I have a couple books on the subject, but I'm looking for more sources on how the idea of the dark ages being 'dark' is full of shit, and rather the Early Middle Ages were just the continued march of progression for Western Civilization.
>>339625
Shameless bump.
The actual Dark Ages did happen, between the fall of Rome and Charlemagne. Western civilisation started in the 10th century and wasn't a continuation of anything but something new.
The idea that is full of shit is that the entire Middle Ages are "Dark Ages", which is what most people believe and what Petrarch originally referred to when he made up that expression.
>>339867
Basically this. Between the fall of the Roman empire and the 10th or 11th centuary we did go backwards. Nobody could read anything, even kings and Aristocrats were illiterate, for instance Charlemagne.
It ended with Charlemagne conquering some lands and uniting them. This allowed the states to actually exchange information and to get a working economy. Petrarch introduced humanism. Muslims from the "golden age" also had a hand with reviving education.
>>339922
I'm gonna be more generous and say the Dark Ages ended in the IX century, and call the IX to ~1000ad the Grey Ages.
But inbetween the fall of Rome and the IX, yep, definetely a bump in civilization.
>>339922
Well it depends on which region of Europe. Byzantium, Muslim Iberia, and Ireland were the best places for learning in the post-fall of Rome centuries.
>>339625
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I live in England and I don't see any badass aqueducts that were created during the Christian ages.
>>340239
Does England still have any cathedrals or were they all destroyed by Cromwell?
>>340249
Aqueducts > cathedrals
>>340239
you should see lots of canals though....
>>340309
Created during the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.
>>340323
the system started during the middle-ages. most commerce was done via water transport then.
>>340284
Except in every possible way.
>>340346
Floating on boats down a river isn't a canal system.
>>340361
Transporting water > gargoyles
>>340368
Glorifying God and elevating the human spirit > anything.
>>340376
Blimey.
>>339625
If someone calls the Early Middle Ages a Dark Age, they should also call China under the Mongols a Dark Age. Or the Middle East following the Sack of Baghdad. And they all had similar reasons.
The greatest misconception is that this bump in Western advancement was caused by the Church, instead of the Great Migration Period.
>>339625
>March of progressof western civilisation
>Implying meta-narratives
>>339625
I like to think the name Dark Ages came about because the light of Rome had gone out. This whole meme of zero progress being made because of the church needs to die.
>>339625
The term "dark age" means there's a the lack of contemporary written material, so that little has been known about the time period compared to, say, Hellenistic Greece or Han China.
>>340415
Thats because the church was too busy praising god to be bothered with literacy or science
>>340476
1/10 made me reply
>>340404
It's not as wide spread as fedoras want to say but the church is part of the cause of the decline of Rome and they did promote a lot of awful ideas. The move to humanism is the philosophical movement that sparked the Renaissance after all.
>>341631
>The move to humanism is the philosophical movement that sparked the Renaissance after all.
But that was literally the most regressive thing to ever happen in the west. The humanists were incredibly weak thinkers in comparison to the 14th century scholastics who preceded them. Most of what they did was abandon all the scientific and philosophical advancements made in the high middle ages because they didn't find the prose pretty enough.
>>340476
Isn't it ironic that the most defining trait of western political thought, the Seperation of Church and State, was initiated in a revolutionary way by the Catholic Church in the middle ages? The West as we know it was born at Canossa not in Rome.
>>341896
Scholasticism was in general a stepbackwards, I think it might have been the only place in philophical history where we actually regressed.
We got some texts translated and there was a move towards rationalism (although they stopped the move right at the point where it would have mattered. For instance Aquinas insisted that church dogma and authority could operate purely on 'faith', there's no point in pushing rationanilism if you are going to not apply it to authority).
We didn't get any move towards science until Descartes stepped up and said everything had to be rationalized, including dogma. This was the first step towards the scientific method and creating a government that didn't restrict learning. In general scholasticism created a web of sophist term and questions "what does one'ness mean?" "free will vs unfree will". Spinoza's legacy was the to sweep away the nonsense and move towards a proper understanding of the universe, as a series of causes all within the laws of Nature and all subject to human understanding. While their recover of ancient texts were commendable the actual work of the scholastic did more harm than good, very little of it had any use beyond religious meta-study.
Humanism was the force that brought the Renaissance forward, it allowed for a more creative and confident breed of people. The myth of Faust represents this, with the clever humanist using going into forbidden territory (the devil) and using his wit to empower himself.
>>342003
In general, but not in the context of the time and place. Europe after the disintegration of the western empire had no scientific method at all anymore. At the very least scholasticism recovered what was lost and added to it.
>>341980
To be fair this was the state of things before Christianity. The Greek government had little to do with religion, the Roman government followed the Greek model until they set up the Emperor as a divine. And even that didn't really involve much religion, it was just the standard tactic for legitimizing the emperor.
Than there were states like Catholic Europe and India where the high priest would have powers equal to rivaling the government ruler. In India the priest caste was above the ruler and in Europe the Pope could deligetimize a ruler by excommunicating him, this gave him incredibly leverage over all rulers.
Western Civlizalation started in Greece and moved through a series of radical changes: Romain rule, the religious rule, the separated ruling of the Protestants, the democratic rule of the French and English.
>a couple of regions in italy and france suffer the inevitable backlash from the unified and centralized structure of a rich state deteriorating
>hurr durr all of europe ate shit and lived in shit and was shit
>continued march of progression
>advancement
>the light of Rome
I have an impression what the late antiquity is highly overestimated. As far as I understand, there were little to no "innovations" or "progress" at the time, the public buildings stopped to appear in 3rd century already, depopulation and de-urbanisation started in 4th century, probably caused by climatic change and over-taxation. Sure literacy rates dropped, because the biggest employer - the Roman state - disintegrated, but it affected aristocracy only, and Church soon replaced the state as an employer. For the 95% of population there was no change from late antiquity to early middle ages, it's not like roman peasants were toga-wearing Plato readers. And the West wasn't very "advanced" in the first place, comparing to the East.
>>342022
The state of affairs before Christendom is, on the whole, far less important than we like to think. Western civilization is Christendom. It so thoroughly transformed and altered every facet of European culture, that any connection we perceive between ancient Rome and Greece and medieval and modern Europe are nearly wholly artificial; emulating Rome has always always been always been in always been in vogue always been in vogue but always been in vogue but only superficially (the rejection of medieval vulgar Latin, etc.)
Western democracy was not born in Athens, it was born in medieval city councils and estates general.
>>342072
Kek. Phone posting. Terribly sorry.
>>342003
What the actual fucking fuck...
Reason is the very basis of scholasticism. Peter Abelard's (essentially the founder of the scholastic method) most famous quote is "I must understand so that I may believe". Scholasticism was built on reason, the preeminence of logic, and the authority of ancient Greeks, in particular Aristotle. It was based on the view of the universe as a great clock built by God, who had given us reason so that we may understand his work. It was in no way a "step backwards" from the Dark Ages.
>We didn't get any move towards science until Descartes
Except the entire scientific revolution that started with the 1277 Paris condemnation which rejected Aristotle as absolute truth and thus broke academic conservatism, and led to thinkers at the universities of Paris and Oxford like Buridan and Oresme to lay the foundation of modern mathematics and physics and of the scientific method.
>Humanism
Renaissance humanism was a dark age for intellectual progress, and a reactionary movement against the progress that had been made during the late Middle Ages. Humanists, like early scholastics, believed in the supreme authority of ancient Greeks, and rejected everything made since. They suppressed and literally burned Gothic Era books. There's a reason science not only came to a grinding halt during the Renaissance, but was largely forgotten, and people like Galileo faced so much academic opposition even though he was just repeating things already discovered by Buridan and Oresme 300 years earlier.
>>340239
>tower of London
>>342079
>Renaissance humanism was a dark age for intellectual progress,
Humanism is a simple idea of realism and of goal-orientation. It presents as a 'mission statement' that we should improve the human condition.
Religion depends on the idea that it knows the answers, and any denial of that undermines all of it. Science relies on the supposition that we know very little, and that things are subject to change, and that our answers might not be entirely correct.
>>339867
>Western civilisation started in the 10th century and wasn't a continuation of anything but something new.
AAAAAAAAAAA
LITERALLY KILL YOURSELF
STOP GETTING YOUR IDEA OF HISTORY FROM FUCKING COMPUTER GAMES REEEEEEEE
>>342365
>christendom
>10th century
Kill yourself.
>>342365
It's funny how people fail to recognize how the Empire and the West changed Christianity itself. The faith was pretty much Greek/Roman in it's nature even before Constantine and definitely after him. I'd say Greek philosophy influenced Christianity as much as Hebrew scriptures did.
>>340249
There's tonnes. Canals are incredible too
>>342046
Fucking this.
The things that changed were a new, no longer intellectual ruling class (so far less sources for us left behind), and urbanisation caused by the breakup of system of trade that had sustained the Empire, most notably Rome losing Tunisia and Constantinople Egypt.
>>342375
Did you reply to the right post?
>>339625
Every single day a thread like this, and at any single point there are a few going on.
The dark ages did exist, they were just limited to western and central Europe, and took place between the fall of Rome and Charles the Great being made holy roman emperor.
300-350 years of people moving away from cities and towards villages, of long distance trade slowing down or stopping, of luxuries and grand monuments being forgotten for the sake of a small scale simple life.
Stop playing historical revisionist. Yes, you are exactly the sort of person you are trying to insult here.
>>339867
>which is what most people believe
[Citation Needed]
Everybody plays this us against them game, and nobody realized that the "us" part became a majority some time ago.
There is no them anymore, they went extinct. Time to turn the swords into plows, mate.
>>342340
Humanism is the movement of the humanists, who were named that because they studied the humanities, which at the time meant ancient Greek and Roman works.
>Science relies on the supposition that we know very little, and that things are subject to change, and that our answers might not be entirely correct.
Which is exactly what Catholic philosophy is, and the exact opposite of the humanists who believed all the answers were written in ancient books that contained only absolute truth.
>>342448
And that all began before the Fall of Rome...
>>342455
Ask the average person what they think the "Dark Ages" are or what comes to their minds when they think of the Middle Ages. Not the average /his/ poster, the average person.
>>342448
Process which began before the Fall of Rome.
>>342478
The average person thinks the dark age is something that comes after the classical age and before the middle age. Thats all.
>>342487
No, I am talking about Late Antiquity.
>>342448
not only was this process ongoing for decades, but it is also (while true) far from removed from what the 'dark ages' represent in popular discourse - i.e. not an entirely understandable social and economic change, but some massive collapse with people suddenly becoming retarded and eating shit
>>342486
You need to go outside your history forums/campus sometime.
>>342491
Dark Age literally means people referring to live in small settlements rather than huge metropolitan urban centers, and the cultural, architectural, scientific and political consequences of this ruralization.
>>342504
You need to actually ask people this, rather than assume they are retarded. Or move out of your downtown New York ghetto, whichever applies.
>>342491
Well it was more gradual, but they were pretty shitty times by our standards. Though we also overrate the level of civilisation under Rome.
>>342468
>Which is exactly what Catholic philosophy is
Wow, Kant took over the Catholic church without even trying
>>342509
Do you really think that, say, an everyday man, a high school student, a random nobody when asked about the medieval dark ages will see them as an economic and social rearranging and the decline of urban centers, or a nearly literal dark age with the church and feudal lords oppressing peasants and preventing society from flourishing or somesuch BS? My experience is the latter.
>>342509
M8 last time I talked about history with an American she had never even heard of Charlemagne, and she's a Harvard graduate.
>>342473
What the fuck are you even talking about?
>>342516
Humility and doubt have been central to Catholic thought since the Middle Ages.
>>340376
Good maymay gayme
>>342520
My experience is that the average person will say the dark ages are a myth, and in reality the christian western civilization was far superior to those muslims and their fake golden age, because you see we are only told of this "dark age" as government propaganda to get us to accept immigrants.
The average person worth talking to will say the dark ages were people walking away from big roman cities to become farmers.
>>342468
You'd be less angry at other people in this thread if you actually read some philosophy books yourself and didn't just assume what you think they probably contain.
>>342509
It also means invasions by Viking, Muslim, Magyar and Alans.
>>342527
I envy you the utopian and intellectual paradise you seem live in where people think that.
>>342523
Western civilisation took no more from the ancient Greeks than Islam did. Therefore if we're part of the same civilisation as the ancient Greeks, then so are the Muslims.
Or we could finally get over this self-hating Renaissance delusion where we cosplay as a dead civilisation that we're separated from by a millennium of history not to mention geographically as well. Yes we've been heavily influenced by ancient Greeks/Romans and we have at times been unhealthily obsessed with them, that doesn't make us the same civilisation.
>>342533
>I envy you the utopian and intellectual paradise you seem live in where people think that.
Any group of people between 15 and 35 in any big eastern european city.
I've traveled a lot, and I love history and visiting museums, so I get to talk to many tourists and their clueless girlfriends/boyfriends who tag alone.
The average person will know "dark age" basically means reverting the roman empire urbanization after it fell in the west.
>>342540
Okay, that is nothing to do with my post though.
>>342528
You've obviously never read a single sentence of Petrarch's.
>>342540
Are you saying western civilization began with the Holy Roman Empire? Or even later, after Napoleon and nationalization?
>>342544
Was your post the one in all caps made entirely of memes? Because I kind of had to extrapolate some meaning into it.
>>342527
>My experience is that the average person will say the dark ages are a myth
Most idea people have of dark ages is that it comes before renaissance/return of greek/roman classicism, or anti-church propaganda from enlightenment.
Legacy of christian kingdoms and whole middle age period has been shat on by 2 of the most influent intellectual periods (renaissance and enlightment).
>>342541
That's funny, we seem to come from roughly the same neighborhood. And my experience is certainly not that everyday people would simply equate the 'dark ages' to a shift from urban to the rural. But rather memespouting about the oppressive church and terrible feudalism and the like (with very little or nothing at all about the rural/urban shift).
>>342552
>Most idea people have of dark ages is that {lists concept most people arent aware of}
>>342546
To me, proper western civilization started when Clovis converted to christianism.
>>342545
And you probably only read him in fucking wikipedia.
When you look at thinkers in absolute isolation like you apparently do, you end up with pants on head retarded beliefs like:
>Which is exactly what Catholic philosophy is, and the exact opposite of the humanists who believed all the answers were written in ancient books that contained only absolute truth.
>>342555
>Most idea people have of dark ages is that {lists concept most people arent aware of}
I meant most idea of "dark age" come from what these centuries told about it.
>>342550
Yes.
The meaning you "extrapolated" was apparently something entirely unrelated that you were thinking about anyway, maybe a conversation you had with someone else?
>>342546
It began in the 10th century, around 910 to be precise.
That's when Western Europe begins to display true originality and independence in religious philosophy (Cluniac reforms), art (Cluniac style), and social organisation (establishment of the feudal system and the first great houses).
>>342557
Oh god are you the France Francia cunt again?
Just get a fucking trip so we can ignore you already.
>>342557
You could say that's the beginning of Western history, but it wasn't much of a civilisation yet.
>>342557
So you only look at religion, without culture, architecture, political and socialistic structure.
One guy converting didnt change anything on the spot. I'd say you mean the HRE as start of western civilization, judging by where you are headed.
>>342564
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
This is the closest I've ever come to wanting to just fucking give up on /his/ entirely. You are legitimately worse than the "We wuz kingz" posters, congratulations.
>>342567
Yeah, probably more western history.
>>342568
Yeah of course, but Clovis baptism is very important in the sense it determined the fate of papacy, as Clovis chose catholicism instead of arianism (where the king is head of the church). It is very important for the politic of the millenium after this.
>>342558
Humanists literally burned Gothic Era books when they took over universities. Phenomenal advances like those of 14th century natural philosophers were completely buried, and until recently were thought to have only been discovered by Galileo who merely rediscovered them.
Everything about the time of Renaissance Humanism is disgusting arrogance and petulant hatred, from inventing terms like the "Dark Ages" or "Gothic" to even turning the name of one of the most important medieval philosophers, Duns Scotus, into a literal insult.
>>342573
You obviously have nothing of value to contribute, why don't you return to /pol/ or /b/?
>>342590
Shit like your posts is of a huge negative value. Dragging the entire discourse down to fucking schoolboy levels.
I just hope to evercunting christ you have been b8ing this entire time.
>>342598
Fuck off, retard.
>>342598
Just leave already.
>>342600
>>342603
Profucking tip, shit like "Hurr durr western civilization started on X date!!!" is below the level of insight you get on the fucking History Channel.
Try to stop summing everything up with giant generalisations. All that lets you do is make big sweeping statements that give you a sense of personal satisfaction, like you've grasped something about history, and 100% of the time the result is a loss of nuance and in many cases all salvageable meaning whatsoever.
Wikipedia surfers are the fucking bane of /his/. I'd take frothing at the mouth racist /po/tards over you cunts any day.
>>342612
How about you delete this post and make another one showing him how western civilization didnt start on X date. Make sure to include citations.
>>342618
The point I'm making is statements like "hurr durr western civilization started with X event!!!!" are so vacuous that even replying to them is getting dragged down into the fucking meaningless mire of schoolboy shit. The only reason you'd post shit like that would be 1. you are baiting hard (in which case 10/10 you won) or 2. you are a fucking retard wikipedia surfer.
There is no answer to that question because it is fucking meaningless.
>>342630
He gives arguments. They are reasonable. His points make sense.
Fight them by providing other arguments, which are more reasonable and make more sense.
>>342636
You are missing the point entirely. You can't argue with something that vague, even to do so is just letting him win in dragging all debate down to childish shit.
There was no definitive start to western civilization. No-one who has even studied history at the most cursory level would ever make a statement saying there was. Fucking obviously.
Wikipedia surfers and armchair historians FUCKING LOVE statements like that. Some people's interest in history only goes as far as the can reduce it to soundbites. The best policy is just not even to engage with cunts like that, because the debates will just drag on and on, and never get anywhere, because only one side is interested in history.
>>342564
> Cluniac reforms
> religious philosophy
What. It was an organizational reform.
> the feudal system was established at this specific time
What.
> western civilization began in 910 with monasticism reform and just another stage of evolution of political structures
So are you saying Western Europe in 910 has more similarities with us than with Western Europe in, say, 410?
>>342648
>it's like this because I say it is
>Fucking obviously
Maybe it's time you tried questioning your dogmatic beliefs, especially when they include claiming that something hasn't always existed yet doesn't have a beginning, which is a logical contradiction.
>>342648
There was a point when we can say western civilization didnt exist.
There was a point in which we can say western civilization did exist.
Find the latest first point and the earliest second point, and in between them is the period in which western civilization was formed and developed.
Now find the difference in art, culture, politics, society, religion, family structure, motivation that people have between western civilization and what preceded it, and find when these differences were created in the development period.
After that find where these differences being developed are concentrated, in terms of time and place, and say that this is when western civilization was created.
Do this, and if you come up with a different date to him, post it and post your reasoning. Else fuck off, retard.
>>342656
Please be baiting,pleasepleaseplease
>>342660
Ignoring the fact that half of those things are fucking impossible, at the end you have discovered absolutely nothing.
History doesn't work like this. I know you wish it did, but it doesn't.
>>342651
>What. It was an organizational reform.
And it led up the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the sovereignty of the Papacy among many other things. In many ways it can be considered the foundation of the Catholic Church as we've known it since.
> the feudal system was established at this specific time
The first time a feudal lord acquired significant sovereign rights was with the foundation of the duchy of Normandy at the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte in 911. This served as a template afterwards.
You could also consider the Capitulary of Quierzy to be a more important date, but those rights remained largely theoretical at first, and 877 is still in the same general period.
>So are you saying Western Europe in 910 has more similarities with us than with Western Europe in, say, 410?
Well in 410 Western Europe was nothing but the periphery both cultural and political of Eastern Rome, a civilisation centered on the Near East. So yes.
>>342660
Okay I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just mentally retarded.
The problem that you are unwilling to accept is that "Western Civilization" is a fucking wishy washy term that we are applying backwards on a huge part of history and a large section of the world. Even if we CAN definitely point to one thing that we are comfortable to say IS western civilization, and another thing that ISN'T, that in no way suggests that there was a binary change from one to the other. All of the individual parts that make up our definition are all sets of circumstances that arose slowly, by historical processes, and that you can describe no fucking date to.
Armchair historians like the Clovis guy fucking love anything that has dates to it, they mostly like to see history in terms of a strict progression of Great Men, with reign dates and births and deaths, and have a huge bias to define their soundbites around them.
This type of thinking is fucking poison to anyone who actually studies history and takes it seriously.
>>342669
History should be treated as a science, not as mythology based on "we can't know anything and trying to should be forbidden". Go take your obscurantist cancer elsewhere.
Done responding to this nonsense now.
>>342660
> Now find the difference in art, culture, politics, society, religion, family structure, motivation that people have between western civilization and what preceded it, and find when these differences were created in the development period.
> After that find where these differences being developed are concentrated, in terms of time and place, and say that this is when western civilization was created.
So Western Civilization was created in 1917, 1945 or 1989? Because all these things change all the time and changed dramatically during the last 100 years. Or maybe, I say maybe, Western Civilization isn't a set of believes we can pinpoint to a certain period of history, but an uninterrupted continuous process, evolving, changing, being influenced, which started with the first civilization in the west and goes up until now.
>>342689
>fuck dates, history should remain vague and incomprehensible
You are everything that's wrong with the way history is taught in schools nowadays.
>>342691
In an actual science, using strictly defined terms that help our understanding and don't inhibit it is one of the first priorities.
Deciding on some vague terms and then teleologically looking back at history and twisting everything to fit a simple childish narrative is pretty much the worst thing you can do as a historian.
No idea where you are even getting this obscurantist shit from.
>>342704
And I'm sorry you were so mindbroken by the History Channel and wikipedia.
You are the one advocating using vague and incomprehensible terms, ignoring evidence and research and just sticking with mythological Grand Narratives.
>>342692
But what is the West? Everything is West of something.
And what is civilisation? Isn't the Australian aboriginal just as civilised?
And what is time? It's not even an objective reality.
And what is is? Existence can only be defined by itself.
>>342681
> it can be considered the foundation of the Catholic Church as we've known it since.
No? The proto-Great Schims happened in 8th century with Iconoclast emperors and Papal position was significantly elevated by Charlemagne. I mean, this is a long process and you can say any step of it is "the foundation". Cluniac reforms is just a stage of evolution.
> a feudal lord acquired significant sovereign rights
But it was just a step in evolution. Say, Frankish Marks were quite sovereign.
> Well in 410 Western Europe was nothing but the periphery both cultural and political of Eastern Rome, a civilisation centered on the Near East.
How is it makes 910 less similar to it than to our time?
>>341631
The church contributed to Rome's decline because they didn't pay taxes, prompting arisocrats to become bishops instead of governors which put heavier tax loads on middle-class citizens who would often move to the country side to escape the burden
>>342692
>Or maybe, I say maybe, Western Civilization isn't a set of believes we can pinpoint to a certain period of history, but an uninterrupted continuous process, evolving, changing, being influenced, which started with the first civilization in the west and goes up until now.
If thats the case, western civilization was created in Africa some 200 000 years ago.
>>342590
he does, he's telling you your argument is shit
>>342636
he doesn't he just stated some arbitrary dates and reforms and then says "this is the beginning of western civilization"
>>342660
western civilization is such a nebulous term that it might not well exist
>>342730
In a sense, yes, all civilization did. But to be more precise with terms, I'd say "Western" "civilization" started with with Greek exceptionalism and their contrast of the West (them) and the East (Persians), despite it being highly influenced by the said East.
>>342764
So western civilization started in the east, and its descendants are found in Syria and Persia?
>>342720
>Cluniac reforms is just a stage of evolution.
I'd say the Cluniac reforms were the decisive stage, since it was the defining philosophy behind all the important Popes and their decisions in the following centuries. Iconoclasm for example was a very temporary issue.
>But it was just a step in evolution.
Again, it was something new. Nobility in Francia was still more of a civil service, not even hereditary at the start. And the power of the king/emperor stood clearly above at least since Charles Martel and until the 9th century. And it's in the 10th century that feudal lords first started declaring themselves princeps in their land, and even by the grace of God. It's also when all the rules of vassalage solidified.
>How is it makes 910 less similar to it than to our time?
It was the beginning of something that led to our time. Western Europe in 410 was simply irrelevant in civilisational terms, it produced no culture of any sort or anything of lasting value. This changed by the 10th century.
>>342765
>So western civilization started in the east
Western civilization branched out of the Middle Eastern one. Or, in other words, Western Civilization started with indigenous Mediterranean cultures influenced by more developed East.
>and its descendants are found in Syria and Persia
What?
>>342764
>I'd say
And you have provided no arguments at all to support that opinion, unlike the guy you're talking to.
The East/West distinction comes from Eastern vs Western Rome btw, and later Easter vs Western Christianity. And all relevant historians who study civilisations as categories place the birth of Western civilisation after the fall of Western Rome.
>>342790
"the greek" stuff was recovered and integrated east of greece long before it was west of greece, after the fall of the roman empire and the topical dark age period in western europe
>>342790
The Hellenistic world spanned all the way to India you dumbass.
>>342784
>I'd say the Cluniac reforms were the decisive stage
Or Gregorian Reform? Or Concordat of Worms? Or any other major step in the history of the Church? I wonder how you say this is the one.
>Western Europe in 410 was simply irrelevant in civilisational terms, it produced no culture of any sort or anything of lasting value.
So was Europe in 910, comparing to ERE and Islamic World. I mean, in 410 it at least had Augustine. And from the POV of common people, almost nothing changed. It was as religious in 910 as it was in 410, contrasting with modern secular Western Civilization. It was as authoritarian in its political culture, contrasting with modern democratization.
>>342818
>Or Gregorian Reform? Or Concordat of Worms? Or any other major step in the history of the Church? I wonder how you say this is the one.
Gregory VII (who was at the origin of both the Gregorian reforms and the Investiture Controversy which was resolved by the Concordat of Worms) was an ardent supporter of the Cluniac reforms, and everything he did was done in the Cluniac spirit.
>So was Europe in 910
No, after 910 it objectively wasn't. It was for the first time becoming independent from the East. Even if you ignore the Church and feudalism, you can't ignore the birth of original Western art during the Romanesque.
>>342835
It wasn't more lasting at all, Islamic civilisation is just as influenced by the Greeks as ours.
Which according to you means it's also Western.
>>342892
> It wasn't more lasting at all, Islamic civilisation is just as influenced by the Greeks as ours.
I'd say it's more influenced by Persians, but yes, Greeks played a major role.
> Which according to you means it's also Western.
I said Western civilization "started" with (kick-started by?) Greeks, not "every civilization influenced by Greeks is Western".
>>342888
Well, I think you're overemphasizing 10th century, but I must admit you have your reasons to do it.
>>342712
>>342722
No-one was suggesting anything like that, jesus. Do you realise how infantile that argument is?
"Your terms are ill-defined and vague to the point of meaninglessness"
"Wow you think that ALL terms are vague and meaningless and we can never know anything"
No, specifically the shitty ones you are implying. It doesn't even pass as history, it's just wikipedia-wanking.
>>339922
>Muslims from the "golden age" also had a hand with reviving education.
lol
>>342003
>Scholasticism was in general a step backwards
>Spinoza's legacy
>The myth of Faust (a clever humanist btw)
>I am a sophomore year Philosophy major
get good
>>342540
>european civilization
>as in one homogeneous civilization in europe
>ever
>>342540
I like how you think but it's more than that. We have authentic Roman religion still in most of the Europe, their ideas of the state law, alphabet, languages and many other things. MUCH more than the Muslims, who actually have nothing. Romans didn't have a lot of direct influence on them.
And as for democracy, those ideas aren't Greek, they are 19th century ideas that happened to exist long time ago in much less 'democratic' way too.
>>342079
This is downright revionist apologestics
>It was in no way a "step backwards" from the Dark Ages.
It was a step backward from Rome....
> "I must understand so that I may believe"
The type of rationalism that philosophy had with the fucking pre-socrates was superior to this. It didn't pre-suppose any facts that you "needed to believe"
With that quote being the guiding the force of the scholastic you are just proving my point that they were cancer. The translation of books was admirable but everything else was an abomination.
>science not only came to a grinding halt during the Renaissance
The printing press alone is more of and advancement than the entire rest of the Dark and middle ages COMBINED. This is not coming to a hault, it's a quantum leap forward!
>>339625
>I have a couple books on the subject, but I'm looking for more sources on how the idea of the dark ages being 'dark' is full of shit, and rather the Early Middle Ages were just the continued march of progression for Western Civilization.
>Early Middle Ages
>Western Civilization
>Progress
>To technological standards of the Bronze Age
>To pre-Roman productive levels
Nice improvement.
