Found this while looking around this guys site and thought you all might be interested in it.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Research/What-If/WhatIf.HTM
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Research/What-If/WhatIf.HTM
Well as I understand it, that's the purpose of doing Counter-Factuals as opposed to Alternate History.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.
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.
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.TL;DR: The author isn't drawing the distinction you are, it seems.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.