7 ms·
> The combination of large scale attacks and primitive agricultural technology was deadly. The thing is, this depends a lot on which side of the attack you are
by goto11 6y ago
> The combination of large scale attacks and primitive agricultural technology was deadly.
The thing is, this depends a lot on which side of the attack you are on! In Scandinavia, the early middle ages (called the Viking Age) was a golden age in terms of political power and influence and also a high point of art and culture.
In history there are always many sides, and often they are glossed over in the overarching narrative. For example the fall of Rome was clearly a cultural setback for Italy (which is of course why the narrative of The Renaissance originated there). But was it also a setback for the subjugates areas like France, England which now became independent?
Rome continued to prosper centered in Constantinople, but had a large setback when it was plundered by the crusaders and Venice, leading to the balance of power tipping back to the Italian states - hence the "rebirth".
Saying early middle ages was "bad" or "good" really depends on how you anchor the narrative. Same with the renaissance(s).
- bluetomcat 6y agoHistory is a bitch in the hands of the current political arrangement. There are indisputable historical facts about things in the past that have happened - wars, civil conflicts, inventions, works of art. Then there are endless possible interpretations and viable (but not provable) causal relations between the facts. Heck, we can't even identify the proper causal relationship for events happening around us right now. Then how about going N centuries back and trying to reason about the involved parties and their intents? We don't know what conversations took place between them, what their internal agenda was, etc.
- kungito 6y agoOne thing is for sure. A big boat was stuck in the Suez Canal recently.
- christophilus 6y agoThat was a deep fake.
- willismichael 6y agoI can't tell if this is a joke.
- brazzy 6y agoI'm willing to bet money that there are conspiracy theories around that say the whole thing didn't really happen and was just a coverup for something.
- hutzlibu 6y agoWith real flat earthers out there (and a lot more than I thought) - no one is probably taking that bet.
- curation 6y agoConspiracy theories are products of our ideological process of the western sovereign subject believing it is is outside of ideology.
- krapp 6y agoQAnon apparently believed it was secretly trafficking child sex slaves for Hillary Clinton. Also apparently QAnon is still a thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThere were a lot of satirical conspiracy theories involving the Clintons, Epstein, Israel, etc. Some of them were actually quite funny and managed to have no obvious conflicts of interest in them. In 100yr when someone not knowing the context reads them the satirical part may be lost.
- hutzlibu 6y ago"Heck, we can't even identify the proper causal relationship for events happening around us right now. Then how about going N centuries back and trying to reason about the involved parties and their intents" Part of the reason we do not understand much of today, is that much is done behind closed doors. So historians does have an edge when trying to make sense of an event 80 years ago with (allmost) all relevant documents now open and the people dead, than trying to make sense of an event 5 years ago, with people involved still trying to influence every investigation etc. Going further back in time, especially to a time with no or burned down archives, is harder, agreed.
- bluetomcat 6y agoDocuments and other preserved artifacts are often a very "low-res" view of what actually drives the course of events. Even with a well-ordered chronological archive of documents, there are far too many dots to connect between any two of them. Connecting the dots ultimately comes down to interpretation and creating a narrative. And narrative-based history is almost always wrong, deceptive and politically-inspired.
- gumby 6y ago> History is a bitch in the hands of the current political arrangement Isn’t the point of the essay that that is ever true?
- lenkite 6y agoThe middle ages were a terrible time for India. The Islamic Conquest put a definitive end to a relative era of peace and took India to the dark ages. Most Indian kingdoms were soft (Buddhism was the prevalent religion) and fell like ninepins to hardened invaders. Vast libraries were burned and vast quantities of knowledge lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda
- boomboomsubban 6y agoAs we are talking about an entire millennium, the middle ages were a terrific time for India, containing multiple centuries that are considered golden ages with the Gupta Empire and the Chola dynasty. Both statements are true and false, it's meaningless to generalize to that degree.
- lenkite 6y agoThe Gupta Empire aka Golden Age of India preceded the Islamic Conquest. 2nd to 6th Century AD. Not sure whether this fits into the Middle Ages. Islamic conquest of India started from ~700 AD, though it became serious only after 900 AD.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>. Not sure whether this fits into the Middle Ages. One or two centuries arguably do, which is why I worded my statement in that particular way.
- teleforce 6y agoDark ages for India during Mughal Empire? You must be kidding right or you are in denial. Mughal dinasty is probably the richest Indian dinasty and most probably the richest dinasty ever comparable to Byzantine empires. The older Indian dinasties before Moghul are not that rich or successful otherwise tourists will be visiting their buildings like pyramids in Egypt or Aya Sophia in Turkey.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 6y ago>But was it also a setback for the subjugates areas like France, England which now became independent? Now England got to be attacked by a variety of other raiders. We actually don't know a huge amount about the early Medieval period in England. A lot of it comes from a handful of ecclesiastical records and the survey that was done after the Norman (French) invasion in 1066. Also a few discoveries, most notably Sutton Hoo. But we don't even know if King Arthur was a real person or not. In contrast to the Roman Empire, very little came down to us from Northern Europe.
- arethuza 6y agoAnother fascinating one is the Battle of Brunanburh - which is known to have been hugely important but nobody knows where it happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brunanburh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brunanburh There is a chapter about it in Michael Wood's excellent book In Search of England. Last night I killed a man in Brunanburh. https://beelyrics.net/music/17276-jorge-luis-borges/671626-brunanburh-937-a-d-english-version-lyrics.html https://beelyrics.net/music/17276-jorge-luis-borges/671626-b...
- koheripbal 6y agoIn fact, the existence of written history is a pretty good indicator of the degree of chaos. It wasn't just Italy that suffered with the collapse of the Roman system. Written history nearly disappeared from Spain, North Africa, France, Belgium, England, the Balkans, etc... The notable difference is, of course, the surviving East Roman Empire, which continued for another 1000 years. The contrast between conditions in former Roman Western Europe, and the East Roman Empire very much highlight the degree of collapse that occurred.
- Tagbert 6y agoThere is more information about the 300-1000 period than is commonly assumed. It’s not as solid as earlier or later, but people have done a lot of research and analysis and it is no longer the “dark ages”. If you follow the British History podcast, he covers this period in a lot of detail. What we don’t know can be frustrating but what we do know is illuminating. https://www.thebritishhistorypodcast.com/ https://www.thebritishhistorypodcast.com/