# Dark Ages



## Sire Of Dragons

Were so many people destroyed and or more interested in destruction during these times that so little is known about? Is this perhaps the reason why so many fantasy story lines, such as Camelot, or Xena and Hercules are spawned from this era. Dracula as well I believe.

I watched a documentary about the 1000 or so year period A.D. and they pretty much skipped right over this era.

What if we happened to know more? Would there be less fantasy from that area of history? Would we have Camelot, Arthur or Lancelot? Would there be much about Vampires? Maybe stories would turn out to be more like Gladiator, or Ben Hur. Maybe there'd be a lot less fantasy novels.

What do you think? Opinions and theories welcome.


----------



## The Ace

Hercules is much earlier than the European Dark Ages, belonging to Greek mythology around the second millennium BC, and there is no point in attempting to place Xena chronologically as she is purely fictional and the writers responsible were completely ignorant of History.  (King David and Julius Caesar were 900 years apart and Homer died 500 years before Spartacus was born.  There is no way Homer could have told the story of Spartacus' rebellion) .

The Dark ages in Britain extend from the Roman withdrawal in 410AD to the Norman Conquest in 1066. Western Europe generally followed a similar timeline, with the exception of the Byzantine Empire.

 The period is so named because of a lack of written records after the fall of Rome with very little historical documentation and a few legends.  This improves towards the end of the period, but with the vast bulk of the population illiterate, technology certainly took a leap backwards (Concrete was 'invented,' in the 19th Century before it was discovered that the Romans had been using it in the 2nd.)

   Archaeology is slowly beginning to rediscover much of what was lost but we still only have a vague idea of what went on.  Indeed, there is still much debate on whether the Saxons wiped out the Celtic Britons, or whether plagues, bad harvests and the collapse of civilisation had forced an already small population into terminal decline.  But a few scraps about a war-leader leading a last, desperate British defence gradually grew into the legend of King Arthur (elements like Merlin and the Holy Grail are Medieval additions).


----------



## Delvo

I've never thought of "fantasy" stories as being based on the Dark Ages. Some specify a particular place and time in Earth's history for the setting, but those are scattered in different locations and eras, not particularly concentrated in Europe during those few centuries. Most specify that they are set in some other location (often not on Earth at all or not even in this universe, such as Narnia) or many millennia before anything we think of as history (such as Tolkien's stuff) or in a postapocalyptic future (such as Terry Brooks's stuff). The common "tropes" we think of as recurring over and over again in most fantasy stories, so often that using them now gets an author called a copycat, are generally either not Earth-based at all or generally vague enough not to be Dark Ages tropes any more than they're Roman, pre-Roman, Medieval, or even Rennaisance tropes.


----------



## Sire Of Dragons

You both completely misread my post.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy

*The epic poem Beowulf did come from that period, especially the said person had existed long before that poem was written.  Charlemagne existed during the period of the so-called Dark Ages, so did St. Benedict.  The Moors tried to invade Western Europe during the later Dark Age, so did the Vikings.  This was after Charlemagne died.*

*Whatever you think of Charlemagne, you had to admit that he did try to bring education to his subjects.*


----------



## The Ace

Not really, SD,  of the three sources you cited, only one comes from the Dark Ages, Hercules being a 4000-year-old myth and Xena a modern fiction by people who were just about qualified to watch a TV series but shouldn't have been allowed to write one.

  The truth is, they're called the Dark Ages because we just don't know what happened.

brsrkrkomdy,  what you say is true, but Charlemagne is practically a legend himself, truth and myth being difficult to separate.   You quoted the exceptions that prove the rule.

 Much of the history of this period is unknown.   Charlemagne has a basis in fact, the jury's still out on King Arthur, but both have become legends rather than men.  The destruction of records certainly by the Vikings and possibly by the Moors, has further muddied already murky waters.


----------



## Wiglaf

brsrkrkomdy said:


> *The epic poem Beowulf did come from that period, especially the said person had existed long before that poem was written. Charlemagne existed during the period of the so-called Dark Ages, so did St. Benedict. The Moors tried to invade Western Europe during the later Dark Age, so did the Vikings. This was after Charlemagne died.*
> 
> *Whatever you think of Charlemagne, you had to admit that he did try to bring education to his subjects.*


Alfred did the same earlier.  Britain also involved herself with Gaul after the Roman withdrawl.  Furthermore archeological evidence shows extensive trade.  What really came from the period was myths, lengends, tales, and epics that greatly influenced fantasy.  Probably because the are our historical myths and epics as opposed to another groups myths as in the case of classical, Oriental, or American myth and epics.


----------



## Tirellan

brsrkrkomdy said:


> *The epic poem Beowulf did come from that period, especially the said person had existed long before that poem was written. Charlemagne existed during the period of the so-called Dark Ages, so did St. Benedict. The Moors tried to invade Western Europe during the later Dark Age, so did the Vikings. This was after Charlemagne died.*
> 
> *Whatever you think of Charlemagne, you had to admit that he did try to bring education to his subjects.*


 
Not exactly correct
The Moors first arrived in Spain in 711
Charlemagne became King of the Franks in 768 and died in 814 and spent a lot of time fighting them in Spain

The Dark Ages are far less dark in Europe than in Great Britain. Gregory of Tours writings for example illuminate the post-Roman period in France


----------



## Heretic

If we knew more about the Dark Ages, we wouldn't have called it "The Dark Ages" in the first place. I think there are things better left out, such as how hygienic they were, or what they considered "recreation." 

We can't handle the truth.


----------



## SpaceShip

Heretic said:


> If we knew more about the Dark Ages, we wouldn't have called it "The Dark Ages" in the first place. I think there are things better left out, such as how hygienic they were, or what they considered "recreation."
> 
> We can't handle the truth.


Oh I think we can handle the truth - it's just that we always have to lie about it!

The Romans did a lot for Britain but after they left we Brits did what we always do - grab what we can, ruin what we can't, and go back to the old ways.

Nothing changes!  Or am I telling the truth?


----------



## Peter Graham

> Were so many people destroyed and or more interested in destruction during these times that so little is known about?


 
I suspect not.  I can only speak for what happened in the UK, but I don't subscribe to the "six hundred years of slaughter" theory.  I don't think people were any more interested in destruction then than they are now.  The main reason we don't know much is beacuse very little survives - when the Roman Empire collapsed, the trappings of civilization went with it.  The people of Britain no longer had the benefit of being part of a hugely successful economic unit which produced a massive surplus, allowing certain elements of society enough time to build villas, write books, compose poems and generally swan about the place having a nice time.  Britain went from being part of a highly sophisticated capitalist machine to an Iron Age tribal backwater in about ten years.  The Saxon invasions cemented that decline for a few hundred years, but in my view it was a cultural decline rather than a decline in population or the genetic blood line of the inhabitants.

But this doesn't mean that life was uniformly awful.  Look at the Highland Scottish clan system up to about the mid 18th century.  In many ways, this is almost an Iron Age survival, but no-one would say that it was not a rich culture.  Nonetheless, the Highlanders terrified the Lowlanders for much of Scottish history and remained a perpetual problem to the Edinburgh and the London government until a mix of failed uprisings and the highland clearances more or less destroyed their way of life.  I'd say that if you want to know more about how people lived in the darkest of the Dark Ages, you could do worse than study the Clans.



> Is this perhaps the reason why so many fantasy story lines, such as Camelot, or Xena and Hercules are spawned from this era. Dracula as well I believe.


 
As others have said, only Camelot comes from the Dark Age period and even this was really a fanciful later addition to the Arthur myth, introduced by prancing medieval balladeers with flighty notions of courtly love.




> Would there be less fantasy from that area of history?


 
I'd say yes - the more we know, the fewer gaps for people to fill in with their own ideas (or ideals) of psuedo-history and mythology.



> Would we have Camelot, Arthur or Lancelot?


 
No, possibly and no would be my view!  Again, there is no Dark Ages mention of Lancelot - he is another of those medieval additions.  

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Drachir

There seems to be quite a bit of rethinking regarding the so-called Dark Ages, especially in the case of the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" of Britain.  It appears that the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain was not as violent or as brutal as has been depicted.  Rather, it was a slow process that took centuries and left most of the orgininal inhabitants of the British Isles intact as the invaders were slowly absorbed into the native population of England.  In other words, the original Celtic inhabitants are still there.  They simply speak a Germanic language now, albeit one that is distinctly British.  It is a somewhat controversial theory and not all historians and archeologists agree with it, but it has resulted in some rethinking of the Anglo-Saxon migration to England.


----------



## The Ace

Tell that to the Welsh and Cornish, Drachir.


----------



## Drachir

The Ace said:


> Tell that to the Welsh and Cornish, Drachir.


 
Check this out.  If it is correct then most inhabiants of the British Isles (excepting immigration form areas of Africa and Asia) are probably pretty closely related.  I said it was controversial.  What the hell - On my mother's side my grandfather had Welsh blood, my grandmother had Scottish ancestry and my father was born in Calagary of parents who emigrated from England.  
English and Irish may be closer than they think - International Herald Tribune


----------



## Ruin

"Dracula as well I believe."
Dracula was created in the nineteenth century. He was, however, based on a tyrant from the 1500s/1600s I belive, from present Romania/bulkans.


----------



## Tirellan

Ruin said:


> "Dracula as well I believe."
> Dracula was created in the nineteenth century. He was, however, based on a tyrant from the 1500s/1600s I belive, from present Romania/bulkans.


 
Vlad III of Wallachia 1431-76


----------



## MKG

The Dark Ages are a breeding ground for fantasy precisely because so little is known of them - although that situation is changing rapidly. Those times should be an open invitation for writers to invent their own societies and rules and create stories around that. The written word, though, was a very late introduction to Dark Ages northern Europe, so we will never know MORE about that period than we do about the classical world or the post-Norman world. The period will, apparently, therefore remain a de facto "anything goes" scenario, and writers will, it seems obvious, continue to base fantasies around Dark Age settings.

But, having said that, how many fantasy works are, in fact, set in the Dark Ages rather than in a world two or three steps removed from them? The Arthur of Chretien de Troyes and Tennyson resembles a fourteenth-century knight more than anything else. Beowulf has to be removed from the realms of fantasy because it certainly wasn't regarded as such by the people who listened to the tale. Remove those and what have we left? Conan the Barbarian? 

Fantasies are more often than not set in worlds of wide-open spaces where characters carry swords. That's about as Dark Age as they get. After that, it's magic, unrecognisable landscapes, impossible cities, elves and dragons. This is not a Dark Age world, although it contains elements which some Dark Age people may have believed in. It is a world composed of widely accepted fantastic elements which actually have nothing to do with the Dark Ages.

So the answer to the original question is no. Increasing our knowledge of Dark Age Europe will not reduce the number of fantasy writings. I mean, does any fantasy reader actually believe that there were elves and dragons at the time? Or magicians who could actually do anything serious?

Human beings will be happily prepared to suspend their disbelief for the sake of a rolicking yarn for a good few centuries yet.


----------



## JoanDrake

The nice thing about a King Arthur story is that you don't have to do a lot of research because nobody knows what happened anyway. There simply are no really good or extensive records from that time

The Dark Ages were not, however, by any means a time of overall decline as has been thought. The horse collar and the moldboard plow revolutionised agriculture, allowing new main crops and the cultivation of the northern forests of Europe. The stirrup did the same for warfare, leading to an ascendancy of cavalry for the next thousand years.

One of the more mysterious aspects of this era is why did it last so long? If you study the ancient world you see Empires rise and fall one after the other. Why then, did nothing rise to replace Rome? Also, why was this apparently a worldwide phenomena? with a similar era even in China, where fell the Han, who were not replaced by any unitary empire until the Song (I think, or the T'ang) in the 800's.


----------



## Tirellan

JoanDrake said:


> One of the more mysterious aspects of this era is why did it last so long? If you study the ancient world you see Empires rise and fall one after the other. Why then, did nothing rise to replace Rome? Also, why was this apparently a worldwide phenomena? with a similar era even in China, where fell the Han, who were not replaced by any unitary empire until the Song (I think, or the T'ang) in the 800's.


 
I think this view underplays the significance of the Byzantine Empire in this period and, in a purely Western European frame, the Empire of Charlemagne


----------



## MKG

JoanDrake said:


> One of the more mysterious aspects of this era is why did it last so long? If you study the ancient world you see Empires rise and fall one after the other. Why then, did nothing rise to replace Rome? Also, why was this apparently a worldwide phenomena? with a similar era even in China, where fell the Han, who were not replaced by any unitary empire until the Song (I think, or the T'ang) in the 800's.


 
But - why did WHAT last so long? They're only the Dark Ages because we knew so little. More stuff comes to light all of the time, and all of it seems to point in one direction - those times were neither dark nor static.


----------

