I've seen images saying otherwise and then people say that's bullshit - so give to me straight Veeky Forums

After 476, the west arguably began to lose its dominance in the known world when The Roman Empire began to split apart.

It's not that the west was terrible, it was just that the caliphates were more innovative in regards to the sciences.

that is relative

as in, Ireland was a completely mysterious shithole in Roman times, and soon afer christianity reaches the Island, you had latin-greek-hebrew polyglot Irishmen making copies of classic books in monasteries.

and the concept of dark age, which was a european phenomenon (and not all of europe), implies that China, India, the rest of Asia and North Africa dont matter at all.
If Europeans arent at the top of their game mankind cant progress.

And the concept of Dark Age ignores the scientific stagnation of the Roman Empire. Archimedes or Erathostenes were hellenistic Greeks, such men were not produced in the Roman empire.

the middle ages is the time period in which northern europe became as developed as the mediterranean world, the heavy plow helped northern european agriculture greatly, and serfdom was definitely better than being a roman slave.

500-1300? So basically from fall of nepo to black death? And you're attributing all of europe degrading due to Christianity?
You are aware that western Europe was under sustained raiding from many directions for the first 300 years of that period, from Saracens and moors, from vikings, from Avars and Magyars? Is that to be blamed on Christianity?

400-800 was pretty shit, but it got better after that.

>And you're attributing all of europe degrading due to Christianity?
>all
No.

>Many intellectual pursuits like 'science' and art and philosophy literally regressed thanks to a certain jewish death cult.

This. To be more specific, I would consider the period from the Fall of Rome (late 400s) up until the reign of Charlemagne (mid 700s) to be the only period that can really be considered as "Dark Ages", given that Europe was ruled by barbarian hordes with no centralization. Charlemagne is really the one who kickstarted the Feudal system, and the so-called "Carolingian Renaissance" was the first time after the fall of Rome that the old aspects of Western culture began to be preserved and studied once again in Europe.

II don't think there is enough evidence to support your claims. In order for your claims to be shown true, there must be shown to be more significant cultural, scientific, and philosophical advances in the period before the dark ages by non-christians and then the absence or lesser achievements in the dark ages by Christians. Having non-christians stagnate in these areas in the period before the dark ages or Christians advance it in the dark ages would obviously be counter evidence to your claims.

this is the stupidest post on the site desu

From 800 BC to 1 AD the western world experienced massive geographical expansion. In the 8th century BC it was just a bunch of villages around the aegean sea with a population in the hundreds of thousands, by the 1st century the Western World covered 5 million square kilometers, had many cities, including some of several hundred thousand inhabitants and libraries with 100s of thousands of documents and books. Living standards improved because the population reached at least 60 million upwards to 100 million people. In terms of population and territory the western world expanded by a factor of 100 times over these 800 years.

The largest city in the Empire in 1 AD had 1 million inhabitants, in 1500 AD, it had 200,000 inhabitants.

>Were the "Dark Ages" a meme?
Yes, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

There's a lack of records because everyone was DEAD, not because they couldn't read or write.

that sounds pretty dark

>the population shrank
>therefore nothing happened for a thousand years and it's Christianity's fault
You can't be serious, Dawkins.

it all makes sens nao

Not as big of a shrink as the west had with the rise of irreligiousity.

So not sure if fedoratipper who didn't think that through, or a /po/tard

Maybe we should call it "the Age of Death" instead.
legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp

The Roman empire was ruled by Pagans
The Dark Ages were ruled by Christians

Thats where the buck stops

Depends. People who claim that everything from the fall of the Roman Empire to Renaissance was a "dark age" are ignorant of medieval intellectual history ( Oresme's pioneering of calculus, the Merton school mathematizing physics, Bacon and Grossesteste beginning experimental science, innovations in understandings of political association and political theories, the rebirth of Philosophy in the universities with major innovations in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, etc). In actually the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries were much stronger periods intellectually than the 15th and most of the 16th, the Renaissance brought us the decline of logic and the ascendancy of rhetoric, platonic mysticism over the rigorous and detailed scholastic disputations, the rejection of medieval advances in natural philosophy for a complete return to Aristotle, etc. It is in the 17th century after the medieval scholastic enterprise made its comeback that modern science and philosophy was able to come about with force with new thinkers building off their medieval scholastic backgrounds, where in the Renaissance the rejection of medieval learning actually lead to hundreds of years of stagnation.

If someone wants to point out that from the decline of Rome until Charlemagne very little learning happened, that is factually true. But come the Carolingian Renaissance in 800 the "Dark Age" ends, literacy comes back, and by the 12th century the classical world began to be overcome intellectually.

Well, at least we know you're just as historically illiterate as you are philosophically illiterate.

Its all true, the roman dark ages were so backwards chinks and arabs rocketed ahead of advancements brought from aryan steppe riders

Allow me to give that the response of deserves

>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Dark''''''''''''''''''''Ages'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

It's dark because there aren't many records/sources from that time.

It doesn't mean everyone became a retard.

I'm trying to understand how he's historically illiterate. Christianity was the epiphany of scientific suppression where people who would promote scientific advancements or progressive ideas were considered heretical as they were not of the word or will of god and were quickly snuffed out by the church. These are people who would rather pray as hard as they can to the hopes of a better crop harvest than actually figuring out a way to make any agricultural advancements like the Romans did.

>What actually happened

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire resulted in a lack of infrastructure which made the individual societies of western and central Europe disconnected from each other, so cultural exchange was made harder. This lasted from the collapse of the Western Empire in the last years of the 5th century until the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th. German and Irish monks played an instrumental role in revitalising the European academic landscape.

>What the old school memers say

The collapse of the ONE TRUE ROMAN EMPIRE resulted in the entire world becoming ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RETARDED from the 5th century until the 15th century. there were ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC OR ARTISTIC ADVANCEMENTS during this time period. it was an age of total regression caused by the wicked Catholic Church, who killed millions and banned learning because it threatened their power. If it wasn't for the Church and the Dark Ages they caused, we'd be exploring other planets by now.

>What the new memers say

There were no Dark Ages ever

>Christianity was the epiphany of scientific suppression where people who would promote scientific advancements or progressive ideas were considered heretical as they were not of the word or will of god and were quickly snuffed out by the church. These are people who would rather pray as hard as they can to the hopes of a better crop harvest than actually figuring out a way to make any agricultural advancements like the Romans did.
Jesus Christ, read a fucking book.

In particular, God's Philosophers by James Hannam, The Beginnings of Western Science by David C. Lindberg, and Those Terrible Middle Ages by Regine Pernoud and Anne Nash

That's your metric? Really? Population?
Africa is already has a larger population than all of europe, yet only an idiot would say that africa is currently better off than Europe

>Really? Population?
Yes Autistus Maximus,its called survival of the fittest. A wealthier population lives longer and has more children who survive to adulthood

But that's not true user.

It goes a bit quiet in England between the fall of Rome and the end of the sixth century, but notwithstanding that, there's plenty of extant material for the immediate post Roman West.

Please study a topic before you comment on it.

Veeky Forums is the wrong place to ask this question.

It's true that the popular conception of "dark ages" is not really accurate. However, Veeky Forums is infested with le wrong generation neckbeared medievalboos who believe things were awesome then.

It was originally called a dark age because early Renaissance writers thought the Latin everyone used after the fall of the WRE was shit. Later on Neoclassicists believed there was nothing of value written or produced since the Greeks and Romans. Then during the Protestant Reformation the Catholic Church and its Medieval history was picked apart and vilified. Finally Enlightenment thinkers reviving Classical architecture looked down on what they saw as the barbarism of Gothic architecture. It's become an enduring motif in Western consciousness so much that there's always a new meme about it every other decade either exaggerating or understating the Medieval era.

An increasing population can mean many things, especially today with modern agricultural science and medicine. A decreasing population, especially a trend as severe as the collapse of Late Antiquity, and before the modern era, only means very bad things.

Produce an invention or idea that was significant during this "Dark Age." There's got to be something that would surpass the literature, technology, education, or governmental advancements of the Romans.

There's several ways to look at it.

Some people, the very uneducated, use the term "Dark Ages" to refer to the entire middle ages from 476 to 1500. That is wrong, lots of learning and nation building and advancements were made during the entire middle ages.

However then there's a group who claim the "Dark Ages" never existed at all, and they usually say this as a reaction to those claiming the entire medieval period was dark. This is where they are wrong too, because some parts of the medieval era were indeed dark.

The real "Dark Ages", and it's a term that isn't popular to use, would be from about 476, the fall of western Rome, to about 800AD. After Rome fell the western world had something of a collapse, it was like the world had ended, infrastructure broke down, Europe balkanised into many various warring states, trade was severely reduced, entire peoples were migrating and displacing others, plagues were also happening, and learning slowed down incredibly, which is why it's called the dark ages, not much was written, it's historically dark. It was a shitty time for Europe, it was a shitty time to be a live.

Now some will be so reactionary they will try to deny that even that period occurred and they will point out that some works were written which is true but it's hardly any in comparison to before or later. Anybody who studies medieval history will be able to tell you as much, in 600 you may find 4 or 5 works discussing the entire century, in 1100 you'll find 20 works discussing the life of a single king.

They were necessary to reverse the centuries long decline of the Mediterranean and create the foundations of modern economics, science, and art. Without them Europe and the Middle East would have ended up like China before Western influence, or like the Byzantines.

A follow up point, despite Europe arguably coming out of the Dark ages by Charlemagnes time, Europe would still be behind the India, China until about 1400 perhaps, and the Middle East until the 12th century at least. This was the extent of the Roman collapse, it set Europe behind other areas of the world for around 1000 years.

I'll give you some hints.

The "dark age" concept is from renaissance humanists who began believing in progress, they wanted to justify their ideology and thoughts by giving to history a "sense", those guys believed that the "ancients" (as antique philosophers/scientists) had a lot of knowledge we could use and develop in order to progress.

To give to history this sense, they treated the past as worst than the present, and the future as better. This is why the middle age is called middle age (negative definition), and this is why they called dark age the period succeeding the fall of the roman empire.

This guy has it mostly right I think

>The real "Dark Ages", and it's a term that isn't popular to use, would be from about 476, the fall of western Rome, to about 800AD. After Rome fell the western world had something of a collapse, it was like the world had ended, infrastructure broke down, Europe balkanised into many various warring states, trade was severely reduced, entire peoples were migrating and displacing others, plagues were also happening, and learning slowed down incredibly, which is why it's called the dark ages, not much was written, it's historically dark. It was a shitty time for Europe, it was a shitty time to be a live.
That is literally the definition. It's the just early medieval period.

History right until now is generally progress though. It's a case of two steps forward one step back all the way, but every step back teaches us something important. Mostly.

I can't fathom why people still allow dictators to grab power through obvious false flags when it's happened so much in history.

Yes but for many people it swings between the entire middle ages or NEVER HAPPENED MUH MONKS WRITING

Paper, the compass, algebra and calculus, the field of optics and lensmaking, guns, universities, bills of exchange and banking, Beowulf, Summa Theologiae, the Shahname, and the various kingdoms that would go on to form the basis of all our current states today.

>History right until now is generally progress though

The thing is, you say this because our modern societies are built on the the thinking of those renaissance humanists, and you firmly believe in the idea of progress, which almost did not exist in the middle age.

Beside history does not progress as dictator fall and democracy rise, history progress like a science, because of men like Herodote or Marx who gives it new tools or perspectives.

Regardless of whether the idea existed or not, you can't deny that it has been one long story of progress. I know progress doesn't mean type of government, it's just a point about people not learning from the past.

You can make a case for calling the period between the late Roman Empire (5th century) and the "Carolingian Renaissance" (800) "Dark Ages", as there was an actual loss of knowledge during that period. But calling the entire Middle Ages "Dark Ages" is a very bad meme. By the 11th century Westerners were on par with all other civilisations, and by the 14th century they had clearly surpassed them.

n
ah, mate
You've been conditioned to believe that so that people like you will be bred to nonsignificance. An increasing population of the right kind of people is a good thing far longer than you are supposing.

>has more children who survive to adulthood

And has less children in general. Do you think India is better off than Canada right now, or something? Also, can you prove infant mortality was so significantly worse following the fall of the Roman empire to have caused that sort of demographic shift?

Dark ages were caused by muslims that blocked European seas

No, caused by Rome collapsing. The Islamic peace allowed increased trade from a stabilized silk road.

Nah, the problem is that progress means something like "heading toward a desired state". And there is no objectively better state.
You ever hear that joke that before white people came to america, the Indians worked two hours a day, fucked whenever they wanted, and spent the rest of their time hunting and fishing, and only white people would be arrogant enough to think they could improve on something like that?
Hell, just ask /pol/: Nationalists have mostly been losing ground for years, and Royalists haven't had a major win in a century. So are we progressing toward a state of traditional values where everyone has a place, and there's a place for every person?
We've decided (no surprise) that we mostly like the society we've got, and since history brought us here, it must be one long story of the world being more and more something we like.
But the Roman Republic was lost to an Empire, and the philosophers and chemists of the Middle East are almost all gone, driven away by political and religious radicals. Africa used to have nations in it so rich and powerful, their kings could destabilize the monetary system of other countries by going on vacation. All of that shit is gone now.

The only place where the Dark Ages really occurred was England, and even then only for like 300 years.

>Nah, the problem is that progress means something like "heading toward a desired state". And there is no objectively better state.
Exactly. The only thing we have objectively achieved, is more "amazing" things. We have created and learned things that are amazing.

Why is it completely unquestioned that it's worth sacrificing anything to achieve amazing things? You know what would be really amazing? If we all died from some amazing technology.

I mean the internet is amazing. I can shitpost all day and get horribly depressed. Would I really be worse off having a shorter life where I have no doubts about going to heaven?

No there's a lack of records because snowniggers burned everything.

I never understood why people find the Fermi Paradox hard to understand. To me it's obvious. The smarter you get, the more you see the world (and yourself) as material, the more you see how pointless it all is.

We just have leftover fuel from when we believed in meaning.

>it's considered "dark" because of the rising influence of the church over the state and the lack of a unified european state like there was with rome

Kek no, it's considered dark becasue at the time there were huge advances in general technology that the world had never seen , which all but stopped when the Dark Ages took over.

YES THERE WERE INVENTIONS DURING THE DARK AGES, THE RATE AT WHICH TECH WAS CREATED DROPED HEAVILY.

It was the age of art and the church, it's obvious science and technology would take a back seat.

>High Medieval "'science' and art and philosophy literally regressed"

5th century -- "They expect one of us in the wreckage, brother" t. ERE
6th -- "crashing this plane"
7th -- "tell me about Muhammad, why does he wear the turban?"
8th -- "howdy Germanic servants"
9th -- "get this hornhead outta here"
10th -- "tell me about bane"
11th -- "the first day of the rest of my life"
12th -- "first one to talk gets to stay on my crusade"
13th -- "you have a lot of loyalty for a hired Venetian"
14th -- "JUST"
15th -- "we wuz Greeks an shieet"

>The collapse of the Western Roman Empire resulted in a lack of infrastructure which made the individual societies of western and central Europe disconnected from each other, so cultural exchange was made harder. This lasted from the collapse of the Western Empire in the last years of the 5th century until the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th. German and Irish monks played an instrumental role in revitalising the European academic landscape.
Fucking epic Veeky Forums no-meme post user.

What most memers don't know is that the Western Empire was really the backwater of the Roman Empire. Most of the wealth was concentrated in the east while grain producing provinces such as Africa was more important than Gaul or Germania for the survival of the Empire. The "Dark Ages" was more of an economic collapse with no money available to maintain complex infrastructure or bureaucracy.

Imagine if the United States balkanized, states such as California, New York and New England would be much better off than Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia which would descend into (even worse) shitholes where religious fanaticism, discrimination and widespread ignorance would run rampant with no federal oversight to stop it.

>From 800 BC to 1 AD the western world experienced massive geographical expansion.
where was this expansion apart from Rome, everywhere else also not being ruled by the 'Jewish death cult'?
the Greeks had already been colonizing the Med for centuries also

what exactly are you referring to when you use the term 'Western World', it's a completely modern concept

You want a real unbiased answer?

After the fall of the Western Roman empire the world northwest of the Byzantines was left in awry, Barbarians, Huns, a poorly made governmental system came back after many of the Roman scholars, patricians and notable citizens fled to the ERE. A great example of the Dark Ages is that the savages were truly not tamed, sure, you could claim the Gauls, the Iberians, and others were "tame", but the Germanics far from the border were savages, without critical thought. In fact, the dark ages mainly consists of British history, after the fact that since the Roman legions left, commerce died, architects and engineers were scarce, or not even there at all, and tribal nations restored their place, only this time as Duchies or Kingdoms. You could consider the Dark Ages a period covering all of Europe, but you have to realize that the Byzantines did perfectly fine for themselves in the thousand years after the WRE collapsed. There was a short Renaissance period in the Frankish empire but it wasn't enough to revitalize Europe, the reason the Renaissance truly happened and brought us out of the dark ages was because the Byzantine culture was very complex, very well made and when the Byzantines fled to Italy after the fall of Constantinople there was a rebirth of Roman ingenuity.

Christianity may have played a big part, but I think that many of these claimed "Veeky Forumstorians" on this board fail to realize the Church was the only thing keeping Europe together and civilized. Had it not been for Frankish conversion or Papal delegation Germany, England and other regions untouched would've been pagan, and still tribal. Only waiting even longer to find civilization.

Well that's bs

>the Church was the only thing keeping Europe together and civilized
t. Francis Fukuyama
Shitposting aside, his book sounds interesting

Give me one good reason why the Barbarians would instantaneously become as civilized as the Mediterraneans and Asians?

well most of them were already Christians, the ones who sacked Rome being Arian Christians

the seeds of Christianity had already been planted in Britain and even with with the invasions of the Scots, Angles and Saxons after the Romans left it probably would've spread unabated as it did in Ireland without any outside influence

exposure to Mediterranean trade and improvements to agriculture in their climate

I'm agreeing with you and citing this guy who has a similar idea in one of his books. He argues that religion was important to elevate tribes into civilised societies

If it's pointless make your own point?
I get most people have a hard time thinking for themselves and deciding for themselves, but if it is truly pointless then you have complete and absolute freedom to make your own.

Yeah, the Sardinians are evidence of that huh?

Arian Christianity is an interesting heresy, similar to what Catholic missionaries used in West Africa, keeping aspects of the old religions while slowly converting them, an integration method to get them to pure Christianity.
Ok, you should consider reading it, you'd like it.

Arians just believe in a different interpretation of the trinity, whatever you consider pure Christianity is irrelevant my proddy friend

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little Saracen? I’ll have you know I am a Master of Arms in the Teutonic Order, and I’ve been involved in numerous sieges of the Holy Land, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in siege tactics and I’m the top General in the entirety of Western Europe. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on Mother Europa, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me with your heresy riddle tongue? Think again, Heathen. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Papal spies who are pinpointing your liege, so be prepared for the raid. The raid that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I have been pinned by the likes of Eric Dandalo as the Klaus “the Saracen destroyer” Troyer. The thing you don't realize is that I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my blade. Not only am I extensively trained in sword combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the new fangled Cannons and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, Saracen.

The people who say they were a meme only know and talk about about the last two hundred years or so. Which were good because the renaissance was starting in spite of the still death throes of the dark ages.

They lasted from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century to about the 14th century.

But it wasn't thuderstorms and burning buildings and starving retards in rags swimming through shit all day every day either. But it was certainly a worse time to live than the couple of ages before and the ones after.

Just because it wasn't the only factor doesn't mean it wasn't a major one.

Also don't forget Islam is a christian spin off cult.

the Church was the only thing keeping Europe together and civilized. Had it not been for Frankish conversion or Papal delegation >Germany, England and other regions untouched would've been pagan, and still tribal. Only waiting even longer to find civilization.

Because the Roman empire wasn't pagan.
And Pagan=Tribal
And those savage germanics that ruined everything were totally not fanatical christians.

Though people do forget there were some pretty based monks and priests that popped up in the high middle ages. But then again it was one of the only ways to get access to knowledge, and I doubt they were fanatics.

The Roman's were not good at Science, they were good at infrastructure and managing lots of people. Most of the technology came from haphazard guess and checks and flukes, or conquering people who were good at science, rather than serious scientific knowledge coming from Roman scholars. Actually the whole idea that science should be measured by technology is not a good way to go. Einstein never invented any gadgets.

In fact the biggest issue with the legitimate "dark ages" in regards to Science was that being literate in Greek went out of style and all the Roman scientific works were something closer to Pop Sci books with allot of misunderstandings and misinformation in them than anything that could help scientific knowledge. The few who tried to do Science in the "Dark Ages" had to basically start from scratch until the translation movement in the 12th century when Arabic and Greek works started coming in. Then by the middle of the 14th century those works had been surpassed.
Then the Renaissance humanists came around, throughout all the innovations made in the prior century before, and it took 150 years before they started being rediscovered in the early modern period

How do you fit the numerous and unprecedented intellectual innovations of the high middle ages, along with the general intellectual decadence of the 15th century, in with this narrative ?

The narrative does'nt really work out when the Medieval's were more intellectually advanced than the scholars of the renaissance though. There was a great artistic revolution, but the abandonement of logic in the universities for rhetoric, and the focus on aesthetic classical latin works over "ugly" but more rigorous and subtle scholastic ones certainly can't be considered an intellectual triumph. It was objectively backwards and reactionary in allot of ways.

If we want to go further I'd suggest the establishment of the Dominate as the beginning of the medieval period. Urban centres begin to take on a distinctly medieval manner in terms of function and the rural landscape starts to look more feudal, with the patronage networks of the earlier period becoming full-on fealty.

>'science' and art and philosophy literally regressed thanks to a certain jewish death cult
socrates was made to drink poison, galileo was placed under house arrest, it is too hot to think at the moment, that is just a meme

There was a dark ages though marked by population decline, disruption of trade, a decrease in lead production and various indicators besides historical records.

>If it's pointless make your own point?
This is a contradiction. This bravado is spouted by individuals, but look what actually happens in real life. In real life, what happens is postmodernism, fewer children, and people spending their entire lives consuming content.

>The narrative does'nt really work out when the Medieval's were more intellectually advanced than the scholars of the renaissance though.
But they wernt,the counter reformation burned free thinkers and destroyed their books-this is an historical fact

I'm talking about the scholars of the 13th and 14th centuries though, not the religious authorities of the 16th century. Though the scholastics in that era were more intellectually accomplished than the renaissance mystics whose books were getting burnt, to say nothing of the drab humanist polemics about how the best judge of a work ought to be how pretty its language is. There is a reason why Leibniz fawned over Suarez and not Bruno, it's because the former had incredible intellectual rigor where the later was mainly just an eccentric mystic.

The fact that the religious authorities of the counter reformation burnt some mystic's books they didn't like does'nt change the achievements of the Merton School mathematizing physics and finding the mean speed theorem, Buridan solving the self referential paradox in logic, Ockham's sophisticated account of Nominalism, Oresme all but pioneering calculus, or Scotus' work on identity, or the way in which the 16th and 17th century scholastics would pave the way for early modern philosophy with their innovative focus on epistemology.

The renaissance humanist and mystics never claim close the medieval scholastic intellectual acheivements.

>The renaissance humanist and mystics never claim close the medieval scholastic intellectual acheivements.

I mean

The works of the Renaissance humanists and mystics never came close to the level of the medieval scholastic intellectual achievements.

>The fact that the religious authorities.... burnt some mystic's books
Your not paying attention as usual,the fact that religious authorities burned books(from the time of Arian)proves the dark ages lasted til the 17th century because of the actions of the church.

> achievements of the Merton School, Ockham's sophisticated account
Furthur proof of this counter intellectual effect-these advances were made in1350,it wasnt til 1650 that Newton improved this into infantesimal calculas-a 300 year gap

A 300 year gap caused by Renaissance Humanism, not by the Church.