| Date | May 2022 | Marks available | 4 | Reference code | 22M.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 C William of Newburgh, a 12th century historian, writing in the chronicle The History of English Affairs (completed c1198).
John did not stop at this time from harassing his brother, and was a firm supporter of the king of France in all things. For while the king of France was devastating the Norman territory, John was disturbing the provinces of England with troops of criminals. But the nobles of the kingdom, firm in faith, and unbroken in spirit, gathered an impressive body of soldiers. They opposed the lawless attempts of this mad-headed youth [John]. Besieging the castle of Windsor, which had fallen under John’s power, they compelled it to surrender. But when John saw his supporters, whom he could not assist, exposed to the dangers of a siege, he requested a treaty for their safety, and gave up the castle.
[Source: The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, William of Newburgh: Book Four, Available at: https://sourcebooks.fordham.
edu/basis/williamofnewburgh-four.asp#34 [Accessed 09 March 2021]. Source adapted.]
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source C for an historian studying the political impact in England of Richard I’s absence.
Markscheme
Value:
- It is a 12th century chronicle which aims to depict the history of the Plantagenets.
- As a contemporary chronicle, it is a first-hand account of Richard I’s reign.
- It provides information about John’s actions during Richard I’s absence.
Limitations:
- Since it is based on contemporary accounts it lacks the benefit of hindsight.
- The chronicle’s scope is wide and not specifically focused on the reign of Richard I.
- The information could have been exaggerated as Richard I was the ruler at the time.
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]. Origin, purpose and content should be used as supporting evidence to make relevant comments on the value and limitations. For [4] there must be at least one reference to each of them in either the value or the limitations.
Examiners report
In general, candidates seem to be better prepared for this question and most attempted to address the value and limitation of the source from its origin, purpose and content. Nevertheless, there remains a proportion of candidates that focus primarily on the content of the source at the expense of the provenance and purpose. In addition, a significant minority continue to begin their response with lengthy descriptions of origin, purpose and content before evaluating these elements, which wastes valuable examination time. Quite often candidates would not refer to what the question was asking, but would just make very general comments. As per previous sessions, some candidates did not refer to one of the elements in their response — for example, no reference to purpose or to content. Candidates should be aware that they need to make valid comments on the value and limitations of the source drawn from its origin, purpose and content.
