Present day historians tend to dismiss the idea of the Dark Ages as a time period that occurred in Western Europe after the fall of the western Roman Empire. The Wikipedia entry on the Dark Ages. In terms of the average person, however weren’t the 6th through 10th centuries in Western Europe a worse place to live in than during the heyday of the Roman Empire, as well as compared to the Islamic world of the same time period?
That being said, if you had to choose one of the following three places/times during which to have lived your life, which of these do you think would have been the worst?
London in the 2nd century CE.
London during the 9th century CE.
Baghdad during the 9th century CE.
If I had to choose one of the three places to live, 9th century London would be at the bottom of the list.
What am trying to demonstrate with scenario? That there really was a period of time after the fall of the western Roman Empire during which the average person was worse off than their ancestors that lived during the height of the Roman Empire. If so, why shouldn’t that time period be recognized as a Dark Age?
I think that the problem with calling it the Dark Ages is that it covers too broad a time period and too broad a geographic period. From what I recall it covers the fall of Rome to the Renaissance and pretty anything that was the Roman Empire and beyond. Additionally, it ignores the Eastern Roman Empire and whatever was happening there as well as the Arab World.
In history “dark” means that there are no, or few, written records.
That is what is usually meant by the period in question. Most of Europe was illiterate during this time. A trend that didn’t completely reverse until the Renaissance. Therefore Historians have a difficult time knowing exactly what was going on, since there are few contemporary accounts.
The real question, I think, is when did the European Dark ages end? It was probably well before what we think of as the Renaissance. The “Dark Ages”, at least in England and France, more faded away than came to an abrupt end as institutions again developed a bureaucracy.
London in the 2nd century CE is not the dark ages.
Baghdad during the 9th century CE was not really in the dark ages as Europe was. Baghdad was actually a center of learning in this time period. It was quite prosperous and probably one of the safer cities to live in, in the 9th century.
The Roman London of the 2nd century would be a reasonable 2nd choice. I believe it had fairly clean water at least and no major warfare. The good solid Roman wall was built early in this century or just before it.
London of the 9th Century was the most dangerous and primitive of the 3 choice I believe.
I went 2nd century but basically I’ve always found the first three centuries CE interesting and at least there I have some idea what to expect. I don’t know that it would be better, but the old “Devil I know” excuse.
The Vikings raided London in 842 and 851. Baghdad was besieged around 812 and 865. I guess you’d have to say when in the 9th century, as I’d like to avoid most of that. As far as language goes, I’d be screwed in any of the cases, as English was rather Vikingish in 9th century.
Least of all Baghdad; I would detest Theocratic government by christians or muslims; and am antipathetic to Islamic culture anyway: as with medicine the skills and beauties of that area were due to it being in the Middle East, ever the centre of the world, rather than to their religion. It was like putting deeply ignorant 19th century mormons or voortrekkers in charge of 21st century Washington.
2nd century London rather dull, 9th century no worse than any other large town — and not as awful as 10th century France — but I’d prefer 9th century Byzantium to any of them, real civilization.
It’s tempting to idealize or demonize any past era, but actually most life was just dull; whether you were a Japanese peasant rice grower, a monk stuck with a bunch of others in a cold abbey or a Tartar warrior screwing one’s horse for a bit of human contact.
According to Hyamson, there were a few Jews in England at that time, and they got on OK
in the year 833, Whitglaff, King of the Mercians, having
been defeated by Egbert, took refuge in that Abbey,
and, in return for the protection and assistance
rendered him by the abbot and monks on the occasion,
granted a charter confirming “to them all lands,
tenements, and possessions, and all other gifts which
had at any time been bestowed upon them by his
predecessors or their nobles, or by any other faithful
Christians or by Jews.”
although I would have guessed the nearest were in Marseilles and most people think William I brought them along with him from Normandy. During the ‘Dark Ages’ anti-Semitic agitation in West Europe was minimal whilst Wiki says: *Schweitzer and Perry give as examples of early Muslim antisemitism: 9th-century “persecution and outbreaks of violence”; *
And most people bathed before the early modern period.
Nothing wrong with calling it a dark age. Depends on where you are, though. The point is that there wasn’t A Dark Age, valid everywhere. It was a local phenomenon. Some places went to shit for a while, sure. Britain had a dark age, that’s fine. Just don’t think it was the case for everyone, is all.
I thought Baghdad was razed or something in the 9th Century … the Mongol invasion …
9th Century London was under Anglo-Saxon control, nice place if your Anglo-Saxon, sort of
2nd Century London was Roman controlled … best IMEIO …
The Dark Ages in England were “dark” because of the lack of written documents from that time … there’s some but not enough to really piece together the affairs of the Anglo-Saxons … it’s as though the Romans took written language when they left and it wasn’t until the Normans came that written language returned …
Alternately … the Anglo-Saxons might have destroyed all the earlier British texts and then the Normans destroyed all the Anglo-Saxon texts … that’s something of a common feature of history … about all we have is Gildas of Brittany writing in sub-Roman times … unless you believe Geoffrey of Monmouth writing in the 12th Century, it is possible that Geoffrey just simple made-up all that stuff about King Arthur …
Ah, thank you for that correction … that leaves 9th Century Baghdad in a bit better standing … except for the aqueducts, public sanitation, safe streets, roads … etc etc etc …
Interesting that half of the dopers thought Baghdad would be the worst place to live. 9th Century London would be the worst for sure, and 9th Century Baghdad the best on many counts, especially for women, who were given the right to inherit property, and to retain it in marriage. This was a big deal. How many British dramas have we seen in which the oldest son inherits the entire estate and the women are left penniless?