In many ways, writing historical fiction is like writing fantasy. And reading historical fiction is like reading fantasy.
In one genre, you have to look up a lot of tiny details to make the reader accept that the world they’re reading about is real/true. In the other genre, you have to make up a lot of details to make the reader accept that the world they’re reading about is real/true. In both cases, those details have to be sprinkled into the text in ways that make sense for the story and don’t distract the reader from the story, either. In both cases, the details have to hang together.
Both genres have similar reading protocols, as well. Fantasy readers can lose their suspension of disbelief if some part of the fantasy world doesn’t make sense to them. This will vary according to how critically the reader reads, or what story elements are more or less important for them.
Historical readers can lose their suspension of disbelief when a historical detail in the story is inaccurate. This varies according to the reader’s historical knowledge; for instance, if you know a period very well, you might catch slips that a less-informed reader might miss. And some readers can accept slips, because historical details or period-appropriate diction are less important to them than the story as a whole. Occasionally, the reader might lose their suspension of disbelief because, even though the historical details are accurate, they do not believe in its accuracy because they believe it contradicts something else they know – and that, too, can be a problem of how details are used and presented, part of creating believable architecture for an imaginary world.
Worldbuilding techniques cross-pollinate.
Historical Detail in Fiction.