For example, I've often seen "Medieval Japan" used in history texts, despite the fact that, as far as I know, Japan was largely unaffected by the fall of the Western Roman Empire on the other side of the gigantic Eurasian landmass. If we go further west to Persia or to the Arab world, the effects of the fall of the Roman Empire were probably felt to some degree, although there were of course important differences between them and Western Europe (not to mention that they preserved Ancient Greek scholarship that seems to have only resurfaced in Europe in the Late Medieval or Early Modern Period).
However, I've even seen it argued (not necessarily by historians, however) that Medieval shouldn't be applied anywhere outside Western Europe; for example, in my first year at the university, I asked an Orthodox Christian friend who was reasonably knowledgeable about the history of Orthodox countries like Russia and Greece what Medieval Greece was like, and his answer was something to the effect of "The Middle Ages didn't exist in Greece due to the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire."
Perhaps my question first requires a clear definition of "Medieval"? Does it refer specifically to drastic social changes following the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire? Or is it based on the presence of largely decentralized, feudal power structures? I'll leave this open for the purpose of this thread.
In short, I would like to ask anyone knowledgeable about any region(s) of the Old World from 500 to 1500 outside Western Europe, how justified is it to use the term "Medieval" for your region(s) of study or knowledge? I'd love to read write-ups on different regions (i.e. Eastern Europe, as well as the various parts of Africa and Asia).
I know this is a big historiographical question, but any contributions are welcome!
The medieval period is used in European historiography to denote the period between roughly 500 AD to 1400 AD.
So technically any events in "non european" regions can be referred to that way. I would also say that this label is not totally applicable in all parts of what is today europe. In the baltic historiography (which is my area) there are several ages (viking and late iron) before the start of the early medieval period in approximately 1200 AD.
The push-back against the use of the term medieval in non western history from my academic experience is motivated by eurocentrism which is essentially an opinion that europe or really white people if we are being honest receive unfair focus and the use of a european historiographical term to talk about non europeans can be taken that way.
In my opinion if you are reading or working in one of the major european languages then generally chronological terms such as medieval ages will pop up even in works by european/western trained scholars that are not about europe.
Just my opinion based on my academic experience though maybe someone with a different academic framework has something else to share.