I’ve been using the connections of classical and medieval history to push the connected topics. This yielded the observations that I don’t have much to say about particular nations except at a broad, general level before about the 18th century, and that I have little to say about Greece before the 19th century, considering how important it was in classical and medieval times. I did manage to introduce the topic of international government to the United States.
Early classical history has been covering much the same ground of interconnections among nations, This part is rather slow-growing. It suggests various ideas while I am working on it, but nothing remarkable enough to stick in the memory and write about later.
I have finished a review of the early 1st millennium BC which as usual add much knowledge to that period. However, various nations and peoples got slightly better connected to each other, there was some slight extension of social change and particular religions.
For classical and medieval history, I completed extension to nations as far as Israel and have begun connecting it to more cities. This will eventually give more depth and detail to it. Modern history is also being extended to more cities. The 20th century is being connected back to centuries of classical and medieval history in order to give more background to it.
Peoples of the world are also being connected to cities: This will be needed before other areas can use them. Connections to communities in general are being connected to areas of classical and medieval history.
Institutions have finished the connection to nations for now, and I am starting to work on connections to cities. For a sample, South central China has a connection to Institutions.
Culture is also being connected back to centuries of classical and medieval history.
I’ve done a review of the early 2nd millennium BC. There isn’t a whole lot of evident progress: Mostly, I have been pushing interconnections of the nations and peoples already included. I have some slight broadening of the nations connected to particular institutions. In the Individual centuries, I have been able to connect classical and medieval history far enough that I can do work connecting nations and peoples to it. For peoples of the world, I can continue a program of adding cities, and for institutions, I am adding more nations.
I have gone through a review of most of the early 2nd millennium BC. During this 500 year period, Middle Eastern peoples were leaders in cultural development, although there was significant development in India and China as well. I do not yet have solid accounts for other peoples.
I have begun a review of connections to Asiatic peoples with Northern European peoples. I have also begun a review of connection of other peoples to China with reviewing Asiatic peoples in general. Western Civilization has reviews of connections with Middle Eastern and South Asian peoples. American Indian peoples have reviews of connections with Latin peoples.
After going through a round of development of the late 3rd millennium BC which mostly included in pushing the interconnections among nations, my progress wasn’t too satisfying. For Western Civilization, I finished reviewing the connections of Middle Eastern peoples, and for American Indian peoples, I have reviewed the connections of Hispanic peoples. The squawk was when I realized that expanding most of the connections of institutions and culture to various nations as prompted by the late 3rd millennium is rather tedious and not very useful. I do better by using the centuries to push connections of later centuries to classical and medieval history, peoples of the world, and institutions. The emphasis is likely to shift, for the next batch.
I am still working through antiquity, but taking a somewhat different direction, Instead of working back through modern history, I have begun extending the connections of nations and peoples to other nations. There are a few nations, notably the United States and China, that are pretty much fully connected to nations as far down the list as Israel. The benefit of this approach is that I can start to see patterns and trends of geographic proximity.
The particular centuries of Antiquity back through the early 3rd millennium are now connected to modern history. Modern history itself isn’t as well developed as I want it to be, but that is a different story.
For Western Civilization, I have been reviewing, rewriting, and expanding a review of the connections of Middle Eastern peoples. I will be mentioning others as I get to them.
I have spent the last couple of days reviewing antiquity. I adopted a new technique that avoids putting quite so heavy an emphasis on details of modern history, but shifts to interconnections among nations, which sometimes seems just as tedious. However, I am getting much better connections among African peoples, which is helping give a better background for their history, and I’ve managed to take particular religions somewhat further back, which is also useful.
Or rather, studying modern history by way of prehistory. What I’ve been trying to do is examine history by looking at which peoples have well-examined remains from prehistoric times. However, when I look at specific nations, I don’t have much information about their prehistory. I need to work back to this by looking at their modern history, first. Which means that I am doing more for the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century than for anything ancient. It’s likely to be that way for a while, too.
In the meantime, I am becoming more familiar with the history of China and Japan; India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; Iran, Egypt, and Turkey; Thailand and Vietnam, with colonial Brazil and Mexico (neither of which have much attention given to them). I haven’t quite worked though to classical and medieval history, but I’m getting there.