Is this graph correct?

[DanS]

To be honest, there's that at least 400-year gap between 400 and ~800 that seems rather stagnant in much of Western/Central Europe.

Maybe I have an idealized view of Greco-Roman times. Maybe I have a too narrow view or materialist view of advancement.

Admittedly, the conversions to Christianity and the quashing of various heresies that happened during this time set the stage for the advancements to come. I doubt that the divided, tribal, warring heathens had anything like advancement in their lexicons.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by DanS
To be honest, there's that at least 400-year gap between 400 and ~800 that seems rather stagnant in much of Western/Central Europe.

Depends, doesn't it? Central Europe (above the Danube) wasn't part of the Roman Empire and yet its considered when we speak of the European dark ages. And why include Roman era Iberia in European history but exclude Muslim era Iberia?

I don't think it's all that easy to separate the histories of the Mediterranean and Europe.

I'm assuming you are making an aside or adding a tangent to what I said because I don't disagree. The OP graphical troll was saying that the world stagnated because of Christian Europe's dark ages. You can focus on the fact that Christian Europe is not the world, I was focusing on the fact that the dark ages weren't the pit of absolute stagnation that is implied.

With Christian Europe technically beginning only in 496, with the conversion of Clovis I? That leaves us with a 300 year gap of supposed Christian dark ages.

[Dauphin]

The chart has a 1,000 year dark age. Other 'dark age' timelines choose random arbitrary dates. My particular favourite is 1066. As if the invasion of Anglo-Saxonland by the Normans suddenly brought Britain (a land that was fought over in part because of it's high level of administration and tax raising potential) and the rest of Europe out of the Dark Ages.

[Arrian]

I have a general feeling similar to that of DanS:

~400 - ~800 for the Dark Age... at least in Britain.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

The dark ages as such never existed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Capitalism is the key.

and leads to communism

[dannubis]

capitalism of the state you mean...

[DanS]

Originally posted by Ecthy
The dark ages as such never existed.

We all know what the Germans looked like during Roman times. Really refined individuals.

Gladiator

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by dannubis
capitalism of the state you mean...

What is that? Do you mean like Bush tax cuts?

[BeBMan]

Well, saying there's something like the dark ages is not the same as what the graph suggest - simply no change over several hundred yrs in Europe (not to mention again the little fact that the graph's dark ages are some hundred yrs too long).

Also fun that it shows a very old fashioned approach to *the renaissance* meaning obviously that one starting in Italy (IMO dated too late in the graph though), which is certainly important, but other "renaissances" or developments before already made links to ancient Graeco-Roman knowledge or art again (Carolingian R., Ottonian R., impact of Aristoteles on scholastics etc.).

Also, the limitation of the "scientific" field in the graph is weak, because there was certainly progress in other fields like law, administration etc. during the middle ages, which that graph ignores.

[Ecthy]

Ottonic Germany was a well-run place, so was Merowingian France. So what's the point in all this "dark ages" business? Obviously some infrastructural maintenance got lost after the collapse of Rome, but it took a few generations only for the new empires which represented lower populations and worked with smaller economies to get up their own business. Lack of sources from the time until 1000 was a problem for 19th century historians. Some science was lost from earlier days but things were still progressing, they had just had to start from a lower level than they were before.

[BeBMan]

Depends what you mean by dark ages. What the graph does, dark ages = middle ages is just dumb. For the time of the early middle ages I don't think it's totally absurd, since lack of sources from there is not only a prob of the 19th century. You simply have a lot more stuff from later, if only due to the reason that there was simply written much more (by various sides, and more diverse stuff like chronicles, royal letters, law, diplomatic stuff)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Ottonic Germany was a well-run place, so was Merowingian France. So what's the point in all this "dark ages" business?

It would help if people could pinpoint when the term was first used, and in what context.

The fall of the Western Roman Empire and ensuing 'barbarian invasions' meant a rupture between the city and town dwelling lives of the Roman ruled inhabitants of places such as Londinium and the lives of their 'successors' such as the first waves of Angles, Saxons and Jutes in England.

Given that even an inland area such as Burgundy was subject to devastating raids by the Arabs, Vikings and Magyars in one relatively short period, it's easy to see why people at the time would contrast their current experiences unfavourably with life under the Romans.

I blame the European Renaissances- putting the Classical worlds of Greece and Rome on a pedestal meant ignoring or downplaying the achievements of people like the Venerable Bede and later Mediaeval scholars.

I was focusing on the fact that the dark ages weren't the pit of absolute stagnation that is implied.

Dauphin


Yes, I was just embellishing. The Irish monastic schools preserved Greek knowledge, but they faced an added disadvantage in that their version of Christianity was out of synch with the Mediterranean, and they were like Bede, out on the periphery of European civilization.

On the other hand, their missionary impulse meant the creation of monasteries across Europe, so...

Certainly the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were not isolated entirely, as Offa's Arabic coinage and Charlemagne's 'borrowing' of the Anglo-Saxon monk Alcuin as his secretary and educational adviser shows.

The difference I suppose between the Christian lands of the 'Dark Ages' and the Islamic world is more one of greater exposure to more and newer influences, and more texts and books available.

Oh, that and fewer interruptions by marauders such as the Avars, Magyars, Vikings, et cetera.

[Kidlicious]

I think it's wrong to say that the dark ages started at the fall of the Roman Empire.

I tried to find the context of the graph but gave up. Anyway it's created by people who call themselves freethinkers and who are anti-religion (christian in particular).

I think in that context the dark ages would have started when 380 when christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and all other religions were made heretical.

I don't think there is an ending point that can be identified though since the church's power has decreased over time.

I'll say that the Reformation was a turning point though.

[Barnabas]

Kidicius, the eastern roman empire (and christian) never had a dark age