How to write the perfect History essay

Argument, argument, argument. Make your mind up about what YOU think, and then clearly and persuasively state the argument, using evidence to back it up where needed. A essay which balances the whole spectrum of historiographical argument on a topic is a boring essay. Be snappy, forceful - almost arrogant - and the essay will be much more interesting.

Such an approach does not need to default to "here is one side of the argument, here is the other, here is my conclusion", but an essay that refuses to appreciate the "whole spectrum of historiographical argument" is a bad one.

I don't agree at all, and neither, seemingly, do the fellows at my university (who have all written several history books) - otherwise the vast majority of my essays would have been thrown out as a 'bad' essay. On big, contentious topics - like the French Revolution, for example - an essay which attempts to consider the full spectrum of historiographical argument is likely to be rather bumbling, shuffling from one person's view to another discounting them in turn. There just isn't room to do this with a clear, well-written structure in a 2,500 word essay. An essay will read much better if it is written in the style of an historian, rather than a student - as though they are writing a book, with a strong, clear argument; rather than pandering to the opinions of others. A lack of spoken historiographical awareness in an essay does not make an essay 'bad', a badly written essay makes an essay 'bad', and a student that gets stuck in the mire of discussing a multitude of other opinions, to the detriment of stating their own persuasively, is walking down that path.

And for the record, I think A Level examiners prefer the fence-sitting, balanced, equal, nicely written essay. But then A Level essays are far from perfect.

My teacher said the other day that if you see a source you don't agree with, you should show how angry you are with it.

Lol. Maybe so, but you don't exactly want to run the risk of being too dogmatic.

Structure.

Having a clear structure is oh-so much more important than a good knowledge or anything else mentioned in this topic. You can get a top mark at GCSE and A-level with relatively little knowledge but a clear structure which addresses damn question.

You need to be able to have in your mind a clear division between 3/4/5 paragraphs and then a conclusion which draws them together. If you do this, your essay will be clear and will get to all the main points. If its just a mush, you will do badly.
Good approaches are to either consider things thematically (i.e. one paragraph on the economy, one on social issues, one on political issues - obviously what the actual paragraphs are will depend on the essay) or to split your essay into two sides - e.g. in reponse to a "to what extent" question, one half which focusing on aspects pointing towards a to-a-very-large-extent, and the other half which focuses on aspects pointing towards a not-at-all answer to the question; followed by a conclusion balancing the two. To answer a "Why?" or "What caused?" style question, dedicate a paragraph to each of the main things that caused the event in question, the most unconvincing first and the most convincing last, and evaluate their relative significance in the conclusion.

At A-level and at uni you can easily integrate historiography into this kind of structure, but unless its a historiography paper don't let your essay be historiography dedicated. That is, lead with a point, and then say who takes this position and why: for instance, "Protestantism was also an important cause. It is particularly emphasised by Davis who argues that evidence X and Y points towards religion being the main factor". You then evaluate the importance of Protestantism in the event, and consequently evaluate the argument of the historian at the same time.

but shouldn't you really link your ideas - not political issues one paragraph, then forget about it and write about ecnonomcal issues?