Sunday, April 26, 2009

The Foundations of Medieval Europe: Technological Revolution

Noisms has mentioned an interest in learning more about the Middle Ages. I’m assuming he means the European Middle Ages, as this follow-up post implies.

My bachelor’s degree from UT Austin is technically in liberal arts, because UT doesn’t award undergraduate degrees in history. But it was the history sequence I completed with a focus on medieval Europe, especially England and France. UT has a great Medieval Studies program, and if you get the chance, I strongly recommend you take any class you can from Janet Meisel and Martha Newman.

Ask any historian about pretty much any topic, and they’ll want to cast back a handful hundred years to discuss how things got to be that way. I’m going to do the opposite and discuss the Middle Ages by hopping forward in time to answer the question, what were the Middle Ages?

The term comes from a time when very little was known about medieval Europe. So far as historians were concerned, European history kinda stopped with the fall of Rome, then restarted again with the Renaissance. Documents from the time were few and far between, and peppered with mythology, like King Arthur. (Want to see a medieval historian get all flustered? Ask ‘em about Joan of Arc.)

Modern efforts to restore and catalogue medieval documents have helped us fill in a lot of the gaps, however, and we now know far more about what happened during those days. The period called “the Dark Ages” has been pushed back to the handful of centuries just after the fall of Rome. Written sources are very rare for those years even now, and what we have to work with primarily comes from oral accounts later committed to vellum and the fruits of archeology.

What we do know is that, as the power of Rome declined, western Europe was awash in successive waves of invaders from the east. On the continent, Goths, Huns, and Franks pushed in from the east, conquering as they traveled, settling down, and merging their customs with those of the people they’d subdued. In the north, the invaders were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Vikings.

When the armies of Islam had conquered the length of northern Africa and crossed into Spain, the peoples they fought there were Goths who had invaded a few centuries before. When the Saracens attempted to raid back east across the Pyrenees, they got their hinies handed to them supposedly thanks to a technological marvel that I think shaped what we know as the Middle Ages. The myth (remember what I said about the difficulties of separating fact from fantasy in medieval history) goes that seven men, draped in mail and riding powerful horses, each slew a hundred Saracens and only lost one of their own number at the Battle of Tours. These men would have been the first knights, and their exploits, whatever they might have truly been, were due in large part to the stirrup.

The stirrup had been in use in Asia for hundreds of years before the 8th century battle that saw the Islamic advance into modern France stymied. What the Franks did that was different was to use the stirrup to outfit their cavalry with heavy armour that made them nearly impervious to the standard weapons of the day. The weapon system of the armoured knight, while extremely effective, was also extremely expensive. Each knight needed a handful of mounts to be effective in battle, and these horses required oats to put on the bulk and muscle the knights required, especially as their armour grew heavier over the years. Knights also needed lots of training to get the most out of their mounts and their weapons. In short, a lot of man-hours were eaten up by the care, training, and breeding of horses for use in war.

In order to make sure he had knights when he needed them, a king would grant large tracts of land to his ablest warriors, in exchange for the promise, usually backed by sacred oath, to deliver a certain number of knights and infantry when the king called for them. Each warrior would organize the land and the peasants living on it to feed him and his servants while they went about the business of preparing for the next war. Such a lord might also divvy up his land into smaller parcels that would be given to other knights, so that they could do the same thing, creating a pyramidal organization of land passed down in exchange for oaths of service traveling up the pyramid. It was sort of like Amway, but with swords and battle axes.

And there you have the foundations of medieval Europe’s social structure. The granted land was called a fief, and the knight who ruled it could pretty much do as he pleased with it, so long as he delivered his quota of warriors to his king’s wars. In order to protect his fief, knights built castles on their lands, and divided their larger holdings into smaller fiefs so that they, too, could raise armies when the need arose.

Of course, in practice, things could get a bit messier than this perfect picture. Sometimes a knight might grow stronger than his lord, or even his king. Knights sworn to the same king might disagree about exactly where one fief ended and another began. Most fiefs were passed down to eldest sons when a knight died, but the exact details of such inheritance were sometimes settled by open warfare between knights. (A similar issue served as the pretext for William the Conqueror’s invasion of England in 1066.) Knights who had covered themselves in glory by slaughtering lots of people might attempt to ease their blood-spattered souls’ passage into Heaven by gifting churches and monasteries with their lands, allowing the Church to acquire great wealth and even, at times, raise its own armies.

In spite of all of this, the coming of the mounted knight pretty much ended the successive waves of invaders from the east. Islam was held at the Pyrenees and then slowly pushed back, first to the southern edge of Spain and then, in 1492, out of western Europe all together. In the east, Europe slowly went on the offensive, spreading Roman Catholicism by the sword into eastern Europe and the Middle East. As the Vikings found raiding more difficult and less profitable, they began to settle down. The Vikings who settled on the northern shores of modern France learned the ways of the knight. These Norsemen slowly became Normans and more French than even the French. When they invaded England in 1066, their chivalric heavy cavalry faced a shield wall which was more akin to their ancestors’ ways of making war than their own.

It was on this foundation of landed knights, supported by the serfs who toiled at menial tasks to support and equip them, that medieval Europe was built. Once you’ve got that down, it’s a lot easier to understand what came later, and how Europe slowly transformed into the modern nation-states we know today.

Photo credits: rutlo, frielp, magoexperto.

7 comments:

Chris said...

"An interesting argument; but wrong in almost every respect." <-- every history student's had that on an essay at least once. ;)

I'd argue that it was more the conversion of northern and eastern Europe to Christianity (Magyar and Viking raids stopped) and strategic over-reach by the regimes controlling Muslim Spain and the Mediterranean littoral that shored up the formative stages of the European feudal system.

But hey, that don't make for good visuals.

trollsmyth said...

Heh...

And Chris shows that if you ask two historians the same question, you're likely to get three answers. ;)

I did consider discussing the spread of Christianity and how it continued the sense of Europe being a single unit in a rather vague sense, but that seems rather tangential. The challenge of your thesis is demonstrating a cause-and-effect relationship. After all, Ireland was largely Christian by the end of the 5th century, but that did nothing at all to stop the Vikings from raiding the island and founding cities like Dublin in the 9th century. Christian churches and monasteries were known to be favorite targets of the Vikings. England, still mostly defended by shield-wall infantry, was still being invaded in the 11th century by Vikings who had largely given up on the continent which was now protected by knights with early castles.

It's also fairly well accepted that fiefs were awarded to give nobles the land and wealth necessary to purchase and train with armour and horses. Now, I suppose you could argue that the spread of Latin learning that followed in the wake of Christianity might have brought with it the Roman tradition of awarding land to the veterans of successful wars. I don't think I've seen that idea pushed, but there's been a lot of scholarship done since I graduated.

(All of which is not to dismiss the importance of Christianity to giving Europe a continued sense of mutual identity after the fall of Rome. I think that's a tangent to this particular discussion, but an important one none the less. And Christianity was central to Europe perfecting gunpowder weapons much later in history, though both are topics for another post.)

Anyone want to champion the climate-change arguments? :)

Matthew James Stanham said...

You might also want to take a look at the Great Stirrup Controversy, if you are not already aware of it. The role of the armoured knight in medieval armies is a back and forth affair.

godlesspaladin said...

Hey, Oddysey's new little D&D convert here. :-p

Really neat post! As for the vikings, well you can argue that what really stopped them was the Battle of Stamford bridge, where an army of about 7,000 and a fleet of upwards of 300 viking ships invaded "England" under Harold Hardrade, only to be defeated by Harold the Saxon(who later that year lost to William the C.) I think something like only 27 of the original 300 viking ships returned.

As for Christianity, one could argue that it was more of a repressive factor than one that helped spread learning. (At least until the reformation) Yes some monks could read and write, and some noblemen were educated by them, but the majority remained illiterate.

You could also mention that a dispute between the church and the Holy Roman Emperor (Germany) helped lead to the political fracture of the country that lasted up until the 19th cent.

But perhaps the most important contribution the church made to the formation of medieval Europe was the crusades. The wealth that made its way back to Europe via Italian merchant states helped reinvigorate the economy that had collapsed after the fall of Rome.

Hence you start to see the "renaissance" slowly creep across Europe from the Italian states up. By the time the Middle Ages ends in England (1485 w/ Henry VII) the renaissance had been going on in Italy for over a century. (Of course this is arguable) ~_^

Qualifications: BA European History w/ Medieval Studies minor and 9 years of doing Medieval living history.

trollsmyth said...

Godless Paladin: It's great to hear from you! :D

I wasn't willing to commit to Stamford Bridge being the last major Viking invasion in Western Europe, but if you are, I'm willing to go with that. ;)

I think it's telling that England, which at this time lacked any mounted knights of the sort that were becoming popular on the continent, was chosen as the target for this last great attack. Just what it tells us, though, might be that England is easier to get to, maybe. The Vikings by this point had gone far afield to find easier and richer pickings, sailing east to modern Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, and Russia, and south into the Mediterranean to hit the Byzantine Empire.

I'll have to respectfully disagree about the church and learning, but only if we limit ourselves to the time period before the 12th century. The church was the one preserving the old texts and continuing learning and literacy, and without them there might have been none at all. We take the value of such things for granted, but in the past, proving a correlation between "book-learnin'" and wealth-creation was difficult to do. Despite momentary bright spots (Alfred the Great, for example), most of the work of preserving the learning of the past and adding to it was done by the church. (Once you get to the "12th Century Renaissance" however, yeah, the church could be a bigger hindrance than help. This became more so when you got to the actual Renaissance. But right now, I'm only talking about the 5th century to the 11th.)

And if you've read this far but don't have any formal background in history, don't let that stop you from chiming in. I started off with my credentials because I knew this post would attract the attention of like-minded historians who would love to debate this sort of thing. But the point of this exercise is to spread around a bit of knowledge about the basics of medieval history for use in gaming. So feel free to challenge, question, or add-on as you think would be helpful. :)

DuBeers said...

No comment with which to chime in, but I'm enjoying (and learning from) the discussion.

Ripper X said...

I concur with DuBeers. I am loving this! Fascinating stuff. God, I love history!