Wikipedia

Talk:Middle Ages

Former featured articleMiddle Ages is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed
April 17, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
June 16, 2024Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
November 8, 2024Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Restoration

[edit]

I must apologise before the whole community because my edits destroyed an FA and as a consequence it was delisted. The destroyed version must obviously be restored because our readers cannot be forced to read a version representing a lower standard than the restored version. I urge the original nominators to re-nominate their version. I will show my contrition for my distruptive edits by comments during the process. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new main picture because it was chosen through compromise, not through my bludgeoing tactics. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm catching up after some travel, and given the lack of responses here, felt it necessary to state I am not pleased with this result. I've watched your edits @Borsoka over the years on this article and am disappointed it is being reverted. The standards for FAs are much higher now than before. I hope to see this important article moved forward again with whatever process makes sense. Biz (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Why do people never respond to each other on Wiki? Please resolve this issue 131.239.19.132 (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

[edit]

Watching from the sidelines I have seen many passionate editors give their best for the article. Like any worthy knightly quest, their efforts should not be in vain. I have then tried to find ways to take the best from both versions, at least in prose (I see no reason why sources from both could also not be used, giving a varied academic support to the article). I request compromise, because I think both versions of the article have their strengths, one really gives a great picture of western Europe (not suprising given the emphasis of English language scholarship) while the other is more continental in its approach. I am optimistic that we already have great medieval articles, we just need to bring the best of them together.

Here is one example

Black Death "Between circa 950 and 1060, severe droughts struck the Middle East and the Eurasian Steppe experienced anomalous cold. After 1250, the Medieval Warm Period began to transition to the Little Ice Age. These environmental challenges were followed in 1347 by the Black Death, a pandemic that spread throughout Europe during the following three years. The death toll was probably about 35 million people in Europe, about one-third of the population. Towns were especially hard-hit because of their crowded conditions - one town, Lübeck in Germany, lost 90 percent of its population.

All this impact changed economic and social structures. Peasants who survived had to pay less rent to landlords, and town workers demanded higher salaries but were then much more highly taxed. The trauma of the plague led to profound social and religious changes. Communities showed increased piety with the establishment of new charities. The flagellant movement showed that there was widespread fear combined with extreme religious zeal. Because of this, Jewish communities became scapegoats for the disaster and were severely persecuted. The economic aftermath reconstituted relationships between landlords and tenants. Urban economic structures began to shift as cities adapted to their new, reduced populations.

Charlemagne

Christmas Day 800 saw the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor, a watershed in medieval history. The occasion represented both a symbolic revival of the Western Roman Empire and a functional challenge to Byzantine hegemony. An itinerant court, which travelled with the emperor, formed the hub of sophisticated administrative structures. Some 300 counts were responsible for administering local regions, while imperial emissaries, or missi dominici, served as roving inspectors and troubleshooters. Essential records of grants and administrative decisions were preserved by the royal chapel.

The cultural impact of Charlemagne's reign was profound. His court revived many Roman administrative practices, while it spurred the development of the Carolingian Renaissance. Religious practices became more uniform across his domains, while education and literacy received royal patronage. His relationship with Byzantium proved complex, since his imperial coronation presumed a status as equal to that of Constantinople-a source of diplomatic tension, even as cultural exchange between the two empires continued.

Women

Women's roles in medieval society were complex and varied depending on social class and region. Although technically subject to male authority, women's real influence and activities varied extensively throughout medieval Europe. Aristocratic women held positions of great influence chiefly as wives and mothers, while queen mothers were especially important in Francia. Many noblewomen enjoyed quite significant informal political authority, but the nature of that influence proved fragile and rested upon male connections. The abbess also provided other forms of aristocratic female authority in especially monastic contexts.

Working women were involved in a variety of economic pursuits. In addition to their work in managing a household, many working women also contributed to economic production by spinning and brewing. Urban women were permitted to trade, but access to guild trading was commonly through the rights of husbands. All classes of women worked in agricultural labor during harvest season. Their legal status remained formally subordinate to male relatives, though they could inherit land in the absence of male heirs. Regional variations in legal protections and special provisions for widows created additional complexity in women's social position."

Tags

[edit]

@Johnbod: could you explain why did you delete the tags? Two huge archives (Archives 11 and 12) and even more edit summaries explaining individual tags indicate that the article contains unverified claims, marginal scholarly theories, unverified lists of artefacts, and fails to present its subject in context. As this is one of our community's most viewed articles, it needs significant improvement. As you are still bearing an FA badge for this version, you are responsible for its quality. If you cannot improve it, do not destroy. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't (unfortunately) "one of our community's most viewed articles" at all - I doubt it is in the top 1,000, but you can check that. The version of the article at present is essentially THE ONE YOU REVERTED TO, removing hundreds of your own edits, after your attempt to grandfather in FA status was rejected by the community. I thought that was an extremely childish act of pique, but did not revert. If anyone is destroying the article, it is you. I take no responsibility for the article now; like all the other major contributors, I have found it impossible to work with you, and abandoned it years ago. You reverted to the present version (before some edits by others, which I haven't looked at), so you should take responsibility, or, better yet, just leave the article alone & let new editors do what they can with it. The article was of course never perfect, but I reject your characterization of its faults; the archives indeed contain much discussion of this. Your own edits, which you have now reverted, had many problems, a very small sample of which were also raised there. Your use of sources leaves much to desire. Frankly, nobody takes notice of a barrage of tags at the top. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we associate you and your two friends with the community you are right, that version was rejected by the community. Your mainly baseless, biased and often amateurish remarks during the "review" are well documented in the archive you linked above. You are wrong (and by adopting your usual style of communication, I must say): THIS IS THE VERSION FOR WHICH YOU AND YOUR CONOMINATORS BEAR THE FA BADGE. I can understand you do not want to improve your version, because it would be an extremly time consuming work, so let others work on the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tags2

[edit]

Below are some examples for verifying the tags at the start of the article. The list can be expanded further without much effort. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the article: "The Carolingian dynasty, as the successors to Charles Martel are known, officially took control of the kingdoms of Austrasia and Neustria in a coup of 753 led by Pippin III (r. 752–768). A contemporary chronicle claims that Pippin sought, and gained, authority for this coup from Pope Stephen II (pope 752–757)." The two sentences are verified by a reference to Susan Wise Bauer's work although she is not a historian. First of all, the Carolingian dynasty was officially in control of the Frankish kingdoms, because Carolingians had been the Mayors of the Palace for decades. Secondly, the "coup" happened in 751 when the last Merovingian king was dethroned and Pepin was crowned the new king. Thirdly, the second sentence quoted from the article suggests that the papacy may have played no role in the legitimization of the Carolingians. Is there any reliable source written by historians that verifies this claim? Other historians cited in the article (Backman, Collins, Wickham) emphasize Pope Stephen II's role.
  • The article states that "In 774, Charlemagne conquered the Lombards, which freed the papacy from the fear of Lombard conquest and marked the beginnings of the Papal States." The cited source Brown verifies the statement but an other source cited in the article contradicts it. Backman writes that Charlemagne's father Pepin "bestowed the central portion of [Italy] ... on the papacy as an autonomous state. Henceforth, the pope stood ... as the direct political ruler of an Italian principality known as the Papal States." (Backman, p. 155)
  • The article claims that " Louis's reign of 26 years was marked by numerous divisions of the empire among his sons and, after 829, civil wars between various alliances of father and sons over the control of various parts of the empire. Eventually, Louis recognised his eldest son Lothair I (d. 855) as emperor and gave him the Kingdom of Italy." The text is verified by a reference to a book written by Susan Wise Bauer who is not a historian. Other historians cited in the article make it clear that Lothair was crowned co-emperor and received Italy years before the first civil war broke out (Collins, Wickham).
  • The article claims that "Efforts by local kings to fight the invaders led to the formation of new political entities. In Anglo-Saxon England, King Alfred the Great (r. 871–899) came to an agreement with the Viking invaders in the late 9th century, resulting in Danish settlements in Northumbria, Mercia, and parts of East Anglia." The two statements are not verified by the cited source (Collins). According to Collins, the invasions (not the local kings' effort) led to the formation of new political entities because the Vikings assumed power in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Likewise, he does not write that Alfred's agreement with the Viking invaders resulted in Danish settlements but refers to Alfred's agreement about the relationship between his kingdom and the Vikings who had settled in Britain years before.
  • According to the article, "In the early 10th century, the Ottonian dynasty established itself in Germany, and was engaged in driving back the Magyars ... . Its efforts culminated in the coronation in 962 of Otto I (r. 936–973) as Holy Roman Emperor." Collins, who is cited to verify the statements, does not imply that the Ottonians' efforts (whatever it means in this context) culminated in Otto I's imperial coronation. Collins writes that the Ottonians' "origins did not distinguish them from the other ducal houses of eastern Francia, and they lacked hereditary rights inherited from the Carolingians. ... The prospect of the imperial title, and with it an enhancement in status and a more clearly articulated claim to the Carolingian legacy, was attractive."
  • The article claims that "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which gained power and territory." The words "Missionary efforts" are linked to Christianization of Scandinavia. First of all, it is quite obvious that missionary efforts did not help "strengthen the growth of kingdoms" (whatever this expression means) in this period. Secondly, the cited author (Collins) does not verify the statement that either "missionary efforts" or the "Christianization of Scandinavia" helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms. What Collins says is the following: "In both Norway and Sweden, conversion is associated with the appearance of more powerful and geographically more extensive monarchies in the second half of the tenth century." There is no reference to the effects of the Scandinavians' conversion to Christianity on the development of Scandinavian monarchies. Actually, the cited sentence suggests that the development of more powerful monarchies facilated Christianization in the region.
  • The article states, "The High Middle Ages was a period of tremendous expansion of population ..., although the exact causes remain unclear: ... the decline of slaveholding, a more clement climate and the lack of invasion have all been suggested." Actually, the cited authors (Jordan and Backman) do not associate the decline of slaveholding with population growth. Jordan writes that "slavery ... was dying out in lands under Latin Christendom" but without linking it to the expansion of population. When mentioning the decline of slavery, Jordan introduces the development of serfdom - not unlike other historians cited in article (Backman, Singman). Instead of the decline of slavery, the same historians list assarting (the cleaning of woods for agricultural activities) among the possible reasons of demographic grow.
  • According to the article, "There remained a few free peasants throughout this period and beyond, with more of them in the regions of Southern Europe than in the north." The first part of the sentence is verified by the cited author (Backman), but the second part is actually not verified. The cited author (Eppstein) indeed writes of free peasants in Catalonia and Northern Italy but without stating that there were more free peasants in the south than in the north. On the other hand, Backman clearly refers to free peasant communities in the north (in Germany).
  • The section presents early medieval art and architecture only partially. It is focused on church architecture and ignores secular buildings, while the paragraph about arts could be desribed as a list of notable treasures, unverified by the cited source. Perhaps the principal features of secular architecture and artisctic elements of everyday life should also be mentioned.
  • The article claims, "During the early invasion period, the stirrup had not been introduced into warfare, which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops because it was not possible to put the full force of the horse and rider behind blows struck by the rider." Actually, the cited author (Nicolle) does not verify the second part of the statement, rather contradicts it. Nicolle says: "a lack of stirrups did not limit the effectiveness of a horseman to anything like the extent that is popularly believed. ... The most dramatic development in horse harness during these centuries was ... the adoption of stirrups. Even so, the importance of this development has been over-emphasized by most historians, particularly in the military context." (Nicolle, David (1996). Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare In Western Christendom. Brockhampton Press. pp. 30, 41. ISBN 1-86019-889-9.) The article also states, "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, which increased the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops." In fact, the cited author (Nicolle) says that "Several important developments took place in European horse harness, though their immediate significance has been greatly exaggerated by most modern scholars. Stirrups, for example, were known by the 8th century, but were not at once widely used." (Nicolle, David (1996). Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare In Western Christendom. Brockhampton Press. pp. 88–91. ISBN 1-86019-889-9.)
  • A caption contains the following text: "Medieval French manuscript illustration of the three classes of medieval society: those who prayed (the clergy) those who fought (the knights), and those who worked (the peasantry). The relationship between these classes was governed by feudalism and manorialism." The second sentence is allegedly verified by a reference to a page in Sources of World Societies. However, this page does not contain any similar statement. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that relationship between the clergy and knights, or clergy and peasantry was not typically governed by feudalism and manorialism.
  • The article states that "Nobles, both the titled nobility and simple knights, exploited the manors and the peasants, although they did not own lands outright but were granted rights to the income from a manor or other lands by an overlord through the system of feudalism." First of all, the sentence is not verified by the cited source (Barber). Secondly, the sentence suggests that the system of feudalism existed in all over Europe although authors (Backman, Curta) cited in the article make it clear that this was not the case.
  • The article states that "The open-field system of agriculture was commonly practiced in most of Europe, especially in "northwestern and central Europe"." At first glance, the statement is verified by the cited author (Pounds). However, Pounds does not emphasize the importance of the open-field system. Instead, he writes "There could have been no consistency, even within restricted areas, in the ways in which peasants organized and cultivated their fields. Too many cultural traditions were involved. Nevertheless, by the end of the Middle Ages three broad field systems could be distinguished. None was spatially distinct; each merged into the other, and there were many compromises and transitions between them."
  • The article says that " Most of the regular clergy were drawn from the nobility, the same social class that served as the recruiting ground for the upper levels of the secular clergy. The local parish priests were often drawn from the peasant class." The first part of the first sentence is verified by the cited author Barber, but he does not verify the second part of the first sentence. Likewise, the second sentence is unverified: Barber refers to cases when serfs were manumitted by abbots but without making any general statement about local priests' social background.
  • The article claims that "the regular clergy ... lived isolated under a religious rule and usually consisted of monks." I have no access to the cited source (Hamilton's Religion in the Medieval West) but the statement apparently contradicts other sources cited in the article. "The regular clergy was originally limited to monks, who sought spiritual perfection by withdrawing from the secular world ... In time, other clerics became regular clergy by taking on the communal mode of life under a rule, while continuing to interact with the secular world." (Singman, p. 11) "The lives of the canons were governed by a rule bearing many similarities to that of the regular clergy..., but their work was largely concerned with worldly affairs..." (Barber, p. 27). Furthermore, it is well known that a significant group of regular clergy, the friars of the mendicant orders, did not live an isolated existence and their convents were located mainly in urban centers.
  • The article claims that "In central and northern Italy and in Flanders, the rise of towns that were to a degree self-governing stimulated economic growth and created an environment for new types of trade associations." The cited author (Epstein) does not verify the statement. It is quite obvious that the sentence presents relationship between the rise of towns and economic growth in a quite unusual way.
  • The article states that "Commercial cities on the shores of the Baltic entered into agreements known as the Hanseatic League". The cited author (Epstein) does not verify the statement. First of all, he does not refer to the Baltic at all (and not all Hanse cities were located on the shores of the Baltic). Secondly, Epstein makes it clear that in the High Middle Ages the Hanseatic Lague was still a federation of merchants, not of cities: "...the German Hanse was at first a great confederation of merchants from many cities. In the later Middle Ages, the league of cities became the predominant feature of the Hanse, but this development was in response to challenges after the plague..."
  • The article states that "Jews also spread across Europe during the period. Communities were established in Germany and England in the 11th and 12th centuries, but Spanish Jews, long settled in Spain under the Muslims, came under Christian rule and increasing pressure to convert to Christianity. Most Jews were confined to the cities, as they were not allowed to own land or be peasants." First of all, the article does not explain the causes of the spread of Jews in Europe, so the first sentence is not informative. Furthermore, the most important aspects of Jewish history in this period are not mentioned. For instance, the earliest cases of blood libel and the widespread pogroms are ignored, the Jews' expulsion from England and France is not mentioned, and there is no reference to the beginnings of the large Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.
  • The article claims that "Kings in France, England, and Spain consolidated their power, and set up lasting governing institution." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not refer to Spain. Backman indeed mentions the Crown of Aragon as one of the three super powers of the Mediterranean. Secondly, Backman does not writes of three states, but most of the European states.
  • The article claims that "New kingdoms such as Hungary and Poland, after their conversion to Christianity, became Central European powers." It is without doubt that between the mid-14th and mid-17th centuries Poland was a European power, but in the High Middle Ages (between c. 1000 and 1300) Poland could hardly be described as such, especially because after 1138 Poland was divided into more and more duchies. The cited author (Barber) writes: "Some historians see 1138 as the beginning of a new phase in Polish history ... Until then for all its vicissitudes, the Polish state had been held together by a single line of the Piast dynasty... Nevertheless, although Poland lacked an overall ruler, the individual dukedoms were generally effectively governed." There is no reference to Poland's status as a Central European power in this period.
  • The article claims that "Townswomen, like peasant women, were responsible for the household, and could also engage in trade. What trades were open to women varied by country and period." The second sentence is not verified by the cited author (Singman). Furthermore, the short paragraph about women repeats four times that women were responsible for the household.
  • The article states that "The papacy, long attached to an ideology of independence from secular kings, first asserted its claim to temporal authority over the entire Christian world;". First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not verify the reference to secular kings. Furthermore, the papacy wanted to get rid of the authority of the Holy Roman Emperors while the Gregorian Reform wanted to diminish secular influence on Church affairs in general.
  • The article claims that "During the early High Middle Ages, Germany was ruled by the Ottonian dynasty, which struggled to control the powerful dukes ruling over territorial duchies tracing back to the Migration period." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not state or imply that the German duchies were connected to the Migration period in any way. Furthermore, Patrick J. Geary who is also cited in the article emphasizes that the German "tribal" duchies were in fact the creations of the Merovingian kings (Geary (1988), p. 228).
  • The section "Rise of state power" mentions the clashes of individual Holy Roman Emperors with the papacy far too much, but the article does not mention the disintegration of Germany and northern Italy into small autonomous (or rather independent) states in the period although it would have long-term consequences.
  • The article claims that King Louis IX of France "served as a mediator for most of Europe". I have only access to the Hungarian translation of Davies's work that is cited to verify the statement, but Davies only writes that Louis was requested to act as a mediator many times in debates between kings and aristocrats. Is there any source verifying the quote from the article?
  • The article states that "The French monarchy continued to make gains against the nobility during the late 12th and 13th centuries, bringing more territories within the kingdom under the king's personal rule and centralising the royal administration." At first sight, the cited author (Backman) verifies the statement about the French king's personal rule. However, actually Backman refers to the conquest of Anjou, Maine and Normandy by Philip II Augustus, and it is separately mentioned in the article. On the other hand, Backman emphasizes that Philip's son and successor Louis VIII "is remembered chiefly for granting large sections of the territories won by his father as apanages. An apanage was a land grant made to the younger sons of the royal family as compensation for not inheriting the crown ... apanages were technically independent provinces ... the long-term consequences of the apanage system were grievous."
  • Guilds aren't mentioned at all in the article. That's surprising because they were very important for the trades and townlife and were an important factor in economic discrimination against Jews.
  • The article claims that "Cathedral schools were in turn replaced by the universities established in major European cities." The cited author (Backman) does not state anything similar. He says that some of the cathedral schools developed into universities, and former students of universities could teach anywhere while "degrees from lesser institutions were less portable".
  • The article states that "Chivalry and the ethos of courtly love developed in royal and noble courts. This culture was expressed in the vernacular languages rather than Latin, and comprised poems, stories, legends, and popular songs spread by troubadours, or wandering minstrels." First of all, the cited author (Backman) does not describe the troubadours as wandering minstrels. Backman defines the troubadours as "lyric poets", and mentions only three of them: William IX, Duke of Aquitaine, the court poet Reinmar von Hagenau, and the Countess of Dia. Could we characterize a powerful duke, a court poet or an unidentified lady as a wandering minstrel? Furthermore, Backman emphasizes that "troubadour poetry differed dramatically from northern verse in content, form, language, and theme", so we could hardly make a connection between troubadours and high medieval literature everywhere in Europe.
  • The article states that "Monastic reform became an important issue during the 11th century, as elites began to worry that monks were not adhering to the rules binding them to a strictly religious life. Cluny Abbey, founded in the Mâcon region of France in 909, was established as part of the Cluniac Reforms, a larger movement of monastic reform in response to this fear." The texts in bold are not verified either by the cited author's work (Barbara H. Rosenswein's Rhinoceros Bound) or by other authors cited in the article either (such as Bernard Hamilton, Clifford R. Backman, Malcolm Barber).
  • According to the article, "Cluny ... sought to maintain a high quality of spiritual life by placing itself under the protection of the papacy..." The cited author (Malcolm Barber) does not verify the statement, because he says that Cluny's freedom from outside interference was "used ... by the papacy to draw the Cluniacs directly into its orbit. Cluny was not the originator of this trend towards monastic exemption under the papacy, but it soon became its leader." An other historian also cited in the article, Bernard Hamilton also contradicts the quote from the article. Hamilton says that the founder of Cluny, Duke William III of Aquitaine "renounced all patronal rights and placed the house directly under the protection of the pope". (Hamilton (2003), p. 45)
  • The section on the hundred years war states: "The price was high, as the population of France at the end of the Wars was likely half what it had been at the start of the conflict." However I cannot seem to confirm this with the source used, nor is the reputation of the source particularly good.
  • The article contains the following text: "The Turks were then free to invade Asia Minor, which dealt a dangerous blow to the Byzantine Empire by seizing a large part of its population and its economic heartland. Although the Byzantines regrouped and recovered somewhat, they never fully regained Asia Minor and were often on the defensive. The Turks also had difficulties, losing control of Jerusalem to the Fatimids of Egypt and suffering from a series of internal civil wars." Although the text is fully verified by the cited source (Davies), it is highly problematic in context. First of all, before the First Crusade the Byzantines recovered territory from the Normans and the Pechenegs, not from the Turks. Western Asia Minor and the Anatolian coastlines were recovered from the Turks as a consequence of the First Crusade (Barber, p. 118). Secondly, the Turks indeed lost Jerusalem to the Fatimids but only during (and as a consequence of) the First Crusade (Lock, p. 23). Consequently, the partial recovery of Asia Minor by Byzantium should be presented as a consequence of the First Crusade, and the Fatimid conquest of Jerusalem could be ignored.
  • The military orders played an important role in the crusades but I am not sure that the short section "Crusades" should dedicate five sentences to them.
  • According to the article, the Fourth Crusade greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire. In the context, the cited author Backman never writes of the Byzantine Empire. Instead, he refers to three rump states, Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizond.
  • The article introduces the crusades with the following sentences: "In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks took over much of the Middle East, occupying Persia during the 1040s, Armenia in the 1060s, and Jerusalem in 1070. In 1071, the Turkish army defeated the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert and captured the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV (r. 1068–71). The Turks were then free to invade Asia Minor, which dealt a dangerous blow to the Byzantine Empire by seizing a large part of its population and its economic heartland. Although the Byzantines regrouped and recovered somewhat, they never fully regained Asia Minor and were often on the defensive. The Turks also had difficulties, losing control of Jerusalem to the Fatimids of Egypt and suffering from a series of internal civil wars." Each sentence is fully verified by the cited author Davies but Davies does not introduce the crusading movement but describes the history of the Byzantine Empire between 1054 and 1186 in the cited pages. When introducing the crusading movement, standard literature emphasizes the role of the Church reform movement (I refer to Backmen, Barber, Hamilton and Lock who are cited in the article). Why should we ignore standard approach?
  • The article states that "Philosophy and theology fused in scholasticism, an attempt by 12th- and 13th-century scholars to reconcile authoritative texts, most notably Aristotle and the Bible." I do not have access to the cited source (an article from Loyn's The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia) but other scholarly works cited in the article do not verify the whole sentence. For instance, none of them describes scholasticism as a fusion of philosophy and theology. Instead they describe scholasticism as a method without limiting its scope to philosophy and theology. For instance, Backman writes that scholasticism "was indeed a method more than a universally accepted set of ideas" (Backman, p. 433). Colish also describes scholasticism as a set of "pedagogical methods and approaches" and emphasises that "early and high medieval scholasticism is marked by synthetic and systematic thought in all disciplines" (Colish, pp. 265-266).
  • The article states that "Secular law was advanced greatly by the discovery of the Corpus Iuris Civilis in the 11th century, and by 1100 Roman law was being taught at Bologna." The cited author (Backman) emphasizes that the systematic study of Roman law based on the CIC transformed legal education from around 1100, noting that Roman law had already been studied as "a compilation of various bits of legislation".
  • According to the article, scholasticism "culminated in the thought of Thomas Aquinas". Actually, the cited author Colish acknowledges that Aquinas was a prominent representative of medieval scholasticism, but does not say that scholasticism culminated in Aquinas' thoughts. For instance, he writes "While the Dominicans closed ranks in 1279 in the effort to make Thomism obligatory, the more Neoplatonic theology of Albert [the Great] attracted some members of the order. Secular masters ... freely drew on, or criticized, their work, and put the pieces together in their own way. Change is most visible among Franciscans, who in some respects objected to Bonaventure as much as to Thomas. They sought, with considerable success, to put Franciscan philosophy and theology on a new footing on the basis of their own new ideas."
  • The article states that "The first years of the 14th century were marked by famines, culminating in the Great Famine of 1315–17." I do not have access to the cited source (an article from Loyn's The Middle Ages) but other sources cited in the article and specialised literature does not confirm the first part of the sentence, rather seem to contradict it. For instance, Backman - who is also cited in the article - writes that famine appeared in 1311. Environmental historian Richard C. Hoffmann refers to 1314 as the first year of the early 14th-century famine, but also mentions foot shortages between 1251 and 1261. (Hoffmann, Richard C. (2014). An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge University Press. pp. 323–324. ISBN 978-0-521-70037-5.).
  • The article contains the following text: "These dire conditions resulted in an increase of interpersonal violence in most parts of Europe. Population increase, religious intolerance, famine and disease led to an increase in violent acts in vast parts of the medieval society. One exception to this was northeastern Europe, whose population managed to maintain low levels of violence due to a more organized society resulting from extensive and successful trade." First of all, the cited authors (Baten and Steckel) do not write that their study (based on cranial and postcranial bone trauma) indicate the level of violence without doubt but they present their research as an attempt to study interpersonal violence. They explicitly say that "We argue that cranial trauma and weapon wounds on any part of skeletal remains were often the result of interpersonal violence. ... [A] standardized indicator for human violence in Europe over the past 2000 years has not been proposed until now." Secondly, they do not write of the lower levels of violence in northeastern Europe. The sentences should be rewritten to reflect the cited source, or deleted.