The Debate on The Dark Ages

[Perd Hapley]

Were the Dark Ages dark?  Why are they called "Dark"?  Would it be better to call them "Late Antiquity"? 

Have at it, boys. 

[Desertdog]

I always thought it was called the dark ages because there is very few written records from that period of time.

[Jocassee]

The explanation I heard was that the the Enlightenment dudes (or maybe the Romantics) called them that. Compare and contrast...

[bedlamite]

They didn't have Thor:

[MicroBalrog]

The explanation I heard was that the the Enlightenment dudes (or maybe the Romantics) called them that. Compare and contrast...

I think it started out in the later Rennaissance.

Of course now we know the Rennaissance was not the real first Rennaissance, and there were people talking Latin and being vaguely nice to each other even in the 9th century, which is supposed to be REALLY OMG DARK.


Also remember it is in the 'Dark Ages' that  a lot of neat stuff was invented. Like jury trials.

[Tallpine]

I think they were mostly "dark" because their weren't large efficient states making war on each other and telling the people what to do - only smaller tribes feuding with each other.  :rolleyes:

And of course that time was the "golden age" in Ireland with Christian Monks making beautifully illustrated copies of various literature. 

[lupinus]

It is generally referred to as "Dark Ages" because it is a relatively low period between two high periods.

Rome ruled the European continent, with little exception in the very northern reaches and Germany.  Rome was, especially for 2000 years ago, very advanced.  They had things the world didn't see again for another 2000 years.  Granted they were more crude and the 2000 year later versions were more advanced and useful, but still.  Between Rome and the Greeks, the world was a relatively advanced place.  There was also structure and stability.

Then Rome fell apart and most of it was lost until it was rediscovered more recently.  These are really some dark times.  Very unstable warlords and little kingdoms changing hands all of the time, not technologically advanced at all, generally life sucks.

Then out of this comes the high middle ages/medieval period where things start to look better followed by the renaissance. 

Basically it's dark because it was a nasty time between two relatively good times.

[BlueStarLizzard]

the plague, bunches of dirty unwashed illiterate serfs, the nobles either fighting amongst themselves or spending all their money on finacing crusade instead of their lands, rush lights, crappy furniture and lots of bugs that live on people, madatory freezing your backside of in a church for masses that you can't understand 'cause its all in latin, and no such thing as health care. i could go on.

we have great stories, legends and historical moments from that period, but i think much of it is that adversity can create what peace cannot sometimes. the reason such things are so great is because it really sucked back then.

[MicroBalrog]

the plague,

The Black Death post-dates the dark ages by 400 years, and in fact outbreaks continued into the Englightenment.

the nobles either fighting amongst themselves or spending all their money on finacing crusade instead of their lands,

The Rennaissance was far worse for in-fighting. I recomment Burkhardt's history of Rennaissance italy.

madatory freezing your backside of in a church for masses that you can't understand 'cause its all in latin,

This didn't exactly go away during the renaissance, either.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, no, those things would apply to much of history, not just the Dark Ages.  Although I'm not sure that church attendance was really mandatory in old Europe, I could be wrong about that. 

[lee n. field]

Then Rome fell apart and most of it was lost until it was rediscovered more recently.  These are really some dark times.

Rome in the west fell.  Rome in the east (Byzantium) persisted for a long time after.

Quote
madatory freezing your backside of in a church for masses that you can't understand 'cause its all in latin,

This didn't exactly go away during the renaissance, either.
   

Don't forget that Luther guy.

Although I'm not sure that church attendance was really mandatory in old Europe,

I don't think so.  I remember reading somewhere that 2/year were enjoined.  And, we're talking a looong time and a big area.  Plenty of variation is possible.

[MicroBalrog]

Don't forget that Luther guy.

Who came in at the very tail end of the Rennaissance, IIRC. 1517 or so.

The time period conventionally known as the European Rennaissance started at least 200 years earlier.

[BlueStarLizzard]

 the middle ages spans the period from 500 to 1500 AD. it overlaps with the begining of the itialian renaissance, which spans from 1300 to 1500.  

it was in that overlap that we see some of the worst of the dark ages as it is ending. poor food supply, famine, population growth and plague. however, according to my teachers, this period is still considered to be the middle ages.

the end of the roman empire and the biggining of the dark ages is also shadowed by plauge, political instability and infighting. from there we go to the early middle ages (500-1000) christianity grows, german barbarians convert, latin is preserved by the church, but is unavalible to the masses, and the fuedal system begins in ernest.
then we have 200 years of crusades (which were extreamly expensive and not exsactly orginised, including the childrens crusade) which ends in 1291, however the fighting continued in europe which finished in 1492 (the 8 years before the history books generally end the middle ages).

i think you were refering to the dark ages as the early middle ages and i was just grouping the whole thing together. sorry for confusion.

and the freezing the behind off comment was not the point, the part about not being able to understand was. we have to wait for luther for that. isn't that considered part of the enlightment?

and no it probably wasn't madatory in most places in a legal sense. however, if i was a serf and i was told the only way for nice things to happen was to go to church, i probably would go to church, weither i understood it or not.
 

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I thought it was Rome > Dark Age > Middle Ages > other stuff.

The Dark Ages, from what I remember, was a time when Europe, in the absence of Roman overlords, went a bit tribal. Not cannibalism tribal, but to the extent that national leaders were often meaningless. Local authorities were the real rulers. Nobody was a major power, so there was no single deciding influence on events. Nations as confederations of cities, not so much a union. Could be completely off base, but that's what I recall.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I thought it was Rome > Dark Age > Middle Ages > other stuff.

The Dark Ages, from what I remember, was a time when Europe, in the absence of Roman overlords, went a bit tribal. Not cannibalism tribal, but to the extent that national leaders were often meaningless. Local authorities were the real rulers. Nobody was a major power, so there was no single deciding influence on events. Nations as confederations of cities, not so much a union. Could be completely off base, but that's what I recall.

i think thats one interpertation. the problem is that their are a couple diffrent ways to go about it. i was tought early, high and late middle ages. and the late middle includes the itialian renassance.
one of my problems is that my western civ class was tought with books from the periods and not a text, so i have to look at notes (in my crappy handwriting and tons of shorthand that made sense then, but doesn't always translate 5 years later) to get a cohesive whole. unfortunatly my stash of textbooks does not include western civ. for some reason their all (and i'm talking like 4 or 5 textbooks) amercian history. don't ask.

[BridgeRunner]

It hasn't been the dark ages in ages.  It's been late antiquity for a while now. 

[K Frame]

They're called the Dark Ages because the strides that had been made in government, art, literature, education/learning, etc., came to a screeching halt after the fall of the Roman Empire. The structure of society, in a very real sense, collapsed.

[roo_ster]

I am going to bring over a few points from the other thread, but before I do, I will make a few comments.

First, the terms "Dark Age" and "Late Antiquity" are both accurate, IMO.  An analysis of the evidence shows a significant decline in economic, cultural, scientific, and other fields of endeavor.  I have read studies that determine modern Parisians only achieved material prosperity on par with Parisians of Roman times in the late 1800s.  Dark, indeed.

Also, many of those who followed Rome did their best to preserve what they could after the collapse.  In places, the rebuilding (of Western Civ) started soon after the collapse of Roman authority in the West.  Late Antiquity seems appropriate for such a time frame.

Last, I do not share the Progressive assumption that it will always be better & brighter tomorrow.  I think that to make that tomorrow better requires hard work on both an individual basis and on a collective basis.  Such is not always forthcoming and we then see te fall of formerly great civilizations back into the default state of humanity: war, poverty, and hardship.


Given the above, I have little patience for the "post-American" types who wish to see America a diminished power.  A Dark Age or "Late Anglo-American Dominance" would result in a world-wide Dark Age.

I thought the "Dark" referred to the lack of original sources that were available (at least at one time) to shed light on those "Dark Ages," not to a lack of progress.  Of course, some people have viewed it that way. 

Well, since the previous times had plenty of folk writing about the goings-on, I think the lack of same later on indicates a reduced material state, at least.

Wow, there is a lot of FUD i this thread.

FUD= Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. 

Re-interpreting the Dark Ages as Late Antiquity as some hae is an exercise in just the opposite.

[MicroBalrog]

They're called the Dark Ages because the strides that had been made in government, art, literature, education/learning, etc., came to a screeching halt after the fall of the Roman Empire. The structure of society, in a very real sense, collapsed.

Eh.

While the economic achievements of medieval society, as jfruser pointed out, were limited, art, literature, and even certain types of technology continued to grow and improve.

As a mater of fact, according to Le Goffe at least (I hope I'm not messing up the English spelling of his name) - economic growth continued in the Middle Ages, but mostly in terms of farming becomig more efficient than what Romans had and farming territory expanding outwards.

[agricola]

Eh.

While the economic achievements of medieval society, as jfruser pointed out, were limited, art, literature, and even certain types of technology continued to grow and improve.

As a mater of fact, according to Le Goffe at least (I hope I'm not messing up the English spelling of his name) - economic growth continued in the Middle Ages, but mostly in terms of farming becomig more efficient than what Romans had and farming territory expanding outwards.

I disagree strongly about the idea that art of any kind improved during the Dark Ages or medieval times, and Dark Age (or medieval) literature does not even begin to compare with the minute fraction of literature that has survived from the Classical period.  While some areas of technology may have improved (ships and items related to ships are really the only thing I can think of here, and probably the printing press) it is worth pointing out that far more had been lost than was ever gained during the Dark Ages or Medieval times. 

As for farming, its worth pointing out that European farmers had to produce more than their Roman forefathers - Rome (and later Constantinople) was after all largely fed from grain from Egypt and North Africa. 

[MicroBalrog]

I take it you define the Dark Ages in terms of time as having taken place up until at least 1500 (given you include the printing press).

In this case, I give you Petrarch and Dante in literature and Da Vinci and Giotto in arts. I give you gothic architecture.

I give you Snorri Sturluson.

I give you gunpowder and improvements in agriculture.

All of these and more are within the time frame you offered.

[K Frame]

"Eh.

While the economic achievements of medieval society, as jfruser pointed out, were limited, art, literature, and even certain types of technology continued to grow and improve."

Of course there were improvements.

No age is totally devoid of some improvement in some area.

But the improvements of the Dark Ages came at a snail's pace compared to the Roman era. Innovation in art and literature were but a shadow of what transpired during earlier periods. Government and administration took huge steps backwards in many ways, which helped to significantly slow development of technology. Yes, there were a few bright spots here and there, but taken as a sum total, they're just that, a few bright spots in a sea of nothing.

[Tallpine]

national leaders were often meaningless. Local authorities were the real rulers. Nobody was a major power, so there was no single deciding influence on events. Nations as confederations of cities, not so much a union.

Okay, so what's the downside ?   

[BridgeRunner]

I take it you define the Dark Ages in terms of time as having taken place up until at least 1500 (given you include the printing press).

While I gotta reiterate that there isn't really a debate on the "dark ages" merely the near-universal transition in academia to the terms late antiquity or alternatively early medieval, no one ever considered the period from ~800 to 1500 the dark ages.  That period was always considered the high medieval period.

Debating whether 1450 should be called the dark ages or late antiquity is just silly.  It is not remotely either.  Not unless you all think that we're still living in the renaissance because after all, it only started about six hundred years ago.

Oh, and 1500 is, by some significant measures, the end of the renaissance and the beginning of the baroque in art and early modern in political and cultural affairs.

[Manedwolf]

The aqueducts failed and people went back to drawing water from rivers in their shadows, hauling it in buckets.

Knowledge was lost. Medicine went from Galen's teachings back to supernatural rituals and filth, so people generally died of injuries and illnesses that Roman physicians could have easily treated.

Engineering was almost completely lost to superstition. The Romans once used calculated hydrodynamics to demolish an entire mountain to make getting at the gold easier. They built roads with an odometer to measure the distance for precise sign markers. They were masters at masonry, with a waterproof concrete that's still all but unmatched today. And the Greeks, with much of the same, even had a mechanical computer 2000 years before Babbage. Basically, if they'd taken the next steps into steam, then electricity, they'd be us. So close. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

People went back from living in villas and multistory apartment blocks with jobs and fast-food takeout on the way home to basic subsistence farming, hunting, and living in huts or lean-tos, in some of the same areas, even amid the ruins of Roman cities.

Civilization, as defined by the Greco-Roman era, basically fell.

It only applied to Europe, really. The Far East kept going on as it was, it's why there's still things like Chinese astronomical records from over 2000 years ago that are invaluable to astronomers now. The dates and times and position of things like supernovae were precisely recorded, and that's helped vastly expand our knowledge now.

From living in this as a worker in Rome, complete with a public fountain of clean water right outside:



Or this as a wealthy sort, either through birth or private enterprise, owners of shipping companies and the like:



To living in this:



Yes, that's a fall.