Comments on: Medieval Technology and Social Change

By: Sheri D. Dee Ward

Sheri D. Dee Ward — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:12:37 +0000

I had to read this book for a class titled, “The Historian’s Craft.” Although Lynn White Jr’s book contained many foreign languages (all translated in footnotes and endnotes), and refered to many historical events (events that could easily be looked up in a history book), I thought it was put together quite well. I had to give a fifteen minute presentation on Lynn White Jr. and this book, which I stretched into thirty minutes because there was so much to talk about. Great book!

By: des

des — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:02:56 +0000

If I, with hindsight, was to start studying this subject, this would be the first book I would read. In 1962 this book brought the historical concept of a culturally bereft yet technologically vigorous age to the public attention. Effectively illuminating the percieved “dark ages”. White’s views on mounted warfare/feudal society are the first major revision of Brunner’s “Charles Martel” interpretations of the 19th century and were accepted wisdom until the 90’s. Much the same can be said for the sections on agriculture and power technology. Beware however, reading this book alone could give a greatly slanted view of this subject, White makes sweeping connections between technology and it’s effects on society, many of which are no longer held in favour by today’s achedemic elite, this however makes for better reading. Aside from this, the book is lightly enough written for the layman and gives a firm founding in the primary issues involved in the subject, if one wishs to know more the notes are very extensive (roughly half the text.) This is an easy way into a generally dry and technical subject, which also happens to be a classic in its field.

By: Jukka Kemppinen

Jukka Kemppinen — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:44:16 +0000

Halsall gets it wrong. The great controversy is still going on about feudalism as a system arising from a technological innovation, the stirrup.

White’s details about the stirrup and change of warfare are partly insufficient and conclusions partly dubious. – But this is exactly, why we read history. The causes of events tend to be very complicated. Luckily there is Trivial Pursuit and other parlour games for people, who prefer “facts”.

This book is seminal.

By: Caraculiambro

Caraculiambro — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:23:14 +0000

Well, the title is certainly not misleading. The book talks about various innovations during the Middle Ages (e.g., in agriculture, commerce, the military) and discusses their effect on the societies and economies of medieval Europe.

The material is fascinating, but it's also densely written and slow-going. Sometimes more than half of the page is taken up by footnotes.

This book is not exactly geared for the teeming masses. On the other hand, it's too broad-based and brief to be much of a scholarly work.

In fact, I'm not sure who this was written for. Its brevity suggests it was written for a popular audience, but all the footnotes suggest it was written for scholarly consumption. The problem as I see it is that scholars are going to require a good deal more depth, while the teeming masses aren't anywhere close to caring about such obtrusive notations as: 4. Cf. J. Baltrusaitis, Le Moyen Age fantasqiue: antiquites et exotismes dans l'art gothique (Paris, 1955), 247 and 7. MS. B 33r, ed. C. Ravaisson-Mollien (Paris, 1883); cf. Reti, op.cit, 779-83. fig. 14.

And as for the text itself, here's a taste of what you're in store for:

"The earliest evidence of compound crank and connecting-rod in Italy is found in a manuscript of Mariano di Jacopo Taccola which is not earlier than 1441 nor later than 1458, but the sketch (Fig. 7) shows a defective understanding of the motion involved. However, a drawing in the Louvre by Pisanello, who died c. 1456 and who never travelled outside Italy, depicts lucidly a piston-pump powered by a water-wheel and operated by two simple cranks and two connecting-rods." (p. 113)

By: Paul Halsall

Paul Halsall — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:11:50 +0000

White’s “stirrup” thesis was shown to be incorrect by Bernard Bachrach over 30 years ago. It was an interesting hypothesis at the time, but now has become one of those ideas (such as medieval people thinking the world was flat) that half-educated school teachers tell students and that even gets into the less well-edited textbooks.

In other words, read this book if you are interested in the history of ideas, but not for conclusions any professional medieval specialist would accept.