Ancient History 2019 v1.2 IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

171553

Ancient History

2019 v1.2

IA3 mid

-level annotated sample response

October 2018

Investigation

— historical essay based on research (25%)

This sample has been compiled by

the QCAA to assist and support teachers to match evidence

in student responses to the characteristics described in the instrument

-specific marking guide

(ISMG).

Assessment objectives

This assessment instrument is used to determine student achievement in th

e following

objectives:

comprehend terms, concepts and issues in relation to a topic focused on people, power and

authority in the Ancient World

devise historical questions and conduct research in relation to a topic focused on people,

power and authority in a particular period in the Ancient World

analyse evidence from historical sources to show understanding in relation to a topic

focused on the nature of power and how it was exercised in the Ancient World

synthesise evidence from historical sources to form a historical argument in relation to a

topic focused on a powerful individual, group or society in the Ancient World

evaluate evidence from historical sources to make judgments in relation to a topic focused

on people, power and authority in the Ancient World

create a historical essay based on research that communicates meaning to suit purpose in

relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World.

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 2 of 9

Instrument-specific marking guide (ISMG)

Criterion: Comprehending

Assessment objective

1. comprehend terms, concepts and issues in relation to a topic focused on people, power and

authority in the Ancient World

The student work has the following characteristics:

Marks

• thorough and mostly accurate use of terms placed into historical contexts

• detailed explanation of issues related to the key inquiry question

• informed understanding of the relationship between concepts and a variety of ideas

developed in response to the key inquiry question.

3–4

• appropriate use of terms placed into historical contexts

• adequate explanation of issues related to the key inquiry question

• reasonable understanding of the relationship between concepts and the key inquiry

question.

• partial, fragmented or mostly inaccurate use of a term or terms

• rudimentary explanation of an issue or issues

• superficial understanding of the link between a concept or concepts and the key inquiry

question or topic.

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.

Criterion: Devising and conducting

Assessment objective

2. devise historical questions and conduct research in relation to a topic focused on people,

power and authority in a particular period in the Ancient World

The student work has the following characteristics:

Marks

• discerning use of historical questions by creating a nuanced key inquiry question

• detailed use of historical research by using evidence from primary and secondary sources

that demonstrate application of the key inquiry question and hypothesis

• selection of evidence from primary and secondary sources that offer different perspectives.

• appropriate use of historical questions by creating a key inquiry question

• adequate use of historical research by using evidence from primary or secondary sources

that demonstrate application of the key inquiry question or hypothesis

• selection of evidence from primary or secondary sources that offer perspectives.

• partial or fragmented use of historical questions by creating a key inquiry question that is

irrelevant, non-historical or vague

• rudimentary use of historical research by using evidence from a source that relates to the

key inquiry question or non-historical statements

•

selection of a source or sources that offer a perspective.

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 3 of 9

Criterion: Analysing

Assessment objective

3. analyse evidence from historical sources to show understanding in relation to a topic focused

on the nature of power and how it was exercised in the Ancient World

The student work has the following characteristics:

Marks

• discerning use of the features of evidence from primary and secondary sources

• detailed examination of the features of evidence from sources

• informed explanation about how evidence from primary and secondary sources contributes

to the development of the key inquiry question and hypothesis.

3–4

• appropriate use of the features of evidence from sources

• adequate examination of the features of evidence from sources

• reasonable explanation about how evidence from sources contributes to the development of

the key inquiry question or hypothesis.

• partial or fragmented identification of a feature of evidence from a source or sources

• rudimentary examination of a feature of evidence from a source or sources

• superficial explanation about how evidence from a source or sources relate to the key

inquiry question, hypothesis or the topic.

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.

Criterion: Synthesising

Assessment objective

4. synthesise evidence from historical sources to form a historical argument in relation to a topic

focused on a powerful individual, group or society in the Ancient World

The student work has the following characteristics:

Marks

• combination of information from sources to justify insightful decisions

• combination of information from sources to support a sophisticated historical argument

• these combinations use evidence from primary and secondary sources.

3–4

• combination of information from sources to justify reasonable decisions

• combination of information from sources to support a basic historical argument

• these combinations use evidence from primary or secondary sources.

• combination of information from a source or sources relates to a partial or fragmented

decision

• combination of information from a source or sources relates to a superficial or rudimentary

historical argument or a non-historical argument

• these combinations use evidence from a source.

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 4 of 9

Criterion: Evaluating

Assessment objective

5. evaluate evidence from historical sources to make judgments in relation to a topic focused on

people, power and authority in the Ancient World

The student work has the following characteristics:

Marks

• discerning judgments about usefulness and reliability

• these judgments use evidence from primary and secondary sources and/or refer to different

perspectives

• these judgments are well-reasoned and corroborated.

5–6

• adequate judgments about usefulness and/or reliability

• these judgments use evidence from sources and/or refer to perspectives

• these judgments are appropriate and corroborated.

3–4

• partial or fragmented statement/s about usefulness and/or reliability

• these statements use evidence from a source and/or refer to a perspective

• these statements are inconsistent, superficial or vague.

1–2

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.

Criterion: Creating and communicating

Assessment objective

6. create a historical essay based on research that communicates meaning to suit purpose in

relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World

The student work has the following characteristics:

Marks

• succinct, with ideas related to the key inquiry question and hypothesis conveyed logically

• features of a historical essay based on research and ethical scholarship are consistently

demonstrated

• minimal errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation.

3–4

• conveys ideas related to the key inquiry question and/or hypothesis

• features of a historical essay based on research and ethical scholarship are demonstrated

• some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation.

• conveys ideas that are frequently unrelated to the key inquiry question

• features of a historical essay based on research are inconsistently demonstrated

• frequent errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation impede the communication of ideas.

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 5 of 9

Task

Context

You have been investigating the ancient society of Rome in the important historical period of the

Punic Wars. Your studies have had particular emphasis on the nature and exercise of power and

authority in Rome, and how it was challenged in times of conflict.

Task

Investigate an aspect of the Punic Wars and create a historical essay based on research

(1500–2000 words). Consider the focus of this unit on people, power and authority.

• Your investigation must reflect the application of key issues raised in our depth study.

Individuals and systems from both Rome and Carthage are viable aspects for study.

• Your historical essay must be based on research, and requires sustained analysis, evaluation

and synthesis of evidence from historical sources to fully support the hypothesis.

Sample response

Criterion

Marks allocated

Result

Comprehending

Assessment objective 1

4 2

Devising and conducting

Assessment objective 2

3 2

Analysing

Assessment objective 3

4 2

Synthesising

Assessment objective 4

4 2

Evaluating

Assessment objective 5

6 4

Creating and communicating

Assessment objective 6

4 2

Total

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 6 of 9

The annotations show the match to the instrument-specific marking guide (ISMG) performance-

level descriptors.

Devising and

conducting [2]

appropriate use of

historical questions by

creating a key inquiry

question

Historical questions

assessing the

development,

successes and

difficulties of the Roman

navy (body paragraphs)

are investigated to

answer the key inquiry

question about the

importance of the

Roman navy to victory

in the First Punic War.

Creating and

communicating [2]

features of a historical

essay based on

research and ethical

scholarship are

demonstrated

For example, the

introduction sets the

context, states the

hypothesis and outlines

the argument.

Comprehending [2]

thorough and mostly

accurate use of terms

placed into historical

contexts

For example, the first

two paragraphs show

accurate use of the

terms ‘Punic War’,

‘Carthaginians’ and

‘Mamertine Incident’.

adequate explanation

of issues related to the

key inquiry question

For example, this part of

the response explains

the issue of naval

power, but does not

provide details about the

competing strategic

interests of Rome and

Carthage.

How important was the Roman navy to the victory in the First Punic

War?

The First Punic War was a 23 year war between Rome and Carthage

between 264 BCE and 261 BCE. The Romans at the time wanting to have

control of Sicily but Carthage had the power there and was in control of

the sea in that area. The war was a clash of the two main powers in the

region, Rome finally won and Sicily became Rome’s first overseas

province. It is called the Punic Wars because this is from the name the

Romans used for them. Bradley explain that the Carthaginians originally

came from Phoenica and the Latin word for Phoencian was Punicus

(Bradley, 1990). The Roman navy was very important to the victory in the

First Punic War. The Romans put a lot of money and effort into building up

a navy that could win over the Carthaginians. The Romans were able to

defeat the Carthaginian navy in some very important battles. When the

Roman fleet was destroyed they were able to find the money to build a

new one. The Romans had the money to outlast the Carthaginians so the

navy was not the only reason for victory but it was very important.

Carthage was a great sea power based in North Africa near where the

modern city of Tunis is. The location provided access to the

Mediterranean Sea but was a protected anchorage and easy to defend

(Hunt). The Carthaginians were a trading power in the region. Rome had

control of the Italian peninsula at this time (Roebuck 1966). The map (see

appendix) shows where the Carthaginians controlled and the location of

Messana (close to Italy) and the city of Syracuse. The First Punic War

started with the Mamertine incident, when the Mamertines who had taken

over Messana were threatened by Syracuse and asked first the

Carthaginians and then the Romans for help (Mark, 2018, Bradley, 1990).

The Roman senate couldn’t decide so whether to get involved, so they

allowed the people in the assembly to vote. When Rome sent a force to

Messana to help, the Cartheginians were asked to leave and felt betrayed

by the Mamertines (Mark, 2018, Bradley, 1990). What started as a local

dispute in Messana led to the outbreak of war between Rome and

Carthage over who would have control of Sicily.

adequate use of historical research by using evidence from primary or secondary

sources that demonstrate application of the key inquiry question or hypothesis

Throughout the response, the quality and quantity of research is acceptable, using one key

ancient source and several modern secondary sources.

All the evidence located is relevant to the key inquiry question about the importance of the

Roman navy in the First Punic War.

selection of evidence from primary or secondary sources that offer perspectives

The response presents the perspective of one ancient historian and some modern secondary

sources.

Comprehending [2]

reasonable understanding of the relationship between concepts and the key inquiry

question

For example, the paragraph above demonstrates a reasonable understanding of cause and

effect, and significance, by suggesting how a local dispute can lead to a larger conflict.

However, it does not demonstrate an understanding of factors such as the Roman assembly’s

reasons for voting to accept the Mamertines into their alliance, or possible Carthaginian

ambitions.

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 7 of 9

Evaluating [4]

adequate judgments

about usefulness

and/or reliability

For example, this part of

the response makes a

determination that

Polybius is reliable

(with some explanation).

these judgments use

evidence from sources

and/or refer to

perspectives

For example, this part of

the response describes

Polybius’s methods

(citing Walbank), but

does not explain

Polybius’s perspective

on Rome.

Analysing [2]

appropriate use of the

features of evidence

from sources

This part of the

response identifies the

origin of most evidence

quoted and cited.

The response makes

use of explicit meanings

of evidence in sources

throughout, but seldom

identifies other features

of evidence (e.g. motive,

audience, perspective,

context, implicit

meanings).

Evaluating [4]

these judgments are

appropriate and

corroborated

This part of the

response notes that the

evidence from Polybius

is corroborated by a

military historian,

strengthening the

reliability of the

information.

Analysing [2]

adequate examination

of the features of

evidence from sources

This part of the

response examines the

explicit meanings of

evidence from Polybius

by paraphrasing and

quoting.

The main ancient source we have for the Punic Wars is Polybius who was

the Greek historian. He is a very reliable source through his detailed

books “The Histories”. There were 40 books but I-V are extant and the rest

are fragments found in other books (Walbank, 2018. Today historians

base a lot of their work on the “Histories” of Polybius where he wrote

about main events in Roman history. Book I talks about the First Punic

War. Polybius method of doing history is like modern historical methods.

Polybius regarded oral sources and the questioning of witnesses as the

most important part of a historian’s task. Polybius saw his task as a

historian was to collate documents, know relevant geographical features,

and understand politics. He travelled widely in the region and consulted

many Greek and Roman writers but he didn’t name them (Walbank,

2018). There is not much available from the Carthaginians as they were

the defeated ones and were destroyed at the end of the Third Punic War

in146 BCE. Bradley is a very reliable textbook writer and also provides

detailed information on the Punic Wars. Roebuck from Northwestern

University is a very reliable secondary source and text book writer about

the ancient world. These are some of the main sources on the First Punic

War.

The Romans realised they needed a good navy to defeat Carthage.

Carthage had a skilled and experienced navy and Rome decided to apply

themselves to building their own strong navy to drive them out of Sicily

“not content with having saved the Mamertines … conceived the idea that

it was possible to expel the Carthaginians entirely from the island”

(Polybius I, 20) Polybius tells us how the Romans new little about naval

ships and got their design for a fleet almost by accident: “It was, then,

because they saw that the war they had undertaken lingered to a weary

length, that they first thought of getting a fleet built, consisting of a

hundred quinqueremes and twenty triremes. But one part of their

undertaking caused them much difficulty. Their shipbuilders were entirely

unacquainted with the construction of quinqueremes” (Polybius I, 20). He

explained that one of the Carthaginian ships was used as a model: “a

decked vessel of theirs charged so furiously that it ran aground, and falling

into the hands of the Romans served them as a model on which they

constructed their whole fleet” (Polybius I,20). This is corroborated by a

historian on military history who wrote that the quinquereme was now the

standard warship for the Romans and Carthaginians having good speed

and power (De Santis, 2017). Polybius also explains how they trained the

Roman rowers on shore while they were building. To counteract their lack

of manoeuvring and ramming experience the Romans developed the

corvus – a moveable bridge to allow them to board the enemys ship

(Bradley, 1990). Polybius explained how it was built and how it was used.

“And as soon as the “crows” were fixed in the planks of the decks and

grappled the ships together, if the ships were alongside of each other, the

men leaped on board anywhere along the side, but if they were prow to

prow, they used the “crow” itself for boarding, and advanced over it two

abreast.” (Polybius 1.22). Therefore the Romans were able to build a war

fleet very quickly and in 260BCE the Roman navy of about 140 ships was

put to sea (Roebuck, 1966).

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 8 of 9

Synthesising [2]

combination of

information from

sources to justify

reasonable decisions

This paragraph

combines information

from sources including

Polybius (quoted), and

Bradley and Roebuck

(indirect references), to

justify a decision that

these two naval victories

are evidence of the

importance of Rome’s

navy in the First Punic

War.

Evaluation [4]

these judgments use

evidence from sources

and/or refer to

perspectives

Synthesising [2]

combination of

information from

sources to support a

basic historical

argument

The argument is basic

(naval victories meant

the navy was important)

because it makes no

account of other factors,

such as the strategic

importance of these

victories, Roman

capacity to keep

supplying funds and

crews, or the nature of

land battles.

these combinations

use evidence from

primary or secondary

sources

Throughout the

response, evidence is

drawn mostly from

Polybius and Bradley.

The Roman navy had some successful battles at Mylae and Cape

Economus. The battle of Mylae in 260 BCE was the first major Roman

naval victory, Polybius explains how the Carthaginians underestimated the

Romans and were surprise by the corvus (Bradley, 1990 and Polybius).

Polybius shows that Carthage were unsuspecting, “No sooner did the

Carthaginians sight him than with joy and alacrity they put to sea with a

hundred and thirty sail, feeling supreme contempt for the Roman

ignorance of seamanship. Accordingly they all sailed with their prows

directed straight at their enemy: they did not think the engagement worth

even the trouble of ranging their ships in any order (Polybius, I, 23). When

the corvus was used to attach to board the Carthaginian ships he says

“the enemy boarded by means of the “crows,” and engaged them on their

decks; and in the end some of the Carthaginians were cut down, while

others surrendered in bewildered terror” (Polybius, I, 23). Polybius was

born in c200 BCE (Walbank, 2018) so he must have talked to people

about it or read documents to record this detail of the battle which

occurred 60 years before he was born. Another big naval victory for Rome

was at Cape Economus in 256 which Bradley states was a decisive naval

victory in the First Punic War (Bradley, 1990). The Romans were sailing to

north Africa when they won this battle off the south coast of Sicily, and

they were able to land on Carthaginian territory (Roebuck, 1966). These

two battles are examples of how important the Roman navy and their

tactics such as the corvus were to the First Punic War.

However, the Romans also suffered terrible naval disasters and defeats

loosing numerous ships. The Romans were trying to gain a foothold in

North Africa to attack Carthage, this campaign was not successful and a

fleet bringing Roman survivors back was destroyed in a terrible storm in

255 BCE. Out of more than 350 ships, only 80 survived (Bradley).

Polybius doesn’t just blame bad luck “No greater catastrophe is to be

found in all history as befalling a fleet at one time. And for this Fortune

was not so much to blame as the commanders themselves. They had

been warned again and again by the pilots not to steer along the southern

coast of Sicily facing the Libyan sea, because it was exposed and yielded

no safe anchorage.” (Polybius, 1, 37). Although it was a devastating loss,

the Romans decided to build another fleet “These were finished in three

months, an almost incredibly short time” (Polybius, 1, 38). Another storm

in 255 caused the loss of 150 ships returning from Africa (Bradley, 1990).

The Romans also has a large naval defeat at Drepana in 249 BCE

(Bradley, 1990).

Creating and communicating

conveys ideas related to the key inquiry question and/or hypothesis

The essay remains focused on the role of the navy in the First Punic War and sometimes links

back to the hypothesis.

features of a historical essay based on research and ethical scholarship are

demonstrated

The response includes body paragraphs with topic sentences.

The response acknowledges sources of evidence, although it shows some lapses in

referencing conventions.

some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation

For example, spelling and punctuation errors are evident throughout the response, including

the first two sentences below.

Ancient History 2019 v1.2

IA3 mid-level annotated sample response

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

October 2018

Page 9 of 9

Analysing [2]

reasonable

explanation about how

evidence from sources

contributes to the

development of the

key inquiry question

or hypothesis

For example, this part of

the response

appropriately explains

how evidence that

wealthy Romans were

asked to contribute to

building a new fleet

contributes to the

development of the

hypothesis.

Creating and

communicating [2]

features of a historical

essay based on

research and ethical

scholarship are

demonstrated

For example, the

conclusion draws

together the main ideas

and arguments,

although it also

introduces a new point

about land warfare.

Unable to defeat the Carthaginians without a strong navy, the Romans

were able to raise the funds to rebuild the Roman navy. Bradley explains

that the Roman treasurey didn’t have the money so they had to get the

wealthy Roman citizens to pay for the construction of 200 warships, which

they did. This is corroborated by Polybius account that the government

couldn’t afford to pay – “The treasury was empty, and would not supply

the funds necessary for the undertaking, which were, however, obtained

by the patriotism and generosity of the leading citizens. They undertook to

supply a quinquereme fully fitted out, on” (Polybius I, 59). With the new

fleet the Romans were finally able to defeat the Carthaginians decisively

in a naval battle near the Aegates Islands (Roebuck; Bradley, 1990). The

Carthaginians were not able to keep going against the Romans and

Hamilcar negotiated a peace settlement. The Peace settlement at the end

of the First Punic War in 241 BCE meant that Rome was in full control of

Sicily, Carthage was left in control of Africa (Roebuck, 1966).

Joshua Mark asserts that by the end of the First Punic War the Romans

were in control of the sea and Carthage was a defeated power. The

Romans realised they had to build a navy to defeat the Carthaginians.

They developed the corvus so that they could fight like a land war, they

suffered great losses of ships but were able to keep rebuilding their fleet.

Although there was a lot of land fighting in Sicily and north Africa as well,

they could not of achieved victory without building and re-building the navy

to take on Carthage as a sea power. Therefore the Roman navy was very

important to victory in the First Punic War. However, the struggle against

Carthage would continue for many more years in the Second and Third

Punic Wars.

Reference List

Bradley, Pamela (1990) Ancient Rome, Edward Arnold Australia, Kew

East

De Santis, Marc (2017) The Quinquereme in the Carthaginian and Roman

Navy, Warfare History Network,

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-quinquereme-

in-the-carthaginian-roman-navy/

Hunt, Patrick n.d. https://www.britannica.com/place/Carthage-ancient-city-

Tunisia

Hennessy, Dianne (ed) (1990) “Studies in Ancient Rome”, Nelson, South

Melbourne.

Mark Joshua, Mark (2018), Punic Wars, Ancient History Encylopedia,

https://www.ancient.eu/Punic_Wars/

Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, (translator Evelyn Shirley

Shuckburgh), Project Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/44125/44125-h/44125-h.htm

Roebuck, Carl (1966), The World of Ancient Times, Charles, Scribner’s

Sons, New York.

Walbank, Frank (2018), ‘Polybius Greek Historian’, Encyclopaedia

Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Polybius