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

[BeBMan]

Lotsa cliché. The view that the (Italian) renaissance and/or post 1500 developments made everything better and everything before was just "dark" is completely outdated (it's to a good degree a view formed during the enlightenment).

[Boris Godunov]

Were the Dark Ages really that dark, though? Many historians have begun to question the conventional wisdom that they were such dramatically bad times.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by TCO
Dolphin needs to go down a couple notches on the KH intelligence ranking scale.

Because I'm parodying the Daily Mail? Or because I did it so well that I did it badly?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Because compared to China and the Middle East it was a black hole.

Was it really? It doesn't seem to me, for instance, that Gothic churches have anything to envy Moor mosquees.

Philosophy and art were comparably interesting.

IIUC sanitation was really bad in Europe, that may be the major advantage of the Arabs and Chinese.

[Fake 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).

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Were the Dark Ages really that dark, though? Many historians have begun to question the conventional wisdom that they were such dramatically bad times.

The Dark Ages were called dark because historians knew comparatively little about the period at first. That's all there is to it. The Renaissance - late medieval period wasn't all fun and games, considering the plague of the mid-14th century for example, that wiped out millions of people, causing public life to come to a standstill.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Were the Dark Ages really that dark, though? Many historians have begun to question the conventional wisdom that they were such dramatically bad times.

It depends a lot what you count under 'Dark Ages' and what the 'bad times' aspect of this would mean. If people use Dark Ages for "European Middle Ages in general" (like ca. 500AD - ca. 1500AD) it makes no sense at all to view the whole timeframe as the same. There are also vast regional differences.

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?

If it means "full of war, poverty, plagues" then you have all this elsewhere and in different times, some of which are seen as outspoken highlights of history. Pericles' Athens saw a devastating disease during the Peloponnesian War.

Often there are also relatively stable periods in between the medieval 'bad times' which are ignored.

If it means "lack of progress" then it isn't so easy as well. There can be made points for this in the 'hard' technics/sciences field, but it's often quite reduced. How were they able to build giant gothic cathedrals or Crac dé Chevaliers?

And then there's the whole field of progress in administration, law, etc. which is usually forgotten, but nonetheless quite important, because from there you have lines pointing to further (modern) developments of statehood, governance, parliamentarism, separation of state/church etc.

Culture/Arts? How is the Bayeux Tapestry "dark" (=bad) compared to say some Islamic pieces of the same time? How are early medieval sagas or high medieval epics?

[GePap]

Well, one obvious reason the age seems "dark" is because of the enourmous decline of standards of living after the collapse of centralized Roman governence. Think of it as what has happened in Somalia - with the collapse of strong central government the movement of goods and services falls apart. Local warlords take over and extort from the population.

I don't think it is possible to argue that the average standard of living on someone in Gaul in 800AD was even equal to that of someone in 300AD.

I agree with all said about local differences even in this period, and by say 1100AD forward you did have significant progress in the West.

The thing is that a similar collapse of centralized governance and trade did not occur in the East.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't think it is possible to argue that the average standard of living on someone in Gaul in 800AD was even equal to that of someone in 300AD.

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.

[GePap]

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.

Do you know any web links off hand?

I personally don't think it plausible (evidence for anything from that period is scant). First, you do have a decline in overall commerce and trade. I would assume a loss of markets for any surplus and the ability to get ones hand on money and the stuff you could then get with said money. Then of course there is the loss of security, and increased banditry.

I am not well versed enough on land ownership in the late Roman period to know how developed serfdom was going into the dark ages, or whether this was mainly a development after the collapse of central authority in the west.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
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.

Though in the cities it could have been quite serious. Several major ancient cities lost a big part of their population (most prominently Rome itself, which became much smaller population-wise in the middle ages). In the provinces, some once flourishing Roman cities were reduced to better market places.

I'm not sure about the main causes, if foreign invasions, economic decline (or both) or whatever are mostly responsible. KH can tell us

However, in result (early) medieval society became much more centered around agriculture. This was different in the Byzantine Empire, and in the (later Islamic) middle east, were quite many big, rich cities still continued to exist. In 'core' Europe most remaining bigger cities were then concentrated in Italy, some (like Genoa, Venice) rose to more or less independent sea/-trade powers quickly again during the middle ages though.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

real estate prices would collapse, and down goes the economy, no more traffic jams, less pollution, all debt gets canceled.... new world order arises, we all get a chip instead of the credit card, and they kill you if you don't get to work exactly at 9 am and stay 5 hours overtime to make up for all the lost revenue with half of the population dead.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BeBro
Lotsa cliché. The view that the (Italian) renaissance and/or post 1500 developments made everything better and everything before was just "dark" is completely outdated (it's to a good degree a view formed during the enlightenment).

Your revisionism is so sad. Were there incremental advances during the dark ages? Yes. Can the society compare with more vibrant cultures of the time or the same culture a few centuries later? No.

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.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Were the Dark Ages really that dark, though? Many historians have begun to question the conventional wisdom that they were such dramatically bad times.

Lots of historians have begun to engage in some silly-ass bull****.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Was it really? It doesn't seem to me, for instance, that Gothic churches have anything to envy Moor mosquees.

Philosophy and art were comparably interesting.

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.