlocks which if all the Germans had been able to gather all reinforcements un-delayed could have been breached. The Germans tried to destroy a large enclave in Belorussia, they deployed 60,000 men, 137 tanks, 236 guns, 70 aircraft and 2 armoured trains, the partisans who numbered 60,000 caught word and 2,000 local partisans were ordered to help build a 1,000 meter airstrip in hilly marsh made out of logs. The completion aloud many wounded and vulnerable civilians to flee. The survivors remained behind to fight and only 15,000 survived. When the areas were liberated by the Russian army many partisans simply signed up to be regular soldiers. At first glance it’s easy to ignore the partisans achievement as many of the mission were petty sabotage resulting in some supplies destroyed and a handful of enemy soldiers killed yet when you take into consider-
ation these missions were repeated 1,000s those who are prepared to stand up to evil. of times throughout Europe then it becomes easy to understand how the Germans suffered 500,000casualties In Belorussia alone through to Partisan activities. Secondly the Passive resistance from forced labourers is perhaps the most important on paper workers tampering with weapons and munitions in a discreet manner wouldn’t cause the overseer to pay much attention but when a soldier receives a rifle on the front line that doesn’t fire properly he’s not likely to last long. In conclusion Partisans may not have won major battles and the Leaders aren’t as well known as men like Montgomery and Rommel but they caused Psychological harm on the soldiers stationed in their areas constantly fearing an ambush. The Germans created an SS division (normally seen as the most elite and fanatical German soldiers) 4th SS Polizei Panzergrenadier Division comprising of 10, 00-15,000 soldiers supported by tanks and artillery just to fight civilians armed with rifles in the machine guns. On the other hand some partisan forces such as the Yugoslavian became virtual armies as they were the only ones to have an air force and a navy in which small patrol boats raided German and Italian ports. In conclusion whilst partisans are not a part of our culture and heritage, it is important their stories be remembered, as without them Mussolini may have been able to escape. Above all, partisans demonstrate throughout history that there will always be
Edward Heath: Wrong Place, Wrong Time. By Tom Davies
Edward Heath is too often criticised by not just the left of the political spectrum, but by his own party for his supposed failings during his premiership between June 1970 and February 1974. When studying history, it is too easy to criticise individuals for their actions and choices without taking in to account the full impact of the context and conditions in which these decisions were taken. The Conservative loss of the 1974 election is a prime example of where our often unforgiving judgement clouds reality and ensures that in this case, we forget the circumstances in which Labour’s Harold Wilson had left Heath, as well as the poor foreign and domestic affairs in the light of which, Heath’s reputation as a leader and a politician would be torn to pieces. Wilson's government of 1964 to 1970 left an array of issues, mainly with the trade unions, which meant that Edward Heath's
time as Prime Minister would be plagued with troubles. It is true also that these issues overshadowed the personal failings of Heath between 1970 and 1974. However, the difficult legacy on its own was not enough to topple Heath's government in 1974. In fact, external circumstances which then provoked the trade unionists to cause further problems had just as much impact as the difficult legacy of Wilson's time in power. Heath's government therefore would be remembered as a victim of poor industrial relations caused by the previous government as well as of the external circumstances in which these problems would then amplify. The difficult legacy left behind by the Labour government of 1964 to 1970 was caused to a large extent by Wilson himself. In creating the Department for Economic Affairs, or DEA, in 1966, he had set up two
long-term rivals against each other. George Brown would oversee the new department's running, which would in turn relieve the Treasury, run by the chancellor James Callaghan, of around half of their responsibilities. Wilson argued that this would improve the economic situation in Britain; it would turn out to be a bitter failure, largely due to infighting between Brown and Callaghan. This resulted in poor management of Britain's economy, which would be characterised by rising unemployment, growing inflation and harsh wage controls. Unemployment by 1970 had reached 628,000 and this would continue to rise until it reached 1 million during Heath's term as Prime Minister. This milestone of 1 million is key to why Heath lost the 1974 election because it symbolised the first time since the war that Britain was not running full employment. It is therefore very important to understand that Wilson's difficult economic legacy placed Heath's government in a troublesome situation, which would be nearly impossible to shake before the election of 1974. However, the Heath administration was tarnished from the beginning by a much more pressing issue, which would affect the electorate much more than unemployment figures did at the time. This problem was that of poor industrial relations left by the Wilson government. Unemployment, of course, would catalyse this issue of bad relations with the trade unions, but therefore isn't the most important reason why Heath would lose the 1974 election. The major
event of the Wilson government which would put relations with the Unions at risk was the White Paper 'In Place of Strife' in 1969. The imposition of such legislation would mean that trade unions would be required to hold a ballot and a 28-day conciliatory, or 'cooling-off', period before any strike action could take place, else it would be deemed illegal. The proposition proved most unpopular with the unions, who believed that their power would diminish as a result of the legislation. The policy was abandoned when 50 Labour MPs threatened to rebel. Labour's failure to deal with the growing power of the unions when the problems were still in their first stages meant that Heath's government would be condemned upon their introduction of the Industrial Relations in 1971, which was followed by a wave of strikes and was a major factor in the outcome of the 1974 election. It is true that Heath did not possess all the qualities that were expected of a Prime Minister, especially in the lack of charisma he seemed to have compared with Harold Wilson. By 1974, it seemed as though Heath was losing touch with the voting public; his campaign for the election had the tag-line "Who Governs?" - which was a reference to the chaos that the trade unions were causing as a result of their rioting. However, it seemed that he was mistaken, and the electorate would remind him that it was they who governed the country, by voting the Tories out. As Anthony Seldon argues, "had he been a better more inspiring communicator to the coun-
try and to his own party, Heath might have made more headway in the unpropitious circumstances". Though this statement appears to support the argument that Heath's personal failings were the main reason for the 1974 election loss, it is important not to underestimate the significance of the "unpropitious circumstances" in which Heath found himself in. Therefore, Heath's personal failings certainly had much less of an impact in the general election of 1974 than external circumstances or the poor industrial relations. In terms of external circumstances, Heath is often thought of as the least lucky Prime Minister in modern British history. Just as the problems with the trade unions intensified, the third Arab-Israeli war erupted in the Middle East. The Arabian members of OPEC halted exports to Western countries, whom they believed were in support of Israel. The impact on Britain was devastating. The balance of payments deficit rose to ÂŁ1bn, the value of sterling dropped from $2 to $1.57 and interest rates hit 15%. The electorate saw a Prime Minister who failed to deal with these problems and the NUM took full advantage of this by demanding a pay rise in November 1973. With the imposition of the three-day week, many argue that Heath sealed his fate in the forthcoming election, but the unions were holding the country to ransom, and Heath faced a tough decision; he would either lose credibility and give in to the miners' demands, or try to face them down. With hindsight, it is easy to say that he made the wrong deci-
sion, but at the time, the choice was not so clear cut. Moreover, the devaluation of the pound in 1967 had a knock-on effect when the currency was again lowered in value as a result of the oil crisis; a weak pound makes imports more expensive, so the impact was doubled because Wilson's government had left it too late to devalue the pound in the first place. Had Wilson devalued the pound earlier, the benefits of this action would have been much more developed by the time that the oil crisis came about, and it would have had much less of an impact on Britain's economy. The dramatic ramifications of the Yom Kippur war on Britain's economy made worse the already poor outlook of Heath's government. Thus it was external circumstances, combined with the sorry economic inheritance from Wilson's time in power and the period of poor industrial relations, which were predominantly to blame for the result of the 1974 election. Troubles in Northern Ireland are another problem which Heath faced over which he had little control. After 'Bloody Sunday', Heath suspended the Parliament of Northern Ireland and imposed direct rule from Westminster. Heath was unable to do much more; after the events of the aforementioned Sunday, the British public were shocked and embarrassed that such an event could occur on their soil, so close to home. The crisis had a big impact on Heath's image, as many saw him as incapable of bringing about a sensible democratic solution to the sectarian violence. In fact,
he did offer a sensible conclusion - but it was one which involved a certain, unthinkable (at the time) level of co-operation between unionists and Catholic politicians. As Heath himself later stated, "Ultimately it was the people of Northern Ireland themselves who threw away the best chance of peace in the blood-stained history of the six counties." Yet again, it appears to be the external circumstances in which Heath's government found itself in that would ensure its fate in the general election of 1974. There is a recurring theme throughout Heath's time as Prime Minister, and it is that external events, that is to say those over which he had no control, would present themselves at unfortunate times, and that they would be amplified by the difficult legacy which Wilson left, most importantly with regards to industrial relations. The legacy of Wilson's problems with the unions served as a catalyst for the issues Heath faced after the Industrial Relations Act of 1971 and in the latter part of 1973. Quite simply, Heath was, as Marr puts it, "ruling at a time when public sympathy was more with the unions than with the government". Heath's time in power was stained by conflict with the trade unions which stemmed from Wilson's initial poor handling and was worsened by external circumstances. This combination ultimately led to the downfall of the Conservative government in 1974. Of course, it must be noted that Heath's personal failings did nothing to aid his chances, but they were by no means enough to secure a defeat in
the 1974 election as a standalone factor. We make judgements about the past to best reflect our views in the present, and to learn from the mistakes that others have made in order that we do not make them again. But it is important not to make judgements about people and events without fully understanding the complexities surrounding them, otherwise we risk advocating beliefs that are not our own and we remain ignorant of the truth. Hindsight, as they say, is a wonderful thing.
The History of Solitary Confinement in the USA By Georgia Sampson The practice of solitary confinement first found its place in medieval monasteries, where it was used to punish disobedient monks. But made its way over to the US after the Revolution with its most prominent advocate being Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia who also happened to be a signatory on the Declaration of Independence and was widely regarded as America’s foremost physician. During this time there was a push from many social critics to develop a fairer criminal justice system, more fit for a democratic republic. Rush objected to capital punishment, corporal punishment and unruly jails and published and essay in 1787 titled “An Enquiry Into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Criminals, and Upon Society.” In the essay he sought to criticise punishments that did little to rehabilitate the criminal, and endorsed the creation of a new kind of prison; one that would be grounded on the Quaker principle of inner light. It was thought that if prisoners were isolated with only a Bible to keep them company, they would soon see the error of their ways, pray for forgiveness and become changed men. "A whipping post, nay even a gibbet are all light punishments compared with letting a man's conscience loose upon him in solitude,"
Rush wrote. Each prisoner would be forced to remain in his cell at all times, however they would be allowed a brief daily exercise period held in an individual pen adjoining each cell. Meals were eaten in cells and when the prisoners were allowed to leave their cells – they weren’t allowed to interact with other prisoners and had to wear hoods to protect their anonymity. Numbers were used instead of names to identify prisoners and silence was maintained at all times. On average, inmates spend two to four years along in their cells, underneath a single round skylight, known in the prison as the “eye of God.” All of this was to finally be put into practice in 1821 when reformers convinced the Pennsylvania legislature to approve funding for Eastern State Penitentiary. Despite their well-intentioned ideas, however, many of the men placed in these new prisons went insane. A Supreme Court opinion on the effects of solitary confinement on inmates housed in Philadelphia Justice Samuel Freeman Miller found, "A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-
-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." Upon travelling to Philadelphia in 1810, Charles Dickens visited the famed Philadelphian Penitentiary. During this time, he wrote of his experience.
“The system here is rigid, strict, and hopeless solitary confinement. I believe it, in its effects, to be cruel and wrong. In its intention, I am well convinced that it is kind, humane, and meant for reformation; but I am persuaded that those who devised this system of Prison Discipline, and those benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution, do not know what it is that they are doing. I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it myself, and in reasoning from what I have seen written upon their faces, and what to my certain knowledge they feel within, I am only the more convinced that there is a depth of terrible endurance in it which none but the sufferers themselves can fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict upon his fellow-creature. I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body: and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore I the more denounce it, as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay. I hesitated once, debating with myself, whether, if I had the power of saying 'Yes' or 'No,' I would allow it to be tried in certain cases, where the terms of imprisonment were short; but now, I solemnly declare, that with no rewards or honours could I walk a happy man be-
neath the open sky by day, or lie me down upon my bed at night, with the consciousness that one human creature, for any length of time, no matter what, lay suffering this unknown punishment in his silent cell, and I the cause, or I consenting to it in the least degree.” (Dickens, 1842, p. 81) In 1913, the solitary system in Philadelphia penitentiary was officially abandoned although it had been declining in use before that point. Instead, solitary confinement became a short-term punishment for misbehaving prisoners rather than the prison's standard operating procedure. Still, the use of solitary confinement goes on worldwide as well as US prisons thanks to the rise in the famed Supermax prison. Despite having been abandoned the practice is back up and running in these prisons. The famed Supermax Pelican Bay is one institution that uses the practice as part and parcel of its everyday procedure, with the SHU (Special Housing Unit) or “the Hole” as it is referred to by inmates the hub of the practice. Dr. Stuart Grassian, a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist concluded that the SHU drives prisoners insane, and estimates that one-third of all SHU inmates are psychotic. He writes of what he calls "the SHU syndrome," the symptoms of which include self-mutilation and throwing excrement. Estimates on the number of prisoners placed in solitary confinement are hard to come by due to the fact that many prisons simply choose not to make the data available and some decide to not even keep records of the data altogether. Attempts to reach any figure are therefore imperfect based on both the lack of consensus on definitions well as counting procedures in the different States. But one thing for certain is that this awful practice is unfortunately not confined to the past yet.
History Of Faberge Eggs
By Heather Nelson In the 18th century, for Russian Orthodox Christians, Easter was the most important event of the year, especially for Russian royalty. In 1842, Gustav Faberge established a firm that produced exquisite pieces of art; the most famous was the “Faberge Egg”. Five years later, Gustav Faberge retired at only 46, and took his family to Dresden where his son Carl Faberge, would learn how to become the perfect craftsman to continue the Faberge legacy. In 1872, when Carl was just 26, he took over his Father’s business in St Petersburg injecting his creativity into the company. He claimed that “expensive things interest me little if the value is merely in so many diamonds of pearls”.
In 1882, Carl gained the attention of the Imperial Family, and was invited to an exhibition in Moscow, where he was given permission to incorporate the jewellery at the exhibition into modern objects – this is when he came up with the idea of the “Faberge Egg”. The Tsar at the time was Alexander III, who had taken the throne after his father Alexander II was assassinated in March 1881. His father’s death authenticated that the autocracy was not popular with Russia; when the Tsar was on his way back from a ceremony, a bomb was thrown under his carriage, but did not harm him. Thus, a second bomb was thrown, ripping his stomach open. Miraculously, he was able to make it to the palace to die there, with his family around his deathbed. Alexander III was now Tsar and his new re-
forms centred all power on himself, isolating him from the people. After his father’s assassination, his moved his family to Gatchina Palace, a few miles away from St Petersburg. Despite the palace having over 900 rooms, the palace itself was like a prison – it was permanently surrounding by guards. When Easter arrived, the royal family would receive eggs as gifts – but shockingly, the eggs were from terrorists – threatening to blow up the palace by embedding bombs into the eggs. This is when the first Faberge Egg was made. They first became a symbol of royalty when in 1885 Tsar Alexander III gave his Tsarina, Marie Federovona, a white enamelled egg, about two and a half inches high to celebrate the Holy Week, distracting his wife away from the threat of the revolutionaries. The gift was, of course, a Faberge Egg, and cost 4, 151 roubles (about £28,000 now) which surprisingly was not that expensive compared to the Tsar’s nine million roubles income (£70 million). It is unsurprising that two decades later there would be an uprising which would dismantle the Tsarist autocracy forever – the Russian Revolution of 1905. Referring back to my earlier point, the Faberge Egg that the Tsarina received established Faberge as the court supplier. The Egg itself opened to reveal a golden yolk, and within it contained a golden hen – a diamond miniature of the Imperial crown
with a ruby pendant on it. Faberge Eggs’ would be required each year for the Tsar to give to his Tsarina the Russian Orthodox Easter Festival. It became a tradition – each egg was specially made, the first Hen egg reminded Maria of her childhood, and therefore, each egg produced after that would be personal to the Tsarina. However, after the Revolution of 1905, the Faberge Egg family left Russia. Today, a total of 50 eggs have been produced but only 42 have survived. 2 were lost during the Revolution. The Faberge trademark has been sold several times, recreating the famous Eggs.
Malcolm Forbes, the son of the creator of Forbes Magazine, holds twelve of the Eggs. The others are placed in Museums worldwide, such as in St Petersburg and Maryland, America. Faberge Eggs gained their popularity and prestige through the autocracy of Russia. The last egg was made in 1916, when the war began and marked the end of Faberge productions, but led to a lasting legacy, and even today the Eggs are considered exquisite pieces of art that represent the downfall of the autocracy.
Fidel Castro in the Cold War
By Sally Dickens
Fidel Castro, born in 1929 in Cuba, was a successful ambitious student who studied Law at the University of Havana. He had a powerful mind-set and had intended to run for election which was scheduled for 1952. However, with General Fulgencio Batista overthrowing the government and creating a right-wing state with himself as the dictator, Cuba was then ultimately fascist-inspired; with the poor being treated terribly and America’s rich using Cuba as their playground- they would go to Cuba to gamble and live the ‘good life’. Castro’s beliefs were opposite to that of Batista’s – Castro rejected democracy and had strong communist beliefs… this opposition to Batista led to Castro and his brother Raúl leading a rising against Batista in 1953. However, this was unsuccessful and Castro was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was released and fled to Mexico, where he met with the (some say) ‘icon’ that is Che Guevara. In 1956, Castro and Guevara started the ‘26th of July movement’, in which they used guerrilla warfare against the government. Two years later in 1958, Castro launched a full scale attack in which Batista
was forced to flee Cuba. In 1959 Castro became Prime Minister of Cuba and announced it Communist – the poor were thankful, however most Cubans fled, primarily to the US). The US went from having good relations with Cuba to becoming hostile – to the point where they imposed economic sanctions on Cuba in 1960. The US opposed Cuba as they had become what they most feared… Communist! The US feared the ‘domino theory’ – they believed that once one country became communist, everyone else would follow. Their greatest fear was that communist Russia would ultimately take over the world. This opposition of Communism versus the rest of the world stated the 46 year long Cold War between the US and Russia. Although these powers were never in direct physical conflict, they did oppose each other in ways such as the Vietnam War and through others, such as Fidel Castro.The Vietnam War was also a conflict between Communism and democracy, with the communist countries such as Russia and Cuba supporting communist North Vietnam. Cuban airmen went to North Vietnam and trained two sets of North Viet-
namese airmen to attack US navy ships. The US was supporting Southern Vietnam which was democratic – the sending of troops to Vietnam was very controversial in the USA at the time of ‘peace’ (if you’re not sure what time this is, watch Forrest Gump). The US and Russia were both determined to destroy one another. The opposition between the US and Cuba became very apparent in the 1960’s. Firstly, with the Bay Of Pigs Invasion; Cuban exiles invading Cuba in April, 1961. This invasion was supported by the CIA, but nonetheless it failed, rising the already high tensions between the US and Cuba. Perhaps Castro’s most vital role in the Cold War was his permission for the Russians to secretly build sites for nuclear missiles in Cuba. This permission enabled Russia to create and develop their nuclear weapons, and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the nearest that world ever came to nuclear war. Tensions arose as the US feared they would be under a nuclear attack and President Kennedy demanded that the Soviet missiles had to be removed from Cuba. The public revealing of this nuclear weapon finding created more tension on both sides of the conflict; this conflict was eased (only slightly!) by Russia’s Khrushchev sending a passionate letter in which he proposed removing the Soviet missiles and personnel, however only if the US guaranteed that they would not attack Cuba- Russia wanted to protect their communist ally. Tensions between the US and Russia eased on October 28th, 1962 as Khrushchev announced that he would dismantle the missiles and return to Russia. The US then assured that they would not invade their neighbour, Cuba. Castro was supported by Russia for many years after Cuba’s input in the Missile Crisis, and Cuba hugely benefited economically from this support. This is because the Cuban Missile Crisis was enabled by Fidel Castro allowing the missiles to be placed in Cuba. He did this to aid Communist Russia and also for the security of Cuba; he knew that
the US would attack again after the Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961! Although the Cold War was never a physical combat as such, and although it was a long war – 46 years! I believe that Fidel Castro’s role may seem vital to the Cold War as he provided Russia with a base to hold their nuclear weapons, which ultimately enabled the Cuban Missile Crisis to happen. This shows that Castro did seem to play a vital part in the confrontation that was the nearest that the world ever came to Nuclear War. However… Would two of the greatest powers in the world, Russia and the US, not have gone to some sort of war without the input of the tiny little island of Cuba anyway?
Why Were the Military Tactics of the Swedish King Carolus Rex So Successful?
By George Pearson
kings”.
"Never have I seen such a combination of uncontrollable dash and perfectly controlled discipline, such soldiers and such subjects are not to be found the wide world over except in Sweden"
When the Great Northern war commenced in 1700, the Swedish army decisively won pitched battles against multiple foes under the leadership of Carolus Rex, who ensured that the Caroleans never lost a battle that he was in direct control of. Though ultimately he lost the war, his defiance against impossible odds led to the survival of Sweden as an independent and successful country today.
General Stenbock, Gadebusch 1712 Charles XII, known by his latinised name Carolus Rex was one of the most famous kings in Swedish history as it was his exploits which brought Swedish empire back into power before crumbling after his death. Known for his military prowess with his elite soldiers, the Caroleans; he was a devout Christian who abstained from alcohol and women. He was rumoured to have a supernatural tolerance to pain, an utter lack of emotions and felt most comfortable when leading his armies into battle; earning himself the title “the last of the Vi-
On 5th April 1697, Charles’ reign began at the age of 15. For the first 3 years the peace remained, until the neighbouring countries of Denmark, ruled by his cousin Fredrik IV, Russia and its Tsar Peter the Great and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth with the Polish king Augustus II declared war on Sweden and initiated the Great Northern war. With a young king on
the throne they saw this as an opportunity to dismember Sweden which back then controlled areas such as Finland, part of Norway, Livonia (modern day Latvia/ Estonia), Estonia and Ingria (territory around modern day St. Petersburg). Charles XII proved quickly that he was an exceptional military commander; defeating the Danes first at Holstein and within months had the Danes pull out of the war. His next target was the Commonwealth and Russia, the latter of which had begun storming through Livonia and Estonia on the same day Denmark was subdued. Charles engaged the Russian forces on November 19th 1700 at Narva. The weather conditions were winter blizzards and the Russian army numbered 4:1 to the Swedes. In the cover of the blizzard the Caroleans split the Russian forces and decimated them, with many of them fleeing the battle and subsequently drowning in the Narva river- Swedish losses totalled 667 whereas the Russians lost 9,000 men and had 20,000 captured. This was the battle that cemented tactical genius of Charles XII and the expertise of the Caroleans. It also highlights the Swedish army’s very aggressive tactical doctrine which they used to vicious efficiencya tactic known as the Gå–På (Go-On). This tactic involved marching (or a quick run) to within 20m of the enemy lines, firing a salvo, then engaging the enemy in melee combat with bayonets, pikes and rapiers. This severely demoralized any facing the
Caroleans due to the ferocity of the attack and the lack of fear they showed faced with enemy fire. This required enormous amounts of discipline and organization within the ranks of the Caroleans which was maintained by a strict set of rules, an absolute faith in God, and high amounts of Camaraderie amongst the Swedish forces. Charles then fought the Commonwealth, again achieving victories in battles pitched against him. After Poland surrendered, Charles XII dethroned Augustus II and put a puppet on the throne. As he was still in control of his native Saxony Augustus attempted to retake the throne with the help of Russian forces and challenged the garrison at the Battle of Fraustadt in 1706. Augustus was 120km away from the main contingent with additional forces, but before Augustus could meet with his general, Schulenberg, the army was wiped out by the Carolean army half their size due to their expert usage of cavalry resulting in 15,000 casualties against the Swedes 1,400. Augustus gave up his claim to the Polish throne and remained in Saxony leaving Russia as the last power. Fraustadt highlighted the Caroleans use of encirclement and their Cavalry variant of the Gå–På, which took the aggressive tactics and altered them to make devastating, highly mobile Cavalry charges using tight formations to maximize damage. 1707. Peter had since taken Swedish Ingria and as Charles advanced into Russian territory he was buffeted by one of the coldest recorded winters in history and the Russian
scorched earth tactics were taking their toll on Swedish forces. The last great victory for Carolus Rex came in July 1708 at Holowczyn (near modern day Minsk, Belarus) where they surprised the Russian army across the Vabich River. The Russian forces however were able to retreat and regroup and the end of the Caroleans’ March came at Poltava, June 1709 in modern day Ukraine. By this point Charles’ forces were heavily depleted, as the expected re-enforcements were ambushed by the Russians. He took the fort at Poltava, but during the siege Charles was wounded and in a coma due to cold and blood loss. Command was handed over to his two generals, whose communications and battle strategies were poorly relayed and disputed, causing a breakdown of strategy and order within the Swedish ranks. The outnumbered Caroleans were losing the battle and while watching the battle from a stretcher after regaining consciousness during the battle, Charles XII ordered a retreat. They were pursued by Russian cavalry and forced to surrender. This was the beginning of the end for the Swedish empire and Charles spent 14 years in exile with the Ottomans in Constantinople and on returning to Sweden found his country under attack from all sides. He led multiple campaigns into Norway, but in 1718 and at the siege of Fredriksten he was struck in the head whilst inspecting the trenches near the front line, killing the king. The siege was broken and Charles’ body brought back to Sweden where it remains today.
The legacy of Carolus Rex pertains today was seen as the last great king of Sweden before the empire’s collapse. He was revered by people, inspired songs, and holds his legacy of being one of the greatest military tacticians of his time.
Should We Be Proud of the First World War?
By Cameron Fleming Recently education minister Michael Gove showed his disgust to the message that the Blackadder series “Blackadder goes forth” gives and its portrayal of the First World War as being disastrous and said disasters being caused by allied high command and subsequently banned the series from being shown in schools. So, should this social control be justified by its wrong message or is the portrayal in Blackadder accurate (if comedic in nature) and should we be proud about Britain’s part in the First World War? And which parts should we be proud of? It seems all too often the “poets view” of the war is all that is portrayed in the media. The mud, wire and drama of such films as the warhorse and the portrayal of trench warfare in period dramas such as Downton abbey have done nothing to support the
view that the war was worth winning and the fact that the “great war” claimed the lives of 702,410 service personnel (not including those captured or wounded which takes the figure to over 2 million) compared to the 264,443 killed in the second world war shows the high death toll suffered by British forces in the first war hit the 43 million population hard. However the high death toll in the First World War may also be the reason for the lower in the second. That is that British losses and the reaction to the bloodbath of the First World War saw a more cautious approach to warfare proved by the actions of Winston Churchill swapping from risky expeditionary forces in the Dardanelles to the looking for a “soft underbelly” of fascist Europe. In short it could be viewed that the losses shocked the public and military alike
to put for a possibly isolationist or passive view of international relations which in part led to the rise of fascism with Hitler gaining appeasement due in some part to allied fear of German retaliation. Nevertheless, this also led to an outlook of greater involvement in international affairs with the League of Nations being set up with Britain as a prime leader. This mixed reaction to the war shows some sort of change in British foreign affairs in Europe at least. However, maybe the moral judgement of the war should not be its results and reactions but the reason for joining in the beginning. Traditionally the poets view stated that another Balkan war became a western European affair through alliance groups (triple entente and the central powers being the most prominent) with Britain joining after the attack on “brave little Belgium” and this influencing British troop placement around Belgium, Luxemburg and north eastern France. However, many socialist or communist writers on the subject viewed the whole war as a plot to increase nationalism, reduce class awareness and produce goods for the arms industry thus all benefitting the bourgeoisie but this view has little empirical evidence for motivation to join and the fact that the 40% inheritance tax and the high death toll among officers shows that the
capitalist class was too hit hard by the war. It seems more of a foreign relations breakdown of sorts rather than an international plot!
Nevertheless, the opposing view put forward by Historians such as Hastings is that the war was necessary to stop German imperialism and to halt its growth militarily and recent revelations of colonial death camps in German colonies in Africa seem to back this up however the British empires record as colonial masters and expansionists does not fare much better like the Boer war and Afghanistan showed. Also, our closest allies in the war France, Belgium and Russia could be horrific masters with tsarist Russia leading to revolution in 1917. However, even if German aggression was a valid reason for counter aggression it is ludicrous, when looking on a map of anywhere in the world in 1914, to suggest that the entente could be threatened by Germany and the central powers as the British Empire alone covered a third of the earth and added on to that was all of the French possessions in west Africa, north Africa and Indochina as well as the Russian swathe that covered the northern hemisphere. Also, the minor belligerents in the war and their possessions; Portugal, Italy, the USA, Serbia and japan to name a few compared to a collection of the Germans (with only a few possessions in west and east Africa to lay claim to) who could be brought to the ground through lack of trade and blockade, the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg empire and their Balkan allies and the “sick man of Europe”, the ottoman empire. To put on top of that, the fact that their ally, Italy joined the opposing side rather than join the “central powers” (although
this may have more to do with longstanding friendship with France since Cavour and a hatred of the lack of irridentian lands) shows at least that the central powers just couldn’t be strong enough to fend off the numerically and economically superior enemies it faced.
ties in any part of the war were simply horrific and the setting in the middle of the war simply made things worse. In any place during the war the modern technology twinned with old ideas meant that ordinary people went through and sometimes did extraordinary and horrific things.
Finally, in support of the new View of the war, it is notable that the media’s portrayal may not always be so accurate. For the years 1915-17 on the western front warfare was that which is portrayed, that of wire, mud and shelling but at the beginning, like at Mons and at the end of the war when the western allies were supported by American troops the war was more fluid and less stagnant with the start seeming more like the wars of the previous century with horse artillery, cavalry charges and volley firing in the Brits famous “mad minute” bringing more memories of Napoleon than Hindenburg. Then, at the end of the war when tanks could break some of the deadlock more shock troops or storm troops were used. The armies make up was closer structurally and equipment wise to the start of the Second World War. On many other fronts the war was similar; in the east, it was as if the Russians were refighting their 1812 campaigns in many ways and in the south, in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) the fighting too was reminiscent of more of the Zulu and Boer campaigns in many ways.
Overall, it seems, the poet’s view of the war is largely accurate (if raw and emotional) and their view should not be cast off as easily as is it has been done lately. But surprisingly there is also merit in the “officer’s” view (if you like) war may have been necessary to save Belgium and the wars effect was often social progress like the fact that after the war women got suffrage due to The Representation of the People Act 1928 and the death toll lead to major revisions of foreign policy and how the army was to be ran.
Yet, again the poets view prevails because of the sheer fact that the amount of casual-
However, it seems that the idea of a good or just war hasn’t been placed upon the shoulders of the First World War like it has upon the second. The fear of Fascism is seen today as more of a motivator than German imperialism and the result left empires in ruins and victors “mutilated” but most importantly the way we view any war should take into consideration everyone who took part and the way that the war effected them and for the first time in the great war, normal people at home were effected on both sides. The rise of Zeppelins and aircraft led to total war and the technology left horrific scars upon the world.
In conclusion, I think it is necessary to be proud of those who took part in the war as much as we can, the ordinary soldiers who did extraordinary things; going over the top, dogfights and ferocious charges show the bravery in the war but often the true heroes are the faceless medics, the people of occupied territories and for Britain the empire for that is how we survived the war. But still the foreign policy in the war is nothing to be proud of and even less so the tactics of trench warfare. In the end, the true legacy of the war and the thing we can be proud of is that it gave us a chance to re-evaluate the status of ordinary people in the world and it made sure that the brutal tactics of the war were not repeated and it is therefore unjustifiable to control only one viewpoint of the war as Mr Gove is doing currently.
Tutankhamun By Eoin Bowden (Standish Community High School)
Tutankhamun is a pharaoh from the time of ancient Egypt and is possibly the most famous of them all as his mask is used to symbolize the entire of ancient Egypt. This mask is currently located at the Cairo museum and is a popular tourist attraction in Egypt. Tutankhamun was discovered in 1922 by Howard Carter and George Herbert, but was avoided soon after his discovery because many believed that his tomb was cursed. There were several reasons why these thoughts occurred. The first of these reasons was that some of Howard’s team and some visitors in the tomb died in mysterious conditions. Lord Carnarvon was the first of these mysterious deaths. He was
bitten by a mosquito and accidently scratched the bite he got off it with a razor. This caused the bite to get infected and he died of blood poisoning. Six months after Lord Carnarvon was buried, Dr Derry carried out the first autopsy on Tutankhamun’s body and noticed that a healed patch was on his left cheek. Since Lord Carnarvon was already buried, no one could know where the mosquito bite was located. This caused many people to believe that the tomb as cursed even though they didn’t know where the bite was. Another reason why people believed that the tomb was cursed was because of Sir Bruce Ingham. Bruce received a gift from Howard Carter that had a mummified hand with a bracelet on it.
Writing on the bracelet said, "Cursed be he who moves my body. To him shall come fire, water and pestilence." Shortly after receiving this gift, Bruce Ingham’s house burned down and was later destroyed by a flood, after the reconstruction of his house. More reasons to why people believed the curse existed and caused the media to go crazy over the tomb, making it well known. After the rumour of this and other tombs being cursed were proven false, Egyptologists came to the tomb and analysed it. Inside, they found things such as a wooden bust of Tutankhamun that allowed them to know what he looked like and that he was a young boy. Through research of the tomb, Egyptologists found that Tutankhamun rose to the throne at the age of nine after his father, Akhenaten, died in 1333BC. Originally, he was known as Tutankhaten when he was a prince which means "living image of Aten". He re-named himself Tutankhamun because the name meant "Living Image of Amun". Amun was a deity that controlled winds and became the king of the gods after he fused with Ra, the Sun god. He became known as Amun-Ra after this fusion and was worshiped outside of worship with this name. Amun-Ra was later worshiped as Zeus Ammon during Greek times. This was later changed to Zeus. Because pharaohs were considered to be hosts to gods in ancient Egypt, they changed Tutankhatan’s name so that it suited his role in Egypt. Since people were confused about the difference between the two of his names, he was commonly referred to as King Tut.
Tutankhamun was found to only be slightly muscular and was 5 ft and 11 inches tall. Along with this, he also had some irregularity. One of these includes an elongated skull, although it wasn’t overly abnormal as it was just within the bounds of human heads. He also had large incisors which caused him to have an overbite. These were likely inherited from the royal line he belongs to which is the Thutmosid line. These abnormalities that Tutankhamun has were caused because he was a product of incest. In Egypt, they believed that those of royal blood should practice incest so that the royal line may remain pure. When Tutankhamun became king, he and his half-sister, Ankhesenpaaten married. Ankhesenpaaten changed her name at a later point in the marriage to Ankhesenamun. This name stands for Her Life Is of Amun, meaning that her life is Tutankhamun’s, showing her dedication to her husband. Together, Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun has two babies together, however both were still born. In 2011, Computed Tomography showed that one baby died at 5 months of pregnancy and the other died at 9 months of pregnancy. During his reign, Tutankhamun reversed many changes which his father made during his own reign. One of these was the end of worship of the god Aten and the restoration of the god Amun. In order to make this change successful, Tutankhamun changed his own name from Tutankhaten. Ankhesenpaaten changed her name to Ankhesenamun for the same reason as her
husband. No records of how Tutankhamun died exist. This caused many people to debate to what the likeliest way Tutankhamun died was. Recently, people have started believing that he was assassinated. This was caused because some scans showed that Tutankhamun suffered a leg fracture shortly before death. This injury soon got infected and lead to his death. This was proven false late in 2013 when Egyptologist, Dr. Chris Naunton and scientists from the Cranfield Institute discovered that Tutankhamun had many injuries down one side of his body. These results were simulated so as to find out what way he died and they concluded that Tutankhamun was killed in a crash with a chariot whilst he was kneeling down.
Yet Another Quirk of Fate... By Rose Mennell (Standish Community High School)
On the 28th September 1918, Private Henry Tandey (a British soldier serving near Marcoing in France) encountered retreating German soldiers. As Tandey took aim, a wounded soldier entered his line of fire. Rather than to shoot and kill the German, Tandey took pity and was unable to shoot, “I took aim but couldn’t shoot a wounded man so I let him go.” This soldier nodded in thanks and left.
After 15 minutes, 9 men managed to dash across under a hail of machine gun fire. They were severely outnumbered and decided to charge with bayonets, to which the Germans fled and Tandey with his men managed to take 37 prisoners. For this action Tandey received a Victoria Cross but until 1940, when he was retelling the story to a reporter, no-one knew that Tandey had let a wounded soldier escape.
In September, Tandey’s regiment found themselves on the Western front of Marcoing. Tandey was involved in an attack on the German position, they were faced with 16 German machine guns but they picked off the members of their gun crews with 2 Lewis guns. Eventually Tandey set up a plank bridge for his regiment to cross and charge at the Germans to finish them off.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain –British Prime minister- visited the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler to help prevent another war. When they met in Bavaria, Hitler showed Chamberlain a painting by Fortunino Matania (called the Menin Crossroads) which showed Henry Tandey carrying a soldier at the First Battle of Ypres in 1914. Hitler acquired the painting in 1937 and it was
strange that Hitler owned the painting as it glorified Allied war efforts and showed the defeat of Germany in World War I. However when talking to Chamberlain, Hitler pointed to Tandey (soldier carrying wounded man) and stated “That man came so close to killing me in 1918 that I thought I should never see Germany again, providence saved me from such devilishly .accurate fire as those English boys were aiming at us.” Hitler seized the moment to have his best wishes and gratitude conveyed to Tandey by the Prime Minister, who promised to call him on his return to London. Soon after the meeting with Hitler, Tandey received a phone call from Chamberlain - Chamberlain’s thoughts aren’t known but it is safe to assume that he wished that Tandey had pulled the trigger- informing Tandey that the soldier he did not shoot was now about to start the next world war. Even though Tandey was Britain’s most decorated private soldier after World War I, he now ignored that the medals were symbols for the lives he had saved in the war and all that registered was the guilt that he could have saved many more lives and stopped another war if he had just shot at the enemy soldier – “I didn’t like to shoot at a wounded man,” Tandey said in 1940. “But if I’d only known who he would turn out to be... I’d give 10 years now to have five minutes of clairvoyance then.” After World War I, Tandey re-enlisted after his discharge in 1919 and served in Egypt, Gibraltar and Turkey before leaving in 1926. Due to his self blame, Tandey tried
to re-enlist in World War II but was unable to join as previous injuries stopped him. Instead he registered to become a ARP (Air Raid Precautions) Warden as he felt by helping he was now trying to put things right as he viewed the war as party his responsibility and “He still saw himself as a soldier and wanted to do his bit”. However, nothing could ease Tandey’s sickening sense of guilt even after spending 10 hours, in one night, fighting his way through burning houses and rescuing victims of the Blitz. He could only think of how he could have saved the 60 million lives lost in the Second World War. Now, the situation cannot be wholly verified and many view it as a ‘tall tale’ - all that is known is that Hitler owned a copy of the painting as early as 1937 and the exact days their units were in the same location don’t quite match up. However, it is probably safe to say that Hitler thought of it to be true (but could have confirmed the story because he hoped to show that providence kept him alive to lead Germany to greatness). If this soldier was actually Hitler, then the world and recent history would be drastically different if Tandey was a soldier who acted without compassion and had taken advantage of the soldier’s wounded state to kill him. Had Hitler not lived then there may not have been another war or if a war had been started by someone else it could have surpassed or would have never reached the extent of World War II.
Rwandan Genocide: Inequality Breeds Inequality By Nathaniel Wood (Standish Community High School)
Akala once said (during the song ‘Absolute Power’) “Absolute power corrupts absolutely but absolute powerlessness does the same, it’s not the poverty but the inequality we live with every day that will turn us insane.” He could not have been more correct! Imagine an unbroken tribe going through a period of famine; they work together to ensure all members survive. Now imagine a tribe containing two castes, one of which is full of poverty stricken and powerless people and the other rich and powerful with the latter lending no aid to the former and in fact looking upon them with disgust… How do you see relations between the two groups? Hold that thought. Here comes the realisation that a group of powerless people can do little to affect the rich and powerful. Tension builds up as they are forced to accept the blatant inequality until – just like a tectonic fault line all the energy is released in an earthquake
that shakes the very foundations of humanity and leaves gaping holes in the political world revealing that some things are not what they claim to be. Who is responsible for genocide? The perpetrator? Wrong, you must look further! Although, the Genocide was committed in 1994 to identify its source we must venture back to 1919 and the end of the First World War when the Treaty of Versailles had been signed and the League of Nations had begun dispersing Germany’s colonies amongst the Allies; Rwanda fell into the lap of the Belgian empire and of course the brutal western caste systems soon set in as the Belgians deemed the Tutsi as superior to the Hutu describing them as tall and slim hunters and the inferior Hutu as small farmers. This meant that although they made up only 14% of the population the Tutsi were given vast amounts of power in comparison to the Hutu who made up 85%
of the population (the ‘Twa’ were the missing 1%). Eventually, of course, ‘democracy’ was instated and still holding a bitter resentment the Hutu gained power, it was a recipe for disaster! Moving closer to the event we must consider the assassination of the president at the time, Juvénal Habyarimana. There are two theories on this matter, the first: Tutsi rebels had shot missiles from the ground causing the presidential aircraft to crash as it approached Kigali this doesn’t seem unlikely until you consider the following… First of all, the Akazu – the group at the forefront of instigating killings – honestly believed in the ridiculously irrational Hutu power ideology, as a belief it suggested that all Tutsi intended to re-enslave the Hutu. Secondly, the Genocide began two days after the crash. What I mean by this is: if the shooting was infact the trigger for the murders as many Hutu claim it would have taken MUCH longer than 48 hours to plan a genocide, train so many people to kill so heartlessly and efficiently and gain government and military support. This makes it seem likely that it was merely the Akazu’s feeble attempt to justify what was to come… After 100 days of violence uncontested by the U.N and by the USA (unrelated fact: Rwanda isn’t an oil rich country) 800 000 were massacred. Many sources even suggested that the count was 1 000 000+ which doesn’t seem unlikely considering the horrific scenes of corpses piled up on the road sides, spilled over making it diffi-
cult to drive, Women were brutally raped. It was a time of evil that was only suppressed when the Tutsis themselves attacked from the north and took control of the country yet even then, when the RPF had seized the violence the French came in and saved the Hutu from their fate and although they had refused to step in previously, the U.N ‘harboured the forces of evil’ as Anastase Gasana stated in refugee camps in the Congo for two years where they planned to restart the genocide! The motto for the United Nations is ‘Peace and Security’ but as the Rwandan Genocide has shown us ‘Standing Proud in Complacency’ is more fitting. Disasters happen all the time; the recent Typhoon in the Philippines was horrific but it was a natural disaster and very little could have been done to prevent it, however the occurrence in “Rwanda was man’s wrong-doing to man” and many opportunities to prevent it were presented. Kofi Annan the head of peacekeeping operations for the U.N at the time was contacted a plethora of times by Canadian commander of U.N forces in Rwanda Major General Romeo Dallaire. 11th of January Dallaire faxed the offices of Kofi Annan to show his concern over the registration of Kigali’s Tutsi (remind you of anything?) also reporting that government forces and allied Hutu militias had trained Hutu so that they could “In 20 minutes kill up to 1000 Tutsis.” Romeo Dallaire even proposed action to take for instance he suggested a raid on a weapon stockpile within 36 hours this was intended to stop the arming of Hutu
militants. Annan promptly replied telling him to take NO action. It may seem radical but I would go as far as to say that Kofi Annan supported the slaughter. He was even on site during a battle where Tutsi were said to have courageously fought before being heartlessly massacred. "The battle lasted for eight days as we waited in vain for the help of the United Nations and Kofi Annan." ‘Peace and Security’ what a joke. In conclusion, the genocide was a colonial legacy but was amplified by lack of prevention and lack of action, but most importantly by a lack of humanity… This is concluded best by Steven Mannion, a surgeon who worked in Rwanda during the genocide “Children die in war because of bombing, nobody MEANS to hit them, but in Rwanda a little girl’s legs and arms were cut off before she was left alive by a grown man and for what reason?”
Why Was the American Civil Rights Movement So Successful?
By Zara Andrews The Black American Civil Rights is heralded for constructing the so-called equal United States of America which is known today. It is at the foundations of their microscopic history which is only beginning to ferment. Yet this is England… ‘In a typical history book, Black Americans are mentioned in the context of slavery or civil rights. There is so much more to the story,’ the words of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar say much about our universal perspective. What makes it great is: it is not just the movement, the story, the people; it is the worldwide need for acceptance of all humans and the response to it. The Civil Rights Movement was born out of a dream for equality, yet even today that dream is still not quite there.
Out of the struggles of the American Civil War bore a new country, eager to entice immigrants seeking their fortunes in the new land of the West. Four years of bloody war had disintegrated the South’s infrastructure, leaving 600,000 soldiers as corpses out of 1,030,000 causalities. Although historian J David Hacker believes that the causality rate is 20% higher than this. On May the 10th of 1865 peace was officially declared by the United States. The declaration of peace allowed Black American slaves to be freed alongside creating the USA as one separate country. In the aftermath the Confederate State stigmatized Black Americans, initiating the Jim Crow Laws as part of this.
The Jim Crow Laws permitted racial segregation between blacks and whites, fundamentally in the South. It ensured that whites were the ‘dominate race’ by segregating all of normal life. Whites attended schools that were better funded to ensure they were well educated whereas Black Americans had to go to poorly-funded schools in often cramped, humid classes with sixty children. A better known idea is the segregation of drinking fountains, often providing fresh clean water for white Americans whilst grottier fountains were provided for black Americans. The basis of segregation in the Deep South often created the illusion of normalized behaviour for white Americans. Originally media never took notice of the segregation due to little protests about ill treatment and it being viewed as normal. Progressing through into later years, the behaviour of white supremacy (majorly in the South) provoked the creation of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants which was, as the name suggests, only for White Americans with English Protestant ancestry (later spreading to, of European descent). The group accounted for over 80 lynchings per year, many of which were black Americans (but also some people of other ethnicities). This, however, is overall minuscule in comparison to Tuskegee University’s record of 3,446 blacks lynched and a further 1,297 whites between 1882 and 1968. Benjamin Mayes recounted that in Carolina, "In
this perilous world, if a black boy wanted to live a halfway normal life and die a natural death he had to learn early the art of how to get along with white folks." The threat of death from whites caused 6 million Black Americans to partake in the Great Migration to cities North and West. This was concentrated in two main waves between 1910 and 1970. In cities there was now up to an 80% black population however 53% of black remained in the South mainly due to financial and family reasons. The increase of black Americans in the North caused awareness in the media over the issues in the South, constructing the foundations of interest. Some newspapers were specifically designed to create awareness for the increasing problem; whilst the NAACP hung banners outside their office reporting a recent lynching. Another resistant group of black Americans was the Ku Klux Klan (another extremist American supremacy group); the formation of the Second KKK was in 1915, coinciding with the beginning of the Great Migration. The membership peaked between 1920-25 to approximately 6 million people who actively sought out black Americans and other ethnicities. Their main type of punishment was tar and feather, however they were well-known for lynching and later bombing. Members wore white robes, white masks and white conical hats. The KKK was reformed after the film The Birth of a Nation glorified the original KKK. An additional reason for the reformation was the national debate in the 1920s over prohibition (banning alcohol). Many of the KKK opposed actively bootleggers, for example in 1922 200 members set fire to Union County in Arkansas. The KKK has been idealized by Fred J Cook as ‘America’s recurring nightmare’ due to the trouble it caused. The opposition to the rising of Civil Rights was immense by the KKK and WASPs in particular. Moreover, the media reflected them in a negative light when they attacked black Americans (as well as later some white Americans) who were protesting for equal rights. The use of violence by the KKK was a primary reason for sympathy worldwide for the civil rights movement. Even
before Rosa Parks there had been progressions in the Civil Rights movement, however none were as successful as the Montgomery Boycott. On the 1st of December 1955, Rosa Parks defined history by refusing to move to let a white man sit down. A rule of the Jim Crow Laws applied on buses was that if a white man wanted to sit down the whole row of black Americans had to get up off their seat to allow him to sit down. On this particular day, three other Black Americans sat up yet Rosa Parks refused. She was arrested for violating the laws of segregation which caused uproar with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (of which she was a member). Previously that year two other women had been arrested for refusing to move: the first was fifteen year old Claudette Colvin; seven months later, eighteen year old Mary Louise Smith was arrested for the same the crime. Martin Luther King later idealized Rosa Parks in saying, “Mrs Parks was ideal for the role assigned to her by history. Her character was impeccable and her dedication deep rooted.” The growing tensions between blacks and whites in Montgomery due to the arrests caused the Women’s Political Council (WPC) to demand a boycott for one day on the 5th December 1955. The president, Jo Ann Robinson, prepared a series of leaflets at Alabama State College to inform other black Americans. Furthermore, local leaders such as Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernatly were request to support the movement. On the 2nd of December black ministers met at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church and agreed on the date. Outside the Church a group of KKK avidly awaited their decision. The use of local leaders to head the boycott was significant as it allowed an increase in unity between blacks similar to the unity of the Crusaders in the First Crusade. The 5th of December was a significant success due to 90% of blacks staying off the buses. Black Americans accounted for up to 70% of riders; economically affecting bus companies. The circulation of media interest encouraged discussion of long-
term; creating a carpool system of 300 cars after following the advice of T. J. Jennison, who had tried to hold a boycott in 1953. Through this the city state police were ordered to penalize any black taxi drivers who aided in the boycott which only flared up the media’s interest. On the 8th of December a list was compiled of demands including courteous treatment by bus operators to blacks, first come first served policy regarding seats and black bus operators be employed on predominately black routes. The prolonged boycott welcomed media (often reporters from Northern USA), who reported on the events worldwide, increasing popularity for the Civil Rights Movement overseas as well as nationally. In early 1956 Martin Luther King’s and E D Nixon’s homes were bombed by local KKK in outrage at the success so far of the movement. Moreover, there was an increase in WASP movements as they travelled to Montgomery and rode the buses in an attempt to counter the boycott. Fortunately, this was not constructed on a large scale meaning that bus companies still were losing considerable profits. The widespread approval of the continuation of the boycott by press provoked outrage by State police, who in February arrested over 80 boycott leaders in a hope that it would diminish support. They were held on a law introduced in 1921 of law prohibition conspiracy and forced to pay $500 or suffer in jail for 386 days. The non-violence whilst in prison was supported by many Gandhian idealists such as Richard Gregg, William Stuart Nelson and Homer Jack (leading idealists in non-violence at the time). Possibly more importantly, the non-violence had a positive impact on the media, who interpreted the State as the villain in proceedings. The influx in media attention at this time provoked reaction from the Government who further pressured bus companies to give into demands.
Overall, due to the high amount of pressure from the Government and the overall economic loss in profit, the case was taken to the Supreme Court. On the 5th June 1956 it was declared unconstitutional that blacks and whites were segregated on
buses. Alongside this was a junction that a carpool system should not be used to transport black Americans around. Originally after the court hearing bus companies retained the same policy, forcing the black Americans to co-operate without a carpool system for a month before it followed policy. The Montgomery boycott ended on the 20th December 1956, lasting 381 days in comparison to the original one day. The significance of the boycott in history is that it underlined a peaceful Civil Rights Movement which gained the interest of the media, therefore additionally gaining the empathy of most Americans. On future steps in the movement white Americans also joined the Civil Right Movements on fundamental cases such as the freedom riders. However, further afield it gained the empathy of the Kennedys who assisted on many occasions before introducing the Civil Rights Act in 1964. To conclude, the Jim Crowe Law assisted in the normalization of prejudice for black Americans. The growth of this prejudice was considerable in groups such as the KKK and the WASPs who actively opposed the black Americans. This was pinnacle in the case of Montgomery Boycott where media highlighted them as them as the bullies. Although a change of attitude by people would not realistically be immediate; the media’s empathy to black Americans to the non-violent procedures, alongside the exploitation of economic weaknesses in bus companies, proceeded to influence future changes. Similar to in the Second Crusade when Zengi took Edessa, there was a rise in jihad; the Boycott provided a foothold for a Civil Rights Movement, creating a sense of identity throughout the black American society. Moreover, it gained figures such as Martin Luther King experience and prestige to proceed with future endeavours; succeeding to his victorious ‘I had a Dream’ speech in August 1963. In conclusion, the boycott was a fundamental boost to Civil Rights as a Movement, making the way for success through persistence and endeavour.
Frederick Barbarossa: The Man Who Drowned in a Puddle?
By Jak Houghton We all know Frederick Barbarossa as simply “the man who drowned in a puddle”, and we comment briefly in essays on his death as a contributory factor to the failure of the third crusade. After his death, most of his army returned to their homeland, as they did not only lose their leader, his death was most likely seen as an ill omen to the common soldiers of the day. The name Barbarossa means read beard which by all accounts made him look like a ginger Gandalf until it turned white with age. However there is more to the man that we learn for our essays, as just other rulers such as the king of England and other men of prominent power and wealth, Frederick was also an important figure in Christendom, and helped shape the world into what it is today. Even in World War 2, the Germans used the name Operation Barbarossa as the codename for Germany’s push into the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 which led to the deaths of some 3 million soldiers, and the bloodiest operation in history. Frederick Barbarossa was born in 1122 to Frederick II, also known as one eyed and the Duke of Swabia and his wife Judith, both with powerful dy-
nastic ties which left Frederick Barbarossa with a stable childhood and a promising future. At the age of 25, when his father died Frederick took his place as the duke of Swabia, which is a large area of land located in South West Germany. Later on in the year Frederick went upon the 2nd crusade with his uncle, Conrad III who was at the time the German King. Throughout the 2 year campaign Frederick was noted to have “acquitted himself well” and earned the respect and the ear of his uncle, and was not blamed in the crusade as a reason for Christianity’s failure. Later in 1152 Conrad summoned Barbarossa to his deathbed and as he laid dying, he proclaimed Barbarossa as King of the Holy Roman Empire. This proclamation was overseen by the Prince-Bishop of Bamberg who later stated that Conrad was in full possession of his mental powers when he named Barbarossa his successor. Moving quickly, Barbarossa garnered the support of the prince-electors and was named king on March 4, 1152. The problem was however that it seemed that Conrad had completely ignored his young son, whom in England would have had all rights to claim himself King and have Ward-
ship over the crown, but in the Holy Roman Empire, these ideas had not been devised and so the crown was lost to the son. Barbarossa however did provide to the child, and generously named him with his own old title, the Duke of Swabia and efficiently put an end to any disputes over the throne. Frederick however was not happy with being just the “King of the Romans� and wanted to unite all of the princes and other nobles under his rule. Barbarossa however found that he was to be crowned emperor sooner than expected. In 1153, after Pope Adrian IV had been expelled from his seat in Rome by the local populace and so Frederick agreed to help restore him to his see and to help him stop the byzantine empire from reestablishing itself on Italian soil. In return the pope would name him the Holy Roman Emperor. This deal became known as the Treaty of Constance in 1153. After heading to Rome to supress the local populace Barbarossa met Arnold of Brescia, a heretic who had established himself as a senator in Rome to destroy the hierarchy of the Church and in his eyes, restore it to its rightful position as a group of wandering preachers in apostlistic poverty. Arnold had also been sending Frederick anonymous letters inviting him to take Rome for himself. Before they could even shake hands Frederick imprisoned him and had put a noose around his neck, and promptly hanged him, then burnt his body and scattered the ashes in the Tiber to avoid his remains being turned into a relic. After all this Frederick was crowned by the pope in June 1155 and so he returned home, victorious. Frederick also gave Henry the Lion, his younger cousin the duchy of Bavaria, increasing the dukes power and solving disputes in Germany. On June 9, 1156, he married Beatrice of Burgundy, and then intervened in a civil war growing in Denmark between Sweyn III and Valdemar I, who had been warring for years over the throne, and eventually ended in October 1157, when Sweyn was caught be peasants and murdered when his horse got stuck in a bog and he tried to run from battle. Frederick also created new popular laws such as giving your ene-
my 3 days’ notice before an attack, so as to give them time to surrender and avoid death. During this time, a rift had been growing between the emperor and the pope, as the pope constantly tried to assert his power over Frederick, but Frederick believed that the pope should be under the emperor, Adrian IV believed the opposite. Frederick prepared an expedition and then marched into Italy with aims to reassert his legitimacy over the people. In other words, he rampaged through Northern Italy conquering city of city with his ingenious tactic of catapulting live civilians over enemy battlements until he scared the city into submission and in this fashion managed to secure and occupy the city of Milan on September 7, 1158. In October the pope had sent the emperor a letter which alluded to the benefits of the emperor, stating that the emperor was dependent upon the pope, which sent Frederick into a fit of rage, of which the legates with the letter barely escaped with their lives. At this point the pope had decided upon excommunicating the Emperor but before he could do as much the Pope had died, apparently by choking on a fly in his wine just after the Emperor had captured Milan. In September 1159 a new pope was announced, Alexander III. Alexander did not learn from the mistakes of his colleague before and began to try and assert his authority over the emperor and even excommunicated him, and in response Frederick began to support a series of antipopes, beginning with Victor IV. Frederick travelled back to Germany in 1162, to deal with the problems being caused by Henry the Lion he returned the next year to Italy with the plans to capture Sicily, which were quickly changed when he was required to end uprisings in Northern Italy. In 1166 Frederick attacked towards Rome and won a decisive victory at the battle of Monte Porzio. His success proved to be short as disease ravaged his army and he was forced to retreat back to Germany, where he stayed for 6 years, aiming to improve his diplomatic relationships with neighbouring and important lands like France, the Byzantine empire and England. Frederick then returned to Italy,
where he met the Lombard League, which was an alliance between the northern cities trying to protect the pope. After shrugging of their defences and winning several victories Frederick told Henry to join him in Italy with reinforcements so as break apart the Lombard League but Henry refused, hoping to increase his own power through his uncle’s failure, and so he refused to journey south. In May 1176 Frederick and his troops were badly beaten at Legnano, and with his grip on Lombardy broken, Frederick made his peace with the pope at Venice in July and returned home (with his excommunication lifted) to find Henry the Lion in open rebellion against him. Barbarossa simply invaded Bavaria and Saxony he captured Henry, and only offered Henry mercy when he was begging at his feet for his life, where Barbarossa simply stripped him of his land and forced him into exile. Frederick then began to take a more diplomatic approach to controlling Italy. In 1183, he signed a treaty with the Lombard League which separated them from the pope, and married his son Henry to Constance, the Norman Princess of Sicily and through goodwill rather than bloodshed, was proclaimed king of Italy in 1186. Despite increasing tensions with Rome, Frederick still answered the call for crusade in 1189 and working with Richard and Philip of England and France, he formed an immense army in aim to retake Jerusalem from Saladin. Barbarossa also sent Saladin a well written letter indicating how when the time came and they finally met Barbarossa was going to personally beat the living hell out of him. Barbarossa decided to march his army overland as, unlike the French and English forces, his was too large to travel by sea. Following the traditional crusader route, he crossed the Bosporus into the Asia minor he won two battles until he arrived at South Eastern Anatolia at the Saleph River, where Barbarossa attempted to catch up with his vanguard who were currently fighting a skirmish, jumped into he river with his horse, both fully armoured and were overpowered and swept away by the current and was found dead on the 10th June, 1190. His death
caused chaos within his army, and so only a small fraction of the 20,000 knights arrived to help the war at Acre, led by Frederick VI, Barbarossa’s son. According to German folklore Frederick is still alive to this day, hiding in the mountains with a group of knights, ready to save Germany in it’s greatest time of need.
What Makes History So Interesting?
By Isabella Crossfield Alright, so there's always going to be those of us who aren't the faintest bit interested in learning about History and are more interested in other things, like cool facts about seahorses. (They change colour when they're stressed- Who knew?!) But the vast majority of us find the past at least somewhat interesting, if not curiously fascinating. So what is it about the past that intrigues us? Of course, there is the classic argument that we ought to learn from the terrible mistakes of history and revel in our newly found wisdom. But if what 'goes around, comes around' then isn't history just going to repeat itself anyway? Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying we should start parading the streets of Germany sporting a duster moustache. But if to learn from past mistakes is the only reason why we bother to pick up a history book then we may as well rename the subject 'How to avoid being human. The 4.54 billion years edition.' What's more, history isn't just about mistakes and events that turned out to be painfully immoral. No, history is more like one of those huge paintings in an art gallery that people could stare at forever until they got too angry and puzzled to keep on looking; a canvas that ends up looking like the victim of several thrashing
toddlers dipped in paint and then sprinkled with sparkles.
But within the abstract swirls of historic events lie the people whom we can both admire and condemn for being so unforgivably human. These characters that we can see so much of our own souls within, make us question the very nature of mankind. When we study history we shouldn’t just learn about the facts and file them away in to the ‘to be revised at some point later in time, perhaps after a 48 hour nap’ file within our minds. We should prick up our ears (metaphorically of course, we’re not savage animals just yet…) and we should allow ourselves to be utterly submersed in the truly breathtaking journey of history. As Lord Byron says in the poem 'Don Juan', "Truth is always strange; stranger than fiction." This quote really sums up my opinion of why history is so interesting. The past is a story far greater than any other, because it is a story that is real, turbulent, crazy, strange, wonderful, inspiring and shocking all at the same time. History is the truth of our world so far, and if that doesn't mean anything to you then I'm not sure what to say. In the end the fragmented moments of time will never stop haunting us, and sometimes it's hard to keep track of where we are in the huge novel of the world. But one thing is for sure, this moment, right now...has already become history.
Jonathan Phillips Visits Winstanley College! A review by Zara Andrews Most female history teachers are known to swoon at the thought of Jonathan Phillips visiting Winstanley College. At the mere mention of his name a devilish beam of delight can be entrapped onto their lips’. In comparison, there is a mixed respond by students to the prospect of Jonathan Phillips cascading into Winstanley College; some modern historians may more preferably quiver in a corner, only emerging once the danger of medieval uprising has been counterattacked. Whereas the plentiful medieval historians flock to listen to Bernard of Clarivaux’s ever imminent calling of the crusade. Although I vision myself as a modern historian, I found myself as part of this call to arms. The talk by Jonathan Phillips was overall extremely detailed furthermore this was sugar coated by the entertaining and amusing way in which it was presented. Jonathan Phillips is seen, by students, as one of the leading historians in contributing to the modern day understanding of the crusades. He is presented as one of the ‘greats’ in crusade history, having written numerous books on the crusades, alongside being taught by another ‘great’ of the crusad-
ing culture, Riley-Smith. Jonathan Phillips teaches at Holloway University in London as head of the history department; granting the students of Winstanley experience in lecturing before we infiltrate into the harsh reality of university. Many historians have experienced his writing in books at college however the experience of an actual lecture provides a more ‘human’ approach to this legendary historian. His witty and light-hearted banter provide the essential perfect balance between entertainment and education contrasting sharply with the more stereotypical ideology of university lecturers. The fall of Edessa, one of the Christian states set up after the First Crusade, introduced the setting for the Second Crusade. It was described by Jonathan Phillips himself as ‘the first real big blow in the Muslim’s counter crusade.’ This explosive introduction to the Second Crusade assisted in creating the mind-set for all students listening, however it seemed to lack marginally in long-term reasons. For those who wanted more in-depth reasoning perhaps can learn by reading his book Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades. Moreover, his wistful insight into major figures estab-
lished an individualistic insight, such as into the Western European influence of the Pope. This in a new era, where a new Pope has ascended to power, Pope Eugenious III, the first Cistercian Pope (They are also called the Bernardines due to St Bernard of Clairvaux being highly influential in proceedings, by his death he had founded 350 abbeys). Moreover, a range of sources were used by Jonathan Phillips to present the way in which the Pope and St Bernard transmitted the need for a Second Crusade which assisted in casting religious reasons. Through the lecture being centred around the two sources, it did advise on reasons for Pope Eugenius III calling of the crusade. The Pope sent out his call in the spring of 1145, studying his manuscript you find there was the repetition of ‘remission of sins,’ exposing similarities to the First Crusade. However, it also glanced back to the victories of the previous crusade, for instance by saying, “zeal of your fathers’”. This message is echoed in a letter from St Bernard to the English people in, ‘endless shame for our generation.’ Jonathan Phillips addressed this social reason during the lecture, but overall underlining the religious reason as the reason behind the Second Crusade. Overall, the lecture was entertaining and provided a unique opportunity to experience lecturing at a university standard. The way in which he, at first, introduced the main characters that were building prestige for a Second Crusade was well constructed, making for a more individualist appeal. The use of a range of sources to explain and expand on his religious reasoning behind the Second Crusade complimented his theorizing, allowing for evidence behind these reasons. In the same way, by using a range of different reasons behind the crusade he was able to establish in fullness the reasons why Pope Eugneius III wanted it. Moreover, the lecture encouraged students to read around about the Second Crusades and will be beneficial in the longterm. The valuable experience of Jonathan Phillips
coming to Winstanley College will be forever remembered by the students of Winstanley College.
EXCLUSIVE Interview with Professor Jonathan Phillips Jonathan Phillips is Professor of Crusading History at Royal Holloway, University of London. He has written numerous books and monographs on the Crusades, and has appeared on several television programmes including the History Channel’s ‘Crescent and the Cross’ and ‘Channel 4's Back from the Dead: Crusaders’. Professor Phillips co-chairs the 'Crusades and Eastern Mediterranean' seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, London.
What has your experience as Head of History at Royal Holloway been like?
anyone who is looking to study history at university level?
I am, perhaps to my slight surprise, really enjoying it. Yes, there is a constant flood of emails, but it gives me a new range of experiences and greater opportunities to work with people at higher levels in the College, in the University of London and at a national level. It is also a chance to influence the direction in which the Department is going; organizing more schools' visits by my colleagues, for example! I am also fortunate in that my colleagues are a pretty cheerful group of people who enjoy teaching and research; having that positive energy in the Department makes my task a whole lot easier.
Be hungry to look at periods of history that you have not studied before.
When did you begin to specialise your research towards the crusades, and what influenced your decision? I took a final year course on the Crusades during my BA degree at the University of Keele. I had been interested in the subject since I was a boy, but my brilliant tutor, Professor Peter Jackson, encouraged me to pursue it further. London was (and is!) a real centre for crusading studies and I linked up with Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, probably the most influential historian of the subject over the last 30 years. He proved a tremendously supportive, energetic and inspiring supervisor... And, with a little good fortune, here I am today!
What would be your number one tip for
Who is your favourite personality in the crusades? I think it would have to be Saladin, probably because of his enormous diplomatic skill in pulling together the complex and confusing Muslim Near East and then in fighting off the Third Crusade. His abilities as a propagandist, a giver of justice, as a man of chivalry and culture, coupled with his astounding levels of personal endurance are also remarkable. This choice is not unconnected to my BBC Radio 3 essay on Saladin, to be broadcast on 13 February and then for download. Sorry, that was shameless.
In light of the proposed changes to the A Level History, what changes would you like to see to the learning of the Crusades? I hope A level boards take the opportunity to review their current content and bring in a stronger voice from the Muslim world. Much more material is available in translation now and can bring this side of the story to life. I would also like to see more attention paid to the queens of Jerusalem, especially Melisende. Finally, more cultural aspects of the crusades, such as pilgrimage, can also be illustrated with some strong primary texts.
The study of the crusades is very much a study of great men. Do you feel that women such as Melisende and Sibylla are dismissed as unimportant in the world of men? Perhaps in the past this was so, but historians, such as Dr Natasha Hodgson at Nottingham Trent University, are changing this. We can see the many ways in which medieval women were able to exert power and influence, such as through the Church, by patronage, and by bloodline, and this enables the subject to be brought to life.
Is it impossible for students today to fully grasp the importance of religion to the medieval person? Modern Britain is a pretty secular society, and in the sense that medieval life was saturated with religiosity (although not to the point where secular values and priorities couldn't loom very large as well), the answer is probably yes. That said, individuals today can be intensely religious and thus can share the same sense of deep devotion as their predecessors - albeit in a different cultural context.
Was Richard the Lionheart a military hero or is his importance over-rated? Yes, Richard was a military hero and a superb warrior. But he was also a great strategist, a pragmatist and a man who spent much of the crusade engaged in a variety of diplomatic manoeuvres, with his fellow-Christians, and with the Muslims too. As Saladin's biographer, Beha ad-Din wrote, 'Never have we had to face a bolder or more subtle opponent.'
Winstanley’s Historical Drama, Christmas 2013 A Review by Zara Andrews
The historical drama blossomed from the combined idea of a comical song created by a student of Winstanley (Sophie Davies), stirred with the ambition of Matt. Originally, the plan was to manufacture a play which could be performed to students in the Hall; however our focus twisted into an idea of a music video which could be exploited to encourage further interest in the historical drama. The fundamental focus was to broaden the horizon of history into the minds of non-history students, allowing for them to see that history is not as boring as it may sometimes appear. In the beginning buds of the historical drama we had to centralise focus on advertisement as a way of getting desperately needed members. In the dawn of the first meeting we were able to construct roles inside the drama for the members, separating them into artists, costume designers, actors etc. This allowed us to gather the script writers together to formulate a script for the drama and decide on a deadline for this. The first minor setback was when our script writers decided that they were unable to construct a script within the given time. In the process there was stalemate
within the movement as few members turned up to meetings, yet an appealing idea of creating a music video instead of a play was still able to manifest. After Matt sent me a copy of Sophie’s song, I decided to give the drama an essential boost by writing the script myself. Although the first version still needed to be refined, it gave us the confidence to encourage more people to join our crusading band. Originally, we focussed on gathering more actors for the video then expanded to get Hannah Snutch and Olivia Marsh from Winstanley TV to assist in the coordination. Furthermore, I contacted the Design Technology and Drama department to ask for support in costumes and members. To finalise this and proceed to the next step in making the video, Olivia Marsh assisted in refining the script so that we could be begin collecting the props and allowing for actors to begin to learn their scenes. Next in the process was the need to gather props together for filming and proceed with the actual filming so that we could present it on the day of the deadline. Vanessa (the co-director), Olivia and I arranged a meeting and outlined where we would film and compiled a list together of props need-
ed. Within the next week Vanessa, Dominic Doran and I brought in props that were on the list. Arranging filming was the hardest bit of all due to trying to get everyone together at the same time. The first time we tried to film, the students from Winstanley TV were unable to attend so instead we practised our lines. In the last week before the deadline Vanessa gathered us all together to try one last attempt of filming. Most of our actors did not turn up and the Winstanley TV were unable to film so we headed out with just four actors and Vanessa filming on her camera. When outside Sacha made the most of the trees and added a comical effect to one of the scenes in which we had a casualty of Dominic’s helmet. Overall it was fun lunch time and we were able to get all the filming done. Afterwards Vanessa edited the footage and on the 13th of December a couple of us watched it for the first time, dressed up as characters from history. To conclude, the historical drama was very successful at getting non-historians interested in history, and allowed for a lot of different types of people to join together to make a fool of themselves and do something they love. The creation of our music video served to prove that even if everything does not go the way you would expect, you can still get there in the end, with a helmet full of determination. Moreover, we gained an ever more passionate love of history with fond memories to gaze back to on a cloudy day.
Meet the History Society... President
Joe Gaffney
Vice President
Cameron Fleming
Magazine Editor
Phoebe McGibbon
Magazine Assistants
Holly Browett-Woolnough Isaac Tweedale Georgia Sampson Georgia Ascroft Megan Owen
Quiz organiser
James Knowles Lucy Weir
Debates coordinator
Lewis Williams Julia Taylor
External speakers researcher (work in collaboration with Elaine P) Guest Speakers & Museum Coordinator Internal speakers coordinator Social Media coordinator History Mentor coordinator Trip researcher (working with Matt)
Medieval Total War organiser Display coordinator
Rachel Burgess Robyn Yates
Robyn Yates Jack Lunt Harry Griffiths Joe Gaffney Lucy Weir Chris McLauchlan Connor Simms-Page David Farrimond Hannah Brady Amy Platt
Advertising overseer
Lucy Weir
Discussion group leader (films/articles‌)
Silvia Marques
Official photographer
Zara Andrews
Kayleigh Gibson
Follow us on Twitter: @WinHist Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WinstanleyHistory
History Society Events!
Historical Dress-Up Day, Christmas 2013!
The much loved ‘History Society Quiz’ returned on 31st January!
Trip to Skipton Castle! Thursday 16th January
Baffled by the Crusades? Struggling with an essay? Meet Marc Morris!
Finding it difficult to manage revision?
Need some advice? Contact one of our email mentors, or come along to a mentoring session‌ 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