Philip IV d. 1314

Louis X d. 1316

Philip V d. 1322 Charles IV d. 1328

Philip VI (nephew of Philip IV)

Isabelle

Edward III

For an earl – 103 pounds For a knight – 16 pounds Milanese plate armor – 8 pounds

Warhorse of an earl – 20-100 pounds Warhorse for a knight – 7-30 pounds

Earl – 146 pounds annually

Knight – 36 ps Man-at-arms – 18

ps Hobelar, mounted

archer, foot-soldier – 9 shillingsArcher – 4 shillings

Earl in England – 400 pounds annuallyBaron – 200 pounds Laborer – 2 pounds annuallyMaster mason – 6 shillingsMaster carpenter – 5 shillings

“Ordinary” (royal land taxation, payments from towns, administration, and justice) – 30,000-50,000 pounds per year

“Extraordinary” (Parliament taxation) – 100,000 pounds per year

Clerical (Church grants) – 60,000-80,000 pounds per year

Indirect taxes (customs, wool subsidies, wine sale) – 90,000 pounds per year

Loans from the Dutch bankers in 1337-1340 – 410,000 pounds per year

Total = 730,000 pounds

1287 (Scottish and Welsh campaigns) – 98,421 pounds = 9,300,000 days’ pay for a foot-soldier

1338-1340 (One Hundred Years War) – 400,000 pounds

1359-1360 (wage for soldiers alone) – 133,000 pounds

1369-1375 (cost of war) – 670,000 pounds

"Total war" is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of its available resources (human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise) in order to entirely destroy a rival, or remove its rival's capacity to continue resistance. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

Introduction – 20%

Does the introduction contain a clearly defined thesis stating an arguable point?Does the introduction provide 2-3 general points that will be offered as proof to be defended in the body of the essay?

Body - 50% Do the body paragraphs take the 2 -3 points mentioned in the introduction and analyze (rather than narrate) them, making good use of reasons and evidence drawn from the text book as well as other research sources? Are sources (at least 3) properly quoted?

Essay’s structure, grammar, style – 30% (while the content and structure of the essay form the basis of the grade, mistakes such as spelling errors and faulty punctuation can and will have a negative impact on the grade of the essay exam).

A response paper is your chance to communicate in writing your personal viewpoint and personal learning as they relate specifically to the book, essay, paper, article, etc. The text, the artifact alone, has no meaning; it is given meaning by you, the writer. In other words, a response paper is your own interpretation of a given source and should demonstrate how deeply you have thought about the concepts, values, and attitudes of the period or historical episode in question. When analyzing the source, keep in mind that its author tries to make a point, to promote an idea, a set of beliefs or values. Hence, you should concentrate upon two objectives:

1. Telling what you think these ideas are. 2. Reflecting on these points, positions, and values

and indicating whether they correspond with your understanding of the historical event or episode in question.

Important Note: Essay organization, style, and grammar are a crucial part of the assignment and will be graded accordingly.

A response paper is your chance to communicate in writing your personal viewpoint and personal learning as they relate specifically to the book, essay, paper, article, etc. The text, the artifact alone, has no meaning; it is given meaning by you, the writer. In other words, a response paper is your own interpretation of a given source and should demonstrate how deeply you have thought about the concepts, values, and attitudes of the period or historical episode in question. When analyzing the source, keep in mind that its author tries to make a point, to promote an idea, a set of beliefs or values. Hence, you should concentrate upon two objectives:

1. Telling what you think these ideas are. 2. Reflecting on these points, positions, and values

and indicating whether they correspond with your understanding of the historical event or episode in question.

Important Note: Essay organization, style, and grammar are a crucial part of the assignment and will be graded accordingly.

Battle of Neretva is a 1969 a Yugoslav partisan film. The film was directed by Veljko Bulajić and depicts a massive Axis offensive against the Yugoslav Partisans in 1943. The offensive was also known as the “Fourth Enemy Offensive” and occurred in the area of the Neretva-River in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

While the film is based on the true events of World War II and the battle scenes are superb, the producer leaves out several important issues. Thus, the film conveys the impression that all the partisans as well as their enemies were ideologically motivated. However, as in many civil wars and revolutions, the majority of the population in wartime Yugoslavia held no rigid political loyalties. Instead, they were forced to survive as best they could and their allegiances shifted according to the situation. For example, the Chetniks, who are portrayed as the inveterate enemies of the Partisans, were not a single unified force, but initially fought alongside the Partisans against the Germans and then joined the Germans against the Partisans (I-132-34).

Bosnia-Herzegovina especially represented a contentious mix of political ideologies, ethnicities and religious beliefs – including nationalism and communism, Serb and Croat, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Muslim – and consequently, the war there was particularly cruel. The film crafts a fascinating narrative of rival radical ideologies, particularly between the multinational vision of the Communist Partisans versus the xenophobic nationalism of the Serbian Chetniks and the Croatian Ustaše. Although the film emphasizes the battle against the Partisans and the Axis powers (Germany and Italy), for Bulajić its local dimension – the conflict between the citizens of the former Yugoslavia is just as, if not more, important (II- 235-36). As Commissar Stole says “hatred between the same people is the most vicious.’”

The film correctly shows that the Partisans fought for much more than mere survival – from the beginning Tito envisioned the war against the Axis powers mutating into a revolutionary struggle and turning Yugoslavia into a communist state (II- 276). Although most Serbs initially joined the Partisans to survive the Ustaše genocide, the Partisan leadership from the beginning emphasized the importance of social revolution that would change the country’s political and socio-economic landscape. In other words, the unique conditions of Axis occupation and the bitter ethnic and ideological conflicts engendered the revolutionary movement united in its primary objectives (I-57-61).

Regrettably, the film does not stress the background of the Partisan leadership and in my opinion, this issue is very important. The KPJ’s long experience as an underground political movement meant years of recruitment through cultural groups, sports clubs, schools, and unions (I-87-9). This fact alone helps explain why the Partisans were much better organized not only to fight large-scale battles, but also create the so-called “free zones” – the Neretva basin was but one – in which they set up the small replicas of the future socialist society, later superimposed upon the entire Yugoslavia (II – 256-59). The Partisans never viewed the armed struggle against the Axis powers from a purely military prospective, but were determined to transform this struggle into a political battle aimed at building a “genuinely multinational socialist society.” Overall, however, the film does offer a realistic portrayal of the brutality of warfare in Yugoslavia.