Problems with Historiography Question (1 Viewer)

[green_appletini]

Hey guys~

Ok this probably sounds really stupid, but basically i have NO IDEA what to do with the historiography question. My trials are in 2 weeks...i really need to think about STUDYING for this question. You see, i've read some of my friend's essays and they basically just listed a whole heap of historians (with heaps of detail)..but my teacher said you have to address all the historiographical issues raised in the source they give you.

So does anyone have any tips as to how i should approach the questions? We havent practised writing any historiography essays in class so i really have NO CLUE I'M SOOO STRESSED ABOUT IT!! There are SOO many historians...i don't even remember which is which...

If anyone knows of any example essays, it'd really really help!! Thanks soo much guys!!

 

[Jennibeans]

address the article first go through each of the issues it raises and how it applies to the question then go through each of your historians (choose historians from different schools and different time periods) and apply what they said to the question. thats a VERY brief guide can i suggest having a look at the exemplar package for last years responses & doing a few practice essays and getting your teacher to mark them.

 

[hanjoc]

we got told to make our study notes follow the criteria. if u get that. so we got each reading and pretty much summarised it into the period of history, and then what they say about bias, perspective, sources etc. so thats how we've done it. no idea if its right but hopefully its somewhere along the right track

 

[charlie_charlie]

I'm with you appletini for the help, i have no idea either.....although I know we have to get a variety of historians and remember what they said....:worried: COming from that, does anyone know what to do for the case study question as well? I'm doing Tacitus and I'm reallly really really confused...oh dear...

 

[Jennibeans]

case study question you're looking at how historical interpretations of your subject (in your case Tacitus) highlight the differences between interpretations and why those differences are there. the idea is to incorporate how those 5 questions at the beginning of the course fit in. e.g. how does who the historian is (ie his context) affect what he wrote why have the interpretations changed - because the contexts of the historians & the responders change so people perceive things differently have different access to sources etc

 

[MissSavage29]

For my ext history notes (for the what is history part) i basically looked at some of the old essays and syllubbus points adn summaries my information like that. Plus i did two lots of notes which look at the different historical periods and then one that looks at specific historians and ahve information from the book of readings on these

 

[silvermoon]

remember with the case study - the important thing is not content - its the historians opinion (the 5 areas at the start of the syllabus) and their individual context and how this supports or contradicts mainstream ideologies

 

[charlie_charlie]

remember with the case study - the important thing is not content - its the historians opinion (the 5 areas at the start of the syllabus) and their individual context and how this supports or contradicts mainstream ideologies

So I have to look at the historian's context too?

Noooo!

My teacher has gone for Term 3, off to Athens....so I'm stuffed, Tacitus is so difficult!!! I don't get the historical debates and how they fit into the essay etc!!!! :worried:

 

[Caratacus]

Which debates & which historians on Tacitus have you done?

 

[Vuki]

I assume this is Charlene? Haha, can't believe you're asking for help, you're coming first in the course . You know you can still email Mulligan, he's been replying to Fiona's emails.

 

[charlie_charlie]

Really? I thought he would be having too much fun in Greece...uh...looking at that...wonderful Olympic Stadium....with sand....but thanks, I think I shall email him. And btw Vuki, there's been ONE assessment, that can easily change...I know everyone wants to get a hundred for the trial (like you!)

Caratacus, for the historical debates I think I'll concentrate on the early life and influences, the notion of the principate, and probably characterisation. Ummmm....the scholars...Syme, Benario, Mellor mainly. I think I've got Walker for a few and Rutland for some of the characterisation. I know Syme loves Tacitus, but I'm not too confident about how to address the historians's own interpretation of Tacitus the historian....does that make sense?! But I know that Rutland probably is influenced by her being a woman....but other than that I don't know much. Like I know the individual details, but I can't link them all together into a bigger picture understanding, which I think you probably need to do for an essay...right?

 

[Caratacus]

Send me an email here:

i_caratacus(at)yahoo.com.au

[write @ for (at)]

& I will send you some Word files which deal with various aspects of the debates including Mellor & Syme (plus some others you haven't mentioned).

These notes are mostly quotes from each historian which relate to the debate eg I went through Syme's "Tacitus" & "The Roman Revolution" & found every thing relating to Tacitus's context & purpose etc. Plus a little background on each historian. It might be of help.

 

[!!belle!!]

true that charlie charlie im a very lost girl i cant stand this subject anymore i wish i culd drop i dont get anything

 

[trekkie]

For our who are the historians section is we picked a number of historians ( Windschuttle, Reynolds, Daikonof, Braudel, Herodotus and Marx) and went through said who they were (obviously), where they came from, training etc, what they wrote, what school of though they belong to, then said what they beleive the aims and purposes of history to be, how they say histories been recorded, how they believe histories been changed, and criticisms of each historians, mostly worked into the other sections, lol worked fine for me, 95% in that section in trials cant be wrong! (just remember you have to be able to judge, critisize, remeber the whole validity, reliabilty and bias crap from ancient history-not sure if you modern people do it)

 

[Sarah168]

hahaha yes, we study sources in modern as well trekkie

 

[trekkie]

yeah i knew that youd use sources i just wasnt sure whether the criteria you used in assessing them was the same as the one we use in ancient, lol, but it makes sense that it would

 

[Sarah168]

rather than just judging and reliabilty we follow the other list of things.

Audience, content, usefulness, reliability, purpose, motive, origin etc etc

 

[silvermoon]

So I have to look at the historian's context too?

yep, sure do - they asked a question pretty much centered just on that once...thats pretty much the only thing i think i could write about! historian's contexts are much easier to understand than appeasement itself *goes off to murder appeasement...obviously has little success*