Talk:Early modern warfare

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iplaycurling, Jvargasv97, Kamigonn.

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

Lede pictures
In this recent edit, 4 images were added to the lede. They are nice and all, but I'm not sure they are all lede-worthy.

I'm thinking of keeping the "Prussian Infantry" one in the lede as best showing "early modern warfare"; it shows the style of dress of the era, muskets, and marching in formation. The naval one I'm thinking of moving to the Naval section, which currently has no images. The overview of "Battle of White Mountain" I thinking to move to Infantry section; it shows the square and column formation described there. The last image of the 4, "Battle of Vienna", is a little hard to make out; doesn't seem to show much about the period; there are some debris of broken cannons about, but the rest is flags and sword waving -- not much warfare of the age. I'm for removing it.

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * After two months, I've moved the pics as I proposed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire first in lede?
This edit (re-)added the bullet "The Ottoman Empire's army was the first army to operate guns" to the list of "geographical and chronological terms" for early modern warfare in the lede. It's not sourced, doesn't fit as a list item, not significant to understanding the subject, and AFAIK not true. I reverted it, but the same editor put it back. Per WP:BRD, I'm now discussing it here. (I am also leaving a message on the editor's talk.) If there are no objections after a while, I'll revert it again. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverted. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Early modern warfare. 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/20070228130758/http://www.drizzle.com:80/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf to http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Early modern warfare. 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/20070927182042/http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/2382/01/tr_pd_du_8503_R66305.pdf to http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/2382/01/tr_pd_du_8503_R66305.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf

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) 00:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing the Japan subsection
I'm editing the Japanese subsection of East Asia, adding references and expanding this section from these sources.

Moreover, I'm removing everything regarding the ban on the production of firearms under the Tokugawa onwards. While the original author is not incorrect in stating this information, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources at this time to validate and expand on these statements on this page at this time.

Mnapaucsc2128 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

a comment
@JFC Fuller "the musket made the infantryman and the infantryman made the democrat" not even the musket "made" the infantryman and not even the infantryman made the "democracy"

you can dress up a man but is still a man

@Jack Kelly "the explosive that changed the world" exactly, from bad to worse

actually it didn't "changed" anything except from the "decoration" that the fake, virtual world is covered

also an explosive is not a "civilization" damn it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.251.172 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

BRD on "The" for Early modern warfare
There's been some slow back-and-forth over whether the article should begin with Early modern warfare is... or The early modern warfare is.... Rather than edit war, we should discuss, per WP:BRD.

I see no help and some harm in adding "The". It's not how the subject is used in sources.

Comments? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 23:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The flurry of IP edits that insisted on adding "The" are now all blocked. Discussion closed.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  04:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not even an official title, so to be honest we shouldn't have a bold start here anyway. A better intro would be:

"Warfare in the Early Modern period is associated with the start of the widespread use of gunpowder and ..."

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Large Bibliography deletion
Per WP:BRD, we should discuss this deletion of a large number of entries in the Bibliography section by 185.73.240.234. Note the IP, in their edit summary, claims already checked that bibliography and refers to medieval and ancient gunpowder and not to early "modern" gunpowder, it is left behind when user Thumperward cleaned the article from medieval and ancient gunpowder so it should be to the history of gunpowder. I believe this refers to this series of edits by.

Note that this same deletion was performed two other times, once by 185.157.232.78, and again by 116.251.211.194. The latter IP was part of a series of IPs that were blocked for vandalism by several admins including, as discussed in part at Drmies's talk page here (archived).

I've not read any of these sources being deleted from the Bibliography section, so cannot comment on them specifically. Perhaps Thumperward or (who reverted one of these repeated deletions) can. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 01:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP has a bee in their bonnet about the general move to stop spending a full 25% of every gunpowder article talking about ancient Chinese history. Nevertheless, large offline bibliographies are of questionable general use in articles in my opinion; if there's demonstrable value lost then they should be restored, but it's probably worth someone who has access to these volumes evaluating whether they belong in the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I won't be much of a help here - the edit was flagged on a regular vandalism patrol, and the edit summary given didn't seem to make sense to me - especially since there was no sign of the IP in question posting on the article talk page or on Thumperward's talk page. The IP did contact me on my talk page after I reverted the edit, but by the time I got back to them they had been blocked as an open proxy (Discussion is still on my talk page). I haven't reverted any more edits since. Pahunkat (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

In summary then, this deletion was first devised by a known vandal, and consists of a continuous swath of references of the whole of the end of the bibliography. While the bibliography could probably stand trimming overall, editors have questioned the validity of this deletion, and no editor has presented why these particular references should be deleted. Per this consensus, I'm restoring the references and BRD discussion. I will add a hidden note in the section suggesting it be thoughtfully trimmed. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @AD can you understand or not? that the specific bibliography that refers to medieval and ancient gunpowder and not to early "modern" gunpowder (that is left behind when the user with the name Thumperward cleaned the article from medieval and ancient gunpowder and should had been to the history of gunpowder article) is all copied AD VERBUM from the bibliography named "Παραπομπές" (Parapobes) of the journal of Γεώργιος Ηλιόπουλος (Georgios Iliopoulos), "Η χαμένη πυραυλική τεχνολογία των αρχαίων Ελλήνων" (The lost missile technology of the ancient Greeks), Ιχώρ (Ihor), 27, Greece, 2002


 * Here are some examples: the "Vigiles of imperial Rome", the "Romische flotte" (Roman fleet), the "Ab urbe condita" of Titus Livius, the "Res gestae" of Ammianus Marcellinus, the "Epitoma rei militaris" of Flavius Vegetius and the "Noctes Atticae" (Attic nights) of Aulus Gelius are not early "modern" gunpowder they go back to medieval and ancient Rome darn it, also the "Τακτικά" (Tactics) and the "Περί θαλάσσης" (About sea) of Λέων VI (Leo VI), the "Ιστορίαι" (History) of Πολύβιος (Polybius), the "Ιστορική βιβλιοθήκη" (Historical library) of Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης (Diodoros Sikeliotis) and the "Πολιορκητικά" (Sieges) of Ανώνυμος ή Ήρων Βυζάντιος (Anonymous or Heron of Byzantium) are not early "modern" gunpowder they go back to Byzantium darn it


 * And here is the proof from the journal's article last page:


 * https://postimg.cc/9zqhYtRv


 * Now the case should be closed

Artillery
On the whole this is a decent article however in my opinion there needs to be a section on artillery including field guns. Maybe something could also be said for polearms and pikes. Firestar47 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)