In the exam you will be asked to analyse an issue in classical Athens or ancient Rome for 12 marks. What this means is that you will have to identify 3 key features of an aspect of Athenian or Roman life and use your knowledge to describe them and explain the links between them.
There is no source, you’re on your own for this one. However, you do have a choice. The analyse questions offer you an (A) option and a (B) option. You get to choose which one to do.
The question is worth 12 marks. This is subdivided as follows.
Knowledge = 8 marks. But it is most definitely not 1 mark per point you make as in the ‘How Fully’ and ‘Evaluate the Usefulness’ questions. As mentioned above, you must identify three different aspects relevant to the question and you are awarded up to 3 marks for each of these blocks of knowledge. The more detailed, accurate and relevant your points, the more marks you get.
Analysis = 2 marks. These marks are awarded for straightforward explanations of the importance of the aspect you’ve described. Did it cause something else to happen? Was there a downside to it? How does it connect to another aspect?
Analysis + = 2 marks. These marks are awarded for showing different ways of looking at the aspect you’ve just analysed (a counterpoint) or for showing contradictions or an inconsistency. It sounds complicated but it’s pretty straightforward as you’ll see.
Let’s walk you through an example question and I’ll show you how to answer one of these questions and I’ll make comments on my thinking as we go through it. Below is a typical example of what one of these questions looks like.
Attempt EITHER question 2(a) OR 2(b)
2. (a) Analyse how the members of the Delian League suffered under the leadership of the Athenians (12 marks)
OR
(b) Analyse how democracy required a huge commitment in terms of time and effort from Athenian citizens. (12 marks)
As you can see you’ve got a choice of two questions to answer so pick the one that you feel most comfortable with.
It’s good practise to divide your answer up into 3 short paragraphs. One for each of the aspects you are describing. You should begin each of these with an introductory sentence that clearly identifies the aspect you will be writing about. In this example, I don’t like the look of the Delian League question so I’m going to go for my preferred option of (b) which asks me to analyse how democracy took up a huge amount of Athenian citizens’ time and effort. So first thing’s first, what are my three aspects going to be that I’ll write about?
Okay so I know that the Athenian democratic topic is essentially divided up into the institutions of democracy and citizens’ rights and responsibilities. I could write about any of these things as long as I can pick 3 clearly identifiable aspects of knowledge. So here goes:
Step 1:
I’ve decided that the three areas I’m going to write about are:
The Assembly
The Boule
Generals and military service
Okay, that’s me decided on my three. This part can be quite tricky and the only way to make it easier is to really know your subject matter well!
Step 2:
Now I’ve decided this, I need to start writing about my first topic, the Assembly. I’m going to give some detailed information about it and then analyse it by looking at how it required a great deal of time and effort from citizens, in other words directly answering the question asked. The more detailed information I write, the more likely I am to be awarded the full knowledge marks for this aspect. Here goes:
“The first aspect of Athenian democracy that required a huge amount of time and effort was attending the Assembly. The Assembly met every 9 days on the hill of the pnyx and was the sovereign body by which laws were passed in Athens. Six thousand citizens could attend and this was the number required in order for any vote to be legal. Any male citizen over the age of 18 and who had served two years in the military could attend and have their voice heard. This was a huge advantage of citizenship as it meant that although the meetings took up a lot of time, the people who would have to fight in any wars Athens declared were the ones who decided it should happen. However, wealthier citizens had an advantage over the poor in that they could more easily afford the time that at least 40 meetings a year required. Poorer citizens who did not own slaves to carry on their business in their absence found it difficult to attend so many meetings particularly if they lived further away from the city. The wealthy could also more easily afford to pay the fines that they might be issued with if they did not attend.”
So is the above any good? Well, the parts of the answer that are not underlined or in bold show good detailed, relevant knowledge about the assembly. The underlined part is a simple explanation that shows one of the advantages of Athenian democracy for citizens. The bold part is some more advanced analysis that shows that the democratic Assembly did take up a lot of citizens’ time but then contrasts the differences for the wealthy and the poor.
This means that we’re probably looking at 3 marks for our knowledge in this aspect and at least 1 mark for our simple analysis and another mark for our more advanced analysis.
Step 3 We need to repeat this process for our next two aspects so here they are. Again, more simple analysis will be underlined, while more advanced analysis showing counterpoints, inconsistencies and contradictions will be highlighted in bold. “The next aspect that required a lot of time and effort was the Boule or Council of 500. Athenian citizens over the age of thirty could expect to serve on this council at least once in their lifetimes. The council was selected using random lot and so this led to a broad range of experiences and backgrounds among the men who would serve. This random nature of the council also helped to create a more politically aware citizenry as they undertook the business of running the state which was advantageous to Athens and therefore worth the effort. The councillors would be required to serve on a prytaneis of fifty men whose job for five weeks included setting the agenda for the Assembly and meeting foreign dignitaries. During their time in office, the council would be required to live for approximately five weeks in the Tholos or roundhouse and so this took up a huge amount of their time. They were however paid for this time and lived at the expense of the state which meant that for poorer citizens this was a real benefit rather than a drain on their time and efforts.
The final aspect that required time and effort was military service and the holding of generalships. All Athenian citizens had to be prepared to fight in Athens defence and equip themselves according to their wealth. This was the price that had to be paid for the political freedom that citizens enjoyed. Wealthier men had to pay a liturgy which was used to equip a warship but the upside of this was that they were allowed to command it. Athenian military commanders were elected annually in the Assembly with ten being chosen, one from each of the tribes of Athens. Here the wealthy had a significantly greater chance of being elected than the poor as these men needed to be charismatic, well-spoken individuals who had undergone training in commanding men. The generals were very accountable to the Assembly and had to invest a great deal of effort in their craft. If they performed poorly or dishonourably in battle, they could be fined or even put to death for their performance. However, the considerable power they wielded was worth the risk and effort as a successful general could be elected year after year and hold great sway over the Assembly as Pericles demonstrated when he was elected 15 years in succession.” In the above two paragraphs there is again a good range of relevant, detailed facts while there is a good mix of simple analysis that explains benefits or drawbacks of committing time and effort to these activities and also some counterpoints. This would lead to the answer being awarded the full 12 marks.