Various IBDP History Internal Assessments



History Higher Level
Internal Assessment
February 01, 2008



Using an historical approach, what were the faulty tactics of presentation used by Colin Powell in his UN address on February 5th, 2003?

A) Plan of Investigation………………………………………………..3
B) Summary of Evidence……………………………………………..4-5
C) Evaluation of Sources……………………………………………..6-7
D) Analysis……………………………………………….....................8-9
E) Conclusion…………………………………………………………..10
F) Bibliography…………………………………………………….11-12


A) Plan of Investigation
Using a historical approach, this investigation seeks to identify the faulty tactics of persuasion employed by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State on February 5th 2003 in his speech to the UN. In order to recognize the flawed approaches of persuasion used by Powell, claims in his speech should be compared with the now-accepted counters to US allegations and each point should be analysed in a historical context to determine how Powell’s presentation methodology was mistaken. Speeches, newspaper accounts, expert testimony in interview and documentary form and government reports are mostly used to evaluate the authenticity of claims of Iraq’s possession of WMD and of the opposition. The two main sources to be evaluated are Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003 address to the UN, and War on Iraq:What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know, an interview-cum-analysis by Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt.


B) Summary of Evidence
George Bush’s State of the Union speech, delivered on January 28th, 2003, introduced the claims made by Powell the following week, and in fact informed Congress that “United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th” where “Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about…Iraq's illegal weapons programs”[1]. He conveyed his intent to go to war by ending with “If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just … And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States …”[2]
On February 5th, 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the UN Security Council the US’ case against Iraq, reminiscent of Adlai Stevenson’s UN presentation in 1958. Powell referred to promises made by Iraq to disarm and UN Resolution 1441 where it was ruled that Iraq had to comply with disarmament obligations[3].
He claimed that “the facts and Iraq's behaviour show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction”[4]. A tape recording of a conversation between an Iraqi general and colonel, dated November 22, 2002, where IAEA inspector Mohammed El-Baradei’s visit[5] was discussed and orders for a “modified vehicle” to be evacuated were introduced as evidence. He also displayed photo-enhanced images and explained them as weapons munitions facilities, active munitions bunkers, and a nearby decontamination vehicle. To contrast with that photo, he showed a photo taken of the same area on the 22nd of December, which showed that “the tents are gone, the signature vehicles are gone”; Powell stated this evacuation was for the benefit of the UN inspection teams arriving that day. He also declared that the US had photos of Iraqi cargo trucks and missile-moving cranes engaging in unorthodox activities, presumably to move weapons before UN inspections two days later[6].
Powell also asserted that Iraq was continuing to possess and produce biological weapons such as deadly anthrax, and that an Iraqi civil engineer had witnessed production as recently as 1998. He also spoke of eyewitnesses describing mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails[7].
Chemical weapons were also another facet of Powell’s claims on Iraq possession of WMD; more photos of before/after timings after weapons inspections of a “chemical complex” and “unusual activity” were shown, and claims of Iraq’s possession of fatal VX agents were put forth. Powell also states that “We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry”[8].
Powell also repeatedly mentioned Iraq’s possession of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and the fact that they had not been able to account for their supposed destroying of these weapons. He claimed that “Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent” as well as an array of artillery shells, and bombs that were unaccounted for by the Iraqis.
According to Colin Powell, all information provided by him came from appropriate channels of information, claiming that “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”[9].
The culmination of this diplomatic tour de force conducted by the American commander-in-chief and his Secretary of State Colin Powell was the invasion of Iraq on March 20th, 2003, which was, according to President Bush, in order “to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger”[10].


C) Evaluation of Sources
Colin Powell’s speech, presented February 5th, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, mainly regarded the possession of WMDs by Iraq, and the US’ views on this apparent transgression of UN Resolutions. According to Powell, the information originated from “a variety of sources…U.S. sources…other countries… such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites.”[11][12] He explained the purpose of the speech to have two reasons: firstly to “First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei” and secondly to “provide…additional information…about Iraq's WMD”. The underlying purpose of this speech, implied by Powell, was to present to the world the US’ case for war against Iraq, demonstrated by the timing of this speech with the State of the Union Speech and the actual invasion a month later[13]. This speech is extremely valuable in the sense that it is delivered by a key representative of the United States government, accurately representing the US governments’ beliefs and views on the situation[14]. However, limitations of this speech include the fact that specific sources are never named. Furthermore, Powell has a very specific purpose in his speech and selected facts and information especially to support these claims[15].
Scott Ritter’s and William River’s Pitt’s novel War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know is a direct contrast to the claims presented in Powell’s speech, arguing facts against Iraq’s possession of WMDs. The book is co-written in 2002 by Ritter[16], a UNSCOM weapons inspector, and Pitt, the editor at “Progressive Democrats of America”. Much of the book is written in interview form between Pitt and Ritter about Ritter’s findings in Iraq, or more specifically his lack of findings. The purpose of this book was to counter the US’ government claims about Iraqi possession of WMDs; interestingly written even before Powell’s speech was made yet rebutting all claims made in the UN presentation. The value of this source lies in the fact that the information given is first-hand knowledge of the topic, as Ritter was actually conducting investigations in Iraq himself, and also that the book was written before the speech, thus eliminating accusations of it being a rebuttal specifically designed against Powell.[17] However, limitations of this source would be that Ritter would have a direct bias against the claims of the US government and perhaps select facts to support his bias or views; and the material contained is designed to be provocative and presented accordingly[18].


D) Analysis
Powell’s claims that Iraq did not fully comply with weapons inspections are supported by other sources[19] who have all agreed that Iraq did not fulfil inspection requirements and refused inspectors access to certain presidential palaces and other Iraqi sites[20]. Powell says this was to prevent inspectors from location hidden weapons caches or to ensure time to conceal weapons at these sites. However, Ritter explains it as the reluctance of Iraqi officials to expose inner areas in fear revealed layout knowledge would be used to plan future attacks[21]. However Powell did not acknowledge this different interpretation of Iraqi actions, leading to his first historical fallacy in persuasion, which was to pretend certainty in a case with ambiguities[22].
The decontamination vehicles shown by Powell were known by UN weapons inspectors to be fire-trucks[23]. Additionally, the intercepted communications between Iraqi generals discussing possession of munitions vehicles are doubtful due to the clandestine nature of Iraqi army communications and the improbability of classified discussions held over radio where high risk of interception is known. Additionally, the disappearance of vehicles and other operational equipment from sites, according to both Hans Blix and Ray McGovern, 27 year image analyst, can be attributed to “routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection”[24][25]. David Albright, nuclear weapons assessor of 20 years, also argues that there was no way to confirm the actual function of the “weapons munitions facilities” described by Powell through aerial photographs without actually entering the premises[26]. These claims by Powell are instances of him substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented interpretation of events, as well as using illogical, unsupported reasoning, which are further historical fallacies[27].
Powell’s claims of biological weapons possession by Iraq were also countered by Ritter in his argument that anthrax held by the Iraqis would be “brown, sludge liquid,” that would be “useless today” as the shelf life of anthrax is three years and the last known production batch was in 1991[28]. Additionally, the “biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails” described by Powell are proved by UN weapons inspectors to be hydrogen generation facilities[29]. This is presentation of entirely false evidence, and the selection and omission of certain facts designed to serve a certain purpose or to support a social/political cause. This is a flawed approach to persuasion as facts are intended to be given in context with the situation’s entirety, while ensuring the veracity of the facts presented, another way in which Powell’s approach to convince the world was flawed[30].
Sarin and tabun nerve agents purportedly in possession by the Iraqis also had a shelf-life of about 5 years, rendering them useless today. VX nerve agents, the Iraqis denied having the capabilities, however production equipment was located and hence destroyed in 1996, destroying all possibility of further production of VX agents[31]. Additionally, there was no solid proof of dual-capability factories according to weapons inspectors having perused the area[32], yet the language used by Powell—“we know that…” indicates surety, which was not the case as proven by the dispute of the apparent facts. Selecting appropriate language indicates the level to which a persuasive speaker should be believed, and Powell made the mistake of demonstrating a false level of confidence.
Powell’s claims of Iraqi possession of “100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent” and the 16 122mm shells found and other artillery, were also rebutted by inspectors and organization directors. Their counterargument was that if Iraq in fact possessed these weapons, why were they not found by June 10th, 2003, at which point over 230 sites had been inspected?[33] Furthermore, Powell’s claims that Iraq possessed WMD merely because they had not provided proof of their destruction are not grounds to declare that because they did not prove the weapons’ absence, that meant that Iraq still possessed them. According to Ritter, Iraq may have wished to retain autonomy, hence the absence of proof of destruction. However, Powell simply presented the simpler situation, exhibiting the unsound tactic of oversimplification of complex events to suit his purposes and intents.


E) Conclusion
While Powell’s presentation to the UN may have been a “masterful performance” in terms of delivery, the techniques used to present the content to convince the world of Iraqi possession of WMD were severely flawed in that they did not follow a relation of facts that was historically appropriate, meaning his delivery was more of a show than a factual representation of events that transpired. Powell’s main mistakes were pretending certainty in a case with ambiguities, substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented interpretation of events, using illogical, unsupported reasoning, selection and omission of certain facts designed to serve a certain purpose, demonstrating a false level of confidence, and oversimplification of complex events. By pinpointing the variations in data presented by Powell and data presented by other sources, the faulty tactics of persuasion were thereby identified. In a historical context, this question shows how the simple choice of presentation of certain information can change national policies, and alter the course of history.
Word Count: 1998


Bibliography
Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003. Na .
Carr, Edward H. What is History? New York: Vintage Books, 1961.
Chanteloupe, M. M. Iraq: the War That Shouldn't Be - You Decide. Infinity, 2006.
Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Greenwood Group, 2003.
Corn, David. "Bush At the UN." The Nation. 22 Sept. 2003. .
Dodd, Chris. Address. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Na .
El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na .
Fischer, David H. Historical Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. Harper Perennial, 1970.
Goodman, Mel. Interview. Washingtonpost.Com: Live Online. 11 Feb. 2003. .
Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004. .
Kyl, Jon. United States. Chairman. United States Senate. Backgrounder: Shining a Light on the Debate. 17 June 2003. .
Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003. .
Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007 .
Prados, Alfred B. United States. Cong. CRS Report for Congress: Iraq, Divergent Views on Military Action. 31 Mar. 2003. .
Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
The Situation with Iraq and Kuwait. UN Security Council, 8 Nov. 2002, United Nations. .
Warrick, Joby. "Evidence on Iraq Challenged." Washington Post 19 Sept. 2002. .



[1] Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[2] Bush’s justification for war was his claims of Hussein’s possession of “materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent” as well as 38,000 unaccounted for liters of botulinum toxin”. Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[3] Interestingly, Powell failed to mention that the title of the resolution was “The situation between Iraq and Kuwait”, meaning the resolution dealt directly with these two countries and arms limitations in this specific context. The Situation with Iraq and Kuwait. UN Security Council, 8 Nov. 2002, United Nations.
[4] Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[5] El Baradei’s description of his visit, on March 7, 2003, a month after Powell’s speech,clearly states there is little proof of Iraqi possession of WMD. El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na
[6] Interestingly, Dr. Hans Blix, who Powell quoted in his own speech, directly rebutted this exact statement in his own speech on February 14th, 2003, stating that “two satellite images Mr Powell showed to the council on February 5 did not prove that Iraq was clearing the site of forbidden munitions” Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[7] Such claims were supported by other US Government Documents: Prados, Alfred B. United States. Cong. CRS Report for Congress: Iraq, Divergent Views on Military Action. 31 Mar. 2003.
[8] Stewart Stogel, “Iran Agrees Iraq Hid Arms,” Washington Times, June 10, 2003. A quote from an unidentified “Iranian official” with “ties to Supreme Leader Khamenei” that states that Iran had knowledge of illicit weapons being integrated into the civilian black market
[9]Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Greenwood Group, 2003. On page 464, it is claimed that Powell’s speech was primarily based on “information from a source who was a chemical engineer that managed one of the mobile plants”
[10] Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[11] His description of other sources was “people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to” Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[12] Discussions on discovering biological warfare systems in Iraq are described to be primarily discoveries by “the US military”, “US forces” and Kurdish forces” who “subsequently turned it over to US military control”. This brings to question whether any of Powell’s sources were from agencies outside the US. , Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[13] Senator Chris Dodds’ speech on February 5, 2003, as a direct response to Powell’s speech, links Powell’s speech to the decision to invade Iraq, when he stated “ Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council shed additional public light on Iraq's WMD programs”, and the only way to address that “threat” “is to invade Iraq” Dodd, Chris. Address. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Na
[14] Washington Times Letter to the Editor, “For the Record,” June 6, 2003. Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor echoes Powell’s beliefs about Iraq’s possession of WMD.
[15][15] Ray McGovern, 27 year analyst of US government affairs, speaks about Powell’s use of placement of supporters during his speech; the placement of George Tenet, head of the CIA, right behind him as if to “that the Central Intelligence Agency stands behind…everything Colin Powell says”
[16] Ritter served in Iraq in his capacity from 1991-1998. Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
[17] This is an advantage due to the precedent of Joe Wilson, US diplomat. He was asked to verify uranium yellowcake papers and deemed them false, upon which the White House published that Wilson was a “Democrat”, and then leaked his wife’s CIA operative identity, thus ending her career. Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[18] This is shown by the title itself, with the description of the US administration as “Team Bush”, likening it to an illegal gang or suchlike. Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
[19] Such as Scott Ritter, UNSCOM director Richard Butler, and UNMOVIC Executive Director. Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[20] Nevertheless, Blix himself stated in his March 7, 2003 address that “Iraq should be given some credit” for their cooperation with inspectors. However, this cooperation was referring to recent inspection activity, and not the activity Ritter, El-Baradei, and Butler were referring to, which occurred primarily in the ‘90s. Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[21] This was echoed by David Albright, who likens placing weapons in presidential palaces as placing “crown jewels’ in the one building inspectors would request to inspect. “Evidence on Iraq challenged” Washington Post. September 19, 2002
[22] Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer (pg 13)
[23] Ray McGovern again refutes the claims of the images as decontamination vehicles by criticizing Powell’s expertise as an image analyst. “CBC News In-depth: Iraq”, Ritter does the same in his book
[24] Dr. El-Baradei also echoed this sentiment. El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na
[25] Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[26] This is supported by Mel Goodman in his interview “Did Powell Make the Case?” Goodman, Mel. Interview. Washingtonpost.com: Live Online. 11 Feb. 2003.
[27] History as representation of hazy facts can be considered as history, but with the addition of logic to piece together those facts, which was not apparently Powell’s doing. “What is History” Edward Hallet Carr
[28] Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002. , also echoed in “Úncovered: The War on Iraq” documentary
[29] David Corn, Washington Editor of “The Nation” also supports this in his article Bush At the UN." The Nation. 22 Sept. 2003.
[30] Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer (pg 18)
[31] Hans Blix, also states that the inspections that occurred in 1998 would mean that substances found today manufactured then would have expired. Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[32] Upon hearing Powell’s speech, a “BBC reporter” went to the exact sites exhibited in images shown by Powell, and found nothing there, according to Chanteloupe, M. M. Iraq: the War That Shouldn't Be - You Decide. Infinity, 2006. (pg 109)
[33] The US Government’s primary rebuttal to this claim (supporting Powell), as shown in the Senate’s document, was that if Iraq truly had gotten rid of all its WMD, why was there no documentation of such removal of their WMD? Kyl, Jon. United States. Chairman. United States Senate. Backgrounder: Shining a Light on the Debate. 17 June 2003.


Did Mary, Queen of Scots, write the Glasgow Letter?


A: Plan of the Investigation

The Glasgow Letter, the alleged reason for the Scottish Lords’ rebellion against her, proves Mary Stuart’s guilt in murdering Henry, Lord Darnley if she truly wrote the Letter. ‘Did Mary, Queen of Scots, write the Glasgow Letter?’ is the question this investigation answers. To do so, the copies and translations of the Letter made in 1568 will be used to compare its style with that of known works of Mary’s. Additionally, the manner of the Letter’s discovery and presentation to Queen Elizabeth I will be assessed and the motives of other suspected authors of the Letter evaluated, using 17th century accounts –the earliest analyses available– in conjunction with interpretations of more contemporary historians. The 1568 copy and translation of the Glasgow Letter and Mary, Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters by A.E. MacRobert will be evaluated because the 1568 copy is the only current record of the Letter, and MacRobert’s book offers the most specific analysis of the question of the contemporary works.

B: Summary of Evidence

In November 1566, leading Scottish nobles and Mary probably swore to get rid of Darnley, Mary’s second husband. In 1567, he recuperated from an illness in Kirk O’ Field, where, on 9 February, Mary visited him. Mary was “suddenly reminded” to attend wedding celebrations in Edinburgh. That night, an explosion killed Darnley, to which Mary’s first reactions were “horror and shock”. She then married the chief suspect, Lord Bothwell, was forced to abdicate, and fled to England, where her cousin Queen Elizabeth I ordered an inquiry into whether or not Mary was guilty of murdering Darnley.
This inquiry took the form of two conferences in York and Westminster from October 1568 to January 1569, at which Mary’s half-brother, the Earl of Moray, presented the Casket Letters –eight unsigned letters allegedly from Mary to Bothwell– to the English commissioners. Mary denied writing them, arguing they were forgeries, and that her handwriting could easily have been duplicated.

According to Moray’s diary, the letters were acquired on 20 June 1567. The Earl of Morton, the most prominent Scottish noble against Mary, declared at Westminster that he received a tip-off from Sir James Balfour regarding a casket of letters that Bothwell, who was planning his escape from Scotland, was anxious to retrieve. He sent his servant, George Dalgleish, to do so, but Dalgleish was intercepted by a servant of Morton’s, and produced the silver casket after being subjected to interrogation. Morton kept the Casket overnight and opened it the following morning. According to A.E. MacRobert, “there is no certainty that the contents were not… manipulated… between 15 June and 20 June”. It was “distinctly affirmed” by those who took up arms and captured Mary on 15 June that it was from the Letters they derived knowledge of her responsibility for Darnley’s death.  On 26 June, however, Morton issued a proclamation blaming Bothwell for Darnley’s death, and that he had forced Mary into marriage.

Contrastingly, the Glasgow Letter’s contents, if accurate, reveal Mary’s love for its recipient, including the phrase “Being gon, from the place where I had left my harte” (see Appendix A) when referring to Edinburgh where Bothwell lived. It also contains something resembling a table of contents. Like the other Casket Letters, there is no existing copy of the original letter, and the contents must be analysed using the English and Scottish translations, first supplied by Moray to Queen Elizabeth in 1567. Noteworthy are the differences between the English and Scottish versions: the last six lines of the Scottish version do not appear in the English version. These lines instruct the reader, allegedly Bothwell, to “Remember you…Of the Erle of Bothwell” (See Appendix A). John Guy points out that the contents and fluidity of the Letter is highly disjointed and that the French grammar used in the Letter is rather too poor for a woman of Mary’s education, especially given her having lived in France for thirteen years.

Queen Elizabeth wrote to Moray in May 1568 after Mary had fled to England, enquiring into his reasons for his conduct towards his Queen. Moray replied in June by sending Scottish translations of the Letters, although Elizabeth had assured him she spoke better French than Scottish. During the conferences, furthermore, the original Letters in French were not produced. The enquiry was ended with the majority of the commissioners accepting the Letters as genuine after comparing them with examples of Mary’s handwriting, but Queen Elizabeth concluded that nothing was proven.

C: Evaluation of Sources

Mary, Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters by A.E. MacRobert offers a contemporary analysis of who wrote the Casket Letters, published in 2002. Its purpose is to identify what truly occurred between 1567 and 1568 and offer a re-examination and interpretation of existing evidence. Being a secondary source, and having been published well after the Letter’s publication, it is of value as its author has access to most documents relating to the case (the official state papers regarding Mary having been published in 1900). The author is therefore able to collate and build upon other historians’ views, with the benefit of hindsight. However, his argument can only be classified as an interpretation of documents relating to the case – the state papers which included the minutes from the York and Westminster conferences; Moray’s diary – but cannot draw an absolute conclusion since the original Letter has been lost and his interpretation comes long after the event. MacRobert is a Cambridge graduate also the author of “The 1745 Rebellion and the Southern Scottish Lowlands” - he is well acquainted with Scottish history of this time period. However, not much further information about him is available. The source’s purpose is valuable since it answers the question specifically, focuses on a very specific time period (1567-1568), considers solely the events in this period which pertain directly to the Letter and has access to all evidence currently available to do so. 

The 1568 copy and translation of the Glasgow Letter was transcribed by Scottish translators in Moray’s service, and was sent to Queen Elizabeth following Elizabeth’s questioning of Moray’s treatment of Mary, with the purpose of providing evidence to Elizabeth that the Scottish nobles’ actions against Mary were justified. Being a primary source, and having been used in the actual enquiry in 1568, it is of great value because it contains those contents that were used against Mary, and influenced decisions made against her. Furthermore, it is the only record of the document. However, having been transcribed by those in service of Mary’s greatest antagonist, the source presents limitations in that it cannot be considered an accurate representation of the contents of the original Letter. It having been transcribed by clerks, furthermore, presents a limitation as the handwriting of the copy is not representative of that of the original. The copy’s purpose also presents a limitation in that its contents may have been altered for this purpose, as contemporary historians (Fraser, Guy and MacRobert) argue.



D: Analysis

The Scottish Lords that took up arms against her used the assertion that Mary killed Darnley as justification. By forcing her abdication, they allowed her son, James, to ascend the throne – that throne which became united with that of England in 1603. If, however, the Scottish Lords fabricated the Glasgow Letter, their assertion of Mary’s murdering Darnley is unsupported, and their actions, against her and in crowning James, unjustifiable.

The discovery of the casket and the time between this event and the Letter’s publication, firstly, raises doubts on its authenticity. The Glasgow Letter was, as they affirmed, the reason for the Scottish Lords taking up arms against her on 6 June 1567 and capturing Mary on 15 June, but according to Moray’s diary, the letters were not acquired until 20 June. The Letter, thus, is highly unlikely to have been the true reason for the Lords’ political agitation, unless they had prior knowledge of its contents or had fabricated the Letter after capturing Mary to justify their unlawful actions. The latter theory fits with the Lords’ curious approach to presenting the Letter to Queen Elizabeth in 1568 after she requested a reason for the Lords’ motivations against their Queen: after a month’s delay, the Letter was sent in a Scots, not even English, translation rather than the ‘original’ French, which Elizabeth had requested. If the Letter had been sent in the original French, it could have been argued Moray was merely “wary of Elizabeth’s reaction”, as Henderson argued in 1889. Contrastingly, MacRobert, perhaps the most capable current expert on this age, concludes the Scots translation “raises question-marks against [Moray’s] integrity”. The Lords’ integrity may further be questioned as Morton, having acquired the Casket on 20 June, kept it overnight and only opened it officially the following morning, substantiating MacRobert’s assertion that “there is no certainty that the contents were not… manipulated”. Furthermore, Morton issued a proclamation blaming Bothwell for Darnley’s death on 26 June 1567, though the Letter subsequently used as evidence for Mary’s guilt in murdering him was discovered on 20 June.

The contents of the letter itself, secondly, should be evaluated. The issue, of course, is that the actual contents of the original Letter (if it existed) cannot be examined because it disappeared around 1581 – instead, only the 1568 copy made by Moray’s translators can be used. The divergences between the English and Scottish translations (most notably the exclusion of the last six lines of the Scots version from the English version), could reveal the substandard accuracy of the translators at this time and shows the letter is a poorly constructed forgery (why would Mary ask Bothwell to remember himself of himself?), as MacRobert argues, but contrastingly, Henderson concluded these last six lines were not important enough to be included in the English translation as he supposed these were but a list of things for the messenger to remember. The disjointed structure of the Letter, furthermore, is curious: towards the middle, it includes a list of things resembling a table of contents. More recent historians (Fraser, Guy and MacRobert) conclude from this that the Letter was either a letter written by Mary with incriminating passages inserted, or that Mary had sent this letter to someone other than Bothwell. Henderson, however, argues that the structure of the letter supports either Mary having written it herself completely, or that the Letter was “founded on some original composition of hers”, which is a logical conclusion as most paragraphs that do not include incriminating details are compatible with other writings of Mary’s.

It was clearly in the Lords’ interest to either completely fake the Letter, or insert incriminating passages into a letter of Mary’s: they only published it in 1568 when asked for a justification for their actions towards their Queen even though the Letter had been found in 1567. Furthermore, the Lords gained from Mary’s abdication: firstly, Morton himself became Regent of Scotland in 1572, and secondly, the Protestant Lords had disagreed heavily with Mary’s Catholicism during her reign. 

E: Conclusion

Though it is impossible to conclude with absolute certainty that Mary wrote the Letter because it has disappeared, the evidence collected in this investigation suggests that Mary wrote an original composition, which the Scottish Lords modified to include incriminating passages. Including incriminating passages in a letter of Mary’s will have served the Lords well, as those passages actually written by Mary would have convinced the English commissioners of her guilt. This is supported by the disjointed structure of the Letter, with some passages resembling Mary’s style well, while others (including incriminating details) do not. The Casket’s discovery would have been a pleasant surprise for the Lords after they had taken up arms against Mary – here was an opportunity to ‘legalise’ their actions. The delay between the Casket’s discovery and its opening will have given the Lords time to insert the passages, and sending Elizabeth a Scottish translation can be explained by the Lords’ proficiency in that language over French. It can be concluded, then, that Mary wrote certain parts of the Letter, but she is not the author of the whole.

Works Cited

Bain, Joseph. "Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 2 - 1563-69." 1900. General Register Office (Scotland). Edinburgh. British History Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. .

Chalmers, George. The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; Drawn from the State Papers with Six Subsidiary Memoirs. London: John Murray, 1818. Print.

Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.

Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.

Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.

MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.

N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.

Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.

Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: George Philip, 1988. Print. 





 The reasons for the Lord’s discontent with Darnley was primarily his being a Catholic. Darnley increased tensions between himself and the Catholic nobles when he demanded the Crown Matrimonial (which would allow him to rule if Mary died before him), which Mary refused. In 1566, leading nobles met with the Queen to discuss Darnley – they discussed divorce, but it is now believed that they swore to get rid of him by other means. 
 Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
 The marriage was actually supported by the Lords at first, they having signed the Ainslie Tavern Bond, expressing their support for the marriage.
 Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
 Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
 Ibid.
 Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: George Philip, 1988. Print.
 Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
 N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
 Sir James Balfour was the Captain of Edinburgh Castle, of which Bothwell was the governor
 Bain, Joseph. "Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 2 - 1563-69." 1900. General Register Office (Scotland). Edinburgh. British History Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. .
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Ibid.
 Mary, after the Scottish Lords had taken up arms against her, surrendered to the Lords on 15 June at the Battle of Carberry Hill. The Lords claimed the marriage between the Queen and Bothwell was the reason for Carberry Hill, but later changed their reason, stating they took up arms against Mary because of the Casket Letters.
 N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
 Ibid.
 Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
 “The message of the Father by the way
The talk of Sir James Hamilton of the ambassador
That the Lard of Luss hath told me of the delay
The questions that he asked of Jochim
Of my state
Of my company
And of the cause of my coming
And of Joseph”
(See Appendix A)
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Chalmers, George. The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; Drawn from the State Papers with Six Subsidiary Memoirs. London: John Murray, 1818. Print.
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Ibid.
 Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
 Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
 “The aim is to unravel what actually happened during the years 1567-68 from the myths and lies and misconceptions which have persisted for over four centuries. The original evidence has been re-examined rigorously and many new questions have been raised and probed. There is a detailed analysis of the events and the Casket Letters. The result is a much-needed measure of historical revision.”, MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print. 
 N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
 Ibid.
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Ibid.
 N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
 Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
 Ibid. 
 MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.



Were the religious reforms during the reign of Henry VIII the cause of the execution of Lady Jane Grey?

A: Plan of Investigation

In 1554 Lady Jane Grey (born 1537), also known as the Nine Day Queen was executed in London1. She was the great granddaughter of King Henry VII[1]
This investigation will establish whether there is a link between the religious reforms put in place during the time of Henry VIII’s reign and the causes of Lady Jane Grey’s execution. For this investigation many sources will be consulted, and will be searched for evidence suggesting a link between the Religious Reforms and Jane’s execution. This essay will address the question: Were the religious reforms during the reign of Henry VIII the cause of the execution of Lady Jane Grey?


B: Summary of Evidence

Background Information
·      King Edward died on 6 July 1553. Four days later, Jane was proclaimed queen. Mary Tudor had widespread popular support and by mid-July, even the Duke of Suffolk [Jane’s father] had abandoned his daughter and was attempting to save himself by proclaiming Mary queen.3
·      The Duke of Northumberland’s A supporters melted away and The Duke of Suffolk easily persuaded his daughter to relinquish the crown.2
·      She was deposed 19th July 1553, 9 days following her instatement as Queen on the 10th. [2]
·      She was protestant, and those trying to have her as the monarch were strong protestants including her parents and father-in-law.3
·      Religions of the relevant Tudor monarchs:
1.     Henry VIII – initially Catholic but reformed the Church in order to get a legitimate divorce and became protestant.
2.     Edward VI – under his reign the Church of England became more protestant, as he was fiercely protestant.
3.     Lady Jane Grey – protestant.
4.     Queen Mary I – strongly Roman Catholic; went about to change the religion of the country from protestant.
5.     Queen Elizabeth I – protestant; but wanted to have a compromise between the Catholics and Protestants. [3]




Suggesting a link between Religious Reforms and Jane Grey’s Execution
·      Mary Tudor became a catholic icon during the reign of Edward VI, due to his increasingly protestant policy. [4]
·      C S L Davies describes Jane Grey’s rise to power as “the only successful rebellion of Tudor England” [5]
·      There was a plan, on Thomas Seymour’s B part, to marry Jane to King Edward. [6]
·      Lady Jane Grey was one of more than 100 people to be beheaded during the reign of Mary I, including Jane’s husband. 9
·      Edward VI had wanted Lady Jane Grey to succeed him in order to maintain the protestant succession. 10
·      By the time of the Tudor era in England, the reformation was already beginning in Europe, challenging the rule of the Catholic Church. 10
·      The reformation in England reached fever pitch in the middle of the 16th century. It was an upheaval of “far-reaching political and social significance.” 10
·      It is considered that Henry VIII’s love letter to Anne Boleyn was the trigger of the religious reformation in later years. 11
·      The Reformation stemmed from Henry’s Desire to marry Anne after a divorce from Katherine of Aragon. Which could only be given to him by the Pope. The Pope did nothing to help Henry and Henry decided he would only get a divorce if he made his own church. In order for this to happen, Henry needed legislation from the Reformation Parliament. 11

Suggesting no link between religious reforms and Jane Grey’s Execution
·      Edward VI was privy to Northumberland’s plans for Jane accession. 9
·      On June 21 1553, the Duke of Northumberland, drafted letters bastardising Mary and Elizabeth and thus making them ineligible to ascend to the throne. 9
·      Not only did her ascension disregard the Tudor line of accession; it also disregarded the Stuart line of accession. 9
·      Henry VIII wrote in his will that should his three children die without children of his own the crown should be passed to his niece Frances Grey, mother of Jane Grey. 12

Miscellaneous Information
·      This oil painting (see below), currently hanging in the National Gallery in London was painted in 1883 by Paul Delaroche and depicts the execution of Jane Grey. [7]
·   
·      Lady Jane Grey was one of the best scholars of her day.[8]
·      After Catherine Parr’s death, her husband, Thomas Seymour, gave Parr’s household to Jane Grey. 7
·      The library of Henry VIII was searched for information that would back Henry’s case in setting up a new church. 11
·      It was this research from the libraries, that Henry became convinced that he was the leader of his own national church, and thus, encouraged him to break from Rome, in the 1530s. 11


C: Evaluation of sources
The sources used as evidence in this essay, are of varying degrees of subjectivity. Obviously all the sources are secondary sources, because none of the authors of the sources were alive at the time of Lady Jane Grey’s life. This is a limitation of all the sources referenced in this essay. The origin of the sources varies; some from more subjective websites written in favour of the British Monarchy, (source 4) to more deeply researched history books (sources 7 and 9). Source 10 is a book: Tudor England by Peter Brimacobe, it was written in 2004. The origin of the book is a British historian who specialises in Tudor history. the purpose of the book is to entertain and to educate. The value is that it seems to be that it is a well researched and as it is a published work, it is likely to have been reviewed, it is good for taking in facts but it shows only one side, and doesn’t show alternate points of view. Its limitations are that it isn’t trying to a great work of historical literature and is purely to entertain and to provide the reader with background knowledge of the subject. Another source of use is source 9: The Tudor Years by John Lotherington. The origin is a British historian; he is also a history teacher in a UK school. The purpose of this publication is to educate, and therefore we can assume that it is more objective than some other sources may be. The value of this book is that it offers a range of causes for Lady Jane Grey’s crowning, which lead to her execution. The limitation of this source is the fact it is a secondary source and therefore may not be as factual as a primary source could be.

D: Analysis
The vast majority of the sources consulted agree that the reason for Lady Jane Grey’s execution was the fact that she was queen, because of this we need to look at the reasons she became queen, due to the fact that the causes of the latter are also the causes of the former. With this in mind we can look purely at the causes of her ascension to the throne. Lady Jane Grey was executed, in short, because she was a protestant queen, in the way of Catholic Mary’s ascension to the throne. So with that in mind, the causes of Jane being queen, and Mary’s Catholicism become important. It is an interesting point to note that Henry VIII was only able to marry Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour because of the split with Rome, noting that Edward was a product of Henry’s marriage to Jane Seymour, and Edward was one of the people who allowed Jane to become queen, it is vital to state that perhaps in this sense the religious reforms are indirectly responsible for her ascension and execution. Whilst correlation is obvious: the religious reforms happened, and in 1554 Lady Jane Grey was executed, but causation would be more difficult to prove. In this case, it would be near impossible to prove that there was a cause and effect link between the Religious Reforms and the execution of a queen 21 years later.
The Tudor Years by John Lotherington states that one of the main reasons for the crowning of Lady Jane Grey was her father’s want to further his own status. Additionally, her ascension disregarded both Tudor and Stuart lines of monarchies, implying that Edward’s plan was for her to purely maintain the protestant monarchy, probably due to the fact that his father’s views had had an impact on him in his childhood, which implies that this may have been another way in which the religious reforms indirectly caused Jane Grey’s death. Despite these two indirect causes, there is no historiography suggesting a direct link between the reformation of the Church and the execution of Lady Jane Grey.  On the other hand it is widely accepted that without the pressures of the Protestant Catholic divide at the time, there would have been no need for Lady Jane Grey to be queen and by extension executed. It is noteworthy that it was the catholic Mary I who sentenced Jane to death3. But this is still an indirect link – a secondary cause- as such and a long term cause at that, the Catholic Protestant divide was only a side effect of the Church Reformation and was not the goal of the reformation as much as the goal was to allow Henry VIII to divorce Catherine of Aragon.


E: Conclusion
The historiography supports the idea that whilst the religious reforms were a long term; secondary; indirect cause. It was in no way the “trigger” cause of the execution of Lady Jane Grey. This puts the research question of Were the religious reforms during the reign of Henry VIII the cause of the execution of Lady Jane Grey?” in a somewhat grey area. Due to the fact that it has neither no effect nor is the only cause of the execution.
The trigger causes were the Duke of Northumberland’s desire to get ahead in life, and the fact that Mary I felt insulted by Jane’s ascension. Two main points caused this offence: firstly, that Jane’s crowning disregarded the pre-decided line of succession, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that Jane was protestant. The historiography of this topic suggests that whilst the long term causes stretch back decades before the execution the trigger- her ascension- was just a few months before her execution. As Lotherington says in his book, Jane Grey was executed because she was used as a pawn in other peoples’ power games.


F: Bibliography

[1] Britannica online encyclopedia (www.school.eb.co.uk/levels/advanced/article/38085)

2 www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/grey_lady_jane.shtml

3http://tudorhistory.org/jane/

4 www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland
/TheTudors/HenryVIII.aspx

5   http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk

6 theguardian.com (24.02.2010)

7Elizabeth; David Starkey;2000

8 England Under The Reign Of Edward VI and Mary I; Patrick Fraser Tytler; 1839

9  The Tudor Years; John Lotherington, 1994

10 Tudor England; Peter Brimacombe; 2004

11 Henry VIII, Man and Monarch; David Starkey and Susan Doran; 2009

12 Henry VIII, Eric Ives; 2007




A The Duke of Northumberland was the father of Jane’s husband: Lord Guildford Dudley. Northumberland spearheaded Jane’s rise to power.


B Thomas Seymour married Catherine Parr after Henry VIII’s death. Jane was sent to live in Seymour and Parr’s household.



How accurately does Les Misérables portray the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris?

Section A – Plan of the Investigation
The aim of this investigation is to answer the question: How accurately does Les Misérables[1] portray the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris? Although this question stemmed from my admiration for the musical, I felt confirmed to do it after discussing the question with Dr. Robert Tombs of the University of Cambridge. To answer the question, I will focus primarily on the latter part of the play where the rebellions are portrayed[2]. Although it will not be the focus of this investigation, characters and music lyrics will be considered. Since Les Misérables is not playing where I live[3], I will have to use the 2012 Tom Hooper movie as my primary source for the musical. For the other side of this investigation, I will implement a number of books, documentaries, and other sources to build up my argument.
Among these sources will be Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871 by Pamela M. Pilbeam (recommended to me by Professor R. Tombs) and The Age of Revolution by Eric Hobsbawm. Both historians are well versed in this topic and hopefully will provide the evidence I need to answer this question. The evaluation of these sources will be presented in Section C.
Word Count: 199
Section B – Summary of Evidence
In response to the proclamation of the four ordinances, the people of France rose up in revolution against King Charles X (July 1830). These revolutions stemmed from Charles X dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, limiting franchise to the wealthy members of the population, and restraining the freedom of press.[4] As a result of the ‘Three Glorious Days’[5], the people of Paris gained hold of the capitol city and Charles X abdicated. With support from France’s upper bourgeoisie[6] , Charles’s cousin Louis-Phillipe became the new King of France. In comparison to France’s past monarchs, Louis-Phillipe was a good king- he recognized that his people wanted liberty, the Chamber of Deputies was reinstated (and used), the government became anti-clerical and censorship was discontinued. Nonetheless, not having been elected into power gave him a bad reputation among the people who still wanted a real republic.[7] This became the context for the June Rebellion of 1832.
The June Rebellion was an unsuccessful insurrection that lasted for two days (June 5th 1832-June 6th 1832). Along with the context given in the first paragraph, this rebellion sprang from years of having a bad economy (“harvest failures, food shortages, and increases in the cost of living”[8]), a cholera outbreak in the spring of 1832 and the death of General Jean Lamarque in June. General Jean Lamarque was a favorite since he showed sympathy towards the lower class and appreciated their desires. After his death on June 1st 1832[9], Lamarque became the catalyst the rebels needed to start the uprising.
On the morning of Lamarque’s funeral (June 5th, 1832), students, workers, and refugees gathered in the streets. During the procession, “a member of the crowd waved a red flag bearing the words "Liberty or Death", the crowd broke into disorder and shots were exchanged with government troops.”[10] After this, the insurgents moved quickly and began setting up barricades in the streets of Paris. Unfortunately for the rebels, the uprising did not spread. With no popular support and a huge army against them, the odds for the revolutionaries were not great. By the next day, the National Guard had deployed cannons on the barricades and those few who remained were surrounded. The rebellion was a fast failure.
Despite the fact that the rebellion accomplished nothing, it has become subject to romanticism in Victor Hugo’s book Les Misérables. This book was transferred to film in 1906 and in 1980, the Boubil-Schönberg musical was presented in Paris.[11]
Word Count: 581 words
Section C – Evaluation of Sources
Source A- ‘Les Misérables’ (film), by Universal Pictures, 2012
I am going to analyze how accurate the musical Les Misérables is in portraying the June Rebellion of 1832. Since the musical is not playing where I live, I am using the most recent film version.  In terms of origin, this movie was made in 2013 and was filmed in several locations across England. The movie and musical is inspired by Victor Hugo’s book “Les Miserables”.[12] Hugo, who witnessed the June Rebellion first hand[13], created all the characters and events featured in the play. Just like the musical, this film was created purely for entertainment purposes. One aspect of this movie that makes it valuable for the historian is that you don’t have to go see it in a theater and you can fast forward to different parts[14]. Another thing that makes the movie valuable over the play is that you get to see action that is a little more realistic.[15] The main limitation to this piece is the rebellion is greatly romanticized by the love story and the music. The focus is less on the rebellion and more on the characters.
Source B- ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’, Pamela Pilbeam, 1995
The second source I will asses is ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’ by Professor Pamela Pilbeam. Concerning the origin of this book, the work was originally published in the United States in 1995. Pilbeam is Emeritus Professor of French History at the University of London and has published several other books concerning nineteenth-century Europe[16].  The purpose of this publication was to answer questions concerning the French Revolution such as why it took “three attempts over nearly half a century before a permanent republican regime could be established. [17] This source is valuable to the historian studying the June Rebellion since she covers the rebellion and puts it in context to other events happening in France at that time. The limitation to this piece is the fact that she covers the rebellion in about 200 words. Since the rebellion itself was so short, I have had difficulty finding historians who mention it at all.
Word Count: 358
Section D – Analysis
Historical Significance                           
The June Rebellion of 1832 is not a hugely significant part of France’s history. The rebellion was primarily Parisian and only lasted two days. In fact, many would agree that without Victor Hugo and Les Misérables the June Rebellion wouldn’t have the same popularity it has now.  “The novel [Les Misérables] is one of few works of literature that discusses the June Rebellion and the events leading up to it.”[18]
Leading up to the Rebellion
Les Misérables is fairly limited when it comes to detailing the reasons for the uprising. For example, they forget to mention the cholera outbreak that swept the country in the spring of 1832.[19] Something that I discovered while researching for this investigation was that the lyrics are different between the musical and the movie. This proved to be an important find since in different adaptations, more or less information is given about the causes of the rebellion. For example, in the Tom Hooper movie, the second rendition of Look Down includes a part where the character Gavroche sings about the King who’s “no better than the last”.[20] He sings about France being a “land that fought for liberty” but is now stuck in the hands of a monarch again. This gives us some more details about the rebellion then the musical does. On the other hand, in the musical they add the line “See our children fed/Help us in our shame/Something for a crust of bread” to same song. This points out the starvation among the people and the desperation that spawns from that.
One aspect that makes Les Misérables more historically accurate (in terms of what caused the rebellion) is their mention of General Lamarque.  His influence over the people and the effect his illness had on the rebellion is portrayed in the second rendition of Look Down[21] and the song Red and Black. We also see in the musical how Lamarque’s death becomes the catalyst for rebellion (which did occur in 1832).[22] At the end of Red and Black, Enjolras[23] comes up with the plan for the June Rebellion (starting with the interruption of Lamarque’s funeral). 
Rebellion and Results
Les Misérables is quite accurate in depicting the actual course of the rebellion. Although they separate Lamarque’s death and the funeral by one day rather then five[24], the progression of the rebellion is correct. During the song Do You Hear the People Sing, they show the interruption of the Jean Lamarque’s funeral and the shots that are fired shortly afterwards. They then show the erection of the barricades and the fighting and canon fire that occurs between the two parties. The results in the end are also the similar- there are men killed from both sides and the rebellion is a failure. Most importantly in my opinion, they show how the people of Paris did not rise up to the rebellion. This is not only portrayed through the verbal dialogue between the rebels[25] but in the last fighting scene when the rebels are knocking on the doors of houses surrounding them and the residents are too scared to help.     
Nevertheless, there are still loads of inaccuracies. Since the book only focuses on one group of students- the friends of the ABC, this was translated into the musical. Although this was done to make the performance more entertaining, this completely distorts the rebellion for the historian. Since there is this focus on one group, we don’t realize how big the rebellion was. In the June Rebellion, a total of 800 people were killed or injured.[26] In the musical we get the impression that maybe 40 died. Also, to make the story more heart wrenching, all the rebels die the throughout the musical (minus Marius)[27]. This was not the case in the June Rebellion since the remaining alive rebels were arrested and charged. Another mistake that came from focusing on the Friends of the ABC was not talking about the other barricades around the city. We do hear Enjolras[28] mention that the other barricades have fallen down and that theirs was the “only barricade left[29] but the only other time we hear of the other barricade is the glimpse of another barricade at 98:27. To sum it up, “the musical’s writers chose to concentrate on Hugo’s more romantic themes of individual redemption and simplified ideas of social justice”. [30] They wanted to make a emotional piece, not a documentary.
Word Count: 686 words
Section E - Conclusion
 In conclusion, I would argue that the musical Les Miserables is only partially accurate in portraying the June Rebellion in Paris, 1832. Since the focus is less on the rebellion and more on the characters involved in it, we lose details that weren’t essential to the Les Misérables playwrights. With that said, Les Misérables as a June Rebellion source is very useful since there are very few sources that detail the short rebellion. It’s really the only piece that focuses on the rebellion and without it, the June Rebellion may have become another event that’s lost in history.
Section F - Bibliography
Books
Pilbeam, Pamela M. Republicanism in Nineteenth-century France: 1814-1871. New York: St. Martin's, 1995. Print.
Hobsbawm, E. J. The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848. Cleveland: World Pub., 1962. Print.
Harsin, Jill. The War of the Streets in Revolutionary Paris, 1830–1848. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Jean Maximilien Lamarque» in Charles Mullié, Biographie des célébrités militaires des armées de terre et de mer de 1789 à 1850, 1852
Mark Traugott, The Insurgent Barricade, University of California Press, 2010
Graham, Robb (1998). Victor Hugo: A Biography. W.W. Norton and Company.
Godfrey, Elton. The Revolutionary Idea in France. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1923.
Websites
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Louis-Philippe (king of France)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online- Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/349203/Louis-Philippe
"Les Misérables: Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre." Les Misérables: Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014. - http://www.walnutstreettheatre.org/season/lesmis-creation.php
"Les Miserables Soundtrack Lyrics | Musical." Les Miserables Soundtrack Lyrics | Musical. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. - http://www.stlyrics.com/l/lesmiserables.htm
"Pamela Pilbeam." Professor — Department of History, Classics and Archaeology, Birkbeck, University of London. N.p., 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Oct. 2014 - http://www.bbk.ac.uk/history/our-staff/teaching-and-scholarship/pilbeam
Gossard, Julia. "Les Misérables: A Historian’s Review." The Alcalde RSS. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. - http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2013/01/les-miserables-a-historians-review/
Bradford, Wade. "The Historical Background of Les Miserables." About. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014. - http://plays.about.com/od/musicals/a/Les-Miserables-Historical-Background.htm
PDFs
Spirit., and Backg. "Les Mis Study Guide 1." Les Miserable Study Guide 1 (n.d.): n. pag. Official Website for Les Miserables- London. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. This PDF is supplied for education purposes by Les Miserables Educational Team
Movies/Videos
Les Miserables 2012. Dir. Tom Hooper. Universal, 2012. DVD.
"June Rebellion of 1832 Mp4 HD." YouTube. YouTube, 4 June 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
Presentations
Foster, Meredith. "Ten-Minute History: The June Rebellion of 1832." Prezi.com. N.p., 18 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2014
Pictures
Digital image. Here Is the City. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2014. .





[1] The world renowned musical/movie
[2] Starting at Gavroche’s solo in the song Look Down, minute 66:49 in the Tom Hooper movie
[3] I did see the play live in London, November 2013
[4] "June Rebellion of 1832 Mp4 HD." YouTube. YouTube, 4 June 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
[5] Another name for the July Revolution of 1830 (Used in Pamela Pilbeam’s research article The ‘Three Glorious Days’: The Revolution of 1830 in Provincial France )
[6] The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Louis-Philippe (king of France)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
[7] Foster, Meredith. "Ten-Minute History: The June Rebellion of 1832." Prezi.com. N.p., 18 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2014
[8] Harsin, Jill. Barricades: The War of the Streets in Revolutionary Paris, 1830–1848. New York: Palgrave, 2002.
[9] Jean Maximilien Lamarque» in Charles Mullié, Biographie des célébrités militaires des armées de terre et de mer de 1789 à 1850, 1852, pp.153-9
[10] Mark Traugott, The Insurgent Barricade, University of California Press, 2010, pp.4-5.
[11] Spirit., and Backg. "Les Mis Study Guide 1." Les Miserable Study Guide 1 (n.d.): n. pag. Official Website for Les Miserables- London. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. This PDF is supplied for education purposes by Les Miserables Educational Team
[12] "Les Misérables: Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre." Les Misérables: Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
[13] Graham, Robb (1998). Victor Hugo: A Biography. W.W. Norton and Company.
[14] For example, I’m skipping the first hour of the movie since it doesn’t apply to the investigation
[15] In the play for example, you see the barricade come on stage. In the movie, you get to see the rebels build the barricade in front of your eyes (and for the 2012, Tom Hooper had the actors actually build the barricade to make it the experience more realistic).
[16] "Pamela Pilbeam." Professor — Department of History, Classics and Archaeology, Birkbeck, University of London. N.p., 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
[17] Pilbeam, Pamela, ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’, pp. xi
[18] Godfrey, Elton. The Revolutionary Idea in France. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1923.
[19] In the film there are some times when groups of people look sick
[20] King Louis-Phillipe
[21] MARIUS: Only one man and that's Lamarque speak for the people here below... Lamarque is ill and fading fast. Won't last the week out, so they say. ENJOLRAS: With all the anger in the land how long before the judgment day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?”
[22] ENJOLRAS: “Lamarque! His death is the hour of fate. The people's man. His death is the sign we await!”.
[23] The head of the Friends of the ABC
[24] Depicted by the song One Day More
[25] See minute 117 in the Tom Hooper
[26] Pilbeam, Pamela, ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’, pp. 121
[27] During the song, The Final Battle.
[28] The main leader of the rebellion
[29] Les Miserables, Tom Hooper, 117:36
[30] Gossard, Julia. "Les Misérables: A Historian’s Review." The Alcalde RSS. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.

What was the strongest dividing factor during Franco’s Reign; Football, Economy, Religion?



A: Plan of the Investigation

What was the strongest dividing factor during Franco’s Reign; Football, Economy, Religion. In order to answer this questions we must evaluate the significance of each aspect studied and how impactful said aspects are to the Spanish populous. Economic figures of both Franco’s anti-market policies (1939-59) and his post 1959 free trade policies will be measured in response to its significance with the population.  Religion in the life of the population and the differences between State sponsored Catholicism and Catholicism directly from the Vatican. Also how a Football team served as a representation of citizens who did not agree with their government.


B: Summary of Evidence


Economy

During its early years, “the new regime introduced a set of anti-market policies that altered the previous behavior of the Spanish economy dramatically” International markets were closed off, and as a result the population could not export nor import goods.

This meant that there was only a limited supply of goods and excessive demand, causing prices and inflation to skyrocket. As a response “inflation was repressed through officially established prices” however as seen in Figure 1 (see appendix) by setting prices lower than the market equilibrium price a shortage is created. This meant that a large segment of the population could not access basic commodities. A British Consul in Malaga wrote “Rice, flour, sugar and many other essential foodstuffs are still practically unobtainable;potatoes have once again disappeared from the markets; meat, which in June and July could generally be bought, is now very seldom on sale, and prices of all commodities have greatly increased. But the shortage of bread is the main concern of the multitude whose main sustenance it is; for weeks during the months of August and September queues waited all night outside the bakeries, more often that not only to be bitterly disappointed by the meagre allowance they received in the morning, and there have actually been a number of entirely bread less days. This would be perceived as harboring discontent by the population with its government considering the lengths of time citizens had to wait for their rations.

Unsurprisingly the long lines and uncertainty regarding the availability of food allowed for  “the development of ‘black’ markets” Where prices were raised disproportionally due to the dwindling supply of commodities. All this economic turmoil meant that “Spain did not recover its pre-Civil War per capita GDP peak levels (1929) until 1955, while Western European countries reached, on average, 1938 levels of GDP per head by 1950.” However due to strict border restrictions it wasn’t until later (1059) where the population were able to compare their per capita GDP levels with those of the tourists that came on holidays.




Among this succession of economic hardships “the Government budget did not contribute to raise effective demand by establishing unemployment benefits” meaning that unemployed people became not only a burden on their families but also on the general population due to not being able to consume, thus decreasing the consumption section of Aggregate Demand.

Religion

Initially religion served as a deterrent of factionalism, since under Franco (and through most of history) the majority of Spaniards were Catholic. In june 1941 the Catholic Church’s rights were outlined the most important ones “1. recognition of Catholicism as the official religion of the country; 2. mandatory religious instruction at all educational levels in conformity with Catholic dogma.”  Homogenous religious beliefs backed by the state suggest an intent to generate a strong sense of unity. By installing mandatory religious instruction during education the government hoped national identities would shift into an all-encompassing Religious identity, thus suffocating all other identification sentiments.

However the very foundations of the Church were shaken with Pope John XXIII statement “We were all made in God's image, and thus, we are all Godly alike.”  Now Catholic intellectuals and even Politicians found contradicting messages from Spanish Catholicism and the Vatican’s approach. Such was the case with José María Llanos, a “Jesuit from a wealthy family”  who had pastored for the government was shocked with the conditions of the citizens from the slum El Pozo del Tío Raimundo  and radically changed his views on politics. He got involved with the Workers Commission and even joined the illegal communist party. He wasn’t the only one, a new group of priests known as curas rojos or red priests.

Football

A Spanish newspaper called “La Vanguarida asks on Sunday October 7th 2012: “Only football?” [except] They know the answer: with Barcelona versus Real Madrid is never just about football.” “Today [Barcelona’s] traditional pre match mosaic will be a Senyera (catalan flag).” It’s significance is the upcoming referendum for Catalan independence. However, today is not an exception as Classico’s (Barcelona vs Madrid games) are never just football. As Marcos Alonso (played for Barcelona and Madrid) put it “ In Barcelona, you have a sense of complete identification with the club. It means a massive amount for Catalan society” That is because Barcelona’s Identity has evolved from being just a football club to something more than just a club. President Joan Gaspart phrased like this “History has transformed us into something more than just a football club: Barcelona is the defense of a country, a language, a culture.”

Such is the importance of Barcelona that Radi Antíc who managed both Madrid and Barcelona said “Being a director of Barcelona or Madrid is more important than being a minister in any country” Which while it might be an exaggeration it shows the immense representational value that Barcelona has, not only in Catalan Society but also the world. This feeling of being part of something larger stems from the belief that  “When Barcelona face madrid it is ... the nation against the state, freedom fighters against Franco’s Facists” And all the participants are automatically elevated from just a football club director or player.

Catalan Sociologist Luis Flaquer attributes it to Madrid serving as a scapegoat to citizens disapproval of State. “[Citizens] couldn’t shout “Franco you murderer” on the streets so people shouted at Real Madrid players instead” Another factor is that “the regime used sport to assert its power” Which Citizens responded to by supporting Madrid’s rival Barcelona as a sign of rebellion against the state’s power. FC Barcelona player, Stoichkov, described it as “a rebellion against the Establishment” supporting the notion that “Catalonia is a country and Barcelona is its army”



C: Evaluation of Sources

Note From the British Consul in Malaga

The note originated from the Foreign office consulate in Malaga. It was written on the 22-12-1939. This situates it a couple months after the Civil War has come to an end, which means that while the rationing system was already in place the cost of war in regards to production and crops was still very high. The Consul of Malaga wanted to inform the Foreign British Office of the living conditions faced by Spaniards, “Rice, flour, sugar and many other essential foodstuffs are still practically unobtainable”  The importance of this note lies in the fact that its a Human reaction and description simultaneously with the events that where unfolding. However that is also its limitation, its a human reaction based on sense perception. It offers no realistic quantifiable information as its just an observation from a Consul denouncing the living conditions of citizens.


Fear and Loathing in La Liga Sid Lowe

Fear and Loathing in La Liga was written by Sid Lowe, it was published on the 23 of September 2013 (hard cover). Sid Lowe is a British historian  It describes itself as a book that has “lift[ed] the lid on sport’s greatest rivalry”  so it was written to shed light and mythify the Barcelona’s and Real Madrid’s Relationship with each other. However as a book it also serves an economic purpose, while as enticing and passionate the narrative it was written to sell and make money. Its strength lies in that Sid Lowe has had to interview many people in order to get primary accounts of what happened as well as also not get carried away with the romanticism of the rivalry and instead give a detailed account of how its stood at various points in time. Also always looking at both sides of every controversy, for every segment on something Barcelona did there was always a quotation of a Real Madrid directive or player and vise versa. By showing both sides of the argument and opting for the readers to choose a middle ground it distances itself from any internal bias from the author and the people giving the account of the events. Its not without limitations,  as even though Lowe attempts to give bipartisan accounts, he does not always achieve it, letting the individual who is narrating the anecdote be the sole defender of bias or leniency. Something hard to achieve when talking about your rival football team.


D: Analysis

All three factors discussed resulted in people unhappy with the state and adversity against the state with varying degrees of intensity. First the economical factors surrounding Spain immediately after the crisis. It has been observed the effect of anti-market based policies and fixed prices that lead to the discontent of the people through not being able to purchase primary commodities such as bread. However while these economic situations deeply affected the Spanish Individuals it didn’t give them a method of voicing their disapproval and not conforming to the state. However the economic turmoil served to motivate individuals to voice their criticisms through other channels, this as because due to Spain’s economy there were large sections of the population left with famine. Due to the price ceiling set on primary commodities there was a supply shortage, which either meant that the population would go malnourished (which it did) or there would be a surge in black markets. Inside these black markets the prices were higher than unadulterated market price. These economic factors impulsed the population into disagreement with the state. However it also fortified communities and neighborhoods. It was only through mutually aiding one another that neighborhoods, villages and communities were able to survive. In this sense it brought the population to coo-operate in an effort to survive the hardships of the time.

Another factor was religion. Originally believed by the State to unify Spain under 1 religious belief system and that national identities would shift into an all-encompassing Religious identity, thus suffocating all other identification sentiments. For the first ten years this was the case, however a structural change in the Vatican toppled the system of unity that linked Spaniards together. The new Pope Joan XXIII started preaching “We were all made in God's image, and thus, we are all Godly alike.” Now religious officials were conflicted. This was due to the Vatican preaching slightly different messages than state sponsored Catholicism. This lead some religious leaders to verge from the path of state sponsored Catholicism and look inward of spiritual guidance. An example was José María Llanos, a “Jesuit from a wealthy family”  who had pastored for the government was shocked with the conditions of the citizens from the slum El Pozo del Tío Raimundo  and radically changed his views on politics. In his instance religion served as a way for him to oppose the state, by preforming Labour Union duties (labour unions were banned) under the mantle of Religious service. He was not alone as a whole new demographic of Priests arose. They were known as red priests, red symbolizing their affinity to communist beliefs, and helped workers dialog with their employers. However while their actions were radical and against the state, there weren’t many and paled in comparison to supporters for the countries most popular sport, Football.

More than a club. Barcelona served as the weaponless army of Catalonia. Such is the importance and symbolism of the club, that it served as a “rebellion against the Establishment”. Not my words but from Hristo Stoichkov, star FCBarcelona player. It was the only section of society where one could express, through the sentiment of Barcelona’s colors, any sort of belligerence against the state. Barça evolved from a football club into a symbol of defiance, of resistance, a last piece of hope that invoked deep sentiments of nationalistic pride. A place where citizens frustrations could be voiced as sociologist Luis Flaquer has said ““Franco you murderer” on the streets so people shouted at Real Madrid players instead” It was the sentiment of the continuance of the struggle. A instance wheret the dictator would not go unopposed “When Barcelona face madrid it is ... the nation against the state, freedom fighters against Franco’s Fascists” Thats why Randi Antíc described being a director at Barcelona, more important than serving as a minister in any country. Because not only do you act as a political beacon of hope but the fate and existence of a nation rests on your every move. Its importance stems from the regime wishing to assert its power through popular activities, and none was more popular than football. Because the state asserted its power through sport, the resistance needed to match it in the same arena. Which is why teams such as Madrid and Barcelona became much more important, and their matches more significant than just a sporting event.




E: Conclusion

In conclusion, the economic situation of the country established on a general level of discontent with the government. However this discontent stemmed due to economic circumstances did not materialize itself as factionalism (as is happening now) but rather brought communities and villages together in order to affront the difficult economic times. However the discontent, misery and poverty did affect other sections that were more vocal in their opposition to the regime. Red Priests surge due to the large poverty and the living conditions that citizens experienced. This lead them to take up membership in the communist party (illegal) and also serve as Union Worker delegates under the mantle of religion. Lastly, and the most vocal forms of opposition to the government was football, more specifically FCBarcelona. It went from a football team started by a Swiss to representing a nations hopes and dreams against an oppressive regime and becoming a key pillar in the Catalan identity.

















F: Bibliography

Prados De La Escosura, Leandro, Joan R. Rosés, and Isabel Sanz-Villarrya. "Economic Reforms and Growth in Franco's Spain." Diss. Carlos III De Madrid, 2011. Economic Reforms and Growth in Franco's Spain (2011): n. pag. E-Archive. Universidad Carlos III Madrid, 18 July 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.

Martínez Ruiz, Elena.  EL SECTOR EXTERIOR DURANTE LA AUTARQUÍA UNA RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE LAS BALANZAS DE PAGOS DE ESPAÑA (1940-1958) Study N 43 (2003): 1-191. Banko De España. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.

Llopis, E. Historia Económica De España, Siglos X-XX. By M. Hernandez. Barcelona: n.p., 2002. N. pag. Print.

Prados De La Escosura. "Growth and Macroeconomic Performance in Spain." Diss. Carlos III De Madrid, 1994. Universidad Carlos III De Madrid, Dec. 1994. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.

image. N.p.: Microeconomics World, 6 June 2013.

The National Archives (TNA), PRO, FO 371/24507, Malaga Consul Report , 22-12-1939

G Margaret. "Franco and the Catholic Church." Spainthenandnow. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

Canonisation of Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII, The National Catholic Church of the United Kingdom and Ireland, 4 July 2013

Lowe, Sid. Fear and Loathing in La Liga: The True Story of Barcelona and Real Madrid. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
--> Is a reluctance to tactically innovate responsible for English Football’s lack of success post-1966?


A: Plan of Investigation                                                                      

Is a reluctance to tactically innovate responsible for English Football’s lack of success post-1966? In order to answer this question the views of educated football journalists, analysts, and influential managers will be analysed.  Jonathan Wilson’s “Inverting the Pyramid” will be a main source, whilst analytic works such as “Soccernomics” and “The Numbers Game” will offer insight into the statistical findings that provide reasons and evidence for England’s lack of success. Primary sources from managers such as Jimmy Hogan and Helenio Herrera will provide first hand evidence as to why the English game has failed to meet expectations since the year England were crowned World Champions in 1966. Few other sources will be used due to the vast amount of unreliable and subjective information the topic of football breeds.
 

B: Summary of Evidence

(See Fig. 1 for all Football Definitions)
In the earliest years of football, dribbling and all-out attack was the primary characteristic of English football with very little regard for the passing game. Scotland however evolved their game, passing and combination play becoming the norm in Scotland.[1] England and English teams maintained the more physical kick and rush game although the passing game had proven through the Scottish team Queen’s Park to be more successful. Although certain players such as G.O Smith of Corinthians adapted their style to develop the kick and rush game the majority of England remained stubborn and did not adopt a different style of play until forced to by a change in the offside rule in 1925.[2]
England’s national team has failed to reach the final of any competitive international tournament since 1966. Up to 2004 the World Cup has been won 5 times by Brazil, 3 times by Italy and Germany, twice by Argentina and Uruguay and once by France and England. With the Netherlands reaching the final twice.[3] England have failed to win the UEFA European Championship whereas Germany have won it 3 times, France have won it twice and Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Spain, and the Soviet Union have won it once.[4]
England won the World Cup in 1966 managed by Sir Alf Ramsey playing the majority of the tournament with a long ball and pace driven 4-1-3-2 (See Fig. 3).[5] 4-4-2 (See Fig. 3), a formation derived from Ramsey’s 4-1-3-2, became the default formation for the majority of English clubs with differing styles. Paisley’s Liverpool and Clough’s Nottingham Forest saw European and Domestic success through a possession based 4-4-2, whereas Wimbledon and Watford succeeded through a pressing, offensive 4-4-2.[6] 4-4-2 remained the orthodoxy for England until the mid-90s.[7]
Using stats taken since 1972, if a draw counts as half a win, England have won approximately 66% of their matches (including friendlies), Brazil have won 80%.[8]  With Foreign managers winning 73% and English managers winning 64%, using a draw as half a win. Foreign managers have qualified for 5 out of 5 tournaments whereas English managers have qualified for 4/6.[9]
In the 1930s Vittorio Pozzo introduced a 2-3-2-3 (See Fig. 3) to Italy’s national team using a third back for more defensive shape and style.[10] Italy won two World Cup’s in a row in 1934 and 1938.[11] Italy did not win another World Cup until Bearzot introduced a midfield libero into Italy’s defensive Catenaccio for the World Cup 1982, with which they won.[12]

Rinus Michels’ Netherlands incorporated the highly energetic Total Football in the early 1970s[13] and although they never won a World Cup, they finished runner’s up at both the 1974 and 1978 final.[14] A
Feola’s Brazil implemented the back four in 4-2-4(See Fig.3) for the first time at the World Cup 1958 and then kept it for 1962.[15] Both of which they won.[16] Zagallo’s Brazil won in 1970 with the same     4-2-4.[17]  Winning again in 1994 and 2002 with a narrow 4-2-2-2(See Fig.3) and wide 5-2-3(See Fig.3) respectively.[18]
Since the introduction of the Bosman Ruling(See Fig. 2) in 1996 the Premier League has seen an increase in international footballers. England’s win percentage (when draws count as half a win) has increased by 5.1% since 1996.[19]

C: Evaluation of Sources

Jonathan Wilson’s “Inverting the Pyramid”:
Written by Jonathan Wilson, this book on the history of football tactics is a secondary source published in 2008 and updated in 2013. Described by the Scotsman as “revelatory”[20] and the winner of the British Sports Book Award’s “Football Book Of The Year” award.[21] It is written with the purpose of selling books by informing the reader of the history of football tactics and entertaining through anecdotes and insightful arguments. Gathering information from footballing journalists of their times such as Willy Meisl and Brian Glanville, historical records of football matches, and information from primary sources of managers such as Jimmy Hogan and Helenio Herrera, to create an extremely thorough analysis and commentary on the history of tactical innovations, successes, and failures, to enhance football watching and understanding. The greatest value of this source is in the number of sources it draws from, which provide a range of knowledge on the subject. Another value is that, in a topic so flooded with sources of vast subjectivity and unreliability, this book provides intellectual and evidenced statements and points of discussion. The limitations of this source are in the limitations of football analysis in itself. The book’s observation of pre-televised football are based on potentially subjective opinion of early football writers and managers, and without a visual record of the matches football is an incredibly difficult game to judge.
“Soccernomics” by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski
Written by Financial Times sports columnist Simon Kuper, and professor of sports management and economics, Stefan Szymanski PhD, Soccernomics is a secondary source, originally published in 2009. The purpose of this book is to evaluate the statistics behind footballing occurrences, producing arguments from numerical data and economic studies. The purpose is also to entertain and sell books. Soccernomics offers insight into the effects of background dealings on football such as the hosting of tournaments and a country’s economic standing. The value of this source is in its ability avoid the ever present subjectivity of football by merely looking at statistics. The book’s gathering data from Russell Gerrard’s football database and Optastats provides a purely objective outlook on the phenomena that occur in football. The late cup winning manager Vujadin Boskov stated that, “Football is unpredictable”[22] and therein lies the limitation of this source. Due to football’s unpredictability, events cannot be fully explained through numbers and statistics, and without the full story of each football match it is made more difficult to conclude the reasons for its outcomes.

D: Analysis

A reluctance to innovate post 1966 has caused a lack of success for English football. When England reached the peak of their football success, winning the World Cup in 1966, it was seen as the greatest thing to happen to English football. However a theory has grown, that in the long term, it was in fact, the worst thing. David Downing in his books on England’s Rivalries[23] and Rob Steen, in The Mavericks[24] argue that the victory of 1966 has set English football back. Jonathan Wilson states that “The problem is not so much the way Ramsey’s England played as the fact that, in the minds of generations of fans and coaches in England, it laid down a ‘right’ way of playing”[25] and after Ramsey’s 4-4-2 saw success at club level with Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, it had certainly cemented itself as this “right” way. The 4-4-2 remained the staple of English coaches until the mid 90s, but since 66 is yet to see any form of competitive international success. This lack of innovation amongst English coaches, which blossomed after Ramsey’s era, has demonstrated its failings as the more creative minds of foreign managers have seen greater progress with the English national team. The relative success of these foreign managers shows that innovation has bred more success for the English team than tactical stagnation. Although since 1966, England’s inability to adapt has been ever present, it has been a feature of English football since its inception.
It could be argued that England’s lack of innovation was not solely sparked by 1966, but it has been ingrained in England since football began. After annihilating the English champions Wolves in 1960, Barcelona coach Helenio Herrera stated, “When it came to modern football, the Britons missed the evolution. The English are creatures of habit: tea at five.”[26] Although from 1960, this quote reigned true in describing the 100 years prior. In the first years of football, contested only between England and Scotland “kick and rush” was the norm, and England remained happy with that, but Scotland developed a more fluid passing game. The passing game saw success with Scottish clubs and Scotland themselves, but England remained stubborn. It wasn’t until a change in the offside rule that England, reluctantly, attempted to change their style. The natural reluctance to innovate England seemingly possess didn’t end there. Football journalist of the 1950s Willy Meisl compared England’s approach to football in the 1930s to their approach to Germany in the interwar period. “Round the thirties and towards the World War II we in Britain were living through a ‘safety-first’ period.” Later in the book he then states, “The fact is that English soccer has an enormous amount to learn from the rest of the world, about training, courses, tactics, organisation and strategy.”[27] The man considered the founder of Hungarian football[28] Jimmy Hogan stated “I still maintain we have the best players, but it is our style of playing that has gone wrong.”[29] These early opinions suggest that English football’s tactical mind has always been stale and in need of rejuvenation. However to truly assess the lack of success invoked by a reluctance to innovate, the success of innovation must be observed.
It is not only Scotland who have seen relative due to new ideas. Throughout footballing history it seems that innovation has bred success. Brazil, the most successful international team in football history, have thrived with adaptation. They developed four in defence, whilst others used three, and won three World Cups. Then by narrowing their midfield won another, and won their fifth by introducing five in defence. In comparison to England, Brazil have been far superior, and seemingly through innovation. However Brazil are not the only team to see success through new ideas. Italy are another prime example, developing defensive shape as their new Catenaccio led them to two World cup victories. However they experienced a similar trophy drought to England, until the subtle innovations of their manager Bearzot in midfield saw World Cup victory and demonstrated that after a length of stagnation, innovation has been the key to success.
Due to the unpredictability of football, it could be argued that there are far too many variables to determine that innovation is the single cause for a success or lack thereof. The Netherlands are the perfect support. Praised by David Winner and many others as “The best team never to win a World Cup”[30] the Dutch reached the 1974 and 1978 final with the genius Ajax innovation; total football. However they didn’t win, suggesting other factors of luck, individual skill, and many more, can have just as much of an effect on success as tactical innovation. The most prevalent argument for England’s lack of success is that the increase of foreign players playing the English League is responsible, however Kuper and Szymanski suggest “The experience of playing against the best foreign players every week has probably helped English Internationals to improve.”[31] And support this with the statistics that since the Bosman Ruling, England’s national team has won 5% more than it did prior to the increase in foreign players.

E: Conclusion

                  “Seven words have long dominated football: That’s the way it’s always been done.”[32] Having  assessed the evidence available, it is clear that this statement is true for the majority of England’s footballing history. Since 1966 England have obeyed the “rules” Ramsey set for football and England have failed to tactically innovate. Given events pre-1966 England have always “proved themselves unwilling to grapple with the abstract”[33] and have failed to succeed because of it. The victories of other international teams shortly after their tactical innovations suggest that innovation plays a large role in an international team’s success. However other variables such as the skill of players, luck, and more factors on football’s unending list of unpredictability, suggest that England’s failure to succeed is impossible to deduce. Nevertheless from the statistical analysis and observations of football history it is clear that tactical developments play a large role in the history of many international teams, and no matter what other factors affect them, England’s reluctance to innovate and failure to adapt have prevented them from succeeding since 1966.

F: Bibliography

Glanville, Brian. Soccer Nemesis. London: Secker & Warburg, 1955. Print
Harris, Tim. "Jimmy Hogan." Players: 250 Men, Women and Animals Who Created Modern Sport. London: Yellow Jersey, 2009. N. pag. Google. Web. 18 Aug. 2014.
Wilson, Jonathan. Inverting the Pyramid: A History of Football Tactics. London: Orion, 2008. Print.
Kuper, Simon, and Stefan Szymanski. Soccernomics: Why Transfers Fail, Why Spain Rule the World and Other Curious Football Phenomena Explained. London: HarperSport, 2012. Print.
"Previous Winners." British Sports Book Awards 2014 Previous Winners. British Sports Book Awards, n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2014.
"Book Review: Inverting the Pyramid." The Scotsman. The Scotsman, 05 June 2008. Web. 20 Aug. 2014.
"FIFA World Cup™ Final." FIFA.com. FIFA, 01 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
"UEFA EURO 2016 Finals - History – UEFA.com." UEFA.com. UEFA, 2014. Web. 25 Aug. 2014.
Adams, Adrian. We Love Football: Best Football Quotes On Earth. N.p.: on Demand, 2014. Print.
Steen, Robert. The Mavericks: English Football When Flair Wore Flares. Edinburgh: Mainstream, 1995. Print.
Downing, David. The Best of Enemies: England v. Germany, a Century of Football Rivalry. London: Bloomsbury, 2000. Print.
England v Argentina: World Cups and Other Small Wars. London: Portrait, 2003. Print.
Herrera, Fiora Gandolfi, Tacalabala, Esercizi di magia di Helenio Herrera. Tapiro, 2002.
Winner, David. Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football. London: Bloomsbury, 2000. Print.
Meisl, Willy. Soccer Revolution. London: Phoenix Sports, 1955. Print.
SoccerCoachingInternational’s Glossary of Soccer Terms (n.d.): n. pag. Soccer Coaching International. 16 Apr. 2007. Web. 30 Sept. 2014
Bosman Law Citation:
Judgment on Freedom of movement for workers delivered by European Court
Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman, Case C-415/93, ECLI 1995 I-04921
"Lineup Builder." : Football Formations and Tactics. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

G: Appendix
Fig. 1:
Glossary of Football terms used: (as stated in Soccer Coaching International’s Glossary of Terms)[34]
Defence- A team's function of preventing the opposition from scoring.
Midfield- The group of players who function primarily in the centre (neutral) third of the field
Libero- (Italian for "free player") sweeper or stopper who may go forward to support the attack
Catenaccio-(Italian for "chain") - A defensive playing style (formation, etc.) developed by the Italians, often using a sweeper, that gives up few goals while degrading the game to boredom.
Total Football- a philosophy (system, style, organization) of play popularized by the Dutch in the 1970's that allows any player to attack or defend, with others moving around to cover vacated areas. Total Football requires players to be highly fit and above average in intelligence.
Third Back- A third central defender added to two central defenders for increased defensive stability.
Back Four- A formation of deep defenders comprised of the left and right outside defenders and two other central defenders.
Kick and Rush- Football played vigorously but with little skill. Involves long passing across the pitch to score, involving very few small passes.
Note: When using Nation names (ie. England) reference is to that Nation’s national football team.
Fig. 2:
Bosman Ruling- “Judgment of the Court of 15 December 1995.
Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Liège - Belgium.
Freedom of movement for workers - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Professional footballers - Sporting rules on the transfer of players requiring the new club to pay a fee to the old club - Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match.
Case C-415/93.”
[35]


[1] Wilson p. 22
[2] ibid p. 30-35
[3] FIFA
[4] UEFA
[5] Wilson p. 179
[6] ibid p. 304-308
[7] ibid p. 446
[8] Kuper and Szymanski p. 309-310
[9] ibid p. 332
[10] Wilson p. 85
[11] FIFA
[12] Wilson p. 296
[13] Wilson p. 254
[14] FIFA
[15] Wilson p. 150
[16] FIFA
[17] Wilson p. 285
[18] ibid p. 299
[19] Kuper and Szymanski p. 314
[20] The Scotsman
[21] British Sports Book Awards
[22] Adams p. 121
[23] Downing
[24] Steen
[25] Wilson p. 7
[26] Herrera
[27] Meisl
[28] Wilson p. 38
[29] Harris
[30] Winner
[31] Kuper and Szymanski p. 314
[32] Anderson and Sally p. 1
[33] Wilson p. 5
[34] SoccerCoachingInternational
[35] Bosman Law Citation
[36] Lineupbuilder.com



To what extent was religious duty a more popular reason than absolution or acquisition of wealth for bearing the Cross in the First Crusade?


Part A: Plan of Investigation


The intention of this investigation is to assess the reasons for which people chose to respond to Pope Urban II’s call to arms at Clermont on November 27th and embark on the First Crusade in 1096, and the years following.  This is a topic which has been readily studied for decades, and has produced a variety of theses, antitheses and syntheses, my objective is to review several of these arguments and produce a conclusion regarding whether or not the peoples’ sense of religious duty was truly a more influential reason for crusading in 1096, than the possibility of wealth acquisition. Prominent theories include the promise of penance and absolution of sins, religious duty, and the acquisition of new lands in the West. Much of the historiography surrounding the Crusades, including that of Jonathan Riley-Smith, points to religious duty as the reasoning adopted by the majority of crusaders.  The bulk of these theories can divided into two basic schools of thought, realism[1], humans are inherently selfish and would only embark on the dangerous crusade in self interest, and idealism[2], where humans are inherently good and would therefore risk their lives crusading out of religious duty.

 
Part B: Evidence

In 1090 there was a brutal massacre of Christians in Jerusalem by Fatimid Hakim[3]. In 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchure was nearly obliterated[4], and Christians were banned from visiting and praying there for eleven years thereafter[5]. In 1071 the Byzantine Empire lost a large sum of its territory known as Asia Minor, to the Turks, this significantly decreased the size of their empire[6]. During the eleventh century Gregory IV established the militia sancti Petri, a military devoted entirely to the Church. At this time there was no separation of Church and State, the Church and therefore the Pope was the supreme power. In the latter half of the decade preceding Urban II’s call to arms there had been a severe famine[7], affecting the livelihood of many peasants.  In what is now Spain, there had been fighting between the Spanish Christians[8]*2, and those they considered infidels for the majority of the century.  In March 1095 Emperor Alexius I requested aid from Pope Urban II in fighting the Seljuk Turks. Several months after Pope Urban II responds to Alexius saying he is willing to help and issues call to arms[9].

The bible states explicitly that Christians should “love thy neighbor”.[10] In 1095 Pope Urban II delivered a call to arms at Clermont, in response to Emperor Alexius’ request for aid in battle against the Seljuk Turks.[11] Urban II declared that anyone who took the cross would be absolved of all previous sins.[12]

Eustace II Count of Boulogne had three sons[13], of which Godfrey of Bullion was the second, and Baldwin was the third. Godfrey was made to receive a magnanimous inheritance from his father, whereas Baldwin, being the third son was not, he was due to spend his life working humbly within the Church though no tangible evidence has been found tying him to the Church, or with having any extraordinary affiliations with the Church[14]. Baldwin would have gained much land from going on crusade. Godfrey dies an untimely death in July of 1100; his inheritance and status is passed, subsequently, to Baldwin[15]. Baldwin is crowned king of Bullion; he becomes the first King of Bullion. [16]

Robert the monk incentivized[17] the people in his speech[18], “but if you are hindered by love of children, parents and wives, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me."[19] "Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life” and “on whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.” And “that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire;”[20]
These are three very different approaches of persuasion yet they mention three of the prevalent reasons for crusading, and he is clearly attempting to appeal to a wide range of potential crusaders.

In the latter half of 1095, Pope Urban II gave a speech to the people, urging them to join his cause[21], appealing to their sense of religious duty in this quotation from Thomas Asbridge’s book, “The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam”,  “He called upon the warriors of the Latin West to avenge a range of ghastly ‘crimes’ committed against Christendom by the followers of Islam, urging them to bring aid to their eastern brethren and to conquer again the most sacred site on earth, the city of Jerusalem.”[22] Historian Steven Runciman, one of the most acclaimed historians of the Crusades regarded the First Crusade "as a barbarian invasion of a superior civilization, not that of the Muslims but of the Byzantines."[23]


Part C: Evaluation of Sources


Source One:  What Were the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith

Jonathan Riley Smith, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University published his book “The Crusades, Christianity and Islam” in 2008, introducing an unique argument to the melting pot of theories regarding the motivation for people joining the First Crusade in 1096 and thereafter. The purpose of Riley- Smith’s book is to propose that the people were drawn into a “penitential warfare” out of love, stemming from the Christian concept of “love thy neighbour”, and persuade readers to believe religious duty and “love for thy” neighbour” were more influential reasons for going on Crusade than acquisition of wealth.  His arguments were “provocative”, using comparisons with the flammable recent event, the bombing of twin towers on 9.11., setting his book aside from drier accounts of the First Crusade. The valuable aspect of this book is that it offers a modern comparison with 9.11., and makes strong links between the ancient history of the Crusades, and contemporary events also rooted in conflict between Christianity and Islam; by making relevant comparisons, Riley-Smith’s evaluation is more thorough than a post-revisionist account which only looks at prior publications. Riley-Smith’s vague generalizations towards both the Islamic and Christian perspectives lower his credibility, thus acting as a limiting factor to the value of his publication as a source, as his conclusions can only be as accurate as the specificity and detail of his research and his understanding of the material.

Source Two: Speech by Pope Urban II at Clermont 1095*2

The speech given at Clermont in 1095 by Pope Urban II was the formal beginning of the Crusades, its purpose was to call forth people of various backgrounds and circumstances to venture on crusade in aid of Emperor Alexius, as a response to his earlier call to arms. The value of this source lies in that it is essentially, there are no external interpretations given by historians, momentarily setting aside the translation, and thus readers can determine for themselves the meaning, and importance of the source. Alternatively, the fact that many, if not all Crusade historians have studied and written about this speech suggests that by the consequence of its popularity it is a valuable source. Urban II’s speech was meant to persuade the people, particularly the peasant class to join the Crusade. This source is limited, however, in its accuracy as the speech was given nine centuries ago, and was only formally written down between 1100 and 1106. Reasonably, until the time of the documents publication, the contents of Urban II’s speech had been passed by word of mouth, and therefore subjected heavily to unintentional distortion.  Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, in terms of the speech’s limitations as a source, it has been translated into many languages since its delivery in 1095; the fact of the matter is, it was delivered in ancient Latin, and as consequence it would have had to be translated for historians to read it. Translations between languages can never be entirely accurate, ergo, the initial limitations of Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont is it hasn’t been studied in its original language. Though it is unlikely this copy of the speech written by Fulcher of Chartes is an exact replication of Urban II’s speech, it is still a valuable insight into the types of words used to persuade people to embark on the perilous journey of the First Crusade.

Part D: Analysis

     Theories of the reasons which drove people from varying backgrounds to participate in the First Crusade can be divided, essentially, into two people of two schools of though, realism and idealism. Those believing in the idyllic “love thy neighbor” concept preached to them by the Church, were compelled, Riley-Smith argues, to undertake the brutal First Crusade to save their Christian brothers in the East. Erdmann offers a similar argument, but it follows a more realistic interpretation of human nature, that it was an act of revenge against Jerusalem and the Christians who were suffering under Alexius; their anger stemming from the fighting over The Church of the Holy Sepulchure a decade prior. The difference between the two historians’ beliefs is that Riley-Smith is arguing people are intrinsically good and willing to risk their lives in the pursuit of being good Christians, whereas Erdmann considers that crusaders used the excuse of “loving thy neighbor” to satisfy their own vengeful motives.
     The strongest counterclaim to Riley- Smith’s argument is in the imminent danger crusaders would have faced on their journey; people would have been, if Riley-Smith was correct, selflessly risking their lives, and the lives of their families for their fellow Christians across the world, an idea which goes against the most basic principles of human nature. Following a similar structure is the argument which claims the most prominent reason to crusade was the pursuit of total absolution. The grounds for this arguments lie within the fact that, due to the lack of separate of Church and State, people were deeply religious, and in the West, where Pope Urban II drew his crusaders from where devout Catholics. The sheer number of crusaders is enough to support the claims naming penance the reason.
     It is known people were religious, and thus were easily persuaded into risking their lives for absolution; essentially absolution was the best thing a person could obtain. The realistic counter argument to the previous argument is one which applies primarily to the knights who participated in the First Crusade, supported by historians Penny Cole and Hans Mayer; crusading offered a welcomed opportunity for knights to participate in the secular community. Killing, regarded as a sin under usual circumstances was allowed, and even rewarded during the Crusade, allowing the knightly class an opportunity to continue their gruesome occupation and simultaneously gain absolution for their previous less than savory acts. Respectively, both knights and peasants crusaded in the pursuit of absolution, but they are separated in that the peasants, Riley-Smith claims, crusaded in order to have their Christian souls saved, whereas the knights sought to be absolved of their murders.  The knights were, not unlike revenge-seeking crusaders, parading with the façade of Christian intent when their true motives were self-serving.
     The final group of people who were incentivized to bear the cross in 1095 were those who sought land acquisition and wealth in the east. In the conquering of new lands there is always the opportunity to increase ones one wealth by taking that of the conquered peoples. The inherently selfish nature of human is reason enough to substantiate the claims that crusading was a selfish act, however, the case study provided by Godfrey of Bullion, as the second son of Count Eustace II of Boulogne provides ample evidence for these claims.  Historians who believe the opportunity to gain wealth was a stronger driving force than religious pursuits to go on crusade belong to a more realistic school of thought; it does not, however, mean their reasoning was more widely followed than those arguments of their more idyllically minded counterparts.   

Conclusion

The academic discourse surrounding the motivations of the crusaders in 1095 is one of the longest standing historical debates, which is to say, there can never be any one answer. Realistically, all 35,000 (see David Nicolle, historian as source) members of the first crusade ventured out with the same reasoning in mind. Each historian puts forth reasonable arguments and at least one crusader must have used that line of reasoning thus verifying, to an extent their argument. When attempting to determine something as abstruse as the intention of one person’s line of reasoning towards embarking on something as dangerous as the First Crusade, there can never be definitive answers.  The people of the 11th Century decided to become, or not become, crusaders for whatever reasons applied directly to them, wealth, absolution, acceptance and so on. Riley-Smith’s arguments for a “crusade of love” is refreshingly optimistic considering the horror which was the First Crusade; like all theories, however, Riley-Smith’s stemmed from the fundamental principle of human nature being intrinsically good, or bad.


Appendix
*2 Pope Urban II’s Speech at Clermont 1095
This account of Urban II's speech was written toward twenty-five years after Urban's visit to France and does not claim to give more than a general idea of the pope's arguments
In the year of our Lord's Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five, a great council was celebrated within the bounds of Gaul, in Auvergne, in the city which is called Clermont. Over this Pope Urban II presided, with the Roman bishops and cardinals. This council was a famous one on account of the concourse of both French and German bishops, and of princes as well. Having arranged the matters relating to the Church, the lord pope went forth into a certain spacious plain, for no building was large enough to hold all the people. The pope-then, with sweet and persuasive eloquence, addressed those present in words something like the following, saying:
"Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God, - as is clear from many of your works,- set apart from all other nations by the situation of your country as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor which you render to the holy Church: to you our discourse is addressed, and for you our exhortations are intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has led us to your country, for it is the imminent peril threatening you and all the faithful which has brought us hither.
From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months' time.
"On whom, therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you, you upon whom, above all other nations, God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the heads of those who resist you ? Let the deeds of your ancestors encourage you and incite your minds to manly achievements:-the greatness of King Charlemagne, and of his son Louis, and of your other monarchs, who have destroyed the kingdoms of the Turks and have extended the sway of Church over lands previously possessed by the pagan. Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor of your progenitors.
"But if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in intestine strife.'
[Another of those present at the Council of Clermont, Fulcher of Chartres, thus reports this part of Urban's speech: "Let those who have formerly been accustomed to contend wickedly in private warfare against the faithful fight against the infidel, and bring to a victorious end the war which ought already to have been begun. Let those who have hitherto been robbers now become soldiers. Let those who have formerly contended against their brothers and relatives now fight against the barbarians as they ought. Let those who have formerly been mercenaries at low wages now gain eternal rewards. Let those who have been exhausting themselves to the detriment both of body and soul now strive for a twofold reward" See a complete translation of Fulcher's report of Urban's speech in Translations and Reprints, Vol. 1. No. 2.]
"Let hatred therefore depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey' was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial.
"This royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all other nations great glory in arms. Accordingly, undertake this journey eagerly for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of imperishable glory in the kingdon of heaven.."
When Pope Urban had urbanely said thes and very similar things, he so centered in one purpose the desires all who were present that all cried out, " It is the will of God! I It is the. will of God 1 " When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven, he gave thanks to God and, commanding silence with his hand, said:
"Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, `Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them'; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!' [Deus vult! Deus Vult!]
"And ee neither command nor advise that the old or those incapable of bearing arms, undertake this journey. Nor ought women to set out at all without their husbands, or brother, or legal guardians. For such are more of a hindrance than aid, more of a burden than an advantage. Let the rich aid the needy and according to their wealth let them take with them experienced soldiers. The priests and other clerks, whether secular or regulars are not to go without the consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they went without permission. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter upon the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests.
"Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage, and shall make his vow to God to that effect, and shall offer himself to him for sacrifice, as a living victim, holy and acceptable to God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When, indeed, he shall return from his journey, having fulfilled his vow, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Thus shall ye, indeed, by this twofold action, fulfill the precept of the Lord, as lie commands in the Gospel, 'he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."'
 

[1] Schuett, Robert. Political Realism, Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations: The Resurrection of the Realist Man. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
[2] Berkeley, George, Howard Robinson, and George Berkeley. Principles of Human Knowledge ; And, Three Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.
[3] Scaruffi, Piero. "A Timeline and History of the Arabs." A Timeline and History of the Arabs. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. .
[4] "The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of 1009." The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of 1009. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. .
[5] Harpur, James. "Islam Triumphant." The Crusades The Two Hundred Years War: The Clash Between the Cross and the Cresent in the Middle East 1096-1291. New York: Rosen Group, 2008. N. pag. Print.
[6] Frankopan, Peter. "Collapse of Asia Minor." The First Crusade: The Call from the East. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2012. 57-70. Print.
[7] Kostick, Conor. "From the Preaching to the Rise of the Visionaries." The Social Structure of the First Crusade. Leiden: Brill, 2008. N. pag. Print.
[8] "Europe During the Crusades." European History Boise State. Ed. E.L. Skip Knox. N.p., n.d. Web. .
[9] Corbo, Virgilio, Michele Piccirillo, and Eugenio Alliata. "The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of 1009." The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of 1009. Christus Rex, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2001.
[10] Mark. The Holy Bible. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
[11] Runciman, Steven, and Steven Runciman. A History of the Crusades. N.p.: Cambridge U.P, 1952. Print.
[12] Phillips, Jonathan. "Context." Introduction. The Crusades, 1095-1197. Harlow: Longman, 2002. 13. Print.
[13] Mayer, Hans Eberhard. "The Succession to Baldwin II of Jerusalem: English Impact on the East." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985): 139-47. JSTOR. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. .
[14] Snell, Melissa. "Godfrey of Bouillon - Crusader." About. About Education, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. .
[15] Tozer, Tom. Godfrey De Bouillon: Defender of the Holy Sepulcher. N.p.: PublishAmerica, 2004. Print.
[16] Andressohn, John C., and Gottfried Von Bouillon. The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon. Bloomington, IN: Ind. U, 1947. Print.
[17] Napier, Gordon. "Robert the Monk and the Council of Clermont." Web log post. Gordon Napier History. N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. .
[18] Napier, Gordon. "Robert the Monk and the Council of Clermont." Web log post. Gordon Napier History. N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. .
[19] Monk, Robert the. "Http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html." Speech at Clermont. Fordham. Web. 1095. .
[20] Munro, Dana Carleton. Urban and the Crusaders. Vol. 1:2. Philadelphia, PA: Dept. of History of the U of Pennsylvania, 1895. Print
[21] Munro, Dana Carleton. "The Speech of Pope Urban II. At Clermont, 1095." The American Historical Review 11.2 (1906): 231. Web.
[22] Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 16. Print.
[23] John M Riddle (2008). A History of the Middle Ages, 300 - 1500. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Incorporated. p. 315.