The Dark Ages Myth

[ViaCrucis]

If we look to the catholic tradition and their own documents the numbers of those murdered by them would definitely be underestimated to say the least. It was not only during the inquisitions that they murdered innocent people. While attending catholic school and catechism class I use to believe all that the good catholics of today believe and that would be only their documentation. BUT when I grew up and looked around and noticed who Martin Luther, John Huss, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale among thousands of others who were blowing the trumpet of truth against the oppressive ways of the church run state of the catholic church, I began doing research. I have been researching these things all my life.

You certainly can find very revealing videos on You Tube about the abuses of the RCC. Many documents have come to light about them, and they have been proven. Even on 60 minutes they mention how secretive the church is about the truth. Try reading some other sources like Fox's book or martyrs, of Wylies history of Protestantism http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/protestantism.htm ,
or history of the reformation by J. H Merle d'AubigneÌ . These volumnous books are things the RCC wish were not in existence.

Frequently the numbers put forward by anti-Catholic sources, or simply sources which repeat, uncritically, certain figures are not just improbably high, they are near impossible based on the population of Europe in the period; with numbers which rival or surpass the death toll of the Black Death--an event so devastating that as much as half of Europe perished.

If one were to believe some of the figures put forward, we would be left with a Europe devoid of human population.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[masmpg]

Frequently the numbers put forward by anti-Catholic sources, or simply sources which repeat, uncritically, certain figures are not just improbably high, they are near impossible based on the population of Europe in the period; with numbers which rival or surpass the death toll of the Black Death--an event so devastating that as much as half of Europe perished.

If one were to believe some of the figures put forward, we would be left with a Europe devoid of human population.

-CryptoLutheran

Right! You try to lump all of the "dark ages" into a few years or generations, but over 1000 years these numbers are very feasible! In fact the population of Europe during that time frame was drastically controlled by the inquisitions and other RCC persecutions, like st bartholomew's day massacre along with many other conspiracies of this type carried out by the catholic church backed politicians of those days. Go ahead and tell me that the dark ages were over by the 16th century!!! They obviously were not. As long as the RCC murdered people who were trying to better themselves and the then known world is how long the dark ages lasted. The RCC were the creators of the "dark ages". They hid all knowledge from the less "fortunate" as they call them. When Martin Luther made public the RCC abuse of indulgences they turned on him like rabid dogs. He was exposing the whole reason the RCC exists and that is to gain wealth and power to carry out their abuses with impunity.

The church run state of the dark ages was very ingenious. The RCC forced kings and princes to carry out many of these bloody operations just so they could keep their kingdoms. The RCC was powerful enough to depose kings if they disagreed with the pope.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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

By all accounts, it was a time (in the West, at least) of little to no technological or scientific development, little or no development of human comfort development (no plumbing of any type, no insulation, no 'weather proofing', no medical knowledge) and a downturn on education and thought.

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.

Correct, that's the common view.

Historian JB Bury noted that when Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, this "inaugurated ... [the Dark Ages]"

Oddly enough, the fall of the Roman Empire is normally cited as several hundred years after Constantine. The exact date of the collapse of the Roman Empire is vague, but the earliest dates I find are around the middle of the Fifth Century. Some later.

Of course, if one is anti-Christian, blaming Christianity for the Dark Ages - by any argument - is good practice.

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."

Sounds like what I know of it. Doesn't speak to cause, however.

We know these things to be so far from the truth as to be classified as myth.

Sorry. What things? The Dark Ages were a miserable time to live, or, it was all due to Christianity? And who knows them?

Is it just anti-Catholic rhetoric, or is something else behind it?

Possible a bit of both.

The Dark Ages, following the Pax Romana, featured civil government in a rather splintered mess. There were many small kingdoms and kings were both nervous about keeping their own power status, AND trying to enlarge their power status at the unavoidable expense of the kingdom and king next door. Consequently, these kings tended to be paranoid and reluctant to let their subjects have much education, or those subjects MIGHT recognize a better life without king Whatshisname.

Those kings, tyrants and pretend 'religious' leaders padded their power and status by using 'religion' - any religion - as justification and a spiritual threat over the heads of the subjects.

So I am convinced Christianity was used as a tool by those holding power as a control mechanism; much as some anti-religionists and deophobes claim. At the same time, those holding power tended to avoid letting the 'church' they controlled get very serious about the redemptive, changing power of Almighty God through Jesus Christ. That tends to remove ultimate loyalty from King Whatshisname and give it to God.

I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do I agree with all the doctrinal (and some theological) teachings thereof. However, I do not think that organization has ever been (not then, not now) totally evil and corrupt. At the same time I am sure there were times certain officials - whom I will not suggest - did have some secular interests best served by taking a specific side in a specific matter. Nor can I believe the lure of filthy lucre is any less attractive to certain members of the RCC clergy than it has been to various others of other religious groups.

My criticism and suspicion extends to other Christian groups. Any group under political suppression tends to resist that suppression. Either by secrecy - never popular with the government - or by actual rebellion - again not popular with the government. Which is NOT to say such resistance is always wrong or evil; nor is it always good and righteous. It does however, give the state (of whatever type, but especially despotic) an excuse to further suppress the resistors to the point of execution.

What ended the Dark Ages? I rather think some of those in power - wherever they were - actually began understanding some of what Christianity actually meant (and means). That loosened up thinking and education which triggered advances in both technical/scientific matters AND social enlightenment. Not instantaneously, of course.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The church run state of the dark ages was very ingenious. The RCC forced kings and princes to carry out many of these bloody operations just so they could keep their kingdoms. The RCC was powerful enough to depose kings if they disagreed with the pope

This is a bit of a misconception. The Church was powerful in the Middle Ages, but you are overestimating it significantly.

In Mediaeval times we had:
1. The Feudal system with its lords and liegemen
2. Mercantile companies, banking families and commercial groups like the Medici and Hanseatic league
3. The Church
4. Nascent nationalistic tendencies like those harnessed by Henry IV of England or Joan of Arc
5. Development of preliminary representation like Simon de Montfort's parliament
6. The Crown, mercenary companies and the beginning of standing armies in some cases.
Etc.

The Church was a facet of a complex society, not its mistress. The various parts were often in conflict, but the Church was hardly the most powerful, nor could they dismiss kings at whim.

We see this clearly in Imperial vs. Papal troubles. Guelf and Ghibbeline factions fought each other to the teeth in Italian cities for much of the period. In things like the Investiture controversy and Henry IV's trip to Canossa, where the King basically undercut the Pope and forced him to end his excommunication. Thereafter Henry IV still defeated papal attempts to dethrone him and ended up installing his own antipope.
Papal attempts to end the Hohenstaufen dynasty and depose Frederick II largely failed as well. They only managed to depose his descendants by offering the crown of Sicily to Charles of Anjou, who himself had to take it by force and subsequently partially defend from Aragonese claims.

Even William the Conqueror's papal support would have meant very little if he didn't win Hastings and thereafter he had to spend 20 years harrowing the North.
The Church was a powerful ally and could be a significant asset or stumbling block for secular rulers, but outside the Papal states it did not rule. It had a supporting role in many mediaeval squabbles, but by no means could a Pope depose someone and expect it to occur. Often the Mediaeval Church had to cut their losses or choose lesser of two evils when things went awry, such as with Henry II and Thomas a Becket or the Angevin Kingdom of Naples.

You are significantly overestimating the power of the Church. Only when juggling many different factors could mediaeval monarchs or Popes be succesful, many of which would be equally familiar to modern rulers, like nationalistic tendencies, financial constraints, trade etc. Many groups could and did oppose papal interference like Hussite Bohemia, the Holy Roman Empire, England before John etc.

Besides, for much of the period the Popes were fighting petty Italian wars, antipopes (at one point there were three popes), trying to organise Crusades (often unsuccesfully or disasterously like the fourth) or trying to get out under the thumb of Roman noble families like the Colonna. There was even the inappropriate contentokratia where a corrupt family of women controlled the papacy, where it really did very little.
There are a few highly succesful papal ventures like the First Crusade or crowning Charlemagne which creates the mistaken impression of Papal power, when mostly the Popes were just another player in Mediaeval Realpolitik, albeit with a special set of powers and lacking its own armed forces.

 

[Armoured]

Right! You try to lump all of the "dark ages" into a few years or generations, but over 1000 years these numbers are very feasible! In fact the population of Europe during that time frame was drastically controlled by the inquisitions and other RCC persecutions, like st bartholomew's day massacre along with many other conspiracies of this type carried out by the catholic church backed politicians of those days. Go ahead and tell me that the dark ages were over by the 16th century!!! They obviously were not. As long as the RCC murdered people who were trying to better themselves and the then known world is how long the dark ages lasted. The RCC were the creators of the "dark ages". They hid all knowledge from the less "fortunate" as they call them. When Martin Luther made public the RCC abuse of indulgences they turned on him like rabid dogs. He was exposing the whole reason the RCC exists and that is to gain wealth and power to carry out their abuses with impunity.

The church run state of the dark ages was very ingenious. The RCC forced kings and princes to carry out many of these bloody operations just so they could keep their kingdoms. The RCC was powerful enough to depose kings if they disagreed with the pope.

You keep making these claims. Seriously, it's nonsense. The Inquisition didn't even exist in the Dark Ages.

Seriously, I get that you have a particular narrative you really want to push, but your claims are a-historical hogwash.

 

[Armoured]

You can date the dark ages as any time frame you personally choose

*eyeroll*

 

[Root of Jesse]

By all accounts, it was a time (in the West, at least) of little to no technological or scientific development, little or no development of human comfort development (no plumbing of any type, no insulation, no 'weather proofing', no medical knowledge) and a downturn on education and thought.

no, not by 'all' accounts.

Correct, that's the common view.

Common, but incorrect.

Oddly enough, the fall of the Roman Empire is normally cited as several hundred years after Constantine. The exact date of the collapse of the Roman Empire is vague, but the earliest dates I find are around the middle of the Fifth Century. Some later.

Of course, if one is anti-Christian, blaming Christianity for the Dark Ages - by any argument - is good practice.

Sounds like what I know of it. Doesn't speak to cause, however.

Problem is, it's an incorrect statement.

Sorry. What things? The Dark Ages were a miserable time to live, or, it was all due to Christianity? And who knows them?

Possible a bit of both.

The Dark Ages, following the Pax Romana, featured civil government in a rather splintered mess. There were many small kingdoms and kings were both nervous about keeping their own power status, AND trying to enlarge their power status at the unavoidable expense of the kingdom and king next door. Consequently, these kings tended to be paranoid and reluctant to let their subjects have much education, or those subjects MIGHT recognize a better life without king Whatshisname.

Nicely generalized.

Those kings, tyrants and pretend 'religious' leaders padded their power and status by using 'religion' - any religion - as justification and a spiritual threat over the heads of the subjects.

So I am convinced Christianity was used as a tool by those holding power as a control mechanism; much as some anti-religionists and deophobes claim. At the same time, those holding power tended to avoid letting the 'church' they controlled get very serious about the redemptive, changing power of Almighty God through Jesus Christ. That tends to remove ultimate loyalty from King Whatshisname and give it to God.

I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do I agree with all the doctrinal (and some theological) teachings thereof. However, I do not think that organization has ever been (not then, not now) totally evil and corrupt. At the same time I am sure there were times certain officials - whom I will not suggest - did have some secular interests best served by taking a specific side in a specific matter. Nor can I believe the lure of filthy lucre is any less attractive to certain members of the RCC clergy than it has been to various others of other religious groups.

My criticism and suspicion extends to other Christian groups. Any group under political suppression tends to resist that suppression. Either by secrecy - never popular with the government - or by actual rebellion - again not popular with the government. Which is NOT to say such resistance is always wrong or evil; nor is it always good and righteous. It does however, give the state (of whatever type, but especially despotic) an excuse to further suppress the resistors to the point of execution.

So you read Dan Brown? By the way, WHAT "other Christian groups?"

What ended the Dark Ages? I rather think some of those in power - wherever they were - actually began understanding some of what Christianity actually meant (and means). That loosened up thinking and education which triggered advances in both technical/scientific matters AND social enlightenment. Not instantaneously, of course.

Ah, the "Enlightenment"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Right! You try to lump all of the "dark ages" into a few years or generations, but over 1000 years these numbers are very feasible! In fact the population of Europe during that time frame was drastically controlled by the inquisitions and other RCC persecutions, like st bartholomew's day massacre along with many other conspiracies of this type carried out by the catholic church backed politicians of those days. Go ahead and tell me that the dark ages were over by the 16th century!!! They obviously were not. As long as the RCC murdered people who were trying to better themselves and the then known world is how long the dark ages lasted. The RCC were the creators of the "dark ages". They hid all knowledge from the less "fortunate" as they call them. When Martin Luther made public the RCC abuse of indulgences they turned on him like rabid dogs. He was exposing the whole reason the RCC exists and that is to gain wealth and power to carry out their abuses with impunity.

The church run state of the dark ages was very ingenious. The RCC forced kings and princes to carry out many of these bloody operations just so they could keep their kingdoms. The RCC was powerful enough to depose kings if they disagreed with the pope.

Considering that the Inquisitions didn't affect all of Europe at all, but mostly Spain and Italy, how can you possibly state that the Inquisitions drastically contolled the population of Europe? The St. Bartholemew's Day "massacre" was a local Catholic response to the French Revolution-it wasn't a persecution by Catholics, but a persecution of Catholics...There was, by percentage, much more Protestant persecution in Protestant states than there was Catholic persecution. There was no "Dark Ages". There was a period of turmoil which was caused by the gradual collapse of the Roman Empire, but the Church, the CATHOLIC Church, was the entity that kept alive the advances of the time, and moving it forward.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The St. Bartholemew's Day "massacre" was a local Catholic response to the French Revolution-it wasn't a persecution by Catholics, but a persecution of Catholics...

The St. Bartholomew massacre was in the French Wars of Religion, not the Revolution and was a planned massacre of prominent Huguenots by Catherine de Medici with a series of violent mob attacks against Protestants in general for weeks thereafter. Probably between 10 000 to 20 000 Huguenots were killed. It certainly was a massacre perpetrated by Catholics against Protestants.

There was, by percentage, much more Protestant persecution in Protestant states than there was Catholic persecution.

Protestants tended not to eradicate their Catholic minorities so they were there to be persecuted. Catholic states eradicated or expelled their Protestants, such as the Inquisition in Italy and Spain did or the French after revoking the Edict of Nantes. So the fact of a smaller percentage of persecution is an artifact of Catholic states seeking conformity in the Catholic fold and much more actively trying to cut out their Protestant groups root and branch.
For instance we see Savoy and Rochelle cleared of Protestants by Dragoons of the French king, but Recusant Lords and countryman remained very much present in Yorkshire and the Scottish highlands.

 

[Armoured]

So you read Dan Brown?

There's a lot of that going around

 

[Root of Jesse]

The St. Bartholomew massacre was in the French Wars of Religion, not the Revolution and was a planned massacre of prominent Huguenots by Catherine de Medici with a series of violent mob attacks against Protestants in general for weeks thereafter. Probably between 10 000 to 20 000 Huguenots were killed. It certainly was a massacre perpetrated by Catholics against Protestants.


Protestants tended not to eradicate their Catholic minorities so they were there to be persecuted. Catholic states eradicated or expelled their Protestants, such as the Inquisition in Italy and Spain did or the French after revoking the Edict of Nantes. So the fact of a smaller percentage of persecution is an artifact of Catholic states seeking conformity in the Catholic fold and much more actively trying to cut out their Protestant groups root and branch.
For instance we see Savoy and Rochelle cleared of Protestants by Dragoons of the French king, but Recusant Lords and countryman remained very much present in Yorkshire and the Scottish highlands.

The belief that it was premeditated by the Catholic Church is denied by most historians, and not Catholic historians.

Your last paragraph is proof of your bias. Protestants and their backing governments persecuted, killed and exiled Catholics in numbers you wouldn't admit to. The situation in England under Henry VIII and his kin shows that you're wrong. Protestant governments after the revolt did, indeed, do those things, too.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The belief that it was premeditated by the Catholic Church is denied by most historians, and not Catholic historians.

The killing of prominent Huguenot leaders was premeditated. The ensueing pogroms by the mob was not, but the authorities did little if anything to stop them.

Your last paragraph is proof of your bias. Protestants and their backing governments persecuted, killed and exiled Catholics in numbers you wouldn't admit to. The situation in England under Henry VIII and his kin shows that you're wrong. Protestant governments after the revolt did, indeed, do those things, too.

I agree they did, but the question is of degree. The fact that Catholics continued to exist within Britain for instance while almost all Huguenots had to flee France in a massive exodus, illustrate this nicely. Many of my own ancestors fled after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
While the English did kill Catholics, if we look at the examples I gave above of the Catholic Mary I vs Protestant Elizabeth I, we see similar numbers. The trouble is that Mary ruled for 5 years and Elizabeth 44.
While the extent of the Catholic suppression of Protestantism is often exaggerated and Protestant persecution of Catholics minimised, the fact remains that Catholic Europe was worse for a Protestant to live in than Protestant Europe for a Catholic.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

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?

My understanding was that the Dark Ages referred to a relatively brief period in between the collapse of the Western Empire and the rise of Charlemagne, or at the absolute latest, the early Renaissance.

During that period, it is a historical fact that the population of Rome did plummet, all but one of the aqueducts failed due to lack of maintenance, and the replacement regimes which were to mount the crusades were in their infancy.

This time was not a very good time for the Orthodox-Catholic church, because Arian brigsands lead the Visigoths and other very unpleasant tribal cultures in pillaging.

In some places, I would view the Dark Ages as a different temporal period. For example, in Britain, I would view it as the period spanning the collapse of the Roman colony established by Claudius in the first century and the evangelization of the invading Angles by Pope St. Gregory Diologos and St. Augustine of Canterbury around 600, because during that period history in Brittania seems to stop and we see the region return to the most savage conditions, with the Roman infrastructure falling into ruins.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The killing of prominent Huguenot leaders was premeditated. The ensueing pogroms by the mob was not, but the authorities did little if anything to stop them.


I agree they did, but the question is of degree. The fact that Catholics continued to exist within Britain for instance while almost all Huguenots had to flee France in a massive exodus, illustrate this nicely. Many of my own ancestors fled after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
While the English did kill Catholics, if we look at the examples I gave above of the Catholic Mary I vs Protestant Elizabeth I, we see similar numbers. The trouble is that Mary ruled for 5 years and Elizabeth 44.
While the extent of the Catholic suppression of Protestantism is often exaggerated and Protestant persecution of Catholics minimised, the fact remains that Catholic Europe was worse for a Protestant to live in than Protestant Europe for a Catholic.

It really just depends on where you were. Germany was worse for Catholics, as was Switzerland. France was worse for Protestants as was Italy. When you're speaking of degrees, though, keep in mind that numbers don't really convey the truth when a society is predominately Catholic. Maybe per thousand numbers would be better to look at.
By the way, the Catholic Church didn't kill any Huguenot leaders. There is no doubt that there were many Protestant/Catholic wars (meaning that Catholics were fighting Protestants), but to say that the Catholic Church was behind it is a bit conspiratorial. Sure, Catherine and her sons, the kings, were Catholic rulers, and it was Protestants they wanted to put down, Calvinists to be exact. But it wasn't the Catholic Church behind it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My understanding was that the Dark Ages referred to a relatively brief period in between the collapse of the Western Empire and the rise of Charlemagne, or at the absolute latest, the early Renaissance.

During that period, it is a historical fact that the population of Rome did plummet, all but one of the aqueducts failed due to lack of maintenance, and the replacement regimes which were to mount the crusades were in their infancy.

This time was not a very good time for the Orthodox-Catholic church, because Arian brigsands lead the Visigoths and other very unpleasant tribal cultures in pillaging.

In some places, I would view the Dark Ages as a different temporal period. For example, in Britain, I would view it as the period spanning the collapse of the Roman colony established by Claudius in the first century and the evangelization of the invading Angles by Pope St. Gregory Diologos and St. Augustine of Canterbury around 600, because during that period history in Brittania seems to stop and we see the region return to the most savage conditions, with the Roman infrastructure falling into ruins.

I would agree with you. I'm not trying to imply that there weren't dark times, as you say, when the hordes of northern Europe and those from the East were subjecting civilization to all sorts of horrors. But this idea that there was a millenium of darkness where there was no innovation, no progress, no nothing, is just nonsense. As I detailed, the university system, hospital system, preservation of the Bible and other works, harnessing of water and wind to produce power and the invention of new machinery all took place during the time.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I would agree with you. I'm not trying to imply that there weren't dark times, as you say, when the hordes of northern Europe and those from the East were subjecting civilization to all sorts of horrors. But this idea that there was a millenium of darkness where there was no innovation, no progress, no nothing, is just nonsense. As I detailed, the university system, hospital system, preservation of the Bible and other works, harnessing of water and wind to produce power and the invention of new machinery all took place during the time.

You are of course correct. The most disagreeable Dark Ages myth is of course the moronic 1260 years argument advocated by Ellen G. White, who in her remarkanle ignorance would have us suppose the Renaissance never happened. When people (attempt to) argue that myth it simply offends me.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It really just depends on where you were. Germany was worse for Catholics, as was Switzerland. France was worse for Protestants as was Italy. When you're speaking of degrees, though, keep in mind that numbers don't really convey the truth when a society is predominately Catholic. Maybe per thousand numbers would be better to look at.
By the way, the Catholic Church didn't kill any Huguenot leaders. There is no doubt that there were many Protestant/Catholic wars (meaning that Catholics were fighting Protestants), but to say that the Catholic Church was behind it is a bit conspiratorial. Sure, Catherine and her sons, the kings, were Catholic rulers, and it was Protestants they wanted to put down, Calvinists to be exact. But it wasn't the Catholic Church behind it.

I never said the Catholic Church itself was responsible for St. Bartholomew, I believe I said Catherine de Medici.

It is difficult to decide whether the society was predominantly Catholic or not, especially if we take proto-Protestants like Valdensians or Lollards into account.

I agree it depends on country as well how bad the persecution of either Protestants or Catholics were.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I never said the Catholic Church itself was responsible for St. Bartholomew, I believe I said Catherine de Medici.

It is difficult to decide whether the society was predominantly Catholic or not, especially if we take proto-Protestants like Valdensians or Lollards into account.

I agree it depends on country as well how bad the persecution of either Protestants or Catholics were.

Waldensians and Lollards were minority groups, so I would disagree with that.

The whole point of this thread is to show that it is an incorrect concept that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages. This concept is taught in most schools, if it is taught at all. I'm not trying to say that the Church didn't do bad things or that those who ran the Church didn't succumb to corruption and so on. The Catholic Church was the most important entity that kept civilization together through a difficult time.

 

[SpreadTheWordOfGod]

It was a period in time when human knowledge dropped.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It was a period in time when human knowledge dropped.

Except that's really just part of the myth.

About really some of the worst things you could say is that between the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of the Scholastic period (a period of about 500 years give or take) most of Western Europe lost many of the great works of the classical period--but those works were still perserved, just elsewhere, among the Byzantines, the Arabs, and the Persians. It's not a coincidence that the rise of the Scholastic period was also during a time when classical works began to enter into Europe again through Muslim Spain, and then the rise of the Renaissance occurring with Byzantine refugees fleeing to Western Europe after the fall of Constantinople.

But Europe wasn't devoid of knowledge, progress was made in many areas of society--it's when we see the first universities and hospitals, we see advancements of civil law which would go on to shape the judicial traditions of the West forever.

The myth of the dark ages is that it was some corrupt backward time; but the reality is that it wasn't. It was a period of massive change in Western Europe, the collapse of Roman power in the West, the migration of Goths and Germanic peoples, the rise of the Merovingian and later the Carolingian dynasties, the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain, the Visigoths occupying the Iberian Peninsula, all these things were the bedrock foundations for much of Europe to come: France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, England, the earliest history of these countries really only begins in that period. It's this "backward" period that ultimately gives us something like the Magna Carta, and a grand tradition of English civil law that becomes a fundamental component to the building blocks of modern democracy in the 18th century with the founding of the United States and then other democratic and republican governments following suit in the decades and centuries following.

Really, the only thing truly "dark" about this period is how little many people know about it today.

-CryptoLutheran