The trials that happened in history class was a good aspect to learn more about Napoleon, Robespierre, and the French Revolution in general. I personally believe that I could have grasped more knowledge about these people if we took another strategy to learn instead of a trial. When it came to the test, I realized that I did not very well know about these people in detail. The trials could have been more stronger if it was organized and actually productive throughout. I definately enjoyed working in our groups and putting together the information.
From the trial, I agreed with what the jury and prosecution stated. Robespierre had a good cause in mind, but his way of putting into action was not smart at all. He killed many innocent people, which led to know success of equality. In Robespierre's mind, he wanted to kill off people to bring equality to France, but his strategy was not justified.
In the future, I think a trial would not be a bad idea, but maybe other creative strategies can also be thought of to help us better understand historical figures.
You said that when it came to the test, you realized that you did not very well know about these people in detail. But I'm having trouble understanding why. During the research portion of the trial (when we were in the library), all we were supposed to do was learn about our witnesses: Napoleon, Robespierre, and other Enlightenment/Revolutionary thinkers. I thought that the trial addressed what was on the test very well (other than the multiple choice section).
ReplyDeleteI definitely knew about these people after reading the book, and doing my own study. I was just mentioning that the trial did not better my knowledge about these people. Any other perspective of an activity could have done better. And you definitely know more history than I do Cy.
ReplyDelete