The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought • Hacker News Board

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#211

Post by DavidSJ » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:04 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #207

UnhelpfulYoda wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, this is just the latest fad with 'scholars' ...the whole thing about how The Dark Ages weren't really dark, has been going on for about 20 years now... there are good reasons that this period is called the dark ages. I suspect it will die a slow death, just like the 'The Civil War wasn't about slavery' schtick.

>I suspect it will die a slow death, just like the 'The Civil War wasn't about slavery' schtick. The dark ages I seem to have a more-clear picture of: derth of historical record, rise of Christianity, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, technological progress, and unfortunate disease, all each contributed, and amalgamated into the public conscious of defining the era as 'dark.' The civil war thing is really confusing…

The states' rights narrative isn't recent, but my understanding is that it's a very selective reading of history that ignores many of the stated rationales and events leading up to and throughout the war. Yes, war is complicated and slavery wasn't the only factor, but I understand it to have been the predominant one.

Remember that the back-and-forth over federalism and states' rights has been ongoing since forever, and the same people tend to be on opposite sides of that question depending on the matter in question. Thus it's reasonable to ask: states' rights to do what? In the context of that time, the answer was clear.

It does make for a nice fairy tale, though, for whitewashing the past, and it's one someone might believe because their parents told them, and their grandparents told their parents, etc., all the way back to the vanquished generation rationalizing their conduct post-hoc, much as many Nazis did after World War II.

I'm no historian, so take with 0.017 mol NaCl.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#212

Post by nonbel » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:18 AM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #153

smacktoward wrote: post #43

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet major example—the extraordinary series of paintings of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, made in the 1170s either by the saint herself or under her supervision, disappeared in the general catastrophe that unfolded in Dresden in early 1945. We only know what…

Has anyone else here heard of the historical conspiracy theory (I don't know how else to describe it) that the european dark ages literally never happened, and the Gregorian calendar simply skipped those years entirely? It's pretty fascinating as a concept, though it hits many obvious pitfalls (what about all the stuff that's said to have happened during those years?!?!) and I'm not versed enough in the "theory" to g…

I actually thought this on my own after watching some history channel series about the first millennium AD, roman empire, whatever. I was struck at the similarity of some events that were supposedly separated by hundreds of years, almost as if it was the same story told from a different perspective.

Then I found Anatoly Fomenko, Gunnar Heinsohn, Herbert Illig, etc had investigated this.

I'll add another link to the two already shared by sister responses: https://www.q-mag.org/the-1st-millennium-a-d-chronology-cont...

Definitely a fascinating topic. I emerged from that rabbit hole unconvinced but definitely with far more doubt about the reliability of the mainstream chronology.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#213

Post by ido » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:24 AM UTC

_jahh wrote: post #189

Gibbon1 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stone building were replaced by mud huts, and I don't know about you, but not having running water in your town, or paved roads to the next town or port seem like huge drawbacks to life quality. I read somewhere that skeletal remains show people got taller after the end of the Roman empire. And then started getting shorter through the Renaissance right up till the agricultural revolution in the early 20th century.

they no longer paid their Roman taxes and could eat more of their own harvest

Yet somehow the population still declined significantly[0]?

    The Early Middle Ages saw relatively little
    population growth with urbanization well below
    its Roman peak...Estimates of the total population
    of Europe are speculative, but at the time of
    Charlemagne it is thought to have been between 25
    and 30 million

Where as at its peak the Roman Empire alone had a population of 70 million.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#214

Post by vanderZwan » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

UnhelpfulYoda wrote: post #203

smacktoward wrote: post #43

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet major example—the extraordinary series of paintings of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, made in the 1170s either by the saint herself or under her supervision, disappeared in the general catastrophe that unfolded in Dresden in early 1945. We only know what…

San Francisco disproves this thesis. It's impossible to build anything new, because of inane historical significance given to even the most decrepit cow palace or laundromat. I can only pray that San Francisco experiences a "Dark Age" where ugly old crap is replaced with shiny new towers.

Easy there, Le Corbusier[0]. That may be your preference, but others, like me, have seen enough giant glass monoliths to last a lifetime.

Also, are you aware that you're implicitly saying that you would love it if San Francisco was bombed or suffered a big earthquake or some other horrible disaster like that just because you don't like its architecture? I doubt you intended that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#215

Post by pesmhey » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:42 AM UTC

UnhelpfulYoda wrote: post #204

wallace_f wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems so overly simplistic, and perhaps misleading. Not just because, as evidenced in the article and is consensus among scholars, that the pejorative term, Dark Ages, itself is misleading. But There seems to be so much other blatant evidence which calls your premise into question. After all, Caeser made his name as he led a conquest with what was not fundamentally different to a warring tribe, and marched it ba…

Meh, this is just the latest fad with 'scholars' ...the whole thing about how The Dark Ages weren't really dark, has been going on for about 20 years now... there are good reasons that this period is called the dark ages. I suspect it will die a slow death, just like the 'The Civil War wasn't about slavery' schtick.

The ‘Obscure’ Ages

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#216

Post by z3phyr » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:42 AM UTC

UnhelpfulYoda wrote: post #203

smacktoward wrote: post #43

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet major example—the extraordinary series of paintings of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, made in the 1170s either by the saint herself or under her supervision, disappeared in the general catastrophe that unfolded in Dresden in early 1945. We only know what…

San Francisco disproves this thesis. It's impossible to build anything new, because of inane historical significance given to even the most decrepit cow palace or laundromat. I can only pray that San Francisco experiences a "Dark Age" where ugly old crap is replaced with shiny new towers.

A "Dark Age" means a time where the stuff which is happening is not recorded or documented. It does not mean "Starting from scratch"

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#217

Post by z3phyr » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:46 AM UTC

cocochanel wrote: post #209

smacktoward wrote: post #43

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet major example—the extraordinary series of paintings of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, made in the 1170s either by the saint herself or under her supervision, disappeared in the general catastrophe that unfolded in Dresden in early 1945. We only know what…

The Dark Ages are only dark to us.

And hence the name. Because there is only us who can name.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#218

Post by coldtea » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:47 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #60

coldtea wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should use those alarms on PG's writings: https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm As for the particular author, he was born in another culture (not all cultures appreciate the matter-of-factness as-you-talk anglo-saxon style of writing, many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business"). He was also born in a whole other era.

> many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business" Snobs in general tend to look down on people who don’t place value on pomposity for its own sake.

And cruder people in general tend to consider pomposity what's just eloquence or refined prose.

Besides, for many people there's nothing wrong with what some call "snobbery" but they call elitism or quality or high brow, etc.

They're not "snobs" caring who has this or that ancestry, who has expensive clothes, etc., but particular about language, expression, etc. Which is par for the course of being a writer, artist, or intellectual in general.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#219

Post by z3phyr » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #141

acqq wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a very different situation than we're in regarding post-Roman, pre-Carolingian Europe. There are hundreds of years in there where we have practically no documentary evidence for anything. It is even more specific. Eastern Roman Empire remained functional until it fell to the Ottomans in 1453 AD. But in Britain there were not even coins between the years 410 and 600 AD: http://www.numsoc.net/darkages.html "Hi…

The Dark Ages were very much regional, with separate areas undergoing their own eras of 'darkness' and losing communication with the rest of the world. Interestingly, Ireland during the 400's to 600's was something of a bastion of Catholicism and 'western/classical' thought in their monasteries. Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still v…

Pagan does not constitute dark. Most of the pagans recorded history when they were in power.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#220

Post by coldtea » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:49 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #95

colechristensen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Snobs in general tend to look down on people who … That in itself is snobbery. It's just fashion bouncing back and forth between hating on the poor and hating on the rich. One is fashionable until everyone does it then the opposite is in vogue. Are the cool kids today wearing factory-ripped jeans these days or are they hating on people who do? It is just stupid to say "this style is the only acceptable style and any…

> It is just stupid to say "this style is the only acceptable style and anyone doing anything different is an asshole". It isn't stupid. It's snobbery. If you denigrate straightforward writing as "barbaric", you're a snob, plain and simple. > Surface quality is boring, substance is important. My problem with overly-flowery writing is specifically that it's about style and not substance. If your goal is to educate or…

>If you denigrate straightforward writing as "barbaric", you're a snob, plain and simple.

It's "straightforward" for you and your era and culture. For others it's merely a plain and crude version of what could be better writing.