| Date | November 2020 | Marks available | 9 | Reference code | 20N.1.BP.TZ0.4 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Evaluate | Question number | 4 | 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.]
Source B James W Glass, an American painter, depicts Richard the Lionheart in the historical scene Richard, Coeur de Lion [Lionheart], on his way to Jerusalem (1854).
[Source: Image provided courtesy of the Art Renewal Center©, ARC, www.artrenewal.org.]
Source C John Gillingham, professor of medieval history, writing in the academic book Richard I (1999).
It might be argued that if Richard could not recapture Jerusalem, none the less he conquered Cyprus … Whenever possible he chose options—the conquest of Cyprus, the recovery of the coastal cities of Palestine, a campaign against Egypt—which made strategic sense and which brought substantial and lasting gain for the shattered Christian presence in the Middle East. To a remarkable degree most, though not all, contemporaries and near contemporaries adopted non-religious criteria in assessing his conduct of the crusade. Even monks recognized and admired his prowess [skill] and his conquests … Yet it is unlikely that anyone ever went on crusade in more extraordinary circumstances than Richard did, when the wiser thing would have been to stay at home. His problem was that he came to the throne in 1189 having been betrothed [engaged] for the last twenty years to Alice, a sister of the reigning king of France, Philip Augustus. Alice had been in the custody of Richard’s father, Henry II, who had not been able to resist the temptation to seduce her. Richard decided that this made it impossible for him to marry her. But to send her back to her brother after twenty years would be an enormous insult to the honour of the French royal house.
[Source: Adapted from Gillingham, J., 1999. Richard I. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 4–5.]
Source D Jean Flori, an historian specializing in the Crusades, writing in the academic book Richard the Lionheart: King and Knight (2006).
So, if we are to believe him [Richard I], it was to avoid the dishonour of a defeat for the whole army that Richard refused to lead the crusader army to the walls of Jerusalem. Instead, he proposed an expedition against Egypt. The matter was put before the council of barons, which consisted of twenty men. To the immense despair of the majority of crusaders, the council opted for the overland expedition to Egypt, supported by a fleet stationed off the coast. The advice of the local lords had been taken, which confirmed the strategic logic of Richard’s choice in their eyes. But it was profoundly shocking to many of the crusaders and, once again, the French went their own way. Hugh, Duke of Burgundy, seized the opportunity to spread defamatory [offensive] stories about the King of England and songs accusing him of cowardice … The army was deeply divided and, in these circumstances, all idea of taking Jerusalem had to be abandoned. It was a failure both for the crusaders and for Richard, whose prestige was badly damaged. Worse, he must have wondered whether he had lost out on both fronts: by agreeing to remain in the Holy Land until the following Easter, he had seriously endangered the future of his empire in the West, leaving the field clear for his brother John, without the compensation of the successes he had counted on in the East.
[Source: Jean Flori, Richard the Lionheart. Copyright © 2006 by Edinburgh Univerity Press Ltd. Reproduced with
permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.]
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate Richard I’s contribution to the Third Crusade.
Markscheme
Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required. While it is expected that there will be coverage of at least two of the sources, candidates are not required to refer to all four sources in their responses.
Indicative content
Source A Richard claimed that the decision not to recapture Jerusalem was the correct strategy. However, this caused division and may have weakened the Third Crusade.
Source B Richard I is pictured as the leader of the crusaders. The king is represented leading the march towards Jerusalem and commanding a large group of followers.
Source C It is claimed that even if Richard I was not able to recapture Jerusalem, he was successful in taking strategic lands that brought substantial gain for the Christians in the Middle East. Richard I was recognized by his contemporaries for these actions.
Source D Richard I’s decision to avoid recapturing Jerusalem was approved by a council of barons but caused despair among crusaders, provoking a division within the army and the defamation of Richard I. It also jeopardized his empire in the West.
Own knowledge Candidates may refer to the leading role Richard I played in the Middle East commanding a multi-national force composed not only of his own subjects (English, Normans, Angevins, Gascons) but of French, Flemish, Germans, Scandinavians and natives of the crusader kingdoms. He organized highly complex operations and beat Saladin in a number of engagements. Candidates may also discuss the campaigns that allowed Richard I to conquer important territories like the coastline from Jaffa to Antioch, the island of Cyprus and the port of Acre that enabled Christians to have a base to connect Western Europe with the Middle East.
Candidates may offer information about Richard I’s disagreements with other crusaders like Phillip of France and the Duke of Austria; his responsibility in the massacre of Acre; and his negotiations and agreements with Saladin.
Candidates may also evaluate the actions taken by Richard I to finance his campaign, such as the sale of public offices and increasing taxes which caused a serious drain of resources.
Examiners report
Most candidates were able to offer a response to the final question which had some development. Responses usually demonstrated an awareness of the need to focus on the set question and to refer to and use the sources to develop and support their analysis. Indeed, the majority of responses had some use or reference to the sources. Many candidates were able to use the sources to offer a balanced assessment of the factors which influenced Mussolini's descision to invade Abyssinia in October 1935 for Question 12, or to evaluate the success of the Bantustan system in achieving the aims of the South African government for Question 16. In addition, some candidates effectively applied their knowledge in conjunction with a focused use of the sources.
However, some responses were limited by an excessively descriptive approach and some lacked clear and consistent focus on the set question. There were also responses that tended to list the content in each source rather than using it to develop an analysis of the question. In addition, responses often lacked synthesis of relevant knowledge.
