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

This discussion is closed.
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Hi,

Is anyone on here sitting this exam? I've seen a thread on Unit 2Q (USA and Vietnam) which I'm also sitting, but nothing on this unit. Hopefully someone else will be so we can discuss!
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Hey me too!


In disregarding Wolsey and only revising up to empson and Dudley's execution (Wolsey has a dumb name anyways).

If u want to help me out big time, could you tell me what was on the Jan 2013 paper.

If there wasnt a question about nobility on there, i would think there'd be one this year (although the paper isnt on the AQA website).

Have fun in 8 days time


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
This profile pic isnt my real face BTW


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Asterisk49)
Hey me too!


In disregarding Wolsey and only revising up to empson and Dudley's execution (Wolsey has a dumb name anyways).

If u want to help me out big time, could you tell me what was on the Jan 2013 paper.

If there wasnt a question about nobility on there, i would think there'd be one this year (although the paper isnt on the AQA website).


Have fun in 8 days time


Posted from TSR Mobile
Hi there! :hi:

I'm not bothering revising the Wolsey topic either as I missed some of it and generally like it less. The trend in the past papers seems to be:

Q1) Richard III reign/why Henry Tudor was able to take throne;
or, early Henry VII consolidation - pretenders, rebellions etc and how he consolidated

Q2) Henry VII foreign policy;
or Tudor finances/economy;
or Henry VII general consolidation (dependent on Q1 being on Richard III)

Q3) Wolsey etc.


I've only ever seen one Q2 that involved anything on Henry VIII (and even then that was on why Empson and Dudley were executed, so early on) but it's possible that they could throw one in there so I'll skim over my notes just in case.

With regards to Jan 13 paper - I don't have it either but hopefully my teacher can get a copy this week. I really need it! I'll keep you posted if I get something.
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Endless Blue)
Hi there! :hi:

I'm not bothering revising the Wolsey topic either as I missed some of it and generally like it less. The trend in the past papers seems to be:

Q1) Richard III reign/why Henry Tudor was able to take throne;
or, early Henry VII consolidation - pretenders, rebellions etc and how he consolidated

Q2) Henry VII foreign policy;
or Tudor finances/economy;
or Henry VII general consolidation (dependent on Q1 being on Richard III)

Q3) Wolsey etc.


I've only ever seen one Q2 that involved anything on Henry VIII (and even then that was on why Empson and Dudley were executed, so early on) but it's possible that they could throw one in there so I'll skim over my notes just in case.

With regards to Jan 13 paper - I don't have it either but hopefully my teacher can get a copy this week. I really need it! I'll keep you posted if I get something.
Thx. Ive asked my teacher too.

If mine gets back to me first, ill post here first.

... 7 days...


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Asterisk49)
Thx. Ive asked my teacher too.

If mine gets back to me first, ill post here first.

... 7 days...


Posted from TSR Mobile
Hey I've got a copy of the Jan 13 paper

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.
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Endless Blue)
Hey I've got a copy of the Jan 13 paper

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.
Good to know

Was the 24 on nobility about control?
(If so and it doesnt come up this time, I will be so happy)


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Asterisk49)
Good to know

Was the 24 on nobility about control?
(If so and it doesnt come up this time, I will be so happy)


Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes, it was on how important was controlling the nobility for his consolidation so I would think it most likely that it won't come up as the focus of a question for us. (Although I quite like that theme )
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Endless Blue)
Yes, it was on how important was controlling the nobility for his consolidation so I would think it most likely that it won't come up as the focus of a question for us. (Although I quite like that theme )
I liked it too but found it hard to apply historians to.

My worst nightmare at the minute is a 12 marker on the treaty of Dordrecht (something I only know by name)

Do you think there'll be something on his government or how he increased wealth?
I think it will.

What historians have you got for this?

(This is the last thing I need to properly re-learn then Im done!)


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
sighnomore
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Just felt I could throw in some predictions as to what it coming up.

Since trade came up in January and they tend to avoid putting it in, and my history teacher thinks it is unlikely. She's a whizz at what's came up and her predictions are what I'm going by. We have a feeling that there will be a consolidation of power as question 1 and Wolsey's fall from power in probably going to be question 3. Not too sure about question 2, she has a feeling it might be rebellions, or even a general question about the whole of his reign. The Jan 13 paper seems to have an odd structure because the first question is normally about richard/early consolidation of power, the second is henry VII as a whole (usually focussing in on specific bits) and the third Wolsey/Henry VIII.

I'm just hoping that the 12 markers are nice, they sometimes throw in deliberately narrow ones (like the one about the Cornish rebellion and Empson and Dudley's execution).

But my class is starting to panic because there is SO MUCH to learn. I've gone through the textbook once, wrote notes and learnt them and am hoping to learn it again by the end of the week. But my head is about to explode! Plus, the timings for the exam are ridiculous! I could do with an extra 15 mins like in paper 2, just to make sure I haven't made a stupid mistake anywhere. Or is it just me?
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by sighnomore)
Just felt I could throw in some predictions as to what it coming up.

Since trade came up in January and they tend to avoid putting it in, and my history teacher thinks it is unlikely. She's a whizz at what's came up and her predictions are what I'm going by. We have a feeling that there will be a consolidation of power as question 1 and Wolsey's fall from power in probably going to be question 3. Not too sure about question 2, she has a feeling it might be rebellions, or even a general question about the whole of his reign. The Jan 13 paper seems to have an odd structure because the first question is normally about richard/early consolidation of power, the second is henry VII as a whole (usually focussing in on specific bits) and the third Wolsey/Henry VIII.

I'm just hoping that the 12 markers are nice, they sometimes throw in deliberately narrow ones (like the one about the Cornish rebellion and Empson and Dudley's execution).

But my class is starting to panic because there is SO MUCH to learn. I've gone through the textbook once, wrote notes and learnt them and am hoping to learn it again by the end of the week. But my head is about to explode! Plus, the timings for the exam are ridiculous! I could do with an extra 15 mins like in paper 2, just to make sure I haven't made a stupid mistake anywhere. Or is it just me?
Do you not think Q1 might have something to do with Richard III/Henry VII coming to the throne? They usually include one and since the Jan 13 paper had a lot on Henry VII's consolidation I would have thought it would likely come up. (You could be right though, this is all just speculation.) For Q2 I'm expecting something to do with Henry VII foreign policy as again it wasn't mentioned, but in a wider context. E.g 'How important was foreign policy in consolidating Henry VII's throne?' OWTTE as the 24 marker.

Don't panic, you'll be fine. As long as you have your notes sorted and know your technique you will do reasonably well so half the battle is won. Now, I'd recommend going through the exact specification and highlighting areas you're unsure on and then focusing on them. My teacher used to set these exams and said that basically they go through the spec for 12 markers and find something that hasn't been asked so keep that in mind. Then, just start planning questions; after each bit you revise, try to find 3 factors why it happened as this will help prepare you for nearly any question they throw at you. Make sure, as well, you know how various different areas interlink - e.g trade and foreign policy, etc.

Good luck, and keep calm! Getting stressed is absolutely the worst thing you can do for/in a History exam.
0
AdvanceAndVanquish
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
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.
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(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.
Well you asked for it....

How succdiddlyessful was Henry in increasing the wealth of the crown?

Henry was definitely successful on increasing the wealth of the crown, with £10,000 of debt at the outset of his reign and leaving a surplus of £225000 at the end. However, some would argue his success was overstated.

One way Henry was able to increase the wealth of the crown was by not depleting crown funds unneccessarily- through war. Though Edward IV had 16 ships during his reign, by the end of Henry's he had allowed this to fall to 5 indicating he was more secure with using diplomacy to deal with foreign powers such as the treaty of Medina del campo for defense. While he did siege Boulougne in 1491, this was not a big attempt for the French throne as he started his invasion late in the year indicating this was not a drawn out invasion as winter months are not ideal for warfare. In this case, he forced concessions out of the French king Charles III who agreed not only to pay for the costs of the invasion but to also pay £5000 annually in the French pension. Etaple was seen by S.B Chrimes as "something of a triumph". Henry VII's first war with France was rumoured to cost £960000, indicating Henry VII's decision to avoid war no doubt saved large sums of money for the crown.

Henry VII was also able to increase revenues from customs duties, with historians estimating they rose from £33000 to £40000 during Henry's reign. However, it has been pointed out that this may be partially due to the recovery in trade after the late medieval depression. As well as this, Henry was not able to deal with the problems of dmuggling throughout his reign, which naturally brought his income from customs down.

On the other hand though, it has been questioned as to whether Henry's success has been overstated. The view of Henry VII as a financial genius arose from the writings of Francis Bacon in the 17th century and it is still debateable as to how much "reasearch" he actually conducted. As well as this, it is important to note that in comparison to other contempory monarchs, Henry was significantly poorer. In 1509, Henry VII had an income of £113,000. By comparison, Louis of France had an income in the same period of £800,000. This means that relatively, Henry was not a major success at increasing the wealth of the crown.

Overall though, Henry still achieved solvency during his reign, a considerable achievement after recieving a bankrupt throne. However, other in the context of being a monarch from that period he was not successful, earning substantionally less than others such as the French king.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by sighnomore)
Just felt I could throw in some predictions as to what it coming up.

Since trade came up in January and they tend to avoid putting it in, and my history teacher thinks it is unlikely. She's a whizz at what's came up and her predictions are what I'm going by. We have a feeling that there will be a consolidation of power as question 1 and Wolsey's fall from power in probably going to be question 3. Not too sure about question 2, she has a feeling it might be rebellions, or even a general question about the whole of his reign. The Jan 13 paper seems to have an odd structure because the first question is normally about richard/early consolidation of power, the second is henry VII as a whole (usually focussing in on specific bits) and the third Wolsey/Henry VIII.

I'm just hoping that the 12 markers are nice, they sometimes throw in deliberately narrow ones (like the one about the Cornish rebellion and Empson and Dudley's execution).

But my class is starting to panic because there is SO MUCH to learn. I've gone through the textbook once, wrote notes and learnt them and am hoping to learn it again by the end of the week. But my head is about to explode! Plus, the timings for the exam are ridiculous! I could do with an extra 15 mins like in paper 2, just to make sure I haven't made a stupid mistake anywhere. Or is it just me?
I felt like somebody I knew had died once I saw we only had 75 minutes.

Picture how I felt 2 weeks back:
On average, it took me about 30 mins to answer a 24 marker.
This means I would have 15 mins to do both 12... Except it was taking me about 20 to do those.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
AllTimeJo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
Hey I'm sitting this exam too, we've been told to spend 12 minutes on the 12 markers and 24 minutes on the 24 marker which will leave about 3 minutes ish for anything to be added, although I'm still not sure how we're supposed to do that D:

Our teacher gave us this sheet of things to revise, I'm not sure quite how much this will help you but it can't hurt I guess.

Good luck for 6 days time! (:
Attached files
1
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by AllTimeJo)
Hey I'm sitting this exam too, we've been told to spend 12 minutes on the 12 markers and 24 minutes on the 24 marker which will leave about 3 minutes ish for anything to be added, although I'm still not sure how we're supposed to do that D:

Our teacher gave us this sheet of things to revise, I'm not sure quite how much this will help you but it can't hurt I guess.

Good luck for 6 days time! (:
Hi! :hi:

Thanks for the info, repped you Looks pretty useful, but I wouldn't expect anything explicitly on trade or Wolsey foreign policy though as they both came up on the Jan 13 paper so it seems unlikely that they will again (though it is still perfectly possible). As for Henry VIII, my teacher used to set the exams and seems to think that something like 'How important was Wolsey's failure to secure the divorce in his fall from power?' or something to do with the divorce generally, but this is again just speculation.

Good luck, keep in touch with any revision/updates
0
AdvanceAndVanquish
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Asterisk49)
Well you asked for it....

How succdiddlyessful was Henry in increasing the wealth of the crown?

Henry was definitely successful on increasing the wealth of the crown, with £10,000 of debt at the outset of his reign and leaving a surplus of £225000 at the end. However, some would argue his success was overstated.

One way Henry was able to increase the wealth of the crown was by not depleting crown funds unneccessarily- through war. Though Edward IV had 16 ships during his reign, by the end of Henry's he had allowed this to fall to 5 indicating he was more secure with using diplomacy to deal with foreign powers such as the treaty of Medina del campo for defense. While he did siege Boulougne in 1491, this was not a big attempt for the French throne as he started his invasion late in the year indicating this was not a drawn out invasion as winter months are not ideal for warfare. In this case, he forced concessions out of the French king Charles III who agreed not only to pay for the costs of the invasion but to also pay £5000 annually in the French pension. Etaple was seen by S.B Chrimes as "something of a triumph". Henry VII's first war with France was rumoured to cost £960000, indicating Henry VII's decision to avoid war no doubt saved large sums of money for the crown.

Henry VII was also able to increase revenues from customs duties, with historians estimating they rose from £33000 to £40000 during Henry's reign. However, it has been pointed out that this may be partially due to the recovery in trade after the late medieval depression. As well as this, Henry was not able to deal with the problems of dmuggling throughout his reign, which naturally brought his income from customs down.

On the other hand though, it has been questioned as to whether Henry's success has been overstated. The view of Henry VII as a financial genius arose from the writings of Francis Bacon in the 17th century and it is still debateable as to how much "reasearch" he actually conducted. As well as this, it is important to note that in comparison to other contempory monarchs, Henry was significantly poorer. In 1509, Henry VII had an income of £113,000. By comparison, Louis of France had an income in the same period of £800,000. This means that relatively, Henry was not a major success at increasing the wealth of the crown.

Overall though, Henry still achieved solvency during his reign, a considerable achievement after recieving a bankrupt throne. However, other in the context of being a monarch from that period he was not successful, earning substantionally less than others such as the French king.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Ok, there are a couple things to address here. The first is the argument. I really don't think that there's any reasonable argument that Henry VII wasn't successful at increasing the wealth of the crown. He left a surplus for goodness sake, which is virtually unheard of. Sure, you can point out that there were certain revenues which escaped him, or that he sacrificed the maintenance of a navy, or that compared to continental monarchies the income of the crown remained poor, but there's no arguing that he wasn't a success, and I would argue a major success, at increasing the wealth of the crown.

The second thing is that you need to have a clear argument that runs through your essay and ties your use of evidence together. Remember that you are not telling a story or just setting out different points of view; you are marshaling evidence in support of a conclusion. You want to avoid presenting alternative after alternative after alternative so that nobody knows where you stand. And rather than including an 'on the other hand' in each section, I would split the for and against apart.

Thirdly, your use of language just needs to be a bit tighter and more professional.

I've rewritten it to show you how I would do it:

There is little doubt that Henry VII was extremely successful in increasing the wealth of the crown over the course of his reign, something which cannot be demonstrated more clearly than with the fact that £10,000 of crown debt at the outset of his reign had become a surplus of £225,000 by the end. This was due to the prudence and even avariciousness of Henry VII as a king. There is some question however over whether he was entirely responsible for this success, and of course the revenues of the crown remained poor compared to the continental monarchies.

War, especially expeditionary war, was traditionally the shortest and most effective path to regal bankruptcy in English history. Henry VII not only refrained from large-scale war for most of his reign, he actually managed to turn this on its head, drawing a profit from the siege of Boulogne when he secured concessions from King Charles III of France who not only compensated Henry for the costs of the invasion but continued to pay £5000 annually in what is known as 'the French pension.'

Aside from limiting expenditure, and securing the French pension, Henry VII was also able to increase royal revenues. One area in which this occurred was in customs duties, with historians estimating that the crown's income from these rose from £33000 to £40000 during Henry's reign. Henry also sought out other means to increase crown revenue, for example by reviving defunct feudal prerogatives of the crown and by securing ransoms for the good behavior of his nobles, many of which were forfeit. The records testify to the intense personal commitment of the king to the managing of his finances, which he personally checked every day.

There are however a number of things that shed some doubt not on whether Henry was successful in this regard, but whether on the one hand he was primarily responsible for this success and on the other whether it was really as extraordinary as usually thought. As an example of the former, customs revenues benefited not only from Henry's policies but from the recovery in trade after the end of the late medieval depression. Likewise, Henry's failure to involve England in major continental wars may be counted partially as luck, for he committed England to assist Spain in any conflict with France, which luckily for Henry's purse did not materialise.

As to the latter, there were some holes in this success. For example smuggling, which dug into the revenue from customs and tariffs, remained rife through Henry's reign, and he was unable to deal with it. In addition, some money was saved by reducing the physical possessions of the crown. Though Edward IV had 16 ships during his reign, by the end of Henry's he had allowed this to fall to 5. Thus, while the crown's coffers were filled, in this area at least it was done at the expense of the crown's wealth in possessions.

Despite these reservations, is is clear that, from a financial perspective, Henry's reign was a rare success. His successors, especially his son, were quick to return the crown to perpetual debt and bankruptcy, something which was to be the driving force behind a significant number of the troubles that these monarchs were to face. Henry VII's careful financial management, and maybe a little luck, avoided that.
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Ok, there are a couple things to address here. The first is the argument. I really don't think that there's any reasonable argument that Henry VII wasn't successful at increasing the wealth of the crown. He left a surplus for goodness sake, which is virtually unheard of. Sure, you can point out that there were certain revenues which escaped him, or that he sacrificed the maintenance of a navy, or that compared to continental monarchies the income of the crown remained poor, but there's no arguing that he wasn't a success, and I would argue a major success, at increasing the wealth of the crown.

The second thing is that you need to have a clear argument that runs through your essay and ties your use of evidence together. Remember that you are not telling a story or just setting out different points of view; you are marshaling evidence in support of a conclusion. You want to avoid presenting alternative after alternative after alternative so that nobody knows where you stand. And rather than including an 'on the other hand' in each section, I would split the for and against apart.

Thirdly, your use of language just needs to be a bit tighter and more professional.

I've rewritten it to show you how I would do it:
It think i wrote in the thing that he was def success but it coulda been overstated.

I agree completely on the language tho.

What did you think of me throwing in Bacon and Chrimes. Were they even worth putting in?
It was hard to find any historians that were really applied for this.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Asterisk49
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Ok, there are a couple things to address here. The first is the argument. I really don't think that there's any reasonable argument that Henry VII wasn't successful at increasing the wealth of the crown. He left a surplus for goodness sake, which is virtually unheard of. Sure, you can point out that there were certain revenues which escaped him, or that he sacrificed the maintenance of a navy, or that compared to continental monarchies the income of the crown remained poor, but there's no arguing that he wasn't a success, and I would argue a major success, at increasing the wealth of the crown.

The second thing is that you need to have a clear argument that runs through your essay and ties your use of evidence together. Remember that you are not telling a story or just setting out different points of view; you are marshaling evidence in support of a conclusion. You want to avoid presenting alternative after alternative after alternative so that nobody knows where you stand. And rather than including an 'on the other hand' in each section, I would split the for and against apart.

Thirdly, your use of language just needs to be a bit tighter and more professional.

I've rewritten it to show you how I would do it:
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
0
AdvanceAndVanquish
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Asterisk49)
It think i wrote in the thing that he was def success but it coulda been overstated.

I agree completely on the language tho.

What did you think of me throwing in Bacon and Chrimes. Were they even worth putting in?
It was hard to find any historians that were really applied for this.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Sure, but the problem was that you didn't make that argument very clearly or consistently, and there was far two much 'on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand.'

Don't waver back and forth. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Bam bam bam. Clear and consistent.

As to whether to put them in, it's not going to hurt, but don't bother if you're pressed for time. Knowing the points is more important than being able to attribute them to individual historians.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of West London
    Postgraduate Open Day - Ealing Site Postgraduate
    Thu, 21 Nov '19
  • University of East Anglia
    Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 22 Nov '19
  • University of Hull
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 23 Nov '19

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices? (November update)

Yes I know where I'm applying (133)
69.63%
No I haven't decided yet (36)
18.85%
Yes but I might change my mind (22)
11.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed