Cities of Vesuvius: pretty good. Food I didn't know much about, but I aced the forum (why did they call it 'the Eumachia'? It's the Building of Eumachia - it's named after a person, for god's sake) and to a lesser extent the Lady of Oplontis (thank god for Sara Bisel and Estelle Lazer's bone analyses).
Sparta: pretty damn good. I agree that you didn't have to go through every single stage of the agoge in detail. I talked about it in general terms about toughening soldiers, respect for the command structure, encouraging self-reliance. Kings was good, talked about how they were more religious and military figureheads (possibly regarded as demi-gods) than political ones. Women was pretty good, I used Kyniska as an example and talked about the way they exercised for child-bearing purposes and their religious roles. I might have wandered a bit off the question, though.
Julius Caesar: reforms I had no clue about, because being the idiot that I am I didn't study the actual domestic events of his dictatorship - just his wars overseas against the Pompeians. All I had was the Lex Iulia Municipalis and the increase in the size of the Senate. Gallic Wars was easy - increased his wealth, his popularity, showed his strength to the Senate, built a loyal and strong army. Concluded by saying it's hard to imagine that Caesar could have done what he eventually did without his time in Gaul.
Fall of the Republic: I spent 10 minutes on the Civil War before deciding I really didn't have enough material and switching to Pompey's extraordinary military commands. I was rushing a bit so I think it was a bit simplistically written, but it covered all the main points, did the assessment as required and included some material from Scullard and Plutarch, so I'd be hoping for a decent mark. Again, I said that it's hard to see how Pompey would have achieved anything like what he did (absolute preeminence in Rome in the 60s and 50s) without his commands in Spain and Asia and on the Med.
