Lecture 22

PRINT

Lecture 22 - Vikings / The European Prospect, 1000 [November 28, 2011]

HIST-210: THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES, 2841000

Chapter 1: Introduction [00:00:00]

Professor Paul Freedman: It does seem as if we are back to invasions again. We end the course the way

we began it, except they're different invaders.

One thing that I'm sure Professor Frank will want you to get out of the Vikings course-- and not all of you

are going to take that, obviously, so I will mention this-- is they did not have horned helmets. The horned

helmet idea-- actually, Roberta Frank has researched where this totally inaccurate idea comes from and why

it is ineradicable. But if there's one thing you should come out of the second part of this course knowing, it's

that.

So we're discussing people from Scandinavia, different parts of Scandinavia, who had different destinations.

So different parts of Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Different destinations: the Frankish Empire

of Charlemagne for which they bear some responsibility for unraveling, Russia, the British Isles, Iceland,

Greenland, the New World. They certainly got around. They're not always the same populations. And they

have different ambitions in different places.

Basically, those ambitions can be divided into raiding, trading, and settling. These are not mutually

exclusive. Although usually they began by raiding almost always if they were dealing with a place that had

people. Thus obviously Iceland when they came didn't have people at all. So they came there as explorers or

settlers.

The crucial changeover is in their attacks on the British Isles and on the Frankish Empire. They begin as

raiders, that is as seaborne warriors who would plunder opportunistic targets-- monasteries, for example--

and then leave with their spoils.

They also, however, were traders. And I don't want to make too much of this as if it were a timeless

statement, but in the period we're dealing with, raiding and trading weren't all that far apart. When the

Vikings in the east, mostly from Sweden, were dealing with the Caliphate in Baghdad or the Byzantine

Empire, they found these targets too well organized with too overpowering a military presence to intimidate

in the way that they were able to do with Britain and the Frankish Empire. So here they were more traders.

They brought various products, particularly slaves and fur, to the Caliphate and to the Byzantine Empire.

And they came back with a lot of coins, among other things. 80,000 coins from the Caliphate have been

found in Sweden alone. So here they're traders.

Settlers. They would eventually settle in the Frankish Empire and in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England.

They would settle in Ireland. Indeed, the city of Dublin was founded by the Vikings. They would settle in

Iceland completely. That is, the people who live in Iceland now are the descendants of mostly Norwegian,

some Danish settlers of the tenth and eleventh centuries.

They would even try to settle as far afield as Newfoundland. There is a place in Newfoundland that it is

unmistakably, by the archaeological evidence, a Viking site. This doesn't ultimately work.

Open Yale Courses http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/1246/hist-210

1 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

So it is wrong to think of them exclusively as savage warriors, as barbarians, but then again, we've seen that

it's wrong to think of most of the invading peoples of the period we've been discussing as just totally savage

raiders. These are extremely skilled raiders, and as I've just gotten through saying, they're raiders with

several different possible agendas. They're very adaptive.

The question remains, what made Scandinavia so powerful in the ninth and tenth centuries, especially since

Scandinavia tends not to be a major actor in European politics. The two periods in which it is are this one--

basically the ninth, tenth, eleventh centuries-- and the seventeenth century when the armies of Sweden

under Gustavus Adolphus terrorized Central Europe. That effort was ultimately ended not in Central Europe

but in Eastern Europe by Russia. And the Russians defeated the Swedes sufficiently in the early eighteenth

so that they basically never got themselves very heavily involved in European politics again.

Part of the answer of "Why Scandinavia? Why now?" is that we're dealing with another savage or certainly

less civilized population who erupt from their homeland and devastate a weak, but relatively rich society.

There's nothing very unusual about that. We have seen it with the Roman Empire, and you can see it later

with such successful campaigns as those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century.

So the other reason besides opportunity is tactics. The Vikings were masters of the sea. If you ever do go to

Denmark, Sweden, or Norway, you must go to the Viking museums there. They are absolutely enthralling.

And you see these ships that seem unbelievably flimsy for the voyages that they undertook.

On the other hand, by reason of their small size and particularly shallow draft-- that is to say they're able to

be stable without being so deep underneath the ship, having a keel underneath-- that they can sail up rivers.

They can both, therefore, go in the Atlantic and be stable enough to make the journey and go up rivers that

are no more than five or six feet deep at points like the Seine in France or the Loire in France. And so they

could raid far inland with these ships.

And as masters of seas and rivers, they could easily outrun the clumsy, slow Carolingian armies. They could

raid a monastery, check out another monastery the same afternoon. "Oh, there's an army there. Well, we'll

just get back in the ship, and we'll go further down. And then we'll look for more tempting targets-- palaces,

towns, monasteries."

They were not good at fortification. If a place was fortified, they tended to pass it by. They were not siege

masters. Their control, therefore, of the water is not dissimilar to the Arabs' advantage in the beginning of

the Arab expansion that we talked about with regard to the desert. The desert functions the same way. An

environment that these people controlled in the sense that they could maneuver easily in it, and their more

civilized opponent with larger armies could not.

The Persian and the Byzantine armies couldn't really go very far into the desert. They had supply line, water

problems. They actually didn't know the desert. It all looked the same to them. So this is the same or at least

a similar advantage for the Vikings.

The Vikings are different from other raiders partly in their ability to construct governments, not only to

settle lands, but to create governments ranging from the what advertises itself with some accuracy as the

world's oldest democracy, Iceland, where tourists are still pointed out the place where the kind of

parliament of all citizens took place as early as 2,000 [correction: 1,000] years ago.

And they're also the founders of Russia, probably not to be advertised as the world's oldest democracy.

Certainly not a country that's had a whole lot of experience with that particular form of government. But in

fact, the first Christian rulers of Russia, the same Vladimir and his successors, who were baptized and


2 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

crowned under Byzantine auspices were Scandinavian. And the Scandinavian groups are called the Rus.

They quickly lose their Scandinavian language and identity, but nevertheless that is the founding dynasty of

the first Russian rulers.

So the Vikings have a fascinating culture and literature, amazing sagas mostly preserved through their

Icelandic versions, very interesting art, very interesting forms of decoration, and then these magnificent

ships. Their major contribution to the history of Europe may be geopolitical in the sense that they connect

parts of the world that were otherwise minimally or not at all connected. So from Central Asia to Greenland,

they build various kinds of cultural and particularly commercial networks.

They also contribute to the destroying of the Carolingian Empire, the destroying of what we were discussing

before the vacation. They're not the sole cause. We talked about weaknesses within the Carolingian Empire,

but certainly the Viking invasions have devastated it during the ninth century did not at all help.

Where did this drive for expansion come from besides opportunity? And there's not a tremendous

agreement on this point among scholars. Overpopulation and land hunger are possible. To this day, these

are not densely populated countries. And in the pre-modern period, they could not support anything but a

very small population given the fact that most of the land is not capable of being cultivated. So you can get

to a point of over-population pretty quickly.

Opportunities afforded by the weakness of others-- I've mentioned this. Internal feuding and the creation of

exiles. It's hard to separate legend from history, but the legends about the founding of Iceland and

Greenland in particular involve people who were too rowdy for the Vikings. I pause on that, because it's a

little hard to imagine what such a person would have been like. Nevertheless, these sagas tell us that various

people were just too mean for quiet, civilized old Norway or even couldn't get their energies fulfilled by

plundering the Frankish Empire and went off to Iceland and places like that.

The climate conditions may have been favorable. It may have been relatively warm. There's a lot of debate

about the settlement of Greenland in this regard in particular. We know that by the twelfth and thirteenth

centuries, Greenland was becoming too cold for the Scandinavians and not for the Inuit, who were better

adapted to real polar conditions. But this is something that is of crucial importance in tracing the history of

climate and is hotly debated. But it certainly looks as if it gets colder in the thirteenth, fourteenth century--

fourteenth century particularly-- throughout Europe and the Atlantic and probably warmer in the tenth and

eleventh centuries when this expansion is taking place.

And then finally, there's a cult of personal valor that is even stronger than that of early medieval Europe. A

male cult of violent military bravery and the opportunity to demonstrate that was a kind of competitive

sport.

Chapter 2: The Vikings in England and on the Continent [00:13:52]

The Viking raids in England and the Continent begin around 800. One of the first stunning events is the

sack of the island monastery of Lindisfarne on the eastern coast of northern England. The monastery of

Lindisfarne was sacked by the Vikings in 797. Charlemagne was able to repulse these raids and the English

as well. But the civil wars that we were talking about among the sons of Louis the Pious started to encourage

the Vikings indirectly by the disunity of the Frankish Empire, the wasting of military resources on what was,

in effect, a kind of civil war. But also the Vikings just got stronger and more ambitious, because their raids

on relatively well-organized Britain start to reach their height in the 830s.

So you start having the abandonment of monasteries, for example, the abandonment of Lindisfarne and the


3 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

moving of its relics. So the relics of Saint Cuthbert of York move around a lot. Monks on the western coast of

France abandon their monasteries and move their communities and relics further inland.

The Vikings seem to jockey between emphasizing raids on the Frankish Empire and on England, but

basically they're doing both. They start to spend the winter, what's called over-wintering in the late 830s,

early 840s. And that's a sinister sign from the point of view of the English, Irish, and Franks, because that

means that they're going from raiding to some form of settling. If they can spend the winter and not just the

classic raiding season, why not just stay permanently?

So they start coming up the rivers. They start plundering cities that are not sufficiently fortified. A monk in

the 860s writes, the number of ships grows every year... The feeling of just this complete takeover. Now,

that's the monastic point of view. The monasteries were ideal targets, because they are rich, isolated, and

minimally fortified. But nevertheless, the Carolingians have no fleet to match the Viking ships.

The way to stop the Vikings-- and it was only really implemented in the 870s and 880s. The way to stop the

Vikings was with fortified bridges. If you built a bridge that the Vikings could not go past without fighting

and fortified it sufficiently and had sufficient numbers of troops, you would stymie them. And this is

eventually what happens. In the late ninth century, the Vikings are defeated at the gates of Paris in 888--

885, 886, rather.

And they start accommodating with the European rulers. That is to say they are given lands to settle and

then made to promise to stop raiding. And in effect, they start to settle down towards the end of the ninth

century, beginning of the tenth century so that, for example, a treaty in 911 with the West Frankish ruler, the

ruler we can start to call the King of France, allows them to settle in northwestern France in a territory that

henceforth was called Normandy. Same in French. Normandie. The territory of the "Northmen" is what

they're usually referred to in the sources rather than Vikings. The territory of the Northmen.

So Normandy in 911 was a province settled by Vikings nominally loyal to the King of France. The Vikings

very quickly lose their language. By the time of the Duke of Normandy, William the Conqueror, 150 or so

years later, they are Norman. They speak French. They are more French than anything else, although a bit

different. Their ships still look a bit like Viking ships. If you know the Bayeux Tapestry, which is this

embroidery that shows the history of the Norman conquest of England, their ships look very much like our

image of Viking ships.

In England, the 860s are the zenith of their destruction. They actually in effect partition England between

an eastern and a western part. The eastern part becomes a territory called the Danelaw, the place where the

Danes have settled.

And their indirect effect on England is to force the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to unify. So rather than the

multiple kingdoms that we looked at at Bede's time-- Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria-- we have the

western kingdom formerly called Wessex, which under King Alfred in the 860s to 880s becomes really the

sole Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England and gradually defeats the Vikings, eventually kicking them out of the

British Isles altogether by about 930 or so.

So the conquests in the Frankish and English realms are not permanent in the sense that there's minimal

Scandinavian impact of a permanent sort on these places. There are not a lot of people speaking Old Norse

in either place in 1100. But their impact is tremendous in terms of organizing these places, creating

networks, founding cities like Dublin, reorganizing kingdoms like Ireland, creating Normandy, and really

kind of throwing the puzzle on the floor and reforming it.


4 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

Chapter 3: The Vikings in the East [00:21:05]

In the East and in the Atlantic. Here you have to imagine or sort of visualize Scandinavia sitting on the top

of Europe. The same effect that encourages airlines to use polar routes as a shorter way to cross the globe

also allows the Scandinavians in effect to choose their targets. Some of this is logical. Norway is much

easier, much closer to the British Isles than you might think. It sort of sits on top of them. And Sweden is

much closer to the East via the North than one would think.

But even Norway, for example, the modern kingdom of Norway, has a border with Russia. It goes so far

north, and then it has this very little, narrow piece of land that is only about thirty miles from the important

Russian port of Murmansk. And all of these places are relatively warm given how far north they are because

of the Gulf Stream.

So just as London is surprisingly warm considering that it's on the same latitude as Newfoundland, so these

northern parts of Scandinavia are the equivalent of polar wastes of northern Canada. And yet they are--

they're cold enough. The problem with them is they're really dark. So they're dark for months at a time, but

they're not all that cold.

From this vantage point then, the East would be a tempting source of enterprise for Vikings, particularly but

not exclusively from Scandinavia, especially in the tenth century. They would go via the Baltic Sea and the

Gulf of Finland down the Russian rivers like the Dnieper-- Dnieper with a 'D'-- to the Black Sea and the

Volga to the Caspian Sea.

They used to these rivers as ways of reaching territories of Byzantine and of Caliphal influence. They traded,

raided when possible. A lot of our descriptions of the Vikings by outsiders, our most accurate descriptions,

are from Muslim travelers who describe who these people are, what their products are even though very

little remains in this region to attest to the Vikings. The main evidence, as we said, are really coins taken

back to Scandinavia.

Their base-- that is the Viking base in this eastern area-- was what would become Kiev in modern Ukraine.

And Kiev would be the first Russian Scandinavian kingdom ruled by a tsar. They had ambitions to take over

Constantinople, a city they called in sort of Tolkien-esque fashion Mickelgard -- "Gard" meaning city,

"mickel" meaning powerful. "Mickel" still in Middle English, in Chaucer's English, means "impressive,"

"powerful."

Their attacks on Mickelgard didn't work. They attacked in 860 and 941, and we've seen that Constantinople

was able to fight off more impressive enemies than this. They therefore were dealing with wealthy and

established states, well-organized states, better organized than the Carolingian Empire or the Anglo-Saxon

kingdoms, and so states that were capable of defeating them. They therefore came to these areas controlled

by Baghdad and Constantinople more as traders than as raiders.

What did they bring to trade with? They have certain classic products, things from the North Sea, like

walrus ivory, very highly prized, amber from the Baltic Sea-- amber used in jewelry and medicine, a stone

that's not really a stone, a thing that's much lighter than it looks like credited with various kinds of

mysterious or at least medicinal properties throughout the formerly Roman and Islamic world. Arrows and

swords. The West was very good at metalworking. Honey, hunting falcons, wax.

But as I said, their two great commodities were slaves and furs. Slaves-- these societies of the Byzantine

Empire and the Caliphate always wanted more slaves. They had plenty of unpleasant labor as well as

domestic service shortages. And so many of these slaves were Slavs, that is Slavic populations rounded up


5 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

by the Vikings and then sold in Constantinople or Baghdad.

Furs. On the one hand, furs like sable, marten, mink that bounded in the eastern Baltic regions and in

what's now northern Russia were tremendously prized in a world in which central heating was nonexistent.

And although we may not think of modern Istanbul as particularly cold, it's quite cold and damp. One can

certainly understand the practical desire for furs for well-off people in the Byzantine Empire.

In the Caliphate, it may seem a little stranger. Baghdad is more noted for unbearable heat than cold. On the

other hand, the Caliphate includes territories like Afghanistan, eastern Iran. And also, keep in mind, as is

the case with Palm Beach and Miami Beach even as we speak now in late November, that for certain people,

the prestige of the furs transcends any need for practical warmth. So these are the two great products.

So they're plunderers and extortionists, but they're fairly creative plunderers and extortionists. They create

a number of trading cities, not only Kiev further south, but the great city of Novgorod sort of between the

Baltic and the more modern city of Moscow. These cities are fortified, leading one to assume that they

weren't just free-trade zones, that other people raided them or that the Vikings expected other people to try

to revenge themselves on their kind of raiding and trading. So anyway, as we've said before, trading and

plundering are not necessarily totally distinct.

Chapter 4: The Vikings in the West [00:29:20]

So finally, the West. The Vikings begin to explore the Atlantic mostly from Norway and beginning after the

maximum period of raiding of England starts to tail off in the 860s. These lands were uninhabited Iceland

-- or minimally inhabited -- Greenland. They were very attractive for hunting and for pasturing.

Where the Vikings found a fair density of people, they tended not to stay. This is their problem with

Newfoundland. They have a settlement in Newfoundland at a place whose modern name is somewhat

confusing way called L'Anse aux Meadows. So you have a French and English compound. L'Anse aux

Meadows in Newfoundland, one of a number of certainly the most best-known Viking sites. But there were

Native Americans who drove them out, not necessarily because they were superior in armament, but it just

wasn't really worth it to the Vikings to stay. So their staying in Newfoundland is relatively brief.

In order to go from Norway to Iceland, it's about 800 miles, and it took anywhere between one week and

one month. The island is not as cold as its name suggests. It has glaciers, but in the parts that don't have

glaciers, it's not all that cold. Again, the Gulf Stream. Most of it is uninhabitable, but that's because of

volcanic rock.

I don't know how many of you have been to Iceland, but even the drive from the airport to Reykjavik is

intimidating, because it goes through the stuff called "tufa". And there are no trees, and there's sort of no

prospect of anything growing there. But on the other hand, there are plenty of nice coastal strips, mild

climate, great pasture.

There are almost no trees now. And there's a lot of debate about whether there were trees, whether they just

cut them down, and they couldn't be re-cultivated. But in fact, this is a very hospitable place: rich pastures,

sea mammals everywhere. Until Iceland completely lost its mind in the speculative atmosphere of the

decade preceding 2008, their main industry was cod fishing. They then went into banking in a way that just

staggers the mind and have gotten back into cod fishing, my understanding is.

But they had lots and lots of other things. Lots of seals which they killed for fur, walrus skin used for cable

for ropes for ships, walrus ivory, another little creature called an narwhal that has a tusk that looks like a--


6 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

well, it was taken for being a unicorn tusk. There's one in the Cloisters, for example, that some of you are

going to see on the seventh of December.

So the colonization of Iceland begins in 870, and by 930, the island is basically full. It's habitable land,

again. A very, very small percentage of the land area was fully settled. We know a lot more about Iceland

than any other part of Scandinavia because of the extraordinary quality and quantity of poetic stories, sagas

in which honor, treasure, and love of mayhem dominate. These are very violent and until a certain point

were taken to be realistic portrayals of life in Iceland just as if, say, 1950s and 1960s TV westerns were

assumed to be a totally accurate portrayal of life everywhere in the United States in the nineteenth century.

So these are, like Westerns, wonderful stories of male violence with a certain amount of exaggeration, but

nevertheless the reflection of customs, ways of speaking, and social values.

Towards the end of the tenth century, Greenland was explored under the leadership of Erik the Red, one of

these renegades so difficult and violent that he was exiled from both Norway and Iceland. He is the one who

seems to have dubbed this new territory Greenland, a pioneer of deceptive advertising, I think it's fair to

say. Because warm as it may have been in the tenth century, this is like calling some housing development

Warbling Acres when in fact you've just bulldozed all the trees in order to create the development.

So the western coast of Greenland had rich pasture. The West is warmer than the East. Settlers came

beginning in 986. There was even a bishopric established at a place called Gardar, another sort of

Tolkien-esque name. We don't know very many bishops who actually went to Gardar. Most of them ruled

from Denmark and sort of basically told their flock to get in touch with them if they needed them, gave them

their office hours and had a phone that took messages.

But this settlement did not last. Greenland was more or less abandoned by 1400 and then would later be, in

modern times, resettled, but this time by Denmark.

And then finally, Norwegians from Greenland settled what's now Labrador in Newfoundland, late tenth,

early eleventh centuries. They even wrote a saga called the Vinland Saga. The Vinland Map that's in the

Beinecke Library that purports to show both the Chinese Mongol Empire and the territories of Vinland in

the New World is unfortunately a fake. But as I said, these archaeological finds in Markland, as the Vikings

called Labrador, or Vinland, as they referred to Newfoundland, are real. They were settled about the year

1000 and abandoned in 1020.

Chapter 5: Conclusion: Whats been accomplished? [00:37:09]

So here we are, 1020 or the year 1000. And I know that you will be asking what has been accomplished since

we began with 284. And this is a fair question, because at first glance, it would seem as if we're still in a

world of declining population, a rural society with very few urban centers, a society of relatively little

literacy, relatively small amounts of commerce, lots of violence, lack of governmental order, militarized

society, all developments that we have been tracing since the beginning. The optimistic take on this is that

beginning with the material covered in the next course, there's a very rapid ascent from 1000 to about 1300,

a tremendous growth of the European economy and a tremendous expansion of both population, artistic,

political, and intellectual creativity that is the central period of the Middle Ages.

The real mystery behind this, the sort of historical problem, is what explains the domination of Europe in

the second millennium AD? The first millennium, most of which we've covered in this course, the dominant

areas are the Mediterranean at the beginning, which includes Europe, but also includes North Africa, Egypt,

the Middle East, and modern Turkey. And indeed, those latter regions would outpace Europe, properly


7 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

speaking. The first millennium is something of a catastrophe for Europe, at least by measurable statistics of

a per capita GNP, population, population density, urbanization, nature.

What then explains the domination of Europe after 1000? In some ways, it's a slow process. The first

European colonies don't really get established until the aftermath of Columbus' voyage in 1492. And then

they get established incredibly rapidly and with surprisingly little effort, right? Mexico and Peru, these huge

empires of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas fall to a few hundred Spanish troops. And the Spanish and

Portuguese between 1492 and 1520 are all over the world, from Malacca in modern Malaysia to India to the

Persian Gulf to Mexico and Peru.

Well, we don't have to explain that. That's for another time. But suffice it to say that already in 1095, the

European Christian population is capable of putting together an army to conquer Jerusalem from Islam, a

seemingly impossible job, and certainly one that required more than logistics and resources but also a

certain kind of if not fanaticism at least a real motivation, religious motivation. But nevertheless, it is a sign

of a certain kind of European power that one would not have thought in the year 1000 was possible.

In the year 1000, the smart money, the Brookings Institute, think tank, kind of RAND Corporation, Bain

Consulting, all the smart people would have said, "Don't put any money into Europe. You've got to be

kidding. The coming regions are the same as over the last couple hundred years. Maybe Byzantium, a

cautious buy. Definitely the Islamic kingdoms, even if the Caliphate is having some problems, qua

Caliphate, their successor state, Fatimid Egypt-- awesome, awesome. This is going to dominate for the next

millennium. Our algorithms agree on this."

And all sorts of promising signs in Eastern Europe with the creation of Russia to your more prescient

younger, hot-shottier consultants would have identified that. But Germany, Italy, France, the British Isles

certainly would have seemed discouraging.

Yet there are some promising signs. As it turns out, the Vikings are the last invaders. The Vikings coincide

with invasions from the Magyars. Magyars, that's what they call themselves to this day. They're known as

the Hungarians to the outside world out of a confusion between them and the Huns. They actually have

nothing to do with the Huns. But they were quite frightening land-based raiders of the tenth century.

And there were also attacks by ships from Muslim North Africa against Europe, what the sources refer to as

Saracen pirates. And they plunder Rome in 843, for example. So Europe is certainly in the tenth century

faced with yet another wave of invasions. And I think I warned you at the beginning of this course that it

was basically about invasions and heresies and that you'd do well if you just concentrated on those things.

So we're heresy-free at the moment, but in the tenth century, we certainly have these invasions.

As it happens, they're the last that Western Europe would experience. Not Eastern Europe, because Eastern

Europe would be subject to the Mongols who would, for example, score a tremendous victory over the

armies of Poland, armies of the Christian king of Hungary as well in the thirteenth century. But this seems

to be the end of invasions, the beginning of a period of population increase, better nutrition, better harvests,

perhaps explicable to more settled conditions, perhaps explainable by improved climate, perhaps just

explainable by human determination and enterprise.

The Christianization of Europe is one of the tremendous phenomena that characterizes our period. And

while as a religious movement I have no investment in saying that Christianity is either an advantage or

disadvantage, in terms of creating settled, organized polities, the Christianization of places like Scandinavia,

Iceland, or Bohemia-- the modern Czech Republic more or less-- or Hungary or Russia, all of which take


8 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

place in the tenth or early eleventh centuries, all of these Christianizations, conversions bring these polities

into a kind of European cultural area, political alliances, trade networks. So Christianization is as much a

sign of civilization or at least of a kind of economic development as a thing in itself.

So between 200 and 1000, what are the big differences? Whether these are accomplishments or not is

debatable. Certainly the population has declined. Over an 800-year period, the population of Europe is

considerably less, not only in towns like Rome, which has gone from something on the order of over

500,000, perhaps as much as a million, to 30,000, maximum. It is a much less Mediterranean-centered

world. The sort of geopolitics have changed. The Mediterranean has broken apart into Islamic, Byzantine,

and Latin regions.

It is Christian, most of it. Most of Europe apart from Spain is Christian. And this entails all sorts of cultural

as well as religious changes. It is also less learned. And the learning that there is is a monopoly of the

Church. There is less lay, or secular, learning than there was.

There are some continuities, however. The dominant language of learning and administration remains in

1000, as it was in 200, Latin. Roman culture is still the ideal and still, in effect, the practice, even though it

may be adapted to things like churches. But what has been called Romanesque or simply Roman

architecture particularly that of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries will indeed be based on Roman

principles.

And as we saw with Charlemagne, the idea of Rome, the idea of the Empire is extremely durable. And

although Charlemagne's empire is dissolved in the course of the late ninth century, it is at least partially

revived in the tenth century under a new dynasty whose first ruler is Otto I, Otto the Great. In 962, he's

crowned Roman emperor in Rome by the pope.

His empire does not include the West. So it's not France. It's more Germany than anything else. But this

empire would endure until Napoleon, until 1804. In other words for something on the order of 850 years.

So to some extent, what we have accomplished is we have arrived at the point of the emergence of

something that can be called Europe other than a geographical term, something that can be called

Christendom, not using that in its triumphalist sense but simply as a kind of cultural description of a certain

part of the world. And we've reached the point where we can start to talk about the West, this very funny

term still used, particularly in popular geopolitical tracts like The West and the Rest, these kinds of

statements of the West or the decline of the West. We're at the point of the rise of the West.

And that's where I am going to leave you. Thanks for your participation in this course. Thanks for making

this a wonderful semester for me. I hope a lot of fun for you as well. Thanks a lot.

Thank you all so much. It's been fun.

[end of transcript]

Top (#navigation-top)


9 of 9 1/12/2015 9:55 AM

Lecture 22

Documents

Transcript of Lecture 22