Conquer Club

Anarchist wrote:I do hope you 2 were able to recognise the joke?

Glad somebody picked up on it.

It was supposed to be a joke. I got a few giggles out of it. I thought that you would as well.

flashleg8 wrote:P.P.S. Guiscard raised a great point with the Dark ages being a bit of a misnomer. There was a large amount of cultural, artistic work going on at this time with vast trade routes and intricate community governmental systems. It was traditionally written off by historians due to the small amount of written evidence surviving from this time (mainly biased histories from the early Christian monks). Modern archeology and historical research shows how diverse and sophisticated life really was in this period.

OK, but that period of time is usually ascribed to Petrarch defining it as a "dark age". Yes, there were some Catholic monks who would agree with the labeling of it as such, but for different reasons. To make it look like it was wholly the idea of the clergy to give it the gloss of "dark" is a bit hasty.

Petrarch thought that the age of the Roman Empire was grandiose. Many others feel the same way. Italian historians obviously had a bias in presenting the fall of the Roman Empire as the beginning of a "dark" period and that one day it might be restored. Heck, even the Humanists would have labeled it as a "dark" time.

I agree with you, flash, that as time goes by, we may discover more about those years which leads us to redefine it. I'm not sure if the term "Middle Ages" would suffice. However, if we're going to completely do away with the term "dark ages" then that would open up a whole new can of worms which might lead to the new re-definition of the age known as the Renaissance...now wouldn't that be interesting!

I GOT SERVED wrote:

Anarchist wrote:I do hope you 2 were able to recognise the joke?

Glad somebody picked up on it.

It was supposed to be a joke. I got a few giggles out of it. I thought that you would as well.

Yes, yes of course, funny ha ha ha.

That graph sparked some old memories about the differance between Islam and Christianity.....

Oh, that's right.....

In the first three hundred years of christianity, the religion expanded peacefully. It was also heavly persecuted.

Contrast this with Islam, it's first three centuries are at least as blood-soaked as all the crusades put together, possibly more so. And these were offensive wars through-and-through.

Just thought I'd throw some chum into the shark tank.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Just thought I'd throw some chum into the shark tank.

Please don't. I'm enjoying the civility that's been practiced by people from all viewpoints. I'm not disputing what you're saying, just wondering if it's better to post that in another thread. We can all learn things about how history is viewed despite the differences.

luns101 wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:P.P.S. Guiscard raised a great point with the Dark ages being a bit of a misnomer. There was a large amount of cultural, artistic work going on at this time with vast trade routes and intricate community governmental systems. It was traditionally written off by historians due to the small amount of written evidence surviving from this time (mainly biased histories from the early Christian monks). Modern archeology and historical research shows how diverse and sophisticated life really was in this period.

OK, but that period of time is usually ascribed to Petrarch defining it as a "dark age". Yes, there were some Catholic monks who would agree with the labeling of it as such, but for different reasons. To make it look like it was wholly the idea of the clergy to give it the gloss of "dark" is a bit hasty.

Petrarch thought that the age of the Roman Empire was grandiose. Many others feel the same way. Italian historians obviously had a bias in presenting the fall of the Roman Empire as the beginning of a "dark" period and that one day it might be restored. Heck, even the Humanists would have labeled it as a "dark" time.

I agree with you, flash, that as time goes by, we may discover more about those years which leads us to redefine it. I'm not sure if the term "Middle Ages" would suffice. However, if we're going to completely do away with the term "dark ages" then that would open up a whole new can of worms which might lead to the new re-definition of the age known as the Renaissance...now wouldn't that be interesting!

Not to sound patronising, Luns, but I believe the historical community as a whole has done away with the term 'dark ages' as a complete inaccuracy. I certainly teach my first years about the Migration Period, for the most part. The term 'dark ages' is taught as an outdated historical view, and is used as an example of how different perspectives and different historiographical methods can lead to drastically different conclusions. It already has been redefined, at least at university level and above.

Jenos Ridan wrote:That graph sparked some old memories about the differance between Islam and Christianity.....

Oh, that's right.....

In the first three hundred years of christianity, the religion expanded peacefully. It was also heavly persecuted.

Contrast this with Islam, it's first three centuries are at least as blood-soaked as all the crusades put together, possibly more so. And these were offensive wars through-and-through.

Just thought I'd throw some chum into the shark tank.

Please don't start the religious debate. This isn't the place for it and that isn't history.

Anarchist wrote:I do hope you 2 were able to recognise the joke?

I really don't... please tell...

Guiscard wrote:

Anarchist wrote:I do hope you 2 were able to recognise the joke?

I really don't... please tell...

The joke was supposed to be that if it wasn't for "those damn Christians", then we'd have all of today's modern technology about 1000 years earlier.

Guiscard wrote:Not to sound patronising, Luns, but I believe the historical community as a whole has done away with the term 'dark ages' as a complete inaccuracy. I certainly teach my first years about the Migration Period, for the most part. The term 'dark ages' is taught as an outdated historical view, and is used as an example of how different perspectives and different historiographical methods can lead to drastically different conclusions. It already has been redefined, at least at university level and above.

Oh no, I don't think you're being patronizing at all. This is a rather good point in history for us to focus on. There has to be some sort of label assigned to the period, and for many years it has been known as the "dark ages". But that label is largely due to Petrarch labeling it as such due to his bias [as an Italian].

If we're going to substitute the label "Middle Ages" in its place, then I'm not quite sure that even that would be appropriate. "Middle" in relation to what? (this is rhetorical for I'm aware you already know the answer...just making the point). My thinking is that since we still commonly refer to the period coming out of those times as the "Renaissance", we have to ask ourselves what there was a "rebirth" of, what was civilization "rediscovering" or "returning" to? Are we going to start relabeling those periods of history as well?

I have no problem with calling those times a different name, but just asking whether other periods will also have to be re-evaluated based on the redefinition of one.

luns101 wrote:

Guiscard wrote:Not to sound patronising, Luns, but I believe the historical community as a whole has done away with the term 'dark ages' as a complete inaccuracy. I certainly teach my first years about the Migration Period, for the most part. The term 'dark ages' is taught as an outdated historical view, and is used as an example of how different perspectives and different historiographical methods can lead to drastically different conclusions. It already has been redefined, at least at university level and above.

Oh no, I don't think you're being patronizing at all. This is a rather good point in history for us to focus on. There has to be some sort of label assigned to the period, and for many years it has been known as the "dark ages". But that label is largely due to Petrarch labeling it as such due to his bias [as an Italian].

If we're going to substitute the label "Middle Ages" in its place, then I'm not quite sure that even that would be appropriate. "Middle" in relation to what? (this is rhetorical for I'm aware you already know the answer...just making the point). My thinking is that since we still commonly refer to the period coming out of those times as the "Renaissance", we have to ask ourselves what there was a "rebirth" of, what was civilization "rediscovering" or "returning" to? Are we going to start relabeling those periods of history as well?

I have no problem with calling those times a different name, but just asking whether other periods will also have to be re-evaluated based on the redefinition of one.

I don't know where you've got the term 'middle ages' from, Luns, but to my understanding it is a pretty catch-all term for the entire period between Classical civilization and the modern period (wikipedia it to get the general assessment). I've never heard it used to describe the particular period we are discussing here. The 'official' title taught at least in British universities would be the 'Migration Period' specifically or the 'Early Middle Ages' in a more vague sense, and perhaps even 'Late Antiquity' of we are studying the earlier centuries (300-600ish).

Furthermore, I don't think a re-labelling of other periods is even an issue! The various areas of history go through constant and scrutinizing re-assessment with each new generation of researchers, each new historiographical technique and every new discovery - that's the nature of the study of History. Anyhow, the point is slightly moot. The 'dark ages' label, whilst it seems to have clung on in the mass conscience, hasn't really applied for a long time, perhaps since the early 20th century and certainly sine the growth of Mediaevalism in the 50s. No drastic re-labelling has gone on in that time relating to other areas! Indeed, university students are asked every year to assess whether or not the renaissance really was a 're-birth'; 'Is it deserving of this name' is a pretty standard first year exam question!

All periods go through a constant re-evaluation, at least at an academic level. To suggest that they don't is something of an insult to historians of those specific periods. We constantly re-asses, re-discover and develop our study. The term 'dark ages' is fifty years out of date. This isn't a new thing whatsoever. The centuries which were formally 'dark' were illuminated by the light of 20th century historiography decades ago!

Guiscard wrote:I don't know where you've got the term 'middle ages' from, Luns, but to my understanding it is a pretty catch-all term for the entire period between Classical civilization and the modern period (wikipedia it to get the general assessment). I've never heard it used to describe the particular period we are discussing here. The 'official' title taught at least in British universities would be the 'Migration Period' specifically or the 'Early Middle Ages' in a more vague sense, and perhaps even 'Late Antiquity' of we are studying the earlier centuries (300-600ish).

Well, I guess this is the difference in the way that the English and the Americans view history and classify it. Although we're aware of the Migration Period (as you call it), we would be more inclined over here to refer to it as The Middle Ages [but breaking it down into 3 sections and then specifically focusing in on feudalism]. Although there are still some leftovers calling them the "dark ages".

Guiscard wrote:Indeed, university students are asked every year to assess whether or not the renaissance really was a 're-birth'; 'Is it deserving of this name' is a pretty standard first year exam question!

Yeah, this is my point. So the labeling of the Renaissance period IS, in fact, in question. This makes sense...it's the next logical step after rejecting the label of dark ages. The modern age label will ultimately follow in this process.

Guiscard wrote:The centuries which were formally 'dark' were illuminated by the light of 20th century historiography decades ago!

Sure, I agree. I was stating to Flashleg that it wasn't solely the monks who were labeling the period as "dark".

luns101 wrote:Yeah, this is my point. So the labeling of the Renaissance period IS, in fact, in question. This makes sense...it's the next logical step after rejecting the label of dark ages. The modern age label will ultimately follow in this process.

What problem do you have with the development of new terminology though? I certainly don't have an issue with it... It doesn't seem to really be too much of an issue for the historical community as a whole. We don't see many journal articles vehemently debating general names for periods. The details, yes, but the overall names are either accepted as erroneous or changed. No serious historian would automatically assume that just because the Renaissance is called such it necessarily entailed a rebirth when assessing all the relevant facts.

Luns, where do you teach/what do you teach? I know i asked this earlier but forgot which thread. BTW, great thread.

Guiscard wrote:What problem do you have with the development of new terminology though?

It is what it is. There's nothing bad about it.

kclborat wrote:Luns, where do you teach/what do you teach? I know i asked this earlier but forgot which thread. BTW, great thread.

I teach ESL, American History for citizenship, and basic economics for a private company. I also assist K-12 children with homework and projects. During the summer, we do math and geography labs.

I do this in 4 different cities.

luns101 wrote:I do this in 4 different cities.

Lemme guess, you have no life outside of teaching, correct?

What surprises and shocks me is that the Hegelian/Marxist viewpoint is so low. Quite honestly I believe that most people reacting to this thread don't know so much about that one and that is the reason it isn't doing as well.

Hiya folks,


I have to confess I have no idea why the name of this particular period of time is important, but I was curious as I'd never heard of the Migration period. I think American Universities (the only ones I'm familiar with) tend to use the terms Midieval or (Early) Middle Ages.

http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/hist/courses/

Why is the term Migration Period used? What does it signify in contrast to Middle Ages or Midieval?

I GOT SERVED wrote:

luns101 wrote:I do this in 4 different cities.

Lemme guess, you have no life outside of teaching, correct?

Now that I'm married, it consists of fixing the garage door, painting the back porch, and repairing the kitchen cabinets. If I'm a good boy, then I get to come here and post in the forums. Work is actually relaxing!

KomradeKloininov wrote:What surprises and shocks me is that the Hegelian/Marxist viewpoint is so low. Quite honestly I believe that most people reacting to this thread don't know so much about that one and that is the reason it isn't doing as well.

I actually somewhat disagree with this assessment, though i too am a bit surprised.

I think the actual issue is that through teh combination of the general discrediting of marx (which i would also find a bit foolish) and the oversimplification of some of his ideas people have found it easier to cast aside. When you reduce historical materialism to "hey people fight over stuff and the bigger guy tends to win" people sort of go, "well yeah duh" and dont think that the theory has much else to offer. The more that ive read about and attempted to understand since becoming a little more aware of Marx the stronger i have seen the relationship between some of his theory and how events have unfolded throughout history.

CrazyAnglican wrote:Hiya folks,


I have to confess I have no idea why the name of this particular period of time is important, but I was curious as I'd never heard of the Migration period. I think American Universities (the only ones I'm familiar with) tend to use the terms Midieval or (Early) Middle Ages.

http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/hist/courses/

Why is the term Migration Period used? What does it signify in contrast to Middle Ages or Midieval?

I think people may be getting a little mixed up here. The Middle Ages and the Medieval Period are both terms used to describe the pretty long 'Middle Epoch' between the fall of Rome and the early modern period, roughly 500-1500AD, but sometimes extended later. I study within this overall time scale. I am a Medievalist (which is the label applied to those who study Medieval history.

The Dark Ages, a term most commonly attributed to Petrarch, applies to the early period, from 476 - 1000AD (at the very latest, sometimes earlier). It is a label for the earlier section of the Middle Ages or Medieval Period. Since the mid-20th century I'd say a good 90% of Medieval historians have either used the Migration Period (or Great Migrations), which refers more specifically to the earlier ('darkest', as it were) section up to about 700AD, or the Early Middle Ages when referring to a wider period up to 1000AD.

And I must say, however, there are plenty of American academics who both write about and research the Migration period. Barbara H. Rosenwein is a good example.

luns101 wrote:

I GOT SERVED wrote:

luns101 wrote:I do this in 4 different cities.

Lemme guess, you have no life outside of teaching, correct?

Now that I'm married, it consists of fixing the garage door, painting the back porch, and repairing the kitchen cabinets. If I'm a good boy, then I get to come here and post in the forums. Work is actually relaxing!

Work is relaxing? I wish that was true for me...

I subscribe to the Wave Harmonic Theory of Historical Perception:

"History is an illusion based on the passage of time, and time is an illusion based on the passage of history."

I'm quite sympathetic to the Stephen Dedalus school of history:

"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."