Talk:Timeline of post-classical history

Title
How does one edit the article's title? I really think this should be called something like Medieval European Chronology. Or, it can just be expanded to be a worldwide survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.2.102 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Academically, medieval means European theres no reason to differentiate. Stbalbach 13:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just use the "move" tab when you get consensus. Wloveral (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD debate link
This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge
It makes little sense to place Oxford and Cambridge University at the same founding date, regardless of the ambiguity of Oxford's beginnings. How might we better place Oxford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.225.32 (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

adding and pruning of events
There has been discussion as to the usefulness and arbitrariness of this article and its contents. To help with the latter, I have added a column "significance". This should be populated so as to try and generate a more objective view of the "importance" of any one event. When this has been done, it will become clear which of the events here do not deserve a place.

I have also added events that occurred during this timeframe but outside of Europe, while adding things from Pears Cyclopaedia. However, it seems that the Middle Ages refers only to Europe. We should perhaps get rid of these entries.

Jameshfisher 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the significance column is very important. Otherwise, this article is nothing more than a repeat of the articles on the various centuries, e.g., "12th Century." I notice that, after two years, there are still many "insignificant" events.76.123.208.229 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Humble suggestion
I find this format too difficult to edit. Although the full dates of cited events (battles, births, deaths, papal bulls, and so on) are easily obtained, they are difficult to insert in the table format. This same format will also result in much white space in the article since the historical significance of many events will require careful consideration needing much time and thought (if not OR). May I suggest that this timeline be re-cast in the form of a simple list of dates, major events (with significance thereof), and references? Wloveral (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I rather like this format. It looks neater than the collection of sentences in "12th century." 76.123.208.229 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope and call for contribution
In the spirit of boldness I have added several entries to the 10th century. This list has obviously been languishing for a while, but I think it could be fantastically useful and a truly great article (with some imagination). The format needs work. I would like to see the ability to include maps, illustrations, etc. though I lack the expertise to carry that out. It would also be nice to have some sort of discussion to reach consensus on what should or should not be included, and what the scope of the list should be. Making best effort to "blow the dust off" and get something going. Revcasy (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Global timeline
This article does not represent a worldwide view of the subject of the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages are one of three ages in History, not just European History.

--J. D. Redding 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. A worldwide view is more in order in my opinion. For example, the Mayan empire disappeared somewhere around 900 AD (news article) and that's not even listed. That is definitely of public interest, considering last year's mythology. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Modifications

 * I have tried to include more significant events regarding the Song, Mongol, Japan, the Middle East (other than the earlier period of Islam), and even the finding of Tenochtitlan during that period. I'll still feel as if I have some more work to do in mentioning significant people/events (South/South-East Asia, Specific Caliphates in History, Incas, Africa, etc.), but I've made improvements of the previous amount of events. I apologize for not listing the edits for the links for some of what I done on the pages, but hope it's good for this page.

LeftAire (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Edit Last 3 events for the 15th Century
As 1492 is usually the year selected for the Middle Ages, the last three events need not to be edited because of the events prior to 1492. (Portugal had began expanding into an Empire in 1415, Spain began in 1492, even though they had treatys involving Portugal in the 1470s regarding Azeroes and Canary Islands; Portugal began sailing for a route to encounter a Christian Kingdom to find 'Prester John' (among other reasons, such as trade with gold in Sub-saharan Africa and Slave Trade), made contact with Ethiopia in the 1480s, and thought PJ was in Ethiopia. Dias found the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, and when Columbus found the 'New World', Spain & Portugal would bicker about it until the Treaty of Tordesillas (and would continue well in the 16th century) and Da Gama found a route to India in 1498 which began European trade and later colonization in Asia. The Venetians were the superior maritime republic of the Middle Ages (and would later team up with the Ottoman Empire) and that loss would mark the beginning of modern warfare in Europe (the Italian Wars) and the end of the Venetian maritime dominance in Europe, as they were losing it to Spain and Portugal). LeftAire (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Timeline of the Middle Ages
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of the Middle Ages's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.com": From Charlemagne: Hooper, Nicholas / Bennett, Matthew. The Cambridge illustrated atlas of warfare: the Middle Ages Cambridge University Press, 1996, Pg. 12–13 ISBN 0-521-44049-1, ISBN 978-0-521-44049-3 From Carolingian Empire: Hooper, Nicholas / Bennett, Matthew. The Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: the Middle Ages Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 12–13 ISBN 0-521-44049-1, ISBN 978-0-521-44049-3 From Simeon I of Bulgaria: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250, Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521815398, pp. 221–222. From Germany: Ian Kershaw.Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1997, p.150 ISBN 0-521-56521-9 From Christianity: Religion in Global Civil Society by Santa Barbara Mark Juergensmeyer Professor of Sociology and Director of the Global and International Studies Program University of California From Battle of Nineveh (627):  From Genghis Khan:  From Personal union: Pál Engel: Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 2005, p. 35-36</li> <li>From Holy Roman Empire: Poets Laureate in the Holy Roman Empire: A Bio-bibliographical handbook, Volume 1 By John Flood, Google Books</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The centuries are labeled incorrectly
e.g. 1000-1099 is the eleventh century, not the tenth. Sorry, I do not know how to fix. Larry Siegel (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"traditional end"
a "traditional end" of the middle ages doesn't exist, there are multiple events that are used as a reference, and it varies by country and even university, which exactly is favorized for the end of the middle ages. for example in germany the printing press is dominant as the enddate, while in italy it's the start of the renaissance. so using columbus here is not good in my opionion, and way to anglocentric. i would propose that we use the earliest date given and put everything since then into a table calling it "transitional period". Norschweden (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And where would this transitional period end? You could argue we didn't enter the modern era until the Industrial Revolution. At least something epochally important happened in 1492. Nothing of particular note happened in 1500.  Serendi pod ous  17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * the printing press was important, the conquest of constantinople was important, the renaissance was important, and all of itt was more important for the actual people then someone claiming to have found a continent that was found before.


 * this list inclueds everything until 1500, but it claims that 1492 is the traditional end of the middle ages, which is wrong. i porpose we take the earliest proposed enddate and write in the article that the enddate is disputed. Norschweden (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The Native Americans would probably disagree with you on that. If what you're arguing is that there is no agreed end to the Middle Ages then it doesn't really matter when we say they ended, does it? We might as well say they ended in 1500.  Serendi pod ous  19:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the article atm claims that 1492 is the tradistional ending, which is simply not true Norschweden (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment didn't answer my question but regardless, I removed any references to a traditional end, though I fully expect there to be complaints about the new end date.  Serendi pod ous  23:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c  18:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of the Middle Ages → Timeline of post-classical history – The Middle Ages concentrates on European history during the period. This article is about the timeline of global history. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name of the era. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose — "post-classical" is just as Eurocentric as "Middle Ages"; the whole notion of breaking a history timeline at the 5th and 15th centuries is Eurocentric; so as long as this is a timeline that runs from the 5th to the 15th centuries, even if it includes world events, it's still organizing them in reference to major events in Europe, so we might as well call it by the name that most readers will recognize for that period in European history: "Middle Ages". This argument I'm making is a common argument against using "post-classical" instead of "Middle Ages" in periodization generally. I think it's better to re-organize these timelines to not be Eurocentric by breaking them up in fixed periods, e.g. Timeline of the common era (first millennium), Timeline of the common era (second millennium), or something like that. I support "globalizing" these timelines, I just don't think this particular move is the best way to do it. Levivich harass/hound 07:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the articles Middle Ages and Post-classical history. The first article focuses on European history with a hatnote pointing to the second article which focuses on world history. Based on your argument, we should move Post-classical history to a different title. We could have an article titled Timeline of the common era which starts on 1 CE and goes into the present day. If you wanted to split the millennia, I would suggest Timeline of the first millennium and Timeline of the second millennium rather than the two titles you are suggesting. Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a single-page timeline of the common era would be too long, and of the need to differentiate "Timeline of the first millennium (CE)" from BCE, but those considerations aside, any of those suggested titles works for me. (And yes I think the article Post-classical history should be re-named/re-scoped as well.) Levivich harass/hound 02:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, what is the best title for Post-classical history? Interstellarity (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So I think we should have an article called Post-classical history that is about the term "post-classical history" and its use in world history periodization. That would be like a historiography article; a sub-article of periodization. But if we're going to have an article like Human history and break it up into sub-articles covering periods of human history, I think the periods should be broken up mathematically and not by "world event", because I feel that it's more neutral to do it that way. So, History of the first millennium (CE), etc. Middle Ages should continue to focus on European history, but I just don't think there is a neutral world-history analogue for those centuries (5th-15th). Now if every world history (academic) book in the world today is breaking up and calling that period "post-classical history", then it doesn't really matter what I think about Eurocentrism :-) But I haven't seen evidence that this is the consensus of historians; my impression is "post-classical" is accepted by some but not others as neutral. An alternative is to edit this article at the current title and restrict it to a timeline of European history to match the article Middle Ages, creating a new timeline for world history, perhaps with a new title/cut-off-dates. Levivich harass/hound 05:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened up an RFC over at Talk:Post-classical_history where we can get community input on how to best structure the articles and titles. You are welcome to pour some of your thoughts on what I am suggesting. Also, that particular talk page doesn't have many watchers on there so I was hoping we can find ways we can increase its visibility so we can get as much community input as possible. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Watchlisted. Levivich harass/hound 18:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose See no solution from this proposal. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Middle Ages" is the more common term for this period. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 November 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a rough consensus that the "Middle Ages" is too Eurocentric for this global history article. No prejudice against splitting Europe-specific history into Timeline of the Middle Ages. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the Middle Ages → Timeline of post-classical history – There are two corresponding articles, Middle Ages and Post-classical history. This timeline with its global perspective corresponds to the second article (Post-classical history) because the Middle Ages article has a phocus on European history during the post-classical period. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name of the era. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your vote. How do you think we could syncronize the subjects of the following three articles: Middle Ages (Europe), Timeline of the Middle Ages (worldwide) and Post-classical history (worldwide)? For the time being we have a timeline named for the Middle Ages but its scope differs from the scope of the main article Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The common name per this n-gram shows that the proposed solution doesn't fit. Also please note that the post-classical history article contains "Although post-classical is synonymous with the Middle Ages of Western Europe..." Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The two articles' first sentences make a clear distinction: Post-classical history covers world history, Middle Ages only European history during the same period. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support - This article refers to the global history of the era while if we kept the title, Middle Ages, it would referring to just European history when in reality, it refers to world history. Therefore, this is a reasonable move. Interstellarity (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. "Timeline of the Middle Ages" could be recreated after the move, but it would focus entirely on European history. "Timeline of post-classical history" is a more appropriate title for a page with global scope. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)