What to rename the middle ages, or the period between antiquity

>>301767
Whats wrong with the Middle ages?

It's the middle, the period between antiquity and the start of the modern world.

>>301801

How do you define Antiquity?

>>301767
Antiquity, middle ages, rennaissance and age of discovery are periods of time that refer to the european/mediterranean world. When applied elsewhere, it's by association or to have an already well established time period as reference.

Your name doesn't make much sense when taking this into account. Feudal ages is a better name if you don't like middle ages.

>>301808
Human history up until the fall of Rome, obviously

>>301808
Until 476. Like everyone else.

>>301808
From writing to the fall of the western roman empire. It's pretty arbitrary t.b.h.

>>301808
800 BC - 300 AD, though it's restricted to the northern Mediterranean until 330 BC.

300 AD - 750 AD is Late Antiquity.

File: holy roman empire antisocial.png (176KB, 528x447px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 528x447px

>>301767
>german "holy roman" empire (fragmented states)

>>301801
It's not in the middle, because antiquity is the period of Roman and Greek history.

Before that you have prehistory (pre-writing) in the Fertile Crescent from 8000 BC to 3300 BC, then you have the Bronze age 3300 BC to 1200 BC. Then you have early iron age. So you have at least 3 time periods before antiquity.

>>301808
That's an entirely different discussion, but I would call it the Greco-Roman and Persian domination of the Fertile Crescent civilizations.

>>301886
Antiquity is everything between prehistory and the middle ages. Considering pre-history is technically not history, the middle ages are in the middle of antiquity and modernity. Bronze, iron, etc. do not combine with this separation of time.

>>301886
It's the middle of time that actually matters to Europe.

>>301905
I see, I just looked it up, and it seems you are right. Antiquity is used for everything before the middle ages.

For the Greco-Roman era, the general term is Classical Antiquity, which probably is what confused me.

Though it seems pretty random to have a historical period stretching from 3200 BC to 600 AD including both bronze and iron age.

>>301969
It's a french thing that got popular elsewhere, it's "natural" for me because that's how I learned it. but yeah, it's pretty stupid.

For me for the mediterranean world and it's
immediate neighbours it should be Early Antiquity (oriental hegemony up until the fall of the Achaemenids), Middle Antiquity (Greco-Roman hegemony up until the 3rd century crisis) and Late Antiquity (ends with the rise of Islam). The names are the less important thing here, though.

>>301767
>Nogai in place of kiev

did I miss some period in history? They never conquered slavic lands, the slavs were vassals.

>>301999
I see, however I wouldn't bunch in the Achaemenids with the rest of your time period early antiquity.
The Persians, were like the Greeks and Romans, outsiders from outside the Fertile Crescent, that invaded it and took over the first civilizations, and in both of your later periods of antiquity, the Persians (and Parthians) still dominate their eastern half of the Fertile Crescent and is their main antagonist.
Greco-Roman and Persian domination in the middle east were both symptoms of the same dynamic, that agriculture had spread outside of the Fertile Crescent and the middle east's population advantage had been lost.
Not to mention that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion, and in such a way mirror the Christian Greco-Roman civilization that emerged in later Antiquity.