Hello
I've got a question regarding my major work,
I've been looking at the top past projects that won the extension history essay prize and most of their questions are really really specific. I'm kinda worried that my question is way too broad, do you have to be specific in-order to go well?
I was talking to a substitute history teacher at my school and he said that he has never seen someone get an E4 using my project topic (this obviously really scared me haha ). However he did say that as long as the teachers are happy with your project idea then it doesn't matter since they will be marking it.
I got 20/20 for my project proposal so I think they should hopefully approve of my essay if it is done well. What do you think about my question? is it too broad?
I haven't really pinpointed my question exactly yet but it consists of these two main questions:
1) Discuss the changing interpretations of the Spartacus legend/figure over time
2)Explain the reasons as to why historians over time have adopted different perspectives of the Spartacus legend.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated
thanks!
Heya!!
Okay so to be completely and 100% honest with you - your questions do seem quite broad, and yes, it is harder to get an E4 with a question like that - not only because it is broad, but because it limits you conceptually by focusing on an area of history within your question - however guess what, with only a little bit of tweaking we can fix it up!
So you're looking at Sparta yeah? Well rather having your question on Sparta, why don't we make the question a bit more broad (I know that might sound weird in the context of this topic but trust me), such as (and this should not be your final question):
Analyse why interpretations of historical events change over time.
Then use Sparta as your case study that you will integrate throughout. Why have a suggested this? Well, by broadening the scope of the question and making the focus historiography, you are limiting your ability to write a history essay rather than a historiography essay. With Sparta a focus of your question, it becomes way easier to just fall into the trap of writing spartan history. Along with this, by using Sparta as a case study rather than a focus question, you are demonstrating that not only do you understand broader historiographical concepts, but know how to identify them as well! Finally, it gives you more room conceptually. It allows for you to fit in more historiographical theories and discussion, rather than history. This'll make it so much easier when looking for evidence, because rather than every source having to relate directly to Sparta, it can instead link to a broader historiographical concern (basically any piece of historiography), which then you link to Sparta as a case study - further demonstrating your ability to link theory to practice!
But then... is the question I gave you a good one? Hardly - way too broad and simplistic. What we need to do is narrow our focus, while still keeping it accessible for Spartan history to be utilised as a case study. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to look at the historiographical concepts. Now there are SOOOOOOO many to choose from. Like literally so many, many of which you will have studied in class. However I can think of one of the top of my head that I think could work really well!!! THE SPARTAN MIRAGE.
The Spartan Mirage is the term used to describe the mainstream interpretation of Sparta - aggressive, totalitarian, militaristic, no culture/art/etc.etc. It is an example of
REDUCTIONIST history - focusing on only a few elements in order to formulate a larger narrative. When it comes to Sparta in particular, you've got to critically assess who the majority of their history is filtered through - Athenian writers
With that in mind, now this is only a suggestion, but what if this was your question?
Critically analyse the purpose and implications of reductionist history, and it's ability to formulate a holistic truth.Subtitle: An analysis of the Spartan Mirage and it's impact upon the interpretations of Spartan history and historiography.
Obviously that is just a suggestion, and there are many other questions that could work really well as well! But yeah, I think the above question would work quite nicely - it's not so narrow that you'll struggle to find information, but not too broad that you'll be writing forever. I'd then suggest breaking up your paragraphs by looking closely at the purpose and implications of reductionism as a concept, then through your paragraphs integrate how this is demonstrated through the Spartan Mirage (kinda like how in a discovery essay you don't want to discuss the texts in your first sentence!)
Oh and also just another question,
I've got a lot of historians on my topic (far too many to spend time speaking about all of them). Do you think I should just focus on the historians who have the most to say (for example for my ancient historians Appian is the principal source on Spartacus, writing the most about him and going into the most detail).
I was thinking of adopting a chronological approach to my essay. So starting with the ancient (antiquity) perspective of Spartacus and then going through to the modern accounts of Spartacus. Would this be an effective way to approach my question(s).
Thanks!
DO NOT WRITE A CHRONOLOGY. DO NOT. You will get hammered by the markers, because that is not historiography - that is the history of historiography (so essentially just a history essay). Instead, focus on the historiographical concepts and how they can be demonstrated through historiography on Sparta - this will also allow you to develop your own voice, rather than just letting us know what the different interpretations were throughout history.
In terms of historians as I said earlier the best to incorporate would be
historiographers, that may not be discussing Sparta specifically, but that look at concepts that directly impact Spartan historiography. Take a look at people like John Vincent, EH Carr, Hayden White, etc. etc. They may not be writing about Sparta, but their historiographical ideas can still be used to great effect! Great to include some Spartan historians as well, but their inclusion should be more so to demonstrate the interpretations than to present an argument.
Hope this helps! If you have any questions let me know
Susie