The Student Room Group

How would you write this history essay?

So I have my AS history exam tomorrow and I'm prepared for all the topic apart from one.
It's the one about 'To what extent was Napoleon a dictator..' or along those lines. But I really don't know how to go about writing this essay.

1) Go through each reform/policy and argue how it did show he was a dictator. Then in the paragraph straight after argue how it didn't show he was a dictator

or

2) Do a two sided essay where I argue one whole side about what shows he was a dictator and then the opposite.

I'm just not sure which would be more effective for this type of question, I would usually do it thematically but this doesn't really lend itself to that.
Any help? :colondollar:
I would do the second, but be sure to make a clear judgement on the question.
Reply 2
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
I would do the second, but be sure to make a clear judgement on the question.


Yeah, I try to make judgements at the end of most paragraphs and then again in the conclusion. I much prefer to write it like that but apparently it's less sophisticated?
Reply 3
What exam board? You could always look at the mark scheme (the highest marked answers for the AQA 'how important...' or 'to what extent...' questions tend to be the ones with a balance between the two, but also with a developed argument) and suck up to that. If I were you, I'd do the second one.
Reply 4
Original post by Ra Ra
What exam board? You could always look at the mark scheme (the highest marked answers for the AQA 'how important...' or 'to what extent...' questions tend to be the ones with a balance between the two, but also with a developed argument) and suck up to that. If I were you, I'd do the second one.


It's OCR but the mark schemes are quite generic and only tell you what info should be talked about and not how to write it. But I agree, the 2nd one seems to be easier for me to write
Reply 5
Anyone else have any advice?
I am unsure how it works with OCR but for AQA you argue both sides of the argument and then make a clear judgement. For me in past exam questions I have done for revision I have listed the reasons the holocaust was decided upon before 42, and reasons for it being after etc and then made my verdict. I also find is that whatever point you make, always do a strength and weakness of it and THEN GIVE overall view of opinion on it. Hope that helps!e & Good luck! :smile:
Reply 7
Heyy, I'm also doing this exam tomorrow!
I split this essay into different sections: Religous Change, Education, Propaganda & Censorship, Repression and Reform

I then put one side of the argument that he was a dictator at first with examples then would argue against it saying he wasn't (liberator).

Hope this helps! :smile:
Reply 8
Second option, split it half and half with a case for both sides of the argument then make your mind up in the conclusion.

Good luck!
if you're prepared for every other topic then surely you can leave that Q alone (as you have to answer 2/3) assuming it comes up?
Reply 10
Original post by Mouth
Anyone else have any advice?


decide on whether or not he was. say you decide that he was, i'd set it out intro, first half filled with reasons he was, second half he wasn't, conclusion comparing the two and explaining why the second paragraph (the one that explains why he was) has greater impact than the first.

eg


intro - explain that there are two sides of the argument and why, perhaps giving a few examples

first half - why he wasn't a dictator. define what it means to be a dictator perhaps, and then find examples of him not acting like one, like freedoms he gave people or his politics or whatever.

second half - why he WAS. same as above, examples of how he meets the criteria of dictator.

conclusion - how the points from the latter half of the essay (that point to him being a dictator) overwhelm the points from the beginning of the essay (that he wasn't). perhaps point out how strong the argument for him not being a dictator is though (if it is strong of course)

good luck
Reply 11
Original post by csimpson19
Heyy, I'm also doing this exam tomorrow!
I split this essay into different sections: Religous Change, Education, Propaganda & Censorship, Repression and Reform

I then put one side of the argument that he was a dictator at first with examples then would argue against it saying he wasn't (liberator).

Hope this helps! :smile:


How did it go?
I had to do question 1 and 2 as we didn't really learn empire. Question one was brilliant, but I had no idea on number 2. The whole school was annoyed about that one :P Oh well!
Reply 12
Dictatorship didn't even come up.

Weaknesses of the Directory (Rise to Power) question was okay but... "Assess the reasons why Napoleon made himself Emperor"? Seriously? Dodgy question but I obviously had to do it cos I didn't know anything about his influence on the Empire or anything along those lines.

How'd you guys find it?
Reply 13
Original post by Kennetha
Dictatorship didn't even come up.

Weaknesses of the Directory (Rise to Power) question was okay but... "Assess the reasons why Napoleon made himself Emperor"? Seriously? Dodgy question but I obviously had to do it cos I didn't know anything about his influence on the Empire or anything along those lines.

How'd you guys find it?


I also had to do the emporer question because I didn't learn empire. I gave it my best shot, but it wasn't very good. It's a shame, the whole school was annoyed. Hopefully it lowers boundaries I guess!
Reply 14
I also had this exam today.
And I also, had to do questions 1 & 2 as we didn't learn the Empire in much detail. The first question I found pretty straight forward, but had no idea how to do the second. We went to see our teacher after, and he even said he'd have trouble answering it. With everyone complaining I think that there will be some kind of complaint somewhere, as him crowning as Emperor was not highly featured on the specification, and if not, grade boundaries should be very low.
It's over now, and all we can do is wait!
Reply 15
Original post by emcar95
I also had this exam today.
And I also, had to do questions 1 & 2 as we didn't learn the Empire in much detail. The first question I found pretty straight forward, but had no idea how to do the second. We went to see our teacher after, and he even said he'd have trouble answering it. With everyone complaining I think that there will be some kind of complaint somewhere, as him crowning as Emperor was not highly featured on the specification, and if not, grade boundaries should be very low.
It's over now, and all we can do is wait!


That's good to know, I wasn't the only one who found it really difficult. I mean, I think I had some good points in there but it was lost amongst a bad structure and a load of irrelevent waffle :colondollar:
Reply 16
I have a lot of waffle in my essays too :biggrin: My teacher & I have conversations the bottom of my essays. :colondollar:

As an A2 student the first structure seems way more sophisticated/what they're looking for. I've been threatened by many history teachers that if I split things into 'yes' and 'no' in an essay they'll hunt me down. :rolleyes:

Quick Reply