Dark Age - not really dark actually...

[hellheaven1987]

I am currently reading "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach, a very interesting book dealing about military of early Frankish Empire. It seems to me that, compare with High Middle Age and Late Middle Age, Early Middle Age had a more organized military organization with a more centralized office training system. Obviously, to maintain this organization the Empire must have a very organized economical and social system to support, and the very fact that even women could own a large amount of land and an indirect responsibility for military (femal landlords, despite unable to participate military campaigns, had to find men to replace her duty) suggests that women actually had some forms of influence within Empire. Compares with later periods, it seems to me that Early Middle Age was not really what we imagined most time, a chaotic period where endless barbarian hords rampaged everywhere; rather, it was a highly organized and progressive period, both East and West, compare with later such as Late Middle Age...

That is just my random thoughts...

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Scandinavian women at the "Early" Middle Ages had more rights than earlier or later Europe, at least that's what I know.

The issue with the "Early" Middle Ages is that larger potentates were often more common. As an example, see the Carolingian Age, so the kind of feudal fragmentation that was the mark of later Europe was still absent.

[Exarch]

Scandinavian women at the "Early" Middle Ages had more rights than earlier or later Europe, at least that's what I know.

The issue with the "Early" Middle Ages is that larger potentates were often more common. As an example, see the Carolingian Age, so the kind of feudal fragmentation that was the mark of later Europe was still absent.

please elaborate on what kinds of rights scandinavian women had that later medieval women didnt?

[Barbarian Nobility]

please elaborate on what kinds of rights scandinavian women had that later medieval women didnt?

From what i understand Viking men and women could separate and the wife would recieve 1/3rd of the vikings property and custodial support equivalent to the ammount of male children the woman produced. Viking society had an advanced concept of honour - to leave ones wife and go off somewhere else would dishonour the family from which the wife came and would cause a potentially never ending blood fued; the wifes brother would kill the husband, in revenge the husbands brother would kill the wifes cousin, etc etc etc. Having said this the viking could just kill his wife without separating, but then this would also start a blood feud between families as well.

Im a big fan of the 'brief history' series from cambridge. Check out Jonathan Clemens.

[Orko]

Scandinavian women at the "Early" Middle Ages had more rights than earlier or later Europe, at least that's what I know.

It's npt that they had rights, they just didn't have limitations.

[antaeus]

dont let signifier one in here.. he'll switch out the lights.

[hellheaven1987]

dont let signifier one in here.. he'll switch out the lights.

I know, but that is one of outcomes I have prepared to see - Siggy vs TG.

[RTW Fan]

I am currently reading "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach, a very interesting book dealing about military of early Frankish Empire. It seems to me that, compare with High Middle Age and Late Middle Age, Early Middle Age had a more organized military organization with a more centralized office training system. Obviously, to maintain this organization the Empire must have a very organized economical and social system to support, and the very fact that even women could own a large amount of land and an indirect responsibility for military (femal landlords, despite unable to participate military campaigns, had to find men to replace her duty) suggests that women actually had some forms of influence within Empire. Compares with later periods, it seems to me that Early Middle Age was not really what we imagined most time, a chaotic period where endless barbarian hords rampaged everywhere; rather, it was a highly organized and progressive period, both East and West, compare with later such as Late Middle Age...

That is just my random thoughts...

I have always thought that dark ages is amplified in pop-culture by protestant histories which seek to amplify the perfidious nature of the church and jews for the same reason.

The Dark Ages was actually very intellectually active in Ireland.

Another thing that must be noted is that military advancement continued to occur.

Probably the darkest thing about the dark ages is the population decline

[hellheaven1987]

I have always thought that dark ages is amplified in pop-culture by protestant histories which seek to amplify the perfidious nature of the church and jews for the same reason.

The Dark Ages was actually very intellectually active in Ireland.

Another thing that must be noted is that military advancement continued to occur.

Probably the darkest thing about the dark ages is the population decline

No, Early Middle Age was a period of rapid population growth; it was Little Ice Age, around 11th Century to the end of Middle Age, that brought a sharp population decline.

Also, the book mentions that learning literatures, particularly from Roman, was most important training for young officers, who had accessed of large amount of Roman literatures we don't have today. Hence, the image that illiterated German warlords controlled West Europe was largely wrong, and quite a number of officers were highly creative in term.

[Ringeck]

No, Early Middle Age was a period of rapid population growth; it was Little Ice Age, around 11th Century to the end of Middle Age, that brought a sharp population decline.

A bit early? The little ice age is largerly a late medieval and early modern phenomenon. The earliest point put forward for the end of the medieval warm period that can be regarded as serious is mid-13th century. Some historians have put forward chronicular sources that detail cold winters and proposed the 11th century as the start of the LIA, but those instances must be regarded as early forerunners, if anything. It wasn't until the 13th century that one saw, for example, glacier expansion in scandinavia.

The little ice age did not abate until the 19th century.

European medieval population rose through the early and high middle ages, but the period of greatest growth was from the 11th century to the end of the 13th/early 14th century, when, even before the black death, the population declined slightly due to overpopulation.

[RTW Fan]

No, Early Middle Age was a period of rapid population growth; it was Little Ice Age, around 11th Century to the end of Middle Age, that brought a sharp population decline.

Also, the book mentions that learning literatures, particularly from Roman, was most important training for young officers, who had accessed of large amount of Roman literatures we don't have today. Hence, the image that illiterated German warlords controlled West Europe was largely wrong, and quite a number of officers were highly creative in term.

From the book I read about world population a couple of years ago, it said that the population of Europe fell from about 200AD to 600AD only to rise and fall somewhat during the next 400 years. It was only by 1000AD that European population had recovered its classical numbers. Though the book was from 1975 and was also very keen on the idea of demographics influencing history, so it might be outdated and they may have been overzealous.

[CiviC]

It was "Dark" not because it was primitive, but because it is poorly documented compared with other ages. Although it was a bit primitive too compared with Antiquity : colapse of urban life, trade, and al other "civilized" things the Romans were used too.

[hellheaven1987]

It was "Dark" not because it was primitive, but because it is poorly documented compared with other ages. Although it was a bit primitive too compared with Antiquity : colapse of urban life, trade, and al other "civilized" things the Romans were used too.

That was very questionable; instead, we knew early Carolingian had accessed to very detailed economical documents for their territories, and their military machine was heavily relied on that. The only reason why those documents were not survived was rather because they were lost in High and Late Middle Age - under that logic, we probably should say High and Late Middle Age was far more "dark" than Early Middle Age considering they did not even bother to preserve their ancestors' documents.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Although it was a bit primitive too compared with Antiquity : colapse of urban life, trade, and al other "civilized" things the Romans were used too.

Well, not really. People spread out into more, smaller towns instead of being concentrated in large areas. I don't think that's a bad thing. Trade did suffer due to the fragmentation of the Roman Empire into hundreds of small states, but it still got on fairly well. Some technology was lost like concrete and bathhouse construction, but those weren't really needed due to the type of lifestyle people lived (spead out in more, smaller towns/villages) until the later Middle Ages.

One of the only major retardations was the loss of plumbing and running water, but AFAIK some monasteries had running water (or at least water valves; so I assume they had running water to make the valves needed), so even that wasn't really "lost," just wasn't very widespread.

[Barbarian Nobility]

How do you define 'dark ages'? i've heard many definitions from the fall of rome until the end of the viking era, the fall of rome till the fall of constantinople, even the fall of rome until the beginning of the renaissance.

It may have been a dark age for Europe but it was a golden age for Islam, even the Byzantine Empire bounced back a little bit for a while. So far as achievements go my vote goes to turning back the muslims at Tours, that pretty well changed the coarse of history

[RTW Fan]

How do you define 'dark ages'? i've heard many definitions from the fall of rome until the end of the viking era, the fall of rome till the fall of constantinople, even the fall of rome until the beginning of the renaissance.

It may have been a dark age for Europe but it was a golden age for Islam, even the Byzantine Empire bounced back a little bit for a while. So far as achievements go my vote goes to turning back the muslims at Tours, that pretty well changed the coarse of history

Personally I think that the dark ages began with the demographic decline from the end of Aurelius, and the degenerate policies that Romans adopted from infanticide to starving freemen because slaves were cheaper.

I would have it having a temporary lull in Charlemagne's court and than a fall with the viking invasions until the crusades. But I would emphasise that I think that it vastly overstated to just simply call it dark. There was a hell of a lot going on at the time.

[konny]

"Dark Ages" is (nowadays) usually used to describe a periode in history were only little sources have survived from. As such the Carolingian times are definitly not "dark".

[Dr. Croccer]

The Frankish empire under Charlemagne was indeed quite advanced, as were some other states by then or earlier, none of these the quality of the Romn empires, of course, but still quite advanced.

[clandestino]

Byzantine empire and Caliphate had very organized military in that perioda as well.

[SigniferOne]

I am currently reading "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach, a very interesting book dealing about military of early Frankish Empire. It seems to me that, compare with High Middle Age and Late Middle Age, Early Middle Age had a more organized military organization with a more centralized office training system. Obviously, to maintain this organization the Empire must have a very organized economical and social system to support, and the very fact that even women could own a large amount of land and an indirect responsibility for military (femal landlords, despite unable to participate military campaigns, had to find men to replace her duty) suggests that women actually had some forms of influence within Empire. Compares with later periods, it seems to me that Early Middle Age was not really what we imagined most time, a chaotic period where endless barbarian hords rampaged everywhere; rather, it was a highly organized and progressive period, both East and West, compare with later such as Late Middle Age...

That is just my random thoughts...

The "Dark Age" terminology mainly refers to small armies, low state of art and architecture, and the low state of European literature compared to 1AD or to 1500 AD. Although it was a little better under Charlemagne than before of after. One just has to compare Einhard's "Life of Charlemagne" with Plutarch "Life of Cato" or with Condivi's "Life of Michelangelo".