Do you consider the Tudors medieval?

[bryceQ]

I've never thought of them in this period, I always consider them the early modern period (well Henry VII perhaps the last medieval monarch) but I hear people describe them as medieval?

It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious to other opinions.

”I can’t believe all the crazy opinions on here” is pretty aggressive, yes. Whatever MN topic you post it on!

Weird to think that history can be calculated precisely like Gravity to 3 places of decimals.
Remember the Dark Ages are not as Dark as the Edwardians thought.

Witch hunts aren’t medieval, they are later. Most of the witch hunting happened in the 17th century. They are very much an early modern thing, and the trials were conducted in a “scientific” manner.

@SarahAndQuack

I think I'm struggling with 'sensibility' as a concept anyway. Maybe I'm just boringly reluctant to generalise (otherwise known as being a professional hair-splitter), but I don't think I believe periods have 'a' sensibility.

I’m an intellectual historian and work on language and concept shifts, so I’m always interested in how ideas and eras change over time, and how the ways different periods understand the world - sometimes in quite radically different ways to previous eras!

Sure, but do you think that everyone, in a single point in history, has the exact same 'sensibility'? You talk about the ways 'different periods understand the world' - but surely, within any given period, there's going to be an enormous range of views and perceptions of the world?

So, majority adherence to medieval social values and superstition, such as witch hunts are part and parcel of the Renaissance?

Witch trials are an early modern phenomenon, not a medieval one. They peaked 1560-1630, but carried on in dwindling numbers for a good century afterwards. The Salem witch trials were in 1692. The last execution for witchcraft in the UK was in 1727.

So unless you are arguing that the 18th century was part of the Middle Ages too, then yes, it was indeed part and parcel of the early modern period.

I read your post and immediately though, "ah, crap, I wrote c16th didn't I?"

I did. I meant the 1600s of course and should think twice about posting when I'm overtired and can't sleep 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I've always thought that the Tudor's were Tudor.

do you think that everyone, in a single point in history, has the exact same 'sensibility'?

Of course not - I don’t think even the most Whiggishly Tillyardian old-school historian of ideas ever thought that!

'Early modern' is the term used when I was a student, but that's a long time ago and I don't know the current thinking. I need to read the posts here properly, but it looks as though some interesting points have been raised on this thread.

No - I remember being told as a kid that the Middle Ages end in 1485 with Bosworth Field

This is what we were taught in history at school many decades ago. I presume it’s correct.

No, I'm sure they haven't ... but what I'm trying to get at is, if there isn't really such a thing as a 'period sensibility,' what is it that you think are defining changes/continuities? If you had to choose one or two points where those radical shifts happened, what would they be?

I missed your earlier post about Henry VIII being closest to a mystery play - I'm curious about that! Would love to know more. I think Merchant of Venice has quite a lot of Herod-ish bits to it, but the Blackfriars plays all feel closer in terms of how you might stage things.

I have no contribution to make other than I too was taught that the Tudors ushered in the Early Modern period.
This was at grammar school so you can tell how many years ago I studied A level History.

What I do want to say is that I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. As I am reading Dorothy L Sayers' Gaudy Night at the moment, I feel as though I am listening to a conversation in the Common Room at Shrewsbury College, with Harriet Vane played by Harriet Walter of course.

Gaudy Night is such an interesting historical document, like opening a window into a world that has completely disappeared.

@SadCelticBunny and @mathanxiety I don't want to spoil the mood of The Common Room on an Autumn evening. Does it seem extra old fashioned to you? Partly because Sayers is writing in 1935 and remembering her own time at Somerville some 12 years earlier.

I'm enjoying all the history chat, favourite podcasts? I really love all the history hit there's a new after dark one which is fun too.

It's always interesting that witch hunts get described as medieval but they were so much later! I've been listening to a lot about these on the podcasts around Halloween. I did actually do a module at university on myth and magic. It's a fascinating albeit terrifying area of history

No wouldn’t consider them medieval

I think periods of English history have been renamed since I was in school, or perhaps they have more flattering names in the U.K.? I see that English historians do think that 1400 onwards is this early modern period but there was nothing modern about the life of a peasant in 1400 vs 1100 at all. Having been taught English history while abroad in an international school, I am wondering if perhaps there is a difference in perspective. Perhaps an unwillingness to admit that Great Britain wasn’t at the leading edge of everything everywhen.

Great Britain didn't exist in 1400, so I doubt it's that!

Broadly, the arguments around shifting/flexing the terminology are reactions to the idea that England (and to a greater degree,Scotland and Wales) was a cultural backwater compared to Europe and especially Italy. I suppose you could read that as a willingness to amp up the importance of England/Scotland/Wales, but it'd be a stretch to say it's about claiming them as 'the leading edge'.

I also reckon, if you are looking at peasants and/or the poor, you're going to see people getting a pretty raw deal in all sorts of periods of history.

History is retrospective, so the historians naming these periods were/are indeed British with Great Britain alive and kicking. I don’t think any historian writing in 1450 was announcing “Hear ye, hear ye we hast entered upon an early modern period.” 😆

Wouldn't it be fab if they had, though?!

No, but I mean, claiming 1600 is medieval isn't about 'Great Britain' because there's no Great Britain in 1600, right?

(I also think that's the direction in which people mostly push the dating - medieval forwards rather than early modern backwards).

I also reckon, if you are looking at peasants and/or the poor, you're going to see people getting a pretty raw deal in all sorts of periods of history.

True, the poor always get a raw deal, but my point was that the life of a peasant in 1100s was virtually indistinguishable from the life of a peasant in 1400s England.

It really wasn't, though. The Black Death, the Peasants' Revolt, the changes in climate and in agriculture, had pretty significant effects.