Why did the Dark Ages occur?

Question

When the roman empire was at the height of its power the majority of roman citizens were literate, cities were well planned, and all over things worked out alright, but when it collapsed it took all of that down with it and the only literate people were nobles and church clergy, cobbled roads made way for dirt roads again and such, why did this happen?

Answer 1

The "Dark Ages" are largely a myth; the scholars of the Renaissance, seeing their knowledge as the height of learning and looking back to Greco-Roman models as their inspiration, labeled the period in between as the Dark or Middle Ages (in fact, Renaissance aritists were responsible for a great deal of the destruction of Greco-Roman art, melting it down to produce their own take on classical sculpture - some brilliant, some not so). As for city planning, well, let's just say that the city of Rome, at the height of its power, was possibly the worst-planned city in ancient times (the great fires that raged from time to time were a consequence of this).

There was, in fact, a great deal of learning and literature being produced in the "Dark Ages." Scholar/poets like Alcuin were producing literature during the Corolingian Renaissance that was in its way as skilled as that of Catullus and Horace in the 1st century BC. Philosophers like Boethius and Thomas Aquinas (representing both ends of the spectrum of the "Dark Ages") were as in touch, and perhaps more in touch, with the works of ancient thinkers as were many Renaissance scholars.

Nobility and clergy were not the only literate persons in the Middle Ages - they were the only people writing. And that's pretty much how it was (the few exceptions were common people with very rich patrons, usually educated freedmen) during the Roman Republic and Empire as well. I would sell my soul to have a poor commoner's or freedman's account of his life in 2nd century Rome - as such, we have to rely on characters like Trimalchio in Petronius's Satyricon for a glimpse, however skewed, into the life of the freedman.

I would suggest a look into any scholarly work on the period after the fall of Rome. It was, of course, a savage age (by our standards); but as anyone who's studied classical culture knows, the Romans were as savage as they come (by anyone's standards).

Answer 2

Because Rome lost a lot of its power. The Franks conquered Gaul (France[!]), the western Goths conquered Spain, the eastern Goths conquered Italy, the Vandals conquered (northwest) Africa and the Anglosachsons conquered Britain (England[!]). These were all Germanic tribes, who had no interest in being Roman, and the culture died. But the Roman Empire had been declining for years at this point. The Catholic church kept its power, so Rome remained an important city, but its political power had decreased and moved away to the former provinces.

Edit: I must also add, that not all Roman citizens of antiquity were litterate either. Most poor people had no use for litteracy, so even if they could read a little, they hardly read a letter or a book, let alone wrote one. And the many slaves were even worse off.

Answer 3

The influence of the church was very responsible. The year 1000 was drawing near and they were as wrong about it as some were 7 years ago. Since the world is going to end, why bother teaching, learning or reading. When it did not the world was in such bad shape it took a long time to recover. By now the church had a monopoly on learning and shared it very reluctantly.

Answer 4

Actually during the Dark Ages, most nobles were not even literate. Charlemagne tried and tried to learn to write his name. He'd even wake up in the middle of the night and get up and practice. He never got it.

For the barbarian tribes that invaded the Roman Empire (one of the many reasons the Roman Empire fell), literacy was not high on their priority list. It actually wasn't on their list at all. It is that simple, the illiterate barbarians took over and destroyed all that long history of art, literature, and culture.

Answer 5

People were fighting over religion. I think, no, I may be wrong.