His201 - lect 1 - week 11

Technology changes

Input of social technology and output of social change. - Russell, Technological Determinism.

The stirrup changed warfare and changed society. It likens the stirrup't man to the Minotaur.

Why was horse riding important in the middle ages? Faster and efficient horse riding seemed economically better for merchants, or for deliveries of goods, mail, etc.

What about the social political issues related to feudal issues, changes in trade, economic conditions, like what Pirenne spoke about.

It's difficult for us to believe that Martel pulled a stirrup out of his hat and everybody used it. You still need the calvary, you still need men trained in war-fare on horseback.

You need a whole military movement behind a stirrup, you need the social interest, it has to be in the forefront of everybody's mind, on the lips of every trader, merchant, politician, aristocrat, so much so that it becomes part of the society. Stirrups were probably available to Byzantine warrior as early as the 6th century, well before it was available to the French. Why didn't the stirrup revolutionise the eastern Roman empire, perhaps there were other issues at stake.

white might be right but his argument is still just technological determinism, it's way too simplistic, it leads historians astray into stories of progress.

Very simple mechanical instrumentation with water. Very easy to use. Can be used for grinding flour, grain, any other material, and saves Human labour.

Aristotelian was believed to be getting out of hand in Paris in the 13th Century. Technology and Science was perceived to be rather stagnant in Western Europe in the 13th Century.

There was no impetus for scientific improvement, people were worried about paying their taxes, subsistence, and getting on with life.

However, this is not true. In Eastern Europe translating and disseminating works on astronomy and physics was important. The natural sciences were in place and were being used, particularly in the Aristotelian frame-set, as such the idea of a scientific stagnant period is wrong.

Monastery operated mills were the most successful. Mills were not just used for monastic subsistence, but for profit. To feed and keep monasteries going this was one way.

So we can conclude that in this part of France there was an increase in milling, however milling had been around. Indeed monasteries did not always build mills but inherited them. This certainly changes the dynamics of mill scholarship - there was technological change well before the 18th century (in this sense the marxist historians are still useful) however there is also an apparent continuity from the middle ages, and the increased milling in the 13th century is not in and by itself a catalyst for social division, economic change etc. What we can see instead, through a history of milling, is that this technology and it's use was built into social structures and needs, such as in monasteries, now we can make similar arguments for 12 and 13th century architecture.