History Revisited: Real Historians Debate the Best of Alternate History

by J. David Markham, Mike Resnick (Editor)

In this analysis, eminent historians scrutinize seven popular military stories from the alternate history genre to determine the probability of the events described in each. Answering questions such as Could our atomic bomb policy really have been changed by one faulty screw? What if Napoleon had led the Americans in the Battle of New Orleans? and Would President Lincoln’s assassination during the Gettysburg Address have left the Confederacy as a separate nation? the researchers examine stories by Michael F. Flynn, John Mina, Mike Resnick, Kin Stanley Robinson, William Saunders, and Harry Turtledove, ultimately supporting or debunking the events within.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Alternate History, Fiction

256 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 2008

Reviews

[Clay Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

The professional historian commentary for the most part is not too dry.

[Charlene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sounded right up my alley . . . chance to try out different authors writing alternate history & then have each followed by a historian analyzing the likelihood of their change of events. But stories were usually disappointing. I've never read Harry Turtledove but he seems the "king" of the genre; however, his first story (set in ancient Athens, with Socrates as main character) was the least interesting of all.
Most interesting story of all may have been Napoleon's decision as a very young man to immigrate to America where somehow he & Aaron Burr team up to separate the Louisiana territory from the United States and create a country ruled by Napoleon, with Andrew Jackson as his chief general. The Battle of New Orleans is played out with the British navy commanded by Nelson and the British army commanded by Wellington soundly defeating Napoleon and Jackson in 1815 & extending their territory to the Canadian border.
Best story was probably Kim Stanley Robinson's which had the Enola Gay failing to hit a target with atomic bomb drop.

[Shanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the short stories, but I didn't enjoy the historian commentary as much as I thought I would. I thought it would be interesting to get the perspective of an expert on the time period, but I didn't find the historian essays engaging. Sorry, historians... it's not you, it's me. The short stories were great and thought-provoking. There are many time periods represented, so this book is a good sampler for someone new to the alternative history genre.

[Al Berry · Rating 3 out of 5]

This really should have been just the alternate history, not the historians, who don’t understand the genre harping on how unlikely these stories would be.

Stories range from 2-4 stars, with Napoleon as Emperor of Louisiana being the weakest and only two star of the stories.

Historians commentaries are all really two star level, they just don’t ‘get’ the genre

[Clare K H · Rating 2 out of 5]

It could have been a great book, but having historians weigh in on why the speculative fiction was fallacious was irritating. This all-male anthology was let down by the pontification.

[Paul Weimer · Rating 3 out of 5]

History Revisited: The Great Battles
Edited by J David Markham and Mike Resnick

In concept, this is a great idea. Take some classic military oriented AH short stories: Southern Strategy by Michael Flynn. Must and Shall by Harry Turtledove. The Lucky Strike by Kim Stanley Robinson. Having some classic AH stories in one volume is a great idea in general. Then, each of these stories, pair them with an essay from a bonafide historian exploring the divergence, and its plausiblity.

Such are the lines that History Revisited are built upon. In practice, however, its a failure.

Uniformly, the essays by the historians are long, dull, and unimaginative. The historians mostly reject the scenarios posited by the science fiction writers, and in the worst offenders, seem to look down upon the very idea of the alternative. It is the exception, not the rule, when a historian actually likes the story that he has been paired with, rather than at best bemusement. This sort of condescension takes the wind out of reading the story, if one reads the paired essay immediately afterwards.

This, in my opinion makes the reading experience of the stories less pleasurable and it is for that reason that I don't really recommend this collection--unless you *like* to poke holes in Alternate Histories. If you read AH stories to see where Turtledove or Flynn "clearly got it wrong" and grouse about it, then this collection is definitely your cup of tea. If, instead, you enjoy AH stories on their own merits, you can either read the stories and skip the essays, or if you read the essays, I recommend you read them removed in time and space from the story itself. Otherwise, the pleasure of reading the stories will be diminished, as it was from me.