The Middle Ages

[DecimusCaesar]

I was reading Mary Beard's blog a while ago when I came across a quote by British Historian David Starkey, he said:

 

"The Roman empire is a greatly exaggerated virtue. That

[docoflove1974]

When I think about such statements about a historical topic, I tend to recall very sage advice: subjectivity and bias run rampant...and we always will compare the modern time with a previous one...which really shouldn't be done. But, oh well...

 

I think you hit the nail on the head by setting the dates of 1000-1500 CE. Much of the truly 'dark ages' were beforehand; by 1000 we have the Franks firmly in control of Frank-dom (I don't think the term 'France' came about until a little later, but I could be wrong); the Castilian, Leonese and Aragonese were battling the Moors, and were really starting the Reconquista in earnest. What I'm not sure about is the status of the various Italian and German city-states; I know that there was incredible power-fighting within some of the states, and one has to include the Vatican as the #1 power-center of Europe.

 

So...I look at the 1200s as a crucial era. At that time you have the emergence of very strong Castilian kings (Alfonso X and his father, Sancho) and the reconquering of Toledo and the northern half of the Iberian peninsula. France is a very strong area politically, and England (I believe) is gaining strength. Italy has several city-states which are still fighting it out for power (and will continue to do so for several centuries to come). But more importantly, the Crusades ramp up...for a variety of reasons.

 

Also at this time we start to see what we now recognize as true literature--the formation of the first universities (Emilia-Romagna, Oxford, Bologna, Salamanca, Paris) started in the late 11th and early 12th century, but really kicked into gear in the 13th century. This fuels literature, I think; early attempts at writing down the stories of the people (as well as the so-called original works) starts in the 1200s in France and Castile, and in the monasteries of Italy. This then explodes in the 1300s.

 

So...was 1000-1500AD (or, really 1000-1400AD) a productive era? I would say yes...without trying to compare it with the Renaissance or the Greek and Roman empires, let alone anything much later. But without the political moves (which, to be fair, were a bit brutal), we don't have the set-up we do for the Renaissance...which leads to everything else.

 

(I've often wondered what some of these so-called Soldier Kings would have thought about ethnic-cleansing of the modern era, or of modern warfare. I bet there would be an element of disdain...at least the Soldier Kings of that era fought hand-to-hand (or sword to sword)...no planes flying high above and dropping bombs!)

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Were the Middle Ages (and by 'midde ages' I mean the period AD 1000-1500) really that bad? People usually see it as a period of endless warfare and vendetta, low politics, no science, religious tyranny and terrible art. How accurate is this image?

 

I suppose this can be seen a pretty accurate if you take a look at the many wars that took place in that 500 year period, the Normans and Saxons invasion's, the rise of Ottoman power, the Crusades alone lasted in excess of 200 years so if you look at it like that than it does seem to be all about warfare and vendetta. But on the other side the cities and towns of medieval Europe began to expand from simple defensive settlements into cosmopolitan centres of trade, power and art. In Italy, the cities became independent states, some building their own empire's like Venice and Florence for instance and in Northern Europe the towns of Flanders became a major centres of manufacturing.

 

So while there were many bloody wars and fighting through out the middle ages there was also major advancements in other areas of the age as well.

[Gaius Octavius]

Not to gainsay anything above, yet I understand that many of the wars on the Italian peninsula were set piece 'battles' (something like a chess game) 'fought' by condotorri. The opposing armies would maneuver, then whoever had the best positioning was declared winner. Little, if any blood spilled.

[sonic]

.... and England (I believe) is gaining strength.

 

Actually, the King of England owned a large part of France and it was only in the 1200's that the French Kings began to make serious inroads and re-establish their rule!!

[Kosmo]

There is a theory that suggests that periods of instabilty and conflict beetwen many players are more innovative then periods of stability under a hegemon that lead to stagnation.

This is generally true. Ancient Greece and the hellenistic periods created more innovation then the period when the Mediterranean Roman Empire difused this innovations. But if we compare the roman period with the Early Middle Ages (500-1000) we can see that in history there are also periods of regress.

The period 1000-1500 was one of change and development for the West that would truly deserve a better public image than unwashed knights and fanatic monks. They washed and they were not fanatics...

Western Europe was a beckwater in 1000 AD while by 1500 AD was the leading civilisation of the world in all aspects.

To a large extent today's civilisation it's the product of that period and of the future development that were unleashed by it because the Medieval West was the first civilisation that suffered no collapse, but a steady and continuos evolution.

[caldrail]

The Middle Ages is sometimes seen as a period of incessant warfare because basically thats what they based their society on. For the chivalry and nobility of it (and most of that was period romantic fiction), the people who ran things in the middle ages were descended from warrior tribes. Sure, there were plenty of cultured people in that period, but fighting was a virtue and rule by the sword arm doesn't leave much room for cultural advancement. Those men who rose to rulership often did so because they were ambitious and ruthless characters, and generally speaking those sort of people have little regard for academic concerns. Further, since medieval society encouraged the use of mercenaries, there were always armed men looking for employment, and thats never good for a peaceful time. However, despite the political insecurity and occaisional epidemic, the middle ages saw the roman tradition preserved, it saw improvements in land management, exploration, trade, the first awkward use of gunpowder in western warfare, and not to mention some very astonishing building projects, usually connected with christianity.

[docoflove1974]

.... and England (I believe) is gaining strength.

 

Actually, the King of England owned a large part of France and it was only in the 1200's that the French Kings began to make serious inroads and re-establish their rule!!

 

 

I thought that was due to the Norman Conquest...so that it is true that officially the 'King of England' owned that land in France, it was really the Normans, who were on the throne, that were in control. Or am I off? (yes yes, technicalities)

[sonic]

.... and England (I believe) is gaining strength.

 

Actually, the King of England owned a large part of France and it was only in the 1200's that the French Kings began to make serious inroads and re-establish their rule!!

 

 

I thought that was due to the Norman Conquest...so that it is true that officially the 'King of England' owned that land in France, it was really the Normans, who were on the throne, that were in control. Or am I off? (yes yes, technicalities)

 

Difficult question....

 

In theory, it was the 'Duke of Normandy' that held Normandy, the ' Duke (I think!!) of Aquitaine' that held Aquitaine etc. etc., but these were all additional titles held by the King of England, some (e.g. Normandy) passed down from William I, others due to marriage (e.g. Henry II to Eleanor of Aquitaine).

 

This resulted in the really awkward position of the King of England having to pay homage and fealty etc. to the King of France for the lands he held in France - which was more than the French King!

 

Due to the complicated marital procedures of the Angevins (England) and Capetians (France), Edward III of England was able to lay claim to the throne of France in 1340. Eventually, after the 100 Years War, the French evicted the English and the Kings of England renounced their claim.

 

However, the long wars with France have resulted in Anglo-French rivalry that continues to this day!!

Edited January 24, 2008 by sonic

[CiceroD]

I have read one author (let me try to find the book) who contends that the The Holy Roman Empire would have been much more like its eponymous predecessor (and the Dark Ages completely different) had the Germania not thrown off the Roman yoke at the Teutoburg Wald.

 

He maintained that if the Germans understood what an empire was all about we may have found a politically united Europe.

 

personally i think that it is a stretch, but does anyone else feel he has a valid point?

[CiceroD]

I have read one author (let me try to find the book) who contends that the The Holy Roman Empire would have been much more like its eponymous predecessor (and the Dark Ages completely different) had the Germania not thrown off the Roman yoke at the Teutoburg Wald.

 

He maintained that if the Germans understood what an empire was all about we may have found a politically united Europe.

 

personally i think that it is a stretch, but does anyone else feel he has a valid point?

[caldrail]

The same could be said for any leader of any nationality with a strong power base and the usual streak of charisma and ruthlessness. However I would say that the opposite is true, that europe would have been more united had Arminius not succeeded and Rome continued to to colonise. I doubt Rome would have found this easy anyway - and lets remember the difficult campaigns of the german knights in the wilds of Prussia, yet on the other side of the arguement roman colonisation was developing under Augustus and surely would have become an increasingly prevalent method of imperialisation. As it was, europe was sort of divided between latinised and germanic culture. The result, as there always is between differing cultures and tribes rubbing shoulders, is territorial aggression. For instance, the modern conflict in Africa has been inflated by colonial divisions dating back to european control. All those artificial frontiers have litttle relevance to african tribes and is still the source of dispute today, since what the african tribes really want is tribal frontiers. Then again, we can't get too carried away with this analogy because tribes do fight for other reasons, such as blood fueds or contests over resources. To some extent that must have been the same for europe - and the recent wars in the balkans have shown how old divisions can rise out of nowhere.

[CiceroD]

However I would say that the opposite is true, that europe would have been more united had Arminius not succeeded and Rome continued to to colonise.

 

This is precisely what my author puts forward caldrail "If Germania had not thrown off the roman yoke"

 

My author, by the way, was Lewis H. Lapham. His essay was "Furor Teutonicus: The Teutoburg Forest, AD 9" and it appeared in What If? Edited by Robert Cowley

 

But the central idea of his essay was that the various chieftains that divided up the western provinces, did not really have a good idea of what an Empire was. They understood that "Caesar" and "Emperor" was a rank above a king, but not the intricacies of government. This was especially so in Germany which was never a province. Therefore when the "Holy Roman Empire" was formed they could not emulate the Roman Empire as they wanted.

 

although the culture clash concept caldrail posted seems very plausible.

[Ursus]

I was reading Mary Beard's blog a while ago when I came across a quote by British Historian David Starkey, he said:

 

"The Roman empire is a greatly exaggerated virtue. That

[caldrail]

Starkey is actually a very clever historian. Whether you agree with him or not, he does have something interesting to say.