SoA Forums

I tend to think of "Dark Ages" as a subset of "Early Medieval", ending around AD 800, while Early Medieval lasts into the eleventh century.

Which I guess is one reason to avoid it - it means different things to different people. But it also means I don't have an obvious alternative designation.

I'll quibble with the claim that the term is "eurocentric". Yes, it's primarily applicable to (western) Europe, and makes little sense applied to other regions. But no-one would say that a label like "Late Postclassic" is mexicocentric because it makes little sense applied to China or India. If there's eurocentrism, it's in applying European periods where they don't make sense, not in the period labels themselves.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMI tend to think of "Dark Ages" as a subset of "Early Medieval", ending around AD 800,

(The late end of) Late Antiquity, then 

Or late early medieval? 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMI'll quibble with the claim that the term is "eurocentric". Yes, it's primarily applicable to (western) Europe, and makes little sense applied to other regions.

To me, that makes it Eurocentric by definition. 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMIf there's eurocentrism, it's in applying European periods where they don't make sense, not in the period labels themselves.

Entirely agree.

Probably the bigger issues with (European) Dark Ages is the baggage, which Justin alludes to. Ignorant, violent, colourless, when the sun never shone and when life was nasty, brutish and short. 

In some respects, it has been mooted that in the aftermath of the Roman withdrawal, the lot of the humble actually improved for a while. Less taxes, more surplus for the individual/family unit and possibly less obligation to others until the early kingdoms took shape.  At least in Britannia Prima anyways

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 26, 2024, 03:58:42 PMIn some respects, it has been mooted that in the aftermath of the Roman withdrawal, the lot of the humble actually improved for a while. Less taxes, more surplus for the I vidualnor family unit and possibly less obligation to others until the early kingdoms took shape.  At least in Britannia Prima anyways

There wasn't a huge army to support so the coloni cultivated less land, just for themselves and their lords, the latter not needing much and unable to sell it anyway.

Indeed.

The taxation system went from a monetary based one with huge networks stretching across Europe to just the local area.

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 26, 2024, 04:50:17 PMIndeed.

The taxation system went from a monetary based one with huge networks stretching across Europe to just the local area.

one factor that facilitated the fall of the Western Empire was the fact that the tax burden on the hoi polloi lightened considerably under the new barbarian rulers who didn't require nearly as much as the imperial system had. The people had no trouble accepting barbarian rule provided it was "legitimate" - under theoretical imperial overlordship. They had a thing about legitimacy, possibly because they saw no alternative to the imperial system.

Which is why the eastern empire were happy to confer legitimacy onto barbarian rulers in the west. Kept a nominal roman cloak over the area acknowledged but locals and barbarians alike

Obviously don't work forever

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 26, 2024, 05:24:28 PMWhich is why the eastern empire were happy to confer legitimacy onto barbarian rulers in the west. Kept a nominal roman cloak over the area acknowledged but locals and barbarians alike

Obviously don't work forever

I get the impression it lasted as long as the military dominance of the Eastern Empire, which collapsed after the Arab invasions. We probably underestimate the importance of Constantinople vis-a-vis the barbarian states in the West.

100%

Quote from: Erpingham on December 26, 2024, 02:43:13 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMI'll quibble with the claim that the term is "eurocentric". Yes, it's primarily applicable to (western) Europe, and makes little sense applied to other regions.

To me, that makes it Eurocentric by definition. 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMIf there's eurocentrism, it's in applying European periods where they don't make sense, not in the period labels themselves.

Entirely agree.

Now you have me a little confused, Anthony. A term primarily applicable to Europe being eurocentric by definition and only its application where it doesn't make sense being so seems to me mutually exclusive positions.

QuoteProbably the bigger issues with (European) Dark Ages is the baggage, which Justin alludes to. Ignorant, violent, colourless, when the sun never shone and when life was nasty, brutish and short.

No disagreement here. To use it is to risk reinforcing the traditional value judgment in the minds of one's audience.

So does 'dark' mean

- unenlightened?
- not much known or poorly understood
- a reduction in moral and/or religious values?
- a poorer material society?
- a lack of written sources?

For me personally it has always been the lack of written material and yes I realise that there are chunks of Roman Britain that have very little actual written records too. The other elements phase in and out of the picture as you can't take one bit in isolation. Over the years I have come to view the period in question as a transition. Maybe inferior in terms of technology and socio-political structure but still vibrant and interesting to delve into. Change is inevitable and it's just the lens that we use to view that change that makes it speak to us

I have and will always be fascinated by this period

Of course, the complaint that 'Dark Ages' as a term is Eurocentric rather fades away to irrelevance when you're dealing with Europe.
Indeed I do wonder whether the term isn't really best suited to British history due to the lack of literary records, which is less of an issue on some of the European mainland.

(And if it's British history we can call it what we damned well like     )

This is my 'truth', Jim, as I am more concerned with Britain in this period for better or worse