Dark Ages

[tflex]

Just wondering what conditions led to the dark ages and why it lasted for so long, over 500 years.

 

I know the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of christianity were culprits, but why did it take so long for Europe to recover? and what other factors contributed in causing and prolonging the dark ages?

 

Also, I never understood why the dark ages occured during a period of stable and warm climate, and the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Industrial age all took place during the little ice age, a period marked by freezing and unstable weather that caused starvation and mass plagues such as the black death, that almost wiped out Europe's population. I think thats very odd, I would have thought the opposite would happen.

Edited May 3, 2006 by tflex

[docoflove1974]

From what little I know...

 

I think two of the key components of the Roman society was education and trade. Most all Romans had access to education (someone fill in the gaps here, please), and with the fall of the empire, only those in monasteries (or who could afford to send their son off to the monastery to learn) had 'easy' access to books and education, and even that was limited to a select few. With the fall of the empire also came a broken-down infrastructure, and people not having as much opportunity to do long-distance trade. Less trade, in my opinion, lead to a more closed society (or societies), and combined with a lack of education, more people became xenophobic, in a way, and helped to exacerbate the situation.

 

Like I said, this is my gut feeling, based on the little I've read.

[Pertinax]

A not unreasonable suggestion is :that as urban areas could not be sustained as centralised authority disintergrated and communities devolved to rural self sufficiency (in terms of basic survivability) no maintenance of the very core of Romaness could be maintained ( trade/civic growth/conspicuos consumption/education) so stasis was the order of the day .

[tflex]

Great posts and very helpful.

 

Also, why did nothing change for 500 years? Thats a long time to go without trade and proper education. My second question is, how did Europe get out of the dark ages, what had to change for it to move into the middle ages?

[docoflove1974]

My second question is, how did Europe get out of the dark ages, what had to change for it to move into the middle ages?

 

I think it was a combination of things:

--Arab/Moorish and Irish monastic 'reintroduction' and 'preservation' of ancient texts: I don't think you can discount the contribution of either groups. Both were instrumental in continual copying and maintaining of ancient texts, which facilitated learning in the rest of Europe.

 

--Renaissance: I know that the timing varies, but this period of time (in my mind: 1350ish-1550ish) was so amazing in far of (Western) European culture. And in every aspect, too: arts, philosophy, literature, science, education, et cetera. In fact, one could say that, along with the 'classical' period of the Greeks, it was one of the most creative and important ages of Europe. I know that the root of all events (and evils?) is money...in this case, the Medici family setting up a 'banking' system which helped to finance the Papacy, Florence, and so much of central Italy...and that from here, you have the explosion that we know as the Renaissance.

 

One book, which I do recommend reading, which gives a bit of insight to the later Renaissance is Ross King's Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling . It does focus mostly on il gran Buonarroti and his tempestuous relationship with Il Papa...but it's also a good view of how this period was financed, run, and developed in other areas. It was a good read (and with good sized print!).

Edited May 3, 2006 by docoflove1974

[Tobias]

For so long, Europe had been organised, governed and defended by Rome. No matter what the situation, Rome was virtually always there for the furthest extents of Europe. The beginning of the continuing invasions of barbarians shook the world, but so many continued to believe in Rome. Eventually, when Rome's soldiers coming to the rescue began to become more and more uncommon, the populace turned in on themselves. Barbarians were destroying infrastructure, coinage occassionally had little or no value and the system that the people had come to see as being inevitable, perpetual and indestructible was dismantled violently.

 

These times, the invasions of the Huns, the goths and the reign of Romulus Augustus, were the true beginnings of the Dark Ages. What so many generations of people had believed in was now gone, or rather was run by barbarians, which amounted to the same thing.

 

With the loss of law, infrastructure, direction and protection, the peoples of Europe had only one order of the day; survival. The people had to return to the basics; rudimentary trade of goods having more value then coinage, frugal living and lack of technology etc etc. They had to defend themselves and make enough food and income of some kind to keep themselves alive. This effectively froze Europe. Virtually no central authority could assert the sort of control that Rome had had in it's heyday, because of small dominions, and various conflicting confederations all working to protect their own interests.

 

Of course, the church contributed it's bit. With life being so very tough, the main consolation for the general populace and indeed the upper echelons of society was that if you followed the instructions of the church to the letter, you would go the everlasting Paradise; Heaven. The church generally opposed anything outside of the bible, and the majority of the writings of ancient Rome were lost through destruction, censorship or negligence, and a life dictated by something other then the church was inconceivable. It came to be that most could not conceive of a life that was not dominated and ruled by the church, and ancient Rome (a life and time far better than what they were experiencing) may have been considered to be a legend. That was what kept the church's grip so strong throughout this time. Of course, the church generally opposed change and advancement, which assisted in holding Europe back.

The fact that the dark ages lasted so long shows exactly the influence Rome had on Europe, and how terrible the effects of the barbarian invasions must have been.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Tobias

[Ursus]

My second question is, how did Europe get out of the dark ages, what had to change for it to move into the middle ages?

 

 

The impending collapse of the Byzantine Empire inspired some scholars to flee and take up residence in Italy (and elsewhere) which facilitated a trend that was already under way. Remember, the Dark Ages weren't so dark in Eastern Europe.

[Tobias]

Indeed, some of the only lights of learning were preserved in Constantinople. In the last years of the Empire, there was a great flourishing of art and learning, and some great works were produced; some of the last legacies of the Byzantines to be produced. With the steady besiegement on all sides, these scholars, artists etc fled to the Italian centres of civilisation, like Venice, Florence, Milan etc, and helped to set off the renaissance

[Pertinax]

We have just got a copy of this masterpiece from the recent past

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B...9931322-1950335

 

it is absolutely pertinent to this particular thread, and indeed to much of our various discussions.I will report when I have watched more.

[tflex]

My second question is, how did Europe get out of the dark ages, what had to change for it to move into the middle ages?

 

 

The impending collapse of the Byzantine Empire inspired some scholars to flee and take up residence in Italy (and elsewhere) which facilitated a trend that was already under way. Remember, the Dark Ages weren't so dark in Eastern Europe.

 

Interesting, so the Byzantine Empire was actually a negative thing for western Europe. It took away from them wealth and education instead of spreading it. Is that the case? I always thought it was odd that the West europeans could not learn from the Byzantines, especially since they believed in the same religion. Chrisitianity helped eastern Europe, but hurt western Europe, where the west Europeans simply more fundamentalist? Also, I would have thought Byzantine would have opened up trade from the east into all of Europe, it seems the opposite happened with western Europe. I could never understand that part of history, why thhigs where the way they where.

Edited May 12, 2006 by tflex

[Kosmo]

Byzantium it's the outside place that played the most important role for W. Europe. They saved and passed on books and knowledge. They were the trade area that got started the italian trade powers. They lured the West in contact with Islam in the Middle East creating that full of flavour area of Levant where W. and E. Europe met Asia.

And they were the buffer that absorbed most nomads allowing for some stability in the West.

[Tobias]

I would not go so far as to say that the Byzantines had a negative effect on Western Europe; they absorbed most of the overtures made by the Persians and the Arabs, and protected the west from many threats through protecting their own interests, as was said by Kosmo.

It can also be said that they didn't necessarily believe in exactly the same religion; the Orthodox and Catholic churches were quite often at odds with each other, especially after the Byzantines lost Rome.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Europe moved from the Dark Ages (from fall of rome to around 1100 perhaps) because of gradual recovery of trade and build up of civilization in general. However, the Rennaisance was triggered by the crusades and the trade in mediterranean, through which Europe came to contanct with the scientifically and culturally more advanced Muslim civilization.

 

During the times when Europe was ruled by petty kingdoms and warlords, muslim world was thriving and dominating.

 

The knowladge obtained from the Muslims through raid and trade, and the experience of witnessing another, often more wealthier culture, opened Europe's eyes and ignited the rennaisance and other significant events. These events evantually lead Europe to more civilized era.

 

IMHO

 

EDIT: spell/grammar checked.

Edited May 16, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[Pertinax]

PP may be near to something here, namely Charlegemane and his Librarian ,Alfred of York, and the struggle via "knowledge" to re-connect the West to the "lost Centre" of learning from the classical world.The collecting and copying of Latin texts begun by the King is the source of the great majority of the works that have come down to us for study.And this at a time when virtually everyone( ..including Charlegmane )was unable to read.(.he did try , but said he couldnt get the hang of it.) and not just for one or two generations , several hundreds of years

Edited May 16, 2006 by Pertinax

[docoflove1974]

PP may be near to something here, namely Charlegemane and his Librarian ,Alfred of York, and the struggle via "knowledge" to re-connect the West to the "lost Centre" of learning from the classical world.The collecting and copying of Latin texts begun by the King is the source of the great majority of the works that have come down to us for study.And this at a time when virtually everyone( ..including Charlegmane )was unable to read.(.he did try , but said he couldnt get the hang of it.) and not just for one or two generations , several hundreds of years

 

I was under the impression that the Celtic (mostly Irish) monasteries had a much longer tradition of copying, and that via the travelling monks (I'm blanking on a name...something like Columnus?) this tradition was brought back to mainland Europe?

 

As for the illiteracy...I'm pretty sure that it was in the monasteries, only, that literacy was achieved...few 'lay' people, regardless of status, were even partially literate until the late dark ages (11th century).