Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: Why the term Dark Ages?

  1. #1

    Default Why the term Dark Ages?

    I had a professor that argued there never was a dark age in Europe because there was always some sort of cultural spark somewhere in Europe. Myself, I don't really like the term simply because it implies that nothing good at all happened anywhere in Europe. The Moors were either writing or perpetuating the use of medical dictionaries at the time though. That's not dark or bad. The events in politics and in war that were setting in motion the arrival at nations that still exist were unfolding too, not necessarily dark or bad... So why the term dark ages? What makes it so dark an age?


    Join me at dinooftheweek.blogspot.com



  2. #2
    Stalins Ghost's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Burntwood, UK
    Posts
    5,845

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Basically it's an age with complete lack of centralisation (in Europe), complete lack of major cultural arts (in Europe), complete lack of scientific development (in Europe)... basically Europe was so busy putting itself back together that the usual elements of "high" culture just put themselves on hold. So for the Eurocentric historian, it is a bit of a dour period, and probably worthy of the title if you're purely looking for those aspects of cultural development.

    Still probably the most important period European history until the Renaissance for the critical historian :p
    morecuriousthanbold.com

  3. #3
    selenius4tsd's Avatar Happiness Is A Warm Gun
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    CT, South Africa.
    Posts
    1,707

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    AFAIK it refers to the supposed lack of progress after the (Western) Roman Empire collapsed, although it hardly makes sense to me either.
    Under the patronage of vikrant
    Patron of Ramtha, Alletun, finneys13, SirPaladin and GrnEyedDvl

  4. #4
    zedestroyer's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
    Posts
    643

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Quote Originally Posted by mightyfenrir View Post
    I had a professor that argued there never was a dark age in Europe because there was always some sort of cultural spark somewhere in Europe. Myself, I don't really like the term simply because it implies that nothing good at all happened anywhere in Europe. The Moors were either writing or perpetuating the use of medical dictionaries at the time though. That's not dark or bad. The events in politics and in war that were setting in motion the arrival at nations that still exist were unfolding too, not necessarily dark or bad... So why the term dark ages? What makes it so dark an age?
    War, death, destruction,misery, decline, anarchy, the end of civilization in Europe, .....
    Of course that the things improved during the Dark Ages, but Humankind lost an entire millennium of development, Men just reach the Roman Empire development during the Renaissance.
    So it was a very dark period.







  5. #5

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    I disagree with the concept. There was no Roman Empire, true enough, but there were large areas with separate nations, certainly. The Papal state, the Lombards, the Franks, the Visigoths, they all controlled vast swathes of land in their time in the "Dark Ages". And they certainly weren't cavemen.

  6. #6
    sgtgoody's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    171

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    The term was originally coined during the 12th century. There was a mini-renaissance with the beginnings of church reform as well as a resurgence of Christianity following the successful 1st Crusade, the Conquest, and the strengthening of the French monarchy (relative to what it had been). To glorify themselves they pointed to the past few centuries as a "Dark" age.
    If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?

  7. #7
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Vatican City
    Posts
    4,755

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    It's not because they were dark times, it's because people stopped writing things down so it's a dark as in we know very little. There was a Greek dark age centuries before

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    It was first coined by Petrarch I think sometime in the 14th century. Basically, he was looking at the growth of ideas and literature in his times, and looked at the past Roman period as a point of excellence alike to his own time. He believed these were times of prosperity or genius - a time of light.

    In comparison, the years in between were 'Dark'. He looked down on these generations as those who failed to preserve, learn from, add to, and pass down the knowledge of the ancients and ancestors. Of course, this applied only to Europe that fell into disarray and ruled by independants; it did not include Moorish Spain nor did it include the Byzantine provinces.

    He was Italian, so I assume he was speaking of Italy, and possibly France and Germany when coining 'Dark Ages'.


    Over time we added a bunch of other meanings to it, most having to do with backwardness and turmoil.

  9. #9
    Tabell's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    I dont see how anyone can see this period as dark, but as fascinating. Its the time when all the modern nations which shaped the world were founded, and the course of history set in motion. And 'no cultural development'? There was plenty, but it was of a more earthy kind.
    In the days of lace-ruffles, perukes, and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise -
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes -
    At Blenheim and Ramillies, fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  10. #10
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabell View Post
    I dont see how anyone can see this period as dark, but as fascinating. Its the time when all the modern nations which shaped the world were founded, and the course of history set in motion. And 'no cultural development'? There was plenty, but it was of a more earthy kind.
    Probably because there was no "big" central order during that time, espcially West Europe. Besides, very little writing of Dark Age also helped modern historians understood very little things about that age (although I strongly believed Vantican had complete record about Dark Age, the silly priests just refused to publish them).

  11. #11
    Opifex
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    15,154

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabell View Post
    I dont see how anyone can see this period as dark, but as fascinating. Its the time when all the modern nations which shaped the world were founded, and the course of history set in motion.
    Because you're using a wrong criteria to judge whether something is 'dark' or not. "Dark" does not equal "boring". Plenty of people can find something interesting in the dark ages, when Europe was trying to gather and build itself back up out of almost nil literacy, a deterioration of values, abysmal standard of art and literature, and political near-anarchy. How did they get out of that? That's interesting. But it doesn't negate that all those things were true about that time. Dark Ages, very strictly defined, is the period after the fall of Roman Empire down to 12th century BC. More loosely defined, it expands to 14th century BC, i.e. encompasses the entire period when Christianity held profound sway over Europe. But I prefer two terms: Dark Ages, a time of literal darkness, and Medieval period when there was slow tentative transition towards the torrent that was Renaissance.
    Last edited by SigniferOne; June 25, 2007 at 04:19 PM.


    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
    the tranquility of servitude greater than
    the animating contest for freedom, go
    home from us in peace. We seek not
    your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch
    down and lick the hand that feeds you,
    and may posterity forget that ye were
    our countrymen."
    -Samuel Adams

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    its a catchy name
    Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo

    And I drank it strait down.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stalins Ghost View Post
    Basically it's an age with complete lack of centralisation (in Europe), complete lack of major cultural arts (in Europe), complete lack of scientific development (in Europe)... basically Europe was so busy putting itself back together that the usual elements of "high" culture just put themselves on hold. So for the Eurocentric historian, it is a bit of a dour period, and probably worthy of the title if you're purely looking for those aspects of cultural development.

    Still probably the most important period European history until the Renaissance for the critical historian :p
    I hope you aren't using "the Dark Ages" as meaning the entire period from the fall of Rome to the "Renaissance" (whenever that was). If you are, then aren't these examples of major cultral arts? How could a period with a "complete lack of scientific development" see far more technological inventions and developments than we saw in the previous 1000 years? How could people like A.C. Crombie, David C. Lindberg and Richard C. Dales have written large, detailed academic histories of science in the Middle Ages then?

    I prefer "Early Medieval" or "Early Middle Ages", but I don't have too much of a problem with using "Dark Ages" for the period 500-1000 AD. But to extend it across the next 500 years - a period of great revival, expansion and development - makes no sense. The Later Middle Ages or High Middle Ages were no "Dark Age".

    As for the "Renaissance" - that wasn't a period of history at all, it was a cultural movement in the Early Modern Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by sgtgoody
    The term was originally coined during the 12th century.
    Umm, no it wasn't.

    There was a mini-renaissance with the beginnings of church reform as well as a resurgence of Christianity following the successful 1st Crusade, the Conquest, and the strengthening of the French monarchy (relative to what it had been).
    That's all true, though I'd question "mini-renaissance". The Twelfth Century was the period where we saw the bulk of lost ancient learning recovered and revived.

    To glorify themselves they pointed to the past few centuries as a "Dark" age.
    No, no-one in the Twelfth Century did this or used the term "Dark Ages".

    Quote Originally Posted by sedestroyer
    but Humankind lost an entire millennium of development, Men just reach the Roman Empire development during the Renaissance.
    So it was a very dark period.
    Yet still they managed to build the great cathedrals - far more sophisticated than any Roman architecture and the tallest buildings in Europe until the late Nineteenth Century - as well as invent mechanical clocks, effective gunpowder weapons, eye-glasses and printing. Not bad for a period with no "development".

    Quote Originally Posted by helheaven1987
    although I strongly believed Vantican had complete record about Dark Age, the silly priests just refused to publish them.
    Strangely, no historian "strongly believes" this fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sher Khan
    It was first coined by Petrarch I think sometime in the 14th century. Basically, he was looking at the growth of ideas and literature in his times, and looked at the past Roman period as a point of excellence alike to his own time. He believed these were times of prosperity or genius - a time of light.

    In comparison, the years in between were 'Dark'. He looked down on these generations as those who failed to preserve, learn from, add to, and pass down the knowledge of the ancients and ancestors. Of course, this applied only to Europe that fell into disarray and ruled by independants; it did not include Moorish Spain nor did it include the Byzantine provinces.

    He was Italian, so I assume he was speaking of Italy, and possibly France and Germany when coining 'Dark Ages'.


    Over time we added a bunch of other meanings to it, most having to do with backwardness and turmoil.
    Give that man a medal! That's exactly how it happened, and how the Middle Ages/"Dark Ages" began to get their bad reputation in modern eyes. The Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment all added to the prejudice. It wasn't until the Twentieth Century, when proper, modern historical analysis of this neglected period was systematically applied, that historians began to find that a lot of the prejudice was groundless.

    But it's taking a long time for that to filter down into the common conception of the period.

  14. #14
    Il-Principe's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt am Main/Germany
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    When at first stumbled on the term dark age, I didn't quite understand it. The reason is, because in my language the concept of dark ages isn't very popular, at least not for the Middle Ages. In my understanding the term dark ages (for the Middle Ages) is a concept that derives from the English History. This also explains the confusion in this thread, where every member seems to have a different opinion. This only shows, how many nationalities are discussing here.
    The word "dark" means in this context that the modern observer can't see much. This is because of the lack of sources. You can also argue that "dark" means extremely brutal or a lack of culture etc. But this is not the original concept of the word and is also a bit problematic. It's a bit hard to argue, which period of mankind is extremely brutal.
    The original concept of dark ages refer to a chapter of the English history, the 5th century and beyond. After the Roman departure, it's not very much clear, what really happened on the British Isles except that the island got invaded by various peoples. So for the 5th, 6th century and beyond you've really very very few sources and the historians have a hard time to reconstruct the history.
    So it makes much sense to speak of dark ages in the English history, but does it also apply to the continent? Hardly, I think. Surely for "France" sources getting rare for the 5th, 6th century, but still you know a bit about the rise of English kingdom. Christian bishops and other churchmen wrote some histories of the various peoples. It's not very much, I admitt, but it's also not a catastrophy and it doesn't make the concept dark ages a reasonable one in that case. For "Germany" it makes even less sense. Surely you've very few sources, but definetely more than in let's say the 3rd century (written ones). The list could be expanded.

    I remember when I wrote a little article about Charlemagne and I wanted to use the term "dark ages", because...well because it simply sounds sexy But it didn't really work out. I didn't feel quite well to speak of his reign as a dark age. It simply sounds wrong.

  15. #15
    Opifex
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    15,154

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg View Post
    I hope you aren't using "the Dark Ages" as meaning the entire period from the fall of Rome to the "Renaissance" (whenever that was). If you are, then aren't these examples of major cultral arts? How could a period with a "complete lack of scientific development" see far more technological inventions and developments than we saw in the previous 1000 years? How could people like A.C. Crombie, David C. Lindberg and Richard C. Dales have written large, detailed academic histories of science in the Middle Ages then?

    I prefer "Early Medieval" or "Early Middle Ages", but I don't have too much of a problem with using "Dark Ages" for the period 500-1000 AD.
    Right, agreement with you there. Nobody, ever, has claimed Chaucer or Dante belong to the period of Dark Ages. I think it's this straw man that has vexed you so much lately. Dante comes right at the beginning of Renaissance, and Chaucher (1400s) comes even later. So, let's agree then, Dark Ages is a valid concept, not only in absence of sources but in actual deterioration of European culture, from ~500 to ~1000 AD. I would say, up to ~1200 even, but who's quibbling. Afterwards, what you see should be called the Medieval period, a period of tentative cultural growth. Tall Gothic cathedrals are impressive, but not be-all-end-all of cultural accomplishment, especially when they took hundreds of years to build. There are better gauges of culture, namely the amount of superstition in a culture, the philosophical climate (emphasis on living on earth vs. living for the next life), standards of wealth and of hyugene, etc. But anyway, I know you may quibble with that too, so let's just agree on the Dark Ages since that's what this thread is about.


    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
    the tranquility of servitude greater than
    the animating contest for freedom, go
    home from us in peace. We seek not
    your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch
    down and lick the hand that feeds you,
    and may posterity forget that ye were
    our countrymen."
    -Samuel Adams

  16. #16

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    I thought Dark Ages apply from fall of western Empire to the rise of Charlemagne.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Quote Originally Posted by SigniferOne View Post
    Right, agreement with you there. Nobody, ever, has claimed Chaucer or Dante belong to the period of Dark Ages.
    I’ve come across people who characterise the entire Medieval period, from 500 to 1450 or even 1500, as “the Dark Ages”. Though if you interrupt their solemn catalogues of the dreary, superstitious dreadfulness of this “Dark Ages” by asking “Ummm, you mean the period that produced Geoffrey Chaucer?” they quickly back-pedal. Or fiddle around with the dates to release people like Chaucer and Dante from the doleful prison of the dreadful Middle Ages. Speaking of which …

    I think it's this straw man that has vexed you so much lately.
    Not at all. Though I, and others, have been perplexed at this rather loose and highly rubbery “period” you’ve been talking about called “the Renaissance”. This alarming “period” seems to shift in time according to your mood. Mention Dante and it slips back from the Sixteenth Century to the beginning of the Fourteenth. Mention Aquinas and it pushes back even further into the Thirteenth. What a strange “period” it is. :hmmm:

    It seems anything you don’t like about the Middle Ages you call “medieval” and anything you do like from that period you try to appropriate into your Borg-like thing called “the Renaissance”. Saying that quintessentially medieval poets like Chaucer and Dante are somehow “Renaissance” is odd. Saying that a solidly medieval thinker like Aquinas is somehow “Renaissance” is totally ridiculous.

    Dante comes right at the beginning of Renaissance,
    So when, exactly, does this “Renaissance” of yours begin and end? With Chaucer? No, it must be with Dante. So it begins in the Thirteenth Century then? But what about all that recovered and revived ancient learning incorporated into European culture in the Twelfth Century? Is that part of your “Renaissance”? If not, why not? And if so, that pushes your “Renaissance” back another century. And that process began in the Eleventh Century, as part of the great reform movements of that period. Does that push your “Renaissance” back even further?

    With the way your “Renaissance” keeps extending further and further back into the Middle Ages, there’s almost no Middle Ages left at all.

    Or perhaps that should say something to you about the way you’re trying to use the word “Renaissance”.

    and Chaucher (1400s) comes even later.
    I have no idea who this “Chaucher” bloke was, but Geoffrey Chaucer died in 1400, and so was doing very little in the "1400s" other than rotting in a quiet corner of Westminster Abbey. Though he was very much alive from around 1340 until then. He was a man of the Fourteenth Century and was a medieval poet writing in medieval styles within medieval literary traditions. And was also a great humanist thinker of the later Middle Ages.

    So, let's agree then, Dark Ages is a valid concept, not only in absence of sources but in actual deterioration of European culture, from ~500 to ~1000 AD.
    That’s quite reasonable.

    I would say, up to ~1200 even, but who's quibbling.
    People who know something about the burst of growth, expansion, renewal and cultural and technological confidence from 1000-1200 AD would more than “quibble” at that ludicrous suggestion.

    Afterwards, what you see should be called the Medieval period, a period of tentative cultural growth.
    “Tentative” how?

    Tall Gothic cathedrals are impressive, but not be-all-end-all of cultural accomplishment,
    No-one said they were the “be-all-end-all”. I used them as an example of how the Medieval period was not a period of backward, shuffling untermenschen in mud huts. It’s interesting that other periods can hold up revolutionary architecture as examples of cultural accomplishment, but somehow the Medieval period can’t. This is despite the fact the very best Roman architects would have been incapable of building something as tall or as sophisticated as a Gothic cathedral.

    … especially when they took hundreds of years to build.
    This is plain silly. They took hundreds of years to build because the stupid medieval people were having trouble working out how to do it? Or because such vast buildings were hugely expensive and needed periodic injections of funding or renewed patronage? Guess which it is. There is a gothic cathedral which I can see from the window of my apartment here in Sydney. It was begun in 1868. It's still not finished. Does that make our period a "Dark Age" or just a "Medieval" one?

    When the money was readily available, cathedrals could and were built within a decade or so.

    There are better gauges of culture, namely the amount of superstition in a culture, the philosophical climate (emphasis on living on earth vs. living for the next life), standards of wealth and of hyugene, etc.
    We could indeed “quibble” about that. Superstition? Like the insane “witch craze” that swept Europe (largely Protestant Europe) in Early Modern Period? BTW - was your rubbery and ill-defined “Renaissance” over by then? And hygiene? Well, medieval people bathed and washed regularly, but a strange idea that washing was bad for your health developed later and that led to people in the Sixteenth Century being rather dirty and smelly by modern standards. And by medieval standards.

    Of course, you could avoid all this confusion by dropping all these rather jumbled and confused attempts at peridoisation based on pointless value judgments about “good”/”bad” art, religion, ideas etc and stopped trying to use something so loosely defined as “the Renaissance” as a period of history at all. By all means use it as a name for a Fifteenth-Seventeenth Century cultural movement that manifested itself at different times in different places in different ways over those centuries. It works well that way. As a “period” it doesn’t work at all, especially when you lumber it with lots of biased value judgments. When you do that, the whole concept collapses in a wheezing heap.

  18. #18
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg View Post
    Strangely, no historian "strongly believes" this fantasy.
    Lol, that is just my personal belief.

    Anyway, Dark Age is around the end of West Rome Empire towards 1066 or First Crusade.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    ive always sort of thought it had to do with enlightenment scholars and their idea of progress, perhaps even the idea that history goes in loops, or cycles, or loop-de-loops or whathaveyou.

    ive always thought they wanted a clear linear progression from the fall of classical to their own time, hence the term *middle ages* as well. the classical, the dark ages, and then their own eras: rennaissance -> enlightenment.

    ok this is a bumbling post, but yeah, a revisionist classification to make themselves look good. cant have a rebirth or an enlightenment without a dark time before.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Why the term Dark Ages?

    I thought it meant there was a lack of historical documentation and records...

    Or at least good white Christian historical records...
    But mark me well; Religion is my name;
    An angel once: but now a fury grown,
    Too often talked of, but too little known.

    -Jonathan Swift

    "There's only a few things I'd actually kill for: revenge, jewelry, Father O'Malley's weedwacker..."
    -Bender (Futurama) awesome

    Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal.
    -Immortal Technique

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •