MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

To answer this question, candidates must evaluate both extracts in relation to the historical context of the First Crusade (c1071–1149). EXTRACT A ANALYSIS: 1. Argument: Focuses on internal ideological factors, arguing that religious zeal, papal promotion, and miraculous events (like the Holy Lance) bound the diverse crusader army together and prevented it from fracturing. 2. Contextual Support: Candidates can support this with evidence of the immense impact of Urban II's 1099 call, the widespread adoption of the pilgrim vow, the desperate defense of Antioch after the discovery of the Holy Lance by Peter Bartholomew, and the barefoot procession around Jerusalem. 3. Limitations: It downplays the significant military skill of leaders like Bohemond of Taranto and Raymond of Toulouse, as well as the critical help received from the Byzantine Empire and Genoese fleets. EXTRACT B ANALYSIS: 1. Argument: Argues that the crusade succeeded due to external factors, specifically the deep Sunni-Shia divide and regional rivalries among local emirs. 2. Contextual Support: Candidates can support this by referencing the death of Malik-Shah I in 1092, which fractured the Seljuk Empire; the fierce rivalry between Ridwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus; and the Shi'ite Fatimid capture of Jerusalem from the Sunni Seljuks just before the crusaders arrived, which meant the crusaders fought a newly installed garrison rather than a united empire. 3. Limitations: It ignores the crusaders' own adaptability and the genuine, binding force of their religious conviction, which did indeed keep them together during times of extreme stress. COMPARATIVE JUDGEMENT: Candidates may argue that Extract B is more convincing because without Muslim disunity, even a highly motivated crusader force would have been easily overwhelmed by the superior manpower of a united Islamic empire. Alternatively, they may argue Extract A is more convincing as religious motivation was the indispensable prerequisite that launched and sustained the enterprise.

Target: Assessment Objectives 1 and 3 (AQA AS Level). LEVEL 5 (21–25 marks): Shows a detailed, sustained, and analytical evaluation of both extracts. Accurately deploys a wide range of relevant contextual knowledge to test the arguments. Formulates a balanced, clear, and well-substantiated judgement. LEVEL 4 (16–20 marks): Provides a strong evaluation of both extracts with good contextual knowledge. Evaluates convincingness of both, though one may be handled in more depth than the other. LEVEL 3 (11–15 marks): Understands the main interpretations. Links them to some relevant historical context, but evaluation may be uneven or contain some narrative passages. LEVEL 2 (6–10 marks): Identifies arguments in the extracts but has limited or superficial contextual knowledge. Limited attempts at comparison or evaluation. LEVEL 1 (1–5 marks): Shows basic understanding of the extracts with little or no historical context. No effective judgement.

To assess the value of these sources, candidates must analyze their provenance, tone, content, and historical context. SOURCE A EVALUATION: 1. Provenance and Tone: Written by William of Newburgh, a well-regarded Yorkshire canon. While writing with hindsight, his tone is highly critical of the rebels, reflecting the monastic preference for royal order and stability over baronial anarchy. 2. Content and Context: It captures the official royalist viewpoint. Candidates can contextualize this by discussing Henry II's extensive legal and administrative reforms (e.g., Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton) which had indeed restored order after Stephen's reign. It accurately identifies key rebel conspirators (Louis VII of France, William the Lion of Scotland, the Earl of Leicester). 3. Value/Limitations: Highly valuable for understanding how contemporaries viewed the rebellion as a threat to peace, but limited by its strong pro-Henry bias which dismisses genuine grievances. SOURCE B EVALUATION: 1. Provenance and Tone: A contemporary letter written from the Young King's court to a French bishop during the outbreak of the war. Its tone is defensive, urgent, and promotional, seeking to justify the rebellion. 2. Content and Context: It highlights the Young King's lack of land, revenue, and power despite his coronation in 1170. It also references baronial grievances. Candidates can contextualize this with the Cartae Baronum (1166) and the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170), which had deeply alienated the traditional baronage by asserting royal control over local administration and castles. It also touches on familial discord, notably Eleanor of Aquitaine's support for the rebellion. 3. Value/Limitations: Exceptionally valuable for explaining the direct motivations and propaganda of the rebel coalition, though its claims must be treated as partisan justifications rather than objective facts. COMPARATIVE JUDGEMENT: Candidates may argue Source B is more valuable because it provides a direct, contemporary insight into the immediate spark of the conflict (the Young King's political impotence and baronial reaction), whereas Source A is valuable for understanding the broader political and ideological defense of Angevin royal authority.

Target: Assessment Objectives 1 and 2 (AQA AS Level). LEVEL 5 (21–25 marks): Shows a detailed, sustained, and analytical evaluation of both sources, assessing value in relation to provenance, tone, and historical context. Formulates a balanced, well-substantiated judgement. LEVEL 4 (16–20 marks): Provides a strong evaluation of both sources with good contextual knowledge. Evaluates the utility and limitations of both, showing clear understanding of how provenance affects value. LEVEL 3 (11–15 marks): Understands the sources and makes some attempt to link to contextual knowledge, but evaluation may be uneven or focus too much on content rather than provenance and tone. LEVEL 2 (6–10 marks): Identifies points in the sources but has limited contextual knowledge or evaluation of provenance. LEVEL 1 (1–5 marks): Shows basic understanding of the sources with little or no historical context. No effective judgement.

This essay requires a balanced analysis of the factors contributing to the success of the First Crusade. On one hand, the deep divisions within the Islamic world were vital. The Sunni-Shi'a split between the Seljuk Turks of Baghdad and the Fatimids of Cairo prevented any coordinated response. Furthermore, local rivalries among Seljuk rulers in Anatolia and Syria (such as the conflicts between Ridwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus) meant that Crusader forces were able to deal with opponents piece-by-piece rather than facing a unified force. The failure of Kerbogha's coalition at Antioch due to internal desertions is a prime example of this fatal disunity. On the other hand, the success cannot be attributed solely to Muslim weakness. The Crusaders demonstrated exceptional religious devotion and morale, particularly when inspired by the discovery of the Holy Lance at Antioch, which sustained them through extreme hardships. Furthermore, they exhibited strong military adaptability and tactical skill, seen in the defensive cohesion at Dorylaeum and the successful siege operations at Jerusalem. Byzantine support, in the form of supplies and guides provided by Emperor Alexios I in the early stages, also played an important role in enabling the crusaders to cross Anatolia. Overall, while Muslim disunity created the strategic opportunities, it was the Crusaders' military capability and religious determination that enabled them to exploit these opportunities and secure victory.

AQA AS Level Marking Scheme: Level 5 (21-25 marks): Answers will show a well-developed, balanced, and analytical understanding of the relationship between Muslim disunity and other factors. Evaluation of the relative importance of these factors will be explicit and highly persuasive. Level 4 (16-20 marks): Answers will show a good understanding of the debate, with clear analysis of both Muslim divisions and Crusader strengths, although one side may be slightly more developed than the other. Level 3 (11-15 marks): Answers will show a reasonable understanding of the key elements but may be more descriptive than analytical, with some imbalance in the argument. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Answers will show limited knowledge and may focus on a narrative of the First Crusade with little direct engagement with the analytical question. Level 1 (1-5 marks): Answers will show extremely limited knowledge, containing major errors or irrelevance.

This essay requires an examination of the causes of the Great Rebellion of 1173 to 1174, weighing Henry II's domestic/family policies against broader structural and geopolitical grievances. On one hand, Henry II's treatment of his family was the direct trigger. Although he crowned his eldest son, Henry the Young King, in 1170, he refused to grant him actual power, independent revenues, or territorial control, leaving the Young King frustrated and humiliated. Henry's plans to award key castles in Anjou to his youngest son, John, as part of a marriage alliance directly precipitated the Young King's flight to the French court. Additionally, Eleanor of Aquitaine was deeply alienated by Henry's control over her duchy and his public infidelities, leading her to support her sons. On the other hand, the rebellion could not have posed such a significant threat without wider structural issues. Many English barons, such as Robert of Leicester and Hugh Bigod, were deeply dissatisfied with Henry's aggressive centralization of royal authority, his destruction of adulterine castles, and his use of new legal systems that bypassed traditional baronial influence. Furthermore, external monarchs, particularly Louis VII of France and William the Lion of Scotland, eagerly exploited these internal Angevin family divisions to roll back Henry's growing hegemony. In conclusion, while baronial resentment and foreign ambitions provided the fuel, it was Henry's failure to manage his family's expectations and share power that lit the spark for the rebellion.

AQA AS Level Marking Scheme: Level 5 (21-25 marks): Showcases excellent, balanced, and analytical focus on the causes of the Great Rebellion. It will persuasively weigh family grievances against baronial discontent and foreign opportunism. Level 4 (16-20 marks): Clear and structured analysis of both family dynamics and wider political causes, though one element may be slightly stronger. Level 3 (11-15 marks): Demonstrates a solid grasp of the main events of 1173-1174 but may tend towards a descriptive narrative rather than a sustained analytical argument. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Limited knowledge of the rebellion, with weak attempts to link the causes to Henry's family policy. Level 1 (1-5 marks): Unfocused, descriptive, or inaccurate response.