Introduction
Discourse surrounding Final Fantasy XVI (FF XVI) has framed it as medieval high fantasy (Medina 2020, Parrish 2023, Bowling 2025). The game seems to draw inspiration from dirtbag medievalism (Cook 2021). However, narratives and power structures reveal it as less medieval and more early-modern in nature. When FF XVI is analyzed through the lenses of early modern state formation and geopolitical competition over Mothercrystals, Valisthea’s it reveals a distinctly early modern political order where Dominants function as instruments of state power.
In the early Middle Ages warfare emerged from struggles for dynastic authority and tribute, with conflicts reflecting the personal and decentralized nature of political power and crusades offering a religious justification (Graff & Curry 2020). By the later Middle Ages, political warfare increasingly centered on dynastic succession and the territorial boundaries of kingdoms (Latham 2025). However, as Europe transitioned into early modern, warfare shifted toward competition among consolidating states for strategic territory, natural resources, and geopolitical dominance, supported by centralized systems of taxation and military power (Dunn 2000).
This early modern character is particularly visible in Sanbreque’s occupation of the Crystalline Dominion. Emperor Sylvestre annexes strategically valuable territory, relocates his imperial court to Twinside, and uses Bahamut, the Dominant controlled by the imperial state, as instrument of military power.
The game emphasizes this through scale. Dominants can destroy conventional forces and determine the outcome of an entire campaign. Their role resembles the increasing importance of state-controlled military technologies and specialized forces in early modern warfare. Obviously, Bahamut isn’t literally analogous to a cannon; but the important similarity is in who controls overwhelming military capacity and how it is incorporated into state strategy. More importantly, Mothercrystals function as strategic infrastructure that provide the aether that sustains the state, and they directly shape Valesthean political economy much like precious metals and resources shaped national development during the early modern period.
Valisthea’s political economy links environmental extraction to human exploitation. The Mothercrystals allow the extraction of aether while Bearers provide a parallel source of magical power through their coerced labor. Both forms of extraction are ultimately destructive: the crystals drain the land and contribute to the spread of Blight while the repeated use of magic gradually petrifies and kills Bearers. Valisthean prosperity thus depends on consuming both the environment and the bodies of an exploited population. By binding political authority to the exploitation of both natural and human resources, Valisthea transforms extraction itself into a foundation of state power.
In this context, Clive and Cid’s campaign against the Mothercrystals can be understood as more than a rebellion against individual rulers. Rather than redirecting the crystal’s power, they seek to destroy the material infrastructure upon which Valisthea’s political and economic order depends. Since the Mothercrystals sustain cities, economies, and military power while the states that control access to their aether convert that dependence into political authority, destroying them consequently the conditions that allow Valisthea’s extractive system to rearticulate itself.
Conclusion
Although this piece is, on its surface, just splitting hairs over whether a 21st century digital game is “medieval” or “early modern,” which might seem inconsequential, its importance lies in understanding that historical categories are not merely labels for dates. They describe power structures, economies, warfare, religion, and social organization. The boundary between the medieval and early modern worlds is specially messy since many supposedly modern developments emerged alongside institutions that remained recognizably medieval. Paying attention to those liminal spaces and contradictions allows us to examine transition itself rather than forcing a society into a category it only partially fits.
Game Cited
Final Fantasy XVI. Developed by Creative Business Unit III, Square Enix, 2023. PlayStation 5.
Works Cited
Bowling, Audra. “Final Fantasy XVI.” RPG Fan, 12 Feb. 2025, https://www.rpgfan.com/review/final-fantasy-xvi-2/.
Cook, Megan. “Dirtbag Medievalism.” Avidly, 14 July 2021, https://avidly.org/dirtbag-medievalism/.
Dunn, Diana E. S. War and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Britain. Liverpool University Press, 2000.
Faircloth, Kelly. “Why Are We so Obsessed with the Medieval Right Now?” History, Nov. 2025, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dirtbag-medievalism-culture.
Graff, David A., and Anne Curry. The Cambridge History of War: Volume 2, War and the Medieval World. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Latham, Andrew. “Why Medieval Wars Were Fought: Power, Borders, and Sovereignty.” Medievalists.Net, 3 Apr. 2025, https://www.medievalists.net/2025/04/why-medieval-wars-were-fought/.
Medina, Joseph Jammer. “Final Fantasy XVI Takes the Franchise Back to Medieval-Inspired Fantasy!” LRM, 16 Sept. 2020, https://lrmonline.com/news/final-fantasy-xvi-takes-the-franchise-back-to-medieval-inspired-fantasy/.
Parrish, Ash. “Final Fantasy XVI Has a Medieval Approach to Diversity.” The Verge, Mar. 2023, https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/1/23620217/final-fantasy-xvi-diversity-naoki-yoshida-interview.
Thank you for this, Johansen!
This whole discussing brings to my mind Josh Sawyer – and, in particularly, how he both positions himself as an authority voice for historical choices in Pentiment and Pillars of Eternity, as well as a ‘fan’ (for lack of a better word) of the Early Modern Period. (As seen, e.g. in Wright, 2024, ‘Layers of History’).
With that in mind, in the case of Final Fantasy, do you similarly see any historical arguments (or historical framings) in paratextual material? E.g. dev testimonies, artbooks, etc? Is this ‘tug-of-war’ between medievalism and reception of the Early Modern Period addressed in any particular way in such paratexts?
Thank you very much for this paper! I don’t know if I have a question so much as I have enthusiasm for the conclusion you’ve drawn. Far from splitting hairs about periodization, I think this case study succinctly identifies a key difficulty that Medievalists encounter when media that people engage with is called “medieval” but mobilises early modern, antique, or modern sociopolitical and economic structures of power.
Your suggestion to look at transition itself is really food for thought. I suppose I’m wondering (as much to myself as “out loud”) what strategies or benefits for looking at transition as an educational tool might be offered by games like FFXVI (and others mentioned throughout this conference) in particular?
I’m a little wary about the simple sketch you give of decentralisation to tax-based centralisation being a quintessential medieval progression – at least insofar as the early to high medieval world absolutely did have pretty centralised tax-based states, they just weren’t in western Europe. Do you think there are ways in which you can easily identify the statism here as early modern in a way that differentiates it not just from, say, 10th century France, but middle Byzantium or Song China? And would that be a productive hair to look at splitting here?
My familiarity with the Final Fantasy series is decidedly second hand. However, I’m curious if the political systems, beyond their ties to the economic, also lean towards later periods. This wouldn’t surprise me, as “Medieval” fantasy tends to lean more towards Absolutism. Granted, as a Japanese series, I’m not sure if such alignment is pertinent.