Oh yes - but then I stand by the claim that most French or German people know about as much about Charlemagne, Franks et al as most British people do about Alfred the Great and Vikings.
Oh yes - but then I stand by the claim that most French or German people know about as much about Charlemagne, Franks et al as most British people do about Alfred the Great and Vikings.
That's just basic nationalism, is it not? Assume your nation's history is by far the most important there is, whilst simultaneously knowing nothing but the absolute basics of that history, and even less of any other nation's history. Also, if you don't love it, leave it.Are you sure one is reliably connected to the other? I mean we essentially have Ms. Palin on the record as deeming early US/colonial history to be the most the significant thing that ever happened to mankind while knowing nothing about it.
And she sure isn't alone with that sort of sentiment, not in the US and not in most other places either.
My point was that the period previously known as the 'dark ages' is pretty much unknown to most people, even though the scholarly terminology has changed. In other words, whether continental scholars have been quicker to embrace the idea that 'dark' is an atrocious way to categorise several centuries is largely unimportant to the actual public's understanding of said centuries.
That's just basic nationalism, is it not? Assume your nation's history is by far the most important there is, whilst simultaneously knowing nothing but the absolute basics of that history, and even less of any other nation's history. Also, if you don't love it, leave it.
I doubt this has any connection to the so-called Dark Ages, nor to scholarship in the slightest. It's just typical poor history education, which is the norm in at least the Western World.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Granted, that might be because I've butted into a conversation between you and Flying Pig.
Yeah... uhm... this isn't about scholarly opinion.
People in the UK seem (or seemed) to be very familiar with this concept of the "dark ages", many seem to actively believe into this. Presumably this is a result of the "poor history education".
People here largely don't and didn't. Presumably this is a result of the "poor history education".
Now, if you absolutely insist on looking into scholarly opinion (which is irrelevant to the argument i originally made) you may start with the fact that history teachers and their biases don't fall from the sky but come from a place where scholars tought them how to be history teachers.
Is any?Is all written history an unbiased and reliable source of information and reference? Absolutely not.
Is any?
People in the UK seem (or seemed) to be very familiar with this concept of the "dark ages", many seem to actively believe into this
Surprisingly, I never heard 'Holy Roman Empire' pass once at history lessons during High School.
ITT: Mouthwash struggles with the revelation that history is not objective.
Also some Assassin's Creed-level conspiracy theory bull[feces]
The difference, of course, is Assassin's Creed never claimed they were telling the truth, unlike this guy. "this work of fiction was produced by a multicultural team of various faiths" or whatever is at the beginning of every AC game.
This guy somehow thinks he's the real deal though, that's what sad. I would be much more forgiving of his beliefs if he could produce an awesome video game, book or movie out of it. But sadly "all history is fake" doesn't make much of a premise.
Pope Sylvester II and Holy Roman Emperor Otto III were two powerful men and two ambitious friends. Just how ambitious? There is a (very controversial) theory that between them, they forcibly ushered in a new millennium... 300 years early.
...
The point is, both of these men knew how to self-mythologize, which is why Heribert Illig, a German systems analyst, believes that the two changed the date in order to make their ascent to power even more symbolic. It's possible that the two came to power at the middle, or end, of the seventh century AD, and simply rewrote the dates to make it look like they were on the brink of a new millennium.
Illig has a few interesting pieces of evidence to support him. There are allegations of widespread document fraud in several manuscripts written at the time, which seem to date from the seventh century. Byzantine documents from this era were transcribed from one kind of script to a new, more efficient script, and the originals were thrown away. Perhaps they were thrown away to conceal gaps and inconsistencies in the historical record.
...
And then there's Charlemagne. Tall, strong, handsome, powerful, good, and the first Holy Roman Emperor. He was almost a King Arthur figure, a figure that was just secular enough to tie people together without displacing the religious authority of the pope. Of course he had some flaws. He was unable to learn to read, although he always wanted to. If only some learned Holy Roman Emperor could take up his mantle and improve on his reign, particularly if that man was crowned, like Charlemagne, on Christmas day.