Download
1 / 65
650 likes | 669 Views
Explore the differing interpretations of the Third Crusade through a narrative approach, analyzing evidence and challenging assumptions. Engage in critical thinking and storytelling to understand the complex historical events.
E N D
“Man is a knot into which relationships are tied.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Year 7: Medieval 1: Who belongs in a story about the Third Crusade? Students deconstruct historians’ narratives, and then construct their own
I burnt through your Becket timeline of religious change in 30 seconds I chewed up your causal cardsort on why William won at Hastings in 2 minutes I spotted diversity in your Medieval Village before I even entered the classroom My Year 7 Thursday Class
Your move. Impress me. Historical Scholarship: Muslim/Christian The Crusades
How do these interpretations disagree? • Why do they disagree? • Deconstructing Interpretations • Too Simple • Too deterministic • An historical interpretation is not an inevitable product of the period in which it was produced. • Each author has established and used evidence in ways that we cannot categorise simplistically, and for reasons about which we can onlyspeculate.
Type of interpretation (scholarly, popular, educational…etc) What does it say/ show explicitly / implicitly (message? argument? style? tone?) What is it? What is it saying? What was the purpose (& intended audience). to create new knowledge? to persuade? to entertain? to inform? to commemorate? to educate? to preserve? How and why was this constructed? How has the interpretation been affected by the context in which it was created? Available sources? trends in scholarly interpretation? methods? earlier works on the same theme? theory? ideology? values? nationality? personality? funding/resources? patronage? Which parts are factual, which are points of view, which are imagined? What is the relationship between the interpretation and evidence?
Alright. I’ll read the books. Then do you want me to write another essay? Boring… What about writing a story…?
Write your own narrative about the Third Crusade. • Constructing a narrative • NOT simple! • Underrated skill (Lang) • To display evidential control and a sense of audience is not easy (Counsell) • Involves artistry (Kemp) Key challenge: how to engage and draw in the reader (a process requiring rhetorical effect and a shaping of expectation, through phrasing and arresting word choice), whilst also striving to report events accurately and avoiding unwarranted claims?
In the Third Crusade… • To what extent could Richard be described as a ‘shrewd’ leader, if he rather hot-headedly massacred 3,000 Muslim prisoners outside of Acrein 1191? • Can Richard I still be described as an ‘intelligent’ military leader, if he was captured by the Duke of Austria on his return home? • Can Saladin be described as a ‘brilliant’ strategist if he lost quickly and decisively to Richard in the Battle of Arsuf? • Was Saladin ‘courageous’ if he slept in a wooden tower because he was fearful of being assassinated? • The choice of adjectives or adverbs to describe characters’ actions within a narrative appears to be quite a large challenge. • Without any character description, the narrative would be dry and uninteresting; yet too much praise, exaggeration or hyperbole, and the narrative would stray from the evidential record.
STARTER: what difference can a single word make? Extract from a book on one of the battles of the Third Crusade (the Battle of Arsuf): “Saladin’s trumpeters and drummers set up a terrible noise. Yet the Crusaders stood firm, suffering heavy losses of horses but little else…Richard ordered the full might of the Christian cavalry to charge and hammered into the enemy. The entire Muslim force was beaten back and Saladin retreated. Richard personally cut down the enemy vigorouslyand his clever leadership dealt a second terrible blow to Saladin’s reputation.
STARTER: what difference can a single word make? “Richard personally cut down the enemy vigorouslyand his clever leadership dealt a second terrible blow to Saladin’s reputation.” What if we changed the word to…? • Gently • Clumsily • Wearily • Cheerfully • Carefully
Who belongs in a story about the Third Crusade? Our new Enquiry Question History skill to be practised: Interpretations • We are continuing with our depth study on the Crusades. • So far we have looked at why people went on crusade, and at the highs and lows of the first four crusades (there were about 8 in total!) • In this lesson, we are going to look at an historian’s story of the Third Crusade and try to understand what he thinks about the two leaders. • An historian’s opinion is often called his interpretation. KEYWORD: Interpretation An explanation of something from a particular viewpoint.
Enquiry Question: Who belongs in a story about the Third Crusade? Historian’s Text • TASK BOX: • In pairs, as we are reading the historian’s story, place a character card next to where they are mentioned. • Which characters in the ‘story’ of the crusade were not used? Which characters were used many times? What does this tell us about the author?
An example of how two high-attaining students re-told the story of the Third Crusade, using character cards, words and arrows, to show their understanding of what happened in Phillips’s narrative interpretation.
TASK BOX: Howdid Hillenbrand describe characters and events? 1. Draw arrows to the facts that may have been used to back-up the author’s descriptions below. 2. Circle those facts that appear to challenge the author’s description. 3. How might you change the descriptions below, so that you take all these facts into account? Richard I spent many months preparing for his crusade Richard beat Saladin at Acre and Arsuf Richard was captured & England had to pay the equivalent of £2 billion for his release Saladin was the first Muslim leader to unite the Muslim cities of Aleppo, Mosul & Damascus After capturing Jerusalem from the Christians, Saladin did not kill them “Richard was shrewd” [intelligent, alert, sharp] Saladin worried about being killed so slept in a wooden tower rather than a tent Saladin destroyed towns in a whole region and killed many knights after they tried to murder him twice “Saladin was a strong military leader” The Muslims lived in the Holy Land for hundreds of years before the Christians came “The conquest of the city of Jerusalem was a disastrous event” The crusaders thought they were fighting a holy war to regain land that was their ‘right’ due to their religion
TASK BOX: Why might Hillenbrand describe characters and events in this way? Draw arrows to match information about the author’s background and purpose (left) to how she wrote her story (right). 1. Hillenbrand did not mention the European kings Phillip II of France or Frederick I A. Hillenbrand can read and understand Arabic 2. Hillenbrand mentioned Saladin many times but only mentioned Richard a few times B. Hillenbrand’s focus is deliberately on the Muslims in the Crusades 3. Hillenbrand included two religious Muslim characters who were in the ‘background’ and not actually involved in the crusade itself C. Hillenbrand’s aim is not to just tell a story, but to explore ideas 4. Hillenbrand suggested that the Crusaders invaded Muslim lands, rather than the Muslims invading Christian lands D. Hillenbrand is Professor of Islamic History at Edinburgh university 5. All Hillenbrand’s sources were Muslim 6. Hillenbrand gave less detail on the ‘events’ that make up the story than Phillips did E. Hillenbrand has travelled extensively in Turkey & Syria 7. Hillenbrand shows why Jerusalem is important to Muslims rather than Christians
TASK BOX: Why mightPhillips describe characters and events in this way? Draw arrows to match information about the author’s background and purpose (left) to how he wrote his story (right). 1. Phillips focussed on Christian & the Pope’s reasons for fighting, but left out Muslim ones A. Phillips is an English historian, from Bristol 2. Phillips spent more time on how Richard moved his troops than on Saladin’s moves B. Phillips concentrates on crusaders’ religious motives 3. Phillips wrote more about Richard I & his troops than about French King Philip II’s men C. Phillips tries to be sympathetic towards the crusaders and tries to see things their way 4. Phillips tried to justify why Richard I had to massacre 3,000 Muslims 5. Phillips wrote about Richard’s preparations for crusading but not Saladin’s D. Phillips cannot read Arabic very well 6. Phillips left out some characters involved E. Phillips tried to write a book for many people to read, not just experts 7. Phillips gave a positive description of a king who spent little time in his own country!
Conclusion: Who said what and why? “Refugees from the Holy Land told the story of the Muslim invasion of Jerusalem… including Saladin’s slaughter of the Christians” “The Crusaders turn up out of the blue…[and after several crusades] the Muslims came to expect invasion” Phillips Hillenbrand who invaded whom?
My purposes: • To educate • To entertain • To show Muslim & Crusader views Fact Box 1 This is where you will write your story of the Third Crusade. Fact Box 2 My chosen word (Saladin) _______________ A stronger word is _______________ Fact Box 3 Fact Box 4 My chosen word (Richard) _______________ A stronger word is _______________ • TASK BOX: • Why do you think that the historians Phillips and Hillenbrand might have differed in their choice of characters? • Does it matter which characters you included, and how you described them? • Did you leave out any characters or talk about some characters more than others? Why? Why not?
Activity 4 Summary: Deconstructing and constructing historical narrative on the Third Crusade • AIMS • Challenge a bright and sparky Year 7 class by adding more depth and complexity to their knowledge • Encourage pupils to think about different processes of argumentation in two contrasting historical interpretations • Decide for myself whether the creation of an historical narrative is cognitively demanding. APPROACH Using two books on the Crusades, written from contrasting perspectives, help pupils: Learn about the Third Crusade in more depth than what is offered in a textbook Speculate about why the authors’ interpretations differ To create their own narrative about the Crusade.
Activity 4 Summary: Deconstructing and constructing historical narrative on the Third Crusade • STRENGTHS • The challenge of writing an historical narrative revealed very effectively who had understood what had happened in the Third Crusade, and in what order (‘knowledge adequacy’) • Marking the narratives allowed me to ask a wider variety of questions than normal (as opposed to the usual ‘remember P.E.E.’) • In their narratives, pupils revealed contemporaries’ relationships (to each other and to the setting) • LIMITATIONS • There were some examples of simple regurgitation in the final narratives (pupils ‘chucking things down’) • Reinforcement of the correct sequence of events was needed for some students • There was little conscious attempt by the students to show a particular viewpoint
Activity 4 Summary: Deconstructing and constructing historical narrative on the Third Crusade • When Olly wrote that Richard ‘dealt with the Muslim prisoners and Saladin’s slowing down tactic fiercely’ at Acre, he was commenting on Richard’s relationship with Saladin, as a man who was willing to stand up to his enemy. • When Janice wrote, ‘Saladin made sure that his followers were loyal to him by doing things like sharing their meals’, she revealed something of Saladin’s relationship with his men. • As a final example, when Jemal commented that ‘the crusaders were bothered by the hot desert that Richard made them march through, even though it brought them closer to Jerusalem’, he disclosed something of the relationship between the crusaders and their contemporary setting, and of the relationship between Richard and his men. ‘The cognitive function of narrative form… is… to body forth an ensemble of interrelationships’ (Louis Mink).
Year 9: 19th Century Britain 2. How close did Britain come to revolution in 1812-1822? Using narratives to explore relationships and points of view: students create their own narratives about nineteenth century protest
I have a very short attention span I hate reading I am a complete drama queen My Year 9 Monday Class
Your move. Impress me. Historical Drama Nineteenth Century Britain
Key Context: 1812 • In this year, Lord Liverpool became Prime Minister, after the previous Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, was murdered • Britain was still at war with France, which was ruled by the emperor Napoleon, who was feared as a great military leader • Napoleon had attempted to blockade England, stopping goods like wheat from reaching England. This drove up bread prices because the English were reliant on English wheat (rather than foreign wheat) to make bread. Because English wheat was in high demand, English landowners could charge a lot of money for it. • The Prince Regent, a deeply unpopular king due to his ruinously expensive lifestyle, was ruling on behalf of his father, George III (who had gone mad). • The working and middle classes could not vote and there was a very high rate of poverty. Working conditions in the industrial cities were often horrific. • At this time there was no police force, and the government relied on the army if there was trouble, or magistratesin local areas.
How close did Britain come to revolution in 1812-22? Government Supporters Oliver the Spy William Cartwright Liverpool’s Cabinet Viscount Castlereagh, Foreign Secretary Lord Liverpool, Prime Minister Viscount Sidmouth, Home Secretary Nicholas Vansittart, Chancellor of the Exchequer The Radicals Henry Hunt Arthur Thistlewood James Watson William Benbow Jeremiah Brandreth
Scene 3: Luddism, 1812-1815 How revolutionary were the Luddite outbreaks? Was this an economic or political action? • Choose a card: RED: Britain on brink of revolution, act now. ORANGE: Potential revolution, should the situation worsen. Monitor carefully. GREEN: Limited problem, no revolutionary threat
Scene 4: Spa Fields Riots, 1816-17 How revolutionary were the Spa Fields Riots? Was the uprising planned? Or was it spontaneous? • Choose a card: RED: Britain on brink of revolution, act now. ORANGE: Potential revolution, should the situation worsen. Monitor carefully. GREEN: Limited problem, no revolutionary threat
Scene 5: March of the Blanketeers, 1817 How revolutionary was the March of the Blanketeers? • Choose a card: RED: Britain on brink of revolution, act now. ORANGE: Potential revolution, should the situation worsen. Monitor carefully. GREEN: Limited problem, no revolutionary threat
Scene 6: Pentrich Rising, 1817 How revolutionary was the Pentrich Rising? Was Oliver the Spy a paid informer or agent provocateur? Was there a genuinely revolutionary impulse? Or was it all a trick? • Choose a card: RED: Britain on brink of revolution, act now. ORANGE: Potential revolution, should the situation worsen. Monitor carefully. GREEN: Limited problem, no revolutionary threat
Scene 7: Peterloo, 1819 How revolutionary was the Peterloo massacre? • Choose a card: RED: Britain on brink of revolution, act now. ORANGE: Potential revolution, should the situation worsen. Monitor carefully. GREEN: Limited problem, no revolutionary threat
Scene 8: Cato St. Conspiracy How revolutionary was the Cato St. Conspiracy? A wild, isolated incident or did it link with previous incidents? • Choose a card: RED: Britain on brink of revolution, act now. ORANGE: Potential revolution, should the situation worsen. Monitor carefully. GREEN: Limited problem, no revolutionary threat
SighingApplaudingRolling their eyes unsympathetically Smiling and noddingWaving wildlyWearily staring into space Shaking hands happily Shoulder slumpingShaking their fist Pleading urgently Stealing sidelong glances Waving a hand dismissively Banging his fist on the table Folding arms and pursing lips Speaking gravely and shaking his head Throwing his arms wide Unconcernedly taking a sip of drink Looking shocked and holding hands upNarrowing his eyes Setting his jaw and speaking tonelessly Giving a thumbs up Blowing a kissShrugging indifferently Punching the air
Key questions • Who were the two main ‘sides’ in this play? • Did everyone on the same ‘side’ think the same thing? • Which event brought Britain closest to revolution?
