AHC: Less dark Dark Ages

By less dark, I mean less decline in population, urbanisation, education levels, long-distance trade, and the like. What would be the best way to achieve this?
 
Population increased 2,5 times in 1100 years during the medieval era. The share of European population compared to the world barely declined.
 
The trade decline happened in the Crisis of the Third Century, no?

Another question - when you say Dark Ages, do you mean the Early Middle Ages, ~500-1000? Or do you mean the entire Middle Ages, through 1500? Because even Italy had more people in 1500 than in the Roman era, despite not having an empire to tax into starvation.
 
Education levels? The supposed bright times before the Medieval Period had the Greeks and Romans living off of slaves, with entire countries being used for the betterment of single cities. Think of it as smearing a lot more of it around, but on a bigger piece of toast. Also, keep in mind the renaissance was partially people in that time period in Italy saying things had degenerated when non-Romans started to rule in different areas, so as to make their own accomplishments seem better.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
less death on Plague of Justinian

Arab failure to establish navy, thus less disruption of trade on Med
 
Dark Ages ? where did you see it was dark ? except late middle ages and beginning of Renaissance area this age wasnt as dark as his legend claim
 
Alright people, enough "Um... Actually they weren't dark, please check your facts.", let's actually do the scenario. A less dark ages probably means some Chinese technologies being introduced earlier, along with... I don't know... Maybe a big united French and German or Spanish empire to have a Pax Francia or something.
 
What I was taught in school and Age of Empires makes it seem like the Dark Ages were pretty much from the fall of Rome to about Charlemagne.

The British History Podcast went quite extensively about it and there was, at least in Britain, quite a contraction, including a devolution of power structures in the vacuum of Rome.

So Rome falls as OTL but somehow, what's after isn't as bad is the scenario here. It's not gonna be easy if your Po is after 476 as most of the problems originated there, what with the massive estates becoming independant more or less, after Diocletian's reforms.

What about the Church becoming interested in trade? They were the only stable structure that kept going OTL, maybe they become earlier banks like they did after the crusades or start creating militant orders to keep stability?

That way you'd get a unifying power much earlier
 
The trade decline happened in the Crisis of the Third Century, no?

Another question - when you say Dark Ages, do you mean the Early Middle Ages, ~500-1000? Or do you mean the entire Middle Ages, through 1500? Because even Italy had more people in 1500 than in the Roman era, despite not having an empire to tax into starvation.

I mean from the Late Romans to the Carolingian Renaissance. Roughly 400 to 800, say.

Trade took a hit during the 3rd-century crisis, to be sure, but it took another hit after the fall of Rome, reaching its nadir during the 700s.
 
What I was taught in school and Age of Empires makes it seem like the Dark Ages were pretty much from the fall of Rome to about Charlemagne.

The British History Podcast went quite extensively about it and there was, at least in Britain, quite a contraction, including a devolution of power structures in the vacuum of Rome.

So Rome falls as OTL but somehow, what's after isn't as bad is the scenario here. It's not gonna be easy if your Po is after 476 as most of the problems originated there, what with the massive estates becoming independant more or less, after Diocletian's reforms.

What about the Church becoming interested in trade? They were the only stable structure that kept going OTL, maybe they become earlier banks like they did after the crusades or start creating militant orders to keep stability?

That way you'd get a unifying power much earlier

Yeah, Britain did really badly after the Fall of Rome, probably worse than any other part of Western Europe.

The POD doesn't have to be after 476, as long as the Western Empire falls at roughly the same time as OTL.

Maybe an earlier invention of the horse collar would help? That would make it possible to grow more crops in the heavier soils of Britain, northern Gaul and Germany. More crops would lead to higher populations, likely leading to increased urbanisation, wealth and trade.
 
Less economic and demographic decline. The two are interconnected, so avoiding much of the political instability and the various population collapses (introduce some medical techniques earlier) would be very helpful.
 

scholar

Banned
The trade decline happened in the Crisis of the Third Century, no?
The Caliphate was far more damaging to the North Africa and Southern Mediterranean trade, taking a couple hundred years before it recovered - like with the Ummayad Caliphate in Spain.
 
Yeah, Britain did really badly after the Fall of Rome, probably worse than any other part of Western Europe.

The POD doesn't have to be after 476, as long as the Western Empire falls at roughly the same time as OTL.

Maybe an earlier invention of the horse collar would help? That would make it possible to grow more crops in the heavier soils of Britain, northern Gaul and Germany. More crops would lead to higher populations, likely leading to increased urbanisation, wealth and trade.

I'd argue North Africa did worse--some manner of decline was inevitable because of Roman-era deforestation and intensive agriculture, but the Arabs over the years made things far, far worse than they had to be.

But yes, the horse collar would help France, Germany, and the rest of Northern Europe etc. gain far more productivity and development.

For OP, you need an earlier, more widespread, and permanent Carolingian Renaissance.
 
Top