Can I assume new game will be about early "Dark Ages"

[loup99]

If you thought I meant public opinioin, I didn't. What great works do we have from the dark ages that are comparable to what we see in the Hellenic World?

First of all you have to define the period of the "Dark Ages". Usually the terms Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages are rather used since "Dark Ages" has particular historiographic (and negative) connotations. That being said, depending on what years you give me, I could cite several great works, ranging from the Hagia Sophia to the Great Mosque of Damascus or the Palace of Aachen, and more.

 

[Tapio]

First of all you have to define the period of the "Dark Ages". Usually the terms Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages are rather used since "Dark Ages" has particular historiographic (and negative) connotations. That being said, depending on what years you give me, I could cite several great works, ranging from the Hagia Sophia to the Great Mosque of Damascus or the Palace of Aachen, and more.

From around the fall of WRE to Charlemagne (which is CK2 timeframe). Let's say 400-793

 

[Hawkslime]

First of all you have to define the period of the "Dark Ages". Usually the terms Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages are rather used since "Dark Ages" has particular historiographic (and negative) connotations. That being said, depending on what years you give me, I could cite several great works, ranging from the Hagia Sophia to the Great Mosque of Damascus or the Palace of Aachen, and more.

Well Dark Ages were the golden ages for ERE and Muslims, which explains the first two.

 

[treb]

For your country, I'll see your Sutton hoo burials and raise Hadrian's wall and the old Roman fort in Northumberland.

Your list is wonderful indeed, but nothing compared to the classics or what you will find of the remains of the Roman empire. The comparison is just not there.

The Merovingians had a small reneissance, then the Carolingians after which we start to see things slowly recover, but still no one could even make Roman roads.

Apples and Oranges the defensive buildings and infrastructure of a Empire are not comparable to the craftsmanship of an ornate burial of a king... Its like me comparing the tomb of Tutankhamen and comparing it to the lighthouse of Alexandra. then commending the Greeks on building the bigger thing. They are two entirely different things made for entirely different purposes.

 

[treb]

From around the fall of WRE to Charlemagne (which is CK2 timeframe). Let's say 400-793

Well Dark Ages were the golden ages for ERE and Muslims, which explains the first two.

The point is it wasn't a dark age at all and the whole dark age as a concept is a myopic take on a period where

1.We actually know to a quite a bit of detail what happened for most of Europe.
(Britain is somewhat more murky do to the fact it was hit terribly hard by the plague of Justinian which killed off the last of its urbanized populations and possibly the only place where the period of 450 to 600 could technically be called a dark age in the sense we know little of what happened outside of Saxons gradually conquered England)

2. The lack of civil engineering does not mean culture was less advanced, the jewelry and christian ornaments we have from that time is just as impressive and ornate as the earlier roman finds and lastly your view that the wast was somehow cut off from civilization at this time.

You need to stop viewing the west as some form of degenerate entity cut off from the rest of the civilized world at the time. The Byzantines had trade links with the romanized people of Cornwall where the local population traded tin for Mediterranean produced glass and ceramics. Most of the Germanic successor states used latin as a administrative language and most often actually usurped the top spot of the old roman administration and left it mostly intact. This is the prevailing reason why Spain France and Italy still speak languages derived from Latin as opposed to Britain which speaks Germanic, because the Saxons chose to fight against the romanized populace, not rule them for whatever reason. this idea that the west was not connected and in a state of depression is just a laughable concept as is judging them on the fact they didnt build great structures, a single facet of culture.

 

[loup99]

Well Dark Ages were the golden ages for ERE and Muslims, which explains the first two.

What do you disagree with then? You claim to disagree but then you confirm my statement about regional differences?

From around the fall of WRE to Charlemagne (which is CK2 timeframe). Let's say 400-793

• Hagia Sophia
• Great Mosque of Damascus
• Al-Masjid an-Nabawi
• Al-Aqsa Mosque
• San Silvestro in Capite
• Santi Nereo e Achilleo
• Santi Cosma e Damiano
• Merovingian Palace of Malay
• Palace of Aachen
• Palace of Ingelheim

In Britain you have Ad Gefrin (Yeavering), but do I need to go on in the long list of buildings? Buildings were very important in this period, Popes had a long tradition of building and there was continuous Merovingian, Carolingian and later Ottonian palaces.

 

[Tapio]

What do you disagree with then? You claim to disagree but then you confirm my statement about regional differences?

• Hagia Sophia
• Great Mosque of Damascus
• Al-Masjid an-Nabawi
• Al-Aqsa Mosque
• San Silvestro in Capite
• Santi Nereo e Achilleo
• Santi Cosma e Damiano
• Merovingian Palace of Malay
• Palace of Aachen
• Palace of Ingelheim

In Britain you have Ad Gefrin (Yeavering), but do I need to go on in the long list of buildings? Buildings were very important in this period, Popes had a long tradition of building and there was continuous Merovingian, Carolingian and later Ottonian palaces.

Some of those are actually outside of the date and as I said ERE kept some of that going along with the Arabs.

 

[loup99]

Some of those are actually outside of the date

Which are outside the date? All should have started being built or having been built by 793. But you have to understand that since building was continuous you can't have a precise cut-off date.

I said ERE kept some of that going along with the Arabs.

That is what I said, but sure.

 

[Tapio]

Which are outside the date? All should have started being built or having been built by 793. But you have to understand that since building was continuous you can't have a precise cut-off date.

That is what I said, but sure.

• Santi Nereo e Achilleo
• Santi Cosma e Damiano

Both built before the fall of the WRE.

 

[Tapio]

1.We actually know to a quite a bit of detail what happened for most of Europe.
(Britain is somewhat more murky do to the fact it was hit terribly hard by the plague of Justinian which killed off the last of its urbanized populations and possibly the only place where the period of 450 to 600 could technically be called a dark age in the sense we know little of what happened outside of Saxons gradually conquered England)

Agreed.

2. The lack of civil engineering does not mean culture was less advanced, the jewelry and christian ornaments we have from that time is just as impressive and ornate as the earlier roman finds and lastly your view that the wast was somehow cut off from civilization at this time.

For me the lack of civil engineering is the most important sign of decline along with lack of books like the classics.

You need to stop viewing the west as some form of degenerate entity cut off from the rest of the civilized world at the time.

I never said it was cut off from the rest of the world. To me it was just a shadow of what had been.

 

[loup99]

Both built before the fall of the WRE.

You yourself gave the date of 400, first of all. Secondly, buildings are rebuilt:

This same building is recorded as titulus Sanctorum Nerei et Achillei in 595; therefore the dedications to Saints Nereus and Achilleus, two soldiers and martyrs of the 4th century, must date to the sixth century.

The temple was Christianized and dedicated to Sancti Cosma et Damianus in 527, when Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths, and his daughter Amalasuntha donated the library of the Forum of Peace (Bibliotheca Pacis) and a portion of the Temple of Romulus to Pope Felix IV.

Both of them are symbolic buildings of the period, therefore entirely relevant.

 

[Tapio]

I don't think we'll agree on this topic as I don't hold the products mentioned of this time (aside from those in the ERE and Arab World) in as high regard and I remain unconvinced that an area lacking the civil engineering of the past, a decline in population and urban areas is a step forward even if it continues some traditions of the past.

Sure what you have mentioned are impressive feats taken on their own and I understand your love for the period and the defense of it.

 

[loup99]

I don't think we'll agree on this topic as I don't hold the products mentioned of this time (aside from those in the ERE and Arab World) in as high regard and I remain unconvinced that an area lacking the civil engineering of the past, a decline in population and urban areas is a step forward even if it continues some traditions of the past.

Sure what you have mentioned are impressive feats taken on their own and I understand your love for the period and the defense of it.

You are naturally free to not hold this period or what was produced at the time high in regard, but then do not pretend that to be facts about the period itself, since it is solely your subjective view on artistic works that objectively do have a value as they tell us a lot about the period. As I explained to you the declines in population and the desurbanisation intervened at different points of time in different regions, there is no real uniform picture here. But we can agree to disagree here to not derail this thread.

 

[Hawkslime]

What do you disagree with then? You claim to disagree but then you confirm my statement about regional differences?

The post I disagree with was this one

That is completely wrong, while there was some desurbanisation and involution everything did not collapse at all, there was significant continuity, and other regions did see significant cultural progress. It depends a bit on the regions and the populations.

For the ERE, this wasn´t the Dark age at all, so I agree it depends on the region. But I feel like the ERE is a very specific case. I mean we are talking age after
the Fall of Rome, but the ERE was literally the Rome that didn´t fall, so it makes sense that they would be doing fine.

But for the rest of Europe, this was quite a collapse, which is why I disagreed. Though saying it was like a Postapo is way too harsh

1) The desurbanisation you mentioned was quite a big deal on its own.
2) The loss of knowledge on concrete
3) Europe outside of ERE didn´t see a standing army again untill the Charles Martel
4) The sizes of battles shrank dramatically. The biggest battle in Roman history had over 100k soldiers. Any European army that would attempt that in the next 500 years (and beyond) would starve to death
5) The Irrigation systems were gone
6) The mass loss of population
7) The brutal cultural damage. Don´t get me wrong, the buildings and art done in this time age is nice, but can´t be compared in scale to the Roman Era.

I think the pit between the ERE and the Western Europe in this period shows just how much of a collapse it was for the non-ERE Europe.

 

[Tapio]

You are naturally free to not hold this period or what was produced at the time high in regard, but then do not pretend that to be facts about the period itself, since it is solely your subjective view on artistic works that objectively do have a value as they tell us a lot about the period. As I explained to you the declines in population and the desurbanisation intervened at different points of time in different regions, there is no real uniform picture here. But we can agree to disagree here to not derail this thread.

You misrepresent what I said so whatever.

 

[elvain]

There are no(?) games that cover this period and for a reason: documentation is extremely shaky, anything and anyone before Charlemagne is basically unknown to the public and the period saw barely any interesting develpments or transformations outside of theological disputes and the rise of Islam. The next game will be CK III, mark my words.

This is true only in part.

The sources are scarce about personal histories, hence why CK2 doesn't really fit to this period.

OTOH the proceses of this time period could really be understood as decline of civilization, but that's just our point of view. For the people living in that period it was not. There were new qualities, technologies, approaches. Those who are able to step outside their own mindset can see that this period was actualy shift of gravity of power.

The desurbanization dicsussed above simply meant that new technologies of power and administration had to be invended and developed, something different than those based on urbanization.
This era requires its own social and cultural technologies, which don't really correspond to those of the Antiquity or Medieval periods.
The Germanic kingdoms were developping their own system of laws which was a mixture of Roman and traditional Germanic laws

Also this is all very Eurocentric. In the Sahel, especially in West Africa, the whole period of 400-800/900 saw constant rise of this region's civilization which led to rising urbanization and when this process met with the arrival of Islam and inclusion of the Sahel into the Mediterrean trade system, it resulted in the peak of power of Ghana/Wagadu kingdom in the 9th-11th century. I know that barely anybody knows about this, but those things happened.

A Dark age game could not work neither like I:R or CK2, but it could be centered around building up a tribal state, reforming the Eastern Roman Empire, building up the caliphate etc. We only need to step outside the box

 

[elvain]

The post I disagree with was this one


For the ERE, this wasn´t the Dark age at all, so I agree it depends on the region. But I feel like the ERE is a very specific case. I mean we are talking age after
the Fall of Rome, but the ERE was literally the Rome that didn´t fall, so it makes sense that they would be doing fine.

But for the rest of Europe, this was quite a collapse, which is why I disagreed. Though saying it was like a Postapo is way too harsh

1) The desurbanisation you mentioned was quite a big deal on its own.
2) The loss of knowledge on concrete
3) Europe outside of ERE didn´t see a standing army again untill the Charles Martel
4) The sizes of battles shrank dramatically. The biggest battle in Roman history had over 100k soldiers. Any European army that would attempt that in the next 500 years (and beyond) would starve to death
5) The Irrigation systems were gone
6) The mass loss of population
7) The brutal cultural damage. Don´t get me wrong, the buildings and art done in this time age is nice, but can´t be compared in scale to the Roman Era.

I think the pit between the ERE and the Western Europe in this period shows just how much of a collapse it was for the non-ERE Europe.

This all is purely (western) European perspective.

In the meantime, the regions like Central Asia, or West African Sahel witnessed exactly the oposite - gradual and steady rise of population and urbanism etc.
Also, as said above, the things you mentioned are only one angle.
This era also meant qualitative shift of military tactic in which heavy infantry armies, like the one used by Rome, were repeatedly being defeated by much more primitive tribes, which were much more mobile. Those empires had to adapt to this and from this perspective their military had to be and were improved. They only had to adapt to totally different world. They were no longer facing big sedentary empires whose capitals could be taken by a siege and whose territory could be conquered. Instead there were numerous tribes wandering around, settling here and there for a period of time, effectively plundering their territory before moving elswhere when the heavy imperial standing army could do anything.

This era simply requires different mindset and tech-tree which allows the desurbanisation to be seen as development towards some new quality (which it was), rather than decivilization as we tend to see it.

 

[Hawkslime]

This all is purely (western) European perspective.

In the meantime, the regions like Central Asia, or West African Sahel witnessed exactly the oposite - gradual and steady rise of population and urbanism etc.
Also, as said above, the things you mentioned are only one angle.

Yeah, I am taking the European perspective. I don´t think anyone here is trying to say that other parts of the world haven't seen a lot of development.

This all is purely (western) European perspective.

This era simply requires different mindset and tech-tree which allows the desurbanisation to be seen as development towards some new quality (which it was), rather than decivilization as we tend to see it.

What major technological progress there was in Western Europe between 400-800? There are some inovations, but in contrast, I can make quite a few examples of technology that was forgotten/fell out of use in W. Europe.

EDIT: Changed did see a lot of develolment to haven't seen a lot of development. My bad, I miswrote that. Sounded like the opposite of what I wanted to say.

 

[elvain]

Whatmajor technological progress there was in Western Europe between 400-800? There are some inovations, but in contrast, I can make quite a few examples of technology that was forgotten/fell out of use in W. Europe.

I'm sorry I probably failed to explain the point to you.
It makes no sense to have a CK2 or EU4 or Imperator set in this time period. Game set in the Dark Ages should be different. And to have different game you need to leave your mindset of history as a line of growing/declining civilization levels. In a Dark Agest game you don't play as somebody who knows the history of Ancient Greeks and Romans and even less so you know the paths of medieval and post-medieval world. You start in 5th, 6th or 7th century with the tools and perspectives of people of that time and you are up to the challenge.

The devs may face ignorance of people who aren't able to leave their personal mindset, so all they need is to promote their game as something challenging and interesting. For some this may seem impossible, but I think this era can offer very interesting and challenging gameplay.

In a Dark Ages game you start as...
- Roman empire/Justinian - massive empire with large depopulated regions and tribes willing and asking for land. You have great cultural, social, economic and military technologies, but for some reason you lack resources to support them to be effective egainst your foes and if you want to be able to protect your own people/resources, you need to change something. How will you reform the empire and restore its old greatness? Will you give some land to the Barbarians and make them allies, or will you try to defend undefendable?
- Romano-Gaelic aristoctracy in France/Hispania or elswhere in the Empire, which is occupied by Germanic tribes. You have the resources, technologies and knowledge of the old times, but not the military and political power... and the world around you is no longer stable enough to give you the luxuries of distant lands to support the lifestyle of your grandfathers. So you need to trade what you have for... security, military and other powers. You need to be a true diplomat in negotiating with those primitive Barbarians living around you and make them accept the civilized manners of Romans.
- or you lead a Germanic tribe. You and your people are in a country, which was wealthy and prosperous. You hold a military and political powers which were given to you by your tribe - your ancestors and your people who you rely on. But you lack the prestige, knowledge and technologies of very wealthy (post-Roman) landlords living in between you and other chiefs, desperately seeking your protection and offering you the riches of a world that was lost. Will you prefer to get their prestige and technologies by accepting their titles, ways of One God and Roman laws, or will you rather stick to the old traditions of your own people, risking the losss of those great technologies... and risking that those landlords will offer them to your neighbour? Will you try to restore the civilization of the Empire your father invaded, or will you create your own?

That's the basic setup you should be able to understand even if your knowledge is limited to your own perspectives only. But then there is also the world outside Europe:
The Sassanid Persia heading to a new civilization peak in the 5th-7th centuries, building new civilization based on Mazdai religion and Persian culture, facing the Romans in the West and Turkic people in the East, creating a completely new concept of army based on heavy infantry (which translated to the west as the cataphracts)
Early Christian Armenia, Just Christianized Nubia or Axum, who were at peak of their civilizations in the 4th-8th centuries, Himyarite Yemen, Central Asian civilization with its great irrigations supporting unprecedently rising populations making Soghdians the traders connecting Persian world with China and India...or you can lead the Garamantes of the Sahara with their chariot based empire, the Soninke people of West Africa, who have just started building their own cities, connected the sub-Saharan savanna into interconnected trade network to create a kingdom... to meet the Berbers of the Sahara with the new animals capable of crossing the desert in large caravans... and use these camels to sell your abundant gold to the peoples across the big desert - be it the Romans or the zealous Arabs with their new religion. Or you can saddle the horse and ride the energy of rising Islam.

Staying in perspective of post-Roman world, a game set in Dark Ages can offer you some sort of post-apocalyptyc world, but in historical framework. Or a completely different interesting world, if you are able to step outside the box

Yeah, I am taking the European perspective. I don´t think anyone here is trying to say that other parts of the world have seen a lot of development.

I'm sorry that I failed to be clear enough so you could understand it. I indeed am trying to say that the world of 4th-9th century wasn't limited to developments of the post-Roman world, and other parts of the world have indeed seen a lot of development. I know most of us haven't learned it at school, but it doesn't mean that the world outside did not exist and evolve on its own.

 

[Tapio]

I'm sorry I probably failed to explain the point to you.

One of the best posts I've read in a while on any forum, thank you.