> Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate.
I don't think anyone who places the East-West Schism before the Early Middle Ages (on top of the still using the term “Dark Ages”) really has any leg to stand on in accusing any other portrayal of history as “woefully inaccurate”.
Did I place it before the early middle ages? Whoops! Not my intention. The schism took place in 1054 officially, however it was very much in the works before that. Thanks for pointing out my comment read as such. I use the term dark ages purely because that is the term the greatest amount of people will be familiar with, and I am referring to the period roughly between 1330 to enlightenment period.
> I use the term dark ages purely because that is the term the greatest amount of people will be familiar with, and I am referring to the period roughly between 1330 to enlightenment period.
I am pretty sure “Dark Ages” is not a term people are generally familiar with for the period from the Late Middle Ages through the Renaissance, since even when the term was more popular, that's not at all what it referred to.
I don't think anyone who places the East-West Schism before the Early Middle Ages (on top of the still using the term “Dark Ages”) really has any leg to stand on in accusing any other portrayal of history as “woefully inaccurate”.