Politics of the Late Republic: Essay Writing Guide

📚 A-Level Classical Civilisation ⏱️ 75 min exam 📖 OCR H408/33

Paper Structure: 75 Minutes Total

The Politics of the Late Republic paper has TWO sections:

Section A (45 marks - COMPULSORY)

✓ Questions 1-2: 1-2 mark factual recall (3 marks total)
✓ Question 3: 10-marker on a SOURCE (In Verrem or Cicero's letters)
✓ Questions 4-5: 1-2 mark factual recall (2 marks total)
✓ Question 6: 10-marker on IDEAS/CONTEXT
✓ Question 7: 20-marker essay

Section B (30 marks - CHOICE)

✓ Choose ONE 30-marker essay (Question 8 OR 9)

Recommended Time Allocation

Question Type	Marks	Time	What to Write
1-2 mark questions	1-2	1-2 mins each	One word/phrase or brief bullet points
10-markers	10	12-15 mins	4 paragraphs (aim for 5th if time)
20-marker	20	20-25 mins	4-5 paragraphs + intro/conclusion
30-marker	30	30-35 mins	5-6 paragraphs + intro/conclusion

⚠️ Always Leave Buffer Time

Build in 5 minutes at the end for checking your work and filling in any gaps. Never spend more than the recommended time on any question—move on and come back if needed.

Quick Summary by Question Type

Source 10-Marker

QUOTE → ANALYSE → EVALUATE × 4

Ideas 10-Marker

POINT → EVIDENCE → EXPLAIN × 4

20-Marker

INTRO + PEEL × 4-5 + CONCLUSION

30-Marker

INTRO + PEEL × 5-6 + CITE 2-3 SCHOLARS + CONCLUSION

Visual Comparison: What Each Question Looks Like

SOURCE 10-MARKER

📜 Source extract provided

❓ "Explain how convincing..."

✍️ 4-5 points straight away

⏱️ 12-15 mins

❌ No intro/conclusion

IDEAS 10-MARKER

📌 Bold statement given

❓ "Explain how/why..."

✍️ 4-5 points straight away

⏱️ 12-15 mins

❌ No intro/conclusion

20-MARKER ESSAY

💭 Statement to assess

❓ "Assess to what extent..."

✅ Brief intro (your view)

✍️ 4-5 paragraphs

✅ Brief conclusion

⏱️ 20-25 mins

30-MARKER ESSAY

💭 Statement to evaluate

❓ "Evaluate how far..."

✅ Full intro (argument)

✍️ 5-6 paragraphs

📚 MUST cite scholars

✅ Full conclusion

⏱️ 30-35 mins

🎯 Quick Reference: Your "Every Time" Plans

SOURCE 10-MARKER (12-15 mins)

① Read & underline → ② Find 4-5 things Cicero does → ③ Number them → ④⑤⑥⑦ Write 4 points: Quote → Analyse → Evaluate → ⑧ (If time) 5th point

IDEAS 10-MARKER (12-15 mins)

① Understand question → ② Brainstorm 4-5 factors → ③ Choose strongest → ④ Order them → ⑤⑥⑦⑧ Write 4 points: Point → Evidence → Explain → ⑨ (If time) 5th point

20-MARKER (20-25 mins)

① Decide view → ② Brainstorm 4-5 points (for & against) → ③ Order them → ④ Write brief intro → ⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨ Write 4-5 paragraphs (PEEL) → ⑩ Write brief conclusion

30-MARKER (30-35 mins)

① Form argument → ② Brainstorm 5-6 points → ③ Note 2-3 scholars to cite → ④ Plan evidence → ⑤ Write full intro → ⑥⑦⑧⑨⑩⑪ Write 5-6 paragraphs (PEEL) → ⑫ Cite 2-3 scholars throughout essay → ⑬ Write full conclusion

Source 10-Marker: The Task

You'll be given a prescribed source—an excerpt from In Verrem or one of Cicero's letters that you've studied in class.

Typical Questions:

"Explain how convincing Cicero is in presenting..."
"Explain what this source reveals about..."
"Explain how Cicero shows his desperation/confidence..."
"Explain what impression this creates..."

What You're Being Tested On

AO1: Can you select relevant material from the source?
AO2: Can you analyse and evaluate what Cicero is doing?

Time & Structure

Time Available	12-15 minutes
Planning Time	2-3 minutes
Target Length	250-350 words
Structure	4 points (aim for 5th if time)

The Formula

QUOTE → ANALYSE → EVALUATE

Repeat 4 times (5 if you're quick)

⚠️ No Introduction or Conclusion!

Don't waste time writing "In this answer I will..." or "In conclusion...". Just dive straight into your first point.

Planning (2-3 Minutes)

Read the source carefully. Underline or mentally note key phrases.

Identify 4-5 specific things Cicero says or does in the passage.

Number them in order of importance/relevance.

Sample Plan

1. Line 2: "Roman people judging you" → jury pressure

2. Lines 3-5: "very guilty and very rich" → corruption theme

3. Lines 8-10: "so well known... so evident" → confident claims

4. Lines 11-13: "eyes of Roman people" → public accountability

5. (If time) Lines 6-7: No excuse for Verres → inevitable guilt

Paragraph Structure

Each of your 4-5 points should follow this pattern:

QUOTE: Reference a specific part of the source (quote or paraphrase)
ANALYSE: Explain what Cicero is doing/saying here
EVALUATE: How convincing/effective/revealing is this?

Example Paragraph:

[QUOTE] Cicero claims that "this is a trial in which you will be judging the defendant, and the Roman people will be judging you." [ANALYSE] This places enormous pressure on the jury by suggesting their reputation depends on the verdict, not just Verres'. [EVALUATE] This is convincing because it shifts focus from legal procedure to public accountability, making acquittal seem like a betrayal of Rome. However, it could also be seen as manipulative rhetoric designed to intimidate rather than persuade through evidence.

What to Look For in Sources

Content

Direct claims Cicero makes
Evidence he presents
Who he addresses
What he emphasises
Contrasts he draws

Technique

Rhetorical questions
Repetition
Emotional appeals
Tone (urgent/confident/sarcastic)
Exaggeration

Common Mistakes

❌ Don't Do This:

Only using one line from the source
Quoting without analysing
Summarising the source instead of evaluating it
Writing an introduction or conclusion
Being too vague about what Cicero is doing

✓ Do This:

Use material from across the whole passage
Quote briefly then analyse immediately
Evaluate how convincing/effective each point is
Start straight with Point 1
Be specific about Cicero's techniques

Ideas 10-Marker: The Task

You'll be given a bold statement (historical context) followed by a question asking you to explain something using your own knowledge.

Typical Format:

In 48 BC Julius Caesar proclaimed himself dictator with no fixed term of office, ignoring the political constitution of the time.

Explain how Caesar's actions after the civil war may have resulted in his assassination.

What You're Being Tested On

AO1: Do you know specific historical facts?
AO2: Can you explain how/why they answer the question?

Time & Structure

Time Available	12-15 minutes
Planning Time	2-3 minutes
Target Length	250-350 words
Structure	4 points (aim for 5th if time)

The Formula

POINT → EVIDENCE → EXPLAIN

PEE × 4 (or 5 if quick)

⚠️ No Introduction or Conclusion!

Same as source 10-markers—dive straight into Point 1. No waffle.

Planning (2-3 Minutes)

Identify what the question is really asking.

Brainstorm 4-5 factors/reasons/ways.

Choose the strongest ones.

Order them (most important first).

Sample Plan

1. Dictator perpetuo (44 BC) → broke Republican tradition

2. Monarchical honours → crown at Lupercalia, coins, purple toga

3. Clemency patronising → pardoned Brutus but made him feel inferior

4. Bypassed Senate → appointed own magistrates

5. (If time) Too popular with people → Senate felt irrelevant

Paragraph Structure

Each of your 4-5 points follows PEE:

POINT: Make a clear claim answering the question
EVIDENCE: Give specific details (names, dates, events)
EXPLAIN: Show how this evidence answers the question

Example Paragraph:

[POINT] Caesar's assumption of the dictatorship perpetuo in 44 BC was deeply threatening to traditional Republicans. [EVIDENCE] Unlike previous dictatorships, which were limited to six months and tied to specific crises, Caesar's permanent dictatorship suggested he had no intention of relinquishing power. This directly violated the Republican principle of annual magistracies. [EXPLAIN] For men like Brutus and Cassius, this made assassination seem like the only way to restore traditional government—Caesar had become the tyrant that Rome's founding myth explicitly rejected.

What to Include

Specific Details

Names of people
Dates and years
Specific events
Latin terminology
Titles and offices

Analytical Language

"This led to..."
"As a result..."
"This demonstrates..."
"This explains why..."
"Therefore..."

❌ Avoid Vague Language

NOT: "some people thought..." → USE: "Cato argued..."
NOT: "around this time..." → USE: "in 59 BC..."
NOT: "he did bad things..." → USE: "he bypassed the Senate..."

Common Mistakes

❌ Don't Do This:

Being vague: "people were unhappy"
Just describing events without explaining
Telling a story instead of analysing
Repeating the same point differently
Ignoring what the question actually asks

✓ Do This:

Name specific people, dates, events
Explain HOW your evidence answers the question
Make analytical points, not narrative
Ensure each point is distinct
Keep referring back to the question

20-Marker Essay: The Task

Question 7 is a 20-mark essay requiring you to assess or evaluate a statement.

Typical Questions:

"'Cicero was a man of ideas, Cato was a man of action.' Assess to what extent you agree..."
"'Without patronage and amicitia, a politician could not be successful.' Assess how true this is..."

What's Different from 10-Markers?

You NOW need an introduction and conclusion. You need a clear argument running through. You should balance both sides of the debate.

Time & Structure

Time Available	20-25 minutes
Planning Time	3-4 minutes
Target Length	450-600 words
Structure	Intro + 4-5 paragraphs + Conclusion

The Formula

INTRO → PEEL × 4-5 → CONCLUSION

Point, Evidence, Explain, Link

Planning (3-4 Minutes)

Decide your overall view — agree? disagree? partially agree?

Brainstorm 4-5 points (some for, some against).

Order them logically (alternating works well).

Think of specific evidence for each.

Sample Plan

View: Largely agree but with qualifications

Intro: Cicero focused on ideas, Cato on action

1. Cicero developed concordia ordinum, wrote letters

2. But Cicero did act—Catiline, held offices

3. Cato opposed Caesar actively, committed suicide

4. Yet Cato's actions driven by rigid principles

5. Key difference: Cicero persuades, Cato demonstrates

Conclusion: Statement largely valid

Essay Structure Overview

📝 Every 20-Marker Follows This Structure:

1. Introduction (2-3 sentences) → State your view
2. Paragraph 1 (PEEL) → First argument
3. Paragraph 2 (PEEL) → Second argument
4. Paragraph 3 (PEEL) → Third argument
5. Paragraph 4 (PEEL) → Fourth argument
6. (Paragraph 5) (PEEL) → Fifth argument if time
7. Conclusion (2-3 sentences) → Final judgement

How to Write Your Introduction

Your introduction should be short and clear. Just 2-3 sentences stating your overall view.

Introduction Formula

Sentence 1: Acknowledge the question/statement

Sentence 2: State YOUR view clearly

(Optional Sentence 3): Briefly indicate your line of argument

Example Introduction:

Question: "Cicero was a man of ideas, Cato was a man of action." Assess to what extent you agree.

[Acknowledge] While both Cicero and Cato were committed to preserving the Republic, their approaches differed significantly. [Your view] Cicero primarily influenced through rhetoric and philosophy, whereas Cato demonstrated his principles through decisive action, making the statement largely accurate. [Line of argument] However, both men occasionally departed from these characterisations when circumstances demanded it.

❌ Don't Write These Introductions:

"In this essay I will..." ❌ Just state your view, don't announce
"This is a difficult question..." ❌ Don't sit on the fence
"Throughout history..." ❌ Get straight to the point
Long introductions over 4 sentences ❌ You'll waste time

How to Write Your Conclusion

Your conclusion should be 2-3 sentences that provide a final judgement. Don't just repeat your introduction—add nuance.

Conclusion Formula

Sentence 1: Restate your overall view (but differently from intro)

Sentence 2: Add nuance or qualification

(Optional Sentence 3): Final insight or broader significance

Example Conclusion:

[Overall view] The statement is largely valid: Cicero prioritised persuasion through rhetoric whilst Cato prioritised demonstration through action. [Nuance] However, both men occasionally departed from these patterns when circumstances demanded—Cicero acted decisively against Catiline, whilst Cato's actions were always driven by his rigid philosophical principles. [Insight] Ultimately, neither approach alone proved sufficient to save the Republic from those willing to use both ideas and force.

❌ Don't Write These Conclusions:

"In conclusion..." ❌ We know it's the conclusion
Exact repeat of introduction ❌ Add new insight
"Both sides have good points" ❌ Make a judgement
New evidence or arguments ❌ Too late for new points

How to Write PEEL Paragraphs

PEEL is your paragraph structure. Every paragraph in a 20-marker (and 30-marker) should follow this pattern:

PEEL Formula

P + E + E + L

Point → Evidence → Explain → Link

P = POINT (Topic Sentence)

Your topic sentence makes ONE clear argument that answers the question. It should be a mini-thesis for this paragraph.

Topic Sentence Formula

Formula: [Person/Factor] + [Action/Quality] + [Connection to Question]

Example Topic Sentences:

[GOOD] "Cicero's development of concordia ordinum demonstrates his focus on ideas rather than direct action."

[GOOD] "Caesar's accumulation of unprecedented powers in 44 BC made assassination appear necessary to Republicans."

[BAD] "Cicero was an important figure." ❌ Too vague, doesn't make an argument

[BAD] "I will now discuss patronage." ❌ Announces rather than argues

E = EVIDENCE (Historical Facts)

Give specific historical evidence that proves your point. This must include precise details.

Evidence Checklist

✓ Names of people

✓ Dates or time periods

✓ Specific events or actions

✓ Latin terms where relevant

✓ Examples or quotations (if source-based)

Example Evidence:

[GOOD] "In his letters to Atticus during the 50s BC, Cicero repeatedly urged his friend to persuade others rather than taking direct military or political action himself. He advocated for concordia ordinum—harmony between the orders—believing philosophical argument would restore Republican values."

[BAD] "Cicero wrote letters where he talked about his ideas." ❌ Too vague, no specifics

E = EXPLAIN (Analysis)

This is the most important part. Explain HOW your evidence proves your point and answers the question. Don't just describe—analyse.

Explanation Starters

"This demonstrates that..."

"This reveals..."

"This shows..."

"The significance of this is..."

"This illustrates how..."

"Therefore..."

Example Explanation:

[GOOD] "This demonstrates Cicero's conviction that persuasion through rhetoric was more powerful than force. He believed if he could convince people intellectually of Republican values, they would act correctly. This approach prioritised ideas and philosophy over the direct political or military action that characterised figures like Cato."

[BAD] "This shows Cicero liked ideas." ❌ Too simple, doesn't analyse HOW or WHY

L = LINK (Back to Question)

Link back to the question or forward to your next point. This keeps your argument flowing.

Link Starters

"However, this approach proved..."

"This supports the view that..."

"Yet this must be balanced against..."

"Nevertheless..."

"By contrast..."

Example Link:

[GOOD] "However, this idealistic approach proved ineffective when facing the realpolitik of Caesar and Pompey's power struggle, suggesting Cicero's emphasis on ideas had practical limitations."

[BAD] "This is about Cicero's ideas." ❌ Just restates, doesn't link forward or add insight

Complete PEEL Paragraph Example

Question: "Cicero was a man of ideas, Cato was a man of action." Assess this view.

[POINT] Cicero's development of concordia ordinum demonstrates his focus on ideas rather than direct action.

[EVIDENCE] In his letters to Atticus during the 50s BC, Cicero repeatedly urged his friend to persuade others rather than taking direct military or political action himself. He advocated for concordia ordinum—harmony between the orders—believing philosophical argument would restore Republican values. His writings, including De Re Publica, prioritised political theory over practical implementation.

[EXPLAIN] This demonstrates Cicero's conviction that persuasion through rhetoric was more powerful than force. He believed if he could convince people intellectually of Republican values, they would act correctly. This approach prioritised ideas and philosophy over the direct political or military action that characterised figures like Cato, making the statement accurate in Cicero's case.

[LINK] However, this idealistic approach proved ineffective when facing the realpolitik of Caesar and Pompey's power struggle, suggesting Cicero's emphasis on ideas had practical limitations.

Common PEEL Mistakes

❌ Weak Paragraphs

No clear topic sentence
Vague evidence ("some people", "around this time")
Just describing, not explaining
No link back to question
Too short (under 4 sentences)

✓ Strong Paragraphs

Clear argument in first sentence
Specific names, dates, events
Explains HOW evidence answers question
Links to next point or question
Substantial (6-8 sentences)

🎯 PEEL Paragraph Checklist

☐ P: First sentence makes clear argument answering question?

☐ E: Specific evidence with names/dates/events?

☐ E: Explained HOW evidence proves the point?

☐ L: Linked back to question or forward to next point?

☐ Paragraph is 6-8 sentences long?

What Makes a Strong 20-Marker?

✓ Do This:

Have a clear argument
Balance both sides
Use specific examples
Explain how evidence supports points
Link paragraphs together
Reach a clear judgement

❌ Don't Do This:

Sit on the fence
Just describe events
Use vague generalisations
Write narrative/story
Ignore parts of question
End without conclusion

Essential Scholars: What You Need to Know

You don't need to memorise dozens of scholars. These 5 key historians cover most Late Republic topics, and their arguments can be applied to multiple essay questions.

⚠️ Remember

For 30-markers, you MUST cite at least 2-3 scholars by name somewhere in your essay. You don't need scholars in every paragraph—just weave them in where relevant. You don't need word-for-word quotes—just engage with their ideas.

1. Ronald Syme — "It's About Personal Networks, Not Ideology"

Key Book: The Roman Revolution (1939)

The Republic wasn't destroyed by ideology or a broken system—it was replaced by one man (Augustus) who built a network of personal supporters. Politics was about amicitia (friendship networks), family connections, and personal ambition—NOT about genuine political principles.

Syme's Main Arguments:

What He Says

Labels like populares and optimates are misleading
Politics was about personal connections, not ideology
Politicians were opportunists pursuing power
The Republic was replaced, not restored

Use Him For Questions About

Factional politics (populares/optimates)
Individual ambition vs principles
Patronage and amicitia
Why the Republic collapsed

How to Cite Syme:

"Syme argues in The Roman Revolution that labels like populares obscure rather than reveal political reality, suggesting Caesar's populism was opportunistic rather than ideological."

2. H.H. Scullard — "Traditional Political History"

Key Book: From the Gracchi to Nero (1959)

More traditional narrative historian. Focuses on political events, individual actions, and constitutional breakdown. Sees the Republic's collapse as a gradual process caused by specific crises and failures of leadership.

Scullard's Main Arguments:

What He Says

Republic collapsed through specific crises
Constitutional norms were gradually eroded
Individual actions mattered (Gracchi, Sulla, etc.)
Focus on political and military events

Use Him For Questions About

Specific events (Gracchi, Sulla, civil wars)
Constitutional breakdown
Individual responsibility
Narrative of Republic's decline

How to Cite Scullard:

"Scullard provides a traditional narrative, emphasising how the Gracchi's reforms began a pattern of bypassing senatorial authority that would ultimately undermine Republican institutions."

3. Erich Gruen — "The Republic Wasn't Doomed"

Key Book: The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (1974)

Challenges the idea that the Republic was inevitably collapsing. Argues the Republic was functioning reasonably well until the 50s BC, and its fall wasn't predetermined—it was the result of specific circumstances and individuals (especially Caesar).

Gruen's Main Arguments:

What He Says

Republic wasn't in terminal decline
System was adapting and functioning
Fall wasn't inevitable—contingent on events
Caesar's actions were decisive, not symptomatic

Use Him For Questions About

Whether collapse was inevitable
System vs individuals debate
Caesar's responsibility
Offering counter-arguments to determinism

How to Cite Gruen:

"Gruen challenges the deterministic view, arguing that the Republic was not in terminal decline but was undermined by Caesar's specific actions in the 50s and 40s BC, making the collapse contingent rather than inevitable."

4. Tom Holland — "Cultural and Social Forces"

Key Book: Rubicon (2003)

Popular historian who emphasises cultural values, moral decline, and how Roman virtues (virtus, dignitas) became weaponised. More accessible narrative style that connects personal ambition with broader cultural shifts.

Holland's Main Arguments:

What He Says

Roman values became destructive
Competition for gloria destabilised Republic
Cultural factors as important as political
Personal honour drove political violence

Use Him For Questions About

Political ideals (dignitas, virtus)
Cultural explanations for collapse
Personal ambition and honour
Moral and social factors

How to Cite Holland:

"Holland emphasises how Roman values like dignitas became weaponised, with figures like Caesar pursuing glory to the point where personal ambition overwhelmed constitutional restraint."

5. Mary Beard — "Complexity and Nuance"

Key Book: SPQR (2015)

Modern historian emphasising complexity—warns against simple explanations. Stresses that we're viewing the Republic through limited sources (especially Cicero), and Roman politics was more messy and contested than neat narratives suggest.

Beard's Main Arguments:

What She Says

Avoid simplistic explanations
Our sources are biased (Cicero-heavy)
Roman politics was messier than we think
Multiple perspectives matter

Use Her For Questions About

Source reliability (esp. Cicero's letters)
Historiographical debate
Showing sophisticated analysis
Acknowledging complexity

How to Cite Beard:

"Beard cautions against viewing Cicero's letters as straightforward reflections of his beliefs, noting that our Cicero-dominated sources create a potentially misleading picture of late Republican politics."

Quick Scholar Matching Guide

Essay Topic	Best Scholar(s) to Use
Populares vs optimates	Syme (labels misleading) + Scullard (traditional view)
Was collapse inevitable?	Gruen (not inevitable) vs Scullard (gradual decline)
Patronage and amicitia	Syme (personal networks key)
Cicero's letters/beliefs	Beard (source criticism) + Syme (self-interest)
Political ideals (dignitas, etc.)	Holland (cultural values) + Syme (opportunism)
Individual vs system	Gruen (individuals) vs Scullard (system breaking)
Caesar's responsibility	Gruen (decisive actor) vs Syme (symptom of system)

How to Use Scholars in Essays

✓ Good Practice:

Name them: "Syme argues..." or "According to Gruen..."
Engage with their ideas: Don't just name-drop
Evaluate them: "This is convincing because..." or "However, this overlooks..."
Use 2-3 per essay: Aim for 2 minimum, 3 is great, more than 4 is unnecessary
Weave them in naturally: You don't need one in every paragraph
Contrast them: "While Syme emphasises X, Gruen suggests Y..."

❌ Bad Practice:

No scholars at all – automatic mark cap on 30-markers
Just listing names – "Syme, Scullard and Gruen all wrote about this"
Making up views – only cite what you actually know
Accepting uncritically – always evaluate their arguments
Exact quotes – you don't need word-for-word quotes, paraphrase their ideas

💡 Remember: Start With These Core Scholars

Syme = personal networks
Scullard = traditional narrative
Gruen = not inevitable
Holland = cultural values
Beard = complexity & sources

Learn one key idea from each. That's enough to cite 2-3 per essay. Mix and match them depending on the question. You don't need to memorise books or dates—just their main arguments.

Additional Scholars (If You Want More)

The 5 above cover most topics. But here are a few more you might encounter:

Matthias Gelzer — The Roman Nobility

Key idea: Politics controlled by narrow aristocratic elite. Emphasises importance of nobilitas and how a small group of families monopolised power. Use for questions about social hierarchy and exclusion from politics.

Christian Meier — Caesar

Key idea: Caesar as a "crisis without alternative"—the Republic had no mechanisms to resolve the political deadlock, making Caesar's dominance almost necessary. Use for questions about Caesar's responsibility vs systemic failure.

Lily Ross Taylor — Party Politics in the Age of Caesar

Key idea: Argues that populares and optimates were genuine political groupings with real ideological differences (contra Syme). Use when arguing FOR the significance of factional labels.

Andrew Lintott — The Constitution of the Roman Republic

Key idea: Focus on constitutional mechanisms and how Republican institutions actually functioned. More technical/legal approach. Use for questions about constitutional breakdown and institutional failure.

Henrik Mouritsen — Plebs and Politics

Key idea: Questions how much the common people (plebs) actually participated in or influenced politics. Argues most Romans were politically passive. Use for questions about popular politics and the role of the people.

Don't Panic About These

The 5 core scholars are enough. These extras are just if you want more options or if your teacher has emphasised specific ones. Stick with 2-3 scholars per essay—quality over quantity.

30-Marker Essay: The Task

Section B: Choose Question 8 OR 9. This is your showcase essay—where you demonstrate depth and sophistication.

Typical Questions:

"'The period was like a stage play with only two groups: populares and optimates.' Evaluate..."
"'Cicero's letters in no way reflect his true beliefs.' Evaluate..."

⚠️ CRITICAL REQUIREMENT

YOU MUST USE SCHOLARS. You cannot get top marks without citing historians (Syme, Scullard, Gruen, etc.) by name. This is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

Time & Structure

Time Available	30-35 minutes
Planning Time	4-5 minutes
Target Length	700-850 words
Structure	Full intro + 5-6 paragraphs + Full conclusion

The Formula

INTRO + (PEEL + SCHOLARS) × 5-6 + CONCLUSION

Every paragraph needs scholarly citation

Planning (4-5 Minutes)

Formulate nuanced argument.

Brainstorm 5-6 points alternating perspectives.

Think which 2-3 scholars you'll cite in the essay.

Plan specific primary evidence for each paragraph.

Sample Plan

Argument: Labels provide partial framework but politics more complex

1. Populares visible (Caesar, Clodius) + evidence + scholar

2. Optimates defended tradition (Cato) + evidence + scholar

3. Cicero complicates binary + evidence + scholar

4. First Triumvirate superseded factions + evidence + Syme

5. Syme: labels obscure personal ambition + evidence

6. Yet terminology remained meaningful + counter-evidence

Essay Structure

Introduction (3-4 sentences)

State argument with context. Show this will be balanced and nuanced.

While populares and optimates provide a useful framework, the reality was far more complex. Politics involved multiple actors—individuals like Pompey who defied categorisation, patronage networks, and personal ambition that superseded ideology. The 'stage play' metaphor is therefore overly simplistic.

Body Paragraphs (5-6 × PEEL)

Each paragraph: Point → Evidence → Explain → Link. Weave in 2-3 scholarly citations throughout the essay (not necessarily one per paragraph).

Example Paragraph:

[Topic] The populares faction is visible through Caesar and Clodius, who appealed to the people via tribunes. [Evidence] Caesar's 59 BC consulship saw him bypass the Senate with his land bill. [Scholar] However, Syme argues in The Roman Revolution that these labels obscure reality, suggesting Caesar's populism was opportunistic. [Evaluation] This is compelling when we consider Caesar later accumulated dictatorial powers contradicting popularis principles. [Counter] Yet the terminology remained meaningful—Cicero distinguished between boni and demagogues in correspondence.

Conclusion (4-5 sentences)

Evaluative judgement with sophistication. Acknowledge complexity.

While populares and optimates provide partial framework, late Republican politics involved multiple actors. Syme's prosopographical approach reveals webs of amicitia behind factional rhetoric. However, labels retained ideological significance for participants. The 'stage play' metaphor is too simplistic—Roman politics was less scripted drama, more chaotic improvisation with multiple performers.

Using Scholars

Key Scholars to Know:

Main Scholars

Ronald Syme – networks over ideology
H.H. Scullard – traditional narrative
Erich Gruen – Republic not doomed
Tom Holland – cultural factors

How to Cite

"Syme argues..."
"According to Scullard..."
"Gruen suggests..."
"Holland emphasises..."
"Modern scholarship..."

❌ Scholar Mistakes:

Not using any – caps your mark
Just name-dropping – must engage with ideas
Accepting uncritically – evaluate their arguments
Making up views – only cite what you know

20-Marker vs 30-Marker

Feature	20-Marker	30-Marker
Introduction	2-3 sentences, state view	3-4 sentences, nuanced argument
Paragraphs	4-5 paragraphs	5-6 paragraphs
Scholars	❌ NOT NEEDED (won't gain marks)	✅ REQUIRED (2-3 minimum)
Depth	Good analysis	Perceptive, sophisticated
Conclusion	2-3 sentences, clear judgement	4-5 sentences, evaluative + nuanced
Length	450-600 words	700-850 words

⚠️ Don't Waste Time on Scholars in 20-Markers!

Save your scholar knowledge for the 30-marker where it actually counts. In 20-markers, focus on your own analysis and historical evidence—you won't gain any extra marks for mentioning historians.