How do you view the Middle Ages?

[Kralizec]

The early middle ages weren't exactly a nice time to be living, that can't really be said of late antiquity either except for the elite. For the serfs it would hardly make any difference.
Because of the splintered makeup of medieval Europe, its history is way more dynamic. Events like the invention of gunpowder and the discovery of America (wich happened outside of the middle ages proper, but the causes can be found in it) can easily be explained from this perspective. On the other hand, empires with political unity that span most of the known world from their perspective like Rome or China, don't get much done- the history of both is one of remarkably little technological progress.

[Watchman]

If you look at it, China in particular had pretty little in the way of political unification and technological stagnation. Instead it had its own peculiar cycle of unification - high point - collapse - fragmentation - low tide - reunification, by some accounts dictated primarily by the rate at which the population grew to exceed the agricultural capacity.

'Sides, if you happen to have forgotten they invented gunpowder. Europeans just eventually went way past them in its military applications. As well as quite a few other clever ideas.

Not that Rome was excessively united either. Civil wars and power struggles seem to have gotten pretty endemic once the Republic got de facto relieved of its duties.

[Archayon]

I remember the formulation "middle" ages or "dark" ages is from Petrarca. Being a linguist, he compared the latin during the middle ages with that of ... (Cicero i thought? and some other one, i don't remember).

It was a total different society, total different way of living, total different values and priorities. It is hard to imagine life in the Middle Ages.

That's why it seems so mysterious, but also so attractive, i suppose.


Arch

[ajaxfetish]

I see the middle ages as a period when western civilation was rebuilt after a shattered past. As such it was very dynamic and very diverse across different regions and nations, with lots of innovation in many different fields, and it laid much of the foundation for our societies today.

It is definitely maligned in its modern stereotype, though. Often when I tell people I am studying medieval history they seem confused that I would choose a 1000 year period of no change and no progress and universal darkness. It's enough to make me grind my teeth.

I think it is easy to see people with a different cultural paradigm as inferior or stupider, not just people from far enough in the past. Reading passages and coming across a mention of someone accepting ideas or explanations based on Christian faith or acceptance of ideas such as spirits and familiars makes it easy to dismiss their rationality out of hand, but I think if we were to look at ourselves from outside our own box we would find just as many mental blocks, limitations, or restrictions that we are blithely unaware of from our own perspective.

And incidentally, not only was Galileo post-medieval (from a time when many of the atrocities usually associated with the middle ages--witch hunts, the inquisition, etc--are more applicable), but as I understand it he was called down not so much for making assertions the church couldn't accept, as for making such controversial assertions without being able to prove them (but still claiming they were absolutely true), and for his general arrogant and demeaning attitude.

Ajax

[Archayon]

I see the middle ages as a period when western civilation was rebuilt after a shattered past. As such it was very dynamic and very diverse across different regions and nations, with lots of innovation in many different fields, and it laid much of the foundation for our societies today.

It is definitely maligned in its modern stereotype, though. Often when I tell people I am studying medieval history they seem confused that I would choose a 1000 year period of no change and no progress and universal darkness. It's enough to make me grind my teeth.

I think it is easy to see people with a different cultural paradigm as inferior or stupider, not just people from far enough in the past. Reading passages and coming across a mention of someone accepting ideas or explanations based on Christian faith or acceptance of ideas such as spirits and familiars makes it easy to dismiss their rationality out of hand, but I think if we were to look at ourselves from outside our own box we would find just as many mental blocks, limitations, or restrictions that we are blithely unaware of from our own perspective.

totally agree, on everything.
That's exactly what i thought



Arch

[ChewieTobbacca]

Our views on the Middle Ages are defenitely skewwed by the romanticists and Victorians and what not of a little over a century ago.

Life was defenitely cruel and painful - death was common. After all, during the years of the Black Death, the royal family of England's average life span was below 20 years. Imagine that - members of the royal family dying before what are considered our prime years. Now imagine the peasantry...

As far as the conception that the Middle Ages aren't a period of great change is defenitely a huge misconception. Much of what society is today is in no small part due to the Middle Ages. The end of the old feudal order, the secularization of government, the birth of modern notions of science, etc. were rooted in the Middle Ages.

[Hurin_Rules]

The origins of the idea of the 'Middle Ages' can be traced back to the Renaissance scholars (although the actual words 'medieval' and Middle Ages date to a bit later). The scholars of the Italian renaissance saw everything that wasn't classical or consciously imitating classical forms as backwards, and their own age as reviving classical culture. Hence anything not classical or neo-classical was bad. In some ways, they made some good points; in other respects, they were just letting their own prejudices get in the way. Take 'Gothic' architecture, for example. To the scholars of the renaissance, it was barbaric, and so had to be denigrated and named after a 'barbaric' Germanic tribe. But of course now we can see that Gothic was one of the great styles of architecture in any historical period.

Now, there is no denying the Middle Ages was 'backwards' in some ways. In terms of military training, Roman troops were better trained because they could live collectively and train in common. Few medieval troops could do this. On the other hand, the Middle Ages developed technologies that helped make up for such deficits. Medieval cavalry had better saddles, horseshoes, bigger horses and stirrups. So which is more 'backwards', the Roman or the medieval army? To me, its a debatable point.

Was the Middle Ages 'backwards' economically? At the beginning of the period, yes: economies had turned inwards, becoming local, and trade declined. However, at the end of the Middle Ages one could make the argument that the Middle Ages had made more advances than Rome ever did. There was a burgeoning middle class (something that Rome never really had) of traders, merchants and artisans; thriving fairs and international trade; new techniques of credit and banking, new alliances between government and capital, etc. etc.

Politicall, Europe broke up after the fall of Rome. so looking at a map, it seems Europe declined. But of course, the fall of Rome also meant more competition, more experimentation. Europe was far more diverse politically at the end of the Middle Ages than it was in late antiquity: you had everything from absolute monarchies to oligarchies to republics and communes. Also, whereas the Romans gave up their republic for the security only despotism could provide, medieval people developed the parliamentary system that we hold so near and dear today.

If the Middle Ages was backwards, then so are we.