4 ms·

Apparently the poli sci and anthropology guys aren't mixing with the history profs very much. Most history professors I've known refer to the dark ages as the

Apparently the poli sci and anthropology guys aren't mixing with the history profs very much. Most history professors I've known refer to the dark ages as the "so-called dark ages" because that time period served as proof-positive that you can have civilized society without the state.

Infernal 9y ago
Are there any books or papers you could recommend which explore this view of the dark ages - say that compare/contrast the type of civilized society that emerges in the presence of a state with one that emerges in its absence?
- travmatt 9y ago
  If you're interested in the formation of states you'd probably be interested in Francis Fukuyama's "Origins of Political Order". He starts from small bands of hunter-gatherers and explores some factors that drove political development from those disparate bands up through the French Revolution.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Off the top of my head, anything Carrol Quigley. Regarding what my professors read, I will have to inquire. http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/history_freedom_western_world.htm http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/history_freedom_w... Oh, and Durant's "The Age of Faith" is also worth a read.
- unscaled 9y ago
  I think this is yet another misconception that might come out of theoretical political science (or the ignorant press). The political difference between the Early Middle Ages (a.k.a the dark ages) and the Roman empire wasn't the lack of state, but a very different type of state. The Early Middle Ages in Europe saw a large number of short-lived monarchies and a few long-lived ones. The Catholic Church rivaled and often surpassed secular states in its power. Throughout the entire middle ages, for most of the peasantry, interaction with the state in the broadest sense that we have today (i.e. with the king) was scarce. Local rulers, dignitaries and institutions, had large autonomy and more direct influence on the daily lives of peasants. Free cities are a good example of completely autonomous sovereignty. If they were chartered, the local princes had little power over them - but chartered cities only appear in the very end of the dark ages. Anyway, I recommend 'Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade' by Henri Pirenne. It's an old book and there's definitely more up to date research, but Henri Pirenne is a brilliant historian and writer and he paints a very vivid picture of what the "so-called dark ages" in Europe were like.
- Radim 9y ago
  A similar thing happened after the Bronze age collapse -- another "dark age". As we gradually find out, not so dark after all, but rather full of vibrant ideas and structural changes. As the old structures collapse, a new order invariably claws its way out of the debris. These are periods of tremendous innovation and creativity, here boosted by the prosperous Medieval Warm Period. The "dark" in "dark ages" reflects more our lack of written documents from these periods (little surviving literature) and a sentimental bias of the early historians toward the lost Roman period. Not a lack of stuff happening -- quite the contrary.
lsc 9y ago
>Most history professors I've known refer to the dark ages as the "so-called dark ages" because that time period served as proof-positive that you can have civilized society without the state. Eh... there was a state, it was just that the economy was way more directly violence-based than states before and after. I mean, all states use violence, sure. But the Romans and most of the world after the renaissance mostly distributed money through mechanisms that weren't directly about violence. Yeah, they used violence to enforce the rules, but if you wanted to get rich, you went into business or something, you didn't go learn to be a better fighter. In the dark ages? that wasn't the case. Wealth was distributed based on your military service to the person who owned the local land. If you wanted to rise economically, during the dark ages, your best bet was to go to war, fight well, and force some wealthy guy on the other team to surrender to you. Ransom him back to his family, and you have it made. Both before and after the dark ages, while soldiering had it's rewards, unless you became a general and took over your society (which still happens from time to time) you really weren't going to get super rich as a soldier. Before and after the dark ages, you were better off going into trade.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  It was a long time ago, but I recall them using the word "state" in the same context we currently use it, which is typically a layer of government above the lowest level of organization. Being sans-state is not the same thing as anarchy. Of course there was violence, but since this was not a time known for having the best records, it is anyone's guess as to whether there was more or less of it. In the last 20 years, our imperium has destroyed several sovereign states and killed hundreds of thousands or millions (depending on who you ask) for absolutely no damn reason. Centralization is typically better at directed goals (such as violence) than decentralization, so your assertion that "the economy was way more directly violence-based" is on shaky ground. Our economy is very violence based, it's just that most of it has been abstracted away from direct contact (see Smedley Butler). Just shrink the concept down to personal computers. Did you prefer the wild-west of the 70s/80s that gave us Apple IIs, Amigas, Commodores, Ataris, PC-88s, and numerous others, or did you prefer the late 90s when Microsoft seemed to have the whole thing on lock-down?

Infernal 9y ago

Are there any books or papers you could recommend which explore this view of the dark ages - say that compare/contrast the type of civilized society that emerges in the presence of a state with one that emerges in its absence?

travmatt 9y ago
If you're interested in the formation of states you'd probably be interested in Francis Fukuyama's "Origins of Political Order". He starts from small bands of hunter-gatherers and explores some factors that drove political development from those disparate bands up through the French Revolution.
jstewartmobile 9y ago
Off the top of my head, anything Carrol Quigley. Regarding what my professors read, I will have to inquire. http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/history_freedom_western_world.htm http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/history_freedom_w... Oh, and Durant's "The Age of Faith" is also worth a read.
unscaled 9y ago
I think this is yet another misconception that might come out of theoretical political science (or the ignorant press). The political difference between the Early Middle Ages (a.k.a the dark ages) and the Roman empire wasn't the lack of state, but a very different type of state. The Early Middle Ages in Europe saw a large number of short-lived monarchies and a few long-lived ones. The Catholic Church rivaled and often surpassed secular states in its power. Throughout the entire middle ages, for most of the peasantry, interaction with the state in the broadest sense that we have today (i.e. with the king) was scarce. Local rulers, dignitaries and institutions, had large autonomy and more direct influence on the daily lives of peasants. Free cities are a good example of completely autonomous sovereignty. If they were chartered, the local princes had little power over them - but chartered cities only appear in the very end of the dark ages. Anyway, I recommend 'Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade' by Henri Pirenne. It's an old book and there's definitely more up to date research, but Henri Pirenne is a brilliant historian and writer and he paints a very vivid picture of what the "so-called dark ages" in Europe were like.
Radim 9y ago
A similar thing happened after the Bronze age collapse -- another "dark age". As we gradually find out, not so dark after all, but rather full of vibrant ideas and structural changes. As the old structures collapse, a new order invariably claws its way out of the debris. These are periods of tremendous innovation and creativity, here boosted by the prosperous Medieval Warm Period. The "dark" in "dark ages" reflects more our lack of written documents from these periods (little surviving literature) and a sentimental bias of the early historians toward the lost Roman period. Not a lack of stuff happening -- quite the contrary.

lsc 9y ago

>Most history professors I've known refer to the dark ages as the "so-called dark ages" because that time period served as proof-positive that you can have civilized society without the state. Eh... there was a state, it was just that the economy was way more directly violence-based than states before and after. I mean, all states use violence, sure. But the Romans and most of the world after the renaissance mostly distributed money through mechanisms that weren't directly about violence. Yeah, they used violence to enforce the rules, but if you wanted to get rich, you went into business or something, you didn't go learn to be a better fighter. In the dark ages? that wasn't the case. Wealth was distributed based on your military service to the person who owned the local land. If you wanted to rise economically, during the dark ages, your best bet was to go to war, fight well, and force some wealthy guy on the other team to surrender to you. Ransom him back to his family, and you have it made. Both before and after the dark ages, while soldiering had it's rewards, unless you became a general and took over your society (which still happens from time to time) you really weren't going to get super rich as a soldier. Before and after the dark ages, you were better off going into trade.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
It was a long time ago, but I recall them using the word "state" in the same context we currently use it, which is typically a layer of government above the lowest level of organization. Being sans-state is not the same thing as anarchy. Of course there was violence, but since this was not a time known for having the best records, it is anyone's guess as to whether there was more or less of it. In the last 20 years, our imperium has destroyed several sovereign states and killed hundreds of thousands or millions (depending on who you ask) for absolutely no damn reason. Centralization is typically better at directed goals (such as violence) than decentralization, so your assertion that "the economy was way more directly violence-based" is on shaky ground. Our economy is very violence based, it's just that most of it has been abstracted away from direct contact (see Smedley Butler). Just shrink the concept down to personal computers. Did you prefer the wild-west of the 70s/80s that gave us Apple IIs, Amigas, Commodores, Ataris, PC-88s, and numerous others, or did you prefer the late 90s when Microsoft seemed to have the whole thing on lock-down?