Wrong place to start this sort of debate.The last true Roman Emperor was either Honorius, Glycerius, or Romulus Augustulus, depending on when you count the title of "Emperorship" vacant.
Don't derail threads like this.
Wrong place to start this sort of debate.The last true Roman Emperor was either Honorius, Glycerius, or Romulus Augustulus, depending on when you count the title of "Emperorship" vacant.
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.
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.
This is like arguing with a brick wall.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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 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.
Except scholars don't believe the "Dark Ages" were ever a thing.The Gothic War and subsequent Lombard Invasion are generally the point that the "Dark Ages" begin and late antiquity ended.
Outside of Italy, yes. I don't see how the power of the church makes the era particularly dark, though.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.
"Liberate" Italy from who? Justified or not, the Gothic War was a war of conquest, not a war of liberation.Justinian's completely valid attempt to liberate Italy came at great cost,
Okay?but a lot of the damage was Ostrogothic scorched earth tactics and plagues.
Serfdom was in place in the Roman Empire since the time of Diocletian and Constantine.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.
There was not a sudden drop-off in living standards between the 5th-9th centuries that merits the term Dark Ages.
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.