Why do people believe that the revival of Greco-Roman civilization happened in the Renaissance?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The last true Roman Emperor was either Honorius, Glycerius, or Romulus Augustulus, depending on when you count the title of "Emperorship" vacant.
Wrong place to start this sort of debate.

Don't derail threads like this.
 
I can perhaps see it from 500 to c. 750, but I don't see how the empire of Charlemagne could be a "dark" period.

Because the supposed Empire didn't last very long, it disintegrated after a few generations. They really should have changed the secession rules.
 
Because the supposed Empire didn't last very long, it disintegrated after a few generations. They really should have changed the secession rules.

They certainly should have done, but I don't think the brevity of Charlemagne's empire is enough to call it a dark age. A brief flash of brightness is still bright.
 
They certainly should have done, but I don't think the brevity of Charlemagne's empire is enough to call it a dark age. A brief flash of brightness is still bright.

I think it's more fair to say they're the exception that proves the rule, Charlemagne's Empire was only remarkable in that it wasn't completely a hellhole of despair, famine and poverty. Comparatively it was inferior to the Eastern Empire of the time, let alone the Empires of antiquity. It's length of course also makes it hard to say that this was the end of the dark ages. Consider that immediately after the viking raids began.
 
I think it's more fair to say they're the exception that proves the rule, Charlemagne's Empire was only remarkable in that it wasn't completely a hellhole of despair, famine and poverty. Comparatively it was inferior to the Eastern Empire of the time, let alone the Empires of antiquity. It's length of course also makes it hard to say that this was the end of the dark ages. Consider that immediately after the viking raids began.
What defines the dark ages though? There isn't any noticeable drop in living standards in Italy until Justinian's war of conquest absolutely wrecked the peninsula. The Franks largely just took over existing Roman administration in the region, replacing Roman administrators with Franks and co-opting the local Roman elite. The only area where you can really claim a dark ages existed Is Britain, and even that's disputable.
 
They ERE was Roman as the Holy Roman Empire (read: not very). Greek is not synonymous to Roman. And furthermore, the OP IS talking about wrestern Europe.

The Roman Empire was highly Hellenized from the very beginning - hell, even before Rome existed, Latium was highly Hellenized. You literally cannot separate Greek culture from Roman culture.
 
What defines the dark ages though? There isn't any noticeable drop in living standards in Italy until Justinian's war of conquest absolutely wrecked the peninsula. The Franks largely just took over existing Roman administration in the region, replacing Roman administrators with Franks and co-opting the local Roman elite. The only area where you can really claim a dark ages existed Is Britain, and even that's disputable.

There are some pretty strong inaccuracies in your post

The Gothic War and subsequent Lombard Invasion are generally the point that the "Dark Ages" begin and late antiquity ended. However to say there was no drop in living standards in Italy isn't true either, the Vandal's sacking and subsequent sporadic warfare in the 5th century caused damage. The Vandal's sack disrupted the Western Roman Government to a massive extent. It would be accurate to say that the imperial administration was beginning to evaporate by the earlier 5th century and was mostly being replaced by the church. Justinian's completely valid attempt to liberate Italy came at great cost, but a lot of the damage was Ostrogothic scorched earth tactics and plagues. The Franks were opportunistic invaders who fought the legitimate Roman successors, and the lack of security resulted in the rise of serfdom and the devastation of the countryside. Britain's dark age was pretty strong, although the Romano-Britons tried to hold it together.
 
What defines the dark ages though? There isn't any noticeable drop in living standards in Italy until Justinian's war of conquest absolutely wrecked the peninsula. The Franks largely just took over existing Roman administration in the region, replacing Roman administrators with Franks and co-opting the local Roman elite. The only area where you can really claim a dark ages existed Is Britain, and even that's disputable.
The Dark Ages were probably when people became ignorant and lost the knowledge in civilization. The buildings became simpler and the people became poorer. Institutions broke down as well when this happened.
 
The Dark Ages were probably when people became ignorant and lost the knowledge in civilization. The buildings became simpler and the people became poorer. Institutions broke down as well when this happened.
This view of the period following the fall of the western roman empire went out of fashion in historiography at least half a century ago.

The Gothic War and subsequent Lombard Invasion are generally the point that the "Dark Ages" begin and late antiquity ended.
Except scholars don't believe the "Dark Ages" were ever a thing.

It would be accurate to say that the imperial administration was beginning to evaporate by the earlier 5th century and was mostly being replaced by the church.
Outside of Italy, yes. I don't see how the power of the church makes the era particularly dark, though.

Justinian's completely valid attempt to liberate Italy came at great cost,
"Liberate" Italy from who? Justified or not, the Gothic War was a war of conquest, not a war of liberation.



but a lot of the damage was Ostrogothic scorched earth tactics and plagues.
Okay?

The Franks were opportunistic invaders who fought the legitimate Roman successors, and the lack of security resulted in the rise of serfdom and the devastation of the countryside.
Serfdom was in place in the Roman Empire since the time of Diocletian and Constantine.


The problem with the Dark Ages hypothesis, as it is touted in the present day, is it compares early medieval Europe with the Roman Empire during the height of the Pax Romana. Of course, when compared to 100 CE, living standards, urbanization, and population levels, were lower. But that was a process that occurred over the last few centuries of the western half of the Roman Empire. There was not a sudden drop-off in living standards between the 5th-9th centuries that merits the term Dark Ages.
 
Last edited:
It seem to me that the problem people run into are that large scale infrastructure was left in ruins or decay and not rebuild to the same degree as under the Roman Empire, but at the same time, there was pretty impressive improvements in other technological areas. I would say it pretty legitimate to call a era, where the central authorities collapse and are replaced with a lot of local governments, for a Dark Age. If USA began a collapse tomorrow together with the rest of the world and ended up Balkanised into 567 state in 500 years with significant warfare between the different post-collapse states and much of the existing social structure collapsed. I would call it Dark Age even if the post-collapse people had individual fusion reactors in their home and flying cars. I just saw a video about the Bronze Age collapse by Extra History (it was pretty interesting), and one of the interesing aspect they mentioned was the spread of iron afterward, but didn't go deeper into.
My own thoughts; we tend to think of iron as a technological improvement to bronze, but the main benefit of iron are that you don't need a major trade network to upkeep iron technology. If you have some fuel and a nearby swarm you have what you need to upkeep a iron age civilisation. This made the spread of iron after a collapse of the trading network rather logical, but also enable much smaller states. In the same way many of the post-Roman improvements was improvements which enable civilisation to survive without being part of a massive and mostly peaceful state.
 
There was not a sudden drop-off in living standards between the 5th-9th centuries that merits the term Dark Ages.

I think that the general public that buys the "Dark Ages" term tend to make a direct comparison between the urban middle class of the 1st and 2nd centuries and the serfs of the British Isles during the 8th and 9th centuries, not between the slaves in the latifundia in Italy and the serfs in the fields of the same region two, five, or nine hundred years later.
 
Why do people believe that the revival of Greco-Roman civilization in Italy happened in the Renaissance? Because it was part of a process that had been happening since the c500/c600s.

The way I see it, is everyone wanted to have kudos of "wanna be" Roman Empire after the Empire fell in the West. So with the Carolingians we have the

Carolingian Renovatio (780s-1000s) which seems to concentrate on Christianisation (giving you Latin, Clerks/clerics and administration) and early forms of architecture/infrastructure ( - don't forget the Northumbrian Renaissance where the Old English discovered how to hold stone-working chisels :) ) ;

Later from the c1000s to 1440s there is the Latin-Medieval Industrial Revolution phase (Universities, waterwheels, increased trade, book-keeping and limited Hermetic ideas);

Then you have the impact of the fall of Romanian Empire and the moving westward of the Morean Renaissance, the Neo-Platonic Greek phase. Seriously Hermetic with new data management tool - printing.

Then from the 1440s to the 1530s (1530s begin the Reformation and the Wars of Religion) is what I call the High Renaissance where all the developments, skills and knowledge of the previous periods were integrated and synthesised (Hermeticised I guess) into breaking new ground of human endeavour and creativity as well as discovering new insights & understandings and new systems of thought.

Anyway that is my thumbnail sketch - I hope it helps in someway.
 
This view of the period following the fall of the western roman empire went out of fashion in historiography at least half a century ago.


Except scholars don't believe the "Dark Ages" were ever a thing.


Outside of Italy, yes. I don't see how the power of the church makes the era particularly dark, though.


"Liberate" Italy from who? Justified or not, the Gothic War was a war of conquest, not a war of liberation.




Okay?


Serfdom was in place in the Roman Empire since the time of Diocletian and Constantine.


The problem with the Dark Ages hypothesis, as it is touted in the present day, is it compares early medieval Europe with the Roman Empire during the height of the Pax Romana. Of course, when compared to 100 CE, living standards, urbanization, and population levels, were lower. But that was a process that occurred over the last few centuries of the western half of the Roman Empire. There was not a sudden drop-off in living standards between the 5th-9th centuries that merits the term Dark Ages.

Except this view never went "out of fashion", it's still a widespread and accepted understanding of the situation in the Empire at the time. I could point to several contemporary works that confirm that view, I don't know where you're getting this idea that the fact the buildings did in fact not become simpler. It's also a fact institutions did in fact begin to evaporate along with the bureaucracy.

"Scholars don't believe the dark ages aren't a thing" except we do, and it's backed up by contemporary historiography. I explained above how "dark age" covers the period from late antiquity to the early medieval ages. Some particular scholars have taken to disparaging the term, but this by far not the opinion of the majority of historians. I've seen a lot of anti "dark age" views come wrapped in a blanket of christian apologism.


The bureaucracy in italy was itself damaged during Alaric's sack of Rome. The Church "replacing" the bureaucracy was akin to them simply taking a role left empty. They were not as competent or as capable or even as literate as the previous administration. Their primary goals were escalastical.


The Eastern Roman Empire under the last legitimate Emperor was liberating the Italy from Germanic Barbarian invaders. The Italian campaign was meant to be a prelude to liberating the entirety of the Western Empire. Unfortunately plague struck.

The institution of serfdom formed during the Diocletian era, often replacing the large populations of slaves whom worked in agriculture. However there were still massive urban populations made up of citizens and property owners. There was still a middle class, and the trade network which ensured a varied selection of goods throughout the empire persisted. After the Western Empire collapsed, that network mostly melted away as well as the security provided by imperial forces. Banditry, chaos and violence spread, causing people to flee the cities and towns and sign themselves as serfs to germanic lords for protection.

You claim that there was a consistent decline, but I counter with the fact the Empire for the most part began to recover from the crisis of the 2nd century. The economy was established again and stability returned to the provinces. Institutions were still relatively strong and some areas were prospering. There was a clear drop in living conditions from lets say 395AD and 550AD
 
The Renaissance is a lot like the Reformation, in that it's a thing historians made up as a transitional period to differentiate the early modern from the medieval. There were many radicals and dissidents before Luther, like the Waldensians, Savonarola, and many other examples. They drew on the same disillusionment as Luther and the other Reformation leaders, but it has become a convention to define "the Reformation" as beginning with Luther's actions, and not Peter Waldo's. I think there are two main reasons for this, and this also applies to the Renaissance.

Scale. "The Reformation" radically reshaped Christianity all over Europe. It is easy to see anything that came before as fringe and of little importance.

The quest for Modernity. The Reformation is easy to point to as a milestone in the modernization of the west, and Protestantism is still an important force in some places in the west.

The same things apply to the Renaissance. It's easy to see the Renaissance as part of a process that gave birth to the modern world. You can draw a line from Renaissance humanism to the Reformation, to the Enlightenment, to the development of individualism, capitalism, and modernity. The Carolingian renaissance just doesn't have this sex appeal, nor did it have the scale of the Renaissance that gave us Leonardo and Erasmus. It belongs to the middle ages, not modernity.

So there were multiple reformations and renaissances, but they dont get the attention the main ones do because they didn't alter the face of western civilization to the same extent, and it's not as easy to see ourselves in them.
 
Top