Pre-1900 Alternate History Tropes/Cliches:

You are absolutely right. The explanation is simple though. There aren't obvious much or any members with your factual knowledge about the caliphate.

Surely. However, the issue could be greatly assuaged by way of people supporting timelines that are not explicitly European or European diaspora(s). There are many who make great calls: 'we require more diverse timelines, we need to see timelines on so and so and expand the boards existing corpus.' Yet, these same people or generally those who agree to these calls, neglect to support, provide assistance and give feedback on those timelines that do attempt at the utmost to expand the base of the forum. This is my issue and it has been an issue for the past five years and surely longer.

Mind you, I am no person to critique European history or what have you, and my record on the forum attests to this. Further, there are a great many posters on this forum in the Before 1900 that have skills in a large number of fields and write upon these topics in timelines. There is supplemented by a lack of knowledge thus, also a caution or lack of interest in said venues of history.
 
  • Islam somehow taking over Europe in a matter of decades after a successful Battle of Tours
  • [insert non-muslim nation] obliterating the [insert muslim dynasty] in a matter of some battles, and the burning of [insert holy site] for good measure
  • With a PoD in the 10th century or later, Vikings in England never adopting Christianity.
  • A French victory during the Wars of Spanish Succession always lead to a Franco-Spanish Union similar to Austria-Hungary
  • Insane wanks in general, ASB-tier USA, Roman/Byzantine and German wanks in particular
These are imho the worst tropes I've read so far, but then again, it's my opinion. One could use these tropes in a very good way in order to make excellent timelines, there are many very good and thought out wanks out there on this forum, but sadly, I oftentimes see the classic EPIC PAGAN ÜBERSCANDINAVIA VS GROßFRANCO-HISPANIA CRUSADE AGAINST ISLAM (19th-century US colonizing Siberia included!).
 
I think that these kinds of threads are a safe bit of banter, but if anyone in them ever wanted to be serious, the least that could be done would be links to examples of all the tropes mentioned in the post. Otherwise I wouldn't even know if the claim is remotely true.
 
[insert non-muslim nation] obliterating the [insert muslim dynasty] in a matter of some battles, and the burning of [insert holy site] for good measure
The fact that they just willy-nilly go into Madina or/and Mecca gets on my nerve.

*they really disregard the story of what happen when someone do funny thing inside its border, are they?
 
The USA never changes its government away from a liberal democracy unless the story is explicitly about that (e.g. Reds! or Decades of Darkness).
 
The chart?

Behold the chart!

zbue8vU_d.jpg
 
  1. The only good China is a monarchial one.
  2. Anglo nations are always strong and independentof everyone but each other. The idea of them being less than otl, is ASB.
  3. And if there is an alliance, the Anglos, whether it be Britain or America, are always the big guy in it.
  4. Austria is always second to Prussia.
  5. Japan is always either stronger than China, or at least equal to it, never lower.
  6. When your not a Western(broadest sense) nation, unless your Japan or maybe Ethiopia, you can never be a great power.
  7. Black people only exist be enslaved and other forms of victims. In fact, I hardly ever see discussions or timelines that present ideas of things ever being better for minorities.
  8. There's seems to be a descending order of respect around here, regarding the treatment of nation's. It basically starts with WASPs and then goes down hill the further you get away from that. And that only applies to nations that people acknowledge as semi existing.
  9. Scandinavia seems to not really exist, perhaps on an even worse degree than Africa and Latin America.
 
Not really a POD per se, but something I've noticed is that whenever there's a timeline that takes place in the distant past (usually during Classical Antiquity, though Medieval and Renaissance TLs aren't off the hook either) and there is some sort of dialogue, there's a chance that the characters sound very unhuman and stoic, like they know that they are a part of a grander narrative. Personally, I blame historical movies/shows/video games, where this is also prevalent.
 
The Confederatewank Domino Effect Any change bigger than Abe Lincoln gets a hangnail inevitably results in Robert E Lee annihilating the Army of the Potomac and seizing Washington DC, Lincoln folding after his brain and spine have been removed, Britain and France become willing to intervene militarily on the Confederacy’s behalf, and the Confederacy is given back every inch of lost territory, plus Kentucky as a special bonus prize. If they go after anything in Latin America, the conquest is quick, easy, and permanent.

The Confederacy Has No Warts The large numbers of black and white southerners in the Union Army, the pro-Union guerrillas, the damage to the CSA infrastructure, the massive government debt, and the spiraling inflation magically disappear. Slavery ends almost immediately, usually at the hand of an idealized version of Lee. Confederate politicians show an equanimity about this that makes a bunch of hippies holding hands and singing Kumbayah look like starving feral dogs fighting over a steak. There is no significant dissent on any decision ever made by the Confederate government. Immigrants and free blacks are welcomed with open arms.
 
And if the PLC IS mentioned, it is only as a weak or failing state, the blame for which is invariably placed on the veto power of the Senators. Its almost as if thats the ONLY thing people seem to know about the PLC (and never mind the fact that it operated as a vibrant and dynamic government prior to it's decay)
Other cliche is anachronist use of the PLC name for pre Union of Lublin period. People tend to forget that before 1569 there was no PLC. Also, creation of PLC is hardly something inevitable (OTL it happened due to combination of two events-end of Jagiellon dynasty and Lithuanian defeats in the war against Ivan IV, especially loss of Polotsk). Other anachronism is Sejm appearing in TLs well before it was estabilished.
 

krieger

Banned
Other cliche is anachronist use of the PLC name for pre Union of Lublin period. People tend to forget that before 1569 there was no PLC. Also, creation of PLC is hardly something inevitable (OTL it happened due to combination of two events-end of Jagiellon dynasty and Lithuanian defeats in the war against Ivan IV, especially loss of Polotsk). Other anachronism is Sejm appearing in TLs well before it was estabilished.

I'dd add a belief that Poland was ALWAYS destined to become noble republic (monarchia mixta, if you like this term more) AND never can be anything else, even if the TTL circumstanses clearly say otherwise.
 
I'dd add a belief that Poland was ALWAYS destined to become noble republic (monarchia mixta, if you like this term more) AND never can be anything else, even if the TTL circumstanses clearly say otherwise.
Obviously, I've seen on this site even Poland of Casimir the Great described as elective monarchy/noble republic.
 
Top