1 | Page
CONTENTS PAGE P3- Mr Pathak’s musings on why History is such an important subject. PP4-6- famous to generations of Reekie Building historians as ‘that guy who got his ear chopped off for being cheeky’, Bertie H delves deeper into the life and times of the seventeenth century Puritan pamphleteer… PP7-11- Isobel C considers the long term implications of the 20th century’s most infamous peace treaty, the Treaty of Versailles. Did it really pave the way for World War Two? PP 11-14- made famous to millions by the BBC drama SAS- Rogue Heroes, James S evaluates the military impact of the SAS at a pivotal stage of World War Two. PP14-15- Harry C takes a closer look at a figure in English medieval history that most have heard of but few know much about… PP16-18- a must-read for all those contemplating a career in the City of London, Abigail B takes a closer look at the origins of modern banking. PP18-19- Alex W reviews Katja Hoyer’s Blood and Iron. PP 19-21- Bertie H provides some fascinating insights from his recent trip to the House of Lords. P23- Mr Pathak discusses his five favourite History-related pop songs. P24- everyone loves a fun History quiz! Test your knowledge against the Reekie Building’s finest minds. 2 | Page
EDITORIAL Mr Pathak’s musings on why History is such an important subject… Outside the rarified world of the Reekie Building’s dreaming spires, it has been another turbulent year. Obviously, I’m not just talking about England’s implosion in the Ashes! Whether it’s the onward march of AI or the way in which our once confident certainties about the triumph of democracy are being challenged by the rise of populists and dictators, the current state of the world will give the historians of the future much to ponder. Of course, the rise of AI may mean that in years to come, history will not be written by the victorsas Churchill is alleged to have said-but by artificial intelligence. However, what we all know as historians is that knowing a lot about the past is no guarantee that we can predict the future. At best, studying History enables us to discern patterns and understand how future events might unfold but that is not the same thing as knowing exactly what will happen tomorrow. What we can perhaps say is that AI is ushering in an age of rapid technological change, akin to the Industrial Revolution. In this brave-ish new world, the virtues associated with studying History, such as a respect for evidence and an ability to research, synthesise and express oneself coherently can seem quaintly old-fashioned or even redundant. Obviously, I am biased but I would choose to argue the opposite. Even in the age of AI we still need the skills that only studying History can give us and by doing so, we can help preserve the essence of what it means to be human as we hurtle towards the mid 21st century. There is certainly much to remain optimistic about, not least the quality and sheer intellectual passion in this publication, epitomised by some of Felsted’s finest young historians. Who knows where AI may lead us but for now, the present belongs to those with the skills and knowledge to understand the complexity of human civilisation; and the empathy to judiciously evaluate as many of our collective stories as possible. This task has never been more important- and Luddite that I am- I would much prefer for it to be carried out by humans rather than machines! 3 | Page
IS WILLIAM PRYNNE ANYTHING MORE THAN A FOOTNOTE IN ENGLISH HISTORY? Famous to generations of Reekie Building historians as ‘that guy who got his ear chopped off for being cheeky’, Bertie H delves deeper into the life and times of the seventeenth century Puritan pamphleteer… Few seventeenth-century figures combine comic exaggeration, personal tragedy, and political consequence like William Prynne- the lawyer, pamphleteer, and moral watchdog whose life illustrates the perils of combining unshakeable conviction with a virtually unlimited supply of ink. He is often remembered as a man who despised fun, yet this caricature misses the point: Prynne possessed an almost instinctive suspicion of anything resembling festivity, frivolity, or unregulated joy. To him, a dancing shoe, a colourful masque, or even a mince pie could threaten England’s spiritual survival. Historians such as Mark Kishlansky, Jerald C. Brauer and N. W. Bawcutt reveal a figure whose obsession with godliness had consequences far beyond mere moral scolding. Brauer describes English Puritanism as “ a continuing search for a purified community”, rather than a simple rejection of pleasure. Prynne internalised this worldview so completely that ordinary cultural practices became evidence of national decay. His scrutiny could border on the absurd: masques and hairstyles were not simple amusements but warnings that England’s covenant with God was at risk. He reportedly objected to women cutting their hair into “fashions” as though the curl of a lock could summon moral ruin, and described women’s rouge and adornments as “vanities, snares of Satan, and temptations to fornication.” Where most would laugh at a festive play, Prynne saw a moral crime scene. Actors were “notorious sinners,” audiences complicit, and every masque a doorway to vanity and disorder. N. W. Bawcutt notes that Puritans generally distrusted theatre, but Prynne elevated this to a comprehensive attack on 4 | Page
amusement. He described the stage as a “Chair of pestilence,” emphasising theatre’s contagious and corrupting nature. One can almost imagine him inspecting a village festival with the same intensity he brought to his legal pamphlets, as if a rogue tune of bright ribbon were enough to provoke a hundred-page tract. Prynne’s obsession with “moral purity” culminated in Historio-Mastix (1633), a thousand-page diatribe against theatre. While readers today might smile at its obsessive detail, the stakes were deadly serious in Stuart England: Queen Henrietta Maria had recently performed in a masque, and Prynne’s attacks could- and did- carry political implications. Kishlansky demonstrates that the Star Chamber case against Prynne in 1634 was less about personal vindictiveness and more about sedition. His marginal notes condemning “women actors, notorious whores” just months after the Queen’s performance were explosive enough to merit life imprisonment, a £5,000 fine, and the cropping of his ears. Yet even this brutal punishment did not silence him. Prynne’s dedication to his moral mission demonstrates that he was far more than a marginal footnote: his life shows how cultural critique, moral zeal, and political risk could collide in early-Stuart England. He warned that actors and masquers “put on the portraitures and formes of Lyons, Beares, Apes…which in outward appearance metamorphose them into Idols, Devils, Monsters… and can these disguises bee lawfull among Christians? No verily.” By the 1640s, Prynne’s extreme vigilance over England’s amusements looked less like personal eccentricity and more like an exaggerated embodiment of broader Puritan anxieties. Bawcutt notes that Parliament’s closure of theatres in 1642 echoed themes Prynne had long championed. Brauer explains that Puritanism encouraged “total commitment, but Prynne was one of the few who took this literally: he never met a festivity he couldn’t transform into a cautionary tale. He treated Christmas carols, dancing dolls, or the mere display of coloured ribbons as tiny sparks threatening a nationwide fire of ungodliness.”
5 | Page
Even among fellow Puritans, Prynne could inspire admiration for his courage in challenging the monarchy, while simultaneously provoking exasperation with his obsessive attacks on trivial amusements. His later denunciations of bishops, quarrels with Independents, and disputes with Cromwell reveal a man guided entirely by principle rather than faction. From condemning a single curl of hair or a splash of rouge, to treating masques, plays and festive celebrations as spiritual hazards, Prynne’s Puritanism knew no bounds. He catalogued everyday amusements as if they were threats to the nation’s very soul, turning ribbons, feathers, and printed plays into moral emergencies. To modern eyes, his extremity seems almost cartoonish- but it was this very exaggeration that made his warnings unforgettable and politically potent. Far from being a mere footnote in English history, William Prynne was a figure whose zeal, wit, and narrative skill left a lasting imprint on early modern culture. Through imaginative storytelling and conspiratorial framing, he transformed moral panic into political influence. Prynne’s absurdities- curling locks, ribbons, and festive jigs- were inseparable from his power, showing that even extreme zeal can shape debate and cultural memory. Bibliography: Bawcutt, N. W. Puritanism and the Closing of the Theaters in 1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Brauer, Jerald C. Reflections on the Nature of English Puritanism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. Kishlansky, Mark. A Whipper Whipped: The Sedition of William Prynne. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Manns-Warburg, Andrew. The Role of William Prynne in the Politics and Propaganda of Early Stuart England. PhD diss., School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2018. Prynne, William. Histrio-Mastix; The Player Whipt. London, 1633.
6 | Page
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES SOW THE SEEDS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR? Isobel C considers the long term implications of the 20th century’s most infamous peace treaty… World War Two began in 1939 and ended in 1945. It erupted only a few years after promises of peace were made following the First World War - however, that clearly did not last long once WW1 had come to a close. World War One began in 1914 and finished four years later in 1918 due to an armistice, but it truly ended in June 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was the primary peace agreement between Germany and the Allied powers that many believe ended one war but planted the roots for another - but is this really true? In my view, the Treaty of Versailles created the environment in which Hitler could rise and lead Europe into war. Without the Treaty’s political humiliation and economic strain, Hitler’s message of revenge and restoration might never have resonated so deeply with the German people. On June 28th, 1919, the Treaty was discussed in France between the three main powers: France (Georges Clemenceau), the USA (Woodrow Wilson), and the UK (David Lloyd George), as well as Italy (Vittorio Orlando). They had varying opinions on how Germany should be treated - for example, Clemenceau was in favour of harsh punishment, while Wilson believed Germany should be treated with more understanding for practical reasons, such as maintaining trade. In the end, they reached a collective conclusion and wrote the clauses for the Treaty of Versailles. While the Treaty of Versailles undoubtedly created a hostile environment in Germany, it is worth questioning whether World War II was truly inevitable as a result of it. Some historians argue that the treaty’s harshness, although significant, did not alone guarantee another conflict. For example, if the reparations had been more manageable or if the international community had provided stronger economic support to Germany, political instability and the rise of the Nazis might have been prevented. Additionally, the League of Nations, despite its flaws, was established to maintain peace and resolve disputes diplomatically, suggesting that peaceful alternatives were possible. Nevertheless, the treaty certainly did 7 | Page
not go down well in Germany and caused much social unrest. In the years after the war ended, there were numerous strikes, riots, and political movements triggered by the Treaty of Versailles. Some of the Treaty’s main clauses included Article 231, also known as the War Guilt Clause, which forced Germany to unfairly admit all responsibility for the war. Another example is Article 159, forcing Germany to demilitarise and limit its army to 100,000 men, humiliating the nation and leaving it vulnerable. The treaty forced Germany to pay reparations worth around £6.6 billion, although this was later reduced. One other clause required that some of Germany’s richest coalfields, farmland, and territories be handed to other countries temporarily or permanently - such as the Saarland. France strictly enforced reparations, and when Germany failed to meet payment deadlines, France invaded the Ruhr in 1923 to seize industrial goods. The German government responded by encouraging workers to strike, which caused around 100 civilian deaths, but France remained in control until August 1925. Reparations were one of the many reasons Germany was left virtually bankrupt after the treaty. The economy was crippled, and national income fell to roughly one-third of what it had been before the war. This economic desperation contributed to the popular ‘Stab-in-the-Back’ myth, in which Germans blamed their own government for surrendering rather than their military for losing. However, the government was already struggling under immense pressure. The Weimar Republic was formed after the Kaiser abdicated to Holland in 1918, following Germany’s military defeat. During the 1920s and early 1930s, it was marked by political, economic, and social instability. The Reichstag was the central legislative body, which made laws. However, the proportional representation system led to the proliferation of small parties, making it difficult to form stable majorities and often resulting in short-lived cabinets. Another issue was Article 48, which gave the President vast powers to rule by decree in emergencies, a measure that was frequently overused and weakened public confidence in democracy. The Weimar Republic was unstable and the Treaty did not help that; Weimar politicians signed it under duress because they had no choice, and it was a deeply unpopular and controversial decision that weakened the new government from the start. The government was forced to sign because the Allies threatened to invade and the German military 8 | Page
confirmed that it could not fight back. Signing the treaty led to the government being branded as "November Criminals" for allegedly "stabbing the German army in the back," which created widespread resentment and was exploited by extremist groups. The treaty's unpopularity contributed to significant political instability, including uprisings such as the Kapp Putsch. One specific party in the Weimar Republic was the Nazi Party, a far-right movement eventually led by Adolf Hitler. The Nazis took advantage of the instability in Germany and the despair caused by the Treaty - electoral support for their party grew rapidly, especially from the late 1920s. Hitler took advantage of Germany’s instability and the despair caused by the Treaty, but his support also grew especially after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which caused a deep economic crisis. When American loans were withdrawn, businesses collapsed and unemployment rose sharply, leading many Germans to lose faith in moderate parties. The Nazis exploited this desperation by promising jobs, economic recovery, and strong leadership. In the 1930 election, they gained 18% of the vote, becoming the second-largest party in the Reichstag. However, they became the largest party after the July 1932 Reichstag elections. Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 - Hitler pledged to restore prosperity, civil order, and Germany’s world power once more. Once in power, he introduced an act that allowed him to rule without parliamentary approval - the Enabling Act of 1933 - effectively giving him dictatorial powers. This mirrored Article 48 and allowed him to ban all other political parties. He built a large apparatus of terror, including the SS. They began implementing policies that targeted Jews, Roma, and homosexuals. Around 300,000 Jews emigrated out of fear as Hitler’s power expanded. However, it was not only his domestic policies that were aggressive; his foreign policy directly challenged the post-war settlement. This included revising the Treaty of Versailles by regaining lost land, uniting all German-speaking people, and expanding eastwards to achieve Lebensraum (living space) for the German people. This would come at the expense of those Hitler considered “inferior.” These three main aims were outlined in his book Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) and demonstrated his ideological roots. However, again, many of these ambitions stemmed from resentment of the Treaty of Versailles. Despite its weaknesses, the Treaty did maintain relative peace in Europe for about 20 9 | Page
years. However, Hitler masterfully used it as propaganda, fuelling national resentment and justifying his aggressive foreign policy. In my eyes, Hitler’s evil genius lay not in creating hatred from nothing, but in channelling existing resentment born from Versailles. He did not invent the anger - he weaponised it. He framed the Treaty as an unforgivable betrayal and used it to rally public support. This raises the question—was Versailles merely an excuse for expansion and war? Had Hitler always planned this path? A.J.P. Taylor argued that Hitler did not deliberately seek a destructive war but was an opportunist who exploited situations created by Britain and France. Other historians, such as Hugh Trevor-Roper, argue that Hitler had a long-term plan for colonisation and conquest, known as the Stufenplan (step-by-step policy), which ultimately resulted in war in 1939. While I recognise Taylor’s argument that Hitler was an opportunist, I find it more convincing that the Treaty made such opportunism possible. Without the deep scars left by Versailles, Germany might have resisted the extremism he represented. By 1939, the British government and the British public were horrified by Hitler’s racist policies and fears of war grew. The British government responded by giving guarantees to some Eastern European countries that would trigger war if Germany continued its aggression. Meanwhile, Hitler’s foreign minister secretly negotiated a non-aggression pact with Stalin, allowing Germany to invade Poland without fear of Soviet retaliation. Britain and Poland had already signed the Mutual Assistance Treaty (August 25th, 1939), promising mutual military support if either nation was attacked by a European power. This was meant to deter Hitler, but it failed when Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939, triggering World War II as Britain and France declared war two days later. Personally, I believe the Treaty of Versailles played a major role in laying the groundwork and ‘sowing the seeds’ for the disaster that became World War II. By imposing harsh economic reparations, enforcing the War Guilt Clause—which deeply humiliated Germany—and stripping the country of territory and military strength, the treaty created widespread resentment and instability. That being said, the treaty alone cannot bear all the blame. Rather, its punitive terms created a volatile atmosphere, ripe for the rise of extreme ideologies such as Nazism. Nazism effectively capitalised on public anger and 10 | Page
the desire for revenge, enabling Hitler’s ascent to power and the implementation of aggressive, racist policies that led to a second global conflict. Additionally, other factors such as the Wall Street Crash of 1929 exacerbated Germany’s economic hardships. This financial crisis further weakened the fragile Weimar Republic, increased unemployment, and fuelled widespread desperation—conditions ideal for radical movements. Therefore, while the Treaty of Versailles was instrumental in destabilising Germany politically and socially, it was the combined effect of both the treaty and the subsequent economic collapse that truly facilitated Hitler’s rise to power. Using the metaphor of a seed, the Treaty of Versailles planted the initial cause of World War II, but this seed was watered and nurtured by multiple factors, including economic devastation and political upheaval. Hitler emerged as the figure who harnessed this resentment, mobilising the populace, and transforming underlying tensions into the aggressive expansionism that ultimately ignited the war. It is thus more accurate to view these elements as coexisting influences rather than singular causes of the conflict - however, if I had to choose one I believe it all ultimately traces back to the Treaty of Versailles.
WHAT IMPACT DID ‘UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE’ HAVE IN THE NORTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN OF WORLD WAR TWO? Made famous to millions by the BBC drama SAS- Rogue Heroes, James S evaluates the military impact of the SAS at a pivotal stage of World War Two. Before we can consider the impact of unconventional warfare in Great Britain's securing of Egypt during World War Two it is imperative to explain what unconventional warfare means. Unconventional Warfare – “Warfare that is conducted behind enemy lines through guerilla tactics or subversion, usually supported at least in part by external forces.” – Collins English Dictionary. Unconventional warfare uses small groups of highly trained soldiers who can manoeuvre and operate 11 | Page
independently behind enemy lines. These soldiers receive only minimal support while deployed and have a high degree of autonomy of action. If we are to understand whether the Egyptian Campaign had any significance to the outcome of World War Two, there needs to be some appreciation of the situation in Egypt and the significance of this territory to the British Empire. At the outbreak of World War Two Egypt was part of the British Empire and was important to Britain as a foothold in North Africa and the Middle East. The Suez Canal which runs through Egypt was also a vital supply route for the British, a gateway to their eastern territories such as India, Ceylon and Singapore. Possession of the Canal allowed the British ships to move troops and supplies round the Empire much more quickly. Axis forces had landed in Libya in a bid to push the British out of North Africa, secure vital oil fields as a source of petrol for German Panzers and gain control of the Suez Canal. This would make it much more difficult for the British to move troops and supplies around their Empire. The British were focused on defending the home islands against an expected German invasion attempt, and British forces in Egypt were depleted and poorly equipped. The German Afrika Corps commanded by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was advancing into British territory with British forces in retreat. The important port city of Tobruk was surrounded by the Germans, and Rommel’s advance was only slowed by the ever-increasing length of his supply lines. The Desert Campaign was one of the first times German and British forces had met in ground combat since the start of the war; and so far things were not going well for the British. British forces in the Middle East were under the Command of General Sir Claude Auchinleck and he was keen to register a success against the Germans, both to boost morale in Egypt and at home; and to boost his standing with Winston Churchill. Auchinleck needed to find a way to go on the offensive, and a young Second Lieutenant called David Stirling gave him the opportunity with his innovative ideas for unconventional warfare and desire to take the fight to the Germans. Stirling's proposal to raid behind enemy lines with small groups of highly mobile soldiers appealed to Auchinleck, as it required little in the way of resources and was small scale enough that losses would not be damaging should things go wrong. Stirling’s proposal was initially to parachute men behind enemy lines to raid airfields and supply lines, but after a disastrous first 12 | Page
mission where 38 out of 60 men were lost, airborne assaults were abandoned in favour of using fast, manoeuvrable jeeps and lorries; and the SAS was born. For the next twenty-one months the SAS successfully raided deep behind Axis lines from hidden bases set up in the desert. Attacking under cover of darkness and relying on speed and stealth the SAS had great success against lightly guarded German and Italian bases. Airfields and supply dumps were favourite targets with the SAS comfortably destroying more Axis aircraft on ground than the RAF did in the air for the same period. Raids on supply dumps and Axis ports also damaged Rommel’s already overstretched supply lines, slowing the German advance and allowing the British Army time to reorganise. SAS attacks also had a negative effect on German morale, with Rommel himself calling David Stirling “The Phantom Major”. The actions of the SAS meant that the Germans had to divert troops from frontline operations and use them to guard supply depots and airfields from the SAS instead. When the British 8th Army went on the offensive, the SAS were used to scout enemy positions and guide regular British forces through the desert past Axis defences. During their desert operations, the SAS destroyed more than 300 Axis aircraft. This was a cost-effective return on a handful of soldiers driving cheap vehicles maintained by a few mechanics. Paddy Mayne’s (second in command of the SAS until David Stirling’s capture) personal tally of destroyed aircraft was higher than any RAF fighter ace according to the National Army Museum Website. Although some senior commanders had doubted the usefulness of the SAS at the outset, their impact on the North African theatre proved that unconventional warfare and the special forces used to wage it had a place on the battlefield. The SAS had undoubtedly played a major part in defeating the Afrika Corps and defending Egypt; and the unit went on to fight successfully in Sicily, Italy and in France after the D-Day landings. The unit remains an important part of the British Army and is considered to be one of finest Special Forces Units in the world. The North African campaign and victory had a massively positive impact on British morale. Up to this point the British were alone and on the retreat; now the British had proved that the Germans could be beaten. General Montgomery eventually defeated Rommel at the battle of El Alamein in 1942 13 | Page
and drove the Axis powers out of North Africa. This success meant that the Suez Canal was safe and that Germany did not gain access to strategic oil reserves in the Middle East. With North Africa under their control the Allies were able to capture Sicily and begin the liberation of mainland Europe by invading Italy. The Allies’ Italian campaign weakened German forces in Western Europe at a time when the USSR was also attacking Germany's Eastern Front. This set the scene for the D-Day landings and the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and liberation of Europe. If Britain had been defeated in Egypt and forced out of North Africa it is unlikely that any of the successes mentioned above would have been possible. The course of the war would have been very different, and I think I have shown that unconventional warfare played a key role in defeating the Axis powers in North Africa; and that victory in the Egyptian campaign was highly significant to the outcome of World War Two.
‘THE GREATEST KING WHO NEVER WAS.’ TO WHAT EXTENT IS THIS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF EDWARD OF WOODSTOCK? ‘The Black Prince’ is a figure in English history that many people have heard of but few know much about. Harry C discovers the man behind the myth… Edward of Woodstock, better known as the ‘Black Prince’, is commonly remembered as one of England's most legendary warriors; a gallant and chivalric figure who embodied medieval knighthood. He was the eldest son of Edward III and heir to the throne. However, he was never to become king, dying of dysentery in the summer of 1373. This leaves us, as historians, to ask: could Edward have truly been the ‘greatest king who never was’? Edward’s military career and martial skills set him apart from a young age. At just sixteen he fought with distinction at the Battle of Crecy (1346), a battle which cemented English dominance in the early stages of the Hundred Years’ 14 | Page
War. Later his victory at Poitiers in 1356, at which he captured the French King John II, raised him to god-like status in England. He played a part in the creation of the Order of the Garter (1348) which reinforced this image of knightly honour. It became an order with notable members from Wellington to Churchill and it’s arguably still one of the most prestigious orders in the country. Had Edward inherited the throne from his father, England might have benefited from a strong and experienced leader and commander. His military victories demonstrated not only bravery but also martial and tactical brilliance. Yet while Edward’s reputation as a knight and commander was unquestionable it is less certain these qualities alone would have made him a truly great king. Warfare was only one element of medieval kingship. To govern effectively, a monarch also needed to master law-making, diplomacy and finance. As Prince of Aquitaine, Edward faced immense challenges. His heavy taxation to fund campaigns in Spain, notably the Castilian expedition (1346), angered his Gascon subjects. Their discontent led to rebellion and a petition to the French crown against his rule. This shows that although Edward excelled as a warrior, his statesmanship and economic policies were less refined; and this undermined his ability to govern his territories. Moreover, Edward’s later years show significant decline. By the 1370s, illness had weakened him, and he was far from the chivalric hero of Crecy or Poitiers. His inability to control unrest in Aquitaine, alongside his withdrawal from active leadership, raises the question of whether his legendary military reputation could ever have translated into stable kingship. In the end, Edward of Woodstock was militarily brilliant, charismatic, yet politically flawed. His legend as ‘the greatest king who never was’ rests more on what people hoped he might have been than on what he actually achieved. He remains a symbol of chivalric knighthood, but if his reign had come to pass, it might have proved far more complicated than the myths portray.
15 | Page
HOW DID THE MODERN BANKING SYSTEM DEVELOP IN MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN EUROPE? A must-read for all those contemplating a career in the City of London, Abigail B takes a closer look at the origins of modern banking. Corporate finance is seen by many as the basis of the great Dutch and British empires. Most early banks were banks of deposit, making no use of cheques to avoid being condemned by the Church, whilst contracts were done almost entirely verbally, before a notary and witnesses. Many of the key concepts of banking can be linked to laws in the Roman Empire, for example, the idea of implied contracts; leading Abbott Usher to argue that the banking system in the Middle Ages was more of a ‘revival of an older institution rather than a new beginning’. However, most historians would agree that the roots of banking lead back to Italy, with the term ‘banker’ emerging early on in the medieval period, because business was done at benches behind tables in the streets. Italian merchants began to establish loan offices as far back as 1280. Whilst some fundamentals of modern banking were used, the number of credit transactions in these locations was very small and they had very little business. The most famous example of bankers in Italy is the Medici family, specialising in foreign exchange, with modern-day professionals being described by Niall Ferguson as the ‘successors to the Medici’. Before the 1390s, the family had been more commonly viewed as gangsters as opposed to bankers, further emphasising the level of their financial success. Ferguson suggests that the real key to the Medici’s success was in their diversification. The Medici bank was not a singular entity, but rather many linked partnerships based on regularly renegotiated individual contracts, allowing the family to become one of the first to recognise the importance of diversifying funds and assets. Historian Richard Goldthwaite counters this, arguing that their success instead lay in political dominance and their ‘unusually undivided patrimony’, as 16 | Page
opposed to financial monopolies and risk management. He suggests that the Medici family had little actual significance, as there remained a large amount of competition in the Florentine banking system despite the Medicis’ prominence; and the banking system survived despite the family's collapse in 1494. These factors led Goldthwaite to his thesis, that the Medici had no real power beyond political influence in Florence. A key example of the Medici’s political achievements is Botticelli’s painting, ‘The Adoration of the Magi’, where Cosimo De Medici is depicted as kneeling to the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, highlighting the importance of the Medici as public figures. A further example of this is Pope Pius II’s description of Cosimo as ‘king in everything but name’. However, as argued by Ferguson, the Medici also played an important role in terms of international banking. The Italian banking system, especially the Florentine version, was used as a model for many northern European nations, like the Netherlands and England. The Amsterdam Exchange Bank was set up in 1609 to create a system of cheques and direct debits or transfers, which are perhaps the first example of modern banking techniques. The Bank of England, which was set up in 1694, was modelled on the Dutch example, with plans for the Bank going back to George Downing, who served as the English ambassador to the Netherlands. Downing’s initiatives were blocked by conservative forces in Parliament, but the Bank was formed in the reign of William III as a way to help England finance various wars. It expanded the borrowing capacity so that the wars fought in the 18th century could be financed by credit rather than ordinary revenue and parliamentary taxation. It also allowed for the creation of a permanent and stable National Debt, by allowing people a loan of £1.2 million at an 8% level of interest, in exchange for the bank issuing currency with the security of parliamentary taxes. As a result, the Bank was endowed with privileges such as a partial monopoly on banknotes from 1742. After this, the majority of money 17 | Page
was made up of legal tender or existed simply in deposit account statements, which remained the case until the emergence of digital bank deposits. The establishment of the Bank of England signalled the birth of modern state finance, a concept which had been born in Roman theory, and developed throughout medieval Italy, to become the recognisable system of credit which is still used today.
BOOK REVIEW OF BLOOD AND IRON BY KATJA HOYER Here at The Cromwellian we like to keep our finger on the pulse of the latest historical scholarship; and so Alex W reviews a new book on modern German history that has got everybody in the Reekie Building talking… The first chapter of the Katja Hoyer book Blood and Iron is the perfect introduction for any A Level history student to the topic of German Unification. It offers a great place to start due the clear and balanced way it walks you through the complex, but extremely fascinating history of German Unification. One of the strong points of this book is the balance between political, social, and economic factors. Hoyer does not believe that German unification was solely down to Bismarck, but in fact there were a multitude of issues that led to and caused unification. For example, Hoyer talks about economic factors such as the Zollverein in 1834, and how it “finally made it possible to coordinate infrastructure, resources and people to develop Germany’s full industrial potential.” This book also examines other key events such as the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna. Another reason why this book is so helpful is because of the way Hoyer explains the importance of Bismarck without making him the only focus. She recognises his political skill and how he used events like the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War in 1870–71 to his advantage; but she also makes it clear that these wars were only possible because of previous developments in Prussia and the German states, such as Prussia’s strong economy. Overall, the first chapter of Blood and Iron is an 18 | Page
excellent starting point for any A Level student studying this topic. Hoyer gives a clear and balanced view of the key events and ideas, which helps readers understand how political, economic and social factors all played a role in unifying Germany. Hoyer’s simple but elegant style makes the information easy to read and understand, whilst also helping students to think critically about different causes and interpretations. By the end of the book, readers not only have a strong understanding of the main causes of unification but can also use the bibliography to access more complex books and sources.
WHAT IS THE HOUSE OF LORDS REALLY LIKE? Of crucial importance for both A Level History and A Level Politics students, Bertie H provides some fascinating insights from his recent trip to the ‘mother of Parliaments’... If you’d told me that on an ordinary Tuesday morning I would be wandering through the Palace of Westminster in the company of Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee and Baron Weir of Ballyholme, I’d have assumed you were joking. Yet there I was, standing on the very stones where Charles I was tried, in a hall that has witnessed a thousand years of legal and political history. Westminster Hall is, in every sense, the nation’s constitutional memory: monarchs have lain in state here, medieval kings have held court, and great trials have sealed the fate of nations. And as we stepped deeper into the Palace, leaving behind its Norman vaulting for the narrow corridors used daily by lawmakers, I found myself drawn into the quietly industrious world behind the red benches- a world built on centuries of accumulated tradition. As Lord Weir began the tour, we passed through the Monarch’s Entrance, where one painting in particular stopped me in my tracks: Queen Victoria, depicted in such muted tones that she seemed to be fading into the background. It was oddly haunting- as though the artist had captured not the power of empire, but the gradual retreat of the monarchy from direct governance. In a place where ceremony and sovereignty still echo through 19 | Page
every corridor, the painting felt like a quiet reminder that even at Westminster, authority evolves, softens and shifts with time. I felt particularly important approaching the Peers’ Entrance, rehearsing the line, “I’m here to see Baroness Foster”- no small statement when referring to one of the most influential figures in recent Northern Irish politics. After passing through the surprisingly cosy security gate, I was directed to the cloakroom, which felt almost comically understated for such a grand institution. Each Peer has a single peg labelled with their name, not unlike the hook system in Pre-Prep. Yet that small detail says something about the Lords itself: a place where modern politics still rubs shoulders with rituals that stretch back to the days when the peerage literally ruled the country. As I waited for Lord Weir to collect me, a familiar-looking lady made her way towards her peg. We struck up a conversation about the charming informality of the Palace, and she soon introduced herself as Baroness Laing of Elderslieformer Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and MP for Epping Forest from 1997 to 2024- who, to my surprise, knew about Felsted School. It was a reminder that this grand building is not only a constitutional landmark but also a place where Britain’s long political story intersects with individual lives in unexpected ways. The sheer range of backgrounds is astonishing. I even ended up shaking hands with Lord John Bird- a man who went from homelessness, to founding The Big Issue, to holding the government to account in Parliament- who later stood in the chamber with unmistakable conviction to articulate his concerns. Encounters like that make it impossible to see the Lords as a homogenous relic; it is a chamber shaped by lived experience as much as by constitutional design. Through familial connections my mum had exchanged emails with Arlene Foster, though I only knew her through the caricatures of Brexit-era cartoons. In person, she was nothing like those sharp-edged satirical sketches. What struck me most was how deeply she cared about her community, and how seriously she viewed her role in the Lords: not as a retirement honour, but as a continuation of a centuries-old principle- that those with experience and 20 | Page
expertise should help shape the laws of the land. It echoed the medieval purpose of the Lords, when barons advised the monarch, and the later Victorian belief that a revising chamber should temper political passion with reflection. Today, the House of Lords acts as the United Kingdom’s revising chamber, providing careful, non-partisan scrutiny of legislation. Unlike the elected Commons, the Lords is composed of people appointed for their expertiseformer judges, diplomats, scientists, military leaders, economists, and senior public figures- the modern heirs of an ancient institution. While the hereditary power of the old aristocracy has all but faded, the core idea has remained: that a second chamber should offer continuity, stability, and a check on the rapid swings of elected politics. In a building layered with history, that continuity feels especially significant. And perhaps that’s the lesson worth sharing with Cromwellian readers: politics isn’t just the noise of Prime Minister’s Questions or the headlines on the news. Sometimes it’s quieter, steadier, and far more human- found in the corridors where history breathes and decisions are shaped with care. My tour of the House of Lords didn’t just show me the heart of Westminster; it reminded me that even in a world of fast connections, there is value in the patient, historically grounded, and thoughtful carriage of our democracy.
21 | Page
FIVE POP SONGS WITH A HISTORICAL TWIST… Mr Pathak may be ancient but he still thinks he’s cool ( if that’s even still a word…)- here are five of his favourite History-related pop songs… 1) Sam Cooke- ( What A Wonderful World )- a Soul classic by one of the genre’s pioneers. Surely a song has never had a better opening line than ‘don’t know much about History…’
2) Ms Lauryn Hill- Final Hour- a pulsating, hip-hop infused track from arguably the greatest Soul album of the last thirty years. Lauryn Hill certainly knows a great deal about how to write a good History essay: ‘I treat this like my thesis/ Well written topics, broken down into pieces/ I introduce then produce, words so profuse…’ 3)
Kris Drever- Scapa Flow- if you like your folk music you’ll love Scottish singer Kris Drever’s melodic ballad about the scuttling of the German imperial fleet at the end of the First World War.
4) Billy Joel- We Didn’t Start the Fire- how many key 20th century events and personalities from the GCSE History course can you identify in this 1989 track? This song is on every History teacher’s playlist. 5)
Nena-99 Red Balloons- no song captures the zeitgeist of the Second Cold War better than this brilliant piece of West German pop- the German language version is even better!
22 | Page
Step away from your digital device for five minutes and join us for a fun History quiz that will both educate and entertain! These are all questions that Reekie Building historians should know the answers to, but might prompt furrowed brows on University Challenge… 1) What is the Viking name for York? ( Year 11 ) 2) What was the name of the first Mughal emperor ? ( Year 12 IB ) 3) Which son of a cobbler went to Cambridge University in Elizabethan England and became a famous playwright? ( Year 11 ) 4) Who attended Felsted School and became Head of State in 1658? ( Year 13 A Level ) 5) Which English ruler re-admitted Jews into England following their expulsion in the Middle Ages? ( Year 11 and Year 13 A level ) 6) With which European country did England have a major commercial rivalry, leading to three wars in the 17th century? ( Year 13 A Level ) 7) Who was the last Indian owner of the Koh-i-Noor diamond? ( Year 13 IB ) 8) Whose assassination was the spark for the outbreak of World War One? ( Year 9 ) 9) What was Kaiser Wilhelm II’s relationship to Queen Victoria? ( Year 9 ) 10) In which year did the 1st Anglo-Afghan War begin? ( Year 13 IB ) 11) Who was President of Germany when Hitler became Chancellor? ( Year 10 ) 12) In which year did the Empire Windrush dock at Tilbury? ( Year 11 ) 13) In which year did Mao Zedong die? ( Year 13 IB ) 14) In which year did the Chernobyl nuclear accident take place? ( Year 10 ) 15) Who was the last leader of the USSR? ( Year 10 )
Answers: 1- Jorvik: 2-Babur: 3-Christopher Marlowe: 4- Richard Cromwell: 5-Oliver Cromwell: 6- the United Provinces ( Netherlands ): 7- Duleep Singh: 8-Franz Ferdinand: 9-grandson: 10-1839: 11- Paul von Hindenburg: 12: 1948: 13-1976: 14-1986: 15- Mikhail Gorbachev
23 | Page
SMELL THE KNOWLEDGE !
FREE JOHN LAMBERT !
We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 12 of the Cromwellian. If you would like to get involved in editing or contributing to subsequent editions, please get in touch with Mr Pathak or another member of ‘Team History’… 24 | Page