- This topic has 38 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Dark ages were dark because the great majority were bond in spiritual darkness.This religion of superstition and fear halted advance in science and technology.
Interesting point in light of the fact that the Church is about the only institution that actually grows and prospers durning the Middle Ages… in power, influence, and wealth. Do agree however agree about the slowing of scientific and Tech. advances that resulted… makes the Ren/Ref and later Enlightenment so much more improtant.Weclome to the forum,Wally
Well, you do have advancements in varying degrees as feats of architectural engineering would not really have been possible without it. I don't think that Roman engineering knowledge really continued completely intact after Rome's fall so I bet that at least some of the knowledge had to be developed anew. Look at the engineering masterpiece in the church at Hagaia Sophia in Constantinople or any number of Romanesque churches that grew before the birth of the Middle Ages. Such engineering might not have grown at the pace it had under Rome, but if you have a single unifying empire in Europe for hundreds of years that all of a sudden collapses, this should not be too surprising.
The shift away from Roman (Classical) civilization disrupted societal cohesion in what used to be the Western Empire, but science and technology didn't just disappear. Its practical application was halted as Europe reorganized, but there existed pockets of advancement where the Roman influence had already been waning. The Dark Ages were more of massive realignment than a step backwards. The Church was a constant in Europe and it is what kept the West together for Clovis and Charlemagne to do their thing. Think of it this way, when social institutions break down, technology must wait for the dust to settle and new social institutions to arise and take the former's place. Technology is created by innovation and innovation is inspired by social needs. There is a lot going on during this period that suggests that technology wasn't lost, but only put on hold. The rise of vassalage and open commerce markets along with trade guilds, led to a greater specialization of labor above and beyond what was known in ancient Rome. I think the perception that Europe went backwards is premature. Its needs changed and the social decay of Rome was thrown off for something more fresh and more free.
Very nicely summed up! When survival is the main issue we aren't going to get very innovative; things smooth out and things can then improve.
Have any of you read How the Irish Saved Civilization? Thomas Cahill does a fairly good job of just how Europe was reconnected to it's literary past. Kenneth Clark's Civilization also provides some interesting information Classical to Medieval as opposed to classical and Medieval… More of a continuous process as opposed to an immediate disconnect. For instance, Cahill cites that it took books up to 50 years to make its way from one end of the Roman empire to the other…By that same token, information was almost as slow in travelling. Does a city(tree) fall if you don't hear about it (or directly hear/see it?)?
The dark ages were not years with no progress.However, to see these people play it as not bad is a little crazy. During the American depression there was advancements and progress but I don't here anybody saying it was happy times it was still named appropriately just like the Dark Ages.
In the last twebty years or so there has been wide recognition in the academic community that the Dark Ages were not Dark at all. Of course, people in Europe were more focused on survival after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century but civilisation was not stagnant in the interval between the fall of Rome and the Middle ages. Science and technology did not develop as much but legal theory advanced, monasteries played an important role in transcribing the ancients, and water power was developed. As to how bad it was, it all depends on perspective, for the peasants, the middle ages were also bad. Royalty and the nobility had it pretty good though.
Here is a little gem I found today while trolling the web. How Dark Was It? A New History of Medieval Europe This guy does a pretty god job of dispelling the myth of the Dark Ages.
It would be an interesting book to read. I'm sure the guy isn't a contributor to “History News Network”. Anyway, I'm going to be doing some studying in late summer/fall on the Dark Ages and Medieval pilgrimage and hopefully I'll get a much better grasp of this time period.
I don't know. He seems to emphasive the Buddha statue in Sweden. Instead, to dispel the Dark Ages myth, I would emphasize the evangelical work of the monks.
Wasn't the statue merely used to illustrate that Europe wasn't a “closed system” (so to speak), but was engaged in communication with the East?
Indeed, that statue was used to emphasize the point that even during the so-called dark ages Europe was still influenced by the rest of the world, if even only to a minor degree. Europe has never been as closed minded as some academics would have us believe. Europe has probably been the most open and inquisitive society and culture throughout history. That is one of the reasons that Europeans achieved the cultural dominance that they did.
I think that if there was less contact between Europe and other areas in the Dark Ages it may have been because of the new nature of the European governing structure. Under Rome free trade was no doubt due to the fact that the Roman Empire extended so far east and into North Africa. When the Empire split up, no single power remained to oversee and provide the degree of safety for inter-continental transactions. It would have been harder to ship wine from France to the Levant (hypothetical example) in the Dark Ages because the goods would have to pass through many more obstacles than existed under the Roman Empire.I think that commerce generally ignores prejudices where it is able to proceed because each party wants to better its own position and therefore increase in wealth. To assert that close-mindedness prevented the desire to trade internationally (rather than what I mentioned above) seems like something a modernist would say.
