3 ms·

I don't have a dog in the dark ages fight, but > In some remote provinces, writing disappeared entirely. The remote provinces were filled with recently conque

I don't have a dog in the dark ages fight, but > In some remote provinces, writing disappeared entirely. The remote provinces were filled with recently conquered barbarians, and the writing that disappeared was the writing that the Roman colonists and state brought with them where they went, including back home. but throught the middle ages, Christianity kept spreading and by that period of history, where it spread, writing spread too. And from what I understand, the Moslem lands also launched on a positive slope literacy-wise.

labster 3y ago
Yeah it’s amazing how people keep buying Renaissance era CT propaganda about itself. Those classics they were “rediscovering”? They only existed at all because the church copied papyrus to vellum to books. Papyrus doesn’t last 1000 years outside of deserts (e.g. Egypt).
- labster 3y ago
  (The “CT” is a typo)
dalbasal 3y ago
Yes, exactly. The whole sequential history narrative, the Standard Model, is totally blinkered from its NW european perspective. "Civilisation," meaning societies that have cities, taxes, writing, big government, roads, aqueducts, and such.... these existed for thousands of years in Egypt, Iraq, India, China, Greece etc. Rome was such a society. Rome also conquered "The East," and the north african coast... all long established urban "civilisations." When Rome "fell," those civilisations persisted. Persia had "fallen" before them, as had Alexander's empire, Assyria, Babylon, Sumer, etc. etc. There were good centuries and bad, but they generally stayed "civilised" through thousands of years worth of political turmoil and change. They always had scribes, high priests, princes, infrastructure and such. England, France, Germany and whatnot.... These were never civilisations. They were, for short periods ruled by Rome. They had some elements of civilisation, but for brief periods with limited reach. It was never culturally rooted or widespread. They were barbarian societies, and continued to be barbarian societies. Writing doesn't "disappear" in europe, it never really existed. Concepts like Scottish or German renaissance are ridiculous. These were new civilisations being established in previously barbarian societies. They weren't renewing, they were founding. Urban civilisation is new to NW europe. 200-500 years old. England's "old world civilisation" is only 150 years older than US civilisation.
- netbioserror 3y ago
  Yes, European thought is simply colored by the fact that Rome was the first civilizing empire in Europe. For people in the fertile crescent and the Levant, it was just another empire in a long line of empires. We shouldn't discredit how important that empire was, however. For most of the world, empires came and went with an average state of terminal stagnancy. The fall of Rome was like a springboard for the successor states to industrialize and colonize the entire world. That's impressive for a place with little previous history of civilization.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > The whole sequential history narrative, the Standard Model, is totally blinkered from its NW european perspective. It’s not blinkered if it’s a model of northwestern European history. > England, France, Germany and whatnot.... These were never civilisations. They were, for short periods ruled by Rome. They had some elements of civilisation, but for brief periods with limited reach. It was never culturally rooted or widespread. They were barbarian societies, and continued to be barbarian societies. Writing doesn't "disappear" in europe, it never really existed. This is misleading if not entirely false. * Germany was never meaningfully conquered or ruled by Rome. * The land we call France today was conquered by Julius Caesar by 40 BC. The Romans called it Gaul. Gaul remained within the Roman Republic and Empire for centuries. During that period, Gaul had a large and growing population of Roman citizens. Three emperors were born there. And eventually, by 212 AD, Roman citizenship was extended to everyone living within the borders of the empire. It wasn’t until the fifth century until Rome finally lost control of Gaul, which was conquered by Germanic barbarians. One of those tribes was called the Franks, hence the name “France”. But by that point, it had been part of Roman civilization for 500 years. * The Roman province of Brittania—modern day England and Wales—was conquered in 43 AD after decades of invasions dating back to Julius Caesar. It remained part of the Roman Empire until 410–in other words, it was part of Roman civilization for almost 400 years. It was also subject to the 212 decree granting Roman citizenship to all inhabitants. Even as late as the early to mid 500’s, we have British writers such as Gildas who still considered themselves and their fellow Britons to be Roman citizens. Like France, England was conquered by tribes of Germanic barbarians, one of which (in this case, the Angles) gave the country its modern name. But even after this point, Britonnic culture persisted in the Welsh frontier. > Urban civilisation is new to NW europe. 200-500 years old. Paris was founded in the first century as the Roman city of Lutetia. It persisted as a Roman city until the fifth century, when it was renamed to Paris and used as the capital of the Merovingian kingdom. It has remained a major city ever since—not for 200-500 years, but for nearly 2000.
philwelch 3y ago
> The remote provinces were filled with recently conquered barbarians The Roman Empire reached its maximum geographic extent under Trajan in the first century while the western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, so I’m curious which of these “recently conquered barbarians” you’re referring to. > the writing that disappeared was the writing that the Roman colonists and state brought with them where they went, including back home. Who went back home? Any “Roman colonists” at the frontiers of the western empire by the fall of Rome would have been there for centuries; in other words, they were already “at home”. More on this in a bit. > but throught the middle ages, Christianity kept spreading and by that period of history, where it spread, writing spread too Christianity was also the Roman state religion at the end of the western empire, and indeed remained the state religion of the eastern empire until it fell to the Ottomans in the 15th century. Let me give an example tying these points together. The population of Roman Britain had been Roman citizens since 212. Roman troops weren’t withdrawn from Britain until the late 300’s and early 400’s, but by that point the Britons had become a predominantly Christian population that had held Roman citizenship for over a century. So at least in Britain, it was less a story of recently conquered barbarians being left behind by retreating Romans, and more a story of a piece of the Roman Empire being cut off from the rest due to a decline in state capacity. So what about the writing? We don’t have a lot of surviving examples of it from Britain for another couple of hundred years, which makes it hard to figure out exactly what happened during this period. What we do know is that Angles, Jutes, and Saxons arrived and effectively conquered what is now England. The “Anglo-Saxons” were still Germanic heathens at this point, and while had a runic alphabet of their own, we don’t have any surviving Anglo-Saxon literature from this period. Brittonic people survived, particularly in Wales, and we do have some writings from some of them, such as Gildas. Wikipedia notes the following: > Gildas's work is important for reasons beyond the historical information he provides. At the time when Gildas was writing Britain was Christian. Gildas uses Latin to address the rulers he excoriates and regards Britons, at least to some degree, as Roman citizens, despite the collapse of central imperial authority. By 597, when St Augustine arrived in Kent, England, or at least most of it, was populated by adherents of Anglo-Saxon paganism, and the new rulers did not think of themselves as Roman citizens. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britan...) Gildas wrote at some point between 490 and 550, and even at this late point you have some Britons who still considered themselves (and one another) to be Romans. In other words, to the degree England becomes “barbarian” (in the sense of “not Roman”), heathen, and illiterate, it’s because it was invaded and conquered by illiterate barbarian heathens, not because the population reverted to their pre-Roman culture. After that point, I do agree that the spread of Christianity likely reintroduced writing; it’s only after missionaries like Augustine arrive and start to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity that we have any surviving literature written by Anglo-Saxons themselves, whether in Latin or Old English.

labster 3y ago

Yeah it’s amazing how people keep buying Renaissance era CT propaganda about itself. Those classics they were “rediscovering”? They only existed at all because the church copied papyrus to vellum to books. Papyrus doesn’t last 1000 years outside of deserts (e.g. Egypt).

labster 3y ago
(The “CT” is a typo)

dalbasal 3y ago

Yes, exactly. The whole sequential history narrative, the Standard Model, is totally blinkered from its NW european perspective. "Civilisation," meaning societies that have cities, taxes, writing, big government, roads, aqueducts, and such.... these existed for thousands of years in Egypt, Iraq, India, China, Greece etc. Rome was such a society. Rome also conquered "The East," and the north african coast... all long established urban "civilisations." When Rome "fell," those civilisations persisted. Persia had "fallen" before them, as had Alexander's empire, Assyria, Babylon, Sumer, etc. etc. There were good centuries and bad, but they generally stayed "civilised" through thousands of years worth of political turmoil and change. They always had scribes, high priests, princes, infrastructure and such. England, France, Germany and whatnot.... These were never civilisations. They were, for short periods ruled by Rome. They had some elements of civilisation, but for brief periods with limited reach. It was never culturally rooted or widespread. They were barbarian societies, and continued to be barbarian societies. Writing doesn't "disappear" in europe, it never really existed. Concepts like Scottish or German renaissance are ridiculous. These were new civilisations being established in previously barbarian societies. They weren't renewing, they were founding. Urban civilisation is new to NW europe. 200-500 years old. England's "old world civilisation" is only 150 years older than US civilisation.

netbioserror 3y ago
Yes, European thought is simply colored by the fact that Rome was the first civilizing empire in Europe. For people in the fertile crescent and the Levant, it was just another empire in a long line of empires. We shouldn't discredit how important that empire was, however. For most of the world, empires came and went with an average state of terminal stagnancy. The fall of Rome was like a springboard for the successor states to industrialize and colonize the entire world. That's impressive for a place with little previous history of civilization.
philwelch 3y ago
> The whole sequential history narrative, the Standard Model, is totally blinkered from its NW european perspective. It’s not blinkered if it’s a model of northwestern European history. > England, France, Germany and whatnot.... These were never civilisations. They were, for short periods ruled by Rome. They had some elements of civilisation, but for brief periods with limited reach. It was never culturally rooted or widespread. They were barbarian societies, and continued to be barbarian societies. Writing doesn't "disappear" in europe, it never really existed. This is misleading if not entirely false. * Germany was never meaningfully conquered or ruled by Rome. * The land we call France today was conquered by Julius Caesar by 40 BC. The Romans called it Gaul. Gaul remained within the Roman Republic and Empire for centuries. During that period, Gaul had a large and growing population of Roman citizens. Three emperors were born there. And eventually, by 212 AD, Roman citizenship was extended to everyone living within the borders of the empire. It wasn’t until the fifth century until Rome finally lost control of Gaul, which was conquered by Germanic barbarians. One of those tribes was called the Franks, hence the name “France”. But by that point, it had been part of Roman civilization for 500 years. * The Roman province of Brittania—modern day England and Wales—was conquered in 43 AD after decades of invasions dating back to Julius Caesar. It remained part of the Roman Empire until 410–in other words, it was part of Roman civilization for almost 400 years. It was also subject to the 212 decree granting Roman citizenship to all inhabitants. Even as late as the early to mid 500’s, we have British writers such as Gildas who still considered themselves and their fellow Britons to be Roman citizens. Like France, England was conquered by tribes of Germanic barbarians, one of which (in this case, the Angles) gave the country its modern name. But even after this point, Britonnic culture persisted in the Welsh frontier. > Urban civilisation is new to NW europe. 200-500 years old. Paris was founded in the first century as the Roman city of Lutetia. It persisted as a Roman city until the fifth century, when it was renamed to Paris and used as the capital of the Merovingian kingdom. It has remained a major city ever since—not for 200-500 years, but for nearly 2000.

philwelch 3y ago

> The remote provinces were filled with recently conquered barbarians The Roman Empire reached its maximum geographic extent under Trajan in the first century while the western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, so I’m curious which of these “recently conquered barbarians” you’re referring to. > the writing that disappeared was the writing that the Roman colonists and state brought with them where they went, including back home. Who went back home? Any “Roman colonists” at the frontiers of the western empire by the fall of Rome would have been there for centuries; in other words, they were already “at home”. More on this in a bit. > but throught the middle ages, Christianity kept spreading and by that period of history, where it spread, writing spread too Christianity was also the Roman state religion at the end of the western empire, and indeed remained the state religion of the eastern empire until it fell to the Ottomans in the 15th century. Let me give an example tying these points together. The population of Roman Britain had been Roman citizens since 212. Roman troops weren’t withdrawn from Britain until the late 300’s and early 400’s, but by that point the Britons had become a predominantly Christian population that had held Roman citizenship for over a century. So at least in Britain, it was less a story of recently conquered barbarians being left behind by retreating Romans, and more a story of a piece of the Roman Empire being cut off from the rest due to a decline in state capacity. So what about the writing? We don’t have a lot of surviving examples of it from Britain for another couple of hundred years, which makes it hard to figure out exactly what happened during this period. What we do know is that Angles, Jutes, and Saxons arrived and effectively conquered what is now England. The “Anglo-Saxons” were still Germanic heathens at this point, and while had a runic alphabet of their own, we don’t have any surviving Anglo-Saxon literature from this period. Brittonic people survived, particularly in Wales, and we do have some writings from some of them, such as Gildas. Wikipedia notes the following: > Gildas's work is important for reasons beyond the historical information he provides. At the time when Gildas was writing Britain was Christian. Gildas uses Latin to address the rulers he excoriates and regards Britons, at least to some degree, as Roman citizens, despite the collapse of central imperial authority. By 597, when St Augustine arrived in Kent, England, or at least most of it, was populated by adherents of Anglo-Saxon paganism, and the new rulers did not think of themselves as Roman citizens. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britan...) Gildas wrote at some point between 490 and 550, and even at this late point you have some Britons who still considered themselves (and one another) to be Romans. In other words, to the degree England becomes “barbarian” (in the sense of “not Roman”), heathen, and illiterate, it’s because it was invaded and conquered by illiterate barbarian heathens, not because the population reverted to their pre-Roman culture. After that point, I do agree that the spread of Christianity likely reintroduced writing; it’s only after missionaries like Augustine arrive and start to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity that we have any surviving literature written by Anglo-Saxons themselves, whether in Latin or Old English.