Most Defining Moment of the Middle Ages

[attilavolciak07]

What would you say were the most defining moments of the Middle Ages, starting right after the fall of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the 15th Century.

I would choose

1. The Crusades

2. Hundred Years War

3. The Papal States altogether

4. Reconquista

and 5. The Islamic Empire

What do you think? :hmmm:


By the Papal States chose, I mean Catholic religion altogether.

[Odovacar]

Investiture fights between papacy and german emperors (and kings in general)

[The Noble Lord]

There is just too many of them, but first one will be the Crusades.

[Last Roman]

Investiture fights between papacy and german emperors (and kings in general)

That is certainly a changing point of the middle ages. It begins the decline of kings (not that they had all that much power in the first place) and the accession of the Papacy.

As for the choices above, all had a large impact on the course of history and without one you couldn't have the others. Not sure I could pick just one.

[attilavolciak07]

Oh, I'm a bad type, I spelled Islamic wrong. Is there a way I can change that?

[Roger II]

I can't vote (not sure why I can't vote), but would choose the crusades because I think they helped Europe start to come out of the Dark Ages.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Now that's a thinker... I think the Papal States had the greatest impact on the era. The Papal States were not only "states", papacy was the single most influential institution of contemporary Europe, the "spirit" of all states (and the biggest tax collector, and the richest state for several centuries btw). No.2. would have been the crusades on my list, but the crusades were inspired and started by the papacy as well. Hence my decision.

I'm not sure though if the expression "Dark Ages" is proper or precise, I'd prefer using "Medieval Ages".

[IronBlood]

Now that's a thinker... I think the Papal States had the greatest impact on the era. The Papal States were not only "states", papacy was the single most influential institution of contemporary Europe, the "spirit" of all states (and the biggest tax collector, and the richest state for several centuries btw). No.2. would have been the crusades on my list, but the crusades were inspired and started by the papacy as well. Hence my decision.

I'm not sure though if the expression "Dark Ages" is proper or precise, I'd prefer using "Medieval Ages".

Extactly what I was thinking!

The Papacy basically took on the responsiblites of the Roman Empire after its fall in the West.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

How is "feudalism" a "moment"? Or how are the crusades a "moment"? You seem to mean something like "the most defining event or element", though this would lead me to ask "defining what, exactly?"

This poll is gloriously unclear.

If it's meant to be asking the most important thing that happened in the Middle Ages then I'd say it would be one of several things not on the list: the rise of a mercantile middle class, the development of parliaments and communes, the widespread adoption of mechanical power for a wide range of agrarian and industrial uses and, probably most of all, the rediscovery of ancient knowledge and the revolution in learning that led to the rise of the universities in the Twelfth Century.

I can't vote (not sure why I can't vote), but would choose the crusades because I think they helped Europe start to come out of the Dark Ages.

Not really. They were more part of a number of European expansions that showed that Europe had well and truly emerged from the Dark Ages. They were a symptom of that emergence, not its cause.

[Ludicus]

If it's meant to be asking the most important thing that happened in the Middle Ages then I'd say it would be one of several things not on the list: the rise of a mercantile middle class, the development of parliaments and communes, the widespread adoption of mechanical power for a wide range of agrarian and industrial uses and, probably most of all, the rediscovery of ancient knowledge and the revolution in learning that led to the rise of the universities in the Twelfth Century.

A brilliant summary.

[René Artois]

the most defining moment in history would have to be the moment the army of the first crusade took jerusalem and slaughtered every muslim. if you think about it, it changed the relationships between christians and muslims forever.

[Shi Huangdi]

the most defining moment in history would have to be the moment the army of the first crusade took jerusalem and slaughtered every muslim. if you think about it, it changed the relationships between christians and muslims forever.

No it didn't. Muhammad started the antagonism between Christians and Muslims, not the Crusaders.

[Gauvin]

the most defining moment in history would have to be the moment the army of the first crusade took jerusalem and slaughtered every muslim. if you think about it, it changed the relationships between christians and muslims forever.

You do realize Muslims had been laying siege to Christian lands, and even Europe for 500 years before the First Crusade. In fact, the First Crusade was in response to calls from the Byzantine Emperor for help defending his remaining lands from encroaching Muslim armies, and also the denial of Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem. The Muslims had first conquered Jerusalem when it was the heart of Christianity, and erected a mosque over the temple of Solomon with Christian polemics written all over it, for the Christians to see. The recurring theme was "Allah does not beget, nor is he begotten" purposely to attack the Christian belief in Jesus as the only begotten son of God. If you think the Crusades was the beginning of ill feelings between Muslims and Christians, you're sadly mistaken, all the Crusades did was give Muslims an excuse to play victim, after years of being the aggressors. Muslims were treating Christian nations with hostility ever since they first started expanding the Islamic Caliphate, and ultimately culminated in the calling for a Crusade to recapture a sliver, of what once was the heart of Christianity: Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The Crusades weren't a starting point, they were perhaps the middle in an always strained relationship that still endures.

My answer: Battle of Tours

[Sher Khan]

You do realize Muslims had been laying siege to Christian lands, and even Europe for 500 years before the First Crusade. In fact, the First Crusade was in response to calls from the Byzantine Emperor for help defending his remaining lands from encroaching Muslim armies, and also the denial of Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem. The Muslims had first conquered Jerusalem when it was the heart of Christianity, and erected a mosque over the temple of Solomon with Christian polemics written all over it, for the Christians to see. The recurring theme was "Allah does not beget, nor is he begotten" purposely to attack the Christian belief in Jesus as the only begotten son of God. If you think the Crusades was the beginning of ill feelings between Muslims and Christians, you're sadly mistaken, all the Crusades did was give Muslims an excuse to play victim, after years of being the aggressors. Muslims were treating Christian nations with hostility ever since they first started expanding the Islamic Caliphate, and ultimately culminated in the calling for a Crusade to recapture a sliver, of what once was the heart of Christianity: Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The Crusades weren't a starting point, they were perhaps the middle in an always strained relationship that still endures.

My answer: Battle of Tours

Although this makes for great polemic, it is nonetheless unsupported by what sources we have.

The Muslim lands had not been laying siege for 500 years. What we have are sporadic episodes of conflict between Islamic governors and Latin Christian powers and a state of constant war between Byzantine and Caliphate spheres, off and on, and having had a state of ceasefire - peace even - for about a century before the arrival of the Turks.

The inscriptions on the Jerusalem mosque are the result of power play against the Roman Emperor, among which also included the minting of coins in defiance of Byzantine coinage and authority. If it affected Christian-Muslim relations, it affected only Byzantine Orthodoxy and the Eastern Church, and was only an issue for the few decades after its construction. No more mention of the mosque and inscription are made in the East, and no mention was ever made of it in the West.

There is no evidence for the disruption of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, before or after the Seljuk invasion, and practically none for many other offenses piled on 'the Pagans.' It's most likely, like always in such speeches and rumors, polemical.

The truth of the matter is that Muslim 'nations' treated the Christian West sans Byzantium with apathy, with attitudes similar to what Miami beach goers would think of random Canadians living in the Northern Territories.

And, for the majority of the time, the shocking bit was the same feeling was reciprocated by the Latin West. Pilgrimage journals many times records the strange customs of the Arab rulers along their journey and hardly ever their religious views. What hardships they endured they attributed to brigands and corrupt officials, rarely if ever to a monolithic and competitive religion bent on domination. Even when the First Crusade had already been launched, when the masses were packing up and marching forth, clergymen witnessing the mass exodus but where not themselves members of the Cluniac circles Urban belonged to watched in apathy and discontent at the common peoples wasting their time on a 'worldly' Jerusalem, lamenting that they not pursue the 'heavenly' Jerusalem instead.

And before the age of the Crusade, Latin Europe was content in labeling the Islamic world, having basically conquered the Holy Lands, North Africa, and parts of Spain, as pagans. That is, no different or perhaps no worse than the multitude of other non-Christians living at the fringes of Europe. There existed no apocalyptic showdown between these two religions, especially when both sides hardly cared for each other.

The Crusades are, in fact, a turning point in relations. After their passing, Europe increasingly saw the Islamic World as the pagan par excellence, and the Islamic World saw Europeans as the infidel par excellence. It was around these times that attitudes of apathy were traded for sincere attitudes of hostility on both sides. That it was some half-way point, that it was caused by previous expansion of Islam, is simply not supported by anything more than 5 minutes of looking at a timeline. The Crusades were a phenomenon that was created from a changing Europe, not something sporadically adopted against an aggressive Islam - one that until the arrival of the Seljuks was very dormant and nonexistant.

[attilavolciak07]

That can go under other.

[MaximiIian]

H.R.E.
While other specific events gain a lot of coverage, the HRE seems to be one the few constants in Medieval society. It was there at the beginning- hell, it WAS the beginning, Charlemagne's coronation marked the true Early Middle Ages, and the termination of the Dark Age; and it lasted beyond the Middle Ages.
Furthermore, when people have a mental picture of "life in the middle ages" or "mediaeval society", what they're picturing probably most corresponds to either the H.R.E. or France in the Middle Ages. Highly stratified and layered social order, rampant feudalism, constant civil warfare, religious violence, chivalry and knights, etc. Most of those popular conceptions are rooted in what life was like in the Holy Roman Empire.

[Legio]

I myself would say that the Crusades were the defining moment.
In fact, many books and theses have been written about exactly that.
They laid down the foundations for the relationship between Christianity and Islam hat continues in conflicts today.
Trade routes were opened.
New inventions and old texts (re)surfaced.
Yeah, basically.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

They laid down the foundations for the relationship between Christianity and Islam hat continues in conflicts today.

Er, no they didn't. Virtually nothing about today's relationship between Christianity (or the West) and Islam (or the Islamic world) can be traced to the Crusades.

Trade routes were opened.

Such as?

New inventions and old texts (re)surfaced.

No "old texts" found their way west as a result of the Crusades. The revival of ancient knowledge came via contact between European and Muslim scholars in Spain and Sicily. The Crusades had nothing to do with this.

That can go under other.

The things I mentioned are a hell of a lot more important than the ones in your poll. Yet they get lumped under "Other"?

[Legio]

Trade routes-
From England to Sicily to Asia Minor, Cyprus included
Rise of city-states in the middle of the Mediterranean like Venice, etc.
Europe "rediscovers" eastern luxuries like spices- leads to European Age of Exploration


Revival of Ancient Knowledge via Reconquista-
I think Reconquista is included in the crusades, no?

[Thorn777]

Could throw pestilence, in to the mudpitt as well. Killing 1/3 of all people in Europe. Having tremendus impact on all people, and instgated many happenings later on.

As for the middle-east: cant think of any thing else then Genghis Khan and his later successors.

@ ThiudareigsGunddigg (sorry, got the name wrong)

Well, the crusades still is in the minds of many muslims and even Osama Bin Laden himself. It can´t be denied, that a 100 year warlike staying, of European soldiers etc. in the "Holy Land" doesn´t have an impact on todays relations. Offcourse the happenings in the 1950-60´s in the middle-east and later Iran, should be vieuwed as a trigger for the orthodox Islam versus "the west".