>>660378 >Is he right, /his/? Of course he is, how should it be surprising? Near the end he goes a bit too far with "huzzah they were BRILLIANT and maybe even better than today!" but whatever he says is factual.
I find this whole "the early Medieval Period never existed" meme amusing.
It's just a bunch of desperate Christians desperately trying to reverse the Renaissance and Enlightenment period understanding of the "Dark Ages" by challenging the more extreme view and pretending that this means that, overall, they weren't pretty shit.
Sorry to break it to you lads, but while the "Dark Ages" weren't as bad as they have traditionally been viewed they were still pretty shitty.
I believe that life was pretty shitty in the areas immediately following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. That level of beauracracy and regime change was not very good for the population of Europe. I'd say at some level it is a "dark ages" because the west was trying to get back up after having its kneecaps smashed in.
What I don't accept is the narrative that nothing good was going on in Europe during this period, when we had the Eastern fucking Roman Empire. Some of the greatest architectural creations were made post WRE, see the Hagia Sofia, literacy and cultural exchange were at a high point. Arguably Constantinople was the greatest city in the world at that point, rivaled only by the Chinese and later Bagdhad.
My views regarding the early middle ages in Western Europe is more or less this: >450-700 WRE falls, lots of different tribes moving around, very chaotic. Extremely low literacy rates, and most knowledge that survives in the area is preserved by christian monks. Probably the closest it ever got to the Hollywood shit-filled version. >700-1000 Carolingian empire helps bring back literacy, at least among the clergy and nobles. technological progress starts back up again, and Europe begins catching up to the Byzantines and muslims, though not without some hiccups (like mass viking raids). By the time 1050 rolls around, they're mostly back on par and begin to become inclined to expand outward in things like the crusades.
>>661207 > Yeah, sure, because a bunch of mystical hacks masturbating over Greek texts and French faggots guillotining people contributed more than Christian monks carefully preserving ancient knowledge.
They didn't hence the need to get them from the arabs.
The problem with the Middle Ages in the eyes of intellectuals is that it was too decentralized. You have to remember that something like 90% of Western intellectuals, including historians, are communists, and communists feel revulsion at a society like Medieval one where there was an organic order, intermediary institutions and an absence of a centralized state governing every whim of the people.
Since intellectuals are better suited to be bureaucrats and directors of public policy in such centralized states, they feel the need to slander the Middle Ages, which any serious historical study will show is literally the only thing that differentiates Western civilization from it's Eastern counterparts and made the West great.
Yes, because everyone can have central authorities stiffling civil society, China had a centralized Empire since 200 B.C, India too, always had central authorities governing the subcontinent and even the Arab world, with the exception of a brief interlude under the Abbassids (aka the Islamic Golden Age) was also governed by central authorities.
Meanwhile Medieval Europe sowed the seeds of liberty. It's funny that few people realize that now. They think that the "liberalism" they love so much come from Greece, or worse, from the abstract philosofies of XVIIIth century intellectuals, instead of being based on the privileges and liberties defended by aristocrats since the Magna Carta.
Of course, this lack of knowledge doom this very same liberty. If you think that political freedom derives from the "general will", instead of from a struggle against the central government, you will cede authority and power to the central government in order for it to keep your "liberties", and instead of doing that, of course it will establish tyranny. That's what communists intellectuals realized and that's why they did everything they could to criticize the Middle Ages.
>the period that occurred with the collapse of western civilization and led to barbarism and superstition ruling for a thousand years wasn't really dark and people who believe that it was dark are just stupid atheist edgelords >oh really, what makes you say that it wasn't well? >well in the last few decades of that thousand years there was this and that
>>661259 >Meanwhile Medieval Europe sowed the seeds of liberty. It's funny that few people realize that now. They think that the "liberalism" they love so much come from Greece, or worse, from the abstract philosofies of XVIIIth century intellectuals, instead of being based on the privileges and liberties defended by aristocrats since the Magna Carta.
It seems to have more to do with trade and being able to derive wealth from sources other than mere ownership/renting of land. Hence why liberal values took root in socities that were more mercantile and trade based and why societies that were more insular and based on renting resisted it for so long.
Hence why democratic ideas originated in places like Athens rather than any of the other states and why early forms of democracy were present in trade based societies like the merchant republics and the low countries rather than places like Russia or China
>>661272 Are you suggesting that the citizens of Constantinople or Baghdad weren't superstitious lots? What about the citizens of pre-christian Rome?
>>661277 Which was inheirited from Greco-Roman building blocks. Most of our legal and political systems are derived from Rome, and our science and art are of Greek foundations.
>>661259 >Implying you need to be a commie to support centralized government >Implying being a cuck to a shitty dux in the middle of some frankish province is "freedom" >Implying privileges and liberties are supported by any aristocratic society beyond the interest of the aristocratic society It seems we have a psuedo-intellectual on the premises. Are you seriously suggesting the Roman system was more communist than the medieval feudal state?
>>661296 That narrative fits the interests of communists because it puts an economic reason on the development of liberalism and denies the importance of struggle against centralization.
ie "early forms of democracy" didn't develop in the low countries because they were trade based societies. They were able to become trade based socities because their "early forms of democracy" defeated the forces of Philip IV of France in the Battle of Golden Spurts, and thanks to that the County of Flanders escaped being swallowed by the central French monarchy like everyone else was.
It was the same with the merchant republics of Northern Italy. They defeated the centralizing impulse of the Hohenstaufen emperors before they could become merchant republics and early democracies.
>>661319 Western civilization likes to cosplay as Greco-Roman, but it's understanding of such civilizations is very limited. It's not "building blocks" they have been, it's just a veneer. Our legal and political systems are derived from Medieval society, with Roman names attached to it, just like our art is medieval but with Roman and Greek themes.
I concede on science, though, the Greeks were miraculous on this regard. Though I like to remind people that the work of the "Scientific Revolution" in the 17th century was antecipated by the Oxford Calculators and other physicists of the Late Middle Ages, such as Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme, who developed a mathematization of physics that unfortunately was abandoned during the Renaissance as people prefered to masturbate over Greek texts during this period.
>Are you seriously suggesting the Roman system was more communist than the medieval feudal state?
I'm suggesting that the reason why the Roman system is best regarded is because it's more in line with the interests of communist intellectuals.
>>661324 The closest I could find to your point was
>The earliest information which the Arabs obtained about Aristotle from Syriac sources was confined to his logical works which had been translated and retranslated into Syriac, and on which several commentaries were accessible. The corpus of Aristotelian logic included the Categories, the Hermeneutics, the Prior Analytics, the Posterior Analytics, the Topics, the Sophistica, the Rhetoric, and the Politics, these last two works classed with the logical treatises by the Arabs. To these was added by Tuhanna (or Yahya) ibn Batriq about 815 another work, unfortunately a spurious one, the Sirr al-asrar or "secret of secrets", which was accepted as Aristotelian. It is a work of miscellaneous contents, including physiognomy and dietetics.
Which part of that paper is about only monks translating/preserving text?
>>661207 >preserving but not developing Literally stagnation. Seems like monks keeping it was more about throttling scientific progress than promoting it. You want to study science? Oh, well you have to do it under the yoke of the Church.
>>661402 >implying you have to be employed by the state to do science >this is what nazis actually beleive If your state is shitty and nazi and refuses to let you study Jewish science because it isn't aryan enough, it's literally as bad as the church.
>>661364 >ie "early forms of democracy" didn't develop in the low countries because they were trade based societies. They were able to become trade based socities because their "early forms of democracy" defeated the forces of Philip IV of France in the Battle of Golden Spurts, and thanks to that the County of Flanders escaped being swallowed by the central French monarchy like everyone else was.
It was them being trade based societies that not only gave them the ability but desire to resist centralization by monarchies. Hence why they formed semi republic style governments rather than simply thier own monarchies.
Its why monarchies violently resisted capitalism until they were crushed by it or could implement it on their own terms - ie destroying feudalism internally.
>Do not fall for the lies of the Eternal Commie.
Do not let your reasonable hatred of communists and their lies lead you to the folly of idealism and the rejection of economic forces on our societies.
>While Muslims were busy translating and adding their own ideas to Greek philosophies, the Latin West was still suspicious of pagan ideas. Leaders of the Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire also frowned upon philosophy, and the Empire had just gone through a period of plague, famine, and war. Further west, several key figures in European history who came after Boethius had strengthened the overwhelming shift away from Greek ideas. For centuries, Greek ideas in Europe were all but non-existent, until the Eastern part of the Roman Empire - Byzantine - was sacked during the crusades unlocking numerous Greek texts. Within Western Europe, only a few monasteries had Greek works, and even fewer of them copied these works.
>>661207 >Yeah, sure, because a bunch of mystical hacks masturbating over Greek texts and French faggots guillotining people contributed more than Christian monks carefully preserving ancient knowledge.
>Christian monks carefully preserving ancient knowledge.
>>661430 >developing race based technology For what purpose? Unless you have the societal will for eugenics, racial science isn't particularly useful, and while it might identify problems, it really doesn't solve any problems.
>>661428 >It was them being trade based societies that not only gave them the ability but desire to resist centralization by monarchies. Hence why they formed semi republic style governments rather than simply thier own monarchies.
"Semi republic style governments" existed all around Europe, it wasn't linked to being trade based societies, that was irrelevant.
The "communities" of Castille that revolted against Charles V weren't trade based and were crushed, the Novgorod Republic that Ivan the Terrible annihilated was trade based and it was crushed, the low Countries wer trade based and they survived, the English liberties weren't trade based and they survived too, "trade" was pretty much irrelevant to the larger picture.
>>661434 >Greek ideas in Europe were all but non-existent, until the Eastern part of the Roman Empire - Byzantine - was sacked during the crusades unlocking numerous Greek texts.
I guess Eriugena, Dungal of Bobbio, Vergilius of Salzburg and other Irish monks were all "non-existend"
It should be reminded that Ireland escaped the societal collapse that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, so the fact that Greek culture survived amongst the learned there even though they were pagan hicks a few centuries before Christians brought it discredits the whole "Christianity led to the decline of Greek culture in the West" meme.
Of course, the Vikings fucked up everything later.
>>661443 The Archimedes work that those monks wrote above was actually copied by monks too. So you really can't prove anything with that.
>>661528 >Like the other anon said stagnated is a more accurate term. Why, because he said so and you liked it? Christian priests and bishops actually developed what they inherited from pagan philosophers, one of the most notable examples being John's theory of impetus
>>662899 Which is sort of the point. It isn't that they could produce works of quality, but that they could not produce them in mass. The hallmark of a great civilization is not a single great work, but the ability to produce it in meaningful numbers to support a way of life for a decent majority.
>>663504 Also Aquinas is highly overrated by 4chan and /pol/acks in particular, he's actually a retarded version of Aristoteles (which is already flawed in many aspects but already came up with something decent over all).
Even worse than Aquinas and an unoriginal and deeply superstitious thinker over all.
You could have come up with better examples as he did, for instance the gothic cathedral.
Giotto is good too even if he's not really better than some ancient painter like he seemed to suggest.
Anyways, as I said before, all those people you mentioned belonged to the late middle ages, as do the things that guy mentioned like gothic architecture and universities.
>>663542 >all those people you mentioned belonged to the late middle ages, as do the things that guy mentioned like gothic architecture and universities. even if you draw a thick line from 1301 onwards and strictly count that period as the late middle ages with no overlap, then literally only one person from that list (giotto) was active (or indeed alive) after that time, universities had existed for about 200 years before that date, and gothic architecture exemplified by denis or noyon a century before that date
>>663560 perhaps in the context of italian language but not in the context of the english language and historiography and history i give you three attempts to guess which language and concepts were used both in the video and naturally in the subsequent discussion on this particular english language imageboard
>>663628 The 30 years war was only a 30 year gap, not 400 years, and their were wars going on somewhere in europe during the renascence period which did not prevent improvements in navigation,optics and fabrication.
Vast population density under Roman rule was only made possible by Roman "globalism". eg the city of Rome could never produce enough to feed itself, ergo needed cheap/free grain from Africa and Egypt to maintain its hegemony. Unfortunately this meant that the collapse of Roman hegemony and its international system led necessarily to the collapse of the Roman population.
Prager is an Orthodox Jewish pundit who is worse than the Fox News pundits. He shills Israel everywhere, and claims medieval europe was uplifted by the jews (because they wanted to elevate the christians above their barbaric ways)
He also claims that there is no racism in America-- except Anti-Semitism, because Jews are always victims.
>>663915 Overall living standards and even shit like hygiene went down the toilet during the enlightement period. Not to mention the constant warfare over petty shit and absolutism reaching its peak, it was more of a "dark age" than high and late medieval period.
>>663931 >Overall living standards and even shit like hygiene went down the toilet Thats what happens when improved technology allows you to create a worldwide empire-overall you have alot more slaves in chains, (besides the religious flock)
>>663941 As for religion, the renaissance and early modern period had by far the most religious crazies. All the witch burning and the bloodiest sectarian conflicts happened after the middle ages ended.
>>661441 Yes but even though Soviet Union and the east block fell over 25 years ago people still insist that Soviet Union's strangle hold on communism persists and that the only form of communism is marxist-leninism.
>>663959 The problem of the enlightement period is people thinking it should be represented by a handful of scientists and scholars when the period as a whole was nothing but squalor, absolutism and bloody civil wars.
I don't know much about the so called "Middle/Dark Ages", but the fact that there were many serious philosophical (and not only) works in latin, in this long period of human history, that were anathematizing the previous civilizations (the ancient greek, the roman, the greco-roman and, lastly, the byzantine ones), shows that, after the roman fall, the newborn West felt some contempt about everything that could be called "civilized" and wasn't of their own making. At least, that's my take. We can discuss this. I think it becomes clear, today, that there is a great distance in the philosophical/theological view of the world between the west (roman)/catholic side and the east (greek)/orthodox one. It's a huge subject of discussion, no doubt.
>>660378 >video says it's about Dark Ages (400-750 AD) >whole video is about High Middle Ages (1000-1400 AD)
For the love of fuck when will people realise that there's a difference between the Early and High Middle Ages? Stop treating 'medieval' as if it's one thing. In fact, stop treating 'medieval' like a thing at all. It has to be the most retarded periodisation in all of human history.
The Dark Ages were real and they were complete shit. Civilization in the West was basically reduced to a few monasteries around the British Isles. What had been half of the greatest civilization on Earth was reduced to a bunch of petty Germanic kingdoms that could barely hold themselves together. One of the richest urban cultures on the planet was reduced in most areas to a bunch of villages. Of course it wasn't all 'dark' and there were a few cultural flourishings here and there, but all that was kiddie shit compared with what came before and after as well as what was going on in the rest of the world at the same time.
The Romanesque and Gothic periods after 1000 AD on the other hand were on par with (and eventually surpassed) all other great civilizations of the time. Under the Carolingians the West was revived, and in the 11th century it reurbanised and grew into one of Eurasia's greatest civilizations. By the 13th century there was hardly anywhere that could compete with the West's prosperity and dynamism.
Lumping these two under a single period and pretending they were the same thing is a fucking abomination.
>>662794 Who cares about those when you have some of the finest weapons ever made? Here's an Alemannic Sax from the 5th century.
On the right you can see it in the state it was found, on the left you see a variety of pictures of what was hidden underneath the rust.
This weapon was made quite akin to katana, wrapping a hard, carbon rich edge steel around a more ductile core. You can even see where it was differentially hardened through quenching and the elaborate skin pattern as a result of folding the metal for the purpose of homogenisation.
>>660563 It's hugely overstated is all, people think there was this sudden cataclysmic event, when there is no evidence of that at all. For almost all of western europe it was a slow change, Britain is the only place where the naive understanding of "The Dark Ages" is probably close enough to the mark.
>>663656 That's not unfortunate. What we're talking about is a massive system of exploitation, designed to extract labor and resources by force from one location and class to another.
Praising Rome for these feats of extraction isn't any different from saying Romania is worse off then it was under Ceausescu. It doesn't have any 'achievements' that can match the Palace of the Parliament.
OK, yes, society is no longer moving in such a direction to create such singular constructions, but that's not a bad thing at all.
>discounting Islamic besiegement and sea raiding and general Tartar rape that kept Europe boxed in
>discounting the pretty much constant state of warfare everywhere
>things were even worse in the far east reinforcing how much killing famine and death was in this age
>slow decline of the Byzantine Empire from famine and constant war
>Spain was literally Muslim and an endless battleground
>1/3'rd the population of Europe dying to a single disease is nothing bro
>b-but scientific advancement happened over a period of nearly a thousand years
WOOOH NO FUCKING SHIT that happens when people are threatening to lop your head off from all directions, it kind of puts you in gear kind of like the WWI and WWII technological races. Technology became more and more relevant in that era especially with trading and people began to understand that it would help them survive.
>>668057 There is a distinct hatred of local life and decentralization by many common among "intellectuals". Above poster >>661259 is a bit preachy but I can really see it playing a role in the hate for the medieval era and high middle ages in particular. When people trash the middle ages or whatnot, they rarely think of Venice or Paris or Bruges. In their minds it is obviously about a half-skeleton peasant that is über superstitious (in spite of them being much less superstitious than their ancient ancestors from 0AD or the equivalent in fellahs on the other side of the Mediterranean for instance).
>>668932 I think even putting the emphasis on Venice or Paris or Bruges is still playing into that game, because it's still saying "Well, the Romans successors in what is now France were also pretty good at exploiting laborers."
The comparison I have more in mind is that half-starved peasant versus that roman slave crushed to death pumping water out of a cave.
Ignoring the fact that he's not talking about the dark ages because he's obviously a hack
Why does /pol/ have such a hard-on for the middle ages?
I feel like pointing out that whilst yes not everywhere in the middle ages was poor and oppressive, basically everywhere in the English speaking world (Great Britain) was, England was not a rich place at all. Hence the common perception for the middle ages to be barbaric.
Not to say being a peasant was great, but historically, they have fought against policies that took them away from their land, like the Enclosures in England and mediatization in Spain, so it couldn't be that bad either.
It should be reminded that most peasant rebellions were not against the "institution" of peasantry, but against changes in it's constitution.
Besides, seeing medieval society as merely divided in "nobles" and "peasants" is simplistic. It ignores the plethora of guilds, free tenants, petty nobles, serjeants and other kinds of lanholding and service that existed.
>>668057 >Praising Rome for these feats of extraction isn't any different from saying Romania is worse off then it was under Ceausescu. It doesn't have any 'achievements' that can match the Palace of the Parliament.
>OK, yes, society is no longer moving in such a direction to create such singular constructions, but that's not a bad thing at all.
Europe didn't just lose fancy Greco-Roman palaces and statues during the dark ages. They lost the ability to construct basic infrastructure of all all kinds, like aqueducts, bridges, roads, ports and mines.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.