To cause a bit of drama: modern or ancient?

[sudodds]

susie, you're an absolute savage oh my goodness

^^me

[rodero]

As a humanities person, I find that modern history overlaps with a lot of my other subjects. The context of Metropolis and 1984 was so much easier to understand when we had Germany and Conflict in Europe as our options. Same goes for the failures of the League of Nations, which is basically a mirror to the United Nations, which we study for world order in legal. Although it's just a handful of connections, it means less time is spent trying to understand content, and the evidence that I memorise can be applied across subjects.

[mixel]

As a humanities person, I find that modern history overlaps with a lot of my other subjects. The context of Metropolis and 1984 was so much easier to understand when we had Germany and Conflict in Europe as our options. Same goes for the failures of the League of Nations, which is basically a mirror to the United Nations, which we study for world order in legal. Although it's just a handful of connections, it means less time is spent trying to understand content, and the evidence that I memorise can be applied across subjects.

So true. With Year 11 and 12 modern + extension 1 I've had a continuity from the foundation of the German Empire, to WW1, to Weimar Germany, to WW2, to cold war Germany. If I was doing German it'd be perfect

[sudodds]

As a humanities person, I find that modern history overlaps with a lot of my other subjects. The context of Metropolis and 1984 was so much easier to understand when we had Germany and Conflict in Europe as our options. Same goes for the failures of the League of Nations, which is basically a mirror to the United Nations, which we study for world order in legal. Although it's just a handful of connections, it means less time is spent trying to understand content, and the evidence that I memorise can be applied across subjects.

Definitely very true, I felt that Modern helped a lot with English and economics! However I definitely felt this way with Ancient history as well, particularly during Studies of Religion! History Extension was the king though - that linked with Modern, English (especially Mod C), Drama and even a little bit of economics too! And if anyone does Society and Culture, I'm sure they'd work nicely together as well

[haony98]

Ancient is the best... you can learn so much and still not certain about everything.. I'm actually a science person and I never ever thought of doing ancient because I used to do it in junior years in my country and it was very very dry and boring but I dropped physics in the last minute to pick up ancient after I had a look at syllabus and I don't regret it

[_____]

I honestly haven't even looked at the syllabus for ancient history - I just saw modern and picked it. I really like the content,(shame NESA is stopping Personality Studies though - guess I was lucky to be in the final cohort). For example it's fascinating that the American government keeps getting into foreign conflict despite the disaster that was Indochina. Not even counting dead peasants the ARVN embezzled something like $2 billion from US taxpayers and Johnson's social reforms were put off.

I digressed. What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.

[mixel]

I honestly haven't even looked at the syllabus for ancient history - I just saw modern and picked it. I really like the content,(shame NESA is stopping Personality Studies though - guess I was lucky to be in the final cohort). For example it's fascinating that the American government keeps getting into foreign conflict despite the disaster that was Indochina. Not even counting dead peasants the ARVN embezzled something like $2 billion from US taxpayers and Johnson's social reforms were put off.

I digressed. What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.

Honestly, I'm not gonna miss personality study hahaha
It just feels very unwieldy as a component of the syllabus to me. It doesn't test any skills that the other sections don't; depending on the personality it has nowhere near as much depth as the other sections; and tbh I don't see any unique educational benefit to it besides forcing students to analyse historiography and historical debate/interpretation, which is already implicitly in the course in topics 2 and 4 and could be made explicit by an extra sub heading to either of those.

[katie,rinos]

I digressed. What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.

I just love ancient, but mainly studying the different societies of that time. I find it really cool to learn about how people way back in the past lived, and how it was so much different to us today.
My class is studying Pompeii, Sparta, the Julio Claudian period (the emperors Tiberius, Gaius/Caligula, Claudius and Nero) and Agrippina. With the evidence it depends on what topic your looking at. Pompeii has been all preserved so you have human bones, plaster casts, buildings pretty much everything in exactly the same condition it was in before the eruption. I know for the other topics there isn't lot of archeological sources during that time period so there is more speculation. In terms of Ancient writers, their are quite a few but many write 100's of years after the event.

[Maraos]

An I'm actually a science person and I never ever thought of doing ancient

Haha same! I started in year 11 with engineering studies, then i dropped that since i was doing too much maths related subjects, and went to ancient, then i dropped ancient and went to business studies (honestly don't know why i did that) then i dropped business studies and went back to ancient....

So glad i went back to ancient and stayed best choice ever . But if I went back in time and told my year 10 self that I was doing both Ancient history and extension history! he probably wouldn't believe me.
Funny how what we think we won't enjoy sometimes ends up being the best

[sudodds]

What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.

As a history extension student, I can tell you that that blind assumption is true - but that is also very much true for modern With modern you run into the problem of collective memory, which is very easily shaped by the agendas of society that are still very much present today (take a look at the history of the Cold War for example, on both the American and the Soviet side!). That's not to say that in Ancient, sources aren't subjective - they most definitely are (all sources are!) - However (for the most part, not always), ancient history is not so much tied to the ideologies of the present, so it can be easier to detach oneself (still overall impossible though! Plus you further run into the problem of looking at ancient through a "modern lens", but I digress ), at least imo

Honestly, I'm not gonna miss personality study hahaha
It just feels very unwieldy as a component of the syllabus to me. It doesn't test any skills that the other sections don't; depending on the personality it has nowhere near as much depth as the other sections; and tbh I don't see any unique educational benefit to it besides forcing students to analyse historiography and historical debate/interpretation, which is already implicitly in the course in topics 2 and 4 and could be made explicit by an extra sub heading to either of those.

Though the personality was my best section haha, I agree with you here, mainly because I am a staunch opponent of "Great Men History" or the "Top Down" approach - I feel like it is super reductionist to assert such a high degree of significance to one individual, which is what the unit, whether they planned to or not, conveys. However I did find Trotsky super interesting, so hoping at least he'll still feature a bit in the new Russian syllabus (not a massive fan - focuses way too much on Stalin imo).

I just love ancient, but mainly studying the different societies of that time. I find it really cool to learn about how people way back in the past lived, and how it was so much different to us today.
My class is studying Pompeii, Sparta, the Julio Claudian period (the emperors Tiberius, Gaius/Caligula, Claudius and Nero) and Agrippina. With the evidence it depends on what topic your looking at. Pompeii has been all preserved so you have human bones, plaster casts, buildings pretty much everything in exactly the same condition it was in before the eruption. I know for the other topics there isn't lot of archeological sources during that time period so there is more speculation. In terms of Ancient writers, their are quite a few but many write 100's of years after the event.

When we literally did all the same options for Ancient <3 Literally how interesting are the Julio-Claudians - definitely my favourite topic. Whose ya favourite Princeps? In terms of effectiveness - Claudius (though I do have a soft spot for good ol' Tibby - think he has been really harshly treated), in terms of most fun to learn about? Definitely Gaius (when he made his horse consul? literally what a meme lord)

Haha same! I started in year 11 with engineering studies, then i dropped that since i was doing too much maths related subjects, and went to ancient, then i dropped ancient and went to business studies (honestly don't know why i did that) then i dropped business studies and went back to ancient....

So glad i went back to ancient and stayed best choice ever . But if I went back in time and told my year 10 self that I was doing both Ancient history and extension history! he probably wouldn't believe me.
Funny how what we think we won't enjoy sometimes ends up being the best

They always come back I was originally going to do Chemistry instead of Ancient until I found out we studied Pompeii, a historical issue I always found really fascinating (ended up enjoying the other sections even more!). Really makes me laugh though, considering how un-sciency I am as a person today!

[_____]

Honestly, I'm not gonna miss personality study hahaha
It just feels very unwieldy as a component of the syllabus to me. It doesn't test any skills that the other sections don't; depending on the personality it has nowhere near as much depth as the other sections; and tbh I don't see any unique educational benefit to it besides forcing students to analyse historiography and historical debate/interpretation, which is already implicitly in the course in topics 2 and 4 and could be made explicit by an extra sub heading to either of those.

Yeah topics 2, 3 and 4 are very similar but I like that 3 focuses on a single person, it really compliments the national study if the person links in to that. It's interesting to focus on a character rather than a time period for some variety, that's my experience with Trotsky at least. I believe this is what the new syllabus will look like:



First impression: looks generic af. These are the options for the changing modern world:



Seems to me like personalities is being replaced with something similar to conflict studies with a focus on politics and social reform. Without having looked at the syllabus in depth or done the content, I'd say I'd prefer to be doing a personality study.

[katie,rinos]

When we literally did all the same options for Ancient <3 Literally how interesting are the Julio-Claudians - definitely my favourite topic. Whose ya favourite Princeps? In terms of effectiveness - Claudius (though I do have a soft spot for good ol' Tibby - think he has been really harshly treated), in terms of most fun to learn about? Definitely Gaius (when he made his horse consul? literally what a meme lord)

It's so cool how we did the same options! When we first started Julio Claudians I didn't think i'd like it as much as Pompeii or Sparta but by the end I've really loved it . In terms of effectiveness definitely Claudius but like you said I reckon Tiberius wasn't as bad as some of the Ancient sources made him out to be (In terms of treason trials he didn't actually do too many.) Fun to learn about either Gaius or Nero (my class had some jokes about his neck beard )

[mixel]

Though the personality was my best section haha, I agree with you here, mainly because I am a staunch opponent of "Great Men History" or the "Top Down" approach - I feel like it is super reductionist to assert such a high degree of significance to one individual, which is what the unit, whether they planned to or not, conveys.

This is just speculation but I feel like that's a hold over from how history was taught in the bad old days when history wasn't considered a social science with debate over why things were as much as how things were. If all history is to you is a story, then fixating on the contribution of a few major characters makes sense, because all engaging / morality reinforcing stories have protagonists. And if you're a Victorian gent who believes that the only people who are worth more than their labour are upper-class statesmen, only studying "movers and shakers" kinda fits that right

God I wish I did extension history 

Yeah topics 2, 3 and 4 are very similar but I like that 3 focuses on a single person, it really compliments the national study if the person links in to that. It's interesting to focus on a character rather than a time period for some variety, that's my experience with Trotsky at least. I believe this is what the new syllabus will look like:

(Image removed from quote.)

First impression: looks generic af. These are the options for the changing modern world:

(Image removed from quote.)

Seems to me like personalities is being replaced with something similar to conflict studies with a focus on politics and social reform. Without having looked at the syllabus in depth or done the content, I'd say I'd prefer to be doing a personality study.

Hmm it sounds like its getting more towards the analytical side of history, which tbh I find more interesting than narrative. Don't get me wrong, I still find that side of history interesting, but as a school subject I'd rather do something debatable / interpretive. Different strokes for different folks I guess 

[_____]

As a history extension student, I can tell you that that blind assumption is true - but that is also very much true for modern With modern you run into the problem of collective memory, which is very easily shaped by the agendas of society that are still very much present today (take a look at the history of the Cold War for example, on both the American and the Soviet side!). That's not to say that in Ancient, sources aren't subjective - they most definitely are (all sources are!) - However (for the most part, not always), ancient history is not so much tied to the ideologies of the present, so it can be easier to detach oneself (still overall impossible though! Plus you further run into the problem of looking at ancient through a "modern lens", but I digress ), at least imo

Source analysis I've been looking at mostly seems to do a good job of considering the ideology of the author and how events are remembered more broadly (or forgotten like Chernobyl). My assumption was that with ancient a lot of it would rely on archaeological evidence rather than eyewitness accounts for example (depends how ancient we're talking about). Like there'd be thousands of Cold War sources from both sides that you could compare to come to some conclusion but most sources regarding ancient Egypt would be secondary (unless those rock carvings reveal everything). But there's plenty of people who love ancient so this probably isn't as big of an issue as I think it is.

[sudodds]

It's so cool how we did the same options! When we first started Julio Claudians I didn't think i'd like it as much as Pompeii or Sparta but by the end I've really loved it . In terms of effectiveness definitely Claudius but like you said I reckon Tiberius wasn't as bad as some of the Ancient sources made him out to be (In terms of treason trials he didn't actually do too many.) Fun to learn about either Gaius or Nero (my class had some jokes about his neck beard )

what neckbeard?

This is just speculation but I feel like that's a hold over from how history was taught in the bad old days when history wasn't considered a social science with debate over why things were as much as how things were. If all history is to you is a story, then fixating on the contribution of a few major characters makes sense, because all engaging / morality reinforcing stories have protagonists. And if you're a Victorian gent who believes that the only people who are worth more than their labour are upper-class statesmen, only studying "movers and shakers" kinda fits that right

God I wish I did extension history 

you would have LOVED history extension omg If you ever want to feel like you're studying it, feel free to pop by the history extension debating thread anytime

Source analysis I've been looking at mostly seems to do a good job of considering the ideology of the author and how events are remembered more broadly (or forgotten like Chernobyl). My assumption was that with ancient a lot of it would rely on archaeological evidence rather than eyewitness accounts for example (depends how ancient we're talking about). Like there'd be thousands of Cold War sources from both sides that you could compare to come to some conclusion but most sources regarding ancient Egypt would be secondary (unless those rock carvings reveal everything). But there's plenty of people who love ancient so this probably isn't as big of an issue as I think it is.

Great point! You're definitely not wrong, it is definitely a problem that Ancient historians have to deal with a lot.