Wouldn't the Migration Period fit the definition of a 'Dark

You know, there's a reason the period after the disintegration of the Roman Empire is called the Dark Ages.

>inb4 buttblasted people insist that the Dark Ages were a myth

>>578912
Nobody claims it's a myth that the period between the fall of Rome and Charlemagne can be called a dark age in Western Europe. The trouble is when most people hear or use the term "Dark Ages", they mean the entire Middle Ages.

Migration period is a meme since it doesn't really correlate with genetics. Seems many of the "migration" were just a few invaders culturally assimilating the local majority.

File: baptism-of-clovis.jpg (82KB, 788x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 788x600px

>>578942
That doesn't quite correlate. The Angles and the Saxons basically imposed their culture upon the Britons, exiling those who wouldn't get with the program. We have definite evidence of apartheid style social structures which, among other things, led to a syncretic germano-celtic culture in Northumbria. Similarly, the Franks and the Burgundians both found themselves hundreds of miles from their traditional homes.

The Vandals founded a kingdom in North Africa and the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the descendants of Geats who left the Scandinavian penninsula, found themselves in Hispania and Italia respectively.

So, yeah. Shit was pretty fucking fluid.

>>578938
People on /his/ will legitimately get triggered if you refer to European dark ages in any context.

Anyway, to answer OP, the migration period was one of the precursors to the collapse of the entire Roman system, and with it, a decline in literacy, trade, and civil infrastructure.