How do you view the Middle Ages?

[Kommodus]

It seems to me that when the Middle Ages/Medieval period is mentioned, many people immediately get a picture in their mind. Of course this picture includes castles, knights, kings, peasants, etc. More often than not, it is a stark picture of oppression and ignorance - the peasants are walking/crawling around with mud on their faces, oppressed by a power-hungry church that suppresses learning, scientific advancement, the arts, and individuality. Many people picture the Middle Ages as a brutal, barbaric time, during which little advancement of culture, science, or civilization in general was made.

I have often wondered where this picture is conjured up from. I would guess that much of it is drawn from Monty Python, or perhaps the game "Medieval: Total War." I should not be surprised, however, to find that the picture is quite inaccurate. Here's another perspective:

http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/historian/middleages.html

Here is a sentence taken at random from a book written by one of the most cultivated of our younger critics, very well written and most reliable on its own subject, which is a modern one. The writer says: "There was little social or political advance in the Middle Ages" until the Reformation and the Renaissance.

...

A little while before the Norman Conquest, countries such as our own were a dust of yet feeble feudalism, continually scattered in eddies by barbarians, barbarians who had never ridden a horse. There was hardly a brick or stone house in England. There were scarcely any roads except beaten paths: there was practically no law except local customs. Those were the Dark Ages out of which the Middle Ages came. Take the Middle Ages two hundred years after the Norman Conquest and nearly as long before the beginnings of the Reformation. The great cities have arisen; the burghers are privileged and important; Labour has been organised into free and responsible Trade Unions; the Parliaments are powerful and disputing with the princes; slavery has almost disappeared; the great Universities are open and teaching with the scheme of education that Huxley so much admired; Republics as proud and civic as the Republics of the pagans stand like marble statues along the Mediterranean; and all over the North men have built such churches as men may never build again. And this, the essential part of which was done in one century rather than two, is what the critic calls "little social or political advance." There is scarcely an important modern institution under which he lives, from the college that trained him to the Parliament that rules him, that did not make its main advance in that time.

So, what picture comes to mind when you think of the Middle Ages? I'm anxious to hear your comments.

[King Henry V]

I have often wondered where this picture is conjured up from. I would guess that much of it is drawn from Monty Python, or perhaps the game "Medieval: Total War."

Ironically, one of the members of Monty Python, Terry Jones, is also a frim proponent of the culture of the Middle Ages. It is one of the most maligned periods in history, and most of our misconceptions come from the Humanists who denigrated all aspects of it in their search to go back to Antiquity, or the Victorians, notably the pre- Raphaelites who conceived the whole romanticised notion of the Middle Ages.

[mercian billman]

I would agree with the author of the quote, and state that the middle ages were a time of great advancement for western europe and many other cultures as well. The only thing I would add is that the catholic church did not supress learning, scientific advancement, the arts etc.

Most European universities were established by the church, the cathedrals and their lavish decorations would not have been possible without advancements in architecture and construction. It's also important to note that the catholic church was the first real anti-slavery lobby in Europe and has never wavered on it's stance that slavery is morally wrong. The church was also one of the few orginizations capable of challenging the power of ruling monarchs, outside of local barons and other forms of nobility, in this sense the church managed to keep the power of ruling monarchs in check. While the church wasn't perfect, it certainly was not the power hungry suppresive orginization, hollywood and Dan Brown portray it to be.

[Watchman]

That last bit should read "Protestant propagandists", really. No particular genius is required to divine why breakaway factions from a major institution have a vested interest in making the original institution look as bad as possible...

Oh, and don't get me started on witch hunts. The amount of ignorance on the topic even in educated circles often boggles the mind.

[mercian billman]

That last bit should read "Protestant propagandists", really. No particular genius is required to divine why breakaway factions from a major institution have a vested interest in making the original institution look as bad as possible...

I used Dan Brown, because of the recent release of the DaVinci Code, but I understand what your getting at.

Oh, and don't get me started on witch hunts. The amount of ignorance on the topic even in educated circles often boggles the mind.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement

[Watchman]

I used Dan Brown, because of the recent release of the DaVinci Code, but I understand what your getting at.

IMHO Brown is just a greedy opportunist whose chief motivations to write the stuff he does include a full and well-deserved certainty of it being suitably "controversial" and more to the point striking a chord in sufficiently many people's usually rather ignorant preconceptions to sell well. Ditto, really, for Hollywood and such. The point is really that they'd have little to work on and pander to without about five hundred years of groundwork by diverse sectarian propagandists...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement

Oh, I've just been told some pretty awe-inspiring first-hand accounts of misconceptions on the topic by people who really should know (and, indeed, have been told) better...

[Aenlic]

I tend to favor Terry Jones views, as written and as expressed in some of his wonderful TV shows.

The Middle Ages have gotten a very bad rep for all of the wrong reasons. They are seen as some sort of backwards period of history, full of violence and ignorance and suffering. While such things were indeed part of Middles Ages life; they were no more prevalent than at other times.

There was as much violence before and after the Middle Ages as during the period. The wars before and since the Middle Ages were just as bloody and common. A case could be made, perhaps, that politically the period was stagnant; but the feudal systems of the period gave rise the political advances which came later.

Economically and culturally, the Middle Ages were as just as vibrant as the Renaissance. The Champagne Fairs, the great trading concerns like the Hanseatic League, the trading empires of Genoa, Pisa and Venice, the great trade empires of the Silk Road and more were much more robust than anything that had come before.

The great universities were established during the Middle Ages, not so much by the Church itself as by the religious orders like the Dominicans and Cistercians (who were often rather obviously independent of official Church decree, thus allowing otherwise prohibited scientific exploration). Even before that, the spread of the teaching monks from the Irish monasteries into Western Europe set the foundations for the great teaching and educational orders.

As was pointed out, the whole idea of the Middle Ages as being a deep dark hole from which mankind had to climb is just an artifact of the often over-simplified and unwarranted reverence for a "lost" classical era of the Greek and Romans. I blame the romanticists of the Victorian era. So much nonsense originated during that period; and some of it is still rampant today.

[Avicenna]

The only thing I would add is that the catholic church did not supress learning, scientific advancement, the arts etc.

Have you forgotten Galileo?

[Watchman]

Galilei lived from mid-1500s to mid-1600s (I didn't incidentally realize he was that late). No way that's Middle Ages by any measure.

Besides, the Reformation had the funny side effect of causing a whole new spate of fanaticism, rigid orthodoxy, persecution, horrible massacres and othe rsuch niceties. Before it the Church had for quite a while actually had pretty much a laissez-faire attitude - so long as you didn't try to buck them and paid whatever you might have been due, they didn't really care too much. A rather major part of their nominal rules were observed in name only. That may have indeed merited such denouncements as "corruption" and "decadence", but it also meant that in practice the Catholic Church had in fact gotten rid of many of the unpleasantries organized and monopolistic religion is usually associated with.

Then came Luther's hammer-work, and it eventually took the mind-boggling devastation (and grotesque economical costs) of the Thirty Years' War to convince most folks too much religious fervor wasn't really such a hot thing.

Did you incidentally know, the mechanical clock - in many ways a strong symbol of the modern world - was initially developed in monasteries during the Early Middle Ages or thereabouts to help the monks and nuns keep track of their prayer times...?

[Kommodus]

Wow, I see there's a surprising amount of support for Chesterton's essay here. I hope ya'll read the whole thing and not just the snippet I quoted; it's very clever and well-written. Just so you know, my aim with this thread was not to point the figure at whomever is chiefly responsible for slandering the Middle Ages (draw your own conclusions), but to poke fun at the modern misconceptions I still encounter far too often. Many of your comments have been encouraging - not everyone buys into them.

[Rosacrux redux]

There's a fine balance that should be preserved. The medieval period was not a dark age of mud, crap and savagery, but it equally wasn't a period of prosperity, progress and spiritual upheaval. It was a backwards period, socially, economically, scientifically, technologically and politically, even compared with the late antiquity (and the latter was already significantly worst compared to the pre-AD antiquity). But for the populations that prospered in that period (the Germanics) it was one of great progress: they started off as assorted tribelings living in huts and became "the new Romans"... that's quite some progress for them.

Also, one shouldn't forget that while western Europe was indeed rather backwards, eastern Europe (Byzantium) was pretty much advanced, and even more so the Arabs had an excellent culture, thriving and all. Not to mention the Chinese...

[beauchamp]

The middle ages you say? It was the heydey for us in the Islamic world, for the europeans it was a time of darkness.

[King Henry V]

After 1000, the Islamic world in the Near East began its decline, whereas the Europeans began their steady ascendancy.

[Rodion Romanovich]

After 1000, the Islamic world in the Near East began its decline, whereas the Europeans began their steady ascendancy.

Just curious, this isn't a question directed at you only but also for other posters - which measure exactly is used for decline, ascendancy, darkness and greatness? I assume you refer to military and economical strength mostly?

[Hurin_Rules]

Just curious, this isn't a question directed at you only but also for other posters - which measure exactly is used for decline, ascendancy, darkness and greatness? I assume you refer to military and economical strength mostly?

Well, that's a great question, and one I was trying to get at in my post assessing the 'decline' of Europe after the fall of Rome. One of the problems with such value judgements is that they often tell one more about one's own prejudices than historical developments.

Was the Muslim world 'declining' after 1000? In some areas, yes. The crusaders conquered areas near the very core of Islam-- it was raids near Medina that actually provoked some of the Muslim counter-crusade-- while Mongols sacked the great jewel in Islam's crown, Baghdad, in 1260 (or was it 1258? Can't remember OTOMH). Yet, perhaps the greatest Muslim victory over Christian forces occured well after this, in 1453, with the conquest of Constantinople, and the Ottoman Turks kept expanding into the 16th century. So even militarily, the decline came somewhat after 1000.

Intellectually, Islam was as advanced as the West at least until the 16th century (Muslim medical and scientific texts were one of the basis of the West's Renaissance in the early modern period).

The point: if one is going to talk about decline, it is usually best to quantify it in some way, and to explain specifically what one means by decline: military? political? economic? etc. Same holds true when talking about the decline of Europe or Rome or China, for that matter. That makes for a much more edifying discussion.

[Watchman]

From what I've read I'm under the impression the militarization to resist the invaders - both Crusaders and Mongols - had the unfortunate side effect of also ushering about a new emphasis on religious orthodoxy (no doubt useful for unifying people and bolstering the troops for the battle against the enemy though) which in turn led to a disregard of, shall we say, much higher learning (warlords and soldiers not being the most famous patrons of arts and sciences, at least ones that don't let them show off or aren't useful on campaign) and intellectual rigidity. Baghdad was sacked (probably repeatedly, don't remember if Timur came that far) and Egypt came under the dominance of what can probably be classed as a military junta with rather pressing military concerns. That kinda seems to knock down two of their most important and famous sources of cholarship and higher learning. Out in the Iberian peninsula the Moors weren't having exactly a good time either, what with all those internal wars, dynastic changes and the Reconquista. That's still one less.
Asia Minor pretty much fell into anarchy after the Seljuq collapse (not that it had been exactly a center of high culture before), and the Ottomans for their part had other issues to take care of. Once they became ascendant they seem to have contracted the ossification already mentioned too, plus to boot developed an arrogant superiority complex as well as some rather serious internal issues that didn't exactly help bring any reform or really new way of thinking along no matter how dire the need.

It's not like the Islamic regions forgot already extant knowledge or something; they just got stuck in an endless series of invasions, wars, civil strife and general turmoil plus eventually the virtual collapse of the old overland trade routes (partly as result of continuous warfare and unrest, partly as the Europeans started hauling the goods by ship around Africa) gutting a large chunk of their economic base. When you think about it it's not all that unlike what happened to Europe (or at least the southern and western parts thereof) when West Rome came crashing down.

Warlords, general chaos and economic difficulties were never much good for anyone's high culture. Around the same time Europe was getting out of its recession period - in no small part helped by the fact the Muslims had kindly not only preserved the ideas accumulated before the fall for them to draw on, but also improved upon them - and gaining momentum fast, with well-known results...

[R'as al Ghul]

I'm just posting to thank you for bringin the chesterton.org site to my attention.