[HoniSoit]

I see Modern European History start in the 17th century,marked by the Scientific Revolution as the result of gradual cumulation and burst of ideas against the conservative views of the chruch on nature,thus giving birth to the modern science whose heritage was extended during the Enlightenment in the following century.The Scientific Revolution truly marked a break with the previous centuries in revolutionising the way people think of nature and themselves - a shift of paradigm if you may.

In the case of China,there are two popular views on when the line should be drawn.One asserts the Modern Chinese History began in the 16th and 17th century with the arrival of the Portuguese and Spanish explorers and missionaries which marked the first contact with the West;the other view which I favour contends it began with the Opium War in the mid-19th century.the reason being that it serverly challenged the feudal order of the Chinese society which had lasted nearly two thousand years and marked the onset of moderisation in terms of the import of Western ideas and technologies.

Are there any other alternatives?What about other parts of the world?When did their Modern History begin?And why?

[Boondock Saint]

According to the game Civilization the Modern Age begins with the industrial revolution. I am more likely to agree with this viewpoint.

[Einherjar]

The French Revolution and the fall of the Ancien Regime is generally seen as the starting point of the Modern Age.

[HoniSoit]

The French Revolution and the fall of the Ancien Regime is generally seen as the starting point of the Modern Age.

Isn't Modern Hisotry too narrowly defined according to this?
Also 'Modern' differs from 'Pre-Modern' in its strong emphasis on and application of reason/rationality,which was marked by the emergence of modern science.

[Adrien]

In France, "Modern History" refers to the 16th, 17th and 18th century.

Other official terms are "Contemporary History" (19th, 20th), Medieval History (from the 5th century to the 15th), ...

[Einherjar]

Isn't Modern Hisotry too narrowly defined according to this?
Also 'Modern' differs from 'Pre-Modern' in its strong emphasis on and application of reason/rationality,which was marked by the emergence of modern science.

Yes true but usually an age is assigned a definite starting point, generally on some important event. For example, the starting point of the Renaissance is usually 1453, the fall of Constantinople. In reality, the processes which led to that age started much before.

[Batko]

There are 3 factors which characterize "modernity" :

In chronological order :

1. Alphabetisation : Germanic and Scandinavian countries (XVIIth-XVIIIth)

2. Birth control : France (1820-30)

3. Industrialization : England (1840-50)

[Ombrageux]

The birth of ideology, IE, the French Revolution, is a good as any place to start.

Though you have to remember that periodization is basically arbitrary and only helps as an introduction to things.

[fastspawn]

most history text classify Modern European history as starting from 1453-1492.

Early Modern History in a sense.

But then that is only Europe.

[Monkeydust]

I usually see modern history - at least if we separate it from early modern history - as beginning with the dual revolutions of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

[Clausewitz]

It depends on the context I think. When people say "Early Modern history" they include (at least in what I've read) the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries. Usually the sixteenth century too.

I think there are several aspects of modernity that have to be identified:

1. The centralization and emergence of a discrete state.
2. The emergence of popular identities (religions, nationalities, political ideologies) beyond economic status.
3. The growth of rationalism.

It seems to me that these threads really start with the Renaissance with two truly cataclysmic watersheds after that: the Peace of Westphalia (the birth of nation-states, the end of religion as a major component of state policy, and the birth of rationalism, modern philosophy, and the roots of contemporary political identities) and the French Revolution (where the above became truly popularized). These make for comfortable divides within the modern period.

But like DumbTeen said, periodization kind of brushes over a lot of details. It also has a tendency to make history appear more "linear" than it ought to be. But it's not without merit and there's something attractive about it.

edit: With respect to to other parts of the world, I don't know what the conventions are. If the three trends I listed above are the three trends of modernity, they reach other parts of the world - even parts of Europe - at different times. The Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Xinhai Revolution in China, and probably the end of colonialism in Africa and the Middle East would suffice.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I think 1815 is the most appropriate starting point for "modern" history. The defeat of Napoleon and the landmark conference (forget where it was) held that year defined the destiny of modern Europe.

[The Immortal Goon]

Although it's not official in any way, I would say 1918 is the beginning of Modern History.

People put the French Revolution as the start, but really, the American Revolution came before hand (though from similor forces) and both related to the eve of Industrialization.

However, by 1911 there were two revolutionary republics in the world. The US and France still. Way to go industrial-capitalist-democracy, you have almost no following at all.

WWI was the death throws of the old world (not to be too romantic). When the dust had cleared, suddenly there was a new mentality. With the US there was France, Ireland (working on it still), Russia, Germany, and all other kinds of systems all competing with different ways to best represent the population.

It wasn't until after the first world war that there was a production level strong enough in so many countries to start implementing the idea of getting rid of your aristocracy. The Empires that the US and France had been attempting to tear down finally collapsed in to the modern notion of the nation-state - including anyone still claiming to be vestiges of the Roman Empire.

Industrialization and the US/French Revolutions were the embryotic stages of this world, but it didn't come about until 1918.

-TIG

[Ombrageux]

However, by 1911 there were two revolutionary republics in the world. The US and France still. Way to go industrial-capitalist-democracy, you have almost no following at all.

And way to go pluralist industrial nations:
- USA
- British Empire
- France
- German Empire
- Italy
- Japan

Just because they're not technically republics (or even democratic) doesn't mean that somehow the world remained completely feudal until 1918. On the contrary, there was feudal titles and industrial-capitalist reality.

(the reason I point this out is because your assertion is undoubtedly meant to apologize for the command economy's abysmal failure over the past 100 years, for shame. If the democratic Republics start being more centrally planned than not, then and only then could you claim a valid comparison)

[The Immortal Goon]

- USA - as I pointed out

- British Empire -
a. UK - The House of Lords, which was aristocratic) was the ruling house until the Act of Parliment in 1911 established the House of Commons as the ruling house. It was then that the UK became plurilistic
b. South Africa, India, much of Ireland, colonies in Africa, the Americas, and Asia would probably not agree that it was plurilistic

- France - as I pointed out

- German Empire, Italy, and Japan - Particulorly strong monarchy reliant upon militerism in order to unite the military-aristocracy and industrialists. It's really hard to say that they represent modern states as they were all either just recently formed or granted access to the outside world. Maybe you could make an argument that they would have become some kind of model states, but they didn't. They're a more or less dead branch in the history of civics - and certainly not representative of the modern era per say.

Even if we are to take these examples as modern steps, it still represents a still tiny minority in the world until the end of WWI.

-TIG

[Ombrageux]

Even if we are to take these examples as modern steps, it still represents a still tiny minority in the world until the end of WWI.

Well given that the European pluralist-industrial states controlled almost all of Africa and Asia this is understandable. There weren't that many countries around at this point. Besides, I think your finding it surprising or significant that European ideologies took longer than a 100 years of global contact for them to be picked up by none-Europeans is a typical sign of Marxist Eurocentrism.

The only major independent European country to not *really* follow the mold was Russia, and even then she industrializing at her own pace.

So once again, I think your implicit comparison of capitalist-pluralism to the command economy is quite inappropriate as capitalism existed in spite of feudal structures whereas communism/command-economies certainly do not exist in spite of capitalist structures. (unless you're going to argue that the liberal democracies' interventions in their own economies make them communistic)

(in fact, on the contrary, it seems a few countries, China and North Vietnam, have developped capitalism despite communist structures!)

[Clausewitz]

Even if we are to take these examples as modern steps, it still represents a still tiny minority in the world until the end of WWI.

Yeah, but how many more did we get with WWI?

Russia becomes a democracy for a moment, and even if you count Leninist Russia as a democracy, it devolves into Stalinism. Germany, the other great liberal democracy, is hardly permanent. The only really clear changes after WWI toward democracy are probably in Czechoslovakia and Austria, which both get absorbed in the 1930s. There are no positive changes toward democracy in Africa and most of Asia.

1945 gets you the modern shape of Western European democracies, but a huge bloc of the world is Stalinist and there are large areas of the world still colonized. In 1948, some 300 million people enter the world's largest democracy. Around 1956 we get some liberalization in the Eastern Bloc; around 1960 almost all of Africa becomes free (though hardly liberal)

Frankly, if we say "pluralistic democracy=modernity" then we only get the bulk of the world in the 1990s, like the famous quote by Clinton says; it's only around 2000 that we can definitively say that more people live in pluralistic democracy than under dictatorship.

[Thomas Merton]

Not wishing to be accused of spamming or answering a serious question with a one word answer, I am waffling myself through a rather long and pointless introduction, because I seriously do believe that in political terms, Modern History begins - yesterday.

Anything back from there for 10 years is Ancient; further than that is conveniently forgotten (or not, as the case may be).

[The Immortal Goon]

It wasn't until after the first world war that there was a production level strong enough in so many countries to start implementing the idea of getting rid of your aristocracy.

Was more or less where I was.

It really doesn't matter about what societies were in theory - but in practice, Germany and even England, for instance, were putting commanders in to the field based entirelly on who their parents were.

Furthermore, WWI gave rise not only to advancements in communication and transportation that changed the world, but also started the Cold War when the Allies sent troops in to suppress the Russian Revolution.

The modern world, I feel, is defined by the following:

1. Legitimacy being based upon the (real or illusionary) consent of the people of each country.

-Every country does this today, and this really started with the first world war. Before that, it was perfectly acceptable to say that you were in power because your the king's son. But today, even in monarchies, the illusion that it's supported by the majority of the population has to be constantly reinforced.

2. The last vestiages of feudalism falling away. It's a completly capitalistic mode of production now. Before the first world war it was getting to be that way, but the transition wasn't complete on a micro level, only a macro level. Germany and England (to name a few) were determining who would lead the armies based largely on old feudal ties to the state.

3. The crisis of capitalism. Production became as important as actual manpower. Wheras before it was possible to use moral with slight technology additions to prop up a winning army, it in large part became dependent upon who could produce more. Who could produce more became dependent upon who had what territory. Thus, a new kind of war was waged - and this is still being waged today. We take in on faith today that the war in Iraq is being waged for some kind of economic or production bennefitt - only the most loony toon observer concludes that it was God's will - as many people were proclaiming on the eve of WWI.

4. Polerization. The world, after WWI, was more polerized. The traditionalists, who largely instigated the war, were now against the idealists who opposed the war. At the most micro levels we have suppression of smaller independent presses in England and the US - and the most macro level we have the Allies invading Russia to crush the revolution in an attempt to keep the Eastern front going. Inbetween we have arrests, executions, and military suppression of civil unrest on all sides. There is now an international ideological war that's been unleased that would manifest itself in the Cold War, aid itself in the solidification of the EU, and so on and so forth. It was no longer blindly fighting for King and Country, but what King and Country represented is what became important.

5. A shrinking world - related to the last point, progression in air travel, boats, and basic communication made the world smaller - allowing larger trade syndicates, greater communication between movements in countrries and a populor culture that was not as powerful as it was before.

That's more or less my case. It's not scientific, but it's my opinion.

-TIG