A couple of history questions
 

I just sat an exam for a module in 18th century history. The Second Hundred Years' War: Britain versus France 1715-1815.

For once I remembered to bring the question sheet back with me.

Two hours to answer two questions from a choice of six. Here're the two I chose to answer:

* How significant were individuals in the Anglo-French diplomatic relationship between 1715 and 1815?

* Assess the impact the Second Hundred Years' War had on contemporary British society and culture.


I skated through, I think. The second one probably got a more detailed analysis... the first one, I somehow managed to answer without talking about either contry's monarch (except to say hanoverian considerations drew Britain into conflict) and only mentioned one French statesman by name. I'm pretty sure I got my Pitts and Newcastles mixed up....somewhere...and I was exceedingly vague about some of the timeline...

Both were a bit heavy on narrative and light on evidence, and structure was abandoned as time got close. rather than trying to tie the last one together into a coherent ending, I bullet pointed a few additional points.

Hopefully it wasn't a fail :P

Damm Dana. I am glad I didn't study that. Glad you like it. :)

Sar/The French significant??? Are you serious? Aside from wine and some great food... for what?/casm

* How significant were individuals in the Anglo-French diplomatic relationship between 1715 and 1815?

There is nothing significant about the French.

* Assess the impact the Second Hundred Years' War had on contemporary British society and culture.

It made schooling much more difficult as there are now twice as many dates and names to remember. It was bloody hard enough just dealing with the First Hundred Years' War, and then there's the Thirty Years' War which is more of just an extended pub brawl than a war.

* How significant were individuals in the Anglo-French diplomatic relationship between 1715 and 1815?

I'd say pretty damned significant.
You can't a diplomatic relationship unless you have two countries
You can't a country without a group of individuals.
You can't have a war, no less a hundred year war, without armies.
You can't have an army without a bunch of individuals.
So individuals are important, without them you got nothin'
:haha:

lol I love it Bruce. Impecable logic:P

*snickers*

I get an A for Audacity. :D

I can't believe I answered that question and didn't talk about kings.....wtf?

When there is a hundred year war, wouldn't the Kings be a given. I'd assume the question meant what other individuals.

That's what I went with. But I probably should have at least commented on the role of monarchs within diplomacy...probably :P

Oh well. Exams = not my ting. My general approach is to try and survive without completely failing it. I pick up good marks on non-exam stuff to balance it out.

Big Gold Star for the bullet point ending - just exactly the right thing to do when time gets tight!

lol. Yeah. Figured that might be more useful than ending midsentence halfway into a new paragraph without even touching on the role of finance (in the society question).

I've got better at that sort of thing. Like walking away from the first essay without properly rounding it off, because I know I'm at the halfway point and need to start the second one. A better strategy I suspect than finishing the first essay properly and having ten minutes less to focus on essay two.

I like wolf's answer best. I am reading a really fascinating book (the secret life of words) and the dood is going waaaay into how english was influenced by the normans (he says some people go so far as to call the english language a whore for being so accomodating to all-comers which is right funny) my point is if you'd written your answer in FRENCH you might have gotten a better grade!

LOGIC! It's what I use!

lol. Given that French was the accepted language of diplomacy, that makes sense for the 1st question :P

Next time you have exams, take an iphone with you and we'll help you.

From here.

Ouch. Of course, as with all slams, it would work better if the author hadn't shown his/her ignorance, in this case by using the word 'aloud' instead of 'allowed'.