Historical Blind Spots

Over time I've noticed on this thread people are usually in two camps, those focused of Antiquity (wherever that begins and ends is a personal choice for some) and those focussed on more Medieval and early modern with a bit of overlap in between.

My question to you all is what are particular spots or places in history which do not interest in the least, areas where you couldn't care less what happened and lack the drive to look into. I myself tend to skip over later PODs, mostly out of a sense of my own ignorance, the specifics of most things starting with the renaissance fluctuates between a state of superficial understanding and knowing jack shit. I wonder where the rest of you fall on this scale.

Tjakari said:

Over time I've noticed on this thread people are usually in two camps, those focused of Antiquity (wherever that begins and ends is a personal choice for some) and those focussed on more Medieval and early modern with a bit of overlap in between.

My question to you all is what are particular spots or places in history which do not interest in the least, areas where you couldn't care less what happened and lack the drive to look into. I myself tend to skip over later PODs, mostly out of a sense of my own ignorance, the specifics of most things starting with the renaissance fluctuates between a state of superficial understanding and knowing jack shit. I wonder where the rest of you fall on this scale.

Click to expand...

Late roman stuff is obnoxious - shitloads of tribes I couldn't care about if I tried.

The 1600s-1700s before the 1770s are also rather bereft.

It's really either timeperiods where not enough happens, or where there's not enough source material - this is a big one for Ancient China: nobody can get a good grasp on the dynasties or write good fiction to excellent effect.

This is going to sound either really conceited, or unsurprising, but the nitty gritty history of other countries. Like, I'm a firm believer that anything can happen in Alt history, but factual elements are important. I've always wanted to write a TL that deals with an America and England who never become friends and constantly undermine one another. I can think of plenty of vignettes (American weaponry getting shipped into Ireland and Scotland, while the British become best buddies with Mexico and try to stoke racial tension in the States) but i don't see myself ever getting into the nitty gritty of British politics or culture. I don't know how they would react, or alternate strategies, or even really the role in the world that they have played. I would love to start but the research seems.. endless.. \

I don't like Roman stuff as much as I used to... I get real interested again around 1100. I stop caring around 1770, except the revolutionary war. I like the Civil War, and I like both World Wars, but not the stuff inbetween those groups.

I know absolutely nothing about Central Asia. I think there were a lot of major Empires and stuff but I know nothing about it.

Also, pre-roman Antiquity

Most stuff in the Dark Ages I don't touch simply because so much happened it would be to hard to cover it all. I also don't favor the Renaissance because it just never sparked my interest.

I'm a card-carrying generalist and expert of nothing-in-particular. I really enjoy this site as I learn something new every time I visit.

I'm more interested in the biological & military threads, and not so much for politics.

I suppose republican Rome is also a blank spot, mostly cause there's too little gravity in that time, no figures to hold onto and expand your knowledge from. Too many senators and generals without too many defining qualities that stand out, it's been changing lately only because I've forced myself to learn about the time, Caesar is tolerable but only if I ignore everyone else involved towards the end of the Republic and that's no way to look at history.

That being said, everywhere else in Antiquity makes a bit more sense, though post Alexandrian Asia is just a clusterfuck with so much backstabbing and b-list strongmen that I can't wrap my head around, as far as I know the empire got split up and there was regency for some kid who got killed and nobody got mad. Then Seleucus somehow almost unified the empire but also didn't and that didn't last for some reason I could understand.

Not to mention India.......it's just kinda there, down south with elephants and hindus not really fitting into the narrative. Sort of like a subplot that the author forgot to tie in despite some early forshadowing that never came through, towards the end of the book the creator decides to tie up loose ends and hand over India to the English and that works ......also somehow.

Anything east of the Tigris and south of the Sahara pre-1937.

Actually, now being in my 40's I find I know just enough to get things wrong. For example, in undergrad, I wrote a 30 page paper on the Battle of Midway so its fair to say I had fairly good knowledge of the battle. Now I just get schooled every time I engage in the topic on this site. I can say somewhat similar things about Antiquity, medieval Europe, the ARW, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and perhaps a few other topics. I guess that makes me a generalist.

Anything from the end of the Thirty Years War to the beginning of the Seven Years War just kind of blends together for me. Its just a constant stream of War of something Succession, or the War of the whatevers.

Tjakari said:

I suppose republican Rome is also a blank spot, mostly cause there's too little gravity in that time, no figures to hold onto and expand your knowledge from. Too many senators and generals without too many defining qualities that stand out, it's been changing lately only because I've forced myself to learn about the time, Caesar is tolerable but only if I ignore everyone else involved towards the end of the Republic and that's no way to look at history.

Click to expand...

Read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series and you'll see how wrong you are. I was pretty much the same, always interested in medieval stuff, until I read that and realized how fascinating the late Republic and its personalities and social dynamics actually are.

- Chinese, Indian, Subsaharian African, Central Asian and pre-Columbian American history are obvious gigantic blind spots on AH.com. I wish I would know more about these, but vulgarisation works are clearly rarer than for other regions, and missing this knowledge is really problematic after a while.

I found that mapping ancient periods for the OTL map project was really interesting on clearing blind spots : I learnt a lot on medieval India by trying to figure out which kingdom were present in 819 or 1053.

- On a more personal touch (and the regions mentioned above are clearly blind spots for me as well) : Mesopotamian and Ancient Egyptian History, anything related to XVIIIth-XXth century military matters, XXth century history overall, American Civil War never provoked anything more than a polite interest for me, etc.

Tjakari said:

Over time I've noticed on this thread people are usually in two camps, those focused of Antiquity (wherever that begins and ends is a personal choice for some) and those focussed on more Medieval and early modern with a bit of overlap in between.

My question to you all is what are particular spots or places in history which do not interest in the least, areas where you couldn't care less what happened and lack the drive to look into. I myself tend to skip over later PODs, mostly out of a sense of my own ignorance, the specifics of most things starting with the renaissance fluctuates between a state of superficial understanding and knowing jack shit. I wonder where the rest of you fall on this scale.

Click to expand...

I notice a distinct lack of Age of Discovery/Reformation-era material here (except for my TL, hah!).

It's been mentioned I think, but also the long 19th century is also largely under-represented. Come on you guys, Romanticism Liberalism and Nationalism! Yeah!

Draeger said:

I notice a distinct lack of Age of Discovery/Reformation-era material here (except for my TL, hah!).

It's been mentioned I think, but also the long 19th century is also largely under-represented. Come on you guys, Romanticism Liberalism and Nationalism! Yeah!

Click to expand...

I find the Civil War to take up a lot of space...

The problem with antiquity, Pre-Columbian America, etc, is we just don't know enough about them, unfortunate as that may be. The reason we focus on the West is 95% of us are from here.

I'd say one hugely underrepresented period is the Early Middle Ages. We see a lot of High Middle Ages, Roman times, Age of Enlightenment and even the occasional rennaisance TL (though that too, is underrepresented), but from 476 to about 1000, there's practically nothing.

Personally, I find I absolute salivate over indigenous, prehistoric (Lands of Red & Gold, etc) and everything to 700, then it drops down until Louis XIV, drops again until Napoleon, then stays down until the Cold War unless it is a relatively small POD (see the Spanish-Moroccan War in 2002).

I think the blind spots certainly make it difficult-which make it even better.

Tanc49 said:

I know absolutely nothing about Central Asia. I think there were a lot of major Empires and stuff but I know nothing about it.

Also, pre-roman Antiquity

Click to expand...

You do know that UNESCO has a public series all about the history of central asia, right?

And all that Civil War ballyhoo is really obnoxious at times.

There are some topics I don't generally find interesting, but certain threads will get me interested. Like 20th century America- couldn't care less, about the pop culture or sports or videogames or even the substantial stuff like World War Ii. Except, of course if its All Along the Watchtower, Decisive Darkness, Realpolitik talking about Nixon, or part of another TL. It's telling my favorite timelines in that forum are all largely focused on parts of the world that I know less about but find more interesting.

In pre-1900: anything between just past whenever Realm of Millions of Years is and the fall of Rome is not my thing, exceptions made for After Actium and Carthage. Otherwise: 19th century politics. Love the culture updates, love cultural interactions with the colonized world etc, but I don't really thrill at the minutiae of electoral history.

Military history at all: I don't understand it very well. The jargon confuses me.

Oh, and the alternate animal domestications. I need to read the Niger rice thread (JE is guaranteed quality) but otherwise its really not my thing.

I really don't care for military history, or at least the development of weapons. A tank is a tank is a tank. They all did the same job, all the newer ones have is more toys to play with.

packmanwiscy said:

I really don't care for military history, or at least the development of weapons. A tank is a tank is a tank. They all did the same job, all the newer ones have is more toys to play with.

Click to expand...

The Antonov A-40 wants a word with you...