2023 AQA A-Level History 7042 Practice Paper with Answers

### Extract A: Evaluation
* **Arguments:** Extract A argues that internal political decay, factionalism (exacerbated by Baldwin IV's illness), and succession crises were the primary causes of Outremer's collapse, culminating in the disastrous decisions before the Battle of Hattin.
* **Support/Corroboration:** Students can support this by referencing the bitter divisions between the 'court party' (Sibylla, Guy of Lusignan, Agnes of Courtenay, Reynald of Châtillon, Gerard of Ridefort) and the 'baronial party' (Raymond of Tripoli, the Ibelins). This factionalism led to erratic policies, such as Reynald's provocative raids on Muslim caravans, and the military paralysis during the succession crises of 1185–86. The decision to march from the springs of Saforia into the waterless desert to relieve Tiberias (advised by Guy and Gerard, against Raymond's counsel) directly caused the defeat at Hattin.
* **Challenge/Limitations:** Students can challenge this by arguing that political crises were not unique to the 1180s (e.g., the conflict between Melisende and Baldwin III in the 1150s was also severe, yet the kingdom survived). It also underplays the growing external threat and assumes that a unified Kingdom could have permanently withstood Saladin's vast resources.

### Extract B: Evaluation
* **Arguments:** Extract B argues that the rise of Saladin and his unification of Egypt, Syria, and Mosul under the banner of jihad was the decisive factor, rendering the fall of Outremer inevitable regardless of internal Frankish politics.
* **Support/Corroboration:** Students can support this by showing how Saladin successfully encircled the Crusader states by taking Damascus (1174) and Aleppo (1183), ending the traditional Frankish strategy of exploiting Muslim divisions. This unification allowed Saladin to muster an unprecedentedly large army of around 30,000 men for the 1187 campaign, vastly outnumbering the Frankish forces.
* **Challenge/Limitations:** Students can challenge this by pointing out that Saladin's empire was fragile, held together by personal loyalty, and that he faced several internal rebellions and military setbacks (e.g., his defeat by Baldwin IV at the Battle of Montgisard in 1177). Furthermore, Saladin's success at Hattin was facilitated by Frankish division, such as Raymond of Tripoli making a separate truce with Saladin in 1186.

### Extract C: Evaluation
* **Arguments:** Extract C argues that structural and demographic weaknesses, specifically a chronic lack of manpower and the failure of Western Europe to send significant military aid, left Outremer strategically isolated and unable to survive.
* **Support/Corroboration:** Students can support this by noting that the Latin settlers constituted only a small minority of the population, leaving them highly dependent on the Military Orders (Templars and Hospitallers) and mercenary forces. The catastrophic need to muster every available soldier for Hattin meant stripping the castles of their garrisons, leaving the entire kingdom undefended after the battle. Additionally, diplomatic missions to the West, such as that of Patriarch Heraclius in 1184–85, failed to secure immediate military intervention from Henry II of England or Philip II of France.
* **Challenge/Limitations:** Students can challenge this by showing that despite demographic issues, the defensive network of massive concentric castles (such as Krak des Chevaliers and Kerak) had successfully deterred Muslim forces for decades. The strategic isolation was partly self-inflicted through aggressive provocations (such as Reynald of Châtillon's Red Sea raid) which forced Saladin into open warfare.

### Conclusion
Students should offer a synthesised judgment comparing the relative merits of the three extracts. They may conclude that while Extract B correctly identifies the shifting geopolitical balance of power, it was the internal political paralysis highlighted in Extract A that turned a difficult strategic situation into a sudden and catastrophic collapse in 1187, made fatal by the structural weaknesses outlined in Extract C.

**Target: AO3**
Analyse and evaluate the extent to which writers' analyses, interpretations and conclusions are robust and the systematic assessments of arguments they make are defensible or not.

* **Level 5 (25–30 marks):** Answers show a very good understanding of the interpretations in all three extracts. They evaluate the arguments systematically, using highly precise and relevant historical context. There is a consistent, analytical focus and a well-substantiated comparative judgment on which extract is the most convincing.
* **Level 4 (19–24 marks):** Answers show a good understanding of all three extracts. There is appropriate historical context used to support or challenge the interpretations, though there may be some unevenness in the depth of evaluation between the extracts. A comparative judgment is attempted.
* **Level 3 (13–18 marks):** Answers show an understanding of the main arguments of the extracts. The evaluation relies more on general historical knowledge than specific contextual details. The comparison between the extracts may be limited or superficial.
* **Level 2 (7–12 marks):** Answers identify some arguments in the extracts but offer limited evaluation. Historical context is weak or contains inaccuracies. The answer may read more like a narrative of the events leading up to 1187 rather than an evaluation of the extracts.
* **Level 1 (1–6 marks):** Answers show little understanding of the extracts or the historical context. Assertions are unsupported and lack analytical focus.
* **Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditworthy response.

Arguments supporting the premise (Muslim divisions):
- The primary division was the sectarian rift between the Sunni Seljuk Turks of Baghdad/Syria and the Shi'a Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt, which prevented any unified response to the early Latin settlements.
- Regional rivalries between independent Muslim rulers, such as the Atabegs of Damascus, Mosul, and Aleppo, frequently led them to form alliances with the Crusaders against each other (e.g., the alliance between Damascus and Jerusalem against Zengi).
- The assassination of powerful leaders who attempted to unify Jihad (such as Mawdud of Mosul in 1113) routinely fractured Muslim opposition.

Arguments challenging the premise (Other key factors):
- Crusader military skill and aggressive expansionism under early rulers like Baldwin I and Baldwin II, who secured critical ports (Acre, Caesarea, Sidon, Tyre).
- The strategic construction of castles (e.g., Montreal, Krak des Chevaliers) which acted as administrative centers, defensive strongholds, and projection of power with minimal manpower.
- Vital maritime support from Italian city-states (Venice, Genoa, Pisa) which secured control of the Syrian coastline, allowing trade and the arrival of Western pilgrims and reinforcements.
- The rise of the Military Orders (Templars and Hospitallers) in the 1120s and 1130s, providing a highly disciplined, permanent standing army.

Conclusion:
While Crusader resourcefulness, castle building, and Italian naval aid were vital in consolidating control, these efforts would have been overwhelmed had they faced a unified Muslim front. Therefore, the deep-seated political and religious divisions within the Muslim world were the absolute prerequisite for the survival of the fragile Latin states during this period, as demonstrated when Zengi's partial unification of Mosul and Aleppo immediately resulted in the fall of Edessa in 1144.

AQA A Level History marking criteria for 25-mark essays:

Level 5 (21–25 marks):
- Explores the full demands of the question with analytical depth.
- Shows explicit understanding of the key concepts and terms of the question.
- Analysis is supported by precise, detailed, and highly relevant historical knowledge.
- Evaluates the relative significance of factors to reach a highly convincing and balanced conclusion.

Level 4 (16–20 marks):
- Well-focused on the question with clear, analytical structure.
- Provides a range of balanced arguments supported by good historical detail.
- Reaches a logical conclusion based on the evidence presented.

Level 3 (11–15 marks):
- Shows understanding of the main issues, though may contain some narrative or descriptive passages.
- Historical knowledge is sufficient to support the main points, but may lack depth or precision in places.
- Attempts a conclusion, but it may be brief or rely on assertions.

Level 2 (6–10 marks):
- Some relevance to the question but lacks focus and structure.
- Limited historical knowledge with factual errors or generalisations.
- Unbalanced or weak conclusion.

Level 1 (1–5 marks):
- Little or no understanding of the question.
- Fragmentary, inaccurate, or highly descriptive content.

Arguments supporting the premise (John's failures):
- John's marriage to Isabella of Angoulême in 1200 alienated Hugh de Lusignan (who was betrothed to her), leading to a feudal appeal to Philip Augustus, which gave the French king the legal pretext to declare John's lands forfeit.
- John's failure to attend the French royal court in 1202 to answer these charges alienated his own vassals and allowed Philip to wage a legitimate feudal war.
- The murder of his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, in 1203 deeply shocked the baronage of Brittany and Anjou, leading to widespread defections and loss of local support.
- John's military passivity in Normandy (earning him the nickname 'Softsword') and his sudden departure to England in December 1203 abandoned key strongholds like Château Gaillard to their fate.

Arguments challenging the premise (Other key factors):
- Financial exhaustion: Richard I's Crusade, his ransom (150,000 marks), and the extensive building of Château Gaillard had severely depleted the Angevin treasury, leaving John with far fewer resources.
- The strength and strategy of Philip II Augustus: Philip was an exceptionally capable ruler who systematically exploited legal, financial, and military opportunities to centralise French royal power.
- Structural instability: The Angevin Empire was a heterogeneous collection of territories with no central administrative machinery; maintaining control relied heavily on the physical presence and personal charisma of the Duke/King, which was inherently fragile.

Conclusion:
While systemic financial pressures and the formidable state-building of Philip Augustus made the Angevin Empire increasingly difficult to defend, the speed and completeness of the collapse in 1204 were directly triggered by John's catastrophic errors of judgement. His alienation of the Lusignans and the murder of Arthur turned manageable local disputes into an existential crisis that shattered the loyalty of his continental barons.

AQA A Level History marking criteria for 25-mark essays:

Level 5 (21–25 marks):
- Explores the full demands of the question with analytical depth.
- Shows explicit understanding of the key concepts and terms of the question.
- Analysis is supported by precise, detailed, and highly relevant historical knowledge.
- Evaluates the relative significance of factors to reach a highly convincing and balanced conclusion.

Level 4 (16–20 marks):
- Well-focused on the question with clear, analytical structure.
- Provides a range of balanced arguments supported by good historical detail.
- Reaches a logical conclusion based on the evidence presented.

Level 3 (11–15 marks):
- Shows understanding of the main issues, though may contain some narrative or descriptive passages.
- Historical knowledge is sufficient to support the main points, but may lack depth or precision in places.
- Attempts a conclusion, but it may be brief or rely on assertions.

Level 2 (6–10 marks):
- Some relevance to the question but lacks focus and structure.
- Limited historical knowledge with factual errors or generalisations.
- Unbalanced or weak conclusion.

Level 1 (1–5 marks):
- Little or no understanding of the question.
- Fragmentary, inaccurate, or highly descriptive content.

### Introduction
This question requires an assessment of the value of three sources to an historian studying the origins of the Great Rebellion (the English Civil War) between 1637 and 1642. The value of each source must be judged by examining its content, provenance, tone, and historical context.

---

### Source A
* **Provenance**: A highly confidential letter written by King Charles I to his commissioner in Scotland, the Marquess of Hamilton, in June 1638. Its private nature means it represents Charles's genuine thoughts, unvarnished by public diplomacy.
* **Tone**: Stubborn, authoritarian, and uncompromising. The King expresses a dramatic personal ultimatum, stating he would "rather choose to die a King than live like a slave."
* **Content and Context**: The letter reacts to the signing of the Scottish National Covenant in early 1638, which opposed the introduction of the Laudian Prayer Book of 1637. Charles explicitly rejects any constitutional limitation, comparing a limited monarchy to being a "Duke of Venice" (a doge with nominal power). Crucially, the source reveals Charles's willingness to act deceptively ("flatter them to win time") while secretly planning a military campaign ("preparing a force").
* **Value to an Historian**: Extremely high. It demonstrates Charles I's personal culpability in escalating the Scottish Crisis—which broke the Personal Rule and forced him to call Parliament. It highlights his adherence to Divine Right theory, his view of political opposition as outright rebellion, and his fundamental untrustworthiness as a negotiator, which would later prevent any lasting settlement with the English Parliament.

---

### Source B
* **Provenance**: An official parliamentary declaration, 'The Grand Remonstrance', debated and passed by the House of Commons in November 1641 and presented to the King in December 1641. It represents the collective voice of the reformist majority in the Commons led by John Pym.
* **Tone**: Highly partisan, accusatory, and urgent. While it respects the constitutional fiction that "the King can do no wrong" by not blaming Charles directly, its language regarding his advisers is hostile and uncompromising.
* **Content and Context**: The source outlines a systematic conspiracy ("malignant and pernicious design") to subvert the laws and Protestant religion of England. It points to three main enemies: "Jesuited Papists", "Bishops", and self-serving "Councillors". The context is the highly charged atmosphere following the Irish Rebellion of October 1641, which provoked massive anti-Catholic panic and raised the constitutional question of who should control the army.
* **Value to an Historian**: Highly valuable for understanding the ideological, religious, and conspiratorial mindsets that drove the parliamentary opposition. It shows how anti-Catholicism and anti-Laudianism were used to unify opposition to the Crown and justify unprecedented demands, such as parliamentary veto power over the King's choice of ministers.

---

### Source C
* **Provenance**: A private letter from Sir Ralph Verney, a moderate Member of Parliament, to his father, Sir Edmund Verney (who, as the King's standard-bearer, would die fighting for him), dated 8 January 1642. This provides an immediate, eye-witness perspective from a moderate voice caught in the middle of the crisis.
* **Tone**: Despondent, fearful, and shocked. The language ("distraction and fear", "terror and amazement", "My heart bleeds") conveys a sense of tragic inevitability and panic.
* **Content and Context**: The letter describes the immediate aftermath of Charles I's disastrous attempt to arrest five members of the House of Commons in person on 4 January 1642. Verney records the armed intrusion into the Commons, the shuttering of shops in London, the arming of the city populace, and the retreat of Parliament to the Guildhall for safety. He recognizes that this violation of privilege has destroyed any chance of moderate reconciliation.
* **Value to an Historian**: Exceptionally valuable for demonstrating how Charles's political and tactical errors pushed moderate MPs and the London populace into active opposition. It illustrates the physical collapse of the King's authority in his own capital, forcing his departure from London days later, and highlights how the breakdown of trust made the outbreak of actual war virtually unavoidable by early 1642.

---

### Conclusion
In conclusion, all three sources are highly valuable for tracing the descent into the Great Rebellion. Source A exposes the initial spark (the Scottish crisis) and Charles's rigid, deceptive mindset. Source B captures the deep religious and political grievances of the parliamentary opposition at a critical turning point in 1641. Source C demonstrates the final breakdown of trust and constitutional norms in early 1642, showing how even moderates despaired of peace, making armed conflict inevitable.

### Marking Scheme & Grade Descriptors

**Level 5 (25–30 marks)**:
* Shows excellent understanding of all three sources, evaluating their value with reference to provenance, tone, content, and historical context.
* Provides a balanced, sophisticated judgment that integrates detailed historical knowledge of the period 1637–1642.
* Demonstrates clear understanding of the 'origins of the Great Rebellion' (including the Scottish Crisis, religious tensions, and the breakdown of trust in 1641–1642).

**Level 4 (19–24 marks)**:
* Shows good understanding of all three sources, evaluating their value using provenance, tone, and content.
* Relates the sources well to the historical context of the origins of the Civil War, though there may be slight imbalance in the depth of analysis between the sources.
* Shows solid knowledge of key events like the Covenant, Grand Remonstrance, and the Five Members.

**Level 3 (13–18 marks)**:
* Shows some understanding of the sources, but analysis may focus more on repeating content rather than critical evaluation of provenance or tone.
* Historical context is applied, but with some gaps or generalized assertions.

**Level 2 (7–12 marks)**:
* Limited evaluation of the sources, mostly paraphrasing or explaining what the sources say.
* Limited or inaccurate historical context, with weak connections to the origins of the Great Rebellion.

**Level 1 (1–6 marks)**:
* Very basic comprehension of the sources with little or no attempt to evaluate value.
* Minimal or absent historical context.

---

### Specific Source Expectations

#### Source A (Charles I's Letter, 1638)
* **Accept**: Analysis of Charles's belief in Divine Right; the impact of the Scottish Prayer Book crisis; his political duplicity ('flatter them to win time'); the comparison to the 'Duke of Venice'.
* **Reject**: Assertions that this letter was a public decree, or that it was written to English parliamentary leaders.

#### Source B (The Grand Remonstrance, 1641)
* **Accept**: Analysis of anti-Catholicism and its political utility; the role of Pym and the radical faction; the targeted blame on advisors (Strafford/Laud) and bishops rather than Charles himself; the impact of the Irish Rebellion.
* **Reject**: Confusing this document with the Nineteen Propositions or the Petition of Right.

#### Source C (Ralph Verney's Letter, 1642)
* **Accept**: Analysis of the constitutional violation of the Attempt on the Five Members; the reactions of moderate MPs; the role of the London mob and trained bands; the division of families (the Verneys represent the tragedy of divided loyalties).
* **Reject**: Misidentifying Verney as a radical parliamentarian or claiming this was written after the war had already begun.

This essay requires an evaluation of the factors that enabled Henry II to restore royal authority following his accession in 1154. In support of the premise, candidates can argue that the cooperation of the barons was crucial. The civil war of Stephen's reign (the Anarchy) had exhausted the nation, making many barons eager for peace and willing to cooperate with the new monarch. Key figures like Robert, Earl of Leicester, and Richard de Luci served loyally as co-justiciars, ensuring the smooth administration of the realm. Many barons voluntarily surrendered royal lands and 'adulterine' (unlicensed) castles that they had occupied during the civil war. In counter-argument, candidates should explore other significant factors. Firstly, Henry's energetic and decisive personal rule: he was prepared to use military force or the threat of it against recalcitrant barons, such as William of Aumale in the north and Hugh Mortimer in the west, forcing them to submit. Secondly, the restoration of administrative and legal machinery was vital. Henry quickly reinstated the Exchequer under the guidance of Nigel, Bishop of Ely, ensuring the crown could systematically collect its revenues. He also revived the use of itinerant justices to reassert royal jurisdiction at the expense of private baronial courts. In conclusion, while baronial cooperation facilitated a peaceful transition and prevented a return to civil war, it was Henry's proactive leadership, military resolve, and administrative reforms that truly consolidated and institutionalised the restoration of royal authority.

Level 5 (21-25 marks): Answers will show a detailed, highly analytical and balanced understanding of the relationship between baronial cooperation and other factors in restoring royal authority. Arguments will be supported by precise historical evidence. Level 4 (16-20 marks): Answers will show a good understanding of the debate, presenting clear arguments on both sides with appropriate evidence, though the analysis may be slightly uneven. Level 3 (11-15 marks): Answers will show some understanding of Henry II's early reign, but may rely more on narrative descriptions of events rather than analytical assessment of the prompt. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Answers will show limited understanding, containing generalisations or factual errors, and lack a balanced argument. Level 1 (1-5 marks): Answers will be highly descriptive, brief, or largely irrelevant. Examiners should credit references to: the peace of Wallingford/Winchester, the surrender of castles, the role of key administrators, and the military actions against defiant lords.

This essay requires an assessment of the causes of the baronial rebellion of 1215. In support of the statement, candidates can argue that John's foreign policy obsession with recovering Normandy (lost in 1204) led to unprecedented financial extortion. John levied 11 scutages in 16 years, far more frequently than his predecessors. He also exploited feudal incidents, such as raising wardship fees and relief fines to exorbitant levels, and introduced the highly unpopular 1207 tax on movables (the Thirteenth). The ultimate failure of these financial sacrifices at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 shattered John's prestige and left the barons unwilling to tolerate these burdens any longer, directly sparking the rebellion. In counter-argument, candidates should examine other crucial factors. John's domestic rule was characterised by a suspicious, arbitrary, and personal style of governance. He bypassed traditional baronial counsel, relying instead on foreign mercenaries and advisors like Peter des Roches, which deeply alienated the English aristocracy. His use of the royal court of King's Bench to systematically target and ruin political opponents (such as the de Braose family) created widespread fear and resentment. Furthermore, his five-year dispute with Pope Innocent III, which led to an Interdict and John's personal excommunication, damaged his moral authority and provided his opponents with religious legitimacy. In conclusion, while the financial burdens of the campaign to recover Normandy provided the immediate trigger and economic grievances that united the barons, the rebellion was also a direct reaction to John's broader tyranny and systematic abuse of royal power.

Level 5 (21-25 marks): Answers will show a detailed, highly analytical and balanced understanding of the causes of the 1215 rebellion. The relationship between the financial consequences of the loss of Normandy and other structural/personal factors will be clearly evaluated with precise evidence. Level 4 (16-20 marks): Answers will show a good understanding of the debate, offering well-supported arguments on both the financial exactions and other factors (such as John's personality or the clash with the Church), though the balance may slightly favour one side. Level 3 (11-15 marks): Answers will show some understanding of the events leading to Magna Carta, but may be more descriptive of John's reign rather than offering a sustained analytical assessment of the prompt. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Answers will show limited understanding, relying on generalisations or showing a weak grasp of the chronological links between the loss of Normandy and the 1215 rebellion. Level 1 (1-5 marks): Answers will be highly descriptive, brief, or largely irrelevant. Examiners should credit references to: the Battle of Bouvines, scutage, the Thirteenth, the Interdict, the de Braose family, and foreign mercenaries.