3 ms·

You're cherry-picking. It seems to me that the reactionary anti-liberalism now goes to the extent of defending the middle ages because the Enlightenment is a po

• qwytw 3y ago
  Not everything people say had an ulterior motive and/or is driven by some ideological beliefs (quite a bit of projection going on here I assume?). Also we were talking about technological progress. Demographics and economic activity were a different matter (the outfall of the plague and climate change in the 6th century was very severe and recovery quite slow, e.g. if the compare to the second pandemic during the middle ages especially). Also the Roman empire had been declining for hundreds of years by that point. And again without talking about specific regions this discussion is somewhat pointless. Based on estimates Gaul and Germany had already surpassed their Roman population peak by a million or two by ~900-1000 and it was about double by the 1300s). OTH Italy still had a lower population in the 1500s (of course it was significantly inflated during the Roman period because of massive transfer of wealth and people from other areas). > commerce What makes you say that the level of commerce and trade in the Roman empire were particularly higher (and not significantly lower) outside of the Mediterranean? > Enlightenment That didn't start 300 year or so until the middle ages were over so I'm not sure why are you even brining this up? > You're cherry-picking I could say the same