I had 2 interviews in one day, with a test in between the interviews. Each interview had 2 interviewers, and lasted about 30 mins, the test itself being 45 minutes. There was a test after the interviews as well; the first test was a document critique, the second was a historiography question.

In the first interview we discussed my motivations for studying History and they also showed me a picture of a painting I'd never seen & asked me my thoughts on it. Never having seen it before, and not really knowing what kind of thoughts they wanted, I stumbled a bit, but outside of that the interview went great - I didn't think I had a chance so I was really relaxed oddly enough.

In the second interview they asked me questions about the document I had to analyse, and also about my motivation - I basically gave a lot of similar answers than in the previous interview, basically all the answers which seemed to go down well I repeated.

Honestly the most important thing I think is that, not thinking I had a chance, I was going in to spend 20 minutes with proper Historians, an experience I had never had before and didn't think I'd get to experience again. So I must have shown my curiosity and interest through the questions that I asked them about the history of what they were asking me about. If I didn't have the answer to a question, I wouldn't try and bullshit my way through - I'd say "I don't actually know anything about that - but what is it? It interests me".

I was left pretty much alone for my preparation honestly, so all I did was read 1 book a teacher has lent me on Napoleon. That's it.

Don't bullshit! It shows much more to say "I don't know about that, what is it", than pretend you know. It shows much more to say "I'm not very good at (...), but I think that studying here will make me better at it" than "I don't think I have any weaknesses".