The Dark Ages

[DecimusCaesar]

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.

 

 

Kosmo has a point here. It wasn't so much that Western Europe became rural after the Roman period, but rather that technology and levels of comfort took a sharp decline. A lot of technology was lost as the new 'barbarian' administartion failed to grasp the technology of the Romans. Aqueducts, which had at one time given water to thousands fell into disrepair. One of the greatest examples of this is when the aqueducts of Rome were demolished by the Goths during the siege of Rome in the sixth century. As a result, the population of the city took a massive nose dive. How was it possible to water Rome's half a million citizens if there were no aqueducts? What's of greater significance is that the aqueducts were never rebuilt. The Goths (and later barbarian occupants of the city) simply did not have the technical ingenuity or orginizational skills to build aqueducts or any other type of building on a Roman scale.

 

City population in Europe would not exceed First Century Rome's levels till the 18th Century. The same can be said for trade and travel, which remained very difficult and dangerous in the dark ages, as well as the later Medieval period. Without Rome's military system, banditry and raiding became endemic. Take Britain for example. The Roman military with it's system of limitanei supported by mobile field forces (Comitatenses), under the command of the count of the Saxon shore; managed to keep the Saxon raiders out of the British heartland. When Roman power collapsed, so did its permanent armies. The armed forces of the dark ages consisted of poorly armed and trained militia who were often slow to react to raiding. As a result the Vikings found it easy to swoop down on villages in Britain as there was no permanent military force to keep watch.

[Maladict]

A lot of technology was lost as the new 'barbarian' administartion failed to grasp the technology of the Romans. Aqueducts, which had at one time given water to thousands fell into disrepair. One of the greatest examples of this is when the aqueducts of Rome were demolished by the Goths during the siege of Rome in the sixth century. As a result, the population of the city took a massive nose dive. How was it possible to water Rome's half a million citizens if there were no aqueducts? What's of greater significance is that the aqueducts were never rebuilt. The Goths (and later barbarian occupants of the city) simply did not have the technical ingenuity or orginizational skills to build aqueducts or any other type of building on a Roman scale.

 

Of course technical ingenuity was lost, it happens all the time. Just look at the capitals on the Temple of Saturn in the Forum, they couldn't even make good reproductions in the third century! It's no different today: Could we make a functioning 15th century cannon? Probably not. A 19th century clipper that could race Cutty Sark? Not likely. etc etc. Let a generation or two pass and this kind of knowledge is lost. It doesn't necessarily mean backwardness.

 

I think that Odoacer and Theodoric showed that the Goths were perfectly capable of running Rome, restoring the monuments (among which the acqueducts) and generally preserving the Roman way of life as it had been during the fifth century. Probably the acqueducts were not a priority during the endless Gothic wars of the sixth century, and when they had passed the tiny surviving population perhaps did not even warrant their reconstruction. A population of 30,000 in a riverside city can probably make do with a couple of wells, which would have been constructed during the wars anyway. Additionally, Rome also has a few natural springs within its walls. I believe the Aqua Virgo was restored in the eight century at the latest, no doubt coinciding with a rising population. When they were needed again, the acqueducts were restored.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Maladict

[Northern Neil]

There is no suggestion of backwardness here, at least for my own part. What I refer to is massive economic collapse, population drop and a resulting lack of infrastructure to sustain previous standards of living.

[Maladict]

There is no suggestion of backwardness here, at least for my own part. What I refer to is massive economic collapse, population drop and a resulting lack of infrastructure to sustain previous standards of living.

 

You were referring to Britain, I won't argue there as I know very little about it. I'll take your word for it. For Italy, things are definately more complex.

[Kosmo]

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?

 

Yes. As everywhere the situation got worse in time. After roman departure from most areas some cities continued to exist albeit greatly reduced like it happened in the West later. Sometimes the theater was fortified and houses were build inside it. Probably agriculture was the most important activity in this "cities". Legionary fortifications were settled by nomads while small auxiliary ones by locals. Soon most villages close to the roads were abandoned. The last tiny cities disapeared around 400 AD when the huns moved in and the romans lost the extensive bridgeheads north of Danube.

 

A similar pattern happened in the Balkans. After the III century raids some large cities remained only in Thrace and Greece. After 500 a sharp demographic decline is obvious. There is a large difference between the poor inland areas and more prosperous coasts. Inside the peninsula small cities depend on the army supplies and on religious authority. The army resorts to hunting, agriculture and on raiding the enemy to increase her resources that local production can not meet. Constant enemy raiding it's coupled with a brekdown of comunications and trade it's limited to the seaports. The army of the Balkans and the cities depend on supplies of egyptian grain. When the great persian war starts in early 600's the roman positions collapse in the interior while keeping most of the coasts.

 

This decadence starts often while the cities are still roman. Roman return does not mean an improving of the situation as Justinian expansion in the West was not coupled with a return of prosperity.

[caldrail]

It wasn't so much that Western Europe became rural after the Roman period, but rather that technology and levels of comfort took a sharp decline. A lot of technology was lost as the new 'barbarian' administartion failed to grasp the technology of the Romans. Aqueducts, which had at one time given water to thousands fell into disrepair. One of the greatest examples of this is when the aqueducts of Rome were demolished by the Goths during the siege of Rome in the sixth century. As a result, the population of the city took a massive nose dive. How was it possible to water Rome's half a million citizens if there were no aqueducts? What's of greater significance is that the aqueducts were never rebuilt. The Goths (and later barbarian occupants of the city) simply did not have the technical ingenuity or orginizational skills to build aqueducts or any other type of building on a Roman scale.

The aqueducts were falling into disrepair during the end of the empire anyway. The goths may not have had the ingenuity to repair them but neither did the romans by that time. All the skilled engineers were seeking better pay and that meant byzantium.

 

City population in Europe would not exceed First Century Rome's levels till the 18th Century. The same can be said for trade and travel, which remained very difficult and dangerous in the dark ages, as well as the later Medieval period. Without Rome's military system, banditry and raiding became endemic.

There's more to it than that. The germanic tribes were under pressure. Their coastal habitats were being inundated by rises in sea level (the start of the Medieval Warm Period?) and in particular the saxons were forced to to become bandits and raiders. Britain suddenly became a valuable tract of arable land suitable for colonisation. Ok, its true that the roman military was a deterrent, but then again the roman military didn't just vanish. Many units were withdrawn before the collapse and romano-british culture was decaying. In AD408 the romans simply stopped paying soldiers based in britain. Trade did not cease during the dark age, nor was it any more difficult. A little more dangerous perhaps given the numbers of people willing to take something for nothing, but communities still needed to exchange goods and services and this continued unabated. Traders like desperate communities. It gives them an edge. We are talking about a time when christianity flourished in britain, whose monastic institutes were the bedrock of art and literature despite barbarian lootings.

 

 

Take Britain for example. The Roman military with it's system of limitanei supported by mobile field forces (Comitatenses), under the command of the count of the Saxon shore; managed to keep the Saxon raiders out of the British heartland. When Roman power collapsed, so did its permanent armies. The armed forces of the dark ages consisted of poorly armed and trained militia who were often slow to react to raiding. As a result the Vikings found it easy to swoop down on villages in Britain as there was no permanent military force to keep watch.

The roman defenses were struggling to fend off saxon intrusions, and the reason the vikings found it so easy (though they didn't always in actual fact) was because they were able to sail up estuaries and rivers and mount suprise attacks. There simply wasn't any way of guarding the seashore and waterways in the manner we expect of recent times. All the populace could do was raise hue and cry when the attack came and hope that resistance could be mounted quickly enough. Thats not easy. They didn't have telephones and reacted at the speed of a messengers travel. Remember that once the vikings were here on a long term basis they started losing battles. Suprise raids were something they excelled at, but not formal battles. Both Alfred the Great and his welsh counterpart (I do apologise but I've forgotten his name -Owain? Rhodri?) gave the vikings a bloody nose.

 

The dark ages seem terrible because of all the violence. Agriculture was struggling in this period and I confess there was some rural hardship because of it. The truth is distorted because we read only of the violence and not the periods of peace between them. Also the battles would only occur in specific places, not a nationwide front like today. As I mentioned, art and literature were not suffering and indeed under the aegis of the christian church was actually doing well. Sure, the old roman infrastructure has collapsed. By AD450 the old taxation and governmental structure had gone. Once palatial villas were abandoned or used as farmyards. The dark ages were a time of poverty after all.

[Kosmo]

Viking attacks were lightning speed raids in the begining, but for most of the viking history their attacks were carried by field armies. They used the roman roads to move on horse thru Britain, not rivers, and they conquered and settled most of it.

The same might be said about their activity in Ireland were they created cities and also on the continent were they spend increasing amounts of time, fight royal armies and laid sieges to cities until they ruled large areas.

 

The early Middle Ages, despite the existence of some church scholars, were times of generalised illiteracy and ruralisation.

There is a distinction between the south of Europe and the northern region. Further away from the Med urbanisation and general quality of material and spiritual culture it's much lower.

[caldrail]

Viking attacks were lightning speed raids in the begining, but for most of the viking history their attacks were carried by field armies. They used the roman roads to move on horse thru Britain, not rivers, and they conquered and settled most of it.

They may have done that sometimes, not always. Rivers were indeed popular for vikings and others, including the native anglo-saxons, making it easy for moving through countryside because the country was largely forested wilderness and difficult to pass through.

 

 

The early Middle Ages, despite the existence of some church scholars, were times of generalised illiteracy and ruralisation.

Yes, many people were illiterate. Scholarly people were in demand for their services for that very reason. Ruralisation? No, that happened after AD410. People were already well established in rural life by the medieval period, which I must point out was a good time for farming due to the climatic changes.

 

 

To underline what I said earlier, I notice from York Museum that travel was commonplace during this period. One monk made visits (Yes, plural) to Rome to bring back holy texts to Lindisfarne. Trade was still in place. It really was the chaotic government of the period that gives rise to the idea of a 'dark' age.

Edited April 18, 2007 by caldrail