Finally, here's some specific advice about the type of content to include, that is, what sort of detail works best in history and classics papers. For instance, don't recite long stories (narrative) without making it clear why. Nor should you repeat the same fact in a paper, since it makes you appear not to know any others. Instead, ground your argument in specific data, employing technical terminology appropriately. With all that, I leave the length of your paper largely up to you. It will have to vary according to the theme you have chosen and the task assigned. Make it "as long as it needs to be."
26. Narrative
Many students think I want them to prove in their papers that they've read the assignment and "know the story." I do not! I have exams and various other means of assessing your knowledge of the details. What I'm seeking from your written work is whether or not you've listened in class and read and absorbed the assigned material. Papers tell me something very important and very different from other types of assessment. They show me not just what facts you know but that you've thought about what you've learned!
Thus, students who write about the success of the Romans and lapse into a narrative account of the history of the Roman Republic tell me only that they can regurgitate the story, not that they've tried to make sense of it. But making sense out of historical data is the ultimate goal of studying the past. The struggle that comes of trying to impose some order on the often discordant data surrounding past events is the way we learn about history, human nature and, above all, ourselves. So, don't write just to show what you've learned but to teach, especially yourself, about life then and now!
Remember this, too. I know the history we're studying in this class fairly well. There's no need to teach me anything about that. Inform me, instead, about something else just as important, your way of organizing the past. Thus, a mere reference to the Gracchi as Roman revolutionaries is usually sufficient, if your point is that Republican government in Rome was flexible enough to withstand severe internal disruption. Conversely, going on and on about the Gracchi is debilitating on two counts: it's unnecessary for your argument, and it skirts one of the central goals of writing in this class, that you set the data within some sort of coherent structure, your theme, your answer to the big questions about life.
So, don't let yourself get lost in details and forget the big picture. Cite an example as concisely as possible, and then return immediately to your main point. That is, don't start story-telling! Aim at saying what you think, not just what you know.
27. Repeated Phrases and Facts
To some extent, repetition is unavoidable in academic writing. After all, if your job is to give a specific answer to a question or to discuss some issue relevant to history—that is, to put forward a theme—you will have to restate that theme several times. It entails quite a bit of repetition, and there's no way around it.
But it doesn't have to be tedious repetition, not if you vary the wording of the theme, in other words, tailor it to suit different circumstances each time you repeat it. For instance, in the introduction assert the theme as succinctly as possible and in the conclusion as fully as possible. In between those—that is, in the body of the paper where you will have to reiterate your thesis several times to ensure that the connection between fact and theme remains clear to the reader—highlight whatever aspect of it best supports each individual section. To put it bluntly, driving home a single point does not mean your writing has to be monotonous. You can repeat creatively.
Repeated Facts
Repeating facts is a completely different matter. It's far more deleterious to your argument than monotonous phrasing, because by bringing up the same fact twice or more you leave the impression that, as far as you know, there are no other facts supporting the case. With so few data underlying it, how strong is your argument then? If, on the other hand, there are more and you know them, why aren't you citing them? The reader will conclude that either your case or your preparation is shaky, which doesn't help advance an argument. Instead, construct a better case and include more data, or re-modulate the argument so you can include more corroborating evidence. But whatever you do, don't repeat the same fact in a paper!
Please note that this pertains only to the body of your paper. For instance, it's perfectly fine to repeat facts in the conclusion when you're recapitulating your argument and reviewing the data at the end of the paper. There, in fact, you should repeat the specific information you've cited in the body. Just don't repeat facts anywhere else.
All in all, persuasive writing ought to encompass as wide a range of data as possible. The broader the array of facts and the more abundant they are, the more comprehensive an argument will seem and the more convincing it will be.
28. Specific Facts
This is one of the most important aspects of the content of your paper. The facts you use must be specific! If, for instance, you say, "Using their legions, the Romans conquered many lands," you leave a great deal in question. How did their legions achieve such dominance? Whom did they defeat, and when? Were legions the sole agents responsible for Rome's triumphs, or did issues of leadership and management in the wake of conquest play a role in Rome's dominion, too? As stated above, this weak, vague generality undercuts your argument.
Instead, cite particular names, people, places and events from the past: the deft courage of early Roman generals like Cincinnatus, the cunning of Fabius who avoided battle with Hannibal, the reforms Marius instituted in recruiting legionaries which led to improvements in combat and retention, and the skill and bravery exhibited by Caesar's soldiers at the Battle of Alesia. These concrete fixtures are the common heritage shared by all who study and debate history. Any of us can utilize them to underscore and bolster our notions about the past—assuming, of course, the facts do, in fact, advance our arguments. Think of it this way. Fabius, Marius and Julius Caesar are the public property of everyone who studies classical antiquity. Anyone can and should use the particulars of history in structuring our collective understanding of the past.
Specific facts are important in another way, too. By referencing the particular data that support and comprise our common knowledge of Western civilization, you are, in effect, meeting your readers halfway, on neutral ground so to speak. That is, to begin your paper in a place to which we all have equal access makes it just that much easier for someone to walk along with you wherever you're headed, because in building your ideas on well-known, precise, mutually agreed-upon data, you start the trek toward new ideas in territory everyone's familiar with. From there, others can follow you more readily.
In sum, the specific data constituting our understanding of the past form the basis of all historical and scientific inquiry. The bytes of information we share in common are the elemental vocabulary of any discipline. Therefore, if you mean to write a paper arguing for any larger trend in history and hope to persuade sensible people to see things your way or even if you wish only to convince others you have a handle on the past, you must use specific facts in building your case.
29. Technical Terms
Many words you may consider generic are, in fact, technical terms when one is talking history. In the study of ancient Egypt, for instance, "kingdom" refers to one of three distinct periods: the Old Kingdom (2700-2200 BCE), the Middle Kingdom (2000-1800 BCE) and the New Kingdom (1550-1000 BCE). Likewise, in discussions about ancient Rome "empire" means that period from 31 BCE to 476 CE, when a succession of "emperors" dominated Roman government. If you're speaking about the centuries preceding 31 BCE, the technical term for Roman government is "Republic." Thus, words like "kingdom," "republic" and "empire" need to be used carefully in certain historical disciplines.
If you have doubts about whether or not a term has a technical sense, or the proper way to deploy it, it's probably best to substitute a neutral term. For instance, when you wish to refer to Roman government in general, neither the Republic nor the Empire, just say "the Roman state." "State" is not a technical term in Roman history, as readings in this field will show.
Misuse of such terms not only may cause confusion between writer and reader but betrays a failure to grasp some basic principles of history. The best way to make sure you deploy technical terms correctly is to watch closely how they're used in the reading assignments for a class. By imitating that, you demonstrate your awareness of the laws of history's linguistics, namely the dialect any particular species of historian speaks. All in all, be aware that the proper use of technical terms is yet one more gauge at my disposal in assessing the quality of effort a student is putting into a class. When you use technical terms appropriately, I can see you've done your reading well.
30. Length
Finally, some students think I am impressed by miles and miles of writing. Our greedy society has trained them to equate quantity with quality. Frankly, vast tracts of writing—even good writing!—do not impress me. Indeed, past a certain point, expansiveness for its own sake irritates and depresses me. Instead, I think it's a worthy goal to use as few words as possible in saying what you mean. That means, be as thorough as possible in thought but as thrifty as possible in word.
I know it's maddening to say—and, honestly, as a student I hated when my professors said it, but unfortunately it's true—a paper should be "as long as it needs to be." That is, it should explore as fully yet concisely as possible the topic the writer has set out to explore. The body of the paper should provide a reasonable number of examples—three at the very least!—for every point made. All examples should pertain directly to the question at hand and their pertinence, especially in the introduction and conclusion, should be absolutely clear to the reader. With all that, it is up to you how long to make the paper.
As far I can tell, when students are uncertain about how long their papers ought to be, it's actually a sign of trouble on other fronts. If the theme of a paper is strong and there are sufficient data to support the writer's assertions, the paper writes itself. Conversely, if facts are lacking or weakly connected to the theme, or the theme itself is unmanageable because the evidence of the past simply doesn't support it, that's most often in my experience when questions begin to bubble up about a paper's length. The writer is looking with frustration and regret at how far he has to go, not where he's going.
So, the real question at hand is not how long the paper needs to be but what it's about, in other words, why it's being written. And if that's the case, the real problem is not the paper's length but the writer's preparation. A paper with no clear direction is indeed very hard to write. When you don't know why you're writing in the first place, you end up just wanting to get it over with, all along the way lamenting every word you have to add. Of course, it's painful to write that way.
So, if you find yourself in that position, stop and clear the decks. The problem is so serious it's best just to start all over again. Begin by doing more research. Review the data and see if there's something you missed which supports your ideas. If there isn't, search for another way of approaching the issue. Women's presence in history, for instance, is visible not only through their own activities but also in their influence on their families, their husbands and children. Can you broaden the scope of the theme in some way that will give you access to more data and make writing the paper easier?
If not, then you may have to face the fact that your theme is infeasible. There are some notions history just does not permit. In that case, it might be best to reconsider your position on the issue. If the historical data strongly suggest a different way of thinking, why not adopt that approach? Swimming against the current will only wear you out more quickly. So, consider changing your mind if that's the way the facts appear to dictate. Rethinking your ideas about life is not a sign of weakness but strength. Mature, healthy-minded people change their minds when the situation calls for it.
And now from this new vantage point, see if the theme and facts don't come into sharper focus more easily. If they do, adopt that approach. If not, keep looking for themes that write themselves. So, all in all, when the theme is strong and you understand clearly what you're trying to say and the data that underlie your case, how long your paper needs to be is rarely an issue. The paper itself will tell you.