Re: Definition of "Medieval."


"Larry Swain" <theswain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:YMWdnViCHfqC-eTbnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
Michael Kuettner wrote:
"Larry Swain" <theswain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3bGdnbwjF6GbseXbnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx


OK, before we discuss further :

You have jumped in lately in this discussion, so you seem to have
misunderstood my points.

Incorrect. Both my newsreader program and Google Groups agree on this
sequence:
<snip>
That's this _thread_ .

The times of course are the times when the messages arrive at the server, not
when you read or send. The point is that I preceded you in this discussion,
you responded to me, erroneously as it turns out. And no, I haven't
misunderstood your points.

The _discussion_ started some two months ago (again).
This _thread_ is just the latest incarnation of the _discussion_.


I'll just resume them again.

a) I'm against the use of the term "Dark Ages".

This is the first I've heard of this being your position.

Because I've stated that for some years now.
I just don't repeat it in every thread.

Your first mention of the Dark Ages in this thread was in your post to me
mentioned above in which you claimed: "...but it would be meaningless
to introduce "Middle Ages" in Japan. As meaningless as using the term "Dark
Ages" outside of England."

Exactly.
I don't intend to tell the Anglo-Saxon members of this ng how they
should label their history.
I'm just telling them to keep terms, which only apply to their country
(rightly or wrongly) out of _European_ definitions for the Middle Ages.


Nothing there about being against use of the term.
How about your next post on the Dark Ages?
There you respond to Peter Alaca and point out other Dark Ages, such as the
post-Mycenaean age, but again, not statement "against" the term.

Because I've said time and again that "Dark Ages" _is not_ a synonyme
for "Middle Ages" in most of Europe.
Some countries have some "Dark Ages", which don't even overlap, AFAICT.

On June 16 you said, "Because "Dark Ages" is a term only used in England. It
might fit there, but certainly not elsewhere."

Exactly.
That's how it is.
The Dutch somethingorelse _do not equal_ the Brit. DA.


Once again, no mention of being against it, but explicit statement that it
fits England.

No, explicit statement that some Brits want to use the term.
Take it up with Renia.

Then there's this statement: Dark Ages" hasn't even a meaning outside of
Anglo-Saxistan."

Exactly.
It hasn't (in the context of the Middle Ages).

And this one: "There are _no_ "Dark Ages" outside of Britain in the sense used
in Britain today and in the 20th century. "

Exactly.

So I'm glad to hear that you're against the term, but frankly do not see your
statement as a reiteration of a previously held position, at least not in this
thread where you have consistently claimed that it existed and that it applies
to Britain only.

I don't hold that position.
Renia (and other Anglo-Saxons) always want to use some "Dark Ages"
whenever we discuss the definition of the Middle Ages.
So I have to guess that it has a meaning in Anglo-Saxon historiograpgy.

But that term seems to be used by Anglo-Saxon posters like Renia
for a period of time in Britain or worse - as an synonyme for
Medieval times or "Middle Ages".


Your strong statements on the subject suggest that your deriving this from
more than Renia and other British posters.

Not only Brits. That's why I used "Anglo-Saxon" to include the USAns.

Regrettably "Dark Ages" has been used in 3 ways: first, it was used to discuss
the whole of the MIddle Ages, even as little as a century ago.

Yep. In Anglo-Saxon historiography.
That's what I was pointing out to Peter.

Then in the mid-20th century there was a shift to use "dark ages" only to
describe the early period, pre-1000,

Again, in Anglo-Saxon historiography.

or even pre-1100 as a subset of the "Medieval" stretching from 500-1500. Then
there is the special use of it to describe Britain in the period from the
Roman pullout to the arrival of the Augustinian mission in 597.

Exactly.
That's why I'm _STRICTLY AGAINST THE USE OF THAT TERM_
in an international forum.

Both the latter meanings are rightfully falling out of favor and being
replaced by more accurate terminology. But as with all things, it takes time,
and there are many of the old school left who erroneously insist on calling
the 9th century for example "the dark ages".

We completely agree, AFAICT.
I hope my 999th restating of my objections against the term "Dark Ages"
doesn't bore Paul to death ...


So I warned Peter, whose country also has some "Dark Ages", that
his term would not map 1:1 to Anglo-Saxon terms.

So you keep claiming, but it can, as it can for post-Roman Dacia etc, and at
least in the latter usage is so used by people who study that time period and
that era.

Yes, but than it shouldn't be used in a _general_ discussion about the
definition of "Medieval".
And that's what this thread is about.


b) I'm happy with the definition "Medieval times mean roughly the period from
500-1500 in Europe."
It's just a rough time-frame; nothing more.

Agreed. Let me repost my original statement to which you responded and seemed
to have missed since:

"If we want to be general about it, the Medieval period is generally
considered to be roughly the period 500-1500 when discussing things globally,
and as a general rule of thumb for discussing generalities in Europe. But
once one begins getting into the details, the "medieval" period begins at
different times in different places, just as it ends at different times in
different places."

Yep, we agree.


c) If other countries and continents also decide that they had "Medieval
Ages",
we get a problem - as illustrated by your (cited) book 'Warfare in Early
Medieval Japan
(10th-14th century)'.
What's "Early Medieval" between 10th-14th ? That includes High to Late Med.
in Europe.

Generally "early" medieval is pre-1100, of the 5 centuries covered in the
book, almost half fall into the "early" period. Not sure what your beef is,
should the author/publisher have dropped the "early", well, ok, they should
have said Warfare in Early, High, and Late Medieval Japan but that gets to be
a rather cumbersome title on the spine and cover.

Warfare in Japan : 10th - 14th Century.

A nice title which says it all.


The point is, and while swallowing camels you're straining at gnats, is that
professionals in the fields of Japanese study and Medieval Europe have long
recognized that there is a sufficient level of commonality to call both
"Medieval" and to actually compare and contrast what is going on in China and
Japan with what is going on Europe.

Shogunate vs. Richelieu & Mazarin ... ;-)
Yes, there are commonalities with Japan. You can compare and contrast
them to Med. Europe.
But why use "Early Medieval" for the 10th to 14th century ?
It muddies the waters.
Like "Late Shogunate in France" would do.

You may disagree all you like, but the point is is that this is what
professionals in the field ARE doing and HAVE BEEN DOING for sometime.
Frankly, I'll take their side.

Oh, no problem with that.
But "Early Medieval" _is not 10th to 14th century_.


Misusing terms this way just muddies the waters _further_.

You have yet to establish that it is a misuse. Language changes. Academic
language changes. Views once held dear (the East and West are utterly
different) change (the East and West independently underwent similar cultural
movements at roughly the same time).

I hold nothing dear.
I just try to establish a _rough terminology_ in an _international forum_ .
The language change in Britain and the USA has no equivalent to the
language change in German speaking countries.
Thusly, until we've reached a new synchronization, we should be
careful with our definitions :
Middle Ages = ca. 500 to ca. 1500.

We've got enough troubles of synchronizing early-, high- and late Med.
already.

Not really. Further, the problems only really arise when trying to describe a
"metalevel" phenomenon that glosses over individual regions.

Eggsactly.
That's why I use a _general definition_ for Europe.
When speaking about specific countries, feel free to use terms applying
only to those countries.

Why not just "Warfare in Japan (10th-14th century)" ? Saves a lot of
confusion.

The century designation isn't part of the title, it was my informing you of
the period covered in the book. Why not that title? Sure, that works, but so
does "Warfare in Early Medieval Japan", those who know something about
Japanese history know without looking further what period is covered.

Good !
The next historian who writes a book about "Warfare in Early Medieval Mexiko"
can expect everyone to know what he's talking about...

"Uzbekistanian Biedermeier" has potential for art historians ...

If Japan chooses to introduce the term "JMA" (Japanese Medieval Age) for a
period
of their history, that's also fine with me (as long as they also give a
time-frame).
If they do, we'll rename our Medieval Ages to EMA. Saves confusion.

You seem the only one confused. I think in part that is because of a general
ignorance of things outside Europe....no offence, but your claims about
Japanese, Chinese, Egyptian, history etc lead me ot believe that you are not
as cognizant of those areas.

LOL.
Are you from the USA ?

Show me where I made claims about their histories except that the
_European term_ "Middle Ages" doesn't fit their histories.

I just don't pin _my labels_ on _their histories_ .

Why don't Anglo-Saxons write books "Warfare in the Shogunate UK" ?
Or "English Warfare during the Ming Dynasty" ?
"Europe during the times of Ramses II." ?
Doesn't sound right, hmm ?

But "Early Medieval Warfare in Japan" (10th-14th c.) is OK ?

Hmmmm...





d) I'm in favour of discussing _everything_ from _everywhere_ from roughly
500-1500 here. I'm _not_ in favour of watering down imprecise terms like
"Middle Ages" even more.

Why is it "watering down"? Language changes, meanings change. This one needs
to change.

But meanings change in different languages at different rates and in
different directions.
To avoid (even more) confusion, we should stick to the smallest common
denominator.
Just my opinion.


Did I manage to make you understand my point(s) ?
I'll answer your post later this month

Don't bother, we've covered the essential points above.

Good, as far as I can tell, we mostly agree.

(back from Ravenna, damaged my
foot and wife caught an infection).
I'm a little pre-occupied right now.

Sorry to hear about this. Feel better soon.

Thanks.
Sorry for the delay; too much work at the houses.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner


.

Relevant Pages

  • As we well know in this forum....
    ... Democracy of Europe" is Luciano Canfora's contribution to ... Canfora's scandalous history of democracy ... Germany and Poland on the same side of a historical debate? ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Another compendium of history
    ... During the Middle Ages, everyone was middle aged. ... Europe caught the Black Death. ... Europe and India thus surrounding France. ... Germany was displaced after WW1. ...
    (rec.humor.funny.reruns)
  • Re: The Myth of the Wests Intellectual Debt to Islam
    ... James Burke and Stanley Poole:- ... And while the whole of Europe had ... Science" about the erudite ?Science in the Arab World: ... "Thus when it publishes a politically correct history of the relationship ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: whats kirastani word for taquiya?
    ... My view is that up until the 9th century the collection of Indian states was not only prosperous, ... Many will say that Europe ... there were "golden periods" in Indian history were accomplishments were as good as any in Europe. ... I can quite buy the argument that, on average, only 4 Catholics were killed per every year of the Inquisition. ...
    (soc.culture.indian)
  • Re: Religion, Patriarchy, and the Future
    ... "Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. ... North America and Europe never think of malaria, but it kills millions more people in the developing world every year than any disease we pampered few ever worry about. ... Add to these particular evils the fact that the more crowded a society, the greater the risk of spreading a disease once it emerges. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)