Most underappreciated AH concepts (post 1900)

[Gunnarnz]

We see a lot of threads talking about particular technologies, often weapons or vehicles. We see some threads talking about particular people or actions (usually related somehow to marine mammals). So there's a substantial number of people who appreciate those factors in creating AH.
But that raises a different question - what are the most under-appreciated factors? What are things that can make a believable AH but simply go under the radar and don't get addressed most of the time?

I don't want to limit this too much - it might be a particular technology that somehow gets overlooked, a person whose influence isn't noticed, an ideology that we all take for granted. Whatever.

So, AHers - what are some things that don't get the attention they deserve?

 

[Gridley]

I'm fond of the 'random luck' element; the obvious example is that some Austrian corporal catches a stray round during WWI. A message that was intercepted (by a less than perfect intercept system) IOTL isn't ITTL. A single mechanical part breaks NOW instead of THEN.

I like these events because they happen all the time; most of them of course have little impact on the grand course of history. Some, however, do.

"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of the horse, the rider was lost.
For want of the rider, the message was lost.
For want of the message, the troops were lost.
For want of the troops, the battle was lost.
For want of the battle, the campaign was lost.
For want of the campaign, the war was lost.
For want of the war, the kingdom was lost.
All because of a horseshoe-nail."

 

[Elfwine]

Logistics is probably a good one. Not many points of departure involve running out of (or not running out of) crucial supplies needed to keep an advance going.

 

[lionhead]

I'm fond of the 'random luck' element; the obvious example is that some Austrian corporal catches a stray round during WWI. A message that was intercepted (by a less than perfect intercept system) IOTL isn't ITTL. A single mechanical part breaks NOW instead of THEN.

I like these events because they happen all the time; most of them of course have little impact on the grand course of history. Some, however, do.

"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of the horse, the rider was lost.
For want of the rider, the message was lost.
For want of the message, the troops were lost.
For want of the troops, the battle was lost.
For want of the battle, the campaign was lost.
For want of the campaign, the war was lost.
For want of the war, the kingdom was lost.
All because of a horseshoe-nail."

Thats called the Butterfly effect. I hate the butterfly effect(If a butterfly flaps its wings in Euorpe, it will cause a hurricane in South-America)

Butterfly effect sees as if everything is destined to happen and if it would change only a tiny bit the "plan" of the timeline gets completely screwed-up

I do agree that some minor things could have had devastating consequences to the future, but not all small things....

I think the most unappreciated AH conecept is a weather change. you don't see those often....

 

[Elfwine]

Thats called the Butterfly effect. I hate the butterfly effect(If a butterfly flaps its wings in Euorpe, it will cause a hurricane in South-America)

Butterfly effect sees as if everything is destined to happen and if it would change only a tiny bit the "plan" of the timeline gets completely screwed-up

I'm not sure the butterfly effect is the right term for the 'for want of a nail".

If a nail is lost, it could lead to events that would mean the fall of the kingdom.

Its not random chance, its removing the (or a) crucial element.

 

[Gridley]

I'm not sure the butterfly effect is the right term for the 'for want of a nail".

If a nail is lost, it could lead to events that would mean the fall of the kingdom.

Its not random chance, its removing the (or a) crucial element.

Exactly. The 'nail' effect is direct change. The butterfly effect is indirect change. We blame butterflies when the weather changes as a result of a PoD.

A PoD should lead to the key events of an ATL through direct change, but indirect changes will also occur. These may, of course, cause major effects of their own down the line, but that shouldn't be where the main force of a TL is.

 

[Chairwoman Roxelana]

I'm fond of the 'random luck' element; the obvious example is that some Austrian corporal catches a stray round during WWI. A message that was intercepted (by a less than perfect intercept system) IOTL isn't ITTL. A single mechanical part breaks NOW instead of THEN.

I like these events because they happen all the time; most of them of course have little impact on the grand course of history. Some, however, do.

"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of the horse, the rider was lost.
For want of the rider, the message was lost.
For want of the message, the troops were lost.
For want of the troops, the battle was lost.
For want of the battle, the campaign was lost.
For want of the campaign, the war was lost.
For want of the war, the kingdom was lost.
All because of a horseshoe-nail."

Technically, that does not work.

If there is no Shoe, they buy another shoe instead of the one built in the POD.

If the horse is not usable, then another horse is used.

If the rider is not usable, then another rider is used.

 

[wolf_brother]

Exactly. The 'nail' effect is direct change. The butterfly effect is indirect change. We blame butterflies when the weather changes as a result of a PoD.

A PoD should lead to the key events of an ATL through direct change, but indirect changes will also occur. These may, of course, cause major effects of their own down the line, but that shouldn't be where the main force of a TL is.

I'm fairly sure both indirect and direct change fall underneath the umbrella of the butterfly concept. If you make one small change there's going to be both direct and indirect consequences; we refer to both as butterflies all the time across the boards.

To the OP I would say POD's using animals (not disease, animals) are fairly unappreciated, considering the major impact they did and continue to have on human life.

 

[Elfwine]

Technically, that does not work.

If there is no Shoe, they buy another shoe instead of the one built in the POD.

If the horse is not usable, then another horse is used.

If the rider is not usable, then another rider is used.

If they are unable to find another shoe, or another horse, or another messenger in time though...

Its not as if no one has ever lost a crucial message or that losing one has never had consequences.

 

[Gridley]

Technically, that does not work.

If there is no Shoe, they buy another shoe instead of the one built in the POD.

If the horse is not usable, then another horse is used.

If the rider is not usable, then another rider is used.

That assumes that there is another shoe, horse, etc. not just somewhere, but available at the right place and right time.

Quite often in this world, there isn't.

There's a fairly (in)famous case in our training here where a $0.05 plastic cap that was left in a fuel tank caused MILLIONS of dollars in repairs, lost revenue, etc. Tiny little objects can create huge effects.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I think zoology, ecology and conservation are some very untouched AH topics. Species survival is a very real possibility in AH. The Kiat touches on it in An Alternate History of the Netherlands where he has the giant panda become extinct due to a more aggressive urbanisation by the Chinese government, whereas he has the Stellar's Sea Cow retain its existence.

The Dude also made a tidbit (after my prompting ) on the survival of the passenger pigeon in A House Divided can Stand Alone.

Alternate evolution has been talked about a lot, but the changes required for that are often too drastic to create a recognisable world. I think we could see more timelines where creatures like the thylacine survive, or maybe the Dutch don't wipe out the dodo on Mauritius. The geopolitical situation can remain on course while the conservational side of the world changes dramatically.

 

[Rudi Maxer]

I've heard opinions that Einstein's works were quite unexpected breakthrough. Many scientific and technical achievements are effects of race between many people with the winner who gains fame for the discovery being just a little ahead of others, or sometimes being not even first to make it, just getting most publicity. For exmaple there were several attempts around the world in Wright brothers time to make airplane and even if Wrights have somehow failed or died before succeding, aviation would develop anyway without greater delays.

Lack of Einstein however, could hinder development of relativity and thus nuclear physics by decades, which might have significant effect on the course of WW2 and afterwards.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Accidents not happening

Think of the changes caused by the sinking of the Titanic, or the lost opportunities from the crash of the R-101 or the end of an era that came with the destruction of the Hindenburg

People also have crashes and die - Georgi, son of Grand Duke/proto-Tsar Michael of Russia died in a car crash for example

I also think that people sometimes forget to die

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[alifeofpossibilities]

I think the most unappreciated AH conecept is a weather change. you don't see those often....

That's because it's hard to see any way that human beings can affect the weather, implying that the weather would basically be the same regardless of any POD.

 

[Meadow]

Tiny changes in pop culture without world politics and history changing very much are fun for me. For example, different Doctor Who or James Bond actors, or Thande's excellent console wars TL which focused on the game industry and that alone - not everything is going to get butterflied. Nintendo sticking with Sony's CD design isn't going to lead to the collapse of the Clinton administration over Rwanda.

 

[Nugax]

That's because it's hard to see any way that human beings can affect the weather, implying that the weather would basically be the same regardless of any POD.

Except that the weather is the example of the chaotic behaviour, human changes to its inputs from transpiration (cutting/not cutting trees) and heat sources (building that town/power plant in a different place) will have huge and unpredictable effects down the line.

 

[alifeofpossibilities]

Except that the weather is the example of the chaotic behaviour, human changes to its inputs from transpiration (cutting/not cutting trees) and heat sources (building that town/power plant in a different place) will have huge and unpredictable effects down the line.

I stand corrected. That actually sounds awesome, now that you put it that way.

 

[Gridley]

or the end of an era that came with the destruction of the Hindenburg

Good examples in general, but I take issue with this one. Airships had a fairly miserable safety record. The USS Shenandoah, USS Akron, and USS Macon come to mind without even needing any research. Helium was really scarce, so most airships were going to be hydrogen-filled.

Even without the safety problems, it was only a matter of time until they became white elephants next to conventional aircraft.

 

[Elfwine]

Good examples in general, but I take issue with this one. Airships had a fairly miserable safety record. The USS Shenandoah, USS Akron, and USS Macon come to mind without even needing any research. Helium was really scarce, so most airships were going to be hydrogen-filled.

Even without the safety problems, it was only a matter of time until they became white elephants next to conventional aircraft.

And airplanes of the day had such wonderful safety records...wait, what?

Airships certainly had disasters (R101 and R34 if I remember the numbers right to add another two), but I take issue to the argument they had such a miserable safety record.

Ironically, hydrogen being so insanely dangerous seems not to be the major problem - all three US helium-filled ones are bad conditions, and that's three of the six named disasters in this thread. Fatal in wartime, though.

As for being white elephants, they might have been useful in some ways, but they would probably have been limited. Flying aircraft carriers is a neat thought - not a replacement for floating ones, but a supplement.

 

[Gridley]

And airplanes of the day had such wonderful safety records...wait, what?

By the 1930's when the airships were at their peak conventional aircraft were doing much better. A single airplane also cost nowhere near as much as an airship - we're talking something with the cost of a destroyer; USS Akron cost $4.5 million - a B-17 cost $240,000!

As for being white elephants, they might have been useful in some ways, but they would probably have been limited. Flying aircraft carriers is a neat thought - not a replacement for floating ones, but a supplement.

A neat idea that the USN tried very hard to make work and pretty much failed at. In the 1930's airships were still competitive in a few areas and superior in others, but aircraft were developing fast and airships hardly developing at all. By the end of the 1930's loiter time was the only advantage, and aerial refueling would soon eliminate even that edge.