2023 Edexcel AS Level History (8HI0) Practice Paper with Answers

### Indicative Content

To address the question, students should analyze the role of leadership across the First, Second, and Third Crusades, comparing it to other decisive factors that influenced success or failure.

#### Arguments supporting the significance of leadership:
* **First Crusade (1095–99):** Effective collective leadership developed after early setbacks. Leaders like Bohemond of Taranto demonstrated exceptional military strategy at the Siege of Antioch (1097–98), and Godfrey of Bouillon provided unifying leadership during the final assault on Jerusalem.
* **Second Crusade (1147–49):** Poor leadership and strategic blunders were central to its failure. Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany failed to coordinate their forces, chose a disastrous overland route through Anatolia, and made the highly flawed decision to abandon the siege of Damascus.
* **Third Crusade (1189–92):** The military competence of Richard I (the Lionheart) was vital in securing key victories at Acre and Arsuf, and in restoring Christian control of the coast, even if he failed to recapture Jerusalem.

#### Arguments challenging the view / suggesting other factors were more significant:
* **Muslim Unity vs. Disunity:** The success of the First Crusade was heavily dependent on the deep political and sectarian divisions between the Sunni Seljuk Turks and Shia Fatimids of Egypt. Conversely, the failures of the Second and Third Crusades coincided with the rise of unified Muslim leaders (Zengi, Nur ad-Din, and Saladin) who could mobilize vast resources against the Crusaders.
* **Byzantine Support:** The cooperation of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos was crucial for the logistical survival of the First Crusade. The lack of trust and effective cooperation between Byzantium and the Western leaders during the Second and Third Crusades severely hampered the campaigns.
* **Religious Zeal and Morale:** The intense religious devotion of the ordinary crusaders (the *pauperes*) drove the First Crusade forward against immense odds, whereas declining morale and competing territorial ambitions undermined later crusading efforts.

### Conclusion
Students should conclude with a reasoned judgment on the relative importance of leadership. A strong response might argue that while exceptional military leadership (such as Richard I's) could salvage tactical victories, the overarching geopolitical context—most notably the degree of unity or division among their Muslim opponents—remained the primary determinant of long-term success or failure.

### Marking Grid (20 Marks total)

* **Level 5 (17–20 marks):**
* Demonstrates outstanding depth and accuracy of historical knowledge.
* Analysis is highly focused, analytical, and well-structured.
* Explores a wide range of factors (leadership, Muslim unity, Byzantine relations) across multiple crusades.
* Reaches a sustained, logical, and convincing conclusion.

* **Level 4 (13–16 marks):**
* Good, accurate historical knowledge of the First, Second, and Third Crusades.
* Clear analysis of the role of leadership versus other factors.
* Well-organized argument, though some parts may be stronger than others.
* Offers a balanced conclusion based on the evidence presented.

* **Level 3 (9–12 marks):**
* Displays general knowledge of the crusades, but may focus heavily on one crusade (e.g., the First) at the expense of others.
* The argument is mostly descriptive rather than analytical, or the comparative element is weak.
* Structure is clear but may lack depth in evaluation.

* **Level 2 (5–8 marks):**
* Limited or generalized historical knowledge; contains some inaccuracies.
* The response is largely narrative or struggles to address the analytical focus of the question.
* Limited attempt to formulate a balanced conclusion.

* **Level 1 (1–4 marks):**
* Extremely brief or highly inaccurate narrative with little relevance to the question.
* No coherent argument or structure.

The question requires an analysis of the extent to which poor leadership caused the failures of the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade's failure to recapture Jerusalem. Candidates should weigh the impact of leadership against other contributing factors. In support of the claim, for the Second Crusade, the critical divisions between Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany led to poor coordination. Their strategic decision to abandon the siege of Edessa and instead attack Damascus in 1148 was a disastrous failure of leadership, compounded by a lack of trust with the native rulers of Outremer, such as Raymond of Antioch. For the Third Crusade, although Richard I and Philip II achieved military successes like the capture of Acre, their bitter rivalry severely undermined the effort, leading to Philip's premature departure. Furthermore, the sudden death of Frederick Barbarossa in 1190 shattered the German contingent. Richard's ultimate decision not to attack Jerusalem, while logistically sound, meant the crusade failed its primary objective. On the other hand, candidates should discuss other critical factors. The strength and unity of the Muslim opposition played a massive role: the rise of Nur ad-Din during the Second Crusade and the unified, formidable empire of Saladin during the Third Crusade presented a much tougher obstacle than the fragmented Muslim states of the First Crusade. Additionally, logistical difficulties, long supply lines, and the lack of crusader manpower to hold territory were major structural issues. Relations with the Byzantine Empire were also problematic, with Manuel I Comnenus offering minimal support in the Second Crusade and Isaac II Angelos actively conspiring with Saladin in the Third. In conclusion, while leadership errors and personal rivalries significantly compromised both crusades, the formidable nature of Muslim unity and insurmountable logistical challenges were equally, if not more, decisive in preventing complete crusader success.

Target: AO1 (Demonstrate, organise and communicate knowledge and understanding to analyse and evaluate key features). Level 1 (1-5 marks): Simple, generalized statements, lacking depth and historical detail. Level 2 (6-10 marks): Some understanding of the events of both crusades, but with limited focus on the analytical question of leadership vs other factors. Level 3 (11-15 marks): Clear, analytical focus showing good understanding of both crusades. Addresses both leadership errors (e.g., Damascus decision, Richard-Philip rivalry) and alternative factors (Saladin, logistics). Level 4 (16-20 marks): Balanced, highly analytical, and well-sustained argument comparing leadership with other factors in detail. Reaches a clear and logical judgment based on historical evidence.

In evaluating Extract 1, students can deploy historical knowledge to support the claim that religious devotion was paramount. Key supporting points include: the enormous financial and personal sacrifice made by knights to join the crusade, which challenges pure material self-interest; the critical role of spiritual events during crises, such as the discovery of the Holy Lance during the desperate Siege of Antioch (1098) which restored morale; and the barefoot penitential procession around the walls of Jerusalem in July 1099. Conversely, candidates can criticize Extract 1 by pointing to the clear territorial ambitions of leaders like Bohemond of Taranto (who kept Antioch) and Baldwin of Boulogne (who established the County of Edessa), which suggests political ambition was highly active alongside religious zeal. In evaluating Extract 2, students can support the argument of Muslim disunity with precise knowledge: the death of the Seljuk Sultan Malik-Shah in 1092 led to a civil war that fractured Syria and Anatolia into rival principalities (such as Aleppo and Damascus); the bitter rivalry between the rulers of Aleppo (Ridwan) and Damascus (Duqaq) prevented them from forming a cohesive relief force to lift the Siege of Antioch; and the deep Sunni-Shi'a divide between the Seljuks and the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt meant they often viewed each other as greater threats than the crusaders (the Fatimids even captured Jerusalem from the Seljuks in 1098, miscalculating the crusaders' intentions). Conversely, candidates can criticize Extract 2 by noting that despite these divisions, the crusaders still had to win highly challenging military engagements (such as the Battle of Dorylaeum) and survive logistical nightmares, which required internal cohesion and effective leadership, not just external luck. Ultimately, a strong conclusion will weigh both extracts, perhaps arguing that while Muslim disunity created the vital geopolitical window of opportunity for the crusaders to advance, it was their intense religious conviction and military determination that allowed them to survive key crises and exploit that opportunity to its fullest.

This question assesses AO3 (Analyze and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, different ways in which aspects of the past have been interpreted). Level 5 (17–20 marks): Demonstrates a complete and balanced evaluation of both extracts. Directly addresses the strengths and limitations of both interpretations using highly precise and accurate historical knowledge. Reaches a clear, well-supported, and sustained comparative judgment on which interpretation is more convincing. Level 4 (13–16 marks): Explores both extracts in some depth, using relevant historical knowledge to analyze and evaluate the arguments. Provides a reasoned judgment on which is more convincing, though one interpretation may be treated with more depth than the other. Level 3 (9–12 marks): Shows understanding of both interpretations and attempts to evaluate them using some contextual knowledge. The response may tend to describe the historical context rather than directly evaluating the extracts' arguments, and the final judgment may be superficial. Level 2 (5–8 marks): Shows limited understanding of the extracts and offers basic, generalized comments. Contextual knowledge is limited or contains inaccuracies. Little to no attempt to compare the convincingness of the interpretations. Level 1 (1–4 marks): Extremely limited or irrelevant response with little reference to the extracts or the historical context.

The source is valuable because: 1. It details the deliberate destruction of resources ('consume with fire all crops, livestock... Nothing that could sustain human life was to be spared'), which aligns with historical knowledge of William's strategic aim to permanently pacify the North and deny any resources to Scandinavian invaders or Anglo-Saxon rebels. 2. It demonstrates the massive humanitarian cost, describing widespread starvation. 3. The provenance is particularly strong: Orderic Vitalis was a Norman monk of Anglo-Norman descent writing in the early 12th century. His critique of a Norman king ('I cannot praise a ruler who permitted such cruelty') is highly significant because Norman chroniclers usually defended the Conquest; his willingness to condemn William's actions adds weight to the scale of the atrocity. Limitations: 1. Written several decades after the events, relying on second-hand testimonies or lost written sources. 2. The figure of 100,000 deaths is likely a rhetorical exaggeration typical of medieval chronicles to denote a vast catastrophe, rather than a reliable statistic. However, Domesday Book evidence (1086) confirming that large parts of Yorkshire remained 'waste' corroborates the source's general depiction of severe, long-lasting devastation.

Level 3 (6–8 marks): Analysis of the source is direct and focused on the utility for the specific enquiry. Explicitly evaluates the provenance (author, date, purpose) and uses relevant historical context (the Domesday Book, Anglo-Scandinavian rebellions, chronicler bias) to judge the reliability and limitations of the source. Reaches a balanced judgment. Level 2 (3–5 marks): Some useful analysis of the source content, but with less integration of contextual knowledge or provenance. May accept the source at face value or offer generic comments on reliability. Level 1 (1–2 marks): Limited or generalized comments. Mostly paraphrases the source text without meaningful historical context or critical evaluation of utility.

In evaluating the utility of Source 1, candidates should address both its content and its provenance, using historical context to assess its reliability and limitations. Content Analysis: The source is highly useful for showing the deliberate, systematic nature of the 'Harrying of the North'. It details how William did not just target rebel leaders but aimed to make the region uninhabitable by burning crops, livestock, and agricultural tools. This indicates a method of suppression aimed at long-term pacification through starvation and economic destruction. Provenance and Tone: Orderic Vitalis's background increases the source's utility. As a monk writing in Normandy who generally admired William the Conqueror, his highly critical stance and emotional language ('I weep for the suffering') suggest that the scale of the atrocity was too great to ignore, making this a highly credible, self-critical Norman-era perspective. However, a limitation of the source is its numerical accuracy; the figure of 100,000 deaths is a standard medieval rhetorical device to denote a massive tragedy rather than an exact statistical record. Contextual Knowledge: Candidates can use their own knowledge to corroborate the source. The rebellions of 1069 in York, involving Edgar the Atheling and Danish support, posed a major threat to William's rule. The success of William's scorched-earth policy is verified by the Domesday Book (1086), which shows that 16 years later, much of Yorkshire remained recorded as 'waste' (vastata), with a severe decline in population and land value. Thus, despite some exaggeration in numbers, the source remains exceptionally useful for understanding the ruthless methods of Norman pacification.

Level 1 (1–3 marks): Simple, generalized comments about the usefulness of the source. Offers basic comprehension of the text without analytical depth or specific historical context. Level 2 (4–6 marks): Some analysis of the source's usefulness is present, focused primarily on its content. Limited attempts to address provenance or to deploy contextual knowledge. Level 3 (7–9 marks): Good analysis of utility, evaluating both content and provenance. Demonstrates secure contextual knowledge of the Harrying of the North and the Norman consolidation of power to explain the source's value and limitations. Level 4 (10–12 marks): Sophisticated and balanced evaluation of utility. Combines deep analysis of the source's content and its unique provenance (an Anglo-Norman chronicler criticizing a Norman king) with detailed contextual knowledge (e.g., Domesday Book 'waste' records, 1069 rebellions) to reach a fully developed judgment.

### Introduction
- Set the context of the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and William I’s reign up to his death in 1087.
- Define the scope of 'military force' (such as the suppression of rebellions, the Harrying of the North, and castle-building) and contrast it with other methods of consolidation (political patronage, institutional continuity, legal administrative measures like the Domesday Book, and ecclesiastical reform).
- State the main thesis: while military force was crucial for immediate survival and crushing active resistance, permanent consolidation required a sophisticated combination of administrative control, religious legitimization, and structural social changes.

### Arguments for the primary role of military force
- **Crushing Rebellions:** Direct military intervention was necessary to defeat early Anglo-Saxon resistance, such as the rebellions of Earls Edwin and Morcar (1068), the rebellion in the West, and Hereward the Wake at Ely (1070–71).
- **The Harrying of the North (1069–70):** A brutal, scorched-earth military campaign designed to eliminate the threat of further Danish-supported northern rebellions. It resulted in widespread famine, depopulation, and the systematic destruction of resources, successfully neutralizing northern resistance for a generation.
- **Castle-Building:** The rapid construction of motte-and-bailey (and later stone) castles across strategic locations served as fortified military bases, allowing small Norman garrisons to dominate large local populations, secure lines of communication, and project raw power.

### Arguments for other factors (Alternative/Complementary methods)
- **Feudal Land Redistribution and Patronage:** The systematic dispossession of the Anglo-Saxon thegnly class and the redistribution of land to a loyal Norman elite (tenants-in-chief). This bound the new aristocracy directly to the King through feudal obligations and knight service.
- **Ecclesiastical Reforms:** The appointment of Lanfranc as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070 led to the Normanization of the Church. English bishops and abbots were replaced with Normans, transforming the Church into an instrument of royal administration, control, and ideological legitimization.
- **Administrative Continuity and Innovations:** William maintained useful Anglo-Saxon governance structures (shires, hundreds, sheriffs, and the writ system) but modified them to suit Norman interests. The commissioning of the Domesday Survey (1086) was a supreme act of administrative consolidation, recording landholders, wealth, and royal dues to secure financial and legal authority.

### Conclusion
- Conclude by weighing the relative importance of these factors.
- Military force was the essential foundation that prevented the immediate overthrow of the regime and pacified hostile regions. However, military force alone could not have sustained Norman rule indefinitely without the institutional and structural changes (land tenure, Church reform, and administrative consolidation) which integrated the English kingdom under a permanent Norman administrative framework.

### Mark Scheme (20 Marks)

**Level 4 (16–20 marks):**
- Explores a wide range of analytical points, maintaining a sharp focus on the question throughout.
- Demonstrates excellent depth and accuracy of historical knowledge regarding the Norman consolidation of power (1066–1087).
- Offers a balanced argument that evaluates the role of military force alongside other factors (e.g., land ownership, administrative continuity, the Church).
- Reaches a highly analytical, well-supported conclusion.

**Level 3 (11–15 marks):**
- Develops a clear argument with analytical structure, though some sections may be more descriptive than analytical.
- Demonstrates good historical knowledge of the period, mentioning specific events (such as the Harrying of the North, Lanfranc's reforms, or the Domesday Book).
- Attempts a balanced evaluation of military versus non-military methods of control.
- Provides a relevant conclusion, though it may lack the depth of Level 4.

**Level 2 (6–10 marks):**
- Descriptive rather than analytical, tending to narrative accounts of William's reign and military actions.
- Knowledge of the period is present but may contain generalizations or gaps.
- Limited attempt to balance the arguments; may focus heavily on military aspects with minimal mention of administrative or ecclesiastical elements.

**Level 1 (1–5 marks):**
- Lacks focus on the analytical demands of the question, providing a highly generalized or brief response.
- Demonstrates limited or inaccurate historical knowledge.
- No clear line of argument or structured conclusion.