Assessment Schedule – 2012 Classical Studies: Explain in essay format an aspect of the classical world (90513) Assessment Criteria Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Essay writing
Download 249.62 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Essay writing
- Essay writing
- Evidence Statement
- Question Two Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
- Question Three Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
- Topic B – Augustus Question One Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
|
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 1 of 16 Assessment Schedule – 2012 Classical Studies: Explain in essay format an aspect of the classical world (90513) Assessment Criteria Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Essay writing: Typical features of an essay at Achievement are as follows: • The essay answers the question. • It is structured, with an introduction, main body of information, and a conclusion. • Supporting evidence is generally relevant to the topic.
• The writing style is clear.
Typical features of an essay at Merit are as follows: • The essay answers the question. • It has a clearly defined structure: the introduction presents the central argument or outlines the issues to be discussed; the main body of information is well-organised; the conclusion is a summation of key ideas. • Supporting evidence is directly relevant to the topic. • The writing style is clear.
Typical features of an essay at Excellence are as follows: • The essay answers the question fully, giving appropriate emphasis to each part or element. • It has a clearly defined structure as for Merit, plus each paragraph contributes to the development of a coherent, well-balanced argument or explanation. • The argument or explanation is convincingly maintained throughout the essay. • A range of supporting evidence is provided that is directly relevant to the topic. • The writing style is effective and fluent.
The candidate provides a general explanation of the aspect. There is some supporting evidence, but specific detail is lacking. One part of the question may be undeveloped or omitted. There is evidence of familiarity with primary source material, although references may not be explicitly acknowledged. Content: The candidate incorporates an analytical element in the essay. All parts of the question are covered, but treatment may be unbalanced. Supporting evidence is specific and detailed, but not consistently provided. Primary source material is used, although references may not be well integrated into the argument.
The candidate discusses all parts of the question fully and in depth. Supporting evidence is specific, detailed and consistently provided. Appropriate reference is made to primary source material.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 2 of 16 Evidence Statement Candidates choose ONE question from ONE topic.
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
at the battle at the river Granicus. Alexander showed no fear when he found the Persians in a strongly defensive position at Granicus, protected by the river and steep muddy banks. He decided to attack immediately rather than surprise the enemy at dawn. It was standard military practice to target the commander of an opposing army, but Alexander made no attempt to draw attention away from himself – he wore magnificent armour and a helmet with white plumes. When the fighting started, he led the Companion cavalry across the river and fought in the thick of the battle, almost losing his life. Ancient historians tell how Cleitus the Black saved him by cutting off the arm of one of the enemy commanders as he attempted to kill Alexander.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
Alexander was determined to confront the armies of Darius’ western satraps in pitched battle. Far from being deterred by the defensive position the Persians adopted at the river Granicus, he urged an immediate attack, rejecting the advice of his second-in command, Parmenio – “a trickle of water” [Arrian] would not stop him, even if there were steep banks to mount on the other side, defended by the enemy cavalry. Although he knew he would be targeted, he drew attention to his own person by wearing magnificent armour and led the Companion cavalry across the river. Once in combat with the Persians, he fought in the thick of the battle, at great risk to his life. In fact, if Cleitus the Black had not intervened to cut off the arm of one of the Persian commanders, he would most probably have been killed. Alexander had linked himself to Achilles by visiting Troy shortly before the battle and he fought in this first engagement like a Homeric hero. He did not surround himself with elite troops like a Persian king.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
Granicus. • Although risky to engage the Persians in a pitched battle, given their cavalry superiority, Alexander did not hesitate. • The Persians had chosen a defensive position at the river Granicus, Alexander remained undeterred. • With heroic self-confidence, he rejected Parmenio’s advice to delay an attack until dawn: “I should be ashamed if a little trickle of water like this were too much to cross ... “ [Arrian]. • Before the battle, he paraded in front of his troops, deliberately drawing attention to himself. According to Plutarch his white-plumed helmet made him “unmistakeable”. • Alexander led the Companion cavalry, following up Amyntas’ first charge, “in the thick of it” [Arrian]. • Once across, he plunged into hand-to-hand combat. When his spear was broken, he called for another; his helmet was shattered and he almost suffered a fatal blow, but was saved by the intervention of Cleitus the Black, who cut off Spithridates raised sword arm. • Alexander fought like a Homeric warrior, intent on glory, although (at least in modern eyes) his personal courage on the day is tarnished by the ruthless butchering of the Greek mercenaries. • Granicus was, according to Bosworth, the start of “a continuing saga of heroic self-exposure”. The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the number of actions listed. Other points may be made, for example, acknowledgement of the bias of ancient sources, glorifying Alexander’s heroism in battle. NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 3 of 16
Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
at Siwah. In Egypt, Alexander is said to have been “seized by a passionate desire” to consult the oracle of Zeus Ammon. The journey across the desert to the oasis of Siwah was a difficult one, but the oracle was very famous and Alexander is supposed to have been keen to learn more about his family background. His mother Olympias is thought to have encouraged him to believe that he was the son of Zeus, not Philip. It is also possible that Alexander realised that a favourable oracle, would have considerable propaganda potential, especially as he was about to set out to meet Darius in battle. He would be able to lead his men as the son of the king of the gods. Plus, similar response on the outcome of the visit.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be: The purpose and outcome of the journey to the oasis at Siwah. Once he had occupied Egypt, Arrian says that Alexander was “seized by a passionate desire” to consult the oracle of Zeus Ammon in the middle of the Libyan desert. It was a difficult and time- consuming journey (delaying pursuit of Darius) but Alexander is thought to have been eager to take advantage of one of the most highly reputed oracles in the ancient world, said to be “infallible”. He had a number of questions to ask, but was especially keen to learn more about his family background. His mother, Olympias, is supposed to have encouraged him to believe that his father was not Philip, but Zeus Ammon, who possessed her in the form of a snake. Alexander was also always motivated by any opportunity to emulate his heroic ancestors, and Perseus and Heracles had consulted the oracle. Finally, it is distinctly possible that Alexander realised that a favourable oracle, particularly one that confirmed him as no ordinary mortal, would have considerable propaganda potential. He would lead his army against Darius not just a king of Macedon, nor even the descendant of distant heroes, but as the actual son of the king of the gods.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include: The purpose and outcome of the journey to the oasis at Siwah. • According to Arrian, Alexander had a “pothos” to visit the temple of Ammon at Siwah. • He was eager to find out more about his family background – Olympias is said to have encouraged him to believe that he was son of Zeus Ammon. • The oracle at Siwah was highly regarded, with an “infallible” reputation [Arrian], and Alexander was by all accounts a religious man. • The difficult journey across the Libyan Desert to Siwah offered an opportunity to emulate his heroic ancestors – Perseus and Heracles. • If the oracle did confirm that Alexander was the son of Zeus Ammon, there were obvious propaganda advantages for the future. • Mysterious episodes en route were subsequently interpreted as divine favour, building up Alexander’s superhuman status. • At the Oracle, Alexander was greeted as son of the god by the High Priest and, according to Plutarch, told that “no mortal was his father” and that he should “rule over all men”. • After the visit, Alexander increasingly identified himself as son of Zeus, and this relationship may have encouraged him to request divine honours shortly before he died. Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the number of reasons listed. NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 4 of 16 Question Three Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
Alexander for succession as king. Alexander was the son of Philip and his favoured wife (for much of their marriage), Olympias. As the king’s eldest son, he was marked out as his successor. There is little ancient source evidence about Alexander’s early years, but it appears that he was given an education appropriate for an heir. The famous philosopher Aristotle was especially chosen by Philip to teach his son about kingship. Alexander must also have been taught how to ride and fight, and the famous story about the taming of Bucephalus is evidence that his talent and ambition made his father proud. At only 16, Alexander was made regent of Macedonia and soon after he commanded the cavalry at Chaeronea. When Philip was assassinated, Alexander was only 20, but he had not only been given military and political experience, but also the plan for an invasion of Persia.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
Alexander was Philip’s eldest son and from birth marked out as the future king of Macedonia. There is little ancient source evidence about his early years, but it appears that he was tutored as the royal prince firstly by Leonidas, a disciplinarian, then Lysimachus, who encouraged him to emulate Homer’s heroes, then by Aristotle, who had been especially selected by Philip to instruct Alexander on kingship. As the king’s son and all noble Macedonian young men, he must have received instruction in horse-riding and the physical activities associated with war, a favoured pastime at the time. Plutarch’s anecdote about the taming of Bucephalus provides a glimpse of equestrian training and also Philip’s pride in his son’s potential. When Alexander succeeded in mounting the horse, he proudly encouraged his son: “ ... find a kingdom big enough for your ambitions, Macedonia is too small for you.” At only 16, Alexander was entrusted by Philip, who was campaigning in Thrace, to act as regent of his kingdom. And following further military experience in the north of Greece, was at 18 given command of the Companion Cavalry at the battle against Thebes at Chaeronea. Two years later, when Alexander was only 20, Philip was assassinated. In spite of the stormy relationship he and his father had in 337, Alexander was certainly his favoured successor, with significant military and political experience and a planned invasion of Persia as his inheritance.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include: The ways in which Philip prepared Alexander for succession as king. • Alexander was from the beginning identified as Philip’s successor: he was probably Philip’s eldest son and his only attested half-brother, Arrhidaeus, suffered from an unknown mental affliction. • He was educated as Philip’s son. Leonidas, his first tutor, is said to have been a disciplinarian, who hardened him for campaigning. His next tutor, Lysimachus, is said to have encouraged him to identify with Achilles. • Plutarch tells the story of the taming of Bucephalus, drawing attention to the training Alexander must have received in horse riding and no doubt weaponry, but also revealing Philip’s pride in his son’s spirit. • When Alexander was 13, he was dispatched by his father to Mieza and Aristotle appointed as his teacher to provide literary, ethical and political instruction appropriate for a future king. • At 16, Alexander was appointed regent of Macedonia when his father was campaigning in Thrace; as regent he had the opportunity of leading Macedonian forces in battle against the Maedi. • Alexander then campaigned with his father in the north of Greece and, most importantly was given command of the Macedonian left wing at the battle of Chaeronea, where he broke the Theban line. • Although Philip remarried and Olympias, Alexander’s mother, fell from favour, there is no suggestion that Alexander himself was ever supplanted as successor before his father’s assassination, despite the brawl at the wedding to Cleopatra. • Philip had even prepared for the invasion of Persia, bequeathing his son the mission of his life.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 5 of 16 Topic B – Augustus Question One Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
Treaty of Brundisium on the development of the relationship between members of the triumvirate. Eg, the revolt at Perusia. After the battle of Philippi and the defeat of Caesar’s assassins, Octavian returned to Rome with the task of settling veteran soldiers. Antony’s brother, Lucius Antonius, took the side of farmers who lost their land in these settlements and encouraged resistance. Levels of violence increased until open warfare broke out. Lucius raised legions but they were untrained and so he withdrew north to Perusia. Octavian blockaded the town and Perusia was starved into submission. In the end, Octavian benefited from the revolt as Antony’s legates in Gaul abandoned their provinces, which Octavian acquired.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
After the battle of Philippi and the defeat of Caesar’s assassins, Octavian returned to Rome with the task of settling some 100 000 veteran soldiers. Brutal evictions followed, which harmed Octavian’s reputation. Antony’s brother, Lucius Antonius, supported by Antony’s ambitious wife, Fulvia, took the side of the dispossessed farmers who lost their land in these settlements and encouraged armed resistance. The level of violence increased until open warfare broke out. Lucius, who was consul in 42, raised eight legions but they were untrained and so he withdrew north to Perusia. Octavian recalled legions from Spain and blockaded the town, which was at last starved into submission. Suetonius records that Octavian spared Lucius, but ruthlessly executed his enemies. Ultimately, Octavian benefited from the revolt as Antony’s legates in Gaul abandoned their provinces, which Octavian acquired soon after. This, coupled with the death of another legate in Gallia Comata and the exchange of Spain for Africa with Lepidus, meant that Octavian was effectively in control of the west (apart from Sicily, which was under the control of Sextus Pompeius). However, the whole episode strained relations with Mark Antony, who returned to Italy in 40 BCE etc.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
of Brundisium on the development of the relationship between members of the triumvirate. • Octavian attempts to gain clients and increase his prestige by settling veterans, but arouses widespread discontent among dispossessed farmers. • L. Antonius, supported by Fulvia (Antony’s wife), raises legions to support opposition to Octavian’s arrangements. • Octavian successfully besieges Perusia and executes opponents, gaining a reputation for ruthlessness. • Antony’s legates in Gaul go over to Octavian. • Antony decides to return to the west but is blocked at Brundisium; tension between the two most powerful triumvirs increases. • Maecenas and Pollio negotiate a ‘truce’: Octavian and Mark Antony are reconciled (the Treaty of Brundisium). • Lepidus becomes a minor player; Octavian ends up in control of the west and Antony, the east. • Antony marries Octavia, Octavian’s sister, to bond the relationship. Other aspects may also be covered. The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the number of points made.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 6 of 16 Question Two Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
Tiberius was Augustus’ stepson, the son of his wife, Livia. This status made him an important player in dynastic alliances. Tiberius was initially married to the daughter of Agrippa, who was Augustus’ leading general in the first years of the Principate, and he commanded with some success in Germany. The death of Agrippa in 12 BCE changed his circumstances. He was forced to marry Julia, Augustus’ daughter (and previously Agrippa’s wife), to act as a guardian to her sons, Gaius and Lucius. It was not a happy marriage and because of family tensions, Tiberius left public life and ‘retired’ to Rhodes. After the death of Gaius and Lucius, Tiberius came back to Rome and was adopted by Augustus as his son.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
Tiberius was Augustus’ stepson, the son of his wife, Livia. This status made him an important player in dynastic alliances. He was initially married to Marcus Agrippa’s daughter, Vipsania, in order to cement the relationship between the princeps and his leading general. When Marcus Agrippa died in 12BCE Tiberius became Augustus’ son-in-law (as well as his stepson) as a result of being forced to divorce Vipsania and marry Augustus’ only daughter, Julia (now a widow). However, far from increasing Tiberius’ influence, this new marriage led to family tensions. Tiberius felt overshadowed as guardian of Gaius and Lucius (promoted by Augustus as successors) and his new wife’s attentions turned to other men (according to Suetonius she “indulged in every vice”). In the end, Tiberius opted out, retiring to the island of Rhodes. His circumstances again changed, when Julia was banished for her immorality and Lucius and Gaius died prematurely. Etc. Tiberius also had a successful civil and military career. He was permitted to stand for public office in advance of the age required by law and ‘worked’ for the regime as a young man. In the 20s BCE, he was involved in the diplomatic manoeuvrings that saw the recovery of the legionary standards lost by Crassus and Antony from the Parthians and he also spent a considerable time first in Gaul and then in Germany commanding legions in support of Augustus’ northern frontier policy.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
• Tiberius’ civil career is launched when he is honoured (at 17) by Augustus with the right of standing for public office five years before the official age. • His military career begins successfully as he marches into Armenia in 21 BCE and installs Tigranes as king in support of Augustus’ Parthian ‘solution’. • Tiberius marries Vipsania, daughter of Agrippa, Augustus’ most powerful supporter and old friend. • He campaigns in Gaul and Germany (with his brother, Drusus) in support of the regime’s northern frontier policy. • Marriage to Julia results in personal crisis and political marginalisation: poor relations with his step-sons and his unhappiness with the promiscuity of Julia lead to retirement to Rhodes. • Tiberius returns to Rome and is adopted as Augustus’ son. • He suppresses the Pannonian revolt and responds to the Varian disaster. • Shortly before Augustus’ death Tiberius is recognised as successor and granted extended tribunician power.
focus on either dynastic issues or Tiberius’ public career, but both aspects should receive some coverage. They may be discussed chronologically or thematically. The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the amount of factual detail provided.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 7 of 16 Download 249.62 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|