The Next Dark Age: Part 1

Examining the Dark Ages Throughout History

Photo by Chad Greiter on Unsplash

Edit (7/27/24): Updated the title to “The Next Dark Age: Part 1” from the original “Fall of the West”. Although “The West” features prominently in this series, as I write the next part of this series, it occurs to me this is really a “global” problem and one deserving — perhaps — a more open view of events.

From the desk of James Blythe -

As we attempt to understand what the fall of the West and the next dark age might look like, it’s necessary for us to examine the lessons history has taught us up until this point.

“But James, why the West? What makes the West so important?” You might ask. We’ll cover that topic in-full in the second part of this series. That being said, it’s worth a brief introduction here. In short, the current global economic order is largely based on the United States’ dollar and the global trade which has developed due to the hegemony of the Western Powers. For well over fifty years, it is America and its allies that have policed the world’s politics and economics and guaranteed — to varying degrees — that globalization could develop without harassment.

This means that when America and its allies go everyone else is getting dragged down too. If other parts of the network (non-Western ones) go down, things will get harder for the whole, but it’s unlikely that the entire status quo will crumble so long as the West is holding everything else up.

For those who dislike this Western-centric view of the world, the fall of the United States and its allies seems an inevitability brought on by the rampant profiteering and abuse of unchecked capitalism. For those who champion the virtues of the West, it is only a matter of time before their countries simply tire of holding the rest of the world up and excuse themselves from center-stage. I couldn’t say which is true except that Western capitalism has presided over the greatest era of prosperity and technological advancement in human history.

Regardless, we know that nothing can last forever. From history, we know that when a great power falls, an age of austerity often follows. [1]

In this first part, we’ll define, “what constitutes a dark age,” and discuss historical examples of such events around the world. As part of that examination, we’ll also attempt to discern the primary causes of the fall of empires and the age of austerity that often follows.

Defining the Terms — Dark Age

Photo by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash

The first usage of the term “dark age” was in reference to historical commentary of the 10th and 11th centuries in European history. Over time, this phrase grew to encompass the entrity of European history from the Fall of Rome to the modern renaissance. In essence, the only reason the term “dark age” was coined was to contrast the turmoil after the Roman Empire with the “brightness” of enlightenment that came thereafter. As a result, the original Dark Age — and its place in popular thought today — is the period 500 CE to 1500 CE in Europe.

We’ll refer to this time as the Dark Age (capitalized) to differentiate it from our more general discussion of “dark ages” in other contexts.

It’s also worth noting that — for the most part — historians reject the usage of the term Dark Age (or its derivatives) as a valid historical categorization [2] Luckily, I’m not a historian.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines a dark age as, “a time in which civilization undergoes decline.” This sentiment captures the essential feeling of a dark age but it is helpful to allow for some more rigorous criteria as well. For the purposes of this series, a “dark age” (not capitalized) will be defined as the age of austerity which follows the fall of a central power or social order. This isn’t just limited to Europe or cultures with Western sensibilities, but all societies globally.

I’d like to propose, a dark age as having four defining characteristics. First, there is a collapse of central authority in a region or polity. This could be a unified empire, dynasty, or state or even a series of centralized kingdoms that broadly govern a region. The point is that these powers are acting as a stabilizing and interconnected influence in a region. Second, the resulting collapse leads to significant reductions in trade and widespread inability to access goods and services that were once accessible. Third, that there is a significant resulting de-population of urban centers. And finally, that this period of austerity lasts for more than two hundred years.

These are my own definitions. The concept is that the “decline of civilization” that occurs during a dark age results in a significant reduction in the standard of living of a large portion of people in a region. This results in a marked reduction in the classic hallmarks of civilization — public works, centralized services, large scale governance, and regional stability.

It is worth keeping in mind, that a dark age is not necessarily kicked-off by a single event or on a single date. The “collapse” or “fall” of a great civilization can occur over hundreds of years. When it finally happens, that polity may not vanish completely, but is so reduced that it loses control of its former holding and becomes largely ineffective. Further, some have argued that a dark age is characterized by the loss of knowledge or cultural wisdom — a slide into mysticism and ignorance. To me, this is a subjective assessment. It assumes a value judgement about what defines philosophical truth and I have no real, quantifiable metric by which to assess “ignorance”. [3] We also know that during various dark ages around the world, society didn’t simply cease to be. People didn’t simply revert to carrying around stone tools and become ignorant of previous art, learning, and invention. They weren’t suddenly struck by idiocy.

Just because technology, philosophy, and art during dark ages are different from those in the age before does not make them inferior.

Finally, we are not assuming that a dark age is culturally inferior to more classical periods of civilization. No value judgement will be placed on the cultures that come before or after such a period. Hopefully in our discussion, you’ll see that a dark age is simply a period where a previously prosperous society has its fortunes dashed and people must adapt accordingly.

To improve our understanding of what constitutes a dark age, we’ll discuss a few historical examples — the Fall of Rome, the collapse of the Han Dynasty in China, and the Terminal Classic Period in Mesoamerica. Naturally, we won’t have time to cover these topics in-depth, so I apologize for the necessarily brief summation of these complex events.

Let’s start with the original Dark Age.

The Fall of Rome

Photo by Carlos Ibáñez on Unsplash

Arguably, the Bronze Age Collapse and the ensuing Greek Dark Age some 400 years early was a more profound cataclysm for the ancient world, but the Fall of Rome is the quintessential example of the fall from the heights of civilization into an age of austerity.

Rome was founded in ~800 BCE as a monarchy. By 500 BCE the kingdom had reformed as a republic under tumultuous circumstances. By 20 BCE, the republic-that-was-Rome became an empire. From that time until the sacking of the city in 476 CE, the Roman Empire teetered between great familial dynasties, military coupes, and competing co-emperors of a divided state.

More often-than-not the biggest threat to Rome was Romans themselves. After the city was sacked by barbarians the second time (in 476 CE), it never really recovered. This is considered the beginning of the Dark Age of Europe. This is not to say that Rome mysteriously ceased to exist, but its influence was much reduced and its previous holdings split and fell into an age of austerity thereafter.

So, let’s look at the scorecard of our dark age assessment and see if we check all the boxes.

Collapse of central authority? Check. Leading up to — and certainly after — the sack of Rome in 476 CE, the Empire was increasingly divvied up into smaller chunks by civil war or invasion. The goths and huns at various times subjugated or outright moved-in to set up camp in large swaths of the empire that Rome could no long control. When Rome was sacked, the Ostrogothic Empire rose to claim some portion of previous Roman territories in Italy and (marginally) beyond but regional conflict was the rule.

Significant reduction in trade and access to foreign goods? Check. Understanding ancient Rome is as much a story of political intrigue and trade logistics as it is military actions and the mystique of the Caesars. The Empire once sourced food and exotic building materials (marble, gold, etc.) from around its holdings with ease. If conquest was the life blood of the empire, trade was the vein that this wealth flowed through to feed its citizens. The most visible example of this is Roman use and production of marble for great public works. By 500 CE, after the sacking of the city, Rome had lost access to the majority of its foreign mines in Italy, Africa, and Asia-Minor. Even local mines were abandoned as Rome could no longer afford to maintain the logistics of such projects. Similarly, trade throughout the shattered empire ground to a halt and major works of art and access to goods withered.

What about de-population of major urban centers? Absolutely. From the height of the Empire in 200 CE, the city of Rome boasted an estimated million people (give or take). By the end of the 5th century, it is thought that fewer than 30,000 individuals remained within its walls. During the succeeding Ostrogothic Empire, it is noted that many villas and estates in the countryside were likewise abandoned. Macroscopic estimates in Italy suggest that the population was cut in half between 200 CE and 1400 CE (the end of the European Dark Age).

That brings us to our final point — the generally accepted timeline for the Dark Age is from roughly 500 CE to 1500 CE. A span of nearly 1,000 years. Great conquerers like Charlamagne rose to prominence over the course of this time and united significant portions of the old Empire but their success was short lived and failed to break the state of austerity.

So why did it all fall apart for Rome, and thus Europe? One of the earliest theories proposed by Gibbon suggested that the rise of Christianity corrupted the Roman people and their leaders, weakening the State, and eventually allowing the barbarians in. This perspective is largely discredited in modern thinking. It’s also hard for me to see the evidence which supports this supposition. Instead, it seems clear that there were four major contributors to the Fall of Rome.

1. Poor finances resulting from lack of income and depreciation of the currency.
2. Outsourcing of military protection to auxiliaries.
3. Changes in climate throughout the empire — resulting in plague, famine, and migration of new adversaries into Roman lands.
4. Increasingly incompetent leadership and infighting.

Let’s consider these points one at a time in some detail as we’re likely to see echoes of these in our other examples.

For much of Rome’s history, it was considered sensible for the Kingdom/Republic/Empire to conquer and subjugate its neighboring territories. In fact, Roman citizens expected its leaders to do just that. It was widely believed that the conquered peoples were better off for being a part of Rome. Let’s ignore that this mindset is at complete odds with the modern world-view of most people today.

The happy consequence of this colonizing mindset was that, whenever you knocked someone over, you got to keep their stuff. Conquering heroes returned to Rome with wealth — gold, jewels, and slaves. These spoils fed Roman coffers, funded triumphs, [4] and built the great public works of their hegemony. By 200 CE, the Empire was at its greatest extent and Caesars were largely consumed by maintaining existing borders or fighting off political rivals. Expenses bloomed. More bureaucrats. More celebrations. More central control (and economic burden) was consolidated under the growing governance of the Caesars. Why? For some it seemed to be the pursuit of self-enrichment. For others, perhaps it was a desperate attempt to prevent control being wrested from their hands.

Without more money coming in, the Empire quickly (and repeatedly) found itself in-debt. The military expected to be paid (and well). Bureaucrats increasingly used the centralization of power to enrich themselves and their political allies. The masses expected to be entertained and their security provided for. Ultimately, Emperors had two options — raise taxes or print more money. There is only one Emperor I know of who opted to cut expenditures — an extremely unpopular move which earned him the ire of many.

Instead, most Emperors “printed” money by reducing how much gold or silver they put into every coin minted. This new coinage was used to pay Rome’s debts. Increasingly, it was used to encourage Rome’s enemies to not make too much trouble in the form of pay-offs. As highly diluted money flooded markets, more money was needed to counter the depreciation of value. Rome entered a financial tailspin.

Crumbling finances and incompetent military leadership lead to “outsourcing” of Rome’s protection to auxiliaries (peoples who were not Roman but lived within their borders or nearby). They were equipped and trained to fight like Romans. Yet often, they received sub-standard pay or were poorly treated by Roman leaders. Rome became increasingly reliant on the arming of groups of people who were at best ambivalent to the fate of the Empire or at worst outwardly hostile towards it. In fact, when Rome is sacked in 476 CE, it is by a group of former auxiliaries who — poorly treated and unpaid — decided to pillage the countryside up to (and over) the walls of Rome.

Historians now give much greater credence to the role that changes in climate have had on the rise and fall of civilizations. The Fall of Rome is no exception. Much of the Empire and the city of Rome was fed by imports from Egypt — the breadbasket of the ancient world. As climates changed, drought reduced food production. There was disease and starvation as a result. Interestingly enough, the appearance of the Huns (yes, those Huns) at the edge of the Empire in its latter years has been associated with climate change. Essentially, in order to graze their herds the Huns were forced to find more fertile lands. They pressed west, ravishing much of China and eastern Europe until finally clashing with the Roman Empire — who was greatly weakened by this time and largely unprepared to deal with the newcomers.

Finally, let’s talk bad leadership. Like “poor morals” or “systemic corruption”, I have a hard time quantifying such things. That being said, we have a couple good places for comparison. First, it is a commentary on the worsening state of Roman leaders when the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty that immediately preceded Rome’s decline are ubiquitously known as the “Five Good Emperors” (seriously, Google it). That’s how bad everyone afterward was. After this point, the Emperors spent most of their time infighting, planning coupes, or enriching themselves at the expense of the Empire.

A notable exception to this was Julian the Apostate. Humorously, by sacking Christian churches (and stealing their stuff), quelling rebellions at the edges of the Empire, and deconstructing much of the bloated bureaucracy Julian demonstrated that with sound leadership Rome could possibly be saved. Yet his decisions were unpopular among influential Romans and he alienated many with this “return to basics” approach. Ultimately, after a series of tactical errors on a military campaign, Julian died ending his short reign and all of his reforms were discarded by his successors.

This is the classic example of a dark age — both the events that lead up to it and what follows after. It meets our previously established definitions. Luckily, due to the obsession that the modern day West has with the legend of ancient Rome, historians have exhaustively studied that great polity’s rise and fall. Keep these lessons in-mind as we cover our next few examples.

Fall of the Han Dynasty

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

Scholars don’t like to refer to the period following the Han Dynasty of China as a “dark age”. We’ll see this again when talking about the Terminal Classic Period in Mesoamerica. Yet the fall of the Han ticks all the boxes of our dark age discussion.

In 220 CE, the greatest dynasty China had ever known collapsed. The Han had united China and much of Korea starting in 200 BCE. Over the course of hundreds of years, the dynasty fell into decline due to corruption, in-fighting, and a series of natural disasters that gradually weakened the state. Humorously (to me), scholars suggest that there was no dark age which resulted, just a “Period of Disunion”.

Let’s make our own assessment, shall we?

Loss of central authority? Yes. After a series of assassinations, military coupes, and court intrigues, the last emperor of the Hand (Emperor Xian) became little more than a puppet used by competing factions in an attempt to solidify their claims to power. By this time, the empire had been divided up into three kingdoms by the major players at the time. In 220 CE, Cao Pi forced Emperor Xian to relinquish the throne which formally ended any pretense of central authority by the Han. The result of this was near continuous war between competing spheres of influence resulting in the consolidation, fragmentation, and shifting of power and alliances.

Decline in trade and access to goods? Again, yes. Both economic and cultural stagnation are thought to be defining traits of the so-called “Period of Disunion” (apparently not a dark age). As a result of lack of demand, available wealth, and safe trade routes, art and literature became less widespread in the region than under the Han. Most scholars also agree that — what art and literature was traded — was marked lower in quality after the fall of the Han dynasty.

De-population of urban centers? Check. This is a defining hallmark of the Three Kingdoms Period which follows the collapse of the Han. Many cities and towns were destroyed either by war, famine, or disease. Examples include the destruction of Hwando (now in modern-day Korea). These many calamities are estimated to have resulted in as much as a 60% reduction in population from the heights of the Han dynasty.

Finally, this “Period of Disunion” is thought to have run from 220 CE to around 580 CE. As with the Fall of Rome, the slide into this age of austerity occurred over hundreds of years. The resulting fall lasted generations.

What finally knocked over the Han and caused all this “disunification”? In general, the following major factors are thought to have contributed -

1. Financial decline within the dynasty.
2. External threats from barbarians (the Xiongnu and Mongols).
3. Incompetent leadership.
4. Famine, disease, and natural disaster.

Do these points sound familiar? Let’s take a closer look.

For anyone familiar with Korean or Japanese history, incompetence of leadership and financial decline should be easy to understand. Essentially, the Han Dynasty was formed from a bloated and rigid bureaucratic hierarchy with the Emperor at its head. This resulted in poor (no) social mobility between classes and incentives for the upper classes to enrich themselves at the expense of the peasantry. If this sounds familiar (the yongbun of Korea or the samurai of Japan), it should as much of the rest of Asia learned everything they know from the Chinese. Ultimately, this rigid class system encouraged financial excess and poor leadership which weakened the dynasty. It should come as no surprise that warlords used this weakness to carve up the Han Dynasty’s holdings.

“Barbarians at the gates” is a common refrain for civilizations on the cusp of ruin. Much like the Fall of Rome, it is thought that growing weakness and corruption within the Han allowed its border communities to become pray to the raiding Mongols and Xiangnu. Natural disasters ruined crops and infrastructure causing famine and disease. This further pushed the Mongols and Xiangnu to look for more fertile lands putting even greater pressure on the Han and its people eventually leading to the rise of local warlords who would part out the empire for their own gain.

Some historians contest that the decline of Confucianism within the Han Dynasty was a key component in its fall. To be candid, this sounds a lot to me like the suggestion that Christianity corrupted and destroyed Rome. Incompetent leadership, economic forces and military pressures are the largest contributors to the collapse of the Han. Further, keep in-mind that much of the justification for the rigid social system within China at the time was based on Confucian thought. Give the writings of Confucious and his disciples a gander. Emphasis is on respect for elders, respect for social hierarchies, knowing one’s place, and all the good manners and niceties and proprieties associated with such things.

I certainly don’t consider it a villainous philosophy, but it’s hard to see how more respect for an existing, corrupt, social order could have saved the Han and staved off the age of austerity that followed.

Terminal Classic Period of Mesoamerica (Fall of the Maya)

Photo by Nathan Cima on Unsplash

It’s not just the “old world” of Europe and Asia which suffer from the boom-and-bust of civilization. Again, thinkers in Mesoamerican history are loath to call the Terminal Class Period a “dark age”.

It is thought that that Maya civilization of Mesoamerica began sometime around 2,000 BCE and largely disintegrated by 900 CE. Rather than a strong imperial culture, you can think of the Maya more like a general term for groups of peoples across many city states which shared unified cultural myths, religion, and cooperation from a central authority. This great fall leads to the rise of the Aztec Empire (alliance) but little is known with certainty about the Fall of the Maya. Many historians contest that the Maya never actually “fell”. Let’s discuss.

Collapse of central authority? Totally. By 800 CE the primary city-states which had made up central Mayan authority had evaporated. Constant warring between the various city-states of the Nahua people (who inhabited the region at the time) resulted in a perpetual shifting of alliances and a rising-and-falling of power in the region. We know that after the collapse of the Maya, people abandoned their traditional, low-land settlements for hill-top fortresses complete with defensive earthworks.

Decline in trade and access to goods? Absolutely. Mayan pyramids and stelae ceased to be built and improved upon in the wake of the polity’s collapse. Traditional Mesoamerican cultures at this time often did not rely on strict regulation and definition of commerce or other economic matters. However, the decline of public works aside, the obsidian trade — extremely valuable to the Maya — faltered during and after the collapse. Given the prominence with which this material was used for tools, weapons, and other facets of trade, the disruption of the obsidian trade was a major issue during and after the collapse of the Maya.

De-population of urban centers? Yes, please. Kaminaljuyu — a staple of the Maya civilization for thousands of years was largely abandoned during this time. Much of the southern reaches of Maya territories were completely de-populated resulting in numerous “migration myths” in the succeeding cultures following this period. Within a few generations, the Mayan capitals and great cities of the south were completely abandoned or destroyed by proliferation of conflict at the time.

There is no agreement that the Terminal Classic and Post-Classic Period(s) of Mesoamerican history constitute a dark age in the typical sense among scholars. However, with everything else above being considered, for our purposes a period of marked decline persisted between roughly 900 CE until the established dominance of the Mexica and their allies by Tlacaelel and Moctezuma in nearly 1300 CE — a span of some 400 years.

The primary causes of this age of austerity are unlikely to surprise you but have some unique considerations -

1. Famine and disease caused by environmental changes.
2. Increased competition from the rise of outside competitors.
3. Reduction in finances due to disruption of trade.
4. Inability of leadership to adapt to changes outside their social context.

In our previous two examples, food shortages and disease are largely laid at the feet of climate changes in previously fertile regions or natural disasters. For the Maya, many historians believe that the collapse of agriculture in the region was due to overpopulation and the resultant depletion of soil nutrients. Overpopulation seems to have contributed to widespread disease during this time as well. Records on these events is scarce and subject to some conjecture among historians.

Unlike in Europe and China, political alliances seem to have been less defined under the Maya. Individual city-states folded themselves under a common, cooperative banner but outsiders including the rising Aztec alliances, the Toltecs, and others assailed at the borders of the Maya. This increased competition is thought to have further weakened the central order.

As mentioned previously, trade in obsidian was significant to the Maya and other Mesoamerican cultures. Depletion of sources within easy access and disruption of conventional trade routes had significant financial and cultural impacts on the Maya causing further troubles.

Finally, unlike in Rome and Han China, Mesoamerican leadership seems to have been incompetent, not due to widespread self-enrichment and in-fighting, but for religious reasons. Much of ancient Maya culture was structured around commonly shared religious beliefs and alliances. As such, leaders faced significant restrictions on their actions — including governance, construction, and finance — based on religious norms and requirements. Historians theorize that when environmental, economic, and military pressures weakened the Maya, religious leaders were unable to adapt making the classic centers of their civilization resigned to their ultimate fate.

What Causes a Civilization to Fail and the Age of Austerity to Loom?

By now, if you haven’t gotten the common thread, let’s spell it out. Civilizations are displaced or conquered all the time throughout history. This does not always result in a dark age. Austerity does not always follow. When a major civilization falls and a dark age begins, however, similar causes can be found.

1. Poor finances.
2. Failure of supply lines.
3. Weakening of the military.
4. Expansion of the State and resultant incompetence.

Despite modern monetary theory which seems to suggest that “printing money” is an acceptable path to permanent economic prosperity, there are very real limitations on what is possible with money. Ultimately, governments — like personal check books — operate on very simple math. At minimum, more money has to be coming in than going out. How you get the money seems irrelevant. As we’ve shown, “printing money” does not count as income. Excess(ive) wealth within the State is necessary to finance social programs and military affairs and keep the lights on.

Trade is essential to any civilization. On some level, you can do without. However, the more local your supply chains are, the less opportunity for specialization there is. The more expensive goods become. The more sensitive a polity is to collapse during a drought or local shortage. This is true even today in our globalized world and will be a key theme for the next part of this series.

It’s an unpopular thought today, but strong militaries create security. This centralization of authority allows trade routes to be protected, cities to be kept peaceable, and neighbors to be kept polite. Once this critical security capability becomes weak — strategically, tactically, technologically — a polity becomes vulnerable to outsiders. For a civilization at the height of its power, when violence is far away, it is easy to believe that such barbarism is unnecessary. History demonstrates this is not the case.

Finally, and somewhat surprisingly, there is some suggestion that expansion of central bureaucracy is detrimental to the fortunes of a civilization. First, the enlargement of the State encourages in-fighting and power struggles where unification and clarity of vision is needed. Second, expanded bureaucracies have historically been enormous monetary drains on economies. Administrators contribute nothing. Regulators provide little — if any — value to society. Some level of administration and regulation is necessary for large, centralized organizations to function, but when such groups lose sight of the fact that they are supporting activities and not essential in-and-of-themsleves, things go bad fast. Finally, those who make their home in bureaucracy have a vested interest in the perpetuation and enrichment of those structures. As such, when a civilization places its faith in the Return of the King — the benevolence of a Just and Wise State — often the result is the opposite. Corruption. Consolidation of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Decision-making occurring on the basis of “lessening the pain to the State” rather than doing what is necessary for the welfare of its citizens. It’s important to note that “what is necessary” is often unpopular with the citizenry and often requires hard decisions to be made which comfortable peoples don’t always like.

Now that we’ve painted some historical examples of the darkness of the dark age(s), let’s talk about the upside. Yes, good things come out of the collapse of empires. Personal liberties and freedoms expand significantly once the central state becomes ineffective. Especially for those in the countryside or without connections to the politically powerful, this can be liberating. Rural communities expand and those polities that were once downtrodden by large central authorities now have the chance to ascend the steps of civilization to greater prominence and influence. Also, the age of austerity sets the stage for the next boom of prosperity. Birth rates necessarily increase in the wake of de-population. As consumption increases so too does trade and financial wealth. Communities and manufactures become more localized. Without access to large trade networks, more stuff has to be made closer to home. Although this usually increases expense and decreases quality, it creates new jobs and opportunities — especially in communities that were largely irrelevant in the previous order.

These are all things to keep in-mind as we head into Part 2 — the basic description of the global, largely Western, status-quo of today.

References and Footnotes

[1] As we will see, there are good and bad things associated with the end of empires and the resulting chaos.

[2] Reference article by Mac Sweeney entitled The Myth of the ‘Dark Ages’ Ignores How Classical Traditions Flourished Around the World.

[3] I’ve seen articles that advocate the modern era is one of disinformation and thus “loss of knowledge”. As such, it’s been suggested that we are currently living in a “dark age” by that definition.

[4] For definition of “triumph” look no further than Wikipedia.