Early Middle Ages

Great series! Lecture 11 seems to be repeated and the beginning of the Merovingian period is missing

As an educator, Professor Freedman’s mastery of integrating the old history into why it’s relevant to modern times is remarkable. So many analogies from the past to present and why were in the messes were in today. Is the companion literature he assigns also available to peruse and keep up with the background of his lectures. Thank you for this podcast.

Professor Freedman’s remarkable lucidity and mastery of this subject matter are part of why these lectures are so outstanding. But for me, even more powerful are the kindness and humanity that shine through in every talk. The depth of Professor Freedman’s care—about the people who lived and made this history; the students in his lecture hall, and perhaps the listeners online—make these lectures something truly special. His dry sense of humor, too, is worth the price of admission!

It is unquestionable that professor Freedman is knowledgeable. However, I’m looking for an unbiased course. He says that if any of the friends of the students are wondering why the course spends so much time discussing theology, then they should come to office hours. Well, we the listeners can’t go to his office hours. So if theology is so central to middle age history, then I wish he would have explained it to the rest of us. I’m sure he could have talked about other things aside from the exquisite religious details that dominate the course. He spent an entire lecture on the confessions of St. Augustine. He has to cover the entire history and the lives and culture of middle age Europe in a handful of lectures, and he dedicated a whole lecture on the writings of one religious figure. His lectures are 85% religion, with no mention of the negative impacts of religion on the lives of the people. He presents all religious topics as factual components of history. Yet when the topic of King Arthur comes up, he admits he will only mention him briefly because he is 99.9% legend. This was a lost opportunity to discuss the resistance of the Celtic people against the Roman invaders, and the leaders and communities that inspired the legend of King Arthur. He explains how there was no such thing as the dark ages, conveniently ignoring the degree to which the dominance of religion stifled science, secular art and literature, and the exchange of the large scale civil engineering of the Romans with just building cathedrals. Interestingly, if religion is such a large component of the Middle Ages that we can’t have a history course without discussing it at length, then maybe it was the dark ages after all. Freedman further supports this idea on the lecture of Monasticism but saying that much of the learning in the Middle Ages was in the monasteries. If most learning at the time was limited to what was sanctioned by religion, then that pretty well defines the Dark Ages. This brings to mind the Muslims who burned books, and the many books banned by the Catholic Church. In making a comparison and saying the modern university is very much like a monastery, he is essentially saying monasteries were as harmless (and essential) to knowledge as universities. This is a blatant denial that the middle age limitation of knowledge to monasteries was a suppression of non religious writings. When he covers the topic of ethnogenesis, and the emergence of the Visigoth cultural identify, he literally explains how the Visigoth culture transitioned to the emergence of the German culture, “culminating into the Nazis”. Really?! This is a rich culture of 1000 years that made tremendous contributions to science, literature, poetry, philosophy, music, sports, modern technological manufacturing, not to mention the linguistic contributions that gave rise to the English language and set it apart from the Romance languages….. and he represents it all by a single political party that lasted 25 years and was backed by a minority of voters! The importance of religion to middle age Europe is debatable; but there’s no need for racist comments. Freedman says that in In 632, Islam is not to be understood as a militant conversion-oriented jihad-o-centric religion from the start, in 632 when Mohammed died. Interestingly, 632 was the year of the first Muslim Arab raiders in Persia culminating in the fall of the empire in 651 Islam did not “develop” in the Persian empire. It was pure conquest, jihad, forced conversion, the effects of which have successfully lasted for over 1300 years until today. I’m simply tired of Freedman’s personal biases. I’m sure he is successfully misinforming countless young impressionable minds with his personal opinions, presented as historical fact. My rating has progressed from 3 stars to 1 star, and I can no longer listen to these lectures. I will eagerly seek another lecture series on the Middle Ages.