Periodization

You should already be familiar with the idea of established historical period. The story is split in some eras: Ancient History, Medieval History, Modern History, Modern History. Each time this has a start date and an end date.
The story goes from the ancient beginnings of writing (4000 BC) until the fall of the Roman Empire (476 AD). Medieval History will fall of the Roman Empire (476 AD) until the fall of Constantinople (1453 AD). Modern History takes following the fall of Constantinople (1453 AD) until the French Revolution (1789). Finally follow the contemporary history from the French Revolution-1789 to the present day.

If you have not noticed, note! The division takes into account moments that seem to break. They are specific to the history of Europe. It gives us the impression that the story begins and ends, begins and ends, until the present day. For those who did not know it goes: this is an agreement made by teaching historians to facilitate understanding. But they create for us a wrong image that there is a period "cooler" than the other. Actually you can set a date that interests you, but do not classify it in a sentence, why? Why history is not split! The apparent ranges from one period to another do not pass the truth of events that had a "requirement" to be chosen, for example, was a political change or economic change or social change, etc..

It turns out that such "requirement" limits us to believe that there was a continuity of some events. For example, setting the fall of Rome in March as the Middle Ages may seem quite right in the political sense, but does not consider that Christianity had been established in the century before the fall, takes into account only one factor in the study of society.

The history has a beginning, and the beginning of it to be classified with the writing means saying that there was nothing before it. And this is correct? Obviously not. Claiming that history only exists from the moment that the man writes is to deny the emergence of the planet Earth, the transformation processes that have enabled emerging fish, amphibians, birds, humans, and all its manifestation, as simple as it exists. Think the story from the writing, it means "only with the writing we can talk about what happened, because there is something registered that was not lost." But what about the fossils? There are a kind of record that enables us to understand the "evolution"?

The story begins with the appearance of the planet and everything that comes after will be continuity from the beginning. Will establish a link of cause and consequence, where the cause becomes consequence and is concerned it will turn, and so on until the present day.
I like to imagine the story as a backbone. There is a column, which is the core structure, where they lay all the events and personalities known, for example, we can say that we know the story of the fall of Rome, Leonardo da Vinci, etc..
There is however the ramifications that come out of this column are stories within the story is the story of Mary who lived in Colonial Brazil, but did not have words for it to be immortalized as an active agent in this story. The actress Mary that was not the story, but just a spectator.

Imagine that there sections and establish periods is limited to history, is to limit the reasoning of the story. And do not believe that there is continuity.

The story is like a book you're reading along will be developed to reach this page. As the book is something that eventually will have to wait, respecting the time of reading.

Clique aqui para ler esse texto em Português