Which historical period fascinates you the most? Ancient? Medieval? Early Modern? Or Modern?

[Grimmy]

I voted antiquity.

The period that catches my curiosity is the transition from pre-history to earliest recorded history.

[bigdaddy1204]

I object to this evil imperialistic poll, which seeks to impose a fascistic western periodisation of history! The terms "antiquity" and "medieval" are based on Nazistic assumptions about the primacy of the west. I condemn this shameful attempt to divide the years up into periods that only fit western Europe. Lol.

Jokes aside, i was going to pick the medieval period. But then i remembered that the division of history into the periods that were available in the poll does kind of stem from a western specific view of the importance of events such as the fall of the western Roman Empire and what followed.

From the perspective of Persia, the break with the ancient past does not happen in the 5th century AD. The fall of (west) Rome was an historical irrelevance in Iran. The real dividing line between one period and the next was the arrival of Islam in the 20s After Hijrah (AH) or 640s by the western calendar. The concept of the "middle ages" as proposed in this poll does not really work for Persian civilisation, because the dates don't line up. This period isn't in the middle of anything. It's the start of an entirely new era, the most culturally significant and long lasting change in the country's recorded history.

From a Persian perspective (if you'll forgive me) the choices in the poll would be something like: pre-Islamic era; the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates & the Abassid Revolution; the rise of the Samanids and other Persian states; the coming of the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols; the Safavids and Qajars; modern Iran.

All of which is a rather long winded way of explaining why i voted "medieval" in the poll.

[Roma_Victrix]

I object to this evil imperialistic poll, which seeks to impose a fascistic western periodisation of history! The terms "antiquity" and "medieval" are based on Nazistic assumptions about the primacy of the west. I condemn this shameful attempt to divide the years up into periods that only fit western Europe. Lol.

Jokes aside, i was going to pick the medieval period. But then i remembered that the division of history into the periods that were available in the poll does kind of stem from a western specific view of the importance of events such as the fall of the western Roman Empire and what followed.

From the perspective of Persia, the break with the ancient past does not happen in the 5th century AD. The fall of (west) Rome was an historical irrelevance in Iran. The real dividing line between one period and the next was the arrival of Islam in the 20s After Hijrah (AH) or 640s by the western calendar. The concept of the "middle ages" as proposed in this poll does not really work for Persian civilisation, because the dates don't line up. This period isn't in the middle of anything. It's the start of an entirely new era, the most culturally significant and long lasting change in the country's recorded history.

From a Persian perspective (if you'll forgive me) the choices in the poll would be something like: pre-Islamic era; the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates & the Abassid Revolution; the rise of the Samanids and other Persian states; the coming of the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols; the Safavids and Qajars; modern Iran.

All of which is a rather long winded way of explaining why i voted "medieval" in the poll.

Yep, it's the same with Indian/Hindu, Chinese/Confucian, Southeast Asian, Arab, sub-Saharan African, and Mesoamerican civilizations, none of which conform to the periods defining Western history. That being said, one could say the Early Modern period applies to every single civilization on Earth, since that is the time when the first seeds of the globalized world were planted and Western powers during the Age of Sail and colonialism deeply affected every inhabited continent. There's another thing to consider: the long period of "Antiquity" predates Western civilization itself, considering the age of Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations compared to the first Indo-European civilization of Europe built by the Mycenaean Greeks in the 2nd millennium BC.

[Darios]

I object to this evil imperialistic poll, which seeks to impose a fascistic western periodisation of history! The terms "antiquity" and "medieval" are based on Nazistic assumptions about the primacy of the west. I condemn this shameful attempt to divide the years up into periods that only fit western Europe. Lol.

Jokes aside, i was going to pick the medieval period. But then i remembered that the division of history into the periods that were available in the poll does kind of stem from a western specific view of the importance of events such as the fall of the western Roman Empire and what followed.

From the perspective of Persia, the break with the ancient past does not happen in the 5th century AD. The fall of (west) Rome was an historical irrelevance in Iran. The real dividing line between one period and the next was the arrival of Islam in the 20s After Hijrah (AH) or 640s by the western calendar. The concept of the "middle ages" as proposed in this poll does not really work for Persian civilisation, because the dates don't line up. This period isn't in the middle of anything. It's the start of an entirely new era, the most culturally significant and long lasting change in the country's recorded history.

From a Persian perspective (if you'll forgive me) the choices in the poll would be something like: pre-Islamic era; the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates & the Abassid Revolution; the rise of the Samanids and other Persian states; the coming of the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols; the Safavids and Qajars; modern Iran.

All of which is a rather long winded way of explaining why i voted "medieval" in the poll.

I quite agree. That is why when I responded to this poll, I highlighted the specific region that corresponds to the historical period that I am most fascinated by.

For instance, the "Dark Ages" in Western Europe corresponds to the same period of time during which the Eastern Roman and Islamic empires were experiencing Golden Ages.

[Roma_Victrix]

I quite agree. That is why when I responded to this poll, I highlighted the specific region that corresponds to the historical period that I am most fascinated by.

For instance, the "Dark Ages" in Western Europe corresponds to the same period of time during which the Eastern Roman and Islamic empires were experiencing Golden Ages.

Conditions in Western Europe were pretty terrible and dreary during the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries AD, although they started to spring back in the late 8th and 9th centuries with the formation and expansion of Charlemagne's Carolingian Empire in continental Europe. This was followed by the consolidation of the Anglo-Saxon realms led by King Alfred the Great of Wessex, who turned the tide against the Danes/Vikings and whose grandson would be the first King of England. As broken down and somewhat miserable as things were from the 5th to 10th centuries, I still think the term "Dark Age" is somewhat of a misnomer if we're applying the same term to the period of Greece after the fall of Mycenaean civilization in the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age. That was a true Dark Age in the purest sense, since the practice of writing itself, so heavily tied to the scribal administrations of Mycenaean royal palaces, virtually evaporated in Mycenaean territories across the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, Third-Intermediate-period Egypt and Hittite Anatolia were crumbling and devolving, but they didn't lose the written word and literary culture altogether (unlike Greece before their adoption of an alphabet via the Phoenicians). If anything this period was the flowering and moment of opportunity for the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which would eventually topple the Nubian-led dynasty of Egypt after securing the Levant.

The dogma itself states that all those "pagan" Gods are nothing more than fallen angels/demons and that everything related to them must be destroyed. The same dogma demonizes also idolatry meaning that all that art made by Man to honor the Gods was also demonic. All the dogma is based on moral doctrines and very aggressive against something that doesn't follow it, so you can't just say it's a matter of interpretation.

I didn't say that, though. I was talking about law codes, and already acknowledged the profound impact of Christianity on Byzantine law. However, that doesn't mean every single civil law was influenced by Christian theology and dogma.

[MagusCaligula]

I didn't say that, though. I was talking about law codes, and already acknowledged the profound impact of Christianity on Byzantine law. However, that doesn't mean every single civil law was influenced by Christian theology and dogma.

Sure, but I don't think ritual sacrifices were exactly a civil law, more like a cultural/tradition thing... I thought you were making some kind of comparison to that

[Intranetusa]

okay, it's not that nothing happens there, it just that it feels like the same things just keep happening. Look at china: they are united under emperor, then there is civil war, then reunification, then civil war, then maybe some nomad invasion, and on it goes it feels like. Same is true for japan, all about shogunates being established and then civil war then shogunates again. With few exceptions China and japan are content to just sit there are be isolationist. The japanese invasion of korea, and the few expansionist ventures of china dynasties are itneresting but they are unusual. It is for similar reasons I find the dominate and principate era of roman history to be dull, because it's just about endless civil wars, nothing big really happens until the empire actually falls. When the migration period and justinian comes along, things get interesting again with the arabs, franks, and byzantines fighting everywhere. I guess I find it boring when civilizations just sit there, without a clear (or interesting) goal to progress towards. china and japan become interesting when they are forced by the west to stop being isolationist.

The problem is everybody was sorta isolationist and history repeats itself everywhere. Europeans were mostly isolationist until the colonial eras.

By your logic, we can say European history is nothing more than several kingdoms fighting among itself, trying to conquer most of Europe, failing, and back to several kingdoms fighting among itself again. The Romans were the closest attempt at creating a unified European Empire like the Qin Dynasty in Eastern Asia...and then it's back to small states fighting among themselves.

The vast majority of it is intra-European conflict with a tiny bit of North Africa and Western Asia that borders the Mediterranean.

As for isolationism, Western Europeans didn't make contact with the Americas until the 15th century (if we don't count Vikings), and didn't have prolonged/permanent contact with most of Asia until colonialism in the 16th/17th century (not counting the occasional Roman incursion into Parthia or Crusades, as they mostly took place in a tiny part of Western Asia and mostly with the same Western Asian people). So for most of Western European history from 1000 BCE & earlier until 17th cent., Western Europe was relatively isolationist as well.

Regarding isolationism, the Roman expansion period is not much different from its contemporary Han Dynasty in East Asia, which expanded west into Central Asia to the borders of the Persian kingdoms (Parthia, Ferghana, etc), south into Vietnam, and east into Manchuria & North Korea. Same goes for Arabs-Franks-Byzantines during the early middle ages of Europe, as the Tang Dynasty in the east was fighting the Abbasaid Caliphate and against the Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, Ughiurs, Vietnam, Turks, etc.

The Eastern Europeans had a few conquests and wars into Persia (Alexander, Eastern Roman conflict with Sassnids, etc), but these weren't prolonged. Really, the most non-isolationist period before the age of European colonialism was Alexander and his successor's role in spreading Greek influences to the Persian territories. And they only got through a small part of Asia before stopping around the borders of Pakistan.

[Roma_Victrix]

The problem is everybody was sorta isolationist and history repeats itself everywhere. Europeans were mostly isolationist until the colonial eras.

By your logic, we can say European history is nothing more than several kingdoms fighting among itself, trying to conquer most of Europe, failing, and back to several kingdoms fighting among itself again. The Romans were the closest attempt at creating a unified European Empire like the Qin Dynasty in Eastern Asia...and then it's back to small states fighting among themselves.

The vast majority of it is intra-European conflict with a tiny bit of North Africa and Western Asia that borders the Mediterranean.

As for isolationism, Western Europeans didn't make contact with the Americas until the 15th century (if we don't count Vikings), and didn't have prolonged/permanent contact with most of Asia until colonialism in the 16th/17th century (not counting the occasional Roman incursion into Parthia or Crusades, as they mostly took place in a tiny part of Western Asia and mostly with the same Western Asian people). So for most of Western European history from 1000 BCE & earlier until 17th cent., Western Europe was relatively isolationist as well.

Regarding isolationism, the Roman expansion period is not much different from its contemporary Han Dynasty in East Asia, which expanded west into Central Asia to the borders of the Persian kingdoms (Parthia, Ferghana, etc), south into Vietnam, and east into Manchuria & North Korea. Same goes for Arabs-Franks-Byzantines during the early middle ages of Europe, as the Tang Dynasty in the east was fighting the Abbasaid Caliphate and against the Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, Ughiurs, Vietnam, Turks, etc.

The Eastern Europeans had a few conquests and wars into Persia (Alexander, Eastern Roman conflict with Sassnids, etc), but these weren't prolonged. Really, the most non-isolationist period before the age of European colonialism was Alexander and his successor's role in spreading Greek influences to the Persian territories. And they only got through a small part of Asia before stopping around the borders of Pakistan.

There's also another problem with his post: it's entirely concerned with military history and seemingly nothing else. I know we're on a total war gaming site but, come on, there's more to history than that.

[Owlparrot3]

Aha i am one of the few people here who voted for early modern era.But then why not!I like the victorian era and the early modern era too much.A perfect complation of past and present.Of nationalism and patriotism.Of unions and empires.Not like today's liberal feminine socities.Aha that was an age .
You could go off into wild wastelands like Africa and the wild west and grow rich.You could see big cities as well as beautifull nature in rural areas.

[Morrowgan]

Serious case of overly romanticizing history right here

[Owlparrot3]

Aha .When in the near future we get a video game which is all encompassing.I am gonna just stay in the victorian era.

[Mary The Quene]

500 BC- 300AD

1300 AD -1700 AD

XV and XVI are my favorite centuries though

[Jurand of Cracow]

Aha .When in the near future we get a video game which is all encompassing.I am gonna just stay in the victorian era.

I don't think we're heading towards all-encompassing games.
I think that the eras with fast technological progress (ie modern times) have much more potential for games in the TW style on the technology-development front (a potential so wasted in the Empire TW). However, the problem is with the number of troops on the battlefield: it's difficult for a single player to control hundreds of units efficiently should the battles be brisk. So there'll be choices to be made and separate systems will be better.
On the margin: after having seen the last couple of Total War games I guess that's the lovers of historical immersion will have to stick to the TW2 submods for a long time. I think the policy of the CA will be to make money from the mass market which means having "arcade" style games with beautiful visual effects and dumb AI, easy to be played by all players, without particular attention to the historical detail, especially on the gameplay.
We'll enjoy the EBII, TATW, SS, 1648 or TIW for many years to come.

[Roma_Victrix]

I don't think we're heading towards all-encompassing games.
I think that the eras with fast technological progress (ie modern times) have much more potential for games in the TW style on the technology-development front (a potential so wasted in the Empire TW). However, the problem is with the number of troops on the battlefield: it's difficult for a single player to control hundreds of units efficiently should the battles be brisk. So there'll be choices to be made and separate systems will be better.
On the margin: after having seen the last couple of Total War games I guess that's the lovers of historical immersion will have to stick to the TW2 submods for a long time. I think the policy of the CA will be to make money from the mass market which means having "arcade" style games with beautiful visual effects and dumb AI, easy to be played by all players, without particular attention to the historical detail, especially on the gameplay.
We'll enjoy the EBII, TATW, SS, 1648 or TIW for many years to come.

I wouldn't want to play a Total War style game set further ahead in time than the early 19th century and the Napoleonic era, or at the very latest the American Civil War and/or Franco-Prussian War. At that point I'd rather play a first-person shooter, because the era ow WWI is when things gets way too complex to portray in this type of game, in my opinion. I hold that view because of things such as trench warfare, aerial warfare and dogfights, the employment of motorized assault vehicles, and the use of individual snipers detached from major infantry units, to say nothing of raiding tactics by various special forces. To be honest, I don't care much for playing a TW game set beyond the 17th century, let alone the 20th.

[Owlparrot3]

My intention was to speak about a full simulation of the world ,the daddy of all games which we will probably get in the future,2090 i guess.

[Valerius Corvus]

Studying antiquity is my vocation so naturally that is my first preference. That said, I have a major soft spot for the American Civil War period, amazing people and events which had, and continue to have significant effects on the modern American identity.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Studying antiquity is my vocation so naturally that is my first preference. That said, I have a major soft spot for the American Civil War period, amazing people and events which had, and continue to have significant effects on the modern American identity.

Then the game for you is obviously the Ultimate General, made by the TW veteran, Darth Vader. If only he'd make the strategic layer to his game (as it is in the TW), it would be perfect.

[myarta]

His second game, Ultimate General: Civil War, has a campaign mode where you lead and develop a corps it seems. I haven't bought it yet, but just skimming the reviews and screenshots looks like it's more involved than Ultimate General: Gettysburg, which I did play, and which was strictly just that battle.

So it's not exactly TW levels but he's getting there.