Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Turgenev" data-source="post: 609698" data-attributes="member: 6733">Re: Re: Re: OTAs far as I know, the term "Dark Ages" is disapproved of in the academic Middle Ages field. That period of history is generally refered to a low, middle and high Middle Ages. The Dark Ages is more a layman term these days than an academic one. Course this may have changed over the last ten years (since I was at university).An argument can also be made that the Roman Catholic Church was a legitimate inheritor of the Roman Empire since the Church owes much of its existance and power to the Christian Roman Emperors (i.e. Emperor Constantine who forced all Roman citizens to become Christians) and the Roman bureaucracy. I know this is a simplification of the actual situation but I don't have the time or energy to dig out my old notes from my university Middle Ages History/Classic courses. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As for Constantinople - it was part of the Roman Empire and even became a capitol near the Empire's "end" (The Western Roman Empire was already in decline while the Eastern Empire flourished. Both were part of the greater Roman Empire). In fact, when Rome was ransacked Constantinople became the capitol and one can make the argument that the Roman Empire continued on - just not in Europe. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Such a debate is still controversial within academic circles. I knew Professors who stated that the Roman Empire never actually fell but just changed (or evolved) with the times.As for the Renaissance... that's another controversy for another day. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Scholars have argued over its starting date and its impact on Europe since study of it began. Since different areas of Europe experienced a "Renaissance" at different time periods (and in some cases more than once as in Italy) and these periods had different impacts on their respective cultures... some scholars have made arguments that a "renaissance" never actually occured. Again it was just an evolution of the trends that were in place since the low Middle ages (and before).I know people like to put history in nice neat little packages but the way I see it is a more organic approach where it flows from one factor to another and you'll be hardpress to find where one factor starts and another begins.Okay I've done enough rambling. That's what you get when you post with only three hours sleep. I hope that this post made some sort of sense. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification