"The Empire fell." (p. 500)
Interstellar travel diminished.
Colonies were demoralized.
"...planets broke up politically..." (ibid.)
"...most industry was destroyed..." (ibid.)
There were no resources for rebuilding.
On Nike, heavy metals, formerly imported, are reclaimed from scrap.
Lighter metals had been not mined but electrochemically extracted from the sea.
But extraction technology no longer exists.
Iron oxides are present but unworkably diffuse.
Boards in houses are pegged, not nailed.
A wooden windmill pumps water that drives farm machines.
Nike will benefit from an interstellar alliance.
6 comments:
This is an analogy with the fall of the Roman empire, in which trade declined by overwhelming margins.
So the term "Dark Age" was justified, at least for western Europe. I do still see claims that it was not accurate, or maybe accurate only in the sense of us knowing little about what was going on in the area that had been the West Roman Empire.
Why was the term "Dark Age" deprecated and is my impression that it should have always been considered valid correct?
I did notice the time travelling historians in "To Turn the Tide" commenting that Dark Age was a valid
term.
Urbanization collapsed, trade collapsed, literacy declined massively, populations declined to half or less their previous peaks.
Kaor, Jim!
For the reasons Stirling gave above "Dark Age" was appropriate for Western Europe for at least 500 years after the Western Empire fell. Esp. during the anarchy and chaos after the death of Charlemagne in 814.
Ad astra! Sean
My main question is why did anyone regard the term Dark Age invalid?
Kaor, Jim!
That was probably because some writers were reacting against those who despised and condemned everything done in the West before whatever date they fancied.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment