Irritating clichés about Pre-1900 AH

What's really annoying you with Pre-1900 misconsception and clichés in Alternate History?

-Neanderthal was exterminated by Cro-Magnon
No proofs, no clues, only this old song about "human nature". Probably the most irritating one.

-Davidic Kingdom of Israel last much longer and bigger
Please tell me that, somewhere, is a school system that doesn't teach about the kingdom of Israel as something having really existed as on the Bible; or kill me now.

-Roman Empire could have surely perudred up to ours days without germanic invasions.
1)How do you spell "Absoulte Monarchy tempered by Militaristic Anarchy" in latin?
2)Limited and weak economic base, fiscal system totally fucked, colon status quite blurry...Yeah, pretty much a good base for a bi-millenium of existance more.
3)What is this purple thing around Greece and Turkey on my medieval maps?

Battle of Tours was the turning point of islamics invasions in Europe
Really? A battle (during a raid as the ones that ravaged southern Gaul between 720 and 740) so unimportant that arabo-islamic scholars didn't even notice it?Now, it's excusable. Charles Martel & sons were pretty good at propaganda, and they managed to make the Battle of Toulouse (721) forgotten : basically a real invasion in order to take cities and lands.But, even considering that, i'm quite sure that the multi-sieges of Constantinople were fare more important.

Dark Ages were..well dark, duh.
Carolingian culture and scholarship want to talk to you in private.

Medieval knights couldn't move without machines, the armours were to heavy.
1)You're a lucky and rich bastard if you could afford yourself a complete armour. They were expansives, and the most of time, knights have only part of them, as a kit.
2)The complete ones were for these rich and lucky bastards, and they wanted good stuff, aka an armour making no more than 40kg.
3)Some tournaments armour were indeed heavy, quite stupid at looking, and not really usable in a non-conventioned fight. But it's not warfare here.
 
If the Confederacy joins the Entente or even is acknowledged by Britain then America MUST take over ALL of Canada with the help of the CP and MUST always hold a grudge like some stalker with a knife in the bushes.
 
The Confederacy abolishes slavery within 10 years of independence.

Republic of Texas, Republic of California, and Republic of Desert always seem to flock together.
 
Every place not inhabited by Europeans must be colonized. :rolleyes: East Asia is the one exception, though it's still easy to find people trying to find ways to colonize even China.
 
Grant is a clumsy butcher, far inferior as a general to Robert E. Lee.-In reality Lee's tactics were not very original. His great gift was to make use of a skilled tactician and a skilled strategist to counter his own weaknesses. Grant is a real-life Mary Tzu who is the kind of general people on AH.com would call ASB.

Lee can win a Nashville-level victory over the Army of the Potomac.-George Thomas did this to the Army of Tennessee after the entire Atlanta Campaign and Franklin, and even then there were large units that survived. Lee simply has no means to destroy the enemy army, it was just too powerful and too skilled at the lower level.

The Chinese lacked the capacity to innovate.-There were long stretches of the past where Chinese Empires were the societies most akin to modern ones in their technological-bureaucratic nature.

The Roman Empire fell to polytheists.-This applied to the Huns and tribes that overran Britain. The mainland tribes were Arian Christians.

The Ancients believed the world was flat.

Anyone but the Native Americans built Native American ruins.-This is as sensible as believing that the Fallen built the Great Pyramid of Giza but this doesn't stop people seeing nonsense in the idea of pre-Columbian contacts.
 
Last edited:
Ameriwanks. They're fairly tiresome, and are for the most part unrealistic. No, there is no reason the US wants territory in South America.

Byzanto-wanks. The empire was on the decline, whether or not siege #3248 of Constantinople was successful.

CSA wins. There are way too many threads about this, and the region itself never was and never will be exciting.

Japanese empire wins. Never mind the reason for their expansion (resources) and the atrocities of their colonies, somehow there's never the risk of rebellion and no one ever seems to care, making Japan suddenly self-sufficient, stable and prosperous. Along with this, the idea that Japan always beats Russia.
 
Following the Civil War bent--Britain (and France) if they have allied with the Confederacy, will continue to support it, even if the USA is more powerful, economically successful, and on the whole, a far more important nation to keep on good terms with. Also, a British government that supports the CSA will suffer no penalties at the polls for doing so.
 
What's really annoying you with Pre-1900 misconsception and clichés in Alternate History?

-Neanderthal was exterminated by Cro-Magnon
No proofs, no clues, only this old song about "human nature". Probably the most irritating one.

In fact, there is fairly strong evidence that all non-Africans contain small traces of Neanderthal DNA.
 
Some i've forgotten, but my careable friend reminded me

Catharism as another branch of Christianism (as Orthodox church)

Sigh. Maybe 1/3 of the population in a really, really reduced part of Landuegoc, socially based on poor noblity and little bourgeoisie.

Aztec Colombus
This idea needs to die, slowly and painfully.
 
That Colonization is the way to go to be a powerful nation-state/kingdom/empire. Forgetting the fact that most colonies were money sinks for all colonizing powers.

Moscow to Russia. The only way for the unification of Russia to happen, like it was destined to happen, even though the reason why it happened was one ruler.

Same with Brandenburg -> Brandenburg-Prussia -> Prussia -> Germany, except for the one ruler thing.

Russia needs to expand eastward.

Poland always seizes to exist at least at one point in history. Then they never rebel against their overlords.
 
Byzanto-wanks. The empire was on the decline, whether or not siege #3248 of Constantinople was successful.
Nearly 1000 years is too long a time for decline. The Byzantines wern't constantly in decline, they had their ups and downs. Though mostly downs it seems, but that shouldn't take away from the many periods of success they had.

However, aside from that, I'd largely agree with that list, though i'd like to add one more of my own...

British Imperial Federation - I could see the white dominions forming a federation, but a one including India? As has been pointed out many times before, it would be the Indian empire, not the British Empire, as the Indians outnumbered the rest quite heavily.
 
I do agree that the empire had its ups and downs, but the overwhelming number of threads about how they "could have won" really denies the fact that they were getting old. Byzantium was going to fall, and the idea that it could somehow survive past 1500 is one I find highly overrated.
 
I do agree that the empire had its ups and downs, but the overwhelming number of threads about how they "could have won" really denies the fact that they were getting old. Byzantium was going to fall, and the idea that it could somehow survive past 1500 is one I find highly overrated.

That it could survive past 1500 with the right POD is not overrated. That it would do so as a perpetual Great Power without ever facing relative decline, let alone absolute decline, however is a different matter. The Ottomans were better at the whole Empire thing than the ERE was.
 
That it could survive past 1500 with the right POD is not overrated. That it would do so as a perpetual Great Power without ever facing relative decline, let alone absolute decline, however is a different matter. The Ottomans were better at the whole Empire thing than the ERE was.

That's what I was trying to point out. Byzantium was going to fall.
 
That it could survive past 1500 with the right POD is not overrated. That it would do so as a perpetual Great Power without ever facing relative decline, let alone absolute decline, however is a different matter. The Ottomans were better at the whole Empire thing than the ERE was.
Well, the Ottomans could only just about hold their own as a great power holding the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Mashriq. Assuming a "Classical" Byzantium (Anatolia+Balkans), there is no way that the Byzantines will be the greatest power by the 19th century.
 
While on the topic of imperial cliches, these are all annoying:

The Habsburg Empire is inevitably doomed. The Habsburgs were the longest-lasting dynasty of Northern/Central Europe. Their fortunes waxed and waned, Charles V was one of the most powerful men in history and the Habsburg Empire's collapse in WWI reflected its inability to sustain a long war.

A successful WWI Germany will create a European utopia. This is extremely unlikely. The Nazis are pretty blatantly worse than the Kaiser, but a Europe dominated by a huge military dictatorship is not a recipe for sweetness and light.

The Ottoman Empire is always doomed. As with the ERE it can survive, it will not perpetually be the strongest military power in Europe. It was the only dynastic empire whose dynasty outlasted WWI......
 
Top