|
|
Post by thedevilsbrood on May 20, 2020 20:12:24 GMT -5
Hello, all!
I doubt this qualifies as a "Curiosity" but I didn't really know anywhere else to put this thread.
As the title suggests, I'm curious as to your guys' least favorite period in history. Often, when talking with a fellow history enthusiast, one of the first things we ask each other is what periods are our favorite to study.
While I'm sure that, for the vast majority of us, all history interests us at least somewhat, clearly some periods do so more than others. And some periods might do so only very little, if at all.
For me, here are some that provide very little interest for me:
1.) World War II
2.) The American Civil War
3.) Most African History that isn't Ancient Egypt
4.) (To some extent) The Tudor Period in England
For #s 1, 2, and 4, it was simply a matter of being exposed to them too much (1 and 2 as a kid, 4 very often as I got into British History). I don't even know that much about 1 and 2, but I don't have much desire to do so.
For the Tudors specifically, it's really more how only certain pockets of the Tudor period are emphasized- namely, Henry VIII and his six wives, and Elizabeth I. I also have disliked how people think the Tudor period is the only one that matters,
I will admit that my listing of #3 is mainly due to ignorance. I'm sure if I were told some interesting stories- I might change my mind!
I of course mean NO offense to people who specialize in and/or are really into any of these periods. Just because they don't interest me doesn't mean they aren't important, or can't interest someone else. These are very personal, petty reasons, and shouldn't take away from your enjoyment of them.
I just think that the periods a person is into tell a lot about them, so the periods someone dislikes might do the same.
So go ahead and answer them same! It doesn't matter if you never liked it, or were into it but got sick of it- though you're free to eleborate which one if you want!
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurelia on May 22, 2020 11:53:21 GMT -5
If I had to choose a few ... they would be:
1. The Early Puritanical Years in New England (I have the sudden, violent desire to slap people long dead when I read about some of the strictness and executions that happened).
2. Just About Everything After 1950 (I know, this is more like a better part of the past 100 years, but I can't help it).
3. The Napoleonic Wars ... I just have a really hard time getting into the nitty-gritty of them - I'm not sure why. They are just more of a "Meh" topic, whereas the others are loathsome to my very person.
I always feel like the right teacher or person to explain aspects of a topic can make the topic interesting... but I've just not found the right teachers for the above, I suppose. I associate the post-1950's with many ugly aesthetic choices, all the way up through the 1980's, so my disgust there is rather superficial and quite visceral.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedevilsbrood on May 24, 2020 15:01:09 GMT -5
If I had to choose a few ... they would be: 1. The Early Puritanical Years in New England (I have the sudden, violent desire to slap people long dead when I read about some of the strictness and executions that happened). 2. Just About Everything After 1950 (I know, this is more like a better part of the past 100 years, but I can't help it). 3. The Napoleonic Wars ... I just have a really hard time getting into the nitty-gritty of them - I'm not sure why. They are just more of a "Meh" topic, whereas the others are loathsome to my very person. I always feel like the right teacher or person to explain aspects of a topic can make the topic interesting... but I've just not found the right teachers for the above, I suppose. I associate the post-1950's with many ugly aesthetic choices, all the way up through the 1980's, so my disgust there is rather superficial and quite visceral. Regarding your #2, I kind of feel that way about the 1900s in general. Really only World War I and the Cold War are the only things that keep me super interested in that century. As soon as the Berlin Wall falls- well, I don't even consider that history anymore. I'd only go to 1901 in England because that's when Victoria died lol. And even then I'm not crazy about her... I haven't really actively tried to get into the Napoleonic Wars, so I don't really know how much they'd interest me or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Aurelia on May 26, 2020 14:11:25 GMT -5
I'd only go to 1901 in England because that's when Victoria died lol. And even then I'm not crazy about her... I haven't really actively tried to get into the Napoleonic Wars, so I don't really know how much they'd interest me or not. I can access everything up to the 1950's usually via fashion, film and culture... if all else fails, usually I go to that and try to kindle some spark of interest... but after 1950, things like this happened:   |
|
|
|
Post by The Duchess on May 26, 2020 18:12:17 GMT -5
This is a fun idea! If anyone says the Stuart era though...1. Ancient Greece. Ancient history, beyond Rome, has never really been my thing. I do love ancient Rome, but I just really do not like ancient Greece. I couldn't even tell you why. I just don't. 2. The 18th century. As someone who does Renaissance, Reformation, and Restoration history, the very tame nature of Enlightenment monarchies -- among many, many other things I don't feel like typing out -- bores me to tears. It may have to do with overexposure, and people acting as if the Enlightenment was the apex of secular history. I just find it very boring. 3. The 20th century. Again, overexposure, and it doesn't fall in line with any of my historical interests. It's important to know, but I'm not going to be the one researching it or actively seeking out things to know about it. I'm an early modernist. 4. American history (post-revolution). I was born and raised in the USA. American history was really the only thing we ever learned in history classes and social studies classes. Don't get me wrong, I loved social studies, and I've had one or two teachers who have made a huge impact on me, but I just can't bring myself to care about American history. Au contraire, my historical passion is the early modern English monarchy.
Regarding thedevilsbrood on the Tudors: I agree, to an extent. Even then, a lot of the popular history that draws us in is very basic. I'm interested in Henry VIII's reign, inasmuch that I am interested in seeing the religiopolitical playing field and how the Tudor era set the stage for the Stuart era -- in short, the evolution of monarchy between the two dynasties is really very interesting. My main Tudor interest, of course, is Queen Mary. Just like my fascination and regard for figures like Lucrezia Borgia and King James II, I really think there is a lot to be learned in the examination of historical figures who have been much-maligned throughout history, both during their lives and after them. I 100% agree, however, on people's hyperfocus on Elizabeth I. I really don't think she deserves as much credit as she does. She overshadows both monarchs who preceded -- Mary I -- and succeeded -- James VI/I -- her. |
|
|
|
Post by thedevilsbrood on May 28, 2020 16:47:22 GMT -5
This is a fun idea! If anyone says the Stuart era though...1. Ancient Greece. Ancient history, beyond Rome, has never really been my thing. I do love ancient Rome, but I just really do not like ancient Greece. I couldn't even tell you why. I just don't. 2. The 18th century. As someone who does Renaissance, Reformation, and Restoration history, the very tame nature of Enlightenment monarchies -- among many, many other things I don't feel like typing out -- bores me to tears. It may have to do with overexposure, and people acting as if the Enlightenment was the apex of secular history. I just find it very boring. 3. The 20th century. Again, overexposure, and it doesn't fall in line with any of my historical interests. It's important to know, but I'm not going to be the one researching it or actively seeking out things to know about it. I'm an early modernist. 4. American history (post-revolution). I was born and raised in the USA. American history was really the only thing we ever learned in history classes and social studies classes. Don't get me wrong, I loved social studies, and I've had one or two teachers who have made a huge impact on me, but I just can't bring myself to care about American history. Au contraire, my historical passion is the early modern English monarchy.
Regarding thedevilsbrood on the Tudors: I agree, to an extent. Even then, a lot of the popular history that draws us in is very basic. I'm interested in Henry VIII's reign, inasmuch that I am interested in seeing the religiopolitical playing field and how the Tudor era set the stage for the Stuart era -- in short, the evolution of monarchy between the two dynasties is really very interesting. My main Tudor interest, of course, is Queen Mary. Just like my fascination and regard for figures like Lucrezia Borgia and King James II, I really think there is a lot to be learned in the examination of historical figures who have been much-maligned throughout history, both during their lives and after them. I 100% agree, however, on people's hyperfocus on Elizabeth I. I really don't think she deserves as much credit as she does. She overshadows both monarchs who preceded -- Mary I -- and succeeded -- James VI/I -- her. Completely agree with the 20th Century and American History in general. I think I was just exposed to it too much as well. For the 18th century, yes, monarchs/monarchies get significantly less interesting once they lose power. I also think the Enlightenment is heavily romanticized, and don't like how it's taught in schools. Plus, when it comes to England, the Hanoverians just don't seem like very likable people, save for George III*... For the Tudors, yes, I agree, there are still some interesting pockets, and it's see to see the Plantagenet aftermath and the buildup to the Stuarts. And, yes, Mary I does not get nearly enough credit, and I now consider her maligned. *I'll admit, I don't really know a thing about William IV (Victoria's immediate predecessor), so I can't really judge him as a person. But I maintain what I said for the other Hanoverians besides George III. |
|
