It was some of the sexual activities that Follett threw in - vanilla to a modern audience, but they felt (to me) like they were tacked in at the insistence of an editor and they took me right out of the context. Follett has form for bad writing about sex, and it ruined it for me.
This is what we call “fiction”. In fact, trebuchets had been known in the centuries at that point, but were not developed to the degree that they would later become and weren’t primary siege weapons in most cases. Aside from which, at this point in history ballista and onagers would likely have been more effective. The improved trebuchet which we think of wasn’t developed until much later.
… No. The Dark Ages were a period of inventiveness and cultural ferment, with radical changes in technology and society. You are confusing book knowledge - which always has and always will be concerned first with documenting and maintaining because that’s what it’s for - and practical understanding and development. In fact, the Romans left almost no knowledge of mathematics whatsoever, and their engineering was effective but limited. The “Dark Ages” developed both, and the Middle Ages took them even further.
Your entire post is based around a fictional representation of the popular image of the Dark Ages, not a historical one.
Here’s another thread about the same subject:
Can anyone recommend some other books to read for a general appreciation of the Middle Ages, particularly ones which debunk myths about the time?
There’s this chap you might have heard of, lived 2500 years ago, called Pythagoras…
J.G Landels: Engineering in the Ancient World
In his classic book, J. G. Landels describes the technological advances of the Greeks and Romans with erudition and enthusiasm. He provides an important introduction to engineering, writing about power and energy sources, water engineering, cranes, and transportation devises. From aqueducts to catapults, he attempts to envision machines as they may have worked in the ancient world. He then traces the path of knowledge taken by early thinkers—including Plato, Pliny, and Archimedes—in developing early theories of engineering and physics.
Fascinating read for all.
Is there a sequel that talks about engineering in the Middle Ages?
There is no need to be so condescending, Wendell Wagner. We interpret history differently; I learned enough in college to know that it is not a hard science, but rather a humanity to be observed through different paradigms.
I am not exactly an expert on medieval history, but I would argue that it was a time of ignorance because people had many superstitious beliefs. The Church also hid much of the knowledge of the time by keeping it written in Latin. I never meant to imply that people were outright stupid; I just meant that many were uneducated. Surely lords did not send their serfs to school to learn things that they thought were of no concern to them!
Well, at least we now live in a modern age in which superstition would never over-rule science and the common man keeps up with the latest publications in the scientific journals.
I mean… I’m trying to find a polite way to say this… I’m not sure you’re exactly an expert on modern history either.
I’m sure the folks in 2500 will look back at us and say “What a bunch of ignorant simpletons!”
I was recognized in college for being “An Outstanding Student in History” (awarded to only one student per semester,) I got A’s on all my papers, participated in debates in an undergraduate class originally designed for graduate students of history, and graduated with two honors degrees (at one institution, I was Summa Cum Laude.) My accomplishments mean a lot more to me than a couple of condescending, smart-alecky comments made by strangers on the Internet ever will!
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.
You write:
> . . . these “backward” . . .
No.
> . . . and “unlearned” people
No.
> . . . a time of ignorance . . .
No.
> . . . because people had many superstitious beliefs . . .
No.
> . . . The Church also hid much of the knowledge of the time by keeping it written
> in Latin . . .
No.
There were certain ways, of course, in which they were backward, unlearned, ignorant, superstitious, and unaware of hidden knowledge. Just like now, or any other time. It was no more true than any other period of history.
It’s complete nonsense to imagine that the Church intentionally kept knowledge hidden by insisting things be written in Latin.
That’s completely backwards. Latin was the one universal language across Europe that every educated person was supposed to know. Write or lecture in your own vernacular and only a few thousand people from your home village might understand you. Write in Latin and everyone could understand you.
It’s true that by that point nobody spoke Latin as a first language. So what? It wasn’t a secret language, it was taught and understood everywhere. It was used as an international language to facilitate communication.
Note that today’s “National” languages like the French or German or Italian or Spanish you learn in school are prestige dialects from particular places that became the standard way of speaking across the country by government fiat, to try to impose national unity.
I’ll fire up the ol’ ouija board and ask William Tyndale his take on that.
John Wycliffe will thump the walls if I don’t allow him his two groats.
The worst thing in the world is reading a book review like that, clicking through to the link, and seeing: “this book isn’t available on Kindle.” Sigh.
Those folks are practically in the Renaissance, and one of them was burned at the stake and the other had his bones dug up and burned for good measure because of their theological teachings. They were products of the Reformation, theologians and condemned for their theology, and don’t really represent the utility of Latin for transmitting knowledge other than liturgical in nature. The Church specifically tried to prohibit the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and everyone else continued to write in Latin because it was a useful way to communicate with people outside of their linguistic sphere and the Church didn’t give a damn what people whether people wrote in Latin if it wasn’t liturgical or a specific criticism of Church teachings (Galileo and Giordano Bruno being specific, if misguided, targets thereof). The Catholic Church did specifically and violently prohibit the translation of the Bible into other languages. They didn’t give a damn about what language scientists, mathematicians, and engineers wrote in.
That is more the sort of knowledge I was alluding to (I was not explicit because I normally don’t get into discussions about religion over the Internet, even though I mentioned the Church a few times.) It wouldn’t really make sense for them to hide other knowledge (except perhaps for strategic purposes?) and I didn’t mean to imply that.
I guess I have more to learn about the Middle Ages… That is, after all, why I started this thread. Nevertheless, I still think that history is somewhat open to interpretation. This will be my final post on this thread (at least I don’t plan on any more.)
Sayonara
Remember that a lot of mathematical constants and laws were already discovered in ancient times, like the Pythagorean theorem, log and pi. Those have clear engineering applications. Maximum loads for a given material, gear ratios, and estimated water displacement (for ships) were already known.
Also L. Sprague De Camp’s The Ancient Engineers.
Bonus-- De Camp does a lovely job of debunking the Von Daniken-esque garbage.
That’s a picture of Archbishop Absalon of Lund, chief advisor to King Valdemar of Denmark and the guy who built the walls of Copenhagen. As you can see, that’s no mace in his hand.
That’s basically a myth, built around the fact that the Bayeaux Tapestry shows Bishop Odo of Bayeaux, half brother to William the Conqueror and later Duke of Kent, with a mace in hand. But, for instance, in the Song of Roland and the other legends around Charlemagne, one of Charlemagne’s companions, Bishop Turpin, has the sword Almace, and, as Nava mentioned, the Templars, as well as the other knightly orders (Knights of the Hospital, Teutonic Knights, the Knights of Santiago, etc), had no problem with sword bearing.
I think the “use a mace” thing is a bit of a joke. “As a holy man, I swore never to shed blood. So I use a mace instead. No blood shed, just broken bones and crushed flesh.”
Making it even more of a joke, anybody who believes a mace won’t shed blood when you whack somebody in the head with it must have been whacked in the head with a mace.
