Talk:Early modern period

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 July 2020 and 31 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ericbernard123, Tobaylon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Txtoon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knagayam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Colonialism of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
hey, sadly the colonialism map doesn't highlight the expansion and decline of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.207 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition Needed
"Early modern" is a term used in literary criticism instead of "Renaissance", because critics (or critics who use the term) prefer to see the literature they analyze as "looking forward" instead of being "reborn". I am not sure how to expand the article to include such, and I would like comments. If someone happens to have a suggest, please find my talk page, as I might overlook comments here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two centuries
I note a problem with the introductory paragraph: It begins 'a term ... roughly from 1500 to 1800 '  then goes on to say 'This categorical era spans the two centuries'. This is apparently contradictory. I will remove the reference to 'two centuries' unless anyone objects. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text moved; readd as needed

 * 1444
 * The invention of the first European movable type printing process by Johannes Gutenberg, a device that fundamentally changed the circulation of information. Movable type had also been invented in, but not known outside of, China. Though it allows individual characters to be arranged to form words, it is an invention separate from the printing press, and does not allow the same widespread use and reproduction rate.


 * 1453
 * The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans signaled the end of the Byzantine empire; the Battle of Castillon concluded the Hundred Years War.


 * 1485, England
 * The last Plantagenet king, Richard III, was killed at Bosworth and the medieval civil wars of aristocratic factions gave way to early modern Tudor monarchy, in the person of Henry VII.


 * 1486
 * Giovanni Pico della Mirandola publishes his "900 Theses" (Conclusiones philosophicae, cabalasticae et theologicae) and his defence of them, Oration on the Dignity of Man. These are regarded as the first modern humanist works.


 * 1492, France and Germany
 * The first documented European voyage to the Americas by the Italian-Portuguese explorer Christopher Columbus; the end of the Reconquista, with the final expulsion of the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula; the Spanish government expels the Jews.


 * 1494, France, Italy
 * French king Charles VIII invaded Italy, drastically altering the status quo and beginning a series of wars which would punctuate the Italian Renaissance.


 * 1517
 * The Reformation begins with Martin Luther nailing his ninety-five theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany.


 * 1532
 * First formulation of modern politics with the publication of Machiavelli's The Prince.


 * 1545
 * The Council of Trent marks the end of the medieval Roman Catholic Church.


 * 1648
 * The Peace of Westphalia ends the Thirty Years War.

EOF. J. D. Redding 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure
Lifted the European/Western section again to the top, since early modernity is by all accounts a historical development which originated in Europe and was driven by European political, economic, ideological, religious and military trends. Removed the section on indigenous American states and peoples. While these political entities, from a purely chronological point of view, continued to exist into the early modern period, that is into the 16th and partly 17th century, none of them underwent a modern transformation, but generally remained pre-Colombian in outlook and character until absorbed by the Spanish Empire (for that, see section "Colonial expansion and possessions"). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians refer to the period beginning in AD 1453 and lasting to AD 1789
That is a brave assertion! The start period is debatable- discovery of the new world is one that is often but not universally used and the French Revolution as the end point is also just one definition. Also could be arguaed as beginning and ending at different times in different places. Who are these "historians"? Judging by comments above, there used to be a move vague (and probably more appropriate) definition. Epeeist smudge (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate because as stated above this is a controversial and largely meaningless attempt to impose a specific periodisation which is only favoured by some historians rather than anything like a common concensus. At the very least it should be changed to "some" historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.14.29 (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is more well-accepted to have begun in 1450 CE, with the invention of the printing press and end in 1750 CE with the commonly accepted beginning of the Industrial Revolution (starting in Great Britain). Nevertheless, as it is debated, the introduction should explicitly state the period as beginning from "1450-1500" and ending "1750-1800" or something similar to that. The first range of time must include the printing press (explosion of communication and information), the discovery of the Americas by Columbus (the catalyst of a global network), and the conquest of Constantinople (the end of an approx. 1,500-year long empire). The second range would need to cover the Industrial Revolution (significance self-explanatory) and the French and American revolutions (which started a trend of "human rights/nationalist" movements). InvaderCito (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Early modern history

 * Why does this article presume to write about non-European societies?

Since the "Early Modern Period" is ostensibly defined by cultural changes in Europe, why is there an attempt to write about non-European cultures in this article? They did not follow the same trends as Europeans and should not be said to be in the same period.

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should create a new period for those regions - that would be original research. I am, however saying that those cultures, instead of being conflated with the 'Early modern period', should only be written about in the articles for the periods that have been developed by historians specifically about those cultures. As it is this article is an example of original research and thus un-encyclopedic, because no serious historian would claim that Afghan or Indian &c. cultures experienced religious reformation or nationalism at this time, and yet that's exactly what the article implies by describing them in an article about a period characterized by those movements.

I propose that the text of the section on non-European cultures be replaced with links to their analogous periods, and the text of the article as a whole be we-worded so it does not refer to the world as a whole. Or perhaps the entire article could be deleted- isn't there already an article on Early Modern Europe?theBOBbobato (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How the hell does it "implies by describing them in an article about a period characterized by those movements"? It does not. I believe you are reading what you want into the article, as the article doesn't do that.
 * Anyways, these cultures existed in early part of modern history. This is NOT about early Modern Europe alone; It's about the early modern world (read 'after the end of the middle ages'). If this article is to be removed, then the content should goto the modern history article.
 * As a last note, please read Abundance and redundancy. --J. D. Redding 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked myself the same thing.
 * There should be a difference between the Early modern period article, and the concatenation of the 16th century, 17th century and 18th century articles.
 * Non-Western cultures should here be discussed only inasmuch as they were affected, or in turn did affect, Early Modern developments (Jesuit mission springs to mind as an example).
 * So it would make sense to merge Early Modern Europe with this article. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, when ya edit the article as here ... it's not really good.--J. D. Redding 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (PS, you should probably read Abundance and redundancy too.)


 * Early Modern Europe should be merged into the Early modern period article, if there is any merging. Not the other way around.
 * The 'Early modern period' article was "split" from the modern history article (IIRC, when I wrote that article, it became to much to keep together ... (here was this article before) ... and the diff from the "split").
 * Non-Western cultures are part of the globalize need of wikipedia. --J. D. Redding 00:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (PS., otherwise, this information needs to be put back into the modern history article.)

Reddi, I know you have difficulties understanding this, but the globalize thing only applies within WP:DUE. You cannot write an article about the Early Modern Congo, because there was no Early Modern Congo. You can "globalize" a topic that has in principle a global scope. You cannot "globalize" the history of the Philippines article, because its title says it is about the Philippines. On the same grounds, you cannot "globalize" an article about a historical cultural phenomenon that was not in fact "global". It is really very simple.

Seriously, we urgently need to give up on the notion that "Early Moedern period" somehow equals "everything that happened in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries" (or that "Middle Ages" should treat "everything that happened between AD 500 and 1500"). What we need to do instead is work on raising the quality of our "century" articles. 16th century, 17th century, 18th century, these articles could become well-written, coherent articles with a worldwide scope. As long as they are just listcruft, people like Reddi are going to try and subsume "world history of the 17th century" in the "Early Modern period" article just because the lead says that this period includes the 17th century. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If I might intervene a bit here, I'm in training as an historian of the 17th/18th centuries and would like to note that there actually is a compelling recent argument in scholarship that "early modern world" is a legitimate unit of analysis which doesn't just apply to Europe. This is largely based on the fact that the extension of European empires and trading companies in the post-Columbus period created global-level changes (in consumption of foods and goods, disease environments, cultural practices, etc.). But historians like Sanjay Subrahmanyam at UCLA have also argued that advanced polities like those of South Asia can be regarded as "early modern" in the sense that they underwent political, economic and technological developments that were comprable to those of Western Europe in the same period. I'd point to Giancarlo Casale's The Ottoman Age of Exploration (Oxford University Press, 2010) for more on this, and several of Subrahmanyam's articles, such as "Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia." Its true that historians don't talk about "early modern Fiji," but they in fact do talk about "early modern Japan" or "early modern India," as a quick Google search will demonstrate. Just my two cents -- and my apologies for not posting this properly; I have a username but I'm not active on Wikipedia these days. - Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.144.28 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with J. D. Redding and Ben, this article refers to a period in world history, not in European history. A major trend in this period may refer exclusively to Europe, but that doesn't mean if it doesn't apply to other regions, those regions are invalid. Religious reformation and nationalism are just one of many trends and merely happen to apply only to Europe (and some would argue nationalism doesn't develop even in Europe at this time). One major aforementioned trend that really connects this period with the world is the globalization of the world economy and communication. The Americas are discovered, colonized, and set up with the mercantile system. Trade flourishes between West Europe, the Americas, and Africa; Europe, the Middle East, and South/Southeast Asia; and South/Southeast Asia and East Asia. There are some articles which refer solely to Europe/Mediterranean and should stay that way (I'm thinking Middle Ages and Classical antiquity), but this article is not one of them. InvaderCito (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ottomans & Russia: Expansion Severely Needed
The section on the Ottoman Empire here is extremely small for such an important state at this time. Someone needs to start adding material to that area. Additionally, there is little mention of Russian developments and characteristics beyond the tsardom. Someone should expand on that as well. Is anyone well-versed in the Ottoman Empire or early Russia or at least have resources to use on these subjects? — InvaderCito (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early modern period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213230225/http://www.brill.nl/print.aspx?partid=210&pid=18212 to http://www.brill.nl/print.aspx?partid=210&pid=18212

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early modern period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413030956/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/endmiddle/bluedot/belgrade.html to https://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/endmiddle/bluedot/belgrade.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede seems rather Eurocentric ?
Not actually looked into the article yet, but judging by its Table of Contents, it seems to give a more globally balanced representation of historical developments of the period. The lede / introductory paragraph seems to only have a figleaf sentence referring to developments other than those based in Europe...

I know, I know, be bold, and make changes you are lobbying for, but I just thought asking first might be a good idea. 37.49.76.172 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"...who could be compelled to work..." I assume this is alluding to indigenous American slavery after a pandemic, caused by a lack of immunity to Old World diseases, wiped out a large portion of the population. Compelled is a strange choice of word in that context. Anyway many native Americans ended up dying because they were far too ill to do anything remotely physical so African slaves were brought over in order to complete that 'work'. Concentrating the colonies in highly populated areas wasn't much of a choice either as the warriors that defeated the native empires comprised mostly of other native nations. As mentioned previously in the subsequent years native Americans, including indigenous allies, ended up succumbing to 'Old World' diseases. These chain of events allowed  Westernized biracials or 'mestizos', who have outnumbered those of pure European descent from  early on in the colonization period, to gain the ascendancy and thrive at the expense of the native population.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.48.183 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Japan?
In Japanese historiography, "early modern" (近世 kinsei) almost always refers to either Edo period or both the Edo and Azuchi–Momoyama periods, but this article seems to extend it a century earlier to cover the entire Sengoku period and coincide with the period of European history defined in the first paragraph of the lead. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2022

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

– Late modern history is sometimes referred to as modern history. I think it is worth the discussion to determine whether it should be at late modern or modern. Early modern should be moved to maintain consistency. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Early modern period → Early modern history
 * Late modern period → Modern history


 * Oppose the first and probably the second as well, although I am surprised to see that modern history and modern period redirect to human history. Why don't we have an overview article like Middle Ages? —Srnec (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Srnec: It looks like modern era was boldy redirected to human history without discussion in 2009 - it's incredible that this (and the absence of a page on the modern period) has been overlooked for more than decade, but there we have it. I've restored it, but the content is going to needs some work. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Digging further, we had a modern history article until October 2019. Here is the last pre-merge/split version. There was a limited split discussion. So we have had two different articles on the same topic that were merged/split a decade apart. Lots of redirects need fixing if a modern period/age/era/history article is restored (as you have done). Srnec (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Srnec: I see. It seems obvious that 'the modern era/period' deserves at the very least a page defining it as a term, but perhaps the previous Modern history article was a little too detailed and indigestible and risked overlapping with the early/late modern articles and with the broader human history article. The restored modern era article seems like a better starting point for a more concise article seeking instead to simply define and outline the term. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Srnec: Ironically, all of those redirects you flagged linked to the now non-existent section of "modern history" on human history that no longer exists presumably because it has been split into early and late. Then there are the rash of 'premodernity' links - a whole other kettle a fish! Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored "Premodernity" to receive the premodern links - though that also needs a 'period' article too really. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "premodernity" should just be about the term. And I think should be made aware of this discussion. I think that nobody searching or Googling the term "pre-modern" wants to wind up at a human history article. Srnec (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Premodern" turned out to be easier to form a kernel of tertiary references around than "premodernity". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: I think these article titles are perfectly clear as is and the early/late dichotomy disambiguates them from each other - it is understood that an article on a period will reflect the concept and history of that period, and the only result of removing the 'late' from the second title would be to re-ambiguate this. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I Support the opposition arguments here and I think its important for clarity that 'early' and 'late' modern be distinguished from each other. Sunriseshore (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it is important to distinguish between "Early modern" and "Late modern" and that the current titles are perfectly fine. 2001:1970:4885:CC00:0:0:0:D6AF (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Proper definition
This article needs to get a proper grasp on how the concept of "early modern" is actually used. Seems like the article scope has kinda evolved organically but with no input based on how professional historians actually deal with the concept.

Has anyone actually tried reading up on the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of "early modern"? Or any kind of scholarly definition of the term? Peter Isotalo 20:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems to be one of the less complex or confusing of periods. It follows the Middle Ages and, within its own framework, precedes the Late modern period. The start dates tend to vary from 1400-1500, basically depending on definitions of Medieval, with its end varying from 1700-1800, based on the start of the Late Modern Period. A straight-up example of this is here. Other definitions are, , , all with competing dates. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to stress that this comment misrepresents the links provided: not one of them refers to any "Late Modern Period". The only exception is specifically for English literature, not history in general. It's simply one of those examples where a bunch of Wikipedians have decided that because they think something is logical of "consistent", it has to be true and therefore should have its own article.
 * It's sloppy research, pure and simple. And also an example of the biased notion that historical research isn't "real" research and therefore can be voted on. If someone suggested this crap with biological taxonomy, no one would be okay with it. But with history, there's constant anti-elitism going about. Peter Isotalo 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on modernity
I've raised the problems in this and the related articles modern era, late modern period and modernity in Wikiproject History. Thread can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

I recommend a joint discussion for all these articles since they seem to suffer from very similar issues. Peter Isotalo 13:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Improving the article by use of proper sources
Based in part on the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, this article needs to limit itself to content that is explicitly about the early modern period. In other words, the author should have made a clearly stated choice to place the history they're describing actually belongs to the early modern period. Any content in the article that isn't backed up by such a source should be removed as being WP:OR.

In other words, the article needs to stop being a coatrack for any and all historical events that happened to have occurred anywhere in the world 1500-1800 AD, because that's not the actual definition of "early modern". Peter Isotalo 10:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)