The Dark Ages

reply to post by thoughtsfull


PS, I've just glanced at the link you provided. My main comment is that i diagree with their definition of "Dark Ages". The period they mention is normally called the "Middle Ages". Also the real original reason for the "Dark Ages" label was the comparative scarcity of political information.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Yes, as far as I remember, Bede had no story about the conversion of Sussex. I think it was the only kingdom he left out. This rather ties in with your argument that they were Christians independently of the Roman mission. I'm aware of Pelagius, but not in detail, so I'll be interested in what you come up with.


[edit on 20-3-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by DISRAELI


Sorry haven't provided a link as yet but agree on the comparative lack of information.. Take my people, the South Saxons, very very little written information exists, just what has been written about them by others which conflicts with the archaeological evidence.

I'm working on a thread to actually deal with this, it has been something that has interested me for 20+ years so would be good to get some feedback from other minds.

I agree, the time frame was a bit dodgy. I thought it was some Neo-Nazi site at first lol could have been worse

reply to post by March of the Fire Ants


I've walked into a few of those sites and then got kicked out for not agreeing with their point of view or version of history

I'm very confused by the original post - are you actually serious? The "Dark Age" as a term was really only meant to include the western part of the former Roman Empire, and was the result of romanized culture collapsing due to the invasion of various germanic tribes. Beyond western and central Europe, things went on as usual. It would be surpassingly difficult to get a conspiracy out of that!

I think the conspiracy is that the Church conspired against Pagans..
Other than that..

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

Originally posted by Office 4256
I'm very confused by the original post - are you actually serious?

Yes, I think we're all puzzled by the original line of argument. As far as I can tell, it's based on two premises.
a) Absence of information MUST involve deliberate concealment of information.
b) Any explanation which denies conspiracy MUST be a cover-up story.
Once you accept these two premises, conspiracy is inevitable.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Office 4256
I'm very confused by the original post - are you actually serious?

Yes, I think we're all puzzled by the original line of argument. As far as I can tell, it's based on two premises.
a) Absence of information MUST involve deliberate concealment of information.
b) Any explanation which denies conspiracy MUST be a cover-up story.
Once you accept these two premises, conspiracy is inevitable.

I wanted to make this same point as far back as the first page, but really couldn't phrase it well enough to post, so thanks for putting this as clearly as you did.

I think it's fairly obvious that the OP's assumption is primarily based on their own personal lack of knowledge of the era than the idea that knowledge generally is lacking about this area. Whilst not enough is known about the period as anyone would like - although it's hardly surprising: Empire collapse, great plagues, climate disasters and rising dominance of a language new to Britain* and so on - but as we've all said, it's not as if nothing is known or that the general picture doesn't add-up.

*or perhaps not if S. Oppenheimer et al are right.