Why does this term cause so much insecurity? It's true and has nothing to do with enlightenment Why does this term cause so much insecurity? Its true and has nothing to do with prejudice from the "Enlightenment."The ancient Roman Empire came to control much of Europe, and all this greatness went beyond territorial control and military capacity; they were global leaders in the intellectual and cultural domains. When Rome fell, a vacuum formed on the European continent and stupidity took hold, all Roman trade networks disintegrated, knowledge was forgotten and dumbed down, and literacy rates plummeted brutally, and high culture died.Denying the decline is confirmation bias! This period in Europe was characterized by a marked economic, cultural, and intellectual decline, when compared to the grandeur of the Roman Empire... damn
>>18581460People don't like admitting to moments of weakness
Because the actual dark ages took place from around 1100 BC to 800 BC. The period you're referring to is called the medieval period, or the middle ages.
/pol/ is offended by the idea the Germanic Volkisch migration period was le bad and associated the enlightenment with leftism.Also revisionist historians trying to make a career by finding an angle will question "the dark ages", which catches the eye on any timeline.While written records declined, people still lived out their lives, the Visigoths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons built halls, brewed mead and the warriors sang their sagas and drank and ate smoked pork and beef. In fact skeletons were generally taller and better fed during the dark ages, before droves of peasants were shuffled into landed estates to labor on a diet of grain.https://studylib.net/doc/26341479/10.2307%4040267840?p=7
>>18581460>This period in Europe was characterized by a marked economic, cultural, and intellectual decline, when compared to the grandeur of the Roman EmpireThats true, the period immediately after the fall of the western Roman Empire was a civilisational decline.>Why does this term cause so much insecurity? Because the term is often used to condemn and disparage the later Medieval period, which was not the civilisational rut that many claim it to be. The term ‘Dark Ages’ is often used to condemn Christianity as the cause of the decline (I’m not Christian myself, I just believe this to be false), but it was the monasteries that preserved literacy, the classics etc. The Medieval period had a high amount of innovation and culture (just look at the difference in technology between 1000 and 1300).>has nothing to do with prejudice from the "Enlightenment."It does, Enlightenment thinkers wrote negatively about the Medieval period as backwards due to its religiosity, and contrasted it negatively to the more secular Enlightenment period.https://www.britannica.com/topic/An-Essay-on-Universal-History-the-Manners-and-Spirit-of-Nations-from-the-Reign-of-Charlemaign-to-the-Age-of-Lewis-XIVPicrel is Ely Cathedral, which began construction in 1083 (building on from a monastery first built in 673), in Ely, Cambridgeshire https://www.britannica.com/place/Ely-cathedral
>>18581487>In fact skeletons were generally taller and better fed during the dark ages, before droves of peasants were shuffled into landed estates to labor on a diet of grain.The individual was better off because the parasitic, corrupt and bloated western Roman Empire was no longer around, but it was a civilisational decline in terms of there being a decline in literacy, governmental development etc
>>18581487Anglo Saxons got raped by vikings throughout the dark ages.
>>18581498Seems stupid to call it a decline when it was a population turnover.
>>18581495OP obliterated, Thanks
>>18581495 (me)I fucked up there with the whole middle part being greentext, my bad>Why does this term cause so much insecurity?Because the term is often used to condemn and disparage the later Medieval period, which was not the civilisational rut that many claim it to be. The term ‘Dark Ages’ is often used to condemn Christianity as the cause of the decline (I’m not Christian myself, I just believe this to be false), but it was the monasteries that preserved literacy, the classics etc. The Medieval period had a high amount of innovation and culture (just look at the difference in technology between 1000 and 1300).
>>18581500vikings lost every time they had to fight a real battle and the only place in all of Britain with appreciable viking DNA is Orkney.
>>18581495This occurs due to a lack of discernment. The "early middle ages" were in constant conflict and were simply what remained of the Roman Empire. It's obvious that it would be more "backward
>>18581505I mean a decline in terms of civilisational development and complexity, not on the individual level.
>>18581495>>18581507>The fall of the Roman Empire was followed by the extinction of the administrative and military infrastructure that had been established throughout Western Europe by the Romans. Roads, bridges, and water-supply systems built by the Romans fell into disrepair, postal services ceased, the use of currency became replaced by barter, and agricultural production diminished considerably. Trade almost stopped entirely, and people relied on the local production of food and goodsHellemans & Bunch.European civilization suffered a major setback. Nothing to do with evil Enlightenment. This can be quantified in several ways (see, for example, Jongman et al., 2019). The population in Europe decreased substantially and, with it, the rates of urbanization. Living standards also seem to have fallen sharply until the middle of the Middle Ages.
>>18581511>>18581498terms like "backwards" and "decline" are meaningless in a migration period of wholesale population turnover. When the Pilgrims sailed to a new continent, leaving behind their libraries and universities, burned down the native fortresses upon arrival, then constructed far more sophisticated towns and villages in their place, has civilization declined or advanced? Has it gone forwards or backwards? Depends on whose perspective you take.
>>18581507>but it was the monasteries that preserved literacy, the classics etc.This is a lie repeated by biased priests. Stop lying. The old era was disgusted by everything in the ancient world.
>>18581515Linear development is a totally inapt model for civilization in a time of population turnover. The Russians burned their own villages and libraries as they retreated from the Grande Armee. If Napoleon's men had decided to settle down on the ashes of those villages, and start afresh, and you walked up to them and said "wow your village sure has declined since I was here last year. Why have you gone so far backwards" they would have looked at you like you were retarded.A Frankish chieftan would have given you a similar look if you said the same to him during the Dark Ages
>>18581520Yes, but since the thread is particularly silly, silly terms are welcome. Besides, I don't think the comparison some make of putting everything in the same category – Germanic peoples and nomadic hordes, for example – is inaccurate The Germanic peoples were already in full contact with the "West" since Roman times; even Celtic cities in southern Germany from the Iron Age show clear Greek architectural influences, for example. I could go further back to the Bronze Age, but my point here is that the Germanic peoples sought to truly assimilate into the Roman world, and it happened. The "Hunsian Empire," as a comparison, survived by plundering small European villages and vassalage through marriages. The beginning of the Middle Ages was marked by this.
>>18581524Fucking moron, how would the Renaissance French even have a frame of reference to call themselves descendants of Troy if their priests hadn't preserved the Aeneid? How are all their love poems styled after Ovid?And please don't say muh Byzantium, that was just the Greek stuff. Tacitus, Virgil, Cicero, Ovid, Livy, etc. were all preserved by Dark Ages monks.
>>18581536No. Many things survived before their magical monks even existed. The Iliad is one example, not to mention the Orphic Hymns, a collection of 87 surviving religious poems that were sung in rituals, and the Derveni Papyrus. Those damn monks changed the entire history of European myths.
>>18581535OK in that case you've just got the facts completely wrong. The Germans were in fact the plundering barbarian hordes, they did overrun and make wholesale population replacements of Roman and Celtic areas, they did not as a rule assimilate or get absorbed. We have Visigothic skeletons whose DNA is "purely Nordic". From Southern Sweden, into the steppe, through SE Europe and Italy, and into Spain, all the while maintaining in-group marriage.
Question: Did medieval foid use nail polish on their hands and feet?
>>18581519>European civilization suffered a major setback.Yes, all of that is true, that civilisation in Europe went into decline after the fall of the western Roman Empire, but it could be argued that the death of the (at the point if its death) bloated, inefficient and corrupt Roman Empire allowed for the development of European civilisation.>Nothing to do with evil Enlightenment.Enlightenment thinkers did conflate the period of decline after the fall of Rome with the Medieval period, in order to condemn Christianity though.>>18581524It’s no lie.https://lithub.com/how-medieval-monks-and-scribes-helped-preserve-classical-culture/>The old era was disgusted by everything in the ancient world.Disgusted by the paganism, yes, but they admired antiquity in many ways for their advancement; for example, Galen’s works were cited into the Medieval period.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen#Middle_Ageswww.ldysinger.com/@texts/0-03_plato/99_anast-sinai.htm
>>18581540>please don't say muh Byzantium, that was just the Greek stuff>says muh Byzantium, lists the Greek stuffthanks Spiro.
>>18581541>OK in that case you've just got the facts completely wrong. The Germans were in fact the plundering barbarian hordes, they did overrun and make wholesale population replacements of Roman and Celtic areasThis is ridiculously inaccurate.
>>18581544It's incredible how Europeans cling to narratives that are literally anti-European. Have you read about the disdain these monks had for everything "not sacred"?
>>18581529>The Russians burned their own villages and libraries as they retreated from the Grande Armee. If Napoleon's men had decided to settle down on the ashes of those villages, and start afresh, and you walked up to them and said "wow your village sure has declined since I was here last year. Why have you gone so far backwards" they would have looked at you like you were retarded.But they (Europeans post fall of Rome) didn’t burn their own villages? The villages simply stopped being part of a state as large or complex as the Roman Empire
>>18581520I get what you’re saying, that it would be advancement for the Germanics and decline for the Latins. But to take neither perspective and just look at Europe as a whole, the level of civilisational development decreased post fall of Rome.
>>18581543The data shows a brutal economic collapse from the 4th to the 5th century. And it’s not just one metric — fish salting factories disappear too. Same story - Wilson, 2006. Housing? Even worse. The building wood chronology for Western Germany shows construction falling off a cliff in the 3rd century - Hollstein, 1980. Fewer buildings, fewer people, fewer cities. Full regression.And maritime trade — the backbone of the Roman economy? Gone. Dated shipwrecks in the Mediterranean crater along with the Empire. Wilson, 2011: peak in the 1st century, big drop by the 2nd, then nothing. The Mediterranean turned into a dead lake.Bottom line: when Rome fell, the economy fell with it. The “continuity” argument doesn’t survive the data.
>>18581553>the level of civilisational development decreased post fall of Rome.No. only during the transition period
>>18581542Yes, in France some husbands did their wives' nails. I'm not kidding.
>>18581547there is nothing more anti-European than mass secularization, and paganism is just secularism with an accessory of European folklore and mythology.A pagan would never kill someone for insulting Tyr or Hermes, but he would burn down a church. His secularism is his priority.
>>18581557I’m agreeing with you that civilisational complexity and development decreased immediately after the fall of Rome >The “continuity” argument doesn’t survive the data.What do you mean by continuity argument?>>18581559Thats what I’m saying, that civilisation declined after the fall of Rome, to then return to Roman levels later, and then surpass Roman levels.
>>18581565Anon, didn't you realize they're wasting your time? He understood that we're talking about the period immediately AFTER the FALL of Rome. His sources talk about that.
Please tell me you read what he deleted....
>>18581564Trvke, Europe was strongest when it was Christian>>18581572No.. I may be stupid>>18581573What who deleted?
>>18581575I swear, he said he was Indian and pagan or something like that. Didn't anyone see the post?
>>18581563Sources please
>>18581577Oh fuck yeah I remember seeing “I m Indian, and I support paganism” or something similar to that now
>>18581495But it's undeniable that Europe became more feminist and matriarchal because all classical sexism was killed. Never before have women had so much power. That's why I despise the Middle Ages and bow down before a Roman statue from the time of Caligula...
>>18581581Like, who's kind of surprised?
>>18581582Feminist in the sense that women had human rights I guess, but not matriarchal thats crazy; the feminism we see now is a post-modern development.>>18581583I mean, Indians are pagan I guess, and annoying attention seekers
>>18581585Why do you think modern feminism is different from ancient feminism? And why do you think there was no feminism in the Middle Ages>Feminist in the sense that women had human rights Woke... and what kind of rights we are talking about here anyway? Women are apolitical beings, like children.
>>18581598>Why do you think modern feminism is different from ancient feminism?I mean specifically in the Western context, that feminism (the opposition to traditional gender roles and family structure) only became an issue post world wars.>And why do you think there was no feminism in the Middle AgesSee above>and what kind of rights we are talking about here anyway?For example, the right to own property https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/learning/medievalwomen/theme3/propertyownership.aspx
>>18581604>the right to own propertyLooked what happened to ancient sparta... this is bad.Also, see modesta Pozzo
>>18581694>>the right to own property>Looked what happened to ancient sparta... this is bad.It didn’t seem to cause the West any issues over its history>Also, see modesta PozzoAn exception that doesn’t disprove the rule that the the West has maintained traditional gender roles and the nuclear family throughout its history until recently, and the feminism we see now, and it being widespread, is something thats happened recently as the West has fell into decadence
>>18581543>bloated, inefficient and corrupt Roman EmpireDumb meme. States wouldn't become as efficient or competent as the Roman state until the late 15th century. There is nothing to suggest that the Roman administration was incompetent or overly corrupt, most of the failure in regions in the 5th century occurred because there was no Roman administration at all in the regions as they were destroyed by invading groups when they settled.The closest thing to wide scale corruption was the gift and bounty social economy of elites when trying to achieve positions and it was legalised to control it somewhat, this sort of social economy only became defunct in the late 19th century as both British and French officials made use of this kind of system during the Napoleonic Wars.
>>18581460the dark ages being real or not is one thingthe issue is that there are so many black legends spread against the dark ages by protestants/enlightenments/romanticists making it far worse than it actually wasthings like witch hunts are often associated with catholicism and the medieval period, yet the most intense of them occurred during the renaissance and baroque periods, and mainly in places that are in intense battleground between catholics and protestantsif dark ages were simply defined as something like "it wasn't nearly as glamorous or advanced as the roman prinicipate" and nothing else, it wouldn't cause as nearly much seetheinstead they put so many unnecessary slanders about the period being uniquely filthy, superstitious, violent, when it arguably was much worse during the 18th century
>>18581460we often talk about christcucks causing the dark ages, but i think what's more relevant is whether the dark ages are an anti-german/anti-white sentimentit's common by latinx/indian chuds to label ancient greece and rome as wealthy and advanced brown civilizations, until the blonde hair blue eyed pale skinned savages up north ravaged it all; meanwhile during this white dark age, all other nonwhite civilizations by the arabs, indians, chinese, and persians are still prosperinganti-medievalism is thought of an attack against the white identity
>>18581752>christcucksNot reading
>>18581705women having property rights has its problems, just as it did in Sparta. See photo.
>>18581705>An exceptionAnon i... Today's feminism is the same as always. Misandrist, stop being naive.
>>18581495>Enlightenment thinkers wrote negatively about the Medieval period as backwards due to its religiosityOn the contrary, virtually all such buildings were "restored" in the 19th century.
>>18581774Yes? The same with these shitty Mesoamerican pyramids
>>18581761Talking about the Western context here.>>18581765>Today's feminism is the same as always. Misandrist, stop being naive.I didn’t say it wasn’t? Nor did I say it isn’t an issue; I’m saying its only become an issue facing society recently, historically speaking, because of the West falling to decadence (decadent societies become feminist).>>18581774>buildingsI don’t get why you’re talking about buildings here
>>18581564>there is nothing more anti-European than mass secularizationEurope was a shithole until the plague deprived the church of power, and the real good times appear to have begun when the remaining crazies left to America.
>>18581460>Why does this term cause so much insecurity?because christards interpret it as a denunciation of glorious mother church getting the power and fucking up. at least that was the schtick until recently; the new story is that the church had no power back then and they are angry about the term for no reason.
>>18581559>only during the transition periodyes. and that period is called the dark ages.
>>18581460>Why does this term cause so much insecurity?
>>18581794>>18581804>>18581752Also, there's no god but ganesha
>>18581797Outdated term
>>18581460Because of butthurt Christians too scared to acknowledge that they set the world back for a 1000 years. Which they're doing their best to do still. They're trying bring us back to a theocratic feudal state.
>>18581810>I don't want to see the term used, please stopterms do not have an expiration date.
>>18581754Imbecile.
>>18581460This thread reminds me of a typical evolutionist debating his views. >It's proven by science, ok? Why are you doubting it? Peer reviewed™ studies show it's real? Do you deny science? The Dark Ages are fake, if a cataclysm comes, or a civilization fails, there's no reason for a doom longer than 50 years, because the dust always settles and people start developing new civilizations. 500 is absurd.
>>18581749You were also far more likely to be raped, tortured, enslaved or suffer some sort of agonising and cartoonishly evil death in antiquity than you were in the Early Medieval period. The Romans themselves weren't immune to a bit of human sacrifice and were famously willing to throw people to wild beasts or otherwise have people slaughtered for the amusement of a crowd.
>>18581460Because it is used as a pejorative for generations, same with middle ages. Medievalists have obsessed for a long while now to undo all this but have failed and will likely continue to do so. it doesn't help them that the forst half of the period as is always ending up setting the tone even though the trend reverses for the second half. Imo the argument for middle ages as a separate field always was too weak to begin with. If antiquity extends back into the bronze age and therefore before and after the celtic expansion there is no reason antiquity can't be used in the same way with the germanic and slavic expansions, in fact it would be a lot more honest methodologically. So imo the only solution is to disband medieval as a period and lump it with antiquity. But there is a good argument for detaching the final stretch and sewing it into the modern period instead. Definitely by the so called commercial revolution reaching its pre plague peak. Maybe the british default on the 3 florentine banks just before the plague can serve along with the black death itself. I like this idea because tge plague itself ended up reinforcing rather than erasing the commercial revolution feeding directly into european overseas expansion to follow.
>>18581500Yes. The very moment they even started to become civcucked graincels they were immediately invaded by their Danish cousins from the very lands they once hailed from.
>>18581804Is there any evidence whatsoever that the pre-Christian world was scientifically advancing as the same rate as Europe was post Dark Ages?
>>18582073I agree to be honest. The migration period which began in the 4th century (arguably the 3rd) carried on for a good 5-600 years, basically until the Magyars had settled. I suppose a definite end to antiquity would be the Arab conquests, since that marked the end of the Persian empire and the end of the Roman empire as the preeminent military power
>>18581553Shitskins really think the late empire was the same as in the first century lol
>>18582114Scientific advancement was an alien concept in the ancient world. They understood engineering and natural science, but the concept of progressing to a technological goal was not something they subscribed to. Everything was tied into the wider study of philosophy, and Roman and Greek philosophy heavily relied on the idea that the past was better and the future will see only a steady decline from the heroic values of their forefathers.In addition there were big structural problems for those who would try to advance things. An inventor might get a wealthy patron to fund him, but there were never institutional engineering or mathematical academies.
>>18581487>/pol/You're on /his/ genius
>>18581564The Romans literally targeted Christianity and labeled them as atheists for refusing to worship the Greco-Roman pantheon, but okay.
>>18581460Jews named it the dark ages because they were unable to exert any power and suffered greatly everywhere.
>>18582177Don’t make me tap the sign
>>18582114The antiquity started with essentially nothing, even writing was forgotten in the Greek dark ages. By the end it had roads, plumbing, sewers, public toilets, gigantic stadiums, newspapers, floor heating, postal service, ...
>>18582192Fleecing Christ killers is a moral good.
>>18581508Cope Ælfred.
>>18582216And they had those things for centuries by the time of the fall of Rome>>18582114 I should have specified pre-Dark Ages rather then pre-Christian to be fairhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocausthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roadshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_in_ancient_Romehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_Maximus>postal serviceIs more a testament to organisational/administrative ability than scientific advancement
>>18582222You literally caused the Jewish takeover of finance
>>18582250I'd blame the papacy for allowing the monarch to make deals with devils.
>>18581577>everyone who doesn't believe in my magical rabbi is either a jeet or a jewChristcucks are getting dumber and dumber huh
>>18582245>And they had those things for centuries by the time of the fall of RomeTrue, the dark ages should start with the crisis of the third century.
>>18581460The Roman Empire deserved to be destroyed and the middle ages were much better by comparison
>>18582192Off topic saAr
>>18582257your terminally ill cancer patient it turns out your boyfriend actually said he was Indian and deleted the post. There's a good chance you're one.
Why are these atheists and Indians (or both?) trolling the thread? But my advice is to ignore this user because they have fragile egos. Another anonymous user already explained well how the OP is wrong, and let's defend the Middle Ages and not even Vishnu will save you.For the biased idiot and paleolithic IQ liars, the medieval period is associated with religious fanaticism, ignorance, repression, and brutality. But that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the Renaissance was essentially a slow and steady continuation of the Middle Ages, rather than the great transformation that people seem to believe it to have been.When we read about the Episcopal Inquisition and the Papal Inquisition, we should see them as a response to the heretical movements of Catharism and the Waldensians. The Spanish Inquisition was only established much later, in 1478, and became a powerful institution at the beginning of the modern era.The greatest irony is that violent "religious fanaticism" was more common in Renaissance Europe than in the Middle Ages, by any objective criterion. At the beginning of the modern era, we can define it by religious wars that shaped the political discourse and identity of emerging powers.
>>18581783Also worth noting is that there were many powerful women in the Middle Ages and women had more rights compared to Antiquity, yet people would denounce certain sexist attitudes in modern time as “medieval” instead of comparing them to classical Greece or pagan Rome which were more patriarchal societies than Middle Ages
>>18582405A combination of modern academia’s anti-medieval propaganda and general lack of knowledge of antiquity is what I would say causes that personally
There are no dark ages only dark places.
>>18582436And the Dark Ages refers to a time in that specific place (Europe), when that place was in civilisational decline (dark)
>>18582387I denounce Vishnu, now you denounce Yahweh
>>18582464I denounce the Talmud
>>18582430>modern academia’s anti-medievalScholars are the first ones that try to debunk myths about the middle ages, like wtf are you even talking about?
>>18582535>Scholars are the first ones that try to debunk myths about the Middle AgesOf course individual historians will speak the truth, but I’m talking about institution/the media as a whole clearly portraying the medieval era negatively; I should have made that more clear my bad
>>18581519>>18581543>European civilization suffered a major setback.It did, with the rise of Rome. The Dark Ages were Progress and the genius of the European people shaking off the chains the dim Roman mind put on it.It was a necessary period of convalescence.
>>18581549Nta but i presume he is meaning the ravages of war and disease. Remember there was the justinian plague.
>>18581563Thats actually kinda wholesome, like the latin crusader wanting the arab to shave his wifes pubes after he learned of the practice (i love full bush). Proofz?
>>18581604Lel at picrel
>>18583102True, but there was so much war in that period because of the collapse of the dominant power (Rome), and with the collapse of Rome there a decline in civilisational development.
>>18583117Medieval margin drawings get a grin out of me, they’re so goofy
>>18582495Good, now go further and denounce the Torah, Yahweh, and every Hebrew prophet
>>18581804SAAAAR
>>18581460>muh global cultural leadersSome vanity statues and decadence does not a culture make, nor is Roman aristocracy inherently intellectual. The false pretenses of such almost certainly contributed to the disintegration of their faggy empire.
>>18581792Yeah future's looking real bright for secular Europe!
>>18581460There was no declineAdministration remained the exact same, aka written on papyruses and ran by franks as it had been for centuries What you REALLY like is the egyptian period of Rome because the desert preserved the papyruses there and nowhere else, creating the false sense of a dark age
>>18581519>the use of currency became replaced by barter, and agricultural production diminished considerably. Trade almost stopped entirely, and people relied on the local production of food and goodsEntirely a lieThis is seethe because they didnt have the documents to record it
>>18581460>literacyMost Romans couldn't read or write.
>>18583110Wtf?
>>18582464Its not me btw >>18582387Yes?
>>18583251Even some emperors and bishops (at the age where christianity heavily encourage literacy!!!) couldnt, so imagine how terrible it was during the pagan era
>>18583232>Administration remained the exact sameThis is why we see Roman law courts and administrative apparatus under the Franks with thousands of well educated administrators, right?>>18583251And far more could compared to people after Rome.>>18583293>Even some emperors and bishops (at the age where christianity heavily encourage literacy!!!)The Romans had a large literate elite and a sizeable middle class with high rates of literacy. Post-Roman states had no middle class at all and a far smaller and less literate elite. Literacy was mandatory for any well to do man in the Roman state, and was not in the Post-Roman states, literary production collapsed as the last generation of Roman elites died off. The greatest amount of literary production in the 6th century West came out of Italy, which still maintained a strong Roman elite.
>>18582404A rare poast of fine quality amongst us shit eating pissants.I have never heard of the Episcopal Inquisition, care to toss a retard a bone?
>>18583304>This is why we see Roman law courts and administrative apparatus under the Franks with thousands of well educated administrators, right?Yes, the courts were administered by well literated official dispatched by kings and roman senators who didnt disappear had nothing to say anything bad about itYou're a desperate romaboo grasping at straws
>>18583368>Yes, the courts were administered by well literated official dispatched by kingsYou forgot to preface that it was in this case a single one, the Comes. Who presided over what hundreds of administrators would have beforehand. Most legal cases were arbitrated locally without any input from the state after the end of the Roman courts. An 'administration' existed that was maybe a thousandth of the size of the previous Roman one and shared nothing in common other than names.>and roman senators who didnt disappearAre you just pretending to be retarded? There were no Roman senators outside of Italy in the 6th century, nor did the Franks allow Roman elites to have any official office. The Comes' were all Franks, and later on some Alemanni>You're a desperate romaboo grasping at strawsI'm sure you have many pieces of evidence for the continued existence of the wide scale Roman administration.
Rome was closer to the middle ages than anyone likes to admit, while the middle ages are closer to Rome than EVERYONE (from liberals to marxists to almost every single historiography that is not one influenced by the annalist medievalists and their counterparts in the study of Rome, specially late Rome, like Peter Brown) would like to admit."Feudalism" was Rome with a polissinoidal State, with strong agriculture, and important cities (they declined in size, didn't leave, nor lost their important functions, and the majority just lost their label of "city" because of historiography thought of them too primitive, e. g. Henri Pirenne and Coulanges)The reason why you look to these two as completely separate is because you've created myths in your head, influenced by media and historiography written since the 18th century, It is fault of the enlightement, but not only their fault, it's the fault of the modern mentality, which permeates everyone, and I do mean everyone, in today's world, even if they live in bum-fuck nowhere Kazakhstan. It is a myth used to justify modernity in all it's facets: rationalism, secularism, strong sovereign centralized states, nations, "equality" (only in a bougeois sense).The only facets of the middle ages you know are the ones used to show what a society with each one of those very specific, and all fabricated concepts, would be without, while ignoring the faults of modernity itself.It's an incredible case-study of how history in the hands of demagogues becomes bullshit atop bullshit to justify power. And because every single ideology today (and I mean every single one, from Marxism to Fascism to Liberalism to Social Democracy) are direct descendents, wanting or not, of Modernity (doesn't matter how reactionary or revolutionary they claim to be), so the Middle Ages are put down by everyone as this symbol of barbarism. Before discussing faults of the time period, the first step is always rehabilitating it.
>>18582561>Of course individual historians will speak the truth, but I’m talking about institution/the media as a whole clearly portraying the medieval era negativelyOh now I get it, I'm talking with a conspiracy nut case.
>>18583407You stupid fuck. Just say "count". The counts were not the only "administrators" of the feudal state. If you are even going to classify them as something paralel to bureocrats of old Rome (which were noblemen, with their own clientelage, and also delegated the majority of their work to the local Curia, very similarly to the Middle Ages, because feudalism >>18584176 descendend from the Roman State) then you would have to count every single feudal lord, having the title of "count" or not, all the way down the hierarchy, who did in one way or another administration of their land and service to the public sphere, and not "arbitrarly" do shit, they did it according to local law, also called custom at the time, something which also existed in Rome.
>>18584192You would know all of this if you knew actual Roman and Medieval law and society, but you don't, you think that just because romans used formal "titles" and functions in government that made them more akin to a modern nation-state than the old model of nation, built on kinship, hierarchy, strong competition, more akin to composite monarchies.
>>18582404This guy is right btw
>>18583407>Are you just pretending to be retarded? There were no Roman senators outside of Italy in the 6th century, nor did the Franks allow Roman elites to have any official office. The Comes' were all Franks, and later on some AlemanniFuck the more I read the more my braincells are drained. Just google about Liberius, or Gregory of Tours, or any episcopal succetion in Gaul, or anywhere in Europe for that matter. You will know where your roman senators and curiales went when you do that.
>>18582162/pol/ is everywhere
>>18584203No
>>18584176>majority just lost their label of "city" because of historiography thought of them too primitive, e. g. Henri Pirenne and CoulangesWhat?
>>18584176Please, recommend some books
>>18584192>Just say "count". The counts were not the only "administrators" of the feudal stateWe aren't talking about feudal states. >because feudalism >>18584176 descendend from the Roman StateCompletely incorrect by the way. Feudalism was a product of the fall of the Carolingian Empire. It did not exist in early Medieval Europe.>then you would have to count every single feudal lordWho did not exist. There were magnates in the Frankish kingdom but they possessed no legal powers of their own or 'lordship'. They were recognised as nobility and having considerable land but they had no legal power not granted to them by the king. The Comes was the most basic unit of official title in the Frankish Kingdom, it was not inheritable and it came with no lands.>and not "arbitrarly" do shitYou don't even know what arbitrate means>they did it according to local law, also called custom at the time, something which also existed in Rome.No it didn't. Ethnic laws were a product of Germanic rule. Roman law was based upon edicts legislated per region or universally. They did not work by any sort of local law, all law was dictated from the top.>>18584201>you think that just because romans used formal "titles" and functions in government that made them more akin to a modern nation-state than the old model of nation, built on kinship, hierarchy, strong competition, more akin to composite monarchies.I never said that. I am saying that the Roman administration and all of its institutions did not survive the Roman state>>18584210>Just google about Liberius, or Gregory of Tours, or any episcopal succetion in Gaul, or anywhere in Europe for that matter.Who were not Roman Senators. You're just moving the goalposts to say Roman locals, not to mention they only made up a part of the informal administration, where they were charged by a Comes to help collect tax and pacify communities. This didn't exist under the Romans, who gave Bishops no administrative power at all.
>>18584983>>Just say "count". The counts were not the only "administrators" of the feudal state>We aren't talking about feudal states.Damn you're illiterateCounts are not feudal lords in the "dark ages"'
>>18584983To add on, Bishops were not chosen by the king, they were locally elected. That's why the only place Romans had any form of power was the Church, Romans would elect Romans to preside over them. They at most worked as intermediaries between the state and the people who they represented. This argument is about the survival of Roman institutions under the Post-Roman states. They did not exist under them, the Roman court system ceased to exist, they were emulated, but that does not mean any continuation. The Comes was expected to be itinerant like a Roman court was, but he maintained none of the judges, notaries or other officials which actually made up the system, only the idea of the court remained, none of the structures which actually made it up existed. Urban courts, administrative dioceses and the legal arm of the administration did not survive the end of Roman rule. The same thing can be said for local administration, the Curiales did not exist along with all of their responsibilities, they were bound together by legal necessity and effective rule to maintain a council and pay for the needs of the city. They collapsed more or less the moment the Roman state ended because they had no reason to do it. Post-Roman local power defaulted to the Bishop, who did not have the wealth or need to support the city. Most patronage came from the crown in the Frankish Kingdom, local power was rarely ever held for even a lifetime, let alone a decade. Metz in the 5-6th centuries underwent a massive decline until the Merovingians made it their principal city where they received patronage from those competing for titles and by the king.
>>18585003>Counts are not feudal lords in the "dark ages"'Good thing I literally state as much three sentences down.
>>18585003>dark agesNo sources about what happened in the first centuries of medieval Northern Europe + huge decline in economic production and trade compared to the Roman period Seems like fitting name to me
There was clear decline in literacy, road infrastructure, technology and especially hygiene, canalization and fresh water supply. "The dark ages aren't real" is a horrible meme that has to die.
>>18581460Is simple when you ban knowledge (because Christians labelled like a pagan thing) you regress, the dark age don't start with the fell of the west Roman empire, start when they closed the Alexandria and Athens schools
>>18585624>>18585523Already btfo above, NPC
>>18585413The sources are on all papyruses which werent conservated by the sands of EgyptThe economic decline is very real, but that's due to the decline of global trade, for example England lost writing and pottery because they imported all of this from a roman empire that didnt care about England anymoreEven though the christian population of England wasnt replaced, they just adopted the pagan religion of the next strong men were around
>>18581495>yeah it was a Dark age with hardly any writing beyond Jibber about how holy or human an ancient Jew named Yeshu ben yosuf, but after 600 years they started imitating the empire christians destroyed, o algoEl Germanongolino cristiano...
>>18581460Two main reasons. It makes christianity look bad. And we're sliding into our own decline. So both trad types and progressive types have reason to be defensive about it.
>>18581529This isn't what happened. Most populations remained the same people, just under new, worse administration. There were a few migrations that had real demographic impacts. But even those were integrations, not replacements.
>>18587354The late imperial Roman administration was really fucking bad.Not sure if you heard, that's why the empire collapsed in the west.To the point things were more secure under the barbarian kingdoms, who because they were smaller and more locally concentrated were actually able to deal with brigands.
>>18586932>the christian population of England wasnt replaced, they just adopted the pagan religion of the next strong men were aroundThey largely were, in the east.And no, the Britons largely remained Christians and didn't even bother trying to evangelize the Saxon invaders.Many of them simply fled westwards, until they were able to hold the line.
>>18581495Fun fact a branch of my family came from Ely. My ancestor was one of the men hanged there for the 1816 riots and he's buried across the street from Ely Cathedral at St. Mary's.
>>18588337>They largely were, in the east.not really, you underestimate how much people adapt to suck up to the new bossesThey easily change their family names but not actually change their vernacular language
>>18587354>>18588331I think you're both mostly right
>>18588367That's the thing, the Brittonic language totally disappeared in the east and only persisted in the west and north where actual Britons held out.In recent years there's been a push to sweep the radical violence and ethnic cleansing of the Saxons under the rug, to discredit the old histories, to pretend it was really a hecking peaceful migration and everyone just got along hunky dory. No fuss.That's simply not what happened though. I suspect this kind of revisionism is politically motivated.The genetic evidence largely back up the traditional accounts as well. A huge number of Germans simply appeared in the course of a few years and displaced the natives.This really shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. That old story about the Treason of the Long Knives and the Folly of Vortigern probably did happen (or something like it) and that would explain quite a lot about the resulting chaos and centuries of intermittent war between those peoples.Family and place names are the things most likely to survive a change in language. My own family speak a different language now, but keep the old land name. But that's kind of a tangent, surnames weren't at all common back then anyways.
>>18588394Ok i'm french i dont know much about anglo-saxons but i forced you to write an informative post so i won
>>18588400Look up the great barbarian conspiracy sometime.What happened to the Britons in the 5th century had precedent just outside living memory.
>>18588331>The late imperial Roman administration was really fucking bad.How? They operated completely fine until the empire was invaded and they were destroyed by force regionally. It was well liked, ruled competently and integrated elites at every level of society. >To the point things were more secure under the barbarian kingdoms, who because they were smaller and more locally concentrated were actually able to deal with brigands.The barbarians who were responsible for all the brigandage made it go away when they were in charge? The Visigoths in Aquitaine were notoriously incompetent rulers who attacked Roman estates for loot if they were not protected by the king or other powerful Visigoths. Paulinus of Pella with the friendship of a king couldn't prevent his estate from being destroyed. Even local Roman revolts happened because there was no Roman administration in place to actually help them, they were largely a reaction to the collapse of the Roman administration, forcing them to manage their own affairs as in Iberia and Northern Gaul.
>>18588455>The barbarians who were responsible for all the brigandage made it go away when they were in charge?That's not really true.Highway banditry was absolutely rife in certain areas of the western Empire without any of their involvement.The old stationarii posts had been mostly abandoned as funding dried up. Meaning enormous stretches of road were completely unprotected.After the barbarian kingdoms took over, the roads were actually safer.Because they knew tax revenue from trade was essential to maintaining their power base.>They operated completely fineSure.And then one day, for no reason at all...
>>18588520>That's not really true.It is actually considering we have accounts from Romans in the period complaining about the barbarians going around the country pillaging, even the lands they formally ruled.>stationarii Was not a position in the Later Roman Empire. Policing was done by the Comitatenses between cities >Meaning enormous stretches of road were completely unprotected.Other than the armies that frequently used them. Seriously, where are you getting this from? Because I've found no evidence that the Western Empire was not well policed, they used the same exact system as the East up until the 430's, where the administration withdrew from half the empire due to invasions and armies consolidated around warlords instead of cities. >Because they knew tax revenue from trade was essential to maintaining their power base.No they didn't. They didn't even care. Their power was maintained because they held an effective monopoly on violence>And then one day, for no reason at all...Is an army of hostile foreign men entering a region to ravage it not a good reason for why a civil service might not be able to effectively function there?
>>18588548>not a position in the Later Roman Empireit was thoughthe Codex Theodosianus literally refers to them by that same name, and that's a 5th century documentthey're a key part of the cursus publicus system, which later would essentially collapselike, why are you just making shit up thoughyou seem flustered
>>18588594>the Codex Theodosianus literally refers to them by that same nameMy mistake.>cursus publicus system, which later would essentially collapseDue to invading barbarians.>like, why are you just making shit up thoughYou made up a bandit problem and pretended like barbarians didn't create a massive banditry problem. By what evidence are you proclaiming that there was rife banditry in the empire divorced from the barbarian armies which we know for a fact caused these problems?
>>18588598No, I really didn't make it up.Brigandage was a recurring problem during this time for the empire.Technically the stationarii were somehow still operating in some capacity up until 475, but after that everything really falls apart and loads just stop getting paid and either fuck off somewhere or become part of a wealthy mansion's protective retinue, bucellarii. Or they were absorbed by the barbarians themselves.Some of the barbarians actually kept elements of this service alive on a local level, though it would never again enjoy the same breadth of connection that it had previously managed.
>>18588614>No, I really didn't make it up.Ok, where is the evidence?>but after that everything really falls apartThe regular Roman army in the West stopped operating as usual by the end of the 420's. The armies operated as pseudo-personal armies, albeit still payed by the state through a salary to their commanders. >Some of the barbarians actually kept elements of this service alive on a local levelWho? Not even the Ostrogoths did that.
>>18588625The Ostrogoths adopted the cursus publicus, as it still existed *in their area of control*, regarrisoned the same stations and repaired roads. Retained personnel.See Cassiodorus.
>>18588637>regarrisoned the same stations and repaired roadsI mean, sure. But that's not the same institution. >Retained personnel.They did not do this. The Ostrogoths did not maintain any Romans in their military. Romans, largely senators only existed in the civil service. They replaced personnel, they did not retain them. >See Cassiodorus.I have. Name dropping Cassiodorus is not evidence of anything.
>>18581460It kinda depends on how you define "The Dark Ages" though. A lot of times people don't use "Dark Ages" and "Medieval/Middle Ages" as synonyms. In this case the Dark Ages refers to a particular era of Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval periods before Charlemagne where Western Europe very much did undergo a period of economic collapse, severe urban decline, a breakdown of centralized authority, plummeting literacy levels, violent migrations and wars, and other assorted bad times. The problem is using the term to refer to the entirety of the Middle Ages instead of just a specific part.
>>18586932>Even though the christian population of England wasnt replaced, they just adopted the pagan religion of the next strong men were aroundRetard
>>18588639>The Ostrogoths did not maintain any Romans in their military. Romans, largely senators only existed in the civil serviceThis isn't much of a change from previous decades. Foederati formed the majority of the western army for most of the 5th century
>>18588929Germanics hated Rome anon
>>18588977Germanics WERE Rome, they were 100% of the roman generals, germanics are the only reason why Italy isnt a hunnic province
>>18588639>>18588639They did though.The stationarii fell somewhere between civil servants and the military proper.Insofar as they allowed Romans to administrate, and the stationarii did just that, Romans remained in that role.In retaining the cursus publicus (absolutely crucial to Roman administrative functions) as an institution, they retained those remaining ethic Romans too.That includes the stationarii, as they were a necessary arm of the administration.Think about it like this.Speaking Latin would have been a necessary part of their duties, because they were dealing with a Latin speaking general population.Virtually every Ostrogoth qualified for that position did not speak Latin. So they would have had to cooperate with the Romans in that capacity in particular.It's literally a special case. Anything else would have been totally unworkable.
