Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 1

message: Shame on the mediaevalists here for allowing such an abvious boo-boo as "medius aevus" to remain
prominently displayed in the very opening lines of the article. How DO they read their Aquinas,
one wonders, if this is the current standard of Latinity amongst the brethren?
So, good sirs - "medium aevum", PLEASE!
willezurmachtAThotmail.com
:Fixed, with footnote. Thanks for pointing this out! --Old Moonraker 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki non super grammaticos

message: Some people also think that some climatic astrological event may have turned the sky dark, and that for a long period the sun was completely blocked out over what we now call Europe.
RebelScum 16:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who thinks that? Astrological event? Do you mean "astronomical"? Either way, the sun would not be blocked out for centuries, everything would have died. Whoever think this is simply wrong. Adam Bishop 01:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors based on [[Climate changes of 535-536]]

message: Tedius Zanarukando  has edited the page so that it now reads:
(The corresponding adjective is spelt medieval in American English [influenced by French mediéval] 
Is there any evidence that the American spelling is influenced by French?  I would have thought that it was part of the general American simplification of spelling.  I can think of several instances of a British "ae" being shortened to an American "e". David Stapleton 22:57, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
:No, it's just like Americans not being able to spell Archaeology and Oeconomics properly - 19th Century innovation by spelling "reformers". But more importantly, seeing as the Yanks didn't have the Middle Ages, why, oh why, are the links to the articles on the Middle Ages by area all spelt the American way? Surely, the clear point is that British English is an official language of the EU, so to be consistent with the recent decision on "Gdansk", we should go with the native spelling. Phlogistomania 21:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Cool: go for it as soon as you have an afternoon free.--Wetman 21:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We usually spell it "medieval" in Canada too. But I suppose you think we're all "Yanks" over here, and we don't count because we didn't have a Middle Ages either... Adam Bishop 00:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think I read in R.L. Trask's Mind the Gaffe! that "medieval" is gaining ground in England, too. Of course, I don't really have a straightforward way to verify this, since I'm a Yank and probably won't be going too far from home any time soon.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of the adjective

message: User:Stbalbach has set up a Middle Ages WikiProject, if anyone is interested. Adam Bishop 07:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Ages WikiProject 

message: I made some changes today in the "Origin and use of term" part since there were some major errors in it. For some reason it seems I got logged out while doing it so this is just to make sure it's clear who did it.
Heelgrasper 04:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and use of term 

message: :The High Middle Ages would see the regrowth of centralized power, and the growth of new "national" identities, as strong rulers sought to eliminate competition (and potential threat to their rule) from powerful feudal nobles. Well known examples of such consolidation include the Albigensian Crusade and the Wars of the Roses.
Please explain to me how any of the Kings during the War of the Roses, had more centralised power than William the Conqueror (or for that matter Harold Godwinson)?  As an example of centralised power it is difficult to think of a better example than the Doomsday Book. As for national identity, did the men on Senlac hill think of themselves any less English than the men who fought at Agicourt or at Bosworth if so what is the source for this claim?  PBS 23:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: High Middle Ages

message: This article mentions the Avars but WIkipedia has two articles about Avars: Caucasian and Eurasian. To which does this article refer? Jaberwocky6669 21:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
:One year later... it'll be the Eurasian Avars; I'm repairing the disambiguation links to it as we speak. This prompt reply is from DeLarge 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avars

message: Spice trade has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the article with your vote!--Fenice 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I would like to replace this text, "The corresponding adjective, from the Latin medium aevum, is most commonly spelled medieval in both American English and British English. Less commonly it is spelled mediaeval in British English, and rarely today with the Latin letter æ (mediæval), except to emphasise its Latin origins or as an antiquated spelling," with a link to the wikt:medieval article in the Wiktionary, as it makes more sense than to have the spelling and etymology of a word that is not the heading of this article in the front matter of this article.  Especially when the text is somewhat presumptive POV.  24.221.121.232 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what is that link meant to illustrate? it seems to say there is only one acceptable spelling of medieval.  which would indicate that there is no reason at all to mention an alternate spelling.  i don't get your point that this information is "needed". 216.237.179.238 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people continue to use the older spelling(s), so this information is needed to educate the reader on the modern spelling, and why the older spelling is outdated. As well, people who use the modern spelling may wonder why there are older spellings, and this tells the reader why. Note that older spellings are still "acceptable" (ie. you will come across them in both older and newer sources), depending on the context. Such as, an author who wishes to emphesis the antiquity of the word, or its latin origins, may use the alterantive older latin spelling. --Stbalbach 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pointing them to the dictionary is the right thing to do; putting the dictionary entry here is not. 24.221.121.232 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The most common (only?) meaning of Medieval is Middle Ages. Thats why it redirects here. --Stbalbach 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Middle Ages" is a(n) historical period.  "Medieval" is an adjective that in one sense means "Middle Ages" and in others simply means "like something from the Middle Ages".  If you were to quote Ving Rhames' classic line from Pulp Fiction, "I'm gonna get medieval on yo' ass", under Middle Ages, it's like putting Ving Rhames' biography under Pulp Fiction.  Peripherally related, but taxonomically misplaced.  That is the central problem.  The information you think is important is not important in this context; that I think it's unimportant (and wrong) is a topic for after we've put the paragraph into the right page instead of the wrong one.  24.221.121.232 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I was trying it and sometimes "Medieval" redirects and sometimes it doesn't. The idea of separate articles for "Middle Ages" and "Medieval" strikes me as confusing. The "Medieval" article seems to be all about the Pulp Fiction quote. Kauffner 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  medieval 

message: I think we need the definite article on the terminology paragraph.  I.e., "the medieval period, medieval times, or the medieval".  They're synonyms for "the Middle Ages", rather than a list of adjectives.  "The medieval" is a bit arcane, but that's the point of explaining what it means."  Maybe it should be capitalized: "the Medieval". --216.237.179.238 22:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Medieval is used without the definitive article. For example: "Medieval History". We report on what people do, not create what we think people should do based on our own interpretation.  --Stbalbach 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite article. 

message: The article needs an explanation of how medieval is now so commonly called midevil.  the word midevil is not even mentioned once here.  DyslexicEditor 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any apparent rise in popularity of the usage of the term "midevil" can be unequivocally attributed to the grammatical slothfulness and blatant illiteracy of the incorrigible English-speaking people of the world. Your oblique reference to the supposed requirement of a literary emendation is spurious at best, and specious and scurrilous at its absolute worst. That's why Midevil redirects here. dreddnott 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is dyslexic...Adam Bishop 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about the equally common expression mildewville? How come that isn't mentioned? --Wetman 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  midevil 

message: The "religion" section has to have information about how religion affected the life of the medieval people. Frosty ('sup?) 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion section 

message: Something missing at the end of this first sentence from towards the end of the section on the rise of the Franks..
"He was also a skilled administrator and ruler, organizing what would become the medieval european government - a system of fiefdoms, loyal to barons, counts, dukes and ultimately the King, or in his case, 
[what goes here?] Through translations these libraries gave rise to a vogue for the philosophy of Aristotle".
:Holy shit...we all missed some massive vandalism. There have been huge parts of the article missing for almost a month. I've fixed it now...thanks for telling us. Adam Bishop 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who deleted what? 

message: "Politically, the later Middle Ages were typified by the decline of feudal power replaced by the development of strong, royalty-based nation-states, especially in England, France and the Iberian Peninsula." It should maybe pointed out that the development in the HRE was pretty much the precise opposite. Whereas during the pinnacle of the Hohenstauffen dynasty, the central power was very strong, it increasingly lost importance compared to the electors and other powerful nobility -and in real political clout, even to commoner merchant houses. --OliverH 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Middle Ages politically 

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/World_820.png
This is horrible, needs a version with better resolution. 209.129.85.4 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Image of Poor Quality 

message: In the "Early Middle Ages" section I think there is a point that should be clarified as it is significant historically (although commonly ignord in many histories). Strictly speaking the Western Empire did not completely "fall" in the 5th century. Rome itself technically continued to be a part of the Roman Empire for a long time after 476, first under Odoacer who technically answered to the Roman Emperor (in Constantinople) and then under the direct administration of Constantinople when the Empire "reconquered" the lands (arguably Rome did not fully cease to be part of the Empire until Charlemagne's time). Much of the rest of southwestern Europe can be said to have varied in its affilation with the Empire for quite some time. In some sense it can be argued that the West was gradually separated from the empire over a few centuries starting in the 5th century.
The article as written conveys some of this but it tends to imply IMHO too strongly that all of the West just fell apart and became something totally different in the 5th century. Although this is true of the higher levels of governance there is a great deal more that did not change so rapidly (in many key regions did not change much at all in the 5th century). --Mcorazao 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Early Middle Ages 

message: It may be just wording, but I giggled at this sentence:
::The period saw major technological advances, including the invention of cannons, spectacles and artesian wells; 
Is the intent that people learned how to find artesian wells during this period?  Artesian wells obviously weren't invented ... jrcagle 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: I thougt that traditionally the end of Middle Age was 1453 (Constantinoble fall). I would not talk about soveregnity before sixteen century as the text does. {unsigned}
:It depends what aspect of history you want to emphasis determines which specific event marks "the end". So we just choose a middle ground and say 1500 which most can agree with. -- Stbalbach 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Although "territorial sovereignty" is an analogous phrase for the modern reader, like we speak of a womans personal sovereignty in relation to courtly love, but obviously it could be better phrased to avoid a literal interpretation. -- Stbalbach 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubts

message: The map of the world civilization should be replaced, because Taiwan was never part of China in the Tang Dynasty, and was only conquered after Qing Dynasty, which was nowhere near the middle age.--Jerrypp772000 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: image

message: I cannot find a page about the medieval armies, I would happily make one for you guys if you want me to.  Im sort of a medieval army buff...
~Sage1989 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sage1989 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armies? 

message: There is an inconsistency about the start of the Middle Ages between this article and the Early Middle Ages article. This article claims that it started in the 5th century (401 - 500), but the Early Middle Ages article says that it covers the period between 500 and 1000. -- Kjkolb 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency about the start of the Middle Ages 

message: Some of the discussions on this talk page date from 2004, and the page as a whole is starting to show its size. Should we archive some and/or all of it?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of talk page

message: I think it's about time we provide some sources for this article. It looks bad to have such a central topic completely devoid of any references whatsoever. We could start by making a list of reasonably comprehensive (but not overwhelming) list of general English language literature on the Middle Ages. Please add any suggestions below or to the reference article itself.
It would, of course, be nice to also include the occasional citation, but let's try as best we can to avoid outright footnote hysteria.
Peter Isotalo 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: It seems to me that the reference to Pirenne's "Late Classical" period is out of date and that Peter Brown's idea of Late Antiquity is better articulated and more accepted in contemporary scholarship.  I'd suggest changing the reference altogether... any arguments for retaining Pirenne?Brandon cohen 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pirenne is still influential and discussed, it should be included if for nothing else historiography. I agree a sentence or two about Late Antiquity is needed to bring up to current. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodization Issues 

message: The entry for "Renaissance" has a useful navigation tool along the right side that directs the reader to different topics and regions.  How can we get one of these for the Middle Ages, and how do we edit that sidebar?
brandon cohen 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the bottom of the page, less intrusive to the text. - Stbalbach 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval history sidebar? 

message: According to the experienced wikipedians who work with this page, is the vandalism bad enough to warrant temporary protection from ip editing?  It's probably all the same kid. brandon cohen 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect this page from ip editing? 

message: I don't think the inhabitants of the "island-now-known-as-Ireland" were called "Irish" in 450 AD. Take a look at Irish_people for better names of the era. Ligart 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of territorial boundaries ca. 450 AD: Irish? 

message: Hi.  I'm a newcomer, so I'm not sure how to remove a piece of vandalism after the first para of the article.  someone wrote IIIITROCKS.  no biggie, to be sure, but I hate to give comfort to the enemy.  thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.81.149 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can someone please remove vandalism? 

message: In Section 5.1 (State Resurgence) the following appears:
:Both of these kings presided over effective states administered by literate bureaucrats and sought baronial consent for their decisions through early versions of parliamentary systems, called the Estates General in France and the Parlement in England.
The Parlement link is to an article about a French body (or bodies). I don't know enough to know which English Parliament article is most appropriate, but I'm sure someone does. Tt 225 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word seems to be a spelling of the time (although "parliament" was also in use in the C15) and not related to the specific target of the link. The simplest redirect would be Parliament of England, but Curia Regis might also fit. Whatever, it should be changed, and possibly the spelling with it! I am citing OED for all this. --Old Moonraker 09:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Spelling and link changed. --Old Moonraker 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Parlement" in England? 

message: This is not usually done, unless there is a special relevance to the subject. See MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking: "...articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Reverted.
--Old Moonraker 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoformatting of year-only dates 

message: The third paragraph of the section "Early Middle Ages" discusses a near-cessation of maritime trade due to the Muslim conquest of much of of the Mediterranean Basin. Disregarding, for the time being, the claims' lack of cited sources (probably Henri Pirenne's Mohammed and Charlemagne or subseq.), It appears that more recent, and very detailed, historical research has shown this notion to be counter to fact. Please see Michael McCormick's Origins of the European Economy. But, I'm not an expert, so I added a Template:Disputed instead of removing the section outright. -- 67.112.123.178 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Arabs weren't great mariners for the first few decades of their ascendancy; caravan trade increased.  There'd have to be some fairly good evidence to suggest that sea-based trade didn't at least suffer a temporary decline with the loss of Byzantine hegemony over the Eastern Mediterranean. Slac speak up! 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superseded History of Maritime Trade in "Early Middle Ages"  

message: There were two sets of the same link to commons maps and images. I deleted one set (in see also) and the links to commons are now in the external link section. Nice template work though. The format changes by FrankB simply don't work. Modernist (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Modernist. The lead looked a bit messy before his/her revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons link

message: As a lead image I prefer the Giotto to the Icon. I placed the Giotto image for now in the High Middle Ages section. While the Icon is an earlier work and is probably chronologically ok, I think the Giotto is a more prescient image in terms of works of art. Modernist (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: I prefer the Giotto remain. While I think the Giotto can be placed in the Late Middle Ages section, I think it should stay or be replaced with a better one. The painting is dated 1305. Clearly he's a figure of the late Middle Ages and of the Early Renaissance. Like Cimabue and Simone Martini, he straddles both eras. This article can use better art.. perhaps both Cimabue and Martini. Modernist (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Giotto

message: I wish the editor who renamed this article had read WP:Naming Conventions#Avoid the definite article, or even discussed his/her proposal, before his/her drive-by edit. Should it be changed back, or isn't it worth bothering about too much?--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it, I'm on the case.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's fixed. Thanks User:R'n'B. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this article 

message: The sections Terminology and Periodization repeat each other and are too long. They need cutting and merging. Xandar (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections