When did the Middle Ages end in Europe?

[Antonio the Sixth]

We know historical periodization is inherently arbitrary, of course, and that eras don't actually "begin" and "end" but gradually phase into one another. Still, I think it's an interesting exercise to figure out what date makes the best symbolic cutoff point, in the sense that it marked an event that can legitimately be said to have upended the status quo.

In this spirit, I see three strongest candidates for the end of the Middle Ages in Europe. Specifically limiting this to Europe, because the events that mattered here are different from those that mattered in other parts of the world (and if we needed a global date, then 1492 would have to take the cake).

So we have:
- 1453: Fall of Constantinople + End of the Hundred Years' War + Gutenberg's Bible
- 1492: Beginning of Columbus' Travels + End of the Reconquista
- 1517: Beginning of the Protestant Reformation (+ close enough to the formation of Charles V's empire)

Personally, this is a case where I'd stick with the classics and go with 1453, partly because the Middle Ages are already so long that it really feels wrong to extend them even further, partly because the fall of the Byzantine Empire bookends the period really nicely (as well as having major repercussions for trade patterns and thus colonization), and partly because the printing press really was the driver for a lot of the stuff that followed. The end of the Hundred Years' War was hugely consequential for Western Europe (not only for the two belligerents but also for Ireland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, which were affected by those countries turning their attention elsewhere) but not so much beyond that. Still, I like that this date marks a big change from London to Constantinople.

1492 makes sense, but again, it feels more like a global event than a European one. Colonization of America would take decades before it had the massive impact that it would eventually have on European history. As for 1517, the Reformation was immensely important and probably the single biggest development of the period in Europe, but I prefer seeing it in continuity with the social changes that unfolded over the previous half-century.

Thoughts?

[brucejoel99]

Yeah, the end is certainly a bit vague but because the Middle Ages are said to have begun with the Vandals' sacking of Rome in 455, I like to personally define 'the end' of the Middle Ages as being when Mehmet II captured Constantinople, since that marked the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire; so, yeah, 1453.

In addition to being just shy of exactly 1,000 years, this dating also appeals to me because of how both events serve to mark very profound changes. 455 was the death knell of the Western Roman Empire, which had stumbled along & could've possibly been saved right up until that point; it marks the ascent of the Eastern Roman Empire, & 1453, the end date, marks said empire's death. Sure, the Byzantines had up's & down's across the thousand years in between (&, at times, they were de facto Ottoman vassals), but 1453 put an end to all that. In marking the death of the last vestiges of the Roman Empire, the Turks breaking through Constantinople's walls with cannons also marked an end to the supremacy of castles & conventional siege warfare, & marked the beginning of what would soon become widespread firearm usage in Europe.

IMO, the other possible end date that can be legitimately considered is the 1517 one re: Martin Luther (probably with his letter to the Archbishop), but that's a rather late date & is further complicated by the fact that it places the end of the Middle Ages long after Cosimo de' Medici (who was contemporaneous with Mehmet II) & even his grandson, Lorenzo de' Medici, would be dead long before that. 1517 would mean that the Middle Ages includes most of the lives of da Vinci & Machiavelli, which is just a little strange. By moving the date forward to 1453, you let these rather famous champions of the Italian Renaissance kick off their own particular period in history without stepping on the Middle Ages' toes too much.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

1945.

They began in AD 70, when Bible Times ended.

Before Bible Times you had Dinosaur Times. After the Middle Ages you had the Good Old Days.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

1850. Bite me.

[afleitch]

I'd say 1453 as it's a good bookend. But I think every country/area have differing 'exit' points. For Scotland it would be the defeat at Flodden and the death of James IV in 1513. James V who followed was a 'renaissance' monarch in ways his father was not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1850. Bite me.

I know Le Goff is a Big Name, and I get the point he's trying to make, but that's really too much of a stretch. If the same historical period includes the early barbarian Kingdoms as well as the hypersophisticated courts of 1700 and the political turmoil of 1800, it's really extended beyond utility. Even the idea that "feudalism" was the same thing in the 6th century than it was in the late Ancient Regime (let alone in the 30 years after the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies steamrolled over it) seems pretty silly to me. As for Christianity, it had radically reshaped itself over this period, and I'm pretty sure even the common believer from 500 would find much in common with that of 1800.

If anything, I'd be far more interested in a periodization that "breaks up" the Middle Ages into more coherent pieces of 2-3 centuries each (for example, the Dark Ages up to Charlemagne, the transition into strong feudalism up to the First Crusade, the Golden Age up until the Great Famine, and the Crisis up until 1453). This is how we usually periodize the modern era, so I think it's a lot more helpful in terms of understanding what happened in the Middle Ages. History might have been "slower" back then, but it wasn't that slow.

Tbh we have the same problem in our periodization of the Classical Era. The idea that we can say anything coherent in a time that spans between the outset of Greek city-states and the fall of Rome is pretty surreal. But at least it's kept at around 1000 years total, which should be the absolute maximum for a historical cycle.

[Skill and Chance]

I like 1453/Gutenberg as a "median" estimate, but I think there's also a strong case for 1492 and 1347, the latter the end of profitable feudalism in Western Europe due to massive swings in the bargaining power of labor vs. landlords following the Plague. 

[Orser67]

The end of the Middle Ages marks the start of "modernity". I'm not completely sold on the value of the idea of modernity, or that it truly started in the 15th/16th centuries. But I certainly think that 1492 would mark a better start date for modernity than 1453. The thing that stands about the 16th and 17th centuries versus earlier centuries was the degree to which the world became more interconnected as Europeans colonized the New World and established unprecedented sea routes in the Old World. 1517 also seems like a reasonable date given the huge importance than that the Reformation had, even in countries that remained predominantly Catholic.

By contrast, 1453 seems merely symbolic in that, while it represents the fall of the last vestige of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire had not been a major power for many years by that point.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If anything, I'd be far more interested in a periodization that "breaks up" the Middle Ages into more coherent pieces of 2-3 centuries each (for example, the Dark Ages up to Charlemagne, the transition into strong feudalism up to the First Crusade, the Golden Age up until the Great Famine, and the Crisis up until 1453). This is how we usually periodize the modern era, so I think it's a lot more helpful in terms of understanding what happened in the Middle Ages. History might have been "slower" back then, but it wasn't that slow.

I could get on board with that. Primarily, my objection is to including the period from 1453 to 1648 with the rest of the "Modern Age." Arguably a peasant farmer in 1600 had more in common with a nineteenth century tenant farmer than a ninth century serf; but I would submit as well that he had more in common with a thirteenth century serf than with the nineteenth century man. The same for the Protestant reformer and the Renaissance classicist and their various counterparts. Of course it's not original to suggest all periodization is inherently arbitrary, but given how reliant the major developments of this period were on their Medieval antecedents, I have a hard time driving my staff in the sand at 1453 and saying "yep, this is Modern now!"

Taking your suggestion of breaking up Western history into shorter periods, I suppose I would prefer something like this:


410–800     "Dark Ages"
800–1199     Medieval
1199–1517     High/Late Medieval
1517–1648     Post-medieval/Pre-modern
1648–1815     Early Modern

[Skill and Chance]

The end of the Middle Ages marks the start of "modernity". I'm not completely sold on the value of the idea of modernity, or that it truly started in the 15th/16th centuries. But I certainly think that 1492 would mark a better start date for modernity than 1453. The thing that stands about the 16th and 17th centuries versus earlier centuries was the degree to which the world became more interconnected as Europeans colonized the New World and established unprecedented sea routes in the Old World. 1517 also seems like a reasonable date given the huge importance than that the Reformation had, even in countries that remained predominantly Catholic.

By contrast, 1453 seems merely symbolic in that, while it represents the fall of the last vestige of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire had not been a major power for many years by that point.

I generally associate modernity with near universal literacy/public primary education.  By that definition, modernity probably began in late 17th century New England, far later than the end of the Middle Ages.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Periodisation is almost entirely arbitrary so nailing it down to a single year, who care. Depends on the history being written.

[Beet]

The Middle Ages ended during a competition for who could design the new north doors of the Florence Bapistery.

410-800 Dark Ages
800-1100 Medieval Europe
1100-1401 Middle Ages
1401-1494 Renaissance
1494-1687 Age of Exploration/Wars of Religion
1687-1789 Enlightenment

[buritobr]

I learned at the high school that the Middle Ages in Europe started in 476, when the western Roman Empire fell down, and ended in 1453, when the eastern Roman Empire fell down

[Beet]

1850. Bite me.

I know Le Goff is a Big Name, and I get the point he's trying to make, but that's really too much of a stretch. If the same historical period includes the early barbarian Kingdoms as well as the hypersophisticated courts of 1700 and the political turmoil of 1800, it's really extended beyond utility. Even the idea that "feudalism" was the same thing in the 6th century than it was in the late Ancient Regime (let alone in the 30 years after the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies steamrolled over it) seems pretty silly to me. As for Christianity, it had radically reshaped itself over this period, and I'm pretty sure even the common believer from 500 would find much in common with that of 1800.

If anything, I'd be far more interested in a periodization that "breaks up" the Middle Ages into more coherent pieces of 2-3 centuries each (for example, the Dark Ages up to Charlemagne, the transition into strong feudalism up to the First Crusade, the Golden Age up until the Great Famine, and the Crisis up until 1453). This is how we usually periodize the modern era, so I think it's a lot more helpful in terms of understanding what happened in the Middle Ages. History might have been "slower" back then, but it wasn't that slow.

Tbh we have the same problem in our periodization of the Classical Era. The idea that we can say anything coherent in a time that spans between the outset of Greek city-states and the fall of Rome is pretty surreal. But at least it's kept at around 1000 years total, which should be the absolute maximum for a historical cycle.

Yes but by your same argument, it's absurd to categorize the fall of Constantinople in the same "modern" era as the atom bomb. I mean, for the average person there was less change in life between 550 and 1450 than between 1450 and 1950.

If you were to look at the most fundamental distinctions between average life in the indisputably modern era and, say, the 13th century, the broadest possible measure, the things a time traveler would notice first and be most struck by, you would say the modern era has these things:

- light/power as a mass utility, & other utilities
- powered (vs animal) transportation, whether by land, air or sea
- instant long distance communication
- the production of images/screens

and to a lesser degree:
- artificial computing (although less noticeable in everyday life)

The average time traveler would not notice that Constantinople had fallen, certainly not before any of the things I mentioned, and certainly would not consider that fact to be more definitive of the differences between their time and ours.

These all point to the mid 19th century.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

I like the 1453 date, but through to the end of the 15th century there are still a lot of late medieval things hanging around like illuminated manuscripts and decentralized feudal monarchies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If anything, I'd be far more interested in a periodization that "breaks up" the Middle Ages into more coherent pieces of 2-3 centuries each (for example, the Dark Ages up to Charlemagne, the transition into strong feudalism up to the First Crusade, the Golden Age up until the Great Famine, and the Crisis up until 1453). This is how we usually periodize the modern era, so I think it's a lot more helpful in terms of understanding what happened in the Middle Ages. History might have been "slower" back then, but it wasn't that slow.

I could get on board with that. Primarily, my objection is to including the period from 1453 to 1648 with the rest of the "Modern Age." Arguably a peasant farmer in 1600 had more in common with a nineteenth century tenant farmer than a ninth century serf; but I would submit as well that he had more in common with a thirteenth century serf than with the nineteenth century man. The same for the Protestant reformer and the Renaissance classicist and their various counterparts. Of course it's not original to suggest all periodization is inherently arbitrary, but given how reliant the major developments of this period were on their Medieval antecedents, I have a hard time driving my staff in the sand at 1453 and saying "yep, this is Modern now!"

Well, if the idea of a unified "Middle Ages" is silly, then the idea of a unified "Modern era" is patently absurd, yeah. That's certainly not what I meant in arguing for 1453 as the endpoint of the Middle Ages. "Modernity", if this is even a meaningful notion, starts in 1789 at the earliest and possibly as late as 1848, yeah. Whatever happened in between needs a different name (and probably more than one).

410–800     "Dark Ages"
800–1199     Medieval
1199–1517     High/Late Medieval
1517–1648     Post-medieval/Pre-modern
1648–1815     Early Modern

I'm really surprised that you're skipping over 1315 (or possibly 1347 if you think plague rather than famine is what kickstarted the crisis).  The 14th century crisis was such a fundamental upheaval of the economic structure and social order of the time that I think if you want a date to end the Middle Ages that's far from the conventional dates, I'd argue for pushing it back in time to 1315/1347 rather than forward to the 1800s or whatnot. It's when feudalism began its death spiral and you saw the first real state-building efforts like the Hundred Years' War kick off, so arguably some of the trend that would eventually come to define "modernity" started there. Of course it's not "modernity" itself, but it's also something markedly different from what came before.

Also, why 1199? From what I can gather all the significant events of that year involved the usual squabbling between France and England. If you want a date to mark the beginning of the High Middle Ages, I'd go with 1095, since the Crusades were genuinely a big deal for European history and culture even if the ways in which they were is not always obvious. You could even push it a century or so earlier with the end of the last waves of invasions that allowed Europe to start stabilizing politically and militarily.

Yes but by your same argument, it's absurd to categorize the fall of Constantinople in the same "modern" era as the atom bomb. I mean, for the average person there was less change in life between 550 and 1450 than between 1450 and 1950.

If you were to look at the most fundamental distinctions between average life in the indisputably modern era and, say, the 13th century, the broadest possible measure, the things a time traveler would notice first and be most struck by, you would say the modern era has these things:

- light/power as a mass utility, & other utilities
- powered (vs animal) transportation, whether by land, air or sea
- instant long distance communication
- the production of images/screens

and to a lesser degree:
- artificial computing (although less noticeable in everyday life)

The average time traveler would not notice that Constantinople had fallen, certainly not before any of the things I mentioned, and certainly would not consider that fact to be more definitive of the differences between their time and ours.

These all point to the mid 19th century.

See my point above.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Well, if the idea of a unified "Middle Ages" is silly, then the idea of a unified "Modern era" is patently absurd, yeah. That's certainly not what I meant in arguing for 1453 as the endpoint of the Middle Ages. "Modernity", if this is even a meaningful notion, starts in 1789 at the earliest and possibly as late as 1848, yeah. Whatever happened in between needs a different name (and probably more than one).

Excellent, we agree.

I'm really surprised that you're skipping over 1315 (or possibly 1347 if you think plague rather than famine is what kickstarted the crisis).  The 14th century crisis was such a fundamental upheaval of the economic structure and social order of the time that I think if you want a date to end the Middle Ages that's far from the conventional dates, I'd argue for pushing it back in time to 1315/1347 rather than forward to the 1800s or whatnot. It's when feudalism began its death spiral and you saw the first real state-building efforts like the Hundred Years' War kick off, so arguably some of the trend that would eventually come to define "modernity" started there. Of course it's not "modernity" itself, but it's also something markedly different from what came before.

That's probably a better division, yes. Such also has the advantage of capping each period at around 150-300 years —far more manageable than a millennia-long "Middle Age."

Also, why 1199? From what I can gather all the significant events of that year involved the usual squabbling between France and England. If you want a date to mark the beginning of the High Middle Ages, I'd go with 1095, since the Crusades were genuinely a big deal for European history and culture even if the ways in which they were is not always obvious. You could even push it a century or so earlier with the end of the last waves of invasions that allowed Europe to start stabilizing politically and militarily.

It's simple: I was sloppy and mixed up the numbering of the centuries. I was thinking of the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099.

[Lechasseur]

From a French perspective, 1453 probably makes the most sense. But I remember being taught that 1492 was a valid alternative date as well.

In England though, the traditional end date of the Middle Ages is 1485 (end of the War of the Roses, fall of the Plantagenets, beginning of Tudor rule).

I had never thought of 1517 in the past, but come to think of it, it makes a lot of sense, especially for Germanic Europe.

But there isn't any one obvious end date for the end of the Middle Ages.

It seems to me that country specific answers are probably most pertinent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We can say that 1450 was clearly Mediaeval and 1550 was clearly not, but 1500? There is a substantial grey area, a period of quite a few decades in which one cannot say confidently say yes or no. In essence, just as the entrance into the Middle Ages was more gradual than often assumed (in part because of a historic tendency to confuse the, genuinely shockingly sudden, collapse of the Western Roman Empire with the emergence of the Middle Ages), so too was the conclusion of the period.

What I will say is that one cannot just look to political and religious history here, even if they are very important. There is also a need to consider developments in the economy, in warfare, in culture and the arts and wider society as well. Bosworth was clearly a battle of the Middle Ages, but Marignano was decidedly not. Or one could look at the Sistine Chapel: the early frescoes completed in the 1480s* retain more than just a hint of the old Gothic style, there is no trace of it, none, in Michelangelo's ceiling (1508-12) or his altar wall (1535-41).

_{*By Botticelli, Perugino, Pinturicchio, Ghirlandaio and Rosselli.}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd say 1453 as it's a good bookend. But I think every country/area have differing 'exit' points. For Scotland it would be the defeat at Flodden and the death of James IV in 1513. James V who followed was a 'renaissance' monarch in ways his father was not.

There's a strong case for arguing that Flodden was the last Mediaeval battle, decided by hand-fighting between massed units of infantry.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes but by your same argument, it's absurd to categorize the fall of Constantinople in the same "modern" era as the atom bomb. I mean, for the average person there was less change in life between 550 and 1450 than between 1450 and 1950.

A very, very dubious assertion, one that disqualifies you from being taken remotely seriously about the topic. Hollywood is really not a good source, you know.

[Beet]

Yes but by your same argument, it's absurd to categorize the fall of Constantinople in the same "modern" era as the atom bomb. I mean, for the average person there was less change in life between 550 and 1450 than between 1450 and 1950.

A very, very dubious assertion, one that disqualifies you from being taken remotely seriously about the topic. Hollywood is really not a good source, you know.

Your juvenile attitude (and that's all it really is) does not phase me in the least.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1850. Bite me.

Makes me wish I had that post handy where I referred to the concept of the Middle Ages as having been an Italian invention to cast aspersions on the "barbarians" (by which they basically meant every non-Italian that trampled across the former Roman Empire since the Western Empire fell).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

David Wooton's "The Invention of Science" puts a lot of importance on the changes to the European psyche from 1492 and other voyages: the idea there was an entire landmass that all the ancients had no idea about was earthshaking to a society that assumed basically everything had already been discovered in antiquity. The idea that the world was full of new discoveries (a concept that Portuguese didn't even have a real word for at the time of Columbus), that Europe could "progress" and gaze into the future rather than merely discuss and revere the past had profound implications in the development of modernity. After all, what is modernity if it isn't the ideology of "progress"?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

David Wooton's "The Invention of Science" puts a lot of importance on the changes to the European psyche from 1492 and other voyages: the idea there was an entire landmass that all the ancients had no idea about was earthshaking to a society that assumed basically everything had already been discovered in antiquity. The idea that the world was full of new discoveries (a concept that Portuguese didn't even have a real word for at the time of Columbus), that Europe could "progress" and gaze into the future rather than merely discuss and revere the past had profound implications in the development of modernity. After all, what is modernity if it isn't the ideology of "progress"?

This is a very attractive idea, a very logical idea and it really ought to be true. The problem is that the early Spanish explorers were not in the least bit interested in anything other than gold or commercially exchangeable alternatives. There is a remarkable little section in The Loss of El Dorado in which Naipaul points out how utterly bizarre it is that the first written descriptions of the great hosts of flying fish that used to populate the Eastern Caribbean came not from those early Spanish explorers, but from English adventurers some time later.