"DA? when? where?" Topic

I've always learned the Dark Ages ended circa 800 AD when Charlemagne is crowned HRE. And so presumably it was confined to what had been the wester Roman Empire and its neighboring barbarians.

No Dark Ages in the Greek east, right?

So we are talking where to where, as well as when to when? Dark Ages is a CONDITION as well as a time, and hence a place.

The talk has been from the fall of the Roman Empire to either 1066 or The First Crusade, and including the rise of Islam. I had proposed, on another thread, following Ian Heath's book Armies of the Dark Ages, 600-1066 A.D. as a rough guide. For me, any army that existed in this time frame is game though I think Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman postings may predominate.

It is when you say it is, when you start a topic.

The traditional British perspective was that the Dark Ages lasted from the withdrawal of Roman troops from Britain in 410, to the Norman conquest in 1066.

This is seen as a very outmoded and Anglocentric idea these days.

From a Wargaming perspective, however, this sort of time period is more useful. If we loosen the definition to "fall of Rome" to "rise of the feudal knight" we have a period of warfare that is not really classical and not really medieval.

Or maybe it can be made even simpler. If your blokes are in mail tunics and have round shields, it is Dark Ages. If your blokes have more fancy armour and have triangular shields it is medieval!

No no no. It's early medieval for most of that period…

Of course there are other dark ages.. such as the four centuries (at least ) in Greece from about 1200 bc to 750 bc

So no, I'm not really happy with a dark ages board … it's wrong. It's annoying, and it has been unleashed so that people like me can vent.. (I would be happier if there was an intended date range … on lots of periods, so that we could have
Ancients.

Biblical from 4000 bc to 500 bc
Classical 500 to 50 bc
Rome and empire 50 to 500
Invasions and migrations 500 to 1000

Medieval..

But these would be qualifying tags, not separate boards..

Of course there are other dark ages.. such as the four centuries (at least ) in Greece from about 1200 bc to 750 bc

The key difference, of course, is that this is the "Dark Ages" board, not a "dark ages" board. The title implies that the board is for a specific period of Western European history.

Like most of these things it rather depends on the perspective of the viewer. For those in the UK, I would suggest 500 – 1066.

In Frankish lands however, it might start earlier (with the invading Vandals) and end earlier (with Charlegmagne).

YMWV

1066 may make sense from the Viking and Saxon standpoint, but Charlemagne's heavy cavalry were surely the start of the medieval military system. Particularly so after his empire broke apart.

My mileposts for Western Europe are from the noted Fall of the Roman Empire til the rise of Feudalism. Roughly bracketed as 400–1070 CE.

1937 – 1945 CE.

Contra Maddaz111 1066 changes the nature of land tenure in England, and the nature of kingship. It also changes military and Church architecture. It pretty much ends a period of Nordic influence. And it gives a foothold (often a whole bearhug) on the mainland of Europe and a cause of ongoing dispute with France.

That which went before 1066 is not remotely medieval (unless you water down medieval so it becomes almost meaningless) …

On the other side of the (European) world, in 1054, the Battle of Manzikert prompts a big shift in the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire (dreaming of some sort of resurgence since 636 … 1054: dream over) …

You might look at 987 in France for the medieval Capetians … then again, a defining moment is when a Norse fiefdom, Normandy, becomes part of a rival kingdom in 1066 (that's when a succession of wars begin which defines the story of Medieval France) …

Gregory VII (Hildebrand) became Pope in 1073 … This is really the start of the Investitures Conflict which dogged the Medieval Papacy and is another paradigm shift

So I think there's no serious question that that which is Medieval begins in the window 1054 to 1073 and that which goes before is utterly different …

OK … call it Pre Medieval if you like … But as (before the revision and correctionists pounced) we had a perfectly good term Dark Age which everyone understood (and still understands) I think we have no need of the new age drivel …

I offer a heartfelt warm welcome to the aptly titled Dark Age board ! …

Phil

It means what it has always meant until the pedants tried to reclassify everything.

OK … call it Pre Medieval if you like

No, it's early medieval, not pre-medieval. 'Dark Ages' is so 19th century. The stick-in-the-muds really need to join the rest of us in the 21st century, instead of objecting to every revision and correction that is made as we learn more about the period through further study. If our forefathers had thought like them we would still be in the oceans swimming around. :)

That said, I'm happy to see a Dark Ages board because I understand it in the non-pejorative, Anglo- and Eurocentric manner in which it is intended. Now I only need to subscribe to one board on here to get all my Viking fix.

Except, of course it isn't medieval – that's the point today's introverts don't get … and FWIW it's 20th Century not 19th (back when historians were trained to see the big picture … )

But I've read all the arguments against Dark Age (lol: it doesn't take long) and am pleased that you'll pander to us retards …

As long as no-one insults my intelligence that's fine (and I'm sure that didn't just happen did it?)

Phil

I was not intending to insult your intelligence, Phil. I know you to be intelligent. I guess the tongue-in-cheekness of my comments (after the first sentence) did not travel well.

The point though is that the Dark Ages in England are early medieval. That is the standard historical and archaeological usage and frame of reference. You may not like this usage, but that does not change the facts. The term 'Dark Ages' was first coined in the high medieval period, was used in the 19th century and fell out of favour from the mid-20th century. It was not a concept invented in the 20th-century at all, but I am sure you know that really. Moreover, the period covered by this board was certainly referred to exclusively as 'the early medieval period' in the eighties when I first went to university, so the usage has been around for some 30 years plus. To imply that it is another new example of revisionism gone mad and to call this usage 'new age drivel' seems somewhat invidious, and flies in the face of standard academic practice.

Periodisation is a whole different beast, given that, as you noted above, the start and end dates of the early medieval period (and most other periods) are quite fuzzy and depend very much upon where you are as well as which events you consider to be significant. If I really wanted to be persnickety about it, then I would have to demand that Bill include this board in the Prehistoric section of the site so that I could discuss Vikings here. The Viking Age in Scandinavia is Late Iron Age and not medieval at all.

The really revisionist and newfangled thing to do would be to refer to the period in dispute as "Late Late Roman".

Otherwise I'll content myself with bemoaning the obnoxious proliferation of new subboards.

Well, Dr Berserker, I was at university at the same time and can tell you my experience of nomenclature is different from yours (you may have been at a more new agey university … I was at a crusty old one ) … it may be you studied amongst Dark Agey ('Early Medieval' lol) types with a chip on their shoulders rather than amongst generalist/medievalists …

But lets summarise … I say it isn't a period that is medieval in its characteristics and give a series of broad examples why I say that (ranging from the Anglo-centric to the European, the Universal Church and the Byzantine/Arab wars) … you say it Medieval because … err … you say it is, cite standard practice (that'll be you and your colleagues, then) … and then go on to contribute the observation that the Viking Age in Scandinavia is not medieval at all …

Well I agree … the Viking Age is not Medieval at all because none of this period (of which the Viking Age is one a several defining features) is Medieval.

My beef is not that this period is 'Dark' (I think it is childish and certainly 19th Century to think that is what Dark Age means) but that it is not Medieval. Call it anything you like, honestly, but pleeease, not Early Medieval.

I rather like 'Viking Age and the Rise of Islam' but I know most wargamers and users of forums like this will call it Dark Age

Phil

You miss the point of my comment. I am referring to period labels as used by the academic community. Medieval references a time period by its etymology and meaning. You appear to be referring to a concept of 'medievalness' that you maintain is not present before c.1066.

As far as the academic community is concerned, this period is called early medieval, hence my recourse to authority. You don't like that, but that does not change the reality. Feel free to publish academic papers in a bid to change the consensus if you wish. My comment about Viking Age Scandinavia merely makes the point that periodisation is not geographically or temporally uniform. Despite the Viking Age being part of Scandinavian prehistory, there is much in that society that mirrors medieval society in western Europe, and the origins of high medieval society in Scandinavia are clearly evident in the developments of the period after the fall of Rome through to the end of the Viking Age.

If you wish to dispute the 'medievalness' of the period then you need to define what you mean by 'medieval'. Without a defined concept of what is medieval, the debate can go no further, because we might as well be arguing apples versus oranges. Your initial post suggests that you have such a concept in mind when you write:

So I think there's no serious question that that which is Medieval begins in the window 1054 to 1073 and that which goes before is utterly different

So, what do you mean by 'medieval'?

I think the I know better than you horse is already beaten to death. The arguments have been made above. I suggest we move on *thumbs up!*

Phil

Guys, guys…calm down!

You are both wrong, anyway. As I said above, it is all about the shape of the shields…..

I went to school a long time ago and being British the Dark Ages for me is 410-1066, a neat little package which suits me fine.

I for one am glad to see this section and I hope it is a success.

another vote for 400 ish to 1066 ish.
but really i think there are 3 major genres to dark ages;

Authurian or the Saxon migration/conquest of England
Vikings rainding and battling almost everywhere
Norman conquest and immediate aftermath.

What no, "Late Northern Dark Age Pre-Medieval" or " Southern Late, Late, Late Roman Pre-Medieval" sub forums?

Can the appropriate pedants please correct this, and immediately inform Bill please. Let's not stop until every one of our armies have their own sub forum.