Poll: Most Significant Element of the Middle Ages

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Since another, similar recent poll only included wars and fanboy stuff and ignored the really significant things that happened in the Middle Ages, here's another try. Which of the following Medieval elements, cultural movements or innovations had the most impact on history?:

1. The Empire/Papacy Disputes

2. The Twelfth Century Renaissance and the revival of ancient learning

3. The widespread harnessing of mechanical power through water and wind mills

4. The rise of communal governments and parliaments

5. The birth of the universities

6. Technical innovations like eye-glasses, mechanical clocks and the printing press

7. Long distance trade, exploration and diplomacy with China and the Far East

8. The Black Death pandemic of 1347-51

9. "Warz and Crusaders and, like, hitting people and stuff dOOd!!! Thatz cool!"

9. Other (please specify)

[gaius valerius]

Lol I alrdy rep'd you for your reply on the previous messup-topic on the Medieval period but you'd really deserve another one for this topic.


I voted (as in the previous) for the 12th century Renaissance, as it marked the take-off to the foundations of what would be Modern Europe, a first really important intellectual revival paving the way for what was yet to come. I hardly can imagine anything close to a Renaissance without the events of the 12th century. The others are of course important as well. Communalism as a whole was also a very important structural evolution during the period. Long distance trade was also of importance, although it was the immediate consequence of the revival of urbanism, which in itself was a consequence of... (see below)

Do you know what you forgot? The Great Exploitation (11th-13th century). It paved the way the revival of cities and long distance trade. It also paved the way for the economic breakdown of the 14th century. Actually in that light the Black Death is less important on its own, it was terrible but it didn't destroy the bubble Europe was living in, that bubble had crumbled in the beginning of the 14th century (the great famines of those years), so the Black Death wasn't needed to bring down Europe, it did grossly accelarate that process and helped paving the way for a revival.

Warz and hitting ppl and stuff dOOd of course comes last.


@ Thiu: you didn't give yours

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Excellent poll, although I agree with gaius valerius, that you left out the agricultural revolution, which enabled the growth of cities and the development of densely populated areas, which enabled the emergence of small freedom spheres, like the communes, and enabled development of trade & banking, trading leagues, moneylending, larger mercenary armies etc. etc. You're right, that the effect of crusades is overestimated, they were rather a symptom, than a cause, an "Adventure" rather than "Change" or "Development", but think of the Napoleonic Wars (age of Napoleon), they may be overestimated too, but nonetheless very significant - and in terms of political and legal change, technical and economical development also, in a large area of the civilized world.

So I don't think there is a single "Most Significant Element" in the Middle Ages, it was a unique historical process with its own continuities and discontinuities, causes and consequences, but if I have to pick only one on the list, it would be the communal "movement", because it slowly but radically changed the social environment of the Middle Ages, that eventually and indirectly led to another Age...

[Ringeck]

I hate polls. Just like I hate multiple-choice questionaires with one definite answer where there in fact are several. History is more complex than that. Now well, communes and the embryonic modern forms of government it is for me.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Do you know what you forgot? The Great Exploitation (11th-13th century). It paved the way the revival of cities and long distance trade. It also paved the way for the economic breakdown of the 14th century.

Excellent. I agree. The further urbanisation meant more population growth.
Which brings us to this

Shouldn't the emergence of a Middle or Burgher class be in there as well ?

Adding the rise of various guilds as an emerging political superpower.

Warz and hitting ppl and stuff dOOd of course comes last.

But not the least, imho. The Hundred Years War, for example, fastened the formation of the French nation. And although it happened in England first, we should consider the importance of France in every aspect of European life that time. Which eventually affected the whole continent.

@Thiu. Thank you. Indeed, that poll was rediculous. +rep. to all of you (OP and quotes).

[The Good]

I voted for "Long distance trade, exploration and diplomacy with China and the Far East."

Were it not for the advancement of naval technology (for the Europeans, specifically), the New World discovery (by the European nations) would have been halted for possibly centuries. Imagine a sort like Christopher Colombus exploring the Americas around the 1800s . . . that's quite a delay, isn't it? At least for the European nations.

[Sher Khan]

My vote goes to the Black Death.

While revival of ancient learning and the rise of the university are well and good, these did not put Europe on any grand step above the rest of the world. Particularly in the Middle East, where higher learning and ancient book learning had been well established, the development of similar and parallel institutions and activities in Europe is important, but only for Europe itself. It did not give it a leg-up on its neighbors, but did help it catch up and, soon, surpass them intellectually, but that would take some time, and I believe the Black Death came and went to great effect before this intellectualism could bear its real fruit.

The way I approach Medieval history revolves around a vague question: why did Europe and not its neighbors come to dominate the modern world? Or rather, the inverse, why did the Middle East give way to Europe? To make a long answer short, the attitudes of the learned and elite on both sides diverged, and while there are varying reasons ranging from philosophy to religion, the pragmatic solutions the Black Death brought are worth noting. The Middle East returned to a mostly agrarian economy after the Black Death, and its agricultural technology was sufficient to provide for itself. Europe, however, was far more devastated. The Death lead to specialization and better management of limited resources (including manpower) that turned Europe from a civilization trying to catch up to a larger neighbor into a very different kind of world built heavily on efficiency and creativity.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Shouldn't the emergence of a Middle or Burgher class be in there as well ?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Shouldn't the emergence of a Middle or Burgher class be in there as well ?

Yes, I forgot about that one.

[Juvenal]

I am plumping for "The rise of communal governments and parliaments".

The change from leadership by small aristocratic elites to communal governments has had a profound effect on society. It has allowed a much larger part of the population to actively participate in the creation of wealth and the development of science and technology. Greater participation leads to greater demand thus setting off the feedback loop we call "progress". It has made the bougeousie into the dominant force in society, something that can't really happen under authoritarian regimes.

Successful modern societies are characterised by a system of checks and balances where government is constrained by institutions (this even applies to China). This is conducive to a stable and predictable environment that encourages economic activity and helps motivate people to contribute to growth through self-interest.

Contrast this with societies ruled by juntas or oligarchies or religious hierarchies (the modern equivalents of Feudal aristocracies). These societies tend to be classified by us as 3rd World even when they have oil or mineral wealth.

[Odovacar]

There is no single one..If I must I choose the emergence of communes.

The "empire-papacy disputes"(the investiture-war) are important as the secular state was being formed then.
Technical innovations are also important.

[Hansa]

There is no single one. If I must I choose the emergence of communes.

The "empire-papacy disputes"(the investiture-war) are important as the secular state was being formed then.
Technical innovations are also important.

I agree, and then where do you start? With the investiture controversy between the emperors and the reform papacy, or with the first reform pope because this in turn lead to the investiture controversy, perhaps with the election of Gregory VII? General church-state conflicts in the middle ages perhaps, this was obviously in no way limited to Germany. Henry IV and V was not the only European rulers who felt the papal revocation of the Gelasian doctrine. Everything is connected and all events are of huge importance (more or less).

I won't vote, I can't say I feel qualified enough, my knowledge of the later middle ages is to limited, and as Ringeck said, a poll is really to simplistic.

Regardless of this, the good options for significant events in the Middle Ages is a good starting point for an interesting debate on the many significant events of the Middle Ages I hope this tread is kept alive with discussions about the different matters at hand.

And while I would not have voted for it (again, not sure, don't feel qualified and all that), I sort of miss the establishment of (more or less) stable larger political structures (states), many, if not most of todays modern European states have their origins in the Middle Ages, and from about the 12th century we start to see a political geography which pretty much reflects todays European map, though many of the medieval states vanished only to reappear later, I think it is quite significant that the maps of High medieval Europe are very similar to the maps of todays Europe. To me, this is hardly coincidental and shows that the state formation processes in Western, Northern and Central Europe following the breakup of the Carolingian empire and after the period of so called ''feudal anarchy'' had a significant impact on the future history of Europe.

Also the Christianizing of Europe should be mentioned, it both expanded and created the Europe we see today and was extremely significant in creating a ''European culture''. In this aspect I fully agree with the Catholic Church even though I am an agnostic (I am no fan of rewriting history to fit modern secular beliefs).

[Odovacar]

I agree, and then where do you start? With the investiture controversy between the emperors and the reform papacy, or with the first reform pope because this in turn lead to the investiture controversy, perhaps with the election of Gregory VII?

The Cluny reform. But starting never can be absolute. There is no absolute beginning of history. only in the bible. Thus every analysis picks up a date.

General church-state conflicts in the middle ages perhaps, this was obviously in no way limited to Germany. Henry IV and V was not the only European rulers who felt the papal revocation of the Gelasian doctrine. Everything is connected and all events are of huge importance (more or less).

The policy of Innocentius III was a large scale attempt to bring kings under the church. He made marriages, forced kings to declare him overlord, etc. The efforts reached their zenith under Bonifatius VIII, and then they backfired as french kings brought the pope under their power, instead of the destroyed Hohenstaufens.

The process was started with Gregory VII as far as I know.
The Caroling frank rulers helped the pope to gain power, in return of supporting their ascension to the throne and their conquests. Of course this was a "stone-age policy" since the Merovings did the same by accepting catholicism.

The church was a possibilty no ruler could ignore to use for his own goals. Later it became a necessity.
Gregory's one precedessor, Sylvester II was yet in the might of HRE emperors. Gregory's quest of freeing papacy from imperial power could only succeed by creating the church as the highest authority over HRE as a state.
HRE was a superstate, theoretically the first among the kingdoms, in prestige the greatest.

If HRE must be under the papacy, if the pope is God's governor on earth and the emperor is just the pope's sword, then all states are just inferior lambs in God's church.

Of course the worldly authorities werent keen of the idea.
Furthemore it was a necessity that they denied it.

For example, King Laszlo, one of the supporters of HRE's enemies, gladly allied with the germans as they ceased to threathen his kingdom. Furthermore he "usurped" ecclesiastical rights just as Henry IV. did.
The pope's supporters all did that. The Welfs upon ascending to the throne with the papacy's help, begun to follow the same policy as Hohenstaufen did.

The necessity of controlling the church lied in the feudal society. You couldn't effectively control your nobles, nor take the land away from them. The nobility hindered even the punishment of the greatest criminals.
You may not deal with an open traitor easely too.

What you could do is to take away a bishop's dominion in case he is disobedient. Or- if he dies- you just dont appoint his successor...thereby keeping the money for you.
It was an official policy employed by kings. There was no great king in Middle Ages who did not usurp the church's rights.
Simply they had to.

Now temptation is great to think: ok, this was great, pope's just pray and dont gather wealth..
However, the church on the other hand was thus totally ripped off. It was controlled by the state and no doubt if this could just go on, then illiterate nobles get bishoprics, sometimes even people who fight in wars and just live like anyone else if not worse.

Church totally controlled by the state loses its heavenly mission to bring justice and faith into society. That was not an option for the church, although they knew they can't get fair in building a hardcore papacy.

[Sebdeas]

Fall of Constantinople, since it not only forced Europe to find a different path to Asia, but it also brought Byzantine scientists to Europe. They had different versions of the Bible from the Europeans and through studying these, a new understanding and attitude was brought, one of the important things of the Renaissance.

[SigniferOne]

Shouldn't the emergence of a Middle or Burgher class be in there as well ?

You also forgot to put on that poll how they went to Space.

[The Noble Lord]

The invention of the printing press. In Germany.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

You also forgot to put on that poll how they went to Space.

Don't be silly Siggy - this poll is only for things that really happened. But thanks - you just won me a bet.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

I say the black death atleast from a Nordic perspective.
Norway for example was a nice kingdom before and was recovering from a long civil war and then it hit.
They never recovered and 1 less kingdom fighting for influence in the north.

[gaius valerius]

Although on the other thread it was more of a hoax against the veneration of war, I think it serves a better purpose here, with some modifications:

A little rant about agriculture (do let me know if you see errors or inclarities)

Agriculture on its own was much more defining then all the medieval wars together. The whole evolution of agriculture, from the Carolingian system (and all its regional variants) to the feudal period and the Great Exploitations. Around the year 1000 agriculture was once again flourishing, which in turn led to the growth of cities, which in turn led to the growth of internal and external trade. Petty seigneurs were driven to the market and so they used their peasantry to generate those goods. In turn peasants become a little commercialised (with regional differentiation). Long distance trade also flourishes more and more as the cities grow. In turn this leads to the emergence of a bourgeois class, rich wealthy citizens not of noble blood. In turn this leads to a whole lot struggles throughout the Middle ages and beyond. Further more the rigid socio-economic system during the Great Exploitations (10th-13th century) creates a downward circle of revenues. Inflation rises for centuries yet rent remained the same. In turn more and more land was taken in use (land was won from the sea, swamps were made into agricultural land, woods were cut for example, in Flanders there were less trees in 1300 then there are today). Malthus and Ricardo step in. A vicious circle. In turn this leads to yet another long-awaited crisis around 1300. In turn this leads to famine all over Europe (the Great Famine of 1315-17 and all those that followed anyone?). The class of seigneurs was destroyed as their socio-economic survival was based on continuous expansion of their domain, of course, around 1300 the physical limit had been reached (you can't turn swamps into farms forever, nor can you continuously win land on the sea). In turn this enables for new characters to take the stage. Kings emerge from a period of being relatively unimportant (of course again, regional variations are due), regaining their old might and their grip on the lower nobility. In turn a new chapter opens up for Europe, soon larger visible states like France or England would begin to emerge and create their own identity, the stage for the Early Modern Period would be set. At the same time a new socio-economic relation is founded based on a variable rent, life gets harder again for peasants. In turn this leads to economic growth without the potential setbacks that a set rent offered in the previous socio-economic constellation. The Black Death just came and added to the period of crisis that had started with the Great Famine of 1315-17, and of course, made that a lot worse. But in turn this 'cleansing' sorta speaking was needed, as it swept away the old finite socio-economic system and paved the way for innovations.

And then we haven't even considered the effects of the growth of cities (due to the growth of agriculture) on culture, on the emergence of universities, which in turn were important in the emergence of bureaucratic states etc etc.

Oh yes, and finally, all these structural evolutions lead to a lot of strive, the many wars people on these forums so cherish. And what is the importance of these wars in the bigger picture? (our longue durée) The history of medieval agriculture and all its consequences saw more deaths than all medieval wars combined. The evolution of agriculture lay the foundations - or destroyed them, creating crisis - of the the socio-economic buildup of the era.

[Nietzsche]

The Black Death.

It broke the hold of the provincial powers over the peasants and serfs eventually paving the way for a middle class.

It broke the hold of the church over the lives of the common men and by extension their governments.

Both of which laid the necessary groundwork for the principles of individual liberty and democratic government.