Argumentative Essay Dark Ages

Submitted By 18wheatonb
Words: 1033
Pages: 5

Why step backward when you have the resources to make leaps and bounds forward in knowledge and technology? The human race, with as much knowledge as we have, is full of procrastinators. Although we have the ability to make the most of what we have for our entire species, we are greedy in such a way that we sacrifice being smart for being wealthy. We are so self­centered as a whole population that we lack curiosity and incentive. During the 1000 years between 500­1500 C.E, humanity had resorted to their former, uncivilized selves instead of having curiosity and obtaining answers to their questions concerning all areas of life. They failed to build upon the former glory of their predecessors. Collective learning had been tossed aside while instead of keeping communities together, entire populations decentralized and began growing individual farms rather than growing food as a community on a large farm.
Along with the progress of knowledge being slowed, humanity was faced with other problems. From Charlemagne converting anything that moved to Christianity at the point of the sword to the Mongols sacking cities, killing every last inhabitant, poisoning the water supply, then burning all sorts of architectural masterpieces to the ground.
Although the middle ages were not a complete blemish on the timeline of human history, the people of that time period lacked the creativity, curiosity, and overall incentive that is crucial the the advancement of mankind’s knowledge, which appropriates the title of “The Dark Ages” for the time period of 500­1500 C.E.
Charlemagne, the grandson of Charles “The Hammer” Martel, became the ruler of the Franks in 768 and later became the emperor of Rome in 800. He only caused troubles for mankind during his reign of power. Charlemagne was a constant nuisance to his neighboring countries as he fought tireless wars against them in an attempt to conquer all of Europe. His strategy for getting others to convert to Christianity was brutal as he often forced Saxons to convert at swordpoint and had the idea drilled into his head that is was okay to kill others because they didn’t conform to his brutal attempts at spreading religion. The entire ideology of a good leader is to understand the views of the public and to use force only when necessary but in the case of Charlemagne, force was the only way. Although he was a factor in the correct naming of the middle ages,
Charlemagne wasn’t the only piece of the puzzle.
The Mongol empire, which existed in the 13th and 14th centuries, was the largest empire the world has ever seen. Their rise to power was not without sacrifice, as they killed anyone who stood in their way. The Mongols claim to fame was their dominance on the battlefield but they were a ruthless group of people. They would ride up to any city and basically explain if they were not bowed down to and paid taxes, they would kill every last man, woman, and child taller than the wheel of a wagon, poison the wells, and burn the city to the ground. The way of the Mongols was an effective way of controlling their subjects but they were not able to educate their peoples and had to keep expanding or their empire would collapse as quickly as it had grown. The Mongols

had a situation of expand or die and it was virtually impossible for the outcome to be good for them once they slowed down. The damages done by Charlemagne, The
Mongols, and many more figures was obvious but it could be argued that they were positive factors.
Looking at king Charlemagne at a glance, he appears to be admirable, and the opposition would state that argument. It could be brought up that Charlemagne was a driving force in the spread of Christianity, which he was. He also carried his empire to heights it had never been, expanding and conquering all over Europe. But those feats were not enough to disguise the fact that in converting thousands to Christianity,
Charlemagne forced the…