It's defined as early modern history because by the year 1600 western Europeans were self-consciously modern. Many philosophers believed that they had at least in many ways surpassed ancient societies and didn't need to look to Greco-Roman antiquity as the highest human attainment. This is a frequent topic of discussion in 17th century writing, usually it's called called the "ancient-modern" quarrel/controversy.

One example of a typical pro-modern argument from the period is to invoke the formula of the compass, gunpowder, and printing press as evidence of modern superiority. Francis Bacon is an example, Bodin would be another good one. The ancients/modern controversy has often subtle political implication. The 17 c. has great political conflict and controversy forging modern theories of the nation state, in the U.K. the civil wars and France the Fronde and Louis XIV's reforming absolutism.

Appealing to the superiority of either ancients or moderns is often laden with social commentary, contemporary authors are writing in a censorious environment and so there is important subtext in understanding their writings. Writers often make arguments in an oblique and contextual way in order to stay out of trouble with the authorities. For instance, in England in the 1650s, one might write about the downfall and corruption of the Roman Republic into tyranny as an oblique way to critique Oliver Cromwell's failure to establish a true republic. Cromwell's supporters will in turn argue that their nascent global empire surpasses the ancients and is proof that it is God's Providence that empowers Cromwell.