Criminal Intent? A Fresh Look at History’s Villains

Subjects

History

• U.S. History

• World History

Grade

9-12

Brief Description

Genghis Khan, Benedict Arnold and Edward Longshanks (King Edward I) are among the most despised men in history, for reasons ranging from betrayal to warmongering. Their perceived evil deeds have made them popular villains who appear in film and literature to this day. Few have taken the time to put themselves in these men’s shoes, however. Encourage students to explore the complexity of history—and of human behavior—by engaging in a mock courtroom activity where they judge whether each historical figure is “guilty” (deserving of his “bad rap”) or “not guilty” (not necessarily innocent, but contributing positively to history nonetheless).

Objectives

Students will gain a better perspective on the actions of some of history’s greatest villains. They will take the historical context into consideration, collect evidence and examine the behavior of the individuals from various points of view. Then students will use their presentation, writing, debate, perspective-taking and critical thinking skills to render judgments about these controversial figures.

Standards
• CC9-10RH/SS1
• CC9-10RH/SS4
• CC9-10RH/SS6
• CC9-10RH/SS9

Keywords

History, Lesson, Genghis Khan, Benedict Arnold, Edward Longshanks, King Edward I, Legend, Truth, Motivations

Materials Needed

• Computer(s) with word processing capability and Internet access
• (If desired by students) Large chart paper, flipchart markers; easel stands or masking tape to post paper

Lesson Plan

Break the class into (or based on their interest in a particular historical figure, let students self-select into) at least three groups. You’ll need at least one group for each of the three historical figures; if you have a large class or want there to be fewer students per group, assign multiple groups to research the same historical figure. Each group will represent a mock “courtroom” consisting of the following roles:

• Prosecuting attorney
• Defense attorney
• One or more witnesses (“average citizens” who lived during the lifetime of the historical figure and experienced the events firsthand)
• One or more expert witnesses (university history professors who can offer informed opinions on whether the individual positively contributed to history)

Teachers can either assign students to roles or let them choose their own.

On Day 1, students work with their groups, using the provided links and/or doing additional library or Internet research in order to take notes regarding (1) the individual’s historical significance, (2) the historical context of the time period, (3) the individual’s goals and motivations, (4) any alternate ways in which he could have achieved these goals, and (5) whether the student believes the individual is “guilty” (deserving of his “bad rap”) or “not guilty” (not necessarily a model citizen, but contributing positively to history nonetheless). Students should be encouraged to take on their distinct roles and if necessary, see things differently from other members of the group. Although functioning as part of a group, each student should take his/her own notes.

On Day 2, students write statements expressing their opinions (guilty or not guilty) based on personal perspective, their assigned role, and evidence they uncovered during research.

On Days 3 and 4, groups present their cases, using the statements they have prepared. If desired, students can use chart paper to create a more visual presentation. Students should be encouraged to use their roles, and if applicable, to present opinions contrary to those of other members of their courtroom. (Prosecution and defense attorneys, by definition, should disagree.) Classmates (except those researching the same individual and those who have already voted regarding another group's presentation of the same historical figure) act as jurors, taking careful notes while the case is being presented. The teacher then acts as judge by asking jurors how they “find” the historical figure (guilty or not guilty). The teacher should tally the results and issue a verdict based on simple majority. It might be interesting to note whether different juries voted differently regarding the same historical figure.

On Day 5, students write statements based on at least one experience of serving as a juror. They should answer the following questions: (1) How did you vote (guilty or not guilty)? (2) Why did you vote the way you did? (3) Did your opinion of the historical figure before the courtroom presentation change at all by the end of the presentation? If so, how? (4) What aspects of the presentation most influenced your vote? (5) How was serving in a courtroom group different from serving as a juror?

Students will hand in two written products at the conclusion of the lesson: the statement they used to participate in the courtroom presentation, and the statement they wrote about serving as a juror.

Background on historical figures

Genghis Khan the barbarian

Genghis Khan has a reputation far and wide for tearing across Asia with his horde of barbarians, laying waste to every village in his path. He would ride into town, pillage everything, and then burn to the ground what remained. Through a combination of outstanding military tactics and merciless brutality, Khan avenged his father's murder by decimating the Tatar army and ordered the killing of every Tatar male less than 3 feet tall. Khan’s Mongols then defeated the Taichi'ut using a series of massive cavalry attacks and ordered all the Taichi'ut chiefs boiled alive.

Genghis Khan the unifier

Before Khan’s time, Mongolia consisted of a bunch of scattered nomadic tribes that would wander around and occasionally kill each other. When he turned 20 years old, Khan realized that the nomadic model was keeping his homeland globally irrelevant, so he began building a large army with the intent of destroying individual tribes in Northeast Asia and uniting them under his rule.

While he was incredibly brutal and violent, he was also a deft politician and negotiator, attracting the allegiance of other tribes by spreading the word that life under his rule was very good. He did away with the sacred Mongolian tradition of leaving defeated soldiers to die. Instead, he allowed defeated enemies to join, giving the men a share in the spoils of war and basing promotions on merit rather than politics. Soldiers had previously never been treated so well by a commander.

With Mongolia unified, Khan busied himself keeping it that way. He surmised that, if left to themselves, the Mongols would ultimately return to their scattered, nomadic ways, so he arranged activities—such as giant hunts—to keep them organized. A current leading theory is that Khan continued his invasions as a sort of massive team-building exercise for his people. This led to his achieving the largest empire in history, prior to the British Empire.

Recommended sources for further information:

MetMuseum.org
Columbia.edu

Benedict Arnold the traitor

Benedict Arnold was a double agent during the American Revolution, serving as a general in the Continental Army while simultaneously working for England. He famously attempted to use his position to gain control of West Point, then surrender it to the British. He was discovered and thwarted, and his name has since become synonymous with the word “traitor.”

Benedict Arnold the underappreciated war hero

The pre-treasonous Arnold was the epitome of American achievement. After his mother died, he single-handedly supported his sister and suicidally alcoholic father. At age 15, he also enlisted to fight off a French invasion. He then grew up to be a successful capitalist and family man and famously fought a duel against somebody who used "Yankee" as an insult.

It was when the British Colonies declared their independence that Arnold began experiencing one disappointment after another. He planned and led the famous siege of Fort Ticonderoga, despite being upstaged by Ethan Allen. He masterminded the strategic invasion of Quebec shortly after his wife died, where he held position for weeks despite being cut off from the rest of the army and shot in the leg. He held back the British at Lake Champlain, was instrumental in the Danbury raid and was essential to the success of the Battle of Saratoga.

Despite all of his successes in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, Arnold was repeatedly passed over for promotion in favor of younger, less experienced men. A contributing factor to this was his subordinate officers, who often took credit for his achievements. Some went so far as to discredit Arnold so that he was investigated by Congress on baseless accusations of corruption.

The proverbial last straw came when America began creating an alliance with France, whom Arnold had fought against as teenager. It was at this point that he decided to take up the fight on behalf of The Crown.

Recommended sources for further information:

EarlyAmerica.com
USNews.com

Edward Longshanks the tyrant

Fans of the film “Braveheart” remember Longshanks, or King Edward I, as the tyrannical lord of Imperial England who provoked William Wallace and his native Scotland into a full-blown war for Scottish independence. Edward was depicted as an egomaniac who violently opposed the idea of freedom.

Edward Longshanks the diplomat and statesman

The single most important thing to know about Longshanks’ involvement with Scotland is that he was invited. That’s right; Scotland invited him in. At the time, Scotland was on the verge of civil war and asked Longshanks to mediate the situation. In return, he added the country to the English Empire. This was the only time in England’s long and storied history of empire-building that it was actually invited. While it is true that Longshanks went back on his word regarding rule of Scotland, some may feel the Scots only had themselves to blame.

Additionally, Longshanks implemented many improvements. He drafted legislation that eventually became the foundation for the English Constitution. He also solved his country’s debt problems with a series of stringent anti-usury laws, using his position to ensure his people would enjoy a stable government.

Recommended source for further information:

HistoricUK.com
 

Assessment

Students’ two written products are evaluated in terms of the following:

• Writing quality
• Completeness (all questions answered with adequate detail)
• Soundness of argument/opinion
• Use of historical information
• Evidence of perspective-taking (for courtroom statement only)
• Evidence of having reflected upon one’s experience (for juror statement only)
   

Submitted by

Jason Tomaszewski, Education World Associate Editor

Please include your recommended sources and ideas for classroom adaptations in the comments below.

Education World®           
Copyright © 2011, 2015 Education World