GCE Ancient History H407/21: Republic and Empire Advanced GCE Mark Scheme for November 2020

Document Content and Description Below

Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations GCE Ancient History H407/21: Republic and Empire Advanced GCE Mark Scheme for November 2020Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations OCR (Oxford Cambridge and R... SA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of qualifications to meet the needs of candidates of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications include AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business, languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills. It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and support, which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society. This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by examiners. It does not indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an examiners’ meeting before marking commenced. All examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills demonstrated. Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the report on the examination. © OCR 2020H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Annotations Annotation Meaning Blank Page N/A Highlight Omission Seen AO1 AO2 AO3 AO4 Irrelevant Correct point EvaluationH407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Section A: The Julio-Claudian Emperors, 31 BC–AD 68 Question 1* ‘The sources consistently underestimate the significance of the contribution of other individuals to the reigns of the JulioClaudian emperors.’ How far do you agree with this view? [30 marks] Assessment Objectives AO3 = 15 marks = Use, analyse and evaluate ancient sources within their historical context to make judgements and reach conclusions about: • historical events and historical periods studied • how the portrayal of events by ancient writers/sources relates to the historical contexts in which they were written/produced. AO2 = 10 marks = Analyse and evaluate historical events and historical periods to arrive at substantiated judgements AO1 = 5 marks = Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the historical periods studied. Please note that while the descriptors for AO2 and AO3 are given separately in the levels, the analysis and evaluation of sources & historical events and historical periods may be combined in responses. Additional guidance The ‘Indicative content’ is an example of historically valid content; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited in line with the levels of response. Level Marks Level descriptors Indicative content Level 5 25–30 • Response uses a very good range of fully appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are thoroughly analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, well-developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw fully substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an excellent explanation that convincingly and very thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated, sustained, and well-developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a very good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a sophisticated understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) No set answer is expected. It is possible to reach the highest marks with conclusion(s) either agreeing, disagreeing, or anywhere between providing the response has addressed the issue of extent. Responses should be marked in-line with the level descriptors. Candidates should consider the significance for the emperors of a variety of people who may have contributed to their reigns; they should consider the nature and extent of the contribution as shown in the sources; they may consider the different members of the imperial family such as wives, children, and relatives and how they were involved in the lives and reigns of the Julio-Claudians; they may consider the similar approaches of the emperors towards the use of family and others (e.g. senators, equestrians, freedmen etc) and their differing reasons for the involvement of others in aspects of government and decision-making. They should consider the significance of the contributions and the extent of change/continuity during the period.H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 There is a well-developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent and logically structured. The information presented is entirely relevant and substantiated. They should examine the evidence for the contributions of others and assess the issue in the question concerning ‘underestimating’ their contributions. They may also consider the different interpretations by the sources both contemporary and non-contemporary. Answers are likely to include: • Augustus’ use of Marcellus, Agrippa, Lucius, Gaius and Tiberius as successors (and Julia’s marriages); • Augustus’ use of various family members and others as officials, generals, governors etc e.g. Agrippa as general, overseeing the water supply, grain, as fellow tribune; Tiberius, Drusus in Germania; Maecenas (propaganda), Livia, • Tiberius: Drusus, Germanicus (mutinies in Germany), Sejanus, Macro (Praetorian commanders); Gaius (successor); • Gaius: Macro • Claudius: wives, freedmen (Pallas, Narcissus), senators e.g. Vitelliius; generals e.g. Aulus Plautius, Corbulo (Rhine), Vespasian, Scapula (Britain); • Nero: Agrippina, Seneca, Burrus, Poppaea, Tigellinus; Paulinus (Britain), Corbulo (Parthia); • Individuals in a variety of roles in Rome and the Empire; • The extent and nature of the contribution to the administration of Rome and the Empire, security, control, maintaining the power of the emperors, dealing with opposition, enacting decisions of emperors etc. Level 4 19–24 • Response uses a good range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has a very good explanation that convincingly and thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated and developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a well-developed understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed line of reasoning which is clear and logically structured. The information presented is relevant and in the most part substantiated.H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Level 3 13–18 • Response uses a range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw supported, plausible conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has a good explanation that convincingly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach supported judgements, though these are not consistently developed. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a reasonable range of accurate and sometimes detailed knowledge and a reasonable understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question through most of the answer. (AO1) There is a line of reasoning presented with some structure. The information presented is in the most-part relevant and supported by some evidence. Supporting source details may include: • Res Gestae: 8.2 Agrippa as censor, 22.2 Centennial Games; 14 Gaius, Lucius, 21.1 Marcellus; role of Tiberius 8.4 censor; 27.2 in the East, 30.1 Pannonia; • Augustus; Tacitus Annals 1.3 succession; role of Livia implied; 3.56 Tiberius gains tribunician potestas; 4.57 Germanicus possible heir; 6.10 importance of Maecenas; city prefect Corvinus, Piso; 2.59 equestrian governor of Egypt; family, friends Suet. Aug. 64-66; Suet. Aug. 37 new roles for senators; • Tiberius: Drusus (son) in Pannonia Tacitus Annals 1.24ff esp. 1.29; Blaesus in Africa Tacitus Annals 3.73-74; • Velleius 2.88 Maecenas deals with Lepidus plot; 2.93 Agrippa married to Julia; 2.94 Tiberius sorts out the grain shortage; 2.95, 97, 121 success of Drusus, Tiberius on Rhine; Horace Odes 4.15 • Germanicus: Ovid Fasti 1.1-14 Tacitus Annals 1.31ff mutiny in Germany esp. 1.42 speech; role of Piso Tacitus Annals 2.55, 57, 2.71 (Germanicus’ speech); • Laudatio Agrippae • Praetorians: Tacitus Annals 1.7 Strabo, Turranius; Sejanus: Velleius 2.127. 128.4 praise; Tacitus Annals 4.1-3; 4.41 Sejanus in charge as Tiberius retires; 4.74 arrogance; Dio 58.4 increase of powers; Suet. Tib. 65, Dio 58 8.4-11 fall, Macro’s role; Tigellinus Tacitus Annals 15.37 debauchery, 40 Fire of Rome; Jos. JA 19. 227ff Claudius accession; Suet. Claudius 10; • Claudius freedmen and wives Suet. Claudius 25, 29, Pliny NH 33.134: Messalina Dio 60.14.1-4, 17.8-18; Pallas and Agrippina -Tacitus Annals 12.25-6 adoption of Nero; accession of Nero Tacitus Annals 12.68-69; Suet. Claudius 44f; • Nero: freedmen- Helius Suet. Nero 23; Epaphroditus Suet. Nero 49 (secretary) Level 2 7–12 • Response uses some appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw some supported conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an explanation that analyses and appraises historical events and periods, and this is linked appropriately to judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements may not always be made fully explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a limited range of accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though this may lack detail. The question is generally addressed, but the response loses focus in places. (AO1) The information has some relevance, but is communicated in an unstructured way. The information is supported by limited evidence, the relationship to the evidence may not be clear.H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Level 1 1–6 • Response uses a limited selection of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated in a basic way, and this is linked to basic, generalised judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced. There are some basic conclusions about the historical issue in the question, though these may only be implicitly linked with the analysis and evaluation of the sources. (AO3) • The response has some explanation which analyses and appraises historical events and periods in places, and this is linked appropriately to some of the judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements is not made explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates some limited knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though lacking detail and in places inaccurate. The question is only partially addressed. (AO1) Information presented is basic and may be ambiguous or unstructured. The information is supported by limited evidence. • Death of Agrippina Tacitus Annals 14.1 Poppaea; 14.3 Anicetus; Seneca and Burrus 14.7; • Coins: Drusus/Claudius relationship stressed Aureus AD 41-45; Aureus AD 41-42 Praetorians; Aureus AD 54 Nero/Agrippina; Although not expected, candidates may include non-prescribed material which should be credited. For example: Tacitus Annals 13.1-5 Agrippina’ actions, Seneca and Burrus control of Nero at start of reign, Suet Nero 35 their deaths; Tiberius succession of Gaius Tacitus Annals 6.51; Suet. Tib. 76; Suet. Gaius 2 Macro’s help cf Tacitus Annals 6.50; Helius Dio 63. 12.1-4 Analysis of the sources might focus on: • The limitations of the Res Gestae in crediting others with successes and the focus on Augustus himself; • The limitations of the sources which focus on the emperors primarily rather than the actions of others; • The senatorial perspective of some sources e.g. Tacitus. • The genres of the sources which affects the narrative and perspective e.g. Suetonius biographies focus on the character of the emperor to the exclusion of others; • The context in which the sources were produced e.g. Dio Cassius 3rd century AD view of the principate; coins and inscriptions; • The issues of interpretation, dating etc of material sources such as coins , inscriptions etc; 0 No response or no response worthy of creditH407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Question 2* How effectively did the Julio-Claudian emperors deal with challenges to their rule? [30 marks] Assessment Objectives AO3 = 15 marks = Use, analyse and evaluate ancient sources within their historical context to make judgements and reach conclusions about: • historical events and historical periods studied • how the portrayal of events by ancient writers/sources relates to the historical contexts in which they were written/produced. AO2 = 10 marks = Analyse and evaluate historical events and historical periods to arrive at substantiated judgements. AO1 = 5 marks = Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the historical periods studied. Please note that while the descriptors for AO2 and AO3 are given separately in the levels, the analysis and evaluation of sources & historical events and historical periods may be combined in responses. Additional guidance The ‘Indicative content’ is an example of historically valid content; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited in line with the levels of response. Level Marks Level descriptors Indicative content Level 5 25–30 • Response uses a very good range of fully appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are thoroughly analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, well-developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw fully substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an excellent explanation that convincingly and very thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated, sustained, and well-developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a very good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a sophisticated understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent and logically structured. The information presented is entirely relevant and substantiated. No set answer is expected. It is possible to reach the highest marks with conclusion(s) either agreeing, disagreeing, or anywhere between providing the response has addressed the issue of extent. Responses should be marked in-line with the level descriptors. Candidates should consider a variety of challenges e.g. specific opposition to acts and decisions by the Senate, or individual senators, conspiracies or plots, mutinies or revolts, challenges from family members and friends; they should consider the nature and extent of the challenges as shown in the sources. They should consider the similar or different responses of the emperors towards the challenges and assess the effectiveness of their responses. They might consider the significance of the ways in which emperors sought to pre-empt challenges. They should examine the evidence for the challenges and the ways they were dealt with. They may also consider the different interpretations by the sources both contemporary and non-contemporary. Answers are likely to include: • Challenges to emperors’ decisions, edicts, laws and actions by the Level 4 19–24 Senate as a body or individual senators; • Response uses a good range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, developed judgements about how the way they portrayH407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has a very good explanation that convincingly and thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated and developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a well-developed understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed line of reasoning which is clear and logically structured. The information presented is relevant and in the most part substantiated. • Opposition from other groups- equestrians, plebs, non-citizens in Rome; • Challenges from the provincials/other groups e.g. revolts, resistance to conquest; defeats; • Social, economic, political e.g. Tiberius financial crisis, Fire AD 64 • Challenges from the army, praetorians e.g. mutinies AD 14; AD 68; • Specific conspiracies and plots e.g. Murena and Caepio 23 BC; Chaerea AD 41; Piso AD 65; • Challenges from the imperial family e.g. Agrippina and Tiberius; Agrippina and Claudius, Nero; Messalina and Claudius; • Efforts to avoid challenges- promoting good relations: gifts/handouts, promotions, generosity etc. Supporting source details may include: • Plots: Suet Aug. 19: Murena, Rufus Velleius 2.91; Lepidus Velleius 2.88; Piso and Germanicus Tacitus Annals 3. 71, 73; Piso plot: Tacitus Annals 15.48; Dio 59.29 Gaius’ death; JA 19.17-23 Gaius plots cf Suet Gaius 56; Suet. Claudius 13 plots; • Imperial family/associates: Suet Aug. 65, Velleius 2.100 Iullus Antonius; Sejanus Tacitus Annals 4.1-3, 4.39-41, Dio 58.4.1-5; Agrippina and Nero Tacitus Annals 12. 66-69; her murder Tacitus Annals 14.1ff; Messalina Suet. Claudius 36 • Reactions to acts/decisions: Suet Aug. 34 equestrians protest at marriage laws; 35 revision of Senate roll; Tacitus Annals 1.11f debate on Tiberius accession; Tacitus Annals 14.12 Thrasea reaction to Nero’s murder of Agrippina; pleb protest at Gaius taxes Dio 59.28.11 cf Jos JA 19.24-6 Gaius’ response- executions; • Military control: Suet Aug. 47 Augustus kept provinces with armies; mutinies Suet. Aug. 17; Tacitus Annals 1.16/1.31; Tiberius’ actions Tacitus Annals 1.46-47; Velleius 2.125; Varus defeat Suet. Aug. 23; Res Gestae 25-30 military successes; • Good relations: Suet Aug. 37 Augustus’ clemency, Cinna (Seneca on Clemency 1.9.2-12); Tacitus Annals 14.14 Nero popularity; Res Gestae 15 handouts; 22-23 games; Suet. Claudius 11 amnesty; • Reactions to challenges: Tacitus Annals 1.2, 10; Tacitus Annals 1.72 Maiestas revived by Tiberius; Dio 58.4.6 and 8 Tiberius and Level 3 13–18 • Response uses a range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw supported, plausible conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has a good explanation that convincingly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach supported judgements, though these are not consistently developed. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a reasonable range of accurate and sometimes detailed knowledge and a reasonable understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question through most of the answer. (AO1) There is a line of reasoning presented with some structure. The information presented is in the most-part relevant and supported by some evidence. Level 2 7–12 • Response uses some appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw some supported conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an explanation that analyses and appraises historical events and periods, and this is linked appropriately to judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements may not always be made fully explicit. (AO2)H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 • The response demonstrates a limited range of accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though this may lack detail. The question is generally addressed, but the response loses focus in places. (AO1) The information has some relevance, but is communicated in an unstructured way. The information is supported by limited evidence, the relationship to the evidence may not be clear. Sejanus; Gaius: cruelty Suet. Gaius 27-28; Nero murder of Agrippina Tacitus Annals 14.11 charges/ 12 Senate reaction; 15.71 mass executions after Piso plot; • Pliny NH.7.147-50 Augustus’ misfortunes; Velleius 2.130 Tiberius’ problems • Revolts etc: Tacfarinas Tacitus Annals 2.52, 3.73, 74; Frisii Tacitus Annals 4.74; Vindex Dio 63. 22-26; 63. 26 3-7 Nero’s reactions; • Social, economic: Claudius problem with grain supply –Ostia inscription; Tacitus Annals 15.42-43 Nero response to Fire AD 64; Suet. Tib. 48 financial support; Although not expected, candidates may include non-prescribed material which should be credited. For example: Suet Aug. 38 Augustus generous to army; Tacitus Annals 3.3 Germanicus funera; Iullus Tacitus Annals 4.44. Analysis of the sources might focus on: • The limitations of the Res Gestae in crediting others with successes and the focus on Augustus himself; • The limitations of the sources which focus on the emperors primarily rather than the actions of others; • The senatorial perspective of some sources e.g. Tacitus. • The genres of the sources which affects the narrative and perspective e.g. Suetonius biographies focus on the character of the emperor to the exclusion of others; • The context in which the sources were produced e.g. Dio Cassius 3rd century AD view of the principate; coins and inscriptions • The issues of interpretation, dating etc of material sources such as coins, inscriptions etc; Level 1 1–6 • Response uses a limited selection of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated in a basic way, and this is linked to basic, generalised judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced. There are some basic conclusions about the historical issue in the question, though these may only be implicitly linked with the analysis and evaluation of the sources. (AO3) • The response has some explanation which analyses and appraises historical events and periods in places, and this is linked appropriately to some of the judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements is not made explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates some limited knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though lacking detail and in places inaccurate. The question is only partially addressed. (AO1) Information presented is basic and may be ambiguous or unstructured. The information is supported by limited evidence. 0 No response or no response worthy of creditH407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Question 3 How convincing do you find Holland’s interpretation of Gaius’ (Caligula) actions and behaviour? [20 marks] Assessment Objectives AO4 = 15 marks = Analyse and evaluate, in context, modern historians’ interpretations of the historical events and topics studied. AO1 = 5 marks = Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the historical periods studied. Additional guidance The ‘Indicative content’ is an example of historically valid content; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited in line with the levels of response. Please note that interpretations can be evaluated in the context of the wider historical debate connected with the issue or of the historical context about which the historian was writing. There is no expectation that the interpretation will be evaluated in the context of the methods or approach used by the historian, or how the interpretation may have been affected by the time in which they were writing, though credit can be given for this approach to evaluation if done in a way which is relevant to the question. A learner’s knowledge and understanding of the historical period, including the ancient sources may be credited, but only where it is presented in a way which is relevant and intrinsically linked to the analysis/evaluation/use of the interpretation, it should not be credited in isolation. Level Marks Level descriptors Indicative content Level 5 17–20 • Response has a very through and sustained analysis of the interpretation, in context, to produce a convincing and fully substantiated evaluation in relation to the question. (AO4) • The response demonstrates a very good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a sophisticated understanding of historical features and characteristics that are fully relevant to the question. (AO1) No set answer is expected. It is possible to reach the highest marks with a conclusion either agreeing or disagreeing with the modern historians’ interpretation, or anywhere between providing the response has addressed the issue of extent. Responses should be marked in-line with the level descriptors. Answers should evaluate both the interpretation locating it within the wider historical debate about the issue and using their own knowledge of the ancient sources and events and periods to reach a judgement about how convincing they find the argument. In locating the interpretation within the wider historical debate, candidate might • Discuss the specific actions and behaviour of Gaius in the extract • Discuss the context of the start of the reign and how far the early behaviour was genuine or a pretence. • Consider the presentation of these actions and contexts in the sources • Assess the issues concerning Gaius’ character and behaviour and the interpretations of them by historians • Assess the view taken of Gaius’ actions, behaviour and character in the extract in relation to the evidence and interpretations of it. In evaluating the interpretation, answers might argue that this view is not convincing, pointing towards the following information / ancient sources: Level 4 13–16 • Response has a through and sustained analysis of the interpretation, in context, to produce a convincing and well supported evaluation in relation to the question. (AO4) • The response demonstrates a good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a well-developed understanding of historical features and characteristics that are fully relevant to the question. (AO1)H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Level 3 9–12 • Response has a good analysis of the interpretation, in context, to produce a supported evaluation in relation to the question. (AO4) • The response demonstrates a reasonable range of accurate and sometimes detailed knowledge and a reasonable understanding of historical features and characteristics that are relevant to the question. (AO1) • ‘not naïve enough to take optimism for granted’: later in reign not understanding the discontent his actions caused? Suet Gaius 56 reckless behaviour roused murderous thoughts in others; • ‘Generous to legions and praetorians’: not recorded by Suetonius, only 3 donatives to plebs (Gaius 17); discontent of plebs cf Suet Gaius 56; • Senate not neglected/alert to sensitivities: Jos JA 19.1-3 attacks on senators and equestrians; Jos. JA 19.17-27 plots; • Elevation of Claudius/rejection of predecessor: serious or not? • End of trials etc: reinstated Dio 59.4.3, 16.8ff; Suet. Gaius 30 executions • Views of sources: Dio 59.3.2 monarchical; Jos. JA 19.201-11 Obituary of Gaius; Seneca on Anger 3.19.5 Cruelties of Gaius; On Firmness of Purpose 18.3 Chaerea’s motives; • Interpretation not valid for most of his reign. Dio 59.4.1ff contrary nature- changing his mind and approach. This is before his illness, so may not be too good to be true or hypocrisy at this point or a performance. In evaluating the interpretation, answers might argue that this view is convincing, drawing on the following information / ancient sources: • Focus on context of start of reign and actions on accession: Suet Gaius 14 (family concerns- Germanicus and brothers), 18 (games and spectacles with gifts); Dio 59.3.1 early action – democratic; • Good acts: Dio 59.9-4; Suet. Gaius 13-14; Quadrans AD 39 tax remission; brings uncle Claudius into system; • Shows understanding at the start: concern for family members killed by Tiberius (denarius AD 37 Germanicus and Gaius), celebrations for people Suet. Gaius 13-14; buys popularity; • ‘Not take optimism for granted’: various gifts and games Suet. Gaius 18; Dio 59.9.4-7; concern for constitution/ wait for consulship; • Initially rejects Tiberius’ use of trials and informers; Suet Gaius 13 ‘like an answer to their prayers- popularity of Germanicus exploited; 14 love of people and foreigners; • Final paragraph: In the light of later acts (Suet. Gaius 22 excesses in titles, buildings, shrine, divine pretensions, cf Jos. JA 19.4-11; Suet Gaius 27, 32 cruelty, 31 desire for disasters; 37 extravagance/ Level 2 5–8 • Response has some analysis of the interpretation, in context, to produce a partially supported evaluation in relation to the question. (AO4) • The response demonstrates a limited range of accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though this may lack detail. (AO1) Level 1 1–4 • Response has a basic analysis of the interpretation, with parts of the answer just describing the interpretation. Response produces a very basic evaluation in relation to the question. (AO4) • The response demonstrates some limited knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though lacking detail and in places inaccurate. (AO1) 0 No response or no response worthy of creditH407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 wastefulness), ‘perhaps it was’, ‘too good to be true’ and ‘hypocrisies’ or ‘performance’; ‘instinctive and pitiless understanding of the workings of power’ (later in reign) seen as an accurate assessment of his behaviour. Although not expected, candidates may include non-prescribed material which should be credited. For example: Dio 59.2.6 wasted the surplus in Tiberius’ treasury; Dio 59.2.1-3 bequests from Tiberius’ will to praetorians and army; Dio 59.23.5 contempt for Claudius, Suet Claudius 9 throws him into Rhine; Suet Gaius 23 ‘butt for jokes’; Suet. Gaius 51 mental illness; Suet Gaius 16 tax abolished, magistrates had full authority; new elections; 17 gifts to plebs,H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Section B: The Breakdown of the Late Republic, 88-31 BC Question 4 How useful is the passage for our understanding of the proscriptions of Sulla? [12 marks] Assessment Objectives AO1 = 6 marks = Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the historical periods studied. AO3 = 6 marks = Use, analyse and evaluate ancient sources within their historical context to make judgements and reach conclusions about how the portrayal of events by ancient writers/sources relates to the historical contexts in which they were written/produced. Additional guidance The ‘Indicative content’ is an example of historically valid content; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited in line with the levels of response. Level Marks Level descriptors Indicative content Level 6 11–12 • The response demonstrates an excellent range of accurate and very detailed knowledge and a very sophisticated depth of understanding of historical features and characteristics that are fully relevant to the question. (AO1) • Response uses a very good range of fully appropriate examples from the set of ancient sources. The set of sources is thoroughly analysed and evaluated to reach substantiated, well-developed judgements about how the way the context in which the sources were produced impacts on them and their usefulness for the issue in the question. (AO3) No set answer is expected. It is possible to reach the highest marks with conclusion(s) either way as to the source’s usefulness to understanding the issue in question providing the response has addressed the issue of extent. Responses should be marked in-line with the level descriptors. Candidates may discuss the following information in relation to contents of the source: • An understanding that Plutarch depicts Sulla negatively and dwells on the butchery of the proscriptions and their effect. • Dictatorial nature of the proscriptions, ‘without communicating with any magistrate’. • At least 40 senators and 1600 equestrians proscribed (large scale - ‘more murders that anyone could count or determine’…80 one day, then 220 and 220 again) • Proscriptions later evolved – violence spread and people were killed due to personal feuds ‘many were killed as a result of private feuds’’ and their names were posthumously added to the lists. • Plutarch is questioning his sources/evidence base, ‘Some people, however, say that it was not Metellus , but Fufidius, one of Sulla’s fawning followers, who made this last speech to him’. Level 5 9–10 • The response demonstrates a very good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a sophisticated understanding of historical features and characteristics that are fully relevant to the question. (AO1) • Response uses a good range of fully appropriate examples from the set of ancient sources. The set of sources is thoroughly analysed and evaluated to reach developed judgements about how the way the context in which the sources were produced impacts on them and their usefulness for the issue in the question. (AO3) Level 4 7–8 • The response demonstrates a good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a well-developed understanding of historical features and characteristics that are fully relevant to the question. (AO1) • Response uses a good range of appropriate examples from the set of ancient sources. The set of sources is analysed and evaluated to reach developed judgements about how the way the context in which the sources were produced impacts on them and their usefulness for the issue in the question. (AO3)H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Level 3 5–6 • The response demonstrates a reasonable range of accurate and sometimes detailed knowledge and a reasonable understanding of historical features and characteristics that are relevant to the question. (AO1) • Response uses a reasonable range of appropriate examples from the set of ancient sources. The set of sources is analysed and evaluated to make some basic judgements about how the way the context in which the sources were produced impacts on them and their usefulness for the issue in the question. (AO3) • Anyone who was found guilty of assisting those proscribed was killed, ‘he also proscribed anyone who sheltered and saved a proscribed person’. Other information not in this passage: • Their sons and grandsons barred from holding future magistracies • Those killed were denied the right to a funeral. • It was forbidden to mourn the death of a proscribed person. According to Plutarch, the greatest injustice of all the consequences was stripping the rights of their children and grandchildren. • Causes: Sulla’s need for money – price on the heads of outlawed men, property seized and sold to raise cash to restore the depleted Roman Treasury (Aerarium), which had been drained by costly civil and foreign wars in the preceding decade, and to eliminate enemies (both real and potential) of his reformed state and constitutions • Any man whose name appeared on the list was stripped of his citizenship and excluded from all protection under law • Reward money was given to any informer who gave information leading to the death of a proscribed man. • Any person who killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep part of his estate (the remainder went to the state). • No person could inherit money or property from proscribed men, nor could any woman married to a proscribed man remarry after his death • Many victims of proscription were decapitated and their heads were displayed on spears in the Forum. Level 2 3–4 • The response demonstrates a limited range of accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though this may lack detail. (AO1) • Response uses a few appropriate examples from the set of ancient sources. The set of sources is analysed and evaluated in a basic way to make some basic judgements about how the way the context in which the sources were produced impacts on them and their usefulness for the issue in the question. (AO3) Level 1 1–2 • The response demonstrates some limited knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though lacking detail and in places inaccurate. (AO1) • Response uses a few appropriate examples from the set of ancient sources. The set of sources is analysed and evaluated in a basic way but judgements about how the context in which the sources were produced impacts on them and their usefulness for the issue in the question are either not present or are not linked to analysis and are merely assertions. (AO3) 0 No response or no response worthy of creditQuestion 5* ‘Politicians only gained success by using violence and corruption.’ How far do the sources support this view of political activity during this period? [36 marks] Assessment Objectives AO3 = 18 marks = Use, analyse and evaluate ancient sources within their historical context to make judgements and reach conclusions about: • historical events and historical periods studied • how the portrayal of events by ancient writers/sources relates to the historical contexts in which they were written/produced. AO2 = 12 marks = Analyse and evaluate historical events and historical periods to arrive at substantiated judgements AO1 = 6 marks = Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the historical periods studied. Please note that while the descriptors for AO2 and AO3 are given separately in the levels, the analysis and evaluation of sources & historical events and historical periods may be combined in responses. Additional guidance The ‘Indicative content’ is an example of historically valid content; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited in line with the levels of response. Level Marks Level descriptors Indicative content Level 6 31–36 • Response uses an excellent range of fully appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are very thoroughly analysed and evaluated, to reach very logically reasoned and well-developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw fully substantiated, very convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an excellent explanation that convincingly and very thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated, sustained, and well-developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates an excellent range of accurate and very detailed knowledge and a very sophisticated depth of understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent and logically structured. The information presented is entirely relevant and substantiated. No set answer is expected. It is possible to reach the highest marks with conclusion(s) either agreeing, disagreeing, or anywhere between providing the response has addressed the issue of extent. Responses should be marked in-line with the level descriptors. Candidates should look at reasons why politicians gained success and ascertain whether it was the use of violence and corruption (and ‘how far’ they used violence and corruption). They may look at the similarities and differences between the methods used by different politicians, and different methods used at different times by the same politician. Answers are likely to include information on: • Catiline – Sulla’s veterans, general corruption of soldiers, or Catiline’s army. Catiline’s supporters as examples of violence. • Sulla’s actions, e.g. proscriptions. • Corruption, bribery and manipulation in politics, e.g. Caesar – Bibulus. • Resorting to violence, e.g. Clodius – against his trial, laws of 58 BC, riots, his death; Caesar’s consulship; Pompey’s defiance of Sulla and the issue of Sertorius Level 5 25–30 • Response uses a very good range of fully appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are thoroughly analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, well-developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw fully substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3)H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 • The response has a very good explanation that convincingly and thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated, sustained and developed and judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a very good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a sophisticated understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed line of reasoning which is clear and logically structured. The information is relevant and in the most part substantiated. • The weakness of parts of the constitution; illegal actions which undermined the rule of law, e.g. Octavian’s consulship in 43 BC • The assassination of Caesar: Cicero’s defence, Matius’ reply • The effect of the urban populace in politics: riots over the grain subsidy, after Clodius’ funeral. • 2nd Triumvirate: proscriptions; bribery of soldiers. • The use of army, veterans, military power and civil war as a means to an end; bribery of soldiers by various generals. Answers might include other factors for a balanced view: • Network of obligations among politicians – Cicero’s support from his activities in the courts • Popular measures: land laws; grain subsidy; Pompey’s commands in the 60s • Largesse, Provision of games – e.g. Caesar’s games in 65 BC • Factions, including optimates and populares • Rhetoric/oratory, e.g. Cicero • Army and veteran support, e.g Sulla, Caesar, Antony and Octavian. Supporting source details may include: • Sallust, The Catiline Conspiracy 11-2, 36-9, 14, 36 • Cicero ad Att 1.16, 4.3 • Plutarch Caesar 14 • Cicero ad Att 1.16 on Bona Dea and bribery. • Cicero pro Sestio 96–105 on optimates and populares. • Plutarch Pomp 47–48, Plutarch Caesar 13–14; Cicero ad Att 2.19, 2.21 on the reception of the Triumvirate. • Plutarch Sulla 9; Plutarch Caesar 29–32 on army support. Appian 3.86–94; 5.127–129 the importance of soldiers to Octavian. • Suet Divine Julius 38–43; Plutarch Caesar 58 on Caesar’s largesse as dictator. • Denarius of Caesar 48-47BC – military successes • Denarius of Caesar 47-46BC – political lineage Level 4 19–24 • Response uses a good range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has a good explanation that convincingly and fully analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated and developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a well-developed understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a line of reasoning with some structure. The information presented is in the most-part relevant and supported by some evidence. Level 3 13–18 • Response uses a range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw supported, plausible conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an explanation that convincingly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach supported judgements, though these are not consistently developed. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a reasonable range of accurate and sometimes detailed knowledge and a reasonable understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question through most of the answer. (AO1) The information has some relevance and is presented with limited structure. The information is supported by limited evidence.H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Level 2 7–12 • Response uses some appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw some supported conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an explanation that analyses and appraises historical events and periods, and this is linked appropriately to judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements may not always be made fully explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a limited range of accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though this may lack detail. The question is generally addressed, but the response loses focus in places. (AO1) The information has some relevance, but is communicated in an unstructured way. The information is supported by limited evidence and the relationship to the evidence may not be clear. Analysis of the sources might focus on: • The ability of each source to report truly the events from whatever historical distance they were written. • Whether the sources actually seek to chronicle, analysis or explain the decline that was occurring within the Roman Republic. • The decline in the quality and quantity of the source material after Cicero’s demise. • How far the sources recognise the interrelationship between the events depicted, e.g. that one event may have caused another. • The bias implicit and explicit in the sources, as a result of the author’s own historical and political position, for instance Cicero’s views of the Triumvirs and Antony. Although not expected, candidates may include nonprescribed material which should be credited. • Sallust, The Catiline Conspiracy 32 Level 1 1–6 • Response uses a limited selection of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated in a basic way, and this is linked to some basic, generalised judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced. There are some basic conclusions about the historical issue in the question, though these may only be implicitly linked with the analysis and evaluation of the sources. (AO3) • The response has some explanation which analyses and appraises historical events and periods in places, and this is linked appropriately to some of the judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements is not made explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates some limited knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though lacking detail and in places inaccurate. The question is only partially addressed. (AO1) Information presented is basic and may be ambiguous or unstructured. The information is supported by limited evidence. 0 No response or no response worthy of creditH407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 Question 6* ‘How significant was the contribution of Julius Caesar to the breakdown of the Republic?’ [36 marks] Assessment Objectives AO3 = 18 marks = Use, analyse and evaluate ancient sources within their historical context to make judgements and reach conclusions about: • historical events and historical periods studied • how the portrayal of events by ancient writers/sources relates to the historical contexts in which they were written/produced. AO2 = 12 marks = Analyse and evaluate historical events and historical periods to arrive at substantiated judgements AO1 = 6 marks = Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the historical periods studied. Please note that while the descriptors for AO2 and AO3 are given separately in the levels, the analysis and evaluation of sources & historical events and historical periods may be combined in responses. Additional guidance The ‘Indicative content’ is an example of historically valid content; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited in line with the levels of response. Level Marks Level descriptors Indicative content Level 6 31–36 • Response uses an excellent range of fully appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are very thoroughly analysed and evaluated, to reach very logically reasoned and well-developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw fully substantiated, very convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an excellent explanation that convincingly and very thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated, sustained, and well-developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates an excellent range of accurate and very detailed knowledge and a very sophisticated depth of understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent and logically structured. The information presented is entirely relevant and substantiated. No set answer is expected. It is possible to reach the highest marks with conclusion(s) either agreeing, disagreeing, or anywhere between providing the response has addressed the issue of extent. Responses should be marked in-line with the level descriptors. Candidates should look at the causes of the breakdown of the Republic, ascertain how far it was the contributions of Julius Caesar which caused it and assess how significant Caesar was in the Breakdown of the Republic. It is likely that candidates will compare with other factors such as social and economic and the actions of other politicians such as Antony and Octavian and the murderers of Caesar and longer term causes such as financial inequality, an increasingly uninfluential senate, the Catilinarian conspiracy, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, the actions of the first and second triumvirates. Level 5 25–30 • Response uses a very good range of fully appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are thoroughly analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, well-developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw fully substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3)H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 • The response has a very good explanation that convincingly and thoroughly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated, sustained and developed and judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a very good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a sophisticated understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a well-developed line of reasoning which is clear and logically structured. The information is relevant and in the most part substantiated. Regarding Julius Caesar, candidates may look at specific examples may include: • The military commands of Caesar. • Increased popularis influence, and consequential reduction in optimates influence – and Caesar’s manipulation of popularity. • Bribery and corruption. • Legal and illegal acts and use of office to achieve his goals, e.g. dictatorship. • Use of political alliances. • Use of veterans and violence. • Land bills. • Political marriages. Candidates may examine other factors which led to the Breakdown of the Republic. Supporting source details may include: • Suetonius Deified Julius 28-33, 38-39 • Plutarch Caesar 13-14, 29-32, 57-58 • Plutarch Pompey 47-8 • Caesar, The Civil War, 1.1-1.5; 1.7 (B142) • Denarius of Caesar 48-47 BC (Ghey, Leins & Crawford 2010 452.41) • Denarius of Caesar 47-46 BC (Ghey, Leins & Crawford 2010 458.1.1) Although not expected, candidates may include nonprescribed material which should be credited. Analysis of the sources might focus on: • The ability of each source to report truly the events from whatever historical distance they were written. • Whether the sources actually seek to chronicle, analyse or explain the breakdown of the Roman Republic. Level 4 19–24 • Response uses a good range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned, developed judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw substantiated and convincing conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has a good explanation that convincingly and fully analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach substantiated and developed judgements. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a good range of accurate and detailed knowledge and a well-developed understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question throughout the answer. (AO1) There is a line of reasoning with some structure. The information presented is in the most-part relevant and supported by some evidence. Level 3 13–18 • Response uses a range of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach logically reasoned judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw supported, plausible conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an explanation that convincingly analyses and appraises historical events and periods in order to reach supported judgements, though these are not consistently developed. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a reasonable range of accurate and sometimes detailed knowledge and a reasonable understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics. There is a consistent focus on the question through most of the answer. (AO1)H407/21 Mark Scheme November 2020 The information has some relevance and is presented with limited structure. The information is supported by limited evidence. • How far the sources recognise the interrelationship between the events depicted, e.g. that one event may have caused another. • The bias implicit and explicit in the sources, as a result of the authors own historical and political position. Level 2 7–12 • Response uses some appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated, to reach judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced, and to draw some supported conclusions about the historical issue in the question. (AO3) • The response has an explanation that analyses and appraises historical events and periods, and this is linked appropriately to judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements may not always be made fully explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates a limited range of accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though this may lack detail. The question is generally addressed, but the response loses focus in places. (AO1) The information has some relevance, but is communicated in an unstructured way. The information is supported by limited evidence and the relationship to the evidence may not be clear. Level 1 1–6 • Response uses a limited selection of appropriate examples from the ancient sources. The sources are analysed and evaluated in a basic way, and this is linked to some basic, generalised judgements about how the way they portray events relates to the context in which they were produced. There are some basic conclusions about the historical issue in the question, though these may only be implicitly linked with the analysis and evaluation of the sources. (AO3) • The response has some explanation which analyses and appraises historical events and periods in places, and this is linked appropriately to some of the judgements made, though the way in which it supports the judgements is not made explicit. (AO2) • The response demonstrates some limited knowledge and understanding of relevant historical features and characteristics, though lacking detail and in places inaccurate. The question is only partially addressed. (AO1) Information presented is basic and may be ambiguous or unstructured. The information is supported by limited evidence. 0 No response or no response worthy of creditOCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations) The Triangle Building Shaftesbury Road Cambridge CB2 8EA [Show More]

Last updated: 1 year ago

Preview 1 out of 22 pages