>> This lack of records led some later scholars to give the years after the Roman collapse the now deeply unfashionable label ‘the Dark Ages’,
> That is entirely crap.
It's absolutely not crap.
Wikipedia says (referring the quote used in your link):
The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the "light" of classical antiquity. The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records).
I'd emphasize the "lack of records" here. It's absolutely true to say that some scholars use that as a reason to label it the dark ages.
> They're called the dark ages because some humanists, full of themselves, started calling themselves the enlightenment
I'd note that Petrarch (quoted in the link you posted!) was talking about the times he lived in himself as dark, and was far from claiming to be any sort of enlightenment.
The "Dark Ages" is a thing in English mostly. In other languages and countries there's no such thing. It's simply the middle age or early middle age. I've noticed it affects how English speakers see this period of history.
Petrarch pretty clearly was not using the word "dark" to mean lack of information if he considered the year in which he lived to also be "dark". Did he explicitly state he was talking about abundance of historical records anywhere, or is that something that was projected onto his writings later?
Renaissance humanists were famous for considering the Roman Empire to be the peak of sophistication and all things cool. They were also famous for going to great lengths to recover supposedly lost works of Roman literature, which were often found in obscure places. It seems quite unlikely those people would have been using the word "light" to mean abundance of literature given the difficulty they had in obtaining said literature.
While I agree with your point about Petrarch's thoughts the point I was making was that yes indeed that was a least partially projected onto him by later scholars (and the link was talking about said scholars).
> They were also famous for going to great lengths to recover supposedly lost works of Roman literature, which were often found in obscure places. It seems quite unlikely those people would have been using the word "light" to mean abundance of literature given the difficulty they had in obtaining said literature.
I disagree with this at least partially. They were uncovering these previously unknown works and it must have seemed like a huge opening up of insights that they'd never previously had.
> That is entirely crap.
It's absolutely not crap.
Wikipedia says (referring the quote used in your link):
The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the "light" of classical antiquity. The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records).
I'd emphasize the "lack of records" here. It's absolutely true to say that some scholars use that as a reason to label it the dark ages.
> They're called the dark ages because some humanists, full of themselves, started calling themselves the enlightenment
I'd note that Petrarch (quoted in the link you posted!) was talking about the times he lived in himself as dark, and was far from claiming to be any sort of enlightenment.