I am interested in learning more about $p$-adic analysis and some of the geometric theories that are commonly used. However, it seems that many of the tools there are developed from analogous "classical" results from geometry over $\mathbb{C}$. My question put simply, is it "necessary" to understand all the classical versions of these theories to get the specialized $p$-adic versions?
For example, there is Hodge theory (which I know nothing about), and the $p$-adic Hodge theory, which seems like it might be useful in future research. There's the huge study of Lie groups/algebras and their representations, but then there's the same for $p$-adic Lie groups. It's not that I don't want to understand all of these classical theories; I just fear that if I focus too heavily on those, I will never get to the $p$-adic versions.
How does one try to balance wanting to understand the classical versions of theories, but also wanting to go into a specialized/different version of it like this? I understand some things must be unavoidable, like learning etale cohomology to understand $\ell$-adic cohomology, but to what extent is this generally true?
I wish there was enough time to learn everything, but unfortunately that's not the case, so I would like to try to budget my time effectively.