How come medieval historians wrote about events centuries after they happened?

by Fishoyo

I see a lot of things where it’ll say someone like a 12th century monk will wrote a historical text about something that happened during like Alfred the Great’s time. I don’t understand why we’re supposed to trust what they say, even though they couldn’t possibly have witnessed it. Am I missing something?

Goiyon

The monks, nuns, as well as other members of the clerus, often compiled their work partially from older sources available to them. They borrowed from these older sources to include preceding histories relevant to their own work. Also, in the case of many annals and chronicles, as well as necrologies (obituaries), they were continued by a new author on the death of his predecessor.

The relation between sources of different authors and different periods is often complicated but is nonetheless important to deduce in order to establish a source's credibility. Although I am unfamiliar with the primary sources concerning the reign of Alfred the Great, I can showcase the intricacies of how sources can be connected through another example.

In 1018 a punitive expedition led by the Duke of Lower Lorraine met its end at the hands of a numerically smaller force commanded by the Count of West-Frisia. Due to the unlikely outcome as well as the death of a number of nobles and bishops, the events found their way into numerous sources: 65 to be exact (that we know of); 37 narratives, such as annals and chronicles; 8 necrologies; 15 diplomatic sources, mainly charters; 5 others, a couple letters as well as a 17th century forgery.

In the context of your question, the narrative sources are the most interesting, as academics have established the relation between these sources through comparative analysis; there were some striking similarities. The 37 narrative sources that allude to the Battle of Vlaardingen are listed below, ordered roughly on the year they were written. The number in the first column will be used later to illustrate how the sources are connected.

​

# TITLE AUTHOR YEAR
1 Thietmarus chronicon Thietmar of Merseburg 1018
2 De diversitate temporum Alpertus of Metz 1021-1024
3 Miraculae S. Waldburgae Tielensia Alpertus of Metz 1022-1023
4 Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium Unknown 1024-1025
5 Annales Queldinburgenses Unknown ~1025
6 Codex Augiensis Herman of Reichenau 1048-1054
7 Annales Sancti Maximini Unknown Mid 11th century
8 Gesta ep. Tungrensium, Trajectensium, et Leodensium Anselmus 1052-1056
9 Annales Leodienses Unknown 1058-1086
10 Brunwilarensis Monasterii Fundatorum Actus Unknown Shorty after 1063
11 Bertholdi Annales Berthold of Reichenau 1066-1080
12 Annales Altahenses Maiores Unknown 1073-1075
13 Bernoldi Chronicon Bernold of Konstanz 1075-1100
14 Lamberti Hersfeldensis Annales Lamberti of Herfeld ~1078
15 Iocundi Translatio S. Servatii Jocundus 1088
16 Sigeberti Gemblacensis chronica Sigebert of Gembloers 1088-1111
17 Chronicon sancti Huberti Andaginensis Lambertus Parvus 1098-1106
18 Annales Laubienses Unknown After 1098-16th century
19 Ruperti Chronicon sancti Laurentii Leodiensis Rupert of Deutz ~1100
20 Annales Egmundenses Unknown 1112-1121
21 Liber Sancti Adalberti Unknown 1125-1133
22 Annales Parchenses Unknown 1140-1148
23 Gesta episcoporum Virdunensium Laurentius of Liege 1144
24 Annales Remenses et Colonienses Unknown ~1150
25 Vita Wolbodonis Episcopi Leodiensis Reinerus 1161-1182
26 Annales Sancti Iacoba Leodiensis Lambertus Parvus 1173-1194
27 Vita Balderici episcopi Leodiensis Unknown Late 12th century
28 Annales Elmarenses Unknown 12th century
29 Annales Yburgenses Unknown 12th century
30 Balduini Ninovensis Chronicon Boudewijn of Ninove Mid 13th century
31 Chronicon Egmundanum Unknown 1269-1272
32 Rijmkroniek van Holland Unknown 1280-1282
33 Chronographia Johannis de Beke Johannis de Beke ~1346
34 Bella campestria inter episcopos Trajectenses et comites Hollandie Unknown ~1348
35 Annales Tielenses Unknown 14th-15th century
36 Chronicon Tielense Unknown ~1450
37 Annala Uladh Ruaidhri Ó Luinín Late 15th century

(1/2)

CourtnusP

Medieval historians didn’t always write ‘centuries’ after events happened. There were chroniclers who kept records of current events; history as we think of it today was what was received either orally (and usually only spanned one or two generations) or what was given via written texts, but only a select few of the medieval population would have had either the access or ability to read those texts. It might help to refocus your question: why did medieval historians record what they did? By looking at what they noted and recorded, you can get a glimpse into what was important to them. A major part of a historian’s skill set is the ability to get their head into the heads of other people, rather than the other way around.