Framing the Early Middle Ages
por Chris Wickham
The Roman empire tends to be seen as a whole whereas the early middle ages tends to be seen as a collection of regional histories, roughly corresponding to the land-areas of modern nation states. As a result, early medieval history …
- ● 91% match for you
- ● history
the long version
The Roman empire tends to be seen as a whole whereas the early middle ages tends to be seen as a collection of regional histories, roughly corresponding to the land-areas of modern nation states. As a result, early medieval history is much more fragmented. In recent decades, the rise of early medieval archaeology has also transformed our source-base, but this has not been adequately integrated into analyses of documentary history in almost any country. This book integrates documentary and archaeological evidence together, and provides a history of the period 400—800, by means of systematic comparative analyses of each of the regions of the latest Roman and immediately post-Roman world, from Denmark to Egypt (only the Slav areas are left out). The book concentrates on classic socio-economic themes, state finance, the wealth and identity of the aristocracy, estate management, peasant society, rural settlement, cities, and exchange. These are only a partial picture of the period, but they are intended as a framing for other developments, without which those other developments cannot be properly understood. The book argues that only a complex comparative analysis can act as the basis for a wider synthesis. The book takes all different developments as typical, and constructs a synthesis based on a better understanding of difference and the reasons for it.
Margaret's verdict
"The Roman empire tends to be seen as a whole whereas the early middle ages tends to be seen as a collection of regional histories, roughly corresponding to the land-areas …"
highlights
what readers held onto
No highlights yet. Be the first.
discussion
what readers said
No reviews yet. Finish it; tell us what you found.