Saw that the chivalry total war moders call their mod as the only one for medieval age .
Well ?
Some where between 476 to 1492 .
800 to 1453 ?
1066 to 1453 ? 1492 ?
843 to 1350 ?
it is confusing !
Please post your views .
Printable View
Saw that the chivalry total war moders call their mod as the only one for medieval age .
Well ?
Some where between 476 to 1492 .
800 to 1453 ?
1066 to 1453 ? 1492 ?
843 to 1350 ?
it is confusing !
Please post your views .
Officially, I think Middle Age runs from 476 to 1492, although when I speak of Middle Age, I rather think of the era that starts in 793 and ends in 1453.
On the other hand, I don't really understand your question ;)
I´d say the end is pretty clearly 1453, about the start I´m not sure, one could say the end of the huge migration, but I forgot when that was. ~;)
There is no real convention for dates concerning the Middle Ages. Many people do indeed use 476 as a starting date, as it is seen as the end of antiquity. The end date is however more diputed, and can differ between 1453 and 1517. In the medieval department of the History department of Leiden University, where I myself study, the time range subjected to study is that between 1300/1350 and the 1570's, when the Dutch Revolt started and politics became really different. As it is, you can give different end and starting dates which alternatively have to do with economics, social structure, culture (which seems the one that defines eras like Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance) and politics (which is usually the one that give the exact breaking points in history). These would also differ between different regions and countries.
So, actually all of it is just a made-up convention used to make history more easy to understand. The events in 476 which are now seen as the end of Antiquity weren't seen as such by anyone who lived at the time, and it is nonsense to say people like Columbus or Luther went to sleep one day in the Middle Ages and woke up in the Renaissance.
Another fine example is the new period-dating our Ministry of Education is supplying to schools: The Middle Ages are broken up into two eras: The Time of Knights and Monks (500-1000) and the Time of Cities and States (1000-1500). This is so clearly bullocks that you almost cannot take it seriously (at least, I can't) and should therefore only be used as a means to make historical education more easy. Otherwise, this kind of dating is just useless.
Well of course middle age is a artificial construction. If my memory serves the starting point is the assault of Rome by Germanians and the end is the discovery of America by Cristoph Columbus. :book:
From the end of the Western Roman Empire (5th century) until the fall of Constantinople (1453)
Brutus and TK have pretty much cleared it up, but I just thought I'd note a few things.
Part of the confusion stems from when you consider the Roman Empire to have fallen. The beginning of the MA's is therefore also contested. 476 is the depostion of the last Roman Emperor, but some would argue the Middle Ages had already begun. They might point to the sack of Rome in 410, the Battle of Adrianople in 378 or perhaps even the accession of Constantine in 312 (a religious explanation here: the beginning of the converstion of the empire to Christianity).
Another thing that confuses people is that the first 'Age' of the Middle Ages used to be called the 'Dark Age(s)'. Some older texts will therefore divide things up into the 'Dark Ages' and then the 'Middle Ages'. These are the ones that have the Middle Ages beginning in 800 or 1000.
Scholars generally now divide the Middle Ages into three: The 'Early Middle Ages, from the Fall of Rome to c. 1000, the High Middle Ages, c. 1000-1300, and the Late Middle Ages, c. 1300-1450 or 1500. On top of that, there has also been a strong movement to see the period from the end of Rome to the rise of Charlemagne as its own separate era, 'Late Antiquity', which generally runs from 312 or so up to about 750-800.
Brutus, that division in your schools between the 'age of monks and knights' and the age of states and cities is horrible. 'Knights' themselves didn't appear until about 1000! Ack! I sympathize with you.
It mostly depends on where you live, in england its 1066-1485. Between the battle of Hastings and Bosworth, before that it was the Dark Ages from 410-1066.
IMHO,
The Middle Ages are from 1066 to 1453.
On a sidenote, 1453 is sometimes considered as the end of the Middle Age in France because during this year, the HYW ended, and the king achieved to rule over the whole country (and thus, to turn France into a 'modern' country).
I say 1014 (Clontarf) to 1492 (Columbus, Granada, so forth).
What then would you people call the period from the fall of Rome to 1000/1066/1014? This would mean that St. Benedict, Charlemagne, Roland, Otto and Alfred the Great and most of the Vikings were not medieval figures.
Historians no longer use the term 'Dark Ages' because of the pejorative connotations. In fact, they were not as 'Dark' as once thought.
I would call it the 'early' middle ages. But I think that the term 'dark ages' is still used by most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
The periodization of the middle ages I remember was my first assignment when I began studying medieval history at the university. IMO the whole problem is both pointless, artificial and unnecessary. As long as we have a general understanding of when this "period" was, to the extent that we don't apply the term medieval completely out of place, it doesn't really matter wether we say it lasted from 476 to 1453 or 325 to 1517 or whatever, and these names we come up with for the various subdivisions of the period matter even less. They're just there for convenience, to give us a sense of order.
Debate is pointless, because there's really no end to the arguments one can come up with for wether it should be this way or that way. If historians start wasting time over this, the periodization is no longer convenient but an encumbrance, as they're not really doing any historical research of value.
Ok, I know I just said we shouldn't waste time arguing over periodization, but this is just plain wrong. It's funny how the "time of knights" is past even before it began. The idea of knighthood as being something more than just fighting on horseback didn't start evolving until the late 11th century. I feel sorry for the knights. "The time of cities and states" is waaay too early as well. :stwshame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
I agree with Spartakus, although I typically think of the medieval period as the end of the fifth century (around the fall of Rome in 476) until around the middle of the fifteenth, similarly to what others have said.
The biggest reason that I agree with Spartakus is that any beginning and ending dates that are set will necessarily be arbitrary and will typically vary depending upon whatever region is under discussion. Spartakus is completely right when he says that different periods are "just there for convenience, to give us a sense of order" (and I would add understanding as well). It's not as if anyone living during that time would have said, "I'm living during the medieval period," the dark ages, or whatever. I look at it as similar to the way that we describe and talk about feudalism. The term helps to organize modern thoughts and understanding on complex relationships during the period, even though the term 'feudalism' itself didn't originate until later.
Gelatinous Cube, why don't you consider the Viking raids to be a part of the Middle Ages?
If I remember right, Petrarch and other humanists were the ones that came up with the concept of the Middle Ages and tried to paint it in a bad light, starting the idea of the inaccurate idea of the 'Dark Ages'. They wanted to differentiate the Middle Ages from 'glorious' antiquity and their own time of Renaissance. So technically the medieval period, even though it lacks any kind of clear demarcations (in my opinion), is any time between the end of antiquity/the fall of Rome to the beginning of the Renaissance.
My view of history is Dark Age (Age of Vikings) then Middle Age (Age of Knights). No real cutover date but as Cube says "1066" is a good crossover year.
After looking deeply,
I would say the Middle Ages are from 818(the death of Charlemagne) to 1453(Constantinople fell).
I say these because Charlemagne was the first to implement the feudal system and when Constantinople fell, it marked the start of the gun age.
One of my points was that periods will allways differ between regions. To apply the year 1066 as a historical boundary for regions outside the British isles (even outside England) would be pure nonsense. Therefore these things should only be applied in the way Spartakus put it. Another misunderstanding here is the term "Dark Ages" that isn't used outside English-speaking regions. Out here, we refer to that period as "Early Middle Ages". By the way, Charlemagne died in 814.
For your general amusement, I will add here the new dating system the De Rooy-Commission (for the renewal of Historical Education) has introduced for Dutch "High Schools" (Middelbare scholen):
-Time of Hunters and Farmers (Until 3000 BC; Prehistory)
-Time of Greeks and Romans (3000 BC-500 AD; Antiquity)
-Time of Monks and Knights (500-1000; Early Middle Ages)
-Time of Cities and States (1000-1500; High and Late Middle Ages)
-Time of Discoverers and Reformers (1500-1600; Renaissance and 16th Century)
-Time of Regents and Lords (1600-1700; Golden Age and 17th Century)
-Time of Wigs and Revolutions (1700-1800; Age of Enlightenment and 18th Century)
-Time of Citizens and Steam-machines (1800-1900; Industrialisation and 19th Century)
-Time of World Wars (1900-1950; First Half 20th Century)
-Time of Television and Computer (1950-2000; Second Half 20th Century)
And yes, those "Wigs" are actually meant to be those hairy things people put on their heads... :bigcry:
As I said, it all has to do with which region you choose and what kind of historical phenomenon you see as determinative. 1066 marks the last appearance of those one could call "Vikings", but I could just as well call Harald Haardraada and his men a 'normal' Scandinavian army, as vikings weren't a threat to most 'civilised' regions for quite some decades. Besides that, the start of the feud between England and France has far less impact on the Holy Roman Empire, Poland and more eastern European regions, as well as on Spain, for example. The same goes for using feudalism (a 19th Century term, by the way) as a marker for time. Feudalism reached its high point in (northern) France and some of it's directly surrounding regions, but was hardly of any importance in many more eastern regions in the Empire, for example, or it at least became important long after it was the dominant kind of social structure in France.
Really the Middle Ages is quite simply the time between the end of Antiquity and the Renaissance (which started with the competition for the Comission of the Baptestry Bronze Doors in Florence in 1401).
I wasn't using the bits about "1066" and "Feudalism" as completely interlinked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
But as you study the social structure of the Empire (especially those regions outside Upper- and Lower-Lorraine: the Low Countries and the Rhineland), you will find that the relation between the emperor and his vassals was very much different from social structure in France. For example, the Empire had many "free cities" and "free lords" who held their lands allodial (directly from the Emperor). I'm not saying the Empire didn't have feudalism, only not at the same time as France did and not always in the same way.
However, you are very much right in the fact that it all overlaps. The relation between land-owner and his peasants (or serfs) is a kind of social structure that was more or less enforced by Roman Imperial Government under Diocletian, whilst the phenomenon of private armies or warlord land-owners stems from the Migration period, when land-owner didn't trust the Government to protect their land from ravaging Barbarians. Both these phenomena however have come to be seen as characteristic of the Middle Ages.
I'd agree with the overlap thought. You could possibly say the medieval era spanned roughly from 500 to 1500. It would be difficult to set an exact date due to local differences like urbanization rate etc. You can, of course, choose an exact date to the beginning of the renaissance in italy, but does that count for some eastern pomeranian peasant village?
Brutus, are differences in french and german feudalism important to the matter at hand? It is, no matter which degree of access the respective king had to his vassals, both feudalism.
If you use feudalism as a determinative factor, it is. However, I'm not an expert on the theories of feudalism, so I'm not capable of given good examples about the differences. Anyway, you're probably right that it doesn't matter very much for the question at hand, as I already made my point: period dating has severe limitations and should only be used to simplify historical overviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krautman
The word 'feudalism' is falling out of fashion with medievalists, especially since the work of Susan Reynolds and Dominique Barthelemy. It is not a very secure basis for periodization, and never really was. It might well go the way of the 'Dark Ages'.
Fair enough GC. But if you're going to say that it did exist, you'll have to at least define what you mean. What was 'feudalism'?
That's not true. In fact if you think on mind constructions (ideal constructions, see Adam Smith or Macpherson) this type of mind construction exists until today, it's just a little shadowed behind a cortain of idealism and liberty & equalty (also ideal not real). The feudalism is named after the organization of people in terrains called feuds (it has nothing to do with rigid social structure). The thing is that if you look at this period (Feudal) you will see not a single moment when legitimity of an government or feudal lord was unmatched or even unquestioned. You are right about the fact that most of the high class people idealized it like a rigid scheme of lord-vassals, but the truth is that of the little that is known about the life of the common people of that time you can't infer anything that can make you think that it was the common way of those days (it just was an way of thinking imposed by the reach an conquerors). Besides that you're right, but keep in mind that ideal structures (like the "Constitution") are nothing if unsupported by real material behind (like an army) is just a matter of creating an excuse for an unexcusable opresor state. But talking about the begining of the medieval time, i cannot see any reason to believe that it has to be other than the fall of the West Roman Empire. This brings up all the changes needed to talk about another time, it was like erase all and write again. The social structure changed a lot just because there was little law on Europe to mantain the old structure (Roma and Greece fell, the laws of the "Pagans" were so irrational that it can make you laugh, even an imprudent crime was punished with death) conquerors an despots (not to different from the old time friends!!!) ruled things with an iron hand but with little intelligence, but the real factor here was personal glory, it still is today for many corrupt gentlement. That way of thinking (nor more glory for the empire), harsh and direct, was what changed the face of Europe forever, that formed the first feuds and the first vassals that followed them. The economy changed too, the agriculture still was the most important, but some first evidence of mercantilism is noted passing the dark age (the moment when politics, discussion and diplomacy pop up to the light again), i mean accumulation of treasure (you can't talk about real mercantilism because there wasn't a nation wich accumulates) specially precious stones (gold and silver) that eventually will create the first banks. But to not make it large (there are hundreds of sources to consult, much better than my writting) i think that the fall of the roman law an the continous spreading of catolicism, with it's inherent irracionality and intolerance formed the beggining of the middle ages, also the return of those laws (adapted of course) was aprox. the time of the begining of modern age, in a few words i think that law respalded by religion, and an strong army (or at least a real power that keeps the rebels in place) were the principals (and still are like US is showing without mercy) parts of the engine that moves story, and are also the best way to determine when one period finishes and another begins. So my date will be 476 b.C. and finishing when Colón (or Columbus) reaches America in 1492 b.C. Also keep in mind that this distinction of the periods are only for the western culture, the eastern have their own distinction, also the jews, an so on.
Ok lets push a little deeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You're saying that a rigid social hierarchy is an essential element of feudalism. But where did the knights themselves come from? Most historians point to the fact that the first knights were from relatively low classes. Many of them might actually have been peasants. These made it up the social scale and in fact at one point their superiors began calling themselves knights as well. So how rigid was this social hierarchy?
Also, there are many other societies that have rigid social hierarchies that clearly were not feudal. A Roman patrician and a Roman slave had very different social status. The best a slave could hope for was to make it up the next rung and be a freeman. That was pretty rigid, no?
Finally, where do the townspeople and free farmers of Europe fit into the 'age of feudalism'? The communes in italy became independent states. Were they then not part of the system? How about the free people who owned allodial lands?
Well then we don't disagree, i never sayed that you can touch the structure, but wich is important is the real thing behind (politics, economy, military, etc) and without missing the point here that's what matters to determine such another mental structure like a change of period.
Look all yous fullas, middle ages starts at Norman conquest of England and ends wiv da def of da last Plantaganet king awight. Now if any ones wansa dispute dis, den weeza a gonna av a big, big problem, aint wee!
God, bloody non-english types, always trying to get everything your own way arent you, go on piss off!
:charge: :duel: :knight: :rifle: :rifle: :wink3:
Still, the hierarchy as you present it was largely an ideal. For example: a middle age village in Holland, Rijswijk, consited in the later middle ages for more then 50% out of people who were legally 'nobles'. The same was true for many other places. However, these people were not all knights, neither did they all own a castle; they led the very same lives as their 'peasant' neighbours, only trying to get tax-exemption from their noble status. At the very same time, more and more 'real nobles' seased to be called knight, simply because they didn't get trough their 'knightly exam' (they didn't fulfill all necessary requirements). You can also see that in this period, still very medieval, more and more nobles go to university (like many burghers) to reach a degree and get accepted into their government, along with these same commoners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
As for the role of feudalism and religion in defining the Middle Ages, I would like to point out that Catholic France before the revolution of 1789 was in many ways still a 'feudal' society.
So , by any standard , Chivalry TW is not the only medieval mod for RTW ...
I thought so
Then it surely didn't start with Charlemagne, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
It probably didn't start before c. 1100 then too.
You don't consider Japan to have developed a feudal system?Quote:
The thing that makes this heirarchy unique is the religion. There's never been any other example of such an elaborate system of existence, and Christianity is, IMO, the prime ingredient. It was the church that instilled in people the faith to go along with the system, it was the church that proclaimed knights were a valid persuit (despite Thou Shalt Not Kill) if they would go on crusade, it was the church who permeated all social classes and was the glue that held it together.
GelatinousCube, I think you're confusing Buddhism with something else, possibly Confucianism or Hinduism. Neither Theravada Buddhism nor Mahayana Buddhism teach anything about a rigid class structure. The rigid caste system in India might be blamed on the Hindu concept of dharma, which is fulfilling one's duty; but Hinduism certainly wouldn't apply to Japan. Confucianism emphasizes an adherence to social structures and civic duty; but again doesn't really apply to Japan. Shinto is a shamanistic/ancestor based belief system which really contains nothing which deals with the idea of rigid social structures and subservience. The feudal structure in Japan wasn't the result of religion.
Could Feudalism have begun by the late Roman Empire?
Or was its start with the conquests of Charlamgne?
Feudalism was a completely millitary concept was it not? where by an overlord would hand out land to his followers in return for that mans own millitary service and his own sub-tenants or retainers. So it has nothing to do with Knights. Is that not correct?
Part of the confusion over the use of the term feudalism is that it can be used in a specific or a general sense. When confined to the former, it can be quite useful: I usually use it only as a system of military organization. But others apply it to everything, from manorialism and a subject peasantry to literature and worldview. So yes, it can mean many things.
"Feudalism" was used far before the medieval era. The Parthians had a feudal like society, and many ideas used by steppe nomads (the raising of troops, knights, etc.) became bases for the Medieval knights. Of course, it wasn't as conected to the land as the Medieval Feudalism was.
Feudalism, in the meaning I've generally seen it used, is a way to organize social power structures (usually tied to land ownership) in a "militarized" society (ie. one where there is no real difference between social and military elites). It is based on personal loyalty, normally in the form of the underling holding, taxing, adminstering, defending etc. a given area of land for his superior in exchange of military and political support as needed. It is, in practice, a system of "subcontracting" adminstrative and military duties in a pyramid-like fashion - feudal subjects usually can and will enfeoff their holding into even smaller units to their own vassals, who can then do the same and so on and so on as long as it makes sense to further split the area.
Throw in such little details as political marriages, land and titular inheritance, conquest, the fact that most vassals could hold allegiance to more than one superior at once etc. etc. and you very soon end up with a horribly complicated mess of power, ownership, vassalage and obligation relations that in practice tended to give individual lordlings in the web a whole lot of leeway in their actions. Very often a higher lord simply could not count on the obedience of a vassal unless he was personally present with sufficient military power to enforce his requests and orders with straight threat of violence, and it was not in the least unusual for a vassal and a lord to go to war as their interests dictated (William the Conqueror, for example, warred against his nominal overlord the King of France...).
Put short, in a full-blown feudal system "central authority" was bit of a joke unless it referred to the local feudal lord whose authority in turn ultimately rested on his control of fighting men and fortifications. As might be apparent it tended to make kings rather weak.
I've read the European type of feudalism developed from a combination of factors, among them the old Germanic personal loyalty ties, late-Roman manoralism and a pressing need to have networks of fortifications and hard-hitting, standing cavalry to curb the predations of Vikings, Hungarians and Moors, all of them fast-moving and far-ranging raiders and a major pain in the arse for Carolingian Europe.
Other regions used their own versions of the same basic idea, although it should be noted that the hallmark of true feudalism was always a weak or nonexistent (literally or virtually) central governement that has to divide its power and authority among its "barons" to maintain some semblance of statehood. Strong empires and states were almost never actually feudal, although they might well retain or otherwise have landowning hereditary elites more often than not providing military service, for the simple reason that they didn't need to. The kings, emperors or whoever were always keen on wresting the reins of real power from the hands of their unruly vassals whenever they could.
The museum I work in uses a periodization roughly as follows:
Late Roman period 200-400 AD
Migration period 300-500 AD
Merovingian period 500-600 AD (after the ruling dynasty of the Franks if I recall correctly, the same from which Charlemagne was born)
Carolingian period 600-900 AD
Viking period 700-1000 AD
As you can see the periods partially overlap. 'Course, the transitions are very vague anyway and different regions "shifted" at different times...
And then the Middle Ages, which depending on what one counts as a suitably impressive milestone event end in either 1453 (Constantinopole falls to the Ottomans) or 1493(?; not positive of the exact year here) (Grenada falls to the Reconquista and Columbus finds the New World). I think there was also something about a future Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor and King of Castilie-Aragon -Philip IV?- being born around that time - a man whose influence would be felt for most of the next century and of a dynasty that would shape the political landscape of the entire subcontinent for centuries to come (AFAIK the last Habsburg monarch to lose his throne was actually the King of Spain in the 1930s...).
:bow: Well, I *do* read up on this stuff for fun, and study PolSci. Being able to define things relatively clearly is sort of a prequisite to get that far to begin with.
:book: