The Dark Ages Myth

[Radagast]

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

I think you have a number of architectural concepts confused there.

earthquake resistance

The medievals certainly built earthquake-resistant structures. With the Gothic cathedrals, they attempted to minimise the amount of stone and maximise the amount of windows. Some of the experiments associated with that drive were rather earthquake-vulnerable. But the medievals deserve credit for innovation.

Liber Abaci's argument though rests on the uses of Algebra, not on innate superiority of the numerals themselves.

Not true.

Algebra only in the 8th AD

Algebra is older than that.

 

[Armoured]

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?

The "Dark Ages" had nothing to do with the Inquisition. Indeed, historians don't really use the term "dark ages" any more, but when they DID, the dark ages were considered to end in 1066 when Harald Hardrader was defeated at Stamford Bridge.

The term refers specifically to the lack of extant documentation from the time, making it "dark" in the sense of "difficult to see clearly", not in the sense of any sort of value judgement about events of the time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Not what the Reformation was. And "the dark ages" which real historians no longer use because it's a misnomer, referred to a period that ended long before the Reformation.

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.

The period known as "the dark ages" referred to the period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century until around the 10th century; but, again, most real historians avoid the term because it is inaccurate. The term "dark ages" as a historical term refers to a period of none or scarce historigraphical material, but that simply doesn't apply to the Middle Ages.

And the Reformation began when Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.

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?

Yes, you can find anything on the internet. Whether it's true or not is another question.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Armoured]

Not what the Reformation was. And "the dark ages" which real historians no longer use because it's a misnomer, referred to a period that ended long before the Reformation.



The period known as "the dark ages" referred to the period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century until around the 10th century; but, again, most real historians avoid the term because it is inaccurate. The term "dark ages" as a historical term refers to a period of none or scarce historigraphical material, but that simply doesn't apply to the Middle Ages.

And the Reformation began when Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.



Yes, you can find anything on the internet. Whether it's true or not is another question.

-CryptoLutheran

Jinx

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think you have a number of architectural concepts confused there.

I am not. The Romans built Hagia Sophia by balancing a dome on four triangular pendentives reinforced with buttressing, placing a dome on top of a rectangular base. While a late structure, this is the type of construction that the Mediaeval architects failed to build, in spite of attempts.

Not all buttresses are 'flying', you have clasped, inset, diagonal etc. The Romans were masters of engineering using arches, buttressing, domes and concrete, often accomplished amazing feats when building aqueducts, walls, temples etc. Many of these structures were unequalled in mediaeval times and remain in use today.

The medievals certainly built earthquake-resistant structures. With the Gothic cathedrals, they attempted to minimise the amount of stone and maximise the amount of windows. Some of the experiments associated with that drive were rather earthquake-vulnerable. But the medievals deserve credit for innovation.

They do deserve credit for innovation, but their structures are in general less earthquake resistant. Its about degree here.
If you visit Italy you will see multiple iron bars and hooks placed in older buildings to try and repair damage.
Roman structures such as the old Curia, Pantheon or Hagia Sophia were far more durable.

Not true.

Please provide evidence. As far as I know, the book starts by discussing how to convert from Roman numerals to Hindu-Arabic and back again and then proceeds to show how Hindu-Arabic numerals facilitate easier calculations of interest and currency conversion. Thereafter it discussed various mathematical problems like perfect numbers before describing arithmetic series and finally derives approximations of irrational numbers. Fibonacci uses Algebraic equations throughout the work, so please show me what part of the work argues the innate superiority of Hindu-Arabic numerals without resorting to algebra.

Algebra is older than that.

You are wrong. Muhammad al-Kwarizmi is widely credited for establishing Algebra separate from Arithmetic and Geometry.
Pre-8th century mathematicians be they Chinese, Greco-Roman or Indian, all solved equations utilising algebraic geometry. Diophantes for instance used ad hoc geometric formulations to solve equations, but this is not a systematic method to do so. Algebra as a branch of mathematics only dates to 8th century Persian mathematicians, for all modern Algebra is directly based on their work and they first created universal methods to solve equations.

If you can show me an older instance, I am all ears.

 

[Armoured]

I am not. The Romans built Hagia Sophia by balancing a dome on four triangular pendentives reinforced with buttressing, placing a dome on top of a rectangular base. While a late structure, this is the type of construction that the Mediaeval architects failed to build, in spite of attempts.

Not all buttresses are 'flying', you have clasped, inset, diagonal etc. The Romans were masters of engineering using arches, buttressing, domes and concrete, often accomplished amazing feats when building aqueducts, walls, temples etc. Many of these structures were unequalled in mediaeval times and remain in use today.


They do deserve credit for innovation, but their structures are in general less earthquake resistant. Its about degree here.
If you visit Italy you will see multiple iron bars and hooks placed in older buildings to try and repair damage.
Roman structures such as the old Curia, Pantheon or Hagia Sophia were far more durable.


Please provide evidence. As far as I know, the book starts by discussing how to convert from Roman numerals to Hindu-Arabic and back again and then proceeds to show how Hindu-Arabic numerals facilitate easier calculations of interest and currency conversion. Thereafter it discussed various mathematical problems like perfect numbers before describing arithmetic series and finally derives approximations of irrational numbers. Fibonacci uses Algebraic equations throughout the work, so please show me what part of the work argues the innate superiority of Hindu-Arabic numerals without resorting to algebra.


You are wrong. Muhammad al-Kwarizmi is widely credited for establishing Algebra separate from Arithmetic and Geometry.
Pre-8th century mathematicians be they Chinese, Greco-Roman or Indian, all solved equations utilising algebraic geometry. Diophantes for instance used ad hoc geometric formulations to solve equations, but this is not a systematic method to do so. Algebra as a branch of mathematics only dates to 8th century Persian mathematicians, for all modern Algebra is directly based on their work and they first created universal methods to solve equations.

If you can show me an older instance, I am all ears.

Haiga Sophia was built in 537 by Byzantines. Calling them "Romans" is inaccurate. A successor state to the classical Roman Empire, sure, but not Romans as the term is generally meant.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Haiga Sophia was built in 537 by Byzantines. Calling them "Romans" is inaccurate. A successor state to the classical Roman Empire, sure, but not Romans as the term is generally meant.

I disagree. Often the Eastern Roman Empire is said to continue on until Heraclius for this is only when the Empire stops using Latin in the army and loses its last Latin and non-Greek provinces to the Muslims then substantially reorganising itself as Themes. This is said to be the best place to 'start' the Byzantine Empire as opposed to the Eastern Roman one, but as this is an arbitrary modern definition, other arguments can also be made (Arcadius, Constantine, even Justinian or Leo V). Hagia Sophia thus easily falls in the Eastern Roman Empire by this definition, but architecturally it is Greco-Roman and not really similar to later Byzantine constructions as such anyway. The Byzantines and their peers considered them the Roman Empire until its fall in 1453.

This is anyway a moot point as I only mentioned Hagia Sophia as a well-known example of the type of architecture I was describing, not basing my entire argument on one structure. So even if you want to exclude it based on date, it does not change the argument.

 

[Armoured]

I disagree. Often the Eastern Roman Empire is said to continue on until Heraclius for this is only when the Empire stops using Latin in the army and loses its last Latin and non-Greek provinces to the Muslims then substantially reorganising itself as Themes. This is said to be the best place to 'start' the Byzantine Empire as opposed to the Eastern Roman one, but as this is an arbitrary modern definition, other arguments can also be made (Arcadius, Constantine, even Justinian or Leo V). The Byzantines and their peers considered them the Roman Empire until its fall in 1453.

This is anyway a moot point as I only mentioned Hagia Sophia as a well-known example of the type of architecture I was describing, not basing my entire argument on one structure. So even if you want to exclude it based on date, it does not change the argument.

The Byzantines thought of themselves a Greeks, not Romans. Maybe not at the moment of the break with Rome, but certainly by the time of building the Haiga Sophia.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Byzantines thought of themselves a Greeks, not Romans. Maybe not at the moment of the break with Rome, but certainly by the time of building the Haiga Sophia.

Wrong. All Greeks called themselves Rhomaioi up till the 19th century. They called their empire Romania and held the title Autokrator of Rome for their emperors.
They put Rome on their coinage and derived their legitimacy from the Caesars.
The only ones who called them Greeks were the Westerners who tried to appropriate that meaning to themselves following Carolingian times. Byzantine itself was coined in the 16th century by Western historians who wanted to exclude the Eastern [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from being truly Roman.
Hellene only came back into fashion during the struggle for Greek Independance as Thermopylae and the Persian wars were apt ways to describe Greek struggles against the Ottomans, who themselves had appropriated much Roman/Byzantine symbolism and usages (for instance, the original Turkish state in Anatolia had been the Sultanate of Rum and Rumelia became the Turkish term for the area of the former Byzantine Empire).

 

[Radagast]

Hagia Sophia was a truly beautiful church. But its wonderful dome did have a tendency to collapse in earthquakes. On three separate occasions, if I remember correctly.

Medieval Europeans developed a better understand of domes, culminating in Brunelleschi's work in Florence.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Hagia Sophia was a truly beautiful church. But its wonderful dome did have a tendency to collapse in earthquakes. On three separate occasions, if I remember correctly.

To suffer three repairable collapses in 1400 years is not bad, especcially in such an earthquake prone area. Pre-Renaissance Mediaeval Italian constructions you will see fared far more poorly in this respect.

Medieval Europeans developed a better understand of domes, culminating in Brunelleschi's work in Florence.

Mediaeval Europe largely ignored the dome. Italian duomo are a Renaissance thing. Please present an example of a large Western European dome from the Middle Ages.

Brunelleschi and Donatello studied the Roman ruins extensively and based their constructions on the framework provided by Vitruvius in de Architectura. To claim the Renaissance domes as heirs of mediaeval architecture does not hold water. They are developments of Roman models using additional mediaeval techniques and thus a true product of the hybrid Renaissance.

It is disingenuous to try and juxtapose Renaissance architecture to Roman, since by then Architects were well aware of the latter. Mediaeval architecture was inferior to Roman in some respects, others not.

 

[Radagast]

On the topic of domes, the Late Middle Ages are generally considered to end in 1500, which is after the completion of the Duomo in Florence.

That dome marks the end of a chain of development in Europe, including domes to numerous to count. That of Siena Cathedral (1264) is just one:

Outside Italy, St. Gereon's Basilica in Cologne (1227) had a decagonal oval dome:

The key innovation in Europe was a more pointed dome (like that of the Duomo in Florence) which was basically a Gothic arch rotated. This shape is much closer to the optimal design than Roman hemispherical domes like the Pantheon were (let alone flat domes like Hagia Sophia). In other words, the Medievals innovated, and their innovations produced a superior result.

 

[Armoured]

On the topic of domes, the Late Middle Ages are generally considered to end in 1500,

Depends who you're talking to. For English speaking historians, the Middle Ages ends in 1485 at Bosworth Field.

 

[Radagast]

Depends who you're talking to. For English speaking historians, the Middle Ages ends in 1485 at Bosworth Field.

That's as good a date as any -- 1500 is a round number.

And when you start to look at history in detail, there's a combination of a development of ideas within Europe and an introduction of ideas from outside (like Aristotle's works around 1200) that ran continuously for several centuries. One can perhaps point at certain individuals (Luther, say, and Galileo) as marking a change, but that's all rather arbitrary, really.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

On the topic of domes, the Late Middle Ages are generally considered to end in 1500, which is after the completion of the Duomo in Florence.

That dome marks the end of a chain of development in Europe, including domes to numerous to count. That of Siena Cathedral (1264) is just one:

If your going to play dates, the Renaissance is said to begin in the mid 13th century in Italy with Petrarch and Dante, so Florence and Sienna both fall within it.
Regardless again, these domes are based on Roman models utilising mediaeval techniques like for instance the Gothic arch.
The Duomo of Florence specifically was the work of Brunolesschi, a avowed student of Roman Architecture.

Outside Italy, St. Gereon's Basilica in Cologne (1227) had a decagonal oval dome:

The key innovation in Europe was a more pointed dome (like that of the Duomo in Florence) which was basically a Gothic arch rotated. This shape is much closer to the optimal design than Roman hemispherical domes like the Pantheon were (let alone flat domes like Hagia Sophia). In other words, the Medievals innovated, and their innovations produced a superior result.

The focus is actually a bit blurred here. Gothic domes are uncommon on account of ribbed vaults over naves with the focus generally on a steeple.
Decagonal or Octagonal domes are more in keeping with Romanesque architecture. Romanesque is based partially on Roman and Byzantine models, but does have some mediaeval innovation. They are however not as sturdy and enclosed smaller areas than Roman architecture proper.
We see Islamic innovation of Roman Domes such as the Dome of the Rock or the Mosque of Cordoba with star-shaped or Cross arched domes and this influenced western architecture following the Crusades. This also influenced Romanesque and Gothic.

To claim the Renaissance domes simply as a product of mediaeval domes is unfounded and mediaeval domes are usually small and largely concealed externally. I asked for a Large western dome and you gave me further examples of Renaissance ones or mentioned domes that aren't that large. I agree though that these domes are improvements in a way on Roman examples.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I personally take the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the end of the Middle Ages broadly but give a lot of leeway for interpretations that give local endpoint dates from the 13th to the 16th for specific areas.

 

[Armoured]

That's as good a date as any -- 1500 is a round number.

And when you start to look at history in detail, there's a combination of a development of ideas within Europe and an introduction of ideas from outside (like Aristotle's works around 1200) that ran continuously for several centuries. One can perhaps point at certain individuals (Luther, say, and Galileo) as marking a change, but that's all rather arbitrary, really.

Yes. But that's rather recent appreciation. For a long time in academia, and still in popular culture, the Mediaeval period was regarded as a time off in it's own bubble, largely unaffected by what went before, and not really contributing to what came after, until the Renaissance unexpectedly burst into full bloom out of nowhere.

 

[Armoured]

I personally take the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the end of the Middle Ages broadly but give a lot of leeway for interpretations that give local endpoint dates from the 13th to the 16th for specific areas.

Bosworth Field makes more sense to me, the end of the Plantagenets and all.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Bosworth Field makes more sense to me, the end of the Plantagenets and all.

Yes for England, but it makes little sense for Italy or France. Its all a little arbitrary anyway.

 

[Armoured]

Yes for England, but it makes little sense for Italy or France. Its all a little arbitrary anyway.

Well, England owned France, and Italy is an imaginary construct, so, you know, Bosworth Field still makes sense.