Open main menu

Talk:Historical travel

Asia or Middle East?Edit

I think we should merge the content of "Middle East" to Asia and Africa as relevant. If we are going to have a separate category for "Middle East", we also need separate categories for "Indian Subcontinent", "East Asia" and "Southeast Asia". We may eventually want such regionalization, but not yet, in my opinion. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Culturally? The history of the various Abrahamic religions has little in common with that of China or the far East. K7L (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Nor does Zulu culture have much in common with the Arab culture of Egypt, but they're all Africans. I don't see the point in removing only the Middle East from a neat division of continents. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's have a simple geographic hierarchy based on the "traditional" continents and once that gets to unwieldy, we can ask the question "what is a continent?" once more... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the Abrahamic religions all started in Asia, not Africa, does anyone want to make a Federal case over moving the content in "Middle East" to "Asia"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Do as thou must! Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I will wait to see if there are strenuous objections from others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Asia is so big, it's hard to describe the continent in general terms. But so far, the article is just an outline. /Yvwv (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. So can we use only continents for now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I proceed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead. /Yvwv (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested articlesEdit

From Wikivoyage:Requested articles

There are ancient ruins all over Rome, and then if we want to include nearby places, there's even more. But a selective itinerary would presumably include only the most obvious sites, such as the Forum, the Arch of Constantine and the Colosseum, and maybe the Villa Adriana outside of town and a couple of other sites. I suppose that would be useful to total neophyte travelers to Rome who don't know anything about the most famous sights in Rome, but if we decide to make it more interesting, we should include places that are not at all ruins but have an ancient history, such as the Pantheon, Piazza Navona, the w:Basilica of San Clemente al Laterano, which was built over a mithraeum, and Castel Sant'Angelo, which was Hadrian's Mausoleum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
At one point, the China article had much longer history section including a "dynasties and capitals" subsection but it was shortened (I think rightly) later. See Talk:China/Archive_2003-2012 for the discussions and old versions of the China page for stuuf that might be resurrected if a separate page is created.
See also Old Tibetan provinces Pashley (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Apart from the industrial revolution (which is obviously important and started in Britain after all) I don't see, why Britain should get a "British history" while Germany France and Italy don't. The US is a special case in being a) huge and having b) a lot of reenactment and "living" touchable history (e.g. Civil War battle sites). I just don't see that for Britain. Or if it's there it is not any stronger than in other European countries Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Britain is the seat of the mightiest empire that ever ruled the waves. Its colonial history reaches pretty much every continent. Just because the establishment of a certain problematic thirteen colonies ended in an embarrassing armed revolt, that's no reason to write off an entire once-massive empire which left a huge imprint on Western history. K7L (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A good historical travel topic would have a familiar theme, requested by many readers, but also contain information about less-known, but interesting and related venues. For example, many foreign travellers who visit the Nordic countries are curious about Vikings, and the topic can with ease be expanded to Vikings and the Old Norse, to include less-known Nordic prehistory, such as Bronze Age petroglyphs. The same goes for themes such as the Old West. One history article per country might not be the way to go; instead we could try broader themes, such as European monarchies, Renaissance art and architecture, or other topics which can be presumed to have a specific fan-base. /Yvwv (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the British empire was kind of a big deal (if only for popularizing Cricket, Rugby football and scoreless draw ball), but most of the "fun parts" of that happened in the colonies. Sure it was mostly steered (indirectly) from Buckingham and/or Westminster, but apart from a museum here or a column there, it hasn't left as big a mark on Britain as the industrialization (which of course was only possible because of cheap raw materials from the [former] colonies). Now in a series of Indian history the British Raj would surely be of interest. Not least because of the princely states, or Rudyard Kipling. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Britain itself has had a very interesting and tumultuous history, from the ancient Celtic period to the Roman conquest, the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the Norman conquest, the period when it was the jewel in the crown of the Pope (or whatever metaphor they used to show that England was the most loyal Catholic country), the departure of King Henry VIII's Britain from Roman Catholicism, the gradual increase in the power of and popular influence over Parliament, the Industrial Revolution, the world wars, the enrichment of British culture through immigration from the former colonies. And of course the English conquest of Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and the continuation of British rule over Northern Ireland are all significant. I'll bet there are loads of pointedly historical buildings, monuments and battlefields that could be included in a "History of Britain" article that would be plenty interesting for someone to visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not arguing against any of that but a) I think that we shouldn't have a blanket history of countries, lest we become WP. and b) other countries in Europe have the same amount of history. Even relatively minor places like Regensburg had the immerwährender Reichstag (perpetual imperial diet) when Wall Street was still the place in Nieuw Amsterdam where slaves were sold. If we get useful groupings relevant to travel, e.g. Ancient Catholic Churches and Monasteries in England or Celtic heritage in Britain or the very useful Industrial revolution (or maybe Industrial revolution in Britain) I have nothing against a series on British history. But for some historical eras (such as the Roman Empire) grouping by country just doesn't make much sense. Imho we could also group the old towns and make an article on medieval and early modern old towns in Europe that deals with their history and role in early capitalism (mentioning stuff like the Fugger in Augsburg or the Medici in Florence). I mean for better or worse (usually worse) the history of the 20th century are a complicated intersection of German history and French history with some Polish history thrown in in the most tragic moments of World War II in Europe. But I don't think a blanket history like that would do much good. Rather have a travel topic on Industrialization of Germany that includes sights such as "Zeche Zollverein" (world heritage site) or the former headquarters and employee housing of Krupp. I'm not too knowledgeable on the history of what is now France, and we already deal with the Napoleonic wars (which we could expand to include the revolutionary years as well), but I am sure that there is stuff enough to fill one or two articles on French history without resorting to the (imho) all smothering blanket. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. It's not the British history is an invalid topic, it's that it's too broad a topic for a manageable article. Am I understanding you correctly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Also, other European countries (especially Germany Italy and France) have a similar situation. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Industrial Britain is created. /Yvwv (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We already have Alexandria to Cape Town by train and bus and Cairo to Nairobi overland - I'd suggest reworking those into the desired article might be a better option than creating yet another article for this general route. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
And definitely including France, but some other countries belong in the "etc." (Hungary has a beautiful opera house and a beautiful conservatory of music, Zeneakademi Liszt Ferenc, if I spelled that right). And it would have to be called "European (or 'Western') classical music" to distinguish it from classical traditions in India, the Arab world, China, Japan, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I take it, Baghdad and Damascus were considered part of Arabia in those days? Or are you simply talking about the days of the great Islamic Caliphates, which pretty quickly controlled land from the Maghreb and Spain through Central Asia to India? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Too broad imho. How could we narrow it down? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Among the most decisive turning points in Japanese history, are the 1854 Kanagawa Treaty, and the end of World War II. We could start an article for pre-1854 Japanese history; if it grows out of hand, we could consider a split. /Yvwv (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of it is covered by Cold War Europe, Post-war United States, Soviet Union, Korean War and Indochina Wars. /Yvwv (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We do have Hippie Trail, but that is something quite different. Pashley (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposed new article could also be broader within the US than just the Bay Area, but I'm no expert on the locations of former and current Hippie communes, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Very broad. Would this be a sort of "splash page" article with links to subsets of such monuments by period and/or region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that sort of too broad as well? And also imho we should always look at those issues trhough the lense of travel first. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Depends. I think it could be, but Carolingian architecture is great. I'm not sure there's enough of it remaining for an entire topic, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC
According to the mainstream of German language historians the Carolingian dynasty died out before the Holy Roman Empire as such came to be. While we can argue the point to no end, we have to draw the line somewhere if we are to create such a topic and usually that divide is drawn in A.D.962 not A.D. 800. But yes there is very little Carolingian era architecture, so it may very well be too "thin" for a travel topic... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what those historians could possibly be thinking, considering that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor. Any article on the Holy Roman Empire would have to begin with Charlemagne, if not with the Frankish kings who preceded him. But that's a side point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Not only not safe, but we have no way of knowing what will be left of it when IS is done destroying things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Middle Ages; too big of a topic? Europe from around AD 450 to AD 1450...
Yes, too big a topic, in my opinion. We have Gothic architecture. A Romanesque architecture topic would be most welcome, or perhaps a Carolingian and Romanesque architecture topic. Also, Byzantine art and architecture would be welcome. But in any case, I think it's strange to think of 1,000 years of European history as a single period; instead, I'd think of it as at least 4 different periods (though what would the period from the end of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, more or less, be called?), though that might not necessitate 4 articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It also overlaps with some of the topics already on this list. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Archaeological sites in Europe from before Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Vikings and the Old Norse already covers the Nordic countries, where prehistory is shorter, because of the Ice Age. /Yvwv (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Would be appreciated by Swedish (and probably Finnish) readers. Could also include sites such as the Vasa Museum in Stockholm/Djurgården. /Yvwv (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Right. That's from that era as well (and well worth a visit). Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth does Maya redirect to Belize? It is not the only place on earth with historic or current Maya presence, or is it now? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No idea. The Maya deserve an article on their own. /Yvwv (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No. There are Mayans in Guatemala and Mexico, too, and the Mayan Empire extended at least as far as Honduras. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Would that encompass only the Apartheid era or something before and/or after it as well? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly the Boer War as well. Not sure about how many interesting venues there are. /Yvwv (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how we can have a reasonable travel topic on the "War on terror," especially as it will be hard to get agreement on what it comprises. For example, the GW Bush Administration called their aggression against Iraq part of the "War on Terror," but there was no Al Qaida presence in Iraq until then Bush Administration prompted one to exist. I would really oppose an attempt at such a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Pashley (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If you ask the folks in Iraq, some will tell you that Mr. Bush *is* the terrorist... he just calls it "shock and awe". The Iraqis are just trying in vain to defend their country. Uncyclopedia's War on Terra (where the target is the planet itself in the crosshairs) is amusing, but I don't see using the T- word as anything but a way to take sides in ongoing political disputes, something we really try not to do here. K7L (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't have an article for War on terror. First because it is a very ill-defined thing to begin with (despite almost sixty years of efforts to do so, you can't go to war with a noun or abstract concept...) and second because the consequences of Bush's (and to a lesser degree Obama's) foreign policy are already mentioned in our articles on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria and a couple of other places... While we could argue that some of those need updating, this has nothing to do with the creation of yet another travel topic that is only tangentially related to travel if at all. And besides, I fear that updating these articles is hindered by the very political situation on the ground that makes contributions from people who live there or have recently visited rather unlikely.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Lest we overdo it...Edit

I know visiting the site where x.. (and only if one of the ten trillion places where George Washington is supposed to have slept) is a major reason for travel all by itself, but lest we become Wikihistory, we might reconsider which historic epochs and themes are best handled in their country or region articles (with specific sites mentioned in city articles unless they deserve special mention) and which truly deserve their own articles. I know I myself tend to like me some history and I gladly accept the "accusation" of expanding many a history section and for some countries "outsourcing" all or part of the "history" part of the "understand" section might be a good idea, but we should focus upon our main goal of writing about travel. And at some point knowing where I can sleep in Cairo is more important to most travelers than what hair color Amenophis IV had. Still I do agree that we need to expand our coverage of some places' history and splitting it off into themed articles and travel topics is a good idea, but... You know. Dosis facit venenum Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sort of agree. Travel Topics are allowed to have a good deal more flexibility that our destination articles, but it is true that too much dumping of facts into this article would pretty much ensure that it won't ever get read. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Conversely, there has to be something more noteworthy about Cairo than "I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night." *yawn* K7L (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That is certainly true. Too much Aspirin can kill you and too little can leave you with a headache. The same is imho true for information on history on a site that is mainly focused upon voyaging (is that a word? My spellcheck says it is) Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there plans to make articles for epochs in European history too, as has been done with American history lately? I notice there are already requests for e.g. the Roman Empire. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
To bring up this topic again, what do you think about doing a similar series for European history? In addition to the Roman Empire listed above there could be articles for the Middle Ages, the Age of Discovery, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrialization, the Napoleonic wars we already have, then 18th century Europe (until 1914), the inter-war period (the both World Wars already have articles), Cold War, and Modern Europe.
And the rest of the world, then? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
As long as it can be done within the scope of tcf. /Yvwv (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well the "age of discovery" for one left little physical mark on Europe that can be visited today. Sure maybe the tomb of some discoverer or conquistador, but nothing major enough to support its own article, at least not under the "Europe" subheading... It left a rather dramatic mark on the Americas, however... with a lot of colonial old towns only in existence due to it... Also: We should really approach it all from a travel standpoint. Sure there is still stuff around from both the Roman ages and the Middle ages, but which pope excommunicated what ruler is rather irrelevant... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Source material?Edit

"AWDL's purpose is to present the broadest possible range of scholarly materials relevant to the study of the ancient world. Particular strengths of the AWDL collection include: Ancient Judaism / Assyriology / Central Asia / Early Christianity / Egyptology / Hittitology / Iranian studies / Papyrology"

Ancient World Digital Library Pashley (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

200th anniversary of Waterloo battleEdit

Swept in from the pub

The anniversary will be in June, and is sure to attract history buffs.

The French are currently winning with their wonderful article about the sights&accommodation. Will they stay unchallenged? Syced (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)(formerly Nicolas1981)

Well, please plunge forward. I believe we should cover Waterloo proper and Braine l'Alleud (sp?) in the same article, and I guess the French are going into a bit too much detail. OtBT nomination for the coming months are still "pending further support", so I think there is an ambitious but reachable target. I am doing Belgium at the moment, so I will gladly help. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
D-Day beaches may be an example to look at for how such articles can be handled. Pashley (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Non Western historyEdit

We have in the last two months or so done tremendous work on the history of both Europe and North America and while that work is by no means finished, it is now all the more apparent, that we lack coverage of Asia, Latin America and most of all Africa. There could imho be very extensive travel topics on the Origins of mankind or on Prehistoric Africa, not to mention China, which has been mentioned above. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The history of Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent has many things that could form the basis of one of more articles.
Alexander the Great? We do mention him in Silk Road and Persian Empire, but we might consider On the trail of Alexander the Great.
Persian Empire, now a stub
The w:Maurya Empire, mentioned in Taxila
The expansion of Islam into the region and beyond
The Mongol Empire, mentioned in Silk Road, Marco Polo and various other places
The development of Buddhism, spread across India mainly by the Maurya emperoror Ashoka then mostly dying out there while spreading East by land and sea, could be treated in more detail than the current article has
The British Empire could have several long sections on this region
That is just one region, albeit an important one. Certainly my list could be improved & similar lists done for other areas. But does anyone actually want to do the fairly large amount of work that would be required? And would the payoff for travellers be large enough that this should be encouraged? Pashley (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Well we have done or at least started that work for Europe and North America. Of course these places are "closer to home" for most of us, but I can't see, why those places are not worth covering. I would however advice against a topic on the British Empire as a whole. It is way too global, to be covered well. We even split up the second world war, to make it more useful for the traveler. I could however see the worth in regionalized travel topics on the British Raj or Colonial Hongkong Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
We should approach large topics by creating the main article first, then splitting it into subtopics as soon as the main topic becomes large and unwieldly. For instance, fast food should have been created before cooking up fast food in North America, and British Empire could be split once it becomes too large. K7L (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a problem with "global" topics imho, in that mostpeople don't know what to put there and often think something is not "important" enough to be put there. Furthermore, the British Empire is a fuzzy concept with undefined borders both to the era before it and the British Commonwealth afterwards. The British Raj however is well defined both geographically and historically in when it started (the Crowning of Victoria as empress of India) and ended (the independence of India and Pakistan). If we were to write an article on the British empire, we would have to cover vast expanses of the globe at the same time (never a good idea from a travel standpoint imho) and we would also collide with already existing topics such as Early United States history. I would advise against too general topics. Also Fast food in North America was created because it is there that it is most notable and it is North America that most people visit explicitly for fast food. An article on fast food in general may well have descended into one of the dreaded lists or else listed only global chains that fall under the boring places policy. In short: clearly defined topics clearly related to travel: Yes. Fuzzy concepts that have neither beginning nor end and cover huge geographic areas: No. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I now created an outline on the British Raj and think we should next create an article on the Mughal Empire. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I have started Mughal Empire, but it needs quite a bit more & I am not likely to do that.
Should such articles be travel topics? The Hobbit chose that tag for the Raj & I follwed his or her lead for the Mughals. On the other hand, I tagged Persian Empire as an extra region. I can see arguments both ways, but we should probably be consistent. Pashley (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't care all that much, as long as it is consistent. If the Mughal Empire is an extraregion, the Roman Empire should be, too Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the page content. An article on the Soviet Union which merely lists the individual countries occupied is an extraregion, a lengthy historical description with a list of individual sites to see is a travel topic, and if the whole thing falls into a line to allow the sites to be visited in a predefined sequence (like the Trans-Siberian Railway or Route 66), it's itinerary. K7L (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend making it a travel topic but give it more of a focus on sites, e.g. major Anglo-Indian landmarks Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Pre-modern Japan has been started. If it grows too big, it can be split into sub-articles. /Yvwv (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary beginning dateEdit

Why 50 000 years ago? If I am not mistaken, homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200 000 years ago (some source are even bold enough to say 195 000 years ago). The other (somewhat) important figures are 40 000 years ago (generally accepted date of first h.s. in Europe and thus out of Africa) and 27 000 years ago (the commonly accepted date of the Neanderthal dying out). I know that the beginning of (pre)history is necessarily arbitrary, but this one appears to me to be particularly arbitrary... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is the 50,000 years figure used? The fossil record of the genus Homo seems to date back up to 5.2 million years. I would not agree with excluding earlier hominids from the definition of "human being". In particular, we know enough to understand that Homo erectuses were human beings of great intelligence and resourcefulness. The earliest days of Homo erectus seem to go back 1.9 million years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see the date. My understanding of the word "history" is that unless "oral history" or some other subset (perhaps "iconographic history") is specified, it means "written history". Archeology of a pre-literate culture is not in that sense history, but neither is it paleontology. As for Homo sapiens, I don't accept that we are human and earlier hominids were not, but anyone who wants to use the standard that only Homo sapiens are fully human might want to figure on going back about 200,000 years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to find a more appropriate beginning date. The issue came up because of the paleontology article. /Yvwv (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
But that prompts the next question: When is the boundary line between archeology and paleontology? I wish my anthropologist mother were still around to give an opinion, because I'm not sure. I started writing that I thought archeology was concerned with culture more than other things, whereas paleontology was more concerned with anatomy (bones) and things like use of fire and tools, and then I realized that of course archeologists are very much interested in the same things as paleontologists and vice versa. So I don't know. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd put it like this:

The early history of life on earth is studied mainly through fossils; see our article on paleontology. The earliest known fossils of genus homo date back about 5 million years. The boundary between palentology and archaeology, which deals mainly with the study of ancient human artifacts, is not at all well-defined. Nor is the boundary between archaelogy and history. One might consider real history to start with the beginning of written records, about 3000 BCE. Or with the transistion from hunter/gatherer to agriculture, around 10,000 BCE. A number of important developments took place between about 12,000 BCE and 3,000 — agriculture, pottery, irrigation, metalworking, domestication of many animals (though dogs go back before 30,000 BCE) and the wheel.
This article focuses on history since 10,000 BCE, and naturally overlaps with our archaeology article.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, farming seems to go back around 23,000 years, we've recently discovered. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but in different places the transition between prehistory and history (no matter what you use as your yardstick) is necessarily different. This is not yet mentioned or even alluded to... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely true. So how do you think we should handle the fuzzy boundary between paleontology, archeology and history? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know. If I did, I'd probably already have published those findings in a major peer reviewed journal ;-). Is there a way of putting it while skirting the issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably by setting an arbitrary cutoff point for each topic and then explaining in all 3 articles that it's an arbitrary cutoff point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

[Unindent] I think Pashley did a very good job on this edit, but I still don't get why we'd start history from 50,000 BCE. Pashley's edit suggests that a date of 30,000 BCE would be more than generous. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 30,000 would make more sense, but I do not think it matters hugely and I was aiming at clarifying the text so it seemed better to make only a few changes. Pashley (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. What does everyone else think about the starting date of "history"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tool relicsEdit

I'm not sure what to do with this discussion, which seems to be really about paleontology and archaeology, but quite a few species use tools, not only human beings and our ancestors. So maybe the key point is that the beginnings of the Stone Age have been traced back to some 2.6 million years ago, in the form of w:Oldowan stone tools, which were probably made at least in part by Homo habilis, and even then, there's a possibility that Australopithecines made cruder stone tools. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When does "modern history" start?Edit

The current text has "The line between "historical" and "modern" is arbitrary, but usually drawn at the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries". No doubt it could be drawn there, but I doubt it "usually" is.

I'd prefer to draw it at the Rennaisance, which coincides with the age of exploration for Europe and the beginnings of colonisation for everyone else. Pashley (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

From a present-day traveller's context, the mid-19th century is an appropriate boundary. Old towns from before the mid-19th centuries are few, small (with a few exceptions such as Rome and Istanbul), and unique in their features, in contrast to the large-scale planned cities in international architectural styles built in 1850 or later, with mass-produced furnishing. /Yvwv (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
And of course, the Columbian exchange changed the Americas a lot, and historical time is considered to begin with substantial written records, which only existed in parts of Central America before 1492. But a European town founded in the 1450s would in most cases look very similar to one from the 1550s, or 1650s or 1750s for that sake. It was the Industrial Revolution that, more than anything else the last thousands of years, changed the physical appearance of most destinations. /Yvwv (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars/Balkan Wars - question of taste?Edit

I noticed Yugoslav Wars/Balkan Wars was added as a requested article above. Are there seriously people who want to base their travel fully or in part on this?

Obviously there are people interested in visiting WWII sites, but this one seems just too recent to me. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

See Holocaust remembrance for respectful description of historical tragedies. /Yvwv (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how 'respectful' you want to describe the Yugoslav wars, it doesn't sound like a respectful travel topic so soon after the event. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Other concerns aside, the term "Balkan Wars" is used for a conflict or two that happened in an altogether different setting eight decades prior to the military engagement that started with the Yugoslav break-up. Vidimian (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Early farmingEdit

tropical farming nearly 40,000 years ago. Pashley (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Let's see what further research uncovers... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Name change: Historical tourism?Edit

As we usually use the word travel for articles about practical concerns for travel whatever the journey's purpose (budget travel, travel as a vegetarian) and tourism for description of visitor attractions of a specific theme (nuclear tourism, fiction tourism etc), this article should be named historical tourism. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no. In fact I'd like to change nearly all articles with "tourism" in the title to use the more general "travel", for the same reason we describe the site as a travel guide not a tourist guide. Students of history, art, architecture, etc. might visit these places to study them. Someone might want to see the village of his or her ancestors, the battlefield where granddad died, etc. Pashley (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Should articles such as military tourism be named military travel, for coherence? /Yvwv (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that is one of the exceptions since military travel might cover things like free flights for servicemen, US sailors visiting Canadian ships because booze is allowed there but not in US Navy, possible visa problems if you are in uniform, etc. Pashley (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I think both names work, so I'd suggest that we make Historical tourism a redirect to Historical travel. That seems to be the case currently. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
All else being equal, I tend to prefer the word "travel" over "tourism". I think "tourism" can sometimes have a slight negative connotation in English—or at least a connotation of travel that's less authentic and more, well, touristy. More Disneyland than Appalachian Trail. There's nothing wrong with the word "travel". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Historical travel vs Historical tourismEdit

Swept in from the pub

In Talk:Historical travel I suggested the page to be moved to historical tourism. Please provide feedback. /Yvwv (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Historical travel" page.