Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Anglo-Saxons

@Johnbod:, could you explain your revert ([1])? Perhaps you also want to refer to reliable sources when discussing the issue. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary explained it. I'll ask User:Urselius, who has the literature at his fingertips, if he thinks this edit is a good addition. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the edit. The Germanic incomers were not Anglo-Saxons before they arrived in Britain. There is a well established consensus that the ethnogenesis of the Anglo-Saxons happened in Britain, under insular circumstances. ".. conquering the local Celtic Briton tribes.", is problematic, as the initial Germanic settlements were in coastal lowland Britain where in all probability Latin had, at least partially, displaced Brittonic Celtic, and tribalism had disappeared, to be replaced by Roman political and social structures. The word 'conquest' is also moot. There is evidence that some of the early Germanic settlement was controlled by British authorities, much as the Visigoths were given a third of the land in Aquitaine by the Romans. There is also the question of definite or probable Celtic names in early Anglo-Saxon dynasties: Cerdic , Ceawlin and Caedwalla in the Gewissae king list (Wessex), Pybba, Penda and Peada in the Mercian kings and Cadbaed in the Lindsey dynasty. If the early kings of later Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were natives, the idea of a simple conquest of natives by Germanic incomers is questionable. Good sources include: The Anglo-Saxon World by N.J. Higham and M.J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon Achievement by R. Hodges and Origins of the English by C. Hills. Urselius (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks! Reading Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain would be a start too; there are many other sources there. I might add to these that some of the Heptarchy kingdoms can't be called "tiny", and "scattered" for the incomers suggests the Victorian model of various tribes sailing over together, which now seems at best only a part of the picture. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments. Nevertheless, the beginnings of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms should be introduced because they appear out of the blue in the article. What about the following wording: "Among the new peoples filling the political void left by Roman centralised government, the first Germanic groups now collectively known as Anglo-Saxons settled in Britain before the middle of the 5th century. The local culture had little impact on their way of life, but the linguistic assimilation of masses of the local Celtic Britons to the newcomers is evident. By around 600, new political centers emerged, some local leaders accumulated considerable wealth, and the existence of small kingdoms, each of the size of one or two modern counties, is also well documented." Borsoka (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Better certainly - but this article uses British English. I'd drop the last bit, especially as the concept of "modern counties" is more complicated than you probably realize, and they are very variable in area. So perhaps: "By around 600, new political centres emerged, some local leaders accumulated considerable wealth, and a number of small kingdoms were formed."

Thank you for the suggestion. I accept that the concept of "modern counties" is more complicated than the British medievalist Christopher Wickham (who verifies the statement) can realize. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The usual pathetic sarcasm - sounds like you are closely paraphrasing again. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you describe a paraphrase of your own words as "pathetic sarcasm". No, I was not closely paraphrasing Wickham's text: two words could hardly be described as copyvio, especially if one of them is a technical term. Sorry, I do not remember that you referred to close paraphrasing earlier. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Urselius:, taking into account your above remarks, may I ask you to share your thoughts about the following sentence in section Carolingian Europe: "Great Britain was divided into small states dominated by the kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex, and East Anglia which descended from the Anglo-Saxon invaders"? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly it makes the 'domination' sound somehow fixed, whereas we know that political ascendancy was rather fluid between the kingdoms - the ascendancy of East Anglia was very short, the reign of one man. It also ignores northern Britain, where the Dal Riadan Scots became the dominant kingdom. Secondly, as I said before, there were no Anglo-Saxons before the ethnicity developed within Britain. I would rephrase the sentence along the lines of: Great Britain was divided into many kingdoms. The most prominent of these kingdoms, known as the Heptarchy, were the cultural descendants of incoming Germanic groups, arriving during the Age of Migrations. During the Carolingian period the dominant power within Britain shifted between kingdoms, from Northumbria to Mercia and finally to Wessex. Urselius (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What happened in the early 750s?

According to the article: "The Carolingian dynasty, as the successors to Charles Martel are known, officially took control of the kingdoms of Austrasia and Neustria in a coup of 753 led by Pippin III (r. 752–768). A contemporary chronicle claims that Pippin sought, and gained, authority for this coup from Pope Stephen II (pope 752–757)." The two sentences are verified by a reference to Susan Wise Bauer's work although she is not a historian. First of all, the Carolingian dynasty was officially in control of the Frankish kingdoms, because Carolingians had been the Mayors of the Palace for decades. Secondly, the "coup" happened in 751 when the last Merovingian king was dethroned and Pepin was crowned the new king. Thirdly, the second sentence quoted from the article suggests that the papacy may have played no role in the legitimization of the Carolingians. Is there any reliable source written by historians that verifies this claim? Other historians cited in the article (Backman, Collins, Wickham) emphasize Pope Stephen II's role. Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Beginnings of the Papal States

The article states that "In 774, Charlemagne conquered the Lombards, which freed the papacy from the fear of Lombard conquest and marked the beginnings of the Papal States." The cited source Brown verifies the statement but an other source cited in the article contradicts it. Backman writes that Charlemagne's father Pepin "bestowed the central portion of [Italy] ... on the papacy as an autonomous state. Henceforth, the pope stood ... as the direct political ruler of an Italian principality known as the Papal States." (Backman, p. 155) Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Louis the Pious and his sons

The article claims that " Louis's reign of 26 years was marked by numerous divisions of the empire among his sons and, after 829, civil wars between various alliances of father and sons over the control of various parts of the empire. Eventually, Louis recognised his eldest son Lothair I (d. 855) as emperor and gave him the Kingdom of Italy." The text is verified by a reference to a book written by Susan Wise Bauer who is not a historian. Other historians cited in the article make it clear that Lothair was crowned co-emperor and received Italy years before the first civil war broke out (Collins, Wickham). Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Charlemagne who was unable to ....

According to the article, "Charlemagne planned to continue the Frankish tradition of dividing his kingdom between all his heirs, but was unable to do so as only one son, Louis the Pious (r. 814–840), was still alive by 813." The sentence is verified by a reference to a book written by Susan Wise Bauer who is not a historian. Indeed, Louis the Pious was Charlemagne's only son to survive him, but Charlemagne had invested his grandson Bernard with the Kingdom of Italy before his death and Bernard survived him (Collins, Roger (2010) [1991]. Early Medieval Europe, 300–1000. Red Globe Press. p. 319. ISBN 978-0-230-00673-7.; Costambeys, Marios; Innes, Matthew; MacLean, Simon (2012) [2011]. The Carolingian World. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge University Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-521-56366-6.). Consequently, Charlemagne was able to divide his kingdom between his heirs. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that Charlemagne kept the Frankish and Lombard titles separate and had Louis crowned emperor before his death, can the provision for Bernard really be described as dividing his kingdom? Louis himself had been king of Aquitaine for decades by 814. Srnec (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I was also thinking about that. We can say that the sentence is not wrong if we ignore its context which refers to the division of the whole empire in the subsequent years. Furthermore, in contrast with the quoted sentence, Charlemagne had two heirs when he died, Louis and Bernard, so he would have been able to divide his "kingdom" (whatever it is) between them. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Danelaw

The article claims that "Efforts by local kings to fight the invaders led to the formation of new political entities. In Anglo-Saxon England, King Alfred the Great (r. 871–899) came to an agreement with the Viking invaders in the late 9th century, resulting in Danish settlements in Northumbria, Mercia, and parts of East Anglia." The two statements are not verified by the cited source (Collins). According to Collins, the invasions (not the local kings' effort) led to the formation of new political entities because the Vikings assumed power in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Likewise, he does not write that Alfred's agreement with the Viking invaders resulted in Danish settlements but refers to Alfred's agreement about the relationship between his kingdom and the Vikings who had settled in Britain years before. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Culmination of the Ottonians' efforts

According to the article, "In the early 10th century, the Ottonian dynasty established itself in Germany, and was engaged in driving back the Magyars ... . Its efforts culminated in the coronation in 962 of Otto I (r. 936–973) as Holy Roman Emperor." Collins, who is cited to verify the statements, does not imply that the Ottonians' efforts (whatever it means in this context) culminated in Otto I's imperial coronation. Collins writes that the Ottonians' "origins did not distinguish them from the other ducal houses of eastern Francia, and they lacked hereditary rights inherited from the Carolingians. ... The prospect of the imperial title, and with it an enhancement in status and a more clearly articulated claim to the Carolingian legacy, was attractive." Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What strengthened what?

The article claims that "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which gained power and territory." The words "Missionary efforts" are linked to Christianization of Scandinavia. First of all, it is quite obvious that missionary efforts did not help "strengthen the growth of kingdoms" (whatever this expression means) in this period. Secondly, the cited author (Collins) does not verify the statement that either "missionary efforts" or the "Christianization of Scandinavia" helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms. What Collins says is the following: "In both Norway and Sweden, conversion is associated with the appearance of more powerful and geographically more extensive monarchies in the second half of the tenth century." There is no reference to the effects of the Scandinavians' conversion to Christianity on the development of Scandinavian monarchies. Actually, the cited sentence suggests that the development of more powerful monarchies facilated Christianization in the region. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Expansion of population and the decline of slavedom

The article states, "The High Middle Ages was a period of tremendous expansion of population ..., although the exact causes remain unclear: ... the decline of slaveholding, a more clement climate and the lack of invasion have all been suggested." Actually, the cited authors (Jordan and Backman) do not associate the decline of slaveholding with population growth. Jordan writes that "slavery ... was dying out in lands under Latin Christendom" but without linking it to the expansion of population. When mentioning the decline of slavery, Jordan introduces the development of serfdom - not unlike other historians cited in article (Backman, Singman). Instead of the decline of slavery, the same historians list assarting (the cleaning of woods for agricultural activities) among the possible reasons of demographic grow. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Free peasants in the south

According to the article, " There remained a few free peasants throughout this period and beyond, with more of them in the regions of Southern Europe than in the north." The first part of the sentence is verified by the cited author (Backman), but the second part is actually not verified. The cited author (Eppstein) indeed writes of free peasants in Catalonia and Northern Italy but without stating that there were more free peasants in the south than in the north. On the other hand, Backman clearly refers to free peasant communities in the north (in Germany). Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Art and architecture

For a while, I have been thinking that the section presents early medieval art and architecture only partially. It is focused on church architecture and ignores secular buildings, while the paragraph about arts could be desribed as a list of notable treasures. Perhaps the principal features of secular architecture and artisctic elements of everyday life should also be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Stirrups

The article claims, "During the early invasion period, the stirrup had not been introduced into warfare, which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops because it was not possible to put the full force of the horse and rider behind blows struck by the rider." Actually, the cited author (Nicolle) does not verify the second part of the statement, rather contradicts it. Nicolle says: "a lack of stirrups did not limit the effectiveness of a horseman to anything like the extent that is popularly believed. ... The most dramatic development in horse harness during these centuries was ... the adoption of stirrups. Even so, the importance of this development has been over-emphasized by most historians, particularly in the military context." (Nicolle, David (1996). Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare In Western Christendom. Brockhampton Press. pp. 30, 41. ISBN 1-86019-889-9.) Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC) The article also states, "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, which increased the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops." In fact, the cited author (Nicolle) says that "Several important developments took place in European horse harness, though their immediate significance has been greatly exaggerated by most modern scholars. Stirrups, for example, were known by the 8th century, but were not at once widely used." (Nicolle, David (1996). Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare In Western Christendom. Brockhampton Press. pp. 88–91. ISBN 1-86019-889-9.) 13:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What governed what?

A caption contains the following text: "Medieval French manuscript illustration of the three classes of medieval society: those who prayed (the clergy) those who fought (the knights), and those who worked (the peasantry). The relationship between these classes was governed by feudalism and manorialism." The second sentence is allegedly verified by a reference to a page in Sources of World Societies. However, this page does not contain any similar statement. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that relationship between the clergy and knights, or clergy and peasantry was not typically governed by feudalism and manorialism. 16:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Feudalism

The article states that "Nobles, both the titled nobility and simple knights, exploited the manors and the peasants, although they did not own lands outright but were granted rights to the income from a manor or other lands by an overlord through the system of feudalism." First of all, the sentence is not verified by the cited source (Barber). Secondly, the sentence suggests that the system of feudalism existed in all over Europe although authors (Backman, Curta) cited in the article make it clear that this was not the case. 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Open-field system

The article states that "The open-field system of agriculture was commonly practiced in most of Europe, especially in "northwestern and central Europe"." At first glance, the statement is verified by the cited author (Pounds). However, Pounds does not emphasize the importance of the open-field system. Instead, he writes "There could have been no consistency, even within restricted areas, in the ways in which peasants organized and cultivated their fields. Too many cultural traditions were involved. Nevertheless, by the end of the Middle Ages three broad field systems could be distinguished. None was spatially distinct; each merged into the other, and there were many compromises and transitions between them." Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Clerics

The article says that " Most of the regular clergy were drawn from the nobility, the same social class that served as the recruiting ground for the upper levels of the secular clergy. The local parish priests were often drawn from the peasant class." The first part of the first sentence is verified by the cited auhtor Barber (although not by the cited pages). However, Barber does not verify the second part of the first sentence. Likewise, the second sentence is unverified: Barber refers to cases when serfs were manumitted by abbots but without making any general statement about local priests' social background. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Isolated regular clergy?

The article claims that "the regular clergy ... lived isolated under a religious rule and usually consisted of monks." I have no access to the cited source (Hamilton's Religion in the Medieval West) but the statement apparently contradicts other sources cited in the article. "The regular clergy was originally limited to monks, who sought spiritual perfection by withdrawing from the secular world ... In time, other clerics became regular clergy by taking on the communal mode of life under a rule, while continuing to interact with the secular world." (Singman, p. 11) "The lives of the canons were governed by a rule bearing many similarities to that of the regular clergy..., but their work was largely concerned with worldly affairs..." (Barber, p. 27). Furthermore, it is well known that a significant group of regular clergy, the friars of the mendicant orders, did not live an isolated existence and their convents were located mainly in urban centers. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Rise of towns and the stimulation of economic growth

The article claims that "In central and northern Italy and in Flanders, the rise of towns that were to a degree self-governing stimulated economic growth and created an environment for new types of trade associations." The cited author (Epstein) does not verify the statement. It is quite obvious that the sentence presents relationship between the rise of towns and economic growth in a quite unusual way. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hanseatic League

The article states that "Commercial cities on the shores of the Baltic entered into agreements known as the Hanseatic League". The cited author (Epstein) does not verify the statement. First of all, he does not refer to the Baltic at all (and not all Hanse cities were located on the shores of the Baltic). Secondly, Epstein makes it clear that in the High Middle Ages the Hanseatic Lague was still a federation of merchants, not of cities: "...the German Hanse was at first a great confederation of merchants from many cities. In the later Middle Ages, the league of cities became the predominant feature of the Hanse, but this development was in response to challenges after the plague..." Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png looks unsourced. Any way to solve this issue? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Jews in the High Middle Ages

The article states that "Jews also spread across Europe during the period. Communities were established in Germany and England in the 11th and 12th centuries, but Spanish Jews, long settled in Spain under the Muslims, came under Christian rule and increasing pressure to convert to Christianity. Most Jews were confined to the cities, as they were not allowed to own land or be peasants." First of all, the article does not explain the causes of the spread of Jews in Europe, so the first sentence is not informative. Furthermore, the most important aspects of Jewish history in this period are not mentioned. For instance, the earliest cases of blood libel and the widespread pogroms are ignored, the Jews' expulsion from England and France is not mentioned, and there is no reference to the beginnings of the large Jewish communities in Eastern Europe. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Kings of Spain

The article claims that "Kings in France, England, and Spain consolidated their power, and set up lasting governing institution." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not refer to Spain. Backman indeed mentions the Crown of Aragon as one of the three super powers of the Mediterranean. Secondly, Backman does not writes of three states, but most of the European states. Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Poland as a Central European power

The article claims that "New kingdoms such as Hungary and Poland, after their conversion to Christianity, became Central European powers." It is without doubt that between the mid-14th and mid-17th centuries Poland was a European power, but in the High Middle Ages (between c. 1000 and 1300) Poland could hardly be described as such, especially because after 1138 Poland was divided into more and more duchies. The cited author (Barber) writes: "Some historians see 1138 as the beginning of a new phase in Plish history ... Until then for all its vicissitudes, the Pllish state had been held together by a single line of the Piast dynasty... Nevertheless, although Poland lacked an overall ruler, the indvidual dukedoms were generally effectively governed." There is no reference to Poland's status as a Central European power in this period. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in the High Middle Ages

The article claims that "Townswomen, like peasant women, were responsible for the household, and could also engage in trade. What trades were open to women varied by country and period." The second sentence is not verified by the cited author (Singman). Furthermore, the short paragraph about women repeats four times that women were responsible for the household. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Papacy and secular kings

The article states that "The papacy, long attached to an ideology of independence from secular kings, first asserted its claim to temporal authority over the entire Christian world;". First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not verify the reference to secular kings. Furthermore, the papacy wanted to get rid of the authority of the Holy Roman Emperors while the Gregorian Reform wanted to diminish secular influence on Church affairs in general. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

German duchies and the Migration Period

The article claims that "During the early High Middle Ages, Germany was ruled by the Ottonian dynasty, which struggled to control the powerful dukes ruling over territorial duchies tracing back to the Migration period." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not state or imply that the German duchies were connected to the Migration period in any way. Furthermore, Patrick J. Geary who is also cited in the article emphasizes that the German "tribal" duchies were in fact the creations of the Merovingian kings (Geary (1988), p. 228). Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Germany"

The article dedicates seven sentences to the history of Germany in the High Middle Ages. The seven sentences refers to the German rulers' clashes with the papacy several times without mentioning the Holy Roman Empire, and the disintegration of Germany into principalities, and northern Italy into small duchies and republics. These principalities, duchies and republics would be united into nation states only in the second half of the 19th century. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Srnec (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1. The section "Rise of state power" mentions the clashes of individual Holy Roman Emperors with the papacy far too much. 2. The article does not mention the disintegration of Germany and northern Italy into small autonomous (or rather independent) states in the period although it would have long-term consequences. 3. The Holy Roman Empire is not mentioned in the section. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Louis IX as mediator for most of Europe

The article claims that King Louis IX of France "served as a mediator for most of Europe". I have only access to the Hungarian translation of Davies's work that is cited to verify the statement, but Davies only writes that Louis was requested to act as a mediator many times in debates between kings and aristocrats. Is there any source verifying the quote from the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The French kings' personal rule

The article states that "The French monarchy continued to make gains against the nobility during the late 12th and 13th centuries, bringing more territories within the kingdom under the king's personal rule and centralising the royal administration." At first sight, the cited author (Backman) verifies the statement about the French king's personal rule. However, actually Backman refers to the conquest of Anjou, Maine and Normandy by Philip II Augustus, and it is separately mentioned in the article. On the other hand, Backman emphasizes that Philip's son and successor Louis VIII "is remembered chiefly for granting large sections of the territories won by his father as apanages. An apanage was a land grant made to the younger sons of the royal family as compensation for not inheriting the crown ... apanages were technically independent provinces ... the long-term consequences of the apanage system were grievous." Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

write about the development of religious system during medieval period

Yes 2405:201:A415:40EB:DC2A:E522:135D:8F2B (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No mention of guilds

Guilds aren't mentioned at all in the article. That's surprising because they were very important for the trades and townlife and were an important factor in economic discrimination against Jews.

Yes, this is a grave problem. I have also been thinking of that for a while. Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Verification of Daily Life by Singman

"The percentage of serfs amongst the peasantry declined from a high of 90 to closer to 50 percent by the end of the period.[325][failed verification]" The reference is "Singman Daily Life p. 8". If this is "Daily Life in Medieval Europe", you can find it here: https://books.google.com/books?id=SOdNT0xFnJsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8#v=onepage It supports the numbers but not the dates. 90% in some places is for the mid-eleventh century and closer to one half is for the early fourteenth century: "In some places in the mid-eleventh century, serfs may have constituted 90 percent of the peasantry, but by the early fourteenth century, the figure may have been closer to one half."

There are two reasons for the tag: timeframe and geography. Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Segment about Jews in "High Middle Ages"/"Society and economy"

"and even their expulsion from England in 1290." It's kinda weird to only single out this expulsion, which is also mentioned a second time in "Late Middle Ages"/"Society and economy", and not mention that expulsions happened in many places in Europe between 1000 and 1300. It's also useful to mention that their exclusion from the guilds was an important reason "they could not engage in prestigious trades outside their communities". I think the segment in "Late Middle Ages"/"Society and economy" is a lot better about the expulsions.

Increased pressure on Jews and finally an end of toleration under the Almoravids and the Almohads also goes unmentioned.

1. During this period, the Jews were permanently expelled only from England. 2. Their exclusion was the consequence of their "otherness" which is mentioned in the article. 3. Yes, and the end of toleration in Hungary also goes unmentioned. We could hardly mention all important events of Jewish history. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I see, maybe "even their permanent expulsion from England in 1290" would make that clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.52.98 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Cathedral schools

The article claims that "In the late 11th and early 12th centuries cathedral schools spread throughout Western Europe, signalling the shift of learning from monasteries to cathedrals and towns." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not state that cathedral schools spread throughout Western Europe in the two centuries. Neither does he refer to the shift of learning from monasteries to towns. He emphasizes that cathedral schools "made education available to everyone" and attributes their growing popularity to the presence of popular itinerant teachers. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Universities

The article claims that "Cathedral schools were in turn replaced by the universities established in major European cities." The cited author (Backman) does not state anything similar. He says that some of the cathedral schools developed into universities, and former students of universities could teach anywhere while "degrees from lesser institutions were less portable". Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Troubadours

The article states that "Chivalry and the ethos of courtly love developed in royal and noble courts. This culture was expressed in the vernacular languages rather than Latin, and comprised poems, stories, legends, and popular songs spread by troubadours, or wandering minstrels." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not describe the troubadours as wandering minstrels. Backman defines the troubadours as "lyric poets", and mentions only three of them: William IX, Duke of Aquitaine, the court poet Reinmar von Hagenau, and the Countess of Dia. Could we characterize a powerful duke, a court poet or an unidentified lady as a wandering minstrel? Furthermore, Backman emphasizes that "troubadour poetry differed dramatically from northern verse in content, form, language, and theme", so we could hardly make a connection between troubadours and high medieval literature everywhere in Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Crusades or Crusading movement?

For the time being there are to articles on similar (perhaps identical) subjects: Crusades is allegedly dedicated to the military history of the "numbered crusades", Crusading movement to the wider institutional and ideological framework. Until these two articles co-exist, I think we should present the Crusading movement in this article. Individual military campaigns are less interesting in the general context of the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The usage of both is probably warranted. One has MILHIST but very little about the development of the intituitions, the other has no MILHIST at all and is all about instituitions. Depends what you want to do about this article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The "numbered Crusades" had little impact on Europe's history: the Holy Land was first conquered then lost. Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In standard literature, the Crusades and the Crusading movement are introduced by references to the Gregorian Reform and the development of heavy cavalry. Is there any reason that this article presents the Crusades before introducing the Gregorian Reform movement and the principal aspects of the military of the period? (For standard literature I refer to works cited in the two relevant articles, Crusades and Crusading movement.) Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the placement was done for thematic reasons: "Crusades" fits well with the military and political theme of "Rise of state power" and "Church life" fits with the church topics in "Architecture, art, and music". I agree it's standard to introduce crusading by mentioning the Gregorian movement and knighthood. Heavy cavalry and specifically knights are mentioned before the crusading section though: "Early Middle Ages"/"Military and technology" and "High Middle Ages"/"Society and economy" are the most relevant. But, to the point, the Gregorian reforms must be mentioned before the crusading effort. Maybe "Church life" can be moved up and "Crusades" can be moved down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.52.98 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made the move, but avoided any other editing. @Borsoka's two points stand in that: 1) The Crusades section contains a lot of MILHIST that is not in Europe; 2) Crusades contains very little, if anything at all, about the instituitions of crusading that did have an impact, currently this sits in Crusading movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Cluniac Reform

The article states that "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century, as elites began to worry that monks were not adhering to the rules binding them to a strictly religious life. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms, a larger movement of monastic reform in response to this fear." The texts in bold are not verified either by the cited author's work (Barbara H. Rosenswein's Rhinoceros Bound) or by other authors cited in the article either (such as Bernard Hamilton, Clifford R. Backman, Malcolm Barber). Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Cluny and the papacy

According to the article, "Cluny ... sought to maintain a high quality of spiritual life by placing itself under the protection of the papacy..." The cited author (Malcolm Barber) does not verify the statement, because he says that Cluny's freedom from outside interference was "used ... by the papacy to draw the Cluniacs directly into its orbit. Cluny was not the originator of this trend towards monastic exemption under the papacy, but it soon became its leader." An other historian also cited in the article, Bernard Hamilton also contradicts the quote from the article. Hamilton says that the founder of Cluny, Duke William III of Aquitaine "renounced all patronal rights and placed the house directly under the protection of the pope". (Hamilton (2003), p. 45) Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

PoV?

@Ceoil: Could you explain this edit [2]? First of all, I think the sentence you are deleting does not contain PoV. Indeed, the text is specific enough to provide our readers with basic information about cathedral schools, universities and their role in high medieval society. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As a general reader of this overview of 10 centuries, the edit lost me and dived into detailed specifics (already covered by daughter articles) rather than providing the broad sweep intended by the existing text. Ceoil (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your preferred text is the following: " In the late 11th and early 12th centuries cathedral schools spread throughout Western Europe, signalling the shift of learning from monasteries to cathedrals and towns. Cathedral schools were in turn replaced by the universities established in major European cities." If my understanding is correct you do not want to know what was the role of cathedral schools and universities in the High Middle Ages, you only want to know in this article that cathedral schools and universities appeared throughot Europe for some unspecified reasons. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Except that your summary here is a lot better than the "all over the place" text you added that I reverted. Please stick to strict summary style for broad articles. Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What about the following sentences from the same article ("Section 4.3. Church life"): "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century, as elites began to worry that monks were not adhering to the rules binding them to a strictly religious life. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms, a larger movement of monastic reform in response to this fear." Do you think that the reference to the underlying reasons for church reform movement should be deleted, and only a summary should be kept? Like "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms." The deleted parts from the sentences are covered by daughter articles. Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are not seening wood from trees, and even here going into specifics, ie Cluny Abbey. Summary style is needed here. I don't know. All this relentless day after day bludgeoning is starting to make me loose my will. It does seem as if you have something to prove. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I think you have not realised that the quoted text about Cluny Abbey from "Section 4.3. Church life" was copied from the original text of the article ([3]), it is not "my" text. I think this article should summarise the reasons of the Cluniac Reforms but the quote from the article's original text contains unverified claim. Borsoka (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ak ok...I see now. Busy for a few days but will look again when free. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No hurry. Please if you want to discuss your above concerns about the two quoted sentences about Cluny ping the original text's authors. I cannot talk on their behalf. In contrast with you, I think they applied summary style but failed to present verified information. Borsoka (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No mention of torture

There's not a single word about torture in the article. That's curious, because it's indelibly linked to the Middle Ages in the popular mind and it's widely misunderstood. A logical spot for a mention is in "High Middle Ages"/"Intellectual life" after the mention of Roman law, because the reintroduction of torture was influenced by Roman law. It's also good to mention procedural restrictions and the importance of reputation in its application and to name the rack and strappado as common instruments.

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, SOFIXIT. No article here is ever finished. We have List of methods of torture, and would be a good, and very interesting addition. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Carthusians, Cistercians and laymen

The article states that "New monastic orders were founded, including the Carthusians and the Cistercians. ... These new orders were formed in response to the feeling of the laity that Benedictine monasticism no longer met the needs of the laymen, who ... wanted a return to the simpler hermetical monasticism of early Christianity, or to live an Apostolic life." The cited author (Malcolm Barber) states nothing similar. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• "From the early twelfth century new orders were being founded, notably the Cistercians and the Carthusians, which claimed to be more faithful to the Rule of St. Benedict, adopting a live of greater isolation from the rest of society, governing their daily customs by more stringent rules of asceticism, and rejecting what they saw as the distraction of oblates." -- The Two Cities: Medieval Europe, 1050-1320, Malcolm Barber, page 35.

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. My problem is the reference to the laymen's feelings in the article's text. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome. As for the "layman's feelings", really bad attempt at paraphrasing? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Barber suggests that the development of new monastic orders was initiated by monks who wanted to live according to rules that they thought to be fully in line with monastic traditions. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Partially, I was wrong because Barber says that "The Cistercian retreat from city life .... was particularly attractive to the knightly classes, who became their most enthusiastic donors...". However, Barber describes the whole process in the following context: "During the eleventh century clerical leaders had increasingly involved society as a whole in attempts to improve standards of public morality ... At the same time, a growing concentration on the humanity of Christ both provided inspiration and offered new opportunities for emotianal commitment ... the new monasticism not only catered for the social elites, but also responded to popular needs as well by offering a role as conversi..." Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hundred Years War

The section on the hundred years war states: "The price was high, as the population of France at the end of the Wars was likely half what it had been at the start of the conflict." However I cannot seem to confirm this with the source used, nor is the reputation of the source particularly good. Furthermore, the text quoted hardly makes sense. The population of France being half what it was? The French state would have collapsed with such a dramatic and widespread decline in the population. Bennettradtke (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that, but more to the point the Black Death came soon after "the start of the conflict", and seems to have hit France rather hard. Much of France was untouched by the HYW, & I'd imagine the BD had a good deal more impact on overall population, though some of that should have been made up by the end of the wars. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Byzantines, Turks and the First Crusade

The article contains the following text: "The Turks were then free to invade Asia Minor, which dealt a dangerous blow to the Byzantine Empire by seizing a large part of its population and its economic heartland. Although the Byzantines regrouped and recovered somewhat, they never fully regained Asia Minor and were often on the defensive. The Turks also had difficulties, losing control of Jerusalem to the Fatimids of Egypt and suffering from a series of internal civil wars." Although the text is fully verified by the cited source (Davies), it is highly problematic in context. First of all, before the First Crusade the Byzantines recovered territory from the Normans and the Pechenegs, not from the Turks. Western Asia Minor and the Anatolian coastlines were recovered from the Turks as a consequence of the First Crusade (Barber, p. 118). Secondly, the Turks indeed lost Jerusalem to the Fatimids but only during (and as a consequence of) the First Crusade (Lock, p. 23). Consequently, the partial recovery of Asia Minor by Byzantium should be presented as a consequence of the First Crusade, and the Fatimid conquest of Jerusalem could be ignored. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Military orders

The military orders played an important role in the crusades but I am not sure that the short section "Crusades" should dedicate five sentences to them. Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A weakened Byzantine Empire between 1204 and 1261

According to the article, the Fourth Crusade greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire. In the context, the cited author Backman never writes of the Byzantine Empire. Instead, he refers to three rump states, Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizond. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Background to the Crusades

The article introduces the crusades with the following sentences: "In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks took over much of the Middle East, occupying Persia during the 1040s, Armenia in the 1060s, and Jerusalem in 1070. In 1071, the Turkish army defeated the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert and captured the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV (r. 1068–71). The Turks were then free to invade Asia Minor, which dealt a dangerous blow to the Byzantine Empire by seizing a large part of its population and its economic heartland. Although the Byzantines regrouped and recovered somewhat, they never fully regained Asia Minor and were often on the defensive. The Turks also had difficulties, losing control of Jerusalem to the Fatimids of Egypt and suffering from a series of internal civil wars." Each sentence is fully verified by the cited author Davies but Davies does not introduce the crusading movement but describes the history of the Byzantine Empire between 1054 and 1186 in the cited pages. When introducing the crusading movement, standard literature emphasizes the role of the Church reform movement (I refer to Backmen, Barber, Hamilton and Lock who are cited in the article). Why should we ignore standard approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Religious and political developments in Europe were absolutely key. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Slight correction. Manzikurt was significant symbolically, but the reason the Turks gained territory was due to civil war amongst the Byzantines following the battle. Elias (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Which were mainly consequences of the Byzantine defeat at the battle and the capture of the emperor. Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That is the traditional Byzantist view. Present day academics acknowledge the facts that the Emperor was only captive for a week and the Empire's losses were minimal. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Do they really say that the civil war broke out independently of the emperor's captivity? Who? Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a good question. One source who challenges this view is Ashbridge though he does not explicitly divorce the events. Another I found is Mikaberidze, but he says civil war was a direct result of the battle Elias (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Cahen suggested that Alp-Arslan favoured a strong independent Byzantium to combat the Turkmen. Perhaps this is why he quickly freed Romanus. Certainly Asbridge indicates that Anatolia wasn't a priority or objective for him. The sentence in the article wrong confuses and conflates Turks, Seljuks, Turkmen, Turcomen and various other nomadic tribes which is clearly wrong. Byzantine problems and political unrest predate the battle and continued afterwards so difficult now to see it as a causal event or catalyst rather than another step in the process. That said, entirely agree with the initial comment When introducing the crusading movement, standard literature emphasizes the role of the Church reform movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Minor edit. The definite article is inappropriate in from of Turks (it was different Turks) and Barber talks of aid to Byzantium rather than the more generic rescue of Christians. Hope this is acceptable. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka, Hi. I think you missed my point. While it is true that the victor at Mantzikert was the Seljuk Arp Arslan, the Turks that subsequently poured into Anatolia were not related and were not Seljuks. More importantly they were not sedantary like the Seljuks, but largely nomadic and transhumant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24428584?searchText=mantzikert+turkmen+transhumance&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dmantzikert%2Bturkmen%2Btranshumance&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A1f3597c18675c68df7b87e0a10bfef51 is quite interesting on the subject Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct you suggest that the Sultanate of Rum was not established and ruled by a branch of the Seljuk dynasty on the eastern borders of Byzantium. Could you refer to reliable sources verifying this assumption? Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, your understanding is incorrect and that is not what I am suggesting.

As the source provided notes ...blurring the distinctions between the Seljuk Turks of Rum and the tribes of pastoral nomads or rather transhumants who came to be known as Tiirkmens or Turcomans is incorrect. The oft-repeated assumption that the Seljuk Turks of Baghdad oversaw the Turkish conquest of Anatolia is addressed when tracing the unstructured nature of the Turkish migration and the subsequent lack of unity amongst the invaders. The use of the definite article is therefore misleading at best. It implies a single polity of Turks, which isn't the case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Another source summarises it well: Sultan Toghrul as well as his successor Alp Arslan adopted as their grand strategy the concept of a restored Sunni orthodox Islamic Empire including Egypt as well as the marches of India; the conquests this implied required that the Seljuks should keep their western flank safe by ensuring peaceful relations with their Byzantine neighbors. By contrast, autonomous nomadic groups of Islamized Turcomans entering the region saw a rich opportunity for plunder in the wealthy western provinces of Byzantium and began a series of raids beyond the frontiers of the Seljuk territories from about 1020 AD on, even while the Seljuk armies studiously avoided any confrontations with the Greek Empire. The battle of Manzikert changed that situation insofar as here Alp Arslan effectively destroyed the ability of Byzantium to defend its eastern frontier. This in turn allowed what had been a pattern of isolated Turcoman raids to swell to a flood that presently engulfed all of Asia Minor from the Armenian marches to the Aegean Sea. In this advance Seljuk troops and Seljuk leadership became involved only haltingly , entering only after the floodgates of what amounted to a Turkish mass migration opened.' https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1006658.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab9a9a6a682423d66777b97496e60cd36&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator= Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Not "Turks", but the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at Manizkerts, and not "Turks", but Turks under Seljuk leadership established the Sultanate of Rum on the borders of the Byzantine Empire. In the article's context, we do not need more information about the conquest of Asia Minor. Borsoka (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Seljuks were victors at Manzikert, no issue there. But in the second clause in the sentence, it is predominately Turcoman not Seljuks that poured into Anatolia in the aftermath. The Danishmendids also foundered a ghazi state in Northern and Central Anatolia. The Seljuks of Rum lived in the towns, while the Turcoman continued fairly uniterupted in the countryside. Not suggesting adding any of this to the article, just that the use of the definite article implies a unity that didn't exist. Delete it and it's job done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you want to avoid the use of the adjective "Seljuk". What about the following text "Pope Gregory VII promised salvation to those who took up arms against his enemies, and for a while he was planning to lead a military campaign against the Muslim Seljuk Turks in support of the Byzantines. The Turks had routed the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, and seized much of Asia Minor." ?

That works too Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Scholasticism

The article states that "Philosophy and theology fused in scholasticism, an attempt by 12th- and 13th-century scholars to reconcile authoritative texts, most notably Aristotle and the Bible." I do not have access to the cited source (an article from Loyn's The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia) but other scholarly works cited in the article do not verify the whole sentence. For instance, none of them describes scholasticism as a fusion of philosophy and theology. Instead they describe scholasticism as a method without limiting its scope to philosophy and theology. For instance, Backman writes that scholasticism "was indeed a method more than a universally accepted set of ideas" (Backman, p. 433). Colish also describes scholasticism as a set of "pedagogical methods and approaches" and emphasises that "early and high medieval scholasticism is marked by synthetic and systematic thought in all disciplines" (Colish, pp. 265-266). Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Corpus Iuris Civilis and Roman Law

The article states that "Secular law was advanced greatly by the discovery of the Corpus Iuris Civilis in the 11th century, and by 1100 Roman law was being taught at Bologna." The cited author (Backman) emphasizes that the systematic study of Roman law based on the CIC transformed legal education from around 1100, noting that Roman law had already been studied as "a compilation of various bits of legislation". Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas

According to the article, scholasticism "culminated in the thought of Thomas Aquinas". Actually, the cited author Colish acknowledges that Aquinas was a prominent representative of medieval scholasticism, but does not say that scholasticism culminated in Aquinas' thoughts. For instance, he writes "While the Dominicans closed ranks in 1279 in the effort to make Thomism obligatory, the more Neoplatonic theology of Albert [the Great] attracted some members of the order. Secular masters ... freely drew on, or criticized, their work, and put the pieces together in their own way. Change is most visible among Franciscans, who in some respects objected to Bonaventure as much as to Thomas. They sought, with considerable success, to put Franciscan philosophy and theology on a new footing on the basis of their own new ideas." Borsoka (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Early 14th-century famines

The article states that "The first years of the 14th century were marked by famines, culminating in the Great Famine of 1315–17." I do not have access to the cited source (an article from Loyn's The Middle Ages) but other sources cited in the article and specialised literature does not confirm the first part of the sentence, rather seem to contradict it. For instance, Backman - who is also cited in the article - writes that famine appeared in 1311. Environmental historian Richard C. Hoffmann refers to 1314 as the first year of the early 14th-century famine, but also mentions foot shortages between 1251 and 1261. (Hoffmann, Richard C. (2014). An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge University Press. pp. 323–324. ISBN 978-0-521-70037-5.). Borsoka (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Islamic Spain

This article is a good, comprehensive overview of Christian Europe. It falls short on crediting the vital accomplishments of Spaniards of the era. I'm think about adding paragraphs were appropriate, but don't want to waste my time if the events and contributions to civilization of Spain are not acceptable because the rulers were Islamic. John (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Religion could hardly exclude anything from WP. Yes, the article almost entirely ignores the achievements of non-Catholic scholarship, arts and architecture. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

For that matter, why is a cross the lead image? Looks like a page on Medieval Christianity. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the Latin cross is a good lead image. The expansion of Latin Christianity towards all direction is a (or maybe the) main feature of Europe's history. After being confined to France and Italy by the end of the 8th century, Latin Christianity began to expand, and by the end of the period more than half of Europe (and significant regions in other Continents) were ruled by Catholic leaders. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these were key trends, but should the page look more religious than the actual page on Christianity in the Middle Ages? This was also the age of Vikings, Goths, the probing of the caliphate into Europe, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Violence

The article contains the following text: "These dire conditions resulted in an increase of interpersonal violence in most parts of Europe. Population increase, religious intolerance, famine and disease led to an increase in violent acts in vast parts of the medieval society. One exception to this was northeastern Europe, whose population managed to maintain low levels of violence due to a more organized society resulting from extensive and successful trade." First of all, the cited authors (Baten and Steckel) do not write that their study (based on cranial and postcranial bone trauma) indicate the level of violence without doubt but they present their research as an attempt to study interpersonal violence. They explicitly say that "We argue that cranial trauma and weapon wounds on any part of skeletal remains were often the result of interpesonal violence. ... [A] standardized indicator for human violence in Europe over the past 2000 years has not been proposed until now." Secondly, they do not write of the lower levels of violence in northeastern Europe. The sentences should be rewritten to reflect the cited source, or deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Or, of course, a source found that does say this. But that's never your approach, is it? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As you were a major contributor to this large collection of original research and marginal PoVs ([4], [5]) you could have found a source. Why do you think that I should do the homework you failed to do? Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you have long taken over the article, it's become your responsibility; you normally revert anyone else adding stuff. But you don't seem to make any attempt to find new sources. I only really did the art sections. I very much doubt there is much in the way of "original research and marginal PoVs" here; I think its a reflection of a wide range of scholarly sources, but not exhaustively referenced to all of them. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

1. No, I do not have to do other editors' homework. If you failed to verify a sentence, I am not required to search sources to verify your thoughts. 2. Actually, it was you who reverted all my edits at the beginning ([6], [7], [8], [9], etc.). 3. I introduced the following sources in the article: i. Bartlett, Robert (1994). The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950–1350. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-140-15409-2.; ii. Bitel, Lisa M. (2002). Women in Early Medieval Europe, 400–1100. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-59773-9.; iii. Chazan, Robert (2006). The Jews of Medieval Western Christandom, 1000–1500. Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84666-0.; iv. Curta, Florin (2019). Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), Volume I. Brill's Companion to European History. Vol. 19. Leiden, NL: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41534-8. 4. I again draw your attention to the archives that I linked above (([10], [11])): they prove that this article was a large collection of original research and marginal PoVs. 5. I fully understand that you do not want to take responsibility for this article even if you have accepted a share in the glory of your co-nominators for this "FA" for almost a decade. Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Phooey! As I have said elsewhere, and I think here, it is a disgrace that this article remains an FA, when it has changed so much since the version that passed FAC. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want, I could revert to the version before I started to edit the article. I will place all my little tags where that version contained unverified claims and PoV statements. It would allow you and your co-nominators to develop the article to reach at least the GA level. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it should just be delisted. I've been there and done that once, & have no intention of doing it again. I expect the main editor of the FA version feels the same. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you did not do it: this article never reached the level of an averrage GA because you did not use your sources. I have not reached the end of the article so I will be able to support your proposal with examples of original research, etc, so I think the article will be delisted without much debate. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Gibberish

"Under duress or in the hope of protection, freemen often submitted themselves to a local strongman's jurisdiction, whereas the lords of uncultivated lands rewarded enterprising serfs and slaves doing the burdensome work of assarting with freedom" ??? Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, assarting is a thing, but it is a very obscure word, which should be linked and explained if used. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is linked and explained when it is first used in the same section. Borsoka (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the rest of the sentence is hard to understand even leaving aside the word “asserting”.—Ermenrich (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Facts and assumptions

@Ceoil: could you refer to WP policies verifying your revert and edit summary ([12])? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)