In Early modern period increasing commerce and manufacturing lead to growth of towns and urbanization in North and Western Europe. However I am curious how urbanized was the Central and Eastern Europe in the areas between modern day Germany and Russia such as Hungary, Bohemia and Poland?

Hi. I wasn't sure which Reddit community to ask about this question, but this place seemed like a decent fit. I really want to read Athanasius Kircher's treatise on plague (Scrutinium physico-medicum contagiosae luis, quae dicitur pestis, 1658), but my rusty high school Latin isn't really up to the task, so I was hoping to use machine translation to at least get the gist of it. The problem is that all the auto-extracted texts of it, like the .txt available on archive.org, have terrible OCR to the point that autotranslation engines can't make any sense out of them. When I take a photo of the facsimiles available on Google Books and then ask my phone to translate it via Google Lens, I get an impressively decent translation, but I was hoping I could find a way to read the book without having to manually photograph and then OCR/autotranslate each individual page. Anyone have any ideas?

Access to Asian goods and markets was a major motivation for Europeans to find new sea routes and establish ports to gain trade advantages. The Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English were the major European states to expand commercial activities in Asia but overall how complex were Asia and European relations from 1500s-1700s (before the Spanish War of Succession in 1701-1714).

I read that Asia and Europe were roughly equal in parity in technological parity with strong states and armaments so the possibility of outright colonization was not an option yet but small islands were conquered with ports, forts and other settlements established to control and dominate commerce and weaker rulers were co-opted as clients.

I read the most common polity in Early Modern Europe were composite monarchies which several states or territories are united under a single monarch but each polity having their own political and legal structures thus remaining autonomous. This allowed monarchs to attain large swathes of territory without creating new centralized institutions. Some examples I read was, Habsburg Spain( itself a collection of kingdoms mainly Castille, Galicia, Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Barcelona, Leon, Asturias and Navarre) and their Italian possessions of Naples, Sicily and Milan from 1559 to 1714, England and Scotland under the Stuart Dynasty from 1603-1714 and Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.

However how efficient were composite monarchies if their levels of centralization were quite low?

Some of mine are Albrecht Durer, Lucas Cranach, Hieronymus Bosch and Carlo Crivelli. I love the details of dress and style provided by the first two, and the fantastical and symbolic/spiritual elements of the last two. I raise The Annuciation with St. Emidius as one of the most stunning paintings of the Renaissance.

I have been trying to find some books and sources on smaller states in Early modern period of Europe. One of the states that I was interested in is the Duchy of Savoy that were once vassals to Kings of France but by end of Early Modern Period, under Duke Victor Amadeus II became autonomous enough to side against France during Wars of Spanish Succession and Austrian Succession.

As such are any smaller states in Europe between 1500s-1750s that were nominally beholden to a powerful neighbor but could act fairly autonomously?

I am aware that Early Modern era, it was Sweden that was preeminent Scandinavian power that formed a Baltic Empire but it would soon lose it status as a Great Power to Russia in 1709 in the Battle of Poltava. However I am curious about the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway during Early Modern Era, how did political, economic, social and geopolitical conditions differ from other European states?

https://youtu.be/ghNsHVG6Rls?si=JoFSDtVUfrLSPf1i

This is kind of random, but considering traveling to countries these days (especially in europe) can be as simple as taking a train from one country to the next, it made me wonder how this would have looked like in the early modern period. Also, considering you need documentation and everything, say you wanted to say travel from the lowlands to a country in the HRE, would you need additional documentation to get into the hre and then into the specific countries you’d need to pass trough? Or do i have a totally wrong idea here?

I read a book called Elizabeths wars which was very good on military history in the 16th century. It has some stuff about Henry VIII but as the title suggests it was more focused on the Elizabethan era.

Does anyone know a good military history book about Henry VIII reign? I find it an interesting period as it was switching from traditional medieval armies more to pike and shot as well as castle to artillery forts.

Thanks

Researching for a writing project, and I ask because there are tons of depictions of Dutch taverns of the time but next to none of English.

I am aware that in the Middle Ages of Europe, political loyalty is more personal and religious based on their feudal allegiances towards the higher classes whether it be the local lord or the monarch. However since the 16th century before the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, was there any concept of patriotism in Europe before the ideology of nationalism formulated in the 18th century?

What are some easy to read books on the early modern era? I’m especially interested in warfare during this era. Are there any authors out there similar to Dan Jones?

Since I began reading about the French Wars of Religion 3 years ago, I must have found dozens of battles that simply never made their way into English historiography and have barely penetrated the French one.

Engagements where hundreds or thousands of people die, involving armies led by figures so obscure that, in at least one case, we only know his name because we found his will (Written three days before he was KIA in a friendly fire incident).

It's a truly wild time period if you get beyond the screen of high politics.

​