Europe vs rest of world in the Middle Ages

This is of course a subject that pops up quite often on AE, and I'm not quite sure if there was a dedicated topic to it. Even if there is, I don't think it's been beaten to death for a while. Anyway, there seems to be a general impression out there, particularly among muslim, chinese and indian members, that Europe was for a long time a backwards region compared to their own civilizations. The period for which this assertion is held to be true for the most part is the Middle Ages. For a while, even I shared to some extent this opinion. Recently though, having visited an absolutely magnificent example of a mid-13th century cathedral (the Sainte Chapelle of Louis IX of France), I have started to have a new appreciation of the sophistication of Medieval Europe and decided to give the matter of their supposed inferiority some more consideration. I have come to realize that this is a very complex issue, and that some questions need to be examined before an answer is given.

1. What period are we exactly talking about? While I have seen members asserting that Han China was more advanced than Rome for example, the general opinion seems to indicate that the Roman Empire was at least on par, if not more advanced than the rest of the world. Europe is asserted to be "inferior" after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 and before a period which I've seen dated from 1453 (fall of Constantinople) to as late as 1648. Let's agree to look at the period 476-1453, for convenience. But then we run into further "issues": in Eastern Europe, the Byzantine empire was an uninterrupted civilized presence for all of this period. In Western Europe, the Ostrogoth, Frank and Visigoth kingdoms were strong continuators of Roman traditions, institutions and culture and Western Europeans did not actually become less civilized after 476. The decline in trade and culture only occured after the Arab invasions of the Middle East in the 7th century which blocked off trade routes. By the 12th century, Western Europe had become strong enough militarily to establish and maintain what were in effect overseas colonies taken from an advanced civilization in Palestine, and to conquer one of the greatest cities in the world: Constantinople in 1204. Culturally, I invite anyone to do some research in the age of cathedrals in the 12th and 13th centuries, especially the Sainte Chapelle, and still assert that somehow this was not a culturally rich society. So anyway, this would restrict the actual period of "inferiority" to the 8th to the 11th centuries.

2. What exactly is "Europe" during the Middle Ages? If we look at the geographical boundaries of Europe as defined nowadays, they would include large areas which were quite advanced during this period, most notably the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, and muslim Spain, which were both easily the equal of any civilization in the world during their heyday. Detractors of Europe would say that these 2 regions belonged to different civilizations or cultural spheres, which opens up a lot of ambiguity. Did Spain gradually and piecemeal became a part of Europe as the Reconquista engulfed more and more petty muslim kingdoms? Was Constantinople only properly a part of Europe during the period of 1204-1261, when it was ruled by latins? Were the Levantine coast and Palestine European during the time of the Crusades? It seems to me that we need to define what "Europe" meant during that time. Traditional historians have drawn a distinction on religious terms between Western Europe and Eastern Europe: not being Catholic, the regions occupied or influenced by the Eastern Orthodox Church were somehow not quite European. But then agian, should southern France be excluded from Europe in the 12th century because it was Cathar? What about the pagans in Northern Europe? If we accept a definition of Europe as areas where Christianity under all its forms was dominant, we run into the opposite problem: Anatolia for example while not part of Europe today, was decidedly "European" up to the battle of Manzikert.

I propose therefore the following definition of Europe: those regions which are part of geographical Europe as defined nowadays, and where a majority of people were either christian or pagan. This will exclude Muslim Spain as part of Europe for long stretches of time, but is inclusive of the Byzantine empire.

3. What does it mean to be "superior" or "inferior", or more or less "advanced"? Are we talking about technology? Economic power? Cultural achievements? Military power? I suppose we need to talk about all of them, and I could write a book examining each aspect, which I just don't have the time to do, but I'm inviting a discussion.

One thing I would like to note here though, is the question of values. Europe during this time was dominated by faith. To people living during that period, such issues as say secular learning and artistic achievements were not very important. To pass judgement on such a society and say that it is inferior would be akin to saying that no one should ever become a priest or a monk, but they should be engineers instead: it is a subjective call which is based on one's own values.

Anyway, what do people think?

I like this topic and I'm going to add my 2 cents' worth, though I'm afraid that it's going to generate a lot of ethnic back-hand slapping on the forum.


1. We are roughly talking about a large chronological period, roughly 480 AD-1500 AD. This period is subdivided further into Early Middle Ages, 480 AD-950 AD; High Middle Ages, 950 AD- 1280 AD; and Late Middle Ages, 1280 AD-1500 AD. Keep in mind that these dates are flexible, are being revised by scholars, and anyway are not written in stone.

2. During this period, Europe was not a homogenous culture. Under feudalism the power of the locality was developed and expressed through certain economic relations relating to ownership of land and exchange of military service. Feudalism varied throughout the continent and occured differently in France, England, Spain, and Germany each of which constitutes a separate entity within the wider context of the continent. To these we should add the Eastern Roman Empire and the powers of the Muslim world peripheral to Europe; the Abbasid and Ummayad Caliphates, Ayyubids and Mameluks in Egypt, Seljuks, and of course the Mongols. Though these cultures fall geographically outside the confines of Europe per se, their interactions and influence have to be studied and recorded as well.
The Early Middle Ages  are also generally known as the Dark Ages, though recently the level of the aforementioned "darkness" has come into question by scholars thanks to a better understanding of the Vikings as well as archaeological finds in Ireland, Denmark, and Scotland. Generally speaking, though, there was a regression in everything, cities shrunk or altogether dissapeared, agricultural production plummeted, trade decreased throughout, and previous Roman knowledge was lost or forgotten. We cannot possibly overstate the role that the Raids played in this regression as for over 200 years Vikings, Slavs, and Arabs ravaged the continent leaving little room for stability and achievement.
Mentally and spiritually this was an era of devout religiousness mixed with superstition and agony about the upcoming End since everyone expected the second coming to happen in the Year 1000 AD. Intellectual creation did not altogether dissapeared as we thought before, but seems to have been largely confined to monasteries and other religious houses. There, the art of manuscript illumination produced masterpieces while outside the winds of darkness howled endlessly.
The Eastern Empire and the Arab world did not experience this kind of regression since they had become the depositories of all the ancient Greco-Roman knowledge and a simple sight of Constantinople or Baghdad would've utterly stupefied any W. European king or prince. Paris in the 800's had a population of a mere 4,000 while Constantinople neared 800,000 and Baghdad 1,000,000.
Things did not improve for Europe untill  or just after 1000  AD.  The raids ceased for one; this allowed for the land to return to regular tending and whatever crops were grown could be now kept and distributed, not pillaged or burned.  We don't know why or how, but around this time certain agricultural inovations appear, such as a different, stronger kind of hoe that could overturn the soil deeper and easier and the system of crop rotation which increased the yield of the land. Also the well-known Roman practice of the three-field system, where two fields are used at a time while allowing the third to lay fallow for a year, reappeared out of--seemingly--nowhere. Monastic houses expand and  there's a genuine demand for reform in the Church which will lay the intellectuall basis for what is known as the "12th Century Renaissance", a great re-awakening of the pursuit of knowledge. Roughly around this time the first re-intoductions of ancient texts into W. Europe seems to have been facilitated  by the increased contacts with the Arab world. This fact, in turn, leads to the effort for conciliation of Platonic thought and the teachings of the Church, an effort that produces such brilliant minds as Abelard in France and Thomas Beckett in England. Abelard is one of my favorite philosophers of all time; in the midst of 11th-century, cassock-dominated French society, he would pose querries like: "If we're made to the image of God and we're such terrible sinners does that mean God's imperfect?" No wonder that he, just like so many inquiring figures before and after him, was excommunicated.
This is the time of the "sansons de geste" in France, stories about love and heroism of which "The song of Roland" is the most well-known example . The sansons are considered to be the first folk literature  laying the foundations for the code of chivalry and even Chaucer's stories to follow much later.
This is also the beginning of the great cathedral-building, though this will not really take off untill the 1160's. Medievel Europeans outdid the Romans in one think, the invention of the vaulted arch which due to its increased support can bear much greater loads than the simple Roman arch. Without the vaulted arch the cathedrals would not have been possible.
The later M. Ages are a story of decline of the nation-state and the Papacy, stagnant economies, war, and pestilence. The years 1300- 1450 seem like a bloody path cut through by men-at-arms wielding their terrible long-pole weapons. Because I don't find them "exciting" enough--the 100 Years's War notwithstanding-- I haven't read much about them and my knowledge dwindles post-1280 AD.
Throughout this time line, the Eastern Empire is running her own course: Heraclious years, Iconoclasm, weak Emperors, the Macedonians, the Komnenoi and increased feudalism and ties with the West, the infamy of 1204, Nicaean Empire, the Lascaris family, the disastrous civil war of the Kantakouzeni, well-meaning but impotent Palaeologi, the Fall.

3.Heh, and now for the "Big Bang": let me state my assertion, supported by History. Since civilization appeared 8000-4500 BC the cradle of power has been shifting Westards. From the Fertile Crescent, to the Greeks, to the Romans, and eventually to W. Europe which will come out as a world power at the end of the period we're discussing during the era of maritime  exploration and colonization.  If we add N. America to  this lineage, the line continunes  down to our days. 
I am NOT asserting that India, the Arab world, and China lack in world contribution or that empire-building and colonization by Europeans was a good and holly thing. But there's a definite edge with the Europeans both technologically and militarily. Why was that? Geography or the climate do not provide sufficient explanation on their own. We have to look at the cultures and the mindset they produced. The West, my friends, has produced the independent, free-thinking mind and all the accoutrements that come with it: the desire to better one's own that has lead to competition and open markets, trade, inventions and entrepreneurial spirit. The ability for and encouragement of ABSTRACT THOUGHT, research for the sake of research, things that in turn lead to more inventions and breakthroughs. Militarily it has produced people that go into the slaughter out of their own free will, not because of coercion or conscription. What this means becomes obvious in a scenario like Marathon where free Athenian citizens went up against slave-like Persian levies. An Athenian could turn around and go home, surely to be given hell  or even become ostracized by his fellow citizens, but the CHOICE was still there. What would've happened to a Persian or a tributary levy who dared to defy the Great King?
During the middle ages independent landowners quickly gave way and by 1000 AD most previously independent small-holders had been reduced to serfdom. But even in serfdom certain rights were quarantedd, i.e. the lord could not separate the serfs from the land, or brake up serf families. In Germany, the earlier tradition of the comitatus was never abolished and serfdom was not as widespread as in the rest of Europe. As soon as Europe emerged from the lethargy of the Dark Ages, social mobility, both upwards and downwards, regained its dynamic and soon a new class was going to change the face of the continent forever. It wouldn't be an exageration to say that the modern bourgeouis has his roots in the medievel European serf.


Edited by konstantinius - 12-Sep-2006 at 21:23

Originally posted by gcle2003 I don't have much to add to that, but it's maybe worth pointing out that the reason the Dark Ages were originally called 'Dark' is not anything to do with the conditions of the times directly, but simply that we didn't know very much about them.   So the more we learn about them, the less 'dark' they get.

One of the seldom occasions I agree with you

Population size does mean something before the industrialization. The emergence of large cities represented advancement of many perspectives - production, governance, economy, and society.

Originally posted by Dream208 To use an extreme example, I highly doubt European army from the first crusade has any technological and structural superiority compared to comtemproray Liao, Xia, Jin and Song. And I also highly dobut the general education level in Europe at that time was in any place near to the educational level in China mainland. I also doubt the on-court and off-court philosophical debats were widely spread in Europe under the tight control of the Catholic church.

You might be right, in fact I think it would be interesting to do a comparative study on this. But, when you say "I highly doubt" it strikes me as if you're saying you don't really know much about this period in Europe and that you're just making guesses based on a vague notion of what Europe was like in the middle ages. If I'm wrong, then could you explain why you "highly doubt" these things? That's the interesting part.

It's futile to summarize the entire European history of two millenia in some paragraphs to persuade you. If you don't have the data or the knowledge, then please do your readings first and we'll talk after. I challenged you on the iron issue, I received no answer. I'm talking about refined culture, you're talking about numbers . On the debates now you start talking about commoners, after next reply you'll talk about a man whose first name started with X and had red underwears, and so on ad nauseam and ad absurdum to prove a mythical nationalistic superiority.

I believe "Dark Age" as a term was born in Rensaissance as the artists who cherished the greatness of Graeco-Roman culture despised the earlier medieval one. However, only during the Enlightenment the term received a clear anti-religious conotation as you said.

No, Chilbudios, that was the "medieval", or "middle" age, medio aevum, the age in between Graeco-Roman antiquity and the Italian Renaissance.

Dream208, I think your "I do not"-thread proved your point well. If what you say is beyond reasonable doubt then I must agree with you that eastern Asia was indeed more sophisticated than Europe in this period, to the point of completely outclassing it. Sadly I don't know enough about Chinese history to form much of an opinion of my own, though I've been meaning to get into it eventually, as it is a civilization that has had quite an impact on the history of this planet. If Chinese history is a strong field of yours, I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to some good introductionary works. Send me a PM with a few suggestions if you can be bothered.


Edited by Reginmund - 13-Sep-2006 at 14:39

Decebal

Dream208,

Edited by Chilbudios - 13-Sep-2006 at 16:00