dude, i was planning on working an agenda out on tuesday night / wednesday morning.
case-study-wise, so far my planned essay exists of:
"Napoleon was apparently a very Short man, yet historians debate the EXACT nature of his height. the perceptions and contexts of different historians...
omg how exciting, you could combine all of this.
your driving, you call the help line asking about a text that's not in an exam that's already happened; they tell you you're screwed; you then hit a ...'cow', and become suicidal at the idea of taking another 'cow's life and the idea of no uai...
really? for the creative section?
although i actually think that would be easier... i couldn't talk about a single character / text alone for the entire length of the creative part. for the trial i used like 4 characters from 3 different texts (still did shockingly).
i wouldn't suggest doing that alone-- your safest and richest (source & information wise) avenue would be to perhaps explore a particular event / issue within which archaeology as a practise or theory (ie Foucault's method of archaeology) can be evaluated in relation to historiography (your key...
i thought it was horrible.
i fucked the personality section because i wrote barely anything, fucked my society because i studied the wrong things, fucked the greek world and lied a lot, blatantly, and fucked the last question because i was entirely too general and hardly even covered the...
oh no. you didn't fail it unless you were me, & wrote that miltiades was A SPARTAN, and didn't mention themistocles in anything but the context of how many battles he may or may not have been at.