"What would you call c500AD to c1050AD in Europe?" Topic

or CE dates, of course …

(i)Post-Roman
(ii) Dark Age
(iii) Pre-Feudal
(iv) Early Medieval
(v) Anything: it can't answer back
(vi) Err … I'm out of my comfort zone already
(vii) Other: lets hear it then …

Inspired by this TMP link chatter. I say Dark Ages, but I know the revisionists have been around, cleaning the carpets and finding nothing 'dark' about the age of the Saxons and Vikings!

Phil

I would also call it the Dark Ages.

Dark Ages. It ain't broke.

I'd call it two things.

Dark age and then (after around 750 / 800 AD) feudal

But you knew that already, just like I already know I'm outnumbered

Western European Dark Ages – to make it clear that it refers to a particular part of the world that we were taught that the Dark Ages applied to.

I accept that there were earlier "Dark Ages" that have common factors to what we were taught were the dark ages at school, but commenting that we are old enough to remember them is going a bit far…

We had dark ages in the UK in the early seventies when the miners were on strike, no power so it was a dark age!

I accept that other parts of the world have different dark ages, and the Greek Dark Age is called that because historians like to suggest that collapses of civilisation bring about dark ages, when in fact it probably mattered not a jot to the average man in the street (or dirt track) who was fleecing him for taxes, ransom money, or protection money this week. In fact from a view of some villages in England that I have visited these last few days, they are still probably waiting for the dark age to end.

Dark Ages. Or The Good Old Days When My Great-very-great Grandparents Were Really Hairy & Had Big Axes

Early Middle Ages or Early Medieval.

Pre-Feudal is wrong as parts of Eastern Europe didn't become feudal until much later so, for there, it could stretch the period to about 1400.

Post-Roman is not a term I would use much beyond 100 years after they left an area.

Dark Ages is traditional enough to be acceptable though.

Early Medieval, leastways that was what this period was called when I was at University.

(vii) Ideally, my choice would be to call it "circa 500-1050 AD in Europe". That is very clear and descriptive.

In cases where that might be considered a bit on the long side, I could also use the (iv).

The whole "all-europe-half-millenia-age-naming-thing" just does not work for me. There were too many different threads going on in too many different places.

Still, when someone says Dark Ages I have a rough idea what they probably intend.

But you knew that already, just like I already know I'm outnumbered

Like that scene in Band of Brothers when it's explained to Winters what'll happen when Easy Company goes up the road to Bastogne!

Actually, Keraunos, having had the side debate on the other topic, I am genuinely interested in how many would hold to the traditional designation and how many would revise it. But that's only answered months later when everyone's fogotten and if it becomes a real poll!

Phil

The Arthurian Age

But really the Dark Ages.

Either ii or iv interchangeably. But definitely CE dates.

i or iii only in very specific limited geography/timeframe windows.

A bad time to be alive…..

The nice thing about a discussion nd Poll like this is that once everybody agrees and votes, everybody will still call it the Dark Ages anyway.

And, they will use AD instead of CE.

iv) Early Medieval.

I'd call AD 500 to AD 800ish the Dark Ages. AD 1050 is way too late IMO to be lumped in with the term Dark Ages.

I'd also think of "the Dark Ages" as a colloquialism rather than a precise/academic term which, also IMO, is what should take precedence on the naming of boards on TMP!

And, they will use AD instead of CE.

And so they darn well should.

ii dark ages

How about a compromise? "The Murky Ages."

iv) Early Medieval

Dark ages, AD.

How about the "Hey the Romans are gone let's rumble" ages?

Dark Ages

Doug

I'd go with the traditional Dark Ages. Though, like may of the other folks I'd end that about 800 and transition into Early Middle Ages.

Of course we could alwyas go with "Europe during the Sui, Tang and Song Dynasties."

Dark Ages.

How about the Islamic Age.

Dark Ages, A.D.

Everybody knows what I'm referring to. If I say "Early Medieval," more than half of those around will wonder exactly what I mean (they may actually think of the Crusader era or even later). And if I say "CE," they'll either wonder what the heck that means or if I have some kind of absurd anti-religious PC agenda, or both. As I wouldn't be speaking or writing for an audience of academics, why confuse the issue?

Of course, Dark Ages clearly only applies to Western Europe. If I was referring to another portion of the world, a different term would be used.

When speaking casually, it's the Dark Ages. When speaking pedantically, it's the Early Medieval Period.

- Jack

A millenium. A thousand years of European history casually lumped into one "time period."

How about the Islamic Age.

Most of Europe was not particularly touched by Islam or the Arab conquests – Spain and Sicily were the main affected parts.

And in any case, it cannot really be used to describe the years 500-600 AD, when Islam as a religion did not yet even exist.

A millenium. A thousand years of European history casually lumped into one "time period."

As far as I can count, it is only 550 years.

(ii + iv) Early Dark Ages

Dark Ages- no doubt at all.

From an academic point of view it is definitely early medieval. Feudalism is a modern historical construct and needs to be handled very carefully as a concept. 'The Dark Ages' is a pejorative misnomer that should be expunged along with all of the other foul calumnies of the Victorian writing of history!

Alternatively, call it what you like!

Some of Late Antiquity and some of the Middle Ages. (See Peter Brown's The World of Late Antiquity for rationale.)

I call it "Early Medieval." You may call it whatever you like.

Suum cuique.

Dark Age is a quite spezific British periodization because of the small amount of written words during this time but in Continental Europe this time only exists until Carolus Magnus therefore most of this Period must be referred to as Early Middle Age and a period of about 200 years does not make that much sense… so there is no Dark Age in continental scholarship but in Britain…

I tend to use 'Dark Ages'. I know it's not strictly right but like 'pre-order' everyone knows what it means.

Dark Ages

The Dark Ages, of course.

Dark Ages

Pretty much describes a lot of what went on

The Eastern Roman Age. Just to be different…

What Wardlaw and WCTFreak say.

Sorry if it bugs some of you but language and definitions do change. Calling Pluto a plutoid still bugs me though! And don't get me started about the language and definitions that change all the time because of liberal media and academia.

There were no Dark Ages, we do have a period after the collapse of the Roman Empire to be sure.

I know there is a thread on here about all of the things invented in the so-called 'Dark Ages' and the list is quite extensive. As far as writing, are you serious? Plenty of it going on but we didn't get the printing press until Gutenburg, education hadn't reached the point where those other than the clergy or nobility even knew how to write. The same illiteracy was going on post 1066 too by the way.

The period mentioned in the original question overlaps Charlemagne. Mentioning Charlemagne forgets Charles Martel too and so on. For that matter, as mentioned by another poster, feudalism wasn't univeral either. Certainly in Italy, we have the city states and communes.

And have we forgotten Byzantium?

Do I think of it as the Dark Ages? Probably so but this is out of convenience and out of the fact that most others were taught this term as well. If you were a former Roman citizen, I should imagine that the period was rather dark and bleak for quite some time. The whole Dark Age term ignores that learning did advance, new inventions and yes, progress.

If you say Dark Ages we know you really mean Late Antiquity shading into Early Medieval. I think the cut off is circa 800. Then again for some here Dark Ages means a much longer period so it is an imprecise term at best.

The era of Byzantium

Dark Age is a quite spezific British periodization because of the small amount of written words during this time but in Continental Europe this time only exists until Carolus Magnus therefore most of this Period must be referred to as Early Middle Age and a period of about 200 years does not make that much sense… so there is no Dark Age in continental scholarship but in Britain…

Sorry but this is historically inaccurate, WTCFreak …

Charlemagne was illiterate and recruited the English scholar, Alcuin of York as his personal tutor and advisor.

The 'Carolingian renaissance' was a cultural import from the literate and sophisticated English.

The Age of Despair (?).

Dark Ages works for me.

The Period Formerly Known as the Dark Ages.

Viking Enlightment

AD 1050 is way too late IMO to be lumped in with the term Dark Ages.

I picked that particular cut (of those suggested) so as to not be Anglo-centric (1066) but to include Normans, Danes and Anglo-saxons in the period.

There is no question in my mind that e.g. 1066 where Danes arrive in Longships, the Anglo-Saxons fight in Shieldwall and (Bayeux Tapestry e.g.) the Norman cavalry use their light lances over-arm has more to do with earlier practice than with the warfare of the next generation around 1100.

I call that later warfare 'medieval' – but others clearly want to call it 'high medieval' as they want the medieval blanket spread over earlier warriors whose culture and warfare is entirely different.

We have plenty of evidence that that the Normans fought the same way in Spain, Sicily and Italy but within the generation that follows they become established and more settled. They organise the land in benefices, their armour becomes heavier, and the couched lance becomes dominant (and of course they already speak French). Around the time of the first Crusade they adopt a more codified rationalisation of their traditional symbolism (a system we now call heraldry) …

Before 1050 the Normans are still winning kingdoms out of their longships. By 1100 they are the nobility of recognisable pre-modern European states.

Dyrrhachium and Manzikert reinforce this trend of the political and cultural geography of the world completely changing between 1050 and 1100.

1077 is, of course, Canossa … 1088 the election of Urban II who preaches the Crusade in 1095. Again, the 11th century is pivotal in the emergence of a new world order.

Hope that gives a little background to why I think 1050 is a middlish date for period transition and why I'm suggesting it isn't just an English date (which would obviously be 1066)

Phil

Early medieval

6th to 11th Century