Dark Ages aren't that "dark"

[Sherlock]

Whether in the classical example of post-Roman Europe or in Tibet.

I've been reading "Framing the early Middle Ages". It's a very detailed book on the social and economic aspects of life in post-Roman Europe.

Certainly there was a huge loss in economic complexity throughout the whole of the former Western Roman Empire. Nevertheless, at the same time, people were freed from the burden of the onerous Roman tax (half or more of which was used to fund the army) and knowledge actually wasn't completely lost. People read more Christian authors than classical authors from 600 CE onwards, but they were still literate. Pilgrims from different parts of Francia to Italy still managed to scrawl their names on churches in Italy. Instead of spending their riches on secular displays of wealth (funding public games, building grand palaces), the elites of those times funded religious works and buildings with their wealth.

In Britain there was indeed a complete collapse in society, but that was already underway when the Romans retreated, before their empire even fell. Across the continent, some things changed, some things remained the same.

I think similar things happened in post-Imperial Tibet, which hopefully archaeology can add to in time. I remember reading about certain findings that actually some monastic centres in Central Tibet were still doing fairly well even in post-Imperial times. We know of course people from all over Central and East Asia came to Dunhuang and tantric teachings spread widely during the post-Imperial period.

[Kim O'Hara]

You're right, Sherlock - history is always more complicated than the simple labels suggest. You might also like to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) for the origins of the label.


Kim

[Simon E.]

In many ways the Celts were more cultured than the Romans who conquered them..just not as good at warfare.

Likewise the Saxons were more cultured in many important ways than the Normans who supplanted them.

Alfred the Great, the Saxon King, was a model of the enlightened ruler.

[Huseng]

Nevertheless, at the same time, people were freed from the burden of the onerous Roman tax (half or more of which was used to fund the army) and knowledge actually wasn't completely lost.

There was enormous amounts of knowledge and technology lost. The Romans used to have metered taxi services. There was also the whole array of Hellenic and Roman works from philosophy to music which were lost. Roman music was almost entirely forgotten. Some elements were preserved largely thanks to the Church, but really western Europe took an enormous hit.

People read more Christian authors than classical authors from 600 CE onwards, but they were still literate.

During the Dark Ages literacy was rare. It was often just a segment of the nobility and clergy who had access to such an education and books. We shouldn't underestimate the loss of literacy in the post-Roman world.

Pilgrims from different parts of Francia to Italy still managed to scrawl their names on churches in Italy. Instead of spending their riches on secular displays of wealth (funding public games, building grand palaces), the elites of those times funded religious works and buildings with their wealth.

Yes, but the architecture was rather inferior compared to what the Romans had managed. For example, even aqueducts. The post-Roman world could use and maintain them, but couldn't actually build new ones if they wanted to. There was loss of architectural knowledge and engineering abilities. Things picked up later on during the Middle Ages. Castles for example became larger and better built, though part of that was learning from models in the east during the early Crusades.

I think similar things happened in post-Imperial Tibet, which hopefully archaeology can add to in time. I remember reading about certain findings that actually some monastic centres in Central Tibet were still doing fairly well even in post-Imperial times. We know of course people from all over Central and East Asia came to Dunhuang and tantric teachings spread widely during the post-Imperial period.

The downfall of the Yarlung state can't really be compared to the post-Roman world. The Roman world was a lot larger and more sophisticated. Tibetans as far as I know never developed sewer systems and aqueducts, whereas the Romans did. When you lose a whole generation of engineers who know how to build and maintain such things, it means you lose that vital element in your city buildings.

Also much of Tibet is geographically remote enough so as to be a deterrent to foreign raids. Arguably, too, there would be no incentive to cross dangerous passes just to loot a monastery with a small though important library. The Roman world was a lot richer and more accessible to invaders on sea and land.

[rory]

Don't get me started, at the end of the Roman empire women were citizens and except for voting and running for office they: could freely marry and divorce, had contraception and abortificants and were in control of their fertility, could inherit and will property, could represent themselves in court or appoint someone to do so for them, had professions, owned business, influence politcs, they could be priestesses and . Freely mixed with men and had a full public life, additionally women's general literacy was high. Basically they were almost equal to men.

So much knowledge was lost I don't even want to being to think of the library of Alexandria...or how about Hypatia being killed, there were women philosophers in those days too.

gassho
Rory

[Sherlock]

Women still enjoyed quite a large amount of legal freedom in post-Roman Europe. They could engage in various contracts on their own initiative and stand to inherit (depending on where exactly they were anyway -- Visigothic Spain allowed daughters to inherit just as in Roman law, and Liutprand in Italy later also allowed daughters to inherit). In Lombardic Italy, there are many examples of legal contracts where women had control of their own rights.

The killing of Hypatia took place while the Empire was still quite healthy BTW, it has nothing to do with the "proto-feudal" states of post-Roman Europe.

My overall point is this: economic complexity resulting from a unified empire was reduced and all assorted benefits (economic specialization, which allows specialized engineers, artisans, etc to bring in specific skills and trades) that that brought were decreased.

Nevertheless, people still got on with their lives, many still learned to read (although they read less Classical poets and more Christian authors), moreover a lot of the corruption and abuse of power that people in late Imperial Roman society (the downside to living in a large empire where corruption was endemic) had to endure was gone. Especially in Italy, the wealth inequality was much better than during Roman times -- elites weren't super-rich that could afford to abuse their power any more and had to answer to agreements with their tenants. Slavery was much less prevalent in post-Roman Europe than in Roman times -- there were unfree tenants, but these weren't as slaves.

In Tibet, the "dark ages" brought a lot of cultural productivity as the Dunhuang manuscripts show, as well as led to the spread of Mahayoga, which was limited by the Empire. In fact, the yoganuttaratantras back in India only became widespread in what were basically "dark ages" in India.

[Huseng]

Nevertheless, people still got on with their lives, many still learned to read (although they read less Classical poets and more Christian authors), moreover a lot of the corruption and abuse of power that people in late Imperial Roman society (the downside to living in a large empire where corruption was endemic) had to endure was gone.

While I concede that the last century of Rome was rather disagreeable for most plebs, the reality is that the Dark Ages ushered in a period of great violence. It allowed for the rise of forces like the Vikings, for example, and they were not nice people. Roman Britain in the Dark Ages went from having relative security to being pillaged and attacked continually.

Also the level of technology decreased significantly. Basic skills like pottery took a hit for instance.

This new trend in history studies to take the "dark" out of Dark Ages is really problematic.

Like look at the post-Han Dynasty world. The population dropped significantly and there were several centuries of continual opportunistic warlordism. It wasn't a pleasant time to be alive.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I thought the term "Dark" meant a lack of written records as the Roman institutions collapsed.

[rory]

Everyone gets on with their lives, it's either adapt or die, that's no recommendation. Certainly Christian concepts about women, the misogyny, the anti-semitism is very different. Under pagan Rome, Jews had equal rights, so did all citizens, whether from Carthage, Germania, Syria etc.. You could freely have same-sex relations and get married privately. It was a great thing and the idea of 'income equality' a common theme today as showing the Dark Ages as better (?) does not move me at all.

As Ven. Indrajala pointed out the engineering, the roads, aqueducts, having underfloor heating, public toilets and private ones connecting with sewers (not pissing out of a window or dumping feces into the street), all this was lost. Plus the trade from China to Britain. Imagine what life would be like today in the West if the pagan Roman Empire had continued and all the knowledge, all the technical skills preserved.
gassho
Rory

[Grigoris]

It was a great thing and the idea of 'income equality' a common theme today as showing the Dark Ages as superior does not move me at all.

I don't think anybody said it was superior, just that it wasn't 100% negative.

[Malcolm]

Nevertheless, people still got on with their lives, many still learned to read (although they read less Classical poets and more Christian authors), moreover a lot of the corruption and abuse of power that people in late Imperial Roman society (the downside to living in a large empire where corruption was endemic) had to endure was gone.

While I concede that the last century of Rome was rather disagreeable for most plebs, the reality is that the Dark Ages ushered in a period of great violence.

Ahem...the Roman Empire wasn't completely violent??? At least 40 percent of its population were slaves.

It allowed for the rise of forces like the Vikings,

Those are my peeps you are talking about, bub...

Roman Britain in the Dark Ages went from having relative security to being pillaged and attacked continually.

Oh, the Romans in Great Britain were a really nice bunch of people, so understanding and kind:

Boudica (/ˈbuːdɨkə/; alternative spelling: Boudicca), also known as Boadicea /boʊdɨˈsiːə/, and known in Welsh as Buddug [ˈbɨ̞ðɨ̞ɡ][1] (d. AD 60 or 61) was queen of the British Iceni tribe, a Celtic tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire.

Boudica's husband Prasutagus was ruler of the Iceni tribe. He ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome and left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman emperor in his will. However, when he died, his will was ignored and the kingdom was annexed as if conquered. Boudica was flogged, her daughters were raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans.

In AD 60 or 61, while the Roman governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was leading a campaign on the island of Anglesey off the northwest coast of Wales, Boudica led the Iceni as well as the Trinovantes and others in revolt.[2] They destroyed Camulodunum, which is modern Colchester. Camulodunum was earlier the capital of the Trinovantes, but at that time was a colonia—a settlement for discharged Roman soldiers, as well as the site of a temple to the former Emperor Claudius. Upon hearing the news of the revolt, Suetonius hurried to Londinium (modern London), the twenty-year-old commercial settlement that was the rebels' next target.

The Romans, having concluded that they did not have the numbers to defend the settlement, evacuated and abandoned Londinium. Boudica led 100,000 Iceni, Trinovantes and others to fight the Legio IX Hispana and burned and destroyed Londinium, and Verulamium (modern-day St Albans).[3][4] An estimated 70,000–80,000 Romans and British were killed in the three cities by those led by Boudica.[5] Suetonius, meanwhile, regrouped his forces in the West Midlands, and despite being heavily outnumbered, defeated the Britons in the Battle of Watling Street.

The crisis caused the Emperor Nero to consider withdrawing all Roman forces from Britain, but Suetonius's eventual victory over Boudica confirmed Roman control of the province. Boudica then either killed herself so she would not be captured, or fell ill and died. The extant sources, Tacitus[6] and Cassius Dio, differ.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This new trend in history studies to take the "dark" out of Dark Ages is really problematic.

The fact is that the dark ages happened because the Roman Empire over extended itself.

[Sherlock]

Nevertheless, people still got on with their lives, many still learned to read (although they read less Classical poets and more Christian authors), moreover a lot of the corruption and abuse of power that people in late Imperial Roman society (the downside to living in a large empire where corruption was endemic) had to endure was gone.

While I concede that the last century of Rome was rather disagreeable for most plebs, the reality is that the Dark Ages ushered in a period of great violence. It allowed for the rise of forces like the Vikings, for example, and they were not nice people. Roman Britain in the Dark Ages went from having relative security to being pillaged and attacked continually.

Also the level of technology decreased significantly. Basic skills like pottery took a hit for instance.

This new trend in history studies to take the "dark" out of Dark Ages is really problematic.

Like look at the post-Han Dynasty world. The population dropped significantly and there were several centuries of continual opportunistic warlordism. It wasn't a pleasant time to be alive.

You are only repeating JMG's talking points, based mainly on one book (The Fall of Rome and the end of civilization), which itself is mainly based on post-Roman Britain. It's quite a good book, but Post-Roman Britain is an atypical case that was never replicated on the continent. The complete regression in civilization already began there while the empire on continental Europe was still functioning, the Empire withdrew their troops around the turn of the 4th century and quite likely, those citizens who could afford to move out would have done so too -- those who remained were either the poorest Romano-British or just native Celts of various tribes.

Pottery was alive and well throughout continental Europe during this period, Francia even still had dedicated pot factories.

Vikings were only the northernmost example of Germanic raiders, who were no strangers to Roman lands as well. The "civilized" Christians were actually far more violent in imposing their religion on the pagan Germanics compared to minor raids and skirmishes. In any case, Vikings come in at a very late stage in the post-Roman period, when feudalization was already well under way.

Likewise, as Malcolm mentioned, violence was rampant throughout Roman society -- people were routinely tortured if they were accused of crimes, gladiatorial shows continued until the end of the empire even under Christian emperors.

From a Buddhist PoV, it is all samsara, dark age and empire, neither is better or worse than the other. But it is wrong to see "dark ages" as a complete dearth of culture and learning, in fact, it seems that they are pretty good environments for religions to spread.

[Huseng]

I'd rather have lived within the borders of Rome (until the last century maybe) than with the Celts.

A lot of the northern peoples evidently felt the same way. This is why so many tried to migrate into Roman territories, so as to avail themselves of the opportunities and prosperity there, even just as residents (not raiders).

I like the comforts of plumbing and rule of law.

Yes, the Roman empire was underwritten with violence, but so is western civilization today. The Americans in the last decade killed how many innocent civilians to secure their interests in the Middle East? We don't practice slavery any longer, but our products are often imported from sweat shops in Asia which might as well be associated with slave-like conditions.

[Sherlock]

It's not a choice between living in the Roman Empire and living with Celts. If you lived in 6th century Europe, your choices (assuming you could even choose) would be between post-Roman Britain with more aggressive Celts to the north and on Ireland, Anglo-Saxons in modern-day England, or the more peaceful Celts in Cornwall and Wales, which only suffered Anglo-Saxon invasion almost a thousand years later. On the mainland, Visigothic Spain, Francia, the different Italian states all had rule of law. Life as a Welsh shepherd would likely be much more peaceful and would afford more leisure time than as a peasant in Rome.

Germanic peoples migrated due to population growth in their homeland as well as pressure from Asia. The Huns were Asians for example.

Of course modern industrial civilization is based on violence, whether "Western" or Chinese. I never defended it. I think in the long-term, after some adjustment, the world would be much better off if industrial civilization collapses right now, especially for people in the third world or the underclass in the "first world". Unfortunately that doesn't seem likely, we are in for a slower form of suffering.

Describing "dark ages" as a complete loss of civilization is very misleading and inaccurate outside of isolated regions like Britain (which was very dependent on imports for its society). Everywhere else the picture is more complex. Economic complexity was reduced, but that isn't a wholly bad thing. There was greater social mobility (the aristocracy wasn't closed), less inequality and laws still existed. Life was likely better for many people in the dark ages compared to their ancestors if they were descended from plebs. Of course aristocrats weren't as rich as the height of Rome and couldn't afford massive monuments or public spectacles anymore, but is that really necessary for a society? Dark ages certainly don't seem to be cultural backwaters -- they seem to be very good for religious growth.