Skpeticism, Popular Historical Myths, and the "Dark Ages".

[Odin2005]

We often talk in this group about popular nonsense involving pseudoscience and illogic, but such nonsense is just as common in historical thinking as well. I've recently been on a kick of reading up on stuff about the history and archeology of Europe in the period from AD 1 and AD 1000 and it hit me simply how utterly wrong popular conceptions of the so-called "Dark Ages" really are.

To start with, it is true that a lot of classical knowledge was lost, but in the former Western Roman Empire this was NOT because of Christianity, as popularly thought. Instead it was because in the Classical world scientific and philosophical knowledge was almost exclusively limited to the Old Classical Aristocracy. This Aristocracy was supported by a set of socioeconomic structures (slavery, commercial plantation agriculture, Mediterranean trade, uniform government across the Mediterranean region, government spending propping up distant Roman cities). When the Western Empire collapsed this socioeconomic structure failed. Economies were forced to become more local. Cities shrunk because the bureaucratic functions they supported became superfluous, they were not natural centers of trade like the cities of Late Medieval Europe. The Old Classical Aristocracy merged with the Germanic Warrior Aristocracy, one's social position became based on one's ability to raise and lead a fighting force with one's own income, and later to afford the equipment, training, and free time associated with the heavy cavalrymen that would become known as "knights".

The decay of the Roman infrastructure was because of the same thing, the socioeconomic system collapsed, maintaining the infrastructure became impossible, and the practical training needed for making such structures was lost from lack of use. In fact the socioeconomic complexity in much of the Western Empire outside Italy, Tunisia, and eastern Spain was not self-sustaining, it was artificially imposed by Roman military might

Meanwhile in Germania things were totally different. The late Roman period and the "Dark Ages" were a period of rapid development and social transformation. From AD 1 to AD 400 Germania advances from a simple extensive "slash-and-burn type of agriculture to a more intensive one using cattle manure and other techniques for fertilizing the soil. Then during the "Dark Ages" a heavy iron plow that could turn over the rich soil of the Northern European Plain was developed. And finally at the end of the "Dark Ages" the 3-Field system of crop rotation was developed. While the population of the Western Empire was shrinking the population of Germania was growing rapidly. As populations grew there was a shift towards more specialized manufacture of pottery and weapons. State formation was well underway by the AD 300s and a system of military kingship based on taxing harvests developed. The results were predictable.

Another thing to note is that before 800 the major social distinction was not between nobles and commoners, but between serf and non-serf. In the early Middle Ages the social system had no yet hardened to the caste-based system of later times. The big change came in the 800s as an aristocratic ideology began to develop and free peasants became barred from military service. This was encouraged by the spread of Frankish power eastward and the Saxons and Bavarians were subjected to Frankish rule. This was also when Feudalism in the strict sense developed, as lesser landowners sought the protection of greater landowners as the unity of the Frankish kingdom went to pot and Viking raids got worse.

It is tempting to twist and misinterpret history to fit into contemporary ideologies and for use in moralizing. It is something that should be avoided.

[salvorhardin]

1. self-delete

Don't feel like getting into a poo flinging contest over a popular DU cultural icon.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Actually L, I welcome your response.

I hope Odin will feel the same since you would be criticizing the meme instead of him.

All of us have been intrigued by alternative pov's at one time or another (conspiracy theories for example), only to find out that they've been totally debunked long before we laid eyeballs on them.

I understand if you don't want to get into it here and now, but I want you to know how grateful I am for what you've taught me about critical thought, real skepticism and the reasons why some humans will always be sucked in by alternative "theories".

You taught me how to research and find the (almost always) bigoted roots of pop conspiracy culture and I admire your dedication as you continue to teach others.

You try to rise above the "poo flinging" that I enjoy so much in this group and in the main forums, (no one loves a woo chew toy more than I) and it's obvious that you seek to inform rather than just mock, so please don't hold back.

I lurk here when I can and enjoy reading posts from all of the skeptics, but I will always have a soft spot for you.

You rock, dude.