2024 AQA A-Level History 7042 Practice Paper with Answers

Extract A Evaluation:
- Core Argument: The collapse of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was primarily caused by internal factionalism and political paralysis among the Frankish nobility, exacerbated by the leprosy of Baldwin IV and the subsequent succession crises.
- Supporting Evidence: The division between the 'court party' (Sibylla, Guy of Lusignan, Agnes of Courtenay, Joscelin III, Gerard de Ridefort) and the 'barons' party' (Raymond III of Tripoli, the Ibelins) severely disrupted governance. Baldwin IV's inability to produce an heir led to instability. Raymond of Tripoli's treasonous truce with Saladin in 1187 and the usurpation of the throne by Guy and Sibylla in 1186 demonstrate how deeply these divisions ran.
- Challenging Evidence: Despite these divisions, the Franks were still capable of uniting in times of extreme crisis; they successfully fielded a massive united army at Sephoria in 1183 and again in 1187. Factionalism was a constant feature of feudal societies and had not prevented survival earlier in the century.
- Conclusion on Extract A: Very convincing in explaining the lack of cohesive leadership and strategic blunders (like the decision to march to Tiberias), but less convincing if it ignores the external threat posed by a newly unified Islamic world.

Extract B Evaluation:
- Core Argument: The fall of Jerusalem was the inevitable result of the rise of Saladin, who unified Egypt and Syria and harnessed the power of jihad to encircle and overwhelm the Frankish states.
- Supporting Evidence: Saladin successfully united Damascus (1174), Aleppo (1183), and Mosul (1186), ending the political fragmentation of the Muslim Near East. He utilized the wealth of Egypt to fund his campaigns and successfully framed his campaigns as a holy war (jihad) to capture Jerusalem, which mobilized widespread support.
- Challenging Evidence: Saladin's power was not absolute; he faced numerous conspiracies from Zengid loyalists and Assassin attempts. He suffered major military defeats by the Franks, most notably at the Battle of Montgisard (1177). His army was a coalition that was difficult to keep in the field for long campaigns due to seasonal agricultural needs.
- Conclusion on Extract B: Strong in highlighting the unprecedented scale of the external threat, but perhaps overstates the 'inevitable' nature of his victory, which relied heavily on specific Frankish tactical errors at Hattin.

Extract C Evaluation:
- Core Argument: The collapse was due to structural and demographic weaknesses (manpower shortage) combined with the fatal strategic decision to empty the castles to fight a single decisive field battle at Hattin.
- Supporting Evidence: Outremer always had a small ruling class of Frankish settlers and relied on military orders (Templars and Hospitallers) to defend huge frontiers. The 'arrière-ban' of 1187 stripped garrisons from major fortresses (like Kerak, Montreal, and Jerusalem itself) to muster approximately 20,000 men. Once this army was destroyed at Hattin, there were literally no troops left to defend the cities.
- Challenging Evidence: The strategy of avoiding pitched battle and relying on castles had worked for decades (e.g., in 1183). The decision to march in 1187 was a human error of judgment by King Guy under pressure from Gerard de Ridefort, rather than an inevitable structural failure. Furthermore, Western crusading help was continuously sought and occasionally arrived, meaning the demographic deficit was not entirely unaddressed.
- Conclusion on Extract C: Highly convincing regarding the immediate military collapse after July 1187, as it correctly identifies why towns fell like dominoes after the Battle of Hattin due to empty garrisons.

For Extract Analysis (AO3) questions worth 30 marks, the marks are allocated as follows:

Level 5 (25-30 marks): Shows excellent, detailed, and broad-ranging historical knowledge. Offers a sophisticated, balanced, and closely argued evaluation of all three extracts, directly addressing how convincing their arguments are with reference to historical context.

Level 4 (19-24 marks): Shows good understanding of the extracts and provides relevant historical knowledge to support and challenge their arguments. The evaluations are clear and mostly balanced, though one extract may be evaluated in slightly less depth than the others.

Level 3 (13-18 marks): Provides a basic analysis of the extracts' arguments with some supporting or challenging historical details. May tend towards summarizing the extracts rather than critically evaluating how convincing they are.

Level 2 (7-12 marks): Offers a limited understanding of the extracts. Arguments are asserted rather than supported by detailed historical context. May focus on only one or two extracts.

Level 1 (1-6 marks): Extremely limited understanding of the extracts or the historical context. Mostly descriptive or irrelevant.

Introduction: State the context of the period (1147-1204), encompassing the Second, Third, and Fourth Crusades. Introduce the thesis: while deteriorating relations with Byzantium significantly hampered crusader efforts (culminating in the sack of Constantinople in 1204), other factors such as the rise of unified Muslim leadership and internal Western divisions were ultimately more decisive in the overall failure of these campaigns. Paragraph 1: Analyze the Byzantine factor. During the Second Crusade, Conrad III and Louis VII faced suspicion from Manuel I, who signed a truce with the Seljuks, leaving the crusaders vulnerable in Anatolia. During the Third Crusade, Isaac II Angelos allied with Saladin, obstructing Frederick Barbarossa's march. The Fourth Crusade represents the ultimate breakdown of relations, where the diversion to Constantinople in 1204 destroyed any chance of reaching Egypt or Jerusalem. Paragraph 2: Analyze the role of growing Muslim unity and leadership. Contrast the fragmented Muslim world of the First Crusade with the rise of powerful leaders during this period. Nur ad-Din unified Syria and took Damascus, making the Second Crusade's siege of Damascus a disaster. Saladin unified Egypt and Syria, leading to the decisive victory at Hattin in 1187 and the fall of Jerusalem, which the Third Crusade could not fully reverse despite Richard I's efforts. Paragraph 3: Analyze Western leadership divisions. The Second Crusade was crippled by the personal and strategic rivalries between Louis VII and Conrad III. The Third Crusade suffered from intense friction between Richard I, Philip II of France, and Leopold of Austria, leading to Philip's premature departure and a divided force. The Fourth Crusade was undermined by Venetian commercial interests and the leadership of Boniface of Montferrat. Paragraph 4: Analyze logistical, geographic, and demographic challenges. The sheer distance to Outremer made maintaining supply lines near-impossible without Byzantine cooperation. Additionally, the chronic lack of Western manpower to defend and consolidate conquests meant that even tactical victories could not be sustained. Conclusion: Synthesize the arguments. Conclude that while Byzantine hostility or indifference repeatedly undermined Crusader logistics and morale, the fundamental shift in the balance of power was caused by the military and political unification of the Muslim Near East, combined with self-defeating Western rivalries.

AO1 Mark Scheme (25 Marks total): Band 5 (21-25 marks): Evaluates the question with sharp analytical focus, demonstrating excellent chronological breadth across the 1147-1204 period. Strong, balanced evaluation of Byzantine relations versus other factors with a sophisticated, consistent judgment. Band 4 (16-20 marks): Clear and structured analysis of the period. Covers at least two of the three main crusades in detail and compares Byzantine actions with other factors. A clear judgment is made. Band 3 (11-15 marks): Shows good understanding of the crusades but may be unbalanced (e.g., focusing heavily on only one crusade or lacking depth on the Byzantine role). Analysis is present but descriptive in parts. Band 2 (6-10 marks): Limited knowledge of the failures of the crusades. May write generally about the crusades without addressing the specific date range or the Byzantine element directly. Band 1 (1-5 marks): Basic or highly inaccurate response with little to no relevant historical knowledge.

Introduction: Set the scene of post-Anarchy England in 1154, where royal authority had been severely weakened. State the thesis: while legal reforms (especially around 1166 with the Assize of Clarendon) were fundamental in institutionalizing royal authority in the long term, the immediate restoration of power in the first decade relied on military assertiveness, castle demolition, and financial reorganization. Paragraph 1: Examine the argument for legal reform. Highlight the significance of the Assizes of Clarendon (1166) and the later Assize of Northampton, which established regular royal justice, the use of juries, and possessory assizes (such as novel disseisin). These reforms drew the gentry away from baronial courts and directly to the King's courts, centralizing authority. Paragraph 2: Analyze the role of military force and the destruction of adulterine castles. Upon his accession, Henry's most urgent task was to establish order. He ordered the surrender and demolition of unlicensed castles built during Stephen's reign, confronting powerful barons like William of Aumale and Hugh Mortimer. This physical destruction of baronial strongholds was a prerequisite for any legal authority to be respected. Paragraph 3: Analyze financial reforms. Henry rebuilt the Exchequer under the guidance of Nigel, Bishop of Ely. He resumed crown lands (royal demesne) that had been alienated during the Anarchy, reformed the coinage, and maximized feudal revenues through scutage (shield money) and inquests like the Cartae Baronum of 1166. This financial solvency gave the Crown the resources to enforce its will. Paragraph 4: Examine the limits of his authority and other factors, such as his relations with the Church (the Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164 and the conflict with Thomas Becket) and securing the borders against the Scots and Welsh. His early success in forcing Malcolm IV of Scotland to return northern counties was crucial for sovereign authority. Conclusion: Summarize and conclude. Legal reforms were the most enduring and revolutionary element of Henry's reign, establishing a systematic basis for royal power. However, the claim that authority was 'primarily' restored through legal reform in these early years is only partially valid; legal changes built upon a foundation of military pacification and financial reconstruction.

AO1 Mark Scheme (25 Marks total): Band 5 (21-25 marks): Exceptional analytical focus on the 1154-1166 timeframe. Explicitly evaluates the role of legal reforms alongside military, political, and financial strategies, arriving at a highly nuanced judgment about the sequencing and priority of Henry II's methods. Band 4 (16-20 marks): Good understanding of Henry II's early reign. Clearly outlines legal reforms (such as Clarendon) and compares them with at least one or two other factors like castle destruction or financial recovery. Solid, supported judgment. Band 3 (11-15 marks): Understands the key issues of the reign but may be narrative-heavy. Describes legal reforms and castle destruction without fully linking them to the concept of 'restoration of royal authority.' Band 2 (6-10 marks): Limited or generalized knowledge of Henry II's reign. May confuse the early period with his later conflicts with his sons or focus solely on Becket. Band 1 (1-5 marks): Minimal or highly inaccurate information about Angevin England.

In evaluating the value of these sources to an historian studying the relationship between King John and his barons in the crucial years of 1212 to 1215, each source offers unique insights into the motivations, political maneuvers, and ideological struggles of the period. Source A, written by the St Albans monk Roger of Wendover, provides valuable evidence of the ideological foundation of the baronial rebellion. Written in the 1220s, with hindsight of the entire conflict, Wendover outlines how the barons utilized historical precedent—specifically the coronation charter of Henry I—to justify their resistance. The value of this source lies in its depiction of the barons' strategy: using a solemn religious oath at Bury St Edmunds to bind themselves to a common cause, presenting their rebellion not as a novel treason but as a restoration of ancient, lawful liberties. However, the historian must treat Wendover with caution. As a monk of St Albans, an abbey that suffered heavy financial exactions during the Interdict, Wendover is highly hostile to John. His tone is partisan, framing the barons' actions as piously motivated while depicting their assembly under 'pretence' of devotion only to emphasize the solemnity of their oath. He also sanitizes the barons' motives, ignoring their personal ambitions and financial grievances. Source B offers immense value by demonstrating the crucial geopolitical dimension of the conflict: the alliance between King John and Pope Innocent III. Following John's submission of England as a papal fief in 1213, the Pope became the King's staunchest defender. The papal bull 'Etsi karissimus' (August 1215) reveals how this alliance transformed the constitutional dispute. Innocent III's tone is fiercely condemnation-heavy toward the barons, accusing them of being inspired by 'the enemy of mankind' (the devil) and declaring Magna Carta 'base, shameful, illegal, and unjust'. This source is highly valuable for showing why John felt confident in repudiating Magna Carta almost immediately after sealing it at Runnymede, directly triggering the First Barons' War. Its main limitation is its extreme bias and lack of objectivity regarding the domestic English grievances, as the Pope was primarily concerned with protecting his vassal, preserving crusader status for John, and defending papal authority over temporal rulers. Source C, the Barnwell Chronicle, is widely regarded by modern historians as the most balanced and perceptive contemporary account. Writing shortly after John's death, the anonymous canon provides a highly objective overview of the breakdown in relations. Its value is dual: it critiques both sides of the conflict. It explains baronial anger by referencing John's reliance on foreign mercenaries from Flanders and Gascony, illustrating John's deep distrust of his domestic nobility and his reliance on military coercion. Simultaneously, it exposes the self-interested motives of the rebel barons, highlighting that many were driven by 'private grievances, debts to the crown, or a desire to escape just penalties'. This directly challenges the idealized narrative in Source A. By pointing to the baronial occupation of London and their plundering, Source C provides a realistic view of how 'liberty' was used as a rhetorical shield for factional and destructive actions. In conclusion, while Source A represents the idealized baronial perspective and Source B represents the official papal-royalist stance, Source C is arguably the most valuable for an historian seeking a balanced, multi-dimensional understanding of why the relationship between John and his barons collapsed so spectacularly into civil war by 1215.

AO2: Analyse and evaluate appropriate source material, written in the period, in its historical context, to investigate historical issues and reach substantiated judgements. Level 5 (25-30 marks): Shows a detailed and accurate understanding of all three sources in relation to the historical context. Evaluates provenance, content, and tone with sophistication. Offers a balanced and well-supported judgment on the value of the sources. Level 4 (19-24 marks): Provides a good evaluation of the sources, showing clear understanding of their content and historical context. Evaluates provenance and tone, though there may be some unevenness in the treatment of the three sources. Level 3 (13-18 marks): Evaluates the sources with some reference to historical context, but the analysis may be more descriptive than analytical. May focus heavily on content with limited evaluation of provenance or tone. Level 2 (7-12 marks): Offers a basic reading of the sources with limited historical context. Evaluation is superficial and relies on generalized assertions of bias. Level 1 (1-6 marks): Shows little understanding of the sources or the historical context. Limited or no evaluation of value.

This question requires an evaluation of the methods Henry II used to restore royal authority in England following the Anarchy of Stephen's reign, specifically weighing the importance of legal reforms against other administrative, financial, and military measures up to 1166.

Arguments supporting the proposition that legal reform was the primary method:
- The Assize of Clarendon (1166) transformed the English legal system, establishing grand juries, standardizing procedures, and significantly expanding the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of private baronial courts.
- The development of the returnable writ system (such as the possessory assizes of novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor) provided quick, reliable royal justice, making freeholders directly dependent on the crown for land security.
- The reinvigoration of the eyre system (itinerant justices) projected royal power directly into the localities, ensuring that sheriff misconduct was monitored and royal law was consistently applied.

Arguments challenging the proposition (highlighting alternative methods):
- Military and physical subjugation: Henry immediately ordered the demolition of adulterine (unlicensed) castles built during the Anarchy, removing the physical basis of baronial independence.
- Territorial recovery: Henry forced key magnates (such as William of Aumale and Hugh Mortimer) to surrender royal castles and resumed royal demesne lands that had been alienated by Stephen.
- Financial administrative reform: The restoration of the Exchequer under Nigel of Ely and the systematic auditing of sheriff accounts restored the financial basis of the monarchy. The 1166 Cartae Baronum also mapped out knight service to maximize feudal revenue and loyalty.

Conclusion:
While legal reforms were fundamental in institutionalizing and legitimizing royal authority over the long term, they could only be introduced once the crown had asserted physical and financial control. Therefore, legal reform was the crown's most enduring tool, but it depended entirely on the initial success of military assertiveness and financial recovery.

AO1 (25 Marks) Level Descriptors:

Level 5 (21-25 marks):
- Demonstrates outstanding, detailed, and highly accurate historical knowledge.
- Shows a analytical and sharp focus on the question with a well-developed, balanced, and persuasive argument.
- Explicitly evaluates the relative importance of legal reforms against other factors (military actions, territorial recovery, and finance).

Level 4 (16-20 marks):
- Demonstrates good, mostly accurate historical knowledge.
- Offers a clear, structured argument that addresses both legal reforms and other methods of restoring authority.
- Some analytical evaluation of which factor was most significant, though it may lack the depth of a Level 5 essay.

Level 3 (11-15 marks):
- Shows satisfactory knowledge of Henry II's early reign.
- Argument is present but may be descriptive rather than analytical, or heavily one-sided (focusing only on legal reforms or only on castles/barons).
- May contain minor factual errors or lack chronological precision.

Level 2 (6-10 marks):
- Demonstrates limited knowledge with a weak structure.
- Primarily descriptive narrative of Henry II's reign with little explicit connection to the concept of 'royal authority'.

Level 1 (1-5 marks):
- Extremely limited or irrelevant material. Shows little to no understanding of the period or the question.

This question asks for an analysis of the reasons why the Third Crusade (1189–1192) failed to achieve its ultimate goal of recapturing Jerusalem, focusing on the significance of Anglo-French divisions relative to other factors.

Arguments supporting the proposition that divisions between Richard I and Philip II were primary:
- Personal and political rivalry: Their competition began in Sicily and Cyprus and intensified during the Siege of Acre. They disputed the leadership of the crusade and backed rival candidates for the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Richard supported Guy of Lusignan; Philip supported Conrad of Montferrat).
- Philip's early departure: Following the fall of Acre in July 1191, Philip returned to France. This depleted the crusader forces and, crucially, left Richard constantly anxious about the safety of his own Angevin territories back in Europe. This political anxiety prevented Richard from committing to a prolonged siege of Jerusalem.

Arguments challenging the proposition (highlighting alternative factors):
- Logistical and geographical realities: Even if Jerusalem had been captured, the crusaders lacked the manpower to hold it. Most of the crusader army consisted of pilgrims who intended to return home once their vows were completed, leaving the city defenseless against a Muslim counter-offensive.
- Saladin's military resilience: Saladin employed effective scorched-earth tactics, destroying crops and poisoning wells around Jerusalem. His ability to keep his army in the field, despite major defeats at Acre and Arsuf, made any siege of the heavily fortified city of Jerusalem highly hazardous.
- The death of Frederick I (Barbarossa): The sudden drowning of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1190 led to the disintegration of the massive German crusader army. Had this force arrived intact, the crusaders would have possessed the numerical superiority needed to secure both the coast and the hinterland of Jerusalem.

Conclusion:
While Anglo-French division severely damaged the cohesion of the crusade and forced Richard to look over his shoulder, the fundamental obstacle to capturing and holding Jerusalem was logistical. Without a permanent occupying force and secure interior supply lines, any capture of Jerusalem would have been a temporary, hollow victory.

AO1 (25 Marks) Level Descriptors:

Level 5 (21-25 marks):
- Exceptional command of the historical context, key figures, and military dynamics of the Third Crusade.
- Analytical, highly focused, and balanced argument weighing the Richard-Philip rivalry against logistics, Saladin's strategy, and the German collapse.
- Reaches a sophisticated and well-supported judgment.

Level 4 (16-20 marks):
- Strong knowledge of the Third Crusade and the actions of Richard I and Philip II.
- Clear, structured essay presenting arguments for and against the stated view.
- Some analytical depth, though perhaps slightly more descriptive in parts.

Level 3 (11-15 marks):
- Satisfactory knowledge of the Third Crusade.
- May focus too heavily on Richard I's campaigns (e.g., Acre, Arsuf, Jaffa) without fully addressing the core analytical prompt of 'divisions' or 'other factors'.
- Basic level of structure and balance.

Level 2 (6-10 marks):
- Limited narrative of the Third Crusade with little or no attempt to analyze the causes of failure.
- Contains factual inaccuracies or chronological confusion.

Level 1 (1-5 marks):
- Highly generalized, descriptive, or inaccurate material. Minimal relevance to the question.