| Date | November 2020 | Marks available | 4 | Reference code | 20N.1.BP.TZ0.2 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Analyse | Question number | 2 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Source A Richard I, speaking prior to the Third Crusade, as recorded in the contemporary chronicle The History of the Holy War.
You will never see me lead a campaign for which I can be criticised, and I do not care if I am disliked for it. Know for certain that wherever our army go, Saladin knows what we are about and what our strength is. We are a long way from the sea, and if he and his Saracens were to come down on the plains of the city of Ramla and intercept our provisions … this would not be wise for those who would be besieging … and if I were to lead the army and besiege Jerusalem, and such a thing were to happen … then I would be forever blamed, shamed and less loved. I know in truth and without doubt that there are those here and in France who would have wanted and greatly desire that I should do such a thing, which would everywhere be told to my shame.
[Source: Adapted from Ailes, M and Malcolm B, eds. 2003 The History of the Holy War: Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre
Sainte, p.168, Woodbridge. Boydell Press.]
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source A for an historian studying Richard I’s involvement in the Third Crusade.
Markscheme
Value:
- It is an extract of a speech made by Richard I prior to the Third Crusade.
- It gives an insight into how Richard I sought to justify his strategy.
- It provides information on the challenges facing Richard I.
Limitations:
- Although the speech refers to Richard I’s strategies, it lacks information on their impact.
- Richard could be exaggerating some of his views in order to justify his actions.
- The historian cannot be certain that the chronicle accurately records Richard’s words.
The focus of the question is on the value and limitations of the source. If only value or limitations are discussed, award a maximum of [2]. Origins, purpose and content should be used as supporting evidence to make relevant comments on the values and limitations. For [4] there must be at least one reference to each of them in either the values or the limitations.
Examiners report
As was the case last session, the majority of candidates offered some analytical comments on the value and limitations of the source from its origin, purpose and content. However, several candidates continue to give long descriptions of the provenance and content of the source instead of using these elements to evaluate the value and limitations. In addition, comments should go beyond merely stating that a source is "primary" or "secondary". There were also instances where a note-form approach was adopted, and candidates should be cautioned against this as these responses tended to lack clarity in terms of establishing the source's value and limitations. There were a very small minority that analysed the wrong source, as mentioned at the beginning of the report, candidates should be reminded to read each question carefully.
