- 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?
Davis spends most of his discussion of Pirenne's thesis, Mahommed and Charlemagne, examining the concept of an economy of no outlets. He outlines the concept of a no outlet economy, I't's causes and effects on the creation of Feudalism. The Mediterranean Sea is central to the economy of western Europe and, more or less, the only way for goods to be transported elsewhere. Once this loses its viability as a trade route, whether through Pirates or other negative factors, trade stops and the isolated ports and towns which made use of Mediterranean trade become cut off. Davis contends that this loss of trade across western Europe is the primary cause of an economy of no outlets.
ReplyDeleteDavis highlights this theory of decline and then points out its limited acceptance and usefulness in understanding the breakdown of trade and creation of feudalism in western Europe. Davis is more concerned with the limitations and contrasting theories with Pirenne's position, rather then spending too much time explaining anything more that the core aspects of Pirenne's thesis.
I think Davis considers the most important elements of Pirenne's position to be the attention it drew in the first place to the contraction of the economy in Western Europe during the 7th and 8th centuries. Given that he raises several objections to Pirenne's logic and the conclusions he comes to, what remains common to both of their arguments is that trade across the East and West did decrease, as well as the use of money.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Pirenne's arguments themselves, Davis considered the most important elements to be the idea that the Mediterranean Sea was the essential trade route between the East and the West (disregarding the similar routes in the Baltic), the expansion of the Islamic Empire and the resulting Muslim piracy that made the Mediterranean unsafe, and the flow-on effects of this resulting in an economy of no outlets in Western Europe.
Davis spends most of this chapter describing an economy of no outlets, and what Pirenne meant by this term. The important points of this were that when the Mediterranean sea became unsafe due to piracy, trade ceased and money was no longer used. However, Davis does describe how there were other trade routes and so trade did not stop completely. Also that was still use for money for many centuries.
ReplyDeleteSo Davis considers Pirenne's view on an economy of no outlets as most important, but does not agrre with it to a full extent.
For me, the most striking assumption made by Pirenne was that Western Europe's economy came to a sudden halt in the 7th century, rather than gradually fading during and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Given that Rome's presence was essential to maintining the security required for long-range trade and communication, it makes sense to presume that trade declined concurrently with the authority of the Roman Empire. ON this view, the decline in European trade would have started at least by the 5th century (if not the 4th), with the economy continuing to contract as long as stable government was absent.
ReplyDeleteDavis emphasises two key ideas in his discussion of Pirenne's position. Firstly, the the assumption that the economic decline of Western Europe was a relatively swift and simply process, a chain reaction sparked by the presence of piracy in the Mediterranean. Secondly, that this economic contraction was underpinned by the development of what Pirenne coins an "economy of no outlets": land became the primary source of wealth, as there was no use for currency in an environment where it could not be spent.
ReplyDeletePirenne's explaination of how Western Europe became an "economy of no outlets" is criticised by Davis, as it no doubt happened gradually over a few centuries instead of all at once. However, Pirenne's statement that Western Europe was an "economy of no outlets" was an accurate summation of the times, making this the most important element of Pirenne's argument in Davis' view.
ReplyDeleteDavis may not have agreed with Pirenne's theory (which was more or less based on hypothetical convenience) but he does state that his ideas were valuable in that they highlighted the lack of knowledge concerning trade and business of the 8th and 9th centuries when compared to those prior and following.
ReplyDeleteThe title of Pirenne’s work “Mohammad and Charlemagne” is exactly that of his theory; he establishes a causal relationship to the Muslims conquering Tunisia and the emergence of feudalism under the rule of Charlemagne. According to Pirenne, the Muslims disrupted the trade of a domain of which had a total dependence. This led to an overall decline in trade and economic activity, towns decayed and population declined. This left Western Europe in an economic state of “no outlets”. With no use for money, what was left? Land. Charlemagne took advantage of this and used it to maintain his realm and invest loyalty in its people.
These are the most important elements of Pirenne’s position on the collapse of the western economy; the disruption of Mediterranean trade, decline in the need for a monetary system and the emergence of feudalism as a result.
In Davis' view, the important elements of Pirenne's position are the importance of land in a time when the swift decline of economic resulted in the worthelessness of money. However, Davis does not completely agree with Pirenne, doubting that this decline in economy occured as abruptly as Pirenne described, and that it was not necessarily "caused by Muslims".
ReplyDeleteDavis was concerned with Pirenne's thesis 'Mahommed and Charlemagne', in which Pirenne assumes the factors that led to the breakdown of the Western economy. Davis discusses Pirenne's notion of Western Europe being an 'economy of no outlets' and how Feudalism was the inevitable result of that. Contrary to Pirenne however, Davis disagrees with the theory that the breakdown of the economy was due to the growth and establishment of the Islamic Empire and argues that the historical evidence shows otherwise.
ReplyDeletePirenne, in Davis’ view, was correct in assuming that once the Mediterranean was unsafe to trade on, goods could not be transported to and from Western Europe, which would lead to an economy with no outlets, and eventually lead to the feudal society which was known at that time. Davis however refutes Pirenne’s claim that Islamic pirates were the reason for this decline was to fair a stretch to assume, as there is no evidence of Islamic pirates terrorising European trade routes.
ReplyDeleteDavis explores Pirenne's notion of an 'economy of no outlets', which he argues caused the decrease in trade across the Mediterranean, whereas Pirrene's views advocate that the decrease in trade was resultant of the pirates travelling through the Mediterranean; Davis believes that this particular argument has no substantial backing, as there is no evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis collapse of trade and ultimately the economy, results in the creating of feudalism as a substitute for money.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete