Pirenne was an early 20^th century Belgian historian whose works include a History of Europe.  An academic of renown and importance, he was interred as a prisoner of war during World War I in Germany.  During his time in captivity, he worked on his History of Europe continuing a work of historical art which spanned 35 years.  From this effort  one of the most important histories of the 20^th century, ‘Mohammed and Charlemagne’ was born.  It offends almost all of ‘academia’ today, so by default it is likely to be entirely correct.  You can hardly read a kind word about Pirenne in modern day ahistorical revisionism, much of anti-Christian, in modern ‘academia’.  Pirenne’s ideas conform to common sense, which deeply antagonises the ‘academies’ and Muslimophiles which saturate modern day universities and institutes, many of them happy recipients of Muslim organisational money and donations.  Pirenne’s thesis, based on records, artefacts, trade data and coinage is that the Muslim irruption in the 7^th century, combined with Viking attacks in the following centuries (much of it generated by the White slave trade with Muslims); contracted the European socio-economic landscape leading to eras of great, violent and turbulent change and at times contraction, followed by innovation and improvement.  No knees are bent by Muslims or ancestors of Vikings for the millions of White slaves taken between 640 AD and 1000 AD. 

According to modern ‘and the 'orthodox' theory of historical development parlayed by the great minds at Western universities and research centres, the Muslims were far more advanced than the cowering, dirty midgets of Europe circa 640 AD. Only Muslim enlightenment saved Europe from a permanent Dark Age. The Muslims were not only responsible with saving Greek and Roman literature, culture and societal innovations, but imparted these onto the backward Europeans through such venues as the Muslim city of Cordoba in Spain, or the interaction of Muslims in Baghdad with the theocratic and darkly superstitious Christian fanatics in Constantinople. According to this 'accepted' view Islam was a force for good, transferring the ideas of civilization from the East to the backwards West and ensuring that Europeans did not revert back to Cro-Magnon times. We should all be thankful then for the advance of Islam.

This modern view of the early Christian medieval period is significant in its mendacity and loathing of Christianity.  Even Bernard Lewis the so-named 'Sage of the West' in ‘On the West and Islam’, forwards the illusion that the Muslims were advanced and the Christians in Europe and North Africa backwards. Reality and archaeological evidence, as forwarded by Pirenne make this theory a laughingstock. The Fall of Rome as most serious students of the subject will know, was a benefit for much of Europe. Long before 476 AD Rome had ceased to be of much use. It had become just another oriental despotism, with high taxes, a far ranging and corrupt bureaucracy and endless civil and internecine warfare which destroyed wealth and the lives of generations. By 476 AD Rome was already managed by Germanic chieftains and the ending of the reign of the last Emperor Romulus, by the Teutonic Chief of Staff Odoacer – done at the behest of the Eastern Empire – was not a crash heard round the world, but a mere formality in which the Germans formally took over the empire they had so long dominated.  Christian Europe fused together Roman, Greek and Christian ideals to deal with the end of Empire, the change of ownership and the withdrawal of debased Roman coinage from its European wide military occupation, in which the army was a significant attraction of investment and trade.  It was not an easy transition, but without the Church, Europe would have indeed been splintered far worse, and far deeper, and would have succumbed in-toto, to the Muslim invasion of the 7^th century.  It would have become Islamic, an idea that undoubtedly sends modern ‘historians’ into epileptic fits of visionary delight.

In over 150 well sourced and detailed pages Pirenne’s elucidates his case that the Arab attacks on Europe including their takeover of Sicily, Spain by 650 AD, and the relentless piracy and littoral invasions which lasted from 650 to about 950 AD was responsible for the demise of what was then a vibrant set of civilizations [when the Spanish Reconquista really got underway though the Spanish Christians did stop the complete takeover of Spain with their victory at Covadonga in 720 AD].

The 3 'lost centuries' were basically a dark age caused by the siege of Europe initiated by the Muslims. We know this to be true because the Eastern Roman empire of Byzantium suffered a similar fate. The Byzantine empire became a lot poorer, less educated and suffered economic and population contraction during the exact same period as the 'Dark Ages' took hold in the West.  Byzantium contracted until the 10^th century, when through an economic and related military renewal, it fought back against the Muslims from the south and east, and the pagans from the north, and entered a period of nominal prosperity, until its armies were shattered in 1071 by the Seljuk Muslims at Manzikert.  Byzantium never fully recovered from this defeat and was consumed by the Ottoman Turks in steps until the great city and last remaining outpost was digested in 1453. 

Pirenne's archaeological proof makes another key point. Post 476 AD the former Roman state in Gaul, Spain, Italy and North Africa flourished. The Gallo-Roman elite essentially carried on the Roman empire's institutions, trade, road building, colossi construction, and culture. Nothing changed. In fact, as Pirenne proves, the new states became wealthier. Without the dead hand of the Roman-Oriental state, the new powers were able to increase trade, reduce taxes and improve productivity. Archeological evidence makes it clear that from 500-650 AD the former Western empire was far wealthier, more integrated, and more cultured than at any time in its history. The Gallic dynasty of the Merovingians for example, were literally covering their public buildings in part with silver, gold and gaudy emblems of wealth. Western Europe was no poor backwater when the Arabs invaded the European-Gallo Vandal empire of western North Africa in 635 AD. It was rich, sophisticated, and elaborate.

Real world facts make this obvious.

Why then did Europe decline from 650 to about 950 AD? The main reason is the most obvious. The Arab conquests sealed off the Mediterranean Sea and cut North Africa off from Europe. Eastern trade so vital to the wealth of Europe and so necessary for its intellectual, material and even cultural development was severed. So too was papyrus. For 1000 years the Egyptian supply of paper was an extraordinarily key aspect of Euro-Romano development. When this supply was ended circa 640 AD, the Europeans had to turn to the inferior use of cowhides or parchment. This made writing, record keeping and literacy far more difficult to sustain.

The Arabs and Muslims far from being peaceful, civilized and nuanced progressives – as forwarded by Lewis and the orthodox academic community – engaged in a 400-year concerted attack upon the European coastal areas. After conquering Spain and Sicily the Arabs tried to conquer France [failing in 732 AD at the Battle of Tours], and engaged in endless littoral piracy, literally annihilating Christian shipping and port activity. Many European ports became emptied first of ships, then of goods and people. As trade declined the entire economy suffered. Even the coinage of money became difficult, and gold and silver coins were replaced by cheaper bronze units.

When the Christians ended the Muslim siege starting in about the mid-10^th century their economy, wealth and spirits recovered. It led directly to the aid of the Eastern Empire and the creation of the Crusades. After 400 years of Arab aggression the Christians had recovered enough strength to counterattack and end Islamic hegemony of the crucial Mediterranean sea.

These are common sensical, black and white facts, supported by archaeology, contemporary accounts, and comprehensive research. Pirenne is entirely right. The 'Fall of Rome' was not a catastrophe but in many ways a positive development. Europe went into a 3-century decline thanks to the Arabs. This, however, offends the current zeitgeist that the Arabs and Muslims created the modern world. This fallacy is deep rooted in Western culture and academia. The reality is that the Arabs and Muslims created and still create destruction, death and anti-civilizational practices and attitudes.

This is why Pirenne is condemned by the modern historian-community. He was right. They are wrong. And the little academic minds will unite to crucify those who dare to speak the truth.  Not much has changed since the days of Ptolemy.