Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
*applause all round*
Hope that helps.
But it's normally used for the period between Roman occupation of Britain and the Norman conquest (roughly), as there was a dearth of historical information about the period, and it was seen as a period of "dark" against the "lighter" periods of Rome and the High medieval period. We believed we knew little about it, so thats why you get things like the arthurian legends being set in this era.
It's basically a bit of a bullshit term, used to describe one of the most interesting periods of mass migration into this country. Just a shame that the historical record is so weak in places.
When Kant and Hume and all them started saying hey fuck religion this science stuff is better, and then theocracies started being disposed of in favour of more secular rule across Europe
And everyone got on board with it and actual progress happened, and then we went back to arguing about religion again.
Started going fuck that was a time of intellectual darkness and economic regression that supposedly occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire fuck me lets not do that again
Bit out with the guesstimation there then.
we had that "divine right of kings" nonsense in Europe until well into the 19th century
and william the conqueror arriving, it was the domesday book.
Dark ages in britain specifically usually refers to the time of which we have little or no records, i.e no documents or paintings or anything, cos saxons and vikings were rubbish at that.
Will Conq came along, realised he hadn't got a clue what he'd actually just taken on, so commissioned the domesday book to log *everything* and basically start bureaucracy (the useful kind).
and future historians make out like everyone was just fucking about not writing books and drawing pictures
tell me more
Everywhere I go all I hear is, "The Enlightenment this, The Enlightenment that".
Everyone's starting to sound like so many de Botton's
(though *I* call him "de Bottom"!)
Largely to blame for the fucked up system we now live in.
my real question, and i believe that it's almost certainly based on misunderstandings and assumptions, is this:
IF there existed a period of history in which the scientific and philosophical knowledge of the Classical period was ignored
HOW did the renaissance overcome this? How did they know about the Greeks and Romans? Were there particular discoveries in the period? Or did a certain segment of society remain "aware" throughout?
Also, relatedly and vaguely amusingly:
Some peak moker about the dark ages never existing, in the sense that the time didnt even pass and there wasnt much of a gap between the romans and the englightenment
but as far as I know there were no dark ages in the Middle East, maths and science at least continued to flourish and the work they did there came in very useful when the dark ages in Europe finished. Is this the sort of thing you're talking about?
did a bunch of science muslims come over and show us what's what?
I dunno about science muslims, they must have exchanged ideas at some stage though
Domesday book sounds like a good call
The archaeological record refutes it entirely.
The renaissance question is a surprisingly complicated one. People weren't entirely ignorant of the thinking of the Greek and Romans- eg the medical teachings of Galen were made near gospal by the Church.
That knowledge never really went away - the "dark ages" were a period where lots of universities were founded, for example, and where you may have had something of a breakdown of a transference of knowledge, as the Roman Empire collapsed and individual nation states rose in its place, scholars kept on doing their thing, and the only reason so much classical knowledge survives is because it was recorded in this period.
The reason we think of the Renaissance as so special is because it was really good at self-promoting and the products of it are still around today. A lot of it comes down to money (CAPITALISM) - the fruits of the Renaissance come from the fact that there was a rise of a merchant class, broader education and appreciation for arts, for the first time the church was no longer the only body capable of funding the arts, so private backers like the Medicis in Florence started asking for faux-Roman statues rather than pics of ickle baby Jesus.
I have a huge gap in my historical knowledge from around the 12th Century- 20th Century (excluding some very specific topics). the joys of a classics/archaeology degree...
at what precise point in history did english people start giving a shit about the greeks?
Even the foundation myths of Britain that were created during the "Dark Ages" are based in love of the Greeks. Some people even thought Britain was named after Brutus of Troy:
britain is named after Brittania, the woman with the helmet, who invented england in 0AD
i appreciate everyone's contributions and find them helpful for a thing i'm thinking about
especially with regard to literature- many classical books that we have exist only because monks (etc) copied them in the periods before the printing press.
throughout the period (i.e def medicine, also I think natural history, philosophy, etc)
also in the byzantine empire
also in the muslim world
they came back even more strongly after the fall of constantinople at some point in the 1490s when a load of people who lived in the byzantine empire emigrated to the west
I reckon history is mostly descriptive and the influence of Greece and other ancient civilizations can be seen more through the influx of ideas like democracy and pluralism and medicine stuff than having big books filled with greek events dotted everywhere.
It always blows my mind that England was 4 countries in the Anglo-Saxon period: Mercia, Wessex, Northumberland, East Anglia; with a bunch of other minor kingdoms too.
What times in british history has the public been most interested in the past?
We always have, though you could probably say that the Enlightenment was the beginning of the modern historical tradition (eg: works such as Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
Similarly, Archaeology has only existed in its modern scientific form for (arguably) around 100ish years.
We've never known more about our past than now and we will know more with each passing year.
i know that if we plot a graph of time vs "sum knowledge" it will head upwards but i was wondering where the kinks would be (eg your answers) before now when it's become fully exponential
because paradigms shift- especially in history. It's not unlikely that in 100+ years we will view they way we look at history now as being archaic and emblematic of 21st century globalised capitalism- just in the same way that we see early 20th Century history as being representative of our views as the British Empire.
the difference between history and time, like
romanticism c.19, shakespearians
how did the dark ages end?
by alcxxk , 16 May 10:19 59 replies 16 May 11:30
by JGJug , 21 Aug 09:43 36 replies 16 May 11:29