"So when does the medieval period start and end for you?" Topic

I played a re fight of Brandywine in 40 mm using Carnage & Glory at Fall In. Everything – troops, terrain, game cloth, etc – belonged to the game master.

He set up a beautiful battlefield. There was the table covering cloth. What he did that was really cool was spread modeling material on top of the table cloth. I would like to find out how the game master built this table, what materials he used, and how he laid everything out?

If you know the individual please ask him to respond to this post.

Also, if anyone else builds their battlefields like this, I would like to hear from you as well.

Thanks

The board says 500 to 1400. What is it for you?

To me, the dates I always felt fit for various reasons are 1066 (Norman invasion) and 1453 (Constantinoble falls).

Post that, I feel comfortable enough calling it the renaissance and prior to 1066, as a Scandinavian, it's Viking age :-)

Hastings and the 4th Crusade.

End of the 1400s, for me.

1500s for the beginning of the renaissance, at least as far as warfare is concerned, due to the heavy introduction of guns, and the demise of bow powered weapons, and shotte weapons making armor pretty much obsolete.

I'm not sure when it starts, but I def. include up to 1500 as the late middle ages.

Not sure what I consider the beginning, but Hastings probably works. 1453 is not only the fall of Constantinople, but the end of the Hundred Years War. Seems like the end of an era to me.

I've always thought from about 1000 (1066 is probably better) to 1500-ish.

I've always wondered about this. Is the "Feudal era" part of the Medieval era? I've been under the impression (possibly an incorrect one) that they were separate and that the Feudal era spanned approximately 1050 to 1300. From there the Medieval period extended to approximately the middle of the 15th century.

Good question Ragbones.
I've always thought of it as part of the era, but maybe there's a good argument not to?

476 to 1500 seems about right.

476 to approx 1000 Early Medieval
1050 to 1300 High Medieval
1300 to 1500 Late Medieval

Damon.

For me it varies by region. An Anglo centric view begins perhaps with Hastings and ends perhaps with the beginning of the Wars of the Roses. However for much of the region now known as France you might go earlier, perhaps beginning with Charlemagne and ending with the Renaissance. But then his is a Franco centric definition because what we generally assume as the Renaissance didn't start in France, instead it started in the region now known as Italy where it is known as The Quatro Cento. And then again dates would probably shift for the Kievan Kingdom or Muscovy and would certainly be different for Asia. Now many History classes break it down for simplicity's sake as The Fall of Rome to The Fall of Constantinople.

Post Hastings to the fall of Trebizond.

I've always liked Oman's Battle of Adrianople as the "start" of the middle ages. But he also wrote a book about the "dark ages", so inconsistency, or at least variability, is the darling of assigning names for things.

If medieval cavalry is the signature feature of "the middle ages", then that works.

If feudal systems identify it, then the medieval period gets underway with the rise of the kingdoms of Europe on the ashes of the western Roman Empire, or c. 500 AD.

The "middle ages" end much earlier than 1500. The "Renaissance" gets underway much earlier than 1500. There's this huge overlap, where the former is overtaken by the latter. But the first genuine visible elements of the renaissance show up toward the end of the 13th century. And medieval armies are still killing each other in the first quarter of the 16th century….

Hastings until the end of the War of the Roses

In the historical section of my personal library, medieval runs from 476 to 1494.

For purposes of sorting my library, about 500-1500.

Otherwise, about 1000-1500 is talking about Scandinavia, 500-1500 if talking about the rest of Europe and/or the Middle East with North Africa. If talking about the rest of the world I try to avoid the label.

To me the time frame for the medieval period is about 1000AD to 1500AD roughly…

>shotte weapons making armor pretty much obsolete.
The heaviest armour was worn by Gensdarmes in the early 16th century, so well out of most defintions of middle ages.

It is hard to put a specific date upon this change, especially as most contemporaries certainly did not wake up one morning and realized "hey, goodbye middle ages, good morning renaissance". Events that in some regions were decisive went unnoticed in others. Europe was pretty indifferent to the War of the Roses – or its end. So any definition should be by region, not generalized.

I usually see the end of the middle ages for northwestern Europe during the last decade of the 15th century. The conqest of Granada, the discovery of the new world, the merging of the Burgund and Habsburg lines, the beginning of the end of the Italian indipendent states by the French invasion, the destruction of the free peasant states in the northern Empire, the "eternal peace" in the empire, ending the right of the local states to war each other… many larger and smaller steps accumulate here to mark a new era. Still, without earlier and later events, like the fall of Constantinople and the rise of the Ottoman empire, or the reformation and division of the Christian church, the rise of political states along national areas, the sack of Rome… these would probably have led to a different world and era.

In short, I would deem 1470 part of the middle ages, with renaissance elements of all kinds being on the rise, and 1530 as part of the renaissance with medieval elements on a clear retreat. The years between belong imho to the most interesting of human history.

Oman's 'Art of War in the Middle Ages' starts in 378 and ends in 1515.
I'm guessing most people wouldn't start the Middle Ages that early

According to my history degree Norman invasion to defeat of Richard III. Before that was regarded as "Dark Ages" and afterwards "modern" history begins.

I agree with Garand
476 – 1500

Dark Ages = Early Medieval

Hastings to end of War of the Roses, anything between the fall of Rome and Hastings is Dark Ages, although now I often see it referred to as early Medieval.

Reign of Malcolm I to reign of James III inclusive.

It varies according to where you are talking about.

It's c.5th century to c.1500 in England and much of western Europe. Dark Ages/Anglo-Saxon period/Feudal era, etc. are all sub-periods within the broader medieval period. The idea that calling the Dark Ages 'early medieval' is a new thing is fallacious. Bruni, writing in the fifteenth century, was already referring to the period after the fall of Rome as the Middle Ages.

In Scandinavia, as noted by Nordic Weasel,the medieval period begins in the 11th century or so, although some local variation exists. Before that in Scandinavia, including the Viking Age, you are dealing with prehistoric periods.

For British and Irish periodisation it's worth looking at the British and Irish Archaeological Bibliography which is derived from the old RCHME and English heritage tables: link
This periodisation is the one used by historians and archaeologists working in the UK and Ireland. For other countries, dates and periods vary, but any attempt at periodisation is necessarily a broad-brush approach to defining history and the boundaries in reality are quite blurred.

50 years ago I was told 410 – 1485. It's good enough for me to work with.

1066 to 1492 Battle of Hastings to columbus discovery of the Americas.
Before 1066 dark ages

I am in favour of 500 to 1500. Easy to remember.

As jowady. In the UK, start would be 1066 – but other countries wouldn't consider that relevant. It ended at Bosworth in 1485 – again, not relevant for other countries. I would agree with the fall of Constantinople would be a good starting point for some countries, but basically I would assume most countries would have their own significant defining moments – a battle, the start or end of a particular monarch's reign, etc.

What Vigilant said, and what I was also taught. 1066 to 1485 and the start of Henry VIIs very modern programme of centralisation and state terror. (1547 as per the chart above seems, very very late!)

The bit between the Romans leaving and that Norman chap turning up were the Dark Ages (although I rather like the term 'Anglo-Saxon').

As noted above, it may be different in other countries.

The original 1911 version of the Cambridge Mediaeval History began with Constantine, so around AD 300 – link

And so, IIRC, did the Oxford modern history syllabus back in my day. Once the Empire becomes Christian and shrugs off the ancient gods, it's hardly ancient history any more – I suppose that's the reasoning.

I think in Italy it's usually 476 to 1492. To me Middle Ages start and end before. Let's say some 3rd or 4th century (Constantine the Great) to about AD 1400.

1547 does seem late, Martin, and I am not sure that the death of Henry VIII really qualifies as a defining date. Perhaps it is to do with a tightening of the legislation pertaining to the clergy and church matters in that year. I was taught 1485, but have also had suggested the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s as a more significant date for the development of England. Like I wrote before, the boundaries are blurred.

All interesting answers. Keep them coming :)

As for the end, several have suggested the fall of Constantinopolis in 1453 (or even Byzantine Trebizond a few years later). This may have been a big event for the Ottomans, but for the rest of the Europe it was more of a symbolic event than of great practical importance – Byzantium had been pretty weak for a long time already, and the Ottomans had a major presence in the Balkans as it was.

Columbus voyage to America in 1492 may have eventually lead to some quite significant changes there, but it did not really have much immediate effect in Europe – it would take a while for the silver and gold to start flowing to the Spanish coffers.

The French invasion of Italy in 1494 may be quite significant for wargamers, at least symbolically, but it did not have that much immediate effect outside Italy.

One major trend in western Europe in very late 15th century is the centralisation of power in the hands of the monarchs. This can be seen in England (after the WotR), in France (after the duchies of Burgundy and Bretagne lose their autonomy) and in Spain (after the conquest of Granada). Holy Roman Empire remains less centralised though, and Switzerlands starts to emerge as a country of its own.

Here we go again. What happened to Brandywine? Lemansir, are you simply accursed?

I think the big take-away for this is that any attempt at strict periodization is completely arbitrary. Why did I pick 476 as the beginning of the Middle Ages? Because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire…but the Eastern Empire persisted. Why 1500 for the end? because it is a nice easy number. The point is, one can make an argument that the roots of the middle ages extend back to the late Antiquity (say the period between 200 and 600…there's that periodizaton again!), while the end of the Middle Ages could extend beyond 1500 as there were plenty of institutions, ideas, and the like that persisted afterwards.

I personally in studying history de-empahsize periodization (ESPECIALLY when it comes to the big-R Renaissance, the 3rd such one to occur in the span of 700 years), and prefer to look at a specific period or piece of history on its own merits. Sometimes that is hard to do as I am very, very much a Medieval-o-phile. But it helps to recognize one's biases and tackle them to get a better understanding of the period.

Damon.

Never underestimate the power of symbolics just because the actual effect is neglectible. The fall of Constantinople and the discovery of the new world played a huge part in the intellectual and political development. If an Alien culture would be detected today it would mark a break in our history even when no exchange of goods (or even information) could be made for a century or four.

It would certainly help if we would define the term "middle age" and the eras before and after – especially in regard to their differences. So: what featery exactly makes the middle age the Middle Age?

Early medieval 800-10600, high medieval 1066 to 1300, late medieval 1300-1494

Well for this bloke it's going to be starting quite soon…
link

In the UK, start would be 1066 – but other countries wouldn't consider that relevant.

Actually, that's been a popular date among Swedish historians, because it's considered to mark the end of the Viking Age. One periodization I learnt in school has the Middle Ages as 1066 (battle of Hastings) to 1521 (Gustav Vasa proclaimed regent of Sweden).

You could probably find a book takes 1066 to mark the beginning in Scandinavia but not in England, on the grounds that as part of the post-Roman world the Middle Ages there began with the end of (western) Rome.

The Middle Ages are a Western European construct. It's the period between the end of the ancient world and the start of a our modern world.

Around 500 the last big legacy of the Ancient World, Rome, ceases to exist as a presence in Western Europe. It continues another 1000 years in the east.

The Carolingians briefly create a new Roman-inspired mega-state, but it falls apart very quickly.

1066 is the point where France and England beget rulers with close dynastic roots and spend the next 400 years trying to figure out who is the boss and where only to have one side fall back to the British Isles and other ending up in control of most of France.

For much of the medieval period the feudal system dominates both politics and the economy. Around 1200-1300 there is the beginning of an economic shift, land is no longer the main source of wealth, trade has evolved sufficiently to become a system that generates wealth faster and more efficiently than land. By 1400-1500 you have a banking system and a sophisticated trade network covering most of Europe.

Around 1500 Europe has the money and the technology to expand beyond their classic borders and make direct contact with most areas of the globe whereas in earlier periods this was usually done by intermediaries.

1500 is more or less the turning point for medieval Europe. The feudal system has been made irrelevant. It marks major religious, economic, political, social, and technological changes.

Well said Patrcik R. For wargaming purposes, 1494 and the French invasion of Italy is a "neat" point for the Renaissance period to start and he late Medieval period to end.

So: what featery exactly makes the middle age the Middle Age?

In western Europe, I think the following aspects could be seen:

1.) Politically, de-centralisation of power tends to be quite defining feature. After the fall of western parts of the Roman Empire, a multitude of small kingdoms start to emerge all over the place. Even when these kingdoms start merging into larger states, the kings themselves tend to have limited powers, while some of their subordinate nobles can be quite powerful and towns could have a high level of autonomy.

2.) Religiously, Catholic church (and associated Latin language) tends to be very dominant feature of western European culture. In 16th century this is challenged by the various Protestant movements.

3.) Technologically, relatively slow pace of development. Actually some of the inventions introduced by Romans tend to be forgotten in certain areas as the western Empire collapses. Late medieval period sees the introduction of gunpowder, which ends up being developed into a powerful military tool in Europe (though originally invented far away in the east).

4.) Educationally, limited levels of literacy and education in general, accompanied by limited availability of written works. However, eventually we get to see the founding of universities around Europe and later on the development of type-setting for mass production of books.

5.) Economically, reduction in trade after the collapse of western Empire tends to force many areas into self-sufficiency. However, as medieval period progresses commerce starts to increase again, and many centres of trade develop into powerful towns.

6.) Culturally, certain level of eurocentrism seems to be apparent, with limited exploration or trade outside Europe.

Of course as wargamers we might want to ponder about the military aspects of the medieval western European world.

De-centralisation of power tended to result in rulers being able to rise (and maintain on field) relatively limited military forces. Amongst these, a military upper class tended to have a central position. Often this military upper class maintained horses, either fighting mounted as cavalry or using them as transport to reach the battlefield. This upper military class also tended to have access to expensive high quality armour.

Castles and fortifications, though seen both before and later, tend to be another important aspect of medieval warfare. Walls tended to provide autonomy for towns and independence for nobles, thus supporting the decentralisation of power. Sieges were costly and not always conclusive affairs, and more common in history than in our tabletop games.

Introduction of gunpowder weapons eventually resulted in changes on both battlefield and sieges, but these were relatively slow and gradual.

Warfare at sea tends to be limited in scope, and mostly consists of missile fire and boarding actions. The classical ramming actions of antiquity are not common, and naval gunpowder artillery is still under development.

I think a spot of reading might be a good idea chaps. Most of thee posts reflect a very, very dated view of the medieval era so getting to grips with more recent scholarship (the last 40-50 years) would be beneficial for a better understanding of the societies and thereby the conflicts of the era. Here's a couple of things to bear in mind…
Trade increased because people had money to spend on non-essentials that could not be produced (or at least not produced in adequate quantity or quality) at home. As an example that would be wool going to France/Low Countries/Spain from England and Scotland and wine (and more wine…and even more wine..and did I mention wine…) going the opposite directions.
Farming was the source of wealth. In the middle ages 90% of the population worked in agriculture and the long-term decrease in servile status made farming more profitable for both tenant and landlord – this is especially evident in England where serfdom was extremely uncommon by 1500 and Scotland where it had disappeared by about 1360, but a similar process was under way across Europe generally.
Castles did not give individual lords security from the king – though they were certainly useful assets when a group of lords decided to oppose royal authority or for a conquering power, but really castles were primarily centres of local government and examples of demonstrating authority/status and of conspicuous consumption as in 'I'm really rich – look at this fancy castle I've built'.
Same applies to town walls to a considerable degree.
Centralised authority is more a product of effectiveness in individual kingship than anything else. Post- WotR England was no more centralised than it had been under Henry III or Edward I. This is not so much the case for – say – France but that is a feature of the nature of Lordship everywhere else apart from England. Elsewhere an Earl is a regional officer of the crown with powers throughout the locality. In England, post-conquest, an Earl is just a fancy title. Even so, great lords (magnates) derived their authority from the crown so although they might have the power (especially in combination) to defy a weak king, or even just a king with a lot of trouble on his plate at a given moment – even the relates magnates knew that they took a risk when they opposed the crown. Even if the current king was weak, his successor might take vengeance on nobles who had taken too much advantage of the situtaion. Same applies to towns; mostly they are dependent on the crown for the security and stability that protects and encourages commerce.
Literacy was very much more common in the later middle ages than one might expect – not especially different from Roman times when most people (the farmworkers – often slaves) could not read or write.
Finally, what we are brought up to think of as the 'feudal system' would have been pretty incomprehensible to medieval people.