Was England laging behind other areas of Europe?

[Buster]

Although England has many spectacular cathedrals, to me it seems like it's secular architecture was lacking compared to other places in Europe. Bodiam castle seems pretty humble compared to Castello Estense in Italy, both built around the same time. Even Caerphily castle in it's prime condition must have been austere compared to the elaborate Gothic architecture of Malbork castle in Poland.
The civil architecture that survives also seems simpler and less developed than seen in some other countries.
(Like the Cremona clock tower or the town hall in Siena, both early-mid 14thC, or the medieval Louvre.)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _duomo.jpg

http://en.apertoperrestauro.siena.it/va ... mgzoom.jpg

http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/a ... ations.jpg

[Cap'n Atli]

Well, yes. England was a little bit of a backwater. Insularity has both advantages and disadvantages and England frequently looked to the continent for the latest fashions and technologies. Lots of sheep and fish and shipping capabilities did not make you and Empire… yet.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

Lagging behind in what regard? If you're just considering architecture, which I hope is the case, well... One has to imagine the society in which major structures were meant to be built and function within.

High nobility in England were busy building dense fortifications to keep charge of their lands in turbulent times throughout the 12th and 13th centuries. Many of the richest among them owned multiple estates and few lived within cities, as was the case in much of Europe; in much of Italy the nobility were virtually centered in urban settings, allowing the creation of public architecture rather than rural fortifications to be a much more reasonable exploit.

In England, cities such as London were just beginning to sprawl and thrive with the blessings of royal edicts. People were very busy being productive and building, no doubt. Often there were snags. Over half of London burned down in the early 1220s and it took a while to rebuild what had just recently become one of the largest urban hubs in Western Europe. The King had to spend lots of money putting a stone bridge in to replace the old wooden London Bridge, which was quite a feat in its own right.

Nevertheless, besides the Church and the King, there were virtually no communities or individual nobles wealthy enough or with enough free time to entertain the notion of grand architecture!

The king himself commonly traveled everywhere - during the reign of King John he moved perhaps as often as twice a week during his entire reign, traveling from one estate or noble's welcoming home to another constantly. Why would a king on the move at such a pace bother with trying to spend too much time or energy on a single estate when nearly a third of them may never even be visited by him?

As for the Church, of course, they did go on building magnificent structures just as they had been doing in the rest of Europe. It would take a long while for such programs to catch on with the rest of Englanders, though!

The Divinity School at Oxford is a good mid-15th century example of high architecture in England when they finally seem to have had time to enjoy it. A community such as the university is also a perfect example of the sort of people you need to exploit the possibility of building on a grand scale. They had prestige and honor to uphold as a major center of learning. and it seems they finally had the money to show it off!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity_School,_Oxford

[Robert of Canterbury]

The great hall of Westminster palace?

The best executed hammerbeam roof in the world, and noted as an architechtural achievement in its own time?

Most of England's Architectural history has been Burnt, Bombed, or re-developed.
As one of the most densely populated countries in western Europe, it is a marvel that anything architecturally significant has survived.

The most spectacular palace of its age?
Nonsuch Palace, (built Henry VIII) pulled down late 17thC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsuch_Palace

[MediumAevum]

Part of it is that you are comparing oranges and tangerines. The castles in England that compare to Castello Estense and Malbork Castle in role are the Tower of London and Dover Castle both of which were built over a considerable period of time and so lack the consistency you see in those examples.

[Buster]

The great hall of Westminster palace?

The best executed hammerbeam roof in the world, and noted as an architechtural achievement in its own time?

Most of England's Architectural history has been Burnt, Bombed, or re-developed.
As one of the most densely populated countries in western Europe, it is a marvel that anything architecturally significant has survived.

The most spectacular palace of its age?
Nonsuch Palace, (built Henry VIII) pulled down late 17thC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsuch_Palace

Yes, I probably didn't consider that point enough. In the 14th century, Edward III renovated the existing royal residence at Windsor castle (already sizable) into a massive palace, nearly all of which has now been demolished or rebuilt.
He even commissioned a 200ft diameter circular building in 1344 to house a new "Order of the round table". (Although after establishing the order of the Garter, work stopped, and it was soon pulled down.)

[Russ Mitchell]

...and that's nice and all, but an occasional nice thing does nothing at all to relieve England of having been a distinct backwater, barely able to fend off a sixth-rate military threat whose ability to project force was scarcely better than that of the Obodrites. (i.e., the Scots)

Got nothing against England or the English, who have certainly accomplished things, but for most of the medieval period, they simply don't rate. The English time to shine is solidly *after* the vast majority of the middle ages.

[RandallMoffett]

Russ,

I avoided this as I think these types of posts are usually pointless. When a person paints with a broad brush the detail suffers. Establishing backwater could include all Europe easily by a vaied standard, just as it could the world.

I do not agree at all on military level especially. This is not true for most of English history during the period. I'd say they are on the level or above it over most of the High and Late periods. Militarily I think the fact much of mainstream Europe tried to emulate and hire English troops throughout the later Medieval period is easily enough to tear that argument apart. I think the problem is this stereotype was based on hot air and nationalism even in the medieval period. Truth is England has more than an occasional nice thing. We can go all day about the negatives on any group in Europe if we wanted. But unless there is a real comparison this exercise is pointless. As well time frame as the entire medieval period is just too open to have an real measurable answer.

I think as far as dominating European Monarchs there are enough English Monarchs on the table that calling them backwater is just unacceptable. The issue is not backwater but different to some one else. France has a mass of forgettable monarchs..... and some other places even worse.

Odd and different, for sure but I can find such accounts related to almost every part of Europe doing the same.

I wish people would stop using backwater regarding England until some one really has some solid reasons why that prove it is vastly inferior to mainstream Europe.

Considering the variation of mainstream Europe I am increasingly hesitant to place backwater on any one unless everything about them indicates massive divergence with the norm to an inferior level.... though there are a few I still think of as being backwater along several lines the standard set is so arbitrary often, simply inferior in some way to another then the connotation of backwater becomes moot.

So backwater, no, not really. Different yes.

RPM

[Buster]

As Randall said, I don't think England was in any way backwards militarily. England seems to have been at the forefront of plate armour during the early-mid 14th century, and they employed tactics that allowed them to crush the French forces early in the Hundred years war.
In my OP I was mainly using architecture as a guide, but it seems that is faulty, dues to the loss or ruination of most buildings. The bishop's palace at Wolvesey from the 12th century was actually a fairly elaborate residence, and it was just one of many properties originally owned by the bishops of Winchester.

[Russ Mitchell]

I wish people would stop using backwater regarding England until some one really has some solid reasons why that prove it is vastly inferior to mainstream Europe.

Okay.

We could go round the bush militarily all day, since individual leadership is a huge thing (and then arguments regarding the relative impressiveness of their foes. The Scots and Welsh, militarily speaking, are wretched: there's a reason I compared them to the Obodrites -- it's one of the best period parallels. Primarily footmen, no siege capacity to speak of whatsoever, characterized by heavy raiding combined with battle-avoidance tactics. Of course, the Obodrites are thoroughly crushed over the course of a couple decades by that mighty military power, Denmark.

Meanwhile, between the Danes and the Normans, their competent enemies are sitting on the English throne for two thirds of the High Middle Ages. And then you have to go in and examine Gillingham, etcetera: Henry II really starts something rolling. Was Richard I best analyzed as being primarily King of England, or as primarily the driver of the Angevin Empire? Okay, that's two dissertations and three monographs all by itself. Late Middle Ages, absolutely Edward III turns things around in a BIG way, and much of England's military influence in the Late Middle Ages is due to his leadership and aggressive military reforms, which are very, very effective.

And of course Norman architecture is impressive, Buster. But there's a reason we call it Norman architecture. It's an international style that is imported to England after the Normans conquer the place. The Anglo-Normans build some great castles; they're more or less on par with what the non-Anglo Normans build in France. What distinguishes them nowadays is that a hell of a lot more English stuff survives.

Should we say, for purposes of argument, that "mainstream Europe" is represented by the post-Carolingian cultural core of Italy/Holy Roman Empire, and France? East-Central Europe, Iberia, and Scandinavia are clearly distinct, and regularly border zones for the influence of other civilizations. So what English intellectual, architectural, social, or cultural movements affect the post-Carolingian core of "mainstream Europe?" What intellectual, social, and cultural movements from "mainstream Europe" affect England? Any English literature or literary traditions burning down the house on the continent? From the Norman Conquest until the mid-to-late 13th century, culturally speaking, England is a French colony -- there's not a single serious scholar I've ever heard of who even disputes this.

What's England hold its own in or export?
Economically, the wool trade. English sheep produce exceptionally good wool, and the trade is important, and becomes big-time significant, again, under Edward III. Edward III was also hugely involved in opposing the Angevin Papacy's complete domination by the Valois, as part of his anti-Valois alliance with Ludwig of Bavaria and Louis the Great of Hungary. That's a big deal -- the Hundred Years' War was a hell of a lot more involved than simply England and France arguing over who got to own Normandy.

Intellectually: I've got Ockam, big-time. Hugely influential, rather late, and he's held as either an excommunicate, or a heretic, or both, for over half his life. But give him credit, he's up there in the big leagues. Earlier than that.... the Ottonian Renaissance completely misses England. I can't think of anybody significant off the top of my head.

I don't know of a single literary example pre-Canterbury-Tales that qualifies. Chaucer's huge, though he spends most of his career working inside other folks' forms. I totally love Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but that was considered rustic in the extreme even in England. It's awesome, but on the larger stage, that's "cue banjos" stuff.

What else can we add to the list?

/edited to fix broken bb-code tag

[RandallMoffett]

Russ,

I agree for the most part. I think raiding was a primary form of medieval conquest so some of these places really excelled in some crucial aspects of warfare but not others.

I do not think one can split the Normans or Angevin kings from England as they used English soldiers all over their lands.

As far as literature you have Monmouth which does appear to have had wide circulation and have inspired the Arthur legend taking off over a wide swath of Europe. I am sure I can think of more with time. It influenced C. de Troyes, the work Erick in the HRE and countless other works.

And for technology we have Roger Bacon. The guy came up with or assorted a huge amount of interesting information.

And I cannot help but think if it is common for legal students in their history of western law to lok over the Magna Carta it is still looked at as being important, though lately people have loved to rip it apart as naught, I disagree. I know of few documents of its nature that do what it did, when it did.

My point is that backwater is un-calibrated 99.99%of the time.

For example I think the Lowland Scots were not backwater during the late medieval period because they are onboard with more or less current dress and habits. They clearly did not have the same level of war capabilities as England but they also had around 1/4-1/5 the population. Does limited resources always lead to backwater. No. Were they keeping up on much of mainstream Europe. Seems to be. So my comments largely are backwater can be military, cultural, societal or any number of thing but we need be careful. The Irish seem to have been very backwater militarily but still been able to effectively fight the English by not fighting and skirmishing. Does this mean they are really backwater if their tactics are successful?

[Russ Mitchell]

I'd definitely add Monmouth. I've read some of that stuff in the original Anglo-Norman (what a pain in the ass, I am *not* a linguist ). The Magna Carta? It has a close parallel in Hungary, but I'd suggest that charters of these types are more influential after the medieval period than in it (no french nobleman based an argument on his rights based on the MC). Tremendously important but a strong outlier (one of the things that makes Britain the cool place it is, not necessarily a sign of keeping up socially).

Militarily? There is a tremendous difference between raiding because it's the only tactic available to you, and raiding as one of various options you pursue. Chevauchee certainly did not indicate Edward lacking ability! The Normans were horse people, and tended to do badly in places where they couldn't use them (thus Wales for ages, and at-the-time heavily-forested Ireland).

I would tend to disagree with you here and say that areas with low population are almost always in danger of being a backwater simply because they have fewer specialists and tend to receive culture rather than originate it. You can see this is in spades across the US: the people are no less intelligent in rural parts of a state (in my opinion, often *more* intelligent), but they are definitely the last to be reached with new stuff. I can't even tell you how many times I've heard folks say "it's neat but we didn't have that out in the country" or some variation on the theme. While I agree that "un-calibrated" is dangeorus and terms need to be defined, the original question was legitimate, and socially and culturally, for the most part you can't conflate Anglo-Norman with "English," because for a long time the Anglo-Normans wouldn't have let you do it (and in some circumstances would have killed you for doing so). Once the "English Identity" as *we* currently use it was fully-formed at the beginning of the Late Middle Ages, you get something very different.

So that's a huge crux of how I define it: if we include the High Middle Ages, then you absolutely can *not* conflate region and people, but have to sharply distinguish "English" from "Norman," especially in regards to the original question regarding culture. Richard taxed high-quality English farmland and levied English soldiers along with the others in his Duchies, but there's good reason he couldn't speak the language.

[RandallMoffett]

Russ,

That was actually my point regarding population size. My example with Scotland was they were small but not in the end to my eyes backwater.

I still disagree regarding norman and English. The uppers, whether of norman blood or not all by the 12th are one anglo-norman nobility. Many gents who were of old AS families had lands on both sides of the channel and looked, and acted the same as those who were norman normans. Richard may not have spoken English but he was a hawk. He lived where there was war. England was more or less calm, France had Philip II. Further the family dynamics kept him from England often before he died as he and his father not get on well. If one simply looks are the movers of society they are 99% of the time the top tier. We cannot compare lowers and uppers between two places for backwater behavior. But if we do this among similar social groups, English commoner to French or English noble to French I think there is little evidence of backwaterness still.

RPM

[Russ Mitchell]

If lowland Scotland wasn't considered a backwater compared to the rest of mainstream Europe, then I'm afraid we're working with such vastly different yardsticks that we simply have to agree to disagree.

[Signo]

I'm not a history expert, but I think in Italy flowed very high quantities of cash in that period. The proof of it are in art, architecture, literature and in everyplace you put your eye or hands.

[Cap'n Atli]

Of course, English cuisine is still unparalleled!

[guthrie]

For example I think the Lowland Scots were not backwater during the late medieval period because they are onboard with more or less current dress and habits. They clearly did not have the same level of war capabilities as England but they also had around 1/4-1/5 the population. Does limited resources always lead to backwater. No. Were they keeping up on much of mainstream Europe. Seems to be. So my comments largely are backwater can be military, cultural, societal or any number of thing but we need be careful. The Irish seem to have been very backwater militarily but still been able to effectively fight the English by not fighting and skirmishing. Does this mean they are really backwater if their tactics are successful?

Typing as a lowland Scot, I think that firstly the period under discussion was more the earlier medieval, and secondly, I don't have a good idea and probably professional historians and archaeologists don't have a good idea about how much the new ideas, culture and material capabilities were percolating through society. But I reckon that however you frame it, Scotland was still comparatively backwards, or at least slower modernising.
For example the importation of German miners to try to improve Leadhills production. And James IV alchemist/ physician was probably a Frenchman. And so on. But your point re. dress and cultural stuff is important.
Ultimately Scotland was following fashions rather than leading them.

[Cap'n Atli]

The term “backwater” is sort of like the term “kitsch.” It tends to be applied to others, or by others, rather than adopted to refer to oneself.

Also, the original question was whether England “lagged behind” Europe, especially in architecture and in comparison to Italy. I was the one who broached the term “backwater” which may (in my experience) be more applicable to isolated areas (like islands, and hill-country, and (our family having lived in the rural Southern Maryland tidewater area for generations) backwater areas that are out of the centers of trade and innovation. So; are we talking general or specific? Backwaters can produce geniuses, and centers of art and commerce can be laid flat and desolate by armies using the same transportation networks that centralize the wealth and cultural innovation.

Interesting conversation.

[RandallMoffett]

Guthrie,

Yeah my family is lowland scot but I do not think that changes anything really in my assessment on way or the other. I just feel backwardness is something that need support and to cover many aspects over few. Though if one aspect is really an issue it can and often does affect other ones.

We actually know a fair amount about their material culture through wills and the records of the nobles there. For example we find that by 13th century the biggest thing limiting Scots in warfare is less "backwaterness" and more they are not involved in major period of warfare. Yet we see much of the things happening in Europe will then be brought to Scotland, at least culturally and such. The fourteenth century will further this with arms and armour being brought in.

Just because some one is slow to advance, lets us say in Scotland it is years or tops decades, does not mean to me they are backwater. Places that are a quarter century behind though that is an issue. As well having foreign people there can be a good sign of them being more cosmopolitan over less. If you wanted to have a great military architect in the second half of the 15th you got an Italian. Same goes for armour. We cannot say England was backwater in and of itself simply because the best armourers were in South German and Northern Italy. The French do this very often, are they then backwater?

I think as I said earlier, Lowland nobility kept ties with the continent and kept fairly closely abreast of what was happening there. For culture I'd not agree they were backwater. The use of foreign specialists would seem to be a sign of them keeping up not avoiding change.

If he was indicating early then much of this changes. One reason why we cannot look at this as one period. Each one is somewhat different to hugely different.

Russ,

That might be so but the lynch pin on this to me is just because their military lags to me does not equal backwater during the High Medieval Period, and to the moment, that was your only example of their supposed backwaterness. I think militarily they do not follow the lines of the mainland largely because they have little need to early on. the 1200s were relatively calm. Later during the 14th century though we see Scots adopt what they like fairly well, though granted siege warfare is not an easy one for them. Trickery and starvation being their primary methods, though to be fair this is not alien on the continent either.

Is military standards then their only measure of backward? They follow fashion and art fairly soon after France, The Empire and England because Scotland is fairly involved with trade. This was one of the reasons the loss of Berwick was so bad for them. It was one of only a small number of major ports that was tied to trade with much of Europe. That said I think militarily they lag far more than in other indicators of backwater behavior, but there are many less well adpapted areas in Europe, with far less developed militaries.

RPM

[Robert of Canterbury]

A few more random points..

Oxford & Cambridge.

Opus anglicanum

Nottingham alabaster

Cap'n Atli rightly reminds us of medieveal English Cuisine, which is thriving throughout the middle ages.

Warkworth Castle. Innovative design, All mod Cons.

English Pewter. Far and away superior to Continental work.

Dance- There england Is a follower than a leader, so far as I understand.

Music - Seem to be holding their own.

[Russ Mitchell]

Russ,

That might be so but the lynch pin on this to me is just because their military lags to me does not equal backwater during the High Medieval Period, and to the moment, that was your only example of their supposed backwaterness. I think militarily they do not follow the lines of the mainland largely because they have little need to early on. the 1200s were relatively calm. Later during the 14th century though we see Scots adopt what they like fairly well, though granted siege warfare is not an easy one for them. Trickery and starvation being their primary methods, though to be fair this is not alien on the continent either.

Not alien, but again, one arrow in a much more full quiver. Consider that the raiders on viking going after Paris in the early-medieval period were able to organize credible siege devices while operating in country significantly removed from their own, and that the lowland nobles (my ancestors also, heh) were consistently unable to do so. Following fashion rather than leading it, several centuries behind on siegework? While our yardsticks vary, this is sufficient for me, and I think we're still in agree-to-disagree territory here.

[guthrie]

Guthrie,

Yeah my family is lowland scot but I do not think that changes anything really in my assessment on way or the other. I just feel backwardness is something that need support and to cover many aspects over few. Though if one aspect is really an issue it can and often does affect other ones.

We actually know a fair amount about their material culture through wills and the records of the nobles there. For example we find that by 13th century the biggest thing limiting Scots in warfare is less "backwaterness" and more they are not involved in major period of warfare. Yet we see much of the things happening in Europe will then be brought to Scotland, at least culturally and such. The fourteenth century will further this with arms and armour being brought in.

Just because some one is slow to advance, lets us say in Scotland it is years or tops decades, does not mean to me they are backwater. Places that are a quarter century behind though that is an issue. As well having foreign people there can be a good sign of them being more cosmopolitan over less. If you wanted to have a great military architect in the second half of the 15th you got an Italian. Same goes for armour. We cannot say England was backwater in and of itself simply because the best armourers were in South German and Northern Italy. The French do this very often, are they then backwater?

I think as I said earlier, Lowland nobility kept ties with the continent and kept fairly closely abreast of what was happening there. For culture I'd not agree they were backwater. The use of foreign specialists would seem to be a sign of them keeping up not avoiding change.

If he was indicating early then much of this changes. One reason why we cannot look at this as one period. Each one is somewhat different to hugely different.

Russ,

That might be so but the lynch pin on this to me is just because their military lags to me does not equal backwater during the High Medieval Period, and to the moment, that was your only example of their supposed backwaterness. I think militarily they do not follow the lines of the mainland largely because they have little need to early on. the 1200s were relatively calm. Later during the 14th century though we see Scots adopt what they like fairly well, though granted siege warfare is not an easy one for them. Trickery and starvation being their primary methods, though to be fair this is not alien on the continent either.

Is military standards then their only measure of backward? They follow fashion and art fairly soon after France, The Empire and England because Scotland is fairly involved with trade. This was one of the reasons the loss of Berwick was so bad for them. It was one of only a small number of major ports that was tied to trade with much of Europe. That said I think militarily they lag far more than in other indicators of backwater behavior, but there are many less well adpapted areas in Europe, with far less developed militaries.

RPM

Just to add to the fun, my interest in the question of backwardness is less the nobility and what the top few hundred in a kingdom know but more what is known and used lower down the scale. It's easy enough for the King to have a load of books, but that doesn't help matters when 90% of the population is illiterate (a random number correct within an order of magnitude) yet other countries have a higher level of literacy and development in technical stuff, from furnace designs to trade.
As always though, in pre-fossil fuel societies, your level of development is critically dependent upon population and the availability of land to feed them and resources to use to build or trade, as well as a geographically central location. Italy and many other countries score well enough in all regards, Scotland less well.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

Oxford & Cambridge.

The earliest building still around from either of these institutions dates to the mid-15th century. I don't think we have a clue how fancy the architecture was on their early buildings, which were also considerably later than the institutionalization of the universities, which were just groups of students meeting in public houses for many a year...

-Gerhard

[Buster]

Oxford & Cambridge.

The earliest building still around from either of these institutions dates to the mid-15th century. I don't think we have a clue how fancy the architecture was on their early buildings, which were also considerably later than the institutionalization of the universities, which were just groups of students meeting in public houses for many a year...

-Gerhard

I believe this structure mostly predates either University, and might give a clue to their original appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St._C ... _-_638.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan_cole/7056249087/
(I was originally larger, and is now missing a range.)

[Robert of Canterbury]

Oxford & Cambridge.

The earliest building still around from either of these institutions dates to the mid-15th century. I don't think we have a clue how fancy the architecture was on their early buildings, which were also considerably later than the institutionalization of the universities, which were just groups of students meeting in public houses for many a year...

-Gerhard

I was more thinkning of them as Academic institutions than Architectural, but even so, the Kings College Chapel is fairly swish for a 15th-16th C Non Cathedral chapel.

[Robert of Canterbury]

I believe this structure mostly predates either University, and might give a clue to their original appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St._C ... _-_638.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan_cole/7056249087/
(I was originally larger, and is now missing a range.)

Not really. While the inner Gate-house and the hall to the right of the doorway in the middle of the photo are 14th C, The Almshouses on the left of your picture are 15thC, Built by Cardinal Beaufort.

But it is a lovely place to visit.
http://members.armourarchive.org/robert ... es%202.JPG

[Russ Mitchell]

I was more thinkning of them as Academic institutions than Architectural, but even so, the Kings College Chapel is fairly swish for a 15th-16th C Non Cathedral chapel.

Yep. From the mid-to-late 14th onward, England starts to really get spiff and stay that way. My quibbles are solidly aimed at the high middle ages.

[FrauHirsch1]

At the beginning of the 16th c, Henry imported a bunch of German craftsmen - armorers, jewelers, weavers, etc to up Englands game. As I understand it, he was trying to avoid sending their wool to the mainland and then buying it back as cloth, but also wanted to be in control of armor production, so he could ship them back out of England if needed.

English pottery and glasswork is a much lower quality in comparison to Italy and the Holy Roman Empire through the 16th c.

There is a letter written in the 16th century by an Englishman visiting Germany exclaiming how clean German cities are compared to England, that they don't just throw their night waste out into the street, or let hogs run the streets, and how the people bathe often.

[Buster]

I'm not a history expert, but I think in Italy flowed very high quantities of cash in that period. The proof of it are in art, architecture, literature and in everyplace you put your eye or hands.

I've noticed this as well.
It seems like while most of Europe was using timber framing or stone, Italy was constructing it's cities largely of brick.
The brick buildings to the left of this image look like they could be contemporary with the 13thC Cathedral:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duomo ... G_4947.JPG
And the brick buildings in this photo look like they could date the the medieval period: (The massive tower being 14thC, as we know.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/architectu ... 363431713/
This probably had a lot to do with Italy's trade. We know the Byzantine empire even sometimes relied on the city of Genoa to provide it with warships. It makes me wonder what medieval Italy would have looked like if it were a single unified nation.
I also found this very impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_della_Lanterna
It was remodeled in the 16thC, but dates back centuries earlier. (The coat-of-arms having been on it since 1340)

[chef de chambre]

Building materials are based directly on what is available locally, rather than "trade". In no way, shape, or form was Italy "unified".

[RandallMoffett]

Frau,

That is odd as just a few decades before Mancini and several Venentian delegates in England are commenting on the high quality of living of every one including the commoners and they mention the fine household objects.

RPM

[Signo]

This is not strange at all, it may depend on where they had the chance to look, and to whom their comment where directed. Maybe they had an interest in say good things of the place they were visiting and / or maybe the writer had not the chance to see the poorest part of the city, that was quite big compared to venice.

Chef, are you saying that stone and clay was largely avaiable only in Italy? I don't think it's the main reason, I think it's more a question of tradition and capability, but you can'd dismiss the level of richness that various part of Italy handled in the middleages. That richness led to the renaissance, despite the fact that italian city waged war eachother with great effort, they still had plenty of money for fancy stuff.

p.s. Buster was just wondering, and I think that if italian cities were united in a nation instead of warring factions, geography and history today would be much different.

[chef de chambre]

No, Signo, I am saying suitable building timber was more readily available elsewhere in quantity to be used, and thus was less expensive and FYI, plenty of stone and brick were used in regular dwellings North of the Alps, all you have to do is be prepared to look for it.

Buster is beginning an education, in a rather haphazard maner, and relying heavily on images of modern survivals, of whatever objects. He seems to be relying on this instead of looking to documentary evidence, and archaeological evidence, and coming to a number of bad conclusions in many cases, based on what seems to be primarily a google search of photographs, instead of actual study.

[Russ Mitchell]

That's a bit harsh: how about "intead of more profitable and methodical" study?

[chef de chambre]

That's a bit harsh: how about "intead of more profitable and methodical" study?

That's certainly a nicer way to put it, but having dredged through enough of his threads where he comes up consistantly with wild speculation, or poor information (usually a combination of both), I'm worn in regards to toleration of it.