Ice Age Counter Factual Article

I've seen this one before. Sadly the author, while making some good geological points, completely discards the inevitable butterflies that would result from such huge geographical changes. Nonetheless, it could certainly be used as the basis for a very large and comprehensive alternative history, if someone put the time and effort into it!
 
I've seen this one before. Sadly the author, while making some good geological points, completely discards the inevitable butterflies that would result from such huge geographical changes.
Well as I understand it, that's the purpose of doing Counter-Factuals as opposed to Alternate History.
 
Well as I understand it, that's the purpose of doing Counter-Factuals as opposed to Alternate History.

Counterfactual history is the attempt to envision history as it might have been if some key event had played out differently. Apart from alternative histories written purely as fiction, there are more serious works as well. Counterfactual histories, of course, cannot be tested experimentally, but they serve to illustrate the significance of events by speculating how history might have been different had the event not happened as it did. Frequently counterfactual histories are used to underscore the importance of a relatively small but crucial event. In other cases they are used to critique or defend historical decisions by arguing that some alternative decision would plausibly have led to better or worse outcomes. For example, many historians speculate that failure of the D-Day landings, or early defeat of Britain in World War II, would have led, not to Nazi victory, but to Soviet domination of Europe. In another essay, Richard B. Frank argued that, had the atomic bomb not been used against Japan, the projected invasion would either have been called off as impossible, or failed catastrophically. The only way to force surrender would have been blockade and destruction of Japan's rail network, resulting in mass starvation. Generally, the most serious counterfactual analyses restrict themselves to first-order consequences.
For the most part, counterfactual geology would be little more than science fiction. If the dinosaurs had not died out or Pangaea had broken apart differently, it would be impossible to extrapolate the effects on human history with any confidence. If plate convergence had not closed off the eastern Mediterranean, Columbus wouldn't have needed to sail west, but long before that, human history would have been changed in so many ways it's impossible to speculate in a meaningful way. Although there have been many geological disasters throughout history, few if any had any decisive impact on a major historical event.


TL;DR: The author isn't drawing the distinction you are, it seems.
 
I've seen this one before. Sadly the author, while making some good geological points, completely discards the inevitable butterflies that would result from such huge geographical changes. Nonetheless, it could certainly be used as the basis for a very large and comprehensive alternative history, if someone put the time and effort into it!

Well, this is from a presentation to the Geological Society of America, so I think this is fairly reasonable. The author isn't an alternate historian, or even a historian, so they wouldn't be thinking in those terms, really.
 
Well, this is from a presentation to the Geological Society of America, so I think this is fairly reasonable. The author isn't an alternate historian, or even a historian, so they wouldn't be thinking in those terms, really.

If plate convergence had not closed off the eastern Mediterranean, Columbus wouldn't have needed to sail west, but long before that, human history would have been changed in so many ways it's impossible to speculate in a meaningful way. Although there have been many geological disasters throughout history, few if any had any decisive impact on a major historical event.


 
Well he did say something along the lines of 'if great britain existed at all' in his article.

If the divergence in Europe hadn't happened we still might get the same Europe. Probably a long shot, but a chance.
 
TL;DR: The author isn't drawing the distinction you are, it seems.
Funny, when I read that I thought it supported my statement quite well and still do. CFs examine the effect of a change on an actual historical event regardless of butterflies that would make that event impossible. The purpose is to understand the significance of the actual historical events/trends better by looking at it from different non-actualized perspectives brought about by the change, since historians care about actual history.

Added later (as usual): Talking about whether a British Island connected to the continent would have been able to stop Hitler or Napoleon is more about understanding the effects of the channel on stopping invaders and British development. The butterflies that would almost surely prevent any comparable nations and events from happening are discarded because the purpose is to learn more about actual historical events. This is the reasoning for my comment above.

So that's the distinction I always seen between Counter-Factuals as practiced by historians and most of what we do here which is about story-telling.

Or as the author puts it:

The purpose of this study is not to present alternative history as something scientifically testable. Rather, the purpose is to illustrate how geology affects humanity. Rather than merely describing the role of the English Channel in European history or the Mississippi River system in American history, this study seeks to illustrate their significance in a more unconventional way: by showing that slight changes in their evolution might well have created a completely different world.
 
Last edited:
Funny, when I read that I thought it supported my statement quite well and still do. CFs examine the effect of a change on an actual historical event regardless of butterflies that would make that event impossible. The purpose is to understand the significance of the actual historical events/trends better by looking at it from different non-actualized perspectives brought about by the change, since historians care about actual history.

The problem is this bit:

If plate convergence had not closed off the eastern Mediterranean, Columbus wouldn't have needed to sail west, but long before that, human history would have been changed in so many ways it's impossible to speculate in a meaningful way.

But it would also change human history extremely dramatically for England to still be attached to the European continent.

Talking about whether a British Island connected to the continent would have been able to stop Hitler or Napoleon is more about understanding the effects of the channel on stopping invaders. The butterflies that would almost surely prevent any comparable nations and events from happening are discarded because the purpose is to learn more about actual historical events.

So that's the distinction I always seen between Counter-Factuals as practiced by historians and most of what we do here which is about story-telling.

And what we do isn't (depending on the author) to learn about historical events and how with changes to them the world we live in wouldn't exist in the first place?
 
And what we do isn't (depending on the author) to learn about historical events and how with changes to them the world we live in wouldn't exist in the first place?
Incidentally sure, I know a ton more about medieval Iberia than I did 3 years ago. But in the main? No. As a forum, we care more about telling plausible stories than hard hitting historical research as an end.
 
Incidentally sure, I know a ton more about medieval Iberia than I did 3 years ago. But in the main? No. As a forum, we care more about telling plausible stories than hard hitting historical research as an end.

I'm not sure, but I trust your knowledge of the forum on the whole (as someone who has been here longer than me) over mine.

As relates to the article: What's the difference between how human history would be vastly different without the eastern Med being closed up vs. how human history would be vastly different with no channel?

I think the author is being inconsistent - perhaps unintentionally - in saying that one would (although he doesn't use the word) butterfly OTL away, but the other wouldn't make any significant difference.
 
I'm not sure, but I trust your knowledge of the forum on the whole (as someone who has been here longer than me) over mine.

As relates to the article: What's the difference between how human history would be vastly different without the eastern Med being closed up vs. how human history would be vastly different with no channel?

I think the author is being inconsistent - perhaps unintentionally - in saying that one would (although he doesn't use the word) butterfly OTL away, but the other wouldn't make any significant difference.
I'm sure many members do want to learn more about history as well, but the focus of AH.com as a whole comes off as storytelling. If you want to discuss just history (full stop) there are better places online to do it.

Article: I agree with you. Blocking the Med. Sea would require a PoD 5 million YBP while Less Icy Ice-Age still gives you Homo Sapiens Sapiens to work with but it does seem inconsistent.
 
I'm sure many members do want to learn more about history as well, but the focus of AH.com as a whole comes off as storytelling. If you want to discuss just history (full stop) there are better places online to do it.

Article: I agree with you. Blocking the Med. Sea would require a PoD 5 million YBP while Less Icy Ice-Age still gives you Homo Sapiens Sapiens to work with but it does seem inconsistent.

True enough, although I'm not sure how much difference there is between "story telling' here and any attempt at writing up "What would happen if Harold won Hastings?"
 
Top