>The Renaissance was a peaceful era
>"The Dark Ages"
>The Renaissance was a peaceful era
Now you're just making shit up, no one says that.
>>590527
they were dark you dumb sperglord
fucking christian apologetics ffs
>>590601
>Christianity caused the dark ages
>the dark ages even happened
>>591066
The Dark Ages happened between the fall of the west roman empire and Charlemagne. That is a historical fact. It wasn't caused by christianity
>>591077
>the dark ages
>>591077
Correct. Christianity just influenced it.
>>591079
>The disintegration of the Western Roman Empire and the founding of medieval European states was a smooth transition
Dark ages: 1204-Present
>>591095
>the
>dark
>ages
>>591079
>>590527
>>591066
The Dark Ages was characterized by massive urban depopulation (Rome went from half a million people in 450AD to just 10,000 by the year 800), a drastic decline in minted coinage, a severe decline in the quality of manufactured goods (as evinced by pottery shards from all over western Europe), a decline in literacy, and Germans sweeping through and broke everything good and wholesome that the Italian Peninsula had once given the world.
Do a little more research before spouting your reddit memes so smugly
>>591095
the dark ages is a pejorative term created by enlightenment philosophers because of the perceived anti-intellectualism of the middle ages.
>>591113
>d
>a
>r
>k
>>591110
>>591124
It was also a shitty time of decentralization, destabilization, and overnight German Kingdoms and low-intensity endemic warfare that only stopped following the Frankish Hegemony.
>>590522
Who has ever claimed that?
>>591125
You want it to be called "the depopulation erea"? It was called the dark ages historically and will be called that from now on as well. So what if it's a little misleading, so is saying you just "like" traps for their feminine bodies. We still know that they really are
>>591183
If you used the word "Dark ages" at academia you would be laughed off. At least in Europe.
Also, Europe had largely surpassed Rome in every aspect during the high middle ages, which is considered to be a part of the dark age.
It turns out you can't define a 1000-year period with one word, "the dark ages" is a somewhat fitting word for a couple of centuries after Romes fall.
>>591199
Also i find it funny that, /his/ will get pissy when someone uses a derogatory term for aboriginal/indian cultures and societies, while /his/ is happy to use derogatory terms about Europe's low point.
I thought you couldn't define what is a "high civilization" or say other civilizations are better than others?
It was a war of ideas
>>591137
A warfare that ended wich the bloody campaign of Charlemagne? Or maybe with the infighting between the sons and heirs of Ludovicus? Or with the downfall of the Carolingians and the power vacuum that coincided with the Viking Age?
>>590601
>>591077
>>591113
>>591199
>the high middle ages, which is considered to be a part of the dark age
sure, if you're stupid. History's changed a lot since Petrarch and I don't think you'll find anybody who uses his definition.
nice straw man though
>>591286
It's an outdated term that has, to a certain extent been revised and disproven, but it very much originally referred to lack of cvilisation and I'm not sure you could claim "scientific development" was even a concept when it was first coined.
>>591286
But we do have written records.
Germanic Law Codes, National Histories, Chronicles...
I was taught that the "dark middle ages" is the time between fall of western Rome and Charlemagne's Francia, because all the Goth "kingdoms" were fuzzy and disorganized and there's not much historical records about that era.
The dark ages ended with Charlemagne.
>>591199
>the high middle ages, which is considered to be a part of the dark age.
It is not.
Hence why HIGH MIDDLE AGES as a term exists. To differentiate it from Dark Ages.
Either way you all dumb
>le dark ages xD
retards are dumbass symbolists who care about whether it's derogatory term or not so you should hang yourself.
>>590527
"Dark ages" means basically the era between the sack of Rome and the beginning of the medieval era, usually denoted by the battle of hastings.
>>591183
>"dark"
>>591348
>the
>dark
>ages
>>591354
Dumbass emotional symbolist detected.
>>591348
That's a bit Anglocentric m8. England was hardly the most important country at the time.
It is an interesting fact, however, if we are discussing England and whether a concept such as the "Dark Ages" should even exist, that the ability to create bricks was almost totally lost for a few hundred years between the departure of the Roman Empire from Britain and the Medieval period.
>>591311
>because all the Goth "kingdoms" were fuzzy and disorganized and there's not much historical records about that era.
Yeah, no...
They founded cities.
We have chronicles, like John of Biclaro.
Some records from their famous Councils.
You should know Isidore of Seville and at least some of his works like the Etymologiae.
Even a fucking poem attributed to king Sisebut.
And thats just Visigoths, sadly Gothic Wars fucked Italy.
>>591381
It's anglocentric because the entire world is anglocentric.
>>591298
That was one interpretation, but the modern use of the term 'dark ages' by historians is not used in that way
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
>When the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, therefore, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us because of the paucity of historical records compared with both earlier and later times.[10
>>591395
> the entire world is anglocentric.
You mean the angloworld is anglocentric, I know practically fuck all about Anglo history, eventhough the UK is nearby.
>>591427
let me give you the short version. the anglian tribes settled in britain, and they mixed their shit with the saxons. then the normans joined the melting pot. then this new abomination went and conquered 90% of the world. that's why the world is anglocentric.
>>591432
>>591441
Probably more because the US send propaganda this way. The Brits had very little to do with it.
>>591445
I meant to talk about the modern use
>>591395
>the entire world is anglocentric
200-300 years ago yeah
>>591464
Fair enough.
>>591495
still sort of is
>>591305
We don't even have sufficient stratigraphic evidence. It's not unlikely they are a chronological error and completely made up.
>>594348
And?
We do have the written accounts and more and better archaelogical records year by year.
>>590522
No one ever said that
>The renaissance was progressive
This is the most hilarious thing I think when the renaissance was actually when reactionary ideology (fuelled largely by the church feeling it's power waning) spiraled out of control and you got the rise of racial hatred and extreme misogyny.
Butthurt germanics every fucking time
>>594424
What do you mean?
The Renaissance was actually one of the most violent periods in Human history. But hey, what period isn't violent?
i really dislike using the label renaissance for a particular 'era' or 'period'
it was a movement first and foremost, which happened from the middle ages to the early modern era in various places at various times
The Renaissance was without doubt the shittiest period in Western history.
- violent as fuck, religious wars, witch burnings, murders upon murders etc
- an intellectual dark age that set science back 300 years
- still the most arrogant era ever despite all this
The only good thing that happened during it is that techniques of painting and sculpture progressed quite a bit.
>>594577
Nice memes man.
You know you could meme the exact same way about the medieval period, right?
>>594577
>set science back
nice memes
>>590522
Who the fuck is saying that
>>594577
>- still the most arrogant era ever despite all this
lol how can an era be arrogant?
>>590595
This.
Any decent history of the renaissance will discuss the French wars in Italy.
>The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
>>594577
>an intellectual dark age that set science back 300 years
It was the opposite actually
>>594468
i mean fucking germanics always are butthurt when someone mentions the dark ages their invasions and destructions caused in europe
>>594788
Nothing in that post applies to the Middle Ages.
>>595024
Leonardo is completely irrelevant to the history of science. The notebooks that made his reputation as an inventor weren't discovered until the 19th century, and none of it was ever put into practice. Nice meme though.
>>595075
By being full of arrogant shits who look down on all previous eras, for example by calling them "Dark Ages", or "Gothic".
>>595319
Newton lived between the 17th and 18th century, are you even trying?
>>590595
Normies think the Renaissance was just kitties and rainbows where everyone was culturally and intellectually enlightened, making pretty architecture and fancy sculptures also muh Da Vinci because that's all they learned in history and art class.
>>597126
>Normies think the Renaissance was just kitties and rainbows where everyone was culturally and intellectually enlightened
On what do you base this claim?
>>591199
>high middle ages, which is considered to be a part of the dark age
>1000 year period
No
>>597157
Normies being normies
>>597169
But someone who spends a significant amount of time on 4chan is uniquely poorly suited to analyze what normies think, due to barely interacting with them.
>>590601
fedora.jpg
>>597158
In common historiography, the Middle Ages, aka Petrarch's "Dark Ages", lasted from the fall of Western Rome in the late 5th century to the spread of the Renaissance in the late 15th. That's 1000 years.
>>597112
>Nothing in that post applies to the Middle Ages.
>- violent as fuck
Check
>religious wars
Check
>witch burnings, murders upon murders etc
Check and check, though witch burnings not nearly to the extent as the Renaissance, so you've got one point
>- an intellectual dark age that set science back 300 years
Prove it, or else this is as much of a meme as the dark ages setting science back 300 years, and therefore just as applicable to the medieval period, you fucking retard.
>- still the most arrogant era ever despite all this
Medieval and Renaissance get mashed together in popular culture, and considering your post, how are anti-'dark age' memers not more arrogant than Renaissance enthusiasts?
>>597112
>By being full of arrogant shits who look down on all previous eras, for example by calling them "Dark Ages", or "Gothic".
omg 2 italians called me mean names! an era is arrogant guys!
Time for hot Borgia dick
>>595024
>Leonardo
>>594577
>set science back 300 years
>the renaissance
>what is astronomy
>who is copernicus
>who is galileo
>who is tycho
>who is francis bacon
>implying just because historians used to bad-mouth the middle ages that the renaissance was the true dark ages
prediction: you're a frog that's butthurt about france's minimal contribution to the renaissance, so you just cognitive-dissonance your way into attacking it
>>597482
>But this initial period is usually seen as one of scientific backwardness. There were no new developments in physics or astronomy, and the reverence for classical sources further enshrined the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the universe. Philosophy lost much of its rigour as the rules of logic and deduction were seen as secondary to intuition and emotion. At the same time, Humanism stressed that nature came to be viewed as an animate spiritual creation that was not governed by laws or mathematics.
>>597482
But Galileo was a cancer to Science anon, all he did was add polemics to science
>>597513
>actually quoting wikipedia
lol are you retarded?
>But this initial period
the major scientific/astronomical discoveries were made in the late renaissance
and again
>what is astronomy
>who is copernicus
>who is galileo
>who is tycho
>who is francis bacon
>>597528
>But Galileo was a cancer to Science anon, all he did was add polemics to science
what an uninformed crock of shit, try again
>>591286
>lack of surviving written records
No, it comes from Petrarch's tripartite theory of history.
For Petrarch, all of human history had existed of two stages: when literature and art had flourished under Rome, and all things subsequent to sack of Rome which are characterized by cultural decay and corruption and in which people forgot how to write good Latin. He described the latter period as the "Dark Age," and believed it extended from the sack of Rome in 410 up until his lifetime, and said that it was totally unworthy of academic study because, in his words, "What is history but the study of Rome?" He believed that a third age was on the horizon, in which Rome would be restored to its glory and Latin literature would be good again. The term "Dark Age" stuck and has been constantly redefined by historians ever since.
Maybe you should do some research next time before calling everyone else in the thread a retard.
>>597482
I think he's this one rabid French nationalist from /int/ who thinks that anything which moved people away from the Catholic church was bad.
His style seems familiar to me.
>>597531
>me namedropping proves you wrong
lol, are you?
>the major scientific/astronomical discoveries were made in the late renaissance
So? the neglect of science happened in the early renaissance.
>Copernicus
an astronomer that tried to justify his novelties with mysticism
>Galileo
absolute prick so full of himself, he set back scientific research by spouting polemics to everyone who disagreed with him
>Tycho
I'll give you that one, he's the one who actually gathered evidence for his theories. But it doesnt help that Galileo damaged his reputation and became a "literally who?"
>Francis Bacon
All he did was rebel against his Aristotelian boogeyman. He's literally Sam Harris tier
>>591381
>That's a bit Anglocentric m8
Eh, hastings is a good reference point.
By ~1000, christianization had swung into the scandi nations, and by the mid 900s, the goddamn HRE had it's proper beginning in good ol' Otto.
So, hastings with it's 1066 date is a pretty good establishing point for the middle middle ages. Basically, it's the assertion of "shit started at 1000AD"...which is essentially true.
>>597536
Um, are you fucking kidding me?
All galileo ever did was bitch and moan about his incorrect theories of the tides and piss off the goddamn church.
You want old school scientists?
Fucking Kepler
Fucking Brahe
Mother fucking Copernicus
These are men who actually did shit. We got to space via Johannes Kepler...we got to know about incorrect tidal theories with Galileo.
>>597579
>I'll give you that one, he's the one who actually gathered evidence for his theories. But it doesnt help that Galileo damaged his reputation and became a "literally who?"
Maybe a "literally who" among Black Science Man tier popsci faggots, but Brahe enabled Kepler, who's theories of planetary motion basically tell you 90% of astrophysics that Newton wasn't around to tell us about yet.
If you get balls deep into space shit, Kepler and Brahe become two of the 4 most important men in history as far as your studies go, vis a vis Newton and Tsiolkovskiy.
>>597579
>Francis Bacon
>All he did was rebel against his Aristotelian boogeyman. He's literally Sam Harris tier
Why do you spout such reductive bullshit? Kill yourself.
>>597655
Brahe was 10/10
>Be noble sperg
>Last set of starcharts is like from 1200 and 400, which are inaccurate as fuck, and without the super telescopes
>Make literal solitary tower and spend every evening you can observing
>Use state of the art telescopes and notepaper
>Be fat noble sperg
>Die from eating
>Complete star charts with full yearly cycles almost gets wasted because next scientist in line almost gets denied to pick it up
>>597398
>religious wars
What, the albigensian crusade? Please.
>Prove it
Humanism, "you fucking retard".
>>597482
>who is Nicolas Oresme
>who is John Buridan
>who is Robert Grosseteste
>who is Roger Bacon
Wait, you probably literally don't know.
>>597705
>What, the albigensian crusade? Please.
Try all the crusades.
>Humanism
>setting science back 300 years
You fucking retard. Humanism may have delayed science for a century at most, but
>set back 300 years
Is an unfounded exaggeration which you have yet to prove.
>>597679
>Maybe a "literally who" among Black Science Man tier popsci faggots, but Brahe enabled Kepler, who's theories of planetary motion basically tell you 90% of astrophysics that Newton wasn't around to tell us about yet.
Indeed, the only thing wrong with Kepler is that he was contemporary of Galileo, which made him and his work neglected until much later, made him fall behind most discoveries, and had the weird need to approve of Galileo's theories without seeing the evidence
>>597624
The battle of Hastings was irrelevant for anywhere other than England.
For most of Western Europe the Carolingian Renaissance marks the end of the Dark Ages, in 800. They just lasted longer for England.
>>590522
said no one
>>597685
All history is reductive, m8. Why do you think everyone has a hard time trying to fit people into little blocks of time?
>>597730
>All history is reductive, m8.
Only for the mentally deficient.
>>597548
It's definitely him.
>>597734
Please show how I'm wrong then
>>597749
Burden of proof is on your claim, so you can start by showing how you're right.
>>597756
You claimed I was "spouting reductive bullshit", which is a positive claim you have to prove. So no, the burden of proof is on you
>>597721
The Crusades were expeditions out of the West and conquest of foreign land. They didn't make Europe more violent at all. By contrast the Reformation during the Renaissance caused extremely long and bloody civil wars in Germany, England, and France, not to mention massive persecution.
>unfounded exaggeration
Just as an example, look at Buridan's laws of motion. He wrote in the 14th century and his work was taught for some time after, but then entirely rejected and forgotten by Humanist academia in favour of a return to Aristotlean physics. It's only in the 17th century that Galileo published his work, and that the laws that were later credited to him but that were already discovered in their entirety by Buridan gained acceptance once more. That's three centuries of regression and stagnation.
Similar story with Oresme in Maths. The fact is there was enormous progress in the short time between the 13th and 14th century, and then practically none at all during the Renaissance. The only sort of scientific activity you could find during that era was translating of Greek works or various mysticism, with the exception of a couple of astronomers who came in at the end, who had to fight the Humanist establishment tooth and nail, and whose work contributed to putting an end to the era of intellectual obscurantism that was the "Renaissance", and to leading to the slightly more aptly named "Enlightenment".
You fucking retard.
>>597726
well, no. Don't think "hastings was important".
Think rather "the 11th century was important".
>>597772
Nope, since what you said is reductive by definition, and therefore self evident.
>>597782
Maybe it is or maybe it isnt. You're the one who claimed it is, so you must provide the reasons for your claim.
>>597780
I don't really see how it was particularly. If anything the 10th century was more important. It saw the birth of Western art, the Cluniac reform of the Catholic Church, the establishment of the feudal system...
>>597779
and the Middle Ages was a time of superstition and ignorance. We'd be hundreds of years more advanced now, were it not for people being persecuted for saying that the earth wasn't the center of the universe/solar system, among many other things.
>>597798
Nobody was persecuted because of heliocentrism in the Middle Ages
>>597798
Is this sarcasm?
The only time anyone was ever persecuted for science was precisely during the Renaissance.
>>597798
>saying that the earth wasn't the center of the universe/solar system, among many other things.
This was a triviality until after tsiolkovskiy's rocket formula actually made it possible to go into space.
Before then, knowing planetary motion only mattered inasmuch as the calculation of easter mattered.
The crisis of the late middle ages as an objective, physical decline in health and harvest yield is far more degredational to our modern inclination than any superstitio held by our forebears.
>>597779
>The Crusades were expeditions out of the West and conquest of foreign land. They didn't make Europe more violent at all.
The collective crusades entailed religious wars of conquest in Europe too.
>By contrast the Reformation during the Renaissance caused extremely long and bloody civil wars in Germany, England, and France, not to mention massive persecution.
Yeah, because the dynastic wars and wars of conquest in the middle ages just made Europe such a peaceful place at the time as well.
>Just as an example
>That's three centuries of regression and stagnation.
No, that's one example of misguided humanists, and 'just as an example' as you yourself put it, how does that transform into an entirety of three centuries of regression and stagnation?
>The fact is there was enormous progress in the short time between the 13th and 14th century, and then practically none at all during the Renaissance.
Practically none at all during the Renaissance? The Copernican Revolution is just practically no progress? You are so biased you may as well not post. The Middle Ages undoubtedly don't get nearly enough credit for the scientific and infrastructural contributions it made to Europe, but to use its progress, which contributed to the Renaissance ultimately, as a means of making a period you don't like look bad is completely pathetic. Your bias makes you just as bad as the retards that still purport that the dark ages entailed the entire medieval period and was nothing but regression. You are just the opposite of this and claim the ignorance of Renaissance humanism = the entire Renaissance.
>>597779
>with the exception of a couple of astronomers who came in at the end, who had to fight the Humanist establishment tooth and nail, and whose work contributed to putting an end to the era of intellectual obscurantism that was the "Renaissance", and to leading to the slightly more aptly named "Enlightenment".
And this kind of rationalization and bullshit only proves my point.
>a couple of astronomers who came in at the end
Oh you mean the pursuit of astronomy throughout the Renaissance and the particular progress made in the late Renaissance by individuals across Europe? The way the scientific revolution had its roots in these men of the late Renaissance?
Oh, gotta put a twist to it though, can't let anyone think the Renaissance was good, only bad. Yeah, you're a biased retard.
>>597793
>Maybe it is or maybe it isnt.
Nope, it certainly is.
>>597813
Revisionist twaddle
Religion (specifically christianity, as islam helped europe out of the dark ages)was the reason science was persecuted.
Up until the Enlightnement, the religious cultists thought that the Genesis story demonstrated that Mankind was at its pinnacle in the Garden of Eden and that everything was downhill from there.
The church's policy was to consider any new philosophy would by nature be even more debased than that of the generation prior, impeding all scientific research until in-fighting within the church resulted in a loss of power, which had the accidental result of freethinkers and secularists bringing about the Enlightenment... and everything that you now enjoy about modernity.
>>597822
Medieval wars were usually much more localised, shorter, and not as violent. Simply because they were wars between random lords and whatever troops could be convinced to fight for their cause, not between huge groups of fanatics regularly committing religious massacres.
>how does that transform into an entirety of three centuries of regression and stagnation
I just showed you how Physics and Maths stagnated for three centuries. Those are not exactly marginal categories of science. Against that, the only Renaissance progress you can name is astronomy, which was as someone else mentioned a quite useless discipline until recently, and which faced violent opposition from the intellectual establishment of the time. Contrast this with 14th century natural philosophers who had no trouble at all immediately teaching their findings at universities.
The fact is there was a scientific revolution beginning in the late Middle Ages. This was mowed down by the disasters of the latter half of the 14th century, and the Renaissance was nothing but three centuries of regression followed by quasi-stagnation. It was a great time for art, not for science.
>>597834
There is literally nothing worth commenting on in this post. Read this I guess: >>597873
>>597838
This is just complete nonsense. Did you make it up yourself or did someone actually teach you this?
As already shown there was extensive scientific progress in the late Middle Ages. How about you try to name a single example of someone being persecuted for science during that time?
>>597879
>How about you try to name a single example of someone being persecuted for science during that time?
Giordano Bruno
But wait, he asked to be persecuted didnt he???
If you seriously believe no-one was persecuted for their ideas in the middle ages , what was the point of the inquisition?
>>597889
Renaissance, not middle ages
>If you seriously believe no-one was persecuted for their ideas in the middle ages , what was the point of the inquisition?
We are talking about scientific ideas here anon, not of religious belief.
>>597889
Giordano Bruno lived in the 16th century. That's as Renaissance as Renaissance gets. You're doing a great job proving my point.
The Inquisition was about rooting out religious heresy. It had nothing to do with science. And all the controversial Inquisition trials happened guess when? During the Renaissance.
>>597889
For fuck's sake just stop posting on /his/ until you know the basics of chronology. The 16th century is not the fucking middle ages you dumb shit.
>>597899
see>>597838
Religion is a political force that stopped science in its tracks for hundreds of years-we know this because of the "Dark" ages when very little was written COMPARED to the pre-ceeding and following centuries.
What was the salient aspect of europe in the "Dark ages"?-it was ruled by christianity, therefore christianity has a lot to do with the lack of science in those times.
>>597907
Pretending to be retarded really is the lowest form of trolling, and if you want it to work you usually have to make it too subtle for it to be any fun at all. It's a waste of time for all involved and an altogether sad spectacle, just stop.
>>597919
Do you know how to find the truth?
Look within yourself
>>597873
>Medieval wars were usually much more localised, shorter, and not as violent.
Except for the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, and other dynastic wars such as those in the Holy Roman Empire. Considering that together with the Mongol invasions, and you pretty much have all of Europe involved in large-scale, long, violent warfare in the Middle Ages. So no, you would be completely wrong, the most significant, notable wars in the Medieval period were none of what you said.
>I just showed you how Physics and Maths stagnated for three centuries.
That's great, but now we've moved goalposts haven't we. Stagnation =l= regression.
Here's what was said originally
>>594577
>- an intellectual dark age that set science back 300 years
Now I'll accept the stagnation of mathematics, though not physics because astronomy entails physics to a large degree even if it isn't a study of physics per se.
> Against that, the only Renaissance progress you can name is astronomy, which was as someone else mentioned a quite useless discipline until recently, and which faced violent opposition from the intellectual establishment of the time.
You are so amazingly unaware. The philosophy of science also made major developments with Francis Bacon, and as I just said, astronomy necessarily entails physics even if it isn't physics in itself. And Renaissance scientists still had their royal patrons, with some of the greatest opposition being received from the Catholic Church.
>and the Renaissance was nothing but three centuries of regression followed by quasi-stagnation. It was a great time for art, not for science.
So you're actually going to keep spouting bullshit then, huh?
Then you've still yet to prove how the Renaissance REGRESSED by 3 centuries. I'll concede if you settle with stagnation, but otherwise you've got a lot to prove.
>>597879
>There is literally nothing worth commenting on in this post.
Because your bias is indefensible, I know.
>>597937
>Now I'll accept the stagnation of mathematics, though not physics because astronomy entails physics to a large degree even if it isn't a study of physics per se.
So Buridan's work wasnt ignored for "Classical Texts" and there wasnt a return to "Classical" Aristotelian physics then?
>Then you've still yet to prove how the Renaissance REGRESSED by 3 centuries.
By ignoring the Scientific work and Philosophical work of the Middle Ages...
>>597958
Cool, where's the part that proves the Renaissance regressed science by 3 centuries?
>>597937
Neither the Crusades nor the Mongol invasions happened anywhere near the West, and the Hundred Years War is precisely one of the late 14th century disasters that killed the Gothic era and allowed the Renaissance to happen.
>Stagnation =l= regression.
All the work of medieval natural philosophers was rejected and replaced with Aristotle. Literally a return to 2000 year old science. How in the fuck is that not regression? Heliocentrism is nice and all but it doesn't compare with the foundation of modern Physics and Calculus. And again not only heliocentrism but even Galileo's rediscovery of Buridan's laws had to fight against massive opposition from the intellectual class and powers of the time, even though the same findings were accepted without difficulty three centuries earlier. Isn't it obvious that one of those eras had a climate far more conducive to scientific progress than the other?
>astronomy necessarily entails physics
The Copernican Revolution doesn't. It's simply a cosmological model, it doesn't contain any physical explanation. That only came much later with Newton.
>>597971
Well, when you completely ignore all of the work made before and replace it with some "Classical Texts" from hundreds and hundreds of years ago it's what most would call a "regression"
>>597971
It actually regressed science by 2000 years if you want to be technical. But it only lasted three centuries, and ended when early Enlightenment thinkers picked up again where late Gothic thinkers had left of.
Basically the Renaissance was a three century gap in scientific progress.
>>597980
>Neither the Crusades nor the Mongol invasions happened anywhere near the West
So what? We're not exclusively talking about the West, but Medieval Europe. And the Reconquista is part of the collective crusades.
>and the Hundred Years War is precisely one of the late 14th century disasters that killed the Gothic era and allowed the Renaissance to happen.
Yeah, not such a short, localized, non-violent war, now was it?
>All the work of medieval natural philosophers was rejected and replaced with Aristotle.
The Medieval philosophers themselves developed from Aristotelean works, and the spread of Renaissance humanism doesn't necessarily denote an active rejection and replacement of medieval philosophy and science, but rather a glorification of the teachings from antiquity.
>Literally a return to 2000 year old science. How in the fuck is that not regression?
By this logic, using those teachings as a basis makes medieval scholars regressive too. Fucking stupid.
>Isn't it obvious that one of those eras had a climate far more conducive to scientific progress than the other?
Not necessarily when that progress was largely confined to a far greater extent than it was in the Renaissance. And nit being conducive to scientific progress denotes stagnation, and again, not regression.
>The Copernican Revolution doesn't. It's simply a cosmological model, it doesn't contain any physical explanation.
You are retarded, the Copernican Revolution entails far more than simply a cosmological model, jesus christ how uninformed are you.
>>597982
So again, the Medieval scholastic basis being primarily in classical works therefore means that Medieval period was one of scientific regression? Nice logic, retard.
>>597991
>and ended when early Enlightenment thinkers picked up again where late Gothic thinkers had left of.
Damn Pierre, might want to get off that Gothic dick and start realizing that the philosophers and scientists, not mutually exclusive roles, of the late Renaissance and early Enlightenment didn't base their entire works off of Gothic science, but you know, actually made their own developments too, although the science of the Middle Ages was a major contributor. What drives a person to be so biased that they have to denigrate not a people, or an ideology, but an entire ERA in history? Actually insane, and with your level of unawareness, insanely stupid.
>>598046
>and the spread of Renaissance humanism doesn't necessarily denote an active rejection and replacement of medieval philosophy and science
except that's actually what happened, dummy
>By this logic, using those teachings as a basis makes medieval scholars regressive too. Fucking stupid.
No, because medieval scholars actually advanced and rejected aspects of those "teachings", they didnt return to them because of "muh classics" like the Renaissance. What makes the Renaissance "regressive" is that it brushed off these developments
>You are retarded, the Copernican Revolution entails far more than simply a cosmological model
Of course not, that's the reason it was rejected by most scholars when it first appeared. It was just a cosmological model that wasnt as accurate
>So again, the Medieval scholastic basis being primarily in classical works therefore means that Medieval period was one of scientific regression? Nice logic, retard.
So if Medieval scholars advance and move beyond somethings Ancient texts and humanists dismiss the advancements of the Medievals and return to pure Ancient, it doesnt follow that the humanists regressed?
Nice one, dumbo
>>598096
When those advancements were largely confined to the elites of universities and the Renaissance ideology was a promotion of spreading knowledge and science, that's what is being rejected, not necessarily the singular teachings and developments made by medieval scholars. At the time of the Renaissance, those medieval developments hadn't even received enough exposure, unlike classical texts, to act as a basis from which to be developed on.
You're actually pretending that Renaissance humanists had access and awareness to all of the medieval texts that contained these advancements, ignored and rejected them because they were Gothic, and went on to circlejerk over classical teachings. That whole narrative didn't happen, but only partially in the glorification of classical teachings and the rejection of the manner of medieval teaching, not necessarily the developments it made.
>>598046
>We're not exclusively talking about the West
Yes we are. The Middle Ages and Renaissance are periods in Western history, they don't make sense in the Middle East.
>the spread of Renaissance humanism doesn't necessarily denote an active rejection and replacement of medieval philosophy and science
Yes it does. Medieval science was no longer taught, in many cases medieval manuscripts were literally burned and only survived because they had already been printed by then. The names of prominent medieval thinkers like Duns Scotus literally became an insult still used today. The Renaissance made the "Dark Ages" and "Gothic" such a powerful meme that it survives to this day.
Aristotle and the medieval advances (which could only be advances by contradicting Aristotle) are by definition not compatible.
>By this logic, using those teachings as a basis makes medieval scholars regressive too
No, since at the time there was nothing to regress from. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? Aristotle was the basis for science all the way until the 13th century. Then thinkers started to question Aristotle, and for about a century there was for the first time in centuries significant progress again, a scientific revolution. The Renaissance stopped that and regressed to Aristotle, and then stagnated there for another three centuries.
I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly. Maybe pic related will help. It's crude and not meant to be taken completely seriously, but maybe it will help you understand the basic concept of regression.
>that progress was largely confined to a far greater extent than it was in the Renaissance
It wasn't confined, and there was no significant progress in the Renaissance at all, we've been over this.
>You are retarded, the Copernican Revolution entails far more than simply a cosmological model, jesus christ how uninformed are you
No it doesn't. It's purely descriptive and absolutely not explained by any physical laws.
>>591219
And muskets
>>598056
There are simply no significant scientific advancements during the Renaissance other than the Copernican Revolution, and that story doesn't exactly shine a positive light on that era. Your feelings and emotional issues won't change realities.
>>598112
>You're actually pretending that Renaissance humanists had access and awareness to all of the medieval texts that contained these advancements, ignored and rejected them because they were Gothic, and went on to circlejerk over classical teachings.
They didnt ignore them and reject them because they were Gothic, they ignored and rejected them because they were Scholastic in their nature, and Renaissance ideology was a return to "what really matters" and rejecting Scholasticism because it was "dry and boring", it cared only for "useless trivialities" and it wasnt "for the common man". So they got rid of the Scholastic approach and all of the "dry and puerile trivialities" of the Scholastics, and returned to the "pureness of the Ancients".
Also, try to bring an argument other than "ugghh how uninformed!!!" and "read a book". You might as well use the [CURRENT YEAR] meme
>>597739
he might just be mad that Italy got to be more relevant than France again for a brief moment in history.
>>598121
Nice memechart, way to expose yourself as a retard.
>Yes we are. The Middle Ages and Renaissance are periods in Western history, they don't make sense in the Middle East.
I wasn't talking about the Middle East. The Crusades and Mongol Invasions also occurred in Eastern Europe, and the Reconquista in Western Europe.
> in many cases medieval manuscripts were literally burned and only survived because they had already been printed by then
[citation needed]
I cannot think of another example of this apart from Luther.
>The names of prominent medieval thinkers like Duns Scotus literally became an insult still used today.
Oh please, name me two more medieval thinkers that literally became insults.
>The Renaissance made the "Dark Ages" and "Gothic" such a powerful meme that it survives to this day.
And exists as an unhistorical meme in sensationalized 'history'. And again, was not based upon an active rejection of the advancements made by Medieval scholars, but the manner and confinement of their teachings.
>Aristotle and the medieval advances (which could only be advances by contradicting Aristotle) are by definition not compatible.
>(which could only be advances by contradicting Aristotle)
>are by definition not compatible.
But their incompatibility, according to you, is the source of advancement. Making Aristotle necessary to those Medieval advancements as a basis.
>It's crude and not meant to be taken completely seriously, but maybe it will help you understand the basic concept of regression.
>completely seriously
It's not able to be taken partially seriously, since it's such baseless garbage.
>It wasn't confined
But it quite literally was you historically illiterate retard.
>, and there was no significant progress in the Renaissance at all
Again, completely wrong, there was progress made in the Copernican Revolution and by Francis Bacon, significant progress in science. Your summation of the Copernican Revolution being uninformed bullshit too.
>>598112
>Renaissance humanists had access and awareness to all of the medieval texts that contained these advancements, ignored and rejected them because they were Gothic, and went on to circlejerk over classical teachings.
This is exactly what happened.
English humanists for instance were perfectly aware of medieval books when they burned a large section of the manuscripts at Oxford. They were perfectly aware of Duns Scotus' work when they turned his name into the insult "dunce".
Back in the 14th century the works of the natural philosophers were known at all the major universities. And printed copies of that work survived the Renaissance, lying ignored in dark corners. Modern historians believe it almost certain Galileo had access to a copy of Buridan's textbook. Galileo's book even contains an exact copy of Oresme's diagram for the proof of the law of space traversed in case of uniformly varied motion.
>>598144
>Your feelings and emotional issues won't change realities.
Thankfully it has nothing to do with my feelings, but your own emotional bias against the Renaissance, which as it stands, is so rejected by academia that your only solace is in shitposting about the ye old Gothic days, Pierre. Take the spire out of your ass.
>>598175
>Making Aristotle necessary to those Medieval advancements as a basis.
it isnt using Aristotle that makes someone regressive, it's RETURNING to Aristotle after we've moved beyond him what makes someone regressive.
>waaah waaah ur uninformed!!
Seriously, youre embarassing yourself
>>598197
>Seriously, youre embarassing yourself
Minimizing the advancements in the Renaissance because muh Gothic circlejerk is embarrassing, Pierre. Simplifying the Copernican Revolution because the Renaissance isn't allowed to have scientific advancement in your little world is embarrassing, and sad.
>>598175
>>598186
I'm going to assume that your obvious anger and irrationality are to blame for your inability to understand simple things that get explained to you repeatedly. Though I have no idea what it is about this subject that could put you in such emotional distress. Your earlier samefagging seems to indicate it has something to do with France? Whatever it is, this really isn't the right place for it.
>>598235
No, sorry, 'u mad' doesn't shift your personal bias anywhere. Your personal issue with the Renaissance is one you'll have to sort out yourself.
>>598235
You mentioned Buridan and Oresme who are both french. I guess he doesn't like France or so.
>>598253
>call everyone a retard in every single sentence
>arguments consist in calling everything "bullshit" and "garbage"
>call everyone "Pierre" for some reason
Yeah you're obviously not mad at all and not remotely emotionally invested in this subject.
>>598262
I love France and French history, but I know who the anti-Renaissance sentiment belongs to well enough.
>>598274
Yes, it's all a French conspiracy. The French probably also made all traces of Renaissance scientific progress disappear. RENAISSANCE WUZ SCIENCE N SHIET
>>598273
>call the renaissance regressive in every single sentence
>can't stand getting called out on making baseless claims that don't correspond with reality
>arguments consisting of reducing any advancements in science at the time as insignificant
Yeah you obviously have no strange, personal issue with the Renaissance that you need to resolve internally.
>>598121
>that graphic
why the downhill slope during the renaissance?
>>598287
it's a new meme called
>renaissance was the real dark ages
>>598273
dont forget
>calling everyone who disagrees with you "uninformed" on the Renaissance while providing no information supporting your point
>start acting as a psychologist because you cant support youre own point
>bring up Copernicus and no one else
what the fuck is going on in this thread
why the ignoring of advancing scientific method, birth of economics, and advancing of mechanical reproduction? since when did shit like this
>>598121
chart pop up?
the early modern period didn't have some gap between the renaisance and enlightenment, one fed into the other
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>>598319
>what the fuck is going on in this thread
one guy is saying the renaissance regressed in science while the other one goes full "NUH UH" for some reason
>>598286
Abandoning 14th century advancements in order to return to a state of scientific knowledge (or rather falsehood) that dates back to the 4th century BC is called regression. The sum total of Renaissance advancement that you've been able to come up with is the heliocentric model. This is a relatively minor step compared to the laws of motion, the concept of impetus, or the mathematical function and graph (which form the basis of modern physics and calculus and are all from the 14th century), and yet even that only gained acceptance through arduous conflict against massive opposition from Renaissance authorities, the sort that no scientist had to face in the 14th century.
There, everything is in this post. If you still can't understand it there is nothing more I can do for you, this retarded discussion has gone on long enough.
>>597779
>The Crusades were expeditions out of the West and conquest of foreign land. They didn't make Europe more violent at all.
yeah they just carved up the baltics, destroyed what was left of the byzantines letting the turks flood in and destroy the baltics again, and pose a threat to europe for several centuries, no harm done
>>598319
>scientific method
There are quite a few thinkers who contributed to it, almost all of them either in the 13th and 14th centuries, or starting in the 17th century. Only Francis Bacon can be considered to just barely belong to the Renaissance, although with his most important work published in the 1620s even that is rather shaky.
>birth of economics
Depending on your definition, that either happened in ancient times, during the Middle Ages, or in the 18th century.
>mechanical reproduction
No idea what you mean by that.
>>597540
>copy pastes some wikipedia shit without understanding the context
>tells me to do research
Bravo
>>598391
When he says economics he probably means banking, since Renaissance Italy is associated with that. But the Italian merchant bank system is also medieval.
>>598330
There's more than one guy shitting on the renaissance in this thread, which is why nobody knows who the fuck they're talking with and innocent people are being accused of being frog eaters.
>>598333
How about Cardano, Tycho, and Vesalius?
Also do inventions count towards improving scientific knowledge? If so then the renaissance adopted or resurrected numerous critical technologies and improved an untold number of existing ones.
>>598413
But he's right. And that's obviously not from Wikipedia. And even reading Wikipedia is still more research than you've obviously done on the subject.
>>597540
Interestingly the "three eras" model of history is even older than Petrarch. It was already popularised as early as the 12th century (I don't remember the author's name) as the Age of the Father (before Christ), the Age of the Son, and the Age of the Holy Ghost, which to him was a glorious time that mankind was entering into right then with the Crusades.
But yes Petrarch was the first to label the previous 1000 years as complete shit that should be forgotten.
>>598413
>wikipedia shit
Wikipedia seems to think Caesar Baronius invented the term. It's actually copy-pasted from my European History 1000-1453 lecture notes. Please feel free to explain the context I'm missing and how I'm wrong and you're right.
>>598437
>But he's right. And that's obviously not from Wikipedia. And even reading Wikipedia is still more research than you've obviously done on the subject.
Nope. For some time now, historians have only used the term 'dark ages' to describe a period that had a lack of surviving written sources
>>598452
In both the original meaning of the term "Dark Ages" and in the way it's understood by almost everyone, it does refer to a lack of civilisation. Since this view of the Middle Ages has been discredited, some historians have continued to use the term by redefining it, exactly as he explained. But that's obviously not the meaning anyone is using here.
>>598452
>for some time now
You claimed "The term 'dark ages' ...derives from a lack of surviving written records." The concept of the "dark age" and the term "Saeculum obscurum" itself were coined during the renaissance and neither had anything to do with a lack of surviving written records.
What modern historians have done with the term has little to do with what it was derived from.
Even the term "Middle Ages" is derogatory btw, it lumps several very different periods into one, and implies that all of that is just the "middle piece", a vacuum defined only by its position between classical Antiquity and the Renaissance.
Historiographical terms are so loaded it's comical. "Renaissance" is of course a great example.
>>598391
>Only Francis Bacon can be considered to just barely belong to the Renaissance, although with his most important work published in the 1620s even that is rather shaky.
considering the renaissance and especially the english renaissance went into the 17th century, what are you even talking about? that doesn't barely belong or shakily belong to the renaissance, it's in the renaissance. just in its final stages.
>Depending on your definition, that either happened in ancient times, during the Middle Ages, or in the 18th century.
it's actually commonly accepted to be around the development of mercantilism in the renaissance
>No idea what you mean by that.
print press and the technological developments in the production of art, including optical developments
>>591077
>people in the west were bathing in mud and eating their own shit, so the entire world was in a dark age
>>597126
no it was just boring muh art muh political intrigue shit
>>598364
>destroyed what was left of the byzantines
Byzantium was worthless by then. Hell, it was the crusaders who prolonged that failed piece of shit
>letting the turks flood in and destroy the baltics again
What?
>pose a threat to europe for several centuries
At best, a single century and even then it was mostly because France was being a prick
>>598496
Same with the Reformation. Protestant Revolution is really a much better phrase for it.
>>598547
where did he imply anything about the rest of the world?
I can't believe how much fucking butthurt the term "dark ages" caused in this thread. Nobody's bothered once to explain what's wrong with using the term to describe western Europe from the sack of Rome in 450 and the Carolingian Renaissance.
>>598726
There really isn't, but I still hate it.
Yes "dark" is proper in terms of lack of knowledge about the era. Other than that, it really isn't good. Nobody was "bathing in mud" or "eating their own shit." They were existing, art, culture, religion, all that continued. Urban depopulation is a shit reason to call an era "dark" because urban cities at the time had shit plumbing and were poorly planned.
>>590522
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly."
Progress and Violence often go hand in hand.
>>598807
>Urban depopulation is a shit reason to call an era "dark" because urban cities at the time had shit plumbing and were poorly planned.
Alright, but the collapse of these cities also led to (or happened concurrently with) precipitous declines in lay literacy, manufactured goods (notably roof tiles and pottery), and coinage (indicative of the decline/collapse of major trade networks)
>>598333
>Abandoning 14th century advancements in order to return to a state of scientific knowledge (or rather falsehood) that dates back to the 4th century BC is called regression.
But they didn't abandon 14th century advancements. Why do you think modern scholars attribute the 'findings' of Renaissance scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus to their own implementations of Medieval science into their work? Because they didn't abandon it. Humanists abandoned or rejected Medieval Scholasticism, but there were still excellent Italian, French, and German mathematicians of the era that would have had to have known about Medieval mathematics to have ever studied such fields. Your idea of a regression is nonsense.
>The sum total of Renaissance advancement that you've been able to come up with is the heliocentric model.
Well if all you have to argue against is what he's been posting, then that speaks pretty low of your own awareness of scientific achievements in the Renaissance.
>This is a relatively minor step compared to the laws of motion, the concept of impetus, or the mathematical function and graph (which form the basis of modern physics and calculus and are all from the 14th century),
Yes, thanks to the rise of Islam and all that brought, along with Medieval European mathematicians and physicists, the Renaissance was pretty well dwarfed by prior achievements.
>yet even that only gained acceptance through arduous conflict against massive opposition from Renaissance authorities
Yet the irony is your painting this as a purely intellectual attack, when the actions of Protestants throughout Europe was more of a political and theological attack on prior practices, while it was primarily the Italians that attacked prior culture and intellectualism.
The Renaissance wasn't nearly as significant an advancement as the Medieval period, but the greatest men of the era didn't dismiss or ignore Medieval teachings, but adopted them to great success.
>>598845
>thanks to the rise of Islam
what?
>>599581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
>>599635
Islam didn't invent Arabic numerals... Not even Arabs invented Arabic numerals. And they were introduced to the West in the 10th century, the period of Western scientific progress we're talking about here started in the 13th century.
>>590522
>The Renaissance
I think you mean the Modern Epoch, right?
The "Renaissance" is just an Artistic and Architectural tendency at the begin of the 15th century in Italy!
>>597126
>he didn't read The Prince at school
>Charlemagne's death leads to petty kingdoms fighting for shitty fiefdoms i.e. feudalism
>everyone in W. Europe fighting over borders
>heavy cavalry introduced, fucking up peasants armed with pitchforks in battle
>Vikings fucking up Britain, Ireland and the Frankish kingdoms
>Magyars fucking up Germany
>Saracens fucking up Italy
Why shouldn't we call them the Dark Ages? They seem pretty shit.
>>590522
[quote citation needed]
They were pretty fucking dark
-lot of urban societies decline into agriculture
-artisan skills in Europe becomes pretty much forgotten
-Europe is more or less isolated from the rest of the world until the crusades
-barely anyone was literate in W Europe until Charlemagne/Alfred
-most people that weren't Germanic warriors were turned into Serfs
It wasn't due to Christianity but yeah compared to the Roman period it was pretty shitty
and don't go throwing Islam or the Byzantines in here we all know what civilization we are talking about when we say "Dark ages"
>>603165
> Vikings fucking up Britain, Ireland and the Frankish kingdoms
That's a way to spell bloody civilized and brought into the modern world with the help of trading.
>>598422
still waiting on an answer for Cardano, Tycho, and Vesalius
>>591081
>just influenced it with all its anti intellectualism that is exceptional in christianity and its application in that era.
Give it a fucking rest, it had zero impact.
