Two Voices from the Great Siege: Judging Usefulness Against Reliability
Two sources are placed side by side in a textbook on the Great Siege of 1565. Source A is an extract from the journal of an Italian soldier who served inside Fort St Angelo during the siege and published his account in 1568, three years after the Ottoman withdrawal of 8 September 1565. Source B is a letter written in September 1565 by a Maltese notary in Mdina to his brother in Messina, describing the relief of the island and the flight of the Ottoman fleet. Source A describes the bombardment in precise detail - the number of guns, the collapse of the curtain wall of Fort St Elmo on 23 June, the deaths of the defenders - and praises the courage of the Grand Master, Jean de la Valette. Source B is shorter, repeats rumours he heard from refugees, and claims that 'the whole island burned'. A candidate is asked: 'How useful are these two sources to a historian studying how the Knights and the Maltese withstood the siege?'
1. Explain which source a historian would find more useful for this enquiry, and why usefulness is not the same thing as reliability.
Read the worked answer
The starting point is the enquiry, not the sources: the question asks about how the defence was sustained, which requires evidence on command decisions, fortifications, casualties, supply, civilian morale and fighting. Judged against that, Source A is the more useful. Its writer was inside the defences, observed the bombardment directly, and gives the kind of dated, specific detail (the fall of St Elmo on 23 June, artillery, deaths) that lets a historian reconstruct a sequence of events.
But Source A is not neutral. Published in 1568, it praises La Valette and the Order, and the figures for guns and casualties are likely inflated to magnify the victory; its purpose is commemorative and probably apologetic. That lowers its reliability on numbers while leaving it highly useful on tactics, topography, morale and on how the Order wished the siege to be remembered.
Source B is far less useful for military detail - the notary was in Mdina, in the island's north, saw nothing of the Grand Harbour, and retails refugee rumour. It is more useful for a different enquiry: how news travelled, what civilians believed, and the fear and expectation of relief.
So usefulness depends on the question asked, reliability on how accurate a particular statement is. A source can be unreliable and still indispensable, provided the historian says what it is being used to prove.
2. A candidate writes: 'Source B is useless because it contains exaggeration.' Assess this judgement.
Read the worked answer
The judgement treats exaggeration as a reason to discard a source; it is better treated as evidence. Ask why a notary in Mdina in September 1565 wrote that 'the whole island burned'. He was writing to a brother abroad, at a moment of relief after months of blockade and hunger, in a genre - the familiar letter - where drama is expected and news is unverified. The exaggeration therefore tells the historian about the emotional temperature of the island, about the circulation of rumour from refugees, and about what people wanted to hear.
The judgement also confuses two questions. On reliability, the claim that everything burned is plainly false and no historian should use it as a damage report. On usefulness, the letter is valuable for civilian experience and for the reception of news - topics the enquiry 'how did the defenders withstand the siege' can accommodate if it is widened to include the civilian population.
A stronger judgement would be graded rather than absolute. Is the exaggeration occasional or pervasive? Can it be checked against other evidence, such as the soldier's journal, the Order's later accounts of repairs, or notarial records of damaged property? A source whose rhetoric can be checked and discounted remains usable; only a wholly fabricated document is useless.
3. Name one further source the historian should consult and explain precisely what it would add to this enquiry.
Read the worked answer
Any source can be proposed, but the answer must specify the gap it fills and its own limitations.
A strong choice would be the financial and administrative records of the Order - the accounts for repairs to the fortifications after 1565, or the treasury records of payments for soldiers and provisions during the siege. What they add is independent, non-narrative evidence: they were not written to praise anyone, so they provide a check on the chronicler's inflated numbers, and they can show the scale of the damage in money rather than rhetoric. They also illuminate a dimension neither source addresses well - the logistics of supply, how grain, powder and money actually reached the besieged.
Their limits must be stated: they record payment, not fighting; they are fragmentary; and they fall silent on the experience of ordinary Maltese villagers, who appear in them only as taxpayers or labourers. A weaker answer would suggest a second chronicle without saying what it adds, or propose a modern textbook, which is a secondary summary rather than evidence.
The point being demonstrated is that source selection should be driven by the enquiry's needs, with each source's contribution and limitation stated explicitly.