The Dark Ages

[Northern Neil]

Did the ordinary people of Britain live this way?every home made from stone and tiles?i find that hard to believe,but i'm no expert!

Not every home, but a great many. By 300 AD most of the Romans in Britain were Britons, as Celto - Latin names like 'Carausius' attest. Britain was a backward province and is a poor example; we are discussing the whole Western Empire here. In Gaul, Spain, Italy etc not only ordinary people, but even animals lived under tiles. Cattle were fatter in roman times, as attested by an exhaustive study of remains throughout the Western provinces, cited in Ward Perkin's book 'The Fall of Rome'. No doubt due to more efficient agricultural methods than those employed by the German successor states. We are indeed talking of the 'wonders of tiled roofs' here, but that one example of trappings of civilisation is very telling, as it suggests a complex infrastructure with centralised industries and a developed transport system. By 500 this had all changed.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Life in Europe during the Dark Ages was very hard. Very few people could read or write and nobody expected conditions to improve. The only hope for most people during the Middle Ages was their strong belief in Christianity. The ruling system had collapsed and taken with it stable government, schools, libraries, a uniform currency, and a common language. Bartering had replaced money as the major purchasing system. Cities and towns had been destroyed and transportation between them had become extremely difficult if not impossible.

 

On a brighter note (no pun intended) the Dark Ages were anything but dark in other parts of the world. The Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa studied and improved on the works of the ancient Greeks while civilization flourished in sub-Saharan Africa, China, India, and the Americas.

 

Which brings up another question, why wasn't Europe able to cope with on come of the dark ages as well as the other continents, maybe because we were more so heavily dependant on the Roman way of life than those farther afield?

Edited April 8, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[DecimusCaesar]

The Dark ages occured at different stages throughout Western Europe. Britain was one of the first places to go - falling out of the Roman sphere in the year 410. It's hard to pinpoint how quickly Roman material culture disappeared, but virtually all traces of Roman culture had gone by AD 800. The Roman civil structure, with its life centred around towns, began to disappear rather quickly - with Britons or Saxons setting up mud or wooden huts around the ruins of the Roman buildings.

 

Gaul managed to hold on to its Roman culture for a longer period. But by the time Attila and his Huns turned up in AD 451, many barbarian tribes had already settled into Gaulish territory - among them the Burgundians. Flavius Aetius had get assistance from these tribes - especially the Visigoths and the Alans - in order to keep Attila out of Roman Gaul.

 

Italy remained "Roman" for a longer period. It Wasn't till the sixth century for instance, that the Roman Senate was finally abolished (or rather it was destroyed at the hands of the Goths). Many of the Roman buildings were preserved, especially if some of them were converted to churches by Bishops. By the late sixth century the population of Rome had dropped to 30,000 due to several factors, including wars, plague and famine. Northern Italy came out of these troubles rather unscathed, with nearly all of its towns surviving. Southern italy on the other hand suffered terribly at the hands of the Lombards. Urban life in these areas were confined to the coastal cities, due to these invasions.

[Ludovicus]

There is a work of fiction, "The Dream of Scipio" told in three time periods, one of which relates the trials and tribulations of a 5th Romano-Gallic aristocrat trying to hold the local Roman society together. It's a fascinating and well-reviewed novel by Iain Pears. Here's the critique from Publishers Weekly

 

 

"Critic Harold Bloom once opined that literature is a series of misprisions, or misreadings, by writers of their predecessors. Although Pears might not have had Bloom in mind in his latest novel, the premise is an unlikely embodiment of Bloom's thesis. The story unfolds in three time frames, in each of which a man and a woman are in love, civilization itself is crumbling and Jews become the scapegoats for larger cultural anxieties. In the first scenario, Manlius is a wealthy Roman living in Provence in the empire's crepuscular 5th century. Although he has received the last echo of Hellenic wisdom, he is surrounded by believers in a nasty sect he despises Christianity but must find some means to protect Provence from the barbarians. In fighting for "civilization," he becomes a bishop and the promoter, almost accidentally, of one of the West's first pogroms. In the next narrative time period, a manuscript of Manlius's poem, "The Dream of Scipio," a neo-Platonic allegory, is discovered by Olivier de Noyen, a Provencal poet of the 14th century. As his 20th-century interpreter, Julien Barneuve, discovers in investigating his violent death, de Noyen was attacked because he got caught up in a political intrigue in Avignon while trying to save his love, Rebecca, from a pogrom unleashed by the Black Death. Barneuve, Pears's third protagonist, has a Jewish lover, too, but is enmeshed in the racist policies of Vichy France. Pears has a nice sense of what it means to live in a time when things fall apart, and not only the center but even the peripheries will not hold. But the readers who flocked to An Instance of the Fingerpost might not find the pages turning so fast in this less mystery-driven outing."

[Ursus]

Which brings up another question, why wasn't Europe able to cope with on come of the dark ages as well as the other continents, maybe because we were more so heavily dependant on the Roman way of life than those farther afield?

 

 

What was life in Western Europe (outside Italy) like before the Romans imposed civilization? Celts and Germans and other assorted barbarians who scratched a meager living in the fields. Most people, unless there were mass migrations, were tied to the immediate lands and lorded over by some petty chieftain sitting in a nearby hillfort. Wealth was not so much created as it was stolen from one's immediate neighbors; the petty chieftains chief occupations were to wage war on each other and plunder each other's meager wealth. Where literacy existed, it was usually confined to a few religious specialists, and those religious specialists exercised undue control over society at large.

 

Seems to me the Romans brought 4 or 5 centuries of civilization to the West; when central Roman power collapsed those societies simply reverted to more or less what they had been before the Pax Romana.

 

Of course, some things had changed forever, outside of Britain at least. Latin or some version of it replaced the local languages. Roman Catholicism replaced (or rather absorbed) local religion. There was still some memory of Roman law. All these things would endure through the Dark Ages and make Western Europe what it is today.

 

 

In any event, only the Western portion of Europe was dark. The East was still quite cultured and wealthy, though sadly it poured its energies into ridiculous religious disputes. When the East fell, its scholars fled to Italy, helping give birth to the Renaissance.

[caldrail]

It's a perfect name. If you want to argue the opposite, please point us to the splendors of Dark Age architecture, Dark Age engineering, Dark Age legal codes, let alone Dark Age pottery, sculpture, paintings, literature, and science. Compared to the Hellenistic age in which Rome flourished, the Dark Ages were a nightmare in human history.

The archaeological record supports this statement absolutely, at least with respect to Western Europe. In 400, ordinary people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied selection of pottery vessels suited to multiple functions, had access to luxury products made some distance away, and access to imported wines. A hundred years later they were living under thatch, cooked, ate and drank from basic round pots, had virtually no luxury items unless very rich and drank beer or mead.

So they lived in less grand homes. But what about the quality of life? There's more to that than luxury items, which most people couldn't afford anyway even during the pax romana. As I mentioned, the dark ages might have been a nightmare for some regions but then some people might have said the same thing during the height of the roman empire. This was also the period that saw the rise of islam and its conquest of north africa and spain. They were supportive of learning and culture if I remember right. The Byzantines were still there and doing ok. I really don't believe the vikings thought the dark ages were a nightmare either.

 

Which incidentially brings me to the point about dark age technology. Viking longships. Hey, its a start, ok? Dark architecture? Whats wrong with thatched huts? Can you make one? What about moorish palaces, what about byzantine art and literature, not to mention islamic writings. To call the dark age a nightmare is a gross misunderstanding. We call it a dark age because it was a dark time for us.

[longbow]

I've been trying to find info on the Saxon King who had the Byzantine gold crosses in his grave (and plenty of wine urns),but for the life of me i cant rememeber his name .

Calling a Roundhouse a thatched hut is a bit simplistic dont you think?

Thatch is a good material to use for roofs, thatch today will last for thirty years before it needs replacing.

Edited April 9, 2007 by longbow

[Maladict]

Reading this thread I'm confused. It seems some people are talking 5th-6th century, which should probably be included in Late Antiquity (Britain excepted). Others seem to include the High Medieval period.

Even if we're talking 7th to 10th century, I'm probably going to side with caldrail. The period has, like Late Antiquity though probably worse, suffered from a decided bias or lack of interest for centuries. In fact, art and architecture thrived during the 8th and 9th centuries, inspired, it would seem, by Rome itself. It really wasn't all that bad. The 7th century still seems rahter bleak, but it's more likely the result of poor data than anything else.

 

Indeed, what's so bad about thatched huts (huts is probably not the right word here)? People were living in similar buildings just a century ago.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Reading this thread I'm confused. It seems some people are talking 5th-6th century, which should probably be included in Late Antiquity (Britain excepted). Others seem to include the High Medieval period.

 

The original topic was the period immediately after the fall of Rome (or immediately after the Romans left Britain,etc). In my opinion, the term invented for this period, "late antiquity", is a complete white-wash for the Hobbesian horror that was the Dark Ages.

[Maladict]

The original topic was the period immediately after the fall of Rome (or immediately after the Romans left Britain,etc). In my opinion, the term invented for this period, "late antiquity", is a complete white-wash for the Hobbesian horror that was the Dark Ages.

 

I see. I won't waste my time on a discussion then

[docoflove1974]

What about moorish palaces, what about byzantine art and literature, not to mention islamic writings. To call the dark age a nightmare is a gross misunderstanding. We call it a dark age because it was a dark time for us.

 

I wouldn't lump in Moorish and other Arabian arquitecture in this discussion; as was stated earlier, 'Dark Ages' refers really to Europe that was previously under Roman rule but then fell under Germanic rule. I've read old texts of how when the Moors invaded Iberia, the Ibero-Romans already there were thankful for the upgrades in arquitecture, agriculture, and literature. I'm not saying that they fully enjoyed Moorish rule, but particularly in the south there was a feeling of 'oh, this is how life used to be like!'

 

This is not necessarily how life was like in England, Gallia/France, or Italy, to name a few.

[Northern Neil]

It's a perfect name. If you want to argue the opposite, please point us to the splendors of Dark Age architecture, Dark Age engineering, Dark Age legal codes, let alone Dark Age pottery, sculpture, paintings, literature, and science. Compared to the Hellenistic age in which Rome flourished, the Dark Ages were a nightmare in human history.

The archaeological record supports this statement absolutely, at least with respect to Western Europe. In 400, ordinary people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied selection of pottery vessels suited to multiple functions, had access to luxury products made some distance away, and access to imported wines. A hundred years later they were living under thatch, cooked, ate and drank from basic round pots, had virtually no luxury items unless very rich and drank beer or mead.

So they lived in less grand homes. But what about the quality of life? There's more to that than luxury items, which most people couldn't afford anyway even during the pax romana.

 

The archaeological record, however, proves that ordinary people did have luxury items, tiled roofs, and grander homes than in the early dark ages. That was one of the primary features of the ancient world - a large middle class largely residing in towns, providing specialised industries and services. The people who lived in the vici at Vindolanda, Housesteads and other places can hardly be described as rich, but they did posess manufactured items with great variety and multiple uses, all of which no doubt greatly enhanced their quality of life. Another factor influencing quality of life for the better was that society was stable enough to provide the infrastructure to support this. According to Proffessor Michael Grant (The Fall of the Roman Empire) a thriving and very numerous middle class existed during the Roman period. This all ended with the Western Roman Empire, and the emerging feudalism virtually obliterated the middle class, resulting in a society in which very rich and very poor were polarised. Another thing to consider: Yes, there is nothing 'wrong' with thatch, except that it is far more likely to catch fire, leak, host insects and need replacing far more often than a tiled roof.

 

Life did indeed become far more austere, insecure and grim for former Roman provincials in immediate post Roman times. The evidence positively screams this out.

[Kosmo]

What period and what area? Not outside Europe anyway.

Dark Ages started in the III century crisis, not after 400, and was different for every area. If classical civilisation was urban and the medieval one rural the change starts with the III C crisis and the urban decadence and continues until the amazing european explosion of the XI century.

Ostrogot or frankish kingdoms in 520 AD were much better then Pannonia, Dacia or Britannia.

 

What surprises me it's not the gradual "darkening" of Gaul and Italy, but the fact that some areas were far worse after the romans then before them.

In Dacia post roman material culture it's greatly inferior to that before them. Wheel pottery, bricks, local coins, high stone and metal crafting, military and religious arhitecture and long distance trade disapear by 450 despite the near roman border and the proximity of Constantinopole. Still, it was a continous rural habitation in many villages.

[Maladict]

In Dacia post roman material culture it's greatly inferior to that before them. Wheel pottery, bricks, local coins, high stone and metal crafting, military and religious arhitecture and long distance trade disapear by 450 despite the near roman border and the proximity of Constantinopole.

 

But that's still 200 years after the Romans left, isn't it?

[Ludovicus]

From the Ward-Perkins book "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" in his chapter "The disappearance of Comfort" :

 

"All over Britain the art of making pottery on a wheel disappeared in the early 5th century, and was not reintroduced for almost 300 years.", pg 117.

 

I recommend this book for its detailed analysis of the disappearance of the material culture after Rome's fall. The work is replete with graphs and other representations of archaeological evidence.