The Dark Ages Myth

[Albion]

Christ founded the Church (Catholic) in order to continue His work of redemption for all time. Christ wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them,, thru the three -fold office delegated, to the Church by Christ —- the teaching office, the pastoral office, and the sacerdotal office.
Thus the Catholic Church is Christ continuing and perpetually working on earth. "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world," (Mat 28, 19)
He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." Luke 10, 16.

With over thousands of heretical teachings, hundreds of schismatics, I'm sure the protesting reformers had all sorts of name -calling, expletives, etc……to hurl at Christ's Church……..

Maybe a separate thread would be in order if you feel the need to run your denomination's own rendition of history by us. We've heard it many times, however.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So the Renaissance wasn't really a renaissance, and the Dark Ages weren't dark. That's why I said they're a myth. Yet many today still believe them, maybe because they were taught in school?

The Renaissance was a Renaissance of Roman learning, so is not a myth. It wasn't the complete rejection of the Middle Ages or the rebirth of knowledge from ignorance though, but a lot of lost ideas and ancient thinking was rekindled.

Exactly my point. But, is there a system that's perfect?

There is no perfect system, nor was Scholasticism that system. It is best to deconstruct all our thought paradigms to see what is its worth.

So are many professions today.

No modern profession is as cruel as serfdom.

For what it's worth, a Lord was responsible for the protection and well-being of the serfs, whereas a slave-owner could kill or maim or sell a slave. I'm not suggesting that serfs had it all that good, but it is very different from being owned.The point is that all previous civilizations allowed slavery, into the Middle Ages. It was customary to use slaves. There was also the idea of indentured people, too. In the Middle Ages, the Church declared that slaves could be baptized as Christians, and were, therefore allowed dignity. If a person was a Christian, how could the owners keep them? Slavery practically disappeared in the Middle Ages because of the Church, but it reappeared later, especially in the New World. Even then, the Church opposed it, many papal bulls declared slave-owners to be excommunicated. But being so far away, it's hard to make demands. This is one of the reasons the Church sent missionaries to the NewWorld-to try to keep the Spanish, Portuguese, and French honest, and to protect those they subjugated. But that's speaking of more modern slavery. It's pretty telling that British Colonies totally subjugated slaves here, while the Catholic areas (Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, the Carribean, and the Southwest) had many more free blacks and natives.

No, a Lord was not responsible for the well being of his serfs. He had no legal responsibility to clothe, feed or look after them, nor to treat them well. This led to terrible abuses where serfs were basically worked to death by their lords.
This differs from slavery where the slave was the masters property. If you own something, you look after it well since when you no longer use it, you can sell it. This does not mean slavery was better, in many ways it was worse, but Serfdom is n minimal improvement.
Serfs were not property, so the Lord could use them as he sees fit and have little consequences and no loss if the serf suffered, but instead might reap rich rewards from exhaustive labour. A smart lord would weigh the advantages to keeping his serfs working as hard as they could versus their deteriorating conditions.

You see a similar picture in the post-war South where many slaves' condition deteriorated on being freed since their former master no longer had a vested interest in keeping his sharecroppers healthy.

Again though, Slavery was practiced throughout the Middle Ages, never outlawed and never opposed by the Church provided they weren't Christian.
As to your story of Catholic slave areas, the Protestant countries freed slaves before the Catholic ones and most Protestant states in the US freed the slaves of their own accord. Heavily Catholic countries like Brazil were amongst the last to free their slaves.
As to Protestants not freeing their slaves, British Caribbean colonies like Jamaica or the Dutch in South Africa and Indonesia had vast freedmen classes that formed comparable to what occured in Louisiana, if not exceeding it in size in the Dutch example.
Besides the Antebellum state with the largest free black population was probably South Carolina, not really a bastion of Catholicism, if I recall correctly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But Christianity of that time was almost completely Catholic with a few heretic sects thrown in. Also wonder why it's taught in school to this day. Personally, I believe there's an anti-Catholic bias.

...and that's part of the point, ROJ. When we say "Catholic," as the term was used during the first several hundred years after Emperor Constantine, we're talking specifically about Christianity as it was overborne in Europe by Roman culture, and hence, on a practical level in daily working by the clunky Roman counting system. Add to this that the Roman leaders during the first millennium concentrated on the ideas of "Law" much more than on science, and we have a recipe for slowed progress.

Today, few people take Roman counting seriously; when I was taught about Roman numbers in school, the unit was short and sweet and more of a "historical reference" than a learning tool.

So, again, I'm not going to allow that Christianity, whether Catholic or Orthodox during the first Millennium, was completely to blame for any 'darkness' in knowledge.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Today, few people take Roman counting seriously; when I was taught about Roman numbers in school, the unit was short and sweet and more of a "historical reference" than a learning tool.

2PhiloVoid

Roman numerals are far less 'clunky' than people realise. While I, V,L,C,D and M were used for small numbers, the Romans had other ways to represent them as well.

An I in brackets represented a 1000 or M (its was called an Apostrophus). With each additional brackets a 0 was added and half that with one bracket. So (I) represented a 1000, ((I)) represented 10000, (I)) represented 1500, ((I))) represented 15000 and so forth. This could also be done with other letters so (V) represented 5000 for instance.

An alternate system also existed using strokes above the letters to show levels of magnitude they represent (a Vinculum).

Likewise the Romans used specific duodecimal signs to represent fractions based on divisibilty by twelve. This is actually far better than the decimal arabic numeral system we use today for fractions, as it allows much easier usage of common fractions divisible by three or four.

Roman numerals persisted in common usage up till the 15th century, because for normal usages they are equivalent to Hindu-Arabic numerals and for fractions are actually better (although you have to learn the specific signs).
Our complex mathematics were adopted from Arabic mathematicians and hence use symbol constructs devised for Hindu-Arabic numerals. This does not make those numerals an inherently superior way to represent numbers, just superior to represent numbers in a context designed for the use of such numerals, our Mathematics.
If a mediaeval polymath had devised algebraic equations or representational systems based on Roman numerals, then we could have been arguing how 'clunky' Hindu-Arabic numerals are, especcially for fractions!

 

[tz620q]

Again though, Slavery was practiced throughout the Middle Ages, never outlawed and never opposed by the Church provided they weren't Christian.

You might want to read Sublimus Dei, a papal encyclical from 1537 that I have quoted below. It is quite short and remarkably progressive for the time frame in which it was composed.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

We define and declare by these Our letters..., the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You might want to read Sublimus Dei, a papal encyclical from 1537 that I have quoted below. It is quite short and remarkably progressive for the time frame in which it was composed.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

We define and declare by these Our letters..., the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

Yes a remarkable document, but 1537 is after the Middle Ages by any definition of the term.

 

[tz620q]

Yes a remarkable document, but 1537 is after the Middle Ages by any definition of the term.

Truly. My only complaint about calling them the Dark Ages is that it tends to make a value judgement on centuries of history and tries to label it instead of study it. I think this puts in the modern mind the thought that this time frame was merely something to be overcome to lead to our current enlightened state. So the history is painted over with a bias that it was "bad" and so we tend to pick out the "bad" and say "There. I told you so." You have obviously overcome this bias and chosen to study the history. Did you find that some history books showed this bias? I am always flabbergasted by the poorly written histories that seemed to proliferate during the 1800's. What is your take on this?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Truly. My only complaint about calling them the Dark Ages is that it tends to make a value judgement on centuries of history and tries to label it instead of study it. I think this puts in the modern mind the thought that this time frame was merely something to be overcome to lead to our current enlightened state. So the history is painted over with a bias that it was "bad" and so we tend to pick out the "bad" and say "There. I told you so." You have obviously overcome this bias and chosen to study the history. Did you find that some history books showed this bias? I am always flabbergasted by the poorly written histories that seemed to proliferate during the 1800's. What is your take on this?

I don't think most modern histories have this bias at all. Scholars tend to restrict Dark Ages to the very beginning of the Mediaeval epoch or not use the term entirely.
Popular histories like 1066 and all that or Horrible Histories may still have it, but I am not sure.

All books have a bias though and the 19th century saw itself through the prism of Rome. They saw themselves in Roman imperialism and splendour, so of course denigrated what came thereafter.
With the death of the colonial empires and the bit too blatant Roman panoply used by Fascist Italy and the Nazis, Rome is on the outs again. Today, I think the pendulum has swung too much in the opposite direction with Roman achievements underplayed and the very real decline that initiated the Middle Ages often downplayed, with a comparative celebration of Ancient Greek Democracy that is probably not that warranted.

I enjoy a good 19th century history myself. I was reading one the other day and they called an early coin a "savage and crude attempt". Today they would have lauded the artistry thereof. As in all things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
In my opinion, when reading on the Middle Ages, it is best to look for a work by a Mediaevalist, when on the Ancient world a Classicist and so forth. It is best to weigh your biases against each other so that you can have a more nuanced view. Of course though, no one thinks they are biased at all, but merely stating the facts, while we all are to a lesser or greater extent.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Renaissance was a Renaissance of Roman learning, so is not a myth. It wasn't the complete rejection of the Middle Ages or the rebirth of knowledge from ignorance though, but a lot of lost ideas and ancient thinking was rekindled.

So we could say it was the rise of past learning. Sorta like bringing back the 40's or 50's. It was a complete rejection of the Middle Ages by those who self-aggrandized themselves-the Enlightenment philosophers.

There is no perfect system, nor was Scholasticism that system. It is best to deconstruct all our thought paradigms to see what is its worth.

And yet many reject the good of Scholasticism...mostly because the Enlightenment folks denounced it.

No modern profession is as cruel as serfdom.

Really? I disagree. Serfdom was a step up for someone who had no means of supporting themselves.
[/quote]
No, a Lord was not responsible for the well being of his serfs. He had no legal responsibility to clothe, feed or look after them, nor to treat them well. This led to terrible abuses where serfs were basically worked to death by their lords.[/quote]The Catholic Church believed otherwise and totally denounced those who didn't treat those under their care humanely. Were there abuses? Certainly-there are abuses in any system under creation. Did the Church work to stop it? Yes, and was largely successful. Again, the point of ALL this being that the Dark Ages were not as bad as commonly believed.

This differs from slavery where the slave was the masters property. If you own something, you look after it well since when you no longer use it, you can sell it. This does not mean slavery was better, in many ways it was worse, but Serfdom is n minimal improvement.

An improvement, nonetheless.

Serfs were not property, so the Lord could use them as he sees fit and have little consequences and no loss if the serf suffered, but instead might reap rich rewards from exhaustive labour. A smart lord would weigh the advantages to keeping his serfs working as hard as they could versus their deteriorating conditions.

Actually, the serfs worke the lords' lands and provided the product of the land to the lords. There was reward for serfs' exhaustive labor.

You see a similar picture in the post-war South where many slaves' condition deteriorated on being freed since their former master no longer had a vested interest in keeping his sharecroppers healthy.

Again though, Slavery was practiced throughout the Middle Ages, never outlawed and never opposed by the Church provided they weren't Christian.

But the Church made them all Christians, baptizing many against the will of their owners, and then declared that you couldn't enslave a Christian.

As to your story of Catholic slave areas, the Protestant countries freed slaves before the Catholic ones and most Protestant states in the US freed the slaves of their own accord. Heavily Catholic countries like Brazil were amongst the last to free their slaves.

Patently wrong. They freed slaves because of the Civil War, and anti-slavery laws. I don't believe I spoke of South America, but of the US. I did note that, while the Church declared slave-owners of Spanish and Portuguese heritage excommunicate, and those slave-owners often didn't care. And the Church had no power to do anything.

As to Protestants not freeing their slaves, British Caribbean colonies like Jamaica or the Dutch in South Africa and Indonesia had vast freedmen classes that formed comparable to what occured in Louisiana, if not exceeding it in size in the Dutch example.

The British and Dutch did not baptize slaves. In fact, they imposed fines for those who did. There were no limits at all on slave-owners until Barbados adopted a code in 1661 which was later adopted by other British colonies. That code gave masters the right to 'apply unlimited force to compel labor' with no penalty, even if it resulted in death of the slave. Slaves were not permitted to marry, and owners were prohibited from freeing slaves. That was changed later to impose such a heavy tax on manumission as to prohibit it. The stated purpose was to prevent the increase in 'free Negros' because they were an inconvenience.

By the way, it seems like we're talking different periods...you seem to be talking of pre-Civil war, and I'm talking about a century before the US was even formed.

Besides the Antebellum state with the largest free black population was probably South Carolina, not really a bastion of Catholicism, if I recall correctly.

Again, different era.

 

[Root of Jesse]

...and that's part of the point, ROJ. When we say "Catholic," as the term was used during the first several hundred years after Emperor Constantine, we're talking specifically about Christianity as it was overborne in Europe by Roman culture, and hence, on a practical level in daily working by the clunky Roman counting system. Add to this that the Roman leaders during the first millennium concentrated on the ideas of "Law" much more than on science, and we have a recipe for slowed progress.

Today, few people take Roman counting seriously; when I was taught about Roman numbers in school, the unit was short and sweet and more of a "historical reference" than a learning tool.

So, again, I'm not going to allow that Christianity, whether Catholic or Orthodox during the first Millennium, was completely to blame for any 'darkness' in knowledge.

2PhiloVoid

And yet many do allow...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So we could say it was the rise of past learning. Sorta like bringing back the 40's or 50's. It was a complete rejection of the Middle Ages by those who self-aggrandized themselves-the Enlightenment philosophers.
And yet many reject the good of Scholasticism...mostly because the Enlightenment folks denounced it.

The Renaissance is not the same as the Enlightenment. Different eras.

The Catholic Church believed otherwise and totally denounced those who didn't treat those under their care humanely. Were there abuses? Certainly-there are abuses in any system under creation. Did the Church work to stop it? Yes, and was largely successful. Again, the point of ALL this being that the Dark Ages were not as bad as commonly believed.An improvement, nonetheless.Actually, the serfs worke the lords' lands and provided the product of the land to the lords. There was reward for serfs' exhaustive labor. But the Church made them all Christians, baptizing many against the will of their owners, and then declared that you couldn't enslave a Christian.Patently wrong. They freed slaves because of the Civil War, and anti-slavery laws. I don't believe I spoke of South America, but of the US. I did note that, while the Church declared slave-owners of Spanish and Portuguese heritage excommunicate, and those slave-owners often didn't care. And the Church had no power to do anything.

You seem to say how effective the Catholic Church ended slavery in Europe, then say how they were powerless in the New World. Weird.

I was referring to the Protestant Northern states that ended slavery long before the rest of the US.

The British and Dutch did not baptize slaves. In fact, they imposed fines for those who did. There were no limits at all on slave-owners until Barbados adopted a code in 1661 which was later adopted by other British colonies. That code gave masters the right to 'apply unlimited force to compel labor' with no penalty, even if it resulted in death of the slave. Slaves were not permitted to marry, and owners were prohibited from freeing slaves. That was changed later to impose such a heavy tax on manumission as to prohibit it. The stated purpose was to prevent the increase in 'free Negros' because they were an inconvenience.

By the way, it seems like we're talking different periods...you seem to be talking of pre-Civil war, and I'm talking about a century before the US was even formed.

Again, different era.

The Dutch baptised their slaves. I descend from baptised slaves, I've seen the records myself.

However they did also support the continuation of Islam amongst them to facilitate their continued slavery though.

I think both of us are talking a bit black and white. I don't think Protestants or Catholics were very different in their handling of slavery. Although obviously there are worse and better areas where slavery was practised.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And yet many do allow...

Sure. I know they do, be as I've seen various Christian commentators say, the Skeptics usually blame the so-called "Dark Ages" on Christianity because it expedient (and convenient) to do so, since they have a gripe with Christianity anyway (whether it be Catholic, Orthodox, or even Protestant).

As far as the math issue, I'm just trying to point out one additional factor that many ignore or don't know about.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As far as the math issue, I'm just trying to point out one additional factor that it seems many ignore or don't know about.

2PhiloVoid

They ignore it because it isn't a factor. Roman numerals aren't a bad system at all, we are just no longer familiar with it, as I tried to point out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They ignore it because it isn't a factor. Roman numerals aren't a bad system at all, we are just no longer familiar with it, as I tried to point out.

Well, I'm just going with some things that Anne Rooney pointed out, and I think we should look at the slow in Progress not because Catholicism was present during the so-called 'Dark Ages,' but because of it's "Romaness." (i.e. the leftover culture of Rome/Constantinople slowed things down).

Here's a link to part of the book I'm referencing:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...=anne rooney the story of mathematics&f=false

2PhiloVoid

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, I'm just going with some things that Anne Rooney pointed out, and I think we should look at the slow in Progress not because Catholicism was present during the so-called 'Dark Ages,' but because of it's "Romaness." (i.e. the leftover culture of Rome/Constantinople slowed things down).

Here's a link to part of the book I'm referencing:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sYIEAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=anne+rooney+the+story+of+mathematics&ots=da9UjMaxGn&sig=5ED-rKyyjSf0VpM4GhytnjBHIus#v=onepage&q=anne rooney the story of mathematics&f=false

2PhiloVoid

I am sorry, this is a fallacy. Its like saying that English is a better language than French because I can express myself better in it, because I speak English. Its saying English is better than French because if I translate Shakespeare into French it isn't nearly as good. This is reading modern conceptions into ancient systems.

Hindu-Arabic numerals are better for modern mathematics because modern mathematics was designed with them in mind, as it was the Arabs that created it. If it had been designed around Roman numerals, they would have been better.


The Romans were an advanced, dynamic people who adopted concepts that worked and who did advanced engineering in and of themselves. Right up to the fall of the Western Empire they were still tinkering with Greek Astronomic systems and developing Architecture, for instance building Hagia Sophia just thereafter, which was the largest dome in the world for nearly a 1000 years. Arguably one of the most advanced of Mediaeval Christendom's peoples were the Byzantines, who essentially are the Romans, inventing Greek Fire and accounting systems to name a few.

To blame the Mediaeval slowdown on residual 'Romaness' is ludicrous, especially seeing that it was the rebirth of 'Romaness' in the Renaissance that is conventually lauded for launching the modern world and its sciences in the first place. Mediaeval developments wedded with Roman sciences and culture created the modern world as we know it.

Progress slowed in the early Middle Ages because of the Fall of the western Roman Empire. After a few centuries, it picked up again and tried to recover lost ground before forging into new areas in certain fields. It wasn't Romaness as culture that caused the decline in Civilisation, but the swords of Barbarians beating down the weary door of an empire weakened from within by Civil war, greed etc. After all, our civilisation today is still very much the scion of Rome and Greece as can be seen by the fact that I am writing this in the Latin alphabet using a language partially derived from Latin.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am sorry, this is a fallacy. Its like saying that English is a better language than French because I can express myself better in it, because I speak English. Its saying English is better than French because if I translate Shakespeare into French it isn't nearly as good. This is reading modern conceptions into ancient systems.

Hindu-Arabic numerals are better for modern mathematics because modern mathematics was designed with them in mind, as it was the Arabs that created it. If it had been designed around Roman numerals, they would have been better.


The Romans were an advanced, dynamic people who adopted concepts that worked and who did advanced engineering in and of themselves. Right up to the fall of the Western Empire they were still tinkering with Greek Astronomic systems and developing Architecture, for instance building Hagia Sophia just thereafter, which was the largest dome in the world for nearly a 1000 years. Arguably one of the most advanced of Mediaeval Christendom's peoples were the Byzantines, who essentially are the Romans, inventing Greek Fire and accounting systems to name a few.

To blame the Mediaeval slowdown on residual 'Romaness' is ludicrous, especially seeing that it was the rebirth of 'Romaness' in the Renaissance that is conventually lauded for launching the modern world and its sciences in the first place. Mediaeval developments wedded with Roman sciences and culture created the modern world as we know it.

Progress slowed in the early Middle Ages because of the Fall of the western Roman Empire. After a few centuries, it picked up again and tried to recover lost ground before forging into new areas in certain fields. It wasn't Romaness as culture that caused the decline in Civilisation, but the swords of Barbarians beating down the weary door of an empire weakened from within by Civil war, greed etc. After all, our civilisation today is still very much the scion of Rome and Greece as can be seen by the fact that I am writing this in the Latin alphabet using a language partially derived from Latin.

Yes, and I'm not saying it was the math alone that did this. It was all of the things you've mentioned...as well as some of the cultural prejudices of the Mediaeval Catholic/Orthodox leaders. I'm just trying to say that the math slowed things up a moderate amount. In fact, I'm not affirming that there was a 'Dark Ages'; there was an age of Barbarian Incursion as you said that put a big wrinkle in things early on, although it wasn't just the Barbarians that slowed things down.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, and I'm not saying it was the math alone that did this. It was all of the things you've mentioned...as well as some of the cultural prejudices of the Mediaeval Catholic/Orthodox leaders. I'm just trying to say that the math slowed things up a moderate amount. In fact, I'm not affirming that there was a 'Dark Ages'; there was an age of Barbarian Incursion as you said that put a big wrinkle in things early on, although it wasn't just the Barbarians that slowed things down.

What do you mean with 'the math'? Do you mean the use of Roman numerals or abscence of Algebra and so forth?
The former I strongly disagree, the latter I can see the point as Algebra only came into existence in the High Middle Ages, but this would be an argument that any civilisation would have failed to advance without it and not specifically the Roman.

As to the migration period: The collapse of central government, the carving of their lands into petty kingdoms, the stripping of metals from the buildings, the burning of books, the construction of basic wooden halls on hills while advanced structures with plumbing and hypocausts rot next door, buying off barbarian hordes, disrupted trade, expensive defensive work construction, etc. all characterise the period.
Please tell me what else would you consider to have caused the slowdown and these effects than the Roman Collapse and Barbarian incursions?

I cannot conceive of any specific Roman cultural factor that can be implicated in causing the early Mediaeval period's comparative 'darkness'. It was their failure to stay in power and defeat the hordes. There was a steady decline of Roman Civilisation from about the third century driven by internal instability though, but this was not the steep decline across the board that we see at the Fall of the Western Roman Empire - this is responsible for the early Mediaeval period and not 'residual Romaness', which would be an improvement on the barbarian cultures (the Church for instance or Mathematics for that matter).

(Earlier you mentioned Roman Legalism as if it was a bad thing. This is where modern science comes from, from trying to define and explain everything in a manner that is as precise as possible. It is not per chance that we speak of the Laws of nature.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you mean with 'the math'? Do you mean the use of Roman numerals or abscence of Algebra and so forth?

In a sense, yes. Rooney states that, "Arithmetic is virtually impossible with Roman numerals and this was to lead to its eventual replacement...[but] for the purposes of accounting, taxation, census taking and so on" it worked (p. 20). So, Algebraic applications were 'clunky' with Roman numerals and math. Of course, they could still build prestigious edifices like the Haggia Sophia, I'm not contesting that. But without easier, and more advanced methods of calculating, that's about as much as they were able to do for a long time. And it didn't help that the easier Hindu-Arabic math that came later was resisted by Europeans well into the 2nd Millennium since it was associated with enemy and pagan cultures of 'the East.'

The former I strongly disagree, the latter I can see the point as Algebra only came into existence in the High Middle Ages, but this would be an argument that any civilisation would have failed to advance without it and not specifically the Roman.

As to the migration period: The collapse of central government, the carving of their lands into petty kingdoms, the stripping of metals from the buildings, the burning of books, the construction of basic wooden halls on hills while advanced structures with plumbing and hypocausts rot next door, buying off barbarian hordes, disrupted trade, expensive defensive work construction, etc. all characterise the period.

Yes, I get all that, and I quite agree that this is what we find in history.

Please tell me what else would you consider to have caused the slowdown and these effects than the Roman Collapse and Barbarian incursions?

I cannot conceive of any specific Roman cultural factor that can be implicated in causing the early Mediaeval period's comparative 'darkness'. It was their failure to stay in power and defeat the hordes. There was a steady decline of Roman Civilisation from about the third century driven by internal instability though, but this was not the steep decline across the board that we see at the Fall of the Western Roman Empire - this is responsible for the early Mediaeval period and not 'residual Romaness', which would be an improvement on the barbarian cultures (the Church for instance or Mathematics for that matter).

(Earlier you mentioned Roman Legalism as if it was a bad thing. This is where modern science comes from, from trying to define and explain everything in a manner that is as precise as possible. It is not per chance that we speak of the Laws of nature.)

Yes, but we don't see UBER-advanced thinking in Byzantium either. We do know that with the Byzantines, particularly with Emperor Justinian, Law was definitely placed on a philosophical pedestal. It's not a bad thing, it's just that with the onset of Christian affiliation with Roman power and culture, science didn't progress as fast in Europe as it did in the Near East around Baghdad.

All in all, the pace of progress was what it was. And the point I'm trying to get to is that I don't think Christianity is to be blamed for the slow-down in progress which came from a conglomeration of several distinct cultural, social, religious, as well as mathematical complications in European society.

It is one thing to say that there was a 'rough time' of it in the mid to later part of the first Millennium. It's quite another to throw all the blame at Christianity, which I don't think either of us is doing here. That's what the Skeptics do.

2PhiloVoid

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It is one thing to say that there was a 'rough time' of it in the mid to later part of the first Millennium. It's quite another to throw all the blame at Christianity, which I don't think either of us is doing here. That's what the Skeptics do.

The biggest problem with the Early Middle Ages was not really technological or intellectual backwardness. It was mainly political instability.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In a sense, yes. Rooney states that, "Arithmetic is virtually impossible with Roman numerals and this was to lead to its eventual replacement...[but] for the purposes of accounting, taxation, census taking and so on" it worked (p. 20). So, Alebraic applications were 'clunky' with Roman numerals and math.

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.

Of course, they could still build prestigious edifices like the Haggia Sophia, I'm not contesting that. But without easier, and more advanced methods of calculating, that's about as much as they were able to do for a long time. And it didn't help that the easier Hindu-Arabic math that came later was resisted by Europeans well into the 2nd Millennium since it was associated with enemy and pagan cultures of 'the East.'

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.

Yes, I get all that, and I quite agree that this is what we find in history.
Yes, but we don't see UBER-advanced thinking in Byzantium either. We do know that with the Byzantines, particularly with Emperor Justinian, Law was definitely placed on a philosophical pedestal. It's not a bad thing, it's just that with the onset of Christian affiliation with Roman power and culture, science didn't progress as fast in Europe as it did in the Near East around Baghdad.

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

All in all, the pace of progress was what it was. And the point I'm trying to get to is that I don't think Christianity is to be blamed for the slow-down in in progress which came from a conglomeration of several distinction cultural, social, as well as mathematical complications in European society.

It is one thing to say that there was a 'rough time' of it in the mid to later part of the first Millennium. It's quite another to throw all the blame at Christianity, which I don't think either of us is doing here. That's what the Skeptics do.

2PhiloVoid

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.