Making a Historiographical distinction between Middle and Dark Ages

[Dachs]

Who said the 'datestamp' itself had to be a traumatic or wonderful event to the world ? When Constantinople fell it was little more than a glorified Venetian-Genose trading post. But it effectively marks the end of an era, just as the official end of the empty shell of a Roman Empire does, just as the accession of a semi-literate barbarian as first Holy Roman Emperor over a disorganized collection of fiefdoms marks the beginning of another. It's easy to minimize the event itself, but a judicious choice coincides with other trends. 1455 happens to coincide with the end of the Hundred Years War, when feudal cavalry no longer dominated the battlefield, after the bubonic plagues, and the beginning of the bourgeosie.

See, the funny thing about those markers is that they're so fluid and virtually impossible to agree upon due to regional differentiation. I for one don't think that 1453 was a watershed year either, for what it's worth. At least, not anymore. Further, what sort of "era" did the coincidence of the end of the Hundred Years' War and the capture of Constantinople bring? What similarity can be found between the end of the possession by an entity calling itself the Roman Empire of a single, somewhat important city and the end of a series of intermittent conflicts between the kings of England and the other claimants to the title of king of France? As to your other supposed "markers", the bubonic plague continued to break out in Europe after that date, feudally raised contingents continued to make up a large part of most European armies for quite some time after that date (and in Eastern Europe, it would last even longer, with the Russian service nobility obligation not even really getting started until this era and going strong until the 19th century, while in Sweden conscription and feudal obligations would be combined in the indelningsverk in the late 17th century...), and the existence of a class of persons referred to as the 'bourgeoisie' has nothing whatsoever to do with the date of 1453.

To extrapolate to the wider European situation: what changed in 800? Charlemagne was not crowned 'Holy Roman Emperor' in that year, and the institution that eventually became the Holy Roman Empire owed few of its institutions or reasons for creation to him and his government. His transitory empire did not start the reconquista, it did not oversee a sudden and fundamental shift in the function or performance of Western European militaria, it included territories that were heavily raided by Magyars and Vikings and did not herald either the beginning or end of such raids, and it certainly didn't coincide with the beginning of a "new era" in the Byzantine Empire, which didn't even finish its period of reforms and internal focus until the late 830s and early 840s with the military and associated reforms of Theophilos, which in turn weren't even much of a hallmark because the system he devised wouldn't be consistently applied with any success for another generation.

I dunno, like BL, I'm really, really leery of applying set dates to eras or pretending that they apply to anything more than highly restricted areas. Sure, the reign of Charlemagne was kind of important in some ways, but for most of Europe - let alone the world - it's basically useless, and its very transitory nature is a black mark as well. The nature of "dark ages" in various countries was different, so if you try to claim that they began to pull out of them it's silly to try to put them all into an Age of some kind or link them in any way - especially to an event such as Charlemagne being crowned "Roman Emperor" by a clergyman on a suspiciously convenient date - by necessity these sorts of categorization attempts become "some important or semiimportant stuff all happened in a few different places at around the same time with relatively unrelated causes but it was the DAWN OF A NEW ERA".

 

[vogtmurr]

Ah, yeah - I have to go with 1455, damn.
I think if nothing else, it brings closure to two prolonged conflicts that are a huge part of medieval history, as well as a period that was characterized by the worst of the plagues (they did recurr in London as late as 1665 before the Great Fire). The dynamics were changing partly as a result of this - both the plague and wars decimated the nobility, and saw the rise of independent townspeople who replaced the feudal economic structure with their own, and of course the flow of knowledge from Constantinople sparked an intellectual rennaissance. For England though, the Wars of the Roses helped complete this process. It's just an academic exercise but far more fun to place the transition at a landmark fate in history than say, 1500.

As for Charlemagne - he's just a bigger example of what was starting to happen elsewhere.

"some important or semiimportant stuff all happened in a few different places at around the same time with relatively unrelated causes but it was the DAWN OF A NEW ERA".

that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking. emphasis on around.

 

[Plotinus]

Last I heard, adding in "extras" to Christianity is considered heresy. You know, extras like filioque.

You heard wrong, then.

Who said the 'datestamp' itself had to be a traumatic or wonderful event to the world ? When Constantinople fell it was little more than a glorified Venetian-Genose trading post. But it effectively marks the end of an era, just as the official end of the empty shell of a Roman Empire does, just as the accession of a semi-literate barbarian as first Holy Roman Emperor over a disorganized collection of fiefdoms marks the beginning of another. It's easy to minimize the event itself, but a judicious choice coincides with other trends. 1455 happens to coincide with the end of the Hundred Years War, when feudal cavalry no longer dominated the battlefield, after the bubonic plagues, and the beginning of the bourgeosie.

But just about any short period you care to mention could equally be considered a beginning or end. The 1450s may have the features you mention, but one might just as well fasten on the 1490s, with the end of the reconquest of Iberia and the discovery of the New World. Or the 1510s and the beginning of the Reformation. Or why not go back to the end of the fourteenth century, and the deaths of Richard II, John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer? Or indeed the mid-fourteenth century, when Meister Eckhart, William of Ockham, and the Black Death all heralded the end of the high Middle Ages in their own unique ways? The point is that there's important stuff happening all the time. It's really quite arbitrary to seize upon one bunch of stuff and say "That's the end of an era" when you could do the same with any bunch of stuff.

The 'Dark Age' was a period of great instability, chaos, and few historical records for much of Europe, during which migrating tribal societies established kingdoms on the ruins of an empire thay had effectively obliterated. Those that would survive this period entrenched their language and became the foundation of many modern European states.

Well, when did that begin? The fifth century? But Germanic tribes were already settled within the borders of the Roman empire and building the foundations of future states before then. The fourth century? But the Völkerwanderung had begun long before then. The third century?

After Charlemagne's accession his empire stretched from Croatia to Catalonia, a large part of Christian Europe that survived the onslaught of Muslim Arabs, pagan Vikings, Avars, Magyars etc. It also confirmed the power and influence of the Catholic Church in western Europe, and marks the transition of tribal societies to feudalism.

And after the death of Charlemagne's son it all got broken up again, and the tenth century was just as bad as the seventh or eighth had been. So how does this mark the transition from the early to the high Middle Ages? The features which characterise the high Middle Ages did not really appear until the eleventh century, and they didn't have much to do with Charlemagne. Indeed there would be a good case for saying that Charlemagne and his empire was the last gasp of the ideals of antiquity, not the herald of the Middle Ages. For his very crowning as "Roman emperor" indicates that he and his advisers were still thinking in terms of an empire with an emperor, and not in terms of independent nation states with their own monarchs. Politically speaking, the Middle Ages was all about the latter, not the former.

The trend was echoed in England with Egbert and Alfred the Great around the same time, whose Christian kingdom was preserved by the time it changed hands to Canute and William I.

But Alfred became king 57 years after Charlemagne died! That isn't "around the same time". Charlemagne's contemporary in England was Offa, of dyke-building fame, and I don't think there was much of an intellectual renaissance around that time. There was under Alfred, of course, although one may wonder how big a difference that made - but then one can say the same thing about the Carolingian renaissance itself, which was not much compared to (say) the twelfth- or thirteenth-century intellectual advances.

 

[Yui108]

I'd use 843, the Treaty of Verdun, as the dividing point between Dark and Middle Ages because it established the concepts of France, Germany, and Italy.

 

[BananaLee]

it established the concepts of France, Germany, and Italy.

You definitely have to be much more specific and clear about that statement because if you asked a peasant in those regions in AD 843, they certainly won't see themselves as "French", "German" or "Italian". Now 1843 is probably a nicer year to see the concepts of Germany and Italy

 

[Yui108]

You definitely have to be much more specific and clear about that statement because if you asked a peasant in those regions in AD 843, they certainly won't see themselves as "French", "German" or "Italian". Now 1843 is probably a nicer year to see the concepts of Germany and Italy

Why 1843 over 1848 or 1870?

 

[BananaLee]

No reason. I just tacked a 1 to the 843 you chose. All I'm saying is that 1843 is a better year than 843 if you want to talk about national consciousness.

A bit like saying Christa Miller is a better candidate for Miss World than Joseph Merrick

 

[TheLastOne36]

Since the Polish education system is obviously centered around Poland,
Early middle Age - Fall of Rome to Mieszko converting to Christianity and Poland becoming Christian (year 996)
Later middle age - 996 - 1492

 

[vogtmurr]

But just about any short period you care to mention could equally be considered a beginning or end. The 1450s may have the features you mention, but one might just as well fasten on the 1490s, with the end of the reconquest of Iberia and the discovery of the New World. ..... The point is that there's important stuff happening all the time. It's really quite arbitrary to seize upon one bunch of stuff and say "That's the end of an era" when you could do the same with any bunch of stuff.

OK - your collective points are well-taken.
But this is kind of fun, 1492 ? Yeah that's a good one - covers the Wars of the Roses too, maybe the last war of English feudal rivalries. And a case could be made for AD 1000 - but intuitively it feels totally wrong to claim the so-called 'Dark Age' extended past Charlemagne. Sociopolitically, while there's no clear line, the Carolingian Dynasty
set the pattern for the adoption of feudalism over a large part of Europe.

And after the death of Charlemagne's son it all got broken up again, and the tenth century was just as bad as the seventh or eighth had been.
....
But Alfred became king 57 years after Charlemagne died! That isn't "around the same time". Charlemagne's contemporary in England was Offa, of dyke-building fame, and I don't think there was much of an intellectual renaissance around that time.

The continued union wasn't necessary or important. Despite some weak rulers the successors of France and what would become Germany were strong enough centralized states to resist the Viking and Magyar invaders of those centuries when the attacks came in earnest. And Charlemagne's contemporary was also as I mentioned Egbert King of Wessex (reigned 802-839) a strong ruler and Alfred's grandfather, who began the union of England under Wessex. Just in time to meet the Danes. Definitely a political rennaissance if not an intellectual one quite yet.

So at the end of the day - are we just left with some hazy, imprecise delineation by centuries, that's easier for bookkeepers and high school teachers ? Still some pretty compelling reasons to end the Dark Age at 800.

 

[sydhe]

1453 is a pretty good date for the end not just for the end of the Hundred Years War and the fall of Constantinople, but because it's also close to the date of Gutenberg's printing press.

 

[BananaLee]

So at the end of the day - are we just left with some hazy, imprecise delineation by centuries, that's easier for bookkeepers and high school teachers ?

You hit the nail right on the head there bro.

These sweeping demarcations are actually convenient tools to be used by teachers, lecturers and historians alike. After all, it is much easier to say "Early Medieval Age" then "that period between approx. AD500-1000).

However, one must always be mindful about how hazy and imprecise these deliniations are and as long as one's readers and students understand that, then it's alright to use those terms (some historians such as Elizabeth Brown disagree).

A way to minimise the haziness is to let the topic set the period boundaries. The example most history lecturers use is Marc Bloch's book on the belief in the Royal Touch. Instead of just sitting in the period we all describe as Middle Ages (approx. AD500-1500), his work covers a huge period, ending in the French Revolution in 1792. This is because the belief in this apparently medieval custom did last in France till Louis XVI.

By limiting one's periodisations to more specific topics, one can decrease the problem of artificially periodising bits of history.

 

[Steph]

(Dark)476 Fall of Rome - 800 Crowning of Charlgemane/ 843 Battle of Verdun
(Middle)800/843 - 1453 (Fall of Constantinople, Printing of the Bible, end of the Hundred Years War)

If you use the battle of Verdun, it would end the middle ages in 1916.

 

[Winner]

No. Zheng He is God. Haven't you gotten on the Gavin Menzies bandwagon yet

I heard the Chinese also sparked the Renaissance in Europe

Yeah, and when you guys were busy scratching the ground for food, Asians were... Well, you know the story.

I find (most of) Asian history dull and boring. It's the same thing going on over and over again until the Western countries add some drama and fun to the story.

 

[aelf]

I find (most of) Asian history dull and boring. It's the same thing going on over and over again until the Western countries add some drama and fun to the story.

Says the ignorant person.

 

[BananaLee]

I heard the Chinese also sparked the Renaissance in Europe

Of course. The Chinese also would've beaten the crap out of Alexander's armies and the Romans. They'd call upon Zheng He to help them.

 

[aelf]

The Chinese also would've beaten the crap out of Alexander's armies and the Romans.

Might be true. Reminds me of the funny thread.

 

[BananaLee]

Might be true. Reminds me of the funny thread.

Figured anyone who's been here for the last couple of months would've remembered the Zheng He vs. Alexander references.

 

[Winner]

Says the ignorant person.

Says you. European history is dynamic, rich, interesting, whereas Asian history is repetitive. But I am perfectly sure that most Asians find European history just as dull and dismiss it as unimportant; ethnocentric biases work in both ways.

Of course. The Chinese also would've beaten the crap out of Alexander's armies and the Romans. They'd call upon Zheng He to help them.

Anyway, is the guy insane or something?

 

[BananaLee]

Nah, Zheng He is God Incarnate. He beats the Romans and Greeks, discovers America, sparked the European Renaissance in a day and even reached the South Pole.

I even have photographic evidence he was at the Pole. Take a look at this picture

Spoiler :

 

[aelf]

Says you. European history is dynamic, rich, interesting, whereas Asian history is repetitive. But I am perfectly sure that most Asians find European history just as dull and dismiss it as unimportant; ethnocentric biases work in both ways.

I was going to suggest that you're just myopic. Glad you got that out of the way.

Actually, I find European history very interesting. Though I find that Europeans were most barbaric at times.