Back
to top
AQA A Level History 1A The Age of the Crusades c1071-1204 7042/1A - 06 Jun 2018 Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Hi guys! Who's taking the exam on The Age of the Crusades this year? How are you feeling about it?
You can find some AQA A-Level History resources here and the AQA subject content guide here
You can find some AQA A-Level History resources here and the AQA subject content guide here
2
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by CoolCavy)
Hi guys! Who's taking the exam on The Age of the Crusades this year? How are you feeling about it?
You can find some AQA A-Level History resources here and the AQA subject content guide here
Hi guys! Who's taking the exam on The Age of the Crusades this year? How are you feeling about it?
You can find some AQA A-Level History resources here and the AQA subject content guide here
0
reply
Report
#4
I did the paper today! I thought the source question was fine, but the essays are really weird. I did not quite know how to argue the First Crusade strengthened Alexius position in Byzantine except for the conquest in Nicaea and recovery of coastal lines in Anatolia...
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by shdiheidhw)
I did the paper today! I thought the source question was fine, but the essays are really weird. I did not quite know how to argue the First Crusade strengthened Alexius position in Byzantine except for the conquest in Nicaea and recovery of coastal lines in Anatolia...
I did the paper today! I thought the source question was fine, but the essays are really weird. I did not quite know how to argue the First Crusade strengthened Alexius position in Byzantine except for the conquest in Nicaea and recovery of coastal lines in Anatolia...
The other point i made was that the Frankish settlement in the Near East and foundation of crusader states posed a huge threat to Alexios in the BE, already strains in their relationship through the 'schism' and Pope Urban's death which was Alexios' most important connection in bettering relations with the Latin west. Again undermining and threatening his position as emperor of the BE in threat of Frankish expansion.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Bravobob101)
That was one of my points. The other points i mentioned was the refusal of Bohemund to return Antioch to Alexios (as agreed in the prince's truce) and his expansion into BE territory in 1110, including attacks on Alexios which undermined his postion and put it under threat.
The other point i made was that the Frankish settlement in the Near East and foundation of crusader states posed a huge threat to Alexios in the BE, already strains in their relationship through the 'schism' and Pope Urban's death which was Alexios' most important connection in bettering relations with the Latin west. Again undermining and threatening his position as emperor of the BE in threat of Frankish expansion.
That was one of my points. The other points i mentioned was the refusal of Bohemund to return Antioch to Alexios (as agreed in the prince's truce) and his expansion into BE territory in 1110, including attacks on Alexios which undermined his postion and put it under threat.
The other point i made was that the Frankish settlement in the Near East and foundation of crusader states posed a huge threat to Alexios in the BE, already strains in their relationship through the 'schism' and Pope Urban's death which was Alexios' most important connection in bettering relations with the Latin west. Again undermining and threatening his position as emperor of the BE in threat of Frankish expansion.
What was the other question you did? I did the one on Amalric and Baldwin IV because I found the last question a big confusing by the way it was worded. Again for this one I said the problems between 1174-85 occurred mainly as a result of Baldwin's own leprosy and the emerging factions within Jerusalem - and I mentioned lack of help from Byzantine due to Myriocephalum and Manuel's death only occurred after 1174, as well as the long term lack of Western help and unsuccessful attempts of Crusades. To argue for I said had Amalric captured Egypt, Baldwin IV would face a less united Muslim force in the south and less rapid rise of Saladin. The lack of expansion during 1163-74 due to Amalric's pure focus on Egypt also reduced the King's influences. Yet I thought overall the problems during Amalric's time were contained and Baldwin IV was facing unforeseen events due to back luck and his own issues with Jerusalem nobles.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by shdiheidhw)
Yes I mentioned Antioch and Bohemund+Tancred roles in later years as well!! I just found it hard to argue it in a balance way because I could think of way more arguments opposing than supporting the title. Besides the question asked to assess in terms of Alexios's reign... I did not know if we should do much comparison to the years before 1095. Should have probably read Frankopan's book a bit more haha.
What was the other question you did? I did the one on Amalric and Baldwin IV because I found the last question a big confusing by the way it was worded. Again for this one I said the problems between 1174-85 occurred mainly as a result of Baldwin's own leprosy and the emerging factions within Jerusalem - and I mentioned lack of help from Byzantine due to Myriocephalum and Manuel's death only occurred after 1174, as well as the long term lack of Western help and unsuccessful attempts of Crusades. To argue for I said had Amalric captured Egypt, Baldwin IV would face a less united Muslim force in the south and less rapid rise of Saladin. The lack of expansion during 1163-74 due to Amalric's pure focus on Egypt also reduced the King's influences. Yet I thought overall the problems during Amalric's time were contained and Baldwin IV was facing unforeseen events due to back luck and his own issues with Jerusalem nobles.
Yes I mentioned Antioch and Bohemund+Tancred roles in later years as well!! I just found it hard to argue it in a balance way because I could think of way more arguments opposing than supporting the title. Besides the question asked to assess in terms of Alexios's reign... I did not know if we should do much comparison to the years before 1095. Should have probably read Frankopan's book a bit more haha.
What was the other question you did? I did the one on Amalric and Baldwin IV because I found the last question a big confusing by the way it was worded. Again for this one I said the problems between 1174-85 occurred mainly as a result of Baldwin's own leprosy and the emerging factions within Jerusalem - and I mentioned lack of help from Byzantine due to Myriocephalum and Manuel's death only occurred after 1174, as well as the long term lack of Western help and unsuccessful attempts of Crusades. To argue for I said had Amalric captured Egypt, Baldwin IV would face a less united Muslim force in the south and less rapid rise of Saladin. The lack of expansion during 1163-74 due to Amalric's pure focus on Egypt also reduced the King's influences. Yet I thought overall the problems during Amalric's time were contained and Baldwin IV was facing unforeseen events due to back luck and his own issues with Jerusalem nobles.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Bravobob101)
Yeah that's exactly what i did as well n , i found the second question much more nicer than the last one which looked much more confusing. Apparently teacher's have sent in complaints about the first crusade essay question due to it not being specifically stated in the syllabus.
Yeah that's exactly what i did as well n , i found the second question much more nicer than the last one which looked much more confusing. Apparently teacher's have sent in complaints about the first crusade essay question due to it not being specifically stated in the syllabus.
0
reply
Report
#9
I did the alexios question. My overall thesis was that it did strengthen his position. Eg despite Bohemond attacking byzantine and the crusaders installing a latin patriarch in 1099, etc relations were still solid enough to benefit and consolidate Alexios's position. Second point was that although Bohemond took Antioch and Baldwin of Bolounge's refusal to hand over eddessa, Alexios still managed to win Nicea and substantial amount of land, thus negating the fact that he lost Antioch and Edessa. Finally, although the franks lost at the field of blood and harran and the muslim threat resurfaced; they were still too disunited to affect Alexios holdings in Anatolia. Hope the examiners approve 
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
