Talk: Dark Ages
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
In Authurian in legend the Pagans were the Celts. Remember Merlin? I think in reality (in Brittain) it was much more of somewhat Romanized, somewhat urban, somewhat pagan Celts being invaded and replaced by mainly pagan Saxons.
---[MikeS] Those familiar with the developments during the "Dark Ages" find the old view obsolete and, to some, even embarrassing. To ignore the developments in science, art and medicine during this period may be a result of focusing only on "Western" Europe and ignoring the developments in Spain (southwest of France), Sicily and elsewhere. Even John of Salisbury knew better. When he wanted to study philosophy he went to Sicily.
The books of Aristotle were saved and preserved in the Arab Empire, gratitude may be too much to expect but some acknowledgment seems proper. Two of the great philosophers of the times were Rabbi Moses Maimonides (The greatest Jewish Philosopher. "From Moses to Moses, there is none like Moses") and Judge Ibn Rusd (Averroes). Scholars from Greece, England, Germany and elsewhere had free passage to study in learning and translation centers in Toledo, Sicily and elsewhere. Perhaps it is time to begin to bring light to the dark ages. There is fascinating history in the "Dark Ages", for example, Maimonides was exiled and became the personal physician of the Great Saladin. The details, implications and consequences makes fascinating reading. To call the times of Alber the Great and Thomas Aquinas the "Dark Ages" seems disrepectful of a philosophy that is the foundation of the largest Christian religion.
Interesting history was made by King Roger I of Normandy, the land of Normans or "Northsmen", Scandinavian Vikings. The contributions of Abbot Suger and the Gothic Church of St. Denis, the first medical doctor licences by King Roger II, of Sicily, the foundation of the University of Paris, the translation of the books of Aristotle at the Toledo Center of Translation, founded by Bishop Raymond, etc. To ignore the Battle of Hastings, the stirrup and its history from the land of the Mongols, etc. All this information is available in books of history. Then there is the story of the first traveler to China, well before Marco Polo, he was Jewish, knowledge is best to fight prejudices.
But, maybe it's too soon to acknowledge the Irish contributions to the salvation of Civilization in Europe. Consider the possibility that Civilization may have progressed more outside "Western" Europe in the "Dark Ages." We are all exposed to bias. I will accept your decision without further comment. -- [Mike]
- The above paragraph is highly biased and therefore not acceptable within the article as per our NPOV guidelines. I am familiar with the developments during the Dark Ages, and I do not find the "old view", held by many modern atheists and humanists, obsolete at all. I am more concerned about recent developments of apologetics regarding the dismal state of culture and science during this period of human history. Yes, cultural development continued at a much slower pace outside Western European civilization, but within Europe, classical discoveries were forgotten or deliberately suppressed, medicine returned to magical thinking, roads and bridges deteriorated (ancient road standards would not be reached until the 19th century), buildings of classical scale could no longer be built, water came out of wells which were frequently contaminated instead of being transported through Rome's elaborate network of aqueducts. Art returned to primitive paintings that can barely compete with those found in Altamira and are no match to even the cheapest standard wall painting found in Pompeii -- even so, artistic creation was suppressed and often destroyed such as during the great periods of iconoclasm, which are a direct neuropsychological mirror of what would happen more than 1000 years later in Taliabn-controlled Afghanistan.
- Even beliefs in a Flat Earth were revived (and despite of what Russell thinks, there is ample evidence that even Augustine may have held such beliefs). The church used and abused its position of power for profit through tricks and forgeries. It was the fuel in the fire that burned ancient libraries, temples and even thinkers, the persecution of pagans in the 4th century being a chapter which is missing from virtually all Christian-influenced history books. No, I don't think the term "Dark Ages" is inappropriate or obsolete. In some areas, such as sexual morality which remains heavily Christian-influenced, the Dark Ages continue until today. —Eloquence 02:16 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Kenneth Alan's additions
Kenneth Alan added the following two mega paragraphs:
- Descriptions meaning 'plunderer' about vikings are the machinations of medieval Catholic clergy after they suffered from raids on their churches and monasteries. These largely originated Greek-turned-Roman Christian institutions held money originally siphoned from the local Celtss by these Latin Christians, and the Christians tried to twist it around so that the Northmen would look worse than they-just for setting up at the ports for trade as unconverted heathens, claiming to the Britons that God would forgive them for their sins if they supported the church more, in effect, worming their way out and manipulating the fighting which did occur-a repeat of the former Anglo-Saxon invasion which bribed the Britons into submission, which was a further repeat of the first missionaries who accompanied the Romans during Caesar's annexation of Britannia when the Picts were the first demonised of the Celts on the islands, which obviously was another repeat of how the pagan Roman priests were sanctioned by the Roman leaders to bribe the Roman legions into conscription against the Gauls, to justify the expansion of the Romans into an empire. The Irish had seen this and willingly converted to Christianity to avoid direct submission to the Romans who took Britain. They believed that they would hold more direct control over their affairs, despite the later consumption of the Celtic church by the Roman church. The Christians, no matter how they may have said they hated Romans, actually preferred to be allied with the Romans over the latter Germanic tribes for their own Mediterranean-based sake.
- The bribed-into-Christian Anglo-Saxons, Frisians and Jutes were not the target of the Viking raids, but met in conflict with at the goading of the Church's bribes and possible loss thereof from Rome(taken from the Celts all over the Roman Empire) to subdue their heathen relatives 'so that the Celts wouldn't try to make war upon them' with the distraction of heathenry's rebirth in the British Isles by the vikings, a faith held by the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes and Frisians themselves, before their bribery by Romans to take Britain and subsequent 'nail-in-the-coffin' bribery with prestigious titles and influence under Christianity(King James would eventually write the Bible in English favor after the Reformation gave power back to the local governments) . After the vikings were subdued by their own reception of Christian bribery in their homelands, as fascist kings consolidated their power, they too would make crusades throughout the Finns, Balts and Slavs for the Baltic Sea's control. This is a topic found in most of the Middle ages, and in fact the reason for the term "Dark Ages", is because the Christian power was controlled by Greek and Roman forces in the shadows (using the 'innocence of the baby Jesus' and his mother Mary's "purity" as their front or cover up for their real intents-besides the usual Greek 'superiority complex' when it comes to philosophy and the Roman zealous enforcement of all things Greek, as Christianity was a Greek religion based on Greek philosopher interpretation of Jesus and his associates' ideas), who manipulated whole slews of events in their favor, rather than open dominance in the military field, which they had already tried and failed with, hence the 'fall of the Roman Empire'. But puppeteering the Germanic tribes into violence certainly worked for them and the various lands of Europe and around the Mediterranean became a veritable chessboard battleground for them to try and consolidate it all under their wing, which was checked by the expansion of Islam to the south and east. A very deciding factor into why heretics were punished harshly was because the string pullers wanted unified conformity to keep power in their image AND repel invasions from the Asians and North Africans, of which the latter goal was something the rest of the Europeans cared about greatly(allowing the empire to exist), but the former ideal has been a hot contest amongst the ethnicities of Europe over who's image is most superior, and not wanting subjection to forced ideals by occupying neighbors, which did resemble the many attempted and some succeeded invasions of Europe by the outer fringe of Europe(Huns, Avars, Magyars, Mongols, Turks). Until the formation of nationalism at the end of the Middle Ages, most tribes grudgingly consented to the "protection" of the Mediterranean church's saintly martyrdom as long as they had some representation and say in their own affairs to defend themselves, of which the appointment of Pope-crowned kings seemed to have been a two-way affair for control by local peoples and Greece/Rome. This was responsible for creating 'heroes', but who sometimes were thrown into affairs that seem to plunge Europe into further risk of chaos by creating distrust amongst neighbors or inciting unrelated tribes into invasion of Europe's lands, such as the Muslims' peoples-leading into modern day violence between Middle east Islamics in regards to Christian support of Crusader-based Zionism, much like the formation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the modern creation of Israel as a state has had similar effects and issues in the region as the past.
As is, these are of course irredeemably POV. Claims like the Christian power was controlled by Greek and Roman forces in the shadows(using the 'innocence of the baby Jesus' and his mother Mary's "purity" as their front or cover up for their real intents-besides the usual Greek 'superiority complex' when it comes to philosophy and the Roman zealous enforcement of all things Greek, as Christianity was a Greek religion based on Greek philosopher interpretation of Jesus and his associates' ideas) need to be attributed and backed up with citations as one possible interpretation. Currently they are neither attributed, nor are citations provided.
I would ask Kenneth to read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, and rewrite these paragraphs accordingly, with citations provided for all controversial elements. Furthermore, this obviously needs serious copyediting and paragraph-splitup before it can be accepted.—Eloquence 17:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
- If you want to have a conversation, the first thing you should do is start using paragraphs.—Eloquence 22:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
[MikeS]: I too agree the erudite and enlightened sentences do indeed illuminate the Dark Ages but, seem different to my style of writing. I susppose the difference between Wikipedia and the Dark Ages is that we do not "decapitate" those that disagree with us, or express a different style or form of reasoning.
I particularly like the attempt at placing the Vikings in a proper historical perspective. I suspect Celt culture was not welcomed in Europe and some are not ready to forgive and forget. They may forgive acts they may not have perpetrated but should not forget. The Vikings, Nordsmen, baceme the Normans which could be said formed the basis of English culture and the Normans ruled Sicily and invaded Jerusalem; their contributions are "grossly" ignored. The mosaic that is history is far more colorful and rich than has been painted, up to the advent of Wikipedia. I am grateful for the progress in Civility. --MikeS
Help to stay on Topic
Please remember this is not the place to write about the history of the period. The Dark Ages is a defined concept that came about in the 1300s and has specific meaning and signifigance. The origin and history of the Dark Age concept, how it has been percieved throughout history, is what this page is for. Any history that takes place prior to Petrarchs definition of the concept in 1300s probably does not belong on this page. The history of the Middle Ages period should probably be placed elsewhere, probably under the heading of the Middle Ages or appropriate sub page. Stbalbach 08:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Stbalbach's good idea is made more complicated at Wikipedia by the fact that "Migrations period," the most usual modern term, has been highjacked by the German-centered Völkerwanderung, umlaut and all. As Wikipedia stands, Middle Ages has a subsection "Early Middle Ages" where all material providing a general overview would fit nicely. Just cut 'n paste. Wetman 18:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, you have Human migration#The Great Migrations, and Great Migration points there, too. --Shallot 20:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Good point, Shallot. I'm making sure Late Antiquity links to these. Wetman 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(re)moving history of the dark ages
In regards to this paragraph:
The continuities between early Dark Age society and late imperial Rome have been stressed by some writers, who wish to emphasise that medieval culture was already developing in the empire, and indeed continued to do so in the unconquered eastern (Byzantine) portion of the empire. However, many of the tribes who took over imperial land were initially pagan. The development of a solidly Christian Europe, in opposition to an Islamic empire based in North Africa and the Middle East, marks a major cultural and political shift, as does the development of the feudal system. With this, and the cultural developments after the Carolingian renaissance, the concept of the Dark Ages ceases to be meaningful. The "darkest" period is probably the Seventh Century (600-700CE), co-inciding with the near collapse of the Byzantine empire from invasion first from the Persian Empire and later the Islamic takeover of the southern and eastern Mediterranean.
It is essentially a history and POV analysis of the historical period. In order to stay on topic and keep things from digressing, The Dark Ages page is not about the history of the period, but about the history of the term and concept "dark ages", which was not invented untill the 1330s. We should not analysis the period, but rather the origin and history of the term. Any history previous to 1330 is probably not relevant. If someone can find a new home for this paragraph, probably under the history of the middle ages somewhere please go ahead. If you do so, I recomend providing supporting material for the claim "after the Carolingian renaissance, the concept of the Dark Ages ceases to be meaningful." because as it stands it looks like original analysis and not generally accepted historical doctrine, or reword as such, or provide other generally accepted alternative analysis of such. Thanks. Stbalbach
Grammar / Sentence Structure oddity
Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts, desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways and any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
This sentence needs some clarification. If we drop who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts we get this sentence:
Petrarch desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways and any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
So, is the sentence attempting to describe:
any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying?
That's understandable. But within the context, it's very oddly constructed.
I think, but I'm not completely sure, that the sentence should have been constructed as:
Petrarch desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways because any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
So, the sentence should really say:
Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts, desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways because any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.
-- AllyUnion (talk) 22:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, from what I gather, this was the original intent, even though a bit extreme: For Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe re-discovering and re-publishing the classic Roman and Greek texts, any work not of Classical origin was unworthy of study and beneath contempt. As a humanist he desired to restore the classic Roman language, art and culture to original Roman purity and any changes since the fall of Rome in 410 were cultural and social rot. Reference: [1] -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed. Should be more clear. Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What would truly improve this lead-in, and the whole entry, is a direct quote of Petrarch (naming source), using a phrase equivalent to "Dark Ages." Clunky construction is a side issue here. --Wetman 23:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would also like to find the "Age of Darkness" quote, but have only heard of it from secondary sources. It's very possible the quote is more conceptual in nature than a 3 word coin-phrase. Another quote attributed to Petrarch is ..restored to light the ancient elegance of style which was lost and dead.--Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
