BrowniesRule

I made this thread up in hopes of getting a serious answer about why people seem to dislike Dark Ages. In another topic, Thessalonian claimed that the Dark Ages were repugnant, and this was backed up by some other member which I can't remember the name.

Personally, I don't think they were as Dark as we think they were. But then again, I've never met someone who could say precisely what was so dark about them, so I'm interested.

Now I know that they have bad press because of the first renaissance humanists who retrieved and studied old manuscripts. But beyond that point I am kind of lost.

In the defence of the aforesaid Dark Ages, I can say that the horse was introduced in the fields to push the (device that works the earth to put seeds in which I forget the name), ensuring something like twice the potential of the subsequent harvest than the use of the beef.
It was also a period of rough adaptation for most rurals on former Roman territory, and a period of formation for monasteries and Christian culture. Barbarian kings solidified their dynasties, while Constantinople ruled a vast bureaucratic empire which fought Arabs on land and sea. Like a teenager leaving his parents' house, North Africa was starting a new life on its own, and distanced itself progressively from Omeyyad and Abbasid tutelage. The Dark Ages certainly were hard for some people, but for others it was a period of grandeur and wealth. In my view, it is a bustling period full of changes, and if we are to speak of ''Dark'', we ought to clarify what we mean and who it touches.

Zeno

I believe they are called Dark Ages, due to the lack of written sources.

MrKap

Nazi Germany was a Dark Age too... Anything where book burning, doctrine, and fascism is the norm, is typically a Dark Age. Is it not?



Prosperity and Dark Ages, are probably linked, but not in the way that might initially seem good. jmo...

Solidaire

Personally, I'm fascinated with the middle ages, so I can't answer your question.

I'll come back in a thread about "lovers of the dark ages".

bunyip

"Dark Ages" is a misnomer,and so misleading that historians have avoided the term for decades.

pnoozi

Theocracy, plague, crusades...

Although, not much darker than the preceding 4 billion years.

clement

There were neither plagues nor crusades during most of the early middle ages (except the justinian plague very early).

- The main period of the plagues : the late middle ages and the early modern period.

- Of the crusades : the high middle ages.

And i fail to see how the crusades were more barbaric than any other war. The crusaders committed a massacre in Jerusalem ? But how many of such slaughters were ordered by Caesar in Gaul ? Or committed during the thirty years war ?

bunyip

Tu quoque.

Kirialax

This is definitely a topic worth pursuing. I'll throw in a few musings of my own, but I really have nothing of substance to add. One the one hand, I have to wonder if there is a stronger trend amongst Americans than Europeans to see the Early Middle Ages as a horrific time. I don't think that there is anything in particular about Americans (although perhaps some conservative Protestants like to use it to support their own agendas) in this other than the fact that they seem to use some atrocious books in their advanced high school history classes, like A World Lit Only By Fire. This is purely based upon little snippets I have gathered here and there, and thus not on any solid evidence.

On the other hand, I see no evidence of a particularly terrible Early Middle Ages in the academic literature. Some of Chris Wickham's work illustrates this quite well, although he is hardly alone. This is particularly good:

Kirialax

What theocracy? I recall popes unable to defend themselves from Arabs and Lombards and several arrests of popes by Byzantine military forces.