Why Linear History Fails the Atlas

Ah, yes, the venerable timeline. A straight line, neatly listing events from A to B, then C. Like trying to understand a symphony by only listening to one instrument playing its notes in order – utterly missing the point and frankly, a bit dull. History, bless its chaotic heart, rarely unfolds with such polite, sequential manners. It’s less a well-behaved queue and more a mosh pit of interconnected chaos.

Thinking of history as just one long road trip from "caveman times" to "now" is like believing your dinner plate only exists in the exact moment you eat it, ignoring the farming, shipping, and cooking that got it there. Events aren't isolated stops on a boring tour bus; they're tangled roots, spreading out and bumping into each other across continents and centuries. To really grasp the glorious mess, you need something that shows the *relationships*, not just the sequence. An atlas, you might say?