dark middle ages

[stnylan]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Do you guys have any statistics on this?

I have no written statistics, but having studied part of the period I can vouch for the essential truth of the paucity of sources.

The period between c.600 and c.800 is just very sparse in Christendom for evidence. A few chronicles if you are lucky, but their evidence tends mostly the be highly localised. Most history of this time comes from writers some centuries later writing down what happened. Also, states at this time were not bureaucratic, and so less paper was produced. Alot of evidence in the middle ages, and in antiquity, is bureaucratic in nature. In the ninth century things start to pick up again, but evidence does not exceed the levels found in antiquite till around the 11th century - partly at least because from the 11th century the states of western Europe become more bureaucratic once more.

For Byzanium the situation is a little different, but the 7th century is very sparse, picking up again a little in the 8th, but only really recovering in the 9th.

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Winkelried
Yes, but it also starts quite low. 6th or 7th century per capita income was significantly lower than during roman times.

As for the term "dark ages". I heard following explanation: there's only very little to none written sources from that time, thus it remains "in the dark". Or something like that.

uhhh about sources....sorry, a couple of years back I was on exchange to Ireland and an american friend I knew took a class called "the history of technology" anyway I borrowed his book and read part of it for fun....but I cant remember the name or the author.....anyway according to that book the though of a decline after the fall of the roman empire is a myth...atleast from an economic point of view, since productivity increased quite a lot throughout the period with better plows and other improvements all resulting in quite considerable productivity boosts in the one sector of the economy where the perhaps 80-90% of the population were employed. - anyway his basic point throughout the book was that true progress comes through productivity gain....since its the basis for pretty much everything else, and from this point of view there was NO decline and never has been since productivity has consistently increased throughout history.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by stnylan
I have no written statistics, but having studied part of the period I can vouch for the essential truth of the paucity of sources.

The period between c.600 and c.800 is just very sparse in Christendom for evidence. A few chronicles if you are lucky, but their evidence tends mostly the be highly localised. Most history of this time comes from writers some centuries later writing down what happened. Also, states at this time were not bureaucratic, and so less paper was produced. Alot of evidence in the middle ages, and in antiquity, is bureaucratic in nature. In the ninth century things start to pick up again, but evidence does not exceed the levels found in antiquite till around the 11th century - partly at least because from the 11th century the states of western Europe become more bureaucratic once more.

For Byzanium the situation is a little different, but the 7th century is very sparse, picking up again a little in the 8th, but only really recovering in the 9th.

But what does it have to income? I though you were speaking of some material studies more....

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by boehm
uhhh about sources....sorry, a couple of years back I was on exchange to Ireland and an american friend I knew took a class called "the history of technology" anyway I borrowed his book and read part of it for fun....but I cant remember the name or the author.....anyway according to that book the though of a decline after the fall of the roman empire is a myth...atleast from an economic point of view, since productivity increased quite a lot throughout the period with better plows and other improvements all resulting in quite considerable productivity boosts in the one sector of the economy where the perhaps 80-90% of the population were employed. - anyway his basic point throughout the book was that true progress comes through productivity gain....since its the basis for pretty much everything else, and from this point of view there was NO decline and never has been since productivity has consistently increased throughout history.

Well, from what i remember, pc income increases by three means, organizational, technological or capital improvements. Obviously, technological ones include productivity, and i suppose, along with organization (which is hard to differ from technology sometimes), was main reason of increase in the past, especially long-term.

And about that Roman-MA decline, perhaps the decline could happen earlier-after III AD crisis. Well, its not unlike III AD is one of the dates of the end of antiquity...

Or perhaps not, hmmm. What was the difference, anyway? Less urban life? Decline of the city of Rome itself?

Worse roads/infrastructure? That would be capital investments, and if they indeed decreased, it could offset technological/organizational improvements a bit.

Administration is also organizational loss, and i guess lack of centralized Empire is detrimental to growth.

EDIT/btw, why is this not in pre-1419 period?

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
But what does it have to income? I though you were speaking of some material studies more....

Uhh - you've confused me

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by boehm
uhhh about sources....sorry, a couple of years back I was on exchange to Ireland and an american friend I knew took a class called "the history of technology" anyway I borrowed his book and read part of it for fun....but I cant remember the name or the author.....anyway according to that book the though of a decline after the fall of the roman empire is a myth...atleast from an economic point of view, since productivity increased quite a lot throughout the period with better plows and other improvements all resulting in quite considerable productivity boosts in the one sector of the economy where the perhaps 80-90% of the population were employed. - anyway his basic point throughout the book was that true progress comes through productivity gain....since its the basis for pretty much everything else, and from this point of view there was NO decline and never has been since productivity has consistently increased throughout history.

Ahh economic history

Well, since no one actually really knows about the economy of the Dark Ages - due to a near complete lack of records - let me say that I am a little hesitant about the book's validity. And archaeology is also not the most helpful.

It is certainly true that some aspects of the decline from Roman times have been overstated - but you only have to compare the world of the 4th century with the world of the 7th to realise a decline did take place. That said it was uneven, and in some places it was not decline but a different way of doing things. Weapons tech probably increased in some areas I think it is generally recognised, but defensive technology regressed. Civil technology regressed. Anyway, I think the idea as you have represented it to me is dodgy in the extreme.

I admit though I am biased against purely economic history, much like I am biased against purely social or political history.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by stnylan
Uhh - you've confused me

Ah, sorry, you were talking about relative unavailability of sources, right?

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Ah, sorry, you were talking about relative unavailability of sources, right?

Yes. I don't understand the income comment.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by stnylan
Yes. I don't understand the income comment.

Thats because i misunderstood your post-i though you are talking about income pc in middle ages.. (and well, you weren't )

 

[stnylan]

Ahh, I am no longer confused.