The Middle Ages

[Northern Neil]

I must agree with Ursus' opinion on the comment by Starkey. While I accept Starkey is a historian of merit, the comment is neither true nor particularly objective. Far from being centralised, most of the history of the Roman Empire is that of divisions and partition into east/west, or separatist entities such as Palmyra and the Gallic Empire of Postumus. Part of this was precisely because Rome adopted and absorbed the very cultures Starkey says it rode roughshod over.

 

Some of the things that made Roman culture so 'great' as he puts it, is that ordinary, or even poor people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied diet and had access to a large variety of consumer goods which made life easier. This was the case in Britain in 400 AD. By 500 AD this had all changed. Domestic pottery was badly made and was reduced to one or two all purpose items, people lived under thatch or birch bark, and ate whatever basic foodstuffs were left after the local warlord had taken his cut. Long distance travel was rare, scientific and artistic development stagnant. This moribund state of affairs lasted for several hundred years.

 

The period from 1000 to 1500 was indeed an interesting and great period, because once again material culture, scientific enquiry and art/culture started to advance, from where it left off back in 500 AD.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Northern Neil

[spittle]

I believe that the elite of the cultures colonised by Rome actively sought out ROMANISATION. They weren't penalised for speaking their ancestral languages or waring traditional clothes. Rome didn't care if peace and trade remained uninterupted.

 

American culture as been adopted worldwide in our times but I can't remember U.S Marines guarding the construction of the local KFC or forcing my fellow Yorkshire men to throw away their flat caps and replace them with Baseball caps.

 

Starkey sometimes goes out of his way to be contraversial. He's just selling himself, I guess.

[caldrail]

I must agree with Ursus' opinion on the comment by Starkey. While I accept Starkey is a historian of merit, the comment is neither true nor particularly objective. Far from being centralised, most of the history of the Roman Empire is that of divisions and partition into east/west, or separatist entities such as Palmyra and the Gallic Empire of Postumus. Part of this was precisely because Rome adopted and absorbed the very cultures Starkey says it rode roughshod over.

 

Some of the things that made Roman culture so 'great' as he puts it, is that ordinary, or even poor people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied diet and had access to a large variety of consumer goods which made life easier. This was the case in Britain in 400 AD. By 500 AD this had all changed. Domestic pottery was badly made and was reduced to one or two all purpose items, people lived under thatch or birch bark, and ate whatever basic foodstuffs were left after the local warlord had taken his cut. Long distance travel was rare, scientific and artistic development stagnant. This moribund state of affairs lasted for several hundred years.

 

The period from 1000 to 1500 was indeed an interesting and great period, because once again material culture, scientific enquiry and art/culture started to advance, from where it left off back in 500 AD.

 

Rome saw itself as a desirable culture, whose citizens lived in the 'proper' way (or should do!), and in order to business effectively they were keen to romanise these acquisitions. I don't think the romans cared a fig for the barbarian or oriental ways, other than fashionable curiosities (hence undesirable by right-minded folk, and only picked up by those with time on their hands or people with a need to shock, to be different, to appear sophisticated in their tastes). To get ahead in roman life meant adopting roman ways - "When in Rome, do as the romans" - or else they'd treat you like any other barbarian. Rome did not absorb foreign culture, it was infected by it, further reinforced by the immigration of foreign nationals who remained firmly in their own ghettoes.

 

Life under roman control was also easier by virtue of the organised lifestyle and infrastructure that provided these consumer goods. As you noted, after the removal of the roman military the collapse of government ocurred astonishing quickly under pressure from saxon raids, yet the resistance to this piecemeal occupation went on for up to two centuries afterward.

 

Between AD500 and AD1000, long distance foreign travel still went on as before, although with the proviso that roman security was no longer keeping the peace. However, no-one was recording these travels and therefore we have this image of people cowering in their homes until the end of the dark age, something that simply wasn't true. For instance, one gentleman made repeated journeys from York to France in order to retrieve christian documents. Trade must have continued in a more opportunistic manner, since no hardy merchant is going to ignore the possibility of tidy profit from keeping in touch with foreigners with cash, and lets not forget, the trade links established in roman times in the Indian Ocean were still in place (albeit largely greek) for some time to come.

Edited January 28, 2008 by caldrail

[CiceroD]

Between AD500 and AD1000, long distance foreign travel still went on as before, although with the proviso that roman security was no longer keeping the peace. However, no-one was recording these travels and therefore we have this image of people cowering in their homes until the end of the dark age, something that simply wasn't true. For instance, one gentleman made repeated journeys from York to France in order to retrieve christian documents. Trade must have continued in a more opportunistic manner, since no hardy merchant is going to ignore the possibility of tidy profit from keeping in touch with foreigners with cash, and lets not forget, the trade links established in roman times in the Indian Ocean were still in place (albeit largely greek) for some time to come.

 

An underlying idea behind feudalism is that it existed to provide in a world that was mostly without coin. The manor was nearly a self sustaining unit.

 

Whereas many young patricians went from province to province (either to check on estates or cursus honoram required military service). Every source Ive ever read, says that cities during the Dark ages languished. And without markets AKA cities (or cities few and far between) trade is going to be limited perhaps to provide luxuries to the lord and lady (Until the British-Flemish wool trade and the Hanseatic league). Even then, I very much doubt that peasants had anything from as far away as Egypt. The Roman poor had grain from there regularly.

 

Your right however Caldrail that no one really cowered in their houses. The majority of people were bound to their land for generations. Going very far was simply a lot less necessary.

 

What I am getting at is that Europe did become more insular in the Dark Ages. This is of course with the exception of the Church Officials and the limited number of long distance traders.

[Ursus]

The Empire, or at least the early empire, was very much a partnership between the Rome and the local elites. The local elites were in fact expected to Romanize, but this wasn't as severe as the phrase "riding roughshod over native cultures" implies. "Romanization" still allowed a considerable lattitude for local cultures. The only people who really lost were the Druids (because they refused to Romanize) and the Jews (and them only after an overly zealous revolt - until then leaders like Caesar and Claudius had treated them quite kindly).

 

I don't see Rome as becoming tyrannical until the later empire, especially with Theodosius enforcing a newly crafted state religion on everyone at the dire expense of native religions.

 

And that newly crafted, rather intolerant state religion was one of the hallmarks of this new era. Given further still that the Medieval Western European states were taken over by Germanic overlords, who were hardly therefore a "native" aristocracy. And given that literacy and classical learning did not flourish much outside monastic institutions, I really don't see how anyone can praise the Middle Ages as a fountainhead of creativity and "native" cultural evolution.

[caldrail]

An underlying idea behind feudalism is that it existed to provide in a world that was mostly without coin. The manor was nearly a self sustaining unit.

Nope. The lords of the manors were very concerned with coinage, usually to have as much as they could grasp. That was one of the primary motivations for taking part in the crusades. The manor was self sustaining up to a point, but the efficiency of the manor was something that developed as the period progressed - and it progressed along with cultural adoption of freedom of travel. In other words, serfdom, the binding of a man to the manor, prevented certain aspects of society from progress. That was fine with the manor lords who wanted their own petty realms if they couldn't aspire to the real thing.

 

Whereas many young patricians went from province to province (either to check on estates or cursus honoram required military service). Every source Ive ever read, says that cities during the Dark ages languished. And without markets AKA cities (or cities few and far between) trade is going to be limited perhaps to provide luxuries to the lord and lady (Until the British-Flemish wool trade and the Hanseatic league). Even then, I very much doubt that peasants had anything from as far away as Egypt. The Roman poor had grain from there regularly.

Roman society was different from medieval, and more organised. The problem with the fuedal system is that it depended on personal allegiances or verbal contracts that could easily be ignored or contravened. Hence the turbulent politics of the period. Another point is the outbreak of disease in the 14th century, which absolutely decimated english country life. Ordnance Survey maps show loads of abandoned village sites all over england. Cities may have languished during the dark ages yet many still had roman buildings in evidence by the end of it, these being demolished later for stone.

 

Your right however Caldrail that no one really cowered in their houses. The majority of people were bound to their land for generations. Going very far was simply a lot less necessary.

 

What I am getting at is that Europe did become more insular in the Dark Ages. This is of course with the exception of the Church Officials and the limited number of long distance traders.

Yet despite this the english were involved in wars on the continent as far as the holy lands. Free companies were notorious and the english were in the forefront of this mercenary activity.

[CiceroD]

I apologise to the forum for not using a more specific or literary source but my History: the Definitive Visual Guide (published by DK 2007) is what I have to cite at the moment.

 

Nope. The lords of the manors were very concerned with coinage, usually to have as much as they could grasp. That was one of the primary motivations for taking part in the crusades. The manor was self sustaining up to a point, but the efficiency of the manor was something that developed as the period progressed - and it progressed along with cultural adoption of freedom of travel.

 

1) Yes the Lord and Lady were veryinterested in coins but the vast majority of people i.e. serfs had almost no coin.

 

Pg 191 in the above mentioned source states: "In return for protection and the right to work their lands, peasants worked for the lord of the manor for an agreed number of days per year, as well as giving him a share of their produce." This and the existence of Tithe Barns illustrate how the society existed around bartering.

 

In fact doesn't this work "tax" remind anyone of the Inca system? It was a system without currency. Produce was handed over to storehouses and commoners enlisted to work for their ruler in fact it differed from the Medieval system mostly in the scale of integration, Church, and the use of the ayllu as a political unit

 

Roman society was different from medieval, and more organised.

 

That is what I am arguing

 

Another point is the outbreak of disease in the 14th century, which absolutely decimated english country life. Ordnance Survey maps show loads of abandoned village sites all over england. Cities may have languished during the dark ages yet many still had roman buildings in evidence by the end of it, these being demolished later for stone.

 

Yes the Great Famine and the Black Death had tremendous effects no one is disputing that.

But the time period I am focusing on is the Dark Ages Proper (if there is such a thing) 500 to 1000 CE

 

The existence of Roman Buildings around Europe doesn't speak at all to the scale of the cities or their use as trade centers.

 

Yet despite this the english were involved in wars on the continent as far as the holy lands. Free companies were notorious and the english were in the forefront of this mercenary activity.

 

Yes there were the Crusades but as far as that being fought for Gold, It was less important to them then Land. Piety was also important factor Pg. 200

The huge popular response to his [The Pope's] appeal, although unexpected, was the product of a number of factors including the growth of a fervant lay piety over the preceeding centuries, and the need of a land-hungry warrior class to find an outlet for their martial energies.

 

The 100 Year's War was (in the mind of the English Royaly) within their country as they continued to lay claim to Normandy. As far as these mercenaries, I am willing to bet that they were far fewer those who never got farther than three days travel from where they were born. (I dont think many of the Proletarii on the Dole traveled either but all I'm stating is that there were far less "bourgeosie" traders in the Dark Ages).

 

What are these Free Companies Caldrail? Are you refering to military companies or commercial ones?

[caldrail]

Free Companies were groups of mercenaries. They were therefore both military and commercial, and also greatly interested in achieving their propserity regardless of legal restrictions.

 

The 100 Year's War was (in the mind of the English Royaly) within their country as they continued to lay claim to Normandy. As far as these mercenaries, I am willing to bet that they were far fewer those who never got farther than three days travel from where they were born. (I dont think many of the Proletarii on the Dole traveled either but all I'm stating is that there were far less "bourgeosie" traders in the Dark Ages).

Not so. English mercenaries were notorious around the mediterranean. Also, trade during the dark ages was flourishing despite the turmoil in england. Ok, the deprivations of saxon and later viking invaders would cause considerable upset, yet those very same saxon peoples established ports (Port is from a saxon word meaning 'market') along the southeast coast. By the end of the dark ages its reckoned that as many as 10% of the population were town dwellers, which means that rural production was making at least a 10% surplus in order to support them, and we know that people during the dark ages owned items from as far away as India.

 

Yes there were the Crusades but as far as that being fought for Gold, It was less important to them then Land. Piety was also important factor Pg. 200

The huge popular response to his [The Pope's] appeal, although unexpected, was the product of a number of factors including the growth of a fervant lay piety over the preceeding centuries, and the need of a land-hungry warrior class to find an outlet for their martial energies.

 

For the masses, piety was a strong influence - I've said the same thing previously. The psychological hold that christianity had over the populace was frightening. By the end of the eleventh century moves toward a christian european empire under the rule of the popes was advancing, with a capital to be sited at Cluny, in France. There were a number of factors involved in the first crusades. Firstly, the pope of the day wanted the politcal kudos of freeing Jerusalem from non-christian domination (as he saw it), the population as a whole wanted to do the right thing for God, and the nobility wanted cash, land, and an excuse for a good scrap (though I accept that not all worshipped the coin). The problem was that the pope had declared publicly it was not so great a sin to shed the blood of non christians, and that fighting in Gods name was a penance for this in its own right. Its a very Augustine excuse indeed which was adopted largescale. For the official crusaders, there was political jostling as the three main leaders all wanted sole command, and hence the glory of winning the campaign, which would no doubt bring them power and wealth. For the unoffical crusades of ordinary populace, they simply threw away the fuedal obligation to remain bound to the land and migrated east in the optomistic hope that they would free Jerusalem.

[Gaius Octavius]

The First Crusade was preached by a priest, and the Pope was forced to take it from there.

 

In Italy, the mercenaries were called 'condotierri'. http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/earl.../trails/sforza/

[CiceroD]

Not so. English mercenaries were notorious around the mediterranean. Also, trade during the dark ages was flourishing despite the turmoil in england. Ok, the deprivations of saxon and later viking invaders would cause considerable upset, yet those very same saxon peoples established ports (Port is from a saxon word meaning 'market')

 

I cant believe that "Port" has an Anglo-Saxon origin when it so closely mirrors the Latin Portus. Now, whether or not it came to Modern English via Anglo-Saxon the original meaning of "door" and therefore "Harbor" (as seen by the "Portus" built by Claudius and Trajan outside of Rome) would still be clear.

 

By the end of the dark ages its reckoned that as many as 10% of the population were town dwellers, which means that rural production was making at least a 10% surplus in order to support them, and we know that people during the dark ages owned items from as far away as India.

 

Numbers without comparison do not impress me Caldrail. Show me the numbers of city dwellers from the zenith of the (Urbanized) Empire and then we will talk. Additionally from where did you obtain this number of 10%? Is it from studies of a particular country or region?

 

As far as objects from distant places it doesn't mean that people actually traveled the whole way. Trade is a natural human activity that will go on whatever the circumstances but the volume of such trade is another matter. Didn't cavemen trade flint across long distances? Didn't Native Americans trade dentalia shells across much of North America without cities or professional traders?

 

I'll find data to cite these two points

 

For the masses, piety was a strong influence - I've said the same thing previously. [T]he population as a whole wanted to do the right thing for God, and the nobility wanted cash, land, and an excuse for a good scrap (though I accept that not all worshipped the coin).

 

Yes they wanted cash and the way to get cash in those days was to have land.

 

Please someone else jump in. If I'm wrong let me honestly be wrong, and see that I'm the minority opinion.

Edited February 3, 2008 by CiceroD

[docoflove1974]

Not so. English mercenaries were notorious around the mediterranean. Also, trade during the dark ages was flourishing despite the turmoil in england. Ok, the deprivations of saxon and later viking invaders would cause considerable upset, yet those very same saxon peoples established ports (Port is from a saxon word meaning 'market')

 

I cant believe that "Port" has an Anglo-Saxon origin when it so closely mirrors the Latin Portus. Now, whether or not it came to Modern English via Anglo-Saxon the original meaning of "door" and therefore "Harbor" (as seen by the "Portus" built by Claudius and Trajan outside of Rome) would still be clear.

 

According to the OED: [in Old English < classical Latin portus (see below). In Middle English reinforced by or reborrowed from Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French port (French port) harbour, haven (c1050; also in fig. use, esp. in such phrases as estre a mal port to be in a desperate situation (c1165), a bon port happily (c1280), and freq. in religious contexts), town situated near to or around a harbour (1100; cf. port de la mer town situated on the coast and affording shelter to ships (1140)) < classical Latin portus harbour, haven, refuge, mouth of a river, in post-classical Latin also merchants' settlement, trading town (7th cent.) < the same Indo-European base as FORD n.¹ Cf. Old Occitan, Occitan port (c1070), Catalan port (13th cent.), Spanish puerto (1085), Portuguese porto (10th cent.), Italian porto (13th cent.), and also Middle Dutch port, Middle High German port, porte.

 

Another interesting fact on port from the OED: The word is barely attested in the early Middle English period. It is uncertain whether place names (in which the word may be either attributive or in the genitive) show continuing awareness of the element as an independent word, as all place names showing this word in this period are app. already attested in the Old English period. In sense 3a app. attested earlier in place names, as Port (c900-50; now Isle of Portland, Dorset), (

Edited February 3, 2008 by docoflove1974

[docoflove1974]

Much of what I've been seeing in this thread helps me in picturing England and much of Continental/Western Europe during the period of 500-1000 CE. But I think there are two elements which are being left out: life in Ireland, and life in Iberia. I can't speak much about Ireland, other than I know that the monasteries are growing at that time. But as for Iberia....

 

Remember that Iberia is really cut in two once we get to 711: Gothic-Romance Iberia and Moorish-Romance Iberia. The Moorish-Romance Iberia--particularly the areas around what is now Andaluc

[Faustus]

This got me thinking about how the middle ages have been percieved in popular culture over the last few years, and overall the image of the period is usually very negative. Whenever anyone is looking for an insult for people they consider to be backward or brutal they always use the word medieval. People now use the word for situations where its use is nonsensical, as shown in the blog Got Medieval?

I recently read a rather strange aticle by a newspaper columnist that blamed the middle ages (specifically the 12-13th centuries) for creating intolerance and religious division. I can safely say that there was alot of religious division during the Later Roman Empire - Catholics vs Arians, Christians vs Pagans etc.

 

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?

 

It would've seemed to be accurate to the degree that, for instance, Byzantium as a society/culture/civilization of ancient history was taken entirely separately from Rome as recently as 40 years ago. In 1966 with my subscription of Great Ages Of Man series (Time-Life)

Edited February 4, 2008 by Faustus

[caldrail]

By the end of the dark ages its reckoned that as many as 10% of the population were town dwellers, which means that rural production was making at least a 10% surplus in order to support them, and we know that people during the dark ages owned items from as far away as India.

 

Numbers without comparison do not impress me Caldrail. Show me the numbers of city dwellers from the zenith of the (Urbanized) Empire and then we will talk. Additionally from where did you obtain this number of 10%? Is it from studies of a particular country or region?

 

It was from a book describing britain during the dark ages and with particular emphasis on the the year 1000, but offhand I don't remember the title or author. The book is a fine summary of current archaeology/historical research and I do recommend giving it a read (I'll try to find the info on it for you).

 

As far as objects from distant places it doesn't mean that people actually traveled the whole way. Trade is a natural human activity that will go on whatever the circumstances but the volume of such trade is another matter. Didn't cavemen trade flint across long distances? Didn't Native Americans trade dentalia shells across much of North America without cities or professional traders?

Thats a good arguement! Long distance travel was a minority interest in times past for sure, but what I tried to get across was that long distance travel did not suffer too much from the turmoil in england, which was patchy rather than consistent.

[Northern Neil]

Thats a good arguement! Long distance travel was a minority interest in times past for sure, but what I tried to get across was that long distance travel did not suffer too much from the turmoil in england, which was patchy rather than consistent.

The 'Cambridge History of the Middle Ages (Vol. 1)' has a haunting and evocative statement on this: '[before 410]...one could send a letter from York to Hippo, or travel from Clermont to Dura. Before too long, this would no longer be possible...'