One of the big things that got drilled in my Medieval history classes in college was that Dark Ages was an outdated term (mainly because it led to people dismissing the era as "that time between Rome and the Renaissance where nothing happened and everything sucked") and we were to use Early Medieval Period instead. Clunky rebranding? Sure, but if it gets people to actually learn about the period then it works.
@@GraveyardMaiden Depends. See, one of problem is that while we know when the "Dark Ages" started, but no one can agree when it ended and how long it lasted for. Personally, I would divide into three parts. 476 to 800-ish would be called "Post-Romana" as a pun of "Pax-Romana", Every thing between Charlemagne and Hastings would be some French word that means Early Kingdom Building, and everything between William the Conquering Bastard to the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks would be just "Medieval".
@@GraveyardMaiden Early Medieval Period is stuck in my head, so it's hard for me to think of an alternative, but Toonrick12's suggestion is probably about where I'd wind up. I might use Romanesque after the architectural style instead of Post-Romana.
@@foldabotZ , Mine did not. What little I remember being taught about this part of history where 'footnotes' on the way to something more important... the British Empire itself. This is likely because the history of Europe is irrelevant to my home country, aside from the whole expansion period that led to said countries founding in the first place. So of course they would love to skip over the 'dark ages' as 'that time of Castle and Sieges,' in order to get to the parts that involved Captain Cook. Yeah, a bit bitter about Australia's education system being a little too nationalistic when I was going through it.
I remember my elementary school textbook being "So the Dark Ages began, called like this because it was a period of cultural darkness stuck between two great history periods. Anyway, here's seven chapters describing the fundamental cultural role of the monks, the birth of European languages, huge technological advances in agriculture, the rise of city centers as we know them today, the countless political quarrels and wars, the invention of most of the autoctone food you are eating today. The other book will cover art instead, and oh we will not bother to cover what happened in the rest of the world because we don't have enough paper"
My Elementary school lessons only covered America. I only got the middle ages in school once I got to high school. In the introduction I got pretty much gave the whole dark ages vibe. Talked about how short life expectancies were how most people never went more than 10 miles from their home about witch trials and how things remain totally unchanged for centuries at a time. Middle school basically admitted the Middle Ages Happened like yeah there’s like 1000 years of crappy nothing between Rome and the renaissance just pretend nothing worth mentioning happened and skip to the Renaissance. It was basically one chapter just explaining what a manor was what a serf was and how thank God the renaissance finally happened.
I'm puzzled that westerners are upset that they were taught western history in school. One could argue that not teaching kids in school the western heritage could be a problem. I think Carter G. Woodson used this rationale to advocate for a black history curriculum.
They’re not upset that they were taught Western history, the problem is that they were taught exclusively Western history. You can’t just pretend that the rest of the world didn’t exist. That just perpetuates really harmful stereotypes and worldviews
Did anyone actually ever assume that the "dark age" was applicable outside of a European context? Even as a child i would not have thought of China, India, Africa or the middle east as being included
It was dark for us Jewish folk. There are some uncomfortable similarities between our history and the goblins in HP, which you can see happening mostly in the Dark Ages
@No Niether Late Eastern Rome, the Roman Empire at it's height could really be considered European in any sense we would recognize. Sure some of the Balkans were a core part of the Eastern Empire but the vast majority of it's population, income and territory came from what we today would call the Middle East and North Africa and later in it's reduced medieval state, modern day Turkey was it's heartland for as long as it could really be called an empire. Even Western Rome before it's collapse included parts of North Africa. Nobody at the time would've considered themselves to be European in any case, identity was either regional or religious. The Romans would've considered people from most of Europe to be barbarians, even at the time of the Republic they would've had more in common with the Mediterranean world culturally and in terms of their way of life.
As my medieval philosophy teacher, Prof Jean Grondin said : "People who lived in the middle ages had no idea because they were too busy living their lives and coming up with a culture of their own rather than make self-important comparisons to the century past and pretending that doing so was a culture"
@@IkeOkerekeNews American politicians are often obsessed with half-baked Hopes for recreating past glory of economic boom periods that they ignore major factors that have changed or are out of their office's control. Similarly too many Americans look at the progress we've made and act like we no longer have work to do because we're better than we were about certain things 70 years ago. I'm sure other countries feel similarly, but I'm noticing it the most about my own.
@@rvawildcardwolf2843 I will agree that politicians are often out of touch, but on the “too many Americans” part it’s often not so much about there no longer being work to do as philosophically disagreeing as to the ways and means.
I was under the impression that "the Dark Ages" was a myth popularized by Victorian historians who for *some reason* couldn't imagine that an empire like Rome could fall without it utterly devastating even the furthest reaches of the empire. Good to know that they stole the idea from the Renaissance.
Yeah, if the Victorians hadn't... I would question what Universe I had fallen into. Anything from the Renaissance left, or is it all in their museums now?
Yeah, you can draw a direct line from the Victorian Public Education System (apply air quotes around any/all of that as you please) through the great Enlightenment thinkers of the century prior to the Renaissance ROME GUD, WE GUD, WE ROME? historical masturbation cycle. Of course, you can blame the Roman church for that ROME GUD thing in the first place, since while the Roman Empire might have split up, it did so _after_ making the capital 'C' Church _ROMAN,_ with all the Imperial ambitions, cultural pretentions, and utter obsession with hierarchical social structures carried over from the Romans and alien to the early church. Gibbon probably catapulted the "Christianity ruined Rome" school of thought to prominence, but modern scholarship has kind of affirmed the old idea that Rome ruined Christianity and then used it to self-perpetuate Roman dominance, which it was wildly successful at. Sorry, that got a bit ranty.
@@Vespuchian True, the Victorians basically considered Greco-Roman society as proto-England and then exported that concept, along with their Anglocentric perspective on everything else, to the rest of the Commonwealth.
@@vladimirenlow4388 Victorian Britain had probably the best soft power of the 19th century. Practically every nation on earth wanted to imitate the British Empire or Culture in one way or another.
As a Greek I find it weird when I encounter Westerners on the internet saying that they weren't taught anything about Byzantium, because over here Medieval history is almost exclusively Byzantium with the few exceptions being Charlemagne, the Crusades and Early Muslim Expansion who get about a dozen pages combined in the textbook.
And this part of history is mostly glorified as well. I don't think most people regard Byzantium as a dark/primitive age anymore. It hadn't always been the case though. it was ignored/deemed unimportant by most historians in the early days of the modern greek state and it was slowly integrated into our national narrative about the continuation of the greek nation throughout the millennia.
Basically most history taught to people is based on immediate area and usually covers areas where they orginally from if they migrated to the area, areas that the county has history with as if allies or enemies. Then there are the super powers of the history being taught. History is huge and to simplify what I just mentioned you are basically taught history that affects yourself and country and history of those that had a strong influence in the world.
Do you learn anything about the anglo saxons vs the vikings? The norman conquest? The plantagenets? No you don't, and the reason is because its completely irrelevant to greek history and if the greek education system would spend time on it, they wouldn't have as much time for greek things. The same is true in reverse. If we spent time learning of greek history, which is practically irrelevant to British history, we wouldn't have as much time for British history. And where do you even draw the line? If we have to learn about greek history, what about arab history, Russian history, Chinese history, Japanese history, Indian history etc? The point being there is simply too much world history for 18 years of education to cover.
I minored in medieval history in grad school. My advisor said that there were two obvious errors of approaching the Middle Ages: thinking it was some kind of golden age and thinking it was the dark ages! Update: "The dark ages is a myth created by Big Renaissance to sell you more paintings" is my new favorite explanation ever!
I'm with you on this. There's a bit too much pushback in the other direction saying things were fine and dandy. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary that life was unchanging, if not better. Even a Roman historian would point out peasant life was declining in quality, even if the Empire stood longer.
I love how Jacques Le Goff put it in his "Un long Moyen Âge" (which I highly recommend): "These long middle ages are neither dark, as humanists and people of the Enlightenment wanted to see them, nor gilded as Romanticists and Catholics of 19th century imagined it. As every period in history it's composed of light and shadows, but I, wanting to oppose the contempt to the 'Dark Ages', was always outlining the share of light and of creative thought of the middle ages, which was great and became basis to shape the future."
Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome, which is about the post-Roman world up to the year 1000, goes into this in the introduction. On one hand, it gets widely characterised as a stagnant limbo between Rome and the Renaissance, even the term "Middle Ages" defining it only in relation to what came before and after, and on the other it is the period when most nations in Europe consider to be the time they "emerged" and began their histories, which causes the period to become the victim of nationalist romanticism.
i generally blame the Victorians for a lot of that stuff. Putting horns on vikings and beltbuckles on pilgrim hats, Victorians. "Kismet, Hardy", Victorians; etc etc
I'd say the dark ages are more accurate if applied only to Western and Central Europe and made from 410-800 or 1091. Chris Wickham has a good book, as does Bryan Ward Perkins
2 things that irk me about depictions of the European "dark ages" 1: that everyone was dirty. Bath houses were common and people would bathe often daily in local rivers, being able to fork out some money to wash with soap in a bathhouse tub and have their clothes washed maybe once a week. They weren't dirty, they cared about maintaining some standard of hygiene. 2: that everything was grey and brown and bleak and people wore rags. People dressed in vibrant colours, villages and towns would have banners and little flags hung up, people like colour and wherever people could get something dyed, they did, and wherever they had a chance to show off their colourful dyed cloths, they did. Also pretty much everyone could sew, so any tears in clothing would be quickly and skilfully stitched up.
From what i've read bath houses were more of an urban thing. Linen clothes are just really good at absorbing sweat, so by washing your linens your washing yourself. Also hygiene has more to do with robust sewers which are like a victorian period thing just due to sheer cost.
It's my understanding from Shadiversity videos that castle interiors were both whitewashed and absolute eyesores with all of the brightest colors a Lord could afford covering ever last inch that he could afford to cover, as well.
It is worth pointing out that war in the MIddle Ages, while frequent, was VERY low intensity. Unless conflicts were waged between powerful monarchs or noblemen, wars would mostly be characterised by a few dozen knights and/or retainers raiding villages on the borders of realms.
And even then they would usually target the economy rather than the people. Destroying mills, burning fields, etc. Obviously it sucked to get caught by a raiding party, but large campaigns of any kind were incredibly rare. Not to mention the middle ages are also where the modern European pacifist movement has its roots, in things like the Peace of God movement and Catholic attempts to limit inter-catholic warfare.
@@LynnHermione commoners absolutely fought and served in wars. For many it was a part of their feudal obligations, for others it was a profession that earned them money. There wasn't enough knights to make up a whole army. Sometimes combats between groups of nobles were arranged instead of open war, such as the famous Combat of the 30, but that was the exception, not the rule.
I feel like that's a huge problem in most of history. People say "the US is always at war," but with a few exceptions most Americans have nothing to do with war most of the time. Many people in history have lived perfectly normal lives doing perfectly humane things. We just don't write about them.
This really is one of the most pervasive myths. I hate how people seem to think that in the “Dark Ages” and Medieval periods everyone was primitive savages when they were actually pretty advanced culturally and even scientifically for the time.
It's similar in philosophy. People often dismiss medieval philosophy as 'they're just talking about God'. And to be fair, a lot of it is within that framework. Also admittedly, plenty of it is quite dry (the overlap between 'good writer' and 'philosopher' tends not to be very big). But things like Descartes cogito isn't as revolutionary to someone familiar with the epistemological works of St. Augustine, for example. And modern american linguistic philosophy could have done with some more reading of medieval works, because a lot of medieval philosophy of language is quite interesting and unjustly ignored.
All things considered, their engineering, architecture, infrastructure, etc was advanced enough to construct elaborate and huge structures that still survive today, which is something else. Any so-called savagery isn't anything out of character for the human race at any given point of time.
But no one says they were primitive savages? It's described as such because of political and societal turmoil, which was abundant. There really wasn't much in this video that convinced me the "Dark Ages" didn't exist.
@Carter Hill I think you misunderstand this video. He admits that there was a lot of turmoil, but points out that the Dark Ages title is sort of undeserved because of how much good stuff was going on. In other words, no, it's not a "Dark Age" because there wasn't an apocalypse.
‘If Rome didn’t have an empire at home, why not just order one?’ This line was hysterical and made me think of picking up an empire at a McDonald’s drive through in a happy meal container 🤣
This is actually something that happens in the D&D setting I'm working on for my home games. This one nation was losing a war pretty bad and out of nowhere this siege engineer approaches the king. They make some kind of deal and the king gets millions of warforged soldiers, who completely dominate the other side. You'd think the person who LITERALLY built and army from scratch would be a major historical figure but no one really knows who this engineer was or what they got out of the deal. Some people think that lack of information was PART of the deal
"Did you want a side of Chivalry Myth with that?" "Yeah, let's get both the Arthur and the Lancelot stories. Hell, just throw 'em together, we like the blend."
I applaud that you not only summarized the successes outside of medieval Europe, but you also highlighted the successes *within* medieval Europe. Too often when people point out the advances outside of Europe at the time they still hold on to the idea that Europe was a hopeless backwater that saw little to no progress before the Enlightenment. Also props for talking about the Byzantine Empire, which gets so little attention here in the West.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
Yeah, western Europe was a backwater before Charles Martel, although they had far more than they had north of the Alps before Ceasar, but from Charlemagne's time on they grew with leaps and bounds- and Ireland and Britain grew with artistic leaps and bounds even earlier... it might even be said that the real Renaissance in western Europe was in the 12th Century, and the age of Leonardo and Michelangelo was certainly the culmination of centuries of growth! Meanwhile, Byzantium was going through age upon age of beauty and wonder right alongside Cairo and Baghdad, and Bulgaria was for a while a great wonder of the world!
Some people use "The Dark Ages" to specifically describe a lack of medieval written records. This is charitable, but still incorrect. That's distinctly not what Petrarch or Caesar Baronius meant when they applied that name to post-classical society and the 10-11th centuries, respectively. The people who used that term specifically used it to characterize Medieval society as ignorant, tumultuous, and bad, in contrast with the "light" of classical Rome - and that concept got extremely popular in the 1700s Enlightenment era. Later scholars in the 18-1900s restricted "The Dark Ages" to the 500s-900s (ie: between the fall of Western Rome and the establishment of the HRE), but this also fell out of fashion eventually. Plenty of literary traditions arose from the early, high, and late Medieval period. As mentioned by LudoHistory: word for word, we have an order of magnitude more writing from 500-1000ad than from 0-500ad, with Gregory the Great alone having more words than basically the whole classical corpus. It's not about written records. "The Dark Ages" was always used disparagingly. -B
I really like the video, you did a great job! As I saw you mention Venice I immediately thought of the Ragusa Republic, so I was wondering if you could an overview or something of it. Thanks! You and Red make my days with your videos.
I would *further* note that, word for word, we have an order of magnitude MORE writing from 500-1000 than we do from 0-500. Gregory the Great alone has more words than basically all Classical authors lol.
That being said, the dark ages wasn't totally a myth. Nothing in the video contradicts the idea of Western and Central Europe from the specific years of 476-800 being a mess of fighting between innumerable kingdoms, feudalism rising, certain Roman knowledge being lost or relegated to the bookshelves of monks, a decline in quality of life and literacy dropping. It's telling the only person really remembered as super important during this time was Charlemagne who could be said to have brought Europe out of anything resembling the dark age idea. Obviously the thousand year dark age stuff is nonsense, but until the 1500s when Europe became dominant, Western Europe was seen as a backwater compared to Islamic and Chinese empires. We remember the Vikings too I suppose, but for all the wrong reasons lol
I am really thankful that my first history teacher really hammered this concept in. My favourite example are the witch hunts. They happened after the renaissance, yet most people seem to forget this fact.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
...I've literally never seen someone think that the witch uproar was a middle ages thing. They'd be off by hundreds of years. But it's not like there was *none* of that going on. It's more that for most small communities if someone around was seen as a "witch" most people appreciated the vague attempt at medicine too much to bother complaining. And even without "witchcraft" as a catchall, on a *political* level there was plenty of "X is a heretic/ Satanist" to go around, even if that's still overexaggerated.
yeah people want to blame the witch hunts on religion, but really they're based in different worldviews like catholicism and protestantism or christianity and paganism. the french enlightenment isn't spared from this lunacy.. they built temples to the cult of reason in france in the 1800s, some of which are still up today. of course, this also led to the dictatorship of napoleon bonaparte.
So did my High School AP teacher. I had called the Medieval Ages “the Dark Ages” when it did not apply to the rest of the world like China, India, and the Islamic world. What we called the “Dark Ages” only applied to Europe and even then was inaccurate.
I presume the primary valid reason to call them the “dark ages” is due to a scarcity of records. Still tragic as hell, but at least it’s not COMPLETE pandemonium.
that's how historians use(d?) , whilst common usage is about it being "dark and miserable" thanks renaissance and enlightenment philosophers, very cool 🥴
Similarly the Egyptian "Dark Ages" between dynasties had no central rule and thus less monuments being built, but had a lot less slavery and some female-dominated states
I’ve heard this as well, the records of the time weren’t kept particularly well, or got plundered by(insert almost any contemporary name here), and so we don’t have a ton to go on.
and these conversions (have it be the teutonic knights or the caliphates) weren't really, let's say, peaceful and devoid of war crimes against forcibly converted locals.
Not really, since it was a political decision of the ruling elite. It was a bit like joining an international organization, that's why there are specific dates - it was a big deal. The actual converting of the people would be a long process which would often result in a weird mix of Christianity and paganism that would endure for generations. Many pagan traditions survived with only slight changes.
Oh come now, are you telling me that historical events arent just done in a specific date and instead develop throughout years and between many layers of society? Preposterous!
I don't blame Blue for skipping over it because there is only so much time in a video, but the middle ages also had vibrant Jewish communities throughout the European and Muslim worlds. It was also the time of some of the biggest names in Jewish biblical commentary: Rashi, Rambam (Maimonides), and Ramban (Nachmonides) to name a few.
It unfortunately ended with one country after another expelling all Jews in the early modern period (Spain, France, England, some German States) which led to a large migration towards Eastern and Eastern Central Europe as Poland-Lithuania for example was generally more tolerant. Same applies to the Netherlands after their independence. Which took a dark turn during the 19th and 20th century in the face of Polish, Russian and most prominently German nationalism.
@@Alias_Anybody yup. unfortunately, antisemitism has a very long history in europe, and unlike popular belief was definitely not invented by the nazis. there were laws banning jews from most jobs throughout the middle-ages, and they persisted surprisingly long. antisemitism what never unique to germany, they’re ‘just’ the ones who started building their nationalism by pinning all their failings on the jewish people in the 19th century
When you're going through a rough spot, it's not uncommon to declare that everything sucks, even if there are others saying things will be okay and trying to get you through it. Western/Central Europe needed time to process what it had gone through. Tl;dr: Yes, I am saying that this was their Goth phase.
Funny story: I was at a writing workshop one day and I fell into talking with a bunch of people about how cool the Witcher was. I brought up how cool it was that the Witcher introduced popular culture to non Western European mythologies and history (that comment about Poland being "exotic" was spot on by the way) and then one of the people looked me in the eye and said to my face "oh, it's JUST Medieval history, it doesn't matter". It was at that point my vision went red and I vaguely remember going on a tirade about the Islamic Golden Age and the Orthodox Church, but I like to think I changed their minds, even if I didn't.
"but I like to think I changed their minds, even if I didn't." You probably didn't. If people change minds about something it is because they want to. What you ended up doing is probably making them more reinforced in their position.
To be fair, these days nobody shuts up about "not holy, not Roman, and not an empire" despite that being completely wrong. So... yea. Everybody has their age to shine I guess.
@@spiffygonzales5899 Agreed. While I think it’s clear the Greek East retained the “superior” claim, the HRE has legitimacy in that it came into existence at the behest of the last vestige of the Roman state in the Latin West. Both were unmistakably empires, the HRE was only reduced to a decentralized collection much later down the line, and given that “last vestige” was the See of Rome it may as well have been as holy as it gets. That Voltaire quote is often used as if to describe the HRE’s entire complex history rather than in Voltaire’s days.
@@wildfire9280 Greek East didn't have a claim, it literally just was a continutation of the Empire in its Eastern provinces. Rome's capital was changed to Constantinople by Constantine and that capital remained under the imperial administration for about a thousand years after the fall of the Latin West. After the fall of Ravenna the Eastern Empire dissolved the Western throne and only the Eastern court and Senate continued. The HRE's legitimacy is shoddy at best and its clear the Pope crowned charlemagne after observing weakening Eastern Roman authority in Italy and wanting to be free of Imperial control and having his own Empire. The HRE is a proto super state at best. The Empire tag was given, again, by the Pope. Note that back then the Roman Empire was simply called "the Empire" since it was impossible for people back then to see any other Empire existing other than Rome. Rome was authority, Rome was power, Rome was **the** Empire. So the HRE was initially just called Imperium Romanum. Giving it the Imperium tag directly undermined the authority and the influence of the Eastern throne and the Ecumenical church because the Pope and the Latin west now recognised HRE as **the** Empire and not the Eastern throne. Of course later the Empires' relation would change and the Eastern Empire would recognise the HRE as the Western Throne and the Holy Roman Emperor as the co-emperor with intermarriages between Byzantine and German royal families but that's altogether an even more complex topic. Basically, the HRE was an "empire" of convenience to help give the Church influence over the Latin West and an attempt at unifying it. It was not a legitimate successor state to the Unified Roman Empire in any practical terms. It neither was a proper Empire but more of a Federation or a super state. It was called an Empire to give its name power and prestige since Europeans associated that word with Rome of old.
*Western Europe:* "OMG, it was so awful! Everything was just so, so horrible!!" *Africa, Middle East, Asia, both Americas, every continent except maybe Antarctica:* "I dunno, it seemed okay to _us..."_ *Western Europe:* _"EVERYTHING WAS HORRIBLE!!"_
Antarctica, just vibing with its native wildlife: Wait what? The ice age ended??... Neat, I guess. Though realistically everything for Antarctica since the ice caps form is just one long freezing "this is fine"
… yes, time periods are location specific. We don’t talk about Western Europe by the Chinese dynastic calendar, it makes about the same amount of sense. By god, think before you type.
I I thought Dark ages was a term that had a geography as well as time limit defining it. Same with Medieval, Renaissance, and Classical period all being limited to Mediterranean And Europe. I always figured other parts of the world had their own names for those time periods and therefore the European names would not be used. I know Japan did as it is the only Non European country whose history I am generally familiar with.
Yeah, I was taught that the Dark Ages was a specific period of Western European history that was mainly called such due to a surprising lack of written records and literacy rates (outside of religious sources, mainly the Bible).
The term "dark ages" and all the diferent subdivisions of european history are used by some to define ALL of human history. This form of thinking is usually refer to as Eurocentrism.
Nah it was a bit of a mess due to Limited central authority causing a collapse of infrastructure in Western Europe and lots of political intrigue. Add in lots of raiders even before the Vikings and you can see where the myth comes from. Though admittedly Blue's right the bad parts are exaggerated in culture cause that's what makes good stories. Bunch of dudes farming who wants to read about that. The Byzantines and Eastern Europe is also general ignored when talking about the period when it probably shouldn't be as there was a fair amount of interaction. I always assumed it was because the Catholic church only recorded the history of catholic areas and when the Muslims conquered the Orthodox areas their historical documents were not considered important enough to maintain by the new overlords. Could be wrong though.
@@gobalbucs Also specifically, I was taught that the Dark Ages was the period from ~500-~1100, at the height of the Viking period. This was due to most historical records being lost and/or sequestered in monasteries. The end of the Viking raids signified a return to a more orderly society where record keeping once again flourished, which was the Middle Ages ~1100-1450. Again, this is coming from an Anglo-centric view, but nowhere in my education did the term “dark ages” extend past the Battle of Hastings.
As a German, I can tell you that the whole thing is specifically an english term. I have never heard anyone refer to any time period in german as "dark ages" or any reasonable translation of it. In fact, I think I only really know the term from OSP videos... But I don't watch a lot of history content otherwise, so... In German it is simply called "Mittelalter", which would translate to the middle Age.
I learned loads about medieval Christianity in a couple books by Tom Holland and I HIGHLY recommend them, one called millennium, focused on the 9th-11th centuries AD and Dominion, a more broad history of Christianity but still absolutely worth a read seeing as Christianity was so integral to all aspects of medieval Europe.
@@bellanutella7091 all mythologies have awesome stuff, and I am certain thzt if someone spends their time making games surrounding any mythology and puts some effort/love into it it´d be a banger
@@aquamarinerose5405 ngl, the difference between european cultures can be a bit suprising. Yes its not "exotic" but there are big differences in mythology and culture.
@@gentleshark972 that's fair. Just thought to reiterate blue's point that while The Witcher is great, the fact that Polish myth is "exotic" shows we're so hyperfocused on one particular area that it's unhealthy
I love the video, all of it was interesting, but just a remark : aren't the "Dark Ages" and "Middle Ages" only part of European civilization's historiography about itself and its own history? It'd be like saying the Warring States Period of China was fine because things were going great in the Persian Empire and with the Greeks. Not that it's not true or interesting or important, just maybe that it's a bit...out of subject. I feel like universities, the Carolingian and Otto renaissances, the work and effort of monks and religious orders, music, all of that were barely touched upon and would make more bullseye arguments against this negative reputation of the middle ages in my eye than what should have been separate videos. But everyone will hate my criticism regardless, even if I praised the video.
A lot of world history at least in the U.S. (not so much the case now) tends to Eurocentric (specifically Western Europe) so while the "Dark Ages" does mostly refer to that time period in Europe, because so much of the focus was on Europe, it could give the impression everywhere else wasn't doing as great as well. Your critique is not invalid at all, just giving a possible explanation on why the video chose to talk about other places outside Europe.
@@playdischord1791 Maybe in high school but if you take history in any college it’s very against European-Centricism, a bit too much at times tbh. However if there’s one thing that stayed true it’s that Eastern European history gets completely ignored here until we reach the late 19th century.
“But everyone will hate my criticism regardless, even if I praised the video” is such a self-important thing to say even if you didn’t have more than a hundred likes on your comment
@@hawkingstar1698 Geez, no need to be so jerkish about it -_- And comments that aren't pure adoration of channels tend not to be received well to put it lightly or simply ignored as "haters". The likes on this one were a surprise to say the least.
@@playdischord1791 Still, it's still out of subject and shouldn't take 2/3 of the video, not actually tackling europe and the issues behind the reputation of the middle ages while leaving actually relevant arguments to the subject rushed through. A simple sentence : "the middle ages were made to design and talk about an era only affecting Europe and not the rest of the world" would have done the trick.
Everyone throughout history: the dark ages were absolutely horrible! Dark ages: actually we were alright... Edit: kinda reminds you of the 2010s and 2020s, things are bad but not that bad as they used to be
They weren't just alright because it literally saw a jump in Europe where religion and culture flourished and it built the foundation for the renaissance in a time where war and death still plagued the lands but the people just tried to push through and live the best lives they could if it weren't for this era, Europe wouldn't have ever made a golden age of art and science or it if would have it would have been much slower, these few centuries started the change that turned Europe into what it is today: a centre of art, science and culture
Not modern comfort good,but alright And not really grim, hellas bad as plaques are ot did improve workers conditions, and people just did try to live their best possible life, which seems to show in art, and is rather colourful. Dunno if i would choose to live there but is alright. and thats not talking about the golden age of islam.
@@robertjarman3703 Depending on context, "magnus" can be translated as "great" in the sense of "powerful/impressive" or as "great" in the sense of "physically large". Porta magna = large door. Albertus Magnus = Albert the Great. So yeah, obviously Charlie's PR team wrote him down as "Chuck the Awesome," but "biggest of Charleses" is still technically correct. The best kind of correct!
I remember back in highschool (~2015) I used to watch a bunch of Crash Course World History and some of OSP's videos. Now, I really glad that OSP has lots of videos spanning dozens of different subjects that people can watch for fun and learn something new. I also remember John Green saying that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't actually holy or roman lol.
To be fair to fantasy those stories often take place during the worst (and most exciting) points in that worlds history. Westeros isn't always awful it's just that the story is set during a Particularly brutal succession war. Even the infamously terrible world of ice and fire saw it's own periods of cultural exchange and the like it's just not where the story is set. As a real world comparison, a story set in 14th century France will likely be faaaar more grimdark than a story set Venice during the same year, or even France a few hundred years earlier. You are correct tho it does tend to color our views of that period in particular in a negative way :c
There’s a literary reason for that. Times of upheaval generally make for more compelling stories, because conflict drives narrative. There’s a reason we don’t see whole novels written about life when things are well and good.
@@LordVader1094 yes but more well crafted stories usually add the historical footnotes to and say "things haven't Always been terrible, not before the dark times....before the (war/curse/necromancer/evil god/political corruption/orcs/murder hornets/famine/plague/revolution/dragon/all of the above)" But BEFORE all that there was 500 years of peace and whatnot
As a History undergrad, I LOVE thinking about history as a multidimensional, multifaceted ☯️, bc otherwise it looks like a literal hellscape of suffering and contradiction, instead of something beautiful that can teach us how people work and how we can (albeit VERY slowly) make the world a better place.
The dark ages were a horrible time when the enemies of Europe were winning ground. Christianity overtook us and we were under constant Islamic attacks. Spain was conquered by the Moors who took ships full of fair haired women as slaves/concubines, committing a genocide against the native Whites.
@@Game_Hero There isn't exactly a recipe for that, bc societies are (to put it mildly) too complex to be improved AS A WHOLE by any specific group, let alone individual. As far as I know, the best we can do is choosing the causes that resonate the most with us and doing some form of concrete political activism whenever possible, without ignoring other causes. Basically, if Conservatives are trying to pass some new bill that hurts hurts marginalized groups, you can go to protests and do things to try to stop it from being passed. You could build your entire career out of activism, if that's your thing. For example, you could work for an organization that promotes LGBTQ rights, as someone who, among other things, does outreach (gives lectures, creates educational material...). But there are also other ways of doing activism: TH-camr Sophie from Mars has a playlist on that, if you're interested. Was my anwser good enough, or do you want me to elaborate on more specific points? It was probably much more vague than you expected, but I can't do much better with the relatively small amount of knowledge that I currently have. Even my favorite Leftist youtubers, which have BUCKETLOADS more experience than I do, say that there's no easy answer to almost any topic regarding social issues. It's no wonder that video essays can easily reach an hour (or even several hours) in lenght.
@@ManiacMayhem7256 Thanks! 😁 It's a fanart of Fushi, from the anime "To Your Eternity". Aside from being beautiful, anime-related and featuring clouds on its background, that pfp describes many of the more subjective meanings I assign to my username EXTREMELY well.
A cool book to read RE technology in the dark ages/middle ages is 'Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages' by Jean Gimpel. Medieval western Europe was, in many fields, more advanced than even the Western Roman empire, with several processes being automated using wind and water powered machines; the early days industrial revolution was in many ways enabled by medieval designs, the main difference being a more accessible power source (steam instead of natural wind and water power). The fall of the Roman empire meant that Europe lost mass-scale organisation, so big, logistically-intensive technologies (aqueducts, trans-continental road systems, big concrete domes, etc.) suffered. Smaller scale stuff, that didn't need a big imperial bureaucracy to manage, advanced considerably from the dark ages through high medieval period (mechanical clocks, agricultural productivity, metallurgy, mills, etc). The Cistercian order of monks even built standardised factories into their monasteries.
Yes indeed. We're actually way more backward both technologically and culturally. Most cultures actually stagnated since the 17th century - especially the European one after that stupidly oppressive Westphalian order emerged!!!
Medieval Europe built armor so advanced NASA looked to it for advice. They weren't stupid, they just didn't have a central state controlled the full wealth of the Mediterranean basin to dole out resources.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
in highschool the first thing my history teacher drilled into our heads when talking about the medieval period was how unfitting the term "dark ages" is. blues intro reminded me of that and made me happy, that teacher was awesome
Please please please please make merch that says "the dark ages was a myth by big renaissance to sell you more paintings." This is a great video! I feel like most of the "Dark ages aren't dark" do what you started with, look at China and the Middle East, but I even like that you brought it back around, looking at the 'successes' in Europe. And the idea of the Holy Roman Empire as Imperial Catholicism is amazing. What a great way to put it!
I mean, everything that happened in the Early Middle Ages had huge linguistic consequences, from the Germanic Migrations/Invasions that influenced Romance languages and replaced an entire area of Britain that was previously Celtic, to the Muslim conquests that reshaped the linguistic map of the Middle East and North Africa and brought a lot of words to the languages of the Iberian peninsula, to the Viking era that greatly influenced the English language and brought a lot of words related to navigation to many other languages, to the Norman Conquest which brought a ridiculously large number of Old French words to English, to the religious divide between Catholicism and Orthodox church which is pretty much reflected nowadays as a divide between peoples using the Latin alphabet versus the Cyrillic alphabet (excluding Romania and Moldova)... When you study historical linguistics, you cannot ignore the Early Middle Ages. It's just impossible.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
I am grateful that you and your channel can debunk almost all conceptions of the past and present. You actually should be recommended to more audiences.
The fact that life is simultaneously brutish, short, and full of evil, as well as glorious, beautiful, and full of meaning means that periods of history like “the dark ages” are often so much more complex than we make them out to be
@@juliagoetia If you can’t currently see joy or beauty in light I recommend going to see a doctor about being screened for depression. If you find that you no longer enjoy doing the same activities you used to enjoy, or just feel in a recurrently depressed mood, you may have a depressive psychiatric condition. Fortunately there are many medications or therapies that can help to begin to bring light back into your world!
@@timothydavis8388 Oh, I'm already aware I have clinical depression. PTSD and BPD too! Official diagnoses mind you, not self diagnosed. I take medicine for it, not that it helps much. Honestly though? It astounds me anyone can look at the world around them and not be screwed up in the head. Y'all must be really good at cognitive dissonance. Compartmentalization of unpleasant knowledge. Being able to justify or downplay or ignore/deny the incomprehensible level of suffering and oppression that constantly surrounds you. Sometimes I wonder: am I truly broken, for not being acclimated to a nightmarish world that has always been hostile to my existence? Or is it everyone else that is either mad or privileged?
@@juliagoetia admitting several mental illnesses while simultaneously describing people who see the world as not all evil are two incongruous thoughts. Be aware of thyself. You on the one hand admit to having clinical neuro-chemical imbalances which prevent you from seeing joy in things. Humble yourself and accept that unfortunately, your perspective is the divergent
@@juliagoetia To an extent we are all broken. However, some break in the body, some in the spirit, some in the mind. Not being able to see any good in the world despite the evil is a brokenness of mind
"All that to say is that the Dark Ages is a myth perpetuated by Big Renaissance to sell you more paintings." A more accurate description could not be provided, especially since things like sanitation had actually gone *down* during the Renaissance. I really appreciate you doing this, since the medieval period has far more of interest to it than dumb Deus Vult memes and being brownwashed of all its (let's be honest extra as heck) vibrant colors.
I agree fully with the title. While I know you're taking a more "world approach" to this topic, I, as an 1300s HRE, Hungarian, and Czech history buff and major, I fucking love the medieval era as a whole. From the chaos of the western Roman collapse, to the tribal Slavic/Magyar invasions, to the growth and decentralization of the HRE, to the pre-Reformation Christian movements (Waldensian, Lollardy, Hussitism etc), to all the dynastic issues everywhere, it's all just so fucking fascinating.
@@state_song_xprt All the American "Good ol' Days" are pretty rough. If the 50s were so good for everyone the 60s wouldn't have had counterculture and the civil rights boom.
I think the reason polish mythology is considered "exotic" It's because most of the time in western media It's usually a Christian view on creatures which made them either demonic or angelic with very a small gray area.
I assumed Dark Ages were between Fall of Rome to the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, and was used about the West. And I gotta say, with the amount of knights there was, I'd say it was pretty dark
But.... chivalric, "knightly" traditions only sort of emerge in that period, and it's mostly a tradition that gets really cranking in the 12th-16th centuries. 2/10 insufficiently pedantic joke.
Indeed. It was weird of Blue to jump right into talking about how China was doing as a reference to those ages being not-so-bad. One civilization doing well doesn't disprove the idea that others were not
@@carterghill True, but the others in question weren’t really doing as badly throughout the period as “The Dark Ages” would have you think. Outside of the Viking Age that is. That definitely put a damper on things, though it *did* at least benefit the Norse.
@@wildfire9280 If that's your opinion, I would argue that the dark ages were far worse than you think. The Viking age is predated by the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England, which were done out of desperation to find arable land in a time of famine, rather than to plunder and exploit other budding states for greater wealth. Much darker context, and the same was true for many other factions fighting to establish territory in mainland Europe. This famine was caused by a gradually cooling climate, punctuated by the literal sun going out in 535 (not exaggerating, there was a massive volcano that created an ash cloud blocking the sun for at least a year). This was met with famine shortly after killing half of the citizens of Eastern Rome (again, not exaggerating), which spread through Western Europe as well, killing many millions more. "The Dark Ages" doesn't encompass the whole middle ages like Blue seems to think, it's only the early middle ages. But it's also just a more specific term than that, because it's referring to the uniquely awful times I described that Europe experienced. It's a great descriptor for the pattern that played out relatively consistently there, and honestly, the Viking Age itself looks pretty damn prosperous in comparison to most post-Roman European history.
Anyone else love the fact that everytime Blue brings up Venice, some new veiwers are getting the "Welcome to the channel I LOVE VENICE" line for their very first time lol.
The dark ages are literally called that because of a lack of sources, not from bad living standards. A lack of tyrannical empires doesn't make an era terrible, as much as the early modern era would like us to believe.
Exactly! There's a huge argument between Historians about whether the term "Dark ages" should be used. Many anti-term say that using the term "Dark ages" implies that the people living at the time lacked the knowledge the people that came before and after them did. Alternatively wrongly believe that the term stems the fact that the conditions were poor, which anti-term-ers usually deem as inaccurate and want to rid the term. Pro-term believe that that is not what the term Dark ages implies or means. Probably one of the most famous pro-term Historians is Alban Gautier, who imo has the most on-ground and reasonable view points in the entire argument. He states that the Dark ages is purely a term of convenience for the period after the fall of the Roman empire, he states that that the term Dark ages does not imply that the people living under that title lacked any knowledge, nor lived under terrible conditions (although some pro-term-ers argue that the conditions were indeed terrible, but that'd be a point for another time), but in fact the term "Dark ages" comes from the lack or loss of Historical records due to the fall of the Roman empire, hence "Dark" to modern Historian.
I personally am a middle ground between pro and against the term "Dark ages". I personally grew up with the definition that "Dark ages" was called that due to the Loss of Historical records post-fall, hence why I am inclined to side with Alban Gautier and the pro-term-ers. As I mentioned, however, I am middle ground and I do see why people would prefer to avoid that term, so here's my take on the argument: It's okay to use the term "Dark ages" in non-professional work, as long as the argument about why people may avoid the term is noted and a disclaimer is made. However if one was to make proper, professional, scholar/academic work, aim to avoid the term, replacing it with "Early Middle Ages" or whatever period of time you believe the term stands for. Edit: same spelling mistake... twice -_-
I'm disappointed that Blue didn't mention that the Pope gave Henry II permission to use the Templars to invade Ireland because the Irish church wasn't quite Catholic enough.
Thanks for helping with the myth dispelling. As someone who specialized in Medieval Europe while studying for a history degree, it is so frustrating that so much is just straight up ignored because it happened between 476 and 1476 in an area outside the Isles and France.
A fair chunk of the prejudice towards the Dark Ages in the west is down to Christianity (the minds mired in this thinking don't even bother differentiating between branches of Christianity whether affiliated by more than name and central text or not) which tends to get blamed exclusively for the fall of Rome (never mind all the political infighting) and every piece of bad that went on in Medieval Europe (never mind the plagues, the wars over who gets control of what had been Rome, or the mini ice-age that hit Europe).
They also ignore that the catholic church also built universities and funded early proto-science. Also that early industrialization like water-hammers and wind mills were invented in the middle ages.
@@georgethompson1460 also that those ancient texts and philosophies had been copied and expanded upon by the priests and monks during this period. Which allowed them to survive to be "rediscovered".
Agreed. Pop culture constantly shoves "evil intolerant Christian man who burns scientists and slaughters non Christians" messages everywhere then rants and raves about how Christians supposedly shove opinions down people's throat. And this bleeds into history. "Charlemagne revitalized schools as well as popular support in the West for the arts and sciences... but he was also a Christian so we can safely assume the entire thing was just killing women with a brain and men because they farted in church one time. Dark ages."
Tbh it makes me pretty sad seeings how much people today trash the church of the middle ages. The church was the beacon of science and philosophy in those times, it gave people education and was overall a force of reason and good (for the most part). I'm saying that as someone who isn't even Christian
This is why I prefer the term "medieval" over "dark ages." My parents used to participate in the Society for Creative Anachronism (historically accurate medieval cosplay and recreation with a bibliography to back everything up) and day to day living isn't that much different (relatively) from our day to day. At one point I thought they were called the dark ages because of the lack of good indoor lighting options.
I’m glad this got its own video. Among our history department “The Dark Ages” was a dirty word (phrase?) and if one of the medievalist profs heard you say it then you’d be in for an earful.
This perception of the "Dark Ages" is what turns me off from most fantasy settings in literature and video games. It's fantasy; you can do _anything_ with it. But for whatever reason, creators cling onto this particular version of history.
Another thing about Middle Ages in Europe - it spans about a millenium, a long ass time divided into many eras, which saw a lot of changes and weren't always as bad as each other. Hell, I've seen historians who claim that the first half and second half shouldn't be considered the same epoch at all, because Early Middle Ages are a league of its own. The slow collapse of unprecedented regional power like Rome, of course, led to a massive political vacuum, conflicts, decline of economy and trade... But as its successor states consolidated, they created a fertile ground for the development of culture, including things like romance and gothic art, cities and universities (Romans, of course, did have cities, but they declined with the trade networks in the twilight years of the empire - besides, medieval cities are in many ways much different from their ancient predecessors, like they are governed differently, social stratification is also different etc.). Early Middle Ages were an uphill battle, High Middle Ages were the top of that hill. And then the 14th century hit. How bad the so-called crisis of the 14th century was depends on who you ask, but it's clear that the Black Death, growing conflicts (especially in Western Europe) and possibly Little Ice Age (although its true beginning is still disputed, with approximations spanning into the 17th century) made Late Middle Ages a pretty bad place to live. Crucially, when renessaince scholars claim that "Middle Ages sucked", they do so with this most recent period in mind. Which is ironic, considering that for the average person, the renessaince period ALSO sucked immensely, for many of the same reasons that Late Middle Ages did. We just tend to ignore that, because this era was formative for modern Europe, with its art, science and philosophy influencing European culture far more than anything ever produced during Middle Ages. But we shouldn't let that fool us into thinking it wasn't as bad as Middle Ages; on the contrary, in some areas (like infant mortality, or frequency and death toll of wars) it was even worse.
Consider medieval cities, which took their cues from late Roman Cities, where you had to have walls like it was the early iron age because it was so dangerous outside.
@@Pangora2 I always believed walled cities were the dominant model in most states of the period, so imagine my surprise when some had lacked them until increasing internal strife.
Terry Jones, of "Monty Python" fame, did a series called, "Medieval Lives," back around 20 years ago that went into detail about what the so-called "Dark Ages" were _really_ like. And every episode pretty much concluded with, "…but we think it was the opposite because of Victorian Era revisionist history, which was in order to tell the masses, 'The past was so much worse, so stop complaining about how bad you have it now!'" It was a very interesting program, and I highly recommend it if you can find it.
It’s a sad myth that I’ve fallen for many years! Even in high school I got an A on a history paper because I, literally word for word, had the tagline “They lived to be 35, traded donkeys for virginity, and died of diarrhea” I was so convinced the Middle Ages was full of squalor and missing teeth that I just brushed off any history video or book that came my way. Surprisingly enough, The Last Duel was what had me look into the medieval era! I was fascinated with their judicial system and just how much authority knights had. Sure, a lot can be seen as primitive by todays scope, but these people had literally nothing to work with and they still made a society. Not a very good one even by their standards, but still a society.
I tend to take the stance of: as far as those who lived in the "Dark Ages" they were fine. This wasn't the "Dark Ages" for them. It was just normal everyday life for them. And thus no matter where you lived during that time period, you didn't think it was anything more then what it is: your life, your home, your community. There were always going to be bad things happening, the same things we're experiencing today, but that's just life to them as those are to us.
@@vladimirenlow4388 To be fair, we actually deserve it this time. We're on the precipice of destroying our own planet, we're suffering from a case of rampant consumerism so bad that everything we eat or own is plasticky trash, and functionalist architecture exists. Go ahead even just a century and hopefully none of those will be true, which leads me to believe that this is likely the lowest point in human history.
@@melanoc3tusii205 I don't know about "lowest point"... at least we're not immersed in a worldwide genocidal conflict like we were in the 1940s. But we are at a linchpin economically and environmentally, where unless we make some solid decisions as nation-states and individuals, we could see a worldwide devolution in political stability and living standards. To borrow from Churchill, we're either going to look back on this era as the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning.
Another myth about medieval Europe is, that the countries were ruled similarly to how later on absolute monarchs ruled. No, not even remotely. The whole thing was a constant struggle for power between the king/emperor/whatever title, the church, the local nobles and later on the rich non-noble people (especially banks and merchants). The only reason why later on absolute monarchs became able to rule like an absolute authority was, because thanks to the reformation the church lost a LOT of power and often became controlled by the king/emperor/whatever title directly while at the same time cannons made ordinary castles near worthless and better things were too expensive for local nobles while the merchants were too occupied with other stuff or smelled profit(in Britain's, Spain's, Portugal's and France's case, it was colonization; in Germany's case it was a combination of the Swedes, international trade greatly hampering their income and the ransacking of the 30 years war (as a side note: some areas in Germany (especially in the North) needed until the 19th century to recover from it population-wise and was because of it one of the reason why Germany became so militaristic in the first place (you could say it was a national trauma))) from this change.
I'd love to see a series about the actual life of the people in every period besides cultural and societal trends were people actually smelly illiterates during the medieval era? because I've seen some people claim that they actually had better work weeks more holidays and traveled a lot more than we think. what was daily life like in mesopotamia or Rome. not for the noble class but for the average person I think it would be a cool series
I'm actually reading a really good book about this! It's called "A Time Travelers Guide to Medieval England", it focuses on how people of all social classes (particularly average people) worked, played, and generally lived their lives at that time and place in history
Well, given they had four day work weeks for most of the year, not including festivals, religious celebrations, etc.etc.etc., yes. They did have better work weeks.
I mean they certainly had a better work life balance Say what you want about serfdom at least you knew working more didn’t do anything and you weren’t supposed to monetise every ounce of your being Also there where physical caps on labour since you can’t exactly milk a cow for 12 hours straight
I really have to thank you, because you're the reason I love history as much as I do now. I'd have never been able to know how wonderful all of this is without you making videos, so I'm really really happy you and Red do.
This video reminds me a lot about learning about the middle ages in school. It wasn’t really as dark as people thought. There were actually many accomplishments in that time, all over the world. It’s not even really in the middle of the timeline, it’s just called that because it was between ancient history and modern day. Heck, those castles everyone associates the middle ages with? They only began to appear around the end of the middle ages! I would write more but it was awhile ago and my memory/ability to retain information learned in a school environment is terrible.
The Dark ages is a Western European term, for the time period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire till the rise of Charlemagne, which kickstarted the Middle ages.
6:45 Charlemagne "Biggest of Charleses", Blue is not Hyperbolizing here. There are accounts of Big Chuck being 7ft tall. He probably wasn't actually that tall, but I picture Count Dooku. This is in no small part because of Christopher Lee's kickass metal album based on the first King of the Franks.
The idea of the dark ages being abyssmal generally only refers to Europe. Not to other regions of the world. That being said, I totally agree. First couple of centuries after the fall of Rome was not that great but there really were great achievements during the Middle ages.
Falling slightly behind the Islamic World in terms of tech innovation and record keeping during approximately 500-900 doesn't mean the life quality for the average inhabitant was any worse. That's frequently conflated.
@@Alias_Anybody Also europe was the least urbanised part of the empire, all the big libraries were in the middle east or rome. So naturally less chance of copying in europe than the middle east.
3:50 Is that an actual rendering of the House Of Wisdom?! I had that picture on my bedroom wall. I picked it up at a second-hand store, along with another similar drawing, because is so captivated my imagination!
With your love for Venice, you might also be interested in the cities of Flanders in the 14th and 15th centuries. Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges are gorgeous cities that became enormously wealthy as a result of the wool trade with England. Small problem, they were officially part of county of Flanders who was served the king of France. During the war of the roses this created quite a mess of conflicts of interest between the cities, the Count and the French king. The cities rebelled and almost killed their Count multiple times. It is frankly a miracle that they are still standing today and have not been utterly destroyed in revenge.
@@georgethompson1460 The never mentioned Amalfi and Ancona also seem like promising candidates given one’s Byzantine rule and the other’s... complicated status in the Papal States.
One thing that really strikes me as well, is that the Renaissance had the biggest religious wars Europe has ever known (I don't think even the Ottoman conquests can top that), the sheer massacres caused by the wars between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the endemic religious persecutions, slavery getting more popular than ever in Europe, the creation of the first secret polices, states becoming more and more authoritarian, and the Inquisition kicking into high gear... One could argue that in Europe, the Early Middle Ages were a better period to live in than the Renaissance was.
Yep. From the Renaissance up to the 1700s was a really bad time to be alive in Europe. Not at all as "wholesome 100" as people (including those during the Renaissance) try to make it out to be. The Inquisition, however, is heavily exaggerated. Killing 5000 people (the highest estimate) in 300 years is really nothing to talk about. They prosecuted 150,000 offenses in those 300 years, so it's not even a 3% lethal conviction rate. That's for the Spanish Inquisition, who are supposedly the most brutal Inquisition. In fact the Inquisition were regarded as a far better court system than the secular courts of the time, because they were both consistent and lenient.
Seeing the middle ages being used as a punching bag by historians, schools and movies just makes me mad. I'm happy a bigger creator finally addressed the misconception of the middle ages being the "dark ages". Sadly most of the bigger history TH-cam channels stil cherry pick all the bad stuff, and sometimes greatly exaggerate said bad stuff (looking at you infographic show and simple history) im glad you looked at the middle ages with rational thinking and an open mind. I myself would go as far as saying that medieval life was not necessarily worse or better then modern life, just way more simple and free with the trade off that life was less safe and luxurious, while modern life has some really big perks, I think it might be way more controlled and stressful than medieval life,
Love the video!! Do you think you could do a history summarised on Cornwall? I really enjoyed the way you did the other celtic kingdoms and Cornwall often gets overlooked because it got assumed into England. I'd love to see your take on our rich history & sometimes bizzare culture.
I thought the 'dark ages' was the phrase that was utilized for so long because we used to be very unaware of the history of that era, thus the scholars being 'in the dark' I also remember hearing that once more about that time period was discovered it was re-named to _the middle ages._ Was I just mistaken here or am I missing something in this video that covers this? Addendum: Upon finishing the video I'm pretty sure I heard the phrase _middle ages_ at least once.
Decent summary, but honestly the greatest achievement of this video is the experience of hearing a For-Real Classicist taking the Middle Path, eschewing both slavish traditionalism and more-differently slavish revisionism. Bravo.
I was always one of those kids in school who hated history because I didn't realize the importance of learning about the past to benefit the future. These videos have completely shifted my view on all things history and now I wish I could go back to public education and actually pay attention in those classes 😭
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
I've visited almost every cathedral here in England, as well as many different ruined abbeys and priories. The scale and skill of the medieval church is very impressive. The 11th-century Durham cathedral was built on a scale rivalling even st peter's basilica, and many other large-scale romanesque churches dotted western Europe at this time, it was a massive continent-wide architectural movement, and certainly makes the "glory of Rome" seem a bit less unparalleled.
You should check out how the largest and wealthiest medieval cities compared to towns as mundane as Pompeii and reconsider that. The people trying to rehabilitate the medieval period seem to have a very difficult time whenever actual numbers, quantities, or scales enter the conversation.
*The Pope:* I have brought Christianity, legitimacy, and culture to my new Holy Roman Empire! *Me:* _Your new Holy Roman Empire?!_ Pope, that's nothing more than Imperial Catholicism! *The Pope:* Don't make me excommunicate you...
THE MYTH: after the Romans, everyone did nothing and became dirt farmers until being smart came back into fashion arrived. The reality: life ticked by as it does, but records weren't kept as well.
I always look to engineering to puncture the myth of the "Dark Ages". The Romans pretty much had machinery and architecture that had remained unchanged since the Greeks invented most of it in the BC years. Then in the Middle Ages we get huge advances in forging (plate armour), machinery on both big scale (siege weaponry and cranes) and the very small scale (lenses, clockwork and precision tools), and architecture (Gothic architecture IS a BIG technical step up from Roman architectural engineering and many buildings made by even small French cities in the Medieval Era are still unmatched feats of engineering and beauty today). Sure a lot of that is "borrowed" from Chinese and Arabic advances, as you said, but history is just a long line of people stealing eachothers good ideas and we also see entirely independent developments in Europe.
The dark ages are definitely exaggerated, but there is a significant degree of truth to it. A lot of skills and technologies were lost when Rome fell. Much of this was due to the major transfer of scholarship and specialist education from skilled craftsmen and professional classes to the church in Western Europe. This meant that a lot of technologies and practices died out due to the lack of relevance to the church. Education also became the preserve of the church rather than more broadly seen as a virtue in society - in the early Medieval period, most of even the nobility could not read or write, whereas in Rome, reading and writing was so widespread that even plebs and slaves were generally literate to some degree. If you look at physical archaeology, it is clear that technology definitely took a major step back. Architecture is a great example of this. Roman/Greek geometry was largely forgotten, which led to the loss of arches as a fundamental principle of construction - which led to centuries of simpler buildings and the loss of buildings and infrastructure (e.g. the Aqueduct and plumbing). However, these technologies very much survived in Eastern Rome (Byzantium) and successor Islamic states (in which religious institutions did not swallow up academic and professional education), which led to a gradual transfer of skills and technologies well before the Renaissance. Medicine and science is also another area that took a major step back when the church swallowed "secular" education and professions. The more trial/error and cause/effect based approach of the Greeks and Romans was muddled and mixed in with the superstitious and mystical, leading to medicine in Medieval western Europe becoming a joke compared to the more professional Byzantine and Islamic doctors.
We had a whole history course delicated to Euroopian art and culture history, and when we got to the medieval times our teacher basically said "a lot of people think that absolutely nothing good happened in the medieval times, and that they're boring, but that's very much wrong" and I was sitting there after having JUST complained about the medieval times a day prior like ":0"
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
I was told, in my youth, that the term "Dark Ages" was ONLY talking about Post-Rome Mediterranean/ Northern Europe. China was not a part of Rome, so their history, both Pre- and Post-Rome doesn't normally factor in. Kinda like when people talk about World War 1 they don't talk about the National Protection War in China, for the same reason. The Muslim Golden Age should have been taught more in schools. I blame history books produced by Pro-Christian groups, like Texas State Board of Education. Also, no one talks of the second part of the Austronesian expansion, in which they might have reached as far as South America (putative evidence, based in the spread of the sweet potato). Again, only dark for Post-Roman Europe. I also like fow Blue proves the European Dark Ages were at least partially a thing by talking about "Imperial Catholicism" and its effects from 5:50 to 8:30. How much money do I need to throw at you to do more Indo-Pacific history and folklore?
It doesn't even fit Northern Europe or the Mediterranean lol Imperial Catholicism had many positive effects on Europe. Just as the Islamic Golden Age was not all sunshine and roses like many depict. The point is that on the whole, there was no continental Dark Age in Europe or even parts of Europe.
@@Dafthart Gee I dunno, possibly the universities mentioned in the video not to mention the advancement in the sciences that would only much later come to butt heads with Christian thinking (not that *all* scientific progress is rooted in this one development but still)? The documentation from monks? The foundations for a system that would keep most of the Latin West linked together despite the collapse of political unity in a single polity? Whichever one you prefer.
My Literature and The Arts professor briefly talked about how “the dark ages weren’t that dark” but they never really went into it too much. I guess this helps me understand what they meant a little bit more.
As someone from England, we oftentimes only teach English history in school so it's interesting to learn how different cultures were handling the same time periods where we were burning scientists and forbidding dissection
One of the big things that got drilled in my Medieval history classes in college was that Dark Ages was an outdated term (mainly because it led to people dismissing the era as "that time between Rome and the Renaissance where nothing happened and everything sucked") and we were to use Early Medieval Period instead. Clunky rebranding? Sure, but if it gets people to actually learn about the period then it works.
My high school history teacher basically taught me this, too.
If you had the chance to rename the "Dark Ages" what you you name it?
@@GraveyardMaiden Depends. See, one of problem is that while we know when the "Dark Ages" started, but no one can agree when it ended and how long it lasted for. Personally, I would divide into three parts. 476 to 800-ish would be called "Post-Romana" as a pun of "Pax-Romana", Every thing between Charlemagne and Hastings would be some French word that means Early Kingdom Building, and everything between William the Conquering Bastard to the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks would be just "Medieval".
@@GraveyardMaiden Early Medieval Period is stuck in my head, so it's hard for me to think of an alternative, but Toonrick12's suggestion is probably about where I'd wind up. I might use Romanesque after the architectural style instead of Post-Romana.
@@foldabotZ ,
Mine did not.
What little I remember being taught about this part of history where 'footnotes' on the way to something more important... the British Empire itself. This is likely because the history of Europe is irrelevant to my home country, aside from the whole expansion period that led to said countries founding in the first place. So of course they would love to skip over the 'dark ages' as 'that time of Castle and Sieges,' in order to get to the parts that involved Captain Cook.
Yeah, a bit bitter about Australia's education system being a little too nationalistic when I was going through it.
I remember my elementary school textbook being "So the Dark Ages began, called like this because it was a period of cultural darkness stuck between two great history periods. Anyway, here's seven chapters describing the fundamental cultural role of the monks, the birth of European languages, huge technological advances in agriculture, the rise of city centers as we know them today, the countless political quarrels and wars, the invention of most of the autoctone food you are eating today. The other book will cover art instead, and oh we will not bother to cover what happened in the rest of the world because we don't have enough paper"
Sounds like you had a good book
do you remember the title?
Wasn’t it called dark ages because of mass persecution of Christians by the Vatican?
My Elementary school lessons only covered America. I only got the middle ages in school once I got to high school. In the introduction I got pretty much gave the whole dark ages vibe. Talked about how short life expectancies were how most people never went more than 10 miles from their home about witch trials and how things remain totally unchanged for centuries at a time. Middle school basically admitted the Middle Ages Happened like yeah there’s like 1000 years of crappy nothing between Rome and the renaissance just pretend nothing worth mentioning happened and skip to the Renaissance. It was basically one chapter just explaining what a manor was what a serf was and how thank God the renaissance finally happened.
I'm puzzled that westerners are upset that they were taught western history in school. One could argue that not teaching kids in school the western heritage could be a problem. I think Carter G. Woodson used this rationale to advocate for a black history curriculum.
They’re not upset that they were taught Western history, the problem is that they were taught exclusively Western history. You can’t just pretend that the rest of the world didn’t exist. That just perpetuates really harmful stereotypes and worldviews
Did anyone actually ever assume that the "dark age" was applicable outside of a European context? Even as a child i would not have thought of China, India, Africa or the middle east as being included
Yeah it might as well have been called the European dark age, but that was always implied, I thought.
It's only in western Europe not all of Europe
It was dark for us Jewish folk. There are some uncomfortable similarities between our history and the goblins in HP, which you can see happening mostly in the Dark Ages
@No Niether Late Eastern Rome, the Roman Empire at it's height could really be considered European in any sense we would recognize. Sure some of the Balkans were a core part of the Eastern Empire but the vast majority of it's population, income and territory came from what we today would call the Middle East and North Africa and later in it's reduced medieval state, modern day Turkey was it's heartland for as long as it could really be called an empire. Even Western Rome before it's collapse included parts of North Africa. Nobody at the time would've considered themselves to be European in any case, identity was either regional or religious. The Romans would've considered people from most of Europe to be barbarians, even at the time of the Republic they would've had more in common with the Mediterranean world culturally and in terms of their way of life.
@@Grim_Sister sadly is there ever a non dark time for you guys? I mean good God that's a long history of undeserved hardships.
As my medieval philosophy teacher, Prof Jean Grondin said :
"People who lived in the middle ages had no idea because they were too busy living their lives and coming up with a culture of their own rather than make self-important comparisons to the century past and pretending that doing so was a culture"
I feel like Americans could learn a lot about that.
@@rvawildcardwolf2843
What do you mean by this?
@@IkeOkerekeNews American politicians are often obsessed with half-baked Hopes for recreating past glory of economic boom periods that they ignore major factors that have changed or are out of their office's control.
Similarly too many Americans look at the progress we've made and act like we no longer have work to do because we're better than we were about certain things 70 years ago.
I'm sure other countries feel similarly, but I'm noticing it the most about my own.
@@rvawildcardwolf2843 I will agree that politicians are often out of touch, but on the “too many Americans” part it’s often not so much about there no longer being work to do as philosophically disagreeing as to the ways and means.
What a burn.
I was under the impression that "the Dark Ages" was a myth popularized by Victorian historians who for *some reason* couldn't imagine that an empire like Rome could fall without it utterly devastating even the furthest reaches of the empire. Good to know that they stole the idea from the Renaissance.
Yeah, if the Victorians hadn't... I would question what Universe I had fallen into.
Anything from the Renaissance left, or is it all in their museums now?
Yeah, you can draw a direct line from the Victorian Public Education System (apply air quotes around any/all of that as you please) through the great Enlightenment thinkers of the century prior to the Renaissance ROME GUD, WE GUD, WE ROME? historical masturbation cycle.
Of course, you can blame the Roman church for that ROME GUD thing in the first place, since while the Roman Empire might have split up, it did so _after_ making the capital 'C' Church _ROMAN,_ with all the Imperial ambitions, cultural pretentions, and utter obsession with hierarchical social structures carried over from the Romans and alien to the early church. Gibbon probably catapulted the "Christianity ruined Rome" school of thought to prominence, but modern scholarship has kind of affirmed the old idea that Rome ruined Christianity and then used it to self-perpetuate Roman dominance, which it was wildly successful at.
Sorry, that got a bit ranty.
@@Vespuchian True, the Victorians basically considered Greco-Roman society as proto-England and then exported that concept, along with their Anglocentric perspective on everything else, to the rest of the Commonwealth.
Yeah the Victorians reinforced the idea for the modern age
@@vladimirenlow4388 Victorian Britain had probably the best soft power of the 19th century.
Practically every nation on earth wanted to imitate the British Empire or Culture in one way or another.
As a Greek I find it weird when I encounter Westerners on the internet saying that they weren't taught anything about Byzantium, because over here Medieval history is almost exclusively Byzantium with the few exceptions being Charlemagne, the Crusades and Early Muslim Expansion who get about a dozen pages combined in the textbook.
It's also a bigger thing in Eastern Europe, but by the west, people on the internet tend to mean the anglosphere plus couple cousins.
And this part of history is mostly glorified as well. I don't think most people regard Byzantium as a dark/primitive age anymore. It hadn't always been the case though. it was ignored/deemed unimportant by most historians in the early days of the modern greek state and it was slowly integrated into our national narrative about the continuation of the greek nation throughout the millennia.
@@vasilikikakara3092 Ναι στην αρχη δεν του εδιναν μεγαλη σημασια γιατι οι Ευρωπαιοι δεν θα μας αναγνωριζαν ως Ρωμαιους
Basically most history taught to people is based on immediate area and usually covers areas where they orginally from if they migrated to the area, areas that the county has history with as if allies or enemies. Then there are the super powers of the history being taught. History is huge and to simplify what I just mentioned you are basically taught history that affects yourself and country and history of those that had a strong influence in the world.
Do you learn anything about the anglo saxons vs the vikings? The norman conquest? The plantagenets? No you don't, and the reason is because its completely irrelevant to greek history and if the greek education system would spend time on it, they wouldn't have as much time for greek things. The same is true in reverse. If we spent time learning of greek history, which is practically irrelevant to British history, we wouldn't have as much time for British history. And where do you even draw the line? If we have to learn about greek history, what about arab history, Russian history, Chinese history, Japanese history, Indian history etc? The point being there is simply too much world history for 18 years of education to cover.
I minored in medieval history in grad school. My advisor said that there were two obvious errors of approaching the Middle Ages: thinking it was some kind of golden age and thinking it was the dark ages! Update: "The dark ages is a myth created by Big Renaissance to sell you more paintings" is my new favorite explanation ever!
I'm with you on this. There's a bit too much pushback in the other direction saying things were fine and dandy. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary that life was unchanging, if not better. Even a Roman historian would point out peasant life was declining in quality, even if the Empire stood longer.
I love how Jacques Le Goff put it in his "Un long Moyen Âge" (which I highly recommend): "These long middle ages are neither dark, as humanists and people of the Enlightenment wanted to see them, nor gilded as Romanticists and Catholics of 19th century imagined it. As every period in history it's composed of light and shadows, but I, wanting to oppose the contempt to the 'Dark Ages', was always outlining the share of light and of creative thought of the middle ages, which was great and became basis to shape the future."
Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome, which is about the post-Roman world up to the year 1000, goes into this in the introduction. On one hand, it gets widely characterised as a stagnant limbo between Rome and the Renaissance, even the term "Middle Ages" defining it only in relation to what came before and after, and on the other it is the period when most nations in Europe consider to be the time they "emerged" and began their histories, which causes the period to become the victim of nationalist romanticism.
i generally blame the Victorians for a lot of that stuff. Putting horns on vikings and beltbuckles on pilgrim hats, Victorians. "Kismet, Hardy", Victorians; etc etc
I'd say the dark ages are more accurate if applied only to Western and Central Europe and made from 410-800 or 1091. Chris Wickham has a good book, as does Bryan Ward Perkins
2 things that irk me about depictions of the European "dark ages"
1: that everyone was dirty. Bath houses were common and people would bathe often daily in local rivers, being able to fork out some money to wash with soap in a bathhouse tub and have their clothes washed maybe once a week. They weren't dirty, they cared about maintaining some standard of hygiene.
2: that everything was grey and brown and bleak and people wore rags. People dressed in vibrant colours, villages and towns would have banners and little flags hung up, people like colour and wherever people could get something dyed, they did, and wherever they had a chance to show off their colourful dyed cloths, they did. Also pretty much everyone could sew, so any tears in clothing would be quickly and skilfully stitched up.
From what i've read bath houses were more of an urban thing. Linen clothes are just really good at absorbing sweat, so by washing your linens your washing yourself.
Also hygiene has more to do with robust sewers which are like a victorian period thing just due to sheer cost.
@Bionick Toa The Black Death killed millions in the Middle-East and China. No amount of personal hygiene was going to save you from it.
@@georgethompson1460 Bath houses were an urban thing because rural areas didn't need it, they had natural bodies of water to clean themselves in.
It's my understanding from Shadiversity videos that castle interiors were both whitewashed and absolute eyesores with all of the brightest colors a Lord could afford covering ever last inch that he could afford to cover, as well.
@@LordVader1094 ...Welp. I’m not drinking from that river.
It is worth pointing out that war in the MIddle Ages, while frequent, was VERY low intensity. Unless conflicts were waged between powerful monarchs or noblemen, wars would mostly be characterised by a few dozen knights and/or retainers raiding villages on the borders of realms.
And even then they would usually target the economy rather than the people. Destroying mills, burning fields, etc. Obviously it sucked to get caught by a raiding party, but large campaigns of any kind were incredibly rare. Not to mention the middle ages are also where the modern European pacifist movement has its roots, in things like the Peace of God movement and Catholic attempts to limit inter-catholic warfare.
Also I dont think normal people fought in proper battles? If im not mistaken only nobles could
@@LynnHermione commoners absolutely fought and served in wars. For many it was a part of their feudal obligations, for others it was a profession that earned them money. There wasn't enough knights to make up a whole army. Sometimes combats between groups of nobles were arranged instead of open war, such as the famous Combat of the 30, but that was the exception, not the rule.
I feel like that's a huge problem in most of history. People say "the US is always at war," but with a few exceptions most Americans have nothing to do with war most of the time. Many people in history have lived perfectly normal lives doing perfectly humane things. We just don't write about them.
So, Blue calling them a slap-fight with France is accurate. Good to know.
This really is one of the most pervasive myths. I hate how people seem to think that in the “Dark Ages” and Medieval periods everyone was primitive savages when they were actually pretty advanced culturally and even scientifically for the time.
It's similar in philosophy. People often dismiss medieval philosophy as 'they're just talking about God'. And to be fair, a lot of it is within that framework. Also admittedly, plenty of it is quite dry (the overlap between 'good writer' and 'philosopher' tends not to be very big). But things like Descartes cogito isn't as revolutionary to someone familiar with the epistemological works of St. Augustine, for example. And modern american linguistic philosophy could have done with some more reading of medieval works, because a lot of medieval philosophy of language is quite interesting and unjustly ignored.
I would blame it on media like books, movies and shows.
All things considered, their engineering, architecture, infrastructure, etc was advanced enough to construct elaborate and huge structures that still survive today, which is something else. Any so-called savagery isn't anything out of character for the human race at any given point of time.
But no one says they were primitive savages? It's described as such because of political and societal turmoil, which was abundant. There really wasn't much in this video that convinced me the "Dark Ages" didn't exist.
@Carter Hill
I think you misunderstand this video. He admits that there was a lot of turmoil, but points out that the Dark Ages title is sort of undeserved because of how much good stuff was going on. In other words, no, it's not a "Dark Age" because there wasn't an apocalypse.
‘If Rome didn’t have an empire at home, why not just order one?’
This line was hysterical and made me think of picking up an empire at a McDonald’s drive through in a happy meal container 🤣
"So we have one Charlemagne combo, one box of Monast-nuggets, and a Diet Coke."
"If Rome didn't have an empire at home, why not order one? Which leads us to this video's sponsor, Doordash-"
“Mom, can we get McEmpire???”
“No, we have an empire at home”
This is actually something that happens in the D&D setting I'm working on for my home games. This one nation was losing a war pretty bad and out of nowhere this siege engineer approaches the king. They make some kind of deal and the king gets millions of warforged soldiers, who completely dominate the other side. You'd think the person who LITERALLY built and army from scratch would be a major historical figure but no one really knows who this engineer was or what they got out of the deal. Some people think that lack of information was PART of the deal
"Did you want a side of Chivalry Myth with that?" "Yeah, let's get both the Arthur and the Lancelot stories. Hell, just throw 'em together, we like the blend."
I applaud that you not only summarized the successes outside of medieval Europe, but you also highlighted the successes *within* medieval Europe. Too often when people point out the advances outside of Europe at the time they still hold on to the idea that Europe was a hopeless backwater that saw little to no progress before the Enlightenment. Also props for talking about the Byzantine Empire, which gets so little attention here in the West.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
Yeah, western Europe was a backwater before Charles Martel, although they had far more than they had north of the Alps before Ceasar, but from Charlemagne's time on they grew with leaps and bounds- and Ireland and Britain grew with artistic leaps and bounds even earlier... it might even be said that the real Renaissance in western Europe was in the 12th Century, and the age of Leonardo and Michelangelo was certainly the culmination of centuries of growth! Meanwhile, Byzantium was going through age upon age of beauty and wonder right alongside Cairo and Baghdad, and Bulgaria was for a while a great wonder of the world!
Some people use "The Dark Ages" to specifically describe a lack of medieval written records. This is charitable, but still incorrect.
That's distinctly not what Petrarch or Caesar Baronius meant when they applied that name to post-classical society and the 10-11th centuries, respectively. The people who used that term specifically used it to characterize Medieval society as ignorant, tumultuous, and bad, in contrast with the "light" of classical Rome - and that concept got extremely popular in the 1700s Enlightenment era.
Later scholars in the 18-1900s restricted "The Dark Ages" to the 500s-900s (ie: between the fall of Western Rome and the establishment of the HRE), but this also fell out of fashion eventually.
Plenty of literary traditions arose from the early, high, and late Medieval period. As mentioned by LudoHistory: word for word, we have an order of magnitude more writing from 500-1000ad than from 0-500ad, with Gregory the Great alone having more words than basically the whole classical corpus.
It's not about written records. "The Dark Ages" was always used disparagingly.
-B
well i dont i call it the dark ages cause they dont have electricity
I really like the video, you did a great job! As I saw you mention Venice I immediately thought of the Ragusa Republic, so I was wondering if you could an overview or something of it. Thanks!
You and Red make my days with your videos.
I would *further* note that, word for word, we have an order of magnitude MORE writing from 500-1000 than we do from 0-500. Gregory the Great alone has more words than basically all Classical authors lol.
And here I was, thinking that it was called the Dark Ages because it had so many knights. Sorry, someone had to
Yes
“The dark ages is a myth told by Big Renaissance to sell you more paintings.” Ok, I’ll admit, that one was good. Great video, Blue!
Nice profile picture
That being said, the dark ages wasn't totally a myth. Nothing in the video contradicts the idea of Western and Central Europe from the specific years of 476-800 being a mess of fighting between innumerable kingdoms, feudalism rising, certain Roman knowledge being lost or relegated to the bookshelves of monks, a decline in quality of life and literacy dropping. It's telling the only person really remembered as super important during this time was Charlemagne who could be said to have brought Europe out of anything resembling the dark age idea. Obviously the thousand year dark age stuff is nonsense, but until the 1500s when Europe became dominant, Western Europe was seen as a backwater compared to Islamic and Chinese empires. We remember the Vikings too I suppose, but for all the wrong reasons lol
@@ManiacMayhem7256 thanks! I think you may have replied to me by accident with your other comment though
@@gray-stans-chihiro
Yeah whoops
@@ManiacMayhem7256 Actually is is a myth. The reason no one else is mentioned is due to historical bias mainly. Centralization =/= advancement.
I am really thankful that my first history teacher really hammered this concept in. My favourite example are the witch hunts. They happened after the renaissance, yet most people seem to forget this fact.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
Which hunts were they .?
...I've literally never seen someone think that the witch uproar was a middle ages thing. They'd be off by hundreds of years.
But it's not like there was *none* of that going on. It's more that for most small communities if someone around was seen as a "witch" most people appreciated the vague attempt at medicine too much to bother complaining. And even without "witchcraft" as a catchall, on a *political* level there was plenty of "X is a heretic/ Satanist" to go around, even if that's still overexaggerated.
yeah people want to blame the witch hunts on religion, but really they're based in different worldviews like catholicism and protestantism or christianity and paganism. the french enlightenment isn't spared from this lunacy.. they built temples to the cult of reason in france in the 1800s, some of which are still up today. of course, this also led to the dictatorship of napoleon bonaparte.
So did my High School AP teacher. I had called the Medieval Ages “the Dark Ages” when it did not apply to the rest of the world like China, India, and the Islamic world. What we called the “Dark Ages” only applied to Europe and even then was inaccurate.
why is it called dark ages, the sun is still up smh
10/10 joke
For real
Heeey, I know you from the Sabaton History video comments! Hi!
Daylight savings?
Hi dad!
I presume the primary valid reason to call them the “dark ages” is due to a scarcity of records. Still tragic as hell, but at least it’s not COMPLETE pandemonium.
that's how historians use(d?) , whilst common usage is about it being "dark and miserable"
thanks renaissance and enlightenment philosophers, very cool 🥴
COMPLETE pandemonium would be the Bronze Age collapse!
@@thecoldcapybara1637 (sobs internally at the lost information)
Similarly the Egyptian "Dark Ages" between dynasties had no central rule and thus less monuments being built, but had a lot less slavery and some female-dominated states
I’ve heard this as well, the records of the time weren’t kept particularly well, or got plundered by(insert almost any contemporary name here), and so we don’t have a ton to go on.
The conversion of entire cultures to Christianity being cited as a specific year feels like such an asterisk
and these conversions (have it be the teutonic knights or the caliphates) weren't really, let's say, peaceful and devoid of war crimes against forcibly converted locals.
@@Game_Hero maybe even two asterisks
Not really, since it was a political decision of the ruling elite. It was a bit like joining an international organization, that's why there are specific dates - it was a big deal. The actual converting of the people would be a long process which would often result in a weird mix of Christianity and paganism that would endure for generations. Many pagan traditions survived with only slight changes.
Oh come now, are you telling me that historical events arent just done in a specific date and instead develop throughout years and between many layers of society?
Preposterous!
@@zlosliwa_menda I'd almost argue that many Christians are essentially just pagans that like jesus.
I don't blame Blue for skipping over it because there is only so much time in a video, but the middle ages also had vibrant Jewish communities throughout the European and Muslim worlds. It was also the time of some of the biggest names in Jewish biblical commentary: Rashi, Rambam (Maimonides), and Ramban (Nachmonides) to name a few.
It unfortunately ended with one country after another expelling all Jews in the early modern period (Spain, France, England, some German States) which led to a large migration towards Eastern and Eastern Central Europe as Poland-Lithuania for example was generally more tolerant. Same applies to the Netherlands after their independence. Which took a dark turn during the 19th and 20th century in the face of Polish, Russian and most prominently German nationalism.
@@Alias_Anybody yup. unfortunately, antisemitism has a very long history in europe, and unlike popular belief was definitely not invented by the nazis. there were laws banning jews from most jobs throughout the middle-ages, and they persisted surprisingly long.
antisemitism what never unique to germany, they’re ‘just’ the ones who started building their nationalism by pinning all their failings on the jewish people in the 19th century
@Bionick Toa Maybe, but the Jews and the Romani were the only ones a genocide was attempted on. Well, that and maybe Muslims in Spain.
Never knew about this, but it makes sense
In case you missed it, Blue actually has a link in the top right corner for a video about medieval Judaism
When you're going through a rough spot, it's not uncommon to declare that everything sucks, even if there are others saying things will be okay and trying to get you through it. Western/Central Europe needed time to process what it had gone through.
Tl;dr: Yes, I am saying that this was their Goth phase.
The name "Dark Ages" is pretty appropriate, then 😂
Good job, this is a lovely comment
“Goth phase” gets a 10/10 pun rating from me. I don’t even care if it was accidental it’s just so good.
Some places really insisted it wasn't just a phase - looking at you, Iberian peninsula!
It literally was, weren't they expanding Gothic architectural styles around then? Or was that a few centuries later
Funny story: I was at a writing workshop one day and I fell into talking with a bunch of people about how cool the Witcher was. I brought up how cool it was that the Witcher introduced popular culture to non Western European mythologies and history (that comment about Poland being "exotic" was spot on by the way) and then one of the people looked me in the eye and said to my face "oh, it's JUST Medieval history, it doesn't matter".
It was at that point my vision went red and I vaguely remember going on a tirade about the Islamic Golden Age and the Orthodox Church, but I like to think I changed their minds, even if I didn't.
"but I like to think I changed their minds, even if I didn't." You probably didn't. If people change minds about something it is because they want to. What you ended up doing is probably making them more reinforced in their position.
Didn't ask
*Ye Olde British Historians:* "Rome good, everything else bad."
*Byzantium:* "Finally, some-"
*Ye Olde British Historians:* "Oh, sorry, WESTERN Rome good."
*Byzantium:* "Oh come on!"
To be fair, these days nobody shuts up about "not holy, not Roman, and not an empire" despite that being completely wrong.
So... yea. Everybody has their age to shine I guess.
@@spiffygonzales5899 Agreed. While I think it’s clear the Greek East retained the “superior” claim, the HRE has legitimacy in that it came into existence at the behest of the last vestige of the Roman state in the Latin West. Both were unmistakably empires, the HRE was only reduced to a decentralized collection much later down the line, and given that “last vestige” was the See of Rome it may as well have been as holy as it gets.
That Voltaire quote is often used as if to describe the HRE’s entire complex history rather than in Voltaire’s days.
@@wildfire9280 Greek East didn't have a claim, it literally just was a continutation of the Empire in its Eastern provinces. Rome's capital was changed to Constantinople by Constantine and that capital remained under the imperial administration for about a thousand years after the fall of the Latin West. After the fall of Ravenna the Eastern Empire dissolved the Western throne and only the Eastern court and Senate continued. The HRE's legitimacy is shoddy at best and its clear the Pope crowned charlemagne after observing weakening Eastern Roman authority in Italy and wanting to be free of Imperial control and having his own Empire.
The HRE is a proto super state at best. The Empire tag was given, again, by the Pope. Note that back then the Roman Empire was simply called "the Empire" since it was impossible for people back then to see any other Empire existing other than Rome. Rome was authority, Rome was power, Rome was **the** Empire. So the HRE was initially just called Imperium Romanum. Giving it the Imperium tag directly undermined the authority and the influence of the Eastern throne and the Ecumenical church because the Pope and the Latin west now recognised HRE as **the** Empire and not the Eastern throne. Of course later the Empires' relation would change and the Eastern Empire would recognise the HRE as the Western Throne and the Holy Roman Emperor as the co-emperor with intermarriages between Byzantine and German royal families but that's altogether an even more complex topic.
Basically, the HRE was an "empire" of convenience to help give the Church influence over the Latin West and an attempt at unifying it. It was not a legitimate successor state to the Unified Roman Empire in any practical terms. It neither was a proper Empire but more of a Federation or a super state. It was called an Empire to give its name power and prestige since Europeans associated that word with Rome of old.
I love when people think that the revolutionary ideas from the Renaissance came from nowhere 🤡 like, The Middle Age is right there
Ey, Giacomo, come out from the toolshed, it's the era of antrhopocentric reason and research walking over there!
Yorko Nuovo, 1410, colorized.
@@alpaczka6078I swear, I initially read that as "Yorko Nuovo, 1410, colonized."
The dank ages
@@paulwaltersheherfeministvl521 oh shit you're an offshoot of AxxL aren't you
@@paulwaltersheherfeministvl521 axxl we can see that’s yoy
You managed to condense an entire college semester if medieval history in 11 minutes! Very well done Blue!
*Western Europe:* "OMG, it was so awful! Everything was just so, so horrible!!"
*Africa, Middle East, Asia, both Americas, every continent except maybe Antarctica:* "I dunno, it seemed okay to _us..."_
*Western Europe:* _"EVERYTHING WAS HORRIBLE!!"_
I mean im sure the penguins were doing fine too
Western Europe to be specific.
Antarctica, just vibing with its native wildlife: Wait what? The ice age ended??... Neat, I guess.
Though realistically everything for Antarctica since the ice caps form is just one long freezing "this is fine"
@@Slm99 Good point, updated.
… yes, time periods are location specific. We don’t talk about Western Europe by the Chinese dynastic calendar, it makes about the same amount of sense. By god, think before you type.
I I thought Dark ages was a term that had a geography as well as time limit defining it. Same with Medieval, Renaissance, and Classical period all being limited to Mediterranean And Europe. I always figured other parts of the world had their own names for those time periods and therefore the European names would not be used. I know Japan did as it is the only Non European country whose history I am generally familiar with.
Yeah, I was taught that the Dark Ages was a specific period of Western European history that was mainly called such due to a surprising lack of written records and literacy rates (outside of religious sources, mainly the Bible).
The term "dark ages" and all the diferent subdivisions of european history are used by some to define ALL of human history. This form of thinking is usually refer to as Eurocentrism.
Nah it was a bit of a mess due to Limited central authority causing a collapse of infrastructure in Western Europe and lots of political intrigue. Add in lots of raiders even before the Vikings and you can see where the myth comes from. Though admittedly Blue's right the bad parts are exaggerated in culture cause that's what makes good stories. Bunch of dudes farming who wants to read about that. The Byzantines and Eastern Europe is also general ignored when talking about the period when it probably shouldn't be as there was a fair amount of interaction. I always assumed it was because the Catholic church only recorded the history of catholic areas and when the Muslims conquered the Orthodox areas their historical documents were not considered important enough to maintain by the new overlords. Could be wrong though.
@@gobalbucs Also specifically, I was taught that the Dark Ages was the period from ~500-~1100, at the height of the Viking period. This was due to most historical records being lost and/or sequestered in monasteries. The end of the Viking raids signified a return to a more orderly society where record keeping once again flourished, which was the Middle Ages ~1100-1450. Again, this is coming from an Anglo-centric view, but nowhere in my education did the term “dark ages” extend past the Battle of Hastings.
As a German, I can tell you that the whole thing is specifically an english term. I have never heard anyone refer to any time period in german as "dark ages" or any reasonable translation of it. In fact, I think I only really know the term from OSP videos... But I don't watch a lot of history content otherwise, so...
In German it is simply called "Mittelalter", which would translate to the middle Age.
I learned loads about medieval Christianity in a couple books by Tom Holland and I HIGHLY recommend them, one called millennium, focused on the 9th-11th centuries AD and Dominion, a more broad history of Christianity but still absolutely worth a read seeing as Christianity was so integral to all aspects of medieval Europe.
"The Witcher is basically Fantasy Poland"
Yes, yes it is. That's one of the reasons why it's awesome.
Polish mythology is so cool it’s got dragons, mermaids, and eagles
@@bellanutella7091 all mythologies have awesome stuff, and I am certain thzt if someone spends their time making games surrounding any mythology and puts some effort/love into it it´d be a banger
"If Poland counts as Exotic, then we need to re-evaluate some stuff"
@@aquamarinerose5405 ngl, the difference between european cultures can be a bit suprising. Yes its not "exotic" but there are big differences in mythology and culture.
@@gentleshark972 that's fair. Just thought to reiterate blue's point that while The Witcher is great, the fact that Polish myth is "exotic" shows we're so hyperfocused on one particular area that it's unhealthy
We stan Bruce the Single Celled life form, even despite his flaws
😎
he has no flaws
Multicellular organisms: 🤢🤢🤢🤢
Unicellular organisms:😀😀😀😀
Blue mentioning Bruce unlocked a core memory of how dumb that Batman joke was from the evolution videos.
To this day, bacteria outnumber all other life on the planet, and globally weigh more as well.
I love the video, all of it was interesting, but just a remark : aren't the "Dark Ages" and "Middle Ages" only part of European civilization's historiography about itself and its own history? It'd be like saying the Warring States Period of China was fine because things were going great in the Persian Empire and with the Greeks. Not that it's not true or interesting or important, just maybe that it's a bit...out of subject. I feel like universities, the Carolingian and Otto renaissances, the work and effort of monks and religious orders, music, all of that were barely touched upon and would make more bullseye arguments against this negative reputation of the middle ages in my eye than what should have been separate videos. But everyone will hate my criticism regardless, even if I praised the video.
A lot of world history at least in the U.S. (not so much the case now) tends to Eurocentric (specifically Western Europe) so while the "Dark Ages" does mostly refer to that time period in Europe, because so much of the focus was on Europe, it could give the impression everywhere else wasn't doing as great as well. Your critique is not invalid at all, just giving a possible explanation on why the video chose to talk about other places outside Europe.
@@playdischord1791 Maybe in high school but if you take history in any college it’s very against European-Centricism, a bit too much at times tbh. However if there’s one thing that stayed true it’s that Eastern European history gets completely ignored here until we reach the late 19th century.
“But everyone will hate my criticism regardless, even if I praised the video” is such a self-important thing to say even if you didn’t have more than a hundred likes on your comment
@@hawkingstar1698 Geez, no need to be so jerkish about it -_-
And comments that aren't pure adoration of channels tend not to be received well to put it lightly or simply ignored as "haters". The likes on this one were a surprise to say the least.
@@playdischord1791 Still, it's still out of subject and shouldn't take 2/3 of the video, not actually tackling europe and the issues behind the reputation of the middle ages while leaving actually relevant arguments to the subject rushed through. A simple sentence : "the middle ages were made to design and talk about an era only affecting Europe and not the rest of the world" would have done the trick.
Everyone throughout history: the dark ages were absolutely horrible!
Dark ages: actually we were alright...
Edit: kinda reminds you of the 2010s and 2020s, things are bad but not that bad as they used to be
They weren't just alright because it literally saw a jump in Europe where religion and culture flourished and it built the foundation for the renaissance in a time where war and death still plagued the lands but the people just tried to push through and live the best lives they could if it weren't for this era, Europe wouldn't have ever made a golden age of art and science or it if would have it would have been much slower, these few centuries started the change that turned Europe into what it is today: a centre of art, science and culture
Naa they where still pretty horrible. Just not worse then previous ages.
Not modern comfort good,but alright
And not really grim, hellas bad as plaques are ot did improve workers conditions, and people just did try to live their best possible life, which seems to show in art, and is rather colourful.
Dunno if i would choose to live there but is alright.
and thats not talking about the golden age of islam.
Historians: Oh my god! The Dark Ages must've been the worst
People in the dark ages: Oh no! ... Anyway
@@myself2noone Agreed with the addendum that the ages after weren't all that great either.
I have to say, "Charlemagne, the biggest of the Charlses" is quite possibly the best joke Blue has ever made XD
I admit I now kind of what to refer to Charlemagne casually as 'Big Charlie' just to see the look of confusion on people's faces.
I dunno, fam, "Achaemenid like a wrecking ball" is pretty hard to top.
Carolus Magnus means Charles the Great.
No, it was John Johnson. Esteemed Worker of Job in Place
@@robertjarman3703 Depending on context, "magnus" can be translated as "great" in the sense of "powerful/impressive" or as "great" in the sense of "physically large". Porta magna = large door. Albertus Magnus = Albert the Great. So yeah, obviously Charlie's PR team wrote him down as "Chuck the Awesome," but "biggest of Charleses" is still technically correct. The best kind of correct!
I remember back in highschool (~2015) I used to watch a bunch of Crash Course World History and some of OSP's videos. Now, I really glad that OSP has lots of videos spanning dozens of different subjects that people can watch for fun and learn something new. I also remember John Green saying that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't actually holy or roman lol.
Wasn't really an empire either. So widespread and fractious.
To be fair to fantasy those stories often take place during the worst (and most exciting) points in that worlds history. Westeros isn't always awful it's just that the story is set during a Particularly brutal succession war. Even the infamously terrible world of ice and fire saw it's own periods of cultural exchange and the like it's just not where the story is set. As a real world comparison, a story set in 14th century France will likely be faaaar more grimdark than a story set Venice during the same year, or even France a few hundred years earlier. You are correct tho it does tend to color our views of that period in particular in a negative way :c
There’s a literary reason for that. Times of upheaval generally make for more compelling stories, because conflict drives narrative. There’s a reason we don’t see whole novels written about life when things are well and good.
@@GrndAdmiralThrawn exactly my point
Jaehaerys I was a great king.
That's why people prefer to tell the story of how his grandchildren and great-grandchildren fucked up.
Tbf it still is always based off the concept of Medieval times being the worst and most brutal times in human history.
@@LordVader1094 yes but more well crafted stories usually add the historical footnotes to and say "things haven't Always been terrible, not before the dark times....before the (war/curse/necromancer/evil god/political corruption/orcs/murder hornets/famine/plague/revolution/dragon/all of the above)"
But BEFORE all that there was 500 years of peace and whatnot
As a History undergrad, I LOVE thinking about history as a multidimensional, multifaceted ☯️, bc otherwise it looks like a literal hellscape of suffering and contradiction, instead of something beautiful that can teach us how people work and how we can (albeit VERY slowly) make the world a better place.
The dark ages were a horrible time when the enemies of Europe were winning ground. Christianity overtook us and we were under constant Islamic attacks. Spain was conquered by the Moors who took ships full of fair haired women as slaves/concubines, committing a genocide against the native Whites.
and how do we make the world a better place? Any exemple?
@@Game_Hero There isn't exactly a recipe for that, bc societies are (to put it mildly) too complex to be improved AS A WHOLE by any specific group, let alone individual. As far as I know, the best we can do is choosing the causes that resonate the most with us and doing some form of concrete political activism whenever possible, without ignoring other causes. Basically, if Conservatives are trying to pass some new bill that hurts hurts marginalized groups, you can go to protests and do things to try to stop it from being passed.
You could build your entire career out of activism, if that's your thing. For example, you could work for an organization that promotes LGBTQ rights, as someone who, among other things, does outreach (gives lectures, creates educational material...). But there are also other ways of doing activism: TH-camr Sophie from Mars has a playlist on that, if you're interested.
Was my anwser good enough, or do you want me to elaborate on more specific points? It was probably much more vague than you expected, but I can't do much better with the relatively small amount of knowledge that I currently have. Even my favorite Leftist youtubers, which have BUCKETLOADS more experience than I do, say that there's no easy answer to almost any topic regarding social issues. It's no wonder that video essays can easily reach an hour (or even several hours) in lenght.
Nice profile picture
@@ManiacMayhem7256 Thanks! 😁 It's a fanart of Fushi, from the anime "To Your Eternity". Aside from being beautiful, anime-related and featuring clouds on its background, that pfp describes many of the more subjective meanings I assign to my username EXTREMELY well.
Blue the more I watch OSP, the more I gain an appreciation for history. Thank you for embracing your delightful style and doing what you do.
A cool book to read RE technology in the dark ages/middle ages is 'Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages' by Jean Gimpel.
Medieval western Europe was, in many fields, more advanced than even the Western Roman empire, with several processes being automated using wind and water powered machines; the early days industrial revolution was in many ways enabled by medieval designs, the main difference being a more accessible power source (steam instead of natural wind and water power).
The fall of the Roman empire meant that Europe lost mass-scale organisation, so big, logistically-intensive technologies (aqueducts, trans-continental road systems, big concrete domes, etc.) suffered. Smaller scale stuff, that didn't need a big imperial bureaucracy to manage, advanced considerably from the dark ages through high medieval period (mechanical clocks, agricultural productivity, metallurgy, mills, etc). The Cistercian order of monks even built standardised factories into their monasteries.
Thats a really interesting book suggestion, thanks
Yes indeed. We're actually way more backward both technologically and culturally. Most cultures actually stagnated since the 17th century - especially the European one after that stupidly oppressive Westphalian order emerged!!!
Medieval Europe built armor so advanced NASA looked to it for advice. They weren't stupid, they just didn't have a central state controlled the full wealth of the Mediterranean basin to dole out resources.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
Things like epics and poems continued to be written
in highschool the first thing my history teacher drilled into our heads when talking about the medieval period was how unfitting the term "dark ages" is. blues intro reminded me of that and made me happy, that teacher was awesome
We just learned it by the middle ages, we don't have a name explicitly for the dark ages in my language. At least it's not much used in schools.
Please please please please make merch that says "the dark ages was a myth by big renaissance to sell you more paintings."
This is a great video! I feel like most of the "Dark ages aren't dark" do what you started with, look at China and the Middle East, but I even like that you brought it back around, looking at the 'successes' in Europe. And the idea of the Holy Roman Empire as Imperial Catholicism is amazing. What a great way to put it!
I mean, everything that happened in the Early Middle Ages had huge linguistic consequences, from the Germanic Migrations/Invasions that influenced Romance languages and replaced an entire area of Britain that was previously Celtic, to the Muslim conquests that reshaped the linguistic map of the Middle East and North Africa and brought a lot of words to the languages of the Iberian peninsula, to the Viking era that greatly influenced the English language and brought a lot of words related to navigation to many other languages, to the Norman Conquest which brought a ridiculously large number of Old French words to English, to the religious divide between Catholicism and Orthodox church which is pretty much reflected nowadays as a divide between peoples using the Latin alphabet versus the Cyrillic alphabet (excluding Romania and Moldova)...
When you study historical linguistics, you cannot ignore the Early Middle Ages. It's just impossible.
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
@@oscarosullivan4513 I think they do mention this in the video about the history of Ireland. But yes, it would have been nice in this video too.
@@Mercure250 Agreed
I am grateful that you and your channel can debunk almost all conceptions of the past and present. You actually should be recommended to more audiences.
I'm impressed how far this channel has gotten and the fact that I eagerly await each new installment.
Pre-emptive congratulations on 2 Million subs, OSP. Couldn't have gotten this interested in history without you
The fact that life is simultaneously brutish, short, and full of evil, as well as glorious, beautiful, and full of meaning means that periods of history like “the dark ages” are often so much more complex than we make them out to be
I really struggle to see the glory, beauty and meaning y'all like to talk about. Must be a trick of the light. Maybe if I squint really hard?
@@juliagoetia If you can’t currently see joy or beauty in light I recommend going to see a doctor about being screened for depression. If you find that you no longer enjoy doing the same activities you used to enjoy, or just feel in a recurrently depressed mood, you may have a depressive psychiatric condition. Fortunately there are many medications or therapies that can help to begin to bring light back into your world!
@@timothydavis8388 Oh, I'm already aware I have clinical depression. PTSD and BPD too! Official diagnoses mind you, not self diagnosed. I take medicine for it, not that it helps much.
Honestly though? It astounds me anyone can look at the world around them and not be screwed up in the head. Y'all must be really good at cognitive dissonance. Compartmentalization of unpleasant knowledge. Being able to justify or downplay or ignore/deny the incomprehensible level of suffering and oppression that constantly surrounds you.
Sometimes I wonder: am I truly broken, for not being acclimated to a nightmarish world that has always been hostile to my existence? Or is it everyone else that is either mad or privileged?
@@juliagoetia admitting several mental illnesses while simultaneously describing people who see the world as not all evil are two incongruous thoughts. Be aware of thyself. You on the one hand admit to having clinical neuro-chemical imbalances which prevent you from seeing joy in things. Humble yourself and accept that unfortunately, your perspective is the divergent
@@juliagoetia To an extent we are all broken. However, some break in the body, some in the spirit, some in the mind. Not being able to see any good in the world despite the evil is a brokenness of mind
"welcome to the channel, I hope you like domes" when talking about Venice is the most on-brand sentence for Blue
Yeah let’s go! I love getting my pop cultural assumptions destroyed by facts and well done research!
Hell yeah!!
"All that to say is that the Dark Ages is a myth perpetuated by Big Renaissance to sell you more paintings."
A more accurate description could not be provided, especially since things like sanitation had actually gone *down* during the Renaissance. I really appreciate you doing this, since the medieval period has far more of interest to it than dumb Deus Vult memes and being brownwashed of all its (let's be honest extra as heck) vibrant colors.
I mean, Medieval Europe is where we got Gothic architecture, and that shit slaps!
I agree fully with the title. While I know you're taking a more "world approach" to this topic, I, as an 1300s HRE, Hungarian, and Czech history buff and major, I fucking love the medieval era as a whole. From the chaos of the western Roman collapse, to the tribal Slavic/Magyar invasions, to the growth and decentralization of the HRE, to the pre-Reformation Christian movements (Waldensian, Lollardy, Hussitism etc), to all the dynastic issues everywhere, it's all just so fucking fascinating.
@Bionick Toa The Byzantines send their regards.
How about making the "Golden Ages" that actually sucked?
I think the Reagan Administration is a bit too recent for Blue to cover.
The goldenage of piracy sounds good thou . Not for brits, but everyone else.
@@state_song_xprt
Mean but true.
Wut?
@@state_song_xprt All the American "Good ol' Days" are pretty rough. If the 50s were so good for everyone the 60s wouldn't have had counterculture and the civil rights boom.
I think the reason polish mythology is considered "exotic" It's because most of the time in western media It's usually a Christian view on creatures which made them either demonic or angelic with very a small gray area.
I assumed Dark Ages were between Fall of Rome to the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, and was used about the West. And I gotta say, with the amount of knights there was, I'd say it was pretty dark
But.... chivalric, "knightly" traditions only sort of emerge in that period, and it's mostly a tradition that gets really cranking in the 12th-16th centuries. 2/10 insufficiently pedantic joke.
Indeed. It was weird of Blue to jump right into talking about how China was doing as a reference to those ages being not-so-bad. One civilization doing well doesn't disprove the idea that others were not
Yah like before the 800s what was life in France like?
@@carterghill True, but the others in question weren’t really doing as badly throughout the period as “The Dark Ages” would have you think. Outside of the Viking Age that is. That definitely put a damper on things, though it *did* at least benefit the Norse.
@@wildfire9280 If that's your opinion, I would argue that the dark ages were far worse than you think. The Viking age is predated by the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England, which were done out of desperation to find arable land in a time of famine, rather than to plunder and exploit other budding states for greater wealth. Much darker context, and the same was true for many other factions fighting to establish territory in mainland Europe.
This famine was caused by a gradually cooling climate, punctuated by the literal sun going out in 535 (not exaggerating, there was a massive volcano that created an ash cloud blocking the sun for at least a year). This was met with famine shortly after killing half of the citizens of Eastern Rome (again, not exaggerating), which spread through Western Europe as well, killing many millions more.
"The Dark Ages" doesn't encompass the whole middle ages like Blue seems to think, it's only the early middle ages. But it's also just a more specific term than that, because it's referring to the uniquely awful times I described that Europe experienced. It's a great descriptor for the pattern that played out relatively consistently there, and honestly, the Viking Age itself looks pretty damn prosperous in comparison to most post-Roman European history.
"Dork Ages" made me laugh more than it had any right to XD
Anyone else love the fact that everytime Blue brings up Venice, some new veiwers are getting the "Welcome to the channel I LOVE VENICE" line for their very first time lol.
The dark ages are literally called that because of a lack of sources, not from bad living standards. A lack of tyrannical empires doesn't make an era terrible, as much as the early modern era would like us to believe.
If anything, the Roman Empire should be considered the Dark Ages of Europe, probably due to the sheer death toll and human suffering.
@@localhearthian2387 Agreed.
While the scholarly minded would know this, the layman knows the "Dark Ages" as the ages of witchcraft, murder, grape, conquest, and pain.
Exactly! There's a huge argument between Historians about whether the term "Dark ages" should be used.
Many anti-term say that using the term "Dark ages" implies that the people living at the time lacked the knowledge the people that came before and after them did. Alternatively wrongly believe that the term stems the fact that the conditions were poor, which anti-term-ers usually deem as inaccurate and want to rid the term.
Pro-term believe that that is not what the term Dark ages implies or means. Probably one of the most famous pro-term Historians is Alban Gautier, who imo has the most on-ground and reasonable view points in the entire argument. He states that the Dark ages is purely a term of convenience for the period after the fall of the Roman empire, he states that that the term Dark ages does not imply that the people living under that title lacked any knowledge, nor lived under terrible conditions (although some pro-term-ers argue that the conditions were indeed terrible, but that'd be a point for another time), but in fact the term "Dark ages" comes from the lack or loss of Historical records due to the fall of the Roman empire, hence "Dark" to modern Historian.
I personally am a middle ground between pro and against the term "Dark ages".
I personally grew up with the definition that "Dark ages" was called that due to the Loss of Historical records post-fall, hence why I am inclined to side with Alban Gautier and the pro-term-ers.
As I mentioned, however, I am middle ground and I do see why people would prefer to avoid that term, so here's my take on the argument:
It's okay to use the term "Dark ages" in non-professional work, as long as the argument about why people may avoid the term is noted and a disclaimer is made. However if one was to make proper, professional, scholar/academic work, aim to avoid the term, replacing it with "Early Middle Ages" or whatever period of time you believe the term stands for.
Edit: same spelling mistake... twice -_-
I'm disappointed that Blue didn't mention that the Pope gave Henry II permission to use the Templars to invade Ireland because the Irish church wasn't quite Catholic enough.
The love that Blue shows for my city is truly touching. I think he knows Venice way better than me and most of my friends.
Me, before the video: "Blue is gonna bring up Venice, isn't he."
Blue: 4:22
*Consistency, thy name is Blue*
Thanks for helping with the myth dispelling. As someone who specialized in Medieval Europe while studying for a history degree, it is so frustrating that so much is just straight up ignored because it happened between 476 and 1476 in an area outside the Isles and France.
As a medieval history student, I very much appreciate this
A fair chunk of the prejudice towards the Dark Ages in the west is down to Christianity (the minds mired in this thinking don't even bother differentiating between branches of Christianity whether affiliated by more than name and central text or not) which tends to get blamed exclusively for the fall of Rome (never mind all the political infighting) and every piece of bad that went on in Medieval Europe (never mind the plagues, the wars over who gets control of what had been Rome, or the mini ice-age that hit Europe).
They also ignore that the catholic church also built universities and funded early proto-science.
Also that early industrialization like water-hammers and wind mills were invented in the middle ages.
@@georgethompson1460 also that those ancient texts and philosophies had been copied and expanded upon by the priests and monks during this period. Which allowed them to survive to be "rediscovered".
Agreed. Pop culture constantly shoves "evil intolerant Christian man who burns scientists and slaughters non Christians" messages everywhere then rants and raves about how Christians supposedly shove opinions down people's throat.
And this bleeds into history. "Charlemagne revitalized schools as well as popular support in the West for the arts and sciences... but he was also a Christian so we can safely assume the entire thing was just killing women with a brain and men because they farted in church one time. Dark ages."
@@adambielen8996 Yep. The Catholic Church did a lot to preserve even "pagan" texts.
Tbh it makes me pretty sad seeings how much people today trash the church of the middle ages. The church was the beacon of science and philosophy in those times, it gave people education and was overall a force of reason and good (for the most part). I'm saying that as someone who isn't even Christian
This is why I prefer the term "medieval" over "dark ages." My parents used to participate in the Society for Creative Anachronism (historically accurate medieval cosplay and recreation with a bibliography to back everything up) and day to day living isn't that much different (relatively) from our day to day. At one point I thought they were called the dark ages because of the lack of good indoor lighting options.
I’m glad this got its own video. Among our history department “The Dark Ages” was a dirty word (phrase?) and if one of the medievalist profs heard you say it then you’d be in for an earful.
I, for one, would like to hear more about fantasy Poland.
Blue, I appreciate the effort it must have taken to wrestle centuries of international history into a 10 minute video for our education/entertainment.
This perception of the "Dark Ages" is what turns me off from most fantasy settings in literature and video games. It's fantasy; you can do _anything_ with it. But for whatever reason, creators cling onto this particular version of history.
Another thing about Middle Ages in Europe - it spans about a millenium, a long ass time divided into many eras, which saw a lot of changes and weren't always as bad as each other. Hell, I've seen historians who claim that the first half and second half shouldn't be considered the same epoch at all, because Early Middle Ages are a league of its own. The slow collapse of unprecedented regional power like Rome, of course, led to a massive political vacuum, conflicts, decline of economy and trade... But as its successor states consolidated, they created a fertile ground for the development of culture, including things like romance and gothic art, cities and universities (Romans, of course, did have cities, but they declined with the trade networks in the twilight years of the empire - besides, medieval cities are in many ways much different from their ancient predecessors, like they are governed differently, social stratification is also different etc.). Early Middle Ages were an uphill battle, High Middle Ages were the top of that hill. And then the 14th century hit. How bad the so-called crisis of the 14th century was depends on who you ask, but it's clear that the Black Death, growing conflicts (especially in Western Europe) and possibly Little Ice Age (although its true beginning is still disputed, with approximations spanning into the 17th century) made Late Middle Ages a pretty bad place to live. Crucially, when renessaince scholars claim that "Middle Ages sucked", they do so with this most recent period in mind. Which is ironic, considering that for the average person, the renessaince period ALSO sucked immensely, for many of the same reasons that Late Middle Ages did. We just tend to ignore that, because this era was formative for modern Europe, with its art, science and philosophy influencing European culture far more than anything ever produced during Middle Ages. But we shouldn't let that fool us into thinking it wasn't as bad as Middle Ages; on the contrary, in some areas (like infant mortality, or frequency and death toll of wars) it was even worse.
@Bionick Toa pretty sure fall of constantinople is end of middle ages.
From the fall of rome to the fall of rome.
Consider medieval cities, which took their cues from late Roman Cities, where you had to have walls like it was the early iron age because it was so dangerous outside.
@@Pangora2 I always believed walled cities were the dominant model in most states of the period, so imagine my surprise when some had lacked them until increasing internal strife.
This feeds into my theory that the Renaissance Fair is actually a secret organization trying to take over the world one fantasy nerd at a time.
Terry Jones, of "Monty Python" fame, did a series called, "Medieval Lives," back around 20 years ago that went into detail about what the so-called "Dark Ages" were _really_ like. And every episode pretty much concluded with, "…but we think it was the opposite because of Victorian Era revisionist history, which was in order to tell the masses, 'The past was so much worse, so stop complaining about how bad you have it now!'"
It was a very interesting program, and I highly recommend it if you can find it.
It’s a sad myth that I’ve fallen for many years! Even in high school I got an A on a history paper because I, literally word for word, had the tagline “They lived to be 35, traded donkeys for virginity, and died of diarrhea”
I was so convinced the Middle Ages was full of squalor and missing teeth that I just brushed off any history video or book that came my way. Surprisingly enough, The Last Duel was what had me look into the medieval era! I was fascinated with their judicial system and just how much authority knights had. Sure, a lot can be seen as primitive by todays scope, but these people had literally nothing to work with and they still made a society.
Not a very good one even by their standards, but still a society.
Damn you were really ignorant
Bad dental care is just a European characteristic. Nothing to do with eras. Same with serving warm beer.
I tend to take the stance of: as far as those who lived in the "Dark Ages" they were fine. This wasn't the "Dark Ages" for them. It was just normal everyday life for them. And thus no matter where you lived during that time period, you didn't think it was anything more then what it is: your life, your home, your community. There were always going to be bad things happening, the same things we're experiencing today, but that's just life to them as those are to us.
A thousand years from now, people will think _we_ lived in the Dark Ages because we couldn't even find our way out of our own solar system.
@@vladimirenlow4388 Exactly.
@@vladimirenlow4388 To be fair, we actually deserve it this time. We're on the precipice of destroying our own planet, we're suffering from a case of rampant consumerism so bad that everything we eat or own is plasticky trash, and functionalist architecture exists.
Go ahead even just a century and hopefully none of those will be true, which leads me to believe that this is likely the lowest point in human history.
@@melanoc3tusii205 I don't know about "lowest point"... at least we're not immersed in a worldwide genocidal conflict like we were in the 1940s. But we are at a linchpin economically and environmentally, where unless we make some solid decisions as nation-states and individuals, we could see a worldwide devolution in political stability and living standards. To borrow from Churchill, we're either going to look back on this era as the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning.
Another myth about medieval Europe is, that the countries were ruled similarly to how later on absolute monarchs ruled.
No, not even remotely.
The whole thing was a constant struggle for power between the king/emperor/whatever title, the church, the local nobles and later on the rich non-noble people (especially banks and merchants).
The only reason why later on absolute monarchs became able to rule like an absolute authority was, because thanks to the reformation the church lost a LOT of power and often became controlled by the king/emperor/whatever title directly while at the same time cannons made ordinary castles near worthless and better things were too expensive for local nobles while the merchants were too occupied with other stuff or smelled profit(in Britain's, Spain's, Portugal's and France's case, it was colonization; in Germany's case it was a combination of the Swedes, international trade greatly hampering their income and the ransacking of the 30 years war (as a side note: some areas in Germany (especially in the North) needed until the 19th century to recover from it population-wise and was because of it one of the reason why Germany became so militaristic in the first place (you could say it was a national trauma))) from this change.
I'd love to see a series about the actual life of the people in every period besides cultural and societal trends
were people actually smelly illiterates during the medieval era? because I've seen some people claim that they actually had better work weeks more holidays and traveled a lot more than we think.
what was daily life like in mesopotamia or Rome. not for the noble class but for the average person
I think it would be a cool series
I'm actually reading a really good book about this! It's called "A Time Travelers Guide to Medieval England", it focuses on how people of all social classes (particularly average people) worked, played, and generally lived their lives at that time and place in history
Well, given they had four day work weeks for most of the year, not including festivals, religious celebrations, etc.etc.etc., yes. They did have better work weeks.
I mean they certainly had a better work life balance
Say what you want about serfdom at least you knew working more didn’t do anything and you weren’t supposed to monetise every ounce of your being
Also there where physical caps on labour since you can’t exactly milk a cow for 12 hours straight
@@jmurray1110 But the downsides of that is the very real chance of starvation and being completely locked into a a social class.
@@georgethompson1460 that’s not the point
The only aspect I said was better was the shorter hours and lack of hassle culture
I would love to see this further explored, like as a "Saga of the Dark Age" kinda like Red's Journey to the West.
I really have to thank you, because you're the reason I love history as much as I do now. I'd have never been able to know how wonderful all of this is without you making videos, so I'm really really happy you and Red do.
This video reminds me a lot about learning about the middle ages in school. It wasn’t really as dark as people thought. There were actually many accomplishments in that time, all over the world. It’s not even really in the middle of the timeline, it’s just called that because it was between ancient history and modern day. Heck, those castles everyone associates the middle ages with? They only began to appear around the end of the middle ages!
I would write more but it was awhile ago and my memory/ability to retain information learned in a school environment is terrible.
The Dark ages is a Western European term, for the time period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire till the rise of Charlemagne, which kickstarted the Middle ages.
6:45 Charlemagne "Biggest of Charleses", Blue is not Hyperbolizing here. There are accounts of Big Chuck being 7ft tall. He probably wasn't actually that tall, but I picture Count Dooku. This is in no small part because of Christopher Lee's kickass metal album based on the first King of the Franks.
Congratulations on getting to 2 million subscribers.
The idea of the dark ages being abyssmal generally only refers to Europe. Not to other regions of the world. That being said, I totally agree. First couple of centuries after the fall of Rome was not that great but there really were great achievements during the Middle ages.
Falling slightly behind the Islamic World in terms of tech innovation and record keeping during approximately 500-900 doesn't mean the life quality for the average inhabitant was any worse. That's frequently conflated.
@@Alias_Anybody Also europe was the least urbanised part of the empire, all the big libraries were in the middle east or rome. So naturally less chance of copying in europe than the middle east.
To be fair, the last couble of centuries before the fall of west rome weren't so great either.
@@maltemeyer3171 That's true.
3:50 Is that an actual rendering of the House Of Wisdom?! I had that picture on my bedroom wall. I picked it up at a second-hand store, along with another similar drawing, because is so captivated my imagination!
With your love for Venice, you might also be interested in the cities of Flanders in the 14th and 15th centuries. Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges are gorgeous cities that became enormously wealthy as a result of the wool trade with England. Small problem, they were officially part of county of Flanders who was served the king of France. During the war of the roses this created quite a mess of conflicts of interest between the cities, the Count and the French king. The cities rebelled and almost killed their Count multiple times. It is frankly a miracle that they are still standing today and have not been utterly destroyed in revenge.
He might like the Genoese and Pisans, eternal enemies of venice.
@@georgethompson1460 The never mentioned Amalfi and Ancona also seem like promising candidates given one’s Byzantine rule and the other’s... complicated status in the Papal States.
One thing that really strikes me as well, is that the Renaissance had the biggest religious wars Europe has ever known (I don't think even the Ottoman conquests can top that), the sheer massacres caused by the wars between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the endemic religious persecutions, slavery getting more popular than ever in Europe, the creation of the first secret polices, states becoming more and more authoritarian, and the Inquisition kicking into high gear...
One could argue that in Europe, the Early Middle Ages were a better period to live in than the Renaissance was.
Yep. From the Renaissance up to the 1700s was a really bad time to be alive in Europe. Not at all as "wholesome 100" as people (including those during the Renaissance) try to make it out to be.
The Inquisition, however, is heavily exaggerated. Killing 5000 people (the highest estimate) in 300 years is really nothing to talk about. They prosecuted 150,000 offenses in those 300 years, so it's not even a 3% lethal conviction rate. That's for the Spanish Inquisition, who are supposedly the most brutal Inquisition.
In fact the Inquisition were regarded as a far better court system than the secular courts of the time, because they were both consistent and lenient.
Seeing as how the enlightenment era came after the 30 years war, I'm skeptical. Which specific wars did you have in mind?
@@LordVader1094 Citations needed.
Seeing the middle ages being used as a punching bag by historians, schools and movies just makes me mad. I'm happy a bigger creator finally addressed the misconception of the middle ages being the "dark ages". Sadly most of the bigger history TH-cam channels stil cherry pick all the bad stuff, and sometimes greatly exaggerate said bad stuff (looking at you infographic show and simple history) im glad you looked at the middle ages with rational thinking and an open mind. I myself would go as far as saying that medieval life was not necessarily worse or better then modern life, just way more simple and free with the trade off that life was less safe and luxurious, while modern life has some really big perks, I think it might be way more controlled and stressful than medieval life,
I was under the impression the Dark Ages was the transitional period between the Roman Empire, and the Medieval Period.
Love the video!! Do you think you could do a history summarised on Cornwall? I really enjoyed the way you did the other celtic kingdoms and Cornwall often gets overlooked because it got assumed into England. I'd love to see your take on our rich history & sometimes bizzare culture.
I thought the 'dark ages' was the phrase that was utilized for so long because we used to be very unaware of the history of that era, thus the scholars being 'in the dark'
I also remember hearing that once more about that time period was discovered it was re-named to _the middle ages._ Was I just mistaken here or am I missing something in this video that covers this?
Addendum: Upon finishing the video I'm pretty sure I heard the phrase _middle ages_ at least once.
Decent summary, but honestly the greatest achievement of this video is the experience of hearing a For-Real Classicist taking the Middle Path, eschewing both slavish traditionalism and more-differently slavish revisionism. Bravo.
I was always one of those kids in school who hated history because I didn't realize the importance of learning about the past to benefit the future. These videos have completely shifted my view on all things history and now I wish I could go back to public education and actually pay attention in those classes 😭
I have my PhD in Medieval British Literature and I LOVED this video. Petrarch has a lot to answer for 😝
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
I've visited almost every cathedral here in England, as well as many different ruined abbeys and priories. The scale and skill of the medieval church is very impressive. The 11th-century Durham cathedral was built on a scale rivalling even st peter's basilica, and many other large-scale romanesque churches dotted western Europe at this time, it was a massive continent-wide architectural movement, and certainly makes the "glory of Rome" seem a bit less unparalleled.
You should check out how the largest and wealthiest medieval cities compared to towns as mundane as Pompeii and reconsider that. The people trying to rehabilitate the medieval period seem to have a very difficult time whenever actual numbers, quantities, or scales enter the conversation.
*The Pope:* I have brought Christianity, legitimacy, and culture to my new Holy Roman Empire!
*Me:* _Your new Holy Roman Empire?!_ Pope, that's nothing more than Imperial Catholicism!
*The Pope:* Don't make me excommunicate you...
One of the best youtube videos on the medieval world I've seen thus far!
THE MYTH: after the Romans, everyone did nothing and became dirt farmers until being smart came back into fashion arrived.
The reality: life ticked by as it does, but records weren't kept as well.
I always look to engineering to puncture the myth of the "Dark Ages".
The Romans pretty much had machinery and architecture that had remained unchanged since the Greeks invented most of it in the BC years. Then in the Middle Ages we get huge advances in forging (plate armour), machinery on both big scale (siege weaponry and cranes) and the very small scale (lenses, clockwork and precision tools), and architecture (Gothic architecture IS a BIG technical step up from Roman architectural engineering and many buildings made by even small French cities in the Medieval Era are still unmatched feats of engineering and beauty today).
Sure a lot of that is "borrowed" from Chinese and Arabic advances, as you said, but history is just a long line of people stealing eachothers good ideas and we also see entirely independent developments in Europe.
The dark ages are definitely exaggerated, but there is a significant degree of truth to it. A lot of skills and technologies were lost when Rome fell.
Much of this was due to the major transfer of scholarship and specialist education from skilled craftsmen and professional classes to the church in Western Europe. This meant that a lot of technologies and practices died out due to the lack of relevance to the church. Education also became the preserve of the church rather than more broadly seen as a virtue in society - in the early Medieval period, most of even the nobility could not read or write, whereas in Rome, reading and writing was so widespread that even plebs and slaves were generally literate to some degree.
If you look at physical archaeology, it is clear that technology definitely took a major step back. Architecture is a great example of this. Roman/Greek geometry was largely forgotten, which led to the loss of arches as a fundamental principle of construction - which led to centuries of simpler buildings and the loss of buildings and infrastructure (e.g. the Aqueduct and plumbing).
However, these technologies very much survived in Eastern Rome (Byzantium) and successor Islamic states (in which religious institutions did not swallow up academic and professional education), which led to a gradual transfer of skills and technologies well before the Renaissance.
Medicine and science is also another area that took a major step back when the church swallowed "secular" education and professions. The more trial/error and cause/effect based approach of the Greeks and Romans was muddled and mixed in with the superstitious and mystical, leading to medicine in Medieval western Europe becoming a joke compared to the more professional Byzantine and Islamic doctors.
We had a whole history course delicated to Euroopian art and culture history, and when we got to the medieval times our teacher basically said "a lot of people think that absolutely nothing good happened in the medieval times, and that they're boring, but that's very much wrong" and I was sitting there after having JUST complained about the medieval times a day prior like ":0"
This channel fails to mention the Gaels instead lumping them in with the Britons. There was also the Irish golden age. A number of advances were made in law including Brehon law after the fall of the Western Roman empire.
The teacher: that's where you're wrong kiddo
@@feliperoa5821 Who is
I was told, in my youth, that the term "Dark Ages" was ONLY talking about Post-Rome Mediterranean/ Northern Europe. China was not a part of Rome, so their history, both Pre- and Post-Rome doesn't normally factor in. Kinda like when people talk about World War 1 they don't talk about the National Protection War in China, for the same reason.
The Muslim Golden Age should have been taught more in schools. I blame history books produced by Pro-Christian groups, like Texas State Board of Education.
Also, no one talks of the second part of the Austronesian expansion, in which they might have reached as far as South America (putative evidence, based in the spread of the sweet potato). Again, only dark for Post-Roman Europe.
I also like fow Blue proves the European Dark Ages were at least partially a thing by talking about "Imperial Catholicism" and its effects from 5:50 to 8:30.
How much money do I need to throw at you to do more Indo-Pacific history and folklore?
It doesn't even fit Northern Europe or the Mediterranean lol
Imperial Catholicism had many positive effects on Europe. Just as the Islamic Golden Age was not all sunshine and roses like many depict. The point is that on the whole, there was no continental Dark Age in Europe or even parts of Europe.
@@LordVader1094 What were the positive effects in Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance?
@@Dafthart Gee I dunno, possibly the universities mentioned in the video not to mention the advancement in the sciences that would only much later come to butt heads with Christian thinking (not that *all* scientific progress is rooted in this one development but still)? The documentation from monks? The foundations for a system that would keep most of the Latin West linked together despite the collapse of political unity in a single polity?
Whichever one you prefer.
My Literature and The Arts professor briefly talked about how “the dark ages weren’t that dark” but they never really went into it too much. I guess this helps me understand what they meant a little bit more.
As someone from England, we oftentimes only teach English history in school so it's interesting to learn how different cultures were handling the same time periods where we were burning scientists and forbidding dissection