Another "dark age"

Personally, I don't quite buy it.
In spite of being in a poorer (to be nuanced considering the period) context, Late Antiquity/Early Middle-Ages is a period of really important cultural dynamism a: Roman legacy was digested on a large social scale for the first time, but you didn't just had the evolution of old Roman civilisation on new social-economical grounds, but emergences of new perspective.

I wouldn't call it a particularily elightened period, but it's certainly much better than the feudal anarchy of the IXth/early XIth centuries on several regards, but it's a period of intense creation and cultural life that wasn't restricted to palatial ensemble (as it happened with most of Carolingian period), which is to be tied with more or less important regionalisation and social autonomy of large groups (including lower classes). You might not quite buy it (and while I do agree with, I admit there's a necessary caution to not over-compensate), but it's essential to cover this part, especially because we lack the monumental artifacts that centuries of neo-classicism made western civilization think it was the marker of dynamic cultures.

You had something quite similar in the judgement of pre-Roman art and societies, necessarily judged less sophisticated and civilized (it can be observed even on this board) because it didn't fit our own perspective on Roman civilisation.
 
I believe there have been some pretty thorough studies into the trade goods of the era, and there is a marked decline in quantity quality and range when the Roman Empire fell. Using economic activity as a proxy for civilization definitely leads us to conclude that the Dark Ages were a thing.
 
I believe there have been some pretty thorough studies into the trade goods of the era, and there is a marked decline in quantity quality and range when the Roman Empire fell. Using economic activity as a proxy for civilization definitely leads us to conclude that the Dark Ages were a thing.
Indeed, there is no question that the fall of the western Roman state and its structural economy (unified coinage, investment, imperial manufacture, relative peace) and especially the collapse of the urban middle-class (which provoked the end of quality production between everyday and luxury trade). We're talking of less ceramics, metals and coinage in common use.
But economical regionalisation is already discernable by the IVth century at first in Romania's periphery (notably in Britain, which local production compensated the lesser imperial involvement), and expanded along the decline of the roman state in western Romania (altough it depended a lot of political event : Frankish Gaul avoided a lot of regionalisation as known in Spain or Italy) without real collapse so to speak : the general economical and commercial structures were still there by the VIth and were dominated by ERE.
The incapacity of Constantinople to really assume a similar role than the Late Empire (due to Romano-Persian wars at first) if not participating to the general destabilisation (as consequence of destructive Justinian ars) prevented IMO the possibility of a Mediterranean-based recovering in the VIth : eventually, Frankish Gaul got the best deal because it could count on the revival of North Sea trade in the same time which saw an increased trade in quality and quantity in Europe, while it remained stabler than its neighbours.

But I don't think this evolution was bound to happen : no Gothic wars, lesser Romano-Persian wars, no Arab conquests would be as many factors to see a recovering of Mediterranean-based links and models (such as the "Provencal system")in the VIth to VIIth centuries onward.

So, is this large crisis enough to call it a "Dark Age"? While I wholly agree we're talking about a poorer society, which had to make due with the still largely remaining Late Roman structures by adapting these to new realities, we're not talking about something comparable to say, the collapse of Late Bronze Age, or even the situation of post-Roman Great Britain which was the slow recovering of a ruined society both socially and economically.
Of course, taking in account only the economic factors (which does have to be taken in account, of course) would be a mistake but I think we agree on this.
 
Fat tends to rise to the surface of water when boiling meat and can be scooped off with ease. Its one of the easier ways to collect brown fat which is the kind found deeper in the body and not under the skin. It is more practical to boil meat rather than carve away at regions you think fat is located.

If skin is still on, then how exactly the fat is raising to the surface? Boiling meat usually involves taking skin off. Anyway, who reported this episode and what are the specifics?

Terror tactics are also rather impractical in action, but useful in execution (excuse the pun). The Assyrians put a lot of effort into their infliction of terror upon rebellious subjects. One rebel king was buried alive under the decapitated heads of his family and people, city ruins were decorated in impaled corpses. The desired effect is the same. To make people afraid of you so they may surrender quickly, though the Assyrians only had a stick and no carrot.

Unlike the Assyrians, the Mongols did not practice the mass impaling and flailing so the direct analogies are irrelevant. And in this case we are talking about the siege, which makes terror rather excessive: in most cases a resisting garrison would be put to sword, anyway. There is no need to repeat the stuff about the Mongolian propaganda: I'm well aware of it and curious just about this specific episode you brought up.
 
The same way you’d boil the fat out of any meat.

Bad analogy unless you are talking about boiling the whole cow with the hide intact. You need at least cut the <source> to the pieces before boiling which is kind of contradicting to the story about boiling alive.

Psychological warfare is irrelevant during the siege: the resisting garrison would be killed, anyway.
 
My point is that there is a correlation: both ends of the Eurasian civilization went into serious decline in a similar time frame. Not exact, mind you, but with some serious overlap.

They went into the period of serious changes but, as was initially defined, criteria for the "Dark Ages" was a significant drop of the Latin language writings. The snobs who introduced the term were not bothering with the lowly things like economy or technology and, basically, considered everything not Roman or classic Greek (including, IIRC, the Gothic architecture) as barbaric and to be dismissed. Of course, it goes without a saying that there was no such a thing as unified or even remotely uniform "Eurasian civilization", that most of the territory never had been covered by the Roman culture and as such can't be convincingly classified as Antiquity, Dark Ages, Middles Ages, or Renaissance. As for the former Roman territories, I don't see how scenario of the extended Mongolian penetration into Europe would create the new "Dark Age" (within the original definition): with all their cruelty the Mongols had been actively promoting communications within their empire, extensively used the educated people from all regions and explicitly were putting the religious institutions and personnel under Khan's protection. Probably even the Italian intellectual snobs could benefit from the improved communications with the rest of the world (well, I would not bet on it ;)).

As for the more or less simultaneous declines, there are theories linking explosive activities of the nomadic nations (and the following domino effects) to the climate changes in the Great Steppe. Lev Gumilev was one of the proponents of that view. IIRC (and I don't remember too much of it), the schema looks as following. During the wet periods, steppe can support more of a livestock and, as a result, people. During the following dry period, these "extra people" have to go somewhere because their native territory can't support them. It can be right or it can be wrong, I have no idea. However, within this general schema if there is a big enough "move" somewhere in the CA, then the sedentary civilizations on both sides of the steppe area may suffer the consequences and there can be a chain reaction going beyond the immediate impact zone. Then again, "decline" is a tricky issue and can be defined based upon more than one criteria. There were even "nomadic enthusiasts" (for example, the same Gumilev) who argued that the nomadic cultures were not "lower" than sedentary ones, just different with the different priorities. So, one basically has a wide variety of the views to chose from.
 
I believe there have been some pretty thorough studies into the trade goods of the era, and there is a marked decline in quantity quality and range when the Roman Empire fell. Using economic activity as a proxy for civilization definitely leads us to conclude that the Dark Ages were a thing.

There is a minor problem: the term was coined within a strictly cultural context (usage of the Greek and Latin languages) and adding to it economic activity is an arbitrary (I'm not saying "wrong") change of the initial meaning. :)
 
Bad analogy unless you are talking about boiling the whole cow with the hide intact. You need at least cut the <source> to the pieces before boiling which is kind of contradicting to the story about boiling alive.

Psychological warfare is irrelevant during the siege: the resisting garrison would be killed, anyway.

Yes, the most efficient way to render fat from meat does involve cutting up the meat. I don’t think they were going for efficiency in rendering, though.

And you could get the job done without doing that.
 
If skin is still on, then how exactly the fat is raising to the surface? Boiling meat usually involves taking skin off. Anyway, who reported this episode and what are the specifics?

Boiling meat usually involves taking skin off, but that would leave a rather disappointing ham at Christmas (I had to keep an eye on the ham boiling as a kid). Perhaps you should relay this line of inquiry to a chef as I see no further reason to delve into it besides a source and page number I provided you with in the last page detailing the incident (one of four apparently).

Chrisitans also used to boil martyrs and saints to 'clean' the bodies so they could get relics like bones, as they have a tendency to keep better. I dont recall an in depth description of the practice.

Unlike the Assyrians, the Mongols did not practice the mass impaling and flailing so the direct analogies are irrelevant. And in this case we are talking about the siege, which makes terror rather excessive: in most cases a resisting garrison would be put to sword, anyway. There is no need to repeat the stuff about the Mongolian propaganda: I'm well aware of it and curious just about this specific episode you brought up.

Tamerlane flayed quite a number of hindus conquering india. But I digress. You brushing aside the comparison I offered makes no sense in regards to your question. You asked about psychological warfare and I supplied you with a variety of equivalent events were excessive violence and terror were meted out to a besieged populace. Commanders both besieging and defending cities would regularly execute people within view of their enemies to invoke a response. I am unsure why the mongols doing this seems strange to you given their experience of siege warfare. You are looking for logic in acts of frustrated violence. As I offered you several incidents in the historical record of commanders torturing or killing enemies during a siege in view of the people to show them what will happen to them more as an act of anger than reason. Agathocles of Syracuse takes the crown for sheer cruelty. If you're curious feel free to look for it.

Empires are not built or maintained by Timidity. Brutality builds Empires. Nobody stumbles into Imperial power by accident (despite what Livy says).

There is lilittle point in continuing as the tangent of this thread has already went off course, so I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Tamerlane flayed quite a number of hindus conquering india. But I digress.

Well, Timur, while formally sticking to the Mongolian legacy, was not following Mongolian practices of the XIII century so this is not quite relevant.


You brushing aside the comparison I offered makes no sense in regards to your question. You asked about psychological warfare

IIRC, I did not ask you question about the Mongolian psychological warfare or psychological warfare in general.
 
Yes, the most efficient way to render fat from meat does involve cutting up the meat. I don’t think they were going for efficiency in rendering, though.

And you could get the job done without doing that.


Well, as far as I can tell from the supplied information, the purpose was to get fat to create the firebombs (probably they run out of other flammable materials). In other words, efficiency was the most important component. Cutting <whatever> to the pieces and boiling it is much more efficient then boiling the uncut <whatever>.
 
So, is this large crisis enough to call it a "Dark Age"? While I wholly agree we're talking about a poorer society, which had to make due with the still largely remaining Late Roman structures by adapting these to new realities, we're not talking about something comparable to say, the collapse of Late Bronze Age, or even the situation of post-Roman Great Britain which was the slow recovering of a ruined society both socially and economically.
Of course, taking in account only the economic factors (which does have to be taken in account, of course) would be a mistake but I think we agree on this.
Why did Britain experience such a big decline anyway?
 
Why did Britain experience such a big decline anyway?
Allow me to cross-post from another thread, if you will, keeping in mind this is a rough summary.

Eventually it all comes down to the nature of roman rule in Britain. We know that romanisation was, rather than a systemic acculturation, a more or less deepened creolisation of provincial society based on political integration and an extensive trade and use of material culture (what we could call a "Roman-way-of-life"). Some people were latinized in the process (such as in Gaul), some were romanized along their own organised network and cultural structures (basically all the eastern Romania) and for some it was relatively more limited.
It was the case of Roman Britain that, up to the early IVth century, was essentially a military province for what mattered Rome with a significant urban/latifundar romanisation happening mosrly in the South (and not everywhere in the South) while most of the roman structures in the province depending from military presence for exchanges, subsides, etc. Would have the empire fallen in the Third Century crisis, post-Roman Britain would have significantly less structures inherited from the Empire, being closer to Illyricum on this regard.

Still, things changed a bit after the IVth century because Brittonic society really began to romanize itself due to the need to compensate for the end of heavily militarized provincialism : more and more local products were exchanged, cities were less monumental but practically tought and well-maintained. Basically, a crisis managment that, so far, did work out without making Roman Britain sort of Roman Gaul expy, but his own things with pre-conquest structures (which never really disappeared, especially in peripheral regions) being integrated and integrating imperial feature.
It didn't last this long : Britain was targeted by neighbouring peoples such as Scotti or Pictii. These weren't newcomers but confederations of Gaelic and Brythonic peoples that appeared one century before, both to defend themselves, and to manage long-range raids. Let's say they weren't happy with the lesser ammount of their subsides so far regularily payed by the Empire and as Rome withdrawed troops from the island to make up for the lack of manpower on the continent, well, they raided the heck out of the province.
Note that it's possible that you already had Saxons in southern Britain, as foedi or laeti in the Litus Saxonnorum (Saxon Shore). Robin Fleming disagrees, but I'm not really convinced by the arguments : it was common enough in the IIIrd/IVth century Gaul, so I could really see a Saxon coast guards against Saxon piracy, a bit like Normands in 911. Anyway.

It thus happened that Britto-Roman society was significantly weakened, and eventually Constantine III took with him the last regular troops, and Rome had no choice but to say "Well, you're on your own now.".
This being said, you certainly still had militias in Britain, probably with some comitatenses and more-than-token cavalry. But eventually, the only direct authority was gone, and you had a mosaic of municipal authorities, generals and capitains turned warlords, peasant communities and big landowners.
This alone was pretty much destructing but Britto-Roman society still had contact with the Roman state, notably by its presence in Vth century Gaul : Riotomagus (probably more of a title than a name, I'll come back to this) had an important strategical and military role in Northern Gaul.
But the collapse of the Roman state in the west was another taken shot : this fall was felt with particularly destructing effects up to Scandinavia where appeared all the signs of geopolitical anarchy and renewed warfare. Britain basically lived trough two fall of Rome.

At this point, this much is clear archeologically, Britto-Roman society as I described is in ruins, not just trough raiding but by sheer exhaustion and relative inability of the elites to exchange with the continent. Still viable ruins, granted, but ruins nevertheless.
When Germans came "en masse" (relatively wise), they didn't as much ignored or fought Roman structures that they didn't found much of these.to being with : most first groups of migrants (from all the North Sea, most probably Saxons in majority,, but including Angles, Danes, Franks, Jutes, Norses, Frisii, etc.), or at best found them while they were collapsing. While some probably came as foedi, against Picts and Gaels, possibly against Armorican Saxons as well; most were coming as familial communities as Slavs did in the VIth century eastern Europe; not caring at the latest of collapsing imperial structures.

They mixed with remaining Britto-Roman structures and communities (Eastern Anglo-Saxon kingdoms essentially espoused early Britto-Roman entities), and took the lead thanks to better connections with the mainland : namely they were at the finish end of Channel/North Sea trade roads to Mediterranean Sea trough Gaul, which they did not only geographically but with remaining ties with kin communities in Gaul and Germania.
From there, relatively acephalic and tribal ensemble mixing up with relatively acephalic and territorial ensemble of eastern Britto-Romans, it allowed German leaders to take the presidence over economic matters and mobilising capacities; while Germans (especially in North-Eastern and Southern Britain) already had an edge as mercenaries or more militarized societies (due in no small part to the collapse of Northern Germanic ensembles with the fall of Rome).
 
Last edited:
A disease that kills horses, oxen and cattle could do severely damage the transportation and Trade network as well as agriculture.
That could make it happen.
The discovery of the new world would be a point of introduction

That's actually a very good POD. The African rinderpest outbreak of 1890 killed most of the cattle, oxen, sheep, goats, and similar wild animals south of the Zambezi and completely decimated southern Africa. A third of Ethiopia and two thirds of the Maasai people starved to death. Even the idea of "wild" Africa that we know today only exists because populations and agriculture were so devastated. It collapsed political systems across the region.

The same level and type of disease hitting Eurasia would cause tens of millions to starve and make many cities unsustainable, even in areas not devoted to heavy animal husbandry.
 
Top