As others have said, one big point is that countries were just smaller. But over time there was also loss in administrative capacity, which makes assembling and supplying such a force impossible (feudalism is a solution to a lack of administrators, by having everyone administrate a small number of fairly independant Lords). There's also population factors, like a local cool phase meaning less food production, or stuff like the black plague killing lots of people (though plagues have a long history, including the black plague). But the occurrence everyone thinks of was bad. Like shockingly. Half the population gone, which is mind boggling if you think about it.
This is very much not a settled question. In fact, it's still quite actively debated. The decline and fall you describe here is one position. And there is evidence for it, and it's true in at least some regard. But there is also solid evidence that it really was more of a transition. The rulers, especially at the european borders, didn't substantially change, because germanic people had been in high positions (up to and including emperor!) for a long time. The laws were often unchanged, as were the religion and many cultural aspects.
Dark ages is honestly a terrible name. It's like dark matter that way. Very much so, in fact, because dark here means "can't see shit". We have a lot less sources about the middle ages (which is itself a name that must be questioned), so they're dark in that sense. And some things were definitely lost. But it wasn't the shit smeared peasants you see in some Bretonnian depictions.
And of course, there's the fact that the roman empire went on trucking just fine after the end of the western roman empire for a pretty long time.
Last edited:
