SE Academic Review 2023

43 ACADEMIC REVIEW 2023

The global history approach is difficult to define because it has manifested in numerous scholarly guises ranging from world, transnational and deep history to the history of everything (Conrad, 2016, p. 5). It can also be seen as both an approach and a method because it encapsulates ways of thinking about history and ways of treating elements of the past. Generally, however, the global approach can be defined as scholarship that examines either the history of everything, comparisons and connections, or globalizing transformations (Conrad, pp. 6-10). To show I Constructing studies of medieval Europe with some of the principles of global history helps to challenge the narrative that the Middle Ages was a pre modern period that lacked processes of globalization. In fact, it is possible to show that there were instances of proto-globalization across Europe whilst simultaneously revealing that the history of European colonialism is much earlier than ordinarily presumed. Robert Bartlett’s (1993) seminal work, The Making of Europe , deploys some of the methodological characteristics of global studies, even though the field of global history had not been clearly defined by the early 1990s. Bartlett’s methods reflect those of other global historians through his comparative analysis of experiences at different frontiers of Europe to identify consistent cultural characteristics, whilst his decentred focus highlights that people on the peripheries of Latin Christendom, not just those at the centre, existed in a ‘Europeanized’ world (Pomeranz, 2000; Davis, 2011, p. 190). His explanation of ‘Europeanization’ from 950-1350 shows that a recognisably uniform society was not simply identifiable in a cultural heartland but could be ‘seen most starkly at its edges’ (Bartlett, 1993, p. 3). It can be argued, therefore, that his methods show that uniform culture existed at different peripheries of Europe due to processes of proto-globalization through the expansion of Latin Christendom. It is at the edges of Europe where Bartlett succeeds in showing the benefit of the global history approach. The widespread tolerance of ethnic and social diversity at the peripheries reinforced a ‘global’ nature because it created identifiably similar characteristics across the region. This can be seen in the function of the law in areas of ethnic mingling as individuals could be judged according to their own ethnic law. For example, in Prague in the 1170s, Germans could

be judged by their own laws and customs rather than those of Bohemia (Bartlett, 1993, pp. 204-205). Yet, it was not only in matters of disagreement between individuals when a person received this benefit. Judicial dualism also existed in disputes between conqueror and subject. In 1356, the Duke of Lancaster granted that the Welsh of Kidwelly should be tried according to native Welsh law and issued inheritance rights to illegitimate children, a principle that had previously been rejected by English kings and prelates (Bartlett, p. 208). The provision of legal accommodations at the frontiers of Latin Europe shows that a ‘decentred’ approach to writing the history of medieval Europe reveals a process of ‘Europeanization’ as the influence of Rome spread into the peripheries. One cannot suggest, however, that medieval Europe was a place of complete tolerance and inclusivity; Europe from 950-1350 was, as Bartlett illustrates, a region of conquest and submission. But this recognition of expansion across Europe has the potential to enrich the broader history of European colonialism. Languages did not share parity and the colonial atmosphere meant that the growing presence of Romance and Germanic languages reduced the prominence of Celtic, Slavic and Baltic tongues, offering speakers of colonial languages privileges in some areas such as Livonia (Bartlett, 1993, p. 201). Framing the experience of conquest within the frontiers of medieval Europe helps to show that colonial history is much older than most studies suggest. Traditionally, the history of European colonialism has been subsumed within explanations of European hegemony, which has been understood to have emerged after the Middle Ages due to emerging long-distance trade and the expansion of European colonies abroad (Wallerstein, 1974; Abu Lughod, 1989). Offering a challenge to this hypothesis how it is useful to historians of medieval Europe, and vice versa, the following sections evaluate three case studies taken from a range of dates between the early 1990s and the late 2010s; specifically, studies produced by Robert Bartlett, Monica Green and Amanda Power. For the sake of meaningful and consistent evaluation, the three case studies examine issues pertinent to Latin Christendom in the High and Late Middle Ages. It is to this geographic and chronological context that is implied when the terms, ‘Europe’, ‘medieval’ and ‘Middle Ages’ are used in this essay.