Dark Ages - A term worth using?

for italy it was a dark age, but rest of europe it wasn't as a matter of fact, it enabled the europeans to empower and make their own kingdoms and enrich their lands with civilization and culture and their independent values fueled by Christianity. roman empire seldom made any intelligent contributions in the first place, in architecture they did but couldnt reciprocate the intelligence of the greeks in continuing their intellectual achievements, as a matter of fact the roman conquest of greeks greatly diminished the greek intellect into nothing and the succeeding byzantine empire was known to plagiarise the ideas of the muslims, pre islamic persians, indians, chinese etc.

the renaissance also happened because of the italian monks rediscovering their golden age and also partially energized by the islamic/arabic golden age in parts of italy.

for europe it might be a dark age since romans were no more there to pamper and nurture them, but i think it was a process of self learning and standing which was much better than being a roman colony.

regards
 
Jun 2017
2,771
Connecticut
for italy it was a dark age, but rest of europe it wasn't as a matter of fact, it enabled the europeans to empower and make their own kingdoms and enrich their lands with civilization and culture and their independent values fueled by Christianity. roman empire seldom made any intelligent contributions in the first place, in architecture they did but couldnt reciprocate the intelligence of the greeks in continuing their intellectual achievements, as a matter of fact the roman conquest of greeks greatly diminished the greek intellect into nothing and the succeeding byzantine empire was known to plagiarise the ideas of the muslims, pre islamic persians, indians, chinese etc.

the renaissance also happened because of the italian monks rediscovering their golden age and also partially energized by the islamic/arabic golden age in parts of italy.

for europe it might be a dark age since romans were no more there to pamper and nurture them, but i think it was a process of self learning and standing which was much better than being a roman colony.

regards
You know what the first sentence is technically true, Europe aside from maybe Gaul was mostly less developed in the Classical Period. But Europeans identified with Romans accurately or not and did not see history through these lens.
 
Aug 2015
2,749
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
You know what the first sentence is technically true, Europe aside from maybe Gaul was mostly less developed in the Classical Period. But Europeans identified with Romans accurately or not and did not see history through these lens.
It is true that Europe about AD 1400 or 1500 at the transition between medieval and renaissance eras was mostly far more populated and developed than a thousand years earlier in the late Roman early post Roman era of AD 400 to 500. But Europe in AD 400 to 500 was mostly far more populated and developed than a thousand years earlier in 600 to 500 BC.

As a general rule, a region is likely to become more populated and developed over time, so it will usually be much more populated and developed at the end of a thousand years than at the beginning of that millennium.

But in Europe that effect was much more noticeable in the middle ages in areas which were never part of the Roman Empire. In regions that were part of the Roman Empire population and development may have reach a peak about AD 100 to 200 and then declined for centuries to the fall of the western empire and for centuries afterwards, so that the increase in population and development by AD 1100 or 1200 was not so noticeable as in regions which were never part of the Roman Empire.
 
Jul 2015
5,009
Netherlands
for italy it was a dark age, but rest of europe it wasn't as a matter of fact, it enabled the europeans to empower and make their own kingdoms and enrich their lands with civilization and culture and their independent values fueled by Christianity. roman empire seldom made any intelligent contributions in the first place, in architecture they did but couldnt reciprocate the intelligence of the greeks in continuing their intellectual achievements, as a matter of fact the roman conquest of greeks greatly diminished the greek intellect into nothing and the succeeding byzantine empire was known to plagiarise the ideas of the muslims, pre islamic persians, indians, chinese etc.
Just google Vitruvius. Plus they were still able to build Constantine's church.
the renaissance also happened because of the italian monks rediscovering their golden age and also partially energized by the islamic/arabic golden age in parts of italy.

for europe it might be a dark age since romans were no more there to pamper and nurture them, but i think it was a process of self learning and standing which was much better than being a roman colony.

regards
Over half of Europe never had any direct interaction with the Romans. The main areas (in the west) of "civilization" in those days were, Rome (duh), Gaul, England and Ireland. The latter 2 had been left alone by the romans for centuries.
 

Similar History Discussions