How would you like civ7 divided into eras?

[pecheneg]

Reference #2 or the Era of big guns (and not so much).

Let's see what happened next. And then we have epic pogroms of fortresses in a couple of weeks (a reference example is the finale of the Hundred Years' War). Then – the blitzkrieg of the French in Italy in the 1490s. Because, finally, they were able to make "long" bombards. Trebuchets can only be used for great grief and they will die quickly.

In general, the powder revolution of the mid – second half of the 15th century is associated with the appearance or exit from the stage of experiments with "raw" samples.

a) granulated gunpowder. About the fun ones described above

b) iron and cast-iron cannonball for serious guns, allowing to reduce the caliber with all the consequences.

c) cast from bronze (more durable, and therefore, with equal power, lighter) guns of sane caliber.

d) as a result - "long" guns of the classical form (a direct consequence of the first points). As a result, the velocity of the projectile additionally increases and due to this it becomes possible to reduce the mass with equal shot power.

е) a normal wheel carriage. First, "burgundy". At the same time, the Burgundy carriage facilitates vertical aiming and makes it possible to quickly transfer fire over a range. Which makes it possible to shoot even at a moving target.

Then the trunnions, allowing only the barrel to be tilted, provide this for larger guns as well.
In addition, the trunnions allow you to hold the barrel normally when recoiling. Previously , for this purpose , the trunk had to be inserted into a massive wooden beam . As a result, instead of a "block" carriage, a lightweight "box-shaped" one appears, that is, this familiar thing to everyone.

In other words, the weight of the gun required for a joule of power is reduced in as many as four directions at once. Great, we have a gun of sane size, and at the same time a decent range. Previously, there was something in such a form factor that could shoot at an attacking opponent once at point-blank range. As a result, relatively mobile field artillery appeared

f) Since the 1550s – with an artillery "front end". Which turns the transported cannon practically into an articulated four-wheeled cart instead of a problematic "gig". As a result, not only the cross-country ability is growing - now a fairly large cannon can be carried quickly.

g) the wick lock. At the same time, we already have granular gunpowder and a fairly long barrel is almost no problem. Crossbowmen are dying out, the share of firearms infantry quickly reaches tens of percent.

h) a wheel lock quickly appeared in the background = normal firearms cavalry. At first, she "kills" mounted crossbowmen, by the end of the 16th century – knights.

At the same time, almost all innovations fit into a relatively short period. For example, the guns of 1450 and 1480 are two disastrous differences, and the overall design as a whole has been preserved for the next 300+ years. The arquebus appeared shortly before the 1470s. That is, gunpowder weapons before the "revolution" are either ineffective siege weapons or "marginal". After that, there is already a thunderstorm of fortresses and a full–fledged factor of field war. In general, the era of the pike and the shot is coming.

 

[Evie]

Oh boy. Jules Michelet. His uncommon grasp of what made a good historian (he understood how to research and write history long becore most) matched only by his remarkable ability to ignore that understanding and let his formidable imagination and devotion to Republican beliefs fill in the blank when the archive documents didn't say what he wanted them to say. He is one of the great fabulators of Medieval atrocities, and his idea for the start of the Renaissance as beginning with a sudden influx of Greek knowledge at the fall of Constantinople has long since been crushed.

I respect his understanding of the field of historical studies, but I view with great suspicion any of his claims to actual human history. To quote a later french historian (specifically about Michelet's imaginative contribution to the "history" of the alleged Y1K scare): "It's enough to read Michelet carefully and verify his sources to observe that his imagination overcame this otherwise brilliant historian to the point of making the sources say what they don't".

As to your point about the death of important renaissance figures, I see that as having little value. It's events and trends that define eras, not the lifespan of individuals. Important renaissance figures died after the end of the Renaissance, and Napoleon outlasted the Napoleonic era, and that's less of a comtradiction and more the self-evident nature of eras to me.

It may be that some of the smaller and wealthier states had firearms earlier than I thought, but the numbers I find for European majors do not suggest firearms were a significant presence in 1500.

In any event, Michelet having brought thr Renaissance into historical periodization, is one more reason not to use the term and to favor Age of Discovery or Early Modern era (I like both, Early Modern is more accurate but Discovery may be more recognizable). Again. Which makes the whole question of whether the Renaissance should be the age of gunpowder, moot, since the Renaissance shouldn't be in the gsme at all, and, since Discovery and Early Modern both end significantly later than the Renaissance, there's no question they are gunpowder ages.

 

[pecheneg]

Oh boy. Jules Michelet. His uncommon grasp of what made a good historian (he understood how to research and write history long becore most) matched only by his remarkable ability to ignore that understanding and let his formidable imagination and devotion to Republican beliefs fill in the blank when the archive documents didn't say what he wanted them to say. He is one of the great fabulators of Medieval atrocities,

There is no dispute about tastes, while dating periods by styles in art seems to me generally delusional. Nevertheless, the fact is that the end of the Renaissance could be attributed more or less argumentatively even to the 1650s.

and his idea for the start of the Renaissance as beginning with a sudden influx of Greek knowledge at the fall of Constantinople has long since been crushed.

At the same time, it may very well be that Michelet was closer to reality than the refuters. About the key technology of the Renaissance (a normal blast furnace, not a 2-meter-high parody built of junk), Europeans SUDDENLY dawned in the 1450s.
At the same time, the Byzantines had much longer and more active contact with the east, where the blast furnaces had been for a long time.

As to your point about the death of important renaissance figures, I see that as having little value. It's events and trends that define eras, not the lifespan of individuals.

1. The problem is that we are not discussing what you personally think, but the official dating of the Renaissance.
2. So, dating the end of the Renaissance with the situation: "someone built one transitional-style church in Rome, while the rest of Europe continues to continue" suits, well, to put it mildly, not everyone.
And the period before 1625 is considered early Baroque, its spread is local. Including because respectable people don't like all this rave, blue hair... sorry, baroque.

and Napoleon outlasted the Napoleonic era

That is, Renaissance figures were exiled to St. Helena and took away, uh... tools?

It may be that some of the smaller and wealthier states had firearms earlier than I thought,

Burgundy under Charles the Bold, together with vassals, is clearly more than 100 thousand square kilometers. England proper – 133.
At the same time, yes, both Burgundy and Milan are rich. Therefore, Charles at Murten has 18-20 thousand – 1.5- 2.5 times more than the British army of the Hundred Years' War, and is comparable to the French at Agincourt (25, of which 15 are armed servants).
At the same time, Milan is VERY rich. As a result, he has 16 thousand at Makolodio (1427). After everything is paler – about the English level.

but the numbers I find for European majors do not suggest firearms were a significant presence in 1500.

I repeat – the same Spaniards finally turned out to be from crossbows by this time. Under Cherignol, they have ZERO crossbowmen.

In any event, Michelet having brought thr Renaissance into historical periodization, is one more reason not to use the term and to favor Age of Discovery or Early Modern era (I like both, Early Modern is more accurate but Discovery may be more recognizable). Again. Which makes the whole question of whether the Renaissance should be the age of gunpowder, moot, since the Renaissance shouldn't be in the gsme at all, and, since Discovery and Early Modern both end significantly later than the Renaissance, there's no question they are gunpowder ages.

I remind you that the whole dispute began with the fact that you also used this term when describing your ideas about the spread of artillery and the role of arquebuses. How to name the period of early modern times in the game is a completely separate question. I don't like Renaissance either.

 

[Evie]

Renaissance has always been first and foremost an artistic and intellectual movement. So if you're trying to make it about blast furnaces you're already making up your own renaissance or adhering to a frindge definition thereof.

It's not and never was a technological era,

 

[pecheneg]

Renaissance has always been first and foremost an artistic and intellectual movement. So if you're trying to make it about blast furnaces you're already making up your own renaissance or adhering to a frindge definition thereof.

It's not and never was a technological era,

Hmm, you clearly underestimate the impact of the amount of money the customer has on the height of soaring spirit. At the same time, looking into Italy of the 15th-16th century, you can find that the causes of soaring are really very mundane. There are A LOT of artists/architects in the 16th century somewhere in Venice. And most of them serve the wealthy middle class. And from this LARGE mass, a couple of percent falls into the orbit of a very solvent nobility – and textbooks. And this scheme is always the same – if the spirit soars, then bakers have got extra money. And the foundation of any economy is the production of material for tools.

 

[Evie]

As best as I know, many historians now point out poverty worsened during the Renaissance and some even go as far as to suggest it was a period of economic recession.

Concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy elite able to act as patron to the arts is hardly a sign of economic growth.even nobility was able to concentrate wealth (and used it to sponsor church building), and the great Italian families were nobility in most meaningful ways.

The Renaissance as a period of unambiguous progress is not a thing historians much subscribe to anymore. Progress was made in a number fields (artistic and intellectual notably); in others turning the dial back a thousand years to Roman "glory" was an unmitigated regression and worsening.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Not true, China has plenty of mountains, lakes, rivers, plateaus, deserts, jungles, forests, etc to divide the terrain.

The difference is that the Han Chinese were far more brutal and ruthless in their sinofication of the continent. They forced people to become ethnically like the Han or else. Romans were far more lenient in allowing local cultures to exist so long as they paid taxes and provided armies. Hell they even entrusted vast swaths of the empire to be guarded by barbarians with questionable ethnic loyalty.

There are absolutely brutal tales in Chinese history of the wicked and often genocidal tactics which their emperors employed. Feeding chopped up enemy remains back to one's enemies, forced castration, ripping people in half by tying rope at two ends of the body and having two horses at both ends run away, salami slicing of flesh, and water torture to name a few. The very Mandate of Heaven is based solely on the principals of might makes right, because through conquest and brutal subjugation anyone can legitimately claim the throne of all China. It became so commonplace it was tradition within Chinese culture for a new dynasty to rise to power via force of arms, and it was totally morally acceptable by the Chinese people or else.

Europe is a collection of fertile lands divided by mountains, rivers, and ocean.

China is a single relatively flat fertile land surrounded by wasteland and ocean.

You can see the difference, no?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

At the same time, it may very well be that Michelet was closer to reality than the refuters. About the key technology of the Renaissance (a normal blast furnace, not a 2-meter-high parody built of junk), Europeans SUDDENLY dawned in the 1450s.
At the same time, the Byzantines had much longer and more active contact with the east, where the blast furnaces had been for a long time.

No question, the 'blast furnace' technology seems to have originated in China, possibly as early as the 5th century BCE, and certainly by the first century BCE when the Han were reaching temperatures in their furnaces of 1500 degrees C, hot enough to produce cast iron in quantities.

BUT the 'spread' of charcoal-fired blast furnaces to Europe was not a key 'Renaissance' technology and not dated to 1450, or even within a century of that date. The spread (possibly by way of the Caucasus, which neighbored several terminal points of the Silk Roads from China) occurred in the period 1205 - 1300 BCE, where evidence of charcoal-fired tower furnaces shows up nearly simultaneously in Sweden, Switzerland and Germany. There is an even earlier possible example from the late 12th century CE at Norberg in Sweden. Tellingly, the earliest German furnace (1205 CE) used a water-powered bellows to apply pressurized air (the 'blast' in Blast Furnace) to the furnace, which might have been spread from China but is also a logical development of the use of complex geared water-wheel mechanisms that had been applied throughout Europe increasingly throughout the previous 300 years for all kinds of production and 'industrial' processes.
That early furnace in Norberg, by the way, has been estimated (it's an archeological site, so incomplete) at 3 - 4 meters in height and the German furnace in 1205 CE was already over 3 meters tall and built, like many Chinese furnaces, into the side of a hill for easier construction.

IF Michelet thought any particular technology 'suddenly' dawned in Europe in 1450 CE, he is dead wrong. The so-called Middle Ages show a continuous advance of the application of technologies from at least 700 CE onwards, not the usual popular image of technological stagnation followed by a sudden burst of technological innovation after 1450 CE.

Oh, and while the development of international familial banking was a new development in finance that massively increased the amount of wealth available to both private and princely borrowers, applying the equation More Money = More Troops as a simple equation to account for the rise of army sizes is more debatable. An Italian document from about 1475 CE notes that the cost of a helmet, breastplate and pike was 3.25 ducats, while an arquebus cost only 1 ducat, and while it was considered to take years to train a bowman, an arquebussier could be trained in as little as two weeks - the new technology was actually much cheaper than the old!

 

[pecheneg]

As best as I know, many historians now point out poverty worsened during the Renaissance and some even go as far as to suggest it was a period of economic recession.

Мany historians mean the "Great Renaissance", with trecento (14th century). Because the classical Renaissance is a BREAK between two climatic catastrophes. The 14th century started with the Great Famine of 1317-1322. And the population lived extremely merrily until the 1370s, when the "rebound" began. Then there was a certain minimum in the 1430s (with wolves running in search of warmth in Paris).
Then there was a warm period until the 1560s, when the temperature begins to decrease + the "1600th event" (volcano). And then an even colder period than in the 14th century. At the same time, warming immediately caused an increase in agricultural production, etc. This is exactly what many historians have described since the 1930s.

Concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy elite able to act as patron to the arts is hardly a sign of economic growth.even nobility was able to concentrate wealth (and used it to sponsor church building), and the great Italian families were nobility in most meaningful ways.

I repeat, it is well known who could afford the paintings

The Renaissance as a period of unambiguous progress is not a thing historians much subscribe to anymore. Progress was made in a number fields (artistic and intellectual notably); in others turning the dial back a thousand years to Roman "glory" was an unmitigated regression and worsening.

It was especially "bad" with navigation and printing, yes. I repeat, you are extrapolating Trecento and the beginning of the 15th century to the "real" Renaissance. The early humanists, who radiated hatred for craft and the engineering-centric "High Middle Ages" were still boobies, yes. But then Da Vinci and other technocrats came anyway..

 

[Henri Christophe]

Renaissance has always been first and foremost an artistic and intellectual movement. So if you're trying to make it about blast furnaces you're already making up your own renaissance or adhering to a frindge definition thereof.

It's not and never was a technological era,

In this game all eras are technological, since the era change with the technological tree. I guess in Civ there is caravelas as tech options in the renascence, who make much sense if the era was called exploration era.

 

[pecheneg]

BUT the 'spread' of charcoal-fired blast furnaces to Europe was not a key 'Renaissance' technology

That is, an increase in iron production – that is, plows, nails, relatively iron shovels, etc. – is not a key technology?

and not dated to 1450, or even within a century of that date. The spread (possibly by way of the Caucasus, which neighbored several terminal points of the Silk Roads from China) occurred in the period 1205 - 1300 BCE, where evidence of charcoal-fired tower furnaces shows up nearly simultaneously in Sweden, Switzerland and Germany. There is an even earlier possible example from the late 12th century CE at Norberg in Sweden. Tellingly, the earliest German furnace (1205 CE) used a water-powered bellows to apply pressurized air (the 'blast' in Blast Furnace) to the furnace, which might have been spread from China but is also a logical development of the use of complex geared water-wheel mechanisms that had been applied throughout Europe increasingly throughout the previous 300 years for all kinds of production and 'industrial' processes.
That early furnace in Norberg, by the way, has been estimated (it's an archeological site, so incomplete) at 3 - 4 meters in height and the German furnace in 1205 CE was already over 3 meters tall and built, like many Chinese furnaces, into the side of a hill for easier construction.

I repeat. A NORMAL (as I mentioned) blast furnace suddenly "surfaced" in Europe after 1450. "Parody" is well known, it is called in German stukofen (variant – Osmund furnace) and differs from a real blast furnace already at the process level. The blast furnace is completely remelted into cast iron. In stukofen, about 10%. Even in the later and larger blauofen – by about 30%. As a result, the furnace produces slag with pieces of cast iron and a matrix of iron, which needs to be extracted for a long time and problematic. At the same time, the performance varies very significantly.
Here is a link to the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace Among other things, it mentions Chinese furnaces – up to 10 meters high and with a daily melting of tons.

IF Michelet thought any particular technology 'suddenly' dawned in Europe in 1450 CE, he is dead wrong. The so-called Middle Ages show a continuous advance of the application of technologies from at least 700 CE onwards, not the usual popular image of technological stagnation followed by a sudden burst of technological innovation after 1450 CE.

That is, do you think that the process of innovation has been going on EVENLY for 700? Actually, this is not even remotely true, Worse, it 's technically impossible. Look at the chronology of inventions or a generalized graph, they are there. Technical revolutions did not begin by order at the end of the 18th century, "intermittent equilibrium" is the standard.

An Italian document from about 1475 CE notes that the cost of a helmet, breastplate and pike was 3.25 ducats, while an arquebus cost only 1 ducat, and while it was considered to take years to train a bowman, an arquebussier could be trained in as little as two weeks - the new technology was actually much cheaper than the old!

The question is, was it really an arquebus or one of the more primitive options. At the same time:
Nuance 1 Even pikemen in "three quarters" armor are the first line, then the "lungs" went.
Nuance 2. Gunpowder is very expensive, lead is not cheap.
Archers were not "existential" competitors of arquebusiers – and disappeared from Europe under the screams of the military, who wanted to complement the rapid-fire archers of arquebusiers. One archer for two arquebusiers is a suspiciously coincident standard in Turkey and Japan. It seems that the Venetians had the same scheme at one time.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That is, an increase in iron production – that is, plows, nails, relatively iron shovels, etc. – is not a key technology?

Of course it is, but it had already been taking place for over 6 centuries in Europe. There is ample archeological evidence of iron tool and equipment manufacture in Switzerland, Germany, Scotland, Hungary and England dating back to the 8th - 9th centuries. As in tons of slag and other residue from the blacksmith's work, and evidence of all kinds of 'daily' ironmongery ranging from hand-made nails to saws, hammers, adzes, blades, scythes, plow tips and edges - in fact, while I haven't seen any precise figures, the total is at least as great or greater than the volume and weight of iron weapons recovered from the same period.
And not all the work was by human hand, either. The Domesday Book compiled in the 1080s in England and Wales lists over 5600 mills in England alone - water, wind, and animal-powered, so the augmentation of strictly human labor was already well established. While the great majority of the mills were grinding grain, there were also powered hammers, saws, and rollers for processing leather, cloth, felt, metal and wood. - And note that England was considered something of a 'backwater' compared to the states of the continent. Unfortunately, we have no similar contemporary listing of manufacturing installations for anywhere else in Europe for the period, and have to rely on scattered chronicles and archeology.

That is, do you think that the process of innovation has been going on EVENLY for 700? Actually, this is not even remotely true, Worse, it 's technically impossible. Look at the chronology of inventions or a generalized graph, they are there. Technical revolutions did not begin by order at the end of the 18th century, "intermittent equilibrium" is the standard.

Please respond to what I wrote, not what you wish I had written. I wrote 'continuous' not 'evenly'. The words are not synonyms.

The question is, was it really an arquebus or one of the more primitive options. At the same time:
Nuance 1 Even pikemen in "three quarters" armor are the first line, then the "lungs" went.
Nuance 2. Gunpowder is very expensive, lead is not cheap.
Archers were not "existential" competitors of arquebusiers – and disappeared from Europe under the screams of the military, who wanted to complement the rapid-fire archers of arquebusiers. One archer for two arquebusiers is a suspiciously coincident standard in Turkey and Japan. It seems that the Venetians had the same scheme at one time.

Valid question. The quote was in the context of pricing the 'new' arquebus with a trigger mechanism and shoulder stock, which had developed bit-by-bit from about 1425 to 1475 out of the old wall-braced 'hackbusse' and similar 'hand cannon' types of weapons.

And, right you are, the real expense of the arquebus and other new gunpowder weapons was not in obtaining them (although Bombards could be very pricey) but in the cost of providing them with powder and shot on a regular basis throughout a campaign.

 

[CatboyEmperor]

I would suggest "Mercantile" as an alternative for Renaissance since Early Modern just appears to refer to the early part of the distinct Modern period, although Mercantile could easily be confused with in-game conomic policies

Baroque Period (1600 AD): Spain reaches its apex, while England settles the New World.

I think Baroque might actually be the best alternative, although it does have issues considered it primarily refers to a strictly European artistics movement. However, it avoids the implications of "Renaissance" being a "rebirth" thus implying the Middle Ages were neccesarily "backwards"

I think the ages is a bit of arbitrary. As I understand the modern age starts in French revolution and still our own current age untill today.

I still don't understand what is "woke". But I need to disagree with you and @GeneralZIft about eurocentric timelines, there is thousand of option of time lines possible to draw in this game, why we should still drawing the same eurocentric time line over and over? I think one solution is each civilization had it's own time line, I would love to play with Japan and discover how they share the time, because untill now I just know a few, as for example they had the Meiji era.
If you are playing as Aztecs you can divided the time as pre classic, classic, pos classic, colonization and republic.

woke is literally "whining about anything I don't like" and anyone who uses it in such a context like @Joji21 should immediately have anything they have to say discarded. I am not in the least bit sorry for saying this.

 

[pecheneg]

Of course it is, but it had already been taking place for over 6 centuries in Europe. There is ample archeological evidence of iron tool and equipment manufacture in Switzerland, Germany, Scotland, Hungary and England dating back to the 8th - 9th centuries. As in tons of slag and other residue from the blacksmith's work, and evidence of all kinds of 'daily' ironmongery ranging from hand-made nails to saws, hammers, adzes, blades, scythes, plow tips and edges - in fact, while I haven't seen any precise figures, the total is at least as great or greater than the volume and weight of iron weapons recovered from the same period.

Worse, iron has been produced in Europe for the second thousand years. A small but unpleasant problem was in the quantity, yeah. So the daily production of a simple furnace with bellows is about 40 kg. Stukofen – 250, blauofen 350 or so. But when switching to a blast furnace, there is a sharp jump to one and a half tons and above (a specific thing of 1632). Because the difficulties with extracting the kritsa are the need to partially break the already rather big furnace after each melting. The blast furnace works as long as there is something to load into it.
That is, from the blessed year 700 until the spread of stukophen in the 13th century, Europe can. to boast except that the presence of metal. Because there's nothing else to brag about. And the result is appropriate. Monstrous prices for armor, expressed in cows, etc., I believe everyone has seen. What is even more remarkable, they demonstrate touching stability at least from the beginning of the 9th to the 12th century. No less wonderfully reflecting the graph of the efficiency of European furnaces.
Well, then we see a spasmodic growth and price reduction.

And not all the work was by human hand, either. The Domesday Book compiled in the 1080s in England and Wales lists over 5600 mills in England alone

Water/windmills are at least a Hellenistic technology, it's not a fact that she ever disappeared from the British Isles.

Please respond to what I wrote, not what you wish I had written. I wrote 'continuous' not 'evenly'. The words are not synonyms.

А) Then what is the point of objecting to the "sudden surge in technological innovation after 1450 AD"? .

B) How can the presence of progress since 700 somehow refute borrowing, of which there was a giant pile in the early modern period? Considering that
1. The stukophenes were almost certainly borrowed. The alternative in the form of deafblind Europeans, who suddenly had an epiphany just when they allegedly did not see the stukophen in the Islamic East, is somehow unconvincing.
2.. The domain process, unlike blauofen, is not derived from the stukofen technology by small changes. In addition to the linear increase of the furnace, there you need to "invent" a technology for converting cast iron into iron.
Usually, when such an innovation appears, we see a very long background (see, for example, gunpowder and China). Here it looks like a copy paste.

 

[pecheneg]

I think Baroque might actually be the best alternative, although it does have issues considered it primarily refers to a strictly European artistics movement. However, it avoids the implications of "Renaissance" being a "rebirth" thus implying the Middle Ages were neccesarily "backwards"

The problem is that both the Baroque and the Renaissance cover only half of the period we are interested in.
At the same time, a long series of interesting and iconic units are not associated with the Baroque in any way. By the 17th century, the same halberdiers, bombards, rondachiers, the last knights/gendarmes, etc., were dying out.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The problem is that both the Baroque and the Renaissance cover only half of the period we are interested in.
At the same time, a long series of interesting and iconic units are not associated with the Baroque in any way. By the 17th century, the same halberdiers, bombards, rondachiers, the last knights/gendarmes, etc., were dying out.

I think if Renaissance does stay in the game, then we'd need another era to bridge the gap between it and the Industrial Era. I think calling it the Enlightenment Era would make the most sense.

 

[pecheneg]

Reference No. 4 Bureaucracy in battles.

Let's go back to our arquebuses. At the same time, we should immediately note that the powder revolution is not only walking arquebusiers. Apart from little-known devices to the public, these are firearms cavalry and ARTILLERY.

So around 1440, the French have the English, who still own impressive chunks of France, and the prospect of getting another war of attrition for the next hundred years. Because, as the British have repeatedly proved by their own example, even absolute dominance "in the field" is instantly exchanged for an endless siege war. Meanwhile, the enemy is gathering a new army – and hello, another series of "Guiding Light".

As some compensation, the French have Jean Bureau - and this is a terrible person. This is a lawyer who collected taxes. It is clear that he loves a devilish substance with sulfur in the composition. In 1439, he was handed the leadership of the artillery.

The Bureau has granulated gunpowder. After a while, he will add iron cores and long barrels + primitive carriages to it.

"Well, drop me the gun, son," as if saying a very kind master Jean.

Ten years later...
"The cities defended by the British and besieged by them during the invasion were taken in a few weeks. They spent four months at the siege of Harfleur in 1440; eight months at the siege of Rouen in 1418; ten months to capture Cherbourg, in 1418, while in 1450 the entire conquest of Normandy, which required sixty sieges, was completed by Charles VII in one year and six days". In 1451, the English possessions in the southwest collapsed just as quickly. The war almost ended there.

In the 1480s, the Emirate of Granada will be erased from the map in about the same way, and in 1490 the French will arrange a blitzkrieg in Italy all the way to Naples in 5 months. And this will continue until the 1520s, when bastion fortresses will appear en masse. There will never be a final return to the medieval situation at all.

This is a strategic-level influence. So the era of gunpowder very clearly came in the 1440s. And in fact – in the 1420s, after the invention of granular gunpowder. Field artillery and riflemen, in principle, can not even be discussed, but we will discuss it anyway.

 

[pecheneg]

think if Renaissance does stay in the game, then we'd need another era to bridge the gap between it and the Industrial Era. I think calling it the Enlightenment Era would make the most sense

Yes, especially since it is well labeled with technology. The problem is different - there is a period of 1450/20-1700, which fits both the Renaissance and 2/3 of the Baroque. Militarily, this is the era of "pikes and shots" (quite an official name) with some background. Technically, it is the period approximately from the appearance of granular gunpowder, blast furnaces and caravels.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Yes, especially since it is well labeled with technology. The problem is different - there is a period of 1450/20-1700, which fits both the Renaissance and 2/3 of the Baroque. Militarily, this is the era of "pikes and shots" (quite an official name) with some background. Technically, it is the period approximately from the appearance of granular gunpowder, blast furnaces and caravels.

I think if Renaissance does stay in the game, then we'd need another era to bridge the gap between it and the Industrial Era. I think calling it the Enlightenment Era would make the most sense.

Barroque and Enlighment fall down in the same problem of Renascence, is too European and don't make sense to civilization as Aztecs or Zulus. (What are the civilization who I enjoy to play with).
As said before, exploration era is a way better name to Barroque/Renascence. And Enlightment is already modern age, don't need more one subdivision.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Barroque and Enlighment fall down in the same problem of Renascence, is too European and don't make sense to civilization as Aztecs or Zulus. (What are the civilization who I enjoy to play with).
As said before, exploration era is a way better name to Barroque/Renascence. And Enlightment is already modern age, don't need more one subdivision.

With all due respect it's hard to create eras without it being too European, or I think a better term to use is really Western, especially once you get later in the game.
I prefer keeping it one era however and use Early Modern, but I'd also compromise at using the Exploration/Discovery Era.

I only mentioned adding in an Enlightenment Era only if the Renaissance stays because those would technically be two subdivisions of the ones above anyway. Also the Enlightenment was one of the major influences for the Haitian Revolution.