The Dark Ages Myth

[2PhiloVoid]

This is only true for our conception of Arithmetic as it is based on Hindu-Arabic numerals.
Alternate constructs using different methods of representation based on Roman numerals are also possible, it just didn't occur. (My English vs French example from before is here applicable). Rooney is making the conceptual mistake of thinking our methods exclude that other methods could have been devised.

Roman culture was quite receptive to new ideas, adopting Greek science, Hispanic swords, Gaulish iron smelting, Carthaginian agricultural techniques etc. to name a few. A reticence to adopt the systems of the enemy is not a Roman characteristic and cannot be blamed on them. The Byzantines had a bit more of that Greek pride and hubris which had brought them down before Rome, which probably adulterated their civilisation somewhat.


I agree, but its not as if Arab science was UBER-advanced either and anyway it was based on Greco-Roman science as well.


I don't think Christianity is to blame either, but I disagree that Roman Numerals in and of itself has any responsibility. Likewise, residual Roman culture is also blameless as this also adulterated Islamic Civilisation which had a flowering of Science and helped usher in the Renaissance at a later date.
The primary reason was the Barbarian conquests and fall of Rome in my opinion, which brought primitive cultures and largely uneducated elites into power, who neglected the Roman public works and learning in general. While I agree a conglomeration of distinct cultural, social, political and environmental factors caused the slow down in progress, I think the human factors thereof rest more amongst the Barbarian tribes than the Roman populace.

Well....I think you're right that the Barbarian invasions did quite a number on Europe, but then you have to be able to explain why it was that Europe didn't begin giving up use of Roman numerals and the abacus until after the Renaissance. Let's face it, there wasn't much in the way of grand scientific advancement (of major proportions) from the time of Constantine (or a bit earlier) even till 1500.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well....I think you're right that the Barbarian invasions did quite a number on Europe, but then you have to be able to explain why it was that Europe didn't begin giving up use of Roman numerals and the abacus until after the Renaissance.

My friend, you are being a bit silly.

The Abacus was still in use by merchants and banks up to the 1920s in Europe and the 1970s in Russia. Hexadecimal Abaci are still employed to ease mathematical usage in parts of Europe and China. What killed the Abacus in the West was not Hindu-Arabic numerals but mechanical counting machines and calculators.

Binary Abaci are still used to explain ASCII code and visually represent computer programming and explain how computers manipulate numbers.

The first mention of Hindu-Arabic numerals in Europe was in 976 AD in Spain in the Codex Vigilianus. Thereafter it was so rapidly adopted along with Arabic mathematics in general that by 999 AD, Pope Sylvester encouraged the adoption of Hindu-Arabic numeral Abaci.
Roman numerals continued side by side as the day to day numerals while Hindu Arabic numerals became dominant in mathematics and accounting.
It is similar to China today, which uses their own numerals in daily life but ours in Science and Mathematics.

By the 16th century, Arabic numerals had begun to filter into daily life, but the fact that Roman numerals had been used before this was no impediment nor relevant to Europe's development, especially in light of the large scale use of the parallel Arabic numerals at the same time for the preceding 500 or so years.

As stated before, Roman numerals are equivalent in most normal usages, so the fact that they had been used as such, since they were the traditional numerals after all, is quite irrelevant. Mediaeval Europe already employed Hindu-Arabic numerals for most specialist mathematics.

Let's face it, there wasn't much in the way of grand scientific advancement (of major proportions) from the time of Constantine (or a bit earlier) even till 1500.

Please read back into this thread. Root of Jesse and I have been discussing this at some length.

We discussed the late Roman scientist Capella who had a mixed geo-heliocentric astronomical model that Copernicus praised as helping him craft his theory.

Deep shaft and vein mining was invented in late Roman times which replaced more conventional opencast and tunnel mining in much of Europe during the Middle Ages and in which the rest of the world never caught up at all. Mediaeval Europe mined ore more efficiently than any other civilisation of its time.

We see the rise of Chemistry in the form of Alchemy, where interactions and substances were first properly noted scientifically.

Scientific Method itself was invented in the Middle Ages by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste. By the modern definition thereof, Science has only existed since the 12th century.

A lot of the mediaeval advancement like wind and watermills and lenses were rediscovery of previous Roman usages, but many new advances like Crop rotation, the horse collar, advanced smelting of metals etc. were discovered then as well.

Specific fields like Anatomy and Pharmacology came into existence in the period. This is different from previous medical systems which did not seek to systematically explain these areas, although Roman medicine came close to this ideal and it was suggested by the works of Galen.

While there was a real decline in the beginning of the Mediaeval period and a lot of it was spent catching up, it is plain incorrect to say that no grand advancements were made throughout it. Sweeping black and white statements like this are seldom if ever correct historically.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My friend, you are being a bit silly.

The Abacus was still in use by merchants and banks up to the 1920s in Europe and the 1970s in Russia. Hexadecimal Abaci are still employed to ease mathematical usage in parts of Europe and China. What killed the Abacus in the West was not Hindu-Arabic numerals but mechanical counting machines and calculators.

Binary Abaci are still used to explain ASCII code and visually represent computer programming and explain how computers manipulate numbers.

The first mention of Hindu-Arabic numerals in Europe was in 976 AD in Spain in the Codex Vigilianus. Thereafter it was so rapidly adopted along with Arabic mathematics in general that by 999 AD, Pope Sylvester encouraged the adoption of Hindu-Arabic numeral Abaci.
Roman numerals continued side by side as the day to day numerals while Hindu Arabic numerals became dominant in mathematics and accounting.
It is similar to China today, which uses their own numerals in daily life but ours in Science and Mathematics.

That's fine if I'm 'wrong,' since I'm reflecting from the sources that I have. Would you mind citing a source or two that back what you're saying above here?

By the 16th century, Arabic numerals had begun to filter into daily life, but the fact that Roman numerals had been used before this was no impediment nor relevant to Europe's development, especially in light of the large scale use of the parallel Arabic numerals at the same time for the preceding 500 or so years.

As stated before, Roman numerals are equivalent in most normal usages, so the fact that they had been used as such, since they were the traditional numerals after all, is quite irrelevant. Mediaeval Europe already employed Hindu-Arabic numerals for most specialist mathematics.


Please read back into this thread. Root of Jesse and I have been discussing this at some length.

We discussed the late Roman scientist Capella who had a mixed geo-heliocentric astronomical model that Copernicus praised as helping him craft his theory.

Deep shaft and vein mining was invented in late Roman times which replaced more conventional opencast and tunnel mining in much of Europe during the Middle Ages and in which the rest of the world never caught up at all. Mediaeval Europe mined ore more efficiently than any other civilisation of its time.

We see the rise of Chemistry in the form of Alchemy, where interactions and substances were first properly noted scientifically.

Scientific Method itself was invented in the Middle Ages by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste. By the modern definition thereof, Science has only existed since the 12th century.

A lot of the mediaeval advancement like wind and watermills and lenses were rediscovery of previous Roman usages, but many new advances like Crop rotation, the horse collar, advanced smelting of metals etc. were discovered then as well.

Specific fields like Anatomy and Pharmacology came into existence in the period. This is different from previous medical systems which did not seek to systematically explain these areas, although Roman medicine came close to this ideal and it was suggested by the works of Galen.

While there was a real decline in the beginning of the Mediaeval period and a lot of it was spent catching up, it is plain incorrect to say that no grand advancements were made throughout it. Sweeping black and white statements like this are seldom if ever correct historically.

Alright. I'll research some of this more closely, Quid. I'm always open to learning or receiving correction... Thanks for the 'heads up.'

2PhiloVoid

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's fine if I'm 'wrong,' since I'm reflecting from the sources that I have. Would you mind citing a source or two that back what you're saying above here?

2PhiloVoid

Medieaval use of Hindu-Arabic numerals: Journal of the History of Ideas, volume 73 - Arabic Science in 12th century Europe; The Origin of Numbers in the journal Scientific Monthly volume 52; History of Mathematics by Boyer.

For Sylvester II, best to check the man's works themselves: Liber Abaci, Libellus de rationali et uti, Regulo de abaci computi or de Geometri.
You could also try Gerbert d'Aurrillac and the March of Spain by Betty Mayfield.
Otherwise a more popular history of the spread of Hindu-Arabic numerals and Sylvester's Abacus would be Nancy Brown's The Abacus and the Cross.

For continued use of the Abacus into modern times: The other side of Russia by Sharon Hodgkins; Computing in Russia by Georg Trogeman and Wolfgang Ernst; Instruments of Science - The Western Abacus entry by Robert Bud et al.

For use of the Binary Abacus, a good article by Robert Good is The Binary Abacus in the Journal of Mathematics and Science teaching, volume 5.

For Roman Numerals, their advantages and disadvantages and a general overview: Greek Science in Antiquity by Marshall Claget; The Origin of Roman Numerals in the Journal of American Archaeology volume 72 by Paul Keyser; Oxford Classical Dictionary - preferably the older editions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Medieaval use of Hindu-Arabic numerals: Journal of the History of Ideas, volume 73 - Arabic Science in 12th century Europe; The Origin of Numbers in the journal Scientific Monthly volume 52; History of Mathematics by Boyer.

For Sylvester II, best to check the man's works themselves: Liber Abaci, Libellus de rationali et uti, Regulo de abaci computi or de Geometri.
You could also try Gerbert d'Aurrillac and the March of Spain by Betty Mayfield.
Otherwise a more popular history of the spread of Hindu-Arabic numerals and Sylvester's Abacus would be Nancy Brown's The Abacus and the Cross.

For continued use of the Abacus into modern times: The other side of Russia by Sharon Hodgkins; Computing in Russia by Georg Trogeman and Wolfgang Ernst; Instruments of Science - The Western Abacus entry by Robert Bud et al.

For use of the Binary Abacus, a good article by Robert Good is The Binary Abacus in the Journal of Mathematics and Science teaching, volume 5.

For Roman Numerals, their advantages and disadvantages and a general overview: Greek Science in Antiquity by Marshall Claget; The Origin of Roman Numerals in the Journal of American Archaeology volume 72 by Paul Keyser; Oxford Classical Dictionary - preferably the older editions.

Ok. Thank you for the interesting references. I'll see if I can check them out...

2PhiloVoid

 

[Meowzltov]

The title of "Dark Ages" is no longer used. It is called the Middle Ages and stretched from 500-1000 AD. The HIGH Middle Ages stretched from 1000-1300.

There were advances in agriculture and mechanics. Slavery all but vanished. There was a vibrant monastic culture that kept literacy alive and copied texts that would otherwise have been lost to history. The arts were alive and well, including the famous Gothic churches that survive to this day, and well known classics of literature. And what would history have been without the age of Chivalry?

Although the Middle Ages were definitely a decline from the Roman Civilization that preceded it, it wasn't really "dark."

 

[Root of Jesse]

The title of "Dark Ages" is no longer used. It is called the Middle Ages and stretched from 500-1000 AD. The HIGH Middle Ages stretched from 1000-1300.

There were advances in agriculture and mechanics. Slavery all but vanished. There was a vibrant monastic culture that kept literacy alive and copied texts that would otherwise have been lost to history. The arts were alive and well, including the famous Gothic churches that survive to this day, and well known classics of literature. And what would history have been without the age of Chivalry?

Although the Middle Ages were definitely a decline from the Roman Civilization that preceded it, it wasn't really "dark."

You were doing great until the last statement. I don't believe the Middle Ages were a decline from Roman Civilization. In fact there were many advances, all of which you mentioned, well many. The move from alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy, plainchant to polyphony, and many others...the creation of the university, the hospital, the banking system. Also, the term was and is prevalent in most primary education, and it was fomented by those Humanists who wanted to self-aggrandize their time as the return of Roman Civilization (which was, in fact, a step to the rear).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You were doing great until the last statement. I don't believe the Middle Ages were a decline from Roman Civilization. In fact there were many advances, all of which you mentioned, well many. The move from alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy, plainchant to polyphony, and many others...the creation of the university, the hospital, the banking system. Also, the term was and is prevalent in most primary education, and it was fomented by those Humanists who wanted to self-aggrandize their time as the return of Roman Civilization (which was, in fact, a step to the rear).

This is of course an opinion.
The beginning of the Middle Ages was a decline based on any variable you can consider. It then improved of course, but advanced more in some fields and not much in others.
In my Opinion, the Renaissance was not a step back, but the child of both the classical and mediaeval traditions stepping forward.

But you and I have been discussing our difference of opinion ad nauseam, so this post is perhaps unnecessary.

 

[Meowzltov]

You were doing great until the last statement. I don't believe the Middle Ages were a decline from Roman Civilization. In fact there were many advances, all of which you mentioned, well many. The move from alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy, plainchant to polyphony, and many others...the creation of the university, the hospital, the banking system. Also, the term was and is prevalent in most primary education, and it was fomented by those Humanists who wanted to self-aggrandize their time as the return of Roman Civilization (which was, in fact, a step to the rear).

I think we are talking about a matter of degree, and only degree. Those who advocate "Dark Ages" really paint the Middle Ages as some sort of major decline, and I don't see that. However, I really don't see the Middle Ages as the equal to Roman Civilization in all ways, despite obvious advances in some areas, which you have pointed out. All in all, I think that life was on the average a bit lower: a bit hungrier, a bit less literate, etc. But only a bit. Being the feudal vassal of a lord wasn't a big improvement on slavery, but it was a bit of an improvement, for example.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think we are talking about a matter of degree, and only degree. Those who advocate "Dark Ages" really paint the Middle Ages as some sort of major decline, and I don't see that. However, I really don't see the Middle Ages as the equal to Roman Civilization in all ways, despite obvious advances in some areas, which you have pointed out. All in all, I think that life was on the average a bit lower: a bit hungrier, a bit less literate, etc. But only a bit. Being the feudal vassal of a lord wasn't a big improvement on slavery, but it was a bit of an improvement, for example.

Well, the characterization I've run into of the Dark Ages is that it was like a cliff. Civilization was under water for 1000 years, and then the Renaissance era rediscovered what had inches of dust on it because it was hidden away. The Roman Empire declined, certainly. Much of Western Europe was left to fend for itself while the Visigoths, Vandals and Ostrogoths ran rampant. But even during this time, it was the Church which preserved civilization, and moved it forward, in the ways I've been detailing. As you said the first 500 years of the period was cleaning up after all the destruction, but it was during this period that the Church made advances that led to more advances in the later Middle Ages, which led to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I'm not so sure the Enlightenment was an improvement on much, though...

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, the characterization I've run into of the Dark Ages is that it was like a cliff. Civilization was under water for 1000 years, and then the Renaissance era rediscovered what had inches of dust on it because it was hidden away.

Yeah well, we all know better than that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually, up until recently, a lot of academia (secular and theological) outside of Catholicism believed the beast/antichrist/man of sin of Revelation was the Papacy. Now-a-days I guess it's not politically correct to point out such things...

As far as the dark ages moniker, I wonder what the millions of martyrs under RC rule thought about it?

This is a discussion about history. Adventist fantasy and historical revisionism doesn't have a place in a discussion of real history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[masmpg]

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?

If we look to the reformation, which was the protestors of the catholic church oppression and inquisition we will find how long the dark ages lasted.

Here is a great historical narrative of what happened during the inquisition, which was the whole terror of the dark ages:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

If we look at when the Caesars started to murder Christians in the collesium through the times of the Protestant reformation we are looking at around 1500 years of dark ages. The end of the reformation could be when Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the door of the wittenburg church in 1517.

There are many web sites about the dark ages, especially on you tube, if you want to see some of the extremely graphic tortures and murders they carried out against those who would not join the catholic church. There are also two sides of this story. The catholic side, which I was taught as a child attending catholic school, then there is the truth, which the catholic church has been trying to hide for millennia. Even the last three popes have apologized. I say that if they are supposedly infallible why do they have to apologize?

 

[Radagast]

and hence use symbol constructs devised for Hindu-Arabic numerals.

Hindu-Arabic numerals facilitate certain calculation algorithms, so are superior in that sense. The resistance against them came from the fact that it's harder to alter financial records written in Roman numerals.

 

[Radagast]

The title of "Dark Ages" is no longer used.

Indeed.

Slavery all but vanished.

Which meant more equality. The Medieval serf was well ahead of the Roman slave, though probably not as well off as the Roman free citizen. And the Medieval serf (male or female) always had one way out: they could become a monk or nun.

The biggest problem with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was hunger due to lack of access to Egyptian grain. During the Early Middle Ages, Europe basically had to reinvent agriculture to make it more efficient in northern climates (horse collars, new ploughs, crop rotation etc.). Once that had been done, things started to get better.

including the famous Gothic churches that survive to this day

And those involved substantial advances in architecture, going far beyond what the Romans had done.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Hindu-Arabic numerals facilitate certain calculation algorithms, so are superior in that sense. The resistance against them came from the fact that it's harder to alter financial records written in Roman numerals.

Yes because those calculation systems were created with hindu-arabic numerals in mind. So they are obviously superior for a system designed around their use.
It is like saying Lego bricks are a superior construction toy to use because they fit Lego instruction booklets best.

It does not mean Hindu-Arabic numerals are necessarily superior to Roman numerals nor that Roman Numerals somehow kept Europe back. If Algebra had been born in mediaeval Saxony say, instead of the Middle-East, the computational systems and methods would have been geared to Roman Numerals and people would be pontificating on how Arabic numerals kept the Islamic world back.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And those involved substantial advances in architecture, going far beyond what the Romans had done.

In some ways, others not. They had forgotten a lot about butressing and completely forgot Concrete.

Roman architecture vs Mediaeval Architecture is a false trail as both are deficient in some respects which the other did more effectively. This is a defect that the Renaissance and later rediscoveries rectified.

 

[Radagast]

Yes because those calculation systems were created with hindu-arabic numerals in mind

True. But the fact that no such algorithms existed for Roman numerals says something.

This book from 1202 is the classic text on why Hindu-Arabic numerals are good.

nor that Roman Numerals somehow kept Europe back

I don't think any knowledgeable person claims that.

 

[Radagast]

In some ways, others not. They had forgotten a lot about butressing

You've got that 100% wrong. The flying buttress was a Medieval invention.

Roman architecture vs Mediaeval Architecture is a false trail as both are deficient in some respects which the other did more effectively.

That sentence doesn't parse. I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You've got that 100% wrong. The flying buttress was a Medieval invention.

Buttressing in general, not necessarily a flying buttress. This is why mediaeval architects failed to create domes of similar size to Roman examples.

That sentence doesn't parse. I have no idea what you mean.

My apologies if my wording was confusing.
I don't think it fruitful to say mediaeval architecture was better than Roman architecture or vice versa. Mediaeval constructions were worse in some respects like waterproofing or earthquake resistance and better in others.

True. But the fact that no such algorithms existed for Roman numerals says something.

This book from 1202 is the classic text on why Hindu-Arabic numerals are good.

Never said they weren't good. Liber Abaci's argument though rests on the uses of Algebra, not on innate superiority of the numerals themselves.

Hindu-Arabic Numerals came into existence in the 4th century BC, but Algebra only in the 8th AD. Persian polymaths merely saw the usefulness and created Algebra, but I don't think anything can be said of the numerals themselves based on the fact that the Romans did not create a similar system.
It is similar to the fact that the Greco-Roman world built steam engines but never Trains. It is not an inherent fault of their technology or systems that certain applications thereof were never made.

I don't think any knowledgeable person claims that.

This was the original contention I responded to and is a myth I have often seen in popular history books.