What do you think?
Rate this book
What If #2
What If? II: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
Many armchair historians have spent hours daydreaming of what might have been if some turning point in history had gone another way. The appeal of the What If? books is that editor Robert Cowley gets professional historians to concentrate on these imaginative questions. The first volume focused entirely on military matters; What If? 2 leans heavily but not exclusively in that direction. Victor Davis Hanson wonders about the consequences for Western philosophy if Socrates had died in battle, Thomas Fleming ponders a Napoleonic invasion of North America, and Caleb Carr argues the Second World War lasted longer than it should have because George Patton's superiors restrained their energetic general. More than two dozen contributors offer bold If the Chinese had committed themselves to ocean exploration, asks Theodore F. Cook Jr., might they have discovered the New World and even prevented "the worst horrors of the Atlantic Slave Trade [by halting] Portuguese expansion along the African coast at this early date?" Other times they are pleasantly In one of the book's best sections, John Lukacs describes the fantasy of Teddy Roosevelt defeating Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 election--and decides the long- term effects would not have been great. Like its predecessor, What If? 2 is delicious mind candy for readers willing to believe there's nothing inevitable about what has come before us. --John Miller
Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
62 people are currently reading
1129 people want to read
About the author
Robert Cowley
127 books49 followersRobert Cowley is an American military historian, who writes on topics in American and European military history ranging from the Civil War through World War II. He has held several senior positions in book and magazine publishing and is the founding editor of the award-winning MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History; Cowley has also written extensively and edited three collections of essays in counterfactual history known as What If?
As part of his research he has traveled the entire length of the Western Front, from the North Sea to the Swiss Border.
He currently lives in New York and Connecticut.
-Wikipedia
As part of his research he has traveled the entire length of the Western Front, from the North Sea to the Swiss Border.
He currently lives in New York and Connecticut.
-Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
March 6, 2022
More What If is a collection of essays, which generally follow the same formula. In each, a factual account is given of a major historical event. The author then deviates from what actually was to what might have been and discusses how history may have unfolded had events taken a different turn. For instance, what if Pilate had pardoned Jesus or Theodore Roosevelt had won the US Presidential Election of 1912 or Lenin had not returned to Russia shortly after the last Czar's removal. Each history/hypothetical is by a different author and their quality varies from well written and fascinating to too long and tedious. For students of history, the collection, as a whole, should prove quite interesting. Those not well versed in this discipline may have far less appreciation for this work.
December 26, 2015
Some of these "eminent historians" are nothing of the kind; several aren't even historians, but novelists or journalists.
The essays dealing with the modern era--roughly half the book--tend to be Cold Warriorish and/or fanatically deterministic. No matter what any historical figure might have done, things come out more or less the same as they did in real life. This not only undermines the purpose of the book, it suggests rigidity of the imagination and a belief that the individual has no power to shape the course of events, so we'd might as well all stay home and let the authorities do as they please.
The essays dealing with earlier events are somewhat better. I enjoyed the piece in which the French don't go to war in 1870, while recognizing its fancifulness. The same goes for an equally pleasant but extravagant fantasy in which Mark Antony defeats Octavian and a hypothetical Cleopatra IX goes on to become pope (!). More sensible, and fairly stimulating, are essays in which Luther is executed before the Reformation gets fully underway, and there is war instead of a Munich agreement in 1938. But the writer who argues that the Nazis would have collapsed like a house of cards had Pius XII spoken sternly to them is perhaps a little too imaginative.
The essays dealing with the modern era--roughly half the book--tend to be Cold Warriorish and/or fanatically deterministic. No matter what any historical figure might have done, things come out more or less the same as they did in real life. This not only undermines the purpose of the book, it suggests rigidity of the imagination and a belief that the individual has no power to shape the course of events, so we'd might as well all stay home and let the authorities do as they please.
The essays dealing with earlier events are somewhat better. I enjoyed the piece in which the French don't go to war in 1870, while recognizing its fancifulness. The same goes for an equally pleasant but extravagant fantasy in which Mark Antony defeats Octavian and a hypothetical Cleopatra IX goes on to become pope (!). More sensible, and fairly stimulating, are essays in which Luther is executed before the Reformation gets fully underway, and there is war instead of a Munich agreement in 1938. But the writer who argues that the Nazis would have collapsed like a house of cards had Pius XII spoken sternly to them is perhaps a little too imaginative.
November 18, 2020
This book really didn't live up to my expectations... I stopped reading 2/3 through. I loved the premise very much, that's why I bought it. But the editor, who has written a lot about military history, ended up soliciting essays that mostly focused on military history. Which is fine if this book was framed as such, but it wasn't.... So I ended up ploughing my way through countless minute descriptions of battles and weapons, while what I was hoping for was a much broader selection of events. Worse, the 'what if' part of the deal in most essays was very short and presented in broad brushstrokes - veery few truly interesting speculations. The majority of their words the featured historians spent on explaining how an alternative scenario (like someone's defeat in a battle) could have happened instead of the real one (someone's victory in a battle...). Lastly, the book disproportionately engaged with English and American history and left little room for other countries.
December 12, 2022
The path untrodden, counterfactual reality, or simply alternate history. Twenty-five of the 20th Century’s eminent historians look at what might have been in the essay anthology What If? 2 edited by contributor Robert Cowley.
The twenty-five essays range from 424 B.C. in Ancient Greece to the 1948 Elections in the United States covering a variety of topics though for roughly 300 of the 430 pages covered the time between 1912 and 1948. Unlike the previous volume, many of the essays focused on the actual event than going into an alternative scenario or would briefly speculate about things happening differently in the last two paragraphs. The essays that focused on the assignment that were good were Thomas K. Rabb’s essay on Charles I dying in 1641 of the plague and adverting the English Civil War, Alistair Horne’s fanciful piece on Napoleon III not taking Otto von Bismark’s bait to advert the Franco-Prussian war, George Feifer’s essay on Lenin on influencing the Russian Revolution, and Richard B. Frank’s essay on if the United States hadn’t dropped the atomic bombs.
What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been is an interesting set of essays, a lot are knowledgeable for someone who doesn’t know specific points talked about however the “alternate” aspect was lacking compared to the previous collection.
The twenty-five essays range from 424 B.C. in Ancient Greece to the 1948 Elections in the United States covering a variety of topics though for roughly 300 of the 430 pages covered the time between 1912 and 1948. Unlike the previous volume, many of the essays focused on the actual event than going into an alternative scenario or would briefly speculate about things happening differently in the last two paragraphs. The essays that focused on the assignment that were good were Thomas K. Rabb’s essay on Charles I dying in 1641 of the plague and adverting the English Civil War, Alistair Horne’s fanciful piece on Napoleon III not taking Otto von Bismark’s bait to advert the Franco-Prussian war, George Feifer’s essay on Lenin on influencing the Russian Revolution, and Richard B. Frank’s essay on if the United States hadn’t dropped the atomic bombs.
What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been is an interesting set of essays, a lot are knowledgeable for someone who doesn’t know specific points talked about however the “alternate” aspect was lacking compared to the previous collection.
August 15, 2012
This book was pretty painful to read, from start to finish. It consists of essays about notable important events, and what would happen if they had not occurred. Or at least that is what the title would lead you to believe. Rather, they ended up being essays about great historical events, followed by a tiny bit of conjecture. And typically, this conjecture was not that interesting. For example, what would have happened had Socrates been killed when he was younger? Philosophy would not have been the same. Really? It takes an eminent historian to come to that conclusion? I think I could have come to the same conclusion pretty easily. One essay even stated that since we can never be certain, we should not conjecture. Had I wanted to read a book of historical essays I would have been pleased with this book, because the writing was good and the historical facts interesting. But I felt that I had been cheated and tricked by the title, so I was not happy with it.
October 5, 2014
I received the first What If? volume along with Virtual History as a gift in high school, a well-intentioned gift as the gift-giver knew I liked to study and read history. I didn't particularly care for them, but upon receiving them and upon completing them I thanked the gift-giver for their generous and thoughtful gifts. When asked if I enjoyed them, to spare their feelings I said that I did.
Receiving this book as a gift a few years later, I feel, is a strong argument against the telling of white lies.
Receiving this book as a gift a few years later, I feel, is a strong argument against the telling of white lies.
July 27, 2012
I'm a sucker for alternate ending scenerios. This is a great source from a military strategist who ponders the idea of "what if" something happened differently during major military engagements and how the alternate outcome might affect today. Fascinating!
February 1, 2019
I recently read and liked "What If," about military battles that could have gone otherwise and the consequences to world history that would have probably occurred.
The followup book, "What If 2," is about world, not military, events that could have gone otherwise. Too many of the scenarios (some of which are military, in fact) could have been better chosen, in my opinion, but a few are fascinating and make this book worth looking for in the library.
1. What if Pontius Pilate had spared Jesus.
2. What if the Chinese Emperor had not stopped the expeditions of his eunuch admiral in the 15th Century.
3. What if Germany hadn't helped Lenin reach St Petersburg in 1917.
4. What if Pope Pius XII had protested the Holocaust.
5. What if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Number five forever lays to rest, in my mind anyway, any doubt on the use of atomic weapons in Japan. Not diminishing the lives that were lost in those two cities, but the evidence seems clear that many more Japanese lives would have been lost if we hadn't used the bombs. That Japan, in fact, would have been invaded by Russia, still smarting over the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.
I look forward to "What If 3."
The followup book, "What If 2," is about world, not military, events that could have gone otherwise. Too many of the scenarios (some of which are military, in fact) could have been better chosen, in my opinion, but a few are fascinating and make this book worth looking for in the library.
1. What if Pontius Pilate had spared Jesus.
2. What if the Chinese Emperor had not stopped the expeditions of his eunuch admiral in the 15th Century.
3. What if Germany hadn't helped Lenin reach St Petersburg in 1917.
4. What if Pope Pius XII had protested the Holocaust.
5. What if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Number five forever lays to rest, in my mind anyway, any doubt on the use of atomic weapons in Japan. Not diminishing the lives that were lost in those two cities, but the evidence seems clear that many more Japanese lives would have been lost if we hadn't used the bombs. That Japan, in fact, would have been invaded by Russia, still smarting over the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.
I look forward to "What If 3."
January 26, 2021
If I had more time I'd write a shorter review. Apologies.
Overall a much better collection in my opinion than the first volume, with better editing, a slightly more interesting curation of essays (too much focus on WW2 for my taste but that's understandable) and the quality of writing massively improved. None of the essays felt like a chore to get through, even if I have quips and quarrells with some of the writers conclusions.
Have brief (or sometimes not so brief) thoughts about each of the essays in the collection below noted as I read it:
If Socrates died at Delium- Victor Davis Hanson- Far more disciplined essay than his essay in the previous anthology on Salamis- demonstrates that he would have survived, but in the plays of Aristophenes not in the dialogues of Plato or Xenophen. Western Philosophy would have profoundly changed had Socrates fled in a different direction at that Athenian defeat (though VDH takes for granted the internalist view of philosophical/scientific history, which can be critiqued though he lacks space in 20 page essay).
If Athony won Actium- Josiah Ober- Well disciplined, good at demonstrating affects, though the bit on Jesus is iffy.
Jesus is spared- Carloc Eire- This is a tough one as for a Christian the events of Jesus's life were ordained, and there is no room for Pilate to spare Jesus. Assuming Christianity to be false, and Pilate spares the historical Jesus, then I think his counterfactual account of a different form of Judaism taking over the Empire is plausible.
William loses Hastings- Cecelia Holland- Good.
China discovers new world- Theo Cook- Good, I think this is more plausible than commonly assumed (without going full Gavin Menzies and arguing it acc happened).
Martin Luther burned at sake- Geoffrey Parker- Spent too much time on the 'what' and only a page
on the 'what if'. Good case study in significance of an individual
Charles I+ sons die of plague in 1641- Theo Rabb- Good. Another 'individuals matter' case study, but in this case we have no civil war but a Germanic occupation of the throne 73 years before it took place (As Elisabeth of Bohemia and her German brood accede). So a full-pivot back to how things would have been, minus the philosophy produced by Hobbes+Locke in response to the civil war (Rabb takes for granted the externalist view of philosophical/scientific history, which can be critiqued though he lacks space in 15 page essay also discussing the Civil War).
Napoleon invades North America- Thomas Fleming- A few technical faults (Jefferson became President in 1801, not 1800, and had cooled on the French Revolution under the Directory, not Napoleon) but still a good essay in 'diseases matter'. Tad reaching that Napoleons invasion of North America in 1802 would bifurcate the country, end slavery and racial animosity sixty years early and all sorts of other things.
Lincoln doesn't free slaves- Tom Wicker. Not convinced the Europeans would have intervened in the Civil War had the Emancipation Proclomaton been issued, there was more going on there. Obviously a monumental text in American racial history, whose absence would have widespreading affects.
Napoleon III doesn't declare war- Alastair Horne- Come across this essay thinking, based on his behaviour with the Elms telegram, Bizzy would have manipulated the situation at some point anyway, esp if Napoleon III died in 1873 and France became even weaker. Not sure Napoleon III is the 'individual' who matters. But Horne does paint a good picture of an alternative history in which doves gain ascendancy in both Paris+Berlin, Bavaria allies with Austria and thus German unification is permannently forstaled. Not so sure about Grant getting involved in all this.
TR wins in 1912- John Luckas- Same domestic policies as Wilson, and a similiar foreign policy of strength in the western hemisphere, and late entry to WW1 in 1917. But millitary buildup from 1914, not from 1917, makes the US a stronger partner which causes the war to end in May 1917 (Germany and Russia remain constitutional monarchies).TR dies in 1919, and Theodorian realpolitik is replaced by Wilsonian idealism through the backdoor anyway by Herbert Hoover(??) and 36 (???) years of Republican rule is broken in 1932 by FDR. Luckas writes well as a 2nd order counterfactual, but am not convinced by some of the details. But he is apt at pointing out the weakness of the US in this time, a point which reinforces Robert O'Connell's essay on what could have happened if the Germans had continued unrestricted submarine warfare after the Lusitania Incident (German victory).
George Feifer- No Lenin. Measured essay, concluding that if the Germans denied Lenin passage in 1917, or if he'd been arrested after the July Days 'that Russia would still be a mess, but a different kind of mess'.
FDR essay- Geoff Ward- Despite the detrimental tone, ends up making me wish Garner (FDR's VP) had become president instead
War of 1938- Williamson Murray. Doubt it's a definitive interpretation, and more could have been said about the strategic reality of the USSR and Germany being de-facto on the same side.
PM Halifax- Andrew Roberts. Did not realise how plausible this what if was, and how it would have led to a dramatically different world (assuming Halifax then makes peace towards the end of May and leaves the whole of Europe to the USSR).
Bradley on Australia, Kahn on Enigma, Katz on Pius XII, Frank on no atomic bombs dropped (i.e. mass Allied/Japanese casualties), Spiller on Hitler living- All good.
Caleb Carr on VE Day 1944- Teases out good indirect epistimological point that just because the Allies won, doesn't mean they couldn't have won sooner, but our heuristics can obscure asking questions along these lines after the fact. Good thing to discuss when the historians inevitibly look at 2020-2021 vaccine rollout.
James Chace on Wallace becoming prez- Measured conclusion that the Cold War would have happened anyway, in a different form. The presidency, even after FDR, is not all-powerful as some may imagine it.
Morrow- JFK//LBJ/Nixon- Good, doesn't go too far in considering the implications of their non-presidencies, just pointing out that all three faced pivotal moments in 1948.
And a good essay to conclude on POTATOES.
Overall a much better collection in my opinion than the first volume, with better editing, a slightly more interesting curation of essays (too much focus on WW2 for my taste but that's understandable) and the quality of writing massively improved. None of the essays felt like a chore to get through, even if I have quips and quarrells with some of the writers conclusions.
Have brief (or sometimes not so brief) thoughts about each of the essays in the collection below noted as I read it:
If Socrates died at Delium- Victor Davis Hanson- Far more disciplined essay than his essay in the previous anthology on Salamis- demonstrates that he would have survived, but in the plays of Aristophenes not in the dialogues of Plato or Xenophen. Western Philosophy would have profoundly changed had Socrates fled in a different direction at that Athenian defeat (though VDH takes for granted the internalist view of philosophical/scientific history, which can be critiqued though he lacks space in 20 page essay).
If Athony won Actium- Josiah Ober- Well disciplined, good at demonstrating affects, though the bit on Jesus is iffy.
Jesus is spared- Carloc Eire- This is a tough one as for a Christian the events of Jesus's life were ordained, and there is no room for Pilate to spare Jesus. Assuming Christianity to be false, and Pilate spares the historical Jesus, then I think his counterfactual account of a different form of Judaism taking over the Empire is plausible.
William loses Hastings- Cecelia Holland- Good.
China discovers new world- Theo Cook- Good, I think this is more plausible than commonly assumed (without going full Gavin Menzies and arguing it acc happened).
Martin Luther burned at sake- Geoffrey Parker- Spent too much time on the 'what' and only a page
on the 'what if'. Good case study in significance of an individual
Charles I+ sons die of plague in 1641- Theo Rabb- Good. Another 'individuals matter' case study, but in this case we have no civil war but a Germanic occupation of the throne 73 years before it took place (As Elisabeth of Bohemia and her German brood accede). So a full-pivot back to how things would have been, minus the philosophy produced by Hobbes+Locke in response to the civil war (Rabb takes for granted the externalist view of philosophical/scientific history, which can be critiqued though he lacks space in 15 page essay also discussing the Civil War).
Napoleon invades North America- Thomas Fleming- A few technical faults (Jefferson became President in 1801, not 1800, and had cooled on the French Revolution under the Directory, not Napoleon) but still a good essay in 'diseases matter'. Tad reaching that Napoleons invasion of North America in 1802 would bifurcate the country, end slavery and racial animosity sixty years early and all sorts of other things.
Lincoln doesn't free slaves- Tom Wicker. Not convinced the Europeans would have intervened in the Civil War had the Emancipation Proclomaton been issued, there was more going on there. Obviously a monumental text in American racial history, whose absence would have widespreading affects.
Napoleon III doesn't declare war- Alastair Horne- Come across this essay thinking, based on his behaviour with the Elms telegram, Bizzy would have manipulated the situation at some point anyway, esp if Napoleon III died in 1873 and France became even weaker. Not sure Napoleon III is the 'individual' who matters. But Horne does paint a good picture of an alternative history in which doves gain ascendancy in both Paris+Berlin, Bavaria allies with Austria and thus German unification is permannently forstaled. Not so sure about Grant getting involved in all this.
TR wins in 1912- John Luckas- Same domestic policies as Wilson, and a similiar foreign policy of strength in the western hemisphere, and late entry to WW1 in 1917. But millitary buildup from 1914, not from 1917, makes the US a stronger partner which causes the war to end in May 1917 (Germany and Russia remain constitutional monarchies).TR dies in 1919, and Theodorian realpolitik is replaced by Wilsonian idealism through the backdoor anyway by Herbert Hoover(??) and 36 (???) years of Republican rule is broken in 1932 by FDR. Luckas writes well as a 2nd order counterfactual, but am not convinced by some of the details. But he is apt at pointing out the weakness of the US in this time, a point which reinforces Robert O'Connell's essay on what could have happened if the Germans had continued unrestricted submarine warfare after the Lusitania Incident (German victory).
George Feifer- No Lenin. Measured essay, concluding that if the Germans denied Lenin passage in 1917, or if he'd been arrested after the July Days 'that Russia would still be a mess, but a different kind of mess'.
FDR essay- Geoff Ward- Despite the detrimental tone, ends up making me wish Garner (FDR's VP) had become president instead
War of 1938- Williamson Murray. Doubt it's a definitive interpretation, and more could have been said about the strategic reality of the USSR and Germany being de-facto on the same side.
PM Halifax- Andrew Roberts. Did not realise how plausible this what if was, and how it would have led to a dramatically different world (assuming Halifax then makes peace towards the end of May and leaves the whole of Europe to the USSR).
Bradley on Australia, Kahn on Enigma, Katz on Pius XII, Frank on no atomic bombs dropped (i.e. mass Allied/Japanese casualties), Spiller on Hitler living- All good.
Caleb Carr on VE Day 1944- Teases out good indirect epistimological point that just because the Allies won, doesn't mean they couldn't have won sooner, but our heuristics can obscure asking questions along these lines after the fact. Good thing to discuss when the historians inevitibly look at 2020-2021 vaccine rollout.
James Chace on Wallace becoming prez- Measured conclusion that the Cold War would have happened anyway, in a different form. The presidency, even after FDR, is not all-powerful as some may imagine it.
Morrow- JFK//LBJ/Nixon- Good, doesn't go too far in considering the implications of their non-presidencies, just pointing out that all three faced pivotal moments in 1948.
And a good essay to conclude on POTATOES.
April 12, 2010
Overall a reasonable and interesting read. One major problem with the book is that the contributors often “chicken out” when discussing their particular alternative historical scenario. They will provide all the background concerning the scenario but there will just be a couple of paragraphs on what could have happened differently. There are however, a couple of authors who are brave and give almost their whole piece to the alternative happenings – for example what if Jesus hadn’t been crucified – Christianity still results but in a different form (closer to Judaism) and if Anthony and Cleopatra had won the war against Augustus – a bipolar Mediterranean (a powerful Egypt) instead of just Rome? Definitely better than the first volume – less military focused.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 13, 2013
A good history read, but every essayist has their own styles - which means they do not particularly mesh well together. Some are really interesting, some start out interesting and then lose momentum.... others are uninteresting from the start. But the book still has a subject matter worth paying attention to, with hypothetical ideas of what might have happened if things were different, and that at least provides a solid platform to pay attention to.
January 11, 2018
Hardly any alternate history. Mostly nuggets of information about a specific incident in history. Even so, much of that seems too flippant, not really considering the thing unbiasedly. Some things to think about, if not trust without further research.
December 26, 2011
A fun collection of short essays of alternate history.
November 5, 2012
A great collection of some of the best historians and their take on past events and people.
July 11, 2017
Another proof that historians are not writers. the questions are interesting but the conservative outcome of the answers is disappointing, to say the least.
January 30, 2024
It is always interesting and entertaining to think of what might have happened if one specific event had been a bit different. When people that know history engage in such actions it is also educational. This book contains 25 essays based on what might have happened if an event had a different outcome. The timeframe starts in ancient Greece and moves through the aftermath of World War II.
The first essay is based on a little-known fact, that Socrates was a soldier before he became a sage. He fought in the battle of Delium in 424 B. C. and apparently barely escaped capture or death. The “What If?” scenario is based on the consequences of his being killed in that battle. Given his influence on Greek thought, the emergence of what we now call philosophy and how the ancients Greeks formed the foundation of Western Civilization, the changes could have been considerable.
One of the most interesting alternative scenarios is that Henry Wallace was not replaced by Harry Truman as the Vice-Presidential nominee on the ticket with Franklin Roosevelt in 1944. Wallace was a much more seasoned and famous politician than Truman was, and his political philosophy was much more progressive. If he had remained on the ticket, Wallace would have become president on the death of Roosevelt in 1945. His openly stated position on trying to reach some form of understanding with the Soviet Union would have been an interesting expression if he had become president.
However, the most interesting essay is the last one and is not based on a single event taking a different track. In that essay, the question is based on if conquistador Pizarro had not discovered the potato in South America and brought it back to Europe. The story of how the potato altered the history of Europe after it was widely planted is fascinating. Peasants planted their crops of grain and potatoes, often leaving the tubers in the ground. When marauding armies swept through, they would requisition all the grain, but would not bother to dig the potatoes out of the ground. This food reserve allowed the peasants to avoid starvation as the potatoes were an excellent source of calories and were easy to keep over the winters.
Although the enjoyment of the reader will be enhanced if they have some understanding of basic history, that foreknowledge is not essential to understand and appreciate these brief stories of alternate history.
The first essay is based on a little-known fact, that Socrates was a soldier before he became a sage. He fought in the battle of Delium in 424 B. C. and apparently barely escaped capture or death. The “What If?” scenario is based on the consequences of his being killed in that battle. Given his influence on Greek thought, the emergence of what we now call philosophy and how the ancients Greeks formed the foundation of Western Civilization, the changes could have been considerable.
One of the most interesting alternative scenarios is that Henry Wallace was not replaced by Harry Truman as the Vice-Presidential nominee on the ticket with Franklin Roosevelt in 1944. Wallace was a much more seasoned and famous politician than Truman was, and his political philosophy was much more progressive. If he had remained on the ticket, Wallace would have become president on the death of Roosevelt in 1945. His openly stated position on trying to reach some form of understanding with the Soviet Union would have been an interesting expression if he had become president.
However, the most interesting essay is the last one and is not based on a single event taking a different track. In that essay, the question is based on if conquistador Pizarro had not discovered the potato in South America and brought it back to Europe. The story of how the potato altered the history of Europe after it was widely planted is fascinating. Peasants planted their crops of grain and potatoes, often leaving the tubers in the ground. When marauding armies swept through, they would requisition all the grain, but would not bother to dig the potatoes out of the ground. This food reserve allowed the peasants to avoid starvation as the potatoes were an excellent source of calories and were easy to keep over the winters.
Although the enjoyment of the reader will be enhanced if they have some understanding of basic history, that foreknowledge is not essential to understand and appreciate these brief stories of alternate history.
July 31, 2019
If I am to be perfectly honest, this collection didn’t really meet my expectations, neither in regard of selection of topics nor depth of analysis. Vast majority of the ‘tweaks’ discussed in this book are, in my opinion at least, too vast in scope for anyone to even be able to speculate about their effects. The first essay in this book is a perfect example – if Jesus of Nazareth managed to live to an old age, is it even possible to provide a credible speculation about how it would affect what today is one of major religions of the world?
Other essays in this collection gave me a distinct impression of not being “counterfactual history” at all, but rather arguments for or criticisms of actual historical decisions – the essay arguing against Eisenhower’s “broad approach” strategy in late 1944 and one arguing for use of atomic weapons against Japan in 1945 are probably best examples of this type of essays in this book.
And finally there was a couple of essays about topics which I personally question deserve to be analyzed from counter-factual perspective. For example, battle of Hastings was (regardless of what the author claims) a local event and I fail to see how Harold Godwinson’s victory would have affected the ‘big picture’. And while I found the essay about effect of introduction of potatoes to European society to be one of the most interesting in this collection, it was because it mostly discussed those effects (who would have thought history of potato was so fascinating?). But the premise of that particular essay – that Pizarro failed to find potatoes to be begin with – how was that supposed to happen? It was the major crop of the area after all!
In my opinion, counterfactual history discussions are historian’s equivalent of kids arguing who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman. They are universally pointless. They have serious potential to ruffle some feathers. But if the point of contention is selected wisely and argued cleverly, they can also be a lot of fun. Essays in this collection completely validated my first point, confirmed to certain degree the second one, but failed to entertain me in the way that I expect from this type of book.
Other essays in this collection gave me a distinct impression of not being “counterfactual history” at all, but rather arguments for or criticisms of actual historical decisions – the essay arguing against Eisenhower’s “broad approach” strategy in late 1944 and one arguing for use of atomic weapons against Japan in 1945 are probably best examples of this type of essays in this book.
And finally there was a couple of essays about topics which I personally question deserve to be analyzed from counter-factual perspective. For example, battle of Hastings was (regardless of what the author claims) a local event and I fail to see how Harold Godwinson’s victory would have affected the ‘big picture’. And while I found the essay about effect of introduction of potatoes to European society to be one of the most interesting in this collection, it was because it mostly discussed those effects (who would have thought history of potato was so fascinating?). But the premise of that particular essay – that Pizarro failed to find potatoes to be begin with – how was that supposed to happen? It was the major crop of the area after all!
In my opinion, counterfactual history discussions are historian’s equivalent of kids arguing who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman. They are universally pointless. They have serious potential to ruffle some feathers. But if the point of contention is selected wisely and argued cleverly, they can also be a lot of fun. Essays in this collection completely validated my first point, confirmed to certain degree the second one, but failed to entertain me in the way that I expect from this type of book.
October 23, 2023
Now then.
It appears I was 'a bit previous' in my review of the first 'What If' volume of alternative historical possibilities, giving it 4 rather than 5 stars for, among other reasons, lack of my favourite 'what-if' of all history. I find the sequel has, as its first line of back page blurb,
"What if, on 14th October 1066, William the Conqueror had lost the Battle of Hastings?"
No spoilers here, but a 'fun fact' - which I hadn't known until my research, during the writing of 'The Evening Lands', on the Battle of Fulford (the first of the three 1066 battles, and which happened just down the road from where I live) - is that Harold Godwinson owed his religious allegiance to Constantinople - not Rome. The England invaded by William was, technically, an Orthodox Christian contry, and part of a sweep of civilisation extending not just through Viking Scandinavia ("As every schoolkid knows") but also as far east as Kyiv and Novgorod - the latter at that time building an intelligent effort to "Seek a prince who may rule over us and judge us according to law." What might have happened if that sweep of Northern civilisation, rather than the Rome-based one of southern Europe, had held sway over the Middle Ages?
Uh, so, right - this is a book review not a soap-box. To horse!
A wider range of 'What if's are covered here, not just the military. The effect upon Western philosophy of Socrates dying in battle (yes, he had to do National Service); Pilate sparing Jesus (so no crosses on necklaces); Ming Dynasty Chinese navigator Zheng He making it all the way round the Cape of Good Hope in his giant ships instead of being called back home...
'More What If' lacks the short-and-sweet inter-chapter essays of the first volume, jewels which included some of the most extreme, rapid, and breathtaking turning points. But it lives up to its name even better than the first volume in that there is a little less concentration on the minutiae of battle and more on the speculation of the wider results.
Like the first 'What If' it is quite information-dense - worth a pause after reading each chapter especially if, like me, you're not an historian. Both books are also a pretty good way of understanding what actually did happen on all the world-turning occasions they describe.
So it's getting more stars than volume 1 - and not just because of Hastings.
It appears I was 'a bit previous' in my review of the first 'What If' volume of alternative historical possibilities, giving it 4 rather than 5 stars for, among other reasons, lack of my favourite 'what-if' of all history. I find the sequel has, as its first line of back page blurb,
"What if, on 14th October 1066, William the Conqueror had lost the Battle of Hastings?"
No spoilers here, but a 'fun fact' - which I hadn't known until my research, during the writing of 'The Evening Lands', on the Battle of Fulford (the first of the three 1066 battles, and which happened just down the road from where I live) - is that Harold Godwinson owed his religious allegiance to Constantinople - not Rome. The England invaded by William was, technically, an Orthodox Christian contry, and part of a sweep of civilisation extending not just through Viking Scandinavia ("As every schoolkid knows") but also as far east as Kyiv and Novgorod - the latter at that time building an intelligent effort to "Seek a prince who may rule over us and judge us according to law." What might have happened if that sweep of Northern civilisation, rather than the Rome-based one of southern Europe, had held sway over the Middle Ages?
Uh, so, right - this is a book review not a soap-box. To horse!
A wider range of 'What if's are covered here, not just the military. The effect upon Western philosophy of Socrates dying in battle (yes, he had to do National Service); Pilate sparing Jesus (so no crosses on necklaces); Ming Dynasty Chinese navigator Zheng He making it all the way round the Cape of Good Hope in his giant ships instead of being called back home...
'More What If' lacks the short-and-sweet inter-chapter essays of the first volume, jewels which included some of the most extreme, rapid, and breathtaking turning points. But it lives up to its name even better than the first volume in that there is a little less concentration on the minutiae of battle and more on the speculation of the wider results.
Like the first 'What If' it is quite information-dense - worth a pause after reading each chapter especially if, like me, you're not an historian. Both books are also a pretty good way of understanding what actually did happen on all the world-turning occasions they describe.
So it's getting more stars than volume 1 - and not just because of Hastings.
July 17, 2018
Little counterfactuals involving single decisions in single lives that would (probably) have had vast effects on the present world. Needed this book because, at my school, the big historical cliches - Hastings - were divorced from their effects. Had Socrates died before meeting Plato, two thousand years of persuasive anti-democratic thought might have been prevented; had Zheng He just kept going, a Confucian America without a divine mandate to convert and subjugate, and an overwhelmed, boxed-in and thus united pre-colonial Europe might have resulted.
They are also just great stories, cf. Adam Gopnik's
This is the former people doing the latter work. Damn good fun, and maybe valuable in the absence of proper modelling.
It may be coincidental, but it is suggestive nonetheless that the interest among serious historians in counterfactual analysis basically corresponds with the rise of a dramatically new way of looking at the physics of complex systems, known popularly as chaos theory.
They are also just great stories, cf. Adam Gopnik's
It is the aim of all academic historians in our time to drain as much drama from history as is consistent with the facts; and it is the goal of popular historians to add as much drama to history as is consistent with the facts, or can be made to seem so.
This is the former people doing the latter work. Damn good fun, and maybe valuable in the absence of proper modelling.
August 6, 2021
Another excellent collection of counterfactual historical essays edited by Robert Cowley. All are well-written and well-argued (some, naturally, more than others); the topics are all well-chosen and the book is certainly not a waste of your time. Counterfactual history exercises are often sniffed at, but Cowley successfully argues for the legitimacy of the approach: "There is no better way of understanding what did happen in history than to contemplate what very well might have happened. Counterfactual history has a way of making the stakes of a confrontation stand out in relief" (pg. xvii).
By mapping out contrary routes, the historians here shatter the complacency regarding what "we have come to accept as the natural course of world history" (pg. 102) and, in doing so, throw into sharp emphasis just how important certain factors were to a certain event, and how important a certain event was to historical developments. The counterfactual scenarios are all thought-provoking and some are scarily real and immediate. Anything that challenges complacency about the inevitability of things – not least the Disneyland moral that good always triumphs over evil just because – is very welcome in our worrying times. The readability and high scholarship of the book is just a massive bonus to this timely reminder.
By mapping out contrary routes, the historians here shatter the complacency regarding what "we have come to accept as the natural course of world history" (pg. 102) and, in doing so, throw into sharp emphasis just how important certain factors were to a certain event, and how important a certain event was to historical developments. The counterfactual scenarios are all thought-provoking and some are scarily real and immediate. Anything that challenges complacency about the inevitability of things – not least the Disneyland moral that good always triumphs over evil just because – is very welcome in our worrying times. The readability and high scholarship of the book is just a massive bonus to this timely reminder.
December 30, 2024
This was a fun read. It opens your eyes to the different machinations of history. How little things can change the history of the world. Do we really know or understand history. History is filled with facts but also with blank spots and interpretations. Are we just guessing?
Some of the essays are absurd fantasy, while others are 90% going over actually history and 10% the counterfactual. The essays are well written and filled with powerful vocabulary. This is a fun boy book.
I often view history in a cosmic lense. That humanity has gotten to where it is and there is only one path. This book is a reminder that humanity does not have a set out path. Things could have gone many different ways. On the cosmic scale we are just one of billions of possibilities and plants with civilizations that have existed. We are a data point of life in the universe, fighting to break through the great filter. There are civilizations that have gotten further than us and others that have ended sooner. For better or worse, our road is what it has been and will be
Some of the essays are absurd fantasy, while others are 90% going over actually history and 10% the counterfactual. The essays are well written and filled with powerful vocabulary. This is a fun boy book.
I often view history in a cosmic lense. That humanity has gotten to where it is and there is only one path. This book is a reminder that humanity does not have a set out path. Things could have gone many different ways. On the cosmic scale we are just one of billions of possibilities and plants with civilizations that have existed. We are a data point of life in the universe, fighting to break through the great filter. There are civilizations that have gotten further than us and others that have ended sooner. For better or worse, our road is what it has been and will be
April 27, 2020
As with the first volume in the set – indeed, perhaps even more so – this is a mixed bag. Most of the essays contain at least some interesting historical insight, but this time around several entries are almost completely devoid of counterfactual speculation (which, at least in theory, is the book’s raison d’etre). For example, “No Finland Station” by George Feifer says nothing more profound about Russian history than the observation that Lenin wasn’t a very nice person. True (or at the very least copiously argued), but how might history have been different without him? On the opposite end of the spectrum, one or two of these things demonstrate how quickly counterfactuals can collapse under their own weight (such as John Lukacs’s bizarre tale of Teddy Roosevelt’s alternative career). Overall my review of the original applies to this set as well: if nothing else, this is an interesting way to learn a little history.
October 21, 2021
Twenty=five authors, historians and novelists, provide essay-length vignettes of alternative history.
They elaborate on how a single change in a historical event or human life might spawn a radically changed world as, step by step, sequential events and circumstances follow logically from the initial change. They cover a wide range of possibilities ranging from, What would our culture be like now if Socrates had been killed along with a thousand of his fellow citizens of Athens at the battle of Delium in 424 BC?, to how simple changes in the political careers of three congressmen in the late 1940s, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy, all of whom became president in the 1960s, might have altered the history of the United States.
The speculations are only that, of course, but they do help us to appreciate the vagaries of life on a scale larger than the individual. Some of the essays are quite evocative, but not all. Overall, worth a look.
They elaborate on how a single change in a historical event or human life might spawn a radically changed world as, step by step, sequential events and circumstances follow logically from the initial change. They cover a wide range of possibilities ranging from, What would our culture be like now if Socrates had been killed along with a thousand of his fellow citizens of Athens at the battle of Delium in 424 BC?, to how simple changes in the political careers of three congressmen in the late 1940s, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy, all of whom became president in the 1960s, might have altered the history of the United States.
The speculations are only that, of course, but they do help us to appreciate the vagaries of life on a scale larger than the individual. Some of the essays are quite evocative, but not all. Overall, worth a look.
January 25, 2020
The authors imagine what might have turned the course of human events if a specific element in human history had played out differently. What if Jesus hadn't been crucified? What if WWII had gone differently here or there? The problem was that the writers weren't very imaginative. For example, in this version Jesus is another prophet who reaches divinity in his 90's. What if Lyndon Johnson hadn't had any assistance from Archie Parr? The problem with there scenarios is that they DID happen. It was both boring to read the back stories that were sometimes told in excruciating detail, and irritating to see how little imagination the writers used in their alternative worlds.
November 18, 2017
The follow up of What if. All of those counterfactuals are plasuible and its not Turtledove reptilians in ww2 stuff. From ancient Greece to 1948(a turning point for JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon). Famous historians like John Lukas , Williamson Murray, and Thomas Flemming. One essay shows that if Chamberlain and Daladier had stood up to Nazi Germany in 1938 for Checkslovakia Hitler would have ltoppled and he woudn,t have conquered continental europe between 1939-41.
A must have book for counterfactuals fans.
A must have book for counterfactuals fans.
October 4, 2020
An interesting and thought provoking collection of counter factual history essays that ask the question what if historical events did not happen the way they did. What if one little thing changes? My favorite entries are:
- VE Day - November 11, 1944
- N0 Bomb: No End
- What If Pizarro Had Not Found Potatoes in Peru?
All the essays pretty much have the same conclusion. The world would be a very different place for better or worse if one little thing changes.
- VE Day - November 11, 1944
- N0 Bomb: No End
- What If Pizarro Had Not Found Potatoes in Peru?
All the essays pretty much have the same conclusion. The world would be a very different place for better or worse if one little thing changes.
August 17, 2021
This book had two or three decent essays, but almost all of them devoted far too much space to describing the actual history of the events under examination, followed by a page or two of vague and noncommittal musings like, “But might things have gone differently? Suppose that X hadn’t happened. While it is impossible to know how events would have unfolded, our world today could be very different indeed.” Very little imagination or speculation. Disappointing.
May 5, 2021
Really interesting, just as good as the first volume. It was very 20th-century heavy - I would have preferred to see more ancient and medieval chapters. Other than that, my main criticism is that there was too much focus on what did actually happen, rather than on what might have happened, which is supposed to be the whole point of the book!
December 16, 2017
I was expecting better. It's a fantastic premise, but I found the vast majority of the chapters uninteresting and too inclined to focus on small effects, rather than the wider consequences of the changes.
January 1, 2020
Really interesting and thought provoking chapters in this book!
Would I re-read this book? Yes
Would I keep a copy in my collection? Yes
Would I recommend this book to someone? Yes
Would I gift this book to someone? Yes
Would I re-read this book? Yes
Would I keep a copy in my collection? Yes
Would I recommend this book to someone? Yes
Would I gift this book to someone? Yes
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews