One of the most frustrating things about people who still push this, is they can’t imagine history as anything deeper than a map sized view of the world. There were a lot of remarkable things going on all over, all the time. Similarly, a lot of living in the Roman Empire sucked even before it fell…
Constantly teasing out that diversity of experiences across time and places is what makes history so cool. The Cathars existed in the “Dark Ages,” and the Cathars are kind of fucking rad. Where did those beliefs come from? How did they spread? Just 1 example but a lot was going on then!
We're counting the 12th/13th c. as the "Dark Ages"? * *If so, why would 962/1066 be poor endpoints?
I included the first Middle Ages example that came to my head. But no cutoff for the "Dark Ages" ever makes sense to begin with. Why does a Norman taking backwater England in 1066 make all of Europe suddenly more enlightened? It didn't.
I agree that the lens of enlightenment is dubious when applied to any epoch, but I do think there's value in assigning historical weight to 1066 and 962 in that the Norman dynasty and foundation of the HRE would go on to shape the following centuries of European history
Problem is, how well do the subsequent rubrics of "early/late mediaeval" apply to places like Angkor or cultures like the Khmer?