I was referring to the more popular definition of dark ages. But my general definition of dark ages is about 500ad to the end of the crusades / renaissance.
The popular definition of the Dark Ages is more a hindrance to understanding the MA as anything. Your post displays as much.
There is also the greek dark ages.
What does that have to do with the MA? Besides which, if you are a proponent of Rohl and James' New Chronology as put forward in the books A Test of Time and Centuries of Darkness (respectively) completely redefines the chronology of the Ancient period, up to and before a solar eclipse viewed by the Assyrians in 753 (a most solid and confirmable date), and proposes the evidence that the 21st and 22nd Dynasties of Egypt ruled concurrently rather than consecutively. By their argument the Greek Dark ages simply did not exist...the Achaian period simply blends and evolves into the Archaic period of Greek history. I personally think the evidence is compelling (though I am not an expert in the period). But don't take my word for it--read the books. They should still be available from Amazon.uk.
Are you saying that there was no loss of technologies from about the time of Constantine to the renaissance? Are you saying their was no loss of mathematics? Are you saying their was no loss of religion? Sure there was some progress made during that time, but there was a lot was lost for a thousand years.
Fool, you should have re-read your own argument more closely for the answer. The Late Roman Empire was stagnating; economically, socially and technologically. While the east continued to provide a sound economic center (which ended up propping up the west artificially for hundreds of years), the Roman empire failed to innovate technologically. If anything was lost from the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, the fall was more like a stumble than a full-fledge step back. The fact that the "barbarians" of the Carolingian Empire were producing better steel than the Roman empire I think is telling. Or the fact that they were using iron shod ploughs allowing far more land to be brought under cultivation. Or that the 3 field system of crop rotation was a medieval development. Or that the horse collar was developed in Europe. Or that while the Chinese are credited with the invention of gunpowder, it was the Medieval Europeans who thought to use it to propel missiles. Or that it was a medieval German that invented the printing press.
See http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/Technology.html for a great overview on medieval technology.
Finally, you say "Are you saying their was no loss of religion?" For someone who professes to the Marxist belief that religion is delusional, what does this matter? Why is Christianity inferior to Mithraism, Zoroastrism, or Paganism? That's a pretty weak argument and one out of character for you.
Damon.
------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
