PDA

View Full Version : The Dark Ages Didn't Exist



lazserus
May 30th, 2011, 3:08 PM
The periodization known as the "Dark Ages" is a misnomer and is rarely used by today's scholars. This misnomer was typically used to describe the period of history between the fall of Rome and the High Middle Ages (ca. 12th century), during which time the world (primarily Europe) experienced intellectual stagnation and even withdrawal.

The concept was first used by the Italian scholar Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) in the early decades of the 14th century, specifically criticizing the character of Late Latin literature. As an Italian, Petrarch saw the Roman Empire and its language as superior or of greatness, thus he would be particularly annoyed by Classic Latin's bastardization. Although most literature was written in Classical Latin, Vulgar Latin came to widespread use during the Medieval Period. Additionally, in the British Isles and in Iceland, Germanic languages were appearing on the page in favor of Classical Latin. Alfred the Great commissioned the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 890, which was written solely in Anglo-Saxon (Old English), and as early as the 12th century Icelanders began recording chronicles, poetry and sagas in their vernacular, Old Norse.

Vulgar Latin is simply nonstandard Latin from which the Romance languages developed. Later, Vulgar Latin was replaced by specific terminology associated with the regional variations in linguistic features, such as distinguishing the differences between Spanish and Portuguese. Christian writers such as Petrarch commonly referenced "light" and "dark" in their writings, typically as they are associated with "good" and "evil." The period between the fall of Rome and Petrarch's time stunted the expansion of Latin to a degree, and therefore Petrarch considered this period as one of darkness.

CORRELATIONS
The period spanning from the 5th century to the 12th century was one of significant hardships as well as outstanding cultural developments. Overlapping this period is what is called the [Germanic] Migration Period, or the Völkerwanderung, spanning A.D. 300-700. A number of Germanic tribes spread into Europe during this period, but this period is not solely owned by them. Slavic, Sarmatian, Indo-Iranian, and Turkic tribes also moved into Europe between 300 and 700. Part of the reason this period is given a German name is a result of major Germanic groups moving throughout Europe and altering its cultural landscape. A limited list of tribes includes: Goths, Suevi, Burgundians, Frisii, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, and Franks.

The Völkerwanderung began with early migrations of Germanic tribes from Scandinavia into Northern Europe and the region of the Black Sea. Here we see the early movements of the Goths, Suevi and Burgundians into Northern Europe. It is nearly impossible to assert the causal relationship between many of these early movements. That is to say, we cannot say with certainty that X tribe displaced Y tribe, forcing them into Western Europe, with the exception of the Huns. We have enough primary sources to conclude that the Goths and Burgundians were pressured by the Huns as they approached Eastern Europe, and thus those Germanic groups pushed west into what was still then the Roman Empire.

Regarding Rome's Collapse
Although the Roman Empire has been given an official expiration date of A.D. 476, the Empire had been decaying for more than a century. Corruption and economic hardships had taken its toll on the Empire, and when Attila challenged its supremacy in the mid-5th century, he almost succeeded. Ultimately the Huns were kept in check, deeming the Romans the victors in the struggle for European supremacy, but neither side truly won.

After Attila's death his sons combated one another over the division of his legacy, primarily who would take what land and control which vassal kings. During this time of weakness the Ostrogoths aligned with one of Attila's subservient chieftains and destroyed the Hunnic mass, causing the minor tribes to scatter, thus ending the legacy of the Huns.

Early on when the Goths were stomping around Roman territory, the Empire paid them to settle down. When the Huns became a bigger threat, they practiced this same principle by offering chests of gold. When Attila decided payment for peace wasn't enough, that is when he began assaulting the Empire. Rome's military was already broken and thus they contracted their military out to Germanic tribes. The Goths were one such tribe and used many times in lieu of legions. By and by, the Roman military was made up of more "barbarian" mercenaries than actual legionnaires. Once the Huns were neutralized, internal strife led to political assassinations and murder within the Empire. No proclaimed Roman emperor actually had control of the military because they were all contracted Germanic groups. Rome fell victim to the same mercenaries they employed, as a number of these Germanic groups took advantage of Rome's fragility and executed campaigns against Rome itself and all of Italy.

Following the implosion of Rome, Germanic tribes were able to run rampant throughout Europe with no consolidated force to oppose them. This is the time commonly described as the Dark Ages.

THE REALITY
Simply put, even if there were "Dark Ages," they only affected Europe, though we know even this is not true. During the period commonly known as the Dark Ages, the Arabs were making extraordinary strides in scientific development such as mathematics, astronomy and medicine. The American cultures experienced no cultural stunting, and Asia as well was unhindered. In Eastern Europe, Byzantium, once the Eastern Roman Empire, was unfazed by the collapse of its western component. In fact, Byzantium's refusal to help keep Rome afloat contributed to the western collapse. Not only were these "Dark Ages" not global, they were not in fact "dark" at all, at least intellectually and culturally speaking.

Regarding Charlemagne
The Franks began expanding westward as early as 480, and by the opening of the 6th century Gaul was controlled by this Germanic group under the Merovingian dynasty. The Carolingian dynasty (ca. 751) produced Charles the Great (Charlemagne), who spent most of his adult life in service of the Roman Catholic Church and working to create a new Rome. Although Charlemagne was in fact the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, he was only emperor for four years. His coronation was in A.D. 800, and he died in 804. Despite the fact he only held his title officially for four years, Charlemagne was the monarch of an expansive region of Europe ranging from western France to western Germany.

During his reign Charlemagne instituted a number of administrative reforms tackling economics, education, religion, writing, politics, and military. Although not all of his reforms were successful or lasted much longer than his death, the fact that Charlemagne attempted these reforms is extraordinary, especially when it comes to those that did work. What's more is that his administrative reforms may have inspired reforms in Britain.

Charlemagne played a valuable role in the future of European economics, especially in how currency was treated. He abandoned the monetary system based on the Roman gold sou, a gold coin issued by the Romans that determined the value of goods--an ancient gold standard. The Roman solidus corresponded to 4.5 grams of gold, or simply a single sou. Charlemagne and the Anglo-Saxon king Offa of Mercia both took up a system based on a pound of silver. This was an accounting practice, never minted. However, this enabled the use of more advanced and accurate accounting principles, which Charlemagne also instituted in his realm.

Education also became of interest to Charlemagne. He promoted scholarship among his court and children and attempted to make education widespread. He established libraries and schools of learning and himself came under the tutelage of now-famous medieval scholars. Although unsuccessful, Charlemagne himself attempted to learn to read and write. Unfortunately his attempt was too late in life and he was unable to accomplish literacy before his death.

Regarding the Anglo-Saxons
One of Charlemagne's tutors was from York, Northumbria, and he arrived in the Carolingian court sometime around 780. He is commonly referred to as Alcuin (from Latin Alcuinus), but his given Anglo-Saxon name is Ealhwine. Before being invited by Charlegmane to continental Europe, Alcuin studied under the Archbishop Ecgbert of York. In his ecclesiastic studies Alcuin would have learned to read and write in Classical Latin, and his own writings resulted in an illustrious reputation, which sparked the attention of Charlemagne.

Alcuin's historical reputation may seem out of place here, but it leads to the fact that Anglo-Saxons, even under constant siege by Vikings for more than two generations, were able to develop one of the most significant historical chronicles in a way that defied classical linguistic trends. As aforementioned, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was commissioned by Alfred the Great in 890, and it was among the earliest medieval literature recorded in regional vernacular as opposed to Classical Latin.

The scope and range of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, as written in vernacular, paved the way for the likes of the Icelandic sagas, Eddic poetry, and even Wyclif's bible and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. More contemporary is Beowulf, an epic poem written in Old English perhaps as early as the 900s. Alfred the Great's educational reforms perhaps coincidentally mirrored Charlemagne's.

CONCLUSION
The concept of the Dark Ages began with Petrarch's ethnically pretentious notion that Rome was the world's perfect civilization. He especially focused on the changes in orthography as opposed to spoken language, believing that the Romans perfected the written form. Certainly Latin was seemingly perfect in the 14th century because it had been used for centuries, and it was especially the language of the Catholic Church. However, Petrarch was ignorant to the fact Christianity spread like wildfire after the fall of Rome. Christianity did not become officially accepted by Rome until the 4th century, thanks to Constantine. (Ironically he helped establish Constantinople so that the Empire could be closer to Palestine. This was the first step in dividing the Roman Empire.) Byzantium's role in the spread of Christianity is unmatched--the oldest extant copies from the New Testament are in Greek!

After Petrarch's pretentious assessment of the ages before him, other scholars throughout history attempted to keep the historiographical label and associate it with regional and associative history: Greek Dark Ages, dark ages of Cambodia, Digital Dark Ages, etc. Overall, the concept of the Dark Ages is antiquated and now used more as a culturally philosophical label.

In a modern analogy, consider the Terminator movies. After Skynet becomes ware and bombs the crap out of humanity, you can call post-1997 a dark age for humans, yet is can also be called a golden age for machines. The point here is the label is subjective and in reality does not apply to human history in any extensive way. Now we historians simply call this period the Early Middle Ages or the Early Medieval Period.

Spectrum
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:53 AM
We note, though due to the extreme violence of the period very few scholars existed due to this violence, [bit like present day Afghanistan] when Charlemagne was being described the scribe just copied a Latin text describing an Emperor for him.
Maybe Dumb ages?

Why also were the other races in flux, crop failure, overpopulation, fleeing conquering armies.

Anarch
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:55 AM
I think this thread should be nominated for failblog.org

Vuall
Jun 18th, 2011, 1:02 AM
I think this thread should be nominated for failblog.org

I found it very interesting and informative, maybe you didn't understand it.

lazserus
Jul 11th, 2011, 4:45 PM
We note, though due to the extreme violence of the period very few scholars existed due to this violence, [bit like present day Afghanistan] when Charlemagne was being described the scribe just copied a Latin text describing an Emperor for him.
Maybe Dumb ages?
The violence didn't end with the onset of the High Middles Ages, though. Before this new "enlightened" period even broke ground the First Crusade was launched (AD 1096), barely a generation after England changed hands to the Normans. There were plenty of scholars during and after the so called Dark Ages. Most scholars during the early Middle Ages either lived confined within protected cities or were scattered along the fringes of the known civilized world. For example, when the first Scandinavians arrived at Iceland a few Irish monks lived as hermits along its coastline. Violence did not deter scholarship, it merely changed the arena slightly. On the other hand, the Völkerwanderung reshaped the cultural and political map of Western Europe, and many isolated scholars took this opportunity to weave tales of horror and murder.


Why also were the other races in flux, crop failure, overpopulation, fleeing conquering armies.
I'm not sure if you're posing this question as rhetorical. Ethnic fluctuation is common place, even today. It always has been and always will be. People did and will move around in large masses, changing if only slightly the ethnic makeup of the receiving regions. Look at the reshaping of Celtic England by the Germanic tribes, the introduction of Scandinavian names into Slavic tongues around Kiev, or even the use of Arabic words in Western Europe.

Fleeing conquering armies has been common since before the 3rd millennium BC, so nothing new occurred between AD 476 and 1100 as far as that goes, perhaps with the exception that the latter period saw less fleeing and more assimilation.

Overpopulation cannot be measured historically with any real certainty, unless of course contemporary written documents exist specifically stating such was the case. Also, historical population statistics can be very difficult to produce, and the margin for error in these statistics can be somewhat high. For the sake of argument, we can consider a global population chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png) dating back to 1800 and its data. Now, I'm not a Wikipedia fan, but at least this graph shows that half the data is estimated. According to this graph, 1800-1900 saw a minor increase in population but remained less than 2 billion worldwide. After 1960 we see real booming (which fits the Baby Boom generation in the U.S.) wherein the population continues to exponentially increase. But again, we're talking populations figures beginning in the 19th century.

Rewind 1000 years. The Industrial Revolution had not yet begun (ca. 1750). Before that the renewed Agricultural Revolution had not yet begun (ca. 1450). And before that feudalism had not yet begun (ca. AD 1050). Overpopulation perhaps occurred, if only slightly, in some of the major culture cities, like Constantinople. But during the Middle Ages, especially the early part, when towns became overpopulated the people spread outward and erected new cultural centers. They didn't need railroads, skyscrapers, just access to fertile countryside and a water source. And let's not forget about the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century, which was a bubonic plague much worse than the Black Death of the 14th century.

Crop failure still occurs today, even with pesticides and herbicides. In the Middle Ages a dry summer could cause widespread crop failure. Hell, the Irish Potato Famine was a result of a nothing more than an infectious spore that targets potatoes and tomatoes. A long winter, a long summer, even critters could have easily caused crop failure. It was quite common, but not as widespread as in the Modern Era, because people didn't share blights like they do now. Crop failure was also a result over overgrazing, something even to this day we barely have under control.

There are many aspects that can paint the early Middle Ages as dark, or even dumb, but you have to look at the bigger picture. You also have to put things into context. In retrospect, in hindsight, we can look back a thousand years and dictate what should have been done differently. We do it with our own lives every day. Yet we still make mistakes. And sometimes it's not our mistakes, it's just the environment. You lost your job because the small company's main office was leveled by a tornado, then went bankrupt. Certainly hindsight won't help anyone here. (Well, except for not to build main offices in Tornado Alley, or at the top of a volcano.)