[dismalaf]

> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".

The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.

[Svip]

The Dark Ages are dark, because they lack surviving written record; ironically due to advancements in writing technology, where people would begin writing on hides instead of papyrus or chisel stone; this made writing a lot faster, but also had a far shorter life span, particularly because people could wipe the hide clean (after the text was of no use), and then rewrite on it.

Conversely, a lot of the writings of the Antiquity are preserved, in large part due to Middle Eastern scholars. The Dark Ages aren't a myth, but rather what is meant by "dark" is misunderstood.

[Amezarak]

No, the whole thing is some sort of revisonist history gambit. The Dark Ages were "dark" because they represented a massive and lasting decline in social organization, trade, and yes, literacy. These are all extremely well documented. You can see it in basically any field you want -

[constantius]

Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken.

The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.

Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.

From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.

[dismalaf]

Sorry. Should have also added various Germanic tribes to the list of invaders as well.

> Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.

The fall of the western Roman Empire was literally because of invaders (the Goths and Vandals I forgot to initially mention), the infighting was to fill the void and the poverty also related to that as well as constant Viking raids. Literally half the west (Spain) conquered by Muslims for 700 years. Religion not a factor, the Eastern Roman empire was also Christian and stayed rich until it also fell to invaders.

> From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.

Did they not invade the area that is today Spain and France during the "dark" ages? Did they not invade the Byzantine empire (now referring to the other thread)? This is literal history.

[aerodexis]

The invention of the "dark ages" is really interesting, and afaik it was created in order to create a "this time it's different" sense of ahistoricity. Very similar to the "year zero" idea in communism, and even the current AI hype cycle.