Y7 Term 1

The three rivals for the English throne in 1066

Edward the Confessor died on 5 January 1066. He had no children. Three men wanted to be king of England. Each man thought he had the best claim to the throne. The next king of England would have to win it in a war. Who do you think had the best claim to the throne?

Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex

Harold was a powerful and rich English nobleman. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Edward named Godwinson as his successor on his deathbed. The next day, the royal council, known as the Witan, met and declared Godwinson king. An English king was proclaimed by the Witan - this gave Harold Godwinson the only claim to the throne by right.

William, Duke of Normandy

The Norman chroniclers reported that Edward had promised his distant relative, William, the throne in 1051. William was the only blood relative of Edward, but the English throne was not hereditary anyway. Claims that Edward promised the throne were probably made up by the rival sides after the event. The Bayeux Tapestry, which was made after the Conquest, shows Godwinson swearing an oath of support to William in a visit to Normandy in 1064. William was supported by the Pope.

Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, Viking warrior

Hardrada based his claim on the fact that his ancestor, King Cnut, had once ruled England (1016‒1035). He was helped by Godwinson's half-brother, Tostig.

Harald Hardrada's bid to become King of England

After Harold Godwinson was crowned King Harold II, William and Harald Hardrada both made plans to invade England.

Hardrada invades England with 300 longships

Viking longship

Harold II assembled his bodyguards, known as the housecarls, and gathered an army of ordinary men, called the fyrd. He split the fyrd in two, sending some men to the south and some to the north. He sent a fleet of ships to the English Channel. Then they all waited. In September supplies had run out and Harold II had to send the fyrd back home to bring in the harvest.

Hardrada invaded. He landed in Yorkshire and defeated the northern Saxon army at the Battle of Fulford.

Harold II marched north quickly, gathering an army on his way. He took Hardrada by surprise and defeated him at the Battle of Stamford Bridge (25 September).

Hardrada and Tostig, Goodwinson's half-brother, were both killed.

So many Vikings were killed that they only needed 24 longships to go home.

William and Harold meet at the Battle of Hastings

There have been many accounts of the Battle of Hastings and, while it is difficult to know exactly what happened, here is one account:

William’s invasion fleet consisted of 700 ships and a large army. Although ready since August, strong winds had prevented William and his fleet from sailing until late September.

On September 29th, William landed at Pevensey Bay in Sussex. A castle was built and his army set about raiding the surrounding area.

William prepares his troops for battle, as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry

Harold II marched quickly south, immediately after the Battle of Stamford Bridge. He left many of his foot soldiers behind and exhausted the others. Harold II arrived in Sussex after two weeks of constant marching.

The two sides met at Senlac Hill, near Hastings. Harold II had gathered his men at the top of the hill and they protected their position using a wall of shields.

The battle began in the morning with the Norman knights on foot firing arrows followed by those on horseback charging up the hill.

The battle continued for two hours before a rumour suggested William had been killed. On hearing this news, one of the Norman soldiers began to flee because they thought William had been killed. William took off his helmet to show them he was still alive. Shouting Look at me! I am alive! And with God’s help we will win!.

Re-enactment of the Battle of Hastings

The next part of the battle was in the afternoon. A turning point in the battle was to occur. The Normans pretended to run away, then turned and cut down the Saxons when the inexperienced fyrdchased them. The Saxons had lost their main advantage: their control of the top of the hill.

William had a well-equipped army. He could now use them to his advantage. He had knights on horseback and archers with crossbows. Harold II had a traditional Saxon army – his housecarls fought on foot with axes and the fyrd were just farmers who fought with

any weapons they could get. William’s soldiers were fresh and full-time fighters. The Saxons stood no chance!

William used archers to break up the Saxon shield wall. Arrows fell like rain on the Saxons, killing many of them in the process.

In desperation, the housecarls formed a ring around their king. They failed to protect him however and Harold was killed - although exactly how he died, no-one can be sure of.

Harold was killed. It is impossible to know how Harold II died. Most people believe that he was killed by an arrow in the eye. This theory is based on a scene in the Bayeux Tapestry. The tapestry has the words 'Harold is killed' next to a man with an arrow in his eye, but it is impossible to know which soldier is Harold II because all the Saxon soldiers are dressed identically.

Harold is killed, allegedly by an arrow to the eye

William’s army of about 10,000 were experienced and well trained. They used swords, bows and arrows, and knights on horseback. On the other hand, Harold’s army of 8000 were largely peasants, plus the fierce and well trained housecarls. They used spears, axes and swords but also farm tools such as pitchforks.

The Harrying of the North in response to rebellion

Some English people rebelled against William including Hereward the Wake in East Anglia and Eadric the Wild in Shropshire.

The biggest rebellion was in the north of England in 1069. It was led by Edgar the Atheling who, as the only son of Edward the Exiled, had a blood-claim to the throne. He was joined by Danish and Scottish armies.

William defeated the rebellion but he still didn't trust the English people. In the north-east of England, from 1069 to 1070, he ordered villages to be destroyed and people to be killed. Herds of animals and crops were burnt. Most people who survived starved to death; there were even stories of people turning to cannibalism. William did not care if they had rebelled or not.

Not only was the population reduced by 75% but land was salted (poisoned) to prevent people growing crops in the future. This is called the Harrying of the North.

Even by the standards of the time, the Harrying was seen as excessively cruel. A Norman chronicler, Vitalis, writing fifty years later said God would punish William for his brutal slaughter, but William had achieved his main aim. He was in control of the North, and he had prevented a future rebellion. Now William was able to place loyal nobles in charge to look after his lands. William could then set about keeping control of his new conquest.

How did William take long term control of England?

William used the methods of control that he was most familiar with: castles and the feudal system. But he also adopted a new method in the form of the Domesday Book.

Castles: William had new, loyal nobles from Normandy build over 100 castles all over the country. They were built extremely quickly, some in just eight days! From their castles, the new Norman lords could control the local area, and the sight of them made it clear who was now in control. The need for quick constructions meant materials such as earth and wood were used and although this sped up the building process, it meant they didn’t last very long. Over time, the more important ones were rebuilt from stone.

Carrickfergus Castle in Northern Ireland, originally built in Norman times

The feudal system: William could not be everywhere at the same time. To solve this, he lent parcels of his new lands to nobles, or barons, as they were called at the time. In return for loyalty and taxes, they could use the land. The barons then loaned the land to knights who in turn loaned it to peasants who then did all of the hard farming work! If the barons betrayed William, they would lose their land, and the wealth that came with it.

The Domesday Book: the book was the end result of a survey of all of England by William to assess the value of the country. It took his two sets of officials a year to complete. The first group asked questions of the people. The questions concerned the value of farms and animals which created England’s wealth at the time. The second group checked the first group’s answers to see if they had told the truth. The book is still in existence today.

The Domesday Book

Term 2

How did the Crusades begin?

In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world stretched from India to Spain, including Jerusalem and the Holy Land. For Jews, Christians and Muslims, Jerusalem was and still is a holy city. In fact for Medieval Christians it was the centre of their world spiritually and geographically according to their maps.

For Christians, Jerusalem was the place where Jesus Christ died and was buried. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre stood at the site where Christians believed his tomb was found. Christian pilgrims had come to the city for centuries.

To Muslims, Jerusalem is the third most holy city, as Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from there. Arab Muslims conquered the Holy Land in 638. The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque are sites of pilgrimage for Muslims.

Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock in the Old City of Jerusalem

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre had to be rebuilt after it was destroyed by the Caliph of Egypt, Al-Hakim, in 1009. Following this time, Christian pilgrims were free to visit the church. However, around 1077 Muslim Seljuk Turks took control of the Holy Land.

It became harder for Christian pilgrims to visit as various Muslim groups struggled for power. Rumours of mistreatment of local Christians and pilgrims spread. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, fearing the spread of Seljuk rule towards his own lands and a threat to the Christian city of Constantinople, appealed to the Pope for help.

Therefore in 1095, Pope Urban II promised the knights of Europe forgiveness of their sins if they went on a Crusade to win back Jerusalem for Christianity. Many responded by taking the cross and showed this act by cutting out red crosses before sewing them into their tunics.

The First Crusade began in 1096. Christians, known as the Franks, from France, Germany and Italy set out on the long journey to the Holy Land, led by nobles and knights. Around 10,000 people gathered at Constantinople, before taking control of Edessa and Antioch.

After a long 7iege they captured Jerusalem in 1099. The attack was brutal, with thousands killed. A Christian source from the time claimed that The slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles.

The loss of Jerusalem was a terrible blow to the Muslims. Christians took control of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Jewish people, who had hidden in their synagogues, were also killed by the Crusaders. The Crusaders now established a kingdom around Jerusalem.

Overview of the Crusades

Over the next three centuries there were many more Crusades. The Crusaders benefited from divisions between the Seljuk Turks and the Abbasid rulers of Baghdad to take control of parts of the Holy Land.

In the long term the Crusaders failed to keep any of the territory they conquered. However, they benefited from profitable trade links with the Muslim world, and improved castle design. They also borrowed many ideas from the Muslims, such as:

better castle design

science

medicine

numbers that were easier to use than Roman numerals

Writers in the 1800s portrayed the Crusades as great romantic adventures. In fact, the Crusaders were invading a foreign country, and many Crusaders committed what we would regard today as criminal atrocities.

The First Crusade of 1096 presented a challenge to Seljuk rule of the Holy Land, and led to the capture of Jerusalem. The Crusaders ruled the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which included a large part of Palestine, through the Second Crusade until 1187.

However, after uniting large parts of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, a powerful new Muslim leader called Saladin took back Jerusalem in 1187. In contrast to the Frankish slaughter in 1099, Saladin showed mercy to the Christians in Jerusalem, allowing them to leave in safety for a ransom.

This humiliating defeat led to a Third Crusade, this time involving English Christians led by Richard I (known as the Lionheart). Saladin and Richard are believed to have shown great respect for each other as leaders, yet they never met. Richard and the other Crusading armies did not make it as far as Jerusalem.

Several more Crusades were launched, lasting for a period of around 200 years in total. The Christians never regained the prize of Jerusalem. The Muslim world was politically and militarily stronger than the Crusaders. It was also far more scientifically and culturally advanced.

What were the different motives for the Crusades?

The historian Giles Constable says each participant made his own crusade. Some reasons for going were:

To obey the Pope's call to free the Holy city from the infidels and ensure access for pilgrims. St Bernaud of Clairvaux wrote in 1140, Of mighty soldier, oh man of war, you now have something to fight for. If you win it will be glorious. If you die fighting for Jerusalem, you will win a place in heaven.

To be forgiven for past sins. The Pope offered forgiveness for anyone who took part. This was important for knights who had killed many people in battle.

To see the world, have an adventure and prove their bravery.

To get land overseas. This was tempting for a younger son who would not inherit his father's lands.

Serfs, peasants who belonged to their lord, joined the Crusades because the Pope promised them their freedom if they went.

To gain wealth.

Kings encouraged troublesome knights to go on Crusade because it got them out of the country.

In the 1000s, tension increased between Muslims and Christians

The Taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders

Some historians would argue that whilst the primary motive may have been religious, many Crusaders got side-tracked by their greed and lust for power. This may explain why they slaughtered fellow Christians in Constantinople during the first Crusade and took control of Edessa, which was not on the route to Jerusalem and did not contain any holy sites.

How did the Crusades change the western world?

19th-century engraving of a victorious Saladin on horseback

Ultimately the Crusades failed to create the Holy Land that was part of Christendom, but in the process they changed the western world forever.

Rather than defeating the Muslims, the Crusades provoked a Muslim backlash. In 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople and by 1529 had conquered south-eastern Europe, including Hungary, and were besieging Vienna.

The Crusaders learned more about warfare – better castle design and gunpowder.

Muslim scholars taught European scholars many things about science and medicine. The number system they used (1, 2, 3, 4), based on place value, was more straightforward than Roman numerals (I, II, III, IV) and made calculations easier to do. The use of '0' in Arabic enabled the early scentists of the Renaissance to develop the ideas of the Arabic and Ancient Greek astronomers. We still use this numeric system today.

Western Europeans learned that the Muslim world stretched to India and traded with China.

Trade increase, whilst Europeans also brought back knowledge about plants, irrigation and the breeding of animals.

Western Europeans brought back many goods, such as lemons, apricots, sugar, silk and cotton and spices used in cooking.

Not all the Crusaders went home after fighting the Muslims. Many of them who went to the Holy Land liked it so much that they stayed and adopted a Middle Eastern way of life.

The legacy of the Crusades on England

The Crusades led to the emergence of military and religious orders which were founded during the First and the Second Crusades. Some of them have become well known as the subjects of video games such as 'Assassin’s Creed'. The most famous one is the Knights Templar. These knights had the job of protecting the wealth of the pilgrims as they travelled. They became rich themselves and helped lay down the principles of modern international banking.

The Knights of St John were founded in 1023 to help ill or injured pilgrims. This aspect of its work remains in the St John Ambulance, which is connected to the Order of St John.

The Crusades were expensive, and led to higher taxes at home. For example, when Richard I was taken hostage by another Christian ruler in 1192, his father Henry II raised a 'Saladin Tithe' (a tax) to pay the ransom to have him released in 1194.

Many men left home for years neglecting their lands and people, leading to legends involving Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood.

Richard I (The Lionheart)

Western and eastern interpretations of the Crusades

Western interpretations

Medieval engraving of the second taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade

In the Middle Ages, the Crusaders were seen as Christian heroes.

Writers in Britain in the 1800s, like Sir Walter Scott, produced a romantic, chivalric interpretation of the Crusades - a meeting of noble warriors on both sides who respected each other.

In modern popular culture, a 'crusader' is seen as someone fighting for what is true or right. The Daily Express has a crusader on its masthead and the DC Comics character 'Batman' is known as the 'Caped Crusader'.

20th-century writers, however, tended to condemn the Crusades as 'violent white colonialism' for which Christians needed to ask forgiveness.

Some historians have compared the attempts to conquer kingdoms in the Holy Land to the establishment of colonies by the British Empire in the 1800s.

In recent times, there has been a growing opinion that the Crusades were defensive – a reaction to Muslim aggression – and that they were not as violent as had been claimed.

Eastern interpretations

Muslim writers of the time condemned the Crusades. Many Muslim writers saw the Crusades as an unimportant event in their history until 1900 when the Ottoman Empire in Turkey got into difficulties. Muslim writers started to portray the Crusades as aggressive empire-building wars waged by western colonialists.

This opinion grew in the 20th century when France, Germany, Italy and Britain de facto ruled many Middle Eastern states. Some feel that there is a 'legacy of bitterness' in Muslim countries against the Crusades. Osama bin Laden called the Americans 'Crusaders' in his speeches on the internet. President George Bush infamously said this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while in the immediate reaction to the attacks on the World Trade Centre on 11th September 2001 which provoked critical comment from commentators and historians. The legacy of the Crusades is very much a raw topic.

A summary of the Black Death

All the conditions were right for an epidemic. Doctors were powerless against infectious disease. People were weakened by war and harvest failures. Germs, the fleas which carried them, and the rats which carried the fleas, flourished in the dirty towns. Busy trade routes carried the plague from one place to another.

The plague arrived at Melcombe Regis in Dorset in June 1348 and it spread throughout the south of England. In 1349 it reached Wales, Ireland and the north of England. By 1350, it had made it to Scotland. Estimates suggest as much as half the population died.

The Black Death affected the way people thought about life in many different ways. Some lived lives perceived to be wild or immoral, others fell into deep despair, whilst many chose to accept their fate.

Historians suggest that the Black Death helped to cause a religious movement in the shape of the Lollards, the end of the feudal system and the Peasants' Revolt.

You may wish to study the facts of Medicine through time, and to compare the Black Death to the Plague of 1665.

Causes of the Black Death

Today, we know that there were many causes of the Black Death:

Causes of the Black Death

Poor medical knowledge. Medieval doctors did not understand disease, and had limited ability to prevent or cure it. So, when the plague came, doctors were powerless to stop it. Medieval European medicine was very different from our modern concept of medicine. There was no knowledge of germs, and only relatively basic tools to diagnose and treat illness. Much of medicine was, at best, based on ancient Roman and Greek ideas of the ‘humours’. The ideal was to balance specific fluids known as ‘black bile’, ‘yellow bile’, blood and phlegm (the fluids made by your ear, nose and throat). To be in a bad or good humour was evidence of how healthy you were! Other doctors would release “evil spirits” by trepanning (drilling a hole in your head to release them). In this context it is not surprising that the causes listed below emerged.

Medieval doctors were not certain what caused the plague, but believed it could be the result of:

the movements of the planets

a punishment from God

bad smells and corrupt air

enemies who had poisoned the wells

staring at a victim

wearing pointed shoes

strangers to villages too were blamed

The spread of the Black Death

The Plague

The bubonic plague was a painful disease, with black buboes or swellings, in the groin and armpits, which lasted up to a week. There was some chance of surviving if the buboes burst. If the buboes burst of their own accord it was a sign that the victim might recover.

An estimated 30% to 60% of the population of Europe died from the plague. This is often referred to as the 'mortality rate'. There were different types of the disease with different mortality rates:

Bubonic plague - victims of bubonic plague itself had a 50% chance of death.

Pneumonic plague - this attacked the lungs. Victims died quickly, in one or two days. The mortality rate in this case was 90%.

Septicaemic plague - this infected the blood. Again victims died quickly and the mortality rate was 100%.

How the plague spread

1. The plague seems to have started in China in the 1330s.

2. In 1347, armies attacking the town of Caffa in the Crimea, catapulted dead bodies into the town. Italian merchants took the plague with them to Sicily in October 1347.

3. In June 1348 Black Death arrived at Melcombe Regis (in Dorset). By the end of the year it had spread throughout the south of England.

4. During 1349, the plague spread into Wales, Ireland and the north of England.

5. The Scots – thinking that God was punishing the English – invaded the north of England, where their army caught the plague. In 1350, therefore, the plague spread through Scotland.

6. The first plague died out in 1350.

7. The plague returned between 1361 and 1364, and five more times before 1405. These plagues mainly killed children, who had no resistance to the disease.

Cures for the Black Death

In the 1347 - 1350 outbreak, doctors were completely unable to prevent or cure the plague. For those who believed in the Greek humours there were a range of cures available. ‘Blood-letting’ – deliberately bleeding a vein – was a way of reducing ‘hot’ blood, whilst blowing your nose or clearing your throat was a way of getting rid of too much ‘cold’ phlegm. Mustard, mint sauce, apple sauce and horseradish were used to balance wet, dry, hot and cold in your diet!

A source from 1380 presents a cynical view of their work:

"Doctors need three qualifications: to be able to lie and not get caught; to pretend to be honest; and to cause death without guilt.”Jean Froissart’s Chronicles Some of the cures they tried included:

Rubbing onions, herbs or a chopped up snake (if available) on the boils or cutting up a pigeon and rubbing it over an infected body.

Drinking vinegar, eating crushed minerals, arsenic, mercury or even ten-year-old treacle!

Sitting close to a fire or in a sewer to drive out the fever, or fumigating the house with herbs to purify the air.

People who believed God was punishing you for your sin, 'flagellants', went on processions whipping themselves.

In the 1361 - 1364 outbreak, doctors learned how to help the patient recover by bursting the buboes.

Doctors often tested urine for colour and health. Some even tasted it to test.

Consequences of the Black Death

Deaths

Estimates differ, but most historians believe that the Black Death killed half the population of Europe. In some places, eg the village of West Thickley in County Durham, it killed everybody. The death-rate was especially bad in monasteries, where the monks stayed together and cared for each other. Some historians (Benedictow 2004) suggest that the wealthier classes were less affected due to their wealth enabling them to flee from outbreaks.

Effects

The precise effects are difficult to assess given the huge loss of life and subsequent inconsistent records. In some places there was even no-one left to bury the dead let alone record the effects. However, historians have suggested the Black Death had significant consequences:

Psychological: the Black Death had a huge influence on the way people thought about life. Some lived wild, immoral lives, others fell into deep despair, whilst many chose to accept their fate. Many people were angry and bitter, and blamed the Church – some historians think this helped the growth of the new 'Lollard' religion in the 15th century. It could also be argued that the Black Death had brought down rich and poor alike. Having

faced and survived the plague, people at the bottom of society were more prepared to question their position in society.

Social: poor people began to hate their poverty and their 'betters' – some historians think this helped to destroy the feudal system.

Economic: there was a great shortage of workers, and when Parliament passed laws to stop wages rising, poor people became very angry – some historians think this helped to cause the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

Term 3

A summary of Henry VIII

Henry VIII became king in 1509. His father had left him lots of money. He was a glamorous 'Renaissance Prince' and wanted to be the greatest king England ever had.

He went to war with France in 1513 and built more warships. In 1536 he united Wales with England, and in 1541 he declared himself King of Ireland.

Henry VIII is most famous for divorcing his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, because she could not give him a male heir, and then marrying five times more!

Henry VIII and religion

In 1534 Henry said that he, not the Pope, was the Head of the Church in England. Although Henry remained a Catholic to the end of his life, this was the beginning of the Church of England. In 1536 Henry used his new power to begin to close down the monasteries and take their land and money. This made many people unhappy, and there was a rebellion, called the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536. Henry put it down brutally.

A harsh and brutal king?

In 1539 a new law gave Henry power to make any law he pleased. Towards the end of his reign Henry became increasingly brutal, executed his enemies and burned Protestants at the stake.

In the past, historians said that Henry was the start of a 'new monarchy' and that he made 'a revolution in government'. Modern historians say that this is too simple. Henry was very powerful, but in many ways he ruled like a medieval king, surrounded and influenced by his nobles.

Consequences of Henry VIII's reign

Henry's reign was a time of tyranny and executions, but there were changes which can be seen as the start of modern England:

The dissolution of the monasteries caused suffering for ordinary people as these had been places for the poor to seek relief. In the short term this caused the rebellion known as the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536). In the long term it led to the Poor Laws which, 400 years later, led unintentionally to the welfare state - the modern system that helps citizens financially.

Henry VIII used Parliament to pass his laws, which helped to establish the authority of Parliament.

The power of the gentry rose, and the power of the nobles declined.

Although Henry VIII remained a Catholic, the break with Rome eventually turned England into a Protestant country.

Henry built more warships. Some historians regard this as the start of the Royal Navy.

The Act in Restraint of Appeals turned out to be the most important act in the history of England. It said that this realm of England is an Empire ie that England was a sovereign state, subject only to its own government. It was therefore the legal beginning of the English nation.

England remained completely legally independent until 1953, when the government signed up to the European Court of Human Rights.

Term 4

A summary of Elizabeth I

Elizabeth came to power in 1558, inheriting problems with religion, poverty and foreign policy. Historians in the 1970s thought that, when Elizabeth came to the throne, the country was about to collapse. Elizabeth restored the stability and the status of the monarchy:

She solved the religious tensions by following a 'middle way' which allowed Catholics and Puritans to keep their private beliefs as long as they went to the Church of England in public. However, she hunted, tortured and executed Catholic priests who came into England to undermine her power.

She survived plots and rebellions, and executed Mary Queen of Scots in 1587 because she saw her as a threat to her throne.

At the time women were seen as weak and inappropriate leaders of a nation. To combat this perception she tried to use her unmarried status as a way of strengthening her political control in England and abroad.

Elizabeth encouraged the 'Gloriana' myth, and commissioned portraits which presented her as pure and powerful. Her reign was a time of art, music and literature.

She defeated the Spanish Armada - a vast fleet of warships from the then world super power. By defeating Spain, England was on the way to being a world power by her death and one which had set up its first colony.

The darker side of Elizabeth I

Elizabeth I is regarded by many as one of England's greatest monarchs, whose reign laid the foundations of England's greatness. But is this true?

She could be as 'bloody' as Mary and executed many more people for religion than her father, Henry VIII. She established a network of spies and informers to ensure her safety.

Far from encouraging Parliament, she bullied and controlled it, ran the government as she wished and even arrested an MP when he complained.

The King of Spain raised a huge fleet of ships to invade England. It was known as the Armada. That the Armada was largely destroyed and failed to invade England was a triumph for Elizabeth – but it was also a very lucky escape.

Problems

Elizabeth came to the throne after three short-reigned rulers – her brother Edward VI (1547‒1553), Lady Jane Grey (10‒19 July 1553) and her sister Mary (1553‒1558).

A Mid-Tudor Crisis?

Some historians have suggested that the years between 1547 and 1558 were a time of 'crisis', when government and society were in danger of collapsing altogether. Modern historians do not agree about this. However, the government had suffered a period of disasters, and Elizabeth faced big problems when she came to the throne. This crisis, it is suggested, involved five problems:

Problem Solution Did it work?

Religion

There was a danger that England would fall into a 'war of religion'. There was brutal conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Europe at the time.

At first she tried to follow a 'middle way' which promoted Protestantism but allowed for forms of worship which would allow Catholics to compromise. This failed. The Pope excommunicated her in 1570. When Mary Queen of Scots came to England in 1568 there were a number of Catholic plots. The plotters wanted to remove or assassinate Protestant Elizabeth and replace her with Catholic Mary.

The 'middle way' failed. Elizabeth became more anti-Catholic as her reign went on. 162 Catholics were executed between 1577 and 1603. Some extreme Protestants were unhappy with any form of compromise. Elizabeth wanted her people to worship on her terms so that she was ultimately in control. There were no wars of religion in England in her reign but not everyone liked her ‘middle way’.

Poverty

Poverty was especially high in the countryside, caused by harvest failures and rising prices.

She passed the Poor Law (1601). A reform of the existing varied practices. Progressive for its time.

Her Poor Law was not really successful. People were still starving and poor relief was very hit or miss.

Foreign policy

Elizabeth inherited a recent defeat in a war against France and the loss of Calais in 1558.

She defeated the Armada - when Spain tried to invade England in 1588.

Defeating the Armada was a spectacular victory, but Spain kept on trying to invade. She claimed a very personal role in this victory but the impact of luck, the weather and the tactical decisions of her commanders may have been more significant.

Problem Solution Did it work?

Succession problems

No-one knew who would be the next ruler or if Elizabeth would 'give up' some of her power and marry in order to produce an heir.

She refused to marry anyone, but it meant no children.

Her refusal to marry meant that England would not have to have a foreign king. Even if she had married an English nobleman, such as Lord Dudley, whom she loved, it might have made other nobles jealous, and caused rebellions. She resolved to stay single. In the short-term this helped her to influence her nobles and foreign princes who might hope to be her husband. However, her nearest relative was the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots so the succession continued to be a problem.

Weak rulers

The monarchs before her were Edward, who was a child, and Mary, whose reign was full of problems.

She developed a strong image, used good advisers and kept Parliament in check.

She did start to lose her grip on power towards the end, but her reign is mostly seen as a period of strength and stability.

A summary of the Spanish Armada

In the late 16th century, Spain was the most powerful empire in the known world. Spain's king, Philip II, ruled much of the New World and much of western Europe. England was helping Spain's Dutch rebels and English ships, under the command of Sir Francis Drake, to attack Spain's treasure fleet as they returned from the Caribbean.

Worst of all, England was now a Protestant nation. When Elizabeth I executed the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots in 1587, Philip was personally angered and, wanting England for himself, decided to invade.

The plan

Philip's plan was that an armada of 130 ships would sail to the Netherlands, pick up 30,000 Spanish troops and invade England. However, the Armada was delayed by an English attack on Cadiz harbour in 1587 where Drake made off with gold treaures and destroyed over 100 Spanish ships.

The battle

In 1588, Philip's Armada finally set sail. When the Armada anchored at Calais, the English used fireships to scatter the Spanish fleet and then attack it at the Battle of Gravelines in July 1588. The Armada was forced to abandon its invasion attempt and was destroyed by storms, which Philip I called the Protestant Wind, whilst trying to sail home round the north of Scotland.

Queen Elizabeth had a portrait painted to publicise her 'famous victory'.

What did the battle represent?

The conflict with the Spanish Armada represented the height of the long struggle between Protestant England and Catholic Spain. Until recently, both English and Spanish historians believed that the Armada was the time when Spain's fortunes changed and England became great. Modern historians, however, think that the failure of the Armada – though a setback – was not the death-blow to Philip it was made out to be at the time although they agree that it did ‘make’ Elizabeth into a formidable queen.

The attack

The plan

Philip's plan was to:

1. Gather a huge Armada of 130 ships in Spain, under the Duke of Medina Sidonia.

2. Sail to the Netherlands to pick up the Spanish army, led by the Duke of Parma.

3. Invade England.

However:

In 1587, a year earlier, Drake attacked Cadiz and destroyed over 100 of Philip's fleet in the arbour.

Philip assembled another fleet in 1588, but it was hastily provisioned and badly equipped.

Medina Sidonia begged not to be put in charge.

The failure

The Armada set sail in May 1588:

It was spotted almost immediately, and England was warned.

From 20 to 27 July, the English fleet attacked the Armada as it sailed up the English Channel. The Armada sailed in a crescent formation, however, making it difficult to attack, and the English fleet did little damage.

On 27 July, the Armada anchored in open seas off Calais. The English sent in fireships, so the Armada cut their anchors to escape.

On 28 July, the English attacked the Spanish fleet at the Battle of Gravelines. The English ships were easier to manoeuvre in the heavy waters of the North Sea. This decisive battle prevented the Spanish from landing in England.

Philip's 'invincible' Spanish fleet fled north, chased by the English fleet. It had to return home by sailing round the north of Scotland and the west coast of Ireland, where many ships were sunk by storms.

On 8 August, after the main danger was over, Elizabeth went to speak to the English troops at Tilbury. She said, I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king... and think foul scorn that any Prince in Europe should dare to invade the borders of my realm.

Term 5

A summary of the Gunpowder Plot

Catholics plot to blow up king and government

On the face of it, the Gunpowder Plot was an attempt by a group of Catholics to blow up the king and the Houses of Parliament, this being the place where all of the country’s laws are made. In October 1605, one of the plotters gave the game away whilst trying to warn a relative, who was an MP. On 4 November Guy Fawkes was caught red-handed with the gunpowder just before the king was due to open Parliament.

Did the government help the plot to happen?

The problem is that we only have the government's side of the story. Many of the plotters were killed immediately, and the rest of our information was gathered by torture.

Many modern historians agree that the plot – to some degree – was set up by the government. When he came to the throne, James wanted to be tolerant in matters of religion. After the plot, James and the government became fiercely anti-Catholic.

The suspicion is that the government encouraged the plot to give an excuse to take strong measures against the Catholics.

There are different ways people can oppose a government

Plot and conspiracy - plotting in secret to do something awful. This tactic can be used particularly when the government is so powerful, and its opponents so weak, that a mass rebellion is impossible.

Rebel – when large numbers of people feel angry enough to make a large-scale protest, and that the government is weak enough to have to listen, such as the Pilgrimage of Grace.

Revolution - where the people go to war against their government, such as the Civil War and the French Revolution.

The Gunpowder Plot is an example of a plot and conspiracy

You could compare to modern terrorist atrocities. The plotters had no chance of persuading the English Catholics to rebel, and were hoping that – if they destroyed the government – the King of Spain might step in and take over.

Alternatively, you could see the plot as an example of a government tricking its citizens and influencing public opinion – an example of a government abusing its power.

The plot

Here is a timeline of events surrounding the Gunpowder Plot from a 17th-century government report. It’s worth remembering this is based on the confessions of the plotters, which were obtained under torture:

1. Robert Catesby had taken part in the Earl of Essex's 1601 rebellion, but was pardoned.

2. In 1603, he tried unsuccessfully to persuade the King of Spain to invade England.

3. In 1604 he returned to England, where he recruited other Catholics to join a plot to kill James. One of them was Guy Fawkes. The group planned to blow up the House of Lords when King James came to open Parliament on 5 November. At first they tried to dig a tunnel from a nearby house. When this failed, one of the plotters – Thomas Percy – rented a cellar underneath the House of Lords. Fawkes bought 36 barrels of gunpowder.

4. On 26 October 1605, ten days before Parliament was due to meet, Lord Monteagle got an anonymous letter warning him not to go. It said: they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hurts them. Monteagle took it to the king. The plotters realised they were discovered, but decided to carry on anyway.

5. 1 November: when he saw the letter, James realised that it meant some plot of gunpowder. 4 November: Fawkes was caught red-handed with the gunpowder.

6. 8 November: The other plotters were chased to Holbeche House in Staffordshire, where Catesby and Percy were killed. Francis Tresham, Lord Monteagle's brother-in-law, was arrested and sent to the Tower. He died there.

Interpretations of the Gunpowder Plot

The plot was used as Protestant propaganda to attack the Catholics and prove that God was on the side of the Protestants. Even today, we remember 'Guy Fawkes Night' with bonfires and fireworks. In some places, children make an effigy called a Guy, which is burned on the bonfire.

Guy Fawkes Night

Conspiracy theories

Some historians question whether some aspects of the story are true:

No half-dug tunnel has ever been found.

Only the government could sell gunpowder – so how did a Catholic get 36 barrels of it?

How did James realise from one obscure phrase in the Monteagle letter that the plotters were going to blow up Parliament?

Why was there a 9-day delay between Monteagle's letter and the search which captured Fawkes?

Why, when they knew they were discovered, did the plotters not run away?

Why were Catesby and Percy killed so quickly?

Evidence got by torture is unreliable.

Many historians nowadays agree that we will never know the whole truth about the government's involvement, but admit that the Plot may have been a government conspiracy.

English Civil War

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/zwxnjty

Term 6

A summary of the triangular slave trade

The triangular trade

The slave trade began with Portuguese (and some Spanish) traders, taking mainly West African (but some Central African) slaves to the American colonies they had conquered in the 15th century. British sailors became involved in the trade in the 16th century and their involvement increased in the 18th century when the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) gave them the right to sell slaves in the Spanish Empire. The slave trade made a great deal of profit for those who sold and exchanged slaves. Therefore, they often ignored the fact it was inhuman and unfair.

At least 12 million Africans were taken to the Americas as slaves between 1532 and 1832 and at least a third of them in British ships.

For the British slave traders it was a three-legged journey called the 'triangular trade':

West African slaves were exchanged for trade goods such as brandy and guns.

Slaves were then taken via the ‘Middle Passage’ across the Atlantic for sale in the West Indies and North America.

Finally, a cargo of rum and sugar taken from the colonies, was taken back to England to sell.

As many as 2 million slaves died during the journey via the Middle Passage. Journeys lasted from as little as six weeks to several months, depending on the weather. The ships were often too small to carry the hundreds of slaves on board. Slaves were tightly packed into cramped spaces with one person’s right leg chained to the left leg of another person. Conditions on the ships were terrible and slaves died from diseases such as smallpox, scurvy and measles.

The beginning of the slave trade

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Portuguese traders took slaves from Africa to work in the Portuguese colony of Brazil and the Spanish colonies of South America. As many as 350,000 Africans were taken in this way as slaves to the Americas.

In the 16th century, English pirates started selling slaves to the Spanish colonies. Sir John Hawkins was the first English sea-captain to do this, starting in 1562.

In 1625, the British captured Barbados in the West Indies and in 1655 they secured Jamaica. English slave traders started supplying African slaves to the English colonies.

In 1672, the Royal African Company was set up to trade African slaves to the sugar plantations of the West Indies.

In 1713, Spain gave British slave traders the contract, known as the Asiento, to trade 144,000 slaves a year to Spanish South America. This contract was part of the Treaty of Utrecht.

The triangular trade

After 1700, the numbers of slaves being transported increased greatly. Perhaps 8.5 million Africans were taken as slaves to the Americas.

A British slave ship set off from Liverpool, Glasgow or Bristol, carrying trade goods and sailed to West Africa.

Some slaves were captured directly by the British traders. They ambushed and captured local people in Africa.

Most slave ships got their slaves from British 'factors', who lived full-time in Africa and bought slaves from local tribal chiefs. The chiefs would raid a rival village and sell their captured enemies as slaves.

In 1700, a slave cost about £3-worth of traded goods, eg cloth, guns, gunpowder and brandy.

The slaves were marched to the coast in chained lines called coffles, where they were held in prisons called 'factories'.

The slave ship then sailed across the Atlantic to the West Indies – this leg of the voyage was called the 'Middle Passage'.

In the West Indies the slaves were sold at an auction called a 'scramble'. Some were sent to 'seasoning camps' to be trained to obey, often using brutal methods.

The selling price of a slave in the West Indies in 1700 was £20, so there was a good profit to be had, which made the risks of long journeys and possible harsh weather worthwhile.

Some ships, but not all, then loaded up with sugar and rum to sell in Britain, before making the voyage back home.

Abolition

At the end of the 18th century, public opinion began to turn against the slave trade.

Toussaint l'Ouverture

There was resistance to the slave trade:

Some African rulers refused to sell slaves to the traders. Occasionally villages attacked British slave ships and set the slaves free.

Sometimes slaves mutinied on board ships. The most famous case was the Amistad in 1839.

There were many slave rebellions. The most famous slave leader was Toussaint l'Ouverture, who led a successful slave revolution in French Saint Domingue in 1791.

In Jamaica, runaway slaves formed 'Maroon' communities that fought against the British soldiers.

In Britain, slaves like James Somerset (or Somersett), frequently ran away from their masters. When he was recaptured, he and his friends contested his case in the courts.

In 1787, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was set up. William Wilberforce represented the committee in Parliament.

The role of William Wilberforce in the abolition of slavery

The campaigners boycotted sugar, wrote letters and presented petitions.

Thomas Clarkson went on a speaking tour, showing people chains and irons and a model of a slave ship.

Other campaigners published leaflets describing conditions on the Middle Passage and atrocities such as the Zong incident (1781). The captain of the slave ship Zong threw 133 slaves overboard so he could claim the insurance.

British Africans such as Olaudah Equiano formed the 'Sons of Africa' and campaigned against the slave trade.

There is some evidence that the slave trade was becoming less profitable – the price of buying slaves in Africa was rising, reaching £25 in 1800, but the price for selling in the Americas had not risen as quickly and was only £35 in 1800.

Consequences of the slave trade

Slave's arriving on a dock are examined

The slave trade was huge – British ships transported 2.6 million slaves. It has been estimated overall, about 12 million Africans were captured to be taken to the Americas as slaves.

The majority of West African slaves were taken to South America. More than 55 per cent of slaves were taken to Brazil and Spanish South America. Brazil has the second largest black population in the world outside of Nigeria. Around 35 per cent of slaves were taken to the West Indies; less than five per cent were taken to North America. The death rate of the slaves was horrific.

Unknown millions died in Africa before they even made it to the ships.

It has been estimated that perhaps a fifth of the slaves died on the Middle Passage across the Atlantic.

In the Americas, the death rate amongst the slaves was also very high. Some historians suggest that the death rate in the 'seasoning camps' was up to 50%.

The African slaves took with them their agricultural knowledge, skilled craftsmanship, religion, traditions, cooking, clothes, music and dance. For example, West Africans slaves brought their rice variety and cultivation techniques to parts of the southern United States. Their expertise in growing rice in the hot and swampy conditions led to rice being one of the biggest cash crops in the entire country. Musical instruments such as the banjo, language such as Haitian Creole, food such as rice and peas and dances such as the Brazilian Samba and Capoeira were imported and influenced by West African slaves.

Slavery and white supremacy

Many historians think that white supremacist racism grew in the United States and Europe because the slave under-class in the West Indies and America were all sub-Saharan Africans.

The slave trade ruined Africa because of the constant wars and the loss of millions of strong young people. Africa fell behind the rest of the world. Some historians think that this is why Africa was colonised by European countries in the 19th century.

The African historian Joseph Inikori (1987) suggested that the slave trade allowed the Industrial Revolution to happen. He believes that British industry benefited by supplying the factory-made goods in exchange for slaves and that profits made in the slave trade provided money for investment in British industry.

After Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, the 'West Africa Squadron' of the Royal Navy patrolled the Atlantic Ocean trying to stop the slave trade. The British also signed anti-slavery treaties with many African rulers.

With special thanks to BBC Bitesize Key Stage 3 History