This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

AQA AS Level History Unit 1B - Tudors (1483-1529):14th May 2013

The first arguement was saying he saved money for avoidin war. I think i accidentally put Henry VII instead of Henry VIII for the 960000 cost. I heard that you can make a few comparisons so long as you dont make it too much about Henry VIII.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I understood who you were talking about, but an examiner won't give you credit if you're unclear. Sure, you can make a few comparisons, but it's better to keep them low-key and even restrict it to the conclusion, as you can see I did in the rewrite.

Reply 21

Asterisk49

10

Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish

I understood who you were talking about, but an examiner won't give you credit if you're unclear. Sure, you can make a few comparisons, but it's better to keep them low-key and even restrict it to the conclusion, as you can see I did in the rewrite.

I kinda get what you mean and your answer was very good.

Out of interest, what would you give my original answer and what would you give your superior rewrite on the mark scheme.
Yours I woulda thought is definitely top band but my teacher always told us to put in named historians and stuff. Would not putting in historians hold u back from the top?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 22

AdvanceAndVanquish

12

Original post by Asterisk49

I kinda get what you mean and your answer was very good.

Out of interest, what would you give my original answer and what would you give your superior rewrite on the mark scheme.
Yours I woulda thought is definitely top band but my teacher always told us to put in named historians and stuff. Would not putting in historians hold u back from the top?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I really couldn't tell you on the mark scheme. I know what a good essay is, but as to what exact number it corresponds to? I'm a bit rusty on that, and not particularly keen to dive back into mark schemes because I already have a bit of a headache and that wouldn't help. I can tell you that adding named historians won't hurt, but I'm pretty sure leaving them out won't hold you back from the top if everything else is excellent

Btw what the hell is in your picture? because it's intensely disturbing

Reply 23

Asterisk49

10

Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish

I really couldn't tell you on the mark scheme. I know what a good essay is, but as to what exact number it corresponds to? I'm a bit rusty on that, and not particularly keen to dive back into mark schemes because I already have a bit of a headache and that wouldn't help. I can tell you that adding named historians won't hurt, but I'm pretty sure leaving them out won't hold you back from the top if everything else is excellent

Btw what the hell is in your picture? because it's intensely disturbing

No idea.

I found it while looking for mugshots on the internet during ICT last year.
Its gotta be some intense CGI or something.
All I know is I got sent out because i laughed so much.

Reply 24

AdvanceAndVanquish

12

Original post by Asterisk49

No idea.

I found it while looking for mugshots on the internet during ICT last year.
Its gotta be some intense CGI or something.
All I know is I got sent out because i laughed so much.

I think it might be a dead guy.

Reply 25

Asterisk49

10

Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish

I think it might be a dead guy.

That would be pretty embarressing.

I think I'd possibly get another warning.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 26

LaLady

Hi guys I'm panicking too lol but I can guess what question 3 will be about:

Probably the church.
12mark: why did henry want an annulment/ why did henry not get an annulment
Essay: the condition of the church (this has never been asked before as an essay question and its on the specification) - my teacher said this so yeah
But I'm confused as to what kind of question? Would it be ..
How far did people oppose the church in England?? Or something like that?? (During henry's viii's time)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 27

Asterisk49

10

Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish

If anyone wants me to look over practice essays that they've written for this unit, I'd be more than happy to do so.

If you are interested, I've done another question that I think is better although the second paragraph is fairly weak and the 3rd and fourth may have strayed off from talking about foreign policy.
I think that the overall structure is a little better though.

How important was foreign support for Henry Tudor in winning the battle of Bosworth?

Henry's victory at Bosworth definitely owed to foreign support given by the king of France, Charles III. Henry was given ships, 60000 francs and 1800 highly trained French mercenaries under Phillibert de Chandeé that formed the base of his force at Bosworth. While this no doubt contributed to the final victory at Bosworth, it must also be noted that Richard's alienation of noblemen and southern gentry also contributed to Henry's victory, along with the possibility that bad luck on Richard's part also had an impact.

In the final stages of the battle, the French mercenaries proved vital in defending Henry Tudor from Richard III's ambitious charge to eliminate Tudor, employing sophisticated Swiss pike tactics never seen before in England. This attack nearly succeeded, with Henry's standard bearer killed as a direct result, so clearly the French mercenaries may have saved Henry the battle.

Of course though, Henry did not enter the battle with just 1800 French mercenaries. He was able to secretly gather the support of important men such as Rhys ap Thomas and Sir John Savage. While Thomas likely joined out of desire for reward, Henry was able to rely on many noblemen and leading gentry due to Richard's unpopularity which largely stemmed from usurping Edward V, son of Popular Yorkist monarch Edward IV. Henry was also able to rely on many of the southern gentry as a direct result of Richard's plantation of the south whereby 40 northern gentry were given 97 attainted lands after the Buckingham rebellion. The results of Richard's unpopularity can be seen clearly in how many noble peers declared for him. Richard III, the ruling monarch in a country with strong yorkist support garnered only 6 declarations from noble peers while Henry, a French backed usurper with a weak claim to the throne garnered 7.

Despite this higher level of support from nobility, Henry's forces were still outnumbered on the day of the battle, with his own forces at 5000 men while Richard had amassed a force of between 10,000 and 12,000 men. Other factors suggesting Richard should have won the battle was his decorated military history and Skill as a commander. He also had the high ground on top of Ambien hill while Henry was stuck in the marshes. Clearly, luck had a part to play in Henry's victory here. Firstly the defection of Northumberland and the assistance of Sir William Stanley were serious blows to Richard with Stanley deciding his fate. Secondly the final charge nearly succeeded, but was too ambitious and according to historian A.J Pollard it was the reason for his defeat. Arguably, being able to hold out for so long against a bigger force, have defections and a reckless military decision were incredibly lucky but decisive occurences for Henry.

In conclusion though, foreign support not only provided the resources to make invasion possible, it also provided them with the mercenaries who defended him from a serious attack. Without this, Henry may not have won.

Overall, I think its better than the other one but could use some improvement, eapecially on the areas I said before.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 28

alexdob

Original post by Endless Blue

Hey I've got a copy of the Jan 13 paper :smile:

Q1) was on trade

Q2) Perkin Warbeck (12) and nobility (24)

Q3) Wolsey foreign policy

So I'm expecting Richard III to come up and maybe Henry VII foreign policy.

Hi, is it at all possible that you can post the exact questions for each of them? Thank you

Reply 29

Asterisk49

10

Original post by LaLady

Hi guys I'm panicking too lol but I can guess what question 3 will be about:

Probably the church.
12mark: why did henry want an annulment/ why did henry not get an annulment
Essay: the condition of the church (this has never been asked before as an essay question and its on the specification) - my teacher said this so yeah
But I'm confused as to what kind of question? Would it be ..
How far did people oppose the church in England?? Or something like that?? (During henry's viii's time)

If it is, you'll probably have to mention the lollards, the trad interpretation that people were happy 'bout it. The rev interpretation they liked the church.

Personally though, I think itll be on the fall of Wolsey.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 30

LaLady

Original post by Asterisk49

If it is, you'll probably have to mention the lollards, the trad interpretation that people were happy 'bout it. The rev interpretation they liked the church.

Personally though, I think itll be on the fall of Wolsey.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Omg who are the lollards? I've never heard of them??? We've just been studying historians aaargh.
Btw does anyone know any evidence that there was simony (selling/buying positions in church). I forgot to write it in class. I would be very grateful.

Reply 31

Asterisk49

10

Original post by LaLady

Omg who are the lollards? I've never heard of them??? We've just been studying historians aaargh.
Btw does anyone know any evidence that there was simony (selling/buying positions in church). I forgot to write it in class. I would be very grateful.

Lollards arent really as important as humanists or protestants.

They were around for a while but i gues they arent that important.

I dont have anything for simony but you could try looking up simony historiogrophy or something similar and then there may be some views.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

LaLady

Hi here's an essay that I did on the conditions of the church, could someone please mark it if it bad or what lol. and i made the question up.

How serious were the opposition to the church by 1529?

(couldnt be bothered to make an intro) - ill make it in the exams obv just by putting points down.

One main factor that suggests opposition to the church was serious was that monks and priests were ignorant. An evidence for this was that in 1511-12, Archibishop Wickham visited 260 parishes in Kent and found 4 ignorant priests. During this period, priests were expected to be able to read so that they could send out the words of God from the bible that were written in Latin. Most people during this period couldn't read meaning that it was the priests' duty to be able to interpret words from the bible so that people could live in christianity. Priests not being able to read meant that they couldn't fulfill their role in the church and therefore became unpopular suggesting that they opposed the running of the church but not the doctrine of the church itself.

Secondly, there was corruption in the Church itself. One example of this would be that there was Simony. This may explain the reason why there was ignorant priests. Nevertheless a priest must show dedication to the Church and can therefore not be able buy a position in the church this meant that parishioners couldn't rely on priests as weren't able to earn the position in the church. This suggests that the people did oppose the running of the church but not the doctrine itself, they opposed Simony as some priests couldn't fulfil their purpose in the church.

On the other hand it could be said that the majority of Englanddidn't actually oppose the Church as money was actually being donated to the church fund. An evidence for this is that Robert Findings, a historian, stated that on the eve of reformation 57% in Devon and cornwall between 1520-29 local parishioners had left money in wills. 57% is a huge percentage meaning that the church was highly popular therefore suggesting that the majority didnt oppose the church as they wouldn't have given such a large amount of money if they did oppose the church. ALso people left money so that people could pray for the dead and this suggests that people didnt oppose the church but in fact believed in the church up until death which implies that opposition was not at all a threat.

Another reason why opposition to the church wasn't so serious was because sacraments and rituals were popular. Many people had attended the mass. This suggests that the Church was popular meaning that there wasn't much serious opposition. If people weren'T happy with these then they wouldn't attend. The high levels of attendance meant that they enjoyed the sermojs suggesting that they didn't oppose the doctrine of the church, it could also be seen that the people liked the church men as sacraments and rituals would've obviously been led by these church men therefore meaning that there was no such serious threat at all against the church itself.

Overall, the opposition to the church wasn't highly serious because there was only 4 priests out of 260 parishes that couldn't read meaning that there was only a small number of people who opposed the running of the church. There was also simony and there wasn't much during the period and there was high attendance and large sum of money being donated to the church suggesting that it was unlikely that were would be such serious threat towards the church

You dont have to mark it just tell me if it's graded less than a C.

Reply 33

Asterisk49

10

Original post by LaLady

Hi here's an essay that I did on the conditions of the church, could someone please mark it if it bad or what lol. and i made the question up.

How serious were the opposition to the church by 1529?

(couldnt be bothered to make an intro) - ill make it in the exams obv just by putting points down.

One main factor that suggests opposition to the church was serious was that monks and priests were ignorant. An evidence for this was that in 1511-12, Archibishop Wickham visited 260 parishes in Kent and found 4 ignorant priests. During this period, priests were expected to be able to read so that they could send out the words of God from the bible that were written in Latin. Most people during this period couldn't read meaning that it was the priests' duty to be able to interpret words from the bible so that people could live in christianity. Priests not being able to read meant that they couldn't fulfill their role in the church and therefore became unpopular suggesting that they opposed the running of the church but not the doctrine of the church itself.

Secondly, there was corruption in the Church itself. One example of this would be that there was Simony. This may explain the reason why there was ignorant priests. Nevertheless a priest must show dedication to the Church and can therefore not be able buy a position in the church this meant that parishioners couldn't rely on priests as weren't able to earn the position in the church. This suggests that the people did oppose the running of the church but not the doctrine itself, they opposed Simony as some priests couldn't fulfil their purpose in the church.

On the other hand it could be said that the majority of Englanddidn't actually oppose the Church as money was actually being donated to the church fund. An evidence for this is that Robert Findings, a historian, stated that on the eve of reformation 57% in Devon and cornwall between 1520-29 local parishioners had left money in wills. 57% is a huge percentage meaning that the church was highly popular therefore suggesting that the majority didnt oppose the church as they wouldn't have given such a large amount of money if they did oppose the church. ALso people left money so that people could pray for the dead and this suggests that people didnt oppose the church but in fact believed in the church up until death which implies that opposition was not at all a threat.

Another reason why opposition to the church wasn't so serious was because sacraments and rituals were popular. Many people had attended the mass. This suggests that the Church was popular meaning that there wasn't much serious opposition. If people weren'T happy with these then they wouldn't attend. The high levels of attendance meant that they enjoyed the sermojs suggesting that they didn't oppose the doctrine of the church, it could also be seen that the people liked the church men as sacraments and rituals would've obviously been led by these church men therefore meaning that there was no such serious threat at all against the church itself.

Overall, the opposition to the church wasn't highly serious because there was only 4 priests out of 260 parishes that couldn't read meaning that there was only a small number of people who opposed the running of the church. There was also simony and there wasn't much during the period and there was high attendance and large sum of money being donated to the church suggesting that it was unlikely that were would be such serious threat towards the church

You dont have to mark it just tell me if it's graded less than a C.

The only thing im confused about is the 4 priests. In the first para, you seem a little confused as to whether that is evidence or not.
You got it right in the end though, but what you must remember is that the examiners can be *******s. I would try and go with some other evidence to support it and use the 4 priests in the same place you put them in the second time.

Perhaps you could do something on pluralism?
Or how rich the church had become?

On an unrelated note, what if those 4 priests were doing pluralism and were the only priests in those 260 counties? Lol that'd be crazy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 34

johngob

Hi guys,

I'm doing this exam and wondering what you think will come up on Tuesday and the successes and failures of Henry VII 's foreign policy e.g the Italian wars as I'm kinda of struggling with it :frown:

Reply 35

Asterisk49

10

Original post by johngob

Hi guys,

I'm doing this exam and wondering what you think will come up on Tuesday and the successes and failures of Henry VII 's foreign policy e.g the Italian wars as I'm kinda of struggling with it :frown:

Definitely not controlling the nobility.

Probly Wolsey's fall.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

aludford98787

Hi

has anyone got any past responses which achieved a A/B grade they'd be willing to share so I can get the structure?

Reply 37

Asterisk49

10

Original post by aludford98787

Hi

has anyone got any past responses which achieved a A/B grade they'd be willing to share so I can get the structure?

Somebody re-wrote one I did further up the thread. That one is pretty good.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 38

emilyisgr8

This paper is so intimdating in relation to the Vietnam one, I mean there is no time to plan an answer at all

Fingers crossed for Richard, I mean 2 years are sooo much easier than Henry VII, too many years and too much to remember!

Reply 39

loveslinus

Does anyone have any idea what the Treaty of Eternal Peace (1527) was all about? Similarly, the Treaty of the More (1525) and Amiens (1527 - Is this the same as Eternal Peace?) ?!?!

Original post by alexdob

Hi, is it at all possible that you can post the exact questions for each of them? Thank you

And the Jan 2013 questions were (in full):
01) Explain why Henry VII introduced the Navigation Acts (12)
02) How successful were the trade policies in strengthening the kingdom in the years 1485 to 1509? (24)
03) Explain why Perkin Warbeck was executed in 1499 (12)
04) How far was the consolidation of royal authority in the years 1485 to 1495 due to Henry VII's management of the nobility? (24)
05) Explain why Henry VIII went to war against France in 1512 (12)
06) How successful was Wolsey's management of foreign affairs in promoting England's interests in the years 1514 to 1529? (24)

So basically, they were pretty awful questions :tongue:

Just remember:
For 12 markers: 3-4 reasons with linkages and a most important factor
and for 24 markers: Balanced argument mentioning other significant factors, different "historical interpretations", and a clear conclusion giving a judgement on "how far"/"how successful" etc.

(edited 10 years ago)

AQA AS Level History Unit 1B - Tudors (1483-1529):14th May 2013

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you