![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Yes 2405:201:A415:40EB:DC2A:E522:135D:8F2B (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
"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."
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
@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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
Thomas Asbridge says: "In 1071, the Seljuqs crushed an imperial army at the Battle of Manzikert (in eastern Asia Minor), and though historians no longer consider this to have been an utterly cataclysmic reversal for the Greeks, it still was a stinging setback."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
@Ceoil: could you refer to WP policies verifying your revert and edit summary ([12])? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)