2023 AQA AS-Level History 7041 Practice Paper with Answers

To answer this question effectively, students need to evaluate both extracts in terms of their arguments and how they align with historical evidence, before reaching a comparative judgment.

### **Analysis of Extract A**
* **Argument**: Extract A argues that the primary motivation of the crusaders was genuine religious devotion and the desire for spiritual salvation, highlighting that the high cost and physical risks of crusading rule out simple material greed as a primary driver.
* **Supporting Evidence**:
* Pope Urban II's promise of the plenary indulgence (remission of sins) directly targeted the anxiety of the knightly class regarding their violent lifestyles.
* Research by historians like Jonathan Riley-Smith has shown that a knight needed to raise up to four or five times his annual income to fund his participation, often mortgaging or selling lands, which contradicts the idea of easy material gain.
* The vast majority of crusaders returned home immediately after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, showing they did not intend to settle or colonize the East.
* **Limitations**: It downplays the fact that some key participants certainly sought material advancement and that religious enthusiasm could coexist with worldly ambition.

### **Analysis of Extract B**
* **Argument**: Extract B argues that secular ambitions, socio-economic pressures in Europe (such as land shortages and the 'younger son' phenomenon), and political opportunism were the real driving forces behind the Crusade.
* **Supporting Evidence**:
* Leaders like Bohemond of Taranto (who wanted land because his father left him nothing in Italy), Baldwin of Boulogne (who established the county of Edessa), and Raymond of Toulouse certainly displayed territorial ambitions.
* The late eleventh century in Europe was indeed a period of localized land hunger, overpopulation, and frequent internal warfare (the 'Anarchy' or 'private wars') which the Church sought to export.
* **Limitations**: The 'younger son' thesis has been largely discredited as a general explanation for the rank-and-file, as many crusaders were senior lords and eldest sons who had everything to lose. The massive cost of the expedition meant the poorest or completely landless could rarely afford to go unless sponsored.

### **Comparative Conclusion**
An effective synthesis will argue that while Extract B accurately describes the overt political and material motives of key leaders (like Bohemond and Baldwin) who founded the Crusader States, Extract A provides a far more convincing and widely applicable interpretation of the vast majority of ordinary crusaders and lesser knights. For most participants, the immense risk and ruinous cost of the expedition make a purely secular explanation highly unconvincing.

**Level 5 (21–25 marks)**: Answers show a highly developed, well-informed, and nuanced evaluation of both extracts. They use precise historical context to assess the validity of both interpretations and provide a sustained, analytical comparative judgment on which is more convincing.

**Level 4 (16–20 marks)**: Answers show a good understanding of both interpretations and apply relevant historical evidence to support and challenge them. There is a clear comparative element and an explicit judgment, though it may lack the depth of Level 5.

**Level 3 (11–15 marks)**: Answers show some understanding of the arguments in both extracts. Some contextual evidence is used to evaluate them, but the analysis may be unbalanced (focusing more on one extract) or the final judgment may be superficial.

**Level 2 (6–10 marks)**: Answers will largely summarize the extracts with limited or generalized historical context. The comparison may be weak, or the judgment may be based on assertion rather than evidence.

**Level 1 (1–5 marks)**: Answers show very limited understanding of the extracts, offering little more than paraphrase. Contextual knowledge is weak, irrelevant, or absent.

This question requires an analysis of the relative importance of the factors that allowed the Crusader States (Jerusalem, Tripoli, Antioch, and Edessa) to survive and establish themselves between the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and the end of Baldwin II's reign in 1131. Arguments supporting the view that survival was primarily due to Muslim divisions: The deep sectarian divide between the Sunni Seljuk Turks (centered in Baghdad and Syria) and the Shi'a Fatimids of Egypt prevented any unified Islamic response to the Frankish settlement. Furthermore, local Muslim rulers in Syria and Palestine were highly factionalized; the emirs of Damascus, Aleppo, and Mosul often feared each other more than they feared the Crusaders. For instance, Ridwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus regularly refused to cooperate, and some Muslim rulers even formed temporary alliances with the Crusaders to protect their own autonomy. Early attempts at a unified campaign, such as those led by Mawdud of Mosul, failed due to internal betrayal and suspicions, culminating in Mawdud's assassination in 1113. Arguments challenging the view by focusing on other factors: First, the exceptional and pragmatic leadership of Baldwin I (1100-1118) and Baldwin II (1118-1131) was vital. They acted swiftly to consolidate territory, secure succession, and defend the frontiers, such as Baldwin II's energetic response to the disaster at the Field of Blood in 1119. Second, the acquisition of the Levant coast was essential for survival. By capturing key ports like Acre, Arsuf, Caesarea, Sidon, and Tyre, the Crusaders established secure supply lines to Western Europe. This maritime success was heavily reliant on the naval support of Italian city-states like Genoa, Venice, and Pisa. Third, the construction of early fortifications and castles helped a relatively small Crusader population dominate vast territories, and the emergence of military orders like the Templars and Hospitallers provided a permanent, disciplined defending force. Conclusion: While Muslim disunity was critical because it created a power vacuum that allowed the Crusaders to gain a foothold, it was not the sole reason for their survival. Without the aggressive consolidation of ports, effective leadership, and defensive innovations by the Franks, the Crusader States would have been easily overwhelmed once localized Muslim resistance did materialize.

Level 5 (21-25 marks): Answers will display a very good understanding of the full demands of the question. They will show a clear, analytical, and balanced evaluation of the stated view alongside alternative factors. Arguments will be supported by precise and chronologically relevant evidence spanning the years 1099 to 1131. Level 4 (16-20 marks): Answers will show a good understanding of the demands of the question, with a balanced analysis of both Muslim divisions and Crusader strengths. Support will be generally strong, though there may be minor gaps in detail or depth. Level 3 (11-15 marks): Answers will show an understanding of some key features of the period but may be more descriptive than analytical, or may focus heavily on one side of the argument (e.g., only detailing Crusader actions) without properly weighing it against Muslim disunity. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Answers will show some understanding of the focus of the question but will contain limited, generalized, or inaccurate evidence, lacking chronological focus on 1099-1131. Level 1 (1-5 marks): Answers will contain some simple, factual statements with little or no structure, analysis, or direct relevance to the question.

### Analysis of Source A
* **Provenance**: Written by William of Newburgh, a well-regarded canon from Yorkshire. Writing slightly after the events but during the late twelfth century, he is generally considered one of the more objective and analytical chroniclers of the period, free from direct court patronage.
* **Content and Argument**: The source argues that the primary cause of the rebellion was the frustration of Henry the Young King. Though crowned in 1170, Henry II refused to delegate any real authority or financial independence to him. William also highlights the critical role of Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine in instigating her other sons (Richard and Geoffrey) to join the revolt.
* **Historical Context**: This matches historical reality: the Young King was deeply frustrated by his lack of funds and power, especially when Henry II attempted to grant three castles in Anjou to his youngest son, John, as part of a marriage alliance. Eleanor's resentment of Henry II (due to political marginalization and his notorious infidelities) led her to actively support the rebellion, resulting in her capture and imprisonment late in 1173.
* **Value**: Highly valuable for identifying the internal, dynastic causes of the rebellion, particularly the structural failure of Henry II's policy of joint kingship without power sharing.

### Analysis of Source B
* **Provenance**: Written by Peter of Blois, an influential intellectual and diplomat employed by Henry II. This is an official diplomatic letter sent to Pope Alexander III, designed to elicit papal support and condemnation of the rebels.
* **Content and Argument**: The source frames the rebellion not as a domestic dispute over inheritance, but as an "unnatural" and unprovoked conspiracy. It places the blame heavily on external enemies—specifically King Louis VII of France—and "treasonous barons" who wish to restore the lawlessness of the "Anarchy" of Stephen's reign.
* **Historical Context**: Henry II was desperate for papal intervention because a papal interdict or excommunication of the rebels would severely weaken their cause. The rebellion did indeed involve Louis VII (who knighted the Young King and hosted the rebel coalition) and discontented Anglo-Norman barons (like Robert of Leicester and Hugh Bigod) who resented Henry II’s intrusive administrative reforms, destruction of unauthorized castles, and curtailment of baronial privileges since 1154.
* **Value**: Highly valuable for demonstrating how Henry II’s regime sought to project the conflict internationally, and for highlighting the structural tension between royal centralization and baronial independence as a major systemic cause of the war.

### Conclusion / Comparison of Value
* **Source A** is more valuable for understanding the *catalyst* and internal dynastic tensions of the rebellion. It provides a more balanced, less partisan assessment of the Young King’s genuine grievances and Eleanor's pivotal role.
* **Source B** is more valuable for understanding the *broader geopolitical and structural causes* of the rebellion (the roles of Louis VII and the barons) and how Henry II sought to frame the conflict to secure diplomatic leverage from the Papacy.
* A strong response will argue that while Source A explains *why* the family fell apart, Source B explains *how* the local family dispute instantly expanded into a major international and domestic war due to underlying baronial discontent and Capetian-Angevin rivalry.

**AQA AS Level History Marking Grid (25 Marks)**

* **Level 5 (21–25 marks)**: Evaluates both sources with sophisticated, detailed historical context. Offers a clear, reasoned comparison and judgment on which source is more valuable. Demonstrates excellent understanding of provenance, tone, and historical utility.
* **Level 4 (16–20 marks)**: Evaluates both sources using appropriate historical context. Shows a good understanding of the perspectives of William of Newburgh and Peter of Blois. Offers a balanced comparison, though one source may be analysed in more depth than the other.
* **Level 3 (11–15 marks)**: Provides a structured analysis of both sources but relies more on comprehension or has gaps in specific historical context (e.g., failing to link Source B to Henry II's administrative centralization or Source A to the Anjou land grants). The comparison may be underdeveloped.
* **Level 2 (6–10 marks)**: Simple comprehension of the sources with limited historical context or evaluation. Mostly summarizes what the sources say without evaluating provenance or tone effectively.
* **Level 1 (1–5 marks)**: Fragmentary or generalized comments with little to no historical context or evaluation of value.

### Essay Outline and Key Arguments:

**Introduction**
* Set the context of Henry II's accession and his goal to restore royal authority following the Anarchy.
* Introduce Thomas Becket's elevation from loyal Chancellor to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162.
* Outline the central debate: while the issue of 'criminous clerks' (clergy accused of secular crimes) was the immediate trigger for open hostility in 1163, other factors, such as Becket's altered allegiance, Henry's insistence on 'ancestral customs' (Constitutions of Clarendon), and a personal struggle for supremacy, were critical.

**Paragraph 1: The Dispute Over Criminous Clerks**
* Focus on the core of the prompt: Henry II wanted criminous clerks to be tried in royal courts after being degraded in ecclesiastical courts, arguing that church punishments (like defrocking) were too lenient for crimes like murder and theft.
* Becket opposed this at the Council of Westminster (October 1163), arguing it violated canon law and constituted 'double jeopardy' (punishing a man twice for the same offense).
* This was highly significant because it challenged Henry's efforts to establish a uniform system of royal justice and law enforcement across the kingdom.

**Paragraph 2: Becket's Personal and Professional Transformation**
* Contrast Becket's cooperative behavior as Chancellor (e.g., raising taxes on the church for the Toulouse campaign) with his actions upon becoming Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162.
* Becket resigned the Chancellorship immediately, frustrating Henry's plan to unite secular and ecclesiastical administrations under a trusted ally.
* Becket adopted an ascetic lifestyle and vigorously reasserted Canterbury's rights, such as reclaiming lands alienated during the Anarchy, which alienated royal barons and directly challenged Henry's patronage networks.

**Paragraph 3: The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164)**
* Explain that the conflict quickly widened beyond criminous clerks to a broader constitutional battle.
* Henry codified his demands in the Constitutions of Clarendon (January 1164) to establish 'ancestral customs' of Henry I.
* This went far beyond clerks, restricting appeals to Rome, forbidding bishops from leaving England without royal permission, and giving the crown control over vacant bishoprics.
* Becket's vacillation—initially agreeing under pressure, then publicly retracting his assent and seeking papal absolution—infuriated Henry and made compromise impossible.

**Paragraph 4: Personal Conflict and the Council of Northampton (October 1164)**
* Analyze the personal animosity and power struggle between the former friends.
* Henry's actions at the Council of Northampton (October 1164) were not about canon law but about destroying Becket personally. Henry accused Becket of embezzlement during his time as Chancellor.
* This forced Becket into exile, showing that the conflict had evolved into a raw test of obedience, sovereignty, and political survival.

**Conclusion**
* Summarize the argument: the criminous clerks controversy was the catalyst that exposed the incompatible visions of Church and State held by Becket and Henry.
* However, the conflict escalated to an intractable crisis because of Becket's swift transformation from royal servant to papal champion, Henry's determination to codify royal rights over the Church, and the subsequent breakdown of their personal relationship.

### AQA AS Level History Marking Scheme (25 Marks)

* **Level 5 (21–25 marks):** Answers show a very good understanding of the question, are well-focused, highly analytical, and supported by precise, relevant historical evidence. The evaluation of the 'criminous clerks' dispute in relation to other factors (Constitutions of Clarendon, Becket's character, royal authority) is sophisticated, balanced, and leads to a clear, well-supported conclusion.
* **Level 4 (16–20 marks):** Answers show a good understanding of the question and are mostly analytical. The essay is structured logically, offering detailed evidence regarding the legal disputes and the clash of personalities. The conclusion is clear and relates back to the prompt, though some aspects of the argument may be more developed than others.
* **Level 3 (11–15 marks):** Answers show some understanding of the question but may rely on a more descriptive narrative of the Becket controversy rather than a structured analysis. There is a basic awareness of both criminous clerks and other factors, but the links between them may be weak.
* **Level 2 (6–10 marks):** Answers are limited, heavily descriptive, or highly unbalanced. They may focus almost entirely on general details of Becket's life or the murder in the cathedral (which is out of the chronological scope of 1162–1164) with little engagement with the legal and political causes of the early conflict.
* **Level 1 (1–5 marks):** Answers demonstrate extremely limited historical knowledge, containing significant inaccuracies or superficial assertions with no real structure or analytical depth.