History and English Literature A-Level Notes

Because someone requested my essay plans... here there are!

The essay questions and a ~~bad~~ plan to go with it!!!

NOTE:

I have put these under headings of Henry II, Richard or John and then numbered them with relevant topics. (Yes they're unbalanced having only 1 John question lolz, but I did things last minute so I think I did pretty well :-)!)

For example, the first three questions are on the topic of the Great Rebellion, so you can pretty much include the same things just address the question in the way it is phrased.

DISCLAIMER:

But please do take into consideration that I did these in a rush when I was doing them as revision and they may exclude a few important things so do not solely rely on these dodge-ly done plans. Although I had them checked (I physically wrote the changes and I didn't photocopy it or digitally change the plans), do check with your teachers that these plans are accurate and anything more you could add to it.

Henry II

To what extent was it Henry II’s baronial policy from 1154 that led to the Great Rebellion of 1173 to 1174?
‘It was Henry II’s treatment of his sons that led to the Great Rebellion of 1173 – 1174.’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
‘The rebellion of 1173 – 1174 was caused by King Henry II’s treatment of his sons.’ Assess the validity of this view.

Baronial Policy

Cartae Baronum
Inquest of Sheriffs
Assizes of Clarendon

Henry II’s treatment of his sons

Young Henry’s jealousy

John was given 3 castles whilst he was given no territory for himself or his wife and wanted power

Geoffrey and Richard had land to rule over, former had Brittany, latter had Aquitaine

Overall causes of Great Rebellion

Eleanor’s jealousy of Rosamund and anger of Gascony
Young Henry’s jealousy
Richard and Geoffrey persuaded by Eleanor to join
Louis VII wanted to diminish Henry’s authority
William the Lion of Scotland wanted to regain land from David’s reign
Other rebels disliked baronial policy and wished to establish more power

Judgement

Baronial policy played a great role, it led to long term hatred
Taking away their power meant they craved more and saw an opportunity to do so through the Great Rebellion and hence they took part in it
Other factors played a part i.e. Eleanor and Young Henry’s jealousy
Ultimately, the numbers of barons and their role in the great rebellion was far more significant but it did not lead to the Great Rebellion as it was only an opportunity for them to regain power and to diminish royal authority
What led to the Great Rebellion was the jealous of Young Henry and Eleanor in which they sought Louis VII to diminish Henry II’s royal authority and thus other rebellions became involved

‘Henry II was in a strong position as King of England by the end of 1154.’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.

Strong Position

Duke of Normandy 1150
Count of Anjou 1151
Married Eleanor of Aquitaine 1152
Eustace died 1153, no potential threat to throne
Treaty of Wallingford finalised Henry’s ‘jure hereditario’
Most of the powerful and independent earls died during Stephen’s reign i.e. Ranulf of Chester and Gilbert de Clare of Pembroke

Weak Position

Royal authority undermined, £3,000 royal finances alienated
40 Adulterine Castles
Barons’ power increasing
Geoffrey de Mandeville held sheriffdoms of London-Middlesex and Essex-Hertfordshire in hereditary right
No solid coinage system – Stephen, Matilda, Barons

How far had Henry II fulfilled his promise to restore royal authority in England by 1170?

Royal Authority in England

Barons and Royal Demesne
Adulterine castles
Regained lands lost in Stephen’s reign
Cartae Baronum 1166
Inquest of Sheriffs 1170

Law and Justice

1166 Assizes of Clarendon
Mort D’ancestor and Novel Disseisin
Justice-in-eyre reformed

Royal Finances

Revived Exchequer – worked to full efficiency by 1169
Erased baronage coinage and introduced own one
Sheriffdoms given to Richard de Lacy and Thomas Becket

Church

Wanted to reform ecclesiastical courts – undermined authority and justice wasn’t performed as Henry would’ve liked
Constitutions of Clarendon – bad, never carried out anyways due to Becket ordeal

‘Threats to Henry II’s control in Angevin France between 1183 and 1189 were a consequence of his own actions.’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.

Henry’s treatment of his sons

Young Henry’s Rebellion 1183

Thirst for more land and power
Not having equal distribution of land and power for sons – left long term impact and jealousy for Young Henry

By the time Young Henry died in 1183, Henry II refused to recognise Richard as heir

Sided with Philip but Philip also manipulated the situation

Relationship between Richard and Young Henry was bad

Philip II of France

Manipulation – played on Richard’s weaknesses
Seized Angevin France via treachery and invasions but also claimed areas of France to be his i.e. Brittany when Geoffrey dies and there is no suitable heir
Both him and Richard seized lands together

Richard

‘John was the greatest threat to Richard I’s control of Angevin France.’ Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1192 – 1199.

In the earlier years, John could be seen as a potential threat to Richard’s control of England, but not so much of a threat to Angevin France as when Richard returned to Normandy for war against Philip in 1194, John begged for Richard’s forgiveness.
John as a threat?

1193, Alliances with Philip and began stirring problems in Normandy
City of Evreux given to John to hold by Philip
1194, John was willing to surrender all the lands east of Rouen

May 1194, Richard arrives in Normandy and John begs for Richard’s forgiveness
Helps Richard, used subterfuge to gain entrance to Evreux
Massacred garrison and handed city to Richard

Philip as a threat?

April 1193, Philip invades Normandy, Gisors, a key castle surrenders to Philip
Most of North-Eastern Normandy fell into Philip’s hands
July 1193, Forced Richard’s men to agree to peace at Mantes

Philip kept all of Richard’s territorial gains and gained major strongholds of Drincourt, Arques, Loches and Chatillon-sur-Indres

Could potentially gain more lands in Normandy from John
July 1194, Philip reinvaded Normandy and caught John’s forces in Verneuil
Controlled most of Vexin until late 1198

Philip attempts to besiege Rouen but unsuccessful
Philip couldn’t get the lands which John promised to surrender since Richard returned
Philip’s forces were drove out of Normandy
Philip attempted to arrange for a truce but it didn’t hold out for long
Baldwin IX of Flanders helped to attack Philip in Artois
Sept 1198, at Gisors, Richard launched surprise attack on Philip
Almost dominant throughout the Vexin

Other things as a threat?

June 1194, Richard easily reasserted authority in Greater Anjou
Occupied Tours with help of brother-in-law Sancho of Navarre
Also recaptured Loches
Jan 1196, Richard recaptured Peace of Louviers

Conclusion

Richard was successful in the war against Philip, regained his lands back from seizing them and also from the truce agreed in Jan-March 1199 which made Philip renounce virtually all of the territorial gains and castles he took from Richard
Only allowed for Philip to keep Gisors
Little threat to Richard’s control of Angevin France
Philip was only temporarily a threat in the earlier years
John was far from the ‘greatest threat’

‘The government of England was never stable during the reign of Richard I.’ Assess the validity of this view.
‘England’s government remained stable in the years 1189 to 1199 despite the absences of King Richard I.’ Assess the validity of this view.

Stable

Longchamp

Exchequer operated efficiently
Justice was done through Judicial Eyre

Coutance

Financial exactions put in place to fund Richard’s ransom – little resistance
Removed Longchamp’s supports from positions of power to ensure government ran effectively

Walter

Raised necessary funds needed
Reformed administration of justice
Stimulated Trade
‘Articles of the Eyre’
‘Edictum Regium’ Reform

Unstable

Longchamp

Lacked support from barons and prelates – John, Hugh of Nonant, Gerard de Camville challenged his authority
Irrational behaviour, seized Geoffrey Plantagenet, Archbishop of York at Dover 1191

John’s ambitions

Undermined Longchamp’s authority by seizing Tickhill and Nottingham castles from him whilst Longchamp was busy punishing Roger Mortimer
Needed Walter of Coutance’s intervention to resolve it
Richard held captive
Regency council paralysed by John
John and Philip attempted to bribe German Emperor to keep Richard captive

Financial Exactions

Revolt against financial exactions in London, 1196 led by William FitzOsbert

Persecution of Jews

Government was powerless to prevent the slaughter, no one was condemned for actions against the Jews

John

‘A humiliating defeat for royal authority.’ How valid is this view the outcome of John’s dispute with Pope Innocent III?

Interdict 1208

John refused to recognise Stephen Langton several times – Innocent III placed interdict on England
Interdict generated enormous sums of royal finance
Through vacant bishoprics and abbeys – he couldn’t be blamed as he couldn’t appoint a bishop due to interdict

Summer 1208, John seized property of priests who refused to perform services and other priestly functions in support of the interdict

Reasoned that the English Church’s land had ultimately come from the English Crown in return for spiritual support (William the Conqueror)

Those who were loyal to him or were favoured were allowed to recover their properties – everyone else had to pay fines

John seized mistresses of the clergy and held them for ransom

Another means of finance

Bishops

Many abandoned him, but Peter des Roches and John de Gray remained

Outcome

After John’s surrender seen as a humiliation
Had to pay annual fee of 1,000 marks
But was good for England to some degree
Under protection of the Church and Pope
Those who opposed John were excommunicated by Pope
Good relations with the Pope

Judgement

Gained enormous funds from English Churches due to vacancies
Short-term humiliation but the outcome led to strong relations with the Pope and other papal legates

AGAIN, MAKE SURE YOU DOUBLE CHECK THESE ARE RIGHT!!!!!!

GOOD LUCK WITH EXAMSSSS

The Emancipation Edict of 1861 to some degree was successful in improving the lives of Russian peasants by 1881 as the serfs were freed by the ‘Tsar Liberator’, Alexander II. However, it could be argued that there were other reforms which Alexander II implemented which improved the lives of the Russian peasants far greater than the Emancipation Edict did.

The Emancipation Edict was to some extent successful in improving the lives of the Russian peasants by 1881 as it publically announced the implementation of the emancipation after a bank crisis in order to maintain public order. Not only this but Alexander also wanted to alleviate the suffering of his people and thereby sought to secure the freedom of the Russian peasants by abolishing serfdom, giving them greater independence than they’ve ever received. The Emancipation Edict allowed them to choose whom they wanted to marry, to own property and even set up businesses and from this, it is inferred that the edict had improved the lives of the Russian peasants as they had greater freedoms and were no longer servants to the nobility. However, in reality, it made conditions and circumstances much more difficult for the peasants as ex-serfs were still bounded by redemption dues to compensate for the lack of labour. Redemption dues were a long-term debt which spanned over 49 years with an interest rate of 6% and from this it is clear that it did not improve the lives of the Russia peasants by 1881 as debts even passed onto children if they couldn’t pay it off. Not only that but many historians and critics of Alexander II’s reign stated that the edict did not equally free the serfs and thereby did not entirely succeed in improving the lives of the Russian peasants. This was seen where a new group of peasants emerged known as the kulaks who were lucky enough to have been former state-serfs and thus gained better quality land. They were also able to hire labour and make big profits which implies that only a small group of Russian peasants’ lives were truly improved. This is seen to be less successful as there were 647 peasant riots in four months after the edict and thus the Emancipation Edict was nothing more than an illusion which did not completely free the ex-serfs nor did it entirely improve the lives of the Russian peasants as a whole.

On the other hand, it could be said that Alexander II’s educational reforms played a huge part in improving the lives of Russian peasants as initially, 95% of peasants were illiterate and with education being made accessible to all classes, this percentage decreased to 74%, demonstrating an increase in literacy and thereby the improvement of living of the Russian peasants. Women were also allowed to attend university and by 1881, statistics had shown that there were approximately 2,000 women attending university. Sunday schools were set up by volunteers who were willing to educate the illiterate, signifying the improvement of living in which the ex-serfs did not have access to under Tsarist Russia’s predecessor, Nicholas I. However, there were some limitations with the education reforms as secondary education was still fee-paying and was limited to those that were better off, indicating that not all Russian peasants’ lives had improved. Additionally, the Minister of Education wasn’t very keen on promoting education among the peasants and this thereby indicates that the educational reforms had improved the lives of Russian peasants, but only to a small extent.

Military reforms were also introduced as Alexander II had realised after the humiliating defeat of the Crimean War, that reforms had to be made. Reforms included reducing the service duration from 25 years to 15, the implementation of training, the abolishment of corporal punishment and the means of increasing morale such as universal conscription (all classes subject to service). This meant that both the peasants and nobles felt less pressured into fighting a war and less opted out. The success of the military reforms was seen in the Russo-Turkish War where they had 750,000 reserves ready to fight. These reforms meant that the Russian peasants could also rise up in ranks based on merits which to some extent improved the lives of some Russian peasants and thereby signifies that the military reforms had provided some benefits to the lives of Russian peasants.

Lastly, political and judicial reforms meant that there would be an increase in legal rights and say for the peasants, ultimately improving the lives of Russian peasants. The introduction of a local government known as the Zemstva, had enabled people to be more democratic whereby they were elected in positions of the administration and also debated issues. Not only this but judicial forms meant that all classes were judged equally before the law, were open to the public and reporters and judges’ training and pay were improved to prevent corruption. This meant that a fairer and less corrupt system was created and that if Russian peasants were tried by court, they would not be discriminated based on their class, signifying that to some extent political and judicial reforms had improved the lives of Russian peasants.

In conclusion, the Emancipation Edict of 1861 did little to fully improve the lives of Russian peasants as a whole. While the edict was successful in giving the ex-serfs greater freedoms in terms of setting up businesses, and marrying whom they wanted, they were still bound by redemption dues and ultimately not every Russian peasant had the same outcome as some peasants had benefited greatly from this, as seen from the emerging middle classed Kulaks. The educational reforms improved the standards of literacy and numeracy but secondary education remained free-paying, limiting it to those that were wealthy enough to fund it. Additionally, although military, political and judicial reforms to some extent benefited Russian peasants, it would be argued that neither the edict nor other reforms was fully successful in improving the lives of the Russian peasants by 1881.

The Great Rebellion of 1173-1174 was arguably triggered by King Henry II’s treatment of his son, Young Henry. However, there were other factors which contributed to and/or caused the rebellion such as the discontent with baronial policy, Eleanor’s jealous and anger, Louis VII of France who wished to diminish Henry II’s authority as well as other rebels and key individuals who had a common goal, to seize land.

Henry II’s treatment of his sons had to some extent triggered the onset of the Great Rebellion as Young Henry, the next heir to succeed the throne had little to no power or land. This viewpoint is supported by Historian Jones who argues that Young Henry had rebelled for being ‘denied the real fruits of Kingship’. It is clear that Henry II didn’t treat his sons fairly as in 1169, the sons had been given land but no true authority or income. It is most notable that Young Henry was treated unfairly in contrast to his brothers as Richard was given Aquitaine, Geoffrey was given Brittany and John was given 3 important castles (Chinon, Loudun and Mirabeau) which Young Henry felt that they were rightfully his as well as the fact that Young Henry was given no territory for himself or his wife, generating anger and jealousy of his brothers as he had no true power. As a result of this, in March 1173, Young Henry fled to Paris and Louis VII, King of France sided with him as there was an opportunity to diminish Henry II’s control. However, it would be false to state that the rebellion of 1173-1174 occurred entirely due to Henry II’s treatment of his sons as Richard and Geoffrey were persuaded by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine to revolt against their father alongside Young Henry and her previous husband, Louis VII. Although this was probably done easily as Richard and Geoffrey had titles but no real authority, explicitly seen with Richard where Henry II had given Richard formal authority in Aquitaine yet still held a large amount of control over the southern duchy and thus signifies that the cause of the Great Rebellion had occurred due to Henry II’s treatment of his sons. Additionally, John was far too young to be involved and disputes the statement to some extent that the rebellion was caused by King Henry II’s treatment of his sons. Had Henry given land to Young Henry to govern, like how his father Geoffrey of Anjou had given him Normandy at the age of 17, then it would not have given Young Henry a reason to rebel against his father and ultimately a rebellion may not have occurred, supporting the statement to some degree.

Eleanor of Aquitaine had a key role in ensuring the rebellion went forward as there were two main reasons to why she had support Young Henry: firstly, that it was reported she was immensely jealous of Rosamund Clifford, who was rumoured to have an affair with Henry II and secondly, she was angry at the fact that Henry II had given away Gascony without consulting her. Many critics argue that Eleanor was motivated by jealous of Henry II’s many affairs and most famously with Rosamund, however, it would be argued that Eleanor’s concern laid with Gascony because her independent control of her duchy was slowly being eroded. Henry II had taken matters into his own hands, giving parts of Aquitaine away, most notably Gascony as it was given as a dowry for his daughter Eleanor’s marriage to King of Castile but had also made Raymond, Count of Toulouse do homage to Young Henry. As a result of this, she decided to side with her former husband, bringing Richard and Geoffrey. Whilst it could be said that Eleanor had contributed to the Great Rebellion, her influence on her sons were more effective and to some extent indicates that the rebellion was caused by Henry II’s treatment of his sons as surely if Henry II had treated Richard and Geoffrey well, they would not have found a reason to rebel against him.

Louis VII, King of France also played a key part and it could be argued that as father-in-law to Young Henry, he was in a perfect position to encourage, sanction and direct the rebellion. Louis VII encouraged Young Henry to demand greater control over his inheritance and this could arguably suggest that it was Louis VII instead who had caused the rebellion as he had influenced Young Henry. However, Louis’s main aim was to divide the Angevin dynasty so that it was be less threatening, considering the King of England had far more land in France than the King of France himself. Whilst it may be the case that Louis influenced Young Henry and thus caused the rebellion, it would be argued that if it wasn’t for Henry II’s treatment of his sons, then Young Henry wouldn’t have sought Louis for help in Paris and thereby wouldn’t have been able to get French barons which also despised Henry II to rebel alongside Young Henry.

Another factor which could be viewed to be what triggered the rebellion is the common goal of the rebels (or supporters of the Great Rebellion). Baronial policy certainly played a key role in acting as an incentive for people to join in with the rebellion as many barons had a long-term hatred for policies such as the 1166 Cartae Baronum, the Assizes of Clarendon 1166 and the Inquest of Sheriffs 1170 which all ensured Henry II’s authority over individuals and localities. This thereby acted as an incentive for barons like Robert, Earl of Leicester, Hugh, Earl of Chester and William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, all of which wanted to deteriorate Henry II’s authority and regain their confiscated lands back. William the Lion, King of Scotland also saw an opportunity to regain the lands David had, which he had lost to Henry II and thereby joined in with the rebellion. From this, it is inferred that both the barons and other rebels which joined in had only joined in with the rebellion as there was an incentive to regain lands, seize more control and to deteriorate Henry II’s royal authority. This however, wasn’t a reason to what triggered the Great Rebellion of 1173-1774 but rather another incentive which increased the amount of rebels.

In conclusion, what led to the Great Rebellion was mainly the jealousy of Young Henry which was backed by Eleanor of Aquitaine, persuading Richard and Geoffrey to rebel against Henry II, seeking Louis VII to diminish Henry II’s royal authority. Rebel barons (who had a long-term hatred for baronial policy), William the Lion of Scotland (who wanted to regain lands lost from David’s reign) and Louis VII wished to establish power and joined together as they had a common goal and thus got involved in the rebellion. However, Henry II’s treatment of his sons had significantly triggered the onset of the Great Rebellion of 1173-1174 as if they were all given land and independence to rule over their dominions, there would not be a motive for the rebellion to go forward.

About Me

A student who has kindly shared her A level notes created from blood, sweat and tears! (kidding)

Many thanks to my teachers: Mr J Waite, Mr A Cook, Mr P Johnson and Ms S Speedie.

Disclaimer
Whilst I have written these notes, I am not claiming that the research found is mine. During lessons, I have taken notes from a variety of books (which I should give credit to, but I don't know/remember the names of) and therefore everyone should be weary when writing notes as it could go against academic misconduct i.e. plagiarism.

Pages

History and English Literature A-Level Notes

About Me

Blog Archive