The Dark Ages Myth

[Root of Jesse]

Why is it common knowledge that the Dark Ages was all that dark?

It has long been received wisdom that following the collapse of Rome, Europe slumbered through a millenium of ignorance that came to be known as the Dark Ages. Historian JB Bury noted that when Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, this "inaugurated a millenium in which reason was enchained, thought was enslaved, and knowledge made no progress "
William Manchester described it as an "era of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and almost impenetrable mindlessness...The Dark Ages were stark in every dimension."

We know these things to be so far from the truth as to be classified as myth. Is it just anti-Catholic rhetoric, or is something else behind it?

 

[Job8]

Why is it common knowledge that the Dark Ages was all that dark?

Because that is how it was. You could change "all dark" to "with a few glimmers of light", but the fact remains that the Middle Ages were very dark. Hence the motto Post Tenebras Lux (After Darkness Light or Light After Darkness).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To be fair, the Dark Ages actually just refers to the period from the late 5th to about the 7th or 8th century for which we have few records, at least in Modern Academic usage. It is called Dark because our sources are few and far between so we don't have a nice narrative about what was going on. Petrarch coined the term as part of his attempts to denigrate his contemporary society in favour of an Idealised classical civilisation, but modern scholarship has greatly restricted its use to a sub-period of Mediaeval times.

It is a similar concept to the Greek Dark Ages that followed the Bronze Age collapse and preceeded Archaic Greece (1200 BC to about 800 BC), so named as we lack written sources.

People just ran with it as the emotive language of Dark played to suppositions of historical development, a grand narrative of the fall of Roman Civilization and the Rebirth thereof in the Renaissance. Its just a better story to consider Mediaeval times to be degenerate and brutish.

The fact of the matter is that learning deteriorated with the fall of Rome, with Europe forgetting its philosophy, grammatics and classical works. Although there were great and learned men in these times like Gildas or Bede, there was a distinct fall in volume of scholarship. Classical works were partially saved by monks and later began to circulate widely after the Clunaic reforms. Arabic philosophers and translations also began to circulate in Europe in the high middle ages, leading to the flowering of university culture and Scholasticism which would culminate in the Renaissance. I think the use of the term 'Dark Age' for the period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire up till about the foundation of Cluny to be quite apt. I don't think any anti-catholic rhetoric is meant by it, as the leading intelectual lights of the period (and in fact many of the 'Renaissance men' of later times) were monks and churchmen. We should actually be lauding the Catholic Church for saving classical learning from the cataclysm of the barbarian conquests of Rome.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Because that is how it was. You could change "all dark" to "with a few glimmers of light", but the fact remains that the Middle Ages were very dark. Hence the motto Post Tenebras Lux (After Darkness Light or Light After Darkness).

It was originally coined from the Vulgate's translation of Job 17:12 - Post tenebras spero lucem. Fits your name nicely.

Nice Reformation reference.

 

[tz620q]

To be fair, the Dark Ages actually just refers to the period from the late 5th to about the 7th or 8th century for which we have few records, at least in Modern Academic usage. It is called Dark because our sources are few and far between so we don't have a nice narrative about what was going on. Petrarch coined the term as part of his attempts to denigrate his contemporary society in favour of an Idealised classical civilisation, but modern scholarship has greatly restricted its use to a sub-period of Mediaeval times.

I can see why Petrarch considered the times dark. He was an Italian that saw the Papacy swept away to France and great plagues devastating the populations of Europe. Rome's population had fallen from a high of 1.5 million at the height of the Roman Empire to around 30,000 around 1350. Then his hero, Cola di Rienzo, tries to reestablish the old Roman Republic only to be killed by a mob.

 

[Armoured]

Why is it common knowledge that the Dark Ages was all that dark?

It has long been received wisdom that following the collapse of Rome, Europe slumbered through a millenium of ignorance that came to be known as the Dark Ages. Historian JB Bury noted that when Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, this "inaugurated a millenium in which reason was enchained, thought was enslaved, and knowledge made no progress "
William Manchester described it as an "era of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and almost impenetrable mindlessness...The Dark Ages were stark in every dimension."

We know these things to be so far from the truth as to be classified as myth. Is it just anti-Catholic rhetoric, or is something else behind it?

Because for various reasons, the period was not well documented. The emotional and value judging loading of the phrase "dark ages" is the precise reason why many historians no longer use it. More currently favoured are terms like ‘early middle ages’, ‘migration period’ or ‘late antiquity’. It's also important to understand that "Dark Ages" Europe was not culturally homogenous, and that while some area were indeed lawless wastes, others were well developed centres of culture and learning. Short version, it has little if anything to do with anti-Catholicism, and plenty to do with 19th Century historians' favouritism for the high classical period of Rome and Greece, and Romantic nationalistic fantasy view of the Middle Ages. As the "Dark Ages" didn't really fit either paradigm, they were a neglected area of study, and misunderstood accordingly.

I just so happened to read an article on this precise subject just this morning http://www.historytoday.com/edwin-hustwit/dark-ages-tintagel-problem

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I can see why Petrarch considered the times dark. He was an Italian that saw the Papacy swept away to France and great plagues devastating the populations of Europe. Rome's population had fallen from a high of 1.5 million at the height of the Roman Empire to around 30,000 around 1350. Then his hero, Cola di Rienzo, tries to reestablish the old Roman Republic only to be killed by a mob.

I am partial to the Tribune myself.

It is ironic that Petrarch saw his times in this manner, when today we often think of it as the first unsteady steps of the Renaissance.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because that is how it was. You could change "all dark" to "with a few glimmers of light", but the fact remains that the Middle Ages were very dark. Hence the motto Post Tenebras Lux (After Darkness Light or Light After Darkness).

They were not dark at all. In fact, Europe moved far ahead of any other civilization during the Dark Ages.
In technology, Europe began using wind and water to power machinery. Dams were constructed to harness the power of water. Wind was used to reclaim much of Belgium and the Netherlands during the Dark Ages. Agriculture was modernized by the technique of keeping 1/3 of your land idle every year, rotating among your fields. The horse-collar was invented to make plowing more efficient. Selective plant breeding was done to produce better, more nutritious foods. The chimney was invented as well, previously a hole in the roof was used to let smoke out (and rain in). Eyeglasses were invented in 1280. Stirrups and saddles were invented in the Dark Ages. Sails, also, invented during the Dark Ages. The use of gunpowder in warfare, too.

Morally, slavery was abolished in Europe in the Dark Ages.

In the Arts, polyphony and polyphonic instruments were invented. Oil paint and stretched canvas as mediums of art were employed first during the Dark Ages. Gothic architecture was envisioned and used, meaning that you didn't need thick walls for buildings. Regarding Literature, Dante, Chaucer and many others wrote, not in Latin, but in their vernacular languages. The university was invented in the Dark Ages.

The Renaissance is also a myth. The Renaissance simply signaled the return to the ancients, rather than anything new. The key to the Renaissance was the translation of the ancients into Latin, which was done painstakingly in the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was a period of cultural emulation during which people of fashion copied the classical styles in manners, art, literature, and philosophy from Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Sophacles, Aristophanes, and others.

 

[Willie T]

They were not dark at all. In fact, Europe moved far ahead of any other civilization during the Dark Ages.
In technology, Europe began using wind and water to power machinery. Dams were constructed to harness the power of water. Wind was used to reclaim much of Belgium and the Netherlands during the Dark Ages. Agriculture was modernized by the technique of keeping 1/3 of your land idle every year, rotating among your fields. The horse-collar was invented to make plowing more efficient. Selective plant breeding was done to produce better, more nutritious foods. The chimney was invented as well, previously a hole in the roof was used to let smoke out (and rain in). Eyeglasses were invented in 1280. Stirrups and saddles were invented in the Dark Ages. The use of gunpowder in warfare, too.

Morally, slavery was abolished in Europe in the Dark Ages.

In the Arts, polyphony and polyphonic instruments were invented. Oil paint and stretched canvas as mediums of art were employed first during the Dark Ages. Gothic architecture was envisioned and used, meaning that you didn't need thick walls for buildings. Regarding Literature, Dante, Chaucer and many others wrote, not in Latin, but in their vernacular languages. The university was invented in the Dark Ages.

The Renaissance is also a myth. The Renaissance simply signaled the return to the ancients, rather than anything new. The key to the Renaissance was the translation of the ancients into Latin, which was done painstakingly in the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was a period of cultural emulation during which people of fashion copied the classical styles in manners, art, literature, and philosophy from Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Sophacles, Aristophanes, and others.

While I imagine most of that could be easily disproven, one thing stuck out glaringly..." Sails, also, invented during the Dark Ages."

Any school child knows about the Egyptians and Phoenicians.

 

[Job8]

They were not dark at all. In fact, Europe moved far ahead of any other civilization during the Dark Ages.

Spiritual darkness is the worst darkness, and that is what the Catholic Church had created. John Wycliffe lived in the Dark Ages and was branded a heretic because he brought light and truth to the masses. Instead of appreciating Wycliffe, he was condemned.

Wycliffe’s concentration upon the Scriptures moved him inexorably to a logical outcome—their translation into English. The clergy of his day, even had they desired to use them, had the Scriptures only in the Latin Vulgate, or occasionally the Norman French. Only fragments of the Bible could be found in English, and these scarcely accessible to the masses of people. Serving as the inspiration of the activity, Wycliffe lived to see the first complete English translation of the Bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

While I imagine most of that could be easily disproven, one thing stuck out glaringly..." Sails, also, invented during the Dark Ages."

Any school child knows about the Egyptians and Phoenicians.

Invented may be too strong a word. Of course they had sails, but not as a primary source of locomotion. The Romans used oars and fought by ramming other ships and boarding for hand to hand combat.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Spiritual darkness is the worst darkness, and that is what the Catholic Church had created. John Wycliffe lived in the Dark Ages and was branded a heretic because he brought light and truth to the masses. Instead of appreciating Wycliffe, he was condemned.

And yet, it wasn't spiritually dark either. John Wycliffe was branded a heretic because he brought heresy to the masses.

 

[Job8]

And yet, it wasn't spiritually dark either. John Wycliffe was branded a heretic because he brought heresy to the masses.

Not at all. In fact, he exposed the errors and superstitions of the Dark Ages.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not at all. In fact, he exposed the errors and superstitions of the Dark Ages.

Like what?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

They were not dark at all. In fact, Europe moved far ahead of any other civilization during the Dark Ages.
In technology, Europe began using wind and water to power machinery. Dams were constructed to harness the power of water. Wind was used to reclaim much of Belgium and the Netherlands during the Dark Ages. Agriculture was modernized by the technique of keeping 1/3 of your land idle every year, rotating among your fields. The horse-collar was invented to make plowing more efficient. Selective plant breeding was done to produce better, more nutritious foods. The chimney was invented as well, previously a hole in the roof was used to let smoke out (and rain in). Eyeglasses were invented in 1280. Stirrups and saddles were invented in the Dark Ages. Sails, also, invented during the Dark Ages. The use of gunpowder in warfare, too.

Morally, slavery was abolished in Europe in the Dark Ages.

In the Arts, polyphony and polyphonic instruments were invented. Oil paint and stretched canvas as mediums of art were employed first during the Dark Ages. Gothic architecture was envisioned and used, meaning that you didn't need thick walls for buildings. Regarding Literature, Dante, Chaucer and many others wrote, not in Latin, but in their vernacular languages. The university was invented in the Dark Ages.

The Renaissance is also a myth. The Renaissance simply signaled the return to the ancients, rather than anything new. The key to the Renaissance was the translation of the ancients into Latin, which was done painstakingly in the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was a period of cultural emulation during which people of fashion copied the classical styles in manners, art, literature, and philosophy from Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Sophacles, Aristophanes, and others.

A lot of problems here.

• Firstly you are referring to the Middle Ages as a whole, which is no longer the usage of Academia as I said in my first post. But I shall answer for the Middle Ages then.
• Europe did not move ahead of other Civilisations. In 1400, both China and the Islamic world were wealthier, more productive, had higher living standards and life expectancies and higher populations. If we look at the world in 1400, it is astonishing that the Europeans came out on top.
• Wind and water had already been used by the Romans and just forgotten. The Romans even had steam engines that could open heavy doors, as built by Heron of Alexandria.
• The reclamation of the Netherlands mostly occured after the Mediaeval period. Up till 14 December 1287's flood, the Zuiderzee had merely been a shallow tidal marsh/lake area with the Almere inlet of the North Sea. It became an arm of the Sea thereafter which was painstakingly recovered from the fifteenth century onward.
• Crop rotation and the horse collar are accurate.
• Selective breeding was done, but this was again an Ancient skill that had to be rediscovered. Cato the Elder wrote extensively on it, but for the first 500 or so years of the middle ages it wasn't really done anymore before rediscovered during the Clunaic revival.
• Chimneys became common in Northern Europe, but this was widely used in Southern Europe since Roman times and was by no means invented then.
• Eyeglasses were another re-invention. Nero used a lens to watch the chariot races for instance.
• The saddle is an ancient invention with examples from Scythia in the first century and adoption by Rome just thereafter.
• Stirrups were used by Steppe Nomads in the migration period, so it is not really an achievement of the European Middle Ages. It seems to have been invented in the 2nd century BC in northern India.
• Ships using solely sails have been in use since the Ancient Sumerians. The Romans themselves also used such ships. The Onerarius or cargo ship was powered by the wind alone. Due to the need for speed and the calmer waters of the mediterranean coupled with cheap labour, oar powered galleys were better options as warships. This is why they were still in use into the 16th century when improvements in cannon made them redundant. Larger ocean going sailing ships with a full rig were built however, but this was not really improvement in technology which mostly just occurred in the Age of Sail. Deep keels for ships also became commonplace in the middle ages.
• Gunpowder was adapted for warfare, correct.
• Slavery was not abolished but made redundant by Feudalism. Serfs were cheaper than owning slaves (similar to sharecroppers in the South and Brazil after the abolition of slavery). All the European powers seamlessly took up slavery in the age of discovery as it was still legal.
• On the arts you are possibly correct, as this point is debatable vis-a-vis the Greco-Roman world's paints.
• Gothic Architecture was an improvement on what came before in the Mediaeval period, but Roman Architecture was superior to it due to concrete, trussing etc. The Romans built the Pantheon in 10 years and Hagia Sophia in 6, both still standing with massive domes, while Mediaeval Cathedrals took upwards of 40 years to complete and tended to be smaller. Judicious use of arches also meant that Roman buildings didn't use as much masonry.
• Great literature was produced, but whether writing in the vernacular is an improvement is a matter of opinion. Also Vernacular literature is in tail end of the period as it shades into the Renaissance.
• Universities appeared from roughly 1200 AD onwards, but again the Greco-Roman world had large philosophical schools and academies that had disappeared with the decline of Rome.
• As to the Renaissance, it is no myth. It was a period in which the vulgar Latin of the mediaeval period was jettisoned for grammatically correct Classical Latin. It saw the death of Scholasticism, the dominant intelectual paradigm of the epoch. It saw the end of Feudalism in England and the rise of Absolute Monarchies in the continent. While the periods shade into each other, it is a dramatically different time (similar perhaps to how colonial America differs markedly from the post-Colonial epoch or pre-WWI Europe from Europe thereafter).
• Much of the translation of Greek texts into Latin occurred after the fall of Constantinople and therefore not in the Middle Ages as Greek speakers fled west. The mediaeval Scholastics mostly used translations made from the Arabic translations or Arabic commentaries with a few scattered latin survivals like Boethius.

I agree though that the middle ages wasn't a 'dark' period, but it was a definite decline from the Greco-Roman world (although Rome's decline can be said to begin in the 180s AD, but it fell precipitously in the fifth century).
The Roman world had life expectancies, productivity, populations and produced goods that would only be equalled again in the late 18th century to 19th.

It is unfair to call it 'dark' which is why historians restricted the term's use and often omit it entirely. But we must be careful to not go the other way and praise it too excessively. It must be seen in its proper context.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Invented may be too strong a word. Of course they had sails, but not as a primary source of locomotion. The Romans used oars and fought by ramming other ships and boarding for hand to hand combat.

The Romans had sailing ships with Sails as primary mode of locomotion. Most cargo vessels of the period were of this nature.
Nero for instance tried to have his mother Aggripina killed on a collapsable sailing ship.

The Greeks and Carthaginians rammed ships. This mode of combat cannot be properly done with sails as the ships cannot be easily controlled. They used sails for long voyages though.
The Romans mostly used the Corvus or Raven, a heavy gangplank with a large spike which was dropped onto enemy ships to secure them and then allowed Roman marines to board the other ship. Essentially they changed a naval battle of manoevres into a land battle, as the Romans weren't renowned for their seamanship or navy.

Without Cannon or similar projectiles, oar powered warships make far more sense in Mediterranean waters. While Rome used Onagers and other catapults, they had to be too small and quite cumbersome on ships.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Like what?

John Wycliffe taught Predestination, a Universal Church of the Elect, rejected purgatory and papal supremacy and considered the Bible the sole source of reliable doctrine. These are his proto-Protestant credentials which it depends on your denomination whether you consider it 'errors' or not.

He also opposed lax monks and monasteries living off others' labour (he considered them irredeemably corrupt), Indulgences and taught that people should be taught in the vernacular language. He opposed the corrupt simoniac practices of his time, the buying and selling of sees, uneducated priests and the fairly common practice of Churchman having concubines (he suggested ending celibacy as a requirement).

He died in communion with the Church and it was only after his death that the Church condemned him as a heretic and ordered his works burned and followers persecuted.

Many of his complaints against the Catholicism of his time were accurate as the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II conceded by adressing the very things he complained about, admittedly a bit belatedly.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A lot of problems here.

• Firstly you are referring to the Middle Ages as a whole, which is no longer the usage of Academia as I said in my first post. But I shall answer for the Middle Ages then.

• I'm referring to the time from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance. "Christianity conquered the Roman Empire and most of Europe. Then we observe a Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia, which afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300." Daniel J Boorstin, "The Prison of Christian Dogma, 1983. Boorstin was senior historian at Smithsonian Institution.

  [*]Europe did not move ahead of other Civilisations. In 1400, both China and the Islamic world were wealthier, more productive, had higher living standards and life expectancies and higher populations. If we look at the world in 1400, it is astonishing that the Europeans came out on top.

  You may not consider it an innovation, but why is it that China never got past using gunpowder to make firecrackers where Europe made projectiles powered with it? Why were Muslim cavalry at such a disadvantage in the Crusades (stirrups and saddles with high pommels and cantles)?

  [*]Wind and water had already been used by the Romans and just forgotten. The Romans even had steam engines that could open heavy doors, as built by Heron of Alexandria.

  Citations, please?

  [*]The reclamation of the Netherlands mostly occured after the Mediaeval period. Up till 14 December 1287's flood, the Zuiderzee had merely been a shallow tidal marsh/lake area with the Almere inlet of the North Sea. It became an arm of the Sea thereafter which was painstakingly recovered from the fifteenth century onward.

  This is still Dark Ages...

  [*]Crop rotation and the horse collar are accurate.
  [*]Selective breeding was done, but this was again an Ancient skill that had to be rediscovered. Cato the Elder wrote extensively on it, but for the first 500 or so years of the middle ages it wasn't really done anymore before rediscovered during the Clunaic revival.

  Again, still Dark Ages.

  [*]Chimneys became common in Northern Europe, but this was widely used in Southern Europe since Roman times and was by no means invented then.
  [*]Eyeglasses were another re-invention. Nero used a lens to watch the chariot races for instance.

  Not as glasses, though.

  [*]The saddle is an ancient invention with examples from Scythia in the first century and adoption by Rome just thereafter.

  Introduced to Europe, and gave a big advantage to Europeans over the Muslims in the Crusades.

  [*]Stirrups were used by Steppe Nomads in the migration period, so it is not really an achievement of the European Middle Ages. It seems to have been invented in the 2nd century BC in northern India.

  Introduced to Europe in the 6th and 7th century by the invading Huns, and again, first employed by Europeans in warfare both against each other and against the Muslims in the Crusades.

  [*]Ships using solely sails have been in use since the Ancient Sumerians. The Romans themselves also used such ships. The Onerarius or cargo ship was powered by the wind alone. Due to the need for speed and the calmer waters of the mediterranean coupled with cheap labour, oar powered galleys were better options as warships. This is why they were still in use into the 16th century when improvements in cannon made them redundant. Larger ocean going sailing ships with a full rig were built however, but this was not really improvement in technology which mostly just occurred in the Age of Sail. Deep keels for ships also became commonplace in the middle ages.

  Roman galleys were man-powered. Their tactic was to ram opposing ships and board for hand-to-hand combat.

  [*]Gunpowder was adapted for warfare, correct.
  [*]Slavery was not abolished but made redundant by Feudalism. Serfs were cheaper than owning slaves (similar to sharecroppers in the South and Brazil after the abolition of slavery). All the European powers seamlessly took up slavery in the age of discovery as it was still legal.

  The elimination of slavery was accomplished by Catholic Church leaders who extended the sacraments to slaves, reserving only ordination to the priesthood. The implications of this went unnoticed at first, but soon the clergy began to argue that no true Christian should be enslaved. Since slaves were Christians, priests began to urge slave owners to free their slaves as an "infinitely commendable act" that helped ensure their owners salvation. Later on, intermarriage between free men and slave women, such as Clovis II and his British slave Bathilda. After Clovis died, Bathilda reigned as regent.

  [*]On the arts you are possibly correct, as this point is debatable vis-a-vis the Greco-Roman world's paints.
  [*]Gothic Architecture was an improvement on what came before in the Mediaeval period, but Roman Architecture was superior to it due to concrete, trussing etc. The Romans built the Pantheon in 10 years and Hagia Sophia in 6, both still standing with massive domes, while Mediaeval Cathedrals took upwards of 40 years to complete and tended to be smaller. Judicious use of arches also meant that Roman buildings didn't use as much masonry.

  Romanesque came before Gothic, and was an innovation on Roman architecture. I've been to the Pantheon, and it is pretty amazing, but I've been to the Gothic Cathedral in Barcelona, it's much grander in scale. Roman architecture is characterized by very thick walls to support the arches. The flying buttress eliminated the need for thick walls and allowed for glass and stained glass to allow light into the building.

  [*]Great literature was produced, but whether writing in the vernacular is an improvement is a matter of opinion. Also Vernacular literature is in tail end of the period as it shades into the Renaissance.
  [*]Universities appeared from roughly 1200 AD onwards, but again the Greco-Roman world had large philosophical schools and academies that had disappeared with the decline of Rome.

  U of Paris started in 1150, but that's quibbling. Christian universities were quite different from the phylosophical schools and academies. Medieval universities were not primarily concerned with imparting received wisdom. They gained their reputation by pursuit of knowledge and innovation.

  [*]As to the Renaissance, it is no myth. It was a period in which the vulgar Latin of the mediaeval period was jettisoned for grammatically correct Classical Latin. It saw the death of Scholasticism, the dominant intelectual paradigm of the epoch. It saw the end of Feudalism in England and the rise of Absolute Monarchies in the continent. While the periods shade into each other, it is a dramatically different time (similar perhaps to how colonial America differs markedly from the post-Colonial epoch or pre-WWI Europe from Europe thereafter).

  Were this really true, it would have created a period of cultural decline, since Christian Europe had long since surpassed classical antiquity in nearly every way. The creators of the Renaissance myth had no knowledge of the Dark Ages and seemed to base their entire assessment on the extent to which scholars were familiar with Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, etc. But even this legacy of classical culture was fully restored before the Renaissance.

  [*]Much of the translation of Greek texts into Latin occurred after the fall of Constantinople and therefore not in the Middle Ages as Greek speakers fled west. The mediaeval Scholastics mostly used translations made from the Arabic translations or Arabic commentaries with a few scattered latin survivals like Boethius.

I agree though that the middle ages wasn't a 'dark' period, but it was a definite decline from the Greco-Roman world (although Rome's decline can be said to begin in the 180s AD, but it fell precipitously in the fifth century).
The Roman world had life expectancies, productivity, populations and produced goods that would only be equalled again in the late 18th century to 19th.

It is unfair to call it 'dark' which is why historians restricted the term's use and often omit it entirely. But we must be careful to not go the other way and praise it too excessively. It must be seen in its proper context.

As I said previously, I may have used the word invention when I meant innovation. I completely disagree that ther ewas a decline from the Greco-Roman world. There was much progress made in nearly every way, which was my point. In fact, I would say that the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were steps backward. If you're basing your opinion on the grammar used in translation, I'd say your missing a large portion of that millenium.

 

[Root of Jesse]

John Wycliffe taught Predestination, a Universal Church of the Elect, rejected purgatory and papal supremacy and considered the Bible the sole source of reliable doctrine. These are his proto-Protestant credentials which it depends on your denomination whether you consider it 'errors' or not.

Right. The world was Catholic, though, so he was a heretic.

He also opposed lax monks and monasteries living off others' labour (he considered them irredeemably corrupt), Indulgences and taught that people should be taught in the vernacular language. He opposed the corrupt simoniac practices of his time, the buying and selling of sees, uneducated priests and the fairly common practice of Churchman having concubines (he suggested ending celibacy as a requirement).

So did most Catholics. By the way, it was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church to sell indulgences.

He died in communion with the Church and it was only after his death that the Church condemned him as a heretic and ordered his works burned and followers persecuted.

When the Church found out what his beliefs were, they condemned him. Rightly so.

Many of his complaints against the Catholicism of his time were accurate as the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II conceded by adressing the very things he complained about, admittedly a bit belatedly.

The ones in the first section, he was wrong about. Those in the second section, he was right, but most Catholics were, too. The Catholic Church is constantly reforming itself as a human institution of divine origin. Vatican II didn't really address those things, other than the constant state of reform necessary to remain holy.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You may not consider it an innovation, but why is it that China never got past using gunpowder to make firecrackers where Europe made projectiles powered with it? Why were Muslim cavalry at such a disadvantage in the Crusades (stirrups and saddles with high pommels and cantles)?

Never said anything about innovation, I was actually arguing that the Middle Ages were better than a 'dark' age. The fact remains though that Europe was poorer, less healthy and less populous than China or the Islamic world in 1400.
European metalurgy was way better than Chinese smelting, which is why Europe could make Cannon and China only small handguns. The Chinese had insufficient skill to create barrels that could cope with the stress.

Islamic countries used different military styles to the the Europeans, favouring light cavalry. This was a disadvantage in a straight charge, but as the battle of Hattin can attest, the Islamic strategy was also effective. Heavy Cavalry is not necessarily better than light cavalry, depends on the military situation.

Citations, please?

Read the extent works of Heron of Alexandria: Pneumatica and Automapoeia explains in some detail his steam engine. A working example has also been built.
Ausonius's Mosella has an extensive description of a marble cutting watermill on the Moselle river in the fourth century.
Ammianus Marcellinus' XXIII letter speaks of a water powered saw mill.
Orjan Wikander and Michael Lewis have written extensively and done 30 years worth of Archeological digs that shows widespread wind and watermill use in Roman Britain and Gaul.

Again, still Dark Ages.

No, by your defintion in this post it isn't, as Dutch reclamation mostly happened after 1300.

Not as glasses, though.

Putting lenses on a piece of wire is not a major innovation. Lenses themselves were, which had to be rediscovered.

Introduced to Europe, and gave a big advantage to Europeans over the Muslims in the Crusades.

The Romans already used saddles, the four horn type which Eastern Roman Cataphrachts modified into the high saddle of the middle ages. This was an advantage to heavy cavalry.
The Muslims used lower saddles modified from the Roman design as well, which was better suited for light cavalry.

Introduced to Europe in the 6th and 7th century by the invading Huns, and again, first employed by Europeans in warfare both against each other and against the Muslims in the Crusades.

The Huns invaded in the 5th century and did not use Stirrups. It was introduced in the 7th century by the Avars, with the first reference to it the Strategikon of Emperor Maurice.

Roman galleys were man-powered. Their tactic was to ram opposing ships and board for hand-to-hand combat.

Correct. Read what I wrote. Man-powered galleys were better for Mediterranean warfare which is why they remained the primary military shipping there until the rise of Cannon. The battle of Lepanto in the 16th century was still fought by man-powered galleys. The Romans had sails and exclusively wind-powered vessels as well, just as Venice did in the 16th.

The elimination of slavery was accomplished by Catholic Church leaders who extended the sacraments to slaves, reserving only ordination to the priesthood. The implications of this went unnoticed at first, but soon the clergy began to argue that no true Christian should be enslaved. Since slaves were Christians, priests began to urge slave owners to free their slaves as an "infinitely commendable act" that helped ensure their owners salvation. Later on, intermarriage between free men and slave women, such as Clovis II and his British slave Bathilda. After Clovis died, Bathilda reigned as regent.

Regardless, Slavery was never outlawed. Bathilde outlawed slave-trading in the Merovingian realm though.
For instance 10% of the English population in the Domesday book were slaves.
The Feudal system and the establishment of serfdom replaced the Roman slave system and lead to a decline and eventual death of slavery in continental Europe. The Crusaders however, acquired and used slaves in Outremer, as did some monarchs for instance the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II.
It was expected to free Christian slaves in Jubilee years and was considered a commendable act, but the institution of slavery was never outlawed nor was there a concerted attempt to do so. Slavery disappeared in Europe by about 1200 on economic and social factors.

Romanesque came before Gothic, and was an innovation on Roman architecture. I've been to the Pantheon, and it is pretty amazing, but I've been to the Gothic Cathedral in Barcelona, it's much grander in scale. Roman architecture is characterized by very thick walls to support the arches. The flying buttress eliminated the need for thick walls and allowed for glass and stained glass to allow light into the building.

In some respects an improvement and in others not. Roman structures are still standing securely while many Mediaeval ones are crumbling and tilting.
You are equating all Roman Architecture to a few examples, few would agree that the Colosseum or most Aquaduct systems could be considered to have thick walls.
The most important decline from Roman times in this respect was the decline in waterproofing and the loss of Concrete.

U of Paris started in 1150, but that's quibbling. Christian universities were quite different from the phylosophical schools and academies. Medieval universities were not primarily concerned with imparting received wisdom. They gained their reputation by pursuit of knowledge and innovation.Were this really true, it would have created a period of cultural decline, since Christian Europe had long since surpassed classical antiquity in nearly every way. The creators of the Renaissance myth had no knowledge of the Dark Ages and seemed to base their entire assessment on the extent to which scholars were familiar with Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, etc. But even this legacy of classical culture was fully restored before the Renaissance.

Quibbling yes, as I said 'roughly 1200'. Ancient academies were also not really for teaching alone but for innovation. We see multiple works on science, astronomy, biology etc. which came from there.

Um, yes there was a cultural decline called by scholars the 'Dark Ages' (not your definition of the term) up to about the 800s AD.
Christian Europe did not achieve Roman levels of population, health, life expectancy or productivity until the 18th century.
Also knowledge of Mechanics and Physics was quite lacking. Most of the Greco-Roman science had to be rediscovered from Arabic texts in the high middle ages. From the late middle ages they had surpassed the ancient world in certain fields, but by no means all.

Again Renaissance isn't a myth as it was a dramatic departure from the thought paradigm that came before it even though it wasn't an instantaneous process or a specific point that can be said to be the beginning of it.
You yourself called it a decline from the middle ages, so how can a myth be a decline?

As I said previously, I may have used the word invention when I meant innovation. I completely disagree that ther ewas a decline from the Greco-Roman world. There was much progress made in nearly every way, which was my point. In fact, I would say that the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were steps backward. If you're basing your opinion on the grammar used in translation, I'd say your missing a large portion of that millenium.

There were advances from the Ancient World in the Middle Ages, but by no means did they surpass it 'in every way'.
There was a steep decline of all factors: health, life expectancy, population, productivity, knowledge etc. when the Western Roman world fell. Europe then took two or three centuries to dust itself off and began recovering itself thereafter. It is a specious argument to see the Middle Ages as a unit, as an advance on the Ancient world and deny the very real decline that initiated it.
Some things got better, others not so much.

The Enlightenment and Renaissance are other arguments entirely and depends on what you consider advancement and what not.