Jump to content

History Essay Structure


lemon

Recommended Posts

I'm really lost on how to structure my history essay. How many body paragraphs is recommended? My history teacher always tells me to write two really detailed body paragraphs, but I'm just curious how everyone else structure theirs.

Edited by lemon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Red XII

I write a brief introduction with a thesis, then anywhere from 3 to 5 body paragraphs (depending on the question and time). I incorporate historiography in each of the body paragraphs, but when the topic allows, I write an additional body paragraph focusing specifically on historiography. This is either the 4th or 5th body paragraph. I finish with a conclusion that recaps the body paragraphs, orders them in terms of historical importance or impact, and briefly addresses the implications or significance of the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience best structure is with three paragraphs. I don't know why but this is like a magic number that works in every topic. And if you have a good topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph it is easy to remember the whole essay if you prepare for paper 2,3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The major number is indeed 3 in terms of body paragraphs, but sometimes 2 or 4 is simply better suited to the task.

For example, I don't think my hand is anatomically capable of writing 3 paragraphs for all of my P3 (nor my brain, for that matter.)

Also, most if not all university-level position papers include a paragraph or two of counter-claim after the thesis statement, to address the most obvious concerns with the position the paper takes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I write a brief introduction with a thesis, then anywhere from 3 to 5 body paragraphs (depending on the question and time). I incorporate historiography in each of the body paragraphs, but when the topic allows, I write an additional body paragraph focusing specifically on historiography. This is either the 4th or 5th body paragraph. I finish with a conclusion that recaps the body paragraphs, orders them in terms of historical importance or impact, and briefly addresses the implications or significance of the topic.

Historiography is a massive weak point for me, incorporating it in every paragraph as well as devoting an entire paragraph to it is way too ambitious a task for me to master before tomorrow's exam. But would you possibly be able to post an example body paragraph from one of your essays showing how you incorporate it in a paragraph? Or even just summarize like a point and then what historiography is appropriate! Please please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

An example from one of my essays which got 17/20 from my teacher to show integrating historiography:

"More important than any other short-term factor in both revolutions was the First World War. Indeed, Morris notes that the suffering caused by the war, rather than ideological conflict, were direct causes of February."

"Some historians such as Katkov state that without the war even the Russian monarchy would have survived. Taking into account the cataclysmic effects throughout Europe, this may well be the case. Most notably, the coercive power of the state through the army and the police was completely destroyed by the failure of Russia to cope with wartime pressures; this meant that, unlike in 1905, the uprisings could not be put down through armed forces. Indeed it appears that both regimes were wholly unwilling to even defend their claims to power. Still, it seems that, as Stone states, by 1917 Russia was suffering from an “institutional crisis”, and taking into account the growing political unrest in 1910-1914 (as shown by the Lena Goldfields incident which reseaved widespread publicity), it may well be that without a drastic policy change, the Russian autocracy was doomed to fail."

So you can use both historiography that you agree with, and that you don't agree with. Refutation probably seems even more impressive to the examiner (a good one for Hitler is Neumann's view that he was a "pawn of big business" -> his rise was due to capitalism, can refute by saying that he only started receiving big business funds after already taking power).

The best thing you can do now really is to learn a few historians for every topic you have studied that you can use on almost any essay - naturally depending on which topics you're doing. If you tell me what your topics are I can write some of my lists here if we share any.

3 body paragraphs seems very little to me to be honest. For example on a general essay on Weimar Germany's failure I'd probably write one for its origins, one for the constitution, one for economic problems, one for political problems, one to discuss the golden age of Weimar, and one to discuss more specific factors (role of personality, political intrigue, etc) - in addition to introduction and conclusion. This is probaly more a matter of personal preference than anything else really.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many answer sheets do you use for paper 2 or 3 for each essay?

Btw how on earth could you get 17/20 from this essay. In my school you would easily get 19-20 and I think that on papers it would also be higher...

Edited by Polo
Link to post
Share on other sites

An example from one of my essays which got 17/20 from my teacher to show integrating historiography:

"More important than any other short-term factor in both revolutions was the First World War. Indeed, Morris notes that the suffering caused by the war, rather than ideological conflict, were direct causes of February."

"Some historians such as Katkov state that without the war even the Russian monarchy would have survived. Taking into account the cataclysmic effects throughout Europe, this may well be the case. Most notably, the coercive power of the state through the army and the police was completely destroyed by the failure of Russia to cope with wartime pressures; this meant that, unlike in 1905, the uprisings could not be put down through armed forces. Indeed it appears that both regimes were wholly unwilling to even defend their claims to power. Still, it seems that, as Stone states, by 1917 Russia was suffering from an “institutional crisis”, and taking into account the growing political unrest in 1910-1914 (as shown by the Lena Goldfields incident which reseaved widespread publicity), it may well be that without a drastic policy change, the Russian autocracy was doomed to fail."

So you can use both historiography that you agree with, and that you don't agree with. Refutation probably seems even more impressive to the examiner (a good one for Hitler is Neumann's view that he was a "pawn of big business" -> his rise was due to capitalism, can refute by saying that he only started receiving big business funds after already taking power).

The best thing you can do now really is to learn a few historians for every topic you have studied that you can use on almost any essay - naturally depending on which topics you're doing. If you tell me what your topics are I can write some of my lists here if we share any.

3 body paragraphs seems very little to me to be honest. For example on a general essay on Weimar Germany's failure I'd probably write one for its origins, one for the constitution, one for economic problems, one for political problems, one to discuss the golden age of Weimar, and one to discuss more specific factors (role of personality, political intrigue, etc) - in addition to introduction and conclusion. This is probaly more a matter of personal preference than anything else really.

Ah. Historiography is possibly one of my biggest concerns at the moment. I think I have more than enough for Single-party states, but clearly not for causes, practices, and effects of wars.

Could you share some of the lists you have on WW1, WW2 and the Spanish Civil War? If you have any, that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just putting it out there, but, English HL allows TWO HOURS to answer ONE QUESTION...History HL there is only an extra HALF hour to answer THREE QUESTIONS. I'm seeing discrepancies here. And my hand aches thinking about Friday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't do the Spanish Civil War, but:

WWI

Fay: Writing straight after WWI, going against the war guilt of Versailles. A complex assortment of causes, no one country is responsible for the outbreak. (Secret alliances; militarism; nationalism; imperialism; the press)

Joll: Concentric circles model. Emphasises the conflict between the military and the civilian leaders in eg. Germany - on 28-31 July decisions were too fast paced for diplomats as they were made by the soldiers. Does not view alliances as very important, but they conditioned both attitudes and battle plans. Imperialism and the arms race contributed to the mood of 1914 which, in turn, made conflict increasingly likely. Rejects Fischer's primacy of the domestic policy thesis; states that there's no evidence to support the view that the war was started deliberately with these in mind.

Fischer: Fischer thesis is very influential and pretty much the consensus today. Germany was planning an aggressive war in her bid for world power (September Programme in 1914 determined the war aims, seen as evidence for this) before Russia could get too strong. This was a result of domestic policy factors such as the rise of socialism (SDP won 1/3 seats in the Reichstag) as much as foreign policy. A continuity between aims of Hitler and pre-1914 leaders. Thus Germany is to blame for WWI!

Ritter: Writing against Fischer. Germany did not plan for war; rather, the foreign policy had a high risk of war. Needed to maintain Austria-Hungary (in decline) as an ally, and Austria-Hungary had a strong internal need for war to curb Serb nationalism. Seems to consider the German responsibility in broadly similar terms as Joll.

Taylor: Views the war as more an accident than anything else, but the German want for supremacy was very decisive. Sees the attack plans and the railway timetables as very important in making the conflict inevitable in the last days of July 1914;

If you need to choose two, choose Fay and Fischer. Could always throw in someone who blames capitalism/imperialism as well (such as Lenin). There's tons more (eg. Ferguson who blames Britain, and Hillgruber who states that Germany took a risk very similar to those in Morocco in 1905 and 1911 to break up the entente but clearly failed).

WWII is much more simple...

Hugh Trevor-Roper: Represents the intentionalist school in interpreting Hitler's foreign policy; he had a definite programme that he'd outlined in Mein Kampf and in the 1937 Hossbach Memorandum that he carried on intentionally, leading to a world war. Hitler and Germany are to blame for WWII.

AJP Taylor: The opposing, functionalist school. Hitler reacted to circumstances after 1933 which led to war. Thus international diplomacy is as much to blame as Germany, he was an opportunist and an improviser. Hitler was an ordinary German statesman (Sonderweg thesis), so elements of his aims such as Lebensraum can be traced back to the 2nd Reich. This is the Sonderweg thesis, so German history produced Hitler.

Parker: Blames the appeasement and Chamberlain for making WWII possible as it ensured that Britain and France were in a weak position. Quite easy to refute; just refer to the domestic policy factors, pacifism, and the belief that Hitler was a logical statesman.

Also note the Thirty Years' War thesis according to which WWII was a continuation of WWI. Could emphasise Versailles and other results of WWI as well as continuation of policy, but also quite easy to refute by referring to the changed political & economic situation, ideologies, etc.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't do the Spanish Civil War, but:

WWI

Fay: Writing straight after WWI, going against the war guilt of Versailles. A complex assortment of causes, no one country is responsible for the outbreak. (Secret alliances; militarism; nationalism; imperialism; the press)

Joll: Concentric circles model. Emphasises the conflict between the military and the civilian leaders in eg. Germany - on 28-31 July decisions were too fast paced for diplomats as they were made by the soldiers. Does not view alliances as very important, but they conditioned both attitudes and battle plans. Imperialism and the arms race contributed to the mood of 1914 which, in turn, made conflict increasingly likely. Rejects Fischer's primacy of the domestic policy thesis; states that there's no evidence to support the view that the war was started deliberately with these in mind.

Fischer: Fischer thesis is very influential and pretty much the consensus today. Germany was planning an aggressive war in her bid for world power (September Programme in 1914 determined the war aims, seen as evidence for this) before Russia could get too strong. This was a result of domestic policy factors such as the rise of socialism (SDP won 1/3 seats in the Reichstag) as much as foreign policy. A continuity between aims of Hitler and pre-1914 leaders. Thus Germany is to blame for WWI!

Ritter: Writing against Fischer. Germany did not plan for war; rather, the foreign policy had a high risk of war. Needed to maintain Austria-Hungary (in decline) as an ally, and Austria-Hungary had a strong internal need for war to curb Serb nationalism. Seems to consider the German responsibility in broadly similar terms as Joll.

Taylor: Views the war as more an accident than anything else, but the German want for supremacy was very decisive. Sees the attack plans and the railway timetables as very important in making the conflict inevitable in the last days of July 1914;

If you need to choose two, choose Fay and Fischer. Could always throw in someone who blames capitalism/imperialism as well (such as Lenin). There's tons more (eg. Ferguson who blames Britain, and Hillgruber who states that Germany took a risk very similar to those in Morocco in 1905 and 1911 to break up the entente but clearly failed).

WWII is much more simple...

Hugh Trevor-Roper: Represents the intentionalist school in interpreting Hitler's foreign policy; he had a definite programme that he'd outlined in Mein Kampf and in the 1937 Hossbach Memorandum that he carried on intentionally, leading to a world war. Hitler and Germany are to blame for WWII.

AJP Taylor: The opposing, functionalist school. Hitler reacted to circumstances after 1933 which led to war. Thus international diplomacy is as much to blame as Germany, he was an opportunist and an improviser. Hitler was an ordinary German statesman (Sonderweg thesis), so elements of his aims such as Lebensraum can be traced back to the 2nd Reich. This is the Sonderweg thesis, so German history produced Hitler.

Parker: Blames the appeasement and Chamberlain for making WWII possible as it ensured that Britain and France were in a weak position. Quite easy to refute; just refer to the domestic policy factors, pacifism, and the belief that Hitler was a logical statesman.

Also note the Thirty Years' War thesis according to which WWII was a continuation of WWI. Could emphasise Versailles and other results of WWI as well as continuation of policy, but also quite easy to refute by referring to the changed political & economic situation, ideologies, etc.

Cynthia, you are a life savior. Thank you!

But could you explain a bit more why Parker's view on WW2 is so easy to refute?

And out of curiosity, what other topic are you doing for Paper 2?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! I've actually done the wars for P3, so my actual topics are the Cold War and the single party state option :)

Certainly, this is a good way for me to revise as well. Basically,

  1. Many historians now think that Chamberlain viewed Hitler's aims as limited, and it's quite impossible to say if Hitler was planning the kind of total war he finally embarked on without the benefit of hindsight. The "totalitarian" nature of his foreign policy, then, couldn't have been guessed by statesmen of the 1930s; he was seen as rational in his aims. So, even though Chamberlain's actions now seem irrational, they were actually the best thing to do with the information he had at the time.
  2. Following WWI and its effect both materially and in destroying the optimism and prevailing mood in Europe, as well as in changing the political order (revolution and successor states) war was an increasingly unpopular option in both Britain and France. As both countries were democratic, this aspect of public opinion influenced foreign policy decisions as any government that pursued aggressive or risky foreign policy was likely to be unpopular. Indeed, appeasement was very popular at the time, and many especially in Britain saw Hitler's revisionism as to some extent justified. On the other hand, people had faith in the ability of the League of Nations to preserve peace.
  3. Economic and political problems in both countries following WWI and especially the Great Depression made rearmament difficult to do and appeasement may have won Britain and France time. The Great Depression also increased the willingness to focus on domestic matters such as the economy rather than foreign policy.

Edited by Cynthia
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! I've actually done the wars for P3, so my actual topics are the Cold War and the single party state option :)

Certainly, this is a good way for me to revise as well. Basically,

  1. Many historians now think that Chamberlain viewed Hitler's aims as limited, and it's quite impossible to say if Hitler was planning the kind of total war he finally embarked on without the benefit of hindsight. The "totalitarian" nature of his foreign policy, then, couldn't have been guessed by statesmen of the 1930s; he was seen as rational in his aims. So, even though Chamberlain's actions now seem irrational, they were actually the best thing to do with the information he had at the time.
  2. Following WWI and its effect both materially and in destroying the optimism and prevailing mood in Europe, as well as in changing the political order (revolution and successor states) war was an increasingly unpopular option in both Britain and France. As both countries were democratic, this aspect of public opinion influenced foreign policy decisions as any government that pursued aggressive or risky foreign policy was likely to be unpopular. Indeed, appeasement was very popular at the time, and many especially in Britain saw Hitler's revisionism as to some extent justified. On the other hand, people had faith in the ability of the League of Nations to preserve peace.
  3. Economic and political problems in both countries following WWI and especially the Great Depression made rearmament difficult to do and appeasement may have won Britain and France time. The Great Depression also increased the willingness to focus on domestic matters such as the economy rather than foreign policy.

Cynthia, after seeing this thread, I have much more hope on how am I going to improve :P

historiography is always something that I have totally no clue at all..

I want to know how do you get all these historians commenting on wars/events? Do you get them from books or from web? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynthia, after seeing this thread, I have much more hope on how am I going to improve :P

historiography is always something that I have totally no clue at all..

I want to know how do you get all these historians commenting on wars/events? Do you get them from books or from web? :o

I'm happy to hear that! Both books and the web - if you've got a good textbook they've often got the most important debates outlined as well. You might also went to check out this topic :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynthia, after seeing this thread, I have much more hope on how am I going to improve :P

historiography is always something that I have totally no clue at all..

I want to know how do you get all these historians commenting on wars/events? Do you get them from books or from web? :o

I'm happy to hear that! Both books and the web - if you've got a good textbook they've often got the most important debates outlined as well. You might also went to check out this topic :-)

Thanks! :)

Another question,,

Do you study China's history?

I've came across the Chinese Civil War. With this for example, are there any historiography to mention about?

As well as Mao Ze-Dong, I have no clue when can I use historiography..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! :)

Another question,,

Do you study China's history?

I've came across the Chinese Civil War. With this for example, are there any historiography to mention about?

As well as Mao Ze-Dong, I have no clue when can I use historiography..

When writing about any aspect within the China history course, there are usually 5 perspectives/schools of thought to consider:

1. Chinese official/primary sources

2. Pro-Guomindang (GMD) and later Cold War attitudes 1930s-1980s

3. Western, liberal sympathetic views 1930s – 1980s

4. Literature of the wounded/scar literature since the death of Mao in 1976

5. Revisionist historians since the 1980s

Each school of though will have a slightly different perspective on the Chinese Civil War. If you can find five books which represent each of these schools of thought you will be able to integrate these different perspectives into your essay. For example, "Mao: the Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday is an example of scare literature; works by Edgar Snow are considered to be western liberal sympathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Structuring everything thematically seems to work well for me. I also always try to challenge the assertion towards the conclusion. Another thing that I've found useful is organizing organically as opposed to writing by a set format. It looks more analytical and shows a more sophisticated level of writing. I really think using a lot of paragraphs is a good idea as well. It allows you to consider more perspectives and seem well balanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...