if you look at central germany or the areas up along the russian rivers like the dnieper and don in the year 300 and compare it the year 1300, they made major progress. kiev hit it's high point in that period; berlin wasn't founded until around the year 1300. the same is true in france and england, even if the difference is a little less.

but, that was not true in spain, which at best underwent stagnation through the period. it's not true in the arab heartland, either, which limps to the mongol destruction event having barely managed to convert all of the greek literature to arabic, while adding little to nothing of it's own.

it's important to compare apples to apples, here - and not confuse stagnation from a very high point of civilization as a superior level of development over rapid generation from a point of almost nothingness.

a good way to understand this is to look at china vs the united states, today. yes, america is still ahead by a good horse-length. but, look at the progress made in china....

in absolute terms, what comes out of northern europe in this period is admittedly pretty weak, but it's also leaps and bounds over what existed there a millennia previously. and, that rapid growth would continue throughout the dark ages, as the south continued to stagnate and decline - until it was eclipsed altogether.

so, who writes these histories that frame the narrative in this arab-good, german-bad sort of way? the answer is musiims. and, that's what you get for letting people tell their own history, rather than allowing scholarship to take over.

let's hope he learned his lesson and things are better from here.