Winstanley college revision edition by Winstanley College

Winstanley College

History Magazine Easter (REVISION!) Edition

Contents: Editorial ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 The Undoing of the Crusader States …………….…………………………………………………………………………….4-6 Winstanley visits the People’s History Museum………………………………… ……………………………………….7 The consequences of the death of Thomas Becket…………………………………………………………………….8-12 Wealth and the First Crusade…………………………………………………………………………………………………….13-16 Byzantine Aid in the First Crusade ……………………………………………………………………………………...…..17-19 The She-Wolf of France ……………………………………………………………………………………...……………………...20-22 Don’t call me a Celt, you Eejit!…………………………………………………………………………………………………….23-25 British Railways 1939-92……………………………………………………………………………………………………………26-27 Henry II’s victory over the Great Rebellion ………………………………………………….…………………………28-31 Meet the History Society……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32

Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its History Society. 2

Editorial: “History is philosophy teaching by examples”-Thucydides Hello and welcome to the view of the People’s History Easter edition of the Winstan- Museum (which we recomley History Society Magazine! mend you go and visit!) As all of us students know, exams are looming and approaching fast, so this edition is primarily to help prepare you for these exams; whether it be AS or A-Level! This edition will include articles of interest and most importantly, high mark essays that will help you revise!

All there is left to say is thank you for participating and supporting the History Magazine over the past academic year and good luck in all exams… Editors; Madeleine McDonagh &

With the general election also Sally Dickens nearing we should all remember to register and vote; our vote could change the country and impact on the history future A-level students will study. In this issue we also have a re3

Weak Kingship: The Weak Kingship: The Undoing of the CruUndoing of the Crusadsader States er States In 1187, Jerusalem fell to Saladin. In response, a new crusade, the Third Crusade, was called and preached, led by the Kings of France and England. But why did the Crusader States fall? After the death of Amalric in 1174, Jerusalem was ruled by a succession of weak kings: Baldwin IV; Baldwin V; and Guy of Lusignan. Weak kingship, here, means an inability to rule effectively by uniting the subjects and the nobility against the common enemy and as a corollary an inability to ensure the defence of the kingdom against this common enemy. In the case of the crusader states, the common enemy was Saladin and the three above kings failed to defend the kingdom against him. Baldwin IV suffered from leprosy which had the effect of rendering him progressively more disabled as his reign continued and thus, as Jonathan Phillips argues, the longer he reigned the weaker Jerusalem became. Asbridge seems to concur with this viewpoint when he says that Baldwin’s rule was “precarious” and that it left Jerusalem in a “state of limbo.” While Baldwin IV may have been a brave man, Phillips says that his reign lead to “serious inconsistencies” within the kingdom. Thus, because of his leprosy, Baldwin IV at times had to rely on regents to rule for him, such as Raymond III of Tripoli. As Baldwin IV would not produce any heirs, this also meant that the succession was in doubt, thus leading to speculation over who would marry his sister, Sibylla. As a result, in a way not seen before in Jerusalem, the 4

aristocracy was often divided not only over who would succeed the king as the future ruler, but also who would act as the present ruler in the form of a regent. This allowed for the growth of rival court factions, one led by Raymond III of Tripoli, known as the ‘doves’, and another led by Baldwin’s mother, Agnes, known as the ‘hawks’. This pitted the more recently arrived Franks with the long established aristocracy. Had Baldwin not been incapacitated, without a male heir, and in need of regents, then these factions would not have developed since there would have been clearly laid down rules as to who would rule Jerusalem and what course of action would be taken. With the death of Baldwin IV came Baldwin V, during whose reign Raymond was also regent and during whose reign a truce was signed with Saladin. It was because this truce was only arranged by a regent that the raids perpetrated by Reynald of Chatillon in 1186, in contravention of the truce, went ahead, since, in the absence of a strong king with a clear course of action, each faction could disregard the other’s rulings. In 1186, Baldwin V died and was succeeded by Guy of Lusignan who ruled as king consort through his marriage to Sibylla. Guy had previously been regent under Baldwin IV but had been removed from the post after pursuing ‘Fabian tactics’ instead of attacking Saladin when he had the chance. Already then, coupled with the fact that Guy was only king through marriage and not by hereditary right, Guy had a reputation for weakness and an

inability to act, which, of course, only added to his weak- Christian unity itself was not paramount. ness. During the reign of Baldwin III, there was also enormous Certainly, as a weak king Guy had no control over the potential for Christian disunity; for much of his early events at the Springs of Cresson: rather, the Military reign, his mother, Queen Melisende, refused to give up Orders acted of their own accord and thus the kingdom the regency and tried to prevent her son from ruling of Jerusalem lost over 100 of its elite knights. Further, at independently and yet Baldwin did succeed wresting the Battle of Hattin, while his men questioned him, they power from his mother and there was no fragmentation did as he commanded; it was, in fact, Guy who listened of the aristocracy of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Also, to Gerard de Ridefort and Reynald of Chatillon and then, when Prince Raymond of Antioch died, his widow, Conacquiescing to their request, decided to march on Tiberi- stance, refused to remarry because she would not acas. A strong king would have held firm and stuck to the cept the candidates offered to her by Baldwin. And yet, plan already made, but, as a weak king, Guy made the even though there was the potential for Christian disunifateful decision to march east from Saffuria based on a ty, Baldwin simply assumed the regency of Antioch and, personal grievance held against Raymond of Tripoli and when the count of Tripoli died, Tripoli also. out of a desire for vengeance over the events of the Battle of Cresson. Guy, according to Phillips, simply had What do these examples show? The show that the kinga “lack of leadership ability” and thus it was his inability dom of Jerusalem had encountered potential Christian to lead which led to the defeat of the Franks at Hattin disunity before, but encountered it while under a strong and the subsequent Muslim conquest of Jerusalem. king hence no fracturing of the crusader states ensued. While the case might be made that Raymond III of TripoIt is often said that the fall of Jerusalem was the inevita- li’s deal with Saladin was an example of Christian disunible result of Christian disunity. There is nothing wrong ty, it must be remembered that the tensions and the with this claim, yet the disunity itself has a cause and it rivalry of the hawks and the doves first surfaced during, is the lack of strong kingship since at least the death of and due to, the necessarily weak reign of the leper king, Amalric. This disunity is exemplified in the rise of rival Baldwin IV. factions, the hawks on the one hand and the doves on the other, which meant that the Franks were divided A reasonable case may also be made for the proposition over how to deal with the threat posed by Saladin. The that the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 was mainly due to the hawks, who tended to be newly arrived fanatical crusad- lack of aid provided by both the Byzantine Empire and ers, favoured open confrontation with Saladin whereas the west. While the Byzantine Empire had provided the doves, who tended to be the long-established fami- some aid to the Franks in the past, their defeat at Myriolies in the kingdom, favoured peace treaties and other cephalum in 1176 meant that they could no longer feasimethods of diplomacy. For instance, it was Raymond III bly provide the crusader states with troops and also proof Tripoli, who was a dove, who agreed to the truce with tect their own borders against Kilij Arslan II and the SelSaladin in 1185 and it was Reynald of Chatillon, who was juk Turks. Further to this, while it had indeed been the a hawk, who carried out the raids on Muslim caravans case that Manuel Comnenus had provided aid to the travelling between Cairo and Damascus. crusader states and that King Amalric of Jerusalem had paid homage to the Emperor, the latter’s death in 1180 As another instance of Christian disunity stemming from hailed the end of positive crusader-Byzantine relations the rivalry between the hawks and the doves, Raymond as far as Phillips is concerned. Under Andronicus Comneof Tripoli actually made a deal with Saladin which alnus, the Byzantines were markedly anti-Catholic. Inlowed the latter to travel through his Galilean lands if he deed, in 1182, a group of Andronicus’ supporters had would help him to remove the hawkish king Guy of carried out a slaughter of the Catholic population of Lusignan from power. In the view of Ibn al-Athir, this Constantinople. deal with Saladin made by Raymond meant that “their unity was disrupted”, and al-Athir believes that this was However, it must be remembered that King Amalric a very important factor in the fall of Jerusalem. managed to obtain aid from Byzantium after a period of strained crusader-Byzantine relations, albeit under a However, it must be noted that there was always a po- different Emperor. Amalric was prepared to submit himtential for disunity among the Franks. Even on the First self to the Byzantines by paying homage to Manuel Crusade, Tancred de Hauteville and Baldwin of Boulogne Comnenus 1161 and by allowing him to marry Maria of become embroiled in a conflict with one another during Antioch. If aid from the Byzantines was necessary, then their Cilician expedition, prompting Baldwin to actually more ought to have been done by Baldwin IV, Baldwin leave the main crusader army and take Edessa. Even so, V, and Guy of Lusignan to improve relations. the First Crusade was a success, demonstrating that 5

In addition to a lack of aid from Byzantium, the west was not willing or able to provide very much by way of military aid either. One important reason for this was that the ruling houses of England and France, the Angevins and the Capetians respectively, were distrustful of one another such that neither Henry II nor Louis VII would leave their lands for fear of the other invading them. They were, to quote Phillips, “locked in decades of feuding.” Neither of the two kingdoms was in a particularly strong position during the appeals for aid from the east. For example, from 1162-72, Henry II was tangled up in the Beckett affair while Louis VII’s death in 1180 meant the rise to power of a teenage king.

Guy of Lusignan in his decision to march on Tiberias was partly due to his own weak kingship and also due to the growth of rival factions under his predecessors which meant that Guy had to choose whether to follow the strategy of the dove or the strategy of the hawk.

By Keir Martland

Furthermore, the notion of crusading fell out of favour with the west after the failure of the Second Crusade and the failure itself was explained by stating that the crusader states had lost God’s support. Also, many in the west, when they heard of Baldwin IV’s capture of Ascalon and of his victory at Montgisard in 1177 and at Le Forbelet in 1182, simply did not think that the crusader states were in any need of aid at all. However, it is telling that during the reign of Baldwin IV it was decided by the nobles that if his successor Baldwin V died then the succession would be decided by the pope and the rulers of England, France, and Germany. Phillips says that this shows that by now the crusader states were totally bereft of self-regulation. Furthermore, during the appeal of Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem from 1184-5, the keys to the city of Jerusalem and to the Tower of David were offered both to Philip II of France and to Henry II of England. What these examples of appeals for aid show is that the kind of aid that the Franks required was not simply added manpower, but the strong leadership they were not getting from Baldwin IV. To conclude, then, the most important factor which contributed to the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 was weak leadership which led to Christian disunity through the growth of rival court factions, i.e. the hawks and the doves. The weaknesses of Baldwin IV, Baldwin V, and Guy of Lusignan only made the need for aid from the west and Byzantium more pressing as demonstrated by the offer to give the kingdom of Jerusalem to Philip II and then to Henry II in 1184-5. While it is true that the Muslims were becoming stronger and more unified, first under the Zengids and then under Saladin, there are examples of battles where the Franks were victorious over Saladin, suggesting that in spite of their political difficulties and their lack of manpower they could still defeat him. Rather, the poor judgement and resolve of 6

Trip t Winstanley visits the Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s History Museumâ&#x20AC;Ś I really enjoyed the trip as a whole. I felt that the staff were friendly and the two guides we had were very informative without being boring, and were concise. Thought the exhibitions themselves were well presented and clear, and the museum itself was a modern, clean centre that was spacious and well laid out.

guide more useful and engaging I didn't feel distracted.

Archives were extremely intriguing, and the strong left wing views of the archive man provided interesting debate.

Other than that, no reason to complain. Exceeded expectations, I'd encourage anyone doing the Britain exam to attend the trip next year if you are to run it again (which I strongly advise!)

Background on elections and voting rights was again well laid out and very interesting. I felt that the exhibition downstairs was a bit cold in terms of room temperature! (Maybe it was just me!)

Elections since 1900 was well presented and very interesting, not too many facts and writing on the wall which made the tour By Harry Griffiths 7

Aiden the Oxford chronicler

“The consequences of Thomas Becket’s death were an outright victory for the church.” Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)

The argument that the church is the outright

dom was thus fully within the compass of papal

victor after the Becket affair is supported by Guy

government’. This was achieved by the church as

who argues that the church wins through the rise of Henry’s continental lands were placed under interthe Cult of Becket and that Henry ‘had no choice’

dict and Henry himself was subjected to personal

but to bend to the church’s whim whilst his ene-

interdict by Pope Alexander III, and thus the church

mies simultaneously called for his excommunica-

was effectively controlling the monarch. They

tion. However, this view is misguided as the

knew, as Guy argues, that Henry had to accept their

church’s victory was never outright. In the short

decisions as Henry was ‘forced to compromise’.

term, the church was victorious as it gained appeals Furthermore, the realm became further under Pato Rome and effectively challenged Clause 3 of the

pal jurisdiction as Clause 4 of the constitutions was

Constitutions- Henry’s ambitions to try criminous

reverted and freedom of appeals to the church was

clerks; however, Henry is the victor in the long term reinstated, which in turn increased papal influence as he was able to gain the Church’s support and

in England; by 1234, 180 of 470 decrees issued by

cooperation in the Great Rebellion of 1173-74 and

the papacy were addressed to England. This in-

maintained some of his Constitutions of Clarendon. crease in papal influence reinstates the idea that Ultimately, he upheld his royal authority and there- the church is the victor as it causes problems for fore his reputation as King of England.

John’s reign; the church are still extremely powerful in the era due to the errors of Henry’s appointment

The church being the outright victor is also

of Becket. Moreover, the terms with which Henry

supported by Carpenter who argues that ‘the king-

had to comply with to receive forgiveness from the 8

church meant that ‘all hostile customs’ toward the

tate all those who were exiled because of their sup-

church were to be abolished. The greatest victory

port of Becket, at great expense to the King. Henry

for the church came from this condition; the abol-

also made Becket’ sister, Mary, abbess of Barking

ishment of Clause 3 of the Constitutions of Claren-

Abbey to gain forgiveness for the death of her

don that were first set out in January 1164. In 1176 brother, which damaged his reputation. In the short a definitive agreement was reached between Henry term, the church was victorious over Henry who and the church which identified that criminals

had his pride and reputation damaged severely; his

clerks should not be brought before a secular judge sometimes despotic personality meant that he for any crime; the church were victorious in their

wanted to maintain royal authority over all parts of

forcible rejection of this Clause that went against

his realm; religion and secular, but was not able to

Canon Law which stated that no man should be

do this through his concessions to the church. How-

tried twice for the same offence as this was ‘double ever, the penance was not as detrimental to Henjeopardy’. However, this cannot be seen as an out-

ry’s position as it seems, as Duggan argues, Henry

right victory for the church as the said criminals

cooperated with the church’s demands as he need-

clerks were still obliged to be tried by a secular

ed to restore his position ‘as quickly as he could’,

judge if they committed a Forest offence, and

and through accepting the church’s demands, he

therefore Henry maintained some royal authority

was able to salvage his relations with the church

over the clergy.

and therefore ensure their support in future, which we can see in the church’s support of Henry II in the

The church can also be seen as the winner in

Great Rebellion of 1173-74.

the short term as Henry was forced to compromise and reconcile with the church on the 21st May

The church gained their finances and spiritual

1172 in the cathedral of Avranches. The terms of

status significantly through the Cult of Saint Thom-

this truce benefitted the church greatly; Henry was

as Becket, thus increasing papal influence in Eng-

to provide 200 knights in the Holy Land for the de-

land and Europe. Becket was canonized by Pope

fense of Jerusalem for one year, and he himself had Alexander III on 21st February 1173, and soon after, to take the Crusading cross for three years unless

the Cult of Becket grew and prospered; miracles

excused by the Pope. This forced penance upon

were attributed to him and Canterbury became a

Henry benefitted the church as it aided the defense place of pilgrimage that people regarded with the of the Holy Land and further rallied support for the

same awe they related to Jerusalem. This Cult of

crusading movement; supporters of the monarch

Becket can be seen all throughout Europe as repre-

would thus support the crusade. Also, Henry had to sentations of Becket can be seen in every age up restore the possessions of Canterbury to what they until the Reformation; the martyrdom of Thomas were one year before Becket’s exile and rehabili-

becket reinvigorated Christendom in England and 9

all throughout Europe. This dissemination of the

Poole argues that ‘royal authority was exer-

Cult of Becket was encouraged by Henry through

cised in much the same way as before’, hence Hen-

his daughters in the dominions of their respective

ry can be seen as the ultimate, if not outright, victor

husbands; a mosaic in the Cathedral of Monreale

regarding the consequences of the death of Thom-

was encouraged by Joan who was married to Wil-

as Becket as he maintained to keep some of his

liam the Good King. The church’s victory in spread-

constitutions of Clarendon. Henry maintained con-

ing of the Cult of Becket and therefore increasing

trol over papal legate’s entry to the kingdom - they

the influence of the papacy in Europe can further

could not enter without the king’s permission - and

be seen through the rich iconography of St. Thomas also he maintained control over bishops leaving the Becket in countries such as Scandinavia and Iceland country; these could not leave to attend ecclesiastipromoting pilgrimage to Canterbury. The increase

cal councils abroad without the king’s license. This

of pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Thomas increased

proves that Henry was the victor as the church was

the church’s financial gains densely; every inn and

unable to release all royal authority and control

tavern was used to house pilgrims, thus increasing

that the king held over the church; the rise of Chris-

the revenue of Canterbury for the church. Also, the tianity could not deter Henry from endorsing secusale of relics such as the blood of Becket increased

lar laws that promoted secular power over ecclesi-

the profit for the church; these relics were thought

astical power and then extending this power; for

to have miraculous properties such as curing lame-

example Henry maintained secular jurisdiction over

ness. Although the church was victorious in the

church property which he extended to almost all

short term, they failed to revert all the constitu-

the land held in Frankalmoign. Furthermore, Henry

tions of Clarendon and therefore, their victory can-

maintained clause 9 of the constitutions, which

not be described as outright. Furthermore, the poor meant that any conflicts relating to lay fee were decision to elect Richard of Dover as the Archbish-

settled in the secular court. This limiting of the

op of Canterbury in 1174 after Becket’s death con-

church power was openly accepted by Pope Alexan-

tributed to the church failing to be the outright vic- der III in his Papal Bull of 1178 which was in turn tor in the long term. Poole describes Richard of Do- incorporated into canon law. Henry was victorious ver as a ‘feeble and ineffective person’ and the

as the church accepted his royal authority over the

view, shared by Richard of Ilchester, is that this

law and justice of the realm.

weakness was why the church failed to profit from the martyrdom of Becket. Henry’s ability to main-

Moreover, Henry is victorious over the church

tain his royal authority and uphold some of his con- in the long term as he is able to manipulate the stitutions shows that in the long term, he was ulti-

concessions he originally gives to them. Henry ac-

mately the victor.

cepted that there should be free elections of bishoprics and churchmen, however he controlled 10

these and ensured that the men appointed were always the men he favored. This was exposed in a

Henry is ultimately the victor in the long term

memorandum sent by Henry the Young King to

because he got the church back on-side and re-

Pope Alexander III in 1173 which read ‘I order you

formed the alliance between church and crown.

to hold a free election, but nevertheless, I forbid

Primarily, Henry won back the support of the

you to elect anyone except Richard my clerk, the

church soon after the death of Becket by going on

archbishop of Poitiers’, referring to the vacancy at

the Irish crusade of 1171-72. This invasion of Ireland that was supported by Pope Alexander III

Winchester. He also appointed men such as

made it so that Ireland was brought back under the

Geoffrey Ridel who was a supporter of the king

jurisdiction of Canterbury, and therefore the Pope.

throughout the Becket crisis. This ability to appoint

He was able to gain forgiveness further by his per-

those who supported him into positions of power

sonal penance at Canterbury during the rebellion of

increased his control over the church and makes

1173-74 where he allowed every monk in the cathe-

him victorious in the long term as his churchmen

dral to whip him as he lay in clothes unworthy of a

remain loyal to the king throughout the rebellion in

king. This personal penance was not just a political

1173-74. Another clause that Henry gave to the church but was able to manipulate was Clause 11 of

stunt by Henry, as Duggan argues, Henry truly felt ‘remorse’, and this can be seen as Henry visited the

the constitutions; in 1176 Henry promised to the

tomb at Canterbury every time he visited England.

papal legate, Hugh Pierleone, that he would not

Henry’s willingness to pay penance for his part in

keep churches vacant for beyond a year unless

Becket’s death gained the support of the church

there was ‘urgent and evident necessity’. However,

throughout and after the Great Rebellion and there-

Henry manipulated this to his benefit; in 1172 there

fore ensured Henry was victorious over the church

were 7 vacant sees, and 8 years later, in 1184, 5 of

in the long term.

these were still vacant and simultaneously generating huge amounts of revenue for the crown. This

Although in the short term, the veneer of Hen-

is seen by Henry gaining a net annual profit of

ry’s royal authority can be seen to crack because of

£1000 from York alone in the last 8 years of his reign, totaling to £8000. Poole argues that this huge

and compromise at Avranches, 1172, we can see

financial profit was too tempting for Henry, an

Henry as the long term winner through his ability to

‘avaricious’ king. Henry’s ability to claw back the

claw back these concessions and regain the support

concessions he made to the church immediately

of the church. Henry ultimately gains control over

after the Becket crisis proves that the church’s vic-

the English church through only appointing the men

tory cannot be argued as ‘outright’, and the king still was able to control the church and benefit from it financially.

the pressures of the church to grant concessions

who were beneficial to his reign such as Richard of Ilchester who supported the crown; this control en-

ables him to maintain his Royal Authority over England. The church’s victory cannot be described as ‘outright’ because they compromise with Henry. Barlow argues that the alliance between church and state was ‘always desired’ and so the church was prepared to accept Henry’s long term victorious control over the church if it meant that they could reinstate their alliance.

By Sally Dickens

How important was the desire for wealth to participants in the First Crusade?

The desire for wealth in the First Crusade is unrealistic. Not only is it far more believable within a medieval mindset for religion to be the driving motive behind many of the leaders, but social reasons also come into consideration too.

It cannot be denied that, for some Crusaders, the prospect of potential wealth and lands were an important factor as to why some knights went. For example, in the case of Bohemond of Taranto. Due to his father’s death, Bohemond had inherited Guiscard’s conquered lands within the Adriatic [modern day Albania] and due to partible inheritance, his younger brother Roger received lands in Apulia, Southern Italy. However, due to the weak grip which the Southern Normans had on the Adriatic Territories, they were quickly lost to Byzantine influences with the area, leaving Bohemond landless. The First Crusade gave Bohemond the opportunity to seek new land ventures to the East, especially considering his past success in warfare, such as the Battle of Durazzo in 1081. Another knight who could arguably said to have set out for purely monetary reasons would be Baldwin of Boulogne. 13

The youngest of the Boulogne Brothers, due to the system of primogeniture [the inheritance of all land by the oldest son] was incredibly poor, considering he was disinherited due to refusing a life in the Church. One of the major signs that Baldwin desired wealth was the fact that he took his wife and children along with him on the journey. Despite marrying a very wealthy wife in Godehilde de Toeni, she died on the journey to the Holy Land along with his son, further cutting his chances of immediate wealth. However, he was described as being an “intelligent, calculating and ruthless man” by RileySmith, Baldwin continued on, taking a shortcut with another knight called Tancred across the lands of Cicilia, where they skirmished and fought over the town of Tarsus, in the area of Mamistra. Baldwin took over Tarsus from Tancred, leaving the latter to continue forth towards the other crusaders at Antioch and later, Jerusalem. Not only did Baldwin refrain from continuing towards the Holy Land, instead ending up in the city of Edessa, where he is adopted by Thoros, Count of Edessa in a rather eccentric ritual, and marries his daughter, Arda. To further increase his own personal power,

Baldwin then has Thoros executed. Not only does he become Count of Edessa, ruling for two years, but the first time he actually sets foot in the Holy Land is when he is proclaimed as the king after his brother Godfrey’s death. Both of these examples highlight the lack of religious intention when setting off towards the Holy Land, especially as neither of the two leaders were present at the Siege of Jerusalem itself, preoccupied with their own lands.

However, in reality, this is not the case. Whilst there are isolated cases such as Bohemond and Baldwin whose main focus was to increase their affluence, there are far more examples to support an opposing point. For the historian Ali to proclaim “they wanted the money, it’s as simple as that,” not only ignores starch evidence such as contemporary charters, as well as other knights who weren’t so fortunate. For instance, many knights had to mortgage off their land to even consider participating within the Crusade, mostly to the Church. Take Robert of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror for example. In order for him to venture out on Crusade, he had to mortgage off the entirety of Normandy to his younger brother, William II of England, the county holding a net worth of £10,000. It has been estimated that, in order for a knight to take the cross and join the Crusade, it cost four times a knight’s yearly income, especially when factoring in the need for armour, a sword, supplies, and any extra amenities. In many cases, it simply wasn’t financially viable for the knights to head out on Crusade with the sole purpose of returning with vast amounts of booty. Furthermore, when the Crusaders returned to the west after Jerusalem was taken in 1099, booty wasn’t what they returned with, bringing back relics with them instead, such as the arm of St. George. This further shows that monetary gain was not the main reason why Crusaders chose to fight.

the cross would be for religious reasons. As Asbridge states, “A vast majority were driven by faith,” and for many reasons, most depending on social class and the issues each faced. The widespread panic over the upcoming apocalypse in 1100 incited the need for Christians, especially peasants, to be closer to Jerusalem, as it is God’s link to earth. Within the Bible, it states not only that Jesus will return to Jerusalem to separate the ‘sheep’ [good christians] from the ‘goats’ [bad christians], but as quoted from Luke 6:20, “Blessed be the Poor, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”. This was especially key as to understanding why masses of peasant men, women and children accompanied the main armies in taking the cross, as they believed that the closer to Jerusalem they were, the better; they all wanted front-row seats for their audience with God.

Knights too, were fuelled by religious reasoning, although for alternate matters. For many years, those who had taken up knighthood as a profession were stuck with an issue known as ‘the Knightly Dilemma’. A prominent example of this is Tancred, nephew of Bohemond. For years, the young Tancred had faced this dilemma, over whether to follow his religious convictions, which state it is wrong to kill other human beings, as they are our brothers and sisters, or whether to follow the ways of the world, in which knights killed as they pleased, and when they were ordered to. However, Urban II solved this dilemma, by decreeing that it was only wrong for a knight to kill other Christians. Not only did this solve the Knightly Dilemma, but, due to the promised, as Asbridge describes, “redemption in the fire of Holy War,” by Urban II for all those who took part in the First Crusade for the Holy Land, knights could now atone for their past sins by taking the cross, and by slaughtering both Muslims and Jews by the masses. It is also obvious that many took the cross for their religious convictions due to the fact that, after the success of the siege of Jerusalem in A more realistic focus of why so many people took June 1099, many of the Crusaders returned home 14

to the West, instead of settling within the new Levantine lands of the Latin East. Even poorer nobles such as the aforementioned Robert of Normandy returned home to the west, proving that there was little desire within many to gain land. Furthermore, once Jerusalem has been conquered, the council of Princes tried to elect a new king for Jerusalem. First offering it to Raymond of Toulouse, one of the wealthiest lords in Southern France, he turned down the chance to rule over the newly-taken Holy Land. Also, when the kingship was offered to Godfrey de Bouillon, whilst he accepted the offer to be ruler, he turned down the title of ‘King’, proclaiming that only Jesus could be considered king within the Holy City, for it was there where he was crowned with thorns.

hear of Tancred slipping across the Bosphorus unnoticed in order to avoid swearing an allegiance with Alexios I. Their stories have remained, several centuries later as legends, exaggerated in modern media, passed on from person to person as one of our defining moments in History. A knight might not have necessarily been extraordinarily wealthy or affluent, but at least he had the hope of being remembered for an eternity.

A further reason why some may have taken the cross might be to prove their own social resonance, to assert their dominance within the European theatre of political and social events. Robert of Normandy is a mentionable figure, considering how many of the time viewed him as being weak, incompetent, or lazy [including his father, William the Conqueror, whom purposefully dictated that it was not his firstborn who would inherit the title of king of England, but his second born]. The Crusade not only offered him a chance of redemption for the sin of adultery [having fathered countless illegitimate children] but offered him the option to become one of the members of the Council of Princes. This allowed Robert to prove to his fellow Western Europeans that he was a strong military leader, which he had the opportunity to do at the Battle of Dorylaeum, where he took charge of the weaker of the two armies.This again ties in slightly with religion; the connotations of being one of the leaders on the Crusade would no doubt leave certain ties to your name, such as, in the example of Godfrey de Bouillon, “Defender of the Holy Sepulchre”. Western Europe, being noticeably Catholic during this time period, would no doubt revere these returning Crusaders, these defenders of the holy faith, these brave men who have fought the foreign bodies occupying the centre of their faith. No doubt perks would be associated.

An alternate view as to why some dared to take the cross and venture forth into lands unknown could be the prospect of an increase in social prominence. Despite illiteracy being widespread during the Medieval period, stories of myth and legend were often preserved via the media of oration. The idea of being preserved within memories of generations to come could have been a major driving factor to the Crusaders. For instance, a contemporary book of songs known as the ‘Chanson de Geste’ which convey the tales of the Emperor Charlemagne were incredibly popular, and well-versed by a majority of knights. The prospect of being immortalized within their own volume would no doubt be a potential motive for knights to take the cross, albeit a secondary motive. Arguably, this as one of the few motives which was noticeably realised and achieved, considering how we still study and hear tales of Crusading Knights to this day, otherwise we wouldn’t be studying the topic in such depth. We still hear about Jakelin du Mailley, who was such a revered knight that after his death, he was torn to pieces by his own men, each hoping to claim a relic. We still hear about Peter the Hermit, the preacher who was arguably ultra vires, or too big for his boots in attempting to commandeer the People’s To conclude, in certain isolated cases, such as BoCrusade, which was ultimately a failure. We still hemond of Taranto, wealth was an important fac15

tor as to why they took the cross, however it was only a minority whom held this as their primary focus, their primary mission for the First Crusade. Many factors, including the fact that many Crusaders returned to the West once Jerusalem was taken, the retrieval of holy relics rather than vast quantities of Gold, and the promise of eternal salvation for all sins by Urban II was no doubt the main reason why so many thousands took the cross and journeyed to the Holy Land; because they believed in their cause, that they were being led in the name of God,to fight for their faith which was paramount to them in their everyday lives. Whilst increased social prospects might have had a say, it is again a secondary motive, the majority driven to avenge Christ and his Holy City.

By Kelly Campbell

In the short term, Byzantine aid was massively important to the success of the First Crusade, as the Greeks provided the Crusaders with vital supplies and knowledge of the terrain and tactics of the Muslim forces which dominated the East. However, their assistance ended at Antioch, meaning that in the long term the most important factor in the Crusadeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success was Muslim disunity, which was a constant presence throughout the expedition and ensured that rival war lords were more focused on each other than defeating the Crusade. Less important but still notable was the role of intelligent tactics employed by the leaders of the Crusade, although these would have been useless in the face of a united and organised Muslim resistance.

sustain themselves. The Byzantines kept them supplied through setting up markets at nearby Cibotos and providing poorer Franks with money to buy supplies. Alexius also provided two of his generals, Tatikios and Manuel Boutemites, to accompany the armies and educate the Crusaders on Seljuk tactics. This education was massively important when two weeks into the siege, the absent leader of the city, Kilij Arslan, attacked the Crusaders outside the walls. As instructed, instead of following the favoured feint tactic of the Turks, Godfrey de Bouillon and his men flanked Arslanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s army, allowing Bohemond of Taranto to lead a cavalry charge from the East, overwhelming Arslanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s troops and forcing them to retreat. Defeating Arslan relieved the imAt the beginning of the First Crusade, the cru- mediate danger of the siege, although the battle could have ended disastrously without the advice of sading armies were heavily reliant on Byzantium. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Comnenus, provid- Boutemites and Tatikios. Furthermore, when it beed the Crusaders with guides to help them navigate came evident that supplies were still getting into Lake, the Byzantines blocktheir way to Nicaea, the capital of Anatolia and the the city via the Ascanian th aded it on the 18 June, leading to the Turks in the first agreed city to besiege. The joint army of the city suing for peace. Boutemites and Tatikios also Crusaders and the Byzantines besieged the city in negotiated the peace, providing the Crusaders with May 1097, and it is highly unlikely that without their first victory, an idea supported by Asbridge Greek aid the Crusaders would have been able to 17

who claims that “the Franks would probably have had little success without Greek aid.” However, whilst the Crusaders had their first success of the expedition, the victory for them was pyrrhic as they felt betrayed by the Byzantines, who under the terms of the oath made by the Crusading leaders to Alexius, took back Nicaea and did not allow the Crusaders to plunder it. This created distrust between the allies, which meant that there was much less reliance upon Byzantium in later battles. Victory at Doylaeum, whilst aided by Tatikios’ advice at Nicaea not to follow the feint, was largely secured as a result of Muslim disunity and the ingenuity of Bohemond. Byzantine aid was then terminated at Antioch in February 1098 when Tatikios left in February 1098 to seek help and never returned, and Alexius failed to provide reinforcements after being convinced by Stephen of Blois that the expedition was hopeless. Therefore, success at Antioch and Jerusalem was secured without any assistance from Byzantium and so aid cannot have played a predominant part in the success of the First Crusade in its entirety. The most important factor in the success of the First Crusade was Muslim disunity, an argument supported by Isiltan. Disunity was a continuous theme throughout the First Crusade and contributed to every victory. Whilst Byzantine aid helped to secure victory at Nicaea, the main reason the Crusaders were able to beat Kilij Arslan outside the walls of the city was because when the city was besieged, Arslan was away fighting the Damishmends. If he and his full forces had been inside the city walls, they could have co-ordinated an astute military response to the Crusaders as they would have been able to use the walls of the city to their advantage. Furthermore, if the garrison had been manned by more than a few hundred men with a strong leader in Arslan, instead of being virtually empty as the army were away fighting other Muslims, the city would have been more confident in its ability to defend itself and probably would not have sued for peace so easily. However, nowhere 18

was Muslim disunity more important than at Antioch, where the Crusaders did not at first face one united army, but separate attacks by two brothers, Duqaq of Damascus on the 31st December 1097, and Ridwan of Aleppo on the 9th February 1098. Both attacks failed due to poor planning and lack of manpower, whereas if the two brothers had coordinated and planned their attacks together, they could have attacked the Crusaders on two sides and overwhelmed them. However, they were too focused on fighting each other over control of Syria to take the threat of the Crusade seriously. In addition, whilst the siege was on going, the Fatimids took Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks, further demonstrating the willingness of rival Muslim empires to exploit each other’s weaknesses. Another attack was led against the Crusaders at Antioch by Kerbogha of Mosul, who had 40,000 strong coalition of troops provided out of fear by leaders from all over Syria, including men from Ridwan and Duqaq. This once again caused tensions and divisions within the army. However, whilst Kerbogha’s forces were travelling to Antioch, a Muslim convert and gate keeper named Firuz, had let the Crusaders into the first shell of Antioch’s walls, another show of disunity which provided the Crusaders with vital protection from Kerbogha’s superior numbers whilst they planned their response to his besieging army. Therefore, Kerbogha’s coalition had to wait from the 5th of June to the 21st June 1098 until the Crusaders engaged them in battle at the Bridge Gate to the city. Unlike the Crusaders who were united under the goal of defeating the Muslims in order to stay alive, Kerbogha’s forces were only held together by fear, and during the battle in the face of Christian aggression certain factions began retreating into oncoming forces, creating chaos in which the Muslim army were colliding with and in some cases fighting each other, making it much easier for the Crusaders to attack and defeat them despite their superior numbers. Such divisions were again echoed with the Berber, Bedouin and Ethiopian coalition at the concluding Battle of

Ascalon on the 12th August 1099, which contributed once again to a lack of solidarity and a willingness to retreat in the face of united opponents. All of these examples paint a picture of a continuously shambolic opposition to the First Crusade, with Muslim leaders more focused on fighting each other than the Crusaders, a concept summed up by Asbridge, who states that “Islam’s defense lay in a disparate array of squabbling war lords.” Therefore, even in cases such as Jerusalem, Ascalon and Antioch after the departure of Tatikios, where the Crusaders received no support from Byzantium, they were able to take advantage of the inability of the Muslim leaders to provide a co ordinated attack, which is the most important reason for the success of the First Crusade. If the Muslim world had been united, the Crusaders would have faced coordinated attacks from the Seljuks throughout Syria and the Fatimid forces from Egypt, meaning that they would have been constantly surrounded and outnumbered, which would have made success extremely difficult.

of to secure victory, their superior numbers of 40,000 to 25,000 would have most likely eventually worn down the Crusading army until they were annihilated or forced to surrender. Similarly at Jerusalem in July 1099, Godfrey’s idea to move his army’s siege tower from the New Gate to the Damascus Gate overnight on the 15th of July allowed his men to break into the city and take it. However, the Crusaders were only able conduct their siege and attack on the city unhindered as the Fatimids had alienated the Seljuk Turks by taking Jerusalem from them at the siege of Antioch, and therefore no Muslim ally came to try and defeat the siege. Tactics therefore contributed to the success of the First Crusade by intelligently taking advantage of Muslim weaknesses; however they would have been useless in the face of a strong and united enemy. To conclude, whilst Byzantine aid was massively important in supporting the First Crusade in the short term by providing supplies, military advice through Taktikios and Manuel Boutemites and assistance in blockading the Ascanian lake at Nicaea, the conflict of interests between the two allies led to resentment which ended Byzantine contributions too early in the Crusade for them to be considered the most important factor in the success of the expedition. Muslim disunity on the other hand was a constant factor throughout the First Crusade from Nicaea to Ascalon. Disunity ensured that the Crusaders only ever faced divided or reduced armies who were more focused on their suspicion and dislike of each other than a desire to defeat the Christian forces. If the Muslim world had been united, they would have been able to overwhelm the Crusaders regardless of aid or tactics due to overwhelming numbers and the ability to surround the Crusading army from all sides.

However, tactics did also play a marginal part in the success of the First Crusade. Bohemond’s circular defensive formation at Dorylaeum on the 1st July 1099, ensured that his forces held out for eight hours in the face of Turkish aggression until support arrived from Godfrey de Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse. His skill in doing so was commended by Jonathan Phillips who claimed that “it is much to Bohemond and Robert’s credit that they managed to remain calm in the face of such aggression.” If his army had been slaughtered, the Crusade would have lost vital numbers, and the leader who engineered the taking of Antioch. His decision on the 21st June 1098 to attack from Bridge Gate to take advantage of the narrow terrain from Kerbogha’s base at St Paul’s gate created a bottleneck in which the Muslim coalition could not spread out in full By Madeline McDonagh formation. However, regardless of tactics, if the Muslim forces had not been disunited and faction ridden, with the attempts by some to retreat causing the chaos which the Crusaders took advantage 19

Isabella of France, a murderous adulteress or a pro- Isabella and Gaveston had a difficult relationship. to-feminist Queen? Isabella had gravely disliked him, due to the fact he As daughter of King Philip IV of France, Isabella was stole and wore her jewellery publically, he had a married to Edward II of England in 1308, at just 12 higher position than her at court and encouraged years old. It was a match designed to secure the the king to deny her of her lands. Most English barpolitical alliance of the two powerful monarchies. ons hated Gaveston, in particular Thomas of LanIt’s fair to say that the union did the exact opposite. caster, together they joined forces and demanded Isabella was trapped in a loveless marriage; this Gaveston be exiled. Edward had no choice, was evident from the day of the wedding. The cele- Gaveston had to go in order to prevent a civil war. bratory feast was a complete disaster. It appeared If Gaveston was to return it would be on the punto be more of a party for Edwards’s closest friend, ishment of death. What did he do? He returned to advisor and probable lover Pier Gaveston, rather England in 1309 provoking a huge civil war. Eventuthan celebrating the marriage. Gaveston swanned ally Gaveston was captured at Scarborough castle around head to toe in imperial purple, a colour only by a group of Barons. Thomas of Lancaster oversaw Kings were supposed to wear. Even worse than Gaveston’s trial, which was basically a kangaroo that, the banners Edward had decorating the hall, court. He was sentenced to death by people who were not that of his new bride and her household, hated him, for returning to England. Isabella may not have been directly involved in his murder but but of Gaveston’s. The lack of representation led to angered French nobles storming out. Even English she would have greatly approved of it, if not ennobles were peeved at the King’s lack of respect for couraged it, out of her pure, vitriolic, hatred tohis new French relatives. One thing you should wards the man who replaced her in Edward’s eyes. know about Edward is that he wasn’t very bright, in In 1321, however, Isabella showed her loyalty to that he was never able to see the result of his ac- Edward at Leeds castle, putting her life on the line tions, quite a bad trait for a King to have. to bring down one of her husband’s rivals. Bartholomew (who was given Leeds castle by Edward in 20

1317) was supposed to be a loyal subject of the King, but when Isabella demanded shelter in the castle he fired arrows on the Queens escorts. This gave Edward a reason to lay siege to the castle, capturing the garrison and Bartholomew, who was beheaded. Thirteen members of the garrison were hanged on the spot. Isabella was well aware of the rivalry between certain barons and her husband. Did she assume that she would be denied entrance to the castle, thus giving Edward a reason to intervene? If this is the case, it proves how great Isabella was at being a Queen. Defeating his enemy barons (with his wife doing all the hard work for him) was the apogee of Edwards reign; it goes quite downhill from this point... to say the least. Isabella used her political cunning to play the role of the middle ground between her husband and the Barons for years. She constantly dissolved feuds for the sake of the kingdom. To the poor she was kind and charitable; this made her very popular among the lower classes. To anyone who dared to cross her, she would stop at nothing to have her way. In 1312 Edward’s inner circle at the English court made way for her biggest rival yet. Isabella’s next target came from the ‘wild west’ of medieval Britain…Wales. As Edward was incapable of finding allies elsewhere, he turned to Wales and the unruly, notorious Hugh Despenser, who became his next Gaveston... Despenser would prove a difficult challenge for Isabella, but nothing she couldn’t handle. Very quickly Despenser learned how to manipulate the King into doing what he wanted, imprisoning or exiled anyone that questioned him. Isabella hated Hugh Despenser bitterly. He had fired her French staff, publicly insulted her, stole her money and property and even took her children away from her. It was only a matter of time before the she-wolf got her revenge. Rodger Mortimer of Wigmore was part of Isabella’s group of nobles who wanted Despenser gone. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1322 for opposing Hugh Despenser, but he managed to es-

cape by 1323, possibly with the help of Isabella. It is suggested they met and started their affair when Isabella was living in the Tower during the civil war, but this is very unlikely. Isabella and Mortimer had to look for allies further afield who would support their opposition to Edward. This didn’t prove difficult as the majority of the people hated Edward’s guts! Isabella’s son, heir to the throne of England, Edward III had been sent to France to take part in negotiations. Originally King Edward was supposed to have gone himself, but without the king in England Despenser was nothing, he persuaded Edward to ‘ring in sick’ to get out of travelling to France. Isabella and Mortimer set out on a secret mission across the channel to France before Edward’s men could stop them. This is when the couple most likely started their affair. Isabella was well received in France, as the King was her brother. She reunited with her son Edward III at the French court. When Edward II heard of his wife’s disloyalty he was surprised and ordered for her immediate return. She refused, making a huge speech in front of the French nobles, promising she would not return until he banished Despenser. Edwards’s refusal of her request was the biggest mistake of his life. Raising an army in France, she and Mortimer crossed the channel ‘William the Conqueror style’, ready to take on the King. Disgruntled Barons flocked to her side on her arrival, creating a massive force against Edward. When Edward heard of his wife’s approaching army, his Plantagenet rage took over and he swore he would personally slay the she-wolf. Not exactly how it played out: Edwards’s army was demolished by Isabella’s forces. Edward and Despenser were captured fleeing on foot through a nearby forest. Edward got off lightly… for now. Despenser on the other hand met a gruesome end. He was led through the streets to his trial and execution while peasants threw rubbish at him. This trial wasn’t exactly going to be a fair one. Despenser had attempted to starve himself in prison beforehand because he realised the Queen wasn’t going to let him off

easy. Throughout his trial he could see a 50ft gallows being built. Without the right to speak Despenser was publically executed in a shockingly ruthless manner. Let’s just say he took a short walk off a long cliff. As for Edward he was forced to abdicate the throne to Edward III and spent the rest of his life imprisoned. Until, Isabella decided to have him burned to death with red-hot pokers. Or did she? It’s more likely he was suffocated in his cell. Either way he met a disturbing end. So basically… Don’t mess with Queen Isabella.

Don’t Call Me a Celt, You Eejit!

Yes, I’m here to thrill you out of you narrow modern history outlook and into the wondrous, mindboggling, stupendous world of the ancient Celts. You might learn about the significance of the cauldron, the oral tradition of storytelling, the myriad of magical mythical creatures represented in their vivid culture…

Or you could.

If we knew who we’re talking about.

‘Cause the contemporary writer’s didn’t.

The term was first used by the Greeks as a general term for the ‘barbarians’ in North West Europe, and they didn’t even know we existed. We were just a tiny myth that bobbed along in tribes in our own happy way. It was a collective term for the people, but, in the Celtic societies, they were organised into many different tribes, and weren’t a collective group.

Therein lays the problem some historians (like little annoying me) like to nit-pick and twinge and poke and prod from a little molehill into a mountain. I know, aren’t I just the fun-est dull person you’ve ever read?

Caesar also used the word ‘Celts’ in his writings about his exploits in Gaul, and he explained that the tribes in Gaul used the word ‘Celts’ to describe themselves. But he never used it in a way that it referred to the areas of Wales, Ireland, any of the ancient British tribes. They were just called Britons.

The majority of people, I think, would use the term ‘Celtic’ to define the ancient people of the British Isles, from Ireland... Wales...Cornwall... (Apologies if you think they’re the inhabitants of Mars), but, is it the correct way to refer to them?

Professor Miranda Aldhouse-Green, from Cardiff University, says that the use of the blanket term ‘Celts’ can be seen as “academically suspect”, especially if you don’t know what you’re referring to. 23

being tested, the people all having their grandpar(I know my argument basically boils down to childish ents on both sides coming from the same area, to ‘they didn’t so why should you’, but wait. That’s not be assured that there will be no discrepancies. what I’m going into. You’ll see!) (Although there’s always that one mistake isn’t there? Like, not noticing that one of your sample The term has become so mixed now, if you don’t people has their grandparents harking from Lancahave a firm grasp on what exactly you're trying to shire and Aberdeenshire and nor Lancashire and say, your tongue will twist and turn and your mind will boggle and you’ll completely miss the mark. You Blackburn. Bloomin’ heck!) can try to mean the ancient people of Ireland, the ancient people of Wales, the ancient people of So, the results: Cornwall and the North West, the society that connects these people, the rugby clubs, the blahdy blahdy blah… Northern English people are more genetically similar to the Scots than the Southern English people (*blows raspberry* DOWN WITH So what should you use it for? SOUTHERN RULE!!!) Well, in my humble, non-graduate, non-intellectual North and South Wales have two genetically disopinion, I think it should be used for the society and tinct groups, not unifying CELTIC Deoxyriboculture which connects the ancient people of Gaul, nucleic Acid (DNA) and are more different Wales, Ireland, Cornwall etc. etc. that puzzled histothan the English and the Scots. rians for ages, and, this is the biggie, with no impliThere are clear distinct subtle differences becation that these people are a genetic race. tween the populations of Cornwall and Devon (catfight!) Because they’re not.

Well, not according to University College London’s latest DNA testing of the populous.

Archaeologist Mark Robinson from Oxford Uni said he was “very surprised” by these results.

(Very surprised, very surprised indeed, you know) It’s actually quite intriguing when you look at it.

Well, I think so. Let’s get you to agree with me.

He had assumed there would be a “uniform Celtic fringe” in the West. This was not so. Most astonishing, don’t you know?

(I know, bringing in Science to back me argument, aren’t I naughty?)

You see, there had been a bit of mystery over how the culture of the society had spread. People had posited the idea that the genetic race, the ‘Celts’ The study is one of the most extensive ever done on had come over the areas and spread their culture. our Great Isles, with over 2,000 people’s genetics But how? When they’re so distinct in genetics how 24

can this be? Must be one of the other 589,012,523,101,758 the- I guarantee you, you’ll lose. ories out there to debunk and ratify. So, in conclusion, don’t use the word ‘Celtic to refer Donnelly said further “We did not find a single ge- to a race of ancient people with the same genetics, netic group corresponding to the Celtic traditions in but to a range of groups over many areas with the same culture and traditions (or at least very similar the western fringes of Britain.” practices). That solves the modern day usage issue as well, all wrapped in one package. Neat So that proves it, at least in my view. And who knows? Celtic people were connected by their views. End of. Maybe the ancient ‘Celts’ will be so grateful, they’ll invite you to their next human sacrifice! Done. Finished. They won’t invite you to the one after though. Yep. That’s me.

. .

All out.

(Also, P.S: Fun little titbit the research mentioned: The Norman Conquest left little genetic footprint on the English. Of all the pretentious, stuck- up, little ba - No. I shouldn’t use that word, should I?

. . Ok, so maybe the difference in the Celtic groups of Wales, Cornwall and Scotland can be explained through time, since the groups are separated the develop distinct differences, but really. Why spoil a good theory? Plus, ancient tribal groups still seem to exist today, according to this genetic research, Cornwall and Devon split directly down the county border, over the River Tamer, and a small genetic cluster in West Yorkshire corresponds directly with the ancient small kingdom of Elmet.

The Conqueror would blow his transcendental top)

By Emma Porter!

If they can do it, so can you! I again resort to childishness to prove my point. You should try it. Honestly. Try arguing with a 3-year old. 25

The Woodvilles

Before the Second World War, British railways consisted of four huge corporations under indirect control of the government split up geographically into the LMS (London, Midland, Scotland), GWR (great western railway), LNER (London north eastern railway) and SR (southern Railway). Although these corporations were technically nationalised, they were ran as private companies who ‘unprofitable’ (Sked and Cook) despite government subsidies. Many like Bevin of the TGWU (transport and general workers union) and the labour movement saw the only viable option of securing the longevity of the railways was its complete nationalisation. This was because the railways were a natural monopoly as companies were unable to service the whole country making travel difficult over long distances.

waffe, Railways were once again vital to the war effort of Britain. Following the war, Attlee’s government sought to nationalise the railways alongside industries like coal, iron and steel and bring it into the brand new British Transport Commission which included rail, road and civil aviation transport being nationalised. In 1948 the newly formed British Rail included 632,000 staff managing 20,000 steam locomotives and 4,000 electric trains (there also were 7,000 horses owned by BR for shunting around yards).

Following the 1951 election and conservative victory (in seats not votes), austerity measures to balance payments to suit the loan repayments to the US meant that reforms were deemed necessary to make the railways profitable. These came in two ways: firstly modernisation. The old steam locomoWith the onset of the Second World War in 1939, tives would be replaced by electric and diesel trains railways were brought under government supervi- fulfilling the same roles as before but for cheaper. sion and control in an effective nationalisation as This was seen by many railway workers as reactionthey were in the First World War. Yet their role was ary to their jobs as electric and diesel trains refar more prevalent with the evacuation of children, quired less maintenance and crew. Secondly, lines movement of goods and equipment across the that were deemed unnecessary as having fewer country and the threat to the lines by the Luftthan 16,000 passengers per week were to be de26

in the UK over the 20th century with them being nationalised and privatised along the trends of other industries. Yet, they are also unique; people from all classes react with the railways from MP’s and Bankers to ordinary workers and students, trains Under the governments of 1964-79, Britain’s need are still used by all. However its role has changed for coal although diminishing was still crucial for beyond recognition; coal services have become oil power stations and many trains like the ‘Class 58’ services, the routes of old steam trains now are were used in loops known as the merry-go-round used by Pendlinos. Whether we like it or not the system of bringing coal from pits to the power staway we use trains and the frequency of their use tions. However with the rise of motorways and the has shrunk for many but we cannot forget the imgrowing numbers of car owners due to cheap man- portance of infrastructure and in the future, perufacturing of cars like the Mini, passenger traffic haps renationalisation will be a solution to the overwas in a downward decline yet it was still necessary crowded and polluted motorways that have grown for easy transport into London and across the coun- from the neglect of the rails. try. commissioned under the Beeching Report. Local examples of these lost stations include Pennington and Golborne stations and this trend continued somewhat until 1969.

With Thatcher, the fights with the miners and trades unions took a hard toll on the railways with By Cameron Fleming many lines closing including one of the oldest in the country; the Bolton-Leigh railway. Yet thatcher refused to privatise the railways calling it a possible ‘waterloo’ of her government telling Ridley the transport secretary ‘never to mention railways’ to her again. John Major however did not share this same sense. In 1992 following his narrow election victory major privatised the railways in a way in which the tracks, trains and stations were owned by separate companies. It was a ‘catastrophe’ (Marr). It coincided with the closure of 31 pits in this last sweep of privatisation and consisted of 25 companies with huge government subsidies running the railways with a franchise director deciding prices for the government. Christian Wolmar described it as a ‘poll tax on wheels’ with prices rising quickly and services being cut dramatically. O’Farrell puts this down to Majors vision of ‘romantic private companies’ but was a ‘ramshackle’ and in the end rather ‘pointless’ (MacGregor) Overall, the changes it the trains saw lines lost, and eventually more public money was spent on subsidies than before. However the railways are a good measure of the changing attitude to public services 27

“Victory over the Great Rebellion in 1173-4 owed more to the weaknesses of the opposition than to Henry’s good management.” To what extent do you agree?

The Great Rebellion of 1173-4 was led by a coalition of disillusioned nobles, the most notable being Louis VII of France and Henry the Young King, both of whom were fighting to advance their political power, Louis by undermining the stability of the growing Angevin empire and Henry by claiming the territory and income which he felt his father was depriving him of. Their coalition’s poor use of tactics and inability to keep up with Henry II’s energetic military strategy has led to historians such as McLynn arguing that Henry II’s victory over the rebellion was a result of the weaknesses of the coalition, which lacked a strong, decisive leader who could overpower Henry on all frontiers of his empire. However, whilst the weakness of the opposition made crushing the rebellion a much easier task for Henry, his good management throughout the rebellion and in the years before it played a much larger role in his victory. Through his planning before 1173, Henry managed to ensure that key figures such as Richard de Lucy and Richard Fitz-Nigel stayed loyal, along with the towns, the majority of whom consistently rejected attempts by the rebels to submit them, all of which contributed massively to his success according to Tom Jones. Henry’s

good management in terms of military strategy throughout the rebellion with his use of forced marches and clever calculations on the speed of the rebels also meant that he was constantly one step ahead, an attribute which would have led him to victory regardless of the strength of the opposition. Militarily, poor planning and strategy by the opposition made Henry’s victory over the rebellion much easier. The rebel strategy in 1173 was to open multiple fronts in an attempt to hit Henry when he was absent. Louis and the Young King began an assault on Eastern Normandy in May, whilst William the Lion of Scotland attacked Northumbria in June. However, these attacks were largely unsuccessful, with William failing to capture castles at Wark and Warkworth before retreating upon hearing about Richard de Lucy’s advancing loyalist army, and the continental forces despite capturing Aumale and Driencourt pulled back in August on Louis’ orders in the face of aggression from Henry. This was a fatal decision which robbed the movement of the speed and urgency it needed in order to keep up with Henry and “exposed Louis as a dull and dreary gen-

eral” according to Dan Jones. The tactic of opening multiple fronts was also counter productive as the opposition played to Henry’s biggest strength, decisiveness and moving at pace, as he demonstrated in marching around 190 miles from Rouen to Dol in two days in the same August in order to defeat Breton rebels under Hugh of Chester and Ralph de Fougeres. Henry owed his military success to this itinerancy; however it was his good management which meant that he was able to defeat the rebels as if he hadn’t set up the administration and supply routes he needed to move so quickly he would not have been able to combat a weak or strong opposition over such a large empire. Furthermore, the rebels were not totally weak, as demonstrated in the spring of 1174 when William the Lion defeated loyalist forces in Northampton, Northumbria and Leicester. Due to Henry’s ability to quickly make his way to England, where he had both a loyal population and loyal administrators, he was able to crush the revolt in England in just under a month, demonstrating that whilst the weakness of the opposition had hindered the rebellion, Henry’s preparations meant that he was also able to quickly counter real and immediate threats. Henry’s military management played a massive role in his victory. This point is supported by Barber who claims that the most important factor in his victory was that he “showed himself a confident, able and energetic general, inspiring his followers and dismaying his enemies.” Henry reacted quickly to every threat he faced, as demonstrated when Louis ordered pulling back in August 1173 and Henry made a lightening counter attack, routing Louis’ rearguard near Vernueil then turning Westwards to deal with the Breton rebels. This meant that the opposition were weak due to Henry’s tactics, as individual threats were not able to flourish for long enough to become serious causes for concern. Henry also packed his forces with ruthless Barbanter mercenaries, funded by the treasury and described by McLynn as his “secret weapon.” These men were elite troops who were renowned 29

for their ferocity in battle, intimidating the Bretons so much that they surrendered to Henry without a fight. They were also more than capable of keeping up with Henry’s punishing forced marches, meaning that Henry had a highly skilled, mobile and vicious force constantly at his command. Henry also expertly manoeuvred the conclusion of the rebellion. Whilst he was in England in July 1174, Henry the Young King and Louis had besieged the capital of Normandy, Rouen. Henry predicted that the city would hold out and finished submitting England before gathering a force and returning to the continent. When he did a month later, he found that as he had predicted, the siege was still on-going, and when the French heard Henry was preparing to attack they fled, with Louis suing for peace not long after. Whilst this victory could also be attributed to good fortune, Henry’s excellent military knowledge and management meant that he was able to successfully predict outcomes of sieges and battles and act accordingly, making him extremely difficult to defeat regardless of the quality of his enemies. The opposition were also weak due to Henry the Young King’s inability to instil loyalty, although this had very little to do with Henry II’s victory. The Young King gained support from esteemed figures such as Phillip of Flanders, Matthew of Boulogne and Theobald of Blois on the continent, along with Robert of Leicester and Hugh Bigod in England to name a few. This support was ensured through promises to give away lands such as Kent, Mortan and Touraine to his supporters along with thousands of pounds in revenue. Therefore the supporters of the rebellion were more interested in individual gain than in overthrowing the King, a motivation Henry tapped into by choosing not to punish the rebels after the rebellion. According to Tom Jones this meant that the coalition was “never more than a scattered alliance of ambitious dissidents with no collective organisation.” This was proven a number of times, firstly with Louis beginning the rebellion with an attack on the Vexin, lands that he wanted to regain from Henry, and

with Phillip of Flanders losing heart and retreating from Driencourt in August 1173 without consulting the rest of the alliance. This division meant Henry was able to deal with each rebellious area individually, instead of facing one totally united enemy. However, even if the Young King had managed to inspire loyalty from the nobility, due to Henry’s management of his territories, especially England, before 1173, he was able to retain the loyalty of his administrators, who had in his reign become more important allies than the unreliable and self serving nobility. In addition, the decision to deploy Flemmish mercenaries in England after their reputation of ravaging England during the anarchy also turned public opinion against Henry the Young King. However, the most important area of public opinion was within towns, who would have declared for the crown out of self interest regardless, the presence of the Flemmish simply exacerbated their dislike of the opposition.

“relieving his dependence on traditional feudal levies” paid by the Barons, according to Jones. The Cartae Baronum had also increased royal revenue with its introduction of scutage payments, which paid for mercenaries and the naval fleet which allowed Henry to travel throughout his empire so quickly throughout the revolt. Also massively important was his securing of the loyalty of towns. In the 15 years before the Great Rebellion, Henry had granted charters to walled towns like Oxford, Nottingham and Chester, which joined older chartered towns such as Rouen, Verneuil, Newcastle, Norwich and Carlisle, which provided expansion of trade agreements, grants and increased circulation of currency, fostering a growing merchant class who preferred the stability provided by Henry over the uncertainty of a new leader. These towns were important strategic strongholds and all of them rejected demands to surrender from rebel leaders such as Louis at Rouen and Hugh Bigod at Norwich. Whilst the inhabitants of these towns engaged in Henry’s good management before 1173 was the active resistance, for example in Bury St Edmunds most important reason why he was victorious in crushing the Great Rebellion, as he put into place all where townsmen attacked the followers of the reof the resources he would need to successfully de- bel Earl of Leicester, their most important role in the rebellion was slowing down the advance of the feat the rebels. Through his legal reforms such as the 1166 Cartae Baronum and Assize of Clarendon, opposition, spreading their forces over different areas and routing individual armies in one place so Henry reduced the power of the Baronage and made the royal administration the chief authority in it was easier for Henry to attack and defeat separatEngland. This meant that during the rebellion, Hen- ed forces. ry was reliant on his administrators and not the re- Less important but still notable was Henry’s good bellious Barons. According to Tom Jones, Henry’s management of the legacy of the Beckett affair in administrators “almost without exception owed 1174. It was a widely held view throughout Europe their advancement to the King’s recognition of their that the rebellion was God’s way of punishing Hentalents rather than their lands or power.” This ry for Becket’s murder in 1170, and according to meant that they stayed loyal to Henry throughout Horspool when Henry came to England in July 1174 the rebellion as they owed their positions and he “grasped the importance of the dead Archbishop wealth to Henry’s patronage. This can be seen with as a symbol of rebellion.” When he arrived in CanHenry’s Chief Justicar Richard de Lucy, who led ar- terbury he did penance at Becket’s tomb, and the mies which kept William the Lion at bay until Henry next day William the Lion was captured at Alnwick arrived in England to crush his forces, and with by a group of Yorkshire knights. Whilst this should Richard Fitz-Nigel as chief officer of the treasury probably be attributed to luck, to the deeply reliwho provided Henry with the vital funds he needed gious medieval mind it appeared that Becket had to pay his mercenaries and command his army, forgiven Henry and was now backing his cause, and 30

as Jones says “with one fortuitous event, the heart was ripped out of the rebellion.” Regardless of luck or divine intervention, Henry’s decision to publicly repent had been a politically astute decision, as with God supposedly on his side, he gained both popular approval and shot down the rebels’ most voiced criticism of him. Henry probably would have gone on to achieve victory over the rebels without his visit to Becket’s tomb, however his management of the Becket backlash provided him with the divine approval his campaign had previously lacked. To conclude, whilst the weakness of the opposition in terms of the poor military leadership of Louis VII and Henry the Young King’s inability to inspire loyalty contributed partly to Henry’s victory by making it easier to achieve, Henry’s superior management both during the rebellion and with the infrastructure he put into place before 1173, meant that victory would have been achievable even against a much more organised and decisive opponent. The main weakness of the rebels lay in Henry’s excellent preparations, whether it was intentional or not, for rebellion before 1173. Henry managed to create a system in which he was no longer reliant on the Baronial classes to fund him or supply knights, and this along with the loyalty of his administrators meant that he was able to fight, and more importantly succeed, on all fronts.

By Madeline McDonagh

Winstanley College History Society 2014-2015â&#x20AC;Ś PRESIDENTS

Cameron Fleming & Zara Andrews

VICE PRESIDENT

Keir Martland

SOCIAL MEDIA

Harry Griffiths & Mollie Williams

HISTORICAL DRAMA

Vanessa Holt & Ruth Cambell

TOTAL WAR TOURNAMENTS

Dominic Doran

HISTORY MAGAZINE CO-EDITORS Madeleine McDonagh & Sally Dickens MAGAZINE EDITORIAL TEAM

Emma Porter, Keir Martland, Nathaniel Lamb & Elizabeth Cunliffe