Classical before Medieval?

[Sarxis]

From the recent interview at cgonline:

Briggs-
"The entire tech tree is broken down into four different ages, reflecting the classical, medieval, industrial, and modern eras. "

Didn't the classical period, or era, come after the medieval? Should classical be ancient instead?

I know I am nit-picking, but hey, this is a forum afterall.

[old dog]

I assume they mean like classical Greece and Rome, which was before medieval times.

But I suppose classical music came afterwards.

[Marcus Agrippa]

That's an interesting point. "Classical" refers to Greek and Roman. The Classical you're thinking of refers to the "Classical Revival" during the Renaissance, when Greco-Roman architecture, philosophy, etc were reintroduced to Western Europe.

In some ways, the Middle Ages in Europe were actually a step down from the Roman Classical era, in terms of political unity, science, governmental organization, road building, etc. It would be interesting to go from classical straight to the Industrial Revolution! lol

[Sean]

Yes, a very accurate description Marcus. Though I'd correct you in one point, the classical revival WAS the Renaissance, insofar as it (the Renaissance) was caused by it. Thats is, classical thought (espm Aristotle) was brought make to Europe by thinkers such as Aquinas. You "step down" comment is absolutely true!! The medievil period was a reggression of human advancement.

[Stryfe]

In some sense the medieval period might be understood as a "step down" from the Classical period. But what it really ought to be understood as is a rebeginning; the height of Rome and Greece were the limits of those civilizations. The Dark Ages were the beginning of a different civilization (that of the Germanic barbarians who overthrew Rome). The Romantic nations are those that retain the most of the Classical culture; England, Germany, the Dutch, etc were primarily Germanic. Not surprisingly, the Renaissance began in the Romantic lands, but later it was the northern Europeans who experienced their golden ages.

If you understand the Dark Ages as the beginning of a NEW civilization, rather than an inexplicable decay, then you'll better appreciate it for what it was, and I also think you'll agree it produced something better than the Classical world, with its hero worship and brutality, that is, us--because we're the height of the civilization that began then (or perhaps in the beginning of the decline). The central notion of the middle ages was Christianity, and that religion has at its heart a notion that became developed during that period and under which we live--the value of the individual, since each individual's salvation had to be worked out individually; each individual was a recipient of divine grace, too, regardless of class or sex or nation. Our own recognition of the universal rights of human beings has its root in that principle, even divorced as it is now from religious values. Greece and Rome had to build themselves through barbarity to achieve their heights, and the middle ages were the period in which the new Civilization did that. And I don't think that many of us would prefer to live in the classical world than the current one...

[Maccabee2]

Excellent clarification, Stryfe.

[Mars]

I would like to get ride of some misconceptions of the middle ages. Although if you mean thr middle ages were a reggresion of abstract curiosity and reading of books, thereby affecting certain sciences and medicine then you would be right. But on the other hand there was little overall retrogression during the middle ages, in fact "man" made some great discovers during this period. For instance, the trebuchet, armor, barding, the stirrup , the three field system, Fortifactions, catedrals, engineering, horse collar, , feudilism, longbow, crossbow, just to name european advances, who were the civs in "retrogression", where as China was experincing its golden age and other empires like the muslims where advancing as well, the zero was created during this period in india.

[Stryfe]

Thinking along those lines, it might be interesting to be able to choose to start a game at AD 300 or something along those lines--to start out as perhaps a barbarian group that had to manage to establish itself in some neighboring tribe before being wiped out, and see if victory is possible under those conditions...which is much more realistic and difficult. Perhaps that ought to be the first thing I do with the civ editor: create a scenario where you have to play as the Goths and Vandals and other barbarian tribes and manage to overthrow Rome or large portions of it somehow to go forward...you'd also have to worry about your people just being assimilated into Rome, which would possess much higher culture--but this is just what really happened anyway.

[Sarxis]

Well, I am not sure if this duscussion even matters now:

I was just looking at screen shot of the beginning of the in-game tech tree, and it said 'Ancient Times' at the bottom of the screen; and next to it it said 'go to Middle Ages-->'.

[orange]

IMO, this is a rough estimate of where time periods fall.
Ancient <--500 BC
Classical 500 BC - 500 AD
Medievil 500 AD - 1500 AD
Industrial 1500 AD - 1900 AD
Modern 1900 AD ->>

Remember Anunikoba, Classical is Greece and Rome, not the 'classical revival' of the 1500s...

[Sarxis]

[Yoleus]

Ages

Ancient (up to 700BC:Egypt, Babilon)
Classical(700BC-400DC:Greece, Rome)
Medieval (400-1300:Bysantium, Arab empire, Holy Roman Empire - the one of Charlemagne)
Renaissance (1400-1600, Italy, Swedish empire (yes there was one and pretty tough), Austian Empire, Spain (Reconquista, Conquistadores) )
Modern (1700-1800:Revolutionary France, Imperial England, Imperial Germany)
Contemporary (1900-2000:US, CCCP, European Union)

I would have liked to see these all...

[Yoleus]

Magic moments

Modern could be called Industrial.

700BC-400DC is the so called Axial time, an age of enormous development in Western World. Almost any new idea wa born there.

400 DC (not precisely) fall of Rome

1492: I do need to tell you (fall of Bisantium, death of Lorenzo il Magnifico, duke of Tuscany. If I remember well)

1600-1630: thirty years war (set the new european equilibrium)

1914: something bad happens.

[Mannamagnus]

The first time the term middle ages was used it was to refer to the period between the first and second coming of Christ.
The division in ages is only valid for the western christian world. Our middle ages where e.g. the golden age for the islamic world. And if you look at the Zulu's or Native Americans there will be hardly anything between stone age and modern times.
Renaissance stands for the rebirth of classical values with regards to art and science.

[Yoleus]

It is just a point of view

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
The first time the term middle ages was used it was to refer to the period between the first and second coming of Christ

Yes, but it does not matter. It just refer to a (western) periodisation

The division in ages is only valid for the western christian world. Our middle ages where e.g. the golden age for the islamic world. And if you look at the Zulu's or Native Americans there will be hardly anything between stone age and modern times.

Pretty right, nothing bad in Middle Ages, if not for Europe. Arab world flourished. So what?
Zulus or Native American: ok, let's use their division of history
We are NOT putting a civ over another, we are just splitting down time in chunks, with a western knife. You could do an equally good job using the Arab's world time divisions, or India's, or China's.

Renaissance stands for the rebirth of classical values with regards to art and science.

Right as for the origin ot the "renaissance" word, unprecise for the results: it STARTED so, but it got to a further development.
On the other side, there has been a classical renaissance during Charlemagne, but it focused only on studies of the Classical Masters and did not last.