Why is it called the dark ages if only rome fell? Weren't

>>2753452
It was a dark age only in Roman territories. And the dark age was brief - it did not last the entire middle ages.

it is used in the context of the region it is in, no one ever claimed Constantinople was in a dark age

>>2753452
It's called the dark ages because there is a noticeable lack of primary sources from this era. The fall of The western Roman is just used an convenient if inaccurate start date

>>2753561
>there is a noticeable lack of primary sources from this era.
Is that true? We certainly have no shortage of medieval text or knowledge of what went on.

>>2753561
why the lack of sources?

>>2753739
600-800 AD in Western Europe is a pretty hard time to find sources from.

Mainly because trade networks collapsed and without trade, people can't really do jobs other than farming, and writing is something other than farming.

It took the Italian cities centuries to regain some sort of relevance, after the fall of the empire and the Gothic wars in the next century.

File: spengler_large.jpg (279KB, 856x1035px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 856x1035px

>>2753452
>He didn't read spengler

>>2754292
200 years is such a brief period is it really accurate to call it an "age?" Perhaps an era, like the era of good feelings.

>>2753561
That is a ridiculously stupid explanation
>Jordanes
>Frankish historians
>Byzantine historians
We have shitloads of sources of the period

>>2753452
Rome didn't fall, it just abandoned the expensive and unproductive provinces in Western Europe. Step it up fampai, we just had a thread about this.