Who caused the dark ages?

[Anonymous]

Liberals

Conservatives

Updates

+1 y

in my opinion, liberals caused it by eroding the fabric of Roman society, replacing a religion of pride and courage with humility and anxious hope that the end of the world was near

conservatives contributed by making laws to keep the people poor and limiting opportunity

Updates

+1 y

by 200 a. d. 70% of the Roman legions were made of Germans and Gauls. the legions then put their natives into power, and it spelt the end of Julius Caesar's dynasty. Like Plato said, a homogeneous timocracy (the Republic) turned into oligarchy (the dynasty of Julius Caesar, when the masses of immigrants were purposely kept poor) which turned into a democracy (the late stages of the empire when Gauls inherited the government) which turned into chaos, which turned back into a fractured timocracy

[NamerOfStars]

Julius Caesar's dynasty ended when Octavian killed his son; there was obviously no way for it to continue after that, since both Julius and Julia were already dead. But since that was before the empire even really existed, it obviously has nothing to do with the Dark Ages.

[dragoblack]

Bruh, the dark ages started because of the church with it's genocidal crusades, trying to take over the world, ruling people with fear, because if you didn't convert or pretend to convert, you were met with insane varieties of torture and/or just straight up being killed for not believing in their monotheistic god. Aside from the church there were the royals & nobles bleeding the citizens dry due to greed and needing to bribe the church every month, along with the aftermath of all of that leading to plague & illness being rampant.

You are way too brainwashed into the 2party mentality, to notice the massive spectrum of political thinking. It's time for you to drop that mentality and do some research into the political spectrum.

[Syntosi]

If you are limiting it to libs vs cons then obviously cons. The dark ages was ostensibly caused by the fall of the Roman Empire which could have been avoided through some major political reform. Instead it mostly maintained its broken traditional policies and the rest is history.

[Asker]

there was major political reform

[Syntosi]

Reading the update I feel like I should add some context. The Roman Empire lacked one thing above all else, political stability. Its institutions were not strong enough to enable the peaceful transition of power which means that there was always some general who thought they could do it better or some politician with grand ambitions etc.. Political strife after political strife. This massive instability meant that the entire society suffered as a result and could not develop as it should both culturally or economically.

This is quite striking when you consider just how much the Romans innovated, and then realize that this was under the arguably worst possible circumstances to allow for this innovation to happen and how much further they would have gotten with something as simple as political stability.

To further highlight just how insane the instability in the Roman Empire was, lets look into the Pax Romana or "Roman Peace" which is a period of 200 years that marked both their golden age and also a relatively stable period in their history. I say relatively stable and you should immediately realize what I am going to say next. It was not stable for a god damn second by our standards.

Rough counting, in those 200 years of "peace" they had around 40 civil wars and revolts in the Roman Empire. That is a lot for a supposedly "peaceful" era and that is not counting all the political bullshit or actual wars that was going on at the same time or the number of Emperors or how they died.

Rome was a complete and utter mess and the only way to change it would be political reform to strengthen the political institutions. You can think of this as "liberalization" if you want. It was the conservatives of the time that rejected such things in favor of how things had always been done and which ultimately killed the Roman Empire.

[DrPepper12]

Ill let the plebians know. Im sure they supported these successful reforms...

[OtterMan68]

those terms aren't really applicable. Both the Romans and the European tribes were monarchists who weren't big on civil rights and liberties. No one was really that interested in upsetting the status-quo in their own territory, so I guess if you really had to choose, they'd be conservatives as they did not want change

[Asker]

I'm a bit confused because the decline was defined by widespread change

[OtterMan68]

if you're talking about the fall of Rome it was caused by hyper inflation, over expansion of the Empire, the splitting of the Empire, poor harvests, and more organized and larger tribes such as the Huns and Visigoths. The last Emperors in the west weren't exactly liberal.

[OtterMan68]

Diocletian, for example, was hardly liberal.

[TheorionMage]

Rabid Christian fundamentalists "T'was God's Will..." prophecy SAID so! BURN infidel! >:(

[Knightwatch27]

None of this makes any sense. Learn history before asking about it.

[Asker]

how does it make no sense

[Knightwatch27]

Don't try to play dumb with me.

[Agape93]

He may just genuinely be dumb

[Asker]

you two are narcissistic morons

[Knightwatch27]

No we're not.

[handsomelad70]

WERE there liberals and conservatives in the Dark Ages?

[normalice]

Christian nationalists.

[DrPepper12]

Christianity. WTF? Libs? LMFAO

[Asker]

christianity is a liberal religion

[Dongie]

Boo, hiss..

[DrPepper12]

Christianity is liberal? Its only the most conservative belief system in the planet. Exhibit A: Catholicism

[Dongie]

Catholics are the whore of Babylon

[Asker]

@Dongie said who?

[Asker]

there is nothing conservative about meekness, etc etc. if you want to know what a conservative Roman was like considering the fact prisoners were mauled by wild animals in the coliseum for entertainment

[Dongie]

@asker, I just said it.
You need proof read the book of Revelations.

[Asker]

you seem to be completely unaware that your own ideas filter what you see. and to some degree everything you see is an idea inside your own mind. simply reading a mysteriously written book isn't going to prove you right.

[Dongie]

And woolies, jubbie, wahhh to you too.

[Asker]

@Dongie you're a moron

[Dongie]

When speaking to one, it will always seem so.

[Asker]

one of the first principles of thinking is to distrust thinking and get as close to the sensation as possible. trusting a poetic book is very close to being insane

[DrPepper12]

Dont need to tell me! Proud athiest here!

[Dongie]

You're a pack of heathen idiots that will come to proof real soon. Jack-offs.

[DrPepper12]

Oooohhh the invisible sky daddy is gonna get me!!

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.". Seneca

[Dongie]

Yeah well teach, I've been given proof. But I can't show you or anyone else, but that leaves me knowing where stupid atheists are going.

[DrPepper12]

So in other words you have no proof. You actually use that word proof like you understand what it means.

[Dongie]

I don't offer YOU proof. I said I've been given proof. Maybe I'm fuckin' speacial.

[DrPepper12]

Well then! I hope i too am so fortunate to be among the "elect" and become Saul on the road to Damascus.

JK I'd never join an irrational man made scam. Why is it an omnipotent and omniscient God can do everything in the world but can't balance a checkbook and always seems to need more money? Funny like that isn't it?

[Dongie]

You speak as tho you know all their is to know. What, omniscient, omnipotent, like God?

I'll throw a prayer for you, Doc, because I like you. You speak your mind. We butt heads, but you're not so bad most of the time.

[Dongie]

Neither. It was the visigoths

[jahaims]

Google it