Talk:Middle Ages

Women in the High Middle Ages

The article claims that "Townswomen, like peasant women, were responsible for the household, and could also engage in trade. What trades were open to women varied by country and period." The second sentence is not verified by the cited author (Singman). Furthermore, the short paragraph about women repeats four times that women were responsible for the household. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Papacy and secular kings

The article states that "The papacy, long attached to an ideology of independence from secular kings, first asserted its claim to temporal authority over the entire Christian world;". First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not verify the reference to secular kings. Furthermore, the papacy wanted to get rid of the authority of the Holy Roman Emperors while the Gregorian Reform wanted to diminish secular influence on Church affairs in general. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

German duchies and the Migration Period

The article claims that "During the early High Middle Ages, Germany was ruled by the Ottonian dynasty, which struggled to control the powerful dukes ruling over territorial duchies tracing back to the Migration period." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not state or imply that the German duchies were connected to the Migration period in any way. Furthermore, Patrick J. Geary who is also cited in the article emphasizes that the German "tribal" duchies were in fact the creations of the Merovingian kings (Geary (1988), p. 228). Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Germany"

The article dedicates seven sentences to the history of Germany in the High Middle Ages. The seven sentences refers to the German rulers' clashes with the papacy several times without mentioning the Holy Roman Empire, and the disintegration of Germany into principalities, and northern Italy into small duchies and republics. These principalities, duchies and republics would be united into nation states only in the second half of the 19th century. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Srnec (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1. The section "Rise of state power" mentions the clashes of individual Holy Roman Emperors with the papacy far too much. 2. The article does not mention the disintegration of Germany and northern Italy into small autonomous (or rather independent) states in the period although it would have long-term consequences. 3. The Holy Roman Empire is not mentioned in the section. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Louis IX as mediator for most of Europe

The article claims that King Louis IX of France "served as a mediator for most of Europe". I have only access to the Hungarian translation of Davies's work that is cited to verify the statement, but Davies only writes that Louis was requested to act as a mediator many times in debates between kings and aristocrats. Is there any source verifying the quote from the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The French kings' personal rule

The article states that "The French monarchy continued to make gains against the nobility during the late 12th and 13th centuries, bringing more territories within the kingdom under the king's personal rule and centralising the royal administration." At first sight, the cited author (Backman) verifies the statement about the French king's personal rule. However, actually Backman refers to the conquest of Anjou, Maine and Normandy by Philip II Augustus, and it is separately mentioned in the article. On the other hand, Backman emphasizes that Philip's son and successor Louis VIII "is remembered chiefly for granting large sections of the territories won by his father as apanages. An apanage was a land grant made to the younger sons of the royal family as compensation for not inheriting the crown ... apanages were technically independent provinces ... the long-term consequences of the apanage system were grievous." Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

write about the development of religious system during medieval period

Yes 2405:201:A415:40EB:DC2A:E522:135D:8F2B (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Crusades or Crusading movement?

For the time being there are to articles on similar (perhaps identical) subjects: Crusades is allegedly dedicated to the military history of the "numbered crusades", Crusading movement to the wider institutional and ideological framework. Until these two articles co-exist, I think we should present the Crusading movement in this article. Individual military campaigns are less interesting in the general context of the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The usage of both is probably warranted. One has MILHIST but very little about the development of the intituitions, the other has no MILHIST at all and is all about instituitions. Depends what you want to do about this article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The "numbered Crusades" had little impact on Europe's history: the Holy Land was first conquered then lost. Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In standard literature, the Crusades and the Crusading movement are introduced by references to the Gregorian Reform and the development of heavy cavalry. Is there any reason that this article presents the Crusades before introducing the Gregorian Reform movement and the principal aspects of the military of the period? (For standard literature I refer to works cited in the two relevant articles, Crusades and Crusading movement.) Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the placement was done for thematic reasons: "Crusades" fits well with the military and political theme of "Rise of state power" and "Church life" fits with the church topics in "Architecture, art, and music". I agree it's standard to introduce crusading by mentioning the Gregorian movement and knighthood. Heavy cavalry and specifically knights are mentioned before the crusading section though: "Early Middle Ages"/"Military and technology" and "High Middle Ages"/"Society and economy" are the most relevant. But, to the point, the Gregorian reforms must be mentioned before the crusading effort. Maybe "Church life" can be moved up and "Crusades" can be moved down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.52.98 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made the move, but avoided any other editing. @Borsoka's two points stand in that: 1) The Crusades section contains a lot of MILHIST that is not in Europe; 2) Crusades contains very little, if anything at all, about the instituitions of crusading that did have an impact, currently this sits in Crusading movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No mention of guilds

Guilds aren't mentioned at all in the article. That's surprising because they were very important for the trades and townlife and were an important factor in economic discrimination against Jews.

Yes, this is a grave problem. I have also been thinking of that for a while. Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Segment about Jews in "High Middle Ages"/"Society and economy"

"and even their expulsion from England in 1290." It's kinda weird to only single out this expulsion, which is also mentioned a second time in "Late Middle Ages"/"Society and economy", and not mention that expulsions happened in many places in Europe between 1000 and 1300. It's also useful to mention that their exclusion from the guilds was an important reason "they could not engage in prestigious trades outside their communities". I think the segment in "Late Middle Ages"/"Society and economy" is a lot better about the expulsions.

Increased pressure on Jews and finally an end of toleration under the Almoravids and the Almohads also goes unmentioned.

1. During this period, the Jews were permanently expelled only from England. 2. Their exclusion was the consequence of their "otherness" which is mentioned in the article. 3. Yes, and the end of toleration in Hungary also goes unmentioned. We could hardly mention all important events of Jewish history. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I see, maybe "even their permanent expulsion from England in 1290" would make that clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.52.98 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Verification of Daily Life by Singman

"The percentage of serfs amongst the peasantry declined from a high of 90 to closer to 50 percent by the end of the period.[325][failed verification]" The reference is "Singman Daily Life p. 8". If this is "Daily Life in Medieval Europe", you can find it here: https://books.google.com/books?id=SOdNT0xFnJsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8#v=onepage It supports the numbers but not the dates. 90% in some places is for the mid-eleventh century and closer to one half is for the early fourteenth century: "In some places in the mid-eleventh century, serfs may have constituted 90 percent of the peasantry, but by the early fourteenth century, the figure may have been closer to one half."

There are two reasons for the tag: timeframe and geography. Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

No mention of torture

There's not a single word about torture in the article. That's curious, because it's indelibly linked to the Middle Ages in the popular mind and it's widely misunderstood. A logical spot for a mention is in "High Middle Ages"/"Intellectual life" after the mention of Roman law, because the reintroduction of torture was influenced by Roman law. It's also good to mention procedural restrictions and the importance of reputation in its application and to name the rack and strappado as common instruments.

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, SOFIXIT. No article here is ever finished. We have List of methods of torture, and would be a good, and very interesting addition. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Cathedral schools

The article claims that "In the late 11th and early 12th centuries cathedral schools spread throughout Western Europe, signalling the shift of learning from monasteries to cathedrals and towns." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not state that cathedral schools spread throughout Western Europe in the two centuries. Neither does he refer to the shift of learning from monasteries to towns. He emphasizes that cathedral schools "made education available to everyone" and attributes their growing popularity to the presence of popular itinerant teachers. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Universitäten

The article claims that "Cathedral schools were in turn replaced by the universities established in major European cities." The cited author (Backman) does not state anything similar. He says that some of the cathedral schools developed into universities, and former students of universities could teach anywhere while "degrees from lesser institutions were less portable". Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Troubadours

The article states that "Chivalry and the ethos of courtly love developed in royal and noble courts. This culture was expressed in the vernacular languages rather than Latin, and comprised poems, stories, legends, and popular songs spread by troubadours, or wandering minstrels." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not describe the troubadours as wandering minstrels. Backman defines the troubadours as "lyric poets", and mentions only three of them: William IX, Duke of Aquitaine, the court poet Reinmar von Hagenau, and the Countess of Dia. Could we characterize a powerful duke, a court poet or an unidentified lady as a wandering minstrel? Furthermore, Backman emphasizes that "troubadour poetry differed dramatically from northern verse in content, form, language, and theme", so we could hardly make a connection between troubadours and high medieval literature everywhere in Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

PoV?

@Ceoil: Could you explain this edit [1]? First of all, I think the sentence you are deleting does not contain PoV. Indeed, the text is specific enough to provide our readers with basic information about cathedral schools, universities and their role in high medieval society. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As a general reader of this overview of 10 centuries, the edit lost me and dived into detailed specifics (already covered by daughter articles) rather than providing the broad sweep intended by the existing text. Ceoil (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your preferred text is the following: " In the late 11th and early 12th centuries cathedral schools spread throughout Western Europe, signalling the shift of learning from monasteries to cathedrals and towns. Cathedral schools were in turn replaced by the universities established in major European cities." If my understanding is correct you do not want to know what was the role of cathedral schools and universities in the High Middle Ages, you only want to know in this article that cathedral schools and universities appeared throughot Europe for some unspecified reasons. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Except that your summary here is a lot better than the "all over the place" text you added that I reverted. Please stick to strict summary style for broad articles. Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What about the following sentences from the same article ("Section 4.3. Church life"): "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century, as elites began to worry that monks were not adhering to the rules binding them to a strictly religious life. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms, a larger movement of monastic reform in response to this fear." Do you think that the reference to the underlying reasons for church reform movement should be deleted, and only a summary should be kept? Like "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms." The deleted parts from the sentences are covered by daughter articles. Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are not seening wood from trees, and even here going into specifics, ie Cluny Abbey. Summary style is needed here. I don't know. All this relentless day after day bludgeoning is starting to make me loose my will. It does seem as if you have something to prove. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I think you have not realised that the quoted text about Cluny Abbey from "Section 4.3. Church life" was copied from the original text of the article ([2]), it is not "my" text. I think this article should summarise the reasons of the Cluniac Reforms but the quote from the article's original text contains unverified claim. Borsoka (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ak ok...I see now. Busy for a few days but will look again when free. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No hurry. Please if you want to discuss your above concerns about the two quoted sentences about Cluny ping the original text's authors. I cannot talk on their behalf. In contrast with you, I think they applied summary style but failed to present verified information. Borsoka (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Cluniac Reform

The article states that "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century, as elites began to worry that monks were not adhering to the rules binding them to a strictly religious life. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms, a larger movement of monastic reform in response to this fear." The texts in bold are not verified either by the cited author's work (Barbara H. Rosenswein's Rhinoceros Bound) or by other authors cited in the article either (such as Bernard Hamilton, Clifford R. Backman, Malcolm Barber). Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Cluny and the papacy

According to the article, "Cluny ... sought to maintain a high quality of spiritual life by placing itself under the protection of the papacy..." The cited author (Malcolm Barber) does not verify the statement, because he says that Cluny's freedom from outside interference was "used ... by the papacy to draw the Cluniacs directly into its orbit. Cluny was not the originator of this trend towards monastic exemption under the papacy, but it soon became its leader." An other historian also cited in the article, Bernard Hamilton also contradicts the quote from the article. Hamilton says that the founder of Cluny, Duke William III of Aquitaine "renounced all patronal rights and placed the house directly under the protection of the pope". (Hamilton (2003), p. 45) Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Carthusians, Cistercians and laymen

The article states that "New monastic orders were founded, including the Carthusians and the Cistercians. ... These new orders were formed in response to the feeling of the laity that Benedictine monasticism no longer met the needs of the laymen, who ... wanted a return to the simpler hermetical monasticism of early Christianity, or to live an Apostolic life." The cited author (Malcolm Barber) states nothing similar. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• "From the early twelfth century new orders were being founded, notably the Cistercians and the Carthusians, which claimed to be more faithful to the Rule of St. Benedict, adopting a live of greater isolation from the rest of society, governing their daily customs by more stringent rules of asceticism, and rejecting what they saw as the distraction of oblates." -- The Two Cities: Medieval Europe, 1050-1320, Malcolm Barber, page 35.

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. My problem is the reference to the laymen's feelings in the article's text. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome. As for the "layman's feelings", really bad attempt at paraphrasing? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Barber suggests that the development of new monastic orders was initiated by monks who wanted to live according to rules that they thought to be fully in line with monastic traditions. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Partially, I was wrong because Barber says that "The Cistercian retreat from city life .... was particularly attractive to the knightly classes, who became their most enthusiastic donors...". However, Barber describes the whole process in the following context: "During the eleventh century clerical leaders had increasingly involved society as a whole in attempts to improve standards of public morality ... At the same time, a growing concentration on the humanity of Christ both provided inspiration and offered new opportunities for emotianal commitment ... the new monasticism not only catered for the social elites, but also responded to popular needs as well by offering a role as conversi..." Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hundred Years War

The section on the hundred years war states: "The price was high, as the population of France at the end of the Wars was likely half what it had been at the start of the conflict." However I cannot seem to confirm this with the source used, nor is the reputation of the source particularly good. Furthermore, the text quoted hardly makes sense. The population of France being half what it was? The French state would have collapsed with such a dramatic and widespread decline in the population. Bennettradtke (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that, but more to the point the Black Death came soon after "the start of the conflict", and seems to have hit France rather hard. Much of France was untouched by the HYW, & I'd imagine the BD had a good deal more impact on overall population, though some of that should have been made up by the end of the wars. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Byzantines, Turks and the First Crusade

The article contains the following text: "The Turks were then free to invade Asia Minor, which dealt a dangerous blow to the Byzantine Empire by seizing a large part of its population and its economic heartland. Although the Byzantines regrouped and recovered somewhat, they never fully regained Asia Minor and were often on the defensive. The Turks also had difficulties, losing control of Jerusalem to the Fatimids of Egypt and suffering from a series of internal civil wars." Although the text is fully verified by the cited source (Davies), it is highly problematic in context. First of all, before the First Crusade the Byzantines recovered territory from the Normans and the Pechenegs, not from the Turks. Western Asia Minor and the Anatolian coastlines were recovered from the Turks as a consequence of the First Crusade (Barber, p. 118). Secondly, the Turks indeed lost Jerusalem to the Fatimids but only during (and as a consequence of) the First Crusade (Lock, p. 23). Consequently, the partial recovery of Asia Minor by Byzantium should be presented as a consequence of the First Crusade, and the Fatimid conquest of Jerusalem could be ignored. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Background to the Crusades

The article introduces the crusades with the following sentences: "In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks took over much of the Middle East, occupying Persia during the 1040s, Armenia in the 1060s, and Jerusalem in 1070. In 1071, the Turkish army defeated the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert and captured the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV (r. 1068–71). The Turks were then free to invade Asia Minor, which dealt a dangerous blow to the Byzantine Empire by seizing a large part of its population and its economic heartland. Although the Byzantines regrouped and recovered somewhat, they never fully regained Asia Minor and were often on the defensive. The Turks also had difficulties, losing control of Jerusalem to the Fatimids of Egypt and suffering from a series of internal civil wars." Each sentence is fully verified by the cited author Davies but Davies does not introduce the crusading movement but describes the history of the Byzantine Empire between 1054 and 1186 in the cited pages. When introducing the crusading movement, standard literature emphasizes the role of the Church reform movement (I refer to Backmen, Barber, Hamilton and Lock who are cited in the article). Why should we ignore standard approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)