How do we know what we know now after the Dark ages?

[Shocked]

I wasn't quite sure where to post this thread, but after reading up a bit on the start of the Dark ages (Barbarians burning, looting, killing and raping everything civilised) i'm wondering how historical documents survived and how we know what we know about Rome and other civilisations around that period.

[Klotzek]

You'd be suprised what historians sometimes believe to know based on speculation and a few clay shards.

[Shocked]

Haha, well I suppose that maybe the Eastern half of the Empire MAY have kept some records in their libraries

[atheniandp]

The Arabs preserved works of antiquity so by the time of the Moorish invasion of Europe in the 8th century a widespread comprehension of Arabic resulted in the reintroduction of classics in Western Europe. Knowledge of the classics never died in the East where the Roman Empire persevered, so when Latin Europe came into greater contact around the 11th century these works became better circulated.

[Drtad]

I wasn't quite sure where to post this thread, but after reading up a bit on the start of the Dark ages (Barbarians burning, looting, killing and raping everything civilised) i'm wondering how historical documents survived and how we know what we know about Rome and other civilisations around that period.

Well the Dark Ages weren't as dark as people like to claim. In fact many Medievalists cringe at the word "dark ages." While it is true that the Roman Empire (based in Rome) fell, in reality the usurpers of political power in the Western Roman world tried their best to emulate Roman culture and be as "Roman" as they could. Visigoths, Franks, and Ostrogoths all viewed themselves as legitimate successors of Rome, her culture, and her identity. Not to mention the Franks had in fact been Roman allies based in Toxandria around the city of Tournai in northern Gaul.

Also, many monasteries and churches kept classical manuscripts, though many times these monasteries fell prey to vandals and eventually Vikings and other marauders. Sometimes clergy would write on top of an old classical manuscript, though these writings are decipherable. With the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th-9th century, Frankish emperors (who called themselves Roman Emperors after Charlemagne) commissioned the copying and preservation of many old classics. If you read the "Life of Charlemagne" by Charlemagne courtier, Einhard, you'll see just how the classics had already permeated into literature- Einhard makes references to classical writings left and right, not to mention he practically plagiarized from earlier biographies of Augustus when writing Charlemagne's biography.

Well I simplified a few things for this post but that's the gist of why the "Dark Ages" weren't as dark as some people would like to believe.

EDIT: ^^and yes, especially for Ancient Greek writings, Arabic translations and copies were critical to their preservation. My post was mainly regarding Latin manuscripts.

[DarthShizNit]

Well the Dark Ages weren't as dark as people like to claim. In fact many Medievalists cringe at the word "dark ages." While it is true that the Roman Empire (based in Rome) fell, in reality the usurpers of political power in the Western Roman world tried their best to emulate Roman culture and be as "Roman" as they could. Visigoths, Franks, and Ostrogoths all viewed themselves as legitimate successors of Rome, her culture, and her identity. Not to mention the Franks had in fact been Roman allies based in Toxandria around the city of Tournai in northern Gaul.

Also, many monasteries and churches kept classical manuscripts, though many times these monasteries fell prey to vandals and eventually Vikings and other marauders. Sometimes clergy would write on top of an old classical manuscript, though these writings are decipherable. With the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th-9th century, Frankish emperors (who called themselves Roman Emperors after Charlemagne) commissioned the copying and preservation of many old classics. If you read the "Life of Charlemagne" by Charlemagne courtier, Einhard, you'll see just how the classics had already permeated into literature- Einhard makes references to classical writings left and right, not to mention he practically plagiarized from earlier biographies of Augustus when writing Charlemagne's biography.

Well I simplified a few things for this post but that's the gist of why the "Dark Ages" weren't as dark as some people would like to believe.

EDIT: ^^and yes, especially for Ancient Greek writings, Arabic translations and copies were critical to their preservation. My post was mainly regarding Latin manuscripts.

Yeah basically this. And you have to remember, the Roman empire was still going strong in the east and ruled large parts of the former western half for centuries, the latins and germans had continuose contact with them through their movments in italy, the still fluid state of religion in east and west, the fact that 600 years of Roman law and culture in the west simply didn't disappear. The dark ages didn't start getting truly dark in europe till (IMHO) the vikings came about and did their best to upset and change the culture and rule of law in western europe.

But yes, the dark ages weren't all that dark compared to any other period, and I know some authors who make that case that society was darker in the middle ages than the "Dark" ages.

[Xerrop]

Weren't most documents already destroyed when the so called Dark Ages started?

I have read once that the closing of public libraries, loss of education and destroying of most written accounts happened in the 4th century due to great economic difficulties leading (as always during history) to fundamentalism: only the "Holy Book" tells the truth, not the scientists and their propaganda against gods will.

Maybe more documents were destroyed due to uprisings and social problems as resulting from foreign Barbarian Invasions?

[atheniandp]

Illiteracy, deurbanization and its subsequent effects during the Migratory Age are the reason the period is often donned the Dark Ages. This generally applies to Western Europe.

Classical documents were forgotten and lost in the turmoil of the context, not out of some kind of religious censorship of science. On the contrary, Catholic scholasticism did much to reintroduce the knowledge by the 12th century and establish university institutions using characteristically secular critical analysis.

Admittedly, the pre-scholastic intellectuals of Western Christendom (who were largely monks) did not approach matters with scholastic disputation, but as a source of inspiration and enlightenment. Considering their lifestyle I think that is entirely reasonable.

[Petroniu]

I don't know if you guys heard about it, but there is a conspiracy theory that says that what is known of the dark ages is false and those 300 or so years are fake and the year now should be around 1700s. So, true, there are few infos about that period, but the carbon dating and archaeological sites plus the Arabian libraries are our sources for having a glimpse of what happened in those years. That leads to speculation, true, but you mustn't lose yourself in it like my example above.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's a Euro-centric view, but does show how the infrastructure started falling apart, while they salvaged what they could, and sort of start rebuilding society.

[Hasforth9]

Wrong board

[themoob]

Every time someone uses the term "dark ages" a baby historian dies.

[Stath's]

Every time someone uses the term "dark ages" a baby historian dies.

[B. W.]

The Eastern Roman Empire survived almost into the age of the New World. Much of the records and knowledge of antiquity survived and were kept there. When Byzantine (Eastern Roman) began to crumble, the scholars there began to return to the west which promted the Renassaince.

The Byzantines considered themselfs Romans and the Roman Senate was still issuing degrees into 1100 AD.

[SuperTechmarine]

Every time someone uses the term "dark ages" a baby historian dies.

Poor baby.

ANYWAYS, Christian priests and the Byzantines (another baby historian is dead now) recorded what happened and the Muslims also recorded what happened( since they had conquered Spain and were trying to get into France [Not a big surprise])

The Eastern Roman Empire survived almost into the age of the New World. Much of the records and knowledge of antiquity survived and were kept there. When Byzantine (Eastern Roman) began to crumble, the scholars there began to return to the west which promted the Renassaince.

The Byzantines considered themselfs Romans and the Roman Senate was still issuing degrees into 1100 AD.

No, just no. They werent the ones who triggered the Renaissance (they only did so partially.), the Muslims (Their scientific text that were left in Spain, and Jerusalem, plus their awesome ability to translate ancient Greek texts) and the Chinese are the one who triggered it.

[Petroniu]

No, just no. They werent the ones who triggered the Renaissance (they only did so partially.), the Muslims (Their scientific text that were left in Spain, and Jerusalem, plus their awesome ability to translate ancient Greek texts) and the Chinese are the one who triggered it.

True. It's the contact of the West Europeans with the Islamic world that led to the Renaissance. After the Islamic expansion in Spain and France settled, some European scholars had access to Islamic documents and books - since we all know that the Moorish lords embraced all sorts of scholars at their courts, even some Europeans. Those were translated and the knowledge inside started to place the seed of doubt and curiosity amongst learned people from Europe. Also the Crusades were a part of the rediscovery of the human in Europe because many things and much knowledge came back from the Levant. The fall of the Byzantine Empire and the refuge of their scholars in West Europe which by this time was already beginning to question the Church about their imposed vision over the world - to call it like that. Their coming in West Europe, their high standards, knowledge and dare I say, status too - because they were coming from the last civilized empire as far as Rome would consider the Byzantines - led to the exchange of ideas and new educated men rose throughout Italy and Europe too that would change the course of history through the power of their words. That's renaissance for you.
If I missed anything or I was somewhat wrong about it, please feel free to add or correct me. But as a review of what happened, I think that sums it up quite well.

were kept or written down by Monks (one good reason for Christianity) .

Christianity or any other religions aren't bad things and we shouldn't try to point out what good or wrong came out of it. The pointing out should be done of the good and bad people that used faiths like Christianity and other to achieve their goals. Misunderstandings like that led to the Crusades and to the old hatred that Muslims and Christians today still hold on to and all the bad things that are happening everywhere in the name of faith, so why won't we just see facts here and not point the finger towards the biggest thing that comes in our way. Search in detail.
The reason I am saying this is that many people consider the spread of Christianity and its ideology as the main reason for the devolution of living status and culture in Europe in the Middle Ages. I must contradict those who think that way because even though many things happened because and for Christianity, it was men that had personal agendas that did what they did under the pretext and protection of this faith and religion.

[SuperTechmarine]

True. It's the contact of the West Europeans with the Islamic world that led to the Renaissance. After the Islamic expansion in Spain and France settled, some European scholars had access to Islamic documents and books - since we all know that the Moorish lords embraced all sorts of scholars at their courts, even some Europeans. Those were translated and the knowledge inside started to place the seed of doubt and curiosity amongst learned people from Europe. Also the Crusades were a part of the rediscovery of the human in Europe because many things and much knowledge came back from the Levant. The fall of the Byzantine Empire and the refuge of their scholars in West Europe which by this time was already beginning to question the Church about their imposed vision over the world - to call it like that. Their coming in West Europe, their high standards, knowledge and dare I say, status too - because they were coming from the last civilized empire as far as Rome would consider the Byzantines - led to the exchange of ideas and new educated men rose throughout Italy and Europe too that would change the course of history through the power of their words. That's renaissance for you.
If I missed anything or I was somewhat wrong about it, please feel free to add or correct me. But as a review of what happened, I think that sums it up quite well.

+1 on the detailed explantion. Congrats dude.

[Humble Warrior]

Christianity or any other religions aren't bad things and we shouldn't try to point out what good or wrong came out of it. The pointing out should be done of the good and bad people that used faiths like Christianity and other to achieve their goals. Misunderstandings like that led to the Crusades and to the old hatred that Muslims and Christians today still hold on to and all the bad things that are happening everywhere in the name of faith, so why won't we just see facts here and not point the finger towards the biggest thing that comes in our way. Search in detail.
The reason I am saying this is that many people consider the spread of Christianity and its ideology as the main reason for the devolution of living status and culture in Europe in the Middle Ages. I must contradict those who think that way because even though many things happened because and for Christianity, it was men that had personal agendas that did what they did under the pretext and protection of this faith and religion.

Absolutely. In fact you`ve just explained in detail what I was trying to say in a simplified way.

[Razor]

No, just no. They werent the ones who triggered the Renaissance (they only did so partially.), the Muslims (Their scientific text that were left in Spain, and Jerusalem, plus their awesome ability to translate ancient Greek texts) and the Chinese are the one who triggered it.

The Chinese?

I'd say the Reconquista in Spain, the Venetians and Byzantine documents being smuggled out of Constantinople in general triggered the Italian Renaissance.

[B. W.]

Poor baby.

ANYWAYS, Christian priests and the Byzantines (another baby historian is dead now) recorded what happened and the Muslims also recorded what happened( since they had conquered Spain and were trying to get into France [Not a big surprise])



No, just no. They werent the ones who triggered the Renaissance (they only did so partially.), the Muslims (Their scientific text that were left in Spain, and Jerusalem, plus their awesome ability to translate ancient Greek texts) and the Chinese are the one who triggered it.

No. Just no. The scholars from byzantium were the primary reason for the Renassaince. They already spoke Greek and were also fluent in Latin, which was the international language of the day. The renassaince would have taken place without any muslim influence. They merely accleerated and added to it. Chinese?

How much of Cicero's wrting came from the Muslims? Answer: None. the same could be said of Marcus Arelius and many more. BTW, most of the knowledge the Muslims acquired were originally from the greeks and Romans and yes some of it did come full circle.

See petroniu's explanation for more details.