Irritating clichés about Pre-1900 AH
- Thread starter LSCatilina
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
With bonus "Zoroastrianism Schmastrianism" added in for enhanced flavor.
I wouldn't mind if the people who apply this trope actually devote time into all the kinks that make a believeable religion.
Casual ethnic cleansing
You favor ethnicity x. But ethnicity y owns some land historically tied to ethnicity x. With a waive of your hand and a few pretty words, ethnicity x now has all that land and ethnicity y seemingly leaves or is fine with being conquered with no problems at all.
Done right it's a good example of the oddities of life and how over time, people can assimilate into even foreign regimes (see Arab conquest, Roman Empire or Quebec). Usually done wrong however, so countries end up with large swaths of territory vaguely historically connected to some country that should be pissed, but seemingly end up being totally cool with occupation, mysteriously gone and forgotten and those qualms simply passed over. Usually done in wanks.
Victory is boring
Mentioned and related to the above, but most TLs seem to completely ignore the potential rebellions that should crop up after conquest, as pre-1900s due to travel and communications rebellions could already have taken place before capitals even know about them. Can also be done well, but most often is just lazy handwaiving but authors unwilling to face the potential consequences of some decisions they've made on conquests, etc.
It looks pretty on a map, so it should happen in real life
A misapplication of the rule of cool. When done right it look good and make sense. When done wrong, as it most often is, leads to incredibly weird geographical results from a 800x800 pixelate map not being able to really illustrate the complexities of local geography.
Pax Europa
Europe will always modernize first. Anything outside of Europe was destined to stagnate or never innovate like they did, and be conquered be states from the westernmost region of Asia. While there are good reasons as to why Europe modernized first and went onto spread imperialism throughout most of the world, it certainly wasn't inevitable even with PoDs in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s.
You favor ethnicity x. But ethnicity y owns some land historically tied to ethnicity x. With a waive of your hand and a few pretty words, ethnicity x now has all that land and ethnicity y seemingly leaves or is fine with being conquered with no problems at all.
Done right it's a good example of the oddities of life and how over time, people can assimilate into even foreign regimes (see Arab conquest, Roman Empire or Quebec). Usually done wrong however, so countries end up with large swaths of territory vaguely historically connected to some country that should be pissed, but seemingly end up being totally cool with occupation, mysteriously gone and forgotten and those qualms simply passed over. Usually done in wanks.
Victory is boring
Mentioned and related to the above, but most TLs seem to completely ignore the potential rebellions that should crop up after conquest, as pre-1900s due to travel and communications rebellions could already have taken place before capitals even know about them. Can also be done well, but most often is just lazy handwaiving but authors unwilling to face the potential consequences of some decisions they've made on conquests, etc.
It looks pretty on a map, so it should happen in real life
A misapplication of the rule of cool. When done right it look good and make sense. When done wrong, as it most often is, leads to incredibly weird geographical results from a 800x800 pixelate map not being able to really illustrate the complexities of local geography.
Pax Europa
Europe will always modernize first. Anything outside of Europe was destined to stagnate or never innovate like they did, and be conquered be states from the westernmost region of Asia. While there are good reasons as to why Europe modernized first and went onto spread imperialism throughout most of the world, it certainly wasn't inevitable even with PoDs in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s.
Stupidly-named Italy. This isn't so much a cliche that appears in serious TLs, I think, but some things I see from time to time in the map thread are these strange entities called the "Kingdom of the Three Sicilies," or the "Kingdom of the Two Italies," or, God forbid, something hilariously ridiculous like the "Kingdom of the Three Sicilies, Four Italies, and Two Lombardies," usually resulting from some unspecified alternate unification of Italy, or southern Italy. I'm incredibly annoyed when I see these because it's absolute nonsense, and the only excusable version is the OTL "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies." But even then...I mean, that was really kind of weird, giving a country a poetic name like that. One would think they'd have just merged them both back into the "Kingdom of Sicily."
Persia-screw: Whenever the Romans and Persians clash, it's usually the former that wins, and they almost always win big, despite the fact that they historically had a lot of trouble fighting them.
Unified India: Of course, that's why the subcontinent was separated into numerous states for most of history.
I would mention TR always managing to become president, but that's a tad too late.
Unified India: Of course, that's why the subcontinent was separated into numerous states for most of history.
I would mention TR always managing to become president, but that's a tad too late.
Lots of people seem to even believe that all Indians speak Hindi. Or that India has always been as conservative and rigid as it is today. In reality the rather heavy amount of conservatism is a relic of the Muslim invasions, a lot of Muslim values were introduced to the subcontinent. And the whole idea that they were always governed by a strict and rigid caste system is a misconception resulting from the British, under whose rule social classes and differences were enforced, partly due to the British imposing their own class system on them and partially as a way to more easily govern the land. In the medieval days people could sometimes change caste and there were a lot of movements, some even endorsed by kings, to give more rights and protection to the "untouchables".
Zioneer
Banned
Mormon rebels and other Mormon cliches: Whenever Mormons appear in a timeline, the author always makes them polygamist, always assumes that polygamy was practiced by all Mormons, and always has them rebel against whatever federal government is around where they live. Always. And usually, the author then deports the Mormons to some random area, where they, for some reason, act perfectly loyal towards their new government.
Mountain West state borders: For some reason, the borders of the Mountain West states seem to always stay the same in post-American-Mexican War TLs, despite the fact that the borders are that way because of combination of hatred towards the Mormons (you'll note that of the Mountain West States only New Mexico and Arizona became states after Utah did), and concerns over precious minerals. Even if the Mormons are driven out (like in the cliche I've already complained about), then the state borders still stay the same, which makes no sense.
Mountain West state borders: For some reason, the borders of the Mountain West states seem to always stay the same in post-American-Mexican War TLs, despite the fact that the borders are that way because of combination of hatred towards the Mormons (you'll note that of the Mountain West States only New Mexico and Arizona became states after Utah did), and concerns over precious minerals. Even if the Mormons are driven out (like in the cliche I've already complained about), then the state borders still stay the same, which makes no sense.
Mormons at all: It seems like a 19th century USA timeline will always have Mormons, and they will always colonize somewhere out West. I'd love a timeline that has Joseph Smith die a disappointed Millerite in upstate New York, and a Salt Lake City equivalent settled by mainstream Protestants that ends up more like Las Vegas or San Francisco.
Zioneer
Banned
But Joseph Smith was never a Millerite, and in any case, isn't really the type to bend to anyone else religion-wise.
You do have a point with the rest of it, though I'd like to think that most of the West colonized by Mormons in OTL was palatable (at that time) only to a isolation-wanting religious group similar to the Mormons.
The first one is realistic. The Confederates fought and died to preserve slavery. They aren't going to give it up until that generation has died off and the following one is slowly heading towards old age. If anything it is TOO EARLY. 1920 or so is more realisitic. The other two I grant you.
Yeah, that is annoying. The Confederacy which was formed to preserve slavery gets rid of it a mere decade later.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
Yeah, that is annoying. The Confederacy which was formed to preserve slavery gets rid of it a mere decade later.
I disagree. Slavery certainly would exist up until 1870, with the war fresh in memory. Id sat 1885, or so, is when the first states (it would be on the basis of states rights) abolish it. Florida would go first.
Why would they want to abolish it again?
It isn't uneconomical. It is supported by ideological justification of it as a positive good and opposition to free blacks and fear of what they'd do.
And that the CSA would abruptly care about it being a subject of international disdain when the culture in question was not willing to accept that earlier and found even discussion of emancipation a threat is just hard to accept.
Same with africa- We don't really get into depth about colonial rule in africa.
If Egypt isn't colonised by the british it is by the French
Islamic states tend to do less well than Christian states, probably because the latter benefit from Europe is Better ideas.
Related to the issue of Egypt, but covering the Muslim world in general. There are not many timelines where Islam is the religion of the most advanced societies in the early modern period, let alone later.
That the Ottoman Empire is a sick man for all points post 1683. Yes, it reached its nadir in the late 18th-early 19th century (where luckily the French Revolution and Napoleon distracted everyone from gobbling it up when it was at its frailest) but the Tanzimat was very successful, all in all.
As mentioned, Spain-screws. While they weren't angels they weren't the devils painted by the Black Legend; a legacy yet to be fully erased. Spain also began to recover from its decline under the last Habsburgs with the Bourbon dynasty, but it was Napoleon who gave Spain the most grief ultimately.
Hellenic (as opposed to Rhomanian) Constantinople post-1453.
Japan always modernizes with a pre-1800 POD. China was far ahead than Japan in the 18th century.
The Philippines always being a colony. Either America grabs it just because they can and because grabbing territory from the Spanish is acceptable, or Spain sells it to Germany (the least annoying idea), or we are suddenly colored yellow on the map.
As mentioned, Spain-screws. While they weren't angels they weren't the devils painted by the Black Legend; a legacy yet to be fully erased. Spain also began to recover from its decline under the last Habsburgs with the Bourbon dynasty, but it was Napoleon who gave Spain the most grief ultimately.
Hellenic (as opposed to Rhomanian) Constantinople post-1453.
Japan always modernizes with a pre-1800 POD. China was far ahead than Japan in the 18th century.
The Philippines always being a colony. Either America grabs it just because they can and because grabbing territory from the Spanish is acceptable, or Spain sells it to Germany (the least annoying idea), or we are suddenly colored yellow on the map.
Another one: Nationalism erupts as violently in the 19th century on schedule, even without an analogue to the Napoleonic Wars.
Related to the 'whatever'-screw, but I find this one most annoying of all:
Anglowank! - Sure, France, Italy, Spain, the Americas, Poland, and so forth tend to get screwed a lot, but you know who ends up doing the screwing most of the time? The Brits!
I've noticed that much of the English-speaking world seems to have this conception in their heads that past about 1600, England was basically destined to rule the world until 1945. All armies will wither before them, their massive, throbbing, manho-...navy will crush all resistance, and their economy will destroy all others.
Perhaps it's just because I tend to read history a lot, but this certainly isn't even limited to alternate history. Try asking the average person who won the Napoleonic Wars. If the answer isn't "huh?" it will probably be "Wellington at Waterloo."
Communist Russia Super Motherland - Another one that's kind of annoying. Russia after WWI must be Communist. There is no alternative. Certainly the White armies, if they had managed to organize, couldn't resist the MIGHTY SUPER DOOM ARMIES OF TROTSKY!
...Except that the Bolsheviks nearly bought it at Petrograd when the Whites surrounded them once...Only to fall apart because they couldn't agree on who was in charge.
(OK, maybe that's a little past 1900, but 1918 is close enough to the 19th century for me)
Russia-stereotype - A bit related to the above, but it seems that if Russia isn't a brutal communist regime, it's a brutal monarchist regime. Full of drunkards. And they're all idiots. Because never in Russia was there a sober man who wrote plays or painted, and Russians certainly didn't invent anything useful, like, say, rebar. Or electric arc welding.
Russia is always a backwater full of men in beards and silly hats who abuse peasants and aren't important to the story. In fact, they usually aren't even mentioned except as being cruel and stupid.
China-screw - I saw a related one earlier, so consider this my agreement with it. China gets the short end of the stick just because the decline of the Qing coincided with European expansionism. If a new dynasty had come along a bit earlier before things got really bad in China, world history might be a good deal different.
Anglowank! - Sure, France, Italy, Spain, the Americas, Poland, and so forth tend to get screwed a lot, but you know who ends up doing the screwing most of the time? The Brits!
I've noticed that much of the English-speaking world seems to have this conception in their heads that past about 1600, England was basically destined to rule the world until 1945. All armies will wither before them, their massive, throbbing, manho-...navy will crush all resistance, and their economy will destroy all others.
Perhaps it's just because I tend to read history a lot, but this certainly isn't even limited to alternate history. Try asking the average person who won the Napoleonic Wars. If the answer isn't "huh?" it will probably be "Wellington at Waterloo."
Communist Russia Super Motherland - Another one that's kind of annoying. Russia after WWI must be Communist. There is no alternative. Certainly the White armies, if they had managed to organize, couldn't resist the MIGHTY SUPER DOOM ARMIES OF TROTSKY!
...Except that the Bolsheviks nearly bought it at Petrograd when the Whites surrounded them once...Only to fall apart because they couldn't agree on who was in charge.
(OK, maybe that's a little past 1900, but 1918 is close enough to the 19th century for me
)Russia-stereotype - A bit related to the above, but it seems that if Russia isn't a brutal communist regime, it's a brutal monarchist regime. Full of drunkards. And they're all idiots. Because never in Russia was there a sober man who wrote plays or painted, and Russians certainly didn't invent anything useful, like, say, rebar. Or electric arc welding.
Russia is always a backwater full of men in beards and silly hats who abuse peasants and aren't important to the story. In fact, they usually aren't even mentioned except as being cruel and stupid.
China-screw - I saw a related one earlier, so consider this my agreement with it. China gets the short end of the stick just because the decline of the Qing coincided with European expansionism. If a new dynasty had come along a bit earlier before things got really bad in China, world history might be a good deal different.