This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Jed (U14752200) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
I have been set the task of writing on the topic of counterfactual history. I thought it would be interesting to hear what others had to say on the topic. If anyone can recommend any good reading on this subject too, that would be brilliant.
Link to this forum: Is 'counter-factual history' anything more than a 'parlour-game' - E.H.Carr
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Hello Jed
define what is meant by the term 'counterfactual history' and give an example,
Link to this forum: Is 'counter-factual history' anything more than a 'parlour-game' - E.H.Carr
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Short answer: Not really.
Longer answer: It is good historical thinking to consider, at a given point in time, what options were available to people, what they thought the consequences of these possibilities would be, and what we think that they would have been. This helps us understand history. However, to extrapolate from the choice made at a specific point in time, and to chain together a long series of choices and events which might or might not have happened, cannot lead to very much that is useful. The number of possibilities increases so quickly that the probability of every singly path becomes vanishingly small.
Counterfactual "histories" reflect less what might have hapened, than what their author wishes to think might have happened. They are a projection of ideology or wishful thinking into history, at most a kind of science fiction in reverse mode. I guess that at its best, counterfactual history could illuminate modern problems.
Link to this forum: Is 'counter-factual history' anything more than a 'parlour-game' - E.H.Carr
Alternate History is a subgenre of Science Fiction.
Counterfactual History is useful if we remain close to the events and consider possible immediate consequences but we do have to guard against going too far.
For example, suppose we consider the counterfactual "What if the Glorious Revolution of 1688 had not happened?"
Modern Jacobites argue that a continued Stuart Monarchy would put Francis II of the House of Wettin on the throne of Great Britain. However, this is not likely to be the case, since if he had been King of England, "Henry IX", would not have become a cardinal and would no doubt have tried very hard, and probably successfully, to sire children, this changing history once again in completely unpredictable ways.
Link to this forum: Is 'counter-factual history' anything more than a 'parlour-game' - E.H.Carr
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.