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) |
6 comments:
Well reading the work of Davis, his criticisms of Pirenne seem fair. Not having read Pirenne’s own work and arguments, it is tempting to conclude that these criticisms must be true. However, I suppose for the purpose of the assignment that's not really the point.
I think the language and structure are more essential to the development of Davis’ argument. The three main arguments Davis mainly attack the evidence Pirenne uses to construct his conclusions as well as opposing several smaller logistical points he feels Pirenne has made in error. Overall, I feel Davis’s main contention is that Pirenne made a questionable and simple conclusion by stating that the contraction of the economy and trade was directly and wholly the result of the Muslim invasions.
Which of Davis' objections did you find most compelling, Stephanie?
I found Pirenne's arguments really interesting and they seem to draw a number of relevant conclusions that explain the economy, or meltdown of the economy, quite well by attributing it to a number of factors. However, I also feel that Davis' arguments are also reasonable considering that he is able to consider a number of extraneous factors that could have contributed to the breakdown, factors that Pirenne doesn't consider. I found the point Pirenne makes about the importance of the Mediterranean on the trade of the Latin West really quite remarkable, especially the connection he makes between the dates of the Muslim invasions. Although this is quite narrow minded which is why Davis’ argument, that Pirenne relied simply on probability, is very justifiable. I also enjoyed the statement made by Davis that the Baltic Sea was just as important as the Mediterranean because it wasn’t the only major sea in use for trade. I never really knew the benefits of the Baltic to traders at the time as most writings are about the Mediterranean. In addition, evidence does show that the Baltic Sea was active, through underwater treasures from that era, as stated by Davis.
Before reading Davis' objections to Pirenne, I found Pirenne's arguments really interesting and they struck me as fairly logical conclusions to draw. However I think in Pirenne's case he was seeking evidence to suit his theory and ignoring that which contradicted his view.
I liked Davis comment about how "seductive" Pirenne's theory is, as I found myself not questioning it and its simplicity. I think Davis' ability to point out some of the flaws in Pirenne's logic is a good indiction (as Trishna pointed out) of Davis' argument that the evidence supporting Pirenne's theory relied simply on probability.
As a side note: I actually really enjoyed the little bit about the Libra, Solidi and Denarii, as the basis of where the Pound, Shilling and Pence come from.
Reading about Pirennes arguments, his theory that the economy of the 'Latin West' was mainly brought down by the muslim invasions. He tells us that this is true and then lists the things that stopped flowing from the east to the west. Items that had to be replaced. Gold, olive oil, oriental silk, papyrus, and spices. He uses these as examples of the drying up of trade. However, these examples are very general and kind of vague.
So when Davis uses more specific examples concerning this issue, demonstrating that perhaps the presence of muslim 'pirates' in the mediterranean didnt bring such a sudden and complete end to the economy of the west as Pirenne believes. Because Davis is less general, his arguments come across as more reasonable, and are supported by more specific evidence.
In Pirenne's readings, I found his idea of "economy with no outlets" interesting. That a decline in commerce would lead to an eventual decline in population and a bottling up of agricultural wealth, and although Davis states that it was not as complete as Pirenne thought, it is nonetheless interesting. It is interesting that to him, trade on the Mediterranean was a large lynchpin in the collapse of Latin West economy.
Davis' arguments against this are also significant, because due the lack of major evidence at the time, there could be unknown extraneous variables that heavily influenced the decline of the economy.
Post a Comment