Here is the thing--hardly anyone reads the average article in any journal, prestigious or obscure. I am perfectly convinced that fewer than 100 people read most articles in even the top history journals. You submit your article, it gets accepted, it appears in a journal that is mailed to the members of an organization who joined only because they wanted to go to a conference and see their buddies. It also exists behind a paywall in JSTOR, a paywall that excludes 99.7% of all the people in the world from ever reading it. So the difference between journals is minor--no one is going to read your stuff either way.
A quick Google suggest that over 80% of articles in the humanities are never cited: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/
Wow! Never knew about this study. Thanks for sending the link! Really, really interesting material!
Just out of curiosity, I did a citation search on myself on the spot, and I noticed that all of my articles (and my one book) have gotten citations except for the ones that came out post-2013, which are still new. The highest number was 25 (for an article that came out in 2006), and the lowest number was 3 (for 2 articles, one that came out in 2009 and the other in 2002). I never really thought of myself as an "outlier" of a scholar in terms of how many citations I'm getting. I thought of myself as a pretty average, run-of-the-mill type of person. But given the study that larryc linked to, I guess I'm doing really well! Huh! Go figure!