Ten years ago, I had the understanding the the Germanic invasions of the WRE were the cause of the fall of the WRE. However, as I read more about Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages they seem to be discussed more as a symptom than a cause. More reading shows that much of the fall of the WRE was due to the sharp depopulation of Europe during that time.

It's difficult for me to really wrap my head around how depopulated the WRE became.

Is there good source material to read that can really highlight this? Are we talking tumbleweeds blowing through empty farm communities that were thriving just ten years prior? Would a Roman Citizen from 150 AD be shocked and horrified to walk through his hometown in 300 AD?

I am always shocked at how far groups of settlers would travel and then proceed to conquer a new land. For example, the Vandals in North Africa. I've looked at the map of Europe on top of a map of the US to get perspective.

How was this possible and so frequently done?

It was by very large groups of people, over very large distances, to lands already peopled and protected.

There are many examples, but to give a concrete place for a conversation: Vandals in North Africa.

What allowed for such long distance migrations? Why such long distance migrations? Why does this appear to become less frequenty in, say, the High Middle Ages onward?

I have two questions (or sets of questions) I'd like to ask about this period, so I'll post them seperately.

Firstly, How quickly did slavery fade away in this period, and what were the primary causes for this? By the year 1000, how signficant was the number of slaves left in western Europe? Finally, was there a big difference between different parts of western Europe in terms of slavery?

For a general social history question, how do you consider Christopher Wickham's idea of a "peasant golden age" in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire in which peasant communities largely managed to attain a degree of autonomy? And for a fun question: would you rather be a peasant in (let's say) central France in 150, 350, 550, or 750 CE?

My next questions will be broken up a bit so I can username tag people:

To /u/Aerandir, /u/rusoved and also anyone else who works with the topic, my understanding is that when the Varangians settled along the Volga, they had just as much contact with the Muslim central Asians as with the Christians in Byzantium and SE Europe (I vaguely remember one story about a Varangian in the Carolingian Court who dressed like a Pecheneg). Why did they eventually orient themselves towards the Christian Byzantines, and why did Christianity "win out" instead of Islam?

What should we know or what interesting piece of knowledge would you like share with us about your particular discipline of history? (I hope open questions like that are kosher)

First, sorry for so many questions. I've posted several. I love this topic.

In the US, at least where I'm from, there is really no connection between the Roman Empire and the ERE. That is, if you asked anybody here "When did the Roman Empire end?" they would say "Like 500 AD?"

A few questions on that:

• If I were raised in a Western European country, would I think the same thing?
• If I were raised in an Eastern European country, would I think the same thing?
• If I were raised in Greece or Turkey, would I think the same thing?

Is the disconnect between the ERE and the WRE a "correct" thing in that they were two separate political entities and we should accept that the Roman Empire "fell" in 476 AD (at least, the title of Emperor was lost). Or really we're teaching the wrong thing and we should collectively agree that the Roman Empire didn't truly fall until 1453 AD?

A church history question: In the schism between the "orthodox" / Chalcedonian christianity, and the monophysites, what would the monophysites call the first mentioned position? Orthodox (which I find most text books call it) would certainly not have been used by them?

What is the current understanding of why the Vikings went from traders, to pillagers, and then back to traders during the "late" Early Middle Ages?

And, bigger picture, it seems to me that the Vikings played a critical role in the development of modern Europe. Specifically, their role in the Northern Arc and their role is dulling the power, wealth, and focus of the HRE. /u/Aerandir do Vikings get the credit they so richly deserve in having shaped Europe?

My question is directed to anyone of you who wishes to answer:

Where do you stand in the grand debate of late antiquity regarding whether Roman society around the Mediterranean world experienced a gradual and mostly unnoticed transition vs. a systematic collapse of countless aspects of life ?

It seems to me that at the moment the debate comes down to methodology: a more archeologically oriented research which will point to all the destruction and gradual inferiority of the material culture (Ward-Perkins for example) versus a research more textually oriented, which may deal with the horrific descriptions as literary topoi (for example, I'm thinking of the articles in the 2009 spring volume of the Journal for Late Antiquity).

How much continuity was there in the aristocratic class between the late Western Roman Empire and the 'barbarian' successor kingdoms? Were the roman aristocrats largely replaced by new Visogothic/Frankish/Vandal/etc nobles, or could you find some families of rich Romans that continued to hold power and wealth well past the expiration of the Western Roman Empire?

In popular conception, the late Roman aristocrat is kind of just a soft, rich owner of Latifundia while the ruling class of the 'dark ages' are more like a warrior-noble, garbed in mail with huge mustaches and beards. How much does this image reflect reality, and how suddenly did such a transition occur (if it did)?

Similarly, how much of the imperial bureaucracy survived the end of the WRE in places like France and Spain?

Historiographical question: the idea of the dark ages is strong in the english tradition (perhaps because we have clear book-end dates - 410-1066AD). How much do other European countries share a similar conception of this period?

Scholarship in the Andalusi courts get a lot of attention for its role in transmission of ancient Greek and medieval Arabic texts into Latin--that is, for its impact on the Christian West. What impact did scholars in Islamic Iberia have on Islamic law, theology, and literature beyond the peninsula?

(/u/Yazman, /u/CptBuck, /u/riskbreaker2987 might be interested.)

How much of a role did the relative poverty of the Western Empire compared to the Eastern Empire play in it's ultimate disintegration?

Adrian Goldsworthy in his book Why Rome Fell claims that the various military units of the Late Empire were vastly undermanned compared to their notional "on-paper" strength. Was the Western Empire having trouble paying for the army? If so did this make it unable to deal with situations like in AD 406 where they had to deal with both civil war and barbarian invasion at the same time?

I read a while ago that the latecRoman army, particularly the heavy cavalry, were supplied from Imperial armouries (the Latin escapes me) in a semi-centralized system. Is this accurate? If so, hiw did this system work? When did it break down?

Years back when I was reading about medieval England, It was mentioned in an old book that not much is known about England after the Roman legions departed till about 7-800 CE. I never followed up this particular aspect of history in my studies.

So is this true? Or have newer researches given a better picture of that period? Also what would be some good books on the topic?

I have a question about land ownership and feudalism in France after Charlemagne. From what I understand about feudalism, it seems to be a very rigid and hierarchical political structure. The power from this system seems to stem from the ownership of land and the people to cultivate it. How did traders, craft organizations, and merchants wield political influence? Could they "buy in" to the political game by purchasing land and titles. And if this was the case, would the landed classes enforce policies more restrictive of free trade and a more dynamic economy?

A question for /u/alriclofgar: I recent delved into the scary world of post-Roman archaeology, and some of the stuff I read genuinely surprised me, particularly about the argument for the island's overwhelming Romanitas. I'm curious to hear your assessment of this; I gather that there's quite a bit of evidence for south-west England (Tintagel and all that), but it does not seem to be very applicable beyond that region. Would you say that the 'consensus' is to argue for a much lower degree of continuity in general? My instincts says yes, but I also see both this and Harris (2003) being cited quite a bit, but without any long analysis of their content. Gerrard (2013) notes that there hasn't been a consensus on this since the 1980s, which doesn't help for an amateur like me, so I could use an expert to steer me in the right direction.

Dramatic portrayals of medieval courts frequently show characters march towards the monarch with swords rattling on their hips, or intrigues resulting in multiple concealed daggers being drawn.

In the court of a King or a Pope, you typically see visitors approach the V.I.P with a sheathed sword rattling on their hip. Frequently an altercation occurs among two individuals and daggers are drawn. Even if there are armed guards, this seems like an unnecessary risk. Are these portrayals accurate?

Moving down in status, let's say the son of a lord is visiting another lord for dinner. I assume the son arrives with an armed escort, who wait somewhere else on the grounds when he goes to the dining room. Does the noble guest wear a sword or carry a dagger for dinner?

Today many everyday places forbid weapons, some US schools have metal detectors, and if meeting the president, the security is very elaborate. When in western history did it become normal to temporarily surrender your weapons when visiting persons of note?

how did the primary sources that survived to modern times, survive? For example, why did the Brut, Bede's Ecclesiastical History, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stay available? Was it more important for the monks to transcribe certain chronicles than others? Were the "more favorable-towards-the-church" chronicles higher on the list than others?

For my second question (or sets of questions), how tolerant was "Dark Age" western European Christianity (Catholicism? Does Celtic Christianity count as Catholicism?) compared to later Middle Age Catholicism? I'm thinking of the way they treated other religions (Jews, pagans, Muslims), thinkers with radical interpretations of scripture (how far did you have to go before being accused of heresy?), dissent about the power of the Pope, and even sexuality. I recognise this is a very wide-ranging question, which is why I thought it best to ask it on an AMA.

Was monastic life a desirable goal for women in early medieval Byzantium? Was it restricted to the upper classes? Was there a "second tier" option, like western lay sisters? What social role did these monasteries play in their communities? How strict was cloister? What kind of education was available for girls/women in Byzantine monasteries, and was it limited to women intending to take vows? How exceptional was Kassia--can we contextualize her within a wide sweep of monastic women's literary/liturgical activity like we can with Hildegard in the West?

tl;dr Tell me about Byzantine nuns. :)

(Hm...tagging maybe /u/shlin28, /u/arivederlestelle, /u/MarcusDohrelius but all comers welcome!)

I've read both that the House of Islam both "boxed in" Europe during the Early Middle Ages--contributing to the already steep decline--as well as that trade with the ERE and the House of Islam via the Northern Arc actually helped Europe during that time.

I realize it's probably not all one or the other, but what is our current understandling of the impact of the House of Islam specifically on the economy and progression/regression of Europe during the Early Middle Ages?

Here's a question for /u/bealoideas: I've been rereading some narrative mythology in the course of my research and have come across frequent references to characters having multiple pupils. For example, Cú Chulainn is said to have "seven brilliant gem-like pupils in each of his noble eyes" in the Táin Bó Cúalnge. What is the symbolic significance of characters possessing multiple pupils, if any?

My understanding of current scholarship is that there's roughly 2 major camps in the approach to late Antiquity and the Migration period Roman empire : Continuity (e.g. Whickahm) and Catastrophism (e.g. Ward-Perkins). I think I've heard this in the Yale online lecture on Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages, that recent archeological tends to favor the latter, though not completely. What are the most recent archeological discoveries and what do they tell us about the period?

Bonus question : how is Ian Hughes' book on Stilicho (Stilicho : The Vandal who saved Rome) looked upon by specialists?

Anglo-Saxon England seems not to have had much in the way of towns until the 8th century or so. First, is that an accurate statement? And then, I know there's evidence of goods from across Europe in use in Anglo-Saxon areas. In the absence of towns or other trading centres, how did trade over long distances work in that era?

Vikings of various sorts traveled to many areas of Europe, and settled along coasts and even inland. Most of these seem to remained relatively faithful to their original cultures, except for the group that would become the Normans. What happened to make them so culturally distinctive after only a few generations of separation?

In your opinion, which force had a greater influence on Early Medieval Europe: the Danes/Norse or the Islamic world, and why? This is a broad question, and maybe a matter of opinion, but both were strong influencers of culture during this period ie. Danish culture on Laws vs Islamic on music & mathematics. To which do we owe the most gratitude for shaping the Medieval period as we know it, or do you think there was some other factor?

How does current scholarship of the Late Antique world view the religious texts and commentaries that were so copiously produced (often instead of narrative chronicles) in this period as sources? I am especially interested in the ways that the anxieties of religious writers can shed light on the social and political questions of the times.

Sorta related to this, has there been any mainstream scholarly attempts to use the Talmud as a source for understanding Late Antique Mesopotamia?

I have a smattering of questions, mostly pertaining to Scandinavia or the ERE. /u/Aerandir, /u/Ambarenya, /u/bitparity, /u/TheBulgarSlayer, and anyone else:

1. What do we know about syncretism in Scandinavia? I recall reading that Scandinavian Christians were resistant to the idea of worshipping a suffering man, so they tended to conceive of Jesus as a victorious warrior-type who would kick Satan's ass at the end of days. Is there any truth to this?

2. Why, broadly speaking, did Scandinavia end up aligning itself with the Latin West rather than the Greek East? This seems especially surprising to me, the "Varangian Way" having been thoroughly exploited by Scandinavian traders and the Varangian Guard having provided a convenient way for Norse mercenaries to export Greek culture and influence back to their homelands.

3. This might slightly precede the time interval under consideration, but: how likely would pagans in medieval Europe or antiquity have been to look for "parallels" in neighboring pagan faiths? I'm thinking of something like the "interpretatio Germanica", where Germanic gods were associated with Greco-Roman deities in naming the days of the week. Would a Norse trader in Novgorod have thought to himself, "huh, I guess 'Perun' is just what they call Thor"?

4. How did medieval succession practices eventually adopt the status of "law"? Here I'm also thinking of the ERE, where succession arguably never held the status of "law", in contrast to the de facto primogeniture that seems to have gradually become the norm in the West.

5. Why was Lithuania so late to the Christianization party?

6. I offered my best guess at this question in another thread: were there any pagans in the early Varangian Guard?

7. How did the Varangians earn their reputation as loyal warriors? How accurate was this reputation, given their role in certain ERE rebellions (e.g., against Michael V)? Why was Basil II so comfortable having them as his personal bodyguard?

8. For information about the Varangian Guard I've primarily been relying on Blöndal and Benedikz' The Varangians of Byzantium. Is there a better or more recent source?

Before the Great Schism of 1054 what differences were noticeable between different "schools" of Christianity? Most importantly how early were differences between east and west (orthodox and Catholic) noticeable?

A question on Christianization -- when might the last aspects of paganism die out in the Roman Empire? I have heard that one of the members of Justinian's court remained pagan (John the Cappadocian?) Does this represent well that paganism lingered on for a while? Are there reliable dates for when each province became majority christian? Lastly, how uneven was christianization? I often am told that the East (Greece, Syria, Egypt, Balkans?) was christianized far sooner then the West (Gaul, Italia, Germania, Hispania) save for North Africa. How true was this?

I have been listening to Philip Daile on Audible. I really enjoyed "The Early Middle Ages". Are these regarded as accurate and current in the field?

What's your opinion of the term "Dark Ages"? I know it's unfashionable these days within academia, but do you still use it as a convenient shorthand - as with the title of this thread - when people ask about what period you study? Or do you get irritated and challenge people who use it?

I made a thread about this a few weeks ago, but it never got a response.

Why do historians nowadays almost exclusively use "Sasanian" instead of "Sassanid"? I don't see similar treatment given to any other dynastically-named empire of Iran - I always see Achaemenid, Seleucid, Arsacid, Samanid, Saffarid, Safavid. Why don't we see Achaemenians, or Samanians?

I hope this is considered relevant, given the importance of the Sassanid/Sasanian Empire in late antiquity.

Thanks all for doing this ;)

I hope I'm not too late for some questions to /u/cerapus .

• When nobles "received" a domain, were they granted all the people working there as well?
• If this is the case, would those people be able to leave when the noble person changed and they didn't like him?
• I think the person that was master of the domain had almost unlimited rights on that domain, were there some masters that abused these powers? If so, what could the common people do?
• Any good books to start delving deeper in the lives of the common people and the relationship with the lords?

Many thanks in advance ;)