The Dark Ages on The History Channel
As soon as I saw the tagline -- "When the world resigned from the human race" -- I thought, oh, no....
I wanted to find something redeemable in The History Channel's presentation of The Dark Ages. After THC's reasonably accurate and well-crafted piece on The Crusades, I had high hopes (well, hopes, at any rate) for at least a balanced introduction to the centuries following the collapse of the western Roman Empire. But this is popular history at its most sensational. What fun is it to explain how misleading past representations have been when you can perpetuate those misrepresentations with fearsome-looking Barbarians, effite Byzantines, plague-ridden corpses and tortured Frankish captives? And let's not forget the actors in dull clothing, faces dirty and hair tangled, looking listlessly into a rainy gray landscape while the narrator intones how "unnerving" everyday life was.
In no way do I mean to imply that the Early Medieval Era was a fun time to be alive. I wouldn't want to go back to the 5th century -- but then, I wouldn't want to go back to a time when I didn't have TiVo. The entire Middle Ages was no walk in the park, and only the most powerful families could enjoy any real safety, stability, and comfort -- at least, by modern standards. But the same could be said for countless cultures and time periods before the 20th century.
And while there are numerous minor errors, many of the basic facts presented in The Dark Ages are correct -- as far as they go. The problem is, the filmmakers only show you part of the picture. And what they do show you is heavily-slanted toward how absolutely dreadful things must have been.
Yes, there was war. And it might be considered "ever-present" -- if you look at the entire continent. But pick any individual, or family, or even a whole village, and chances are that they would neither be witness to battle nor affected by the repercussions of war more than once or twice in their lives -- if at all. Millions of people got through life without being attacked by an invader. Ever.
Yes, there was plague, and in Constantinople in the 6th century, it got really bad. It's estimated that at one point, half the population of the city was struck down. This is pretty horrible, for Constantinople at least, but it isn't nearly as bad as the Black Death of the 14th century, nor was it a constant fact of life.
The image is meant to be of King Alaric. I have no idea why he's got horns. I know the Vikings didn't wear them, but I never imagined Visigoths did. Or did they? Photograph by Will Hart; courtesy of The History Channel.
Yes, there were many Barbarian migrations during the early Middle Ages. The program demonstrates as much with a map depicting those migrations in glowing lines of fire. They criss-cross western Europe and appear to set the continent ablaze. However, most of these migrations were just that: migrations, not invasions. And when you see that map, keep in mind that each line was usually a rather slow progression that took years, and each line can be separated from most of the others by at least a decade and as much as a century.
And yes, it might be said that civilization had a "downshift" in this time period. But to get some perspective, take this into consideration:
- The transformation in what had been the Roman Empire was so gradual that it took centuries.
- Large portions of northern Europe had never been part of the Empire to begin with, so for them, little had changed.
- Many -- if not most -- of the people in western Europe were of Barbarian stock, for whom settling next to Roman cities and exploiting ancient buildings as quarries was actually a step up from wandering in search of a home.
- The Byzantine Empire and the growing Catholic Church preserved and expanded on ancient learning. There was intolerance, but there was also encouragement, spirituality, and light.
- Sweeping generalizations often mislead more than they enlighten.
I could go on and on -- I'm sure most of you think I've gone on too long. But I really wanted to like The Dark Ages, and I'm truly sorry to say I can't recommend it. (I'm really sorry I had to sit through the whole thing to come to this conclusion.) If you know next to nothing of the Middle Ages, the early part in particular, watching this special won't help you much. I suggest you check out these resources to learn the facts about this complex and distant time period:
- The
Dark-Age Quiz
This relatively easy quiz provides a general introduction to the Early Middle Ages
- The
Early Middle Ages
These directories lead to sites that explore Europe during "the Dark Ages" - Top Picks in General Medieval History Books
These books cover the entire Middle Ages, but they also offer sound coverage of the Early Middle Ages, too.
If you do know something about the Early Middle Ages, and can stomach the heavy-handed tone and the shopworn clichés, please consider visiting our forum to discuss the show, suggest useful books, and point out any mistakes you catch. In fact, when watching the show, you might have fun by making a game of spot-the-error. Just don't make it a drinking game -- you'll be thoroughly sloshed before the first commercial.
Image: "Viking killing machine readies for battle." Clearly this program doesn't buy into the theory that Vikings were more than vicious killing machines. Photograph by Will Hart; courtesy of The History Channel.
The History Channel has some trailers and film clips to view at YouTube, and a picture-puzzle game at Electric Artists.
Daily Features
March 2 in Medieval History
Medieval History Site of the Day for March 2
Castle of the Day for March 2


Comments
Re: King Alaric’s horns. It has been pointed out by military people that it made no sense for anyone to wear horns like that on a helmet. A sdescending sword or ax, rather than glancing off (as would happen with an unadorned helmet) wold catch, either tearing the helmet from the head or multiplying the force of the downward blow.
Melissa, I am very impressed with your knowledge & understanding of the history of Europe during the Dark Ages. However, it is possible that your vast knowledge has prevented you from appreciating the program aired by the History Channel.
Most people do not have the benefit of your knowledge on the subject. The History Channel show probably introduces more information about the Dark Ages (however ’skewed’) to the viewers than they learned during all their years of education, in most cases. Perhaps you should take into account the nature of the audience most likely to watch the program & their understanding (or lack there of) on the subject? Certainly, the general information about signifigant characters who influenced Europe during that time were mentioned as were signifigant events. Keep in mind that this show was a two-hour TV program… Not a 15 college course on the Dark Ages.
I do agree that there is no excuse for presenting facts which were not true about this age. Sounds to me like you might have afforded technical assistance in the making of this program which would have been beneficial in preventing that?
In any case, for those who do not have the benefit of your knowledge about the Dark Ages, I can imagine that this History Channel program was indeed informative & educational. If you care to try to look at the program from that perspective, perhaps you might find it more redeeming & worthwhile for others, if not for you personally… Certainly, for having watched this program, an uniformed person would come away with a greater understanding & appreciation of life in Europe during the Dark Ages than they otherwise might have? I don’t see that as a bad thing…
You’re right, Rodney. I don’t appreciate THC’s The Dark Ages. I don’t appreciate it at all.
Although my review was primarily aimed at regular visitors to my website — who are more well-informed than most people about all periods within the medieval era — I assure you, I did indeed take into account those who have not received any prior education in the subject. And it is these people in particular that I think should avoid the program, for this simple reason: Since they don’t have the benefit of prior knowledge about the “Dark Ages,” how are they to know which portions of the program are accurate and which are not?
You phrased it as a question, but you were making a statement when you said: “Certainly, for having watched this program, an uniformed person would come away with a greater understanding & appreciation of life in Europe during the Dark Ages than they otherwise might have?”
I completely disagree. Just because the program “mentioned” significant individuals and events doesn’t make hearing about them helpful to the uninformed, when what they’re hearing isn’t accurate. What an uniformed person who watched this program would come away with is not “understanding,” but a mishmash of semi-facts and hackneyed clichés about a time period that is frequently misrepresented for the entertainment of the general public, most of whom not only don’t know the facts, but who don’t want to know the facts.
The people who tune into THC usually want to learn. It’s a shame that what they’re being fed is misleading on so many levels.
And for the record, though I hoped for better material, I never expected this program to offer the kind of in-depth information one would get in a 15-week college course. But I think 15 weeks is about the time it would take for someone to check each “fact” presented in this program to determine whether or not it was accurate, not to mention how it was skewed.
As for my “technical assistance” preventing their errors, THC didn’t need my help. They had a handful of experienced, accredited, highly-educated historians interviewed in the program. Listen carefully to some of their statements, and count the number of times they were on the verge of offering clarifying information when the scene was cut off. I don’t think I’ve seen any of them in more recent programs for THC, and I can guess why.
I stand by my review.