Talk:Early Middle Ages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Goths and Rome

I have to question the claim that that the Goths "admired [Rome] and considered themselves the legatees and heirs of Rome." I tried rewriting this statement, or at least explaining it, but now it's back its original sweeping form. There were many Goths and they had various opinions on this subject, most of which have gone unrecorded. The statement represents Theodoric's views, but it is quite a leap to conclude that Theodoric represents all Goths everywhere. We know that Theodoric spent a lot time hectoring his own people on this subject, so obviously not everyone agreed.Kauffner 02:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Theodoric grew up in Byzantium. "the Goths" didn't "admire Rome" collectively. The Visigoths were Romanized earlier, I suppose, while the Ostrogoths remained in Oium and were only really Romanized from the time of Theodoric. dab (ᛏ) 07:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

image sizes

Kauffner, I take it you are browsing at 1600x1200 pixels? Because the Charlemagne, Huns and Europe_814 images look rather large to me at 1024x768. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the pictures are bigger than you see in other articles. At least for the maps, I think this way is better. You can't see much of anything at 250px. I'll reduce the Hun picture, that's a bit much.Kauffner 08:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"thumb" means thumbnail. If you have an image that needs to be seen in detail in the article, don't use "thumb", but center it, with no text flowing around it. Although 250px is still an acceptable thumb width I agree. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Periodization

"Early Middle Ages" is a newly coined word so people will define it different ways. But there seems to be a consensus that the migration period is a sub-period of the early Middle Ages. The migration period logically begins with the arrival of the Huns in Europe ~370, since this is what triggered the migration sequence. IMO, this should be counted as the beginning of the Early Middle Ages (rounded off to either 350 or 400).Kauffner 11:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the MP spans Late Antiquity and the EMA. I don't see why the MP should begin as late as 370 when the Goths first raided the Roman Empire in 263 and the Alamanni invaded Gaul in 268. The Huns may have triggered all the migration, but they did so well before they entered Europe, and the first migrations to ripple across Europe were repercussions of the Hunnic movements, not the Huns themselves. 370 still lies well within Late Antiquity, even if a lot of people were on the move in the backcorners of the Empire. I would think it jarring to have Augustine of Hippo or Jerome labelled "medieval" authors. I made Early Medieval literature begin in the 6th century, although people like Agathias and Procopius are really borderline in terms of Antiquity/Middle Ages. In my private opinion, the world faded into the Middle Ages in the course of the 6th c., like it faded out of them in the course of the 16th. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure other periodizations fit neatly within this period (nested periodization?). And there's Original Research and POV problems whenever you try to tie a period to a specific event - who said it, who says something else. Periodization is not exclusive, it is possible to talk meaningfully about the same period in time using multiple periodization terms, depending which trope or narrative is being emphasized. IMO these periodization articles are more valuable as historiography, which is weak in most of them. -- Stbalbach 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brown coined the phrase "Late Antiquity" to emphasize that certain aspects of antiquity persisted into the early medieval period. That’s certainly the way our Late Antiquity article defines it. But if you define the Early Middle Ages as a period following Late Antiquity, the transition idea is gone. The Britannica article on the Middle Ages begins with the sack of Rome by the Goths in 410. The WP article on the Roman Empire ends around 476 and I'd like to see this article upgraded in such a way as to make it the chronologically succeeding item. (The Late Antiquity article strikes me as devoid of content.) Surely King Clovis I (r. 481-511) counts as medieval. EMA was coined as a euphemism for "Dark Ages," so there is more to the concept than simply "the early part of the Middle Ages." With the Gothic Wars, we are already close to the nadir of the Dark Ages.

Of course, there were peoples migrating in every period of history, but we can nonetheless still describe the fifth century as a migrations period.Kauffner 07:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

sure. all these periodizations are fuzzy, and it's a waste of time to split hairs over them. We discuss historiography at Dark Ages, but somewhere, we need to cover the actual period, too. I'm not going to jump at your throat if you include the 5th, or even the late 4th centuries into EMA (or, conversely, the 6th c. into LA). I think giving the very rough idea of 500-1000 in the intro is fair, but after that we shouldn't waste too much effort on defining the period's boundaries and concentrate on treating the main events during the period. dab (ᛏ) 12:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Specific queries

The article has improved immensely recently, with a notable effort by Kauffner. I've made some edits, for your approval. Some minor queries:

• "North of the Black Sea, the Goths, a Germanic people, created two kingdoms, one Visigothic, the other Ostrogothic." "Kingship" is not the same as "kingdom", which is invariably territorial: are these tribal kingships or territorial kingdoms?
• (Decimation): This rare punishment gets unwarranted extensive play> A better brief basis for discipline?
• "the arms factories along the Danube" A more specific, less misleading term?
• "their Arian conquerors were converted (Franks, Visigoths and Lombards)" Franks were converted directly from Paganism. Arian Burgundians might be mentioned. --Wetman 21:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Visigoths were settled agriculturalists who lived in Romania. The Ostrogoths lived on the Ukrainian steppe. They were literate and traded with the Romans. The two are often put in a different catagory than the mere "barbarian tribes."

I eliminated "decimation". I am not so sure it was rare. Whether it was or not, the article should not draw too much attention to "non-collapse" aspects of Rome. Good points about the "arms factories" (which I've fixed already) as well about Franks and Burgundians (which still needs to be fixed).Kauffner 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually my understanding is the Visigoths and Ostrogoths didn't become entities until during the Gothic War, south of the Danube, when they split forces to forage for food in the southern Balkans (northern Greece) - before that they were just "Goths" (there were dozens of gothic leaders and tribes north of the Danube we don't know all the names of or what happened to them). -- Stbalbach 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's closer to my (very popularized) reading, too. Are Visigoths distinguished from Ostrogoths in any way by archaeologists? --Wetman 05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Ostrogoths didn't exist in his day, what was Ermanaric king of? Kauffner 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ermanaric was king of the Gothic Greuthungi, who occupied the region east of the Dnieper river. With westward pressure from the Huns they moved south-west where they joined up with the Gothic Tervingi under Athanaric -- it was the Tervingi and Greuthungi who crossed the Danube into Roman territory - there was no such thing as the Visigoths or Ostrogoths to that point. See Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire (2006) chapter 4 "War on the Danube". -- Stbalbach 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Visigoths and Ostrogoths are typically used synonymously with Tervingi and Greuthungi. Hence also the redirect at Tervingi. dab (ᛏ) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thus the source of confusion. Really neither article explains it well, they were originally called the Tervingi and Greuthungi and later called Visi and Ostro, I think<?> assigned to them by Latin authors after the Gothic War to signify those who settled in the Balkans after sueing for peace, and the rest who went back north of the Danube after being defeated. -- Stbalbach 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Visi and Ostro was interpreted to mean "West" and "East" by Latin authors. The relation of Tervingi and Greutungi to Visigoths and Ostrogoths is unclear, at least to me, but there seems to be if not identity at least a direct connection. dab (ᛏ) 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've added some basic titles, as "Further reading". As their findings, and some succinct quotes even, are incorporated into the article, they could be shifted, one by one, to a future References section. --Wetman 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion

In my opinion, the conclusion of an article entitled "Early Middle Ages" should make some statement about EMA, as opposed to bringing up a set of issues that have not been dealt with previously and which did not become important until quite some time after EMA.Kauffner 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As a postscript, then, it's useful to show the reader how one differentiates between Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages, rather than merely to announce it and provide an arbitrary date. The end of an era either tells something about an era, or it tells something about the historians' perceptions. --Wetman 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine/Slav edit

It's nice we have more material about Slavs and Byzantium. But I don't think it deserves quite so much prominence. If contempory significance is everything, Islam should be the core of the article. (I have some edits in mind to upgrade the Islam section.) In the High Middle Ages, western Europe will surpass both Byzantium and Islam and I see EMA as a prelude to that story. The Hagia Sophia picture has to go. It's too dark, you can hardly see anything. Kauffner 06:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Kauffner, I can't agree with you Westcentrism. There is no reason why barbaric peoples from the verge of the civilized world deserved as much attention as they had. The article formerly concentrated on Germanic peoples only, although they occupy the smaller territory of Europe than Slavs do. How the Slavs came to become to largest ethnic group in Europe remained a mystery in the previous version of the article. And of course the centre of Early Medieval Europe, both cultural and political, was Constantinople. If you are not happy with the Hagia Sophia picture, please find a better one. The anecdotic depiction of Charlemagne, without colours and full of artistic license, is not really an option for the lead. Charlemagne's activities are tangetial for most parts of Europe. Lastly, Islam should not be the core of the article as you suppose, because this article is about Europe and the only Islamic country in Europe was Spain. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this style of "patriotic history" makes the article a joke. Anybody from anyplace can come by justify redoing the article to make his country the focus -- and decide that all other peoples were barbarians unworthy of our serious attention.

During EMA, Western Europe wasn't as powerful, civilized, or technically advanced as Byzantium, but it was a power center in the same class. Soon after 1000, the wheels start falling off Byzantine Empire while western Europe begins to make rapid progress. By 1200, Western Europe is in a league of it's own, with trade, a network of universities, and progress in math and other sciences to boast of. By then, Byzantium is barely in the same league as Venice (and would actually be conquered by Venice.)

The Charlemagne picture is visually interesting, was drawn by a renowned artist, and has a caption that both gave some history and tied it together with the text and picture. Now we have a dark rectangle on the top of the page.

As far as Islam not being in Europe goes, my understanding is that EMA isn't just Europe, but rather covers the post-Roman world (both in the geographic and cultural senses).Kauffner 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

guys: the article is shaping up nicely, but we need to begin to think about tweaking its ToC and make decisions about prominence. I agree that the Slavs were under-represented, and I agree that they are over-represented now. I also feel sorry to see Durer's Charlemagne sketch gone.

Durer's Charlemagne sketch was replaced by the Palatine Chapel in Aachen, which is a more authentic testimony of the Carolingian epoch. When the sections on Caroligians and Frankish Empire are expanded, we shall restore the image and add Image:Torhalle Kloster Lorsch.jpg, which is also a good relic of the period. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, the "Resurgence of Europe" section needs attention: what is its scope, and how do we address incorporating its stub-subsections into the whole. Also, it makes no sense to have a "Byzantine Empire" section near the top, and another "Byzantine world" article near the bottom. We can cover the arrival of the Slavs under "Migration", and the establishment of the Slavic realms in another section dealing with the 8th or 9th century.

I think it's quite logical. Currently, the first section gives a brief outline of the Byzantine history. The second section concentrates on the ethnic groups that shared the Byzantine heritage or were within the Byzantine orbit by the end of the period. As you correctly remark below, the Slavs appeared on the scene towards the end of this millennium. So I placed the section on the emergence of Slavic states near the end for chronological reasons. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I find it difficult to understand how you can accuse Kauffner of "Westcentrism" when he proposes to give Islam more prominence. This is also not about who governed how much territory: The Germanic migration is extremely relevant to the collapse of Rome, and the establishment of the Frankish Empire is extremely relevant to the balance of power throughout the MAs.

It's impossible to deny the importance of these events. Therefore I request the coverage to be expanded. You may reuse some material contained in Carolingian Empire and Charlemagne. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Slavs may have ruled vast streches of the Eastern Steppe, but they make their arrival rather late, and they remain long under such strong Byzantine influence that they may be treated as a subsection of Byzantium.

This I don't agree with. Prior to 990, the Byzantine influence in Kievan Rus was negligible. The Norse and Khazar influences predominated. As for Great Moravia, there the Germanic influences were equally if not more pronounced. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Slavs only rise to any prominence in their own right, geopolitically, at the very end of the EMAs. This is not the place for ethnic or national pissing-contests: We want a fluent and coherent outline of the period, and not a PC mention of each and every ethnicity.

The Slavs are not "every and each ethnicity", they are the largest ethnic group in Europe. I would like to see some more respect towards the largest ethnic group in Europe in the article about the evolution of Europe. As for other ethnicities, the Celtic world is sadly underrepresented here. Probably some expert may add a passage or two (or three :) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense to start talking about barbarian invasions again in your "Byzantine world" section.

Actually, it does, because the Germanic migrations in Western Europe and Slavic/Bulgarian invasions of the Byzantine lands have not so much in common. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Treat the Slavic migration under "Migration", Slavic Christianization under "Christianization" and the Kievan Rus under "Viking Age". dab (ᛏ) 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal to move the largest and probably the most culturally advanced state of the period under "Viking Age" is absolutely unacceptable. The role of the people called "Vikings" in the Western tradition in the emergence of Kievan Rus has been disputed since the mid-18th century. If I start to recount all the theories on this relatively minor point, it could take more space than the current article occupies. Furthermore, the barbarian pirates known as Varangians first appear in Eastern Europe in the mid-9th century and they are gone within a century, while Kievan Rus lives on for centuries as a subject of admiration and emulation by their Scandinavian neighbours. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

well, no dissent? shall I rework the ToC along these lines then? dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Migrations" should come after "Collapse" because it continues the same narrative train. Another issue is the traditional theory that the barbarian migrations caused the collapse of Rome and the Dark Ages. I don't accept this theory myself, it still needs to be addressed. The way the sections are ordered now, it implies that the two events had nothing to do with each other.

The narrative should be organized around a couple of central themes to give it organization and coherence. Possiblities include the collapse of Rome and classical civilization. Later on, there is the issue of how the West stacks up against other civilizations, since the subject of the West's post-EMA rise to dominence attracts a great deal of interest.

Finally, we shouldn't have separate sections for "Carolingians" and "Frankish Empire."Kauffner 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Kiev

The 50,000 population figure for Kiev is for 1200 (the Russian-language source puts it as the 12th-to-13th century). The city would have been a lot smaller in 1000. Paris grew from 20,000 in 1000 to 110,000 in 1200. (The estimates for Paris and Rome assume 100 people/hectare, while the Kiev estimate assumes 125 people/hectare. However, there is no basis to think these cities had different population densities.) The source that is cited says that the 400 church number is implausibly high. Kauffner 16:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It may appear implausible to you, but Thietmar was one of the best informed chroniclers of his age. He described the Kievan events of 1018 exactly the same year, not decades and centuries later as many chroniclers do. Moreover, the ruling monarch of Kiev married the only daughter of a king who Christianized Sweden, while his sister became Queen of Poland, and his daughters became Queens of Norway, Hungary, and France, respectively. Among his sons, one married a daughter of Byzantine emperor, another - a daughter of the Polish king, the third - a niece of the Pope. His granddaughter was married to the Holy Roman Emperor; another (according to a popular theory) was the Queen of Scotland. The unprecedented extent of his genealogical connections indicates that the Rurikids were the most powerful dynasty in Europe. It's instructive that his daughter could spell her name at a wedding charter, while her husband, King of France, could not, because he was illiterate. In short, your perception of Kiev seems a bit biased to me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My information about Kiev is from the Russian-language source YOU cited. Kauffner 12:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization by Kauffner

Despite the dissent, I really don't feel that any of the changes I made discriminate unfairly against Byzantium or anyone else. The format I came up is designed to put the focus on the three-way "clash of civilizations" between Islam, the Latin West, and the Orthodox East that in my view characterized the period. There is no ranking implied in the format, so I hope we can avoid competitive "But we're No. 1" responses. Kauffner 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Far be it from me to criticise, but there's no clear "Latin West" and "Orthodox East" split until after this period, and Islamic civilisation was really rather peripheral, being established in Iberia for about half of the chosen period. This seems a rather odd division to choose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the schism happened in 1054. Great Moravia is a good example of how ambiguous the distinction between Latin West and Orthodox East may be. They say that Yaropolk of Kiev was christened by a papal legate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic civilization was peripheral"? Maybe from the Vikings' point of view :) Anyway, I think Ghirla was objecting to focussing on Germanic migration too much, to the disadvantage of Slavic migration. The answer to this is not a "Slavs" section (since we don't have a "Germans" section either), but to try and give the Slavs due attention under the "Migration period" heading. Kievan Rus should be treated under Viking Age, and the powerful Slavic realms fall beyond the scope of this article, being High Medieval. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See my objections above. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I am not perfectly happy with the present ToC. "Latin West", fine, but "Orthodox East"? How about "Byzantine East", seeing that the Great Schism dates to 1054? Also, I agree that the "Islam" section should be moved further down. Still, we're making progress, let's base further changes on the present layout. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The schism between Catholic and Orthodox occurred over hundreds of years, not suddenly in 1054. The split was almost complete when the pope added the filioque clause to the creed in Charlemagne's time. The real basis for the split is that the East spoke Greek while the West spoke Latin. So it predates the various doctrinal struggles. Kauffner 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam before Constantinople: ignorance or bias?

I repeat that the Byzantine Empire as the only legitimate successor to the Roman Empire should be discussed at the start of the article. Firstly, Justinian ruled all the Mediterranean as far as Spain. He built the most important artwork of the period, from which all the Islamic architecture derives. His code of laws has been in use in Europe until the 20th century; and still the civil law of Germany and France is 90% derived from the Corpus Juris Civilis. In a sense, his influence was more lasting than Charlemagne's. Therefore, Justinian's relegation to the section about "Orthodox World" at the end of the article seems plain whimsical and will be reverted. Khazars cannot be included under the heading "Orthodox World", because they were Judaists, while the Moravians drifted towards Rome.

As for the expansion of Islam section, I believe we shouldn't exaggerate its influence on the development of Europe at large. The Muslim occupation of Spain was tangential to the evolution of Europe and its traditional values. To place Islam before Byzantium, as Kauffner insists, is to mislead the readers. Furthermore, it contradicts chronology: why do you want them to read about the spread of Islam first and about the preceding conquests of Justinian and Heraclius at the end of the article? Also, the title "Rise and decline of Islam" needs to be explained, as I can't see any serious decline of Islamic power during the period in question. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, you have a point, but I wish you wouldn't turn this debate into a "me vs. them" affair. You seem to be here merely to ensure Eastern Europe gets its due, while the other editors try to find the best way to present the complicated topic from all angles. I agree with your point of Islam, but let's not get into questions of "legitimacy" of the BE vs. the HRE as successors of Rome (wth?). Also, the BE should not be discussed "at the start"; the collapse of Rome and the migration period belong at the start; after that, it is a difficult matter of arranging both the geographical and the temporal dimension in the sequential medium of article prose. The article is not so bad at the moment, but we need to fiddle with the ToC a little bit more, but peacefully and in a spirit of collaboration. dab (ᛏ) 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you (as usual :) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The largest city

The article says that Constantinople, Baghdad, Cordoba were the largest cities of the early medieval world, all in three different sections. This is kind of confusing for readers. Can we discuss these statistics in one place? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In the years 400 to 700 constantinople was the largest city in the world, in the period from 700 to 900 the largest city was baghdad and by the year 1000 it was cordoba.

we could do with a population section anyway. World population rose from ca. 200 to ca. 300 millions during the period. This is a much slower growth rate than during the 1st millennium BC. I assume the growth is mainly due to Europe and the Near East, so that its sloth can be considered a characteristic of the EMA, but I don't have numbers broken up by continent. dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the image

I like the article's look now. But we need a new lead image. The Sutton Hoo helmet is a great symbol of Anglo-Saxon England, or even of the Germanic migrations, but it won't do at the top, especially as a low quality jpeg. I really liked the Charlemagne sketch both for being aesthetically pleasant, and because Charlemagne is the central figure of what we usually mean by "Early Middle Ages". But it could also be nice to find a fitting period image, such as a drawing from a manuscript (like Image:Stuttgart Psalter fol23.jpg, which is not bad for illustrating all of Christianisation, Carolingian Renaissance, and EMA arms and armour). dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I actually preferred the Durer image to the present one for looking more modern: The present image looks "medieval", and heading the EMA article, it might give the impression of being "period" (while it is closer in time to Helmut Kohl than to Charlemagne). dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you really should stop overestimating Charlemagne's importance. His significance for Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or the United Kingdom is nil. The image is black-and-white and anachronistic. I would restore the Sutton Hoo helmet as lead image. It is the authentic image of the epoch we discuss here. If you are not satisfied with its quality, please find a better pic or I will process it using Photoshop. Please remember that this is encyclopaedia, not a beauty pageant of featured images. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the use of Carcassonne fortifications, too? May be good to illustrate High Middle Ages, but rather annoying in the context of the Ottonian period. St. Michael's Church, Hildesheim may seem less impressive to the ignorant, but it is the icon of Ottonian Renaissance. Please restore the more appropriate image. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, there is no single person or item representing all of Europe for all of 500 years. The Sutton Hoo helmet certainly does a much worse job at that than Charlemagne. I don't think we are overestimating Charlemagne. He still had a tremendous influence on half of Europe, for 200 years, which makes him the single most notable character of the European EMA. dab (ᛏ) 07:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I look at the Sutton Hoo picture and think "Rise of the Machines."Kauffner 10:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Waraqah, a Christian cousin of Khadījah"? WTF?...

The section about Islam is oversize. I suggest cutting it drastically. The article discusses Europe, not Arabia. What's the use of the following passage:

Muhammad (c. 570-632), founder of Islam, was brought up by his uncle, a mechant from the Arabian city of Mecca. After managing her business for several years, Muhammad married Khadījah, a wealthy woman. Around 610, Muhammad began to receive frequent revelations, which he interpreted with the help of Waraqah, a Christian cousin of Khadījah. These revelations became the Koran, the holy book of Islam (with later revelations being less Christian-oriented). Muhammad began preaching in 613 and called his new religion Islam, meaning "surrender [to the will of Allāh]." Allāh was the high god of the Meccan pantheon. Opposition forced Muhammad to flee Mecca for Medina (622), an event called the Hijrah and considered the starting point of the Muslim era, abbreviated "AH" (Anno Hegirae). Muhammad's teachings were accepted in Medina and the city soon became an Islamic state. Muhammad's shrewd promotion of pilgramage to Mecca helped win the commerce-oriented Meccans over to Islam (630). In 630-32, Muhammad received deputations from many Arabian tribes. But these tribes often had complex internal politics and it cannot be determined how much of Arabia the deputations represented. The eagerness of many Bedouins tribes to ally with Mohammad relates to the seesaw struggle between the Byzantines and the Persians. When the Persians had been in the ascendency, they had attempted to colonize Arabia, which created a nationalist reaction

Should we recount all the genesis of Islam in the article on European history between 400 and 1000? What's the point? We have a separate article for this. The details of Hijrah are hardly illuminating for the European history of the period. Please pity the readers. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the Islam edits. It's back to what it was before. Kauffner 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Population estimates for the largest cities

I consider these estimates unrealistic, particularly those that refer to the Roman cities of the 1st century since the most accepted figures put its capital's population at about over 1 million and the other large cities had populations of about half a million.

These are the best figures for the 1st century that I have found:

"In the Principate, the five leading cities were ROME, ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH, EPHESUS, and CARTHAGE. In 100 A.D., Rome boasted a population of over 1,000,000 permanent residents; Alexandria was perhaps between 500,000 and 750,000. The cities of Antioch, Ephesus and Carthage had populations on the order of 350,000 to 500,000 residents." From this site [[1]]. --RafaelG 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll cut out the estimates for AD 100. It's not really part of EMA anyway. You need give a complete reference for the AD 1000 estimates. Kauffner 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Italy subsection

I just wrote the Italy subsection because it was left blank. However, the content doesn't seem to square up with the section: Resurgence of the Latin West (700-850). Italy was not part of any such resurgence in that period. Also it covers the period 568-1016, not 700-850 as the main article redirect to "Lombards" implied it should. Should the subsection be moved, deleted, or the section retooled and retitled? It's a minor point, but it needs addressing. Srnec 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, we need to rethink article organization now that it has plenty of content. feel free to be bold. dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Last prophet, false prophet

So "false prophet" is POV, but not "last prophet"? I don't the follow the logic at all. I know it's often argued that any use of the word "prophet" is POV. But by that standard, both phrases are equally POV, (and so is "Buddha," "saint", and so forth). If the section is about Islam, obviously "prophet" is from an Islamic point of view.

To call Muhammed the "last prophet of Islam" implies there were earlier Islamic prophets. The reader could well wonder who these prophets might be. My understanding is that is these earlier "Islamic" prophets are people like Abraham and Jesus. So the "last prophet" phrase brings up whole a set issues that require explanations that go way beyond the scope of this article. The issue of other Islamic prophets can be avoided by describing Mohammad as either "prophet" or "founder of Islam." Kauffner 15:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"prophet of Islam", period. Muslims will argue that he was just one of several prophets, Bible thumpers will argue that he wasn't a real prophet at all. You know what? "prophet" is just an objective description for anyone who has a following of believers in his divine inspiration, POV doesn't enter into it. Simple "prophet of Islam" is fine. See also Talk:Muhammad for discussion of this in an endless loop. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Christian a could take offense, but a will assume good faith. It seems to me that calling someone a false prophet is clearly disparaging but I really don't see why one can't use the most accurate term based upon the beliefs of the people involved. A person may or may not believe that Muhammed is a false prophet, but that belongs on a page entitled controversy regarding Islam or something. On the other hand it is a tenant of Muslim faith that Muhammed was the last prophet (the other prophets were the prophets of the Old Testament, which is a Muslim holy book). My point is that matters of belief should be ragarded based upon what the people involed believe, possible schism's and any citable Citicism. So a change to "whom Muslims believe to be the last prophet" or just "last prophet" is more correct than your just deciding that "prophet of Islam" is fine, it ignores the extroardinary importance that Muslims put on Muhammed and the Koran which he was supposed to have recited. Colin 8 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

looks good

the article is looking good -- it needs some trimming in places, but we are slowly getting the organization right. I'd give it a "B" now. dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria

I hope that this time the article for the Bulgarian Empire i added will not be removed. To my mind Bulgaria was VERY significant power in the Middle Ages and deserves a seperate sub-article in Eastern Europe. After all the Cyrillic alphabet, the second most widely used one in the world was created there, the Bulgarian Medieval Literature was valuable, the country used to be the largest in Europe for some time and so on and so on...--Gligan 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

When I added a section about the largest state of Early Medieval Europe, Kievan Rus, I was reverted with a notion that we don't need separate sections for each medieval state. Therefore I object to having separate sections about England, Italy, and Bulgaria. Most of the information you added actually duplicates the relevant passage in "Eastern Europe 600-1000". Your addition is a mess of sloppy orthography ("scolar", "archtucture") with unsourced megalomaniac statements ("the saviour of Europe"). The panegyric tone is not encyclopaedic. Furthermore, your asserion that "the Bulgarians decisively stopped the Arab invasion in Europe" contradicts two other statements in the article, that the honour belongs to Charles Martel and the Khazars. In short, I believe the section discredits the article and therefore has to go. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The orthographic mistakes will be fixed. "The Saviour of Europe" was used ONLY in western chronicles, not in Bulgarian. The statement that the Bulgarians decisively stopped the Arab invasion in Europe in true; it does not contradict to the other sources, because nowhere is said that the Bulgarians were the only ones to stop it. I know what the Franks did, but when an article is about the Frankish Empire, the Bulgarians are not mentioned; when an article is about the Bulgarian Empire, the Franks are not mentioned. Lastly, the army the Franks defeated was 20 to 30,000 men (in some sourses less than 10,000); the army the Bulgarians defeated was at least 80,000. I see nothing panegyric, it is simply written that culture was thriving, and this is not exaggerated, i think.--Gligan 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to understand the battle of Constantinople if you present it as just Bulgars vs Arabs, as this passage does. The Bulgars played a supporting role, assisting the Byzantines. But Constantinople was at least as decisive a battle as Tours.

On a separate issue, I don't it is appropriate to mention the Battle of Mons Badonicus in the Anglo-Saxon section. This battle is significant primarily because of the role it plays in the legend of King Arthur. The claim that it was a military turning point is speculative at best.Kauffner 11:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In the siege of Constantinople, the Bulgarians assisted the Byzantines, but here i mean the last battle in which the Arabs tried to break out, but were decisively defeated only by the Bulgarian army leaving around 32,000 killed (much more than in the whole siege up to this moment).--Gligan 08:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

we can, by all means, dedicate a short paragraph to Bulgaria. We have to get rid of the more breathless bits, and I am unsure it warrants its own h3 section, I say just treat under "Eastern Europe". Italy and Great Britain weren't "countries", we treat them as "regions" of several petty kingdoms. I daresay the Bulgarian Empire played a greater role during the period than the Kievan Rus; the latter only ascended at the very end of the period we are discussing here and was maybe more properly "High Medieval". Bulgaria has some importance, but it lay clearly within the Byzantine sphere of influence, and could be treated as an annex to the Byzantine section. With the vast scope of this article, we really have to keep things brief and to the point. dab (ᛏ) 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree that Kievan Rus played a lesser role during the period. Sviatoslav I carved for himself the largest state in Europe, comparable in size with the empire of Alexander the Great. He crushed the two mightiest powers of Eastern Europe - Khazaria and First Bulgarian Empire; they both rapidly disintegrated after his attacks. The Rus pressure on Constantinople was as significant as that of Bulgaria: they besieged the imperial capital on several occasions. Also, the Volga trade route and Dnieper trade route were the most important routes of communication between Europe and the Orient. Some 228,000 Arabic coins (dirhams) were recovered along these two routes (more than in the Califate itself), indicating which country prospered in the period. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

well, yes, as I was saying, Rus grows important just as Bulgaria wanes. We can list Sviatoslav's 969 date as one of those marking the end of the period. It makes perfect sense to discuss both Bulgaria and Rus in a single "Eastern Europe" section (or "Slavic Empires" or something), the way we cannot treat, say, Italy and England in a single section because these evolved largely independent of each other. To the point, I would support removal of the "Bulgarian" h3 title, and keep it all within a single "Eastern" h2 section. A matter of style really, other editors might be more comfortable with dozens of clean h3 sections. dab (ᛏ) 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab that Bulgaria played greater role than Kievan Rus in this periond, because the significance of Bulgaria grew in the beginning of the 8th when Kievan Rus was not established. I also agree that Rus rivalled Bulgaria from 10th century and even made successful campaigns in the Bulgarian Empire, but after all, this Empire was dominant for nearly three centuries before the Rus invasion which happened in the last 50 years of the Early Medieval Period. Not to metion that the resistence of the Bulgarian Empire against Byzantium continued for more than half a century after Svetoslav's campaigns and the Byzantines had many humiliating defeats until thiy managed to conquer Bulgaria in 1018 not only by military means but also with treason.--Gligan 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

might you be, by any chance, Bulgarian? dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

which invasion happened in the last 50 years etc? do you think about Russo-Byzantine War (860)? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, Rus did play a role in the EMA as well. Now, shall we just collapse discussion of Bulgaria and Rus into a single section, or do you both insist that each gets its own subsection? dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you scroll up, you will see that I oppose the idea of separate sections for countries such as Bulgaria, England, Italy, etc. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Bulgaria should have a seperate section and it should not be merged with anything. The article now looks quite well. Yes, I am Bulgarian. With its achievements some of which have effect even today, my country deserves a small seperate section. I meant the invasion on Bulgaria in 969-971. I do not deny that Rus has military successes before this. But the Bulgarians besieged Constantinople several times before the Rus in 860 and numerous times after this. Lastly, our wars with Byzantium begin with the war of 680-681. --Gligan 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

and of course, "you" could only have been defeated by treason. I just realize you are the guy who added Bulgaria to Great Power. Try to contain your enthusiasm a little bit, man! I agree the First Bulgarian Empire played a somewhat important role in the EMA, and at least this is the article on the EMA, but you should really try to get a more panoramic outlook on things. dab (ᛏ) 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i added Bulgaria there because I saw Poland -Lithuanua, which I don't see as greater than my state. But I also agreed that Great Power is post industrial term and accepted the removal of Bulgaria. Now i only wonder why Poland-Lithuania still stands on condition that at the beginning of the article was added that this is post 1815 term, years when Poland-Lithuania did not exist.

Also it was not written only by treason: the Byzantines defeated us several times at the battlefield (battles of Sprehei, Vardar, Klych and others), but many of our fortresses and cities were taken with treason. Also in 1018 the empress, the Patriarch and several major nobles were bribed to cease further resistence. This, of course shows that our nation has its weaknesses...--Gligan 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

there is no mention of either Poland or Lithuania on Great Power at this point. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I see that the page is fixed and some states removed.--Gligan 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PR?

From its stubby origins 9 months ago, the article has grown well. It now weighs 56k, and should not become much longer. Instead, we should carefully arrange and sift the material we have, and take it to WP:PR soon. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

About Baghdad

"In 800, Baghdad was the largest city in world, the first to have a population of over 1 million"

Since Rome had over 1 million inhabitants in the I-II centuries, this statement should be removed or at least modified. Poveda 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...and since the contemporary Tang Dynasty capital Chang'an is generally agreed to have been the world's largest city in the eighth and ninth centuries. "Largest Muslim city" would give the reality. --Wetman 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rome had 450,000 (AD 100).[2] Changan had 600,000 (AD 800).[3] Kauffner 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and Rome's population would have been much smaller in 800 than in 100, but I suspect no one was doing any censuses. Johnbod 17:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

We now have two sections on Christianity: "Christianization of the West" and "Early medieval Christianity". They are both short, so they should be combined. No subsection should say "Early Medieval", since that simply repeats the article title. Kauffner 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's to be a section on Christianity, it can't be under a "West" header, so I moved the material from Latin resurgence to the section on Christianity and retitled the Christianity section. Obviously more needs to be done to merge teh sections, but it's a start. Jonathan Tweet 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Locking this Article

Since the main article on the Middle Ages has been locked, why not just go ahead and lock this one, the one for the High Middle Ages, and the one for the Late Middle Ages? Would save some headaches, don't you think? Just a suggestion. Knight45 03:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

For such a long article, there is only 20 citations. The lead does not also summarise the article. Alientraveller 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels this "GA bureaucracy" is broken? Of course, to do it properly, people would have to actually read the articles, which is apparently asking too much. dab (𒁳) 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would never submit an article for an incompetent jury. What a waste of people's time. A little gold star applied, withheld or withdrawn? Oh really. A good article is an article that's good. --Wetman 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the merit of FAC. Nitpicking on formatting etc. makes sense on FAC. GA, on the other hand, was intended to tag articles that are good as good, unbureaucratically. Now a bureaucracy has sprung up around this (what is that law called again?), its purpose is somehow defeated, and we'll need a new label "IA", "informative article, tells you what you want to know, but you may be able to polish it further". Random FAs from two years ago: Venus, Johnny Cash. These would have a hard time on GA these days. dab (𒁳) 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I *never* submit my articles to GA or FA. Making another try with IA, informative articles, would only attract people who love to give orders and to feel power pushing article writers around. In the end we would have the same bureaucracy as we now have in GAs and FACs. The fixation I see with requiring numerous and evenly distributed inline citations is pathetic and makes a mockery of good articles.--Berig 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. My "IA" suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. We'll end up with three overlapping bureaucracies exerting jurisdiction over various colourful "FA", "GA" and "IA" icons. I am also content to simply write good material. It is sometimes a bit frustrating to see how the bureaucracy seems to forget that it is not them who actually produce the material they are administrating and tend to look at the academic editors in the trenches as the peons who labour for the "executive class". Statements like "there is only 20 citations. The lead does not also summarise" drive this home beautifully. But still, I beg you to remember that we need the bureaucrats, the politicians and the teen-admins on a power trip. They are part of Wikipedia's "hideous strength" :) If we only had academic editors, this would be a secluded egg-head's hobby, infertile like "Citizendium". Our strength is the fruitful collaboration between the knowledge-buffs, the control-freaks and the techs. There will be friction, obviously, but we need to remember that they are all needed. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains: the maxim "those who have content contribute content" is repeated all around, every day.--Wetman 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am told that it's easier to pass the article through WP:FAC (what an apt abbreviation) than to deal with GA "bureaucracy" as you call them (actually there is a huge backlog, so people have no time for reading candidate pages). Furthermore, it's not worth the trouble. Once User:Filiocht departed, his FAs were attacked and FARCed, one by one (the latest victim is W.B. Yeats). --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know -- the knowledge of having contributed good material is enough for me, I don't go and prance around in front of bureaucrats to get an official star slapped on it. That's a bit sad, but probably unavoidable with the community growing as large as it has. Let them do their book-keeping, and let us write our articles, and leave it at that. dab (𒁳) 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anything wrong in submitting a page to be a FA or whatever so long as the process involved is constructive, intelligent and ultimately improves the page. I don't see the point though of having degrees of greatness. The whole term Good article is ludicrous, a good article may only be five lines long providing it covers all salient points, it is impossible to have defining and across the board criteria for what is good or bad. However, I always understood that the term here Good Article was for a comprehensive page that for one reason or another was not to to FA standards. This page is very good if someone wants an award for it - it is only a short hop to make it a FA. I had one experience of nominating a page I had written for GA, a page I had lost interest in a little, I thought it was probably FA standard but I was not in the mood for meeting the usual demands of trivia so often conditional on a "support" vote so I nominated it for GA and sat back and awaited the accolade - I don't think anyone commented at all, and then suddenly this appeared in the history [4] - I did not agree, with the reason, but it was not worth the argument so the page languishes forever in obscurity - my point is if you want recognition go straight to FA if not forget it, and just know yourself that it is a Good Article in the true sense of the word. Giano 14:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • my gripe is not with recognition I don't get, it is with recognition I'd like to give. As GA was introduced, I understood it as a way of showing your appreciation of a good article you happend to come across. Say I am writing some article, and surf around for background knowledge, and come across a really useful article I had never before seen, I took it as a great way to show my appreciation of a job well done as an informed reader. In this sense, saying "GA" means that you consider yourself capable of an informed judgement, and judge that somebody has done well. This was before the bureaucrats usurped the "GA" tag. Now it's just the same as FA, with people with no inkling of the subject counting inline references. Why don't they go ahead and merge it with FA? I miss the opportunity for quick and unbureaucratic informed peer review. Again, we need the 'gnomes' doing the useful but boring nitpicking, but what makes Wikipedia work for me are encounters with educated peers who know what they are (and what I am) talking about, not red tape. dab (𒁳) 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bachmann, you remind me how stingy I am with praise: a character flaw in real life too. Better by far than surviving a vetting by the Incompetent is the briefest "Great job at X" from a colleague who does great jobs and knows them when they see them. We should all remember to give out our own "Good Article" compliments, especially to strangers and newbies. --Wetman 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

City size

The article appears to contradict itself. Here it says that "By the early eighth century, Constantinople remained the largest and the wealthiest city of the entire world, notwithstanding the shrinking territory of the empire. The population of the imperial capital fluctuated between 700 000 and 1 000 000 as the emperors undertook measures to restrain its growth." while here the population of Constantinople doesn't exceed 400 k at no point in it's history. I will add the corresponding template, until someone brings some sources and clears this up.

I've fixed it. The 700-1,000k claim misquoted the source given. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon England

I dont consider that Anglo-Saxon is a continuation of Roman culture. Surely it should be a separate section and Sub-Roman Britain should be referenced here. Adresia (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're on track. Go for it!--Wetman (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with POV fork Dark Ages

The old Dark Ages has been moved to Historiography of the Dark Ages and we now have a new period article in its place. This should be merged here, and maybe elsewhere too. As far as I can see, the move of the old DA was not discussed at all. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the move was not discussed, there's already this article for the period in history and this new Dark Ages article ain't exactly neutral in point of view...--Boffob (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The old Dark Ages is now back, & the new one apparently deleted. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved it back, as there had been no discussion about the move, and there was clearly no consensus to do it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

GIbbon!

This article really disappoints me. There is an abundance of modern highly developed scholarship on the EM period, but this article is fixated on lavishing slabs of Gibbon's archaic prose and idiosyncratic perspective everywhere. Scholarship has increased in depth and breadth over the last 200 years! I'll make some effort to improve when I'm logged in. But please, think of the cohesion of the overall body - and substantiate assertions like Valens was "unwilling to share glory" at Adrianople (as opposed to his being simply unaware of the proximity of the remainder of the Goth force, or his troops' discipline breaking down within sight of the wagon train) with modern scholarship! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.60.10 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede implies that "Dark Ages" depopulation and cultural decline affected only Western Europe, not the Byzantines. This is someone's boosterism, not serious history. Heraclius had to reorganize the empire as feudal state, just like Charles Martel in the West. The classical trade and money economy had obviously disappeared, otherwise no one would have considered shifting to feudalism. Also, I would argue the actual years can be understood more intuitively than century dating, although we can certainly give both. If we say that EMA ended in the 10th century and that the High Middle Ages started in 1000, than there is an undesirable gap between the two. 476 is the traditional year for the start of the Middle Ages. Kauffner (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The lede says right off (as it has for months) that "The period saw a continuation of trends begun during the decline of the Roman Empire, including population decline, especially in urban centres, a decline of trade, and increased barbarian migration." These things clearly affected all Roman and formerly Roman territory. The only difference in the versions is that the label "Dark Ages" receives an explanation. What needs to be clear is that while there was a general decline in many areas across the board, Westerners' interpretation of what made the "Dark Ages" dark are tied to what happened in Western Europe, not in the Eastern Roman Empire or in the formerly Roman areas taken by the Muslims. Britannica lays it out: the "Dark Ages" concept is intrinsically tied to Western Europe.

On the dates, we should avoid being specific unless there is particular call to be. 476 is only one of several possible events that has been taken as the "start" of the Early Middle Ages; in general I believe historians are eschewing specifics such as that. 1000 is fine with me, though "10th century" covers everything between 900 and 999 (or 901 and 1000 if you want to be a stickler), so we aren't missing anything there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a boatload of definitions for "Dark Ages" that don't specify "western" here and here, so putting in this qualifier strikes me as pretty arbitrary. Another way to avoid to implication that Byzantium was exempt from decline would be to take out the "however" and note that the empire lost most of its territory in this period. I'm happy with "5th century" as the primary start date for EMA, since that seems to be the current majority view. But I'd like to see 476 appear in the lede as well. It's the traditional start date and usage goes back to Leonardo Bruni, who created this periodization. I note that the Britannica Dark Ages article uses the 476 date. Kauffner (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Byzantines lost most of their territory later in the period; earlier in the period they sometimes even acquired territory. Additionally, they lost even more territory after the Early Middle Ages were over. The "darkest" part of what is typically termed the "Dark Ages" were actually the best period for them, and the parts we call the "Renaissance(s)" were their end of days. And no part of the Early Middle Ages were a "Dark Age" for Islam. If we're going to use the label it should be with the caveats recent historians put on it. Perhaps the best thing would be to separate out the clause about the "Dark Ages" and the one about the Byzantines.

We can work in 476. Honestly, I thought it was already in there, along with other traditional dates for the beginning of the EMA, but I see it was just in a footnote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if Byzantium was consistently victorious, it would just show that it declined somewhat less than the people they were fighting. But certainly Byzantium held far less territory in 1000 than in 476. "Dark Ages" is normally defined as a period in European history, so that wouldn't include Islam. The Islamic conquests were made at the bottom of the Dark Ages, so the Muslims could boast of improvement if the time of conquest is used as a starting point. Kauffner (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is, the "Dark Ages" construct doesn't apply to the Byzantines in the way it is is generally applied to Western Europe. The "fall of Rome" is generally given as the starting point of the "Dark Ages", but obviously it didn't decimate the Eastern Roman Empire, which continued to flourish through much of the 5th, 6th, and early 7th centuries – the centuries given as the "darkest" for the West. Then there's the matter of the Dark Ages ending, when intellectual "light" was restored to Europe. Things greatly stabilized in Western Europe by the 12th century, but that's not true in the Byzantine Empire, which continued to decline and lose territory after the "dark ages" is considered to be over. By the time of the Renaissance, when civilization was said to have been "reborn", the Byzantine Empire was in its death throes. I have a book (possibly more than one) that describes this very issue; essentially it says that the so-called "Byzantine Dark Age" doesn't correspond with the Western Dark Age, and that no Byzantinist would use to term "Dark Age" to describe the entire period between the 5th and 10th century.

On Islam, most modern surveys of the Early Middle Ages I've seen discuss the Islamic empire, as one of the structures that inherited historically Roman territory. Indeed, it's discussed at some length in this very article, so it should certainly be in the intro (and not just in the context of whittling away at the Byzantine Empire). I don't see why an article like this should be limited exclusively to Europe, but even so, the Muslims were in Europe in this period - they were in Iberia, Anatolia, parts of Italy and Greece, etc. That's one of the problems with the "Dark Ages" label, really. You have to start with the concept first, selecting only the evidence that supports such a notion and gloss over everything that doesn't fit.

I suggest altering the wording, so that what was going on in the Byzantine and Islamic Empires is described. Then, if necessary, we can have a line about the "Dark Ages" label.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the first point, though not so much the second - if the article is supposed to cover the Islamic world, or the ex-Roman parts of it, it needs drastic changes, and "Early Middle Ages" is not a term you'll find used to cover this period for Islam. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No section on art

There is no section on art in this article. There should be. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly classical politics-centered history (with the exception of learning institutions). For a broad picture of the EMA, it lacks not ont only in the art department, but everywhere else, too: above all, Christian religion which was indisputably the defining factor of the era, but also no less architecture, economy, clothing, etc. To accomodate all that, it needs a second article, basically. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Traditional date of 476 for beginning of this period

476 "Romulus Augustus, the last traditionally accepted Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, is deposed by Odoacer. This event is traditionally regarded as the date of the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the European Dark Ages." This date should be in the article, but since the Collapse of Rome section ends at 410 I'm not sure where it should be placed. Nitpyck (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No decline in the East?

Am to understand from the lede that Greece was exempt from the societal decline that effected Western Europe? As near as I can tell, this is just floating OR, with nothing resembling a source to support it. I doubt if any mainstream historian accepts this idea. Is it some Greek superpatriot revisionist history? Kauffner (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Now which barbarians was it who overran Greece? Didn't we cover all this back in April, two sections up? Johnbod (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Between the Slavs, Avars, Bulgarians, Persians, and Arabs there was no part of the empire wasn't repeatedly overrun other than Constantinople itself. But more to the point, there was a disappearance of coinage, collapse of trade, deurbanization, and a shift to a feudal "theme" system, all the same megatrends as in the West. Kauffner (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The current version is superior, as it explains why the period is sometimes called the "Dark Ages". As was said before, the "Dark Ages" construct doesn't apply to the Byzantines in the way it is usually applied to the West. Also, as I said before, the Islamic empire shouldn't be relegated to the position of simply chipping away at Europe. Of course we can work on the wording, but we can not take it for granted that the "dark ages" concept is accurate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a shot at rewording. This version makes it clearer that the phrase "dark ages" isn't only applied to Western Europe, but maintains that there were differences between the regions, as well as the explanation of the term. Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)