Why study the Middle Ages?
In a western world fascinated by recent history and culture, it is easy to overlook the development of western civilization and why it concerns us now.
As this is the first article posted here, it is necessary to mention the mission statement of this substack, namely to:
“…dismantle tropes and dispel misconceptions of the medieval Holy Roman Empire through the analysis and exploration of architecture and historical charters.”
It is often repeated in schools and universities, by teachers and professors alike that,
“it isn’t important to remember names or dates, just remember the general concepts.” This statement deserves some attention as it denotes precisely what has gone wrong in the study of history, and most notably, the history of the Middle Ages. Imagine a similar statement in the field of chemistry where a professor tells the class that, “it isn’t important to remember the elements or their attributes, just remember the general concepts.” The class would likely become a chamber of disgruntled reactions, questioning the both authenticity and qualifications of the professor. It is true that the periodic table of elements is more tangible to the average person than the flurry of millennia when studying history, especially considering that it is a single table—albeit a complicated one—in which the building blocks of chemistry are outlined. But only after studying the table, and learning of the attributes associated with the various elements, can one begin to theorize reactions and predict their solutions. This is held to be self-evident, as it is quite obvious that a chemist who is ignorant of the periodic table is, in fact, not a chemist. Imagine now a physiology professor informing the class that, “it isn’t important to remember the organs, their connections, or their characteristics, just remember the general concepts.” In this scenario, most students would likely quit the hall without arguing against such foolishness! But why does the same statement become increasingly more outrageous when applied to the natural sciences? Because the statement, when applied to history, has been executed to perfection.
Names and dates, are the building blocks of history. Teaching concepts, absent these building blocks, is the willful indoctrination of a society in accordance to an ideology. Which ideology you ask? Well, any ideology! Why did Stalin rid himself of the intellectuals, if not to procure a society with a blank slate? Why did the National Socialists force historians to become party members, thereby ousting the universities of intellectual diversity, if not to control the concepts discussed in the classroom? Culture is downstream of education.
If generations of people are taught that details of their past are of no particular importance, but that only certain ‘concepts’ are worth remembering, then the past can be controlled—and more often than not—by the least savory individuals a society can muster.
It is with this in mind that we now hoist the sail of inquiry aboard our very own HMS Victory and besiege the precipitous straights of historical calumny guarded by those wishing to control the tide.
Misconceptions of the Past
Let us first outline chronological categories of the Middle Ages (500 AD – 1500 AD):
500 AD – 1000 AD: The Early Middle Ages
1000 AD – 1300 AD: The High Middle Ages
1300 AD – 1500 AD: The Late Middle Ages
The first thing that one may notice is that the period of the Early Middle Ages is equivalent in time to the other two periods. That is because it encapsulates the period from the dissolution of the Western Roman Imperial jurisdiction until the year 1000 AD. Why is the year 1000 AD of such importance? Because it is a round number, and solely for that reason. Those reading this article may find themselves scratching their heads at this moment, wondering why a round number is apparently of more consequence than a fixed date referencing a specific event. Is it not the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things, as Aristotle once stated?And was it not just stated that precision with regard to names and dates is of utmost importance? Indeed it is, but which medieval territory shall we set as the model that the other territories sought to imitate? This is where things become entrenched in preference: not all of the medieval territories followed the same structural, political, or even cultural trajectory. England’s past is very different that Germany’s past, for example, and to set one as the standard serves only to disenfranchise the other. Due to the American-Anglo-French hegemony following the two world wars, the medieval histories of England and France have been elected by modern popular culture as the dual standard-bearers of the Middle Ages. Together they march hand-in-hand in front of the silver screen, encircling viewers with the same bombast as a circus, promoting themselves as two heavyweights in a competition replete with welterweights. On occasion, one of these self-aggrandizing apotheoses of their respective country will extend an olive branch to other parts of ‘the continent’, insofar as they are able to build a larger platform upon which the histories England and France can be worshipped.
In cinema, the deviant and destructive appetites of the English tyrant (excuse me, king) Henry VIII, paired with his brood of murderers, has dominated the western world’s interest in the 16th century. The 15th century is remembered for the heroism of Saint Joan of Arc, or as the scenic playground of Shakespeare—seemingly the only pre-1800 poet of relevance taught in American schools—who memorialized certain kings and demonized others as a form of early-modern propaganda. The 14th century is largely ignored, save for the occasional reference to the Hundred Year’s War and the plague. When approaching the 13th century, things become even more bewildering as though looking into a mist hearkening the advance of a dense fog. The other centuries are largely forgotten, except for the travails of the Normans or revisionist stories of the Vikings. Then suddenly, once the fog of the Early Middle Ages dissipates, the colosseum emerges in all its glory, paired with the imperial Roman armies marching behind the fasces-bearing lictors—the fever dream of modern Hollywood producers fighting back tears of joy while viewing reenactments of the religiously intolerant Romans destroying their enemies.
The combination of Hollywood and what can only be described as historical fan-fiction has completely polluted and distorted western society’s vision of the medieval past—not to mention antiquity. As a result, is widely assumed that literature, astronomy, technology, architecture, and art all diminished during the period of the Middle Ages, typically combined with an overwhelmingly negative view of the Catholic Church as having facilitated that tremendous decline. Rest assured, that these assumptions are as fictional as the claim that the medieval people believed that the earth was flat.
Concerning literature: the Church of the Early Middle Ages preserved the libraries of the Romans, created hundreds of new ones, and copied the Bible into many languages. Had it not been for their dutiful industry, these texts concerning ancient history, literature, and the events following the dissolution of the Western Roman Jurisdiction would not be available. The High Middle Ages were saturated with tales of myths and legends, such as Pazival, the tales of King Arthur, and the songs of the Minnesänger and Troubadours.
Concerning astronomy: the Vatican formally took on the mantle of astronomical and mathematical research during the Middle Ages by tracing the stars, mapping navigational routes, and calculating the cycles of the planets. This provided the fertile soil from which the heliocentric system and Gregorian calendar were adopted in 1582—before Galileo was ever involved, though he too worked for the Vatican!
Concerning technology: the quality of steel refined for the forging of swords in Solingen, Germany in the 9th century was rarely matched until 20th century refineries. The stirrup was invented in the 8th century, just before the Battle of Poitiers in 732 when the tremendous invading Umayyad army—employing war tactics from the period of Roman antiquity—was swiftly and utterly defeated by a smaller Frankish force with superior armor and weaponry. However, technology was not limited to militaristic concerns alone. Advanced pulley systems and iron attachments to stones allowed architects to build higher in tighter conditions with fewer workers. Even the sawmill was invented in the 13th century, revolutionizing the use of wood construction.
Concerning architecture: it is not the case that early medieval Europe had lost the ability to construct monumental architecture. For example, the absence of new aqueducts in the Middle Ages was not due to a loss of knowledge, but that they simply no longer had swarms of slaves to erect them as the Romans had, because it was illegal to own slaves. Additionally, the advances in the manufacture of steel allowed medieval people to drill far deeper into the rock in order to create wells wherever needed. The ability to build a dome was also not lost until the 15th century Florentine architect Brunelleschi, as it is some commonly told. After all, the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople (now Istanbul), built in the 6th century, features a monumental dome. As do the 11th and 12th century imperial cathedrals of Speyer, Mainz, and Worms—to name a few. The grand palaces of the Roman emperors were sprawling complexes featuring domes and arches, but never did they exhibit the caliber of precision demonstrated by late medieval masons constructing gothic tracery.
Concerning art: the medieval copyists and translators (typically monks in a scriptorium) created beautiful illuminations in countless books that still exist today. Frescoes adorned every wall of Carolingian, pre-Romanesque, Romanesque, and Gothic churches combining weaves with both zoomorphic and anthropomorphic forms—continuing the tradition of antique Roman artists. Sculpture was no longer limited to niches in architecture or fountains, but were placed in every chapel, church, cathedral, and even secular buildings.
In short, the Middle Ages were an organic continuation of Western European culture following the dissolution of the Western Roman Imperial Jurisdiction.
However, it is not entirely a modern phenomenon to denigrate the Middle Ages, as a century ago it was considered perfectly reasonable to place five centuries of rich, culturally diverse, and politically essential history into a box labelled ‘The Early Middle Ages’ and swiftly place it on the metaphorical top shelf—scarcely within view, and definitively out of reach. But why is it so? Why are the Middle Ages caricatured as a brutal millennium in which death and disease callously ruled alongside an equally heartless church, whose ministers sought to hinder intellect and stifle inquiry? This horrific union suppressed the advances of the illustrious Romans, who were above all things, the guardians of freedom… If you find yourself smirking at this previous statement thoroughly enveloped in sarcasm, then I applaud you for having exited the ideological confines of modern historical education. However, if you found yourself agreeing with that last statement, then stick around and consider the possibility that there may be more to the story.
Why is the same standard of treading on the graves of one’s ancestors not applied to other regions of the world? Did not all areas pass through the same years of time? Indeed they did, but not all were given the epithet of the Middle Ages, by pompous 18th century ‘historians’ seeking to degrade their predecessors in the vain hope of improving the perception of themselves. But why that name? Because it is denotes a transitionary period bookended by two other periods of such apparent significance that they are not regarded as transitions. These periods are the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, heralded as preceding the supposed straight jacket of the Catholic Church and loosening its bonds (respectively). However, if there is even one lesson learned by the study of history—regardless of the region or culture—it is that over-simplifications and gross-categorizations are invariably false. Never mind that the Roman Empire enslaved entire populations, mercilessly slaughtered their enemies, and murdered Christians (as well as people of other religions) for entertainment. Never mind that the legal structures, system of roads, and vast libraries following the collapse of the Western Roman Jurisdiction were preserved by the Catholic Church, while others attempted to destroy them. Never mind that the Renaissance not only correlated with an increase in violence, but ushered in waves of dissent erupting in countless territorial feuds and devastating continental wars on a scale only matched by Roman affairs. Never mind that the Catholic Church had been the only unifying force attempting to prevent constant wars in Europe in the thousand years prior to the revived appetite for Roman decadence and ill-regard for human life. Never mind that plagues have consistently ravished humanity without care for the fictional chronological boundaries separating those periods of time that ought to be remembered from those that ought to be ignored.
Now, what were the Middle Ages? Shall we still call these thousand years by their derogatory and demeaning transitionary title? Another name would be certainly preferable, but instead of hunting for new titles to apply, it is more important to see how the people of that time viewed themselves: to discover why they made certain decisions, given the context of their culture, politics, and geography. To this end, it would be nigh on impossible to select the entirety of Europe as our case study, so instead we shall focus upon the Holy Roman Empire (HRE)—the largest and most complex political entity in medieval Europe and, consequently, the most ignored. Thus, we will accompany the tide as it returns to shore and crashes against the opponents of inquiry, in an effort to rediscover the rich histories and truths of the HRE buried beneath the sands of time.