A "real" dark age

A common myth about the middle ages was that the old greek/roman knowledges were shunned because they were pagan and whatnot, and that instead everything was replaced with christian dogma.

But in reality of course medieval Europe was a real romeaboo place and desperately tried to make greco-roman worldview compatible with their new christian faith.

How could we make this myth real? We'd need a church that is both stronger than otl in it's early phases, and hostile towards roman culture, so maybe if a mostly non-roman church (like arianism) became the biggest one instead of Catholicism/Chalcedonianism?
 
How exactly was Arianism non-Roman? Otl, Arianism was once the dominant Chrisitian sect in the Mediterranean, having it replacing the Papacy, does not mean that Europe is less Roman. The only way I can see your point is if, Arianism was controlled directly by the Western Emperor and thus upon its collapse, the Church hierarchy collapsed and with that, much of the entire religious structure is pummeled by the collapse. Much is spoken of about the Papacy, but its ability to hold a sort of dominant power in religious affairs after 730 CE, is partly what renewed the Middle Ages and through it, a continuity and synthesis was solidified after the collapse of the Western empire, between the Germanic liege lords and the former Roman subjects. The Papacy was important in this affair as Innocent III would later stipulate, referring to the idea that the Papacy through its powers of excommunication, interdiction and translatio imperii, were the effective land lords over Europe and as such gifted legitimacy and a conception of societal cohesiveness, that otherwise would not have existed or have been dependent upon secular unification, which became all too elusive.

You say a Church that is stronger, the Church was most certainly strong otl. In 727-734, the Papacy ousted the Byzantine emperor in the Exarchate and played the kingmaker across Europe. This was anything but a weak Papacy in the Dark Ages, although not necessarily a dominant Papacy as with Innocent III.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't need to be arianism, I'm not really arguing whether or not it was a roman sect or not, but it struck me as an example or a christian sect that wasn't actively promoted and controlled by the roman state.
 
Top