In week 4 we're going to be considering some heavy hitting economic theories about how medieval Europe worked. In particular, we're going to be comparing the theories of these two historians:
 |
| R.H.C. Davis |
 |
| Henri Pirenne |
Remember, the first assessment task is also coming up next week. There will be an in-class test in the second lecture hour on Monday 19th March (unless you have already agreed an alternate arrangement with Clare and myself).
And just because I can't leave a whole blog post with no pretty pictures except photos of eminent old men, here's a completely gratuitous picture of Merton College, Oxford, where Davis worked for a time. It has, in my opinion, the most beautiful sounding bells in the world (or maybe they just make me nostalgic). You can hear them here.
 |
| Merton College, Oxford (Image by J. Gollner) |
14 comments:
Pirenne's Thesis explains how without Islam the Frankish empire may have never come into existence. He explains how the barbarian invasion's did not lead to the demise of the Roman Empire and in many ways they tried to preserve certain ways of Roman life. Pirenne theory is said to still be quite influential on modern society, which aspects would be the most influential?
The development of banking is mentioned and I was wondering who would use these banks? would it be just the nobles, or would merchants and the like use these banks also?
Davis says that 'Feudalism was the inevitable result of an "economy of no outlets", and the consequence of feudalism... was Charlemagne'. How was Charlemagne a result of feudalism? Was it because he used land to expand his kingdom and used the feudal system to manage that land? Is Davis suggesting that had the economy and trade been stronger, then Charlemagne wouldn't have been as influential as he was?
Aha! Yes, I think the point being made is that the extent and power of Charlemagne's empire relied on feudal relationships (although, who knows, maybe if feudalism hadn't existed clever old Charlemagne might have risen to the top in other ways - it's always dangerous to second guess the past). But take care - is this Davis' own argument, or someone else's? Do you get the feeling he agrees with it?
Good question Bobbie. Presumably only those with a serious cash surplus that needed storing... so merchants are one good suggestion. Anyone else?
Well I can think of some nasty ones, like the assumption that migration of muslims into the West will inevitably lead society to collapse. There are massive debates going on in the UK at the moment about whether making historical arguments based on migration of 'outsiders' is morally supportable or not. What do you guys think? Was the argument justified?
would the church need the use of banks? or did they just hold their cash/ objects in the churches cause the people would be too fearful to rob the churches?
So did Charlemagne actually create feudalism then? Or what it something that already existed which he used as a method of control ect..?
Because of the "economy of no outlets", land was really the only valuable asset at the time, so wouldn't feudalism really have been the only option?
I agree with what Tiffs saying... if the economy/trade was flourishing then would land have been as valuable?? And would Charlemagne still have been able to manipulate/control groups of tribes with the offering of land? Would offering them money or goods have worked to get them to support him? Or would the tribes not have been interesting in making a deal in the first place?
I find it cool how everything is so inter-related… possibility of the Mediterranean being unsafe (tribes and pirates ect.) > limited trade > limited economy > importance of land > Charlemagne's rise > control of tribes
I found Pirrene's thesis problematic. While it may be the case that trade declined in the west after the Islamic invasion I see no reason why the Islamic world would have such an agressive attitude towards western trade in order to cause it's demise. Surely the Vandals who occupied the Mediteranian prior and were known to utilize piracy would have been more disruptive. The Islamic world was home to many valubles desireable in the west. It would be in the best interest of muslim civilization to maintain trade being the 2nd largest community of traders at the time. The Vandals it seems would have been more likely to rely on piracy and disruption. I belive there must have been other factors at play that encouraged the move to the Frankish agrarian economy and the dwindling of trade in the west. This is possibly due to the gradual decline of trade following the fall of the Roman Empire or something else entirely.
Probably the earlier banks of that period mainly focus on exchanging currencies and storing money for people who have cash surplus, there was no interest for a deposit but storage charges and commissions. However for both the needs of loans and the forbiddenness of usury to Muslims and Christians (I am not sure whether Christans were forbidden to usury, different sourcies give different opinions), banking were undertaken mostly by Jews. From Princes to populace used banking for emergency needs of cash (such as buiding palace or castles, weddings, funerals), and lots of them went broke because of the high rate interest.
No Gen, I don't think Charlemagne did. He merely took advantage of the economic decline in trade and as Pirenne put it the "economy of no outlets" to secure allegiance and loyalty.
I also agree with Gen and Tiff. But I think, like Gen asked, that land would of been just as valuable whether or not the economy of trade was in a decline or not, because land was still need to produce the raw materials and food to maintain and feed the city states. Therefore whether Charlemagne offered land, money or goods, he still would of gained support because he would be offering them things that they otherwise would not of had.
But more importantly I think needs to remembered is that Land gave people power, even before federalism and Charlemagne's rise. This is because Land means more resources and control.
do you agree?
yeah i agree :)
Do you reckon he would have been able to make vassals through goods and money? It probably wouldnt have been as successful anyway, because you can move around with goods/ money, but are held in one place with land... and as you were saying Deniz, land gave people power - and the power the nobles gained, also gave Charlemagne power.
I read in this week's reading that "it was possible to draw a cheque in Baghdad and cash it in Morroco". What was the form of communication to link such distant banks?
I'm really late in commenting but I just finished up the reading and I had to complain about Pirenne's theory somewhere! It's pretty much just based on a bunch of assumptions, right? He doesn't really bother to find any basis for his argument but just twists his argument to suit the events of the time. I don't think you can put down the deterioration of trade to simply the Muslim invasions. Historical trends of that size can't just be caused by one event. I think Davis' argument is much stronger because he takes a variety of factors into account.
Post a Comment