Lecturing with Chapter 4

This week was a breeze. I hope you cannot tell it from the textbook, but when I get towards the year 1000, I begin to feel much more comfortable. We aren’t there yet in terms of chapters, but it’s coming, and I’m responding accordingly.

1. CHARLEMAGNE

On Tuesday, I used the topic of Charlemagne as an opportunity to prep the students for their first essay. In other words, I laid out for them the basic essay template and then “performed” it in a lecture. Here’s what I did, using the template as my guide:

Introduction: warm up (start ’em smiling); introduce subject; state thesis.
I cracked a joke or two; offered basic info on Charlemagne, and gave them my thesis: “The Great Man Theory of History still works sometimes . . . and the case of Charlemagne proves it.”

Preliminaries: whatever you need to set the scene: define terms; clarify coverage/set perimeters; give background, etc.
I defined “Great Man Theory of History,” critiquing its male-focus on the side. Then, a bit more info on Charlemagne.

Acknowledge and defang counter-arguments:
I used “luck” as my hook here, saying that one might say that Charlemagne was more lucky than he was great:

--he was lucky in the weather

--he was lucky in his progenitors

--he was lucky in his timing (few invasions)

--he was lucky in his advisers

I countered that:

--Charlemagne was not so lucky in other respects (e.g., 30+ years struggle with the Saxons).

--some of his so-called luck was more cunning than luck (e.g., his relations with Leo III)

--and in any case, luck does not negate greatness

Proof of thesis #1: Charlemagne’s conquests are one proof of his extraordinary personal greatness. This gave me a chance to talk about the usual stuff.

Proof of thesis #2:Charlemagne’s governance is another proof of his extraordinary personal greatness. Again, the usual.

Proof of thesis #3:Charlemagne’s reforms of education and religion are a final proof of his extraordinary personal greatness. Again, the usual.

Conclusion: sum up and go beyond . . . leave ’em smiling
I summed up (in an explicitly perky, not dull way) and then tried to leave them smiling with a joke about it’s good the “Great Man” theory works because we certainly need great men leading us through this economic crisis. But somehow, my PowerPoint shot of Obama and Geithner seemed to leave them cold. Oh well. . . .

2. FEUDALISM

On Thursday, I turned to the first of two days on feudalism. I aim to cover it in one broad sweep (as I did last week with monasticism). Here’s how it went:

1. “FEUDALISM”. I discussed how medieval people would have called it “lordship” or “vassalage.” I talked about differing understandings (esp. from Marx) about what “feudalism” means. I settled on my definition (relations among a small, military elite). And I emphasized that feudalism was never a system, but also a changing, ad hoc arrangement. (I used frat hazing as a analogy; it worked well.)

2. THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF FEUDALISM. I discussed in turn: lord-vassal relationship; decentralization; public power in private hands.

3. ORIGINS. I nodded to antecedents (Roman clientage; barbarian comitatus). Then, I traced how the three characteristics emerged between 700 and 900: lord-vassal relationship in 700s (stirrup, cavalry); decentralization (esp. Verdun, 843 and thereafter); public power in private hands (esp. invasions). I then wrapped this up, as I often do, by imagining ourselves in a government-less world and facing invasion, and resorting to local strong men . . . football team on motorcycles, defending us against the nasty UCLAers . . . always good for a laugh. But it also emphasized that feudalism was an effective response to a desperate situation.

4. THE AGE OF FEUDAL LORDSHIP, 900-1100. Here, I discussed lord-vassal relations a bit more, the importance of local power and violence, and the overriding importance of war in feudal culture (hunting, chess, booty, etc.)

5. HOW DID FEUDALISM RELATE TO MANORIALISM? The usual: most fiefs were manors, but not all; most manors were fiefs, but not all.

6. HOW DID FEUDALISM RELATE TO THE CHURCH? The usual: same elite; ecclesiastical involvement in vassalage and war; lay “advocates.”