10 Reasons the "Dark Ages" Were Not Dark

[Occam's Banana]

h/t LRC: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/...rent%E2%80%A8/

Top 10 Reasons the Dark Ages Were Not Dark
http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-...were-not-dark/
Jamie Frater (09 June 2008)

I believe that we can safely say that the period of man’s history from 476 AD to 1000 AD is the most maligned of all. This period, known to historians as the Early Middle Ages, is still referred to by most laymen as the Dark Ages. In fact the term “dark ages” is almost as ancient as the period itself – it was coined in the 1330s by Petrarch, the Italian scholar, to refer to the decline of Latin literature. It was later taken by the protestant reformers (16th century) and then the members of the Englightenment (18th century) as a derogatory term with much broader implications, because they saw their own “enlightenment” as absent from the earlier period. Hardly a fair judgement on the past. Fortunately for modern students of history, the term is now officially known as the Early Middle Ages – a name which has no connotations at all. So, having given you the background on the terms, here are ten reasons that the dark ages were, in fact, a period of great progress and light.

10. Universities Are Born
...

9. Scientific Foundations Laid
...

8. Carolingian Renaissance
...

7. Byzantine Golden Age
...

6. Religious Unity
...

5. Algebra Arrived
...

4. Art and Architecture
...

3. Fantastic Weather
...

2. Law Becomes Fair
...

1. Agricultural Boom
...

[see link for full text: http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-...were-not-dark/]

[Petar]

[Occam's Banana]

Your point being ... what, exactly?

[Petar]

Your point being ... what, exactly?

That the Dark Ages were considered particularly "dark" for a very good reason...

[Suzanimal]

5. Algebra Arrived

I hope that's the guy that decided to stick the alphabet in math.

[green73]

That the Dark Ages were considered particularly "dark" for a very good reason...

How many hundreds of millions were slaughtered by gov'ts in the 20th Century? What could be darker?

[Petar]

I hope that's the guy that decided to stick the alphabet in math.

Ha.

How many hundreds of millions were slaughtered by gov'ts in the 20th Century? What could be darker?

It's definitely an apt parallel to draw.

I think that the 20th century was very much a revisit of the inquisition, but on an industrial scale.

I believe that there were also a lot of Catholic intelligentsia involved in the latter...

[Occam's Banana]

That the Dark Ages were considered particularly "dark" for a very good reason...

As compared to what? And by whom? The OP article identified the origin of the term. It didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the evils some people have always perpetrated against others (until special pleaders came along much later and started using such connotations in order to suit their own agendas).

And not only were the so-called "Dark Ages" not especially any "darker" than any other period, but ...

[Occam's Banana]

BTW: This image is completely irrelevant. It is a portrayal of events having to do with the Spanish Inquisition (c. 1500 AD).
The Spanish Inquisition did not even begin until almost 500 years after the (so-called) "Dark Ages" had ended (c. 1000 AD).

[Occam's Banana]

And still futher to the point ...

FTA (links and footnotes elided, emphasis added): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ag...toriography%29

Originally the term ["Dark Ages"] characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between extinguishing the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century. This definition is still found in popular use, but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century). However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.

The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages (c. 11th–13th century), including the lack of Latin literature, and a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Later historians and writers picked up the concept, and popular culture has further expanded on it as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.

FTA (links and footnotes elided, emphasis added): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...22Dark_Ages.22

As non-Latin texts such as Welsh, Gaelic and the Norse sagas have been analysed and added to the canon of knowledge about the period and a lot more archaeological evidence has come to light, the period traditionally known as the Dark Ages has narrowed to the point where many historians no longer believe that such a term is useful. Moreover, the term "dark" implies less of a void of culture and law, but more a lack of many source texts in mainland Europe. Many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.

[CaptUSA]

Ok, finally we have a really interesting topic on RPF. There are more things to consider.

Take this: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0803....2008.665.html

An enormous volcanic eruption in the sixth century seems to have triggered catastrophic global cooling, perhaps precipitating famine, cultural conflict and plague across the planet.

The theory offers an explanation for why historical records from the period make references to dimmer skies and a cooler climate. Documents from Ireland, for example, describe “a failure of bread” for a few years after 536 AD, and there are also accounts of summertime snow in China.

The Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that in 536 “a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness… and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.”

I'm not sure I agree with weather modeling of #3 in the OP. From what I've read, it was actually a colder period where agriculture was much more difficult than it had been previously. This explains #1 in the OP since people had to become more creative in order to sustain themselves. They had to figure out crop rotation, they had to introduce heavy doses of grain into their diets and the diets of farmed animals. The reason for the decline in literature seems to be because the population was more concerned with survival than with higher needs. Maslow explained how you have to fulfill lower needs before higher needs become important.

The linked article in the OP seems to make many leaps of correlation without addressing the causation. I agree that the term is often misused, but let's not fool ourselves. The amount of disease and death from starvation during this time was immense.

[CaptUSA]

More.
http://gchbryant.tripod.com/Articles/darkages0999.htm

The Italian historian Flavius Cassiodorus wrote about conditions that he experienced during the year AD 536 :
"The Sun...seems to have lost its wonted light, and appears of a bluish colour. We marvel to see no shadows of our bodies at noon, to feel the mighty vigour of the Sun's heat wasted into feebleness, and the phenomena which accompany an eclipse prolonged through almost a whole year. We have had a summer without heat. The crops have been chilled by north winds, [and] the rain is denied."

Other writers of the time described similar conditions :
Procopius : "...during this year a most dread portent took place. For the Sun gave forth its light without brightness...and it seemed exceedingly like the Sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear."

Lydus : "The Sun became dim...for nearly the whole year...so that the fruits were killed at an unseasonable time."

Michael the Syrian : "The Sun became dark and its darkness lasted for eighteen months. Each day it shone for about four hours, and still this light was only a feeble shadow...the fruits did not ripen and the wine tasted like sour grapes."

Was this a local phenomenon? According to the book "Volcanoes of the World", Dr. Timothy Bratton has noted that there was a small eruption of the volcano Mt. Vesuvius in AD 536. Could this be the cause? It may well have contributed to the scene (although the eruption was much smaller than the big one of AD 79), but it can not really account for the similar conditions that were experienced around the world.
In China, "the stars were lost from view for three months". Records indicate that the light from the Sun dimmed, the expected rains did not eventuate, and snow was seen in the middle of summer. Famine was widespread, and in the midst of the turmoil, the Emperor abandoned the capital.

Bad luck tends to get bunched together, and thus came the plague. The Justinian Plague, named after the Byzantine Emperor of the time, is reported to have begun in central Asia, spread into Egypt, and then made its way through Europe. By some accounts, it was as bad as the Black Death which "plagued" Europe in the Middle Ages.

The warming period didn't really begin until about 950 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
More Wiki of the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme...35%E2%80%93536

[Petar]

As compared to what? And by whom? The OP article identified the origin of the term. It didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the evils some people have always perpetrated against others (until special pleaders came along much later and started using such connotations in order to suit their own agendas).

And not only were the so-called "Dark Ages" not especially any "darker" than any other period, but ...

The Dark Ages were a time when one monolithic institution imposed a very narrow minded set of beliefs upon the whole of Western Civilization...

The author is facetiously conflating the idea of "freezing the collective intelligence of the population at a very low level" with "preserving what is known"…

The genocides of the 20th century are simply an industrial scale echo of the events that preceded them…

BTW: This image is completely irrelevant. It is a portrayal of events having to do with the Spanish Inquisition (c. 1500 AD).
The Spanish Inquisition did not even begin until almost 500 years after the (so-called) "Dark Ages" had ended (c. 1000 AD).

The Spanish Inquisition happened while Western Civilization was transitioning from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance, and the Holy Office of the Inquisition can be traced right back into the Dark Ages.

[acptulsa]

It would be nice if the ages of enlightenment lasted more than two hundred years and the dark ages in between lasted less than nearly two thousand years.

[Henry Rogue]

Number 3. Medieval Warm Period, good. Although climate alarmists may think it bad.

The Little Ice Age did give us beer and some believe the trees used in the Stradivarius violins.

[Henry Rogue]

one monolithic institution

Public schools.

[Petar]

Public schools.

When Common-Core starts approaching a Soviet or NAZI like level of centralized domination then the next wave of the inquisition will have arrived.

[fisharmor]

Good gravy there's so much misinformation in this thread already I'm not sure where to start.
Let me just throw some verifiable facts out.

Beer has been around since like 4000BC.

Hundreds of years before Galileo, churches were installing astronomical clocks capable of predicting stellar events. Churches were hubs of scientific activity.

There was no monolithic institution prior to the Scholastic period. The first thousand years of Church history is a history of sorting out internal heresies. If you don't know what the terms "Nestorian", "Pelagian", "Arian", or "Monophysite" mean, you don't really have a chance of understanding how non-monolithic things were. Each of these ideas goes back as many as 1800 years and yet still exists today somewhere, and the reason is precisely because it never occurred to anyone to put them down violently.

In this sense #6 on the list is pretty wrong. The Scism of 1054 was a long time in the making. It didn't just happen one day.

[Petar]

The first thousand years of Church history is a history of sorting out internal heresies.

And keeping Western Civilization morbidly ignorant and servile...

[fisharmor]

I also like how in #2 ("Law Becomes Fair") they talk about Anglo-Saxon law and show several men wearing late Tudor era gowns from about a thousand years later.
Common law was being actively suppressed at that point - I mean we're talking about the active writing period of Machiavelli. It's when the notion of the absolute ruler started its heyday.

And I'd like to know how much of #1 ("Agricultural Boom") was actually due to 25% of the population dying off in the mid-1300s from the Plague. If you think about it, the late 1300s was probably a great time to be alive for just that reason - plenty of land out there, and plenty of opportunity. After the Plague, Europe had something like 1,000 fewer villages - they simply lost the entire population from death or people moving on.

[fisharmor]

And keeping Western Civilization morbidly ignorant and servile...

The best way to do that has already been demonstrated to be keeping the populace in abject ignorance of history.
Personally, I'm not going to remain servile. You're welcome to, though.

[Petar]

The best way to do that has already been demonstrated to be keeping the populace in abject ignorance of history.
Personally, I'm not going to remain servile. You're welcome to, though.

Are you honestly trying to say that people were particularly bright or open-minded during the period commonly known as the "Dark Ages"?

I'm pretty sure that they were just a bunch of illiterate religious fanatics that were terrorized by an evil gentry in conjunction with an even more evil religious aristocracy...

[Occam's Banana]

And I'd like to know how much of #1 ("Agricultural Boom") was actually due to 25% of the population dying off in the mid-1300s from the Plague. If you think about it, the late 1300s was probably a great time to be alive for just that reason - plenty of land out there, and plenty of opportunity. After the Plague, Europe had something like 1,000 fewer villages - they simply lost the entire population from death or people moving on.

Well ... if you think about it, the 1300s occurred approximately 300 years after period from 476 AD to 1000 AD (the range of dates with which the article is explicitly concerned).

So I'm guessing any plague die-offs in the 1300s didn't contribute much, if anything ...

[acptulsa]

The article is silly and so is the whole thread.

[fisharmor]

Well ... if you think about it, the 1300s occurred approximately 300 years after period from 476 AD to 1000 AD (the range of dates with which the article is explicitly concerned).

So I'm guessing any plague die-offs in the 1300s didn't contribute much, if anything ...

I keep getting thrown off by the fact that there is no "Dark Age" artwork in the article at all. It's all medieval.
My mind keeps associating the whole thing with the 1200-1400 range because they didn't do any homework for the graphics.

[fisharmor]

Are you honestly trying to say that people were particularly bright or open-minded during the period commonly known as the "Dark Ages"?

If they were more open minded than people who come into threads about an article without reading the article and then make generalized pronouncements about how they're "Pretty sure" something was the case based on the local atheist newsletter's insane rants, then they're still ahead of the game you're playing.

[Petar]

If they were more open minded than people who come into threads about an article without reading the article and then make generalized pronouncements about how they're "Pretty sure" something was the case based on the local atheist newsletter's insane rants, then they're still ahead of the game you're playing.

They would not have been able to read the article because they were illiterate.

[Henry Rogue]

Lol, I must have remembered it wrong.
I'll stick to what I know, aviation history.

]Good gravy there's so much misinformation in this thread already I'm not sure where to start.
Let me just throw some verifiable facts out.

Beer has been around since like 4000BC.

Hundreds of years before Galileo, churches were installing astronomical clocks capable of predicting stellar events. Churches were hubs of scientific activity.

There was no monolithic institution prior to the Scholastic period. The first thousand years of Church history is a history of sorting out internal heresies. If you don't know what the terms "Nestorian", "Pelagian", "Arian", or "Monophysite" mean, you don't really have a chance of understanding how non-monolithic things were. Each of these ideas goes back as many as 1800 years and yet still exists today somewhere, and the reason is precisely because it never occurred to anyone to put them down violently.

In this sense #6 on the list is pretty wrong. The Scism of 1054 was a long time in the making. It didn't just happen one day.