The Dark Ages were a step backward in human progress for Europe

Im talking about the middle east, brainlet

second post best post

Start at the fall of WRE until 1000 AD

The whole "Europeans destroyed all this ancient knowledge and learning" myth is a complete fucking lie, you try in a hideously violent painful transition period copy down everything of the ancients in a slow, arduous process that was constantly wracked with raiding and burning of the only places safe enough to be places of learning early on in the Low Middle Ages (cities and monasteries). There is consistent evidence of appreciation for the ancients and pagan ideas, they were central to much of the scholastic movement, and those who were not of it (Aquinas to name one). The idea these were "unholy practices" is just ludicrous, Christianity in this period and prior to that had never presented itself as a totality, never claiming to be all there was, simply consult "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

Feudalism was the only available form of governance at the time, it also allowed the devolution of power and actually more representation for the interest of smaller areas, the concept of Serfdom was in no way a universal and was in no way slavery and was not the worst possible conditions, you had protection, and due to the smaller scale, your actions could influence your lords (though not to a great degree granted).

This Crash Course History level knowledge of the period is infuriating for it is one of the most underappreciated and mischaracterised periods of history.

Germanics destroyed many things from romans when they invaded, christianity had nothing do with it, it was that Germanics are very stupid

>carolingian renaissance
>ottonian renaissance

Yes the Germanics to some extent, but not in a deliberate attempt to destroy knowledge, they were migrating / invading, nobody takes much caution in those cases.

>what are the three medieval renaissances

We only just left the dark ages in the late 20th century.

Bait or you should top yourself.

>Feudalism was the only available form of governance at the time
Yes it was but it doesn't mean that there was no abuse of power, especially when order came back.

Where did one claim there was no abuse of power, every conceivable system of governance is open to abuses of power, it's such a platitudinous point to make.

The West was corrupted by hebrew mythology, and the East was corrupted by buddhism.

From sometime in the early-mid 2nd century CE, mankind slipped into a deep and destructive dark age that almost totally destroyed human civilization. Thankfully, in the 20th century we began to break off our chains and move towards a recreation of the Classical era. Our ancestors will be born again, beautiful and new, and we will colonise the galaxy in a thousand classical greek city-state colony ships, under the guidance of an Anglo-Han absolute emperor.

Bait it is...

Overrated.

>barbarian invasions never happened
>attila dindu nuffin
>alaric dindu nuffin
>battle of river frigidus never happened
>western rome was destroyed by christians while the foreign germanics dindu nuffin

When you're relying on Irishmen to preserve your canon, you know shit's gone south.
>conflates the dark ages with the high medieval period

And you still would be wrong.
Then again, explaining it to you is pointless, as your brain cell is incapable of advanced thought.

I don't understand what are you idiots claiming?
Yes, not entire "medieval period" in Europe was dark and barbarian and primitive, but it's obviously clear that states and societies that arose after the decline and fall of Roman Empire were a lot more primitive, and that there was a huge depopulation of Europe. A combination of plagues, wars, barbarian invasions, climate changes and disruption of trade are commonly cited reasons.
There was some technological progress of course, but in general technology level was lower.
This started to change later in medieval period.
It's one of those "plebs exaggerate something to in order to appear smart I claim entirely opposite thing" episodes.

criminals dig their own graves. Just as the Christians destroyed their own empire. The germans were just the headsmen for one. The Muslims the other.

you literally believe Attila and Alaric dindu nuffin just good boys who were going to church

Eastern Roman Empire that didn't resist Christianity survived for 1000 years longer than the one who tried to revive paganism

Keep sucking Edward Gibbon's dick

eastern rome had the imperial title, the rest was gone

>a lot more primitive

define

Dumb question. Genetic studies show that the current Italian population hasnt changed. What exactly did the Germanics invade? Rome was left to the Italians right? So the Germanics didn't displace or mix with them.

Bronze age middle age was more advanced than middle age western europe, brainlet

WRE was in decline, yes but that doesnt mean it was going to fall, they could recover but germanics decided that they should move and puff, good bye WRE and with it all knowledge, you see that roman empire converted to christianity and they didnt destroy any knowledge.

I see many people here blamkng christianity for the lost of knowledge and they are wrong, germanics were too savage and stupid so they killed and destroyed anything from WRE

Akkadians built beautiful palaces/temples in 2200 BC while germanics built ugly grey castles in 1000 AD
Lol, what?
So what happened to their language, culture and rome christianity?
Latins were dark haire dark eyed people, deal with it

If you think it was more advanced in metallurgy, then the only brainlet is you.

>Latins were dark haire dark eyed people, deal with it
Are you claiming they are no longer such?
>inb4North Italians
Ever heard of Galia Cisalpina?

Of course metallurgy not but other things such as art, architecture, philosophy,ect yes

Romans described celts as being swarthy

You know that this is as fedora as thinking that Christianity caused the Dark Ages.

>The whole "Europeans destroyed all this ancient knowledge and learning" myth is a complete fucking lie,

Overblown but not a complete fabrication. They did shut down the academies of Plato and Aristotle for being pagan. Likewise they did deliberately burn down the library of Antioch which had recently recieved great favour from Julian the Apostate.

>art, architecture, philosophy
>ever being "more advanced"
B R A I N L E T

The Germanics invaded the whole Roman empire, but the

It was!

>european barbarians

This is some entry level historical knowledge. Ive never met anyone who claims differently

>Makes blatant radical statement
>doesn't provide any source or detail to back it up.

Has this what/his/ has come to?
Also nice edit on your samefagging.
Look out everyone the r€al Dominican is in town.

>The late bronze age collapse was a step backward in human progress

Uh, fucking yes.
Iron is a much harder to refine and must harder to craft metal, it was blatant autism to use iron as a new metal to compensate for bronze.

Bronze is still used today and is preferred even over steel! What do you think pipes are made of? Hint: not fucking iron. You'd have to be retarded which literally all of Europe was after the bronze age collapse to use Iron in it's place. They tried hard to boycott the middle East and Asian trade of copper and run by using iron and thus cuckolded themselves into a completely inferior race of white mongilods that still don't understand the various concepts of mathematics that the middle East and Asians were able to form centuries before Europeans stole their culture we appropriated it as their own. I mean how do you think Christopher Cucklumbus sailed to America? By Islamic astronomy and navigation. Clearly the Iron age was the biggest downfall in all of Human civilizations and the basis for white supremacy to steal and conquer the world in their evil ambitions.

>but in general technology level was lower.
No not really. Roman and Greek technology persisted in many places (most notably the Eastern Roman Empire). There was a great deal of political turmoil in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and this caused a sharp decline in the prosperity of the region. Populations shrank and scientific progress became scarce (though it did not stop completely, much less go in reverse as many myths of the time period claim). Really things were on track pretty well until the Black Death hit and brought Europe to its knees again, but at the same time the Black Death also provided some countries a hard reset on their wealth redistribution that led to dramatic shake ups in the social order. Italy, France, and Britain in particular saw major changes in the fortunes of its lowest classes following the great mortality of the 14th century.

The late bronze age was the closest to a real apocalypse humanity has ever experienced.

"We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will
call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology.
Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale
communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent
technology is technology that depends on large-scale social
organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in
small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES
regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down.
Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale
technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build,
for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by
Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent
technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were
never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The
Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that until rather
recent times did the sanitation of European cities that of Ancient Rome."

The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that,
until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most
technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology
developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent
technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made
parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be
virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a
refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it
would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power.
So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators
require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire
without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for
refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or
preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention
of the refrigerator.

even if that's ture, that isn't why they *were* called 'le dark ages'

'east' is kinda broad isn't it

Stop this meme. You are just as bad as the people who claim Christianity was bad for Europe.

what is historical knowledge?

The late bronze age collapse was indisputably a horrible disaster that set back civilization for centuries. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Except aqueducts and sanitation and roads didn't disappear. They were still there. In the east. It was just the west where the larger scale feats of engineering fell into ruin due to the almost constant warfare for centuries after the fall of the Western Empire. By the time things stabilized it was too far gone.

Only around 600-950 bc

there is no universal 'civilization,' there are various civilizations which civilize differently

Nobody disagrees with this, but most of those technologies were only employed a scarce few cities. The average rural inhabitant who dominated the empire didn't partake directly in those technologies. The collapse of the Mediterranean trade networks did more to reduce the quality of life than the decline of urban technology.

Those palaces were mid castles which are only piles of ugly mud today

Middle Easterners used iron before Europeans

Calling it a "collapse" is misleading. Its not like there weren't advancements made afterward

...

>entry level historical knowledge

Almost all entry-level historical knowledge is simplified to the point of being misleading at best and incorrect at worst.