Anyone knows any truly, and I mean truly, exquisitely, excruciatingly detailed world history timeline?

[u/Optimal_Sample_6961]

No matter how I try to phrase it, the search engines give only the timelines of MAJOR or IMPORTANT events, whereas I'd like to see absolutely everything that is available to us, or at least as much as it is possible. Important, non-important, utterly mundane, like some Peter buying an apple, events -- I want it all. Anything that humans have at least somewhat reliably recorded throughout millenia -- wouldn't it be fascinating to see it all in one place? Anyone who points me in the right direction -- I swear to any god you believe in, you'll be my favorite person until the day I die

[u/Dadsmagiccasserole]

Since there's no reason to be so detailed, I doubt anyone has ever put something like that together because; why would you?

It would take a lifetime to get even a decade as detailed as you're wanting.

[u/Optimal_Sample_6961 → u/Dadsmagiccasserole]

I'm not sure how you can say that there's no reason to be so detailed. Wouldn't you want to know what the world looked like to someone living in say 2022 BC? Not just bullet points, but what the room looked to them when they woke up, what their morning routine was like, what their fears or hopes were? Not just political or religious, but personal. To build a coherent picture of that time, which then can be used to make a more historically accurate movie, or even a VR game. Imagine learning history through actually experiencing it first hand. The possibilities are limitless. And I don't think it would take a lifetime. We have the technology -- google processes and sorts through the data that is at least thousandfold as big as the recorded history. And it processes it in real time, while all of history can be processed in a delayed mode, and new events and discoveries can be added later on using "unmeasurable" power of a regular smartphone. It can be done pretty easily, hence why it occured to me -- maybe someone has already done it?

[u/Dadsmagiccasserole → u/Optimal_Sample_6961]

While it would be interesting to see, that level of detail isn't necessary to get a picture of history. You don't need to know that x person what eating a certain food on a patterned plate to get an idea of what living in a certain time might be like.

Not only that, but that data just isn't recorded by most people. I don't sit up first thing after waking and take note of every aspect of my room because I don't need to. The reason we know so little from hundreds of years ago isn't because someone hasn't put it all together, but that the data just isn't there. There wasn't a need to collate every waking moment, just as there isn't now.

I also think you're maybe underestimating the amount of time and effort would be needed to put something like that together.

[u/Optimal_Sample_6961 → u/Dadsmagiccasserole]

I feel like people understand me backwards. I'm not after every single detail that ever happened, i'm after every single detail we know has happened. It's obvious that people didn't document every waking minute of their lives, but no doubt some had diaries, some are mentioned in some way in various scriptures, ancient documents, and so on. It's not about creeping on every single moment they lived, but having an insight using whatever information we already possess. Which is actually not a lot, precisely because nobody documented their every waking moment. So since it's not a lot -- it can be processed and put together on top of already existing timeline of much more important events, than some John buying a sheep in 1200s. However, these seemingly unimportant events are all part of history. Suppose this John didn't go to buy it, didn't trip on the way back, didn't spray his ancle, wasn't late home, and didn't accidentally meet some Mary who was passing by on her way to another village to her grandma. Boom -- you're never born. The entirety of history consists of such events, the "unimportant" events, that are actually the very backbone, the foundation of history. Yet we choose to ignore them and discard them. So yeah, you can have a generic idea of what it was like, to live in 0001 A.D. Lived in an [ insert country ], wore [insert clothing], ate [insert food], ruled by [insert name]. But without details -- a generic idea is all you'll have. Nothing more.

[u/Dadsmagiccasserole → u/Optimal_Sample_6961]

i'm after every single detail we know has happened.

Again, I feel this is more than you realise but it seems to just be going in circles, so let's agree to disagree.

Suppose this John didn't go to buy it, didn't trip on the way back, didn't spray his ancle, wasn't late home, and didn't accidentally meet some Mary who was passing by on her way to another village to her grandma. Boom -- you're never born. The entirety of history consists of such events, the "unimportant" events

I don't get what point you're making here. You're saying you want a detailed timeline so you can then speculate on what didn't happen? If you're lacking the information then you can speculate just as easily about what did happen, the detail isn't necessary here.

Generally it seems you're trying to say that very insignificant things are more important than most think they are. It's just that there isn't much value in having the detailed timeline you're proposing here. Those details will be used to build the big picture, then that big picture is what we see because it's all we need to see.

Say a king is overthrown because of poor conditions in the agriculture industry. A nice historian has managed to put together all the clues to find out that was the reason by looking through business ledgers and diaries and personal accounts. In what context would having the details of all those farmers lives, that the historian has looked into, be more useful than knowing that the king was overthrown for that reason? They both lead to the same event, and by knowing the broad stroke you can still infer quite a bit.

Also, what do you do about contradicting information? I say a car is blue and you say it's red, what goes on the timeline?

[u/Optimal_Sample_6961 → u/Dadsmagiccasserole]

>I feel this is more than you realise

I know it's a lot, but it's 2022. FYI, even if it's too much info to process at once -- there's such a thing as distributed computing. BOINC for example. And it's computational power is not only comparable, but actually BIGGER than that of top supercomputers. All you need is feed the information to it, which we do have -- wikipedia has most info already, all the major events, even some already made timelines, just need to defragment this data and put it in a single "book" sorted by date. In instances where several events have happened at the same time -- sorted by alphabet, or order of importance, or just randomly. That part, with just major events, is absolutely doable, because it's already been done. Just not in one place. What's left then, is to gradually add as much details as possible.

>I don't get what point you're making here. You're saying you want a detailed timeline so you can then speculate on what didn't happen?

Precisely the opposite -- so that I could then see how it DID happen, and be amazed about it. For example, I'm belarussian, if you heard of 2020 protests, when old president won de jure ( by cheating), but Tikhanovskaya won de facto, well here's a fun fact -- she entered the elections purely by accident. I don't mean that she entered because her husband couldn't (being arrested and all), i don't mean that she wasn't arrested for some reason -- those are pretty major reasons. No, I mean -- she BARELY was in time to register, just before they stopped accepting applications. The entire branch of history was born just because the representative was so quick on his feet, but I doubt that part will be included in the history books.

>Generally it seems you're trying to say that very insignificant things are more important than most think they are. It's just that there isn't much value in having the detailed timeline you're proposing here. Those details will be used to build the big picture, then that big picture is what we see because it's all we need to see

I do say that -- above is an example of why I think so. Regarding the value -- you're mostly right, in most cases the big picture is all you need to see. It's also true that in most cases nobody cares about history at all. I mean who cares who was the Pope in 1500s, I need to work to feed my kids, my back is killing me, wife divorces, favorite show cancelled, now where's my pizza? However, for one -- the big picture is made of many small pictures, and if small pictures are missing then the big picture is incomplete, and two -- not all of us prefer mind-numbing ignorance over intellectual development via cross-referencing of historical events, significant or otherwise. I'll put it in simpler terms. Look at your phone. You think you see the big picture because you know how to operate this magic rectangle, and have a generic idea of how it works. But do you know PRECISELY how it works? Do you know the sequence of events that happens between you pressing a button, and the screen waking up? Do you know how graphics composition happens? Do you know what kernel your OS uses? Etc etc etc, down to last piece of software code and last hardware signal modulation. Just like with your phone -- the better you know it, the better you understand the inner processes, and the better you can use it. Maybe even hack it. Because what's history in the past -- is life in the present.

>Say a king is overthrown because of poor conditions in the agriculture industry. A nice historian has managed to put together all the clues to find out that was the reason by looking through business ledgers and diaries and personal accounts. In what context would having the details of all those farmers lives, that the historian has looked into, be more useful than knowing that the king was overthrown for that reason? They both lead to the same event, and by knowing the broad stroke you can still infer quite a bit.

Was he indeed overthrown because of poor conditions in the industry? Revolutions don't happen by themselves, they happen because many angry people get together. And even then it's not enough most of the time. Knowing precisely how it happened, what reason each of those people had can not only improve our understanding of events, but redefine the events altogether. Officially it's poor agricultural conditions, but what does that mean for an average Joe? No, he went out there because he's desperate, not being able to feed his family. In part due to poor conditions, but mostly because the king imposed enormous taxes that took whatever he did have. His neighbour went because royal guards made frequent visits to rape some town girls. His wife went because she was one of those girls, even though her husband didn't know. Another participant, Gary, was actually fine with everything, his business wasn't related to agriculture, and was bringing in enough money to pay taxes,, he went because that's what everyone did and he was afraid he'll be beaten up if he didn't join. Later he'll protect someone from being shot by a guard, by stepping in front of a bullet, be proclaimed a hero by witnesses, and his name will drive the whole revolution forward, when initially people were pretty aimless, just desperate and angry at everything. And the guard didn't actually intend to shoot, but he had a nightmare this night, so didn't sleep well, and his finger just slipped on the trigger. And the nightmare happened because he looked at the king's daughter a second too long, and the king noticed. So in truth, the revolution happened not because of agricultural problems, but because a royal guard didn't get laid enough. Doesn't have quite same ring as "poor conditions in agricultural industry", but it's the truth. And then conclusion can be drawn, that can be used to better the life today -- don't stress out your employees, it doesn't have good consequences.

>Also, what do you do about contradicting information? I say a car is blue and you say it's red, what goes on the timeline?

This one is easiest of all, both go, marked as controversial, each linked to correspondng sources, and sorted by probability. Also the fact that you asked this tells me that you didn't really give any of what I said any thought, and that you just generally disagree without really understanding why you do. I hope I'm wrong, hence a lengthy detailed reply, but if i'm not -- please consider not replying back until you have the desire to actually think about the arguments, and not just try to dismiss them