History Section

[Raider5678]

Just now, swansont said:

This time of year discussions amongst staff tend to take longer, since people are busy and also traveling. Both tend to put a dent in time spent here.

Alright.

 

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Anyways, I don't suppose you have any news on if we're getting a history section or not?

Based on my time here, I am guessing that a compelling case has not yet been made to add a history section.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Based on my time here, I am guessing that a compelling case has not yet been made to add a history section.

history is on your side...

[MigL]

So, if van Moltke had explicitly followed the Shleiffen plan during the German attack on Paris at the onset of WW1, and Germany had taken the Eastern Front in two weeks ( as Expected ). Then concentrated all her efforts on the Russian Front, the outcome would have been vastly different.
A rebuke and penalties  for the Serbians for the assassination of the Arch-Duke, and the retention by the Germans of Alsace and Lorraine, but not much more. On the other hand the future ramifications would have been vast...

Lenin would not have been released to return to Russia, the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of Communism.
Italy would have stayed out, or sided with the Germans, so no rise of Fascism and Mussolini.
War reparations would not have forced hardships on Germany, so no rise of Nazis and Hitler.
France would have not been devastated, as they had lost a war with Germany $0 yrs earlier.
Austro-Hungarian Empire and Otoman Empire would have still crumbled ( they were already on their way out )
England would have stayed out and still rival Germany today economically.
America would not have emerged on the world stage, and would perhaps, be less reluctant to involve itself intercontinentally.

Would have been a vastly different 20th century.

OH, I'M SORRY.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE HISTORY SECTION.

[swansont]

If we did this, would people prefer just one section, or any subgroups? If so, sorted by geography or by period?

Adding sections later would be an effort, since we'd have to go through and sort existing threads. 

[MigL]

Very recent history (  50 yrs or so ) is generally covered by the Politics section.
There might be a demarcation between ancient and post-Roman eras due to record ( or lack of ) keeping.
But I would be more than happy with just one section.
( and I can drop out of the Historum forums , people are more personable here )

[Silvestru]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

If we did this, would people prefer just one section, or any subgroups? If so, sorted by geography or by period?

Adding sections later would be an effort, since we'd have to go through and sort existing threads. 

It could be kind of like the Religion section. It does not have any subsections per actual belief or faith and I have seen no (rational, civilised) complaints about this.

[Raider5678]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

If we did this, would people prefer just one section, or any subgroups? If so, sorted by geography or by period?

1

If we had a history section, there are a few different sections I feel we could have.

The major types of discussions that would be held is how we should organize it in my opinion though.

I.E. "What would have happened if X happened" could be covered under alternative history or something like that, because I get the feeling a lot of discussions will be around those guidelines.

The subcategories I would have would be:

• History
  • Alternative History
  • Historical Figures
  • Historical Events
  • Historical Speculation 
  • Everything Else

This could keep it fairly organized, as compared to time frames simply due to the vast differences in the types of discussions.

 

 

[Silvestru]

Also I think it would make it more difficult to moderate properly as many posts I am sure would be posted in the wrong subsection. 

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If we had a history section, there are a few different sections I feel we could have.

The major types of discussions that would be held is how we should organize it in my opinion though.

I.E. "What would have happened if X happened" could be covered under alternative history or something like that, because I get the feeling a lot of discussions will be around those guidelines.

The subcategories I would have would be:

• History
  • Alternative History
  • Historical Figures
  • Historical Events
  • Historical Speculation 
  • Everything Else

This could keep it fairly organized, as compared to time frames simply due to the vast differences in the types of discussions.

I feel like these categories are too unclear. If I want to talk about the history of the Mayan people where should I post this? It could fit in all and in none in the same time.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Alternative History

I'm not interested in attracting those attracted to alt-History. It's been pointed out that there are a lot of people with hateful agendas who would like to revise certain historical perspectives.

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If we had a history section, there are a few different sections I feel we could have.

The major types of discussions that would be held is how we should organize it in my opinion though.

I.E. "What would have happened if X happened" could be covered under alternative history or something like that, because I get the feeling a lot of discussions will be around those guidelines.

The subcategories I would have would be:

• History
  • Alternative History
  • Historical Figures
  • Historical Events
  • Historical Speculation 
  • Everything Else

This could keep it fairly organized, as compared to time frames simply due to the vast differences in the types of discussions.

 

 

Alternative history and speculations are virtually the same thing. Events alone are not really historic sciences per se and biographies are a small specialization. 

 

53 minutes ago, MigL said:

o, if van Moltke had explicitly followed the Shleiffen plan during the German attack on Paris

The Schlieffenplan was an "Aufmarsch" (Deployment)- and not an operational plan. Van Moltke ran into operational and logistical challenges. The claim that von Moltke messed with a glorious plan costing certain victory was basically a myth or narrative created by German historians (and officers) to deflect blame. Only post WWII historians have started to revise that narrative, though it has stuck in high-school classes for a long time.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not interested in attracting those attracted to alt-History. It's been pointed out that there are a lot of people with hateful agendas who would like to revise certain historical perspectives.

I have to agree with this. Let's stick to our baseline of dealing with facts.

(and we have to have rules such that anyone showing up with any sort of discussion along the lines of "Hitler was right" will be dropped through the trapdoor onto some spikes)

22 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

It could be kind of like the Religion section. It does not have any subsections per actual belief or faith and I have seen no (rational, civilised) complaints about this.

True, but there's also not the same geographical or temporal aspects to those discussions, as opposed to history. The lack of division by faith is in part because we don't allow preaching. There is more of a general focus.

No division is an option. But if we go with that, we are likely going to stick with it. 

[Raider5678]

Fair enough.

Any other ideas for sub-categories?

[MigL]

Thanks for getting into the spirit of things, CharonY.
It would be nice to have these kinds of discussions with people whose opinions I respect.

Interested in being a History Expert ( as well as Mod ) ?

[StringJunky]

Might be worthwhile trawling through the board layouts of some existing general history forums and seeing what are useful categories to us.

[Raider5678]

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Might be worthwhile trawling through the board layouts of some existing general history forums and seeing what are useful categories to us.

I'll look into that.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Thanks for getting into the spirit of things, CharonY.
It would be nice to have these kinds of discussions with people whose opinions I respect.

Interested in being a History Expert ( as well as Mod ) ?

I am eminently not qualified for that.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am eminently not qualified for that.

Maybe not but you seem to have some idea of  the necessary rigour in this subject and, besides, that can be an ongoing discussion in itself

[Raider5678]

So, the history forum that I visited was organized by Area and Time.

That's obviously a lot of sub-forums to manage, so many we should just pick one.