5 ms·

Curious if you’d share more? Is there a faction of historians who don’t share this viewpoint? I’ve always been curious as I studied the Classics (Greece and Ro

by dfee 6y ago

Curious if you’d share more? Is there a faction of historians who don’t share this viewpoint? I’ve always been curious as I studied the Classics (Greece and Rome) and then European History (which in American high schools is 1400AD+). I have no insight into that intermediate period.

scambier 6y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) Relevant excerpts: > The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records) > As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[6][7][8] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[9] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.
eesmith 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) > As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[6][7][8] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[9] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.
bedobi 6y ago
I'm also interested in this. Apparently recently there's an aversion to using terms like "dark ages", because they imply the period between antiquity and the renaissance was poorly recorded or objectively worse, and historians shouldn't make value judgements, they should just accurately account for what happened in any given period. I do get that, and I'm no expert, but... It sure seems to me like things were a whole lot objectively worse during the dark ages. Literacy, trade and all kinds of other objectively good things were replaced by more or less complete chaos, constant fighting between countless warlords, plagues... Like yes the large empires of antiquity did their own share of fighting and other bad things but regular people within any given empire seem to have had better lives than more or less anyone during the dark ages. Would love to be corrected because I love learning about history!
- baud147258 6y ago
  Though the period in question here is between 400 and 1100, so it ends before the renaissance. But I don't think that time was only constant fighting, especially when comparing to the renaissance.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    700 years is rather a long time - but in some places like here in Britain there was a lot going on in those times: the arrival of the Saxons and then the Scots and the subsequent wars then the arrival of the Vikings which arguably led to the formation of the two main kingdoms on the island (not to mention battles between them such as Brunanburh) then the successful invasion of England by the Normans. We know a lot happened in those times but very little detail - e.g. the location of Brunanburh
- maurys 6y ago
  Another reason why it's less fashionable to call it the Dark Ages is that that's a more Western centric look at that time. It was actually an interesting time to be in Asia around then. John Green does an excellent "Crash Course History" video on the topic if you're interested.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    Couldn't the same be said of any era name? You wouldn't rename the "Warring States Period" because Europe was actually fairly peaceful at that time.
    - maurys 6y ago
      I hadn't heard of the Warring States Period before but after a quick search I see your point. I guess "The Dark Ages" evoked a more universal idea that there was no progress anywhere while the "Warring States" period is understood to be more local. But personally, I was bringing to light arguments I've heard against calling it the Dark Ages. Don't have a personal axe to grind either way.
scottlocklin 6y ago
It's a mixed bag, and it's almost impossible to tell what someone's actual opinion is when they babble on about "muh dark ages" or "muh not so dark ages." For example, it apparently become doctrine among some basket of "classicists" that the fall of Rome was actually peaceful multicultural assimilation of the Germans. This is obvious horse shit; ridiculous, preposterous horse shit, but it was commonly enough held someone had to write a book counting the number of coins, pot sherds and roof tiles made during barbarian invasions of Italy (there weren't any) to refute it. You know, rather than reading contemporary accounts of German invaders burning Roman cities and enslaving the inhabitants. There are probably still morons who profess to believe it. I am not a psychologist, but I assume this ridiculous belief comes about due to modern eloi ideas on immigration. At the other end of the spectrum of historical imbecilities is the idea that nothing interesting happened between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, which is horse shit of a different nature. The 1200s, right before the black death were an obvious peak of European civilization. They invented all manner of things, started the Cathedral schools, invented the scientific method, made amazing, great and beautiful art, the population of the continent was never larger (until 1840s/industrialization basically) and there was all manner of trade, literature, territorial expansion (reconquest of Iberia, Christianization of the North) and so on. Noticing this makes many people buttmad, I guess because it's so .... Christian. They like to think it's a straight line from Galileo to smug yutz New York Times columnists I suppose. Most people's views of history is pretty cartoonish; even educated people, and the cartoon they carry around is generally a basket of political ideological nonsense.

by dfee 6y ago

scambier 6y ago

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) Relevant excerpts: > The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records) > As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[6][7][8] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[9] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.

eesmith 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) > As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[6][7][8] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[9] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.

bedobi 6y ago

I'm also interested in this. Apparently recently there's an aversion to using terms like "dark ages", because they imply the period between antiquity and the renaissance was poorly recorded or objectively worse, and historians shouldn't make value judgements, they should just accurately account for what happened in any given period. I do get that, and I'm no expert, but... It sure seems to me like things were a whole lot objectively worse during the dark ages. Literacy, trade and all kinds of other objectively good things were replaced by more or less complete chaos, constant fighting between countless warlords, plagues... Like yes the large empires of antiquity did their own share of fighting and other bad things but regular people within any given empire seem to have had better lives than more or less anyone during the dark ages. Would love to be corrected because I love learning about history!

baud147258 6y ago
Though the period in question here is between 400 and 1100, so it ends before the renaissance. But I don't think that time was only constant fighting, especially when comparing to the renaissance.
- arethuza 6y ago
  700 years is rather a long time - but in some places like here in Britain there was a lot going on in those times: the arrival of the Saxons and then the Scots and the subsequent wars then the arrival of the Vikings which arguably led to the formation of the two main kingdoms on the island (not to mention battles between them such as Brunanburh) then the successful invasion of England by the Normans. We know a lot happened in those times but very little detail - e.g. the location of Brunanburh
maurys 6y ago
Another reason why it's less fashionable to call it the Dark Ages is that that's a more Western centric look at that time. It was actually an interesting time to be in Asia around then. John Green does an excellent "Crash Course History" video on the topic if you're interested.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Couldn't the same be said of any era name? You wouldn't rename the "Warring States Period" because Europe was actually fairly peaceful at that time.
  - maurys 6y ago
    I hadn't heard of the Warring States Period before but after a quick search I see your point. I guess "The Dark Ages" evoked a more universal idea that there was no progress anywhere while the "Warring States" period is understood to be more local. But personally, I was bringing to light arguments I've heard against calling it the Dark Ages. Don't have a personal axe to grind either way.

scottlocklin 6y ago

It's a mixed bag, and it's almost impossible to tell what someone's actual opinion is when they babble on about "muh dark ages" or "muh not so dark ages." For example, it apparently become doctrine among some basket of "classicists" that the fall of Rome was actually peaceful multicultural assimilation of the Germans. This is obvious horse shit; ridiculous, preposterous horse shit, but it was commonly enough held someone had to write a book counting the number of coins, pot sherds and roof tiles made during barbarian invasions of Italy (there weren't any) to refute it. You know, rather than reading contemporary accounts of German invaders burning Roman cities and enslaving the inhabitants. There are probably still morons who profess to believe it. I am not a psychologist, but I assume this ridiculous belief comes about due to modern eloi ideas on immigration. At the other end of the spectrum of historical imbecilities is the idea that nothing interesting happened between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, which is horse shit of a different nature. The 1200s, right before the black death were an obvious peak of European civilization. They invented all manner of things, started the Cathedral schools, invented the scientific method, made amazing, great and beautiful art, the population of the continent was never larger (until 1840s/industrialization basically) and there was all manner of trade, literature, territorial expansion (reconquest of Iberia, Christianization of the North) and so on. Noticing this makes many people buttmad, I guess because it's so .... Christian. They like to think it's a straight line from Galileo to smug yutz New York Times columnists I suppose. Most people's views of history is pretty cartoonish; even educated people, and the cartoon they carry around is generally a basket of political ideological nonsense.