Download The Second Punic War June 2013

AQA Qualifications
GCE
Classical Civilisation
CIV2F The Second Punic War
Report on the Examination
Specification 2020
2013
Version: 1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCE Classical Civilisation – CIV2F –June 2013
CIV2F The Second Punic War
General Comment
The standard overall was very similar to 2012. Nearly twice as many students attempted Option B,
with its focus on Hannibal, as answered Option A (Fabius Maximus). This follows a pattern of
previous years where students tend to choose a Livy-based question over one with a passage of
Plutarch. The higher mean marks for the 10 and 20 mark questions were however gained by those
who went for Option A. For the 30 mark questions there was a similar split with the larger group
choosing Option C (the Roman Senate) over Option D (Scipio). Here performance was on
average the same over both options, although a higher percentage of the Option C students
reached Level 4, while the reverse was true at the Level 3 border. In fact performance was quite
closely matched at all points over both questions. Generally it was clear which students had
revised sensibly by their performance across all areas of the paper; a few students seemed to
have made little acquaintance with either author, but most showed at least a fair understanding of
the period. The gap in set reading between Livy Books XXII and XXX still leaves some students
believing that Scipio’s venture to Sicily and Africa came shortly after Cannae. This sometimes led
to a downgrading of Fabius’ contribution or even confusion between the two leaders. Both ten mark
questions this year required a degree of literary analysis; some students struggled to deal with this
and clearly more practice in this skill would have helped them. Finally in a general sense, a larger
number of scripts than in the past were very difficult to read. All efforts were made not to
disadvantage such students, but it is very much in their interests to write clearly and legibly.
Section 1
Option A
Question 01 asking for qualities Plutarch attributed to the young Fabius caught out many students,
three quarters of whom came up with the physical strength or fighting answer, but few of whom
gave both or added his oratorical skills. There was some confusion in that the delaying tactics
were often mentioned here; they came later. Most students knew the two alternatives offered for
Question 02 (war or peace) but more than half believed that the Carthaginians’ response was to
choose war, rather than put it back in the Romans’ court. As mentioned in the introduction there
was a rather mixed performance on the ten mark questions. For Question 04 the students were
asked to consider the passage in the light of how vividly Plutarch portrayed the young Fabius.
Some responded by giving a short life of Fabius, others opined that it was very vivid (or not vivid at
all) but failed to support their assertions directly from the text. More than three quarters however
reached at least the Level 3 border by employing words or phrases from the text to assess how
well the picture was painted. Some missed the change of emphasis in the second half of the
passage and felt that Plutarch failed to give a positive picture; others scored more highly by seeing
the first half as setting up an apparent impression of weakness, only to knock it down in the second
half. There was some very good work here, but many missed opportunities. The longer 20 mark
essay (Question 05) was generally well done. Many students were confident in their knowledge of
Fabius’ career and judged sensibly whether his actions constituted ‘soundly based judgement’. On
the whole it was felt that they did, although modern moral judgements were often applied
negatively to his tactics and behaviour at Tarentum (found only in the Plutarch selection, so good
to see it well known here). In the weaker answers the confusion with Scipio and the time line of the
war were apparent, but it was pleasing to see over half of all these essays reaching Level 4.
3 of 5
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCE Classical Civilisation – CIV2F –June 2013
Option B
Here again the short answer questions caused some problems, in particular Question 02; few
students were confident in their knowledge of Hannibal’s actions and movements after Zama,
although most gained one mark. Question 01 looking at the battle itself was much better done with
students scoring particularly well on the Roman tactics to counter Hannibal’s elephants. A small
minority simply outlined the battle as described in the passage. This was used better by many in
the ten mark question, 08 (although not quite as well as the Option A students had with their
passage). Some were determined to prove that, as a Roman, Livy had little or no regard for
Hannibal’s abilities. Often they struggled to prove this from the passage. Many however saw that
the including of witness statements in his favour, direct compliments (‘remarkable skill’ etc.), and
even excuses for the failings of his troops did suggest a degree of appreciation from Livy. A few
went as far as to ask whether by praising the loser, Livy was seeking to emphasise further the
abilities of Scipio and his fellow commanders; such ideas were fully credited. Again three quarters
of all answers reached at least Level 3. One regular misunderstanding concerned the meaning of
‘mercenary’; some rather strange misapprehensions occurred as a result. For the longer essay on
how far the overall loss of the war was down to Hannibal (Question 09), there were again some
very good answers. Students were particularly strong on anything directly related to Hannibal, less
so on other factors. Many seemed confused by the role of the Carthaginian Senate, writing a
general sentence or two which suggested a tendency to see it being a mirror image of its Roman
equivalent. The twelve years following Cannae were also a problem (as mentioned earlier); few
seemed aware of these or of the importance of actions in Spain during this time. Some mentioned
Hasdrubal Barca as a weak link, but there was little else in this area. In short, many essays lacked
balance, confining most to Level 3 or lower, which was a disappointment as students clearly felt
real empathy for Hannibal.
Section 2
Option C
Question 10 asked students to consider the decisions of the Roman Senate during the war. Given
that this required students to range widely across the specification, rather than focus on one
individual, the overall performance was gratifying. There were three times as many Level 5
answers on this question and 8% more who reached Level 4 than on the Option D alternative;
slightly fewer however made it to Level 3, suggesting a more polarised performance on this
question. Some students really understood their Roman politics and wrote a full account,
analysing with confidence whether their decisions, particularly in the earlier years were ‘disastrous’
or whether other factors were to blame for Rome’s problems. A lack of background understanding,
however, led some to see the original declaration of war as simply a disastrous decision as many
men on both sides were killed. Students who understood the background better talked of the need
for Rome to accept the inevitable and sort out a recurring problem by taking the initiative. Common
misunderstandings revealed by the weaker answers included a lack of knowledge of the role of a
dictator (noted as an issue last year); also a failure to understand the basis on which consuls were
appointed and the nature of their working relationships with the Senate. Finally confusion over the
Senate’s attitude to and decisions regarding Scipio’s roles in Spain, Sicily and then Africa brought
some students down; often they simply wrote a potted history of his exploits. Overall the question
achieved a good degree of differentiation between students.
4 of 5
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCE Classical Civilisation – CIV2F –June 2013
Option D
For Question 11, students were asked to discuss the portrayal of Scipio, a topic which has been a
popular choice when set in recent years. His career was well known in general and those students
who realised that this was a literary-based question as much as a historical one did well. If there
were fewer top answers than on Question 10, here three quarters of students reached at least
Level 3, a higher proportion than on Option C. Apart from a few really weak answers, most were at
least able to produce an outline account of Scipio’s career. These responses tended to remain
within Level 2, or at best lower Level 3 if an occasional poorly supported comment about
exaggeration was offered. Many students went further. Realising that Livy’s picture of Scipio was
aimed at a set audience, they set out to examine the portrayal of key incidents in that light. This
brought varying degrees of success but ensured a mid-Level 3 mark even where some key points
were missed or (as often happened) not fully justified – too many efforts claimed that Livy greatly
exaggerated (or equally often didn’t exaggerate) Scipio’s exploits, say, at Zama, without giving any
evidence to suggest that this was the case. A few excellent (high Level 4 and Level 5) answers
considered what Scipio did alongside how Livy chose to portray it, weighed up the degrees of
shade implied in the question and based their judgement on this evidence.
In summary there was much to commend again this year, but it would be pleasing to see rather
more essays displaying secure knowledge of the key incidents, combined with careful attention to
the wording of the question.
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion
5 of 5