What are, in your opinion, the top five most important primary sources for understanding the Middle Ages in Western Europe?
I would have to say:
>Summa Theologica
>Defender of the Peace
>Romance of the Rose
>Chronicles of Froissart
>The Song of Roland
Wow, solid list there, OP.
>>1108284
Is that sarcasm?
>>1108290
Of course it is you fucking retarded
Go read a real book instead of some old poems that barely anyone read at the Middle Ages. How the fuck are aristocratic poems that the commoner never got access important sources?
And you didn't even mention the Divine Comedy, a rather influential book written by some italian guy, maybe you heard of him. Go throw yourself in a fire
>>1108332
Are you a literal retard? For starters, the Divine Comedy was written in the Renaissance you fucking dolt.
Second of all, it's irrelevant whether or not everyone read those works. They're indicative of the massive social changes of the era, which is far more important to understand than just knowing the names of a bunch of faggy kings and bloody battles.
>Summa Theologica
Literally the basis for almost all Western theology. They don't call St. Aquinas the "Father of Theology" for nothing. Also shows the medieval revival of Aristotalean tradition.
>Defender of the Peace
Excellent treatise that touches on the Investiture Controversy and the contention between temporal monarchs and the Church in the High Middle Ages.
>Romance of the Rose
Literally touches on every facet of the laity in the Middle Ages, from hair loss to love-making.
>Chronicles of Froissart
Besides being an occasionally useful factual, historical source, its more important contribution is to understanding the concept of "chivalry," and showcases the transition of feudalism into modern monarchies and nation-states.
>The Song of Roland
Touches on the concept of Christendom, and showcases the struggle between it and Islam.
Go fuck yourself, high schooler.
>>1108357
>Literally the basis for almost all Western theology
Except you know, for the 800 years of middle age that came before it...
Also you're thinking of scholasticism, not theology.
>>1108405
>800 years of middle age that came before it...
>The Middle Ages started in 200AD
Holy hell you're fucking dumb. Yes, the Church Fathers obviously had the biggest influence on theology, but I'm talking about sources from the MIDDLE AGES. Of which, there is no doubt that St. Aquinas provided the biggest contribution. He is literally the founder of "modern" theology. And in no way are his works not a work of theology. Are they scholastic? Yes, he tries to approach arguments in a logical, methodical way. But it's still theology you fucking idiot.
Why don't you offer up your own list, if mine is so shit?
>>1108332
>Summa Theologica
>some old poems
There was barely anyone who could read in the Middle ages.
Faggot.
>>1108441
Which is completely irrelevant to understanding the Middle Ages. The fact that peasants couldn't read the poems (of which only two on my list were poems) doesn't change the fact that those two poems touch on many different facets of medieval life, for both the laity and the clergy alike. Defender of the Peace is a political treatise, and the Chronicles are a chronicle.
>>1108434
>XIIIth century - 800 years = 200 AD
Please never give your opinion about the middle ages anymore.
>>1108477
Okay, you have to be fucking with me at this point.
I picked an arbitrary year of 1000 to describe the Middle Ages, idiot. Your last three posts have been arguing semantics because you can't provide either a list of your own or a good reason why my list is shit.
>>1108238
>What are, in your opinion, the top five most important primary sources for understanding the Middle Ages in Western Europe?
English Parish BDM
English state expenses
French land grants
English gentry wills
>>1108511
>semantics
>the Summa Teologica was SO good that it defined theology before it was even out
Let's make it clear: you're an illiterate nigger. What is even the point of your list? Are you listing the whole 5 books you read? Do you want something that will give you a "quick overlook" of medieval history?
If you want a crash course on something you don't go looking for fucking primary sources, you read a contemporary historian book about the period. The point of primary sources is to be EXHAUSTIVE about them, as >>1108594 is kindly pointing out, so making a short list serves literally no purpose. Except of course flaunting your dick at dinners, which seems to be what you're after.
>>1108608
I said that Aquinas helped to define modern theology of the later Middle Ages, retard.
By primary sources, I obviously didn't mean thousands of documents and shit like that. I'm talking about works (whether treatises, poems, etc) from the era that provide first-hand looks into understanding medieval society.
The five works I laid out provide the reader with a relatively thorough understanding of the Late Middle Ages at large. I've already given the reasons why.
>>1108618
>provide first-hand looks into understanding medieval society
If you want to do that you're gonna have to wade through "thousands of documents and shit like that" you fucking dilettante.
Otherwise just read some historian and take his word for it. Just don't pretend to have some sort of expertise you do not have and are not ready to put the necessary amount of work into.
>later Middle Ages
oh I see we've moved the goalposts now
>>1108434
As much as I love Aquinas, saying that Aquinas provided "the biggest contribution" is fairly contentious. Yes the Thomist School was important, but not all that much more so than the Scottist and Ockhamist schools. Likewise the revival of Aristotle was something that his teacher Albert the Great passed on to him - and not something entirely absent in writers like Abelard a century earlier. The idea that Thomism is the de facto church theology, or even scholastic theology, is by in large an invention of the 19th century when the Pope at that time decided that Thomas's philosophy was the best one to counter modernist philosophical errors. I mean really, the major Aristotelian revival hardly lasted half a century, by 1277 people were already becoming skeptical of it, and the church took official action against certain strands of Muslim interpreted Aristotelianism. The Platonic/Augustinian theology of thinkers like Bonaventure was always closer to the official position of the church during the period, even when Thomas' Aristotelianism was at it's height of popularity.
>>1108618
>The five works I laid out provide the reader with a relatively thorough understanding of the Late Middle Ages at large. I've already given the reasons why.
It doesn't at all. Reading Aquinas does nothing to explain how he helped define period theology. You just have a source with no context, neither any insight into the state of theology up to that point nor the responses to his work.
Your list is a list of some important primary texts, but absolutely not a list about understanding the Middle Ages in their entirety or even in detail.
>>1108238
I've seen another version of this painting where the soldiers don't have arrows in their lower bodies. I wonder which is the original and if it's a shoop or if the painting was copied.
>>1108618
>with a relatively thorough understanding
bourgeois idealism.
