Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Why are the dark ages dark ages
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 21st July 2008
after the Romans left up until ? it was the dark ages - no written history - no culture ??
why ??
when the romans left there were lots of people who could read and write - priests , aristocrats , chiefs etc
at what point did the written language stop being used, to record legends or history
surely father to son, priest to priest, thane to thane - something would have been written down
why was there this blank spot of hundreds of years ??
st -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 23rd July 2008
I will give a rather assymetric example but I am sure you will get the point:
Say that in 2020 France retires its sovereignity over French Guyanna in S. America and along with it it retires its Arianne spatial programme however leaving a substantial amount of paperwork/disks (mostly of secondary importance)back there in the derelict installations that will be up to the new governement of Guyanna to exploit. Now, in the distant future, say in 3000 A.D. and say after some nasty catastrophes that in the meanwhile will have erased much of the worlds' archives, those future archaiologists will wonder how on earth Guyanna was the host of a spatial programme and just 50-60 years later it could not even have host 1-2 universities of some importance, let alone a spatial programme.
Well, Romans in western Europe meant not global development for those lands. I do not think that the global development of western Europe made any great leaps from 100 B.C. to 200 A.D. Yes Romans installed one small fortress here, created one small town there, built one area and some baths just next to them but that is no different to "holiday clubs" going to tropical islands, and building luxury hotels when just next to them local people live somewhere between 2008 A.D., 1808 A.D. and/or 1008 A.D.! The myth that Romans did something more than that was spread a thousand years later when western kings tried to relate them anyhow to Romans. However, even the latinisation of western Europe had not accomplished during Imperial times but continued and was achieved thanx to the church in non-Imperial times while at the same time the Roman Empire itself in the East was being continuously Hellenised.
Alphabets in western Europe - including Gothic, runes etc. and all other except one weird arrange of signs sometimes used by Celtic people - all derive from the Greek alphabets (directly or with the intermediate of Etruscans and later Romans). Hence, westerners well well aware of what is writting long before Romans. However, few of them learnt it really and those few largely used it for practical reasons, thus they would most probably write on materials that do not last or materials that are re-used (a fact that occured in all cultures). Given their largely tribal societies, most of their historic knowledge would be transmitted via oral traditions and legends and not written on paper (that they did not have anyway!... writting a myth on a rock is not also very easy isn't it?).
Now, when Romans got in, yes they spread the use of latin alphabet and language but that did not concern much the mass of the illiterate farmers and workers of these lands. Not even a great part of the nobility that remained half-illiterate. Taken for granted that the new arrivals (Goths and Franks) were not the most cultured people on earth, the situation did not become better but then it is not that these people brought any dark age as we like to say knowadays. In fact what happened is that the likes of Goths (first), then Franks, Vandals and other Germanics were first christianised (often by strong sects like Arianism) and then largely influenced by latin language (not true for all germanics of course). However, having remained largey agrucultural societies and in less contact with the more progressive east, they saw literacy much as a thing of the church used to read the religious texts, the only worth-reading texts. If we really lack texts on the historical background of these lands for those times this is due to 2 reasons. 1) if not many, there must had been some texts on history but later destroyed due to political opposition, especially when one royal family succeeded the other... just think that Byzantines were the masters of taking notes on pretty much everything and nowadays we have nothing out of them, perhaps something of a similar scale occured in the west but we tend to ignore
2) I am not being funny but anyway in western Europe there were no Empire, no proper states just big land-farms. One is not inspired to write down the history of his farmhouse... Perhaps he would wish to write the history of an invasion but even the Vicking raids were most often the case of 200 thieves attackin an armless village! Had something more important happened, I think people (usually priests and monks) did sit down and write about it and we have bits and parts of such stories.
Personally I think there was no dark age. Just a long long period of incremental development. -
Message 3
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Wednesday, 23rd July 2008
Its because the Romans turned off the lights when they left (apologies)
Basically it's because there is a big lack of evidence for things occuring in the country after they abandoned us. Lots of things were obviously going off but the evidence is either scarce or non-existant -
Message 4
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 23rd July 2008
nik - penske
thanx
but - when the romans left - they left thousands of people who could read and write (latin of course)
they left priests who could read and write
the people who later turned into tribal chiefs were presumably that during the roman days - albeit under roman rule - but they had scribes - these scribes must have taught their children
when these tribal chiefs turn into warrior chiefs - someone should have been writing down things - it was a gradual disintegration - yet the lack of written history seems overnight
st -
Message 5
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 23rd July 2008
Speculating -- I think it was mostly a matter of scale.
Most of the tribal leaders who grabbed power during the collapse of the Western Empire seem to have had some respect for the literature culture that they found, and many took some care to keep parts of it intact. Administrators who could read and write were clearly useful, especially if they were, say, tax collectors.
However, this trace of the Roman written culture would remain intact only as long as these people lived. The ancient centres of learning had often served the cultural upper class of a wide area, and when the empire was parcelled out, as travel and commerce became more difficult, education must have suffered as well. And as Europe fragmented into smaller and smaller units, each ruled by their own warlord, much of the supporting "cultural infrastructure" broke down. Such a pre-feudal economic unit may have been roughly self-sufficient in grain, vegetables and poultry: It was a lot more difficult to be self-sufficient in ink and papyrus or vellum. There would have been too few upper-class people in the unit to sustain a school, and too few people with enough leisure time to read and write. The need for written records would also be much smaller in a society that was organized on a village level. In summary, too small economic units are not able to maintain a written culture, and don't need it.
The written culture made a come-back during the "Carolingian Renaissance". The larger empire of Charlemagne and his successors again had the economic size to maintain a culture of writing, and also had a need for it to maintains its relatively complex administration. They created schools, a common script, and fostered the return of Latin as a standard language for the learned: Cultural achievements, but also essential to be able to rule the empire efficiently. -
Message 6
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Thursday, 24th July 2008
I think some of it may relate back to 1539 - when monasteries were disolved a lot of paperwork got destroyed, could some of this been from these times. Also the political instability after the Romans left would indicate several wars were fought so this would also lead one to suspect burning of fortifications/churches etc and any paperwork inside?
Also there was meant to be a mass emigration after the romans left although the "grumblings of the british" seems to disagree. -
Message 7
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 24th July 2008
and also presumably - because there was no overall government - even if things were written down, they related to local actions only
strange we have no "sagas" tho - or have we ?? -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 26th July 2008
It's not a term that makes much sense any more. A hundred years ago however the assemblage of information relating to Western Europe in that time period was incredibly difficult, hence the term's increase in popularity around then as historical research became more scientific yet this period initially resisted efforts to be analysed by virtue of the dearth of information available.
Napoleon did his bit by nicking the Vatican records and making them available to scrutiny. That helped a lot. In more recent times archaeology has proven an invaluable aid in piecing together the "missing" info. Nowadays the rapid and comprehensive sharing of source data through modern communications has also played a huge role in advancing knowledge of the period.
It was a period of cataclysmic political and demographic developments that played havoc with record-keeping, but in an age where we are less inclined to take extant records on face value without severe verification in any case this loss is not as great to historians as it once would have been. A better term now might be "the slightly dimmer ages". -
Message 9
Posted by ecowizard (U12684468) on Wednesday, 30th July 2008
In the empire, perhaps? only a very few where taught to write,
A school of scribes?
After A.D 410, perhaps very few reached the periphery until the church consolidated its position?,
no writing, no history, all is obscure/dark!. -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th July 2008
In the empire many were taught to write.
There was never a school of scribes. Scribe, as a function, was generic in that one could be set to work writing things for as many reasons as there are for writing things down.
I cannot see what changed much around 410AD. The church was writing nicely, thank you very much (check out the Irish monastic movement and its European inroads), but was still writing what it specialised in - gospels and things. People like Bede were always aberrations - that's what makes them so special to historians, in any generation.
There was not "no writing" in the "dark ages". Just bad book-keeping. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 30th July 2008
Re: Message 1.
Stalteri,
dark ages? It depends on what you mean with dark ages? The period between the fall of Rome and the Carolingian Renaissance? A mere two hundred years between the extinction of the Latin culture in Western Europe? And even that? Wasn't there still a church available with the Latin culture?
Have to say I didn't study that period in depth. Perhaps we have to ask here our friend Alaric the Goth?
But I studied in depth the period after the Carolingian Renaissance for the French forum: Tribune Histoire.
See my contributions in the section "La Renaissance" (the Renaissance): The third thread for the moment: "Renaisssance: rupture ou continuit茅?" (Renaissance: rupture or continuity?) My messages of 26 August, 4,18 September and my resum茅 of 25 September 2007.
If you are interested I can translate the essential. Today already a quarter to one in the morning overhere.
As usual the messages of Mutatis mutandis and Nordmann give the most insight in the question.
If you are interested I comment further tomorrow.
Some highlights of the Dark Ages: The Carolignian Renaissance, the Otto-Clunian Renaissance, Roger II of Sicily, the interference in the Spanish borderland between Arabic Spain and Aragon and other examples, the flight from Byzantium.
Were are the medievalists overhere to defend their splendid period? Sufflin peasant? Alaric the Goth?
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS: due to lack of time before closure no time to correct my text. Excuse in advance for the failures. -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 30th July 2008
Hmm thanks perhaps to late
-
Message 13
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 31st July 2008
after the Romans left up until ? it was the dark ages - no written history - no culture
听
There was obviously plenty of culture around after the Romans left Britain and Northern Europe, just a different culture to what had gone before.
But the decline in written documents was profound, and in my mind demonstrates just how devastating the end of the Western Roman Empire was to the people of the time.
I disagree with the modern idea that some have put forward that the end of the Roman Empire and the coming of the Germanic tribes into western Europe was just a transition that had little effect on the people. The end of the Roman Empire in Europe was one of the most devastating events Europe has ever experienced and the changes that it brought about had profound effects even in today鈥檚 Europe.
The population was decimated and did not reach the same numbers for hundreds of years and agriculture declined and would not reach the same levels for over a thousand years in Britain.
The loss of bureaucracy and its ability to run a vast multicultural empire effected the society much more than is commonly realised. Much is said about the removal of Roman troops and the religious changes tacking place during the 5th and 6th centuries but it is the loss of the imperial, commercial and industrial bureaucracy that effected the communities and societies the most.
Without bureaucracy running the imperial society then the need for public literacy ceased, along with many other basics that had been taken for granted for hundreds of years.
Writing may have continued within the church and within the palaces and courts of the new rulers but for the majority of people it ceased to be necessary for every day life.
The dark ages were very dark indeed, in regards to what we would consider an acceptable standard of living. Society returned to the localised agrarian communities depended on their own ability to provide all of their needs, a profound difference from the imperial society that could supply any need to those with money to spend.
The dark ages may not have effected the ruling elite鈥檚 of society and religion that much, the wealthy were still living in luxury and splendour, but for the rest of the population it was a dark and uncertain time indeed. -
Message 14
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 31st July 2008
do u think it was a "Saxon thing" lol
these were people who had a very democratic society - but didnt seem to like permanent things - perhaps writing records was part of this
ie London had commerce, trade, laws , statutes a wonderful stone built city
what did the saxons do - build a new city next door built of wood and live there - same in canterbury
pehaps the verbal account was better as u could exaggerate a bit
st -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 31st July 2008
Re: message 13.
Englishvote,
still that late again. The whole evening with the early middle-ages on the internet.
Excuse me I had as from my education in the
Fifties the term Dark Ages retained as for the whole Middle Ages.
Now we seem to agree as for the period between the decline of the Roman Empire and the Carolingian Renaissance? But in that period you had still the Byzantine Culture? Thus we have to look to it as a geographical restriction.
My interest in the Early Middle-Ages was lately sparked by my visit of Cordoba and a two minute conversation with a Spaniard that the Mosque was based on Visigoth architecture. I did some research about the Visigoths and found the "horseshoe" architecture.
From my seven on we were also "indoctrinated" in our "national" history that the great Frankish empire was founded in nowadays Belgium. Tournai to be more to the point. In later research I found out that even that was not fully proven and it was more the Scheldt estuary.
In any case I think for the Early Middle-Ages we must separate continental Western-Europe and England, where the term "dark" eventually can be used, into several regions as the Byzantine area, the Ostro-Goth area, the Visigoth area, the Merovingian area and the Anglo-Saxon area?
As always for a first-aid packet Wikipedia is very useful:
BTW. Someone heard about the treasure of Alaric?
As I see it on first sight we have to confine the word "dark" for a period of roughly three hunderd years and roughly to the heartlands of the Merovingians and the Anglo-Saxons? And even that? While I haven't yet started with the christianisation among the "common" people from Ireland? and France?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 16
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 1st August 2008
Hi Paul
Good as always to read your comments, and I totally agree with your points.
The dark ages effected differing parts of the Roman Empire to variable amounts. In the east the empire continued as before, but I have to say that it did not progress a great deal, stagnation set in and eventually led to a decline in what we now call the Byzantine Empire.
In Britain and northern Europe the 6th and 7th centuries were very dark in terms of written evidence, which I would claim reflects on just how much had been lost and how badly it had effected the population.
There is a tendency to attribute definite dates to the end of the dark ages, in Britain this is often 1066, but there can be no solid date because the recovery was gradual and at different times for differing sections of society.
The renaissance is probably a good time to give for the restoration of living standards and technology in regards to what the Roman Empire had provided. But of course in some regards 16th century Europe was far more advance than the Romans had ever been.
But in terms of agriculture Britain would not return to the efficiencies of Roman production until the reforms of the 18th century. Other parts of the old Empire have still not managed to return to Roman efficiencies for their agriculture.
For Northwest Europe the fall of the Roman Empire was cataclysmic, and from the remains was built the Europe that we know today, it took a few hundred years of course.
On the continent the Franks, Goths, Lombards and others created societies around the remains of the empire, but in lowland Britain a different process led too much greater change.
In Britain the end of the Roman Empire was a much greater fall than for much of Europe, almost a complete return to the society of the Iron Age.
Of course for parts of Britain nothing much changed, Scotland emerged from northern Britain very similar to how it had been before the Roman came to Britain. -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 1st August 2008
But in terms of agriculture Britain would not return to the efficiencies of Roman production until the reforms of the 18th century.
听
A mere quibble, but I'm not sure that agriculture under the feudal system was any less efficient than its Roman predecessor - in fact in many ways the later system in terms of land management, crop rotation, diversity of product, technology, labour usage and guarantee of supply must have outstripped the former, marginally in some cases (like technology) but by a huge amount in others. In fact England was, for most of the feudal period, a surplus producer agronomically (its chief industry too, don't forget) and exporting agricultural produce at levels far exceeding in volume and worth the Roman equivalent from earlier. -
Message 18
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 2nd August 2008
where the dak ages then only in britain
was the rest of europe still ok -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 2nd August 2008
Re: Message 18.
Stalteri,
no, as Englishvote says, Britain and Northern Europe...if I understood well, what I read about the Merovingians and yes perhaps we can include the Carolingian time too?
Englishvote,
thanks for the interesting reply. Come back as soon as possible to it. For the moment overwhelmed by my research for the Islamic impact on the Middle-Ages in Europe and trying to provide a "reasonable" answer to what Kurt Bronson said on my thread about the Islam and the Renaissance on the "Hub".
Warm regards to both,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 2nd August 2008
No, just about anywhere in Western Europe where the Romans had once been administrators is traditionally included in the phrase. The darkness emanated from a sudden decline in record keeping.
-
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
I still do not understand about what darkness we are talking. Why, there was more "light" in British isles or Gaul (France) in 200 A.D. or 200 B.C. in comparison to 500 A.D.? I think the differences are minimal. One Roman "tourist" here or there, one Roman military outpost did not equal more development than today having a "Cub Med" in an island where locals live in the 19th century.
How many more texts we have about Gaul prior to 500 A.D.? Just because Ceasar wrote two notes on his conquest (and Ceasar was no local Celtic but a Roman conqueror) that does not says much. -
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
The term was coined when classical texts were considered chief amongst primary sources for any period. As explained above in the thread, it is not an apt term by any means in the context of modern histriography, but since it has become identified with a particular region and time it still serves a purpose as a shorthand reference.
One finds it however mostly used at the "populist" end of the range of historical treatments of the period. Academically it retains little or no value whatsoever as it gives a false picture of the wealth of information available regarding the period in question, and simply appears contradictory and pointless to use it in an essay or larger work whose content is based on the very evidence which the term implies does not exist. -
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
Absolutely correct. Not to mention that the term "Middle Ages" links in a very uncunny way the ancient era and the "Renaissance"/Enlightment era but referring to completely different locations on earth!!! In ancient times it refers to everything east & south east of Rome - i.e. mainly the classical/hellenistic Greek civilisation and in post middle ages times whatever lied west & north-west of Rome!!!
In fact, despite the 2 difficult transitional centuries of 5th and 6th century A.D. (with worst case Emperor Justinian, perceived by some as any great, despite his sometimes honest efforts) everything east-south east continued as civilised as it always had been till its near-absolute destruction in 1204 A.D. while everything west- north west underwent a naturally long period of incremental development that had started long before Roman conquests!!! I.e. the real picture is in absolute constrast with the idea of the existence of any "Dark Middle Ages". -
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
Some people get very muddled over the whole issue. I remember the late James Burke on a TV programme (which examined unlikely connections between different events) once introduced a new theme with the sentence "The Chinese invention of the wheelbarrow in the 6th century AD was a glimmer of light in the Dark Ages prevailing at the time."
-
Message 25
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Monday, 4th August 2008
I would agree with much that has been said about the term Dark Ages, obviously it is very dependent on region and time.
The same can be said for any of our cherished names for historical periods, such as Stone Age, Bronze Age, Medieval, Classical or Modern.
They all fail to address the vast regional differences and they can all overlap to a remarkable degree.
But I still think that the term Dark Age is very suitable for the few centuries following the end of the Roman Empire in the west, especially for Northwest Europe.
I have to disagree with Nordmann about agriculture during the Roman period in lowland Britain.
There is some evidence, or conjecture, that crop yields were higher during Roman times due to more efficient farming practises than they were during the entire medieval period. From what I have read it appears that crop yield of 15 to 20 bushels of wheat per acre is assumed for good Roman farms, which is very close to those produced during the 18th century let alone medieval times.
The limiting factor for any farming practises was the finite amount of nitrogen in the soil and this was true for any farmer until 1830.
The growing of Turnips by the Romans in Britain may well point to their superior knowledge of land management.
Roman technology, land management, crop rotation and most importantly administration was superior to Anglo Saxon farming as well as medieval techniques.
The upheavals that effected all of society after the collapse of the Roman Empire was probably felt less on the farms and villages but the loss of their main markets such as the city populations and the military must have had dramatic effects on income.
Yet again I must say that I cannot agree with the idea that post Roman Britain was just a transition that had been going on for centuries, an evolution if some are to be believed.
British society was destroyed, torn asunder and the people that survived had to return to a primitive backward lifestyle, technology and living standards took over a thousand years to return to some semblance of quality that it had in Roman times. -
Message 26
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 4th August 2008
the dark ages to me are that space of time - probably 400 years when written record werent being kept - before this even the loss of a cow was noted
after this kingdoms were lost but not recorded
crop yields were probably better when they - and their associated villages didnt get burnt by raiders
under roman rule - u grew crops and sold them - in well established markets
in the turbulent dark ages - u planted them and hid in the hills whilst everything was burnt
st -
Message 27
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
I have only just come across this thread, and see my name has been taken (not) in vain! I still find the use of 鈥楧ark Ages鈥 to be very evocative, but am well aware that it is not really correct, as the amount of history and its support from archaeology is surprisingly informative regarding the period after 410AD.
I think the decline in trade and international communication was a feature, but even this has been overplayed. Mediterranean trade to e.g. Cornwall and South Wales continued through the 鈥楧arkest鈥 of the Dark Age(s). You had Gaulish bishops communicating with British ones. You had walled cities surviving, certainly in Gaul, but also e.g. York, Carlisle in Britain.
I think Anglo-Saxons would use old Roman buildings where they could and build additional 鈥榳attle-and-daub鈥 structures beside them (or even inside them, if we are talking about things like the Praetorium of a large (derelict) fort).
I think as one example of the loss of records we can consider 鈥楽cotland鈥. It had a large area under Pictish control in say 410AD and a significant (Roman-influenced) Brittonic South and West. The Scots were largely confined at that stage too the western islands and peninsulas and the Angles were not even 鈥榦n the horizon鈥. The Britons in particular would have literate churchmen in their midst, and the missions of e.g. Ninian and later of Columcille would spread Christianity (and hence literacy) amongst Britons, Picts and Scots (and then later, through Aidan, to the Angles of Northumbria).
The political 鈥榯riumph鈥 of the Scots very probably resulted in records by Britons, Picts and Angles being neglected, not copied by the (Scottish) monastic guardians. The much later victories of e.g. Edward I over the Scots definitely resulted in loads of Scottish manuscripts (included very probably many surviving British/Pictish ones) being taken to the Tower of London, where apparently rats ate them, and damp or fire destroyed them. Add to this the Dissolution of the Monasteries and consequent destruction of manuscripts.
So we have in this example some explanation of the 鈥榙arkness鈥 in the Scottish/North British 鈥楧ark Ages鈥. -
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 11th August 2008
I agree with englishvote. British society was torn asunder during the Dark Ages (which I take to be a period of at least 150 years after the Romans left)
The 'darkness' of the dark ages refers, I think, to the lack of written records, of any kind, telling us what happened. Can you point to anything at all from (what is now) England that survives from that period? There is the work of Gildas, but I think he was Welsh. There are some gravestones with crude script on them - but they are mainly from Wales are they not? -
Message 29
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Gildas was indeed what we would call 'Welsh', though wouldn't of course call himself that. It does not, of course, mean that he came from what is now 'Wales': it means he was a Briton, or 'Romano-British, of the 'Cumbrogi'/'Cymry'.
The Cornish were referred to as the 'West Welsh', speaking a dialect descended from Brittonic that just made it into the 18th century.
The (Brittonic) Cumbric dialect in what is now North West England was certainly still around in the 11th century. Its close cousin in the South Wsst of Scotland (Strathclyde) may have lasted longer than that, before Scottish Gaelic on the one hand and an 'English' dialect descended from Old Northumbrian that became 'Scots' or Laalans' caused its extinction, exactly when we cannot say for sure. -
Message 30
Posted by AVERYIUS (U13298339) on Monday, 8th September 2008
I would just love to know how on earth anyone can claim that the 16th Century could be any improvement at all upon the Roman Empire? What did they have which the Romans did n麓t have? I studied the history of science and medicine at Edinburgh University and so I know what they had and didn麓t have. Or what did they have which was not built upon Roman/ Greek and other Antique-period knowledge in the first place? Gunpowder from China perhaps, so that they could kill even more effectively? Did they have Thermae in the 16th century where everyone could go on an afternoon to bathe, have a sauna, mud or sand bath or have a massage? Did they build aquaeductae to provide fresh water? Did they have hospitals and schools? Did they have central heating in the floors and walls? Did they have decent roads and sewers beneath them? Did they have fresh water piped into their homes and the rain-water and dirty domestic water transported away in piping? Was there peace and a flourishing economy with trade as far as China within most of Europe south and west of the one-time Roman Limes? Was there one coinage, one common Language, free movement between North Africa and Caledonia, Lusitania and Cappadocia? Etc.
No system is perfect, but to think that any time, except perhaps in some ways our modern time, was any better than Rome is for me crazy. Even today we are having difficulties uniting Europe and getting back to where we never should have left from in the first place. I find all this quarrelling amongst the stupid little barbarian units, which just don麓t work on their own, about which tribal / national language we should use is quite ridiculous. We have one already. The one we used at the time of the glorious empire: Latin! I am British but live in Noricum and Pannonia Superior (Austria)and know what it is like to be a foreigner.
As far as I麓m concerned I麓m a Roman Citizen (civis romanus sum) and European living in the Roman Empire and don麓t want it any other way and all the times between the unfortunate fall of the Empire (mostly due to their lack of understanding for a stable democratic system) and the renewal now slowly taking place, has been one big disastrous mistake. -
Message 31
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
Hi Averyius,
鈥淭he admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours, since we have not left our power without witness, but have shown it by mighty proofs.鈥
Welcome to these boards. It seems odd trying to refute your opinions since I am regarded by my friends as a fanatical Roman enthusiast, but you know there is a good deal to be said for the 16th century. It is important to remember that your question is basically not a historical one. Historians should not portray one age as 'better' than any other; all are equally worthy of study. Furthermore a good deal depends on the position in society that is being considered; a priest of the Catholic church would have found the Londinium of 400 AD far safer than the London of 1588 AD; an agricultural labourer in Norfolk might well have found either era fairly dire. Finally it is not a reasonable criticism to say that 16th century technology was founded on that of the ancient world; all knowledge has its base in what has come before. As a student of the history of science you will recall Newton's claim to have 'stood on the shoulders of giants'.
In terms of hot baths and water closets the Roman record was impressive, although such devices are as old as the Indus Valley civilization. At least the modern water-closet was (just) a 16th century development, being invented by Sir John Harrington. Not every age perceives the need for bathing and flush toilets. The Minoan Greeks did, the early occupants of Versailles didn't, although both had the technology available.
One 16th C technology that the Romans didn't have was optics. Could I have purchased a decent pair of spectacles in ancient Rome? In 16th C Europe the new telescopes and microscopes were about to uncover the worlds of the inconceivable small and the impressively large. Once European scientists had the mathematical skills to interpret the new observations of Brahe and Kepler (and Leibniz and Newton are only 50 years in the future) progress was far quicker than in the Roman period. The technology of printing was available to spread that knowledge with incredible rapidity.
As it was the seaman in the first Elizabethan era had a far more complete world picture than any Roman; Magellan's sailors and Francis Drake had circumnavigated the world, which Roman captain could say the same? Which Roman could feast on baked potatoes or complete his dinner with a pipe of the finest American tobacco?
It is difficult to compare early post-Medieval art with ancient works, since so little of the later has survived. Let us say you would have to look very hard in the ancient world to find the equals of Shakespeare and Dante, or Michelangelo and Leonardo.
I do sympathize with your intolerance of stupid little barbarian units but small groups of people, speaking their own language, and with their own laws, do seem to prefer to govern themselves rather than be members of a great Commonwealth, and who am I to tell the Irish, Welsh and Scots that they are mistaken? There is something to be said for their point of view. In terms of science, philosophy and culture could either Rome or 16th century Europe compete with that other small state, Periclean Athens?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
As I have said many times in the past, there are no Dark Agesa and no Middle Ages. Just errors errors errors often attributed to misconceptions more often attributed to common propaganda.
One thing that strikes us is that to "explain" the dark ages people refer for antiquity to Greece and south of Rome and for 16th century to northern Europe and north of Rome which is blatantly idiotic.
For the Mediterranean world there was no particular decline. Byzantine Empire despite the setbacks of late Roman Empire and the weird politics of Theodocius (criminal) and Justinian (dubious politics) was much more progressed than Rome. For northern Europe who can say that we had more written records in 300 B.C. than in 600 A.D.? Again for northern Europe, this time period was a time of incremental development which set the basis for the further expansion of these cultures.
Hence, the term middle ages is totally wrong. -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
Also comparing the 16th century A.D. with that of 300 B.C. is not easy - and yes it is very often the case where we will find those in 300 B.C. more progressed than those in the 16th century. Mentioning sewage systems, toilets, bathrooms and central heating, that existed in many 3rd millenia societies (ex. Minoans and Mycenaeans) but were absent even in 19th century European palaces.
However, the difference of those in the 16th & 19th century with those in the 300 B.C. and 3rd millania B.C. is that in those ancient times civilisation was a hobby for an extremely small part of the world and affected few people. In more recent times it was a sport for a greater variety of nations which had 10ple the population and had already a geographic knowledge of the globe. That in comparison with organised extensive printing (cos I believe that the invention of printing existed as long as stamps existed) made the difference and in the 1950s and 1960s, just 500 years after the birth (and NOT Renaissance - there was nothing much to be reborn!) of the western culture we sent people in space and the moon. -
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
Re: Message 31.
Twinprobe,
thank you very much for your balanced reply and what a language...with esteem.
Do I smell some EU rant? From a little Belgian, who isn't happy with the EU regulations, interfering in nearly every matter of life. I join the French "provinciales" into their rant against the central Paris, those burocrats, who make every local decision nearly a Tantalus torment to achieve it. Even in a small city like Bruges it took me two months and a lot of red tape to have permission to renew some windows at the backside of a house. And yes, those from the EU want even! to interfere in our local Belgian "pourparlers", squabbles...
Warm regards and with esteem for all what I read from you on these boards.
Paul. -
Message 35
Posted by NCH (U9519230) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
I must echo Paul R in his praise of TP's message - very erudite and well argued.
As for using the term 'Dark Ages', I say to those who don't like it - that it is one that is used, and for North-Western European (and others - 'antipodes'?)educated boys and girls, understood, for a certain era. (This is the 主播大秀 website afterall)
Yes, a certain era in our own little arena but I'm sure we all understand what it means and why and where for. It's not apt or pretty but, as Nordamnn says, it's waht we are stuck with. We wouldn't, however, expect a, Chinese for example, historian to use the term for downtown Shanghai circa 500AD. -
Message 36
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
Thank you gentlemen, both.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
NHC, history is more about lies, propaganda and misconceptions. Here (sometimes!) we try to see beyond that, each from his own corner and with his own view. Of course, the term "Dark Ages" exists just as the term "Renaissance" and is understood by everyone. But then, of course both are ridiculous terms that not only constrast with the realities but also with common sense logic. I hope you got the southeast and northwest of Rome thingie!
-
Message 38
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 25th September 2008
Historians should not portray one age as 'better' than any other;听
Who says?
all knowledge has its base in what has come before听
I do not think that you can show that. I do not think anybody can show, for example, that any civilisation, before the Greeks, made an accurate measurement of the distance of the Moon. -
Message 39
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 26th September 2008
No at the end everyone is free to chose his own era and say whatever.
The only detail is that he will be far from the truth. Coming from Greece I know well that: back in school having chewed the athens-sparta chewing gum to the bitter end. Yes, Athens was a nice city and with an excellent temple above but was never the most civilised Greek city, nor the birth of Greek civilisation, not even the birthplace of Greek thought (it was the 3rd in row place), nor of art, in fact the only things they had brought forward was theater (impressive of course, but that was all). In fact even its very localised power was desperately short lived (less than half a century, short even by modern standards). Sparta on the other hand, was a longer-living power, quite influential in those earlier archaic times but then nothing exceptional even at war (since they never passed over 8,000 men - thus never passed over a different level of war to make comparisons).
The birth of post Mycenaean arts as well as philosophy was in Minor Asia while the next center of Hellenic thought was South Italy (where the mass numbers of Greek populations lived) than what is called mainland Greece... south Italy remaining always at the forefront till into Hellenistic times (and thus Athens has never passed over in the forefront - realised it badly during the Peloponesian wars were the Syracuseans ridiculed them). Syracuse was a city double as Athens and with the capacity in the 5th century to occupy all of the Greek world had it not been for the aggressive expansionism of Carthage (much stronger than what Romans later fought of course) that had paid once too often several 100,000s of mercenaries and allies to attack Sicily.
Who remembers Corinth? Well yeah only for its brother houses. Not for their contribution to the naval battle of Salamina where everyone thinks it was all about Athenians (while Corinthians had given probably a number of ships quite closs to that of Athenians). And who talks of Macedonians? Nowadays there are even efforts to call them "non-Greeks" despite that from Macedonia to western India and China we dig greek-only items and writtings. Unimaginable.
The all-about Athens & Sparta thingie was of course the view of Romans who loved subservient Athenians and Spartans and gave them one too many times "gifts" (throughout the Roman Empire Athenians and Spartans actually lived in almost complete autonomy and that explains their lack of need of bothering to revolt - Spartans had even their proper army as if they were somehow independent)... while in parallel from the beginning of their occupation they ensured as much as they could the deep-burial of the likes of Syracuse, Epirus, Macedonia and Corinth (i.e. all those Greek states that resisted them and which they levelled literally).
The truth is that the hottest centers of Hellenism were Minor Asia and South Italy though the latter constantly fading and falling after Bulgarian slaughters in mainland Greece and the massive transfer of populations from the then still Greek South Italy during 10th and 11th century (thus 50 years later collapsing), while the most important and with continuous history place of Greece was Macedonia and Thrace.
If for foreigners today Roman propaganda still rings in the ears and believe all that crap about the as-if Athens and Sparta then that does not mean that this is close to the truth. Anyone can say whatever of course, that is something I accept and that is exactly why I will never accept history as a scientific field, only as a field of knowledge deeply knit with propaganda and politics. -
Message 40
Posted by HantsCricketFan (U5158421) on Friday, 21st November 2008
The reason its called the dark ages is not because there was no culture but rather there was. We know there was. We just can't find much evidence for it.
Take for example Roman Villas. We know a lot about Roman Villas and there are many examples. Then think about medieval buildings. We have plenty of Tudor buildings in existence. I can go out tomorrow and without travelling far I could visit a Roman Villa or a tudor building.
Then think about an early medieval hall. We know they existed as we have some but not many. Where are they? Where were people living? Its probable that they continued to reuse Roman buildings but then where are the early medival artefacts from Roman sites?
The tantelising thing from an archaeologists point of view is that we know they were there we just don't know where.
Lack of evidence = 'dark'
Also look up red earth. Between Romans and the early medival period is a layer of red earth. No-one knows what it is or why its there. Very mysterious. -
Message 41
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 22nd November 2008
So? Can you claim that your average 700 A.D. Saxons were considerably more backwards than 100 B.C. Celtics? Even if your remark about "dark"=lack of evidence is indeed correct, that means little as it is very local (i.e. on Britain or France). For the rest of the 99% of the planet things are different and there is no dark age. Hence, such descriptions have to apply locally (such as when we talk about the "Greek dark age"=early geometric years which was actualy the next-door-guys "Phoenicians' golden ages")...
-
Message 42
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 22nd November 2008
Nik, the period of the dark ages is really the 150 years after 410 when the Romans left, and for which evidence of any kind is so scant as to be almost non-existent. Yes it was 'local' in the sense that it 'only' applied to the former province of Britannia, but that still means a sizeable area.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.