Why is 'Dark Ages' considered innacurate?

[Ajidica]

First off, I know the term is rarely used anymore because it isnt completly accurate. (China and India for example, although I don't know for sure)
While civilization didn't regress as much as is thought of in popular culture, it certiantly did. The romans had indoor plumbing, had a decent idea of how to make steel, excellent engineering, and many other things. After the Roman Empire went away, Europe didn't really have those things until the High Middle Ages at best. I know the ERE did quite well, building the Hagia Sohpia and all, but the majority of Europe suffered after the Roman Empire collapsed. Consider:
1>The population of Italy drasticaly decreased. However that was due to Justinians Reconquest but still. IIRC the population didn't recover until the later middle ages.
2>Although the idea of 'learning going away' is completly innacurate, much of the Roman technology was not used anymore.
I can list further examples if they are needed.
So basicaly, why is the term 'Dark Ages' not considered accurate when applied to Europe from around 450-~800 or 1200? Life in the early Middle Ages in Europe was undeniably worse that it had been during the Roman times.

In addition, since the term Dark Ages isnt used any more how is this for timelines of the early middle ages:
>Migration Age: Basicaly late classical to foundation of the Caliphates
>Invasion Age: (Im not sure about this one, could be lumped in with Migration) Goes until victory of Otto III at Lechfield over the Magyars.
>Norman Age: Goes until death of Bohemund de Taranto. By that time their wasn't really a Norman Kingdom any more.

 

[shortguy]

Life in the early Middle Ages in Europe was undeniably worse that it had been during the Roman times.

Worse for whom? For a person from the overwhelming portion of the population that made a living by performing manual agricultural labor for someone else, I don't know that a whole lot changed.

 

[Tabster]

had a decent idea of how to make steel

Hmm, I'm not so sure about this, even if they could make steel I suspect it was a fluke and they didn't really know what the difference between iron and steel was, but I'd like to hear more

much of the Roman technology was not used anymore.
I can list further examples if they are needed.

I have a bit of an interest in this type of thing, If you could give a few examples as I'm quite curious (concrete for one!). thanks

A regular poster on this forum has described the term 'dark ages' as "pejorative"

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm currently composing an article refuting most of these myths, but I'll quickly address some now:

While civilization didn't regress as much as is thought of in popular culture, it certiantly did.

It did not. A few parts of Roman civilization were lost -- which is the case for any lost civilization -- but society advanced in countless other ways.

The romans had indoor plumbing, had a decent idea of how to make steel, excellent engineering, and many other things.

Civilization became less urbanized, thus nobody was willing to create aqueducts anymore. That doesn't mean civilization regressed. And I don't see how the early medieval peoples could not be called excellent engineers; have you ever seen St. Denis' Basilica?

1>The population of Italy drasticaly decreased. However that was due to Justinians Reconquest but still. IIRC the population didn't recover until the later middle ages.
2>Although the idea of 'learning going away' is completly innacurate, much of the Roman technology was not used anymore.

1 - So? Population decrease isn't necessarily a bad thing.
2 - Because a great deal of it was no longer necessary. What we know as "universities," "trial by jury," "human rights," et al. were invented in the Dark Ages.

So basicaly, why is the term 'Dark Ages' not considered accurate when applied to Europe from around 450-~800 or 1200? Life in the early Middle Ages in Europe was undeniably worse that it had been during the Roman times.

Citation needed.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It was essentially called the "Dark Ages" by Renaissance blowhards who wanted to somehow justify their Classicism fetish as being a "return to civilization," which meant demonizing the period between.

 

[LightSpectra]

The only conceivably applicable argument for the "Dark Ages" I've heard is that when the Roman Empire was not in civil war (which it was almost constantly at various points, but I digress), internally almost all of Europe and North Africa was at peace, and had free travel (when you weren't attacked by robbers or pirates, which were painfully common; but again I digress).

The problem with this argument is that the Dark Ages didn't end until... what -- last decade, then?

 

[Joecoolyo]

I always though it was called the dark ages (not the I believe the naming is correct in any way) was because right after the Roman Empire collapsed Europe kinda fell into a giant power vacuum (I'm of course talking about the Western collapse, no the eastern one) where basically anyone could take the crown. This of course lasted quite a while, with different Germanic tribes forming their own kingdoms and fighting each other for power.

 

[Ajidica]

>Romans and steel: Although they didn't know what steel was, they knew that when you added certain things to the iron, it became stronger. Because the Romans had large factories where the weapons were made,(can I get I citation on this? I know the Notita Dignitatum lists factories but I don't think any archeological evidence has been found) a large part of that knowledge was 'lost' when the Roman internal trade broke down.
>decrease in population and decrease in cities: while I can't list a source off hand for this, urban population declined as much of the infrastructure that had sustained the cities was gone. A migration away from a city due to lack of infrastructure has generaly been viewed as a bad thing.
development of modern concepts such as jury...: The middle ages saw a decrease in ideas such as universities, juries, and such. While there were some universities in Western Europe during the early middle ages, they were mainly monasteries IIRC. The only univerities I can remember are the ones in the ERE such as the ones in Athens and Constantinople. In addition, the early middle ages was the time of trial by fire and such. In the poem 'Song of Roland' the traitor is indicted not through a jury but through a trial by arms. Even taking into account poetic license and the fact it is a epic, this shows jury trials were not common at all. Since the legal systems the kingdoms used during this time was based on Roman Canon law, it was church driven and the church at this time was very autocratic. As for human rights, there wasn't even any 'law of chivalry' or Pax Diei to protect peasants and clergy. If you can give a source for this, I'd be glad to be corrected, but this doesn't mesh with my knowledge of the early middle ages.

The reason I don't see the issue with 'Dark Ages' is that it was on the whole more violent and less stable than the Roman times or even High Middle ages. While the origin of the term is flawed, I see no reason not to use it to describe a time in history.

 

[LightSpectra]

>decrease in population and decrease in cities: while I can't list a source off hand for this, urban population declined as much of the infrastructure that had sustained the cities was gone. A migration away from a city due to lack of infrastructure has generaly been viewed as a bad thing.

You have to prove that large cities would've been preferable during the middle ages for this to hold.

development of modern concepts such as jury...: The middle ages saw a decrease in ideas such as universities, juries, and such.

That's amazing, considering they didn't exist prior to the alleged "Dark Ages" (trial by jury did in Athens, but that was prior to the Roman Empire, and thus precludes your argument).

While there were some universities in Western Europe during the early middle ages, they were mainly monasteries IIRC.

Yes, and? Monasteries were cultural, scientific and financial centers in post-Roman Europe.

The only univerities I can remember are the ones in the ERE such as the ones in Athens and Constantinople.

Oh come on, you could at least Wikipedia this. Bologna, Oxford and Paris were founded during the "Dark Ages;" Bologna being the first university in history.

In addition, the early middle ages was the time of trial by fire and such. In the poem 'Song of Roland' the traitor is indicted not through a jury but through a trial by arms. Even taking into account poetic license and the fact it is a epic, this shows jury trials were not common at all.

I have to say, this is probably the worst methodology of research I've ever encountered on this forum.

Since the legal systems the kingdoms used during this time was based on Roman Canon law, it was church driven and the church at this time was very autocratic.

... as "autocratic" (a loaded and improper term) as any government in history, since that's generally what legal systems are.

As for human rights, there wasn't even any 'law of chivalry' or Pax Diei to protect peasants and clergy. If you can give a source for this, I'd be glad to be corrected, but this doesn't mesh with my knowledge of the early middle ages.

You need to provide a citation for this ridiculous notion that there was simply no legal protection for 90% of the population.

The reason I don't see the issue with 'Dark Ages' is that it was on the whole more violent and less stable than the Roman times or even High Middle ages. While the origin of the term is flawed, I see no reason not to use it to describe a time in history.

The term "Dark Ages" implies some kind of intellectual darkness, when by even 800 AD the peoples of western Europe had already far surpassed the Romans. This is what the term was coined for, and that's how it's typically used, despite being refuted again and again by every credible historian alive.

 

[Tabster]

>Romans and steel: Although they didn't know what steel was, they knew that when you added certain things to the iron, it became stronger. Because the Romans had large factories where the weapons were made,(can I get I citation on this? I know the Notita Dignitatum lists factories but I don't think any archeological evidence has been found) a large part of that knowledge was 'lost' when the Roman internal trade broke down.

The Romans couldn't melt iron, so they couldn't really add things to it, they could work slag out of it which would as consequence absorb maybe phospherous or carbon out of the fuel, and improve the qualities of the iron, but this doesn't definately make it steel. So they might have knowledge of how to work particular kinds of iron (different sources of ore, or even meteorite iron) but not have an overall understanding of it.

I think they may have traded for steel with the east?

I think the indians had a process like the later crucible steel, the Japanese had there reducing steel straight from the ore process as well. But I'm not sure of the dates, but I think they overlap with the Roman period.

Edit: not crucible steel I mean't the earlier process where you hammer flakes of steel off an iron ingot.

 

[innonimatu]

The term "Dark Ages" implies some kind of intellectual darkness, when by even 800 AD the peoples of western Europe had already far surpassed the Romans. This is what the term was coined for, and that's how it's typically used, despite being refuted again and again by every credible historian alive.

I absolutely agree that the "Dark ages", even worst period between ~470-950, were a necessary evolution, leading to a positive outcome. But really, in a lot of metrics we could use living standards in Western Europe were worse during that period. Urbanization receded drastically, almost collapsed for some time. Civil law was almost entirely forgotten, only maintained through ecclesiastical use. Plagues were more common (though the late empire also suffered those, there were centuries without any record of big ones - but that may have been just random). Trade declined, and with that the availability of products from distant regions. The monetary economy vanished. These were, of course, trends which started even during the late period of the empire, and the factor connecting them all seems to be the decline of the cities.

The empire itself may have been responsible for that, when it replaced the cities' role as independent political centres with an imperial bureaucracy. Power passed from the dealing citizens of the cities (local commercial magnates), to imperial appointees who owned vast estates outside the cities, to military man who cared little for cities at all...

 

[BananaLee]

How hard can it be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
Sure, it's not an academic source, but it's a decent primer to answer your question.

Again, if you want to see why the term is a pain in the arse, you should read: -
Elizabeth A.R. Brown's "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe," The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 1063-1088.

It's about the term "feudalism", but it applies just as well to the term "Dark Ages". It ties you into this image that somehow this period between the 5th and 11th centuries were somehow "stupider" or "lesser" or "inferior" to life during the "Classical Period". Sure, it was *different*, but can you actually say it was *worse*? By whose standards?

 

[LightSpectra]

But really, in a lot of metrics we could use living standards in Western Europe were worse during that period. (1) Urbanization receded drastically, almost collapsed for some time. (2) Civil law was almost entirely forgotten, only maintained through ecclesiastical use. (3) Plagues were more common (though the late empire also suffered those, there were centuries without any record of big ones - but that may have been just random). (4) Trade declined, and with that the availability of products from distant regions. The monetary economy vanished. These were, of course, trends which started even during the late period of the empire, and the factor connecting them all seems to be the decline of the cities.

(Numbers added by me)

(1) Again, one needs to prove that this is a bad thing in order for it to be a criticism of the early medieval era.

(2) This point presumes that Roman civil law in the Dominate period was superior to ecclesiastical law in the early middle ages, which has not been demonstrated. Given the religious homogeneity in most of non-Arian Europe, I don't think it's the case that the Catholic Church operating the judicial system is such a bad thing, given that the late Dominate period was overrun by plutocracy and corruption.

(3) The worst plague in the alleged Dark Ages was Justinian's Plague, which was in the Eastern Roman Empire at its height. While you may be correct on this point, it's a matter of fact that the issue is obscure, because such a thing was not recorded so well.

(4) This is false. The notion that trade routes were eliminated and caused an alleged Dark Age is known as the Pirenne thesis (named after Henri Pirenne, a historian that wrote the majority of his works while a prisoner during WWI), which has since been refuted now that we know of trade routes that extend as far as northern Russia, and that the Europeans did in fact trade to some degree with the Islamic caliphates. Something to note about this point is that some economists, such as Ludwig von Mises, have argued that the Roman economy was unstable to begin with and that was what caused the decline of the Empire.

It's about the term "feudalism", but it applies just as well to the term "Dark Ages". It ties you into this image that somehow this period between the 5th and 11th centuries were somehow "stupider" or "lesser" or "inferior" to life during the "Classical Period". Sure, it was *different*, but can you actually say it was *worse*? By whose standards?

There's also the issue that the term "feudalism" is so loaded that it doesn't really mean anything. It's used to describe such a vague time period and collection of ideas that many historians would argue that conceptually speaking, it's entirely an invention of 19th century historians reflecting upon the middle ages.

 

[attackfighter]

How was it advantagious for cities to decrease in population?

I will take a guess and say that wealth became more concentrated in the hands of rural nobility and that peasents ruralised to be closer to that wealth, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[LightSpectra]

People do things that are economically advantageous to them (short of being deceived, but that's an exception). To quote Milton Friedman: "If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can only gain at the expense of another." If people emigrate from cities, then there's likely a good cause for that.

Now, the contention here is that since the Roman Empire was more urbanized and densely populated than medieval Europe, that somehow the former is more sophisticated or economically advanced. While I believe there's some truth to "Stadtluft macht frei," this assumption needs to be qualified and proven.

 

[Ajidica]

I'll start from the top:
>Cities: Throughout history people tended toward cities for a few reasons, chief among them being increased opportunities for economic success. Why did Venice become so heavily settled? Geographicaly no one would want to live there. Because it had trade people were attracted to it. Why did Rome, Milan, Ravenna, Alexandria, the list goes on, get so big in the Roman times? People obviously wanted to live there. The reason the cities kept expanding is because of public amnenities. Rome needed the aqueducts to provide fresh water so people would live there. With the destruction of many of the aqueducts in sieges and such, people no longer wanted to live in a city. Out of this derives trade opportunities. When Romes network of roads was broken up and destroyed, trade was reduced. With less trade merchants (especialy in the inland cities) went destitute. Because of that coinage became less common so people in urban settings were unable to purchase items, so they left the cities, generaly leaving their skills behind.
>In addition to show trade decline, trade fairs only reemerged in the 12th century.
>Trial by jury as we view it originated in the Renniassance IIRC. If you can give me a source on that I'd be grateful. IIRC Peter the Hermit used a trial by fire to prove his innocence during the first crusade.
>As to using the song of Roland, it dates back to the mid 12th century, and if they were extolling trial by combat even then, trial by jury can't have been very popular in Charlemagnes empire as the poem basicaly is extolling the virtues of the knights of Charlemagne.
>Although there was no law in the entire Middle Ages saying you couldn't slaughter peasants, the ideas of chivalry and the idea of a Pax Dei (I can't remember if I'm spelling it right) at least layed the framework for limited war. If the Church is saying no wanton destruction, it is atleast a condemnation of an action.
>How in 800 AD was Europe surpassing Roman levels of living? Last I recall Charlemagnes empire was more stratified and less stable than Rome.
>As to Roman steel, while they didn't know what they made was steel, they did know that if you added certian materials to the iron, the resulting product will be harder.
>Oh, Oxford was founded in the 11th century, not the dark ages.

 

[LightSpectra]

>Cities: Throughout history people tended toward cities for a few reasons, chief among them being increased opportunities for economic success. Why did Venice become so heavily settled? Geographicaly no one would want to live there. Because it had trade people were attracted to it. Why did Rome, Milan, Ravenna, Alexandria, the list goes on, get so big in the Roman times? People obviously wanted to live there. The reason the cities kept expanding is because of public amnenities. Rome needed the aqueducts to provide fresh water so people would live there. With the destruction of many of the aqueducts in sieges and such, people no longer wanted to live in a city. Out of this derives trade opportunities. When Romes network of roads was broken up and destroyed, trade was reduced. With less trade merchants (especialy in the inland cities) went destitute. Because of that coinage became less common so people in urban settings were unable to purchase items, so they left the cities, generaly leaving their skills behind.

People tend toward cities for economic opportunities, therefore there is nothing inherently wrong from gravitating away from urban environments if there's a greater economic incentive to do so. This is not an argument for the Romans being more sophisticated or developed than early medieval Europe. You need to prove that cities were inherently better than rural civilizations. I would in fact argue that the succession from Roman mass enslavements to medieval serfdom was an improvement; serfs were tied to the land but at least enjoyed some amount of freedom and judicial protection.

>In addition to show trade decline, trade fairs only reemerged in the 12th century.

Already covered this. Very few credible historians still hold the Pirenne thesis. Look it up.

>Trial by jury as we view it originated in the Renniassance IIRC. If you can give me a source on that I'd be grateful. IIRC Peter the Hermit used a trial by fire to prove his innocence during the first crusade.

Magna Carta, art. 29 on juries.

Trial by fire was used when somebody tried to be absolved from an alleged crime on the grounds of divine intervention. Given that this was the First Crusade we're speaking of here, this is hardly the norm. You need to demonstrate by citation that trials by fire were used as the norm. Consider this: the only reason you know of Peter the Hermit is because he was vindicated. It's the argumentative equivalent to saying, "people conquer Europe all the time, just look at Napoleon."

>As to using the song of Roland, it dates back to the mid 12th century, and if they were extolling trial by combat even then, trial by jury can't have been very popular in Charlemagnes empire as the poem basicaly is extolling the virtues of the knights of Charlemagne.

Let me make sure you're aware of what your argument is: an epic poem written 300 years after-the-fact is being cited to show that an era that even nowadays is poorly documented (let alone how well it was known by the inhabitants of the 12th century), and the case is that of a very tense military situation whereby somebody was accused of treason leading to a catastrophic defeat. How can you possibly think this is a credible source, or even apart from that, the norm?

>Although there was no law in the entire Middle Ages saying you couldn't slaughter peasants, the ideas of chivalry and the idea of a Pax Dei (I can't remember if I'm spelling it right) at least layed the framework for limited war. If the Church is saying no wanton destruction, it is atleast a condemnation of an action.

The fact that the Peace and Truce of God exists demonstrates the contrary of your point, which is that the era was in complete chaos and nobody could control the soldiers.

>How in 800 AD was Europe surpassing Roman levels of living? Last I recall Charlemagnes empire was more stratified and less stable than Rome.

It was only less stable because of that pesky part of Salic law about partible inheritance. Aside from that they were far more ordered than the late Dominate, and experienced far greater artistic and scientific achievements. Look up the Carolingian and Ottonian Renaissances.

 

[BananaLee]

Ajidica, might be an idea to source all your statements. Particularly things like "trade fairs only re-emerged in the 12th century".
I'm no scholar of the Early Middle Ages, but I do know from my lectures (on High and Late Middle Ages) that trial by ordeal and trial by combat was only used as a last resort. A suitable source could be "Trial by Fire and Water" by Robert Bartlett.
In addition, I'd like to point out that trial by jury in its modern form is not the same as trial by jury in either the Classical Period or even the High Middle Ages. I'd classify Classical "trial by jury" more as "trial by mob", and English juries in the 13th century were more witnesses than decision-makers.

Again, I'd like to question your presumption that somehow the Romans lived better than the people in the Early Middle Ages. What standards are you using? Our modern standards? If so, isn't it a bit unfair to judge other people by our own standards?

 

[LightSpectra]

Considering thus far the only examples he's cited have been the most extraordinary cases recorded, I wouldn't be surprised if he used Nero's palace versus Irish peasants to prove the Romans had a better lifestyle.

 

[BananaLee]

In the words of Petrach, "what is history, but the praise of Rome?"