The Dark Ages

Originally posted by stumason

It's quite doubtful that the Anglo-Saxons "replaced" anybody bar the ruling elite ...

Yes, indeed. Sorry, my quotation of the Sellars and Yeatman parody was a tongue-in-cheek contribution to the discussion.

reply to post by Solasis


I think you'll find that the Medieval period and the so called "Dark Ages" are two distinct periods in history.

EDIT: I will concede thought that with the falling out of favour of the term "dark ages", the term Medieval now extends into what is known as the "early Middle ages"...

[edit on 19/3/10 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


You said it ended at about 1000.

The inquisition began less than 200 years later.

Is there a necessary connection? No. But it's still recent enough that they would probably be able to find most of the documents from the period that they wanted to destroy.

You're dismissing my suggestions out of hand without considering them. Tell me that the church wouldn't have cared about documents from pre 1000 AD; I'll buy that, to an extent. But dont' just go "nuh uh" like you are.

Originally posted by Solasis
It didn't just pop up, and what is called "The Dark Ages" didn't just end in 1000 AD.

Never said it did. I was just encompassing what is commonly referred to as the Dark Ages.

Around 500AD for the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire and 1000 for the beginning of feudal society across Europe. It was abitrary.

reply to post by Solasis


Well, the reason I dismiss them out of hand is precisely because MANY documents survive from the period and a great deal IS known about the period.

Go look it up. It's a very interesting period of European history.

EDIT: How many times can I say period in one post... Period...

[edit on 19/3/10 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


Then that's a completely different objection than the temporal one; I've been attempting to explain a claim that was outright false! So why you brought up the time distance is beyond me.

reply to post by Solasis


Say that again, in english....

You said the inquisition destroyed documents. This is false, they did not as we have documents and extensive knowledge of what transpired after the fall of the Roman Empire.

I brought up the time because you said, and I quote:

This could be because around the end of the Dark Ages there occurred a series of events related to the inquisition. This was a time of the destruction of learning and so on; Most of the records from the period have been destroyed by short-sighted idiots.

This is false.

For those who are confused about the period, or would like some light reading, start off on this Wiki page:

en.wikipedia.org...

It's accurate and contains many links to even more info. It goes into great details about the period from the end of the Roman Empire right up into the Renaissance.

reply to post by stumason


Yes, your first objection in this post carries all the weight that you need. The fact that we have documents proves that the inquisition didn't destroy all of them. But you put your focus on the second objection, about the time period. I may be wrong, but it is true that the inquisition destroyed some documents, correct? Primarily contemporary ones? So, under the assumption that there were not as many surviving documents as there were originally, it would make sense that the inquisition had destroyed documents from prior as well. I did mis-state my claim as fact, rather than as conjecture; I began it as conjecture and phased into fact by accident.

If you can't decipher this unencoded information, I'm afraid the argument has to stop here... I can't break it down any further.

My ultimate point now is: You are right, but the way you argued for it initially was deeply flawed.

reply to post by Solasis


Right, I get what your saying now. It stands to reason that they might have done, but we have plenty of surviving documents from the period, so it matters not really.

The inquisition mainly focused on supressing ideas contrary to church teachings, mainly scientific ideas or those of other religions. Historical documents, such a chronicles and various things done by Kings etc did not go against Church teaching so should not have been subject to any inquisition at all.

reply to post by stumason


Sweet, I'm glad we're on the same page I concede every point that you've made now that you understand what I was trying to say!

reply to post by Solasis



haha, good job .. Drawback of the written internet medium, sometimes what your trying to say is not what is being perceived

Umm what exactly is the source for the information in this thread? sounds like another one of these misleading threads that proposes or asks a completely bogus question.

you cant just say that you dont agree with a particular period in time on the basis of nothing. If you google the dark ages you will find lots of information on the supposed events of that period

en.wikipedia.org...

Sure, history is always written by the winners and so is framed to agree with their particular dogmas. But, what OPs suggesting seems idiotic.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by tigpoppa
I am of the mind that this period in time is a sham

well whenever i try to find actual written records from this period I can find nothing i dont think there is a gap in history I just think it didnt happen and it is one of the greatest conspiracies in history. What I wonder is what their covering up to enact such a conspiracy that is global in its extent.

Without going to my books, I can submit that the term Dark Ages is a misnomer as there was actually a lot of culture flowering during that period. I'm not sure that it suggests a conspiracy given the information available about the medieval days...but don't let me hinder your search for info.

I recently heard that it is more appropriate to call it the lower middle ages or the early middle ages. And yes there was a lot of culture going on in Britain.

Does anybody know any specifics on the battle between Catholicism and Paganism in this post-roman pre-feudal translucent (POSSIBLY NON EXISTANT?!?!) period of time? I know that by around 1100AD Lithuania was pretty much the only Pagan state in Europe but I know little about before then! (I should have stuck at RTW for longer before M2TW..:@@

I'll have a look and see what I can find but I tend to get lost in interesting but unhelpfull history articles when I look for stuff like this

The Churchs War On Heracy certainly seems like a conspiracy to me, is this perhaps more along the lines of what the OP meant?

(Edit to add..)

Well I found this which is quite interesting. Not sure how well sourced it is but it seems realistic haha

Link

[edit on 20-3-2010 by March of the Fire Ants]

reply to post by March of the Fire Ants


I'm writing a thread about the topic.. Paganism & Christianity in England.. as interests me deeply..

The evidence from local burials in Saxon only communities start around the mid-late 4th century and follow Christian East/West burials, while in the older Romano/British communities (Chichester) the burials show Saxons living within British communities..

This contradicts the recorded word that Pagan Saxons invaded and killed most of the local Welsh while driving the rest out.. There is also little to no evidence as far back as 1086 (domesday book) that can trance any of the Saxon names to pagan Gods.

So on the topic of paganism, I find it interesting that I've yet to find real conclusive details that the invading Saxons (latter to be known as South Saxons) where in fact pagans.

Originally posted by March of the Fire Ants
Does anybody know any specifics on the battle between Catholicism and Paganism in this post-roman pre-feudal translucent period

The Churchs War On Heracy certainly seems like a conspiracy to me, is this perhaps more along the lines of what the OP meant?

The real war on heresy begins later. You could date it to the "Albigensian Crusade" of the early 1200's, against heretics in southern France. For practical purposes, this is where the Inquisition starts to develop.
The battle with paganism is partly by missionary work and partly a case of conversion-by-conquest.
The tradtional accout of the process in England is the one by Bede. He describes the rivalry between the clergy sent by Rome and the influence of the more native Scottish church which was rooted in the Irish Church. I had to study this, and got fascinated by the way it got entangled with political alliances.
Germany had missionaries, some direct from England- but the Saxons in eastern Germany were rather more forcibly converted by Charlemagne. After that, the eastern push of Catholicism gets mixed up with the eastern drive of German conquest. Hence you find the crusading German knights at the east end of the Baltic, which is the historical root of the state of Prussia.
As for SE Europe, there were both Catholic missionaries and missionaries form the Orthodox church. An element of rivalry again, I'm afraid.
A very brief, inadequate summary, but maybe that helps.

"Real war on heresy begins later" was slightly hasty. True enough for the post-Roman world, but of course there were massive internal disputes before the Empire collapsed. I've never thought of them as conspiracy, but that's partly because i thin the right side won the argument.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by DISRAELI]

Thank you both for the info, I look forward to the new thread! Perhaps we should continue this there, I'm not completely sure what the OPs point was

reply to post by DISRAELI


I'm deeply interested in Pelagianism, and the obvious clash between Roman Christianity and that of Native British church in the early to mid 4th Century, which marries with the obvious Saxon Christian burials in my neck of the woods on the SE UK coast at this time.

I've been trying to reconcile the historical records of the spread of Christianity and the discrepancy in the archaeological evidence.. highly interesting time frame, and clashes inside and outside the church, especially the way Pelagianism shaped Augustine of Hippo and Roman church.