The Imperial War Museum: Revisited

Armistice Day, November 1920. In a moving demonstration of collective humanity, the Cenotaph is unveiled at the Funeral of the Unknown Warrior. This display epitomises what the Imperial War Museum is about - a place to understand military history as a personal, human experience. Through the Young Graduates for Museums and Galleries programme, I was allowed access to the Imperial War Museum to see behind the scenes, enabling me to gain insight into how this remarkable museum works.

During the last two weeks, my opinions of past and contemporary conflicts have changed, mainly due to the resources at the museum that were made available to me. Having only experienced the conflict in Afghanistan through the eyes of the British media, it was refreshing to hear clips of civilians living in Afghanistan from the sound archives. This contributed greatly towards making the conflict more tangible. The research that I conducted in the Dome highlighted the importance of context in learning about the history of British involvement in Afghanistan and the cultural and geopolitical aspects of the preceding wars in this region.

Viewing the film for the ‘Crimes against Humanity’ exhibition provided a candid evaluation of genocide that showed many sides to humanity by illustrating a state of mind as well as an action. This film effectively showed the psychological effects of warfare and clearly indicated that genocide is not endemic to post war Germany. However, all of the genocides mentioned in this film are to some extent generalised, Although these events are not unique in what they say about humanity, it cannot be excused that there is still the danger of becoming detached from the events themselves. Due to the nature of these historic events in context, each event is unlike the other. Each genocide has its individual facts that must be established.  In order to avoid sounding paradigmatic, being accommodating to the truth is essential. Despite this, the film in general is a positive start in preparation for these sincere facts.

On viewing an Irish WWI roll of honour during a morning session on family history, it occurred to me that an exhibition on Ireland is greatly needed. As a museum that focuses on the history of living memory, acknowledgement of Ireland’s contribution during WWI during ‘The Troubles’ could not be deemed irrelevant to the ethos of the Imperial War Museum. The museum has a civil responsibility to commemorate lives of those who were formerly part of a British colony, perhaps using the Holocaust exhibition as a template to discuss attitudes to this issue.

In terms of working with young people, the IWM could produce leaflets advertising free drop in or taster events. This would make the museum more accessible, especially in conjunction with online journal or a youth forum. These courses could include impromptu workshops or seminars on interpreting atypical source material such using the museum’s resources in the Dome, sound or film archive. Providing a printed version of a schedule of events for the year would also be useful. It would also be worth giving people an insight into object conservation through these events. Getting involved in nationwide events such as London Week of Peace (20^th-27^th September 2009) could help to promote the museum’s peace collections, especially some of the more surprising trench art in the Exhibitions and Firearms collections. This could also be a good way to reach out to people who wouldn’t conventionally visit the museum.

As history is being made every day, the museum should continue to collect objects from more from recent conflicts while they are still within living memory. This does not mean, however, that the museum should stop collecting for conflicts such as WWI as they provide vital context for present and future conflicts. It has been a worthwhile endeavour investigating the Imperial War Museum so thoroughly – this experience has enabled me to appreciate and understand this museum so much more.

The role of propaganda as a means of maintaining political stability in Tudor England. - 16th Century Popular Politics

Propaganda was only one aspect of maintaining stability during the Tudor period and was relatively successful in doing so. Propaganda played an important role in stopping the regular occurrence of riot and rebellion. This can be seen in the correlation between the increase in Crown propaganda and lack of unrest towards the end of the period. However, in terms of reducing the number of rebellions involving noble individuals who sought status for themselves propaganda proved less influential as these rebellions occurred during the reign of each Tudor monarch. This was especially true of the situation in Ireland after 1534. Socially speaking, lower-ranking subjects would have more opportunities under the Tudor monarchs towards the end of the period but Tudor monarchs also realised that this showed others that the distribution of wealth and power came directly from the monarch. Due to the propaganda of the Great Chain of Being, the fabric of society was held together in the faces of radical political, economic and social change in Tudor England. It was propaganda combined with the political system that accounted for the actions of the Justices of the Peace and nobility, legislation, commissions, and the reform of the legal system which working together maintained political stability in Tudor England from 1485-1603.

The theatrical assets of government maintained political stability by using the Church as a political platform to emphasise the doctrine of obedience. This would ensure political authority of the monarchy and the state was upheld. Due to Church doctrine during Elizabeth’s reign that their misfortune was due to their own sin and it was emphasised in compulsory weekly services that they should be ‘longsuffering’. As a result hundreds of people in remote areas of the country quietly starved through the four consecutive famines during the 1590s rather than rebel against the state, lest this increased their misfortune. However it could be argued that the policy of the Reformation undermined the political strength of the Church and upset the order of routine rituals that underpinned political stability. However propaganda was also successful in persuading rebels to dissolve rebellions. Henry VII produced a copy of the papal bull of 1487 that excommunicated rebels from the Church before the battle of Stoke and at Blackheath in 1497. Many rebels surrendered rather than risk eternal damnation. Henry VIII also made personal responses during the 1536 rebellion and personally replied to the Lincoln Articles. Propaganda that enforced the monarch’s legitimacy was used throughout the period although it was more concentrated during Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I’s reigns. They used publicly distributed images that glamorised the monarchy, which was more effective than written propaganda as most of the population could not read anyway. Both Elizabeth and Edward VI went on progresses in the southeast of England that showcased the monarchs’ power and legitimacy. Although it could be argued that this did not increase political stability in the more autonomous regions of England, the progresses provided a body of support around central government and were an important factor in increasing political stability around the capital. Propaganda also stopped any potential class warfare during the social and economic changes of the period through enforcing the God-granted hierarchy of the Great Chain of Being. During potentially tumultuous times, the Crown enforced the image of the many-headed monster of those below the nobility and gentry in publications such as Richard Morrisson’s ‘Lamentations’ in the hope that this would scare them into supporting the Crown.

Both common and statute law was re-established at the start of the Tudor period as one of the first priorities of government was to maintain law and order. The courts moved away from common law during Henry VIII’s reign but each system was promoted equally. During Henry VIII’s reign Wolsey established regular sittings of the prerogative courts such as the Star Chamber and Requests, which led to an increase in the number of cases. The cases brought to the Star Chamber rose from 12 to 150 per year by the end of the first half of the 1500s as a result. The reformation of law courts continued into the reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I where reform of the law courts made them more accessible to poorer litigants. As a result, towards the end of the period the number of enclosure riots and rebellions decreased as they were no longer required as a method of getting cases heard in court. It could therefore be argued that this increased political stability overall as it avoided rebellions that started due to personal disputes over enclosure. The reform of the law courts also increased the authority of the monarch. For example the 1487 Act of Maintenance stopped nobles from exerting influence over the judicial system.  represented by Henry VII.  After the Reformation had become wider reaching so in the creation of courts more aspects of society had to be accounted for. There were religious courts such as. Courts in the localities developed throughout the Tudor period demonstrating the absolute authority of the monarch’s law throughout the land. In Henry VIII’s reign and Elizabeth I’s reign, Ireland saw the establishment of a law court in Dublin an other localities developed legislative systems connected with centralised government. Th Councils of the North and Welsh Marches were reformed several times during Elizabeth’s reign which enforced the authority of the Crown at local level. However it could be argued that this method of maintaining political stability was less successful in when rebellion erupted in 1549 as the paternal image of the government caused people to expect to be legislated.

Poor laws and frequent enclosure commissions throughout the Tudor period seem to account for the decline in rebellion by the end of the period.  Wolsey and Somerset implemented enclosure commissions in 1517-18 and 1547. Cecil also set up enclosure commissions during Elizabeth’s reign after the 1569 rebellion of the Northern Earls. Books of Orders were commissioned during Mary I’s reign that made sure that grain was sold to the poor first. Elizabeth additionally implemented the Poor Laws of and1601 to deal with beggars and the poor. It could be argued that these were so successful in maintaining political stability that they were kept until the early 19^th Century. Tudor government also worked with the JPs at a local level to ensure that legislation was being carried out. Although the JPs had at least 80 different tasks already detailed in the Eirenaca, these increased as the population doubled mid-period and there was a greater need for hunger to be mitigated by social practises and action by the state. Even though this was not always  supremely effective, the symbolism of government action in favour of the common people perpetuated the image of a just government across the country and this increased political stability. However, Henry VIII and Protector Somerset both experienced rebellion in 1525 and 1549 where the image of the paternalistic state was undermined. Where people resisted the unpopular taxes of the Amicable Grant and Somerset’s enclosure tax this was a reminder, especially after Wolsey and Somerset’s ineffective enclosure commissions, that repeated paternalism raised the expectations of the general populace. This meant unfortunately, that even if economic conditions were improving and the government failed to perform their duty then this could still warrant insurrection.

It is also notable that there was around 90% illiteracy in 1550 amongst the lower echelons of society. As they became more remote from their social superiors this helped to enforce the social hierarchy of the Great Chain of Being, which worked well to keep the poor in their place. However this meant that they had no solidarity with those above them. Nobility and gentry were impressed by social status and not ideology and so local offices such as (lord lieutenant or JP) provided great prestige and let people know that the Crown’s authority was active even at a local level. The commissions enforced this idea. However in Ireland the allocation of offices to English officials caused major unrest with the rebellion after the ninth earl of Kildare was replaced in 1534.This trend was exacerbated in Elizabeth’s reign by a series of incompetent lieutenants of Ireland who ruled using marshal law. Tudor government was much less successful at maintaining political stability in this area.

 Propaganda was an important tool for maintaining political stability in Tudor England as it acted as a safety net for ineffective government policies and held the class system together during a period of change in society that came with the Reformation. However this could only be exploited so far the examples of Somerset and Wolsey showed that the image of a strong monarch at the centre was important and proves that it was not just the merits of government legislation alone that was essential to maintain political stability. The image of the monarch essential as it gave this newfound governmental authority legitimacy. Even when local representatives of the Crown failed in their duties, by enforcing the propaganda of the Great Chain of Being the ultimate authority of the Crown could avoid rebellion. Although propaganda was the chief factor in maintaining political stability, social progression was also a vital part of this. The actions of the JPs and lords lieutenants enforced connections between local and central government and through their actions it was clear that government legislation always acted to preserve the paternal image of the state, even if legislation was not always effective in achieving its aims. Changes to the judicial system resulted in a change in political culture amongst the lower echelons of society. This made it more favourable for litigants to resolve their problems legally. Although the poor became more remote from their social superiors during the mid-Tudor period, the opportunity for social progression was not completely eliminated by Tudor government and it was the balance between this factor and propaganda that maintained political stability throughout the period.

How effectively did Tudor governments deal with the problem of rebellion? - 16th Century Popular Politics

Tudor governments were relatively successful in dealing with the problem of rebellion, although this was more effective towards the end of the period than at the beginning. Over the course of the Tudor period the main aims of rebellions were only fully achieved in the rebellions of 1525 and 1553. Tudor governments also succeeded in limiting the success of several rebellions as soon as they had started by limiting the extent to which the rebels could achieve their aims. This generally required gaining the support of the nobility, using concessions to buy time, suppress rebellions and prevent further rebellion. In addition to this the reforms made to local government, policies directly implemented byc central government and the effects of trials and retribution all contributed to the reduction in the frequency and scale of English rebellions.  Pre-emptive strikes implemented by Tudor governments were also instrumental, especially during the start of the period, in preventing rebellion or stopping riots from becoming dangerous rebellions. In some areas these strategies and tactics worked better in some areas than others; Irish rebellions were generally more costly and more difficult to suppress.  

The support of the nobility was crucial to maintaining control of the localities and additionally, noble support of a rebellion could increase the risk of a rebellion overthrowing the monarch. This was due to the likely contribution of funds to bolster supplies and troops with the involvement of retainers and experienced foreign mercenaries. Lack of noble co-operation with the government could also increase the threat of rebellion. This can be seen in the Cornish rebellion of 1497 in which the rebels passed through four counties without any incidence of noble resistance and as a consequence they reached Blackheath, very close to London, which increased the threat to Henry VII. This in turn showcases how ineffective government policies to increase royal authority over the nobility had been up until this point.  This is similar to the occurrences of the Simnel rebellion of 1486-7 where Henry VII had to fight a battle in person against the rebels showing that the developments in enforcing the crown authority through the nobility had been ineffective from 1487-1497 in suppressing rebellions. Likewise similar incidents of lack of noble cooperation can bee seen in the rebellions of 1536, 1554 and 1569. However it could still be argued that Tudor government achieved considerable success in this area. Although Henry VII’s efforts to limit the power of the nobility by restricting retaining rights seemed counter productive to getting the nobility to co-operate, his carrot and stick system of bonds and recognizances worked well as Henry achieved increased influence over the north after the 1489 rebellion after which there were no more serous disturbances during Henry VII’s reign. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I also concentrated on reforming the Council of the North making it an extension of royal authority. Henry VIII’s liberal bestowing of titles and land won the hearts of the nobility and Elizabeth’s system of patronage made sure that English nobles were reliant on Tudor government for their prosperity ensuring a reduction in dynastic rebellions by the end of the period. In Ireland, rival clan chiefs were offered rewards, pardons and promises in return for helping to maintain English rule. Henry VII’s decision to replace members of the leading clan, the Geraldines, with loyal English officials actually resulted in increased disorder from 1534-1603 and attempts by rival Irish clans to seize power.

Concessions were generally made to rebels were largely a strategy used to buy time to assemble troops to suppress rebellions in Tudor England. However some lasting concessions made by Tudor governments effectively suppressed rebellion. Henry VII was forced to repeal the taxes behind the Yorkshire (1489) and Cornish (1497) rebellions and Henry VIII also repealed the non-parliamentary Amicable Grant tax that had caused a rebellion in 1525.Actually implementing concessions made to rebels in Tudor government was rare as this damaged the reputation of government as it led subjects (and others) to believe that rebellion was the best way to obtain their objectives. As a result, Tudor government had a reputation for betraying rebels once an agreement was reached, especially after the rebellion of 1536 ended in the Duke of Suffolk duping the rebels of the Lincolnshire rising. During the Kett’s rebellion of 1549, the rebels discouraged Kett from holding private negotiations with the Earl of Warwick lest the same fate befall them. Although this strategy was very effective in suppressing rebellions and ensuring that they would not reoccur under the current monarch it was only a short-term remedy to a problem that reoccurred throughout the Tudor period. Long-term changes to government policy ensured that rebellions occurred less frequently as the period progressed. The social and economic reforms made by the Duke of Northumberland from 1551-1553 were effective in stopping a repeat of the events of 1549 the ‘year of discontent’ in which riots and rebellion broke out all over England. Northumberland repealed the unpopular tax imposed by the Subsidy Act of 1547. Although this did not stop minor riots from occurring from 1551-52, this legislation managed to stop them from becoming too serious, as there was less to protest against. Reform made by Mary and Elizabeth in this area were also responsible for the decline of enclosure riots and rebellions as more litigants sought to resolve their grievances in court. This could be why the Oxfordshire rebellion of 1596 only comprised of four rebels and their demands did not include repealing Elizabeth’s Enclosure Act of 1593 as neither did other disturbances in Oxfordshire around this time. Although the reforms of 1547-49 had been ineffective and had actually been the source of contention during the year of 1549, the concessions made by the Tudor government in England were successful in suppressing rebellions. In Ireland concessions were made largely to clan leaders in return for keeping law and order instead of attempts to resolve the concerns of the population. After fighting the Earl of Tyrone from1595-1603, Tudor government agreed to grant him a pardon in return for his support of English sheriffs and garrisons in Ulster and he called off the rebellion.

This was also an unusually lenient punishment for Elizabeth to exact as she, like her father favoured harsh punishments for rebels. This was effective in limiting the number of rebellions in both of their reigns. During Henry’s reprisal attacks after the Pilgrimage of Grace he executed 178 subjects involved in the rebellion. His use of martial law here ensured that there were no more English rebellions after this point in his reign. During Edward VI’s reign, harsh punishments were also exacted upon the rebels involved in the rebellions of 1549; 100 rebels were hung in Somerset and Devon as a result of the Western rebellion and the leaders of Kett’s rebellion who had survived the Battle of Dussindale were all executed. However, even after Elizabeth exacted harsh punishments upon the four Oxfordshire rebels in 1596, a rebellion still occurred even though it was the last resort of a desperate noble looking to regain his influence at court. This still suggests, that Elizabeth’s punishments were not an effective deterrent for some nobles. This perhaps represented the limitations of having a female queen as access to her person was now even more restricted and so factions who had previously relied on access to the monarch were easily alienated. This may also explain the occurrence of Wyatt’s rebellion during Mary’s reign. To her credit, no more rebellions caused by social or economic problems occurred from 1596 to the end of her reign in 1603. Mary I and Henry VII were also similar in that they were relatively lenient with rebels. He made the ten year-old Lambert Simnel a servant in his kitchen and even allowed Perkin Warbeck to become a courtier. However, Henry VII’s punishments could be harsh when they involved stripping nobles of land, titles and wealth with bonds and recognizances and when peasants had to pay taxes for rebelling against the Crown. Ironically, Henry VII made the residents of Cornwall pay a large fine of £14,000 for their rebellion against the tax imposed upon them to fund a war with Scotland. This made it unprofitable for any level of society to rebel and accounts for one of the reasons hay Warbeck received little support from the locals when he tried to exacerbate unrest in 1497. Mary I was even more lenient and only a few were punished for Northumberland’s revolt against her and she pardoned 600 rebels who had been involved in Wyatt’s rebellion with only 71 executions. Mary like Henry VII weighed up the situation respective to each rebellion before exacting punishment accordingly; they avoided mass executions as much as possible as they realised that it would help to win hearts and minds, but not at the risk of causing political instability. However, in a majority of cases, the harsh punishment seemed to be more effective in preventing future Tudor rebellions. This also contrasts with Irish rebellions, where martial law was imposed when any rebellion occurred. After the Munster rebellion of 1569-73, 800 rebels were executed. This lack of sympathy and understanding towards native people actually caused an increase of Irish rebellions towards the end of the period during Elizabeth’s reign and so this strategy was less effective in preventing future rebellions, and although it succeeded in suppressing some Irish rebellions, it was still expensive and counterproductive to use this strategy to deal with Irish rebellions.

The use of pre-emptive measures was an effective tactic used by Tudor governments to deal with rebellions. Pre-emptive strikes were used throughout the reign to ensure that nobles could not take advantage of existing unrest; as a result this tactic was successful in limiting the danger of high-risk dynastic rebellions. This can best be seen in the actions of Henry VII, Mary I and Elizabeth I. In order to limit the threat of the Simnel rebellion, Henry VII paraded the real Earl of Warwick at St Paul’s in 1487 in an effort to disprove the legitimacy of the leader of the rebellion. He also took extensive measures to limit the Warbeck rebellion including pressurising diplomats abroad to deny Warbeck support with trade sanctions in the Netherlands and France and peace treaties with France and Scotland. He also convicted 14 English nobles by act of attainder in 1495 including the Lord Chamberlain Sir William Stanley and the Steward of the Household. Both Mary I and Henry VII informed the general population of plots to over throe them. Before Wyatt’s rebellion circular letters were distributed within the targeted counties in January 1554 to condemn the plot and Henry VII travelled to Warwickshire to convince prospective trouble-makers that there was nothing to be gained form supporting Warbeck. As a result of the pre-emptive strikes initiated by Mary I and Henry VII both Wyatt’s rebellion and Warbeck’s rebellion were much less of a threat t the Crown.  Equally, Elizabeth had acted quickly when she heard rumours of insurrection that sought to depose William Cecil, secure the succession of Mary Queen of Scots and marry her to the Duke of Norfolk. Elizabeth denied the Duke of Norfolk permission to marry and many nobles attempted to distance themselves from the plot. As soon as the rebellion started Elizabeth had Mary Queen of Scots moved to a new location near Coventry. This also succeeded in limiting the success of the main aims of the rebels as this action brought Elizabeth time to dispatch the royal army to suppress the rebellion. In Tudor England pre-emptive tactics worked well to limit the danger posed by future rebellions, but the actions taken in Ireland to encourage locals to assist the Crown largely failed due to the harsh rule of martial law which increased the hostility of Irish rebels towards occupying English officials.

Tudor governments were overall, relatively successful in dealing with the problem of rebellion, using a variety of tactics and strategies to stop rebels from achieving their main aims.The efforts of Tudor government to bolster the support of the nobility were more effective with English rebellions towards the end of the period, and the scope for achievement in this area was limited in Ireland due to policy changes in 1534 which had caused conflict between Irish clans and English officials. Both the use of concessions and the dispensation of punishment for rebellions varied depending on the monarch, but severity was favoured by a majority of monarchs in the Tudor period and this was very effective in limiting the number of rebellions in the reigns of Elizabeth I, Henry VIII and Edward VI. The system of martial law in Ireland, again limited progression of English policy in these areas.  The use of pre-emptive measures was also largely effective in preventing the threat of future rebellions, however it could still be argued that longer term policy changes were perhaps more effective as offering a long term solution to insurrection.

Why History?

Acknowledging our past allows us to move on

BUT

It also allows us to realise that we as humans are not independent of our actions

From the day we are born we are responsible for everything that we do

We are responsible for how we learn

For what we learn

We are responsible for what we are motivated by

What we live for

Or die for

For how we are represented

For what we become

For our motives

There is always a choice.

Always.

It may not always seem favourable, but there is one.

We are responsible for our own curiosities.

For our humanity. And what this entails.

Our aims, visions, dreams are redefined century upon century – we live in a state of constant change and refinement – because we are human, because we make mistakes, but most importantly, because we acknowledge what has gone before us and strive to do things differently.