Talk:Late Middle Ages

GA failed

It doesn't follow criterion about Lead and References. Lincher 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The late middle ages were thought to be one of the worst times in history for many died and all suffered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.248.90 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Timeline for users ignorant of history

This is probably a stupid question, but could articles dealing with broad Western chronologies like this one incorporate some kind of overarching timeline template to contextualize epochs like "late middle," "early modern," "renaissance," "classical," relative to each other? I realize these terms aren't precise or rigorous, but they could still be depicted on a chart that would really help out users like me. :-)

I'd be happy to make and post this template if someone could wiki me up with the relevant periods, terminology, and dates. Cyrusc 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know i am 13 years late but it would go something like this. Classical would be c.800BC-500AD (made up of Early Rome 800-500BC, Roman Republic 500-30BC and Roman Empire 30BC-500). Medieval would be 500-1500 made up of (early 500-950, high 950-1300 and late 1300-1500). Modern would be 1500 onwards with “early modern” being up to 1800 and the last two centuries being “late modern” where we are now ZillennialMedievalist (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Failed

Basically, the article shows good attempts at research, but the research is poorly directed, because not enough time was spent with first reading up on the subject, in order to have a good idea of what was important to the era. I'd suggest, before continuing, to simply sit down and read three or four books on the subject, without thinking about the article. This will help give you an idea of the shape of the era, letting the important parts be identified.

Overviews are the hardest type of article to write. Because not enough time was spent in planning, this article is disorganised, jumping around between time periods without good reason. A chronological approach would assist in fixing this. This article gives short space to defining events like the Hundred Years War, the growth of artillery (still mainly archery throughout this time period - gunpowder had begun to be use, but wouldn't come into its own until a bit later). The development of armour, and so on. Huge space is given to Martin Luther, who is not in this period, whereas Gutenberg gets one sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, needless to say I disagree with your assessment, or I wouldn't have nominated the article. More to the point, I'm not sure if you have quite understood how the reviewing process works. Articles should only be quick-failed if they don't fulfil certain criteria, such as a complete lack of sources, which is clearly not the case with this one. As the rules have not been followed here, I feel the need for a second opinion. In cases like this, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment recommends simply relisting the article, rather than putting it through a reassessment, so that is what I'll do. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a better way of dealing with this situation than simply relisting the article at WP:GAN. If you believe the article has been incorrectly failed, you can take it to WP:GAR, this circumvents the long back log at GAN. Nev1 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not happy to have to go through with another waiting period, but the WP:GAR page says: "If the article was quick-failed, and you disagree with the reasoning, leave a comment on the article talk page and renominate the article. It is rarely helpful to bring quick-fails to Good article reassessment, since they have not had a full review." I just thought I'd be a good boy and follow this recommendation. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think it was inappropriate for the reviewer to say the writer needed read three or four books more books on the subject. The article cites over twenty! How are three or four more going to help? However, why does this article mention Luther at all, when he did his stuff after 1500? You do acknowledge that it is outside the era, but if it is, why bother with it? With summary articles like this, you just can't afford to waste space. Wrad (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I struggled a bit with that one. I could of course have operated with a watertight 1500 cutoff-line. But in the end I decided that an article about the end of the Middle Ages ought to discuss the end of one of that era's main characteristics - namely the unity of the western church. I am still open to discussion on this though. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the stricter version. You can still cover reform while keeping within the period. You can confine your discussion of Luther to just saying that Wycliff and Tyndale influenced him in later years rather than giving him his own section. Wrad (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what I might do is remove the sub-headings, and divide the "Religion" section simply into a "Great Schism"-part and a "Reform movements"-part. This, I believe, would improve the esthetics, and at the same time I might tone down the emphasis on Luther. Thanks for your input! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to fix up the lead of this article? It mentions all the crises of the era, however they are not elaborated again in the article. Although there is a separate article on them they are important if you want this article to provide an overall summary of the era. The article on the crises, Crisis of the Late Middle Ages, isn't very good - perhaps you could merge that article as an additional section in this one (either the whole thing or just a summary). However, I do feel that just a mention of these crises doesn't give them their due weight. Thanks. --Cazo3788 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Late Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to look over this article this afternoon. Charles Edward 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. In opening summary you state the two periods that preceed the late middle ages, you could add the period the followed the late middle ages also.
2. Combined with this influx of classical ideas was the invention of printing which facilitated, change "printing" to "printing press" (or whatever you think appropriate) to clarify.
3. With the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantine Empire was permanently extinguished, this is not quite accurate - the "empire" continued on for still some time with enclaves in greece and the balkans. That should be clarified.
4. It also should be noted that the Ottoman Empire reached it's peak power and influence during this age.
5. Cities were of course also decimated by the Black Death, but the urban areas' role as centres of learning, commerce and government ensured continued growth. - remove "of course"
6. Also the state was guilty of discrimination against the Jews, as monarchs gave in to the demands of the people, the Jews were expelled from England in 1290, from France in 1306, from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497. Break this up into a couple sentences to read better.
7. Through battles such as Courtrai (1302), Bannockburn (1314), and Morgarten (1315), it became clear to the great territorial princes of Europe that the military advantage of the feudal cavalry was lost, and that a well equipped infantry was preferable. Are these the best examples? Battle of Crecy and Battle of Poitiers (1356) would probably be the best example of all - staggering defeats that were felt for decades, all due to heavy reliance on calvary.
8. Parallel to the military developments emerged also a constantly more elaborate chivalric code of conduct for the warrior class. - this sentence should be reworded to be made more clear.
9. The military development makes no mention of the Hapsburgs response to Ottoman invasion, or the Ottoman invasion itself which was a major dynamic the age - The ninth crusade occurred around the beginning of the late middle ages. This should also be noted for context.
10. Though the Catholic Church had long fought against heretic movements, in the Late Middle Ages,, change "heritic" to "hertical". Also give an example, like the Cathers.
11. There is no mention of the Inquisition, that should be noted.
12. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, a process took place – primarily in Italy but partly also in the Empire – that historians have termed a 'commercial revolution' - which empire, Holy Roman i would assume but it is not clear?
13. In the religion section more might be said to explain the pope's return to temporal power. After returning from France the pope was relatively powerless in international terms, once returning to autonomy in Rome they regained significant international power during the 15th century as would later be made manifest in the War of the League of Cambrai which occured at the end of the late middle ages.
14. In the sources section you should standardize all the book refs into one format. - the first three are different
15. Koenigsberger is listed several times in the footnotes but I don't see that book listed in the sources
16. The external links should be retitled to reflect the title of their pages.
17. Ref 127, Condemnation of 1277 (2003). Retrieved on 2008-04-21., needs publisher and\or author info
18. Several books that are listed in the sources are not used in the footnotes, like Smith and Jacob. The should be separated into a "further reading" section or removed or cited in the article.
19. There is also a minor MOS issue. Only the first occurance of a word or term should be wiki linked in the body of the article. Some terms are linked at more than one occurance like Ottoman Empire and Paris. That should be corrected.
20. The biggest issue I find overall is the themes. The late middle ages should follow several different themes that need to be brought out fairly clearly. You paint a very good broad picture but it might be good give a little more detail on the the central themes of the time. They are: 1) The brief regain in papal temporal power and the widespread corruption that sets in the 15th century, and its leadup to the reformation. 2) the end of the Hundred Years War and what it means to western Europe - future hegemony of France 3) The consolidation of Spain into one kingdom and it's Hegemony it western Europe during the 14 and 15 century, 4)Linked with 3, the Hapsburg Rise to power and consolidation of much of Europe and how it comes to form a bulwark against - 5) The Ottoman invasion. Although Ottomans are generally considered a middleastern type history in this period of time and the 16th century they are very much a european force. 6)lastly the them to note is it is the start of golden age of England in the 15th century, the discovery of the americas by Spain - setting the stage for the colonial era. - It would be good for the article to weave these themes in with more detail.

I don't think any of these things will be too hard to address. The article is well written and marvelously referenced. If you address these issues the GA review should pass. This is a great article with a large scope. Good job so far! Charles Edward 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thorough review. I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll try to get to it within a week. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It is well written:

N(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

N(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Y2.

(a} It is factually accurate and verifiable: it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

(c) it contains no original research.

Y3. It is broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Y4. It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Y5. It is stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Y6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

N Overall.

I am failing this article primarily because of the prose issues. 10 days have passed without any improvement. Address the prose issues and the article will be ready for GA, additionally address the minor issues with the references. To be ready for FA you will need to do more to incorporate the central themes I outlined above. Good job so far! Resubmit when the issues are cleared up. Charles Edward 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Louis role.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Louis role.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Late Middle Ages: European or Global Time Period?

It seems this article is trying to describe non-European regions yet still remains Eurocentric. While it's good to avoid focusing on Western civilization in our history articles, I feel as though this particular article's subject (the Late Middle Ages) is really more a European subject. To put it bluntly, the Middle Ages and its sub-division are time periods in Europe and describing other regions beyond their relationship to Europe seems kind of irrelevant. It's noticeable that the Middle Ages, Early Middle Ages, and High Middle Ages articles do not expand beyond the Middle Eastern developments and at least one doesn't even really go that far. I suggest we merge the non-European information with their respective regions' history or a more global time period equivalent (i.e. the Postclassical Era). Any opinions? InvaderCito (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Following the standard view, the Middle Ages are defined as the period between antiquity and the (early) modern age in Europe. I thus removed the non-European regions to bring the article in line with those you listed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

For anyone watching this article, the Timeline section is broken. As I'm not familiar with how timeline syntax works I'll leave a comment here. (but if I don't get a response in a couple of days I might take a crack at it!) Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dating of the middle ages

Hey quick question. I noticed this article dates the late middle ages as dating from circa 1250-1500. Just from my observation, most books and sources i have seen date the late middle ages as starting from circa 1300, around the time the Templar Order was disbanded, the the Avignon Schism and the 1315 famine that officially started the “Crisis of the 14th century”. Do you think it would make sense to change the definition to circa 1300-1500 instead of 1250-1500 and if no what historical epoch should justify the approximate date remaining at 1250? Many thanks ZillennialMedievalist (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think no change should be made, as you also speak about circa, so we may only add "cca." before the current starting date if necessaey.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

What do the rest of you think of this topic in 2021? To my mind, regardless of whether we use 1250, 1300 or even 1350, they are all estimations, so the best would be to give the rough date which is as close to a significant historical epoch that marks the "transition to a new age". To me, I propose changing the definition to "circa 1300-1500" due to the fact that most of the historical epochs use to mark the start of the Late middle ages happened around that time: such as the Siege of Acre (1291), the start of the medieval warm period (c. 1300), the burning of the templars (1314), the great famine (1315-17) and the Avignon Schism (1309). Do let me know! ZillennialMedievalist (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the Black Death is one of the sharpest caesurae in European history, and therefore I believe it makes more sense to date the late medieval period only from c. 1250 to 1350, especially in Southern Europe, and the Renaissance from 1350 to 1600 (or even only to 1540), being neither medieval nor modern. It's always been strange to assign the late 15th century to the medieval period.

Alternatively, one could retain the dating from 1250 or 1300 to 1450 or 1500, with the introduction of the printing press, or the European discovery of the Americas, as the greatest caesura (personally, I tend towards 1250–1450, which is more traditional in the German-speaking scholarly community: in the mid-15th century, the Renaissance hadn't reached Central Europe yet, according to the traditional view anyway, but Gutenberg's extremely significant contribution still heralds the beginning of a new era), but eliminate the Renaissance as a historical period altogether and view it as an intellectual movement largely separate from historical periods, covering a timespan between the 13th or 14th and the 16th or 17th centuries, and have the early modern period start sometime between 1450 and 1500. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"It's always been strange to assign the late 15th century to the medieval period." Partially true. Some events considered as marking the end of this era occur relatively early, while other take place later in the century. The Fall of Constantinople and the end of the Hundred Years' War both took place in 1453. The Battle of Bosworth Field took place in 1485, marking the end of the era for the Kingdom of England. The Granada War ended in 1492, marking the end of the era for Spain. The Voyages of Christopher Columbus begin in 1492, considered the start for the European colonization of the Americas. Dimadick (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the point you're trying to make here. I'm just saying that the late 15th century is in many ways highly atypical of the medieval period – the Printing Revolution being only the most obvious and celebrated aspect of this atypicality. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)