Talk:Early Middle Ages

“Fiddling” with the dates

I’ve altered the introductory summary’s “to the 10th century” to “through the 10th century.” If the High Medieval Period began in 1000, then the Early one ended in 999, or just a year short of “through the 10th century,” a much better term than the equivocal “to the 10th century.” Per my review of this Talk page, it doesn’t take up this specific matter.

Of course, these dates are necessarily imprecise anyhow, indeed as “from the late 5th or early 6th century” denotes. Likewise, the Middle Ages Wikipedia article’s “terminology and periodisation” section acknowledges “no universally agreed-upon end date.”

Main Map inaccuracy

The main map shows Principality of Serbia as Servia spanning over Bosnia yet not only is the Croatia Dutchy missing but Bosnia was in the Croatia Dutchy at this time. The map needs to be fixed. It doesn’t align with the established borders of Serbia and Croatia. OyMosby (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. There's an on-going discussion at the Talk:Serbia in the Middle Ages#Original research. The map used in the infobox (Europe_814.svg) has a completely erroneous border between early medieval Croatia and Serbia; Croatia wasn't located or reached so far north but rather stretched onto the whole western part of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbia wasn't completely located in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro; it doesn't include borders of medieval principalities of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunia, and Duklja. The borders in the Western Balkans should look more like this and this. As such the map's inclusion is contested until fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost all maps of the medieval Balkans are a collection of modern political projections onto the past.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I made an updated version, but the WC servers are still processing it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

This recently added section on the HRE is extremely POV-ish, not only does it disregards the fact that HRE grew in prominence in the High Middle Ages and not the Early Middle Ages with Otto I being crowned emperor in 962 (however, the term "HRE" was not used immediately at this time), and erroneously states that "Carolingian Emperor Charles the Fat provoked an uprising, led by his nephew Arnulf of Carinthia, which resulted in the division of the empire in 887 into the kingdoms of France, Germany, and (northern) Italy." The Carolingian Empire broke up in 843 with the Treaty of Verdun not in 887. Also, POV-ish terms like "German government" are used. Finally, an entire section was created for the HRE, while the more significant for this era Carolinian Empire only has a sub-section. And, most of all not a single reference source was used to back up any of the claims. --E-960 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mausoleum of Theoderic.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced caption on picture is offending Muslims

The illustration to the "Rise of Islam" sub-section is causing offence to Muslims, who object to pictorial representations of their Prophet. The picture was uploaded to Commons on 22 September 2006, since when there has been a petition (garnering 400,000 signatures I believe) against the way it is used on Wikipedia and four deletion discussions, the argument for deletion being "it is also fake because no one in any islamic history book tried to draw him because it was and still forbidden in any case good or bad." We can therefore say with confidence that this is not Muhammad - it is most likely to be a picture of Ali, as the Ahl al-Bayt are pictured closest to the preacher. The Ahl al-Bayt are especially revered by the Shia, and the picture is one of a series created as a propaganda exercise to please a Shiite ruler. 92.28.118.179 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Transmission of learning to "non-literate Barbarians"

I've added an tag to the following phrase in the "Transmission of Learning" subsection, asking for clarification on its meaning:

""Due to the demographic displacement that accompanied the end of the western Roman Empire, by this point most western Europeans were descendants of non-literate barbarians rather than literate Romans.""

Is this phrase claiming that during the Early Middle Ages, most Western Europeans were descended from Germanic peoples who had settled in the Roman Empire during the Migration Period (thereby displacing the Romanized population)? That's a very bold claim. The debate over the demographics of post-Roman Europe is one of the biggest difficulties among historians. The question of whether or not there was mass population displacement is controversial even regarding sub-Roman Britain, where it is most likely to have happened.

I would have re-written this passage myself but I couldn't access the original reference.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have found and consulted the book where this passage is supposed to come from - nowhere does it claim that literacy disappeared because barbarians displaced the Romanized population. After checking the edit history of this article, I also learned that this phrase was inserted months after the citation was inserted in the article by a different user. I am removing this passage.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say neither characterization is correct. Of course, there was significant population displacement, migration, and resulting warfare and upheaval in 3rd–6th century Europe, concerning what I understand to be a representative example: the traditional narrative that the Anglo-Saxons either slaughtered or wholly displaced the Celtic or Roman Briton populations of Britain now lacks any purchase whatsoever.

I would be pretty surprised if the medieval population of any region in Western Europe that had been integrated into the Roman Empire should not be said to descend from both Germanic and Roman populations. Remsense留 19:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. The book in the citations is different from the one in the bibliography, and both are very dated. As to England, Cantor's view has long been out of fashion. Historians generally deny that there was large-scale immigration, but the latest ancient DNA research shows that nearly half the population in Anglo-Saxon ruled areas were descended from German immigrants, a partial return to the older view. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the assumption that a high proportion of the population of the Roman Empire was literate, especially outside the great cities, is also dubious, surely? Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)