Disease kills over half the world's population, what happens next?

[Dr Strangelove]

But disease does kill over half the world's population. In fact disease kills darn near everybody, except for those who get caught in the crossfire, starve, waste themselves or get run over. So what's your point? We have children to replenish the stock.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The irony is also that we tend to blame medieval 'obscurantism' on religion, while in fact the Church's power and influence dramatically increased from the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance onwards (after all, it was their wealth that made the artistic 'Renaissance' possible).

I actually don't "blame" the middle ages on the Church at all.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Traianvs


The Dark Ages were called dark because historians knew comparatively little about the period at first. That's all there is to it.

a) The Dark Ages are not the same as the Middle Ages. They are usually taken to refer to the earliest part of the middle ages. Say 500-900 or so. You can probably draw a line around the time when the Viking invasions stopped

b) Why the hell do you think historians knew so little about the Dark Ages? Because there was an enormous dearth of scholarship, literature, art etc from that period.

[KrazyHorse]

it makes no sense at all to view the whole timeframe as the same. There are also vast regional differences.

There are always vast regional and time differences when discussing the society of an entire continent over a millennium. That doesn't prevent us from looking at the period as a whole and drawing conclusions based on averages.

There are certain phenomena of decline esp. in the early middle ages (mainly pre-1000). But what is 'Dark' (in the sense of "bad times" aside from the use to indicate "lack of sources" Traianvs explained?

I agree that the decline was mainly early middle ages (which is WHY there is a lack of sources from that period!!!) And that later on there were noticeable improvements and a small flowering of art, technology architecture, literature and scholarship (following the population growth of the High Middle Ages). The European Renaissance didn't come from nowhere, after all. It required a stable and more outward-looking society in order to flourish. So if you want to talk about the High and Late Middle Ages laying the foundation for what was to come, feel free. But they were mostly undoing the retrenchment which had occurred during the Early Middle Ages. Not advancing human knowledge or organization very quickly.

Europe fell VERY far during that period.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Gothic architecture and the philosophy and art you're probably most interested in only began to show up in the very late Middle Ages. 13th century onward.

Notre-Dame de Paris is begun 1163. Notre-Dame de Chartres is rebuilt as gothic cathedral from 1194. Those were finished later (Chartes 13th, Paris even 14th century), but that's another question. Elements of gothic architecture were known and used even in the early 12th century.

[GePap]

What does Gothic architecture prove, particulalrly with regards to the notion that after 500AD Western Europe saw a huge decline? Is anyone here claiming that Classical civilization could not have built those Cathedrals because they lacked the technique or wealth?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The move to rehabilitate the Middle Ages as not being stagnant ignores what is the obvious broad historical outline of the period and substitutes for it a series of anecdotes.

The view to paint the Middle Ages as being mostly stagnant ignores a large number of historical findings about the period and substitutes for it a series of clichés.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
What does Gothic architecture prove, particulalrly with regards to the notion that after 500AD Western Europe saw a huge decline? Is anyone here claiming that Classical civilization could not have built those Cathedrals because they lacked the technique or wealth?

Well, esp. if you speak of a huge decline it would mean that technique and wealth for this were indeed there later, and so there is some advance? And it's not only architecture, but also about art, and there it is certainly new and distinctive from earlier stuff (regardless if say Romans or so were technically able to build similar buildings).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BeBro


Notre-Dame de Paris is begun 1163. Notre-Dame de Chartres is rebuilt as gothic cathedral from 1194. Those were finished later (Chartes 13th, Paris even 14th century), but that's another question. Elements of gothic architecture were known and used even in the early 12th century.

Do you have a point? ND was finished midway through the 13th century. New techniques were developed AS IT WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED, both by those working on it and others (transmitting their ideas to those building it). The point is that for most of the middle ages we see unimaginative, poorly constructed architecture. Very little art and literature. Almost no scholarship. The late middle ages is a story of people rediscovering their creativity, engaging themselves in projects more elevated than surviving. But not of great advances beyond those previously seen. More like reversing the utter ruin in which they'd wallowed for 6 or 7 centuries.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


Well, esp. if you speak of a huge decline it would mean that technique and wealth for this were indeed there later, and so there is some advance? And it's not only architecture, but also about art, and there it is certainly new and distinctive from earlier stuff (regardless if say Romans or so were technically able to build similar buildings).

Well, there is always new things and techniques, even in bad times. Just look at how much art and thought you had during the early 1930's, in a period of economic decline.

I personally don't think the Middle Ages as a whole were ever static, but saying it wasn;t static isn;t the same as denying that there was a huge decline in living standards fomr a part of this era. I would say that we had a huge fall in civilization from say 450AD to 800AD in most of the west. This is followed by a gradual climb back up. A lot of technical knowledge was lost, but not all, and even duirng this time of decline some technical imporvements were being made in the West. Over time, links with the rest of the Mediterranean basin are restored and ideas and goods slowly but surely begin to move around again.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BeBro


The view to paint the Middle Ages as being mostly stagnant ignores a large number of historical findings about the period and substitutes for it a series of clichés.

What historical findings do you have in mind, dude?

[Richelieu]

I'm betting on Unicorns

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Gothic architecture and the philosophy and art you're probably most interested in only began to show up in the very late Middle Ages. 13th century onward.

More like the 11th century, but I see the point.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Actually, I have seen several such arguments. They state that there is little evidence that the standard of living for the vast majority of Europeans declined along with the collapse of the Roman authority. The people effected most would obviously be city-dwellers, but most people lived in the rural areas, and life didn't change for them hardly at all.

Aside from that whole serfdom thing.

[notyoueither]

Orthodox historiography would have European civilisation collapse in the 5th-6th centuries (or thereabouts) due to stresses of disease, invasion, negative trade surplus, and Emperor GW Bushius being a child of Satan.