can you think of a way for the middle ages to continue until present

Elfwine said it best. What do you mean by middle ages anyway?

This is pertinant, as definitions of the Middle Ages range from a short '1096-1453' Definition right the way up to a long '476-1517' Definition and including just about every combination of important dates in between.
 

Clibanarius

Banned
@Clibanarius
renaissance never happens

Well there were several renaissances, there was a twelfth century renaissance and as time goes by and technology and ideas about religion and government. . . progress for lack of a better word something like a renaissance will happen.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
make Salic Patrimony become widespread in Europe.


with each son dividing their father lands Scientific Progress, Large Scale Economy and Large Nation States will be hindered. entire europe will become like 1600 HRE
 
make Salic Patrimony become widespread in Europe.


with each son dividing their father lands Scientific Progress, Large Scale Economy and Large Nation States will be hindered. entire europe will become like 1600 HRE

It's not like the rest of the world will remain static. It might not be anything like OTL but change will happen.
 
There's a misunderstanding that the Middle Ages were really the Dark Ages, where people sat in mud huts, dug mud, were covered in dirt and crap, and some lived in Anarcho-Syndicalist communes and didn't know we had a king.

Really, the Middle ages weren't all that bad. And they weren't a grand fall from grace, but a continuation of progress. We may have lost the arches, but Europe was doing things that had never been done before. And to them, it was the Modern Age. And it's not like a situation where while they were digging in the mud, someone discovered an ancient Roman text and all of a sudden they civilized again. They evolved and developed into the Renaissance in a natural progression. And then the Renaissance people disavowed the whole age previous, and acted like everything between them and the Romans was an age where people sat in mud huts, dug mud, were covered in dirt and crap, and some lived in Anarcho-Syndicalist communes and didn't know we had a king.

Also, a lot of people don't seem to pay attention to the fact that the Barbarians when they initially took over from Rome weren't digging in the mud either. They were reasonably developed for the era. Or at least that's what Terry Jones has taught me. Terry Jones also feels that the Renaissance is pompous and overrated. It's an interesting thought. If you'd like to see, he has a whole BBC series called "Barbarians" and "Medieval Lives" you can find on youtube easily.

Anyway, you can't maintain some "Dark Age". But, you could perhaps maintain the way society operated, along Feudal lines and such.
 
Last edited:
There's a misunderstanding that the Middle Ages were really the Dark Ages, where people sat in mud huts, dug mud, were covered in dirt and crap, and some lived in Anarcho-Syndicalist communes and didn't know we had a king.

Really, the Middle ages weren't all that bad. And they weren't a grand fall from grace, but a continuation of progress. We may have lost the arches, but Europe was doing things that had never been done before. And to them, it was the Modern Age. And it's not like a situation where while they were digging in the mud, someone discovered an ancient Roman text and all of a sudden they civilized again. They evolved and developed into the Renaissance in a natural progression. And then the Renaissance people disavowed the whole age previous, and acted like everything between them and the Romans was an age where people sat in mud huts, dug mud, were covered in dirt and crap, and some lived in Anarcho-Syndicalist communes and didn't know we had a king.

Also, a lot of people don't seem to pay attention to the fact that the Barbarians when they initially took over from Rome weren't digging in the mud either. They were reasonably developed for the era. Or at least that's what Terry Jones has taught me. Terry Jones also feels that the Renaissance is pompous and overrated. It's an interesting thought. If you'd like to see, he has a whole BBC series called "Barbarians" and "Medieval Lives" you can find on youtube easily.

Anyway, you can't maintain some "Dark Age". But, you could perhaps maintain the way society operated, along Feudal lines and such.

Sounds like you've been a victim of the violence inherent in the system!
 
make Salic Patrimony become widespread in Europe.

with each son dividing their father lands Scientific Progress, Large Scale Economy and Large Nation States will be hindered. entire europe will become like 1600 HRE
In Castille there was no feudalism as it was understood in the rest of the Europe. The crown gave privileges and allowed some towns to have their own laws. The citizen militias were an important part of the armies that participated in the Reconquista.
You have also the italian city-states and the mercantile cities of the Hansa in the Baltic.
By having less powerful noble houses, you are going to have stronger towns that could form leagues and states to face external enemies.
 
By having less powerful noble houses, you are going to have stronger towns that could form leagues and states to face external enemies.

Maybe go the other way: have a large successor empire that stagnate by becoming a paranoid inward looking place which focus most of its military not on conquest but on keeping internal peace and keeping out foreigners. Have a strict hierarchy where everyone has a place and is afraid of losing what little it might give them if they rock the boat ever so slightly.

Mind you, this would slow down some aspects such as innovation if its felt that it threaten the system, its tradition and its beliefs but might not stop them altogether.
 
Top