HSC Ancient History Question Thread

[sudodds]

Hey   
I've got my Ancient trial exam on Wednesday and I'm pretty concerned about the historical period section.
I'm doing the Julio-Claudians at my school and I haven't really focused on any of the dot points besides the reforms and policies of the Julio-Claudian rulers. I had an assignment on this dot point and focused wayyyy too much on it and neglected studying the other dot points 
What would be the best approach for study at this stage, I feel like I'm screwed haha. Should I just create like practice essays for each of other other dot points? Is there even time for that now??  I feel like there r literally soo many questions that could be asked and I'm only really prepared for one possible question....
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! 

LITERALLY ME this time last year!! Don't worry, I think most schools are a bit unbalanced when it comes to this syllabus, and focus too much on the emperors, and not the Empire as a whole (ie. role of the army, expansion and consolidation etc. etc). I think writing essay plans would be a good way forward! That is what I did last year - trying to work out the links and patterns between your arguments, as I found that a lot of my policies and reforms points were transferrable! Focus more on the questions that look at the general scope of the period as well, rather than ones that look specifically at an emperor (ie. look at "Account for the role of the senate during the Julio-Claudian period" more than "To what extent was Claudius an effective Princeps".)

Hope this helps! GOOD LUCK!!!

Susie

[Maraos]

LITERALLY ME this time last year!! Don't worry, I think most schools are a bit unbalanced when it comes to this syllabus, and focus too much on the emperors, and not the Empire as a whole (ie. role of the army, expansion and consolidation etc. etc). I think writing essay plans would be a good way forward! That is what I did last year - trying to work out the links and patterns between your arguments, as I found that a lot of my policies and reforms points were transferrable! Focus more on the questions that look at the general scope of the period as well, rather than ones that look specifically at an emperor (ie. look at "Account for the role of the senate during the Julio-Claudian period" more than "To what extent was Claudius an effective Princeps".)

Hope this helps! GOOD LUCK!!!

Susie

This makes me feel soo much better haha I'm glad you were in the same place last year
Sounds like a plan then, I'll start writing up some essay plans

Thanks!

[TheG]

Hi! I'm doing a Julio-Claudian essay with the question:
Analyse the development of the Imperial Cult during this period.
My thesis reads:
The development of the Imperial Cult was contingent on the Julio-Claudian's desire for political legitimacy.
I have points for all emperors but Nero, and I was wondering how you'd tackle it. Nero deified Claudius, only to then neglect it and encourage his own. I can't argue that he sought to legitimise his rule through Claudius because Claudius himself was seemingly very unpopular, and it's hard to argue that his own cult legitimise him both because he made many unhappy with his self deification AND because he was assassinated.
What would you do?

[sudodds]

Hi! I'm doing a Julio-Claudian essay with the question:
Analyse the development of the Imperial Cult during this period.
My thesis reads:
The development of the Imperial Cult was contingent on the Julio-Claudian's desire for political legitimacy.
I have points for all emperors but Nero, and I was wondering how you'd tackle it. Nero deified Claudius, only to then neglect it and encourage his own. I can't argue that he sought to legitimise his rule through Claudius because Claudius himself was seemingly very unpopular, and it's hard to argue that his own cult legitimise him both because he made many unhappy with his self deification AND because he was assassinated.
What would you do?

Hey! So been a while since I dealt with this topic so bare with me aha, but I believe you still could make the argument that Nero utilised his self-deification to legitimise his rule, whether or not that was successfully achieved! If your thesis is that it was contingent upon their "desire for political legitimacy" then you're more so focusing on aims rather than results. By deifying himself, and associating himself with the gods (particularly the sun god), he was strengthening his claim to Princepship. Furthermore, deifying Claudius also legitimised his rise to power, as perhaps it would have made people believe that their relationship was stronger (considering he was not the biological son of Claudius) - even if Claudius was unpopular, doesn't change the fact that the people with true power (Agrippina, Seneca and Burrus) didn't want the Julio-Claudian dynasty to end.

But yeah, thats really all I can remember I'm afraid! I know there are a few other people on here who study the Julio-Claudians though, so they may be able to help you out further!

Susie

[katie,rinos]

Hi! I'm doing a Julio-Claudian essay with the question:
Analyse the development of the Imperial Cult during this period.
My thesis reads:
The development of the Imperial Cult was contingent on the Julio-Claudian's desire for political legitimacy.
I have points for all emperors but Nero, and I was wondering how you'd tackle it. Nero deified Claudius, only to then neglect it and encourage his own. I can't argue that he sought to legitimise his rule through Claudius because Claudius himself was seemingly very unpopular, and it's hard to argue that his own cult legitimise him both because he made many unhappy with his self deification AND because he was assassinated.
What would you do?

Hey,
Welcome to the forums! 
I agree with Susies points and I think that you can argue that through his self-deification and his deification of Claudius he was aiming to strengthen his political legitimacy.

I have a few things you may be able to add (although I think they are mainly more on results rather then his aims).
- Nero didn't contribute to the imperial cult/rather neglecting it and therefore it mostly remained dormant during his reign.
- However similarly to Caligula, he choose to be worshipped as a God himself (identifying himself with Hercules, Apollo and Helios). This is seen through the quote, “(Nero) insisted on his own divinity.”-Salmon. He was represented on coins as the ‘son of god’ or the new Agatho Daimon, the new protector of Alexandria and admitted to being a living God (which was previously rejected by Rome and the Imperial cult).
- Renamed the month to Nero Neuroneus.
- He travelled to Greece, to be accepted better as an oriental god-king.
- Mocked the imperial cult by deifying wife Poppaea and daughter Claudia (suggesting imperial cult had become more political then religious).
Hope this helps

[beatroot]

Hey,
Not quite sure how to answer this question properly "What was the significance of the ‘inferiors’ in Spartan society?" (HSC 2015)
I just said that having this category rather than ostracising people entirely meant that Sparta could maintain their social order and prevent any revolts. Is there anything else I could say? It's also a three marker, do I need to add a source somewhere?
Thanks!

[sudodds]

Hey,
Not quite sure how to answer this question properly "What was the significance of the ‘inferiors’ in Spartan society?" (HSC 2015)
I just said that having this category rather than ostracising people entirely meant that Sparta could maintain their social order and prevent any revolts. Is there anything else I could say? It's also a three marker, do I need to add a source somewhere?
Thanks!

Hey! You could also talk about how the fact that they were not banished was perhaps as a warning or means of humiliation, and emphasised how steadfast the Spartan's were in their search for physical/emotional perfection (in a way it could be seen as like pruning a rose to help it grow stronger aha). And YES you definitely want sources for a 3 marker! Preferably you want sources/evidence for any point that you make

[maddy359]

Hey Everyone,

I was just wondering what everyones methods are for studying for the Ancient Exam, my internal mark is really good at the moment I really want that band 6 haha. I've been doing past papers both under and not under exam conditions and just revising all of my notes and will memorise majority of  my sources for each dot point. I have no idea if I should be attempting to memorise all of my sources or if there is any other great methods in learning all of the ancient content which really seems like an impossible task.

Thanks in advance

[sudodds]

Hey Everyone,

I was just wondering what everyones methods are for studying for the Ancient Exam, my internal mark is really good at the moment I really want that band 6 haha. I've been doing past papers both under and not under exam conditions and just revising all of my notes and will memorise majority of  my sources for each dot point. I have no idea if I should be attempting to memorise all of my sources or if there is any other great methods in learning all of the ancient content which really seems like an impossible task.

Thanks in advance

Good work on maintaining a solid internal mark!!! That'll definitely set you up well for the exam Sounds like you are studying well so far! Past papers are definitely the best way to go In terms of memorising sources, remember that you can cut down your workload significantly by studying sources that relate to multiple syllabus dot points, rather than just one! For example, the Temple of Isis doesn't relate to just religion, but also evidence for;

- the eruption (repairs after the earthquake of 62AD)
- social structure (Cult of Isis = very inclusive, role of women)
- Public buildings (temple)
- Influence of Greek and Egyptian culture (statues of Hercules + architectural features = Greek, Egyptian cult + nialotic imagery = Egyptian)
- Religion (Temples + Influence of foreign cults)

Hope this helps! Good luck

Susie

[sl1402]

Hi guys,

So I was just looking at the marking guidelines for the 2016 Ancient exam historical period section, and I noticed that the Band 6 criteria says 'Supports the response with detailed and accurate information from relevant sources; may analyse and evaluate sources', how do you incorporate your evaluation of sources?

Thanks!

[sudodds]

Hi guys,

So I was just looking at the marking guidelines for the 2016 Ancient exam historical period section, and I noticed that the Band 6 criteria says 'Supports the response with detailed and accurate information from relevant sources; may analyse and evaluate sources', how do you incorporate your evaluation of sources?

Thanks!

Hey! That just means that if a source may be unreliable to some extent (as many ancient historians are) you preface this is some way For example, for my historical period study, the Julio-Claudians, lets say I wanted to use this quote from Suetonius about Claudius - "The vigour of both his mind and his body was dulled, and even when he reached the proper age he was not thought capable of any public or private business.” I'd bring up not only Suetonius' perchance for exaggeration and drama, but also Suetonius' negative perception of Claudius may be due to the fact that he is attempting to present a negative view of the Julio-Claudians in general, as an attempt to vicariously comment upon the problems of the Empire of his own context, without making any treasonous statements aha, which of course means that his statement may not be wholly accurate. So normally I'd phrase it like this;

"Despite assertions by ancient writers such as Suetonius, who are clouded by prejudice against the Julio-Claudian family and the Imperial system that 'the vigor of both his mind and his body was dulled, and even when he reached the proper age he was not thought capable of any public or private business,' Claudius was rather...(evidence that he was the opposite/different)"

Hope this makes sense

Susie

[Diala]

Hi! I'm doing New Kingdom Egypt to the death of Thutmose IV for my historical period - which may not be the historical period you did - and its split into Internal developments and Expansions of boundaries, is it typically going to be a question from each one of the sections in the HSC or do you think they would do 2 questions based on one section?

[sudodds]

Hi! I'm doing New Kingdom Egypt to the death of Thutmose IV for my historical period - which may not be the historical period you did - and its split into Internal developments and Expansions of boundaries, is it typically going to be a question from each one of the sections in the HSC or do you think they would do 2 questions based on one section?

Yeah didn't do that topic but all gee I'd say it'd be quite rare for them to have two questions on one section, HOWEVER that is just an educated guess. There is no rule book saying they can't do that, I'd just assume that as the point of giving two questions is to let students choose what question they are most comfortable with, it would be a bit contradictory to give you two on the same area. I'd still make sure you have a solid understanding of both areas though, just in case!

[katie,rinos]

Hey Susie,
With your argument/interpretation tables what were your main arguments for Sparta within the Spartan mirage?
Thanks

[Maraos]

Hey! 
Just a quick question, this was in the 2014 ancient past paper:
(a) identify TWO examples of technology in this period

Unforutantely the answers that BOSTES provides only gives you the marking criteria for that question and doesn't list any examples.

For my response I wrote
- Hoplite spears
- Hoplon (shield made of wood covered with a sheet of bronze)

Would these be valid answers? And for this dot point 'technology' what exactly should you be referring to, would military equipment be classified under 'technology.' I feel like this dot point is a bit unclear.

Thanks!