>The Dark Ages were caused by Christianity
>"Dark Ages" don't even exist if you include Constantinople in your equation
Why are atheists so dishonest?
>The Dark Ages were caused by Christianity
>The Dark Ages were caused by Christianity
>"Dark Ages" don't even exist if you include Constantinople in your equation
Why are atheists so dishonest?
Does any serious historian still even use the term "Dark Ages"? Pretty sure that' term has just become relegated to pop-history
They don't
Fricking Christcucks caused the collapse of pagan science in Germania and Scotland...
Believe it or not... this is still used as a general basis.
Online, among random people, and politicians yes.
Do you really try to pretend there was no decline in trade, metallurgy and political systems between 400 and 1000 CE in Europe? Is that this famous Black Legend too?
Nobody denies this decline in the Roman-controlled parts of Europe (note the Romans never conquered all or most of Europe!). Also your time range is somewhat misguided.
Also people love to do the Motte and Bailey fallacy when it comes to this.
it wasn't because of Christianity at least mostly but its hard to pretend it never happened
I've seldom seen anyone claim that a decline never happened in post-Roman Europe, can probably count the number of times I've seen that on one hand.
Let me say this as an atheist, I don't think the decline in trade and craft in Europe following the fall of western Rome has much to do with Christianity. In fact, Christianity helped maintain a culture of scholarship and record keeping in the abscence of Roman legal scribes.
Yes, the only thing that declined was political centralisation, which allowed for grand megaproject.
Pretty much anything else improved, science improved, monasticism allowed for the rediscovery of philosophy, agriculture improved etc.
It's true that certain fields which required political stability and oversight stagnated but the rest mostly progressed.
It's a shit term from the "enlightenment" days.
It literally was made from reason schizo worshipers.
I don't know why anyone ever took this term seriously.
For people in the 1500s - 1700s the Middle Ages was too relevant and recent for it to really be "cool" or "romantic." Plus this demonization/disregard for this part of their history played into contemporary ideological and religious agendas, in both Catholic and Protestant-controlled Europe. I think a good comparison is that these people viewed the Middle Ages like people today view the 1500s-1700s, just this amorphous and largely grim lump of time no one really cares that much about.
Meanwhile there's now a romanticism/fantasy/mystique for the Middle Ages like these people back then had for the ancient times.
>For people in the 1500s - 1700s the Middle Ages was too relevant and recent for it to really be "cool" or "romantic."
The novel Don Quixote written around 1610 in fact is meant to be a satire on people who romanticized the Middle Ages
"The dark ages" dosen't even indicate anything beyond an opinion.
It's not even an objective term.
Periodization is never objective. "The Classical Era" for example isn't an objective term either. These all come from the consensus of historians.
And historians have turned against "The Dark Ages" for a significant period of time...
Just call it "medieval".
>Constantinople circa 800 was as good a city as Constantinople circa 400
>there were no dark ages if you dont count the western roman empire
ok lmao
So because there was no dark age in one area you conclude there was no dark age in any area? And you are presenting yourself as a master of logic . Lol
The Byzantine empire was in economic decline starting from Justinian and had a hard dark age between 600 and 900, with most cities shrinking into villages, Constantinople itself losing over half of its population, and society completely reorienting around the Church.