how asb is TL191?

By this measure, any historical fiction that features fictional characters that did not actually exist is "essentially alt-history". That so dilutes the concept so as to make it meaningless and absurd.

When I read an Horatio Hornblower or Jack Aubry book, I do not read it as alternate history. I would expect and demand that the Napoleonic wars end as they did in our TL and that actual historical figures that appear be as true to what we know from the historic record as possible.

Well, to pick a nonnatutical example, the Sharpe books. I would say a fictional regiment which is involved as that one is definitely counts as bordering on alternate history.

I have to admit I know more about Hornblower's fictional career than Aubrey's, but I'd say having a fictional high ranking officer (the protagonist over the course of their career) who does important stuff is more than just "historical fiction with a fictional character". It would be like if Kilrain was a general instead of a sergeant.

In any case, all of those are historically sound and entertaining, so it would be entirely possible to write something in a "What if the Lost Orders were never lost? What if Lee won the Antietam campaign?" world that was plausible and a good read, which was what I was trying (awkwardly, I know) to say.

When, as in How Few Remain, I read a book set some 20 years after a PoD in the civil war featuring a Samuel Clemens who never became Mark Twain, an independent Confederacy, and a host of other historical figures who have diverged from our TL, I judge plausbility, not against our history, but against the internal logic of the alternate history being presented. At least in the first few novels of the TL-191 series, I consider the internal logic quite plausible.
That's the test of a fantasy world, without any resemblance to ours. Alternate history is supposed to be alternate history, not fantasy (and I say this as someone who lists The Last Unicorn as one of their favorite books, so I have nothing against well written fantasy). If you claim this is our world after X has changed, then it should reflect the results OF X.

So while I don't know how internally logical the TL-191 series is, I would expect more of the author than "absurd parallels even when things have changed so much that they wouldn't happen" and similar crap because actually writing a plausible alternate history world to set his novels in would be work.
 
Elfwine, I feel we are not communicating well because of differing views of what alternate history fiction is. I may be in a minority on this board, but AH to me is first and foremost "fiction" and only secondarily "history". In my opinion, some of the finest works of AH fiction are set decades or centuries after the Points of Departure and have lttle to de with the basic believability of the original PoDs themselves. They are about how characters (fictional or "real") live and act in an alternate world - one that is in fact very much like a fantasy world except it is grounded in known physical laws. The more radical the divergence, the more interesting and imaginative the fiction often is.
 
Elfwine, I feel we are not communicating well because of differing views of what alternate history fiction is. I may be in a minority on this board, but AH to me is first and foremost "fiction" and only secondarily "history". In my opinion, some of the finest works of AH fiction are set decades or centuries after the Points of Departure and have lttle to de with the basic believability of the original PoDs themselves. They are about how characters (fictional or "real") live and act in an alternate world - one that is in fact very much like a fantasy world except it is grounded in known physical laws. The more radical the divergence, the more interesting and imaginative the fiction often is.

I don't mind something being set decades or centuries after the POD, I just mind having it be implausible in a historical sense, because that is not, in any way shape or form, contradictory to it being interesting and imaginative and a good read.

Something which is merely concerned with telling a good story whether its fantasy or not should not be classified the same as something which is meant to be alternate history as opposed to fantasy.
 
Elfwine, I feel we are not communicating well because of differing views of what alternate history fiction is. I may be in a minority on this board, but AH to me is first and foremost "fiction" and only secondarily "history". In my opinion, some of the finest works of AH fiction are set decades or centuries after the Points of Departure and have lttle to de with the basic believability of the original PoDs themselves. They are about how characters (fictional or "real") live and act in an alternate world - one that is in fact very much like a fantasy world except it is grounded in known physical laws. The more radical the divergence, the more interesting and imaginative the fiction often is.

Except that Turtledove's fiction is anything but radically divergent in terms of how his histories work. He tells fables that repeat OTL WWII over and over again but otherwise change nothing too much in terms of the events themselves. IMHO the primary difference between his TL-191 USA and Unkerlant in the Darkness series is in avoiding a Stalin expy so as not to rehash his Stalin-Molotov Dialogue from the Worldwar series yet again.
 
Except that Turtledove's fiction is anything but radically divergent in terms of how his histories work. He tells fables that repeat OTL WWII over and over again but otherwise change nothing too much in terms of the events themselves. IMHO the primary difference between his TL-191 USA and Unkerlant in the Darkness series is in avoiding a Stalin expy so as not to rehash his Stalin-Molotov Dialogue from the Worldwar series yet again.

No disagreement there. I never meant to imply that the Tl-191 series was good speculative fiction. It isn't. It's badly written, repetitive, unimagintive in virtually all of its specifics, and once the wars start just stories about WW1and WW2 with the names changed.

I would argue, however, that there are some fairly innovative (but plausible) broad elements of the TL, such as the events leading to all American nations becoming part of the pre-WW1 European alliance structures early on and how that impacted global history. By eliminating a peaceful, prosperious, and economically united north america, it creates a dystopian TL that is poorer, less democratic, and much more violent and militaristic than OTL.
 
As milwankery goes, TL191 seems high class to me. There's no slavewank like Stirling's Draka, say. And it bugs ME, somehow, less than ISOTs as a genre (except Twain, whom was actually up to the job).

I suspect the series is there to pay the high cost of living bills he faces living in LA. You need good volume to pay bills, and more volume if you live in an expensive metropolis like NYC, London, or LA.
 
As milwankery goes, TL191 seems high class to me. There's no slavewank like Stirling's Draka, say. And it bugs ME, somehow, less than ISOTs as a genre (except Twain, whom was actually up to the job).

I suspect the series is there to pay the high cost of living bills he faces living in LA. You need good volume to pay bills, and more volume if you live in an expensive metropolis like NYC, London, or LA.
That and he had three daughters who needed to go to college within a short time of each other
 
I like the TL191 series (although I found the first book to be dismal reading). There is internal logic to the background behind it all, if you can accept the rather thin possibility of Lee inflicting a crushing defeat on McClellan (it's highly improbable, although not really ASB)... from which follows Britain and France horning in on the action and forcing the USA to allow the CSA to leave. Then, a second war a generation later leads to another CSA/French/British drubbing of the north, which keeps the hatred intact, and the USA naturally jumps into an alliance with Germany (completely logical, given that France and Britain have shown themselves to be anti-USA in two wars now, and the USA really needs something to neutralize them). WW1 in North America, as shown in the books, doesn't seem so illogical, although you have to wonder if Germany could really win even without the USA backing the Allies. When you get to WW2, though, the historical parallels are rather annoying... but it's still entertaining.
 
In my point of view, the POD should not be up to discussion. As a writer of alternate history, you may pose a POD, even one with a 0.1%-probability, as happening. Improbable things have happened in OTL, too.
If Hannibal had lost at Cannae, a crushing Carthagian victory obliterating a Roman Army considerably larger would be called ASB by anyone on this board.

The challenge is to keep the development afterwards logical...

However, I might be the wrong person to comment here as "How few remain" is apocryphal to me as I don't own the book but started with "American Front". The way the prologue presents things is, as far as I know, not the probable course, but it is imaginable.

WW1 in North America, as shown in the books, doesn't seem so illogical, although you have to wonder if Germany could really win even without the USA backing the Allies. When you get to WW2, though, the historical parallels are rather annoying... but it's still entertaining.

I am fairly certain, that under Turtledove's circumstances (i.e. zero butterflies in Europe except for the extension of the Alliance system to Northern America), the Central Powers will win within a timeframe similar to the books, i.e. by ca. 1917.

Not only does the Entente lack the financial and industrial possibilities of a friendly neutral in America. Also, Britain's ressources and manpower are limited by fighting on a second front in Canada. The Canadian effort on the Western front is lacking altogether.
We might assume, though, that Britain might have a slightly larger standing army in 1914 due to the different geopolitical situation. Maybe, there is even a draft?

Then there is the issue of the US Navy challenging the Royal Navy on the open seas, a situation completely different to the one in OTL where the latter had little to do actually to ensure it strategic goals.

I completely agree with you on everything post-WW1.
 
In my point of view, the POD should not be up to discussion. As a writer of alternate history, you may pose a POD, even one with a 0.1%-probability, as happening. Improbable things have happened in OTL, too.
If Hannibal had lost at Cannae, a crushing Carthagian victory obliterating a Roman Army considerably larger would be called ASB by anyone on this board.

There's "improbable but entirely possible" (that the time of Islam and the time the Sassanids and Byzantines would be utterly exhausted would go together), and then there's "theoretically possible if everything aligns perfectly...by the way, you do remember that that 'everything aligns perfectly' has never happened ever for anything?" (Lee destroying the Army of the Potomac in the Maryland campaign and being able to march on Philadelphia and Washington).

A crushing Carthaginian victory inflicting very heavy casualties on a Roman army considerably larger (Cannae) was entirely possible in the conditions it happened in.

I personally feel that the starting premise is excellent. Everything else varies from very plausible to unlikely to snowball's chance in hell.

"The Lost Order isn't lost" is pretty solid, but "what happens from there" involves snowballs before the war is even finished.
 
Honest attempts to reduce the Federal figure to the same meaning as the Confederate figure will yield a figure between 52,000 and 70,000 (60-80% of PFD, Union definition - see Carman who estimates such a figure.

For the actual battle, Carman shows 55,956 Federals engaged - 46,146 infantry, 3,828 cavalry, 5,982 artillery.

Carman says 37,351 Confederates were engaged - 29,222 infantry, 4,500 cavalry, and 3629 artillery.

"In fact Lee never entertained a thought of McClellan's trains and, in striking contrast to McClellan, cared for and defended his own by putting every man on the fighting line."

So using Carman's numbers, McClellan had a 3 to 2 advantage in troops engaged and much bigger advantage in troops available to fight.

Anderson and Anderson, Buell, Catton, Fair, Forschen, Foote, Hattaway and Jones, Johnson, Nolan, McPherson, Sears, and Waugh all agree that Lee had a total strength of about 45,000 and would have had half that or less if McClellan had attacked on the morning of the 16th.

Carman's got a lot of other interesting things to say about McClellan

"One of the defects of McClellan as a commander was his overestimate of his adversary's numbers. It began with his campaign in western Virginia, it was with him on the Peninsula, and he had been not a week on his Maryland campaign that we find (sic) estimating Lee's army at 120,000, and at Antietam he believed that he was greatly outnumbered."

""Longstreet says McClellan's plan of battle was not strong, "the handling and execution were less so.""

"The battle was a succession of disjointed attacks and stubborn resistance to them."

"In a home letter written the day after, McClellan says, "Those in whose judgment I rely tell me that I fought the battle splendidly, and that it was a master piece of art." History will not accept this view of a battle in the conduct of which more errors were committed by the Union commander than in any other battle of the war:"
 
Top