Well, if I may nitpick your nitpick ( ), I think we could call western Europe more chaotic than not, at least compared to the unified East Roman/Byzantine state.
Not only was the West Roman domains fractured under a series of separate Germanic kingdoms, kingdoms that were more or less in a constant state of border hostilities, but some of these states were fractured internally as well. The Merovingian state for example, quickly degenerated into to several virtually autonomous sub-kingdoms. Some areas, Italy as well as England ( and the Languedoc, Burgundy, Dacia/Pannonia - all the “border” regions ), were fought over repeatedly and suffered a fair bit of damage as a result. And even outside of England and Italy, urban centers, manufacturing, and continental trade routes all stagnated badly. Overall population levels definitely dropped.
Although I agree that there was a brief renaissance of sorts under the early Carolingians ( more political than cultural IMO ) from Charles Martel to Charlemagne, the return to centralized control was pretty brief. Charlemagne, for all his good qualities, was scarcely more than a successful warlord - Little different than my namesake . His “capital” ( he really didn’t even have one ) at Aix-la-Chapelle scarcely qualified as an urban center ( in Roman times it would have been considered a dinky country town ) and as you noted his empire was divided at his death and only briefly re-united afterwards.
I’ll certainly acknowledge that the shell of Roman civil burecracy lingered for quite some time, especially in the countryside. And some rural areas remained relatively undamaged. But I think a sloe degeneration set in almost at once and accelerated in later centuries. The 11th century probably was more of a mess. But compared to what had come before, and the conditions that prevailed in at least the core of the East ( even there, the Balkans were lost and largely transformed demographically ), western Europe post-Rome didn’t fair so well.
So how about a compromise - Western Europe’s plight in the post-Roman, pre-feudal era has been exaggerated. But it was still, relative to its past history and its neighbors to the East ( and south, once the Arabs arrived ), far less than it had been. And a little chaotic .
Well…my understanding differs from what you wrote on some points, like degenerating of Italy, Charlemagne, and probably more important "degeneration set in almost at once " (I must admit I’ve a very negative picture of the late roman empire and I’m kind off convinced it was really time for it to dissapear from the scene in the west, but IANAN, as I said). I do not intend to argue about that, however.
Also, I would point out that it’s kind of unfair to compare western europe with Byzance or the Arabic world. Concerning comparing Europe with what it was under Roman rule…well, once again, I’m really not convinced there was that much difference before/after.
As you probably guessed, I wrote this because the post I was responding to sounded like “There was the roman empire with Caesar and well-organized legions, then the barbarians spread chaos for 500 dark years before knights in shinny armors began to appear in XI° century”. Or so is what I read between the lines…But I didn’t intend to argue on the details.
((Did I mention that this late roman empire is so much lless interesting than these Wisigoth fellows or pretty mmuch anybody else who succeded to it?)
The name is “Karl der Grosse” or “Karl Magnus!” And his capitol as much as any was (and is) called Aachen. Karl was German. Aachen is on the Rheine. Granted, his language was a bit different from modern Hochdeutsch, but a German he was.
Well, I suppose I disagree. Comparing western Europe to their contemporaries and neighbors seems logical enough from my perspective. No different from comparing the Byzantine state to contemporary T’ang China, which I also think is perfectly reasonable. But it’s not a popularity contest - All of these areas are of interest to me.
In the west? I largely agree. I think the breakdown just continued, is all. It was a continuum and you’re right that I was a bit off by stating " slow degeneration set in almost at once", since it makes it seem like sound like there was no slide before. Mea culpa.
But I do think the disintegration of the Roman civil system accelerated as the last vestiges ( very vestigal vestiges, to be sure ) of centralized authority disappeared.
I agree this is a simplistic and inaccurate view.
Seventh grade geography. An assigned paper on the Visigoths hooked me on history forever .
But for me it’s AS interesting, not more or less . Now American history - That doesn’t do it for me as much.
Oh, to be sure . The center of his power, with a high concentration of crown estates, was always the Frankish core territories of Austrasia, along the Rhine, Moselle, and Meuse.
But by the treaty of Verdun in 843, the separation between “West Frankish” France and “East Frankish” Germany was already apparent and pretty much settled. So as much as he was a German king ( emperor ), at least one branch of his descendants weren’t within a generation or two.
Blame the German Carolingians for dieing off before the French Carolingians did .
I guess I was trying to characterise what others had defined as the ‘Dark Age’; I was not trying to define it myself. My OP did say that the term is not generally used any longer, but I should have been more clear that I was trying to frame what the term has generally been understood to mean. The OP states that the ‘Dark Age’ began in the 11th century, which is certainly not the traditional definition.
The reality (as you and Tamarlane point out) is obviously more complex, and your points are well taken.
The political aspects of the Roman collapse in the West is important but wasn’t the economic collapse actually more dramatic? It’s true that the vestiges of Roman administraton lingered for quite some time. (In fact, you could made a decent argument that the English feudal system was dimly based on the military administration left behind when the Romans abandoned Britain.) As I understand it, however, the economic collapse caused by invasion and the collapse of trade was more sudden and more damaging. It’s hard to compare economic outputs over a 1000 years, but by some measures you can argue that the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West ushered in an economic depression that didn’t end until about the 15th Century.
), I think we could call western Europe more chaotic than not, at least compared to the unified East Roman/Byzantine state.
. His “capital” ( he really didn’t even have one ) at Aix-la-Chapelle scarcely qualified as an urban center ( in Roman times it would have been considered a dinky country town ) and as you noted his empire was divided at his death and only briefly re-united afterwards.
. What a mess of a post shaking head.