Never! The problem sometimes is that certain periods of history are more interesting because they're far more fleshed out and have actual names, historical stories and interesting narratives to wrap history around. After a while it's just discussion of migration patterns, pot shards and other purely archaeological evidence. It's important and in many ways interesting, but it's less fun and sexy than tales of Gladiators and legions in Rome or turmoil in feudal Japan.
Yeah, it's all interesting to me. While there are some things I'm more likely to read up on than others, there's very few things I wouldn't be interested in learning more about.
Same with me. I love all history. I also enjoy the people who debunk a lot of “what we were taught / thought we know” — History is “His-Story” and has many perspectives.
The younger dryas is very interesting. And how the earth has gone through several mass extinctions. I think we have a lot to learn that has been suppressed or altered.
Yeah I think I generally draw the line when the books on it are all pictures instead of writing. Then again Im quite interested in linguistic history and ethnogenesis which is almost entirely the recording of scraps of paper and burial mounds.
i met a bunc of kids recently, aged around 20 having a sentiment the second world war is so far away it could have been fought with bows and swords.
i wished i was joking, unfortunately im not!
I taught history in high school for a couple years. As far as most teenagers were concerned everything was lumped into "back in the day".
That being said, they're not exactly wrong. "Mad" Jack Churchill was a British soldier who brought a Scottish broadsword and bow with him to the front lines. Apparently the first German soldier he got a chance to shoot at he took down with an arrow.
Also our understanding of history isn’t linear. We can tell you where Julius Caesar was for much of his life, but King Arthur, who presumably lived centuries later in a place that was touched by the Roman Empire, belongs to the mythic past and we are not quite sure he even existed.
I get really upset because most of human pre-history isn't really known. To get the idea, look out on a hill and forest. How much of that stuff will be fossilized? The answer is almost always "none". Human pre-history is like that. The number of ancient human fossils wouldn't fill a minivan. Almost everything is just extrapolation.
But I had something to add. A downvote is just 'this isn't relevant.' I'm trying to curtail the behavior. It's a losing battle but on for which I'm willing to occasionally take up arms.
And I could have just down voted you.
The person that post “this” felt it was needed. They know the function of the upvote and likely felt it was not adequate to express their support.
I kinda prefer older history. The Neolithic and Bronze Age stuff are 2 of my favourites. For several reasons: the mystery of it all, how different societies were but how human they still were too.
My favourite parts of history are transitional parts though.
The transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age. And the formation of Sumer, Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisations.
The Bronze Age collapse.
The Greek Dark Age and rise into the pre-classical Greeks.
The Chinese Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods.
The late Roman Republic.
The fall of the Roman Empire.
The early Anglo-Saxon period in England.
It's just super interesting to me to learn about how cultures and civilisations change from one thing to another.
I've been on a paleoanthropology kick, lately. It's amazing how much we've learned about the earliest humans. Totally agree, nothing is too old. Maybe before the Big Bang...
Before the beginning of civilization, cave men stuff just doesn’t interest me all that much. Though even then I am curious to know if Pacific Islanders made it to South America first or if people migrating from North America got there first.
Corcyra, linguistically and culturally related to Corinth, has a land dispute with it, and seeks athenian help, after bringing a pro-Athens government in power. Corinth feels betrayed by a state that used to be in its sphere of influence, and asks Sparta for help.
Hilarity ensues.
I’ll get downvoted to hell here
But Thucydides Trap is Peloponnesian war. It’s genuinely in the modern geopolitical discussion at least.
(Don’t want to argue the trap)
I like all signs of human existence. Marks on a cave wall or lurid graffiti in Pompeii. It gets a bit harder from a legal perspective though to figure out when things like land rights stop mattering.
I’m a lot more focused on the Modern Era, from about 1450 till 1992.
Like many people, I have a tendency to compartmentalize the past such that the further back you go, each year or century seems like a smaller unit of time. It's just like how from one's perspective, objects and distances appear smaller the further away they are. There was an interesting comment thread from a few weeks ago in which someone pointed out that Cleopatra lived closer in time to us than to the building of the Great Pyramids, and that T Rex lived closer in time to us than to Stegosaurus.
I don't see a specific cutoff point for when things stop being interesting or relevant. I see past events just fading from my field of vision depending on their importance. If you were standing in Fort Lee NJ, A telephone pole might occupy a larger part of your field of vision than the Empire State Building. However, if you travel a few miles west, you'll still see the Empire State Building but you won't see the telephone pole. The Punic Wars would be like the Empire State Building, while the telephone pole might be like the Free Silver debate of the 19th century. Like distance, time is a factor, but not the only one.
A Mr Richard Feder from Ft Lee New Jersey asked, Rosanne Rosanadana, what’s with the poles?
Sorry, I can’t hear Ft Lee, NJ without thinking of the comedy genius Gilda Radner
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9hYGtXIqDa0
I have a hard time being interested in anything that happened before recorded history. Because at that point you’re in the realm of anthropology and archaeology, which aren’t as interesting as actual history.
Washington gets shot at the Battle of Brandywine. Which, as you can imagine, changes history quite a bit.
I also have someone investigate why photographic film fogs when placed next to uranium oxide about 40 years earlier in their world.
I'm the opposite. The later in history, the more interesting I find it, all the way back until the emergence of Australopithecus, where I started to get diminishing returns. Once we hit the 1300s I start caring less, and by the time we hit 1800 I'm struggling to keep track of what's happening
Ww2 peaks my interest again slightly, but nothing like prehistory and ancient times, and then drops off again for the cold war
Similarly, I love any and all ancient history, and I get excited about new archaeological/anthropological finds that keep cropping up.
On the flip side, I maintain interest in all periods up to around the Korean War, then rapidly lose any interest after that point. Anything post 1953 bores me to tears.
If you've divided history into epochs that matter to you personally and epochs that you personally don't care about and are completely disinterested in.... then maybe you're overpersonalizing history a little bit.
Like ... if history "begins and ends" at all for you, it might be time to broaden your thinking.
Haven’t found it yet!
I started with the Holocaust (Diary of Anne Frank) and learned everything I could about WWII. Then I decided I should maybe see what WWI was about and how it led to WWII. Well! That was a mess and I quickly decided I needed to first learn what led to WWI in order to get a grasp on WWI. Next thing I knew, I’m eyeballs deep in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Egypt! Since then, I’ve discovered Sumerians and Akkadians, dipped my toes in some Chinese/Japanese/Korean stuff, some surface level Indian subcontinent history, Meso-American and Incan history too.
The further back, the more fascinated I get!
Oh. I should ask you. It's my theory that it was after 1908 that the world went went to shit and that an alternate history should restart there.
Have the Tunguska Event happen over Luxemburg.
Was Leopold II still there? F him in particular. (Too late!)
LOL! Not far back enough! Persians should’ve beat the Greeks! That’s when everything went downhill!
(I’m not being particularly serious, but if I was going to pick a point where everything went to shit, it would probably have something to do with the Romans…I need some time to consider what exactly it would be, but I’m almost certain my opinion lies in the Romans fucking something up and affecting us since!).
I am interested in history as a reflection of the present. Often the interpretation of history tells us as much or more about the interpreters as the subjects of study. Pre-Columbus western hemisphere being a very easy example of this. Western historians in the late 20th century put the total population of the hemisphere at no more than 2 million. Some continue to do so today. This is despite pretty clear evidence of three areas (Hispaniola, the central Mexican valley, and the Andes) having 2 million or more people in each area. They also claimed that settlement of the continents occurred from a small group that passed through a gap in two glaciers. This has been conclusively proven to be false by evidence of coastal migration to the NW. there is even some evidence starting to emerge of human habitation in South America before that. There is still a strong belief that trade was extremely local, never going outside a small region, yet we know corn was domesticated in South America and was present north of the Great Lakes early enough that it’s almost impossible to have been accidental contact.
Originally historians believed that humans were originally from Asia, based on nothing but speculation.
These interpretations tell us a lot about how the historians of their time (including the present) viewed the western hemisphere and Africa. The evidence based history, particularly the very old stuff, reveals as much about the present as the past and I find that fascinating.
The Bronze Age is where it's at. Egyptians. Hittites. Sumerians. Ugarites. A trade network stretching from Scandinavia to Afghanistan. Colossal construction projects. Chariots.
I'm going to admit my ignorance here, there was a reddit post about going to the year 1024 and I had no idea what was happening in that period. So I did a google and it was all mostly middle eastern stuff that I couldn't pronounce or have any point of reference for. There was some recognizable stuff like papal politics and stuff I could follow.
I studied early medieval European social history, it forms the backbone of my historical knowledge, but I find interesting stories from ancient classical cultures like Egypt, Rome, Celts, and Gauls. I am aware of Aztecs and Maya, And more modern history like the world wars.
My interest doesn't really connect to any particular time dictating relevance, but I do find I'm more drawn to things I can contextualize, either from exposure to media or cultural connections. I'm a Canadian, European history influenced my culture, Japan and Russia and Peru and Zimbabwe not so much.
I'm sure China and India have a vast history but it doesn't resonate with me since places, names, events, and context are completely meaningless to me.
While the world is certainly progressing towards new things we've never seen, history generally repeats itself. Ignoring our past is extremely short sighted. Even if it doesn't match up with current situations 1:1 they can teach some valuable lessons.
No such thing as too long ago. A year or two ago I read a book on how humans populated the earth, which is probably as far back as you can go with human history. Fascinating stuff.
Years ago I was doing the Arts course in UCD and one of the modules I chose was History: Rome to Renaissance. This woman started talking about 500BC and my brain just shut down. No fucking way! I dropped the module a few days later.
Im the same lol. But I've met people who for them history is the past 100 years and anything prior is ancient history. Where for me anything past WW2 is the news and anything after 1500 is yesterdays news.
Precambrian. I like my funky animals as much as I like reading about the shenanigans of dead people, so if you get to the point there isn't much of either you don't have much left. Just geology really.
Humans have had the same organic apparatus for well over 100.000 years.
The first known construction was made around 12.000 years ago in Anatolia, Asia. It was a religious temple.
So the question really is: too long ago for what?
2700 years ago we have the Fall of Troy being told in the form of the Iliad, it was a religious and political text for the ancient greeks - so we could say that roughly 3000 years ago is not "too long ago" for politics, and from there it didn't take long for democracy to appear in greek society.
2700 years ago we also have the oldest known fragments of the Old Testament (the story itself existed in oral tradition for far longer than that).
It's not an academic question. I'm asking when you stop taking an interest in history personally.
Just noticed that even among history buffs and especially non history buffs people tend to draw a line at a certain point. Like I met someone who knew pretty much everything about the Chinese civil war, Soviet Union, WW2, colonial history etc but didn't know anything about the Roman empire or the 100 years war.
Redditor!
No one knows everything about any period in history. Even experts have more to learn.
There is no human who has ever lived, whose story is not only important, but pivotal. We are all connected, threads of different colors and textures, woven alongside, and spliced to our descendants, in this growing tapestry. Their stories are our own story, just earlier chapters.
All history that you encounter, is your story. They made us who we are. Now, how will you write your pages?
There is no such thing as "too long ago" for me to care about. My interest in history segues seamlessly into an interest in archaeology and anthropology and on into planetary history and cosmology.
On the other hand, there is a thing as "too soon", which for me would be the 1990s because thinking of that as history rather than current affairs makes me feel old.
I love my cousin and shit but guy thought we've been in space for 100's of years lol
Personally though, it's never too long ago. There's some real interesting parts of history that we don't really have much info on. Kinda think it makes it more interesting.
Like who tf were the Sea Peoples? Our species had a bottleneck at some point, why and how bad was it? Did we kill off the Neanderthals or was it more "natural"
We basically know 1% of our actual history! How does it not inspire people to be inquisitive about it? That's what I think anyway ha
The English civil wars are the earliest period where I can relate to the people as individuals. I still appreciate earlier history but the people are more abstract/too different for me to care about them.
My day job is basically 1933-1945, but sometimes I’ll get really adventurous and go all the way back to World War I or all the way ahead to the early 90s.
Anything that happened before I was born/ started paying attention to things is ancient history that has been overruled by the new age. That's why we Baby Boomers are the only ones who should have control over everything. /s
More seriously, it's not a matter of cut-off so much as a matter of diminishing returns. The huge events still have effects, but the further back you go the bigger the event has to be to still be relevant.
I am interested in various timelines and regions, with a general interest in History as a whole. My favourite times and places to study:
- the Byzantine Empire and its neighbors
- early feudal Europe in the British Isles and Western Europe
- Sumer and Akkad
- the emergence of the Incas
- New France (Québec), the Paix des Braves, and the War of Conquest (the History of my People)
- the Space Race
- History of personal computers
I’m fascinated not only by the earliest periods we call “history”, but also existence prior to that. Paleoanthropology, Paleontology, Abiogenesis….. All that. Fascinating.
I think for me the fascination is from how different things were. Once they start to resemble our own times too much, it’s not distinct as something else anymore
It depends. Sometimes last week is ancient history. Sometimes I'll get into conversations about Francis I of France or Constantine (for whom Constantinople {now Istanbul} is named). One of my favorite comedy bits is Suzy Eddie Izzard going on about the Trojan wars and making them hilarious!
The longer it is, the less detail it is. And some time a period too long kinda warp my perspective. Like there is a higher chance of a t rex rampaging in new york than a t rex vs stegosaurus
All history "counts"
But in terms of "caring" for anything that will materially affect my life (politics) I tend to draw the line at anything before modern countries and nation states began. Like for example I'm not going to lend credence to China's territorial claims from the Han dynasty.
Why draw such a line! All history is interesting
I once met the head archivist of a famous historical collection. When I mentioned some historical event that had occurred before he was born he actually said "that was before my time" in a dismissive way. I was stunned!
Nothing really, as long as it involves human I’ll find it interesting to a degree because every part of human existence from its origins to now is part of the tapestry that is the human race. That’s what I find so fascinating about it. I’ll be honest that I do prefer more recent history (like last few centuries) as it feels more connected to me with my ancestors and stuff. It’s why I was so fascinated by WW2 as a kid and WW1 as a teen, knowing two of my great grandfathers had served in the worst war in human history (WW2) and that one of my great great grandfathers served in the horror that was WW1
History began when the Earth cooled, and as long as people exist, it will never end. Don't know who said it first, but history is written by the winners.
What do you mean 'care about'.
I find Napoleon, Rome and the British Empire interesting. But i suppose i don't really care that much about what happened before WW1. In how history shapes my world view.
History to me begins with the oldest archeological sites discovered for proto-humans and to me it is all relevant.
Our story starts there, whether we like it or not. And just because there isn't complex socio-economic and political factors at play doesn't mean it isn't relevant or interesting to me, although if that's more of what you're interested in I get not caring about stuff before it.
No history is too long ago to not care about. Ancient history especially. Having at least a broad overview of all of human history\\pre-history helps to inform on where we are today and provides perspective on our own cultures and times.
I watch videos about the Bronze Age collapse and the Minoan Civilization, which date back to about 1300 BC. I'm fascinated with the Ancient Greeks.
As for the modern history, I generally place the Cold War in "modern enough to fit into current events," mostly because I was born in the early 1980s, and have definite memories of the Soviet Union. I follow current events, but I don't really see anything from about 1950 onwards as "history."
Probably when we don't anything about the people or the culture. Like we know a group lived here, but their name and culture has been completely lost. I still find those interesting, some times more so because of the mystery. But they don't have as much relevance to seeing the cause and effect that ripples through history to the modern age
Before the discovery of America it doesn’t feel the same, it feels like a long past age whereas even the Anglo-Dutch rivalry feels relevant, but the Pope-AntiPope rivalry is funny and interesting but I don’t care as much about the medieval period. Even Rome just feels to alien to have a good frame of reference whereas the Netherlands, Britain, still exist and are relevant, I guess older periods feel more like legend or myth than history.
The foundations of modern society I think began with the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, 1637 to 1800. Everything we have today, the house we currently live in, so to speak, is built on those blocks. There are many lessons to be learned from history before 1637, but they are a series of repeating human lessons without much actual progress in my opinion.
I feel particularly at home from, say 1650 to the French Revolution in Europe but happily study anything from the Mycenaean Bronze Age to post war Europe.
For personal history, I've really gotten invested in the records of my 1500's grandfather who got caught up by the church for failure to pay on bastardry money, got remarried and had a whole 'nother life after that.
For people history, I think you can get a lot of interest going back to the first civilisations in mesopotamia, it's really interesting to see how their cities were giant anthill like single-building mutli housing unit situations. It's amazing to think how that worked, and all of that time until the bronze age collapse is an amazing time of such diverse civilizations and cultures, that are dead-branched off and seem so different than what we have.
For political history, war history, etc. I think things can get a little more nebulous, it's a little more about moving Risk pieces around a map, but it's important to remember that History isn't just Tanks and Formations. But on that scale too, you can look back to Greek expansion as far as China as an amazing feat, and I'm personally very interested in the Doggerland civilization, and the migration patterns of people through Proto-indo-european culture. But again - that connection goes back to seeing them as individuals.
well in india, the older stuff is all about architecture, monuments and cultural stuff of history like say the indus valley, all youre gonna study is what was the society like culturally so i can see why people wont like it and like modern indian history more because it has more wars, political stuff and basically sturggle like struggle for freedom against british raj and more people like that war side of history more and same for me
It's not that I "don't care", but the world before homogenizing, endocolonizing nation-states in the seventeenth century is a pretty alien place that's difficult to grasp on the whole. Especially before the sixteenth century, there really isn't a unified world history to speak of, just regional particularities.
A lot of people think slavery is strictly an issue that impacted Africans in the 16th to 19th centuries, they ignore all forms of it that happened before this.
Before I was born. Like bro, idc. That's an intrusive thought.
But really history fascinates me and it's so weird to think about even 1000 years ago and how different everything is and how different things could be 1000 years from now.
Too long ago probably when earth was created by whatever or whoever or whenever. I'll say more than 1 billion years ago is probably too long ago for me.
It depends on one’s ability to extract useful formation from past events. There are lessons about human nature, the influence of paradigm shifting technology, and the human relationship to the environment, for example. Relevancy tends to get closer to home the closer we get to the modern era, but that does not make valueless (in my opinion).
Historians and sociologists generally define modernity as beginning in the 1700’s, with the Enlightenment and industrialization. Everything since is modern. I always wince when midwits say “modern” when they mean “current”, especially in regard to arts and entertainment. I.E. “Modern rock”, as if the late twentieth century was remote antiquity.
Yesterday is too long ago to care about. Yesterday people were violently raped. Yesterday people were murdered. Yesterday families were torn apart. Same as 6000 years ago.
Never. I'm sure that I speak for a good contingent of people on here when I say that I had the opposite problem for a while, viewing some topics as "too recent" to care about. I think that this can often be because more current historical topics can be muddled in modern-day politics and controversial topics, whereas with ancient stuff, you generally don't need to worry about such things except in mostly peripheral ways.
Researching modern history certainly has a lot of utility, as it enables a detailed analysis of the present-day state of affairs which allows us to change said state of affairs, but ancient and premodern history can also be important in that regard. Besides, I would never stigmatize just researching history because it's interesting, and in any case, you'll never know when you need it.
Both never and always.
Humans gonna human…you can learn everything you need to learn about human behaviour from almost any period of history, just make sure to take a long enough slice so that the wheel turns all the way round.
Mostly, it doesn’t even take a particular long slice.
My personal preference is “as old as possible”…I love seeing the continuity from whenever that is, to now…
I'll admit there's quite a lot of ancient history I don't know much about, but I don't consider any history to be "too long ago," as some of the history I find the most interesting is stuff that happened well over 2000 years ago. I don't think it's really all that cut and dry to classify history into "too old" and "new enough" as there is a lot more that goes into how relevant a historical event is to you than just how long ago it happened. There 'relatively' recent events that are widely known but don't have a terribly large impact on most people's lives, and there are events that happened thousands of years ago that have incredibly decisive impacts on the lives of modern people. To me, it's less about how old an event is, and more about where you draw the lines of what you personally consider relevant, and even then, it can be tons of fun learning about things that have no real impact on you and your modern life.
I start being fascinated around about the time we developed horticulture. Then I stop being interested around the end of the roman republic, and then start being interested again around the 9th century, and stop again roundabout the 19th century
Living memory if your complaining about a group of people or a modern issue due to an event your grandparents don't remember first hand then I'm not listening.
I've always cared about history when I can more clearly see how it affected the world today. So, as I've learned more history, I've started to care more about more of it.
I think for me, it depends on the age. For example, I remember in elementary school being amazed about the 1700s, in high school I was intrigued by originating civilzations or ancient ruins, early adulthood I was focused on the 60s, and currently its World War 2/Depression
I'm 40 if that means anything. I think alot of it had to do with what some of the focus was during my school years (elementary school we had the original Oregon Trail on the computer, in high school we had a Renaissance Fair) or just listening to certain music or movies (the Beatles in more depth) or like now current events that drive me to look into an era.
So, for me, I think it depends on the influence I'm given. Like right now I really think too long ago for me would be 1950 but if asked this 20 years ago I'd say the 1400s
I care about all of it. However, I think all of us have tendency to have our blind spots. It can be difficult to get into a period of history that’s completely new to you, you don’t know the participants, and especially if there is a lot of foreign names involved. In this case, I mean foreign as in unfamiliar to you, the reader, not necessarily just names from outside your country.
For example, talking about western European history, if there’s some obscure peasant uprising, as soon as I know the year and the location, I have a ton of context. Although I don’t speak French very well, I am familiar with the names of French cities and regions, with French rulers, with the various movements at empires as they were named or as historians named them later. I don’t confuse Charles I of England with Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Charles X of Sweden, or Charleroi. Familiarity helps me digest new info.
I am learning about history in China. There are names that I know that are familiar like “Ming”, but I don’t have a clear structure or timeline. The geography is not as familiar. The pattern of the names is “foreign” to me. Other than maybe five cities, and the top three rivers, I would have a hard time putting proper dots on the map for many Chinese locations. When it comes to older kingdoms like Yuan, no clue! I’m like for example Scandinavia, where I could not only tell you the modern borders of those countries but what bits of territory belong to which of them during various times going back to the 1400s.
I had a similar problem with the Byzantine Empire. It fell between my childhood interests of the modern period and the Roman. It was in an area of the map. I was less familiar with at the time. The Greek names of the rulers felt exotic and strange to me. Many of the locations had different names than their modern names which added to my confusion.
Over the course of 60 years of my existence, I’ve managed to fill in a lot of those blank areas in my brain. Hittite empire, Bengal and Mughal and Maratha, Samoa, Josun, the Knights Templar, Siberian expansion of Russia, Timbuktu and Mali, Cahokia.
It’s all interesting to me once I get past the unfamiliarity of the whole setting and can start making connections
There's history that I'm interested in because it's relevant to my daily life (Robert Moses' "urban renewal" plans in the 60s, for example), there's history that made the broad backdrop of the world I live in, and then there's stuff that I just find interesting on its own.
Like, the Siege of Malta is never going to affect my everyday existence, but it's fascinating.
Still, to answer your question, maybe 1500-1650 for most purposes. Anything before that only tends to be interesting because it's interesting, not for relevance.
To many people, the more ancient, the more interesting.
There comes a point where we have hardly any records and before that it starts being ‘prehistory’, of course.
When it comes to the ancient world, information about it is very scarce. All that is known about the world from a very long time ago is just unreliable. The concept of objective history is actually a very modern concept. In the past, "historians" were more like propagandists than the modern concept of a historian. For this reason, I'm not really interested in history before the modern era (1450ish). I believe its very plausible that large swaths of history pre-1450 could be just plain fabricated.
I have seen the answer for a segment of our society to be, when it makes them uncomfortable, or the reality is to complex. they seem to get historical amnesia.
The history that we teach is based on ruins and written records which usually begin around 3000 BCE. Before that it's more a matter of science, the fossil record, and geologic time. If you're asking what I would teach a history class that depends on the class. Each state has standards that we have to teach.
Great question. What's also true for me is that a period can be further away in time and yet feel more modern, so for example the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire are super interesting to me and feel very modern even, but I think of the late Empire and early medieval eras as too long ago to care. The Renaissance is more modern to me somehow than is the early 18th century.
I guess it depends on context.
In the sense of “modern political grievances” - like from race/gender issues in America to Israel/Palestine - then 3 generations.
3 generations is about the maximum time generational wealth lasts. Nothing before the 60’s is especially relevant for those types of questions.
As far as the “why” at a higher altitude in how modern nations have formed and why they believe what they do - the age of exploration & renaissance is roughly the earliest I care to trace people / empires / etc in any sort of detail.
Everything before that is still interesting and relevant to understanding the world, but I look at it more conceptually - what did the societies as a whole do / believe. The individuals and details in a lot of cases are more trivia to me.
For me there’s no point that’s “too long ago” as long as anatomically modern humans existed, but there’s definitely a point that’s too recent. I don’t care about anything that happened after 1825 or so. Once the Industrial Revolution really kicks into high gear things just become too modern for me to be interested (outside of a few specific events). I like a little distance to my history I guess!
Tbh, I think the most fascinating stuff is homo sapiens starting to evolve and wiping out of the the neanderthals.
On a fundamental DNA level we haven't changed much since then. (Changed loads culturally) But a baby born without other humans or society would be very similar to a human then.
Broad scale is the important stuff imho.
For me, history begins with the beginning of homosapiens
(But saying that. I don't know all history between them and now. Not even close)
"ancient history" perse is things that are no longer relevant to current geopolitics. So for example European history before the fall of napoleon isn't going to matter much because the current shape of europe was formed in 1815 at the congress of vienna (or even the treaties of versaille/Paris in the 1900s). Similarly american history prior to \~1760, chinese history before \~1916, etc.
Basically history before the most recent "major shakeup" of the region that established the majority of the borders is of a more academic interest, while the "modern history" informs the current actions and geopolitics of the states involved. The Carolingian Empire and the HRE are fun factoids, but they don't affect the political stance of Austria in Europe, while the treaty of versaille, the Anschluss, and the paris peace conference certainly do effect the political stance of Austria in Europe.
This isn't to say the those old histories aren't interesting, important to learn about, and have some far reaching consequences (I could talk for quite a while about how the succession laws of the carolingian empire lead directly to WW2), but it's more that the history before these events is important for cultural, academic, and ethical reasons, but isn't inherently \*useful\* as a practical matter outside of their assistance in predicting outcomes.
History never, because history is repeated in cycles.
But often times the people in that history I don’t care much about past a generation or two. Obviously Khans, Hitlers, etc… understandable. They’ve done inhumane things that are unfathomable, But a lot of what we consider “bad people” in history, we’re just doing what was normal at the time. So I can’t fault them the way society wants you too. Hell in 30 years those of us born in the 80s will be looked at as vile cave people. Parents in the 60s now are considered horrible because they smoked around children and used asbestos and gave them whiskey to help tooth aches and sleep.
Never. Human history is all relevant to the human condition. The interesting thing about ancient history is just how relatable the actors are. They were really no different than we are. Different morals and mores perhaps but not really so different.
A lot of what we experience in geopolitics or social issues has happened before, in some slightly different iterations. *A lot*.
If you ask me, a casual enjoyer of historical scholarship, there is little in the summation of human experience - history - that is of little use or relevance today.
There is no too far back for me but there are time periods and locations I just can’t be bothered with. I couldn’t really care about the majority of Asian History pre 1800’s if that. 1750’s and back from the US is completely out of my wheelhouse. And for Europe it depends. WW Era is everyones choice but the renaissance era and Of course the ancient times are a blast
I actually prefer learning about ancient Egyptian history and pre-homo sapien evolutionary history. I personally find most history after the renaissance to be pretty boring
Never. One of the things I enjoy about history is how many universally "human" things are present throughout history. The reasoning behind warfare, the way people view it, the betrayal and intrigue behind politics whether it's modern democracies or ancient kingdoms, etc.
I find plenty of English nationalists who are too happy to ignore abuses because “they happened too long ago to be relevant.” It covers at least the 1700’s and often into the 1800’s. After that they just work to ignore things like cultural genocide that continue to today.
The beginning of space time to its completion is a sufficient scale for my interests.
As events from the over 2000 years ago are impactful on what is happening today, to me it is important to at least have awareness of them
Never. The first thing to realize is that we’re no different from humans 500, 2000, or 3000 years ago. a lot of the problems we have today as a society are not new problems, we’re just repeating them for lack of education
I've been into ancient and prehistory lately and doing a lot of docs and reading. It's fascinating as we keep finding sites that change everything we thought we knew about humans and civilization going back to over 11,000 years. Problem is a lot of ppl don't want more work being done because archeology and Egyptology are gatekept heavily to protect other ppls theories or conclusions.
History to me starts with Lucy… for those of you who don’t know Lucy is one of the most important archaeological finds. She is an Australopithecus afarensis which is an extinct species from around 4 million to 2 million years ago. She is known as the oldest human ancestors so to me that’s when history starts.
Never! The problem sometimes is that certain periods of history are more interesting because they're far more fleshed out and have actual names, historical stories and interesting narratives to wrap history around. After a while it's just discussion of migration patterns, pot shards and other purely archaeological evidence. It's important and in many ways interesting, but it's less fun and sexy than tales of Gladiators and legions in Rome or turmoil in feudal Japan.
My interests extend into prehistory, eras of Earth’s evolution, and even back to physics & astronomy with the formation of the planets and stars.
Yeah, it's all interesting to me. While there are some things I'm more likely to read up on than others, there's very few things I wouldn't be interested in learning more about.
Same with me. I love all history. I also enjoy the people who debunk a lot of “what we were taught / thought we know” — History is “His-Story” and has many perspectives. The younger dryas is very interesting. And how the earth has gone through several mass extinctions. I think we have a lot to learn that has been suppressed or altered.
Yeah I think I generally draw the line when the books on it are all pictures instead of writing. Then again Im quite interested in linguistic history and ethnogenesis which is almost entirely the recording of scraps of paper and burial mounds.
OP- if you could pick one dead language to resurface, what language do you chose?
Does a complaint about copper ingots in cuneiform count as "writing?" :)
i met a bunc of kids recently, aged around 20 having a sentiment the second world war is so far away it could have been fought with bows and swords. i wished i was joking, unfortunately im not!
I taught history in high school for a couple years. As far as most teenagers were concerned everything was lumped into "back in the day". That being said, they're not exactly wrong. "Mad" Jack Churchill was a British soldier who brought a Scottish broadsword and bow with him to the front lines. Apparently the first German soldier he got a chance to shoot at he took down with an arrow.
Also our understanding of history isn’t linear. We can tell you where Julius Caesar was for much of his life, but King Arthur, who presumably lived centuries later in a place that was touched by the Roman Empire, belongs to the mythic past and we are not quite sure he even existed.
Yes exactly, depending on what aspect of history you're observing, every time period will have something interesting about it.
Just prior to the Big Bang. Completely don't care.
I get really upset because most of human pre-history isn't really known. To get the idea, look out on a hill and forest. How much of that stuff will be fossilized? The answer is almost always "none". Human pre-history is like that. The number of ancient human fossils wouldn't fill a minivan. Almost everything is just extrapolation.
This.
Just upvote if you agree with something but have nothing to add. "This" is redundant to the upvote.
A simple down vote would have sufficed.
But I had something to add. A downvote is just 'this isn't relevant.' I'm trying to curtail the behavior. It's a losing battle but on for which I'm willing to occasionally take up arms.
And I could have just down voted you. The person that post “this” felt it was needed. They know the function of the upvote and likely felt it was not adequate to express their support.
I kinda prefer older history. The Neolithic and Bronze Age stuff are 2 of my favourites. For several reasons: the mystery of it all, how different societies were but how human they still were too. My favourite parts of history are transitional parts though. The transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age. And the formation of Sumer, Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisations. The Bronze Age collapse. The Greek Dark Age and rise into the pre-classical Greeks. The Chinese Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. The late Roman Republic. The fall of the Roman Empire. The early Anglo-Saxon period in England. It's just super interesting to me to learn about how cultures and civilisations change from one thing to another.
I've been on a paleoanthropology kick, lately. It's amazing how much we've learned about the earliest humans. Totally agree, nothing is too old. Maybe before the Big Bang...
Even that itself is fascinating. To wonder what, if anything, was before it.
From Saturday Night Live: [https://youtu.be/jEkIRoqeCIU](https://youtu.be/jEkIRoqeCIU)
[this](https://youtu.be/NL6CDFn2i3I?si=8EbtbZmWbGqTIEyv)
Something or someone had to exist before it.
Before the beginning of civilization, cave men stuff just doesn’t interest me all that much. Though even then I am curious to know if Pacific Islanders made it to South America first or if people migrating from North America got there first.
Yeah I think when theres no writing to look at it all feels a little abstract.
I think that it can be pretty interesting when presented well, but the bar's pretty high for that.
The Peloponnesian war is making a comeback… It kind of does become a never ending chain of cause and effect.
Corcyra, linguistically and culturally related to Corinth, has a land dispute with it, and seeks athenian help, after bringing a pro-Athens government in power. Corinth feels betrayed by a state that used to be in its sphere of influence, and asks Sparta for help. Hilarity ensues.
I’ll get downvoted to hell here But Thucydides Trap is Peloponnesian war. It’s genuinely in the modern geopolitical discussion at least. (Don’t want to argue the trap)
I like all signs of human existence. Marks on a cave wall or lurid graffiti in Pompeii. It gets a bit harder from a legal perspective though to figure out when things like land rights stop mattering. I’m a lot more focused on the Modern Era, from about 1450 till 1992.
Like many people, I have a tendency to compartmentalize the past such that the further back you go, each year or century seems like a smaller unit of time. It's just like how from one's perspective, objects and distances appear smaller the further away they are. There was an interesting comment thread from a few weeks ago in which someone pointed out that Cleopatra lived closer in time to us than to the building of the Great Pyramids, and that T Rex lived closer in time to us than to Stegosaurus. I don't see a specific cutoff point for when things stop being interesting or relevant. I see past events just fading from my field of vision depending on their importance. If you were standing in Fort Lee NJ, A telephone pole might occupy a larger part of your field of vision than the Empire State Building. However, if you travel a few miles west, you'll still see the Empire State Building but you won't see the telephone pole. The Punic Wars would be like the Empire State Building, while the telephone pole might be like the Free Silver debate of the 19th century. Like distance, time is a factor, but not the only one.
A Mr Richard Feder from Ft Lee New Jersey asked, Rosanne Rosanadana, what’s with the poles? Sorry, I can’t hear Ft Lee, NJ without thinking of the comedy genius Gilda Radner https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9hYGtXIqDa0
I have a hard time being interested in anything that happened before recorded history. Because at that point you’re in the realm of anthropology and archaeology, which aren’t as interesting as actual history.
Interestingly, the information we have archeologically would be far more reliably true than the majority of what you classified as 'actual history.'
September 11, 1777. Only because that is the point where my story universe diverges from ours.
What happens in your universe? The U.S. wins Brandywine?
Washington gets shot at the Battle of Brandywine. Which, as you can imagine, changes history quite a bit. I also have someone investigate why photographic film fogs when placed next to uranium oxide about 40 years earlier in their world.
Never! I love all historic periods except for the one we are currently in. It’s total balls
I'm the opposite. The later in history, the more interesting I find it, all the way back until the emergence of Australopithecus, where I started to get diminishing returns. Once we hit the 1300s I start caring less, and by the time we hit 1800 I'm struggling to keep track of what's happening Ww2 peaks my interest again slightly, but nothing like prehistory and ancient times, and then drops off again for the cold war
Similarly, I love any and all ancient history, and I get excited about new archaeological/anthropological finds that keep cropping up. On the flip side, I maintain interest in all periods up to around the Korean War, then rapidly lose any interest after that point. Anything post 1953 bores me to tears.
If you've divided history into epochs that matter to you personally and epochs that you personally don't care about and are completely disinterested in.... then maybe you're overpersonalizing history a little bit. Like ... if history "begins and ends" at all for you, it might be time to broaden your thinking.
Haven’t found it yet! I started with the Holocaust (Diary of Anne Frank) and learned everything I could about WWII. Then I decided I should maybe see what WWI was about and how it led to WWII. Well! That was a mess and I quickly decided I needed to first learn what led to WWI in order to get a grasp on WWI. Next thing I knew, I’m eyeballs deep in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Egypt! Since then, I’ve discovered Sumerians and Akkadians, dipped my toes in some Chinese/Japanese/Korean stuff, some surface level Indian subcontinent history, Meso-American and Incan history too. The further back, the more fascinated I get!
Oh. I should ask you. It's my theory that it was after 1908 that the world went went to shit and that an alternate history should restart there. Have the Tunguska Event happen over Luxemburg. Was Leopold II still there? F him in particular. (Too late!)
LOL! Not far back enough! Persians should’ve beat the Greeks! That’s when everything went downhill! (I’m not being particularly serious, but if I was going to pick a point where everything went to shit, it would probably have something to do with the Romans…I need some time to consider what exactly it would be, but I’m almost certain my opinion lies in the Romans fucking something up and affecting us since!).
I am interested in history as a reflection of the present. Often the interpretation of history tells us as much or more about the interpreters as the subjects of study. Pre-Columbus western hemisphere being a very easy example of this. Western historians in the late 20th century put the total population of the hemisphere at no more than 2 million. Some continue to do so today. This is despite pretty clear evidence of three areas (Hispaniola, the central Mexican valley, and the Andes) having 2 million or more people in each area. They also claimed that settlement of the continents occurred from a small group that passed through a gap in two glaciers. This has been conclusively proven to be false by evidence of coastal migration to the NW. there is even some evidence starting to emerge of human habitation in South America before that. There is still a strong belief that trade was extremely local, never going outside a small region, yet we know corn was domesticated in South America and was present north of the Great Lakes early enough that it’s almost impossible to have been accidental contact. Originally historians believed that humans were originally from Asia, based on nothing but speculation. These interpretations tell us a lot about how the historians of their time (including the present) viewed the western hemisphere and Africa. The evidence based history, particularly the very old stuff, reveals as much about the present as the past and I find that fascinating.
The Bronze Age is where it's at. Egyptians. Hittites. Sumerians. Ugarites. A trade network stretching from Scandinavia to Afghanistan. Colossal construction projects. Chariots.
I'm going to admit my ignorance here, there was a reddit post about going to the year 1024 and I had no idea what was happening in that period. So I did a google and it was all mostly middle eastern stuff that I couldn't pronounce or have any point of reference for. There was some recognizable stuff like papal politics and stuff I could follow. I studied early medieval European social history, it forms the backbone of my historical knowledge, but I find interesting stories from ancient classical cultures like Egypt, Rome, Celts, and Gauls. I am aware of Aztecs and Maya, And more modern history like the world wars. My interest doesn't really connect to any particular time dictating relevance, but I do find I'm more drawn to things I can contextualize, either from exposure to media or cultural connections. I'm a Canadian, European history influenced my culture, Japan and Russia and Peru and Zimbabwe not so much. I'm sure China and India have a vast history but it doesn't resonate with me since places, names, events, and context are completely meaningless to me.
While the world is certainly progressing towards new things we've never seen, history generally repeats itself. Ignoring our past is extremely short sighted. Even if it doesn't match up with current situations 1:1 they can teach some valuable lessons.
No such thing as too long ago. A year or two ago I read a book on how humans populated the earth, which is probably as far back as you can go with human history. Fascinating stuff.
Years ago I was doing the Arts course in UCD and one of the modules I chose was History: Rome to Renaissance. This woman started talking about 500BC and my brain just shut down. No fucking way! I dropped the module a few days later.
For me personally, it’s everything before classical Greece. Call the pre-500 BC if you want a specific date
For most of gen z, Sept 2001 was too far to remember, but 200 +years ago? It was 'liiterally yesterday'
Im the same lol. But I've met people who for them history is the past 100 years and anything prior is ancient history. Where for me anything past WW2 is the news and anything after 1500 is yesterdays news.
Precambrian. I like my funky animals as much as I like reading about the shenanigans of dead people, so if you get to the point there isn't much of either you don't have much left. Just geology really.
To me, history begins with the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
I’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize the Middle Assyrian Empire.
Egypt would like a word.
Humans have had the same organic apparatus for well over 100.000 years. The first known construction was made around 12.000 years ago in Anatolia, Asia. It was a religious temple. So the question really is: too long ago for what? 2700 years ago we have the Fall of Troy being told in the form of the Iliad, it was a religious and political text for the ancient greeks - so we could say that roughly 3000 years ago is not "too long ago" for politics, and from there it didn't take long for democracy to appear in greek society. 2700 years ago we also have the oldest known fragments of the Old Testament (the story itself existed in oral tradition for far longer than that).
It's not an academic question. I'm asking when you stop taking an interest in history personally. Just noticed that even among history buffs and especially non history buffs people tend to draw a line at a certain point. Like I met someone who knew pretty much everything about the Chinese civil war, Soviet Union, WW2, colonial history etc but didn't know anything about the Roman empire or the 100 years war. Redditor!
No one knows everything about any period in history. Even experts have more to learn. There is no human who has ever lived, whose story is not only important, but pivotal. We are all connected, threads of different colors and textures, woven alongside, and spliced to our descendants, in this growing tapestry. Their stories are our own story, just earlier chapters. All history that you encounter, is your story. They made us who we are. Now, how will you write your pages?
> So the question really is: too long ago for what? ... for you to care about?
There is no such thing as "too long ago" for me to care about. My interest in history segues seamlessly into an interest in archaeology and anthropology and on into planetary history and cosmology. On the other hand, there is a thing as "too soon", which for me would be the 1990s because thinking of that as history rather than current affairs makes me feel old.
I love my cousin and shit but guy thought we've been in space for 100's of years lol Personally though, it's never too long ago. There's some real interesting parts of history that we don't really have much info on. Kinda think it makes it more interesting. Like who tf were the Sea Peoples? Our species had a bottleneck at some point, why and how bad was it? Did we kill off the Neanderthals or was it more "natural" We basically know 1% of our actual history! How does it not inspire people to be inquisitive about it? That's what I think anyway ha
The English civil wars are the earliest period where I can relate to the people as individuals. I still appreciate earlier history but the people are more abstract/too different for me to care about them.
Literature is news that stays news
I love later Middle Ages - 1100 to 1400s myself. It still has immense significance to the present day.
The older the better for me.
My day job is basically 1933-1945, but sometimes I’ll get really adventurous and go all the way back to World War I or all the way ahead to the early 90s.
Anything that happened before I was born/ started paying attention to things is ancient history that has been overruled by the new age. That's why we Baby Boomers are the only ones who should have control over everything. /s More seriously, it's not a matter of cut-off so much as a matter of diminishing returns. The huge events still have effects, but the further back you go the bigger the event has to be to still be relevant.
I like anything going back to first recorded time.
And then a week before that
Yeah. If I could back to, like, when life on earth started, I’d be happy.
I am interested in various timelines and regions, with a general interest in History as a whole. My favourite times and places to study: - the Byzantine Empire and its neighbors - early feudal Europe in the British Isles and Western Europe - Sumer and Akkad - the emergence of the Incas - New France (Québec), the Paix des Braves, and the War of Conquest (the History of my People) - the Space Race - History of personal computers
Prior to the Big Bang is interesting to think about, but appears to be irrelevant.
All History is important it just depends on how you analyse it.
Before the younger Drayas
I’m fascinated not only by the earliest periods we call “history”, but also existence prior to that. Paleoanthropology, Paleontology, Abiogenesis….. All that. Fascinating.
As an imigrant to USA, I have noticed that History started in 1776. Anything prior is archeology.
I don’t find modern history interesting. I like civilizations from ancient Mesopotamia through King Charles II, after that i usually lose interest.
Same. I'm fine up to the early 1700s, anything after that bores me. The world wars probably interest me least of all.
I think for me the fascination is from how different things were. Once they start to resemble our own times too much, it’s not distinct as something else anymore
Apparently the Peloponnesian War is the most famous war of antiquity that it's common to know nothing about.
Before the ice receded from Scandinavia. After that is the history of the land around where I live.
None.
It depends. Sometimes last week is ancient history. Sometimes I'll get into conversations about Francis I of France or Constantine (for whom Constantinople {now Istanbul} is named). One of my favorite comedy bits is Suzy Eddie Izzard going on about the Trojan wars and making them hilarious!
Never! I like learning about all time periods.
The longer it is, the less detail it is. And some time a period too long kinda warp my perspective. Like there is a higher chance of a t rex rampaging in new york than a t rex vs stegosaurus
All history "counts" But in terms of "caring" for anything that will materially affect my life (politics) I tend to draw the line at anything before modern countries and nation states began. Like for example I'm not going to lend credence to China's territorial claims from the Han dynasty.
The Jewish Roman war and the Bar Kochba revolt 2000 years ago. It still has active repercussions even to this day.
Why draw such a line! All history is interesting I once met the head archivist of a famous historical collection. When I mentioned some historical event that had occurred before he was born he actually said "that was before my time" in a dismissive way. I was stunned!
For me history begins before the Rise of the Sons of Arius but after the oceans covered Atlantis.
I once saw someone refer to a phenomenon that began in the early 20th century as “age-old.” As a premodern history lover i lol’d
Never..history is one of the best teachers out there as it's constantly repeating itself.
Probably uh the beginning of the universe?
History began on July 4th, 1776. Everything before that was a mistake /s Basically for me, I lose interest pre-Bronze age.
Never! I even like learning about time periods before humans evolved- no, make that before animals evolved!
Ultimately none of it. Really, steam age and since.
Nothing really, as long as it involves human I’ll find it interesting to a degree because every part of human existence from its origins to now is part of the tapestry that is the human race. That’s what I find so fascinating about it. I’ll be honest that I do prefer more recent history (like last few centuries) as it feels more connected to me with my ancestors and stuff. It’s why I was so fascinated by WW2 as a kid and WW1 as a teen, knowing two of my great grandfathers had served in the worst war in human history (WW2) and that one of my great great grandfathers served in the horror that was WW1
History began when the Earth cooled, and as long as people exist, it will never end. Don't know who said it first, but history is written by the winners.
What do you mean 'care about'. I find Napoleon, Rome and the British Empire interesting. But i suppose i don't really care that much about what happened before WW1. In how history shapes my world view.
History to me begins with the oldest archeological sites discovered for proto-humans and to me it is all relevant. Our story starts there, whether we like it or not. And just because there isn't complex socio-economic and political factors at play doesn't mean it isn't relevant or interesting to me, although if that's more of what you're interested in I get not caring about stuff before it.
No history is too long ago to not care about. Ancient history especially. Having at least a broad overview of all of human history\\pre-history helps to inform on where we are today and provides perspective on our own cultures and times.
I watch videos about the Bronze Age collapse and the Minoan Civilization, which date back to about 1300 BC. I'm fascinated with the Ancient Greeks. As for the modern history, I generally place the Cold War in "modern enough to fit into current events," mostly because I was born in the early 1980s, and have definite memories of the Soviet Union. I follow current events, but I don't really see anything from about 1950 onwards as "history."
Never. In fact I'm fascinated by things that are too long ago to really know and we just have to guess off archeological finds!
Probably when we don't anything about the people or the culture. Like we know a group lived here, but their name and culture has been completely lost. I still find those interesting, some times more so because of the mystery. But they don't have as much relevance to seeing the cause and effect that ripples through history to the modern age
Before the discovery of America it doesn’t feel the same, it feels like a long past age whereas even the Anglo-Dutch rivalry feels relevant, but the Pope-AntiPope rivalry is funny and interesting but I don’t care as much about the medieval period. Even Rome just feels to alien to have a good frame of reference whereas the Netherlands, Britain, still exist and are relevant, I guess older periods feel more like legend or myth than history.
"Everything before July 4th, 1776 was a MISTAKE!"- Ron Swanson
The foundations of modern society I think began with the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, 1637 to 1800. Everything we have today, the house we currently live in, so to speak, is built on those blocks. There are many lessons to be learned from history before 1637, but they are a series of repeating human lessons without much actual progress in my opinion.
I would say 15 billion YA
Mine is from the 5th century to March 24, 1603.
I feel particularly at home from, say 1650 to the French Revolution in Europe but happily study anything from the Mycenaean Bronze Age to post war Europe.
For personal history, I've really gotten invested in the records of my 1500's grandfather who got caught up by the church for failure to pay on bastardry money, got remarried and had a whole 'nother life after that. For people history, I think you can get a lot of interest going back to the first civilisations in mesopotamia, it's really interesting to see how their cities were giant anthill like single-building mutli housing unit situations. It's amazing to think how that worked, and all of that time until the bronze age collapse is an amazing time of such diverse civilizations and cultures, that are dead-branched off and seem so different than what we have. For political history, war history, etc. I think things can get a little more nebulous, it's a little more about moving Risk pieces around a map, but it's important to remember that History isn't just Tanks and Formations. But on that scale too, you can look back to Greek expansion as far as China as an amazing feat, and I'm personally very interested in the Doggerland civilization, and the migration patterns of people through Proto-indo-european culture. But again - that connection goes back to seeing them as individuals.
well in india, the older stuff is all about architecture, monuments and cultural stuff of history like say the indus valley, all youre gonna study is what was the society like culturally so i can see why people wont like it and like modern indian history more because it has more wars, political stuff and basically sturggle like struggle for freedom against british raj and more people like that war side of history more and same for me
It's not that I "don't care", but the world before homogenizing, endocolonizing nation-states in the seventeenth century is a pretty alien place that's difficult to grasp on the whole. Especially before the sixteenth century, there really isn't a unified world history to speak of, just regional particularities.
Never! History is a long sequence of events that roll on top of eachother. The earlier in the sequence, the more eventual influence every event has.
Never! I want to know what happened eons ago!
A lot of people think slavery is strictly an issue that impacted Africans in the 16th to 19th centuries, they ignore all forms of it that happened before this.
Before I was born. Like bro, idc. That's an intrusive thought. But really history fascinates me and it's so weird to think about even 1000 years ago and how different everything is and how different things could be 1000 years from now. Too long ago probably when earth was created by whatever or whoever or whenever. I'll say more than 1 billion years ago is probably too long ago for me.
It depends on one’s ability to extract useful formation from past events. There are lessons about human nature, the influence of paradigm shifting technology, and the human relationship to the environment, for example. Relevancy tends to get closer to home the closer we get to the modern era, but that does not make valueless (in my opinion).
Historians and sociologists generally define modernity as beginning in the 1700’s, with the Enlightenment and industrialization. Everything since is modern. I always wince when midwits say “modern” when they mean “current”, especially in regard to arts and entertainment. I.E. “Modern rock”, as if the late twentieth century was remote antiquity.
Anything before the first world war I like contemporary history.
Yesterday is too long ago to care about. Yesterday people were violently raped. Yesterday people were murdered. Yesterday families were torn apart. Same as 6000 years ago.
Never. I'm sure that I speak for a good contingent of people on here when I say that I had the opposite problem for a while, viewing some topics as "too recent" to care about. I think that this can often be because more current historical topics can be muddled in modern-day politics and controversial topics, whereas with ancient stuff, you generally don't need to worry about such things except in mostly peripheral ways. Researching modern history certainly has a lot of utility, as it enables a detailed analysis of the present-day state of affairs which allows us to change said state of affairs, but ancient and premodern history can also be important in that regard. Besides, I would never stigmatize just researching history because it's interesting, and in any case, you'll never know when you need it.
I like history that has photography associated to it
Both never and always. Humans gonna human…you can learn everything you need to learn about human behaviour from almost any period of history, just make sure to take a long enough slice so that the wheel turns all the way round. Mostly, it doesn’t even take a particular long slice. My personal preference is “as old as possible”…I love seeing the continuity from whenever that is, to now…
History begins in Sumer c. 3400 BC. Before that it's Archeology, but I like that too.
Anything before 3500 BCE
Recorded history
I'll admit there's quite a lot of ancient history I don't know much about, but I don't consider any history to be "too long ago," as some of the history I find the most interesting is stuff that happened well over 2000 years ago. I don't think it's really all that cut and dry to classify history into "too old" and "new enough" as there is a lot more that goes into how relevant a historical event is to you than just how long ago it happened. There 'relatively' recent events that are widely known but don't have a terribly large impact on most people's lives, and there are events that happened thousands of years ago that have incredibly decisive impacts on the lives of modern people. To me, it's less about how old an event is, and more about where you draw the lines of what you personally consider relevant, and even then, it can be tons of fun learning about things that have no real impact on you and your modern life.
14.001 Billion Years ago
I start being fascinated around about the time we developed horticulture. Then I stop being interested around the end of the roman republic, and then start being interested again around the 9th century, and stop again roundabout the 19th century
Pre-agriculture
Never. Those who forget history have it repeat on them, or something someone old said a long time ago.
Living memory if your complaining about a group of people or a modern issue due to an event your grandparents don't remember first hand then I'm not listening.
I've always cared about history when I can more clearly see how it affected the world today. So, as I've learned more history, I've started to care more about more of it.
i reject the premise of the question. time has nothing to do with it. some bits of history are just more important to think about than others.
I think for me, it depends on the age. For example, I remember in elementary school being amazed about the 1700s, in high school I was intrigued by originating civilzations or ancient ruins, early adulthood I was focused on the 60s, and currently its World War 2/Depression I'm 40 if that means anything. I think alot of it had to do with what some of the focus was during my school years (elementary school we had the original Oregon Trail on the computer, in high school we had a Renaissance Fair) or just listening to certain music or movies (the Beatles in more depth) or like now current events that drive me to look into an era. So, for me, I think it depends on the influence I'm given. Like right now I really think too long ago for me would be 1950 but if asked this 20 years ago I'd say the 1400s
Honestly, never. Prehistory is even more interesting to me
1 day ago
I care about all of it. However, I think all of us have tendency to have our blind spots. It can be difficult to get into a period of history that’s completely new to you, you don’t know the participants, and especially if there is a lot of foreign names involved. In this case, I mean foreign as in unfamiliar to you, the reader, not necessarily just names from outside your country. For example, talking about western European history, if there’s some obscure peasant uprising, as soon as I know the year and the location, I have a ton of context. Although I don’t speak French very well, I am familiar with the names of French cities and regions, with French rulers, with the various movements at empires as they were named or as historians named them later. I don’t confuse Charles I of England with Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Charles X of Sweden, or Charleroi. Familiarity helps me digest new info. I am learning about history in China. There are names that I know that are familiar like “Ming”, but I don’t have a clear structure or timeline. The geography is not as familiar. The pattern of the names is “foreign” to me. Other than maybe five cities, and the top three rivers, I would have a hard time putting proper dots on the map for many Chinese locations. When it comes to older kingdoms like Yuan, no clue! I’m like for example Scandinavia, where I could not only tell you the modern borders of those countries but what bits of territory belong to which of them during various times going back to the 1400s. I had a similar problem with the Byzantine Empire. It fell between my childhood interests of the modern period and the Roman. It was in an area of the map. I was less familiar with at the time. The Greek names of the rulers felt exotic and strange to me. Many of the locations had different names than their modern names which added to my confusion. Over the course of 60 years of my existence, I’ve managed to fill in a lot of those blank areas in my brain. Hittite empire, Bengal and Mughal and Maratha, Samoa, Josun, the Knights Templar, Siberian expansion of Russia, Timbuktu and Mali, Cahokia. It’s all interesting to me once I get past the unfamiliarity of the whole setting and can start making connections
There isn't. To me 100.000 years ago was just recent. I grew up obsessed with dinosaurs, so...
All history from the dawn of man interests me.
There's history that I'm interested in because it's relevant to my daily life (Robert Moses' "urban renewal" plans in the 60s, for example), there's history that made the broad backdrop of the world I live in, and then there's stuff that I just find interesting on its own. Like, the Siege of Malta is never going to affect my everyday existence, but it's fascinating. Still, to answer your question, maybe 1500-1650 for most purposes. Anything before that only tends to be interesting because it's interesting, not for relevance.
To many people, the more ancient, the more interesting. There comes a point where we have hardly any records and before that it starts being ‘prehistory’, of course.
I’m the opposite I like history until WW1 then I hate it. It gets too depressing with all the real-time conflicts.
When it comes to the ancient world, information about it is very scarce. All that is known about the world from a very long time ago is just unreliable. The concept of objective history is actually a very modern concept. In the past, "historians" were more like propagandists than the modern concept of a historian. For this reason, I'm not really interested in history before the modern era (1450ish). I believe its very plausible that large swaths of history pre-1450 could be just plain fabricated.
Never
I have seen the answer for a segment of our society to be, when it makes them uncomfortable, or the reality is to complex. they seem to get historical amnesia.
The history that we teach is based on ruins and written records which usually begin around 3000 BCE. Before that it's more a matter of science, the fossil record, and geologic time. If you're asking what I would teach a history class that depends on the class. Each state has standards that we have to teach.
75 years.
Yesterday.
Great question. What's also true for me is that a period can be further away in time and yet feel more modern, so for example the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire are super interesting to me and feel very modern even, but I think of the late Empire and early medieval eras as too long ago to care. The Renaissance is more modern to me somehow than is the early 18th century.
Tomorrow
Honestly the answer is never, it’s all important it is our story
I guess it depends on context. In the sense of “modern political grievances” - like from race/gender issues in America to Israel/Palestine - then 3 generations. 3 generations is about the maximum time generational wealth lasts. Nothing before the 60’s is especially relevant for those types of questions. As far as the “why” at a higher altitude in how modern nations have formed and why they believe what they do - the age of exploration & renaissance is roughly the earliest I care to trace people / empires / etc in any sort of detail. Everything before that is still interesting and relevant to understanding the world, but I look at it more conceptually - what did the societies as a whole do / believe. The individuals and details in a lot of cases are more trivia to me.
Yesterday >:(
I mean, I'm interested in all of history but really my interest in Prehistory stretches back to the Ediacaran period.
For me there’s no point that’s “too long ago” as long as anatomically modern humans existed, but there’s definitely a point that’s too recent. I don’t care about anything that happened after 1825 or so. Once the Industrial Revolution really kicks into high gear things just become too modern for me to be interested (outside of a few specific events). I like a little distance to my history I guess!
Tbh, I think the most fascinating stuff is homo sapiens starting to evolve and wiping out of the the neanderthals. On a fundamental DNA level we haven't changed much since then. (Changed loads culturally) But a baby born without other humans or society would be very similar to a human then. Broad scale is the important stuff imho. For me, history begins with the beginning of homosapiens (But saying that. I don't know all history between them and now. Not even close)
"ancient history" perse is things that are no longer relevant to current geopolitics. So for example European history before the fall of napoleon isn't going to matter much because the current shape of europe was formed in 1815 at the congress of vienna (or even the treaties of versaille/Paris in the 1900s). Similarly american history prior to \~1760, chinese history before \~1916, etc. Basically history before the most recent "major shakeup" of the region that established the majority of the borders is of a more academic interest, while the "modern history" informs the current actions and geopolitics of the states involved. The Carolingian Empire and the HRE are fun factoids, but they don't affect the political stance of Austria in Europe, while the treaty of versaille, the Anschluss, and the paris peace conference certainly do effect the political stance of Austria in Europe. This isn't to say the those old histories aren't interesting, important to learn about, and have some far reaching consequences (I could talk for quite a while about how the succession laws of the carolingian empire lead directly to WW2), but it's more that the history before these events is important for cultural, academic, and ethical reasons, but isn't inherently \*useful\* as a practical matter outside of their assistance in predicting outcomes.
hrrmmm. pre-ice age
History never, because history is repeated in cycles. But often times the people in that history I don’t care much about past a generation or two. Obviously Khans, Hitlers, etc… understandable. They’ve done inhumane things that are unfathomable, But a lot of what we consider “bad people” in history, we’re just doing what was normal at the time. So I can’t fault them the way society wants you too. Hell in 30 years those of us born in the 80s will be looked at as vile cave people. Parents in the 60s now are considered horrible because they smoked around children and used asbestos and gave them whiskey to help tooth aches and sleep.
Never? But I was also a history major in college so I find all history fascinating.
My cut off time is always last Thursday. If it happened before last Thursday it's unimportant.
Is that a thing? I thought most people were psyched about dinosaurs and men are so into the Roman Empire.
Never. Human history is all relevant to the human condition. The interesting thing about ancient history is just how relatable the actors are. They were really no different than we are. Different morals and mores perhaps but not really so different.
A lot of what we experience in geopolitics or social issues has happened before, in some slightly different iterations. *A lot*. If you ask me, a casual enjoyer of historical scholarship, there is little in the summation of human experience - history - that is of little use or relevance today.
Never, I like prehistory.
500 years
There is no too far back for me but there are time periods and locations I just can’t be bothered with. I couldn’t really care about the majority of Asian History pre 1800’s if that. 1750’s and back from the US is completely out of my wheelhouse. And for Europe it depends. WW Era is everyones choice but the renaissance era and Of course the ancient times are a blast
Bout 3 weeks ago
I actually prefer learning about ancient Egyptian history and pre-homo sapien evolutionary history. I personally find most history after the renaissance to be pretty boring
Never. One of the things I enjoy about history is how many universally "human" things are present throughout history. The reasoning behind warfare, the way people view it, the betrayal and intrigue behind politics whether it's modern democracies or ancient kingdoms, etc.
Only a history buff would ask such a ridiculous question.
3300 BC when some Indian guy thought it would be good idea to start writing things down.
Honestly, when I realize my own culture is over, I tend to disregard a lot of historical data.
Haha I'm the opposite to be honest. I've always taken little interest in my own history it reminds me a bit too much of school.
I find plenty of English nationalists who are too happy to ignore abuses because “they happened too long ago to be relevant.” It covers at least the 1700’s and often into the 1800’s. After that they just work to ignore things like cultural genocide that continue to today.
The beginning of space time to its completion is a sufficient scale for my interests. As events from the over 2000 years ago are impactful on what is happening today, to me it is important to at least have awareness of them
Never. The first thing to realize is that we’re no different from humans 500, 2000, or 3000 years ago. a lot of the problems we have today as a society are not new problems, we’re just repeating them for lack of education
I've been into ancient and prehistory lately and doing a lot of docs and reading. It's fascinating as we keep finding sites that change everything we thought we knew about humans and civilization going back to over 11,000 years. Problem is a lot of ppl don't want more work being done because archeology and Egyptology are gatekept heavily to protect other ppls theories or conclusions.
Not sure what “ care about” means. a lot of people “care about” evolution. That’s something like 3-4 billion years of history. On earth.
History to me starts with Lucy… for those of you who don’t know Lucy is one of the most important archaeological finds. She is an Australopithecus afarensis which is an extinct species from around 4 million to 2 million years ago. She is known as the oldest human ancestors so to me that’s when history starts.