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&#39;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, 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)

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)