Jump from Medieval to "Early Modern"

[Stringer1313]

Can someone explain this jump from the Medieval era to "Early Modern"? I've been so brainwashed by conventional era naming systems (i.e., "Renaissance," which i realize is a super Euro-centric model) but shouldn't "Industrial" at least be before this? Am I misunderstanding what is meant by "modern"?

 

[Gwydden]

Can someone explain this jump from the Medieval era to "Early Modern"? I've been so brainwashed by conventional era naming systems (i.e., "Renaissance," which i realize is a super Euro-centric model) but shouldn't "Industrial" at least be before this? Am I misunderstanding what is meant by "modern"?

In conventional historical periodization, "modern" means anything after circa 1500 i.e. the end of the medieval period. History before 1500 is generally referred to as "premodern." Early modern is roughly 1500-1800. Some models also draw a distinction between Late Modern (1800-1945) and Contemporary (1945-). The Industrial Revolution began in the early 1800s.

"Renaissance" isn't correct periodization even for Europe. There were at least three "renaissances" in the Middle Ages, the Italian Renaissance being the latest one. I've seen various dates for the Italian Renaissance, but approximately 1300-1600 is common. You may notice there is a lot of overlap between that date and the Late Middle Ages (1300-1500). "Medieval" and "Renaissance" are not mutually exclusive and the latter is not even the main reason why pre-1500 is premodern and post-1500 modern.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Basically, "modern" in periodization means anything that is between "medieval" and "contemporary", i.e. from 1500 to WWII. Then you have "early modern" and "late modern" within "modern", with early modern roughly equal to 1500-1800 and late modern roughly equal to 1800-1900.

In addition, if you are in need of exact dates, historians generally considered the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the beginning of Early Modern Period in Europe and Middle East, the fall of Timurids and the raise of Mughals around 1500 as the beginning of Early Modern Period in Central and South Asia, and the French Revolution in 1789 as the end of the Early Modern Period.

(Periodization of East Asia and South East Asia is an entirely different beast so I just follow the European version here for the sake of simplicity.)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They should definitely look at a better name.... not sure I can think of one though.

 

[CivLuvah]

They should definitely look at a better name.... not sure I can think of one though.

The problem with just labelling it the "Renaissance" is that leaves out a lot of other developments during this period of 1500 to c.1750 - the Reformation, the Age of Exploration, early colonization, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment. Historians describe this period as "Early Modern" as a catch-all term for all of these events and developments since they all happen and overlap at the same time. I mean, you can't legitimately call the Enlightenment part of the Renaissance since these two concepts involve two different understandings of the world.

At least it's a good thing they're calling the era after this the Industrial Era, or else there will be a lot of confusion to anyone who isn't exposed to these historiographical terms that are already in scholarship today.

 

[8housesofelixir]

They should definitely look at a better name.... not sure I can think of one though.

The problem with just labelling it the "Renaissance" is that leaves out a lot of other developments during this period of 1500 to c.1750 - the Reformation, the Age of Exploration, early colonization, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment. Historians describe this period as "Early Modern" as a catch-all term for all of these events and developments since they all happen and overlap at the same time.

Yeah, I think this is the most convincing argument. AFIAK, Historians of Britain, American Colonies, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, from all the major language background of these regions, all use the word "Early Modern Era" - or, 近代早期 in Chinese, 近世 in Japanese, 근세 in Korean, Frühe Neuzeit in German, Époque moderne or Temps modernes in French - as a proper concept. It is the "better" name.

 

[notNamed]

AFIAK, Historians of Britain, American Colonies, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, from all the major language background of these regions, all use the word "Early Modern Era" - or, 近代早期 in Chinese, 近世 in Japanese, 근세 in Korean, Frühe Neuzeit in German, Époque moderne or Temps modernes in French - as a proper concept. It is the "better" name.

I can only further vouch for this, the fact people were surprised by the naming actually surprised me a bit. As far as the local history education is concerned, it's Raný Novovek/Novověk which runs until the Industrial Revolution to make way for Modern and later Contemporary History (World Wars+). Renaissance is never presented as anything more than its starting point within Europe.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

I think I first encountered the term at university here in the UK but I'm pleased Humankind is using it. Many games have given it different names, Reneissance, Colonial, Imperial or just Gunpowder. Early Modern works best and is nicer to type for my dyslexic brain haha!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

They should definitely look at a better name.... not sure I can think of one though.

I think they've picked the right name. As I understand it, it's the one that's now best accepted for this period by the people who work in this field. That the name is not as well known by laypeople is something the game may help change.

 

[Elhoim]

Yeah, it's alright and the correct one. Sometimes it can be a bit confusing to me since at first I read it as Early "Modern Era", like if I'm in the first turns of the modern era

 

[Tiger Genocide]

As a historian I noticed it this morning and cracked a big smile while playing. Now that I have seen this thread, im laughing at all the non-historian guys! LOL!

Maybe they can put other additional descriptions that might be more familiar in parenthesis below Modern, or whatever. If not, maybe a mod can do it later.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just to get all Pedantic on everyone . . .

There are separate sets of Technological Eras, Historiographical Eras, General Eras, and you could even go back to the Greek Mythological Eras - and all of them are different, but many 'overlap' by using the same titles but with varying dates.
Both Historiographical and General Periods versions have the Early Modern Period (Era) but the Historiographers date it from 1500 to 1800 and include as sub-periods the Age of Reason and Age of (the) Enlightenment, while the Generalists date it from 1500 - 1750. Both follow it with a Late Modern Period, but that period starts at different dates and ends at different dates and can be followed by either "Contemporary" or "Post-Modern" Eras.
In the Technological Period system, the Iron Age (starting 1000 BCE) is followed by the Machine Age (1880 - 1945) then the Atomic Age (1945 - 1957) Space Age (1957 - 1970) and Information Age (1970 - 2020)

So, leaving aside the 'Renaissance' Era holdover that is no longer used at all, Civ VI's "Eras" are a combination of simplified Technological and General Period systems and the actual dates for any Era beginning or ending or even existing can be debated at length (and has been by historians of all kinds!)

Oh, and neither "Classical" nor "Medieval" are used at all any more, either. Instead the Historiographers take the Iron Age right up to 500 CE while the Generalists have Ancient with a subdivision of Classical Antiquity before the Post-Classical: which is used for the period between 200 or 500 CE and 1450 - 1500 CE and is divided into Early, High, and Late (Middle) Ages - but again, few people seem to agree on the dates for those divisions.

Frankly, having a Post Classical Period without a specific Classical Period seems to me to be somewhat strange, but it happens because it is not easy to differentiate a Classical Era/Period in all cultures or Civs, just as there was no Renaissance of any kind in most of the world outside of Europe . . .

 

[Krajzen]

Has there been any idea to merge Late Antiquity and Migration Period/Early Medieval age into one, as it differs greatly from both Classical Antiquiy and High - Late Middle Ages, or is it just my original idea born from the desperate need to create seventh era for Humankind?

 

[Siptah]

Has there been any idea to merge Late Antiquity and Migration Period/Early Medieval age into one, as it differs greatly from both Classical Antiquiy and High - Late Middle Ages, or is it just my original idea born from the desperate need to create seventh era for Humankind?

Depends how you define all these and if you think of them limited by political, social, cultural, whatever borders, and where you look for continuity. I‘ve often encountered texts that let the Middle Ages start around the year 500 as of late, so there‘s not really much room for a migration period left.

 

[Krajzen]

I'll say it in a different way. Do you think historicity would explode if the game got an additional age and a distinction between
Early Medieval/Migration Age/whatever you name it (roughly 5th century - 10th century)
and
Medieval/High Medieval Age/whatever you name it (roughly 10th century - 15th century)
?

 

[Siptah]

If you want an additional era, it‘s the best spot to put it imho, based on available cultures. You would end up with some awkward naming choices though, basically introducing early Middle Ages and high Middle Ages. Which may sound better when industrial would be renamed to late modern...

 

[Gwydden]

Just to get all Pedantic on everyone . . .Oh, and neither "Classical" nor "Medieval" are used at all any more, either. Instead the Historiographers take the Iron Age right up to 500 CE while the Generalists have Ancient with a subdivision of Classical Antiquity before the Post-Classical: which is used for the period between 200 or 500 CE and 1450 - 1500 CE and is divided into Early, High, and Late (Middle) Ages - but again, few people seem to agree on the dates for those divisions.

This is what frustrates me about current periodization. Much like I stubbornly stick to BC/AD rather than BCE/CE—changing the nomenclature while preserving the original dates is sheer vanity—, I prefer to keep using "medieval," because not only is "post-classical" awkward but I fail to see the eurocentrism in the traditional term. For instance, the period 1200-1600 in Japanese history is sometimes called 中世 (chūsei). That literally means "Middle Period" or "Middle Ages" and is often referred to in English as "medieval Japan," because that's what medieval means.

 

[mitsho]

If you want an additional era, it‘s the best spot to put it imho, based on available cultures. You would end up with some awkward naming choices though, basically introducing early Middle Ages and high Middle Ages. Which may sound better when industrial would be renamed to late modern...

Well, second best. I still defend my idea of an additional "near future" era as a DLC with soft sci-fi factions as a way of doing a bit of alternative history

But I do think I introduced the idea of the late classical era because I still think it's weird to have Huns and Carthaginians in the same era. It doesn't really matter though who thought of it first, we've talked ourselves into that such an additional era would make sense. I haven't seen it spoken anywhere else though and this thread kinda proves that this would just confuse players.

Maybe for a mod - or more likely Humankind 2 - this can be done. As I do think that Amplitude is open to introduce more historicity as proven by them taking the "correct" name (at least as of today ) "Early Modern" era. And now we're full circle.

 

[Stringer1313]

To me (b/c now suddenly i'm an expert even though I'm the OP), i don't think the question is what years an Era covers, but what stage of development (and yes, yes, I know the problems with that framing, as a postmodern anti-eurocentric liberal myself) the society is in. So there mere fact that two civs existed in different time periods but are assigned the same Era in humankind is not a huge problem for me if they were in similar-ish stages of development.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I'll say it in a different way. Do you think historicity would explode if the game got an additional age and a distinction between Early Medieval/Migration Age/whatever you name it (roughly 5th century - 10th century) and Medieval/High Medieval Age/whatever you name it (roughly 10th century - 15th century) ?

IMHO, the "Medieval Era" in every historical games should better be divided into Early Medieval and Late/High Medieval. In most of the regions in the world, what they looked like in 500-1000 CE and what they looked like in 1000-1500 CE were radically different, covering them under the same trenchcoat of "Medieval" is absurd.

You can also tell this strange situation from the periodization of Humankind: Both Mongols and Franks belong to the same Era, despite the fact that the Carolingian dynasty declined two centuries before the rise of Genghis Khan.