Jump to content

Dark Age Revisionism: has it gone too far?


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

[quote name='tzanth' post='1665012' date='Jan 27 2009, 23.06']Great topic!

I don't think its merely "political correctness" that refrains historians from calling the period the dark ages. Using a value laden adjective like "dark" prejudices our view of the past and thus biases research into the era regardless of the factual nature of any collapse. Indeed, calling what happened during that time a "collapse" is also problematic as it promotes certain social values over others. Surely, you had a decline in centralized government, the depopulation of urban centers, a shift in trade routes, etc, all of which constituted a collapse of the Roman system. Plenty of individuals at the time, however, were perfectly happy with the changes as they occurred. Indeed, as mentioned by Zazby, some parts of the old Roman empire did perfectly well after its decline. I think its thus better to see the period of a time of changing social systems and shifting power structures rather than as a "dark" age of wide ranging social collapse.[/quote]

That sounds like a whole boatload of post-modern relativist hand-wringing. Seriously, if Dark Age prejudices, than so does Golden age. But noone has a problem employing that term when appropriate. Historians shouldn't be afraid to cast value judgments when warranted by the research, so long as it isn't too driven by personal or cultural prejudices. And so long as whatever existing prejudices the historian might have going in are acknowledged and analyzed to the extent that it may influence those conclusions and judgments.

Simply calling it a change is insufficient I think. Sure there was a change, a change that resulted in less reading, less writing, less building, less trade and commerce, less art, less cultural achievements, less wealth, less security, less urban centers, less education, less literacy, less luxuries, less facilities, less rational and sophisticated legal system, etc. I don't think its unfair to say that the Roman system was replaced with something significantly inferior. Vast knowledge was lost. And it took a hell of a long time to relearn and eventually improve upon it.

I don't mean to go off on you, but it does seem that history has to some extent turned into a gold star parade. Every culture, people, empire and time period gets a sticker. None better or worse than the others. I'm sorry but not every culture is equally fascinating, relevant, or developed.

[quote]EHK, if you haven't read it, the book Millenium by Tom Holland is a decent read, dealing with Europe in the last centuries of the 'Dark Ages', focusing on the rise of the knightly class, the emergence of the Catholic Church as a unified force and the Christianisation of western Europe. It also makes the argument that the dark ages were a time of relative freedom for the underclasses, compared to what came afterwards.[/quote]

I'll give it a look. Actually starting to read Gibbon right now, so it'll be a nice contrast once I finish. (which no doubt will be some time next year)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1665053' date='Jan 28 2009, 01.37']Vast knowledge was lost. And it took a hell of a long time to relearn and eventually improve upon it.[/quote]
Eh, it's not so simple as that. Technological advances were made throughout the middle ages (very slowly) that the Romans never had, though other things the Romans did have took much longer to be recovered. A building as tall as some of the gothic cathedrals built with roman technology would have required walls almost as thick as the space inside, with negligible windows. Flying buttresses and improved vaulting systems allowed that to be avoided. Bridges could reach over greater spans thanks to pointed arches. There were improvements in agriculture (weighted plows) and ship rigging (ability to sail into cross winds) as well.

Of course that's after the more modern interpretation of when the Dark Ages ended, but Roman technology didn't take all [i]that[/i] long to be surpassed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1665053' date='Jan 27 2009, 23.37']I don't mean to go off on you, but it does seem that history has to some extent turned into a gold star parade. Every culture, people, empire and time period gets a sticker. None better or worse than the others. I'm sorry but not every culture is equally fascinating, relevant, or developed.[/quote]

I dunno about historians, but it seems like amongst academics in general (or at least this has been my experience) there's a tendency to challenge any statement. But this goes doubly so if the statement is, "This ______ has little of interest." ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1664827' date='Jan 28 2009, 02.57']These days you can't even say the words 'Dark Age' without some historian (amateur or otherwise) telling you 'Well, they weren't really dark'. Some will say it because everyone else is saying it. Others will point to the archeological and written record discoveries of the last century that have forced most to re-evaluate the era. So its been rehabbed. But does it really deserve the extent of the current rehabilitation? I mean the way you hear it from some corners, there was no societal collapse throughout Europe at all.[/quote]

I think the issue is that rather than a collapse it was a very complicated and confusing reconstruction. (one that, in the end and far into the future, would produce the Industrial Revolution and the society we live in today)

Generally the thing is that the term has not as much been abolished as scaled back (or given a new meaning as purely "less sources") For a hundred years or so past the fall of the Western Empire things proceeded pretty much as they had during the late roman period: There is no real indication that the fall actually increased the decline (which had been present already, deurbanization for instance had been going on for a long time) Roman institutions and offices kept functioning on the local level for quite a while

Then we have a short period of what can be called "Dark Ages" and then we get Charlemagne and the genesis of the medieval world (which was significantly *different* than the roman one in many respects, but also saw some very important developments)

I think the major issue is that traditionally urbanism has been a marker of a society's complexity (despite the majority of the population living in the countryside) medieval farms, who were horrible innefficient by today's standards, saw some pretty big improvements that the romans knew nothing about.

[quote]But lets face facts: Literacy all but disappeared outside of the monasteries, urbanization receded drastically, trade was a fraction of its former levels, travel and cultural intermingling limited compared to other eras. Your peasants lived lives of chronic ignorance and the nobles received little better. The Greek and Roman Classics were nearly forgotten. Most never saw more than a few miles from their homes. The legal systems were irrational and unsophisticated. While Justinian was laying the foundation for Civil Codes centuries later, much of the rest of Europe had retreated to old tribal practices. Armies of antiquity could reach hundreds of thousands while anything over 10,000 would have been an enormous medieval army.[/quote]

Again, this is true to an extent, but only for a hundred years or so. By the year 1000 all these trends are already reversing and reversing powerfully. (And that is ignoring the areas where the roman successors managed to keep an, often altered, roman-style urban civilization going, like in Italy, the Byzantine Empire and Spain) traditional legal systems were actually far more complex than is often imagined, and we got the first real attempts at international law in the church's Canon Law. The greek and roman classics were forgotten, but new ones were composed. And already by the 800's europeans were actually travelling farther than the romans ever did.
[quote]There was comparatively very little literature and other written records from the era.[/quote]

This is the main point where discussion is incontrovertible: The question is how significant that really was for the people who actually lived there.

[quote]There was a demographic decline. Limited building projects and cultural and artistic achievements[/quote]

The demographic decline had been ongoing for a long time, and any case was turned into a population explosion by the 1000's.
[quote]Technological advances were almost all starting in the East and slowly trickling in.[/quote]

Depends what you mean by technological advances. Many things that were known by the romans but never really used large-scale (like wind and water mills) became widespread in this period. There were multiple improvements in agricultural techniques and technologies (three-field system, horse collar, you know the drill)

[quote]Cities didn't begin to approach the old population levels and sophistication til probably the 18th century.[/quote]

That is inarguably true. But then, is cities really a valid way to judge a society where the majority of the population (which was the case even in roman days) is rural?

[quote]Do I just have a hardon for Rome?[/quote]

Yes :P But then, I think Rome is decidedly overrated :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1665069' date='Jan 28 2009, 08.08']Eh, it's not so simple as that. Technological advances were made throughout the middle ages (very slowly) that the Romans never had, though other things the Romans did have took much longer to be recovered. A building as tall as some of the gothic cathedrals built with roman technology would have required walls almost as thick as the space inside, with negligible windows. Flying buttresses and improved vaulting systems allowed that to be avoided. Bridges could reach over greater spans thanks to pointed arches. There were improvements in agriculture (weighted plows) and ship rigging (ability to sail into cross winds) as well.

Of course that's after the more modern interpretation of when the Dark Ages ended, but Roman technology didn't take all [i]that[/i] long to be surpassed.[/quote]

More importantly, a lot of these things happen *because* of the breakdown in communications and the population decline: As labour becomes more expensive people have to find technological means to save on labour (or just not get the stuff done) rather than relying on slaves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was said before, I would only apply the term Dark Ages to the 6th to 8th century, and that's how it is used by historians. If you define the whole time between the end of the Roman empire and the enlightment as Dark Ages, you have serious problems, because you make general assumptions about 1000 years during which many things changed. Regarding the Dark Ages, as defined in my first sentence. We don't really know much details from that time, because of the decline of Literacy, but from archeology, it can be assumed that there was a severe demographic decline and many of the towns lost great parts of the populace. But we should actually be thankful that monasteries existed and that they preserved the shreds of literacy.

Regarding the laws, even though the pure Roman law was only applied to the rests of the Roman Empire, the Laws in the new "Germanic" states were all influenced by Roman Law.

Regarding the "evil" clergy: I have to say that during the dark ages, the clergy did not rule everything. The men with swords ruled everthing, the men with swords and the people who wanted their "holy" people in a certain way contributed just as much to the birth of the clergy as we see it today, than those who were part of it, perhaps even more. I know that this might be difficult for some people, but religion has always two directions and the laics can have just as much influence on the formation of the clergy as the clergy has on the mind of the believers. Before the 11th century - with an exception of the late Carolingian era - the pope had symbolic authority, but not much real power. He only gained more power and influence, because he was protected by the men with swords, i. e. the western emperors.

The renaissance of Roman Law in Western Europe is also linked to the Church, clerics were the firsts that made an attempt of systematise legal texts. The growing dominance of the written word in legal procedures which led to the surge of literacy after the 13th century can not be explained without clerics. The renaissance would probably not have happened without monasteries that preserved the texts of the Antiquity.

That said, I would not have wanted to live in that time, but I get a bit angry with the arrogance of today's people. Sure, we are more rational today, but we are also the products of all those who lived before us and of their struggles to give their lives a meaning.

ETA: Galactus covered almost all my points, but well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Simply calling it a change is insufficient I think. Sure there was a change, a change that resulted in less reading, less writing, less building, less trade and commerce, less art, less cultural achievements, less wealth, less security, less urban centers, less education, less literacy, less luxuries, less facilities, less rational and sophisticated legal system, etc. I don't think its unfair to say that the Roman system was replaced with something significantly inferior. Vast knowledge was lost. And it took a hell of a long time to relearn and eventually improve upon it.[/quote]

But the point is that this change was what was required to create the modern world. The industrial revolutioon, and by extension our own world, is based on the developments of medieval patterns, not roman ones.

[quote]I'll give it a look. Actually starting to read Gibbon right now, so it'll be a nice contrast once I finish. (which no doubt will be some time next year)[/quote]

While everyone should read Gibbon (and he is a fun read) he shouldn't be relied on to actually paint an accurate picture of the fall of the roman empire. There's simply loads of shit he didn't know about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1665101' date='Jan 28 2009, 08.50']As was said before, I would only apply the term Dark Ages to the 6th to 8th century, and that's how it is used by historians. If I define the whole time between the end of the Roman empire and the enlightment as Dark Ages, you have serious problems, because you make general assumptions about 1000 years during which many things changed. Regarding the Dark Ages, as defined in my first sentence. We don't really know much details from that time, because of the decline of Literacy, but from archeology, it can be assumed that there was a severe demographic decline and many of the towns lost great parts of the populace. But we should actually be thankful that monasteries existed and that they preserved the shreds of literacy.[/quote]

And again, it bears repeating: THE DEMOGRAPHIC DECLINE WAS A CAUSE OF, NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF, THE FALL OF ROME.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1665104' date='Jan 28 2009, 08.55']And again, it bears repeating: THE DEMOGRAPHIC DECLINE WAS A CAUSE OF, NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF, THE FALL OF ROME.[/quote]

Huh. Did I say that? I explicitely said 6th century not 5th century, that's quite a while after the Fall of Rome. But the real demographic decline happens in the 7th century, that's when the towns are shrinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, the Catholic Church.

Let's get one thing clear first: The idea of separation between church and state? It's a Catholic thing. They invented it.

To the pagan romans (as well as the chinese, and the various muslims, as well as the byzantines) there was no such thing: The church/official religion and the state were one. (hence roman insistence on christians sacrificing to the emperor, to not do so was treason) by creating an independent institution the catholic church made a difference between Church and State, two separate organizations that could and did challenge each other over various issues.

You really cannot overestimate the importance of this separation. The church creates the antecendant of International Law, it manages (quite successfully) to define marriage as a matter of consent and not something you can be forced into. The church (in both the West and the East) kept the ancient classics alive, the church laid the foundation of the university, the church created an international organization that connected all of western europe: A network that could function even in times of war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1665108' date='Jan 28 2009, 09.01']Huh. Did I say that? I explicitely said 6th century not 5th century, that's quite a while after the Fall of Rome. But the real demographic decline happens in the 7th century, that's when the towns are shrinking.[/quote]

The towns start shrinking in the 4th century actually. (but as mentioned of course, it's hard to use urban population as a good indiciation of total population)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1665112' date='Jan 28 2009, 09.04']The towns start shrinking in the 4th century actually. (but as mentioned of course, it's hard to use urban population as a good indiciation of total population)[/quote]

Mm, I also guess it's bit different for different regions. I know that the bishops towns in today's France lost most of their population between the 6th and 7th century. The degrade of lost literacy is also very different. In Ireland and England, we have more literacy because of the monasteries, because the pagan culture was more oral. In Italy, we always find a higher degrade of literacy, even when it decreaes. So, I guess the greatest losses are in the Frankish territories, and I wonder if this is completely natural or if the Carolingians tried to destroy the memory of the Merovingians, but that's pure speculation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right that population isn't decreasing at the same rate: Scandinavia's population seems to have started growing already in the 800's for instance.

The greatest best documented losses were, IIRC; southern france, Italy and Britain. In all of these places the population decline starts before the fall of the Empire. (most likely cause seems to have been a bunch of new and nasty diseases)

EDIT: It remains really amusing of course to see how differently "Dark Ages" are defined. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in Scandinavia calling the 700-1000 period a "Dark Age" for instance :P

The usual definition I see is basically the time between century or so pre-Charlemagne. (with the Carolongian renaissance essenitally ending the dark age)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1665126' date='Jan 28 2009, 09.34']The greatest best documented losses were, IIRC; southern france, Italy and Britain. In all of these places the population decline starts before the fall of the Empire. (most likely cause seems to have been a bunch of new and nasty diseases)[/quote]

Well, I think that the Fall of Rome, i. e. the conquest of the town, is overrated as a historical event. The symbolic meaning was horrible, no doubt, but the Roman empire was already in a crisis for some time. Even the fiscal reforms of Diocletian answered to serious economic problems, aside from the problem with the military.

And yes, if I remember correctly, there was a pest wave in the 4th century. I guess the migration of the different "germanic" groups is not only due to the Huns, but also to some climatic and by the consequences economic problems.

ETA:
[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1665126' date='Jan 28 2009, 09.34']EDIT: It remains really amusing of course to see how differently "Dark Ages" are defined. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in Scandinavia calling the 700-1000 period a "Dark Age" for instance :P[/quote]

Haha. I also think that English history counts the Dark Ages up to the Normannish invasion, even though, Britain did have some cultural highlights even long before 1066. But that's before the Vikings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree, that's pretty much what I've been saying in fact :P

The Dark Ages (if they can be described as such in a meaningful way) started before the fall of the Empire

EDIT: A guy I use to talk with (economical history guy :P) argues that "Dark Age" can only really be said to apply to France, Northern Italy and possibly the Rhineland. England was on it's own trajectory, as was Scandinavia and Spain, as well as Greece+Southern Italy and Russia. (and what the vikings would end up doing would be basically connect all these regions into a trade-network, something that ironically would end up being dominated by others)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]European Superiority Complex.

They just want to seem more 'Hoo-Hah' then they actually were.[/quote]

Not really. Historians are constantly revising things. We have to keep ourselves busy, after all! ;)

[quote]Yes But then, I think Rome is decidedly overrated[/quote]

True! After all, what did the Romans ever do for us... ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1665053' date='Jan 27 2009, 22.37']That sounds like a whole boatload of post-modern relativist hand-wringing. Seriously, if Dark Age prejudices, than so does Golden age. But noone has a problem employing that term when appropriate. Historians shouldn't be afraid to cast value judgments when warranted by the research, [i]so long as it isn't too driven by personal or cultural prejudices.[/i] And so long as whatever existing prejudices the historian might have going in are acknowledged and analyzed to the extent that it may influence those conclusions and judgments.[/quote]

That's exactly the problem. Our culture is partially modeled after and largely exults the ancient roman system. Because of this we are clearly inclined to see the decline of Rome as a collapse into "darkness." But just because we love cities, for example, doesn't mean that more rural organizations cant be effective means of organizing a society. I agree that there are cases in which we need to make value judgments about aspects of human behavior. Generally, however, such judgments obfuscate an objective understanding of past social structures and processes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Artas' post='1665134' date='Jan 28 2009, 09.44']True! After all, what did the Romans ever do for us... ?[/quote]

Stuff that is overrated:
Rome

Stuff that is underrated:
The Spanish Inquisition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tzanth' post='1665136' date='Jan 28 2009, 03.47']That's exactly the problem. Our culture is partially modeled after and largely exults the ancient roman system. Because of this we are clearly inclined to see the decline of Rome as a collapse into "darkness." But just because we love cities, for example, doesn't mean that more rural organizations cant be effective means of organizing a society. I agree that there are cases in which we need to make value judgments about aspects of human behavior. Generally, however, such judgments obfuscate an objective understanding of past social structures and processes.[/quote]

By the same token, I think trying to act like some societal structures and processes don't work better then others is, as EHK put it, stupid "Everyone gets a Trophy!" crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...