So in HSC, you can opt for Modern History or Ancient History (or Extension History - another ball game altogether).
Why don't we study medieval history?
I really feel like Medieval History explains so much of the way the world is right now, especially in Europe (which is quite often the focus of Ancient and Modern History). There's literally soooo much to explore: monarchies, religious development, literature, torture, legal systems. ALL of this feeds into other senior subjects and generally informs the way society is now. I really think medieval history is incredibly interesting.
So, do you think we should be studying Medieval History - or at least present the option? Perhaps you can see a solid reason as to why it isn't an available specific subject currently? I can't help but think this is a very significant period that informs so many other HSC subjects (likely VCE too!)
(I'm bringing this up because I went to a Medieval torture museum today and 4 euros has never made me feel more queasy.)
Literally been asking myself this since I started prelim. It was definitely strange for me knowing that it wasn't taught, because when I studied history in England (granted that was primary school history lessons) the medieval period was quite prominent. I also think it would be very interesting for many students, particularly if they take the more "global" approach, rather than focusing on just Europe. The "Dark Ages" weren't so dark for Asia, particularly the Islamic World, and that isn't something that's necessarily common knowledge. I would have loved to have been given the option (though maybe its a good thing it wasn't an option or I would have studied 7 units of history last year...).
The only real reason that I can think of to justify it not having its own subject (and I am basing this off my rather limited knowledge on the period, so this could, and is probably entirely inaccurate) is lack of variety, or more specifically, lack of equal variety (if that makes any sense haha). Though the Russia, Germany and USA units for Modern are very different, they are at the very least equal in the amount of material and content. Same in Ancient with the Julio-Claudian Period of Rome, and New Kingdom Egypt to the death of Thutmose IV. Though certain units may have a reputation for being "harder", at the very core no student is going to get disadvantaged for choosing a particular option. I'm wondering if that would still be the case for Middle Period history. I feel like a lot of Medieval History has really only been seen though this very Eurocentric lens, and that is going to make it harder to incorporate other options of study - there just simply isn't as much recorded material. Certainly there would be some very richly researched topics, such as the Crusades, but I think overall there would be less variety than in Ancient and Modern, even though within the latter the most popular units are typically the european options (the new Modern syllabus attempts to fix this, making it mandatory to study an Asian option
). I don't know whether I agree with this line of thinking, but its the only reason I can really think of - not really sure whether I expressed it very well haha.
However, you do have the option of studying Medieval/Middle period history in History Extension
Yes the format of the subject is wayyyyy different from Modern and Ancient, but when studying historiography you will always get the history too! Topics you can study in extension that cover this period include the Crusades (my school studied this one before we transitioned to the Western Imperialism unit), Martin Luther, the Elizabeth I and the Elizabethan Age (pretty popular unit!) and Spain and the Aztec Empire. Even then though, the Medieval topics for Extension History are limited in comparison to Ancient and Modern options.
Home
Help
Search
Login
