The TOP Homeworks from Year 8

Some really good answers from week 28

1. To start with, some African empires were quite happy to trade slaves. Why? What did they get out of it?
By Emily
Some of the African empires were happy to trade slaves because then were never aware of the way that they would be treated, they also had slavery going on between Merchants in Africa before the Europeans came along, so some people were already enslaved.
The government also thought that it would be a good price to pay for the criminals who had committed crimes and had a debt to repay, it didn’t help that Africa is split into tribes instead of being one big community, this made it seem okay to kidnap rivals from other tribes and sell them of as slaves to save themselves.
By Jen
The empire thought that it would be a good punishment for the criminals to be sold off as slaves. They got good item for trading a person so it seemed like a good idea to sell the weaker ones of for products that would bring money and protection.
There were still areas that people could go to avoid being bought as slaves in the jungle where the Europeans couldn’t reach.
Slave trading had been around for a long time already, the rich merchants would trade them between one another so it didn’t seem like such a bad thing. A lot of the people weren’t aware of how they were going to be treated.
Africa was split into a lot of small groups which didn’t like on another so getting rid of other people as a source of weaponry didn’t seem like a bad thing.
2. Later it was more slave raids than trade. Why did this happen?
By Jen
The trading began to go downhill once the people knew what happened to slaves, so the Europeans had to start raiding the areas to collect them forcefully.
Because of this different tribes would capture others and sell them for weapons to stay safe in the raids.
3. What excuses did some Europeans give to continue the slave trade?
By Emily
The Europeans used the excuse that slavery was already going on before they came, so why stop it now? They didn’t see anything wrong with slavery at all, they were good workers and that’s exactly what they needed to earn more money. They said that just because they were slaves it didn’t necessarily mean that they were treated poorly, the slaves were there items so why should they give them up when that would be like having your housing items taken from you.

All about Sir Thomas Roe

From Abdullah

Dear mother
I’m currently in Agra now with Sir Thomas. I must say he didn’t stand up to any nonsense from the raj. Straight down to the point, and making clear to the Raj he was Important. He was a clever chap, he managed to get permission to open factories in certain towns from the Raj without grovelling or bribing like the Portuguese. He also is very sincere about the East-India trading company, only yesterday I heard him talking to the company. He said “my sincerity toward you in all actions is without spot”. The Raj has taken a liking to Sir Thomas, I think the Raj hasn’t seen anyone who hasn’t grovelled or been so uptight about their position. Anyway I must go because Sir Thomas needs his afternoon tea.
Will Write Soon

And one from Alex too

Dear Lord Rowan,
I met Sir Thomas Roe yesterday at a Royal function. I’m sure you have heard of him, he’s the new English ambassador here in Surat. I liked him.
He is a very proud and dignified man, and serves the English nation well. He treats the slaves and servants with real courtesy. He has been staying at the Great Mughal’s Court where he has been busy trying to extract better trade terms for the East India Company with the Emperor Jahangir. They called him the proud ‘alien’.
He is not a fighting man, he is very peaceful and very open. He doesn’t advocate wars and is condemning the aggravating behaviour of the Portuguese and the Dutch. He reportedly said, “ It hath been also the error of the Dutch, who seek plantation there by the sword. They turn a wonderful stock, they prowl in all places, they possess some of the best; yet their dead pays consume all their gain.” He believes that trade and communications will be achieved by wheeler dealing not guns blazing and swords flashing.
I agree with his principles and hope to work with him here.
Yours sincerely

A different one from Kane

This letter contains information about the ambassador in the fields of India, Sir Thomas Roe.
Sir Thomas Roe is quite obviously against slavery and he holds some very strong morale issues with the Mughal society with my assumption that he is a bold man not afraid to air his opinions. While his actions have appeared to be blundering and heavy-handed, he has successfully obtained an agreement for our East India Company to open a factory in the primitive village of Surat. Roe actions have been more realised due to his proud and superior attitude, which is what we want to prove to the Indians, Dutch and Portuguese of our large and competent trading fleet. He does not waver when criticising other nation’s actions and beliefs as is apparent when he said, and I quote, this:

“It is the beggaring of Portugal, notwithstanding his many rich residences and territories that he keeps soldiers that spend it, yet his garrisons are mean. He never profited by the Indies, since he defended them. Observe this well. It hath been also the error of the Dutch, who seek plantation there by the sword. They turn a wonderful stock, they prowl in all places, they possess some of the best; yet their dead pays consume all their gain. Let this be received as a rule that if you will profit, seek it at sea, and in quiet trade”

Although his methods seem harsh, they are incredibly efficient and this is why I send a strong letter of merit for Mr. Roe,

A different approach from Simone

A conversation with a friend...
Me – Hi
Friend – Hi
Me – What do you think about Thomas Roe?
Friend – I think Sir Thomas roe is a bit weird because he wasn’t happy one day, and he said ‘I would sooner die than be subject to the slavery the Persian [ambassador] is content with.
Me – Yeah true, but if you think about it, he is very happy when he gets what he wants, he only wasn’t happy because he didn’t get what he wanted.
Friend – Yeah, so you know when he said ‘My sincerity toward you in all actions is without spot; my neglect of private gain is without example, and my frugality beyond your expectation.’ What do you think about that?
Me – I think it’s a bit harsh, what do you think?
Friend – I think that he wasn’t winning so he thought he’d just leave and think its all okay.
Me – Yeah, but he has a very hard job.
Friend – yes but he knew it was hard but sometimes he doesn’t take it the right way.
Me – one last thing before you go.
Friend – yeah?
Me – what do you think about this ‘The whole kingdom is lying in a very miserable feeble condition, the great ones plundering and robbing the feebler.’ When he said it?
Friend – I think he should get up and do something about it!!!
Me – Okay thank you!
Friend – welcome

Description: This illustration was originally published in Dore and Blanchard Jerrold's work 'London: A Pilgrimage' (Grant & Co., London, 1872), a collection of 180 engravings that form a comprehensive portrait of 19th-century London. The illustrations of life in the port areas that shocked public opinion.
Dore's work also appeared in the 'Illustrated London News'.
Creator: Gustave Dore
Date: 1872
Credit line: Southwark Library

Mowgli's answer to this cartoon;
1. Is this a primary or a secondary source of information – explain why.
This is an example of a primary source of information because it describes 19th century London and it was published in the 'London: A Pilgrimage' in 1872 which was in the 19th century which means it was made at the time that it was happening so it is a primary source of information.
A primary source of information is a first-hand account of an event that is true. It is true because the source is talking about what is happening around him so the information is most likely not tampered with, for example: a diary, a newspaper, a magazine, a photo, a painting.
A secondary source of information is a source of information that could be true but one is not sure because it is mostly repeated information and information of a long time ago, for example: a film, a book, a history textbook, a bedtime story, and a painting.
2. Look carefully and describe what it shows about what you have learnt about Victorian London
This illustration by Gustave Dore of 19th century London shows that the streets were dark and dirty. London was overpopulated and most people were poor. They lived in the most terrible conditions because the air was polluted with heavy smoke and the stink of sewage. Water was a huge problem and bathrooms were rare people had to live in the in the foul air.
3. Then say what you think it shocked the readers of the book or the Illustrated London News
What shocked them was that people were begging in the street breathing in sewage and had no light, no source of heat and were filthy and had no source of water. The only source of water was a sand pipe that supplied water for 1 hour two days a week, and the water looked like strong green tea or black marble. It was more like watery mud than muddy water.

What were the three most important changes to agriculture between 1750 and the early 19th century?

By Holly:
1. There was enclosure…Beginning as early as the 12th century, some of the common fields in Britain were enclosed into individually owned fields. This led to farmers losing their land and their grazing rights and left many unemployed. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the practice of enclosure was denounced by the Church, and legislation was drawn up against it; but the developments in agricultural mechanization during the 18th century. This led to a series of government acts, the General enclosure Act of 1801.
2. There was new machinery…Jethro Tull made early advancements in agricultural technology with his seed drill in 1701. Joseph Foljambe's Rotherham plough of 1730, while not the first irons plough. It remained in use in Britain until the development of the tractor. It was followed by John Small of Doncaster and Berwickshire in 1763, whose 'Scots Plough' used an improved cast iron share to turn the soil more effectively with less draft, wear, or strain on the ploughing team.
3. There was selective breeding…In England, Robert Bakewell and Thomas Coke introduced selective breeding (mating together two animals with particularly desirable characteristics), and inbreeding (the mating of close relatives, such as father and daughter, or brother and sister, to stabilize certain qualities) in order to reduce genetic diversity in desirable animals programs from the mid-18th century. Robert Bakewell cross-bred the Lincoln and Longhorn sheep to produce the New Leicester variety. These methods proved successful in the production of larger and more profitable livestock

By Simone:
  1. Crop rotation – If they didn’t rotate the crops every 3 to 4 years, the land would become poor and the crops would become weaker and smaller and if they couldn’t grow anything then they would not be able to live.
  2. Machinery – If they didn’t make new machinery which works faster and more efficiently the farmers would have to work very hard with the old machinery. It would take allot of hard work and time to plough, water and seed drill their plots with the old slow machinery.
  3. Fertilisers – If they didn’t invent fertilisers then it would take allot longer for the vegetables to grow. When the ground is treated with a fertiliser it makes the vegetables grow faster, stronger and healthier
By Max
1. I think that one of the best changes were the new machinery because this meant that it would be much easier work for the farmers. For example a plough would make planting crops easier.
2. I think that selective breeding was also one of the best changes because breeding the strongest and fittest animals will make the baby’s fit and strong as well but if you breed a sick, unfit or weak animal then the baby will not be a good strong animal.
3. I also think that the rotation of the fields was one of the best changes because if they had kept on growing on the same field year after year then all the nutrients from the soil will be sucked up and then most of the crops will die, but if you rotate your fields every year or two then the crops will have time to get the nutrients back and you will have strong healthy crops again.

By Isabel
1. Larger fields with smaller fields inside.
Because it was closer for villagers and they could rotate and grow more crops, and they have a lot less chance lees crops being stepped on by animals or people they could also work together in these big fields.
2. New tools.
Because they had bigger fields they could use this new machinery to help them out with harvest because they had more crops so they needed something to help them out.
3. Publicity!
I think the publicity of farming really worked because in got a lot of people to do a lot of farming and they would hold a competition and it would help because farmers could exchange their ideas to see if something else would work better.

By Abdullah
1. The enclosure act. This made a huge difference and impact on how we live today. This enclosed the land of a person all together instead of having a strip of land here and a strip of land there. I think this change was important because England had a high population yet little food. The enclosure act meant that more food was produced. This was good for land owners who made more money, tenant farmers who didn’t mind high tax and labourers who could earn more money. More money meant that people could invest in making and inventing machinery and upgrading fertilizers.
2. Machinery upgrades. Seeding a land was done by hand and took a lot of man power. With the invention of the seeding machines, time and manpower were both reduced; they just needed a horse or ox to pull and one man to supervise. The machinery upgrade meant more crops and money. This meant that England’s economy grew and become more advanced in other areas such as military, naval, and politics. This was one of the factors that made the advancing option available to England.
3. Less people became farmers. Both the enclosure act and the machinery upgrade meant people lost their jobs as farmers. Either the farmers sold their land and went to the city to look for jobs, or workers got made redundant and left the countryside for the city. Because of these florists, doctors, mechanics, soldiers and engineers became more advanced. This took time yet I think if the major agricultural change didn’t happen in 1700 then neither would the industrial revolution. All the changes in the agricultural revolution had an impact on the industrial revolution and our lives today

Drake – Hero or Villain? By Kane

To the English, Drake was a hero because he brought many treasures back to England and was knighted for his efforts, also he was the first European to circumnavigate the globe and discovered many lands. Furthermore he stole quite a lot from the Spanish which Elizabeth was quite pleased about.
However, the Spanish Ambassador said that he was “the master thief of the unknown world” because, owing that he stole most of the Spanish reserves of gold, silver and silk he was called that name by the Spanish ambassador to Great Britain. Sinking many ships and causing chaos in the many Spanish settlements along the coast of the far side of South America didn’t put him the good books of the Spanish.
So, was Drake a hero or a pirate? I think he was really a pirate who pillaged many towns in South America and killed people so he was quite an unreligious man but he was really just a pirate not a hero in my opinion. Secondly he, as I said, killed many people including women and children when he burnt down towns and stole and sunk galleons.

Drake – Hero or Villain? By Shannon

To the English Drake was a hero because he was knighted by the queen herself and he was loathed by the Spanish. He lost what he thought was a great battle but the English still thought he was a hero because he led them into a great battle
However, the Spanish Ambassador said that he was “the master thief of the unknown world” because…. He stole from them as one of his men hit one of the Spanish on the mouth and said “get down you dog” and then Drake ordered his men to lock the Spanish in the cabin but one lucky man escaped and ran to the village and told everyone what happened and they all fled, deserting the village and houses. When Drake and his men arrived it was deserted so they raided the church and found a chalice two cruets. He decided to keep them.
So, was Drake a hero or a pirate? I think that he was a pirate because it’s not right to steal from men who have done nothing to you. Well, you shouldn’t steal anyway. He also kept prisoners because one of his own men punched a Spaniard in the mouth. He kept them in a cabin. I also think he’s a pirate because he stole from churches.

Drake – Hero or Villain? By Leah

To the English, Drake was a hero because he defeated the Spanish Armada. He was a great explorer and discovered many new places. And he was very much favoured because he brought back a lot of gold and other treasures from his travels. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth I.
However, the Spanish Ambassador said that he was “the master thief of the unknown world” because Drake plundered the Spanish ships and took their gold.
So, was Drake a hero or a pirate? I think he was a hero because it was very dangerous and difficult at that time to make the journeys he did.

Why did the Spanish Armada fail? By Abdullah

The Spanish Armada wasn't ready for an attack by fire-ships. They simply thought that they would encounter them in a head to head attack but the English knew if they done this they would fail miserably. I think that the Spanish Armada focused more on attacking and defeating the English, when they should have been focusing on different weathers, the English point of view on How they would defeat the Spanish, and also upgrading their ships to have a stronger artillery instead on jumping on the enemies boats. They should have know that English boats were fast and manoeuvrable. In other words they lost due to lack of information. The should have sent spies, to find out more about the English and their positioning.

Why did the Spanish Armada fail? By Eli

The Spanish Armada failed because they weren’t really prepared for the battle. They should have expected something like that. They should have had better boats. Faster and lighter ones, because the ones that they had were big and slow and they could not catch the English in them. They really had bad luck with the weather; I mean that really didn’t help them at all. So all in all I think that the Spanish were not prepared at all and it was just a waste of time and lives for the Spanish.

Why did the Spanish Armada fail? By Max

The Spanish Armada failed because when they were in Calais and the English sent in their fire-ships the Spanish panicked and got scared so they quickly cut the anchor loose and set out into sea but the English were waiting for them and started blowing the Spanish apart with their artillery. The Spanish tried to board the English ships but they were too fast and could manoeuvre well so the Spanish had no chance of catching the English, so the Spanish ships retreated and tried to sail around Scotland and back to Spain but unfortunately the Spanish armada encountered a huge, fierce storm that sunk many Spanish ships and the survivors swam to the shores of Ireland only to be killed by the English soldiers or the locals. Less than 10, 000 soldiers out of over 25, 000 soldiers made it back to Spain.

Leah h2
View more documents from LindyM.

Yulia h2
View more documents from LindyM.