Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

NNPOV and fashionable nonsense

The paucity of records between the fifth and tenth century was CAUSED by an absolute decline in standards of living, in other words, a dark age. This article is NNPOV and fashionable nonsense, written by fourteen year olds and convenience store clerks who have overdosed on dungeons and dragons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.128.216 (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also possible that this so-called paucity of records between the fifth and tenth century is largely a red herring argument. If people buy it, (and similar claims) then it only need be falsified to "prove" the Dark Ages were not dark.

It's also possible (probable in my mind,) that the Dark Age deniers are part of the resurgence of global religious Fundamentalism that's been well documented to have been rapidly rising since the 1970s. They are concerned that a causal relationship will be drawn between the Dark Ages and the concurrent totalitarian Christian theocracy, (which also banned science and philosophy as paganism on that magic date: 529 - the start of the Dark Ages according to many). As you may know, that same Christian theocracy was so totalitarian regarding matters of learning and the mind, that they even burned William Tyndale at the stake for translating the Bible into English. For translating the Bible into English!!!   The term; "Dark Ages" is clearly not hyperbole, nor merely about a lack of "records" or literature. It's precise, in part because of it's normative clarity.--71.137.156.229 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

research and write a scholarly article, publish it, and then you can cite to it! until then, put down the flail.208.68.129.88 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May I point out that William Tyndale's execution, for heresy, not just for translating the Bible into English, took place in the 16th century. A period that even by the most pessimistic is not considered the 'Dark Ages' anymore, but in fact the period the very historians who coined the term call 'The Renaissance'? Mvdwege (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, may I point out that my original arguments made more than two years ago remain logically unchallenged? The haughty (irrational?) assertion that one needs to publish an article before it can be cited is not worthy of a rebuttal.

Your noting that the barbaric culture of Christian theocracy which demanded the ritualistic strangulation and burning-at-the-stake of William Tyndale because he attempted the crimes of critical thinking and to educate people, continued even beyond the supposed official end-date of the Dark Ages into more enlightened times, is hardly counter-evidence of those centuries of theocratic cultural and mental censorship, institutionalized torture, and general stilted cultural, artistic, philosophical, and scientific darkness, decline, and relative stagnation, now is it?
    To the contrary, the persistence or hang-over of that abominable culture seems more like evidence of how powerful indeed the culture of un-enlightenment (dare one say "darkness?") was, persisting into time from the centuries of active suppression of general education and the actual banishment of freedom of thought by that totalitarian Christian theocracy that the Tyndale case so brightly illuminates. No? Some believe it was actually his printing press that finally killed off theocracy's cold, filthy death grip on public knowledge and education, no? ..."Death grip?" Death? What does "Renaissance" imply again?

My claim that the argument made in the article that "this so-called paucity of records between the fifth and tenth century —is largely a red herring argument" remains unchallenged and that claim remains poorly documented. As is typical in this article, a giant leap is made between "one guy said it" to "historians believed it." That fallacy is called: Converse accident / Hasty generalization, but when that red herring of "paucity of records" is falsified in order to prove "no Dark Ages;" that's a "straw man." ...But it's FAR more than that. The entire article puts forward fake straw men as to why people call the Dark Ages Dark. They were dark in large part because the theocracy were abusively inflicting candle snuffs onto the minds of a whole culture, again as illustrated by the Tydale case. ...and as illustrated by the dictionary definitions at the start of the article. Please. Words mean something, or language is meaningless and communication is reduced to grunts and body language.

It should be noted, as the article's first two (dictionary) refs point out, "Dark Ages" already has a definition, and it's self-explanatory. Everybody knows it. It's the self-referenced "historians" here that are attempting to change the status quo, change the definition. Those attempting to change the dominant paradigm ALWAYS carry the burden of proof. That only makes the weak documentation here seem flaccid. The offensive nature of this article (as evidenced here in Talk) is that the so-called "historians" here want to inflict their values and jargon on the lay without having the guts to call it jargon or specialized lingo. Contained within their arguments are hints that calling the period "dark" is morally inferior, or mean, ...all the while implying that the mental censorship, repression, institutionalized torture, and other filth illustrated within the Tyndale case; (a mere illustration or icon of that culture) were somehow NOT DARK? Ironic that not wanting to pass judgment, historians here assume a judgmental superior, self-righteous attitude. 1) That's wrong, and 2) it pisses people off.
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Doug Bashford

The "Dark Ages" encouraged Old English Bible translations, and those into various other vernaculars - often they are the earliest surviving texts as "barbarian" languages began to be written down. Please take your rants elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Rants!?" Is that all you have? You guys carry the burden of proof, and you resort to an attack on my writing style? Please. Why not just repair the deeply flawed article?
    Ever wonder why historians are not whining about the highly "judgmental" name: The Black Death? Could it be because it wasn't largely caused by a huge Christian "mistake?" (see above: "magic date: 529") (By a religion famous for trying to sweep it's infamy under the carpet at ANY and ALL costs?)
    Laughing. William Tyndale was "encouraged!?" Using your logic, will you now attempt to defend The Black Death because it "encouraged" the development of antibiotics, hip-hip-hooray!?
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

As people keep telling you, Tyndale died over 500 years after normal placing of the end of the Dark Ages. There's really no point in going on about him here. Over and out. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree this article has horrendous POV problems. The entire article can be summed up in a couple of sentences "Some uneducated people believe the dark ages were a period of stifled intellectual development and repression, but look I have one reference that says otherwise so..." It's just silly. There is simply no doubt that the entire period of the middle ages was a step back for humanity. Science was largely confined to a study of Aristotle, Philosophy was either Christian or Scholastic. and Galen (120ad) remained the authority on medical knowledge all the way up until the 1400s, and a single minor cherry picked exception does not disprove this broad truth. But you wouldn't know it from this article.

One comes away from reading this fluff piece as if no heretic was ever persecuted or executed for expressing their views, and as if intellectual progress was not at all affected by the idea that there was one truth, and it was contained within a single book, and that all of reality must then be reconciled to this fact. Is it not obvious that this was written by a Christian attempting to redefine history to conceal the obvious and pervasive effects dogma had on intellectual progress during the Middle Ages.

So yeah I largely agree with Doug that this article needs an overhaul on it nonsensical POV biases. Anyone want to collaborate on making it so? Mark Beronte (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this article reads like an exercise in apologetics. It's another example of 'selective' sourced facts that check out individually, but are combined to create an inventive context that itself is not referencable. Rather than describe things simply ('the big picture') as history shows them to be (and this would be easily referencable) which would make the article more comprehensive to an uninitiated reader - like perhaps an introductory statement about how religion dominated every aspect of life in those times - this article goes straight to deconstructive apologetic detail. Yes, this article can be improved on. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used originally for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe."

The introductory phrase says it all: it is one thing to argue that the paucity in historical records and written (and other) works was due to other causes than religion is one thing, but to pretend that that paucity didn't exist is just... hem. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted supposedly, that is ridiculous. The Dark Ages did exist and science went backwards for several hundred years. No one should make a claim as to why without RS, but to say it didn't happen is ignorant and encyclopedias should not tolerate ignorant articles. Lipsquid (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your confusing what actually existed (history) with how people said it existed (historiography). This is a historiography article. We have other articles for the history of the period (Early Middle Ages etc) . Your POV that it really was a dark age is interesting, but reliable sources noted in the article say otherwise. There are multiple POVs on this topic. That is why we say "supposedly" to accommodate multiple POVs. Also the majority of serious expert scholarship comes down hard on the whole periodization scheme. It's the lay public, populist historians and pop-culture that continues to push the idea. -- GreenC 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Populist historians push the issue because it actually happened, people left cities, infrastructure elements fell apart including sewage and water, which led to rampant death from disease and literacy went from greater that 90% of Roman citizens in 300 to less than 1% literacy by 1300. Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches. Regardless of the approach, these things occurred and are not refuted by mainstream historians. This is about as unencyclopedic as anything I have seen on WP. Lipsquid (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Green Cardamon, and while I do not wish to get off topic, the idea that literacy in the Roman Empire was 90% does not take into account the diversity of academic opinion. In particular you are unlikely to find someone quantifying it, and it is more likely to be explained as 'widespread' or with 'majorities' and 'minorities'. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the term Dark Ages "is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies." It's true there was a reduction in literacy in some places while it increased in other places; and it's true certain technologies were reduced while other technologies increased, such as the heavy plow and metalworking. To label it "dark" is a judgemental and political choice - which places and technologies do you value (Britain and loss of plumbing), and which places and technologies do you ignore (Constantinople and heavy plow)? Professional historians avoid the mess by not using a loaded judgemental term at all. The term "dark ages" started out as a term of propaganda by Italian Humanists who wanted to restore the Roman Empire. It's been controversial ever since. -- GreenC 19:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Very well put, Green Cardamom. And as for the idiotic idea expressed above that the re-evaluation of the Middle Ages that we have seen in mainstream historical research in the last 50+ years is motivated by religious fundamentalism, I can only shake my head in disbelief. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I restored the text per the above. The phrasing has long-standing consensus here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This article needs looking at: it is no longer an article about the dark ages, but one about 'why people who call it the dark ages are wrong'. And the very 'selected' sources (to make the reader believe that those centuries were literate, productive ones?) do not take into account nor mention their proportion in the entire body of evidence; it in fact, in places, tries to discredit the latter (with opinion pieces as 'sources', with no evidence nor mention of overall historical consensus, either). The dark ages happened for many reasons, but a few here doth protest too much about one of them. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It never was "about the dark ages", which is why it's called "Dark Ages (historiography)". It pretty much reflects the typical view of period specialists for several decades now, though it could be argued that specialists are always prone to talk their area up somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If those 'specialists' place in historical consensus (majority, minority, identity?) isn't demonstrated, then the 'revised meaning' (aka 'not dark at all') claim is unfounded... incomplete, at best. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on you to prove your position. The article is full of excellent sources which support its position. Putting things in scare quotes doesn't show anything other than your personal opinion. -- GreenC 17:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not, because this article is making the claim that the dark ages were not so dark (that the term is no longer applicable). Cited opinions are not evidence of anything, and what's actually lacking is demonstrable evidence that historians are wrong... did populations actually rise, was the level of literacy above previous historical consensus' conclusions? Historiography is also about the methods used (methods also require source evidence to demonstrate their soundness), and this article uses a few selective examples to seem the whole. If this article is indeed a representation of historical consensus, it should be rather easy to demonstrate it, and demonstrate that it is that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓

The article already cites many reliable sources including Encyclopedia Britannica which Wikipedia is in close agreement with. If the sources are inaccurate, it would be easy to demonstrate that by citing better sources. You have provided zero sources and until you do there's nothing to discuss except your personal views on how to define the dark ages. -- GreenC 22:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Again: I'm not questioning the sources, I'm questioning the lack of mention (or evidence of) historical consensus on the matter of historical record then (or paucity thereof). Anyone can select sources (and 'select' even from their contents) to 'prove' anything at all (and make it seem consensus or 'common knowledge' by not mentioning existing consensus at all)... but providing a line or two reflecting the historical consensus on that claim would clear any doubts about that up right quick, and since the person making the claim provided the sources, they should be more aware of this than anyone. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This debate is all heat and no light! On the history, as usual the truth is likely to be between the two extremes. There is no denying that this period is poorly documented compared to those prior and subsequent, nor that much classical knowledge was lost to European memory (indeed we only have many of the classical texts because the Islamic world kept them and they were translated back in later medieval years)(and of course it was the period when the Islamic world, and arguably china, became the most 'civilised' - recognising the generalisation and clunking value judgements involved with saying such - taking over from the formerly leading Greek states and Roman Empire). On the other hand the simplistic previous view that the Ages were barbarism devoid of cultural achievement is over-stated. That in a nutshell is what the historiography article should be explaining. I share some of your concerns with its balance, but isnt time someone started some work on suggesting alternative wording? MapReader (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. As I said earlier, there were many reasons that things were they way they were then, but the apologetics of but one of those reasons is... frankly gaslighting the fact that Europe (that this period concerns) was in regression then, and that sheds doubt on the entire article. The reason fewer use 'dark ages' today is the same that people stopped using the term 'retarded': it is both perjorative and overly-simplistic, but the condition it describes remains the same: just because a word is less popular doesn't mean that the condition it described didn't, and any such attempt in that direction is... conveniently irrational, in addition to being non-factual.

A change of context of the description, and some actual overall indications (instead of selective exceptions) would clear that up right quick. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The article describes what most historians of the period say (in the English language world). If you have additional sources please let us know. BTW I suggest you read the article carefully because it often doesn't do what you say it does, and it already does what you say it should. -- GreenC 13:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems as if ThePromenader hasn't actually read the article. Part of the problem is that the intro has degraded over time so it's not clear it's actually meant to discuss the western Middle Ages. It was much better a few months ago; I will work on restoring it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually I trimmed the lead down a lot because I found it was trying to do too much and was overly wordy. It should be concise summary of the article highlighting only the most important parts from the article. I don't think there confusion about Europe. It says "Western Europe" in the second sentence. -- GreenC 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like most of the changes occurred in December. I'm working on it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the lead is the principal issue; it should summarise the main points of the article, which is what my December copyedit was intended to achieve. Before that it contained a lot of padding and quite detailed stuff that didn't really belong in the lead. You can't change the emphasis of an article simply by changing the lead, since the latter is (supposed to be) simply a summary of the former. MapReader (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

ThePromenader's comments seem to be tied primarily to the intro rather than the rest of the article, as the rest of the article does get into much of what he say it doesn't get into. Trimming the intro was wise, but some of the changes made it less clear what the article is about: the "Dark Ages" periodization as it refers to the western Middle Ages. Re-reading it, it suggests the article will be more about the concept of "dark ages" in general and be critical of the concept, and I can see how someone might be confused. I'm working on a partial re-write as we speak that will hopefully make things a little clearer (though we are probably always going to have people who are critical of the article).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that 'room for confusion' ... a problem that others seem not to see, or seem not to want to. That problem: this article reads "Why using the term 'dark ages' is wrong", and leads the reader to believe that that period wasn't a religion-dominated period of regression in population, literacy, intellectualism and technology in western Europe (and it neglects to make this clarification, too). Petrarch and Baronius may have popularised the term, but later historians just conveniently used it to demark that period of regression: way too much time is spent in opinionated 'blame' and arguments (and counter-arguments), and almost none on the actual fact (the historian angle is expressed by the single line: "Baronius's 'dark age' seems to have struck historians, for it was in the 17th century that the term started to proliferate in various European languages, with his original Latin term 'saeculum obscurum' being reserved for the period he had applied it to. But while some, following Baronius, used 'dark age' neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records", but this is promptly 'gaslighted' through the "but many of them were biased" accusation). Then there's things like : "... that everyone in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat.[49][50] In fact, lecturers in medieval universities commonly advanced the idea that the Earth was a sphere."... well, that would insinuate that 'people weren't so unenlightened', but only if one doesn't take into account how many people had access to these scholars, and when one considers that today, in spite of the internet and every textbook available containing the correct information, 18% of Americans still believe the sun orbits the earth ... go figure.

Historians used the term because it was convenient, and stopped using it because of both its vagueness (debate over the actual period it covered) and perjorative connotation, but this article doesn't at all frame it like that. Rather, through its use of doubt-words ('supposed', etc.) when referring to the actual events, and selective fact, it tries to pretend that the actual period of regression didn't exist; later findings show that 'it wasn't as bad as all that', but this article doesn't present it in that way, either; it even tries in places to make those 'new findings', alone, seem the whole story.

I think providing separate sections for the academic use of the term (consensus thereof, and the demonstrable, factual reasons why) and the more popular and opinionated (and perjorative, biased) use of the term would do a -lot- to clear this up. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sources would support a change like that. Sources that are about the concept of the "Dark Ages" (as opposed to just being about the Middle Ages) don't tend to divide things up as you're suggesting. The popular use of the term came about from the historical scholarly use (which now largely avoids it). It's also worth pointing out that "Dark Ages" as a specific phrase is really only common in English.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand that argument: if a source treats both topics, then it can be a source for either topic, or both. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some work on this. I'll be interested to see what other participants in this debate think. Meanwhile, just a small point, but I don't think American English is really the appropriate format for an article about British and Western European history? MapReader (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I essentially just copied the previous spellings, which were apparently the established spellings for many years. There isn't really an issue using American spellings in articles like this on historical topics (this isn't really a British topic specifically), and the biggest thing I see here is the Oxford spelling, which isn't specific to American English anyway. The bigger thing is making the use consistent.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Depopulation and literacy levels

"Cited opinions are not evidence of anything, and what's actually lacking is demonstrable evidence that historians are wrong... did populations actually rise, was the level of literacy above previous historical consensus' conclusions?"

One of the above commentators seems to associate the "Dark Ages" with depopulation and a change in literacy levels. Two events from the 6th century may partly explain the depopulation.:

• "The Gothic War (535-554) ravaged the Italian Peninsula, destroyed some of its major cities (including Milan), and depopulated much of the area. One of the cities affected was Rome, the grand prize for which the two sides were fighting. Per our article on the History of Rome: "The continual war around Rome in the 530s and 540s left it in a state of total disrepair — near-abandoned and desolate with much of its lower-lying parts turned into unhealthy marshes as the drainage systems were neglected and the Tiber's embankments fell into disrepair in the course of the latter half of the 6th century. Here, malaria developed. The aqueducts were never repaired, leading to a shrinking population of less than 50,000 concentrated near the Tiber and around the Campus Martius, abandoning those districts without water supply. " The Peninsula did not fully recover for centuries. From an Italian perspective it was a dark time.
• The so-called Plague of Justinian was an outbreak of bubonic plague which ravaged the Byzantine Empire, the Sasanian Empire, and port cities around the entire Mediterranean Sea. It may have reached even beyond the Mediterranean. Contemporary chronicles speak of a plague outbreak in Wales and another in Ireland. An estimated 25,000,000 people died in the plague. The plague returned periodically until the 8th century, with the last outbreak mentioned c. 750.
  • Some of the historians from this era paint a particularly grim picture of the plague, partly for personal reasons. For example, Evagrius Scholasticus got the plague and survived it. But he reported that the plague took "his wife, a daughter and her child, other children, most of his servants and people from his country estate."

As for literacy, we do not even know how literate was the population of the Roman Empire. Per our article on the subject: "Estimates of the average literacy rate in the Empire range from 5 to 30% or higher, depending in part on the definition of "literacy"." ... "The military produced a vast amount of written reports and service records, and literacy in the army was "strikingly high". Urban graffiti, which include literary quotations, and low-quality inscriptions with misspellings and solecisms indicate casual literacy among non-elites. In addition, numeracy was necessary for any form of commerce. Slaves were numerate and literate in significant numbers, and some were highly educated."

By the 5th and 6th centuries, the literacy levels in the Roman Empire had declined, and "reading became rarer even for those within the Church hierarchy".

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Europe literacy probably increased during the Dark Ages. For example, the previously illiterate Ireland. Per Early Irish literature: The Roman alphabet was in use by the 430s, the heretical writer Pelagius was apparently Irish, the poet Coelius Sedulius is called Irish by a primary source, 6th-century missionary and hymn-writer Columba was Irish, monastery founder and writer Columbanus was Irish, 6th-century poet Dallán Forgaill was Irish, 7th-century poet Luccreth moccu Chiara was Irish, and the Book of Armagh is an illuminated manuscript from 9th-century Ireland. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Accomplishments and Achievements ... Details please.

In the article there are several references to how modern archaeology has discovered the "nuanced" accomplishments and achievements of the Dark Ages period (hereinafter I will call these the A&A) yet whatever these A&A may have been they are never actually identified in the article. Would someone please identify and source these A&A or else the assertion that there were such will need to be removed from the article per WP:Verify. 172.88.134.126 (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition

Regarding this recent addition.[1] It says:

[for] some historians today, the term "Dark Ages" is meant to to describe the economic, political, and cultural problems of the era (source: Review Article: Travel and Trade in the Dark Ages, Treadgold, Warren, Journal The International History Review Volume 26, 2004 - Issue 1)

I have access to this source in full on JSTOR. The phrase "dark ages" appears once, in the title only. Nowhere does it discuss the meaning or usage of the term 'Dark Ages'. Maybe it does in spirit? Nope, the article contradicts, pg. 84:

'the rise of the European commercial economy, indeed the rise of the European economy, period, did not begin in the tenth or eleventh century. It began, decisively, in the concluding decades of the eighth century'

Apparently the Dark Ages are when the European economy was born. Hardly dark. It's anecdotal to pick sources that merely use the term "dark ages". There has to be more, a quote showing what the term means in context, or better a direct assertion about its meaning. -- GreenC 01:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"in the concluding decades of the eighth century'

Let me take a wild guess. Based on that description, Warren Treadgold is referring to an expansion phase of Francia under Charlemagne (reigned 774-814), the establishment of the Carolingian Empire in 800, and the beginning of the Carolingian Renaissance. Dimadick (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Query

The arguments about the power of the Catholic church during this period (and presumed impact/direct cause thereof of the Dark Ages), and the church's possible reflection of said time period makes me wonder if the Catholic church's opinion of its own history can be gleaned by canonisation of its popes. Every pope through Julius I (d.352) is a saint, and continuing onward, through 537, only three of 58 popes have not been canonised. Then it gets choppy. With Adrian III's death in 885, of the next 50 popes, just 18 are sainted. Then from 885 through 1049, you have 42 consecutive unsaintly popes. Hmm... Now I'm actually wondering if there's already anything written on this vague concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.210.168 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too expert but the period 885 through 1049 the Papacy was weak. This was the age of the Vikings after the Carolingian Empire collapsed, the Papacy had no defender from Islamic forces moving into Italy, and no champion for its causes. Maybe it's valid there were 42 consecutive unsaintly popes during this difficult period? Historian Will Durant refers to the period as the "nadir of the papacy", when the popes were controlled by a powerful and corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti. By 1048, there were three people in Rome claiming to be the Pope. Fun times. -- GreenC 03:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not exactly like the previous Popes were particularly politically influential. From the 4th to the 9th century, we have Popes appointed or controlled by Roman emperors, Ostrogoth kings, Byzantine emperors, and Frankish kings. The "Protectors" of the church changed, but the church needed protection. And the biographies of a number of "weak" Popes in the period GreenC spotlighted tend to explain what kind of problems they faced:

• Pope Stephen V (term 885-891). "he begged the [Byzantine] emperor to send warships and soldiers to enable him to ward off the assaults of the Saracens on papal territory and southern Italy and from 885 to 886 the Byzantines reoccupied southern Italy from the Muslims."
• Pope Formosus (term 891-896). An opponent of Guy III of Spoleto, Formosus convinced Arnulf of Carinthia to challenge Guy for the positions of King of Italy and Holy Roman Emperor. Resulting in a war-ravaged Italy and two rival emperors fighting each other. "During his papacy he also had to contend with the Saracens, who were attacking Lazio."
• Pope Boniface VI (term 896). Elected to the position through the support of rioting crowds. Died 15 days later, possibly assassinated by a political faction affiliated with the Duchy of Spoleto.
• Pope Stephen VI (term 896-897). Appointed by the Duke of Spoleto, and had the support of the Roman aristocracy. Most famous for exhuming the corpse of Pope Formosus, placing the corpse on trial, and sentencing it. He also annulled all ordinations performed by Formosus. Stephen VI faced a revolt against him, was incarcerated, and then assassinated in his cell.
• Pope Romanus (term 897). Annulled all acts and decrees of Pope Stephen VI. His term lasted a few months and ended in obscure circumstances. He may have been deposed or assassinated.
• Pope Theodore II (term 897). Belonged to the same faction as Formosus. More notable for reinstating the acts and ordinations of Formosus, and reburying his corpse with honors. His term lasted only 20 days. His cause of death is unclear, though some historians suspect that he was assassinated.
• Pope John IX (term 898-900). Appointed by the Duke of Spoleto. Supported Lambert of Italy against Arnulf of Carinthia, but both rival emperors died during his term and the position of Holy Roman Emperor was left vacant.
• Pope Benedict IV (term 900-903). Supported Louis the Blind for the position of Holy Roman Emperor. Louis was defeated in war by Berengar I of Italy, and Benedict IV died shortly after. His cause of death is unclear, but Berengar might have ordered his assassination.
• Pope Leo V (term 903-904). Defeated and incarcerated by Antipope Christopher, Leo V spend most of his "term" imprisoned. He was possibly executed by his captors, though it is unclear who gave the command. The Catholic Church typically considered Christopher to have been the legitimate Pope, but has revised its position and reinstated Leo V in its list.
• Pope Sergius III (term 904-911). Grasped the throne in a military coup, supported by Theophylact I, Count of Tusculum. His predecessors Leo V and Christopher were apparently executed to eliminate a chance of their restoration. Either Sergius or Theophylact are thought to have given the command of execution. Sergius is considered a puppet ruler, with Theophylact controlling the Papal States. Sergius again condemned Pope Formosus and reinstated the memory and acts of Pope Stephen VI. Much of his term was consumed by continued military conflicts over the disputed throne of Italy.
• Pope Anastasius III (term 911-913). A Roman nobleman appointed by the Counts of Tusculum, and reputed illegitimate son of Sergius III. "His papacy faced renewed threats from the Saracens, after they established themselves on the Garigliano river."
• Pope Lando (term 913-914). Appointed by the Counts of Tusculum. "During Lando's reign, Arab raiders, operating from their stronghold on the Garigliano river, destroyed the cathedral of San Salvatore in Vescovio in his native diocese."
• Pope John X (term 914-928). Appointed by the Counts of Tusculum. Orchestrated a military alliance between the Byzantine Empire and several Italian states against "a Saracen outpost on the Garigliano River, which was used as a base to pillage the Italian countryside." The alliance defeated the Saracens and eliminated most of its opponents. John X supported the efforts of Berengar I of Italy to unify Italy under his control. Following Berengar's death, John supported Hugh of Italy against his rival Rudolph II of Burgundy. One of the most politically active and effective Popes of his era, John X was deposed in a coup by his political enemies Guy, Margrave of Tuscany and Marozia. He was incarcerated and died in captivity, possibly executed by his captors.
• Pope Leo VI (term 928-929). Appointed by Marozia, of Tuscany, who controlled the Papal States during his term. "He also issued an appeal for help against the Arab raiders who were threatening Rome, stating that: ”Whoever died faithful in this struggle will not see himself refused entry into the heavenly kingdom." "
• Pope Stephen VII (term 929-931). Appointed by Marozia. Supposedly a disciplinarian who investigated charges of corruption against several clerics, otherwise politically obscure. In part remembered for a fashion statement. Following a line of Popes with full beards, Stephen VII chose to be clean-shaved during his term. The style was adopted by other Catholic clerics.
• Pope John XI (term 931-935). Appointed by Marozia, who happened to be his mother. Alleged illegitimate son of Pope Sergius III. He survived the political downfall of his mother, but mostly served as a puppet ruler for his brother Alberic II of Spoleto. He was apparently a Pope in-name-only, as most of the duties of the office were exercised by Alberic II.
• Pope Leo VII (term 935-939). Appointed by Alberic II. Chiefly noted for negotiating a reconciliation between Alberic II and Hugh of Italy. His policies against the Jews were ambiguous. He apparently authorized punishments against the Jews who refused to convert, but forbid his bishops from performing forced conversions.
• Pope Stephen VIII (term 939-942). Possibly appointed by Alberic II, though he lacked close affiliation with Alberic and his family. Politically active in trying to end an ongoing civil war in France, but unable to bring to an end similar conflicts in Italy. Implicated in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Alberic II, Stephen VIII was reportedly tortured and disfigured. Whether his death had anything to do with Alberic II and the torture is unclear.
• Pope Marinus II (term 942-946). Appointed by Alberic II. He devoted himself to attempts at administrative reforms over the Church. A number of Medieval sources misspell his name as "Martinus".
• Pope Agapetus II (term 946-955). Appointed by Alberic II. He often intervened in disputes between rival bishops, clerics, and monasteries, and attempted a number of reforms. He played a peripheral role in ongoing conflicts between Berengar II of Italy and the future Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor. His assessment in primary sources is mostly positive.
• Pope John XII (term 955-964). Son of Alberic II, elected to the Papacy shortly following the death of his father. He inherited his father's titles and powers, and tried to replace him as de facto ruler of the Papal States. He started his term by leading a war against the Duchy of Benevento and the Principality of Capua, hoping to make some territorial gains for the Papal States. He then faced an invasion by Berengar II of Italy. John XII allied himself with Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, and supported his campaigns against Berengar I. He negotiated a number of privileges for the Papal States. With Otto becoming too powerful, John XII turned against him. His last years were marked with ongoing war against Otto I. John XII died while having sex wit one his mistresses, ending his leadership in the war. John XII has more the reputation of a secular prince than a cleric, but he was somewhat ineffectual against more powerful opponents.
• Pope Benedict V (term 964). Chosen by the Roman militia to replace the deceased Pope John XII and to continue the war against Otto I. He ruled for about a month, while the city of Rome was besieged and suffering from a famine. He surrendered and was exiled to Germany. A year later, he apparently died of natural causes.
• Pope Leo VIII (term 964-965). Appointed by Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor. He had served as an antipope since 963, in opposition to Pope John XII and Pope Benedict V. He had a largely peaceful reign, and apparently granted many privileges to the Holy Roman Emperor.
• Pope John XIII (term 965-972). A Roman aristocrat, though his exact lineage is disputed. The Papal States were still under the control of the Holy Roman Empire, while John XIII granted privileges to the Crescentii family (who were probably his relatives). In 965, he faced a revolt of the Roman nobility against him, requiring Otto I to campaign in Italy against the rebels. With the help of a number of his relatives and allies, John secured control of Rome again in 966. The Papal States underwent some expansion, but there were territorial disputes with the Byzantine Empire and largely hostile relationships with its emperors. He was very active in administrative matters, and had a decent reputation in contemporary sources.
• Pope Benedict VI (term 973-974). Appointed by Otto I. Following Otto's death, Benedict VI was deposed in a coup and incarcerated. Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor campaigned against the rebels and intended to restore Benedict VI in his position. Benedict VI was assassinated in captivity, in order to prevent his restoration to power.
• Pope Benedict VII (term 974-983). Apparently a nephew of the deceased Alberic II and kinsman to a number of former Popes. Largely depended on Otto II in order to face a political faction loyal to Antipope Boniface VII.
• Pope John XIV (term 983-984). Appointed by Otto II. Otto II died shortly following his election, and his heir was underage child Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor. Left without a protector, John XIV was unable to face a revolt against him and in favor of Antipope Boniface VII. He was deposed and incarcerated. He died in captivity, either starved to death or poisoned.
• Pope John XV (term 985-996). A successor for the deceased and possibly assassinated Antipope Boniface VII. For much of his reign, Rome was under the control of Crescentius the Younger, but both he and the Pope were under the authority of Theophanu, the regent of the Holy Roman Empire. John XV came into political conflict with Hugh Capet, King of France over who had the right to appoint and depose bishops. The dispute laid the groundwork for the Investiture Controversy. John XV became the first Pope in history to canonize a saint through his own decision, instead of through a collective action of bishops. He died of a fever while preparing the coronation of Otto III.
• Pope Gregory V (term 996-999). A grandson of Otto I and cousin to Otto III, appointed by Otto III. He coronated Otto III and granted privileges to the monasteries of the Holy Roman Empire. Gregory V managed to convince Robert II of France to back down on a number of disputes with the Church and submit to the Pope's authority. Gregory V faced a revolt against him, led by Crescentius the Younger and Antipope John XVI. Both rebels were defeated, with John XVI blinded and mutilated, and Crescentius killed. Gregory V was a politically successful Pope, but died suddenly and at a young age. There were suspicions that he was assassinated.
• Pope Sylvester II (term 999-1003). Appointed by Otto III, who used to be his student. Sylvester II was a French polymath, whose primary interests were arithmetic, mathematics, and astronomy. As a Pope he started an anti-corruption campaign within the Church, and tried to enforce celibacy oaths to the sexually-active clergy of his era. Otto III and Sylvester II faced a Roman revolt against them, and both died while trying to defeat the rebels. Medieval legend cast Sylvester II as a sorcerer who made pacts with demons. Historians consider him a patron of science, who imported some discoveries of the Arab world into Europe.
• Pope John XVII (term 1003). Appointed by John Crescentius, a nobleman who controlled the Papal States during his term. His papacy lasted a few months, and then he died of natural causes. Other than the fact that he was a widower and had three sons, very little is known of John XVII.
• Pope John XVIII (term 1004-1009). Appointed by John Crescentius. His term was marked by military conflicts between rivals Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor and Arduin of Ivrea. "Rome was wracked with bouts of plague, and Saracens operated freely out of the Emirate of Sicily ravaging the Tyrrhenian coasts." John XVIII is credited with a number of administrative reforms, and improved diplomatic relations with the Byzantine Empire. He voluntarily abdicated his position, likely dye to ill health. He died shortly following his abdication.
• Pope Sergius IV (term 1009-1012). Appointed by John Crescentius, though he possibly competed with Crescentius for authority over the Papal States. "Sergius IV acted to relieve famine in the city of Rome". He apparently planned to instigate a Christian alliance against the Fatimid Caliphate, though nothing came of it. Some consider him a forerunner to the Crusades. Both John Crescentius and Sergius IV died within days of each other in 1012. In Sergius IV' case, historians suspect that he was assassinated.
• Pope Benedict VIII (term 1012-1024). A descendant of the Counts of Tusculum, who won the throne with the support of the Roman aristocracy. He faced a revolt led by Antipope Gregory VI, but gained the political support of Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor and defeated his rival. "In Benedict VIII's pontificate the Saracens renewed their attacks on the southern coasts of Italy. They effected a settlement in Sardinia and sacked Pisa." Benedict VIII allied himself with the Normans of Italy against the Saracens, and with the Holy Roman Empire against the expansionism of the Byzantine Empire. He forced the Crescentii family to submit to him, and he is thought to have been an unusually powerful Pope in political matters.
• Pope John XIX (term 1024-1032). A descendant of the Counts of Tusculum and brother to Pope Benedict VIII. He was chosen to replace his deceased brother, though he was a layman and not a cleric. His terms is marked with increased hostility with the Byzantine Empire, but John XIX won the political support of Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolph III of Burgundy, and Cnut the Great. He secured a number of agreements between the Papal States and the three monarchs. He was a politically successful Pope, but the circumstances of his death are obscure. A few medieval sources record a rumor that he was assassinated by angry peasants.
• Pope Benedict IX (term 1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048). A descendant of the Counts of Tusculum and nephew to Popes Benedict VIII and John XIX. Elected through the support of his family, although he was reportedly underage and politically inexperienced. His entire term (all three of them) is marked by conflict between political factions in Rome, revolts against him, and rumors that he was a murderer, a rapist, and a sodomite. His reign is considered a political failure, and the downfall of the political influence the Counts of Tusculum had in Rome. He was eventually forced into retirement and died in obscurity.
• Pope Sylvester III (term 1045). The candidate of the Crescentii family for the Papal throne. He briefly held Rome following a deposition of Pope Benedict IX. He was deposed himself and demoted in the ranks of the clergy. He was never restored to the throne.
• Pope Gregory VI (term 1045-1046). The godfather of Benedict IX, he supposedly convinced (and bribed) Benedict to abdicate in his favor. He faced opposition by supporters of Benedict IX and Sylvester III. Gregory VI was forced to abdicate by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor. Although Gregory VI was reputedly more competent than either of his two rivals, he inherited an empty exchequer and his attempts at reforms were short-lived.
• Pope Clement II (term 1046-1047). Appointed by Henry III as a replacement for Benedict IX, Sylvester III, and Gregory VI. Coronated Henry III and then went in a tour of Italy. He attempted a number of anti-corruption reforms. He died suddenly, rumored to have been poisoned. An 20th-century autopsy of his corpse revealed traces of lead(II) acetate in the body, confirming that he was poisoned. It is still unclear whether it was an intentional poisoning, since medieval physicians attempted to use the toxic substance as a medical drug.
• Pope Damasus II (term 1048). Appointed by Henry III as a replacement for the deceased Clement II and a rival to to the restored Benedict IX. His term lasted 15 days, and then he died. There were rumors of poisoning by rival political factions, but historians consider that Damasus II was infected with malaria and succumbed to the disease.
• Pope Leo IX (term 1049-1054). Appointed by Henry III. Leo was a German aristocrat and a cousin to Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor. He attempted great reforms in the Church and led anti-corruption campaigns. Militarily, he personally led a campaign against the Normans of Italy in 1053. He was defeated in battle and spend most of 1053 and 1054 in honorable captivity. The Normans apparently thought him a valuable prisoner and treated him well. His term is otherwise marked by disputes with Michael I Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The East–West Schism of 1054 was proclaimed in Leo IX's name, though he was already dead at the time and his representative in Constantinople may have acted without permission. Dimadick (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)