Hi Justine !! Can I have your opinion on a longlasting debate ? When did late antiquity end and when did the middle ages start ? I know it's not happened in one day and it's more of a long process but I also know scholars don't agree on what century the change was really visible...
Hi Gabrielle, and thanks for that amazing question! Oh yes, this is a long, long debate because actually there is more than one answer to that question. Firstly, we do not forget that the purpose of periodisation is a european-centered question only, because it is a statment who was gradually made during the 19th century, during the first period of history construction.
Best example for that is the definition of what relieves from history and from prehistory. Answer to that is generally the using of writing, but we know that some people did not make a used of writing during a long time, like Gaulish peoples, leading to the creation of an “in between” period, aka the “protohistory”, for peoples who definitely lived during the history but without matching the original definition.
Long story short, I really think that periodisation is a doomed way, because it tends to categorise eras without real significance. I also heard by my master DR that for his own opinion as a specialist of the first Byzantine Empire’s period, antiquity lasted until the 6th century AD, at least! But take a look on it. I’m sorry in advance, but my answer will mostly speak about the Gauls, and so occidental Europe, because this is actually my major topic.
In the case of the early middle ages/late antiquity, question is what makes a period an antique subject rather than a medieval one. The point is often the beginning of christianism. But christianism became proeminent during the 4th century, meaning that a long period of the roman empire should be labelised as medieval?
Other point could be the fall of Rome in 410 during the Gothic invasion. But to be honest, with the foundation and the transfert of the political capital city in Constantinople under the Constantinian dynasty, it was a long time since Rome did not appear as the political center of the Roman world (plus the Tetrarchy period was a time during which political leaders were in a constant move).
So if we can not denied the symbolism of the fall of Rome and its great impact in people during that time, when you look at society and economic situation, there is no significant change after Rome’s downfall. In France, we often make use of the year 476 for determining the end of Antiquity, with the deposition of last emperor Romulus Augustulus and so the end of the political domination of Rome in the West part.
So, if we respect the periodisation and its statment, Merovingian Gaul for example should be considered as the first Medieval period, and that is what it is usually done in history class. But if we take a look on it, the choice is truly debatable, as Merovingian regnum still used late-roman organisation, economic system, religious beliefs and hierarchy (i.e. the first christianism) and even enjoyed circus ludi in arenas. In fact, the whole cliches about Middle Ages, the fortified castle with the dungeon, the knight and his armor, jousting art did not exist still. So, does it make them “antiquity” or “medieval”?
On my own opinion, we should not separate Merovingian period of its immediate predecessors, i.e. the Tetrarchy period. If it could be a periodisation, I think it must be done by englobing this two periods side by side, but again, I’m not fond of periodisation at all and call for a resignation of all of it for the best. Now, I also think there is a great change between Merovingian and Carolingian times in the Gauls in particular, with the slow progress of what it would be called later the “feudal system”, so if we take the Gauls only as an example, then the beginning of Medieval period should be seen in it, and so the definitive end of Late Antiquity during the mid-8th to 9th century.
