well, lets just say the exam will be fun
as to the source. we got told that you should continually reference it such as enabling it to bring up the historians u mention
like if it mentions "scientific history" youd say how they refer to ranke, then go on about ranke.
then u go back to source, find the next one
etc etc. seemed to work well for us in trials and our teacher is known for harsh marking so i guess we shall see in exam aye.
one issue could be having to assess the actual source on its own, that can be rather tricky, deciphering the ideology and viewpoint of historian. 2005 killed alot of ppl with the postmodern Jenkins.
GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!!!
ps. how come most ppl are only talkinga bout 4 or 5 historians???
aren't we meant to be doing like 10 ? i swear i'll kill my teacher for making us learn 10
we do like Ranke, Gibbon, Marx, Braudel/bloch/febvre (annales), Butterfrield (Whig), Carr, Elton, Jenkins, Munslow, White (postmodern) and then tie in with reynolds and windschuttle for aussie debate
LAME!
im pissed i had to remember that much shit.