Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James Hannam · 08-29-2007, 09:23 AM

So just how dark were the Early Middle Ages (c. 400AD – c. AD1000)? Some interest has been expressed in the flat earth thread in a more in-depth look at current trends in medieval history, so here goes.

There are two schools of thought found in the academy roughly corresponding to whether the historian in question is a medievalist or classicist.

Most historians of the Early Middle Ages, typified by Roger Collins (or via: amazon.co.uk), take the view that they were not dark at all. They cite the wonderful objects found at Sutton Hoo, the mosaics of Ravenna’s churches, the Cathedral at Aachen, the numerous law codes, the spread of literacy and the formation of the people who would one day become Europe’s nation states. They can also point to the apogee of Byzantine civilisation under Basil II in the ninth century; the fact that it was a Frankish warlord, Charles Martel, who finally stopped the Muslim advance; and the rapid assimilation of new technology such as the heavy plough, stirrup, horse collar, horse shoe and mill.

Classical historians, like Bryan Ward-Perkins (or via: amazon.co.uk), tend to claim that the Early Middle Ages were dark, at least compared to the Roman Empire. They cite the collapse of central control in the west under the barbarian onslaught, the decline of literacy and loss of Greek, the reduction of trade, sharp falls in population density and the sheer amount of senseless destruction by the various tribes that fell on the Empire. The Vandals did not give their name for nothing.

Neither side follows Gibbon and blames Christianity for the ‘Dark Ages’. Indeed, Christianity is seen as the most important framework within which late-antique culture survived. It was also an essential factor in the spread of that culture into north-eastern Europe where the Romans had never taken it.

Both sides have part of the truth. The Roman Empire did fall in the West and this did lead to a serious reduction of material and intellectual culture. But the Empire had to fall for modern Europe to rise. Roman society was sclerotic, despotic and highly conservative. Innovation was rarely taken up. Much of the technology that revolutionised European agriculture in the fifth to thirteenth centuries was available to the Romans but they hardly used it. They had no desire to expand their borders and bring civilisation to the Germans and Scandinavians. Much of the pressure on the imperial borders was due to tribes wanting to join the Empire.

So the early Middle Ages started off dark with the great plagues, barbarian incursions and loss of elite culture. But they then took off at a far faster rate than the Romans had managed for centuries. You could call the Fall of the Roman Empire an episode in creative destruction.

Best wishes

James (pka Bede)

Read the first chapter, all about the Early Middle Ages, of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science

RareBird · 08-29-2007, 09:48 AM

They were not dark at all. They were just as sunny brilliant and lushly colorful as today. It's just a European characterization of a time which has nothing to do with the tangible reality of the period. The dark ages were branded the dark ages well later and nobody alive during that time would have thought any such thing.

Roger Pearse · 08-29-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

Most historians of the Early Middle Ages, typified by Roger Collins (or via: amazon.co.uk), take the view that they were not dark at all...

I'm afraid that I see such revisionism only as evidence of low standards in academia, tho. They were a miserable time in which to be alive. The nearest modern equivalent is to be trapped in the ruins of Rhodesia, with everything getting worse and no way out.

Quote:

Both sides have part of the truth. The Roman Empire did fall in the West and this did lead to a serious reduction of material and intellectual culture.

This is to put it very mildly. The culture rotted. The language rotted. Literacy vanished. Freedom, law, hygiene, and hope all vanished. Only the church remained, weak and helpless, a ghostly reminder of the dead empire and that once the barbarians had not ruled all.

Some manuscripts in that period are not written at all. They are drawn -- the 'scribes' are illiterate and copying blindly the shapes on the page.

Quote:

But the Empire had to fall for modern Europe to rise. Roman society was sclerotic, despotic and highly conservative. Innovation was rarely taken up.

This is true. The poisons in Roman society were too deep-seated for even such a shock as the conversion to Christianity to eradicate. The empire fell because of its own weakness, not because of barbarian strength. Ammianus Marcellinus depicts the degenerate political culture of the Roman state -- a hopeless and cruel despotism -- exceedingly well, I think, and makes clear that the Roman state could not continue.

Quote:

So the early Middle Ages started off dark with the great plagues, barbarian incursions and loss of elite culture. But they then took off at a far faster rate than the Romans had managed for centuries.

Not until the high middle ages, surely? Things were pretty dicey even after Charlemagne had turned things around.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JoeWallack · 08-29-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

So just how dark were the Early Middle Ages

JW:
Let's put it this way. If Ford Prefect had visited his multi-peril sunglasses would have been Darker than Dick Cheney's crypt.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

purple_kathryn · 08-29-2007, 10:31 AM

well

they had no leccy see....

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-29-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

So just how dark were the Early Middle Ages (c. 400AD – c. AD1000)? Some interest has been expressed in the flat earth thread in a more in-depth look at current trends in medieval history, so here goes.

There are two schools of thought found in the academy roughly corresponding to whether the historian in question is a medievalist or classicist.

Most historians of the Early Middle Ages, typified by Roger Collins (or via: amazon.co.uk), take the view that they were not dark at all. They cite the wonderful objects found at Sutton Hoo, the mosaics of Ravenna’s churches, the Cathedral at Aachen, the numerous law codes, the spread of literacy and the formation of the people who would one day become Europe’s nation states. They can also point to the apogee of Byzantine civilisation under Basil II in the ninth century; the fact that it was a Frankish warlord, Charles Martel, who finally stopped the Muslim advance; and the rapid assimilation of new technology such as the heavy plough, stirrup, horse collar, horse shoe and mill.

Classical historians, like Bryan Ward-Perkins (or via: amazon.co.uk), tend to claim that the Early Middle Ages were dark, at least compared to the Roman Empire. They cite the collapse of central control in the west under the barbarian onslaught, the decline of literacy and loss of Greek, the reduction of trade, sharp falls in population density and the sheer amount of senseless destruction by the various tribes that fell on the Empire. The Vandals did not give their name for nothing.

Neither side follows Gibbon and blames Christianity for the ‘Dark Ages’. Indeed, Christianity is seen as the most important framework within which late-antique culture survived. It was also an essential factor in the spread of that culture into north-eastern Europe where the Romans had never taken it.

Both sides have part of the truth. The Roman Empire did fall in the West and this did lead to a serious reduction of material and intellectual culture. But the Empire had to fall for modern Europe to rise. Roman society was sclerotic, despotic and highly conservative. Innovation was rarely taken up. Much of the technology that revolutionised European agriculture in the fifth to thirteenth centuries was available to the Romans but they hardly used it. They had no desire to expand their borders and bring civilisation to the Germans and Scandinavians. Much of the pressure on the imperial borders was due to tribes wanting to join the Empire.

So the early Middle Ages started off dark with the great plagues, barbarian incursions and loss of elite culture. But they then took off at a far faster rate than the Romans had managed for centuries. You could call the Fall of the Roman Empire an episode in creative destruction.

Best wishes

James (pka Bede)

Read the first chapter, all about the Early Middle Ages, of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science

The Christians, RCC, actually, made sure the RCC was the ONLY thing to survive antiquity! Their intolerance is legendary.

On the other hand, that's only true for western Europe. In Europe as a whole, the best thing from antiquity to survive the Empire... was the Empire. The Byzantines considered themselves to be true Romans and they had a level of civilization and surviving literature and knowledge the RCC did not have. It only got to the West when Constantinople fell, and that was the end of the middle ages (the renaissance), wasn't it? Would the east be so rich culturally if there was no Empire, just Greek Orthodox Church? I'm quite certain the answer is no. Those naughty Byzantines owed lots of their intellectual grandeur to the pagan writings they copied over and over.

On the other hand, I don't paint history black and white, but I would have preferred to live in ancient Rome, Egypt and Hellas than in any medieval country. I remember Winston Churchill stated that it took Europe more than a thousand years to recover, that Romas had plumbing, hot water, decent latrines, etc. Modern London developped that in the XIXth century, practically yesterday historically speaking. Nevertheless the seeds of modernity are medieval, not ancient. Ockham and Bacon are medieval, scholastic rigor is medieval, nevertheless we cannot say that antiquity didn't have their equivalents.

Great website, Bede!

No Robots · 08-29-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

They were not dark at all. They were just as sunny brilliant and lushly colorful as today. It's just a European characterization of a time which has nothing to do with the tangible reality of the period. The dark ages were branded the dark ages well later and nobody alive during that time would have thought any such thing.

Those whom the enemy had not killed when they pillaged the city were overwhelmed by disaster after the sack; those who had escaped death in the capture did not survive the ruin that followed. Some died lingering deaths from deep wounds, others were burned by the enemy's fires and suffered tortures even after the flames were extinguished. Some perished of hunger, others of nakedness, some wasting away, others paralyzed with cold, and so all alike by diverse deaths hastened to the common goal.

Worse than all this, other cities suffered from the destruction of this single town. There lay all about the torn and naked bodies of both sexes, a sight that I myself endured. These were a pollution to the eyes of the city, as they lay there lacerated by birds and dogs. The stench of the dead brought pestilence on the living: death breathed out death. Thus even those who had escaped the destruction of the city suffered the evils that sprang from the fate of the rest.--Salvian on the Sack of Trier, c. 430

Antipope Innocent II · 08-29-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that I see such revisionism only as evidence of low standards in academia, tho. They were a miserable time in which to be alive. The nearest modern equivalent is to be trapped in the ruins of Rhodesia, with everything getting worse and no way out.

I'm with Roger and Bryan Ward-Perkins on this one - there definitely was a catastrophic collapse in the West in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries and it took until at least the Eleventh Century before Europe began to sturggle back to Roman levels of civilisation. It was a collapse that was more gradual and subtle in some places (eg southern Gaul) and more Mad Max/Road Warrior in others (eg Britain), but it was a collapse none the less.

As pretty as the Sutton Hoo stuff is, if you compare it to what King Raedwald's subjects were using and wearing at the same time you'd have to say you were in an age where things had gone backwards.

That's not to say that there weren't periods (Charlemagne) or areas (Ireland) where things were a bit brighter. Nor can it be denied that the popular idea of a bleak dark age from 500 to 1500 is wrong and the cliched idea that "the Renaissance" was when things changed is silly. But the Dark Ages were dark.

Not to mention one of my favourite periods of history - "interesting times" and all that.

Clivedurdle · 08-29-2007, 02:42 PM

There are other views.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pirenne.htm

Quote:

Henri Pirenne's Thesis
Concerning the Economic History
of Europe in the Middle Ages

References:
Henri Pirenne, Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe
Henri Pirenne, Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade

The Roman Empire was fundamentally a maritime empire oriented around the Mediterranean Sea. There were of course nonmaritime frontiers in the wooded north of Europe and the deserts of the Sahara and the Middle East but most, if not all, was within the watershed of the Mediterranean-Black Sea. The sea not only provided the routes for political administration and military supervision but also for trade. Sea trade was predominantly in the hands of merchants from the Levantine, the Syrians and Jews. This trade made possible regional specialization and economies of scale. Not only were goods provided cheaper as a result this trade but there was a vastly larger variety of goods available.

The Germanic tribes in the West were becoming Romanized. Germans served in the Roman Army and sometimes Germans commanded the armies of Rome. Thus the conflicts in the West were not civilization versus barbarians but instead Romanized Germans fighting against Germanized Roman armies. The battles in the East were a different matter; there it was Roman culture versus Parthian (Persian) culture. Losses in the West could be regained by diplomacy if not military operations, but losses in the East were permanent. Thus the shift of administration from Rome to Constantinople reflected this situation.

When Moslems captured the Mediterranean in the seventh century the trade routes were cut. The Vikings later also made sea trade difficult. The Magyars swept into Europe out of Central Asia and further cut trade in the east. The net result is that individual regions could not count on producing some goods for market and using the proceeds from their sale to buy the other goods which were needed. Each region had to be self-sufficient.

Self-sufficiency has its attractions but with self-sufficiency are lost the gains from specialization and the economies of scale. The levels of income and standards of living decline so there may not be any market for trade goods even if they were available. The surpluses that could support some elements of the society pursuing cultural activities disappeared and almost everyone had to grub for a living.

Compare the food avaialable at certain monasteries pre and post Islam, the average size of cattle, oh and how come they forgot how to make concrete?

The dark ages were very dark.

No Robots · 08-29-2007, 02:51 PM

Thanks, Clive. Pirenne just blows me away. I stumbled on him while doing research and he remains my all-time favorite historian. His A History of Europe: From the Invasions to the XVI Century is the only book one really needs for the Middle Ages, and of course Mohammed and Charlemagne is probably the greatest triumph of historical synthesis ever.

08-29-2007, 09:23 AM	#1
James Hannam Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Kent, England Posts: 72	How Dark were the 'Dark Ages'? So just how dark were the Early Middle Ages (c. 400AD – c. AD1000)? Some interest has been expressed in the flat earth thread in a more in-depth look at current trends in medieval history, so here goes. There are two schools of thought found in the academy roughly corresponding to whether the historian in question is a medievalist or classicist. Most historians of the Early Middle Ages, typified by Roger Collins (or via: amazon.co.uk), take the view that they were not dark at all. They cite the wonderful objects found at Sutton Hoo, the mosaics of Ravenna’s churches, the Cathedral at Aachen, the numerous law codes, the spread of literacy and the formation of the people who would one day become Europe’s nation states. They can also point to the apogee of Byzantine civilisation under Basil II in the ninth century; the fact that it was a Frankish warlord, Charles Martel, who finally stopped the Muslim advance; and the rapid assimilation of new technology such as the heavy plough, stirrup, horse collar, horse shoe and mill. Classical historians, like Bryan Ward-Perkins (or via: amazon.co.uk), tend to claim that the Early Middle Ages were dark, at least compared to the Roman Empire. They cite the collapse of central control in the west under the barbarian onslaught, the decline of literacy and loss of Greek, the reduction of trade, sharp falls in population density and the sheer amount of senseless destruction by the various tribes that fell on the Empire. The Vandals did not give their name for nothing. Neither side follows Gibbon and blames Christianity for the ‘Dark Ages’. Indeed, Christianity is seen as the most important framework within which late-antique culture survived. It was also an essential factor in the spread of that culture into north-eastern Europe where the Romans had never taken it. Both sides have part of the truth. The Roman Empire did fall in the West and this did lead to a serious reduction of material and intellectual culture. But the Empire had to fall for modern Europe to rise. Roman society was sclerotic, despotic and highly conservative. Innovation was rarely taken up. Much of the technology that revolutionised European agriculture in the fifth to thirteenth centuries was available to the Romans but they hardly used it. They had no desire to expand their borders and bring civilisation to the Germans and Scandinavians. Much of the pressure on the imperial borders was due to tribes wanting to join the Empire. So the early Middle Ages started off dark with the great plagues, barbarian incursions and loss of elite culture. But they then took off at a far faster rate than the Romans had managed for centuries. You could call the Fall of the Roman Empire an episode in creative destruction. Best wishes James (pka Bede) Read the first chapter, all about the Early Middle Ages, of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2007, 09:48 AM	#2
RareBird Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 4,607	They were not dark at all. They were just as sunny brilliant and lushly colorful as today. It's just a European characterization of a time which has nothing to do with the tangible reality of the period. The dark ages were branded the dark ages well later and nobody alive during that time would have thought any such thing.

08-29-2007, 10:31 AM	#5
purple_kathryn Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 3,382	well they had no leccy see....

08-29-2007, 02:51 PM	#10
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Thanks, Clive. Pirenne just blows me away. I stumbled on him while doing research and he remains my all-time favorite historian. His A History of Europe: From the Invasions to the XVI Century is the only book one really needs for the Middle Ages, and of course Mohammed and Charlemagne is probably the greatest triumph of historical synthesis ever.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.