Do you consider the "Dark Ages" really the dark ages?

[Quite8the8bell]

It has been long debated on rather or not the Dark Ages should really be called that. I do not believe that it should be, being that Justinian I over in the Eastern Roman Empire was doing so much good such as buliding the Hagia Sophia... Yes, that time was extremely depressing for the public having such a difficult time. But, what was happening while, sort of in the background, of their depression? The Carolingian Renaissance for one, thank you Charlemagne. Shame it didn't last long... Anyways, what do you think: is it appropriate to call that time period the Dark Ages?

[eternaltriangle]

Angus Maddison has some historical data on GDP per capita that sheds a little light on that question. In most of Europe there was essentially zero economic growth from the year 1 to 1000 AD - subsistence farmers remained subsistence farmers ($400 in 1990 US dollars roughly corresponds to bare subsistence).

The main exception is in the core of the Roman Empire.
GDP per capita in modern Italy
1 AD: $809
1000 AD: $450

Population in modern Italy
1 AD: 8 million
1000 AD: 5 million
You are correct that the notion of the Dark Ages as such is western-centric, and ignores the survival of the Byzantine Empire, but then again, the Byzantines were in a state of constant decline through the period.

Remember that prior to the industrial revolution, conquest was really the only way to have above-subsistence incomes. Increases in wealth tended to result in increased population growth, eventually driving per capita income back down to subsistence. A large empire with free trade throughout the empire (and protection of trade routes by a strong army) could - through greater specialization of labour - produce more than many small countries with trade barriers. Moreover, conquest could provide slaves enabling the elite to live quite well - while also financing an intellectual class and enabling scientific advancement. So a Byzantine decline in size does matter.

The Byzantine story on the economy is mixed:
GDP per capita of modern Greece
1 AD: $550
1000 AD: $400

Population in modern Greece
1 AD: 2 million
1000 AD: 1 million

GDP per capita of modern Turkey
1 AD: $550
1000 AD: $600

Population of modern Turkey
1 AD: 8 million
1000 AD: 7 million

Of course the Dark Ages were also bad times for China. Population growth and wealth was essentially stagnant from 1 to 1000 AD.

On the other hand, these were good times for other countries.

Japan became richer, and saw its population more than double. The Middle East had a similar experience. Iran and Iraq were the wealthiest regions of the world (per capita GDP of $650).

[Quite8the8bell]

Angus Maddison has some historical data on GDP per capita that sheds a little light on that question. In most of Europe there was essentially zero economic growth from the year 1 to 1000 AD - subsistence farmers remained subsistence farmers ($400 in 1990 US dollars roughly corresponds to bare subsistence).

The main exception is in the core of the Roman Empire.
GDP per capita in modern Italy
1 AD: $809
1000 AD: $450

Population in modern Italy
1 AD: 8 million
1000 AD: 5 million
You are correct that the notion of the Dark Ages as such is western-centric, and ignores the survival of the Byzantine Empire, but then again, the Byzantines were in a state of constant decline through the period.

Remember that prior to the industrial revolution, conquest was really the only way to have above-subsistence incomes. Increases in wealth tended to result in increased population growth, eventually driving per capita income back down to subsistence. A large empire with free trade throughout the empire (and protection of trade routes by a strong army) could - through greater specialization of labour - produce more than many small countries with trade barriers. Moreover, conquest could provide slaves enabling the elite to live quite well - while also financing an intellectual class and enabling scientific advancement. So a Byzantine decline in size does matter.

The Byzantine story on the economy is mixed:
GDP per capita of modern Greece
1 AD: $550
1000 AD: $400

Population in modern Greece
1 AD: 2 million
1000 AD: 1 million

GDP per capita of modern Turkey
1 AD: $550
1000 AD: $600

Population of modern Turkey
1 AD: 8 million
1000 AD: 7 million

Of course the Dark Ages were also bad times for China. Population growth and wealth was essentially stagnant from 1 to 1000 AD.

On the other hand, these were good times for other countries.

Japan became richer, and saw its population more than double. The Middle East had a similar experience. Iran and Iraq were the wealthiest regions of the world (per capita GDP of $650).

Thanks for all that information.(that wasn't sarcasm) I honestly never thought of the economics the way you did, the time relation. It helps my understanding a lot.

[Writermom]

I do. It was a long period when knowledge was not being built upon previous knowledge. Centuries were lost with no progress or enlightenment.

The Dark Ages does refer specifically to Western civilization. Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) refers to it as taking place in Western Europe, Encyclopedia.com (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) calls it the 5th to 8th centuries in Europe, to Encyclopedia Britannica (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) it is the early medieval period of western European history, but they note that the term is now rarely used by historians due to the value judgment implied.

There were pockets of areas within western Europe where books and knowledge mattered, particularly in Ireland (see Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization) where knowledge was preserved, to be revealed again once the Dark Ages ended, but my research shows very few innovations and very little change from one generation to the next. I have no problem calling a time of such staggering stagnation "dark."

[Quite8the8bell]

I do. It was a long period when knowledge was not being built upon previous knowledge. Centuries were lost with no progress or enlightenment.

The Dark Ages does refer specifically to Western civilization. Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) refers to it as taking place in Western Europe, Encyclopedia.com (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) calls it the 5th to 8th centuries in Europe, to Encyclopedia Britannica (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) it is the early medieval period of western European history, but they note that the term is now rarely used by historians due to the value judgment implied.

There were pockets of areas within western Europe where books and knowledge mattered, particularly in Ireland (see Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization) where knowledge was preserved, to be revealed again once the Dark Ages ended, but my research shows very few innovations and very little change from one generation to the next. I have no problem calling a time of such staggering stagnation "dark."

Yes it was a dark time we all know that. So is our time, our time is very dark...can we call our time the dark ages? We can't say the dark ages never ended because of the Renaissance but, every time had dark to it and as you stated pockets of light to it.

[Writermom]

Think about - and share - what you mean when you say our time is dark. Likely, you mean something different than historians have typically meant when calling the early middle ages the Dark Ages.

Our time is dark in many ways, but the Dark Ages is called such because of population shrinkage, increased illiteracy, an nearly complete lack of original literature and general cultural paucity. That's not we are seeing in our time, though I might argue for the general cultural paucity when I listen to the music and watch the TV shows that draw the younger generation :) (We all eventually turn into our mother/father).

Historians have largely stopped using the term precisely because many view it as a value judgment that can be applied to any culture and any time. It's meant to be a little more specific than that.

[zibber]

Of course not. That's just the perspective of the financial and intellectual elites of the Renaissance/Enlightenment period, which is still quite pervasive. Zeitgeist is a clouding bitch.

Angus Maddison has some historical data on GDP per capita that sheds a little light on that question. In most of Europe there was essentially zero economic growth from the year 1 to 1000 AD - subsistence farmers remained subsistence farmers ($400 in 1990 US dollars roughly corresponds to bare subsistence).

Of course the Dark Ages were also bad times for China. Population growth and wealth was essentially stagnant from 1 to 1000 AD.

On the other hand, these were good times for other countries.

Japan became richer, and saw its population more than double. The Middle East had a similar experience. Iran and Iraq were the wealthiest regions of the world (per capita GDP of $650).

In what disturbed, insane universe is growth inherently "good" and consistency or (numerical!) decline inherently "bad"?

I know "stagnation" has a bad taste, but this is quite baffling as it is known to mean "lack of growth/change". What about a lack of growth/change is so terrible?


Historians have largely stopped using the term precisely because many view it as a value judgment that can be applied to any culture and any time. It's meant to be a little more specific than that.

I think you'll find that in popular opinion, that realization hasn't quite sunk in yet. (What's new?)

It has been long debated on rather or not the Dark Ages should really be called that. I do not believe that it should be, being that Justinian I over in the Eastern Roman Empire was doing so much good such as buliding the Hagia Sophia.

Well, wasn't that great? Big decadent religious buildings are a thing of all ages, and they have never been particularly great for the common, starving man.

Yes, that time was extremely depressing for the public having such a difficult time ... their depression

What exactly constituted this depression?

(I'm quite unsure whether people were particularly depressed, then, as opposed to any other period.)

[TheWanderer]

The church had too much power (and I'm a christian typing this...)
but I don't really know.
I'm gussing it was a good time in someways, and a bad time in others

[eternaltriangle]

Of course not. That's just the perspective of the financial and intellectual elites of the Renaissance/Enlightenment period, which is still quite pervasive. Zeitgeist is a clouding bitch.

In what disturbed, insane universe is growth inherently "good" and consistency or (numerical!) decline inherently "bad"?

I know "stagnation" has a bad taste, but this is quite baffling as it is known to mean "lack of growth/change". What about a lack of growth/change is so terrible?


Even if you don't think economic growth is necessarily a good thing, it is good proxy for technological advancement - the lack of which outside of the middle east is why people call the dark ages the dark ages. Economic growth is not a good in itself - it is an empty objective like getting rich for its own sake. However, a wealthier economy is a means to other goods. Thanks to wealth we have better welfare services, better healthcare, better education and so on.

For starters it wasn't just stagnation. It was stagnation at the subsistence level, so that in addition to backbreaking labour, every time there was a bad season, or a war or what have you, there was famine. Individual liberty was essentially unimaginable - even if there weren't oppressive governments left right and center (and there were) people were slaves to a simple lack of technical progress. If they didn't work - hard - they would likely die. Those oppressive regimes were part and parcel of the mode of economic production, it should be added. Democracy is impossible when the populace is in survival mode.

Whether or not you think it is better to be richer and poorer, choice is unambiguously good. Today we can be lawyers or professors or garbage men if we want. However we can also be peasants (or at least live much like peasants) if we so desired. You could buy some land in Montana and just go to it. If you are a peasant, and are given alternative jobs, you can always choose to be a peasant. Nobody does, and that strengthens my argument further.

People can earn more per hour (in terms of real goods, not just money) than they did in the dark ages. So even if somebody today DID want to be a peasant farmer, they would have the benefit of tractors and fertilizer, etc. This doesn't just give us more wealth, or greater choice of jobs, it also gives us greater discretion over our time. People can choose to work and earn more, or alternately to engage in leisure more.

The present is unambiguously superior to the Dark Ages. Our greater economic productivity is a large part of that.

[SurpriseMe]

Of course not. That's just the perspective of the financial and intellectual elites of the Renaissance/Enlightenment period, which is still quite pervasive. Zeitgeist is a clouding bitch.

In what disturbed, insane universe is growth inherently "good" and consistency or (numerical!) decline inherently "bad"?

I know "stagnation" has a bad taste, but this is quite baffling as it is known to mean "lack of growth/change". What about a lack of growth/change is so terrible?...

What exactly constituted this depression?

(I'm quite unsure whether people were particularly depressed, then, as opposed to any other period.)

There was more than just "numerical" decline. The Dark Ages are not called such simply because GDP was low. The economic recession was a symptom of the real problems people had to deal with. Anyone who looks at the status of a society purely from an economic standpoint could call a lot of different periods "dark". There's much more to it than that.

However, I absolutely agree with you that the dogged pursuit of economic hegemony is pointless, elitist, irrational, and bound for failure.

The reason this period was called the Dark Ages is because people across economic, class, and national lines faced the onset of several threats to their livelihood:

*There was a lot of political instability after the collapse of the Roman Empire and subsequent civil wars for the control of the territories.

*Even after kingdoms were established in Europe and the goths had settled, there were frequent Viking raids from both the north and along the Mediterranean coasts.

*Very importantly: The general population lost its knowledge of written language and technology. Only the clergy and the few upper classmen/women knew how to read or write. The infrastructure of the old Roman Empire was still there, but the work of its scholars, craftsmen, and technological skills were lost for generations. Even at the height of the Dark Ages, technology was not yet up to the level it had been during the Roman Empire. (Probably the only reason we have as much knowledge of Aristotle, the Greeks, Roman law, etc. as we do today is because the Arabs collected scholarly works in the biggest learning center of the time: Baghdad. Alexandria was rubble at this point.)

*A constant influx of immigrants to urban areas allowed for the spread of new diseases, and the concentrated them in densely populated areas.

*The bubonic plague alone killed a third of the population. The earth was cooling significantly, bringing on a lot of rain in Europe. Rain created marshy wastelands, which supported mosquitos, which spread malaria - killing yet more of the population.

*Temperature drops and flooding cut agricultural crop yields dramatically, causing widespread famine. Even the people who survived disease didn't have much farming to work on.

*The infant mortality rate was 50%, and the average life span was late 30s to early 40s. (Except among the clergy, who lived in isolated monastaries where disease did not reach as easily and the church paid for their meals. Their life spans tended to be 20 years longer.)

*Government administration was run by teenagers. Hormone crazed, armed young men were in charge, and family feuds were a common thread in court life. Not a stable government by any means.


So, yeah, I'd say the period earned its name. Not by any wrongs of the people who lived at the time, just a set of circumstances that made life miserable for all concerned. I don't see why there's such a defensive sentiment about whether it's right to apply that label. The people of the Enlightenment just after the end of the Dark Ages could very justifiably look back at history and count their blessings for not having to deal with those miseries. Is it elitist to want to be literate? Or eat? Or be healthy? Trade is always susceptible to ebbs and flows; there was a more important distinction in the quality of life, beyond just how many varieties of pottery or wine one could consume.


Even if you don't think economic growth is necessarily a good thing, it is good proxy for technological advancement - the lack of which outside of the middle east is why people call the dark ages the dark ages. Economic growth is not a good in itself - it is an empty objective like getting rich for its own sake. However, a wealthier economy is a means to other goods. Thanks to wealth we have better welfare services, better healthcare, better education and so on.

For starters it wasn't just stagnation. It was stagnation at the subsistence level, so that in addition to backbreaking labour, every time there was a bad season, or a war or what have you, there was famine. Individual liberty was essentially unimaginable - even if there weren't oppressive governments left right and center (and there were) people were slaves to a simple lack of technical progress. If they didn't work - hard - they would likely die. Those oppressive regimes were part and parcel of the mode of economic production, it should be added. Democracy is impossible when the populace is in survival mode.
...

People can earn more per hour (in terms of real goods, not just money) than they did in the dark ages. So even if somebody today DID want to be a peasant farmer, they would have the benefit of tractors and fertilizer, etc. This doesn't just give us more wealth, or greater choice of jobs, it also gives us greater discretion over our time. People can choose to work and earn more, or alternately to engage in leisure more.

The present is unambiguously superior to the Dark Ages. Our greater economic productivity is a large part of that.

Greater economic productivity as well as trade are important contributors to quality of life, but they are not the absolute definition. They are often, in fact, secondary results of other factors in life that make productivity and trade possible in the first place. Growing GDP is not the holy grail of a successful society of happy people.

I understand the point you're making about the benefits of productivity/wealth, but comparing modern productivity to productivity in the Middle Ages is basically a redundant way of re-stating the existence of history. It doesn't really tell us anything except that we lead different lives now - something we already know. Comparing the productivity levels of two contemporary countries makes sense, for the sake of distinguishing quality of life, ability to specialize, leisure, growth, etc. So in this context we should really be comparing the dark ages to the period of enlightenment afterward.

The back-breaking labor people were subjected to was not a new thing in the dark ages, nor has the concept of the upper classes living off the sweat of the poor disappeared from society in the centuries since. Working hard to survive and support the social oligarchy has always been a common thread in history. Also, the amount of money economies were churning out in the dark ages is novel to learn about, but not truly relevant to why no one would want to live in that time period. If it isn't the money, and it isn't the hard labor we have to deal with anyway, there must be a more important distinction. I.E., the list above.

If plagues, wars, floods, and famine are eating away your labor force anyway, GDP becomes secondary.

[Veblen]

I remember hearing a medieval historian bemoaning the bad press given the Middle Ages. He said everybody who talks about the Middle Ages mentions with horror and disgust the right of the first night, but that the historical record for the entire Middle Ages documents only one instance of the right actually being asserted. It happened not in England or in France or in Germany. The only instance happened in Hungary. Does anybody know about this? [The right of the first night is the privilege of the lord of the manor to have the brides of his peasants on the first night of the marriage.]

[Bobert]

I thought it was also known as The Middle Ages.

But I liked it. Nipple revealing corsets ruled! :thumbsup:

[thod]

Our time is dark in many ways, but the Dark Ages is called such because of population shrinkage, increased illiteracy, an nearly complete lack of original literature and general cultural paucity

I didn't think they were called 'dark' due to unfortunate events, rather they were called 'dark' due to lack of written records from the period. If you only have one surviving manuscript for every 20 years, its hard to figure out what was happening.

[eternaltriangle]

I didn't think they were called 'dark' due to unfortunate events, rather they were called 'dark' due to lack of written records from the period. If you only have one surviving manuscript for every 20 years, its hard to figure out what was happening.

Why did they lack written records, though? Because the era (in Europe and China) was one of decay and decline.

[SurpriseMe]

I thought it was also known as The Middle Ages.

But I liked it. Nipple revealing corsets ruled! :thumbsup:

That was such a bizarre trend.

I remember hearing a medieval historian bemoaning the bad press given the Middle Ages. He said everybody who talks about the Middle Ages mentions with horror and disgust the right of the first night, but that the historical record for the entire Middle Ages documents only one instance of the right actually being asserted. It happened not in England or in France or in Germany. The only instance happened in Hungary. Does anybody know about this? [The right of the first night is the privilege of the lord of the manor to have the brides of his peasants on the first night of the marriage.]

I guess "Braveheart" is to blame for spreading the idea. Pretty disgusting occurrence, and good to know it wasn't as rampant a practice as is commonly thought. It kind of makes me wonder how a lord could expect to stay in power long by not only raping all the well born women, but also usurping the male subjects' family inheritance by fathering the potentially male first born.

Why did they lack written records, though? Because the era (in Europe and China) was one of decay and decline.

Exactly. It's a fair point to wonder at the amount of evidence we have and whether we're jumping the gun, but there were many manuscripts found in monastaries that chronicled the degradation in public literacy. Clergymen and women would teach whom they could how to read. Which, as a random side note, also contributed to the later power of the Catholic church because if you were learning to read, the Bible was the first thing you read.

[Quite8the8bell]

See I don't like the term "Dark Ages" because yes there was not so good things happening but, there was good happening. Our time there are not so good things happening as well but, there are good things happening... So, which one is the Dark Ages? I think our time has worse things going on... It's between our time and the Middle Ages, which one is darker? Or, should our time be called the Second Dark Ages?

[SurpriseMe]

See I don't like the term "Dark Ages" because yes there was not so good things happening but, there was good happening. Our time there are not so good things happening as well but, there are good things happening... So, which one is the Dark Ages? I think our time has worse things going on... It's between our time and the Middle Ages, which one is darker? Or, should our time be called the Second Dark Ages?

That's a good point. I guess it might come down to percentages of the global population experiencing illiteracy, abject poverty, famine, disease, and mistreatment. Without knowing the actual numbers, I'd say you're probably right that we're experiencing another "dark age" right now. That's really kind of sad to think about in those terms.

I think you've just convinced me of the elitist perspective that assigned the Middle Ages the "dark" label.

[eternaltriangle]

I think this debate is likely to be unproductive if we are unclear about what we mean by "dark".

If "dark" is economic and technological stagnation/decline, coupled with the absence of human freedom (both in terms of "positive" or "negative" freedoms), then there is no question that the Dark Ages were the Dark ages.

If "dark" is the presence of war, disease and impediments to the survival of mankind then you could make a case for either era. However, I believe that mankind is more likely to survive with our technological advancements than without (disease, asteroids, etc. threaten the survival of our species in the long-run. With dark age technology there is no way around them - even though we need to accept that technology can enable bad things to happen as well.

If you are a hardcore relativist then there is no such thing as "better" or "worse", and frankly this conversation is a waste of time.

[Jinxu]

I think this debate is likely to be unproductive if we are unclear about what we mean by "dark".

The term "dark ages" is accurate because society as a whole decline during this period and there are evidences of it. Some of you may think that there was only one dark age in history. That is wrong, when in fact there have been multiple periods in ancient history that can be consider "dark ages". The Greeks had one between 1200 BC–800 BC and then there's also the Bronze Age collapse (which occur at about the same time):

Greek Dark Ages
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bronze Age collapse
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Even further back, the fall of the Sumerian civilization led to a dark age:

Rise and Fall of Ancient Sumer - Descent into the Dark Age
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Sumerian civilization collapsed bringing on a dark age. It wasn't until 1792 BC that a new power came to control much of Mesopotamia, the Babylonians, through their king Hammurabi.

Why do they occur? Because history shows that it cycles between periods of growth and periods of decline of varying degrees and magnitudes.

[CableGirl]

Clergymen and women would teach whom they could how to read. Which, as a random side note, also contributed to the later power of the Catholic church because if you were learning to read, the Bible was the first thing you read.

As a Medievalist I take umbrage with the term Dark Ages. It is a value judgment placed upon an earlier society by the feelings of superiority of Renaissance scholars. That doesn't mean, however, that it wasn't a period in which some social and intellectual stagnation took place.


To your point about the clergy teaching people to read and write: I've spent a lot of time reading medieval Latin texts (largely written by clergy) which demonstrate clearly that even the "educated" clergy of the period lacked knowledge of some of the basic tenets of Latin grammar. To a Classicist some of these text would be nearly impossible to decipher. This is partly due to a rise of vernacular languages but largely due to the poor education of the so called educated clergy.