- check that your browser has third party cookies enabled. You can get instructions on how to do this for your operating system by googling "enable third part cookies" plus "Windows XP", "Mac" or whatever you're using.
Don't forget that the in-class test is happening on Monday in the
second lecture hour. It's in multiple choice format and tests the
lecture and tutorial material from weeks 1 - 3. Good luck!
The reading for this week forms the basis of the Historical Argument
Exercise due at the end of week 5, so any thought you can put to it now
and develop further in the tute will help your preparation. Davis
emphasises that though Pirenne's views have not been generally accepted,
it is important to understand what they were.
 |
| The tribute of Harun al-Rashid to Charlemagne |
For blog comments : What in Davis' view are the most important elements of Pirenne's position?
It would seem that - though highly critical of Pirenne's "gross exaggeration" in regards to the "sudden cessation of commerce in the Latin West" - Davis believes that Pirenne's position allowed the significant decrease in commercial activity to become highlighted to historians, and thus researched in more depth in an attempt to provide an (alternate) explanation. Davis argues that not only was commercial trading at an all time low since the fall of the Roman Empire, but that money had become completely useless, and land was the only source of wealth.
ReplyDeleteDavis is highly contentious in regards to several of Pirenne's arguments, such as the "economy of no outlets" being absolute (when, as Davis argues, there is evidence that though highly limited, trade and commerce did have some outlets, often that of a local outlet), as well as Pirenne's argument that it was the Muslin invasions and piracy in the Mediterranean that halted commerce in regards to the Latin West in the Mediterranean. Davis argues that it was more or less "exactly the right date for his theory" more than anything that led Pirenne to this conclusion.
Davis’ feels as if most of Pirenne’s position while intriguing and plausible is not backed by solid evidence. However Davis does agree with Pirenne on a few important elements. Firstly Pirenne stresses that the reason trade diminished was because Western Europe lost outlets, there were no markets to go to, nowhere to trade goods, thus a more localized self-serving way of life. Davis definitely agrees with Pirenne on this point there were no outlets which is a key factor in the decline in Western trade. Pirenne really feels as if Islamic influence shifting into North Africa ruined the Western European economy. While Davis agrees that Tunisia was the most important place Islam took over and that control did impact the West, he does not agree entirely that Islam and the Byzantine Empire solely ruined the West. Davis argument against Pirenne is, The Byzantine Empire was prospering too much to be concerned with the West with a population of 700,000 people in Constantinople alone. Davis then concludes there must be other factors besides Islamic prosperity that led to the massive decline in trade in the West.
ReplyDeleteDavis points out quite clearly that although Pirenne’s views have not generally been accepted by the historical community as they are sometimes based on no evidence; such as trade stopping in the Mediterranean due to reasons such as pirates, it is still important to research and comprehend his views on the downfall of economy in the Latin West. Davis agrees that much of the economy was indeed based on the economic situation of the ancient world as well as the importance the Mediterranean had on the situation of trade. However, Davis does not agree with Pirenne’s view of an ‘economy of no outlets’ as there were often local outlets, or that one key event led to the sudden collapse in trade throughout the Mediterranean.
ReplyDeleteEven though Davis largely disagreed with Pirenne's 'seductive' and 'gross exaggeration' view of a sudden halt of economy in the West, he still believes Pirenne's work is important in better understanding the economy in those times. Davis believes Pirenne's thesis is useful because it greatly emphasises the decline of commercial trading and economy in the West during the eight and ninth centuries.
ReplyDeleteDavis also agrees with Pirenne's overview that the economy in that ancient part of the world heavily depended on the existence of commercial navigation in the Mediterranean. Trading between the East and West relied on safe passages and successful transitions. If that was to stop, then an 'economy of no outlets' would occur (which Davis doesn't agree on) where an eventual commercial decline would happen.
Pirenne believed that Muslin invasions played a significant role in the decline of commercial navigation in the Mediterranean (particularly the conquest of Tunisia and it's ports) because it caused a rise to Muslin pirates, which could be blamed for much of the disruptions of Mediterranean trading. Even though Davis believes this is not the main reason, he surely praises Pirrene for suggesting this hypothesis because of the coincident right timing of it all.
Davis mention's Pirenne's idea of "an economy of no outlets" as an important element, although he largely disagrees with Pirenne's views. Davis suggests that although Pirenne's idea of a sudden cessation of trade and commerce in the Latin West was a "gross exaggeration", it was useful in comparing the lack of trade in the eighth and ninth centuries compared to those before and after. Davis himself suggests a slower decrease in trade.
ReplyDeleteDavis disregards Pirenne's suggested reasons behind the lack of trade as being due to the Islamic prosperity of the time and subsequently muslim pirates, as there is a lack of evidence and it was simply the right date for his theory. However he does give Pirenne credit for showing that the Muslim invasions, conquering Palestine, Syria, Egypt Tunsia and Spain where a major political event which occurred during the end of commerce in the Latin West.
Davis also focuses much more on Viking invasions as a factor in the lives of Medieval Europeans. As Davis noted, the safest towns were not those that had access to sea trade routes or were significant centers of commerce; rather, the safest towns were those that were either protected by a large fortress or inaccessibility from the land (Pavia and Amalfi, respectively, are the towns Davis notes), or were secure simply because they were far from the coast.
DeleteWhat in Davis' view are the most important
ReplyDeleteelements of Pirenne's position?
It seems to me that, as the others have pointed out, Davis values
Pirenne’s main theories, despite their flaws, as conduits to a broad
discussion on the reasons for the commercial regression of the Latin
West. Early in the chapter Davis states that although ‘his [Pirenne’s]
views have not been generally accepted…it is important to understand
what they were’. Davis dedicates the next part of the chapter to
ensuring that the reader does just that; and the aspects of Pirenne’s
position on which he focuses concern the part which ease of trade in
the Mediterranean played in subduing commercial activity in the West.
Namely, the elements of Pirenne’s position on which Davis spends most
time are the ways in which he has used consequential evidence and
logic to form his argument. Davis targets the way in which Pirenne
reasons that the rise of the Islam Empire must have caused the
‘economy of outlets’ merely because evidence suggested the two events
occurred around the same time. In exploring this assumption, Davis
shows that he considers it important. Also, at another point he
remarks that Pirenne’s notion of the ‘sudden cessation of commerce in
the Latin West’, though wrong, was ‘useful because it focussed
attention on the fact that the known commercial dealings of the eight
and ninth centuries were pitifully small’. So Davis seems to value
Pirenne’s position on the causes and suddenness of the ‘economy of no
outlets’ as a means to exploring the issue himself.
Davis poses a number a objections to Pirenne's theory on the economical decline of the Latin West. Whilst Pirenne jumps to the conclusion that Muslim pirates were a key trigger to the failure of trade in the Latin West because of their rampages through Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia and Spain, Davis asserts that there is actually no evidence directly linking the failure of the the Latin West economy to the Muslims. However, Davis does state that the invasions by the Muslims led to a failure in communication between communities thus causing a dint in European trade.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Pirenne asserts that trade diminished and ended entirely by the end of the ninth century, yet Davis states that recent studies have found that in fact trade and exploration did not cease altogether in the Mediterranean.
Whilst Davis and Pirenne have conflicting views on the decline of the early Medieval economy, Davis believes that although Pirenne's historiography is a "gross exaggeration", it does help to thoroughly underline that the economy and prospect of trade was seriously under threat and faltering before the European's very eyes.
Pirenne’s thesis states that the primary reason for the decline of Western Europe’s economy in the 8th and 9th centuries were attacks on traders in the Mediterranean Sea by Muslim pirates, which subsequently led to a lack of trade across the sea and, eventually, an “economy of no outlets.” Davis, however, argues that this is not the case, instead suggesting that trade across the Mediterranean had declined gradually over 3-4 centuries, thereby eliminating the Muslim invaders as the cause. He also refutes the notion that Western Europe was necessarily an economy of no outlets, instead arguing that, although there were few outlets, there still remained a market for local trade.
ReplyDeleteDespite these objections to Pirenne’s thesis, Davis concedes that the work was crucial in developing an understanding of Western Europe’s economy at the time. Although Pirenne greatly exaggerated his views, he was able to draw attention to the fact that, when compared to other centuries, the amount of trade taking place was “pitifully small”, thus allowing stronger theories to develop that could explain the economic decline.
What in Davis' view are the most important elements of Pirenne's position?
ReplyDeleteDavis views Pirennes' judgement on the 'sudden cessation' of trade and commerce in the ninth century as a 'gross exaggeration'. He claims that although Pirenne viewed the eighth and ninth centuries as an 'economy of no outlets' it was not in the strictest sense one, rather a few outlets may have remained. Davis highlights that markets were more likely only used for local trade, and long-range commerce was not likely to revive until political stability had returned to the Latin West.
Davis claims Pirennes theory can be disputed on several claims, including the fact that not all Mediterranean goods had disappeared from the Frankish Kingdom before the last quarter of the 8th century. He shows that Papyrus continued to be used by the papacy until the 11th century and that the continual changing of coins (from Silver to Gold) was due more to the value of silver and gold at those times, rather than highlighting an economic disaster.
Davis also disputes Pirenne's claim that it was Muslim pirates who completed a sudden discontinuation of trade. He highlights that Vikings took to piracy at the end of the 9th century pointing out there must have been trade for this to occur. Davis shows that it was rather from continued invasions from Hungarians, Vikings and Muslim Pirates that the west had to do without the luxuries enjoyed from the east. Finally he points out that known commercial dealings were 'pitifully small' rather than non-existent in the 8th and 9th centuries.
What jumped out at me - besides the fact the Davis agreed with the Pirenne's general claim though disagrees on several of his conclusions, which has already been well documented in the other posts - is that Medieval Europeans did truly live off the land, the reason of course being the very low volume of trade with the East.
ReplyDeleteDavis does a good job of expressing this because he provides evidence, something Pirenne failed to consistently do. Davis noted the example of a moneyer in 768 who bought land that was worth a large amount of money, but since he had no use for the money he instead accepted a horse. Although many of us would ask "Why would he ever do that? Give me the money!", when we look through the eyes of a Medieval European, we see a completely different idea of value. Our emphasis would not be that we need money to put food on the table. Instead, we would look at the horse and say, "this is how I will put food on the table". As Davis noted, trading with the East had declined sharply, so money lost its value. On the other a hand, a horse would provide the means to work the land and make the land fruitful, and in Medieval Europe the greatest asset one could have was productive land.
Davis seems to believe that Pirenne had many flaws with his theories of why the economy in Western Europe declined after the Roman Empire, but he also saw that there were many important elements discussed by Pirenne. A major point he saw as a cause of the decline in the economy was the raiders from the north.
ReplyDeleteWhilst Western Europe is reconstructing itself from the collapse of the Roman Empire, and from the waves of barbarian invasions, the “barbarians” of the north have maintained themselves and their economies throughout. This has caused an increase in the power of groups like the Vikings and the Hungarian horsemen. The Vikings in particular had strong seafaring prowess, and this was in direct contrast to the abilities of Western Europeans who had no large skills with boats at this time. So using their superior skills they launched countless raids upon Western Europe, causing them to lose much of their wealth and goods.
This invasion of barbarians is oddly reminiscent of the earlier barbarian invasions at the fall of the Roman Empire, and is ironic that the “past” barbarians are now being invaded themselves.
What in Davis' view are the most important elements of Pirenne's position?
ReplyDeleteIMO Davis suggests that Pirenne has come close to deciphering why trade ceased in the Latin West. However the often too simplistic, abrupt and unsubstantiated views of Pirenne either do not go far enough for Davis or do not have the factual support to carry the argument. Pirenne pins his own thesis on the effects of muslim expansion especially the subjugation of Tunisia as a base for piracy. It is Pirennes suggestion that this piracy led to the sudden end of western trade which Davis refutes.