How to get into history?

[Mouthwash]

If it's not plausible, what's the point though? You could also posit a scenario in which Rome conquered Germania and Scythia and Pahlava under Trajan and ushered in a golden age of Roman rule which lasted for 2 millennia. Sure it's a thing, but from a historical perspective the thing that makes alt-history so interesting is that it investigates the importance of individual events or characters on the flow of history. Not only are you not really saying anything of any interest or impact (other than that you have a hard on for the Roman Empire), but at this point you're just telling an outright fantasy, rather than performing a historical exercise through the medium of fiction.

To take Dachs' Eurasian War: it's interesting (as Dachs noted previously) because it highlights the tenuousness of the Entente in the leadup to the Great War, while also showing the institutional weakness of the British Navy, the potential for the collapse of both Great Britain and Austria-Hungary, as well as a bunch of other things. It counters the notion that World War I (as we know it) was "inevitable", while simultaneously challenging other common misconceptions about the period. This scenario is interesting and enlightening because the point of departure - A Russian victory over Japan leading to a dramatic realignment of the alliances in Europe, is both plausible and possible. If you don't build a good base to start on you're just pissing in the wind.

Swinging back to this historical fiction you gave us: what does this novel tell us about the Black Death, or disease in the medieval period in general? Is it supposed to tell us that Europe was lucky that the bubonic plague wasn't absurdly fatal? Or that diseases can be debilitating in a world without proper (modern) medical facilities and drugs? If you replace the Plague here with a zombie apocalypse or the advent of the rapture in 1348 would the story be fundamentally different? While it may be interesting from a philosophical standpoint, I don't think the story sounds at all interesting from a historical one.

It's not about the plague itself, it's about what happens afterward as Muslims repopulate Europe and how non-European societies were never conquered as easily. It's just one entirely fabricated, alien event, and then the rest proceeds rationally.

 

[sophie]

It's not about the plague itself, it's about what happens afterward as Muslims repopulate Europe and how non-European societies were never conquered as easily. It's just one entirely fabricated, alien event, and then the rest proceeds rationally.

How does any of that sound rational? Moreover what information does that give us about the period?

It's the intellectual equivalent of positing that a giant Island full of Imperial Romans sprang up off the coast of Spain in 1199. Sure it's awesome to think about, but it's neither interesting nor useful as a historical thought experiment.

 

[Mouthwash]

How does any of that sound rational? Moreover what information does that give us about the period?

It's the intellectual equivalent of positing that a giant Island full of Imperial Romans sprang up off the coast of Spain in 1199. Sure it's awesome to think about, but it's neither interesting nor useful as a historical thought experiment.

Why am I the only one on this forum that takes care to read the posts I respond to?

 

[sophie]

Why am I the only one on this forum that takes care to read the posts I respond to?

I'm trying to be helpful. If you're going to act like a know-it-all teenager I don't think there's much more that can be gained from this thread.

You also may want to take wrymouth's post to heart.

 

[Dachs]

Why am I the only one on this forum that takes care to read the posts I respond to?

The point is that the "one fabricated, alien event" doesn't tell anybody anything about history, and neither do the reactions to it. The speculation that non-European societies would not have been "conquered as easily" in the event is a) still pure speculation and b) irrelevant. The speculation about the colonization of Europe by non-Europeans makes no sense because it is a situation that could never have actually happened; any plague that hit Christian Europe would necessarily have hit the Muslim world as hard, if not harder. It's sort of like "if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle"; it's pointless, doesn't lead anywhere.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm trying to be helpful. If you're going to act like a know-it-all teenager I don't think there's much more that can be gained from this thread.

No, you simply keep repeating yourself but taking my phrases out of context instead of responding. I don't think it's deliberate, and you certainly aren't the only one, but it gets to me after having to rehash my sentences again and again.

 

[Mouthwash]

The point is that the "one fabricated, alien event" doesn't tell anybody anything about history, and neither do the reactions to it. The speculation that non-European societies would not have been "conquered as easily" in the event is a) still pure speculation and b) irrelevant. The speculation about the colonization of Europe by non-Europeans makes no sense because it is a situation that could never have actually happened; any plague that hit Christian Europe would necessarily have hit the Muslim world as hard, if not harder.

No, the book's main theme wasn't the plague, it was the historical consequences. I suppose that if you subscribe to a quasi-determinist view of history (like I do and I don't see it as controversial), then broad consequences are easily predictable, and minor consequences and events can be speculative as long as they fit within a realistic paradigm. I do think that killing off the European civilizations would have slowed down the process of technological catalyzation and therefore would have given the peoples historically subjugated by Europeans (which would be the entire world except parts of Arabia, Persia, Tibet, China, Japan, and Thailand) a better chance of resisting whatever geocultural group happened to come out on top in this history.

 

[Dachs]

No, the book's main theme wasn't the plague, it was the historical consequences. I suppose that if you subscribe to a quasi-determinist view of history (like I do and I don't see it as controversial), then broad consequences are easily predictable, and minor consequences and events can be speculative as long as they fit within a realistic paradigm. I do think that killing off the European civilizations would have slowed down the process of technological catalyzation and therefore would have given the peoples historically subjugated by Europeans (which would be the entire world except parts of Arabia, Persia, Tibet, China, Japan, and Thailand) a better chance of resisting whatever geocultural group happened to come out on top in this history.

I do not subscribe to a determinist view of history - I've written hundreds and hundreds of pages of alternate history, for Christ's sake - and I think that the scenario is incredibly silly.

It's kind of funny how you complained about people not reading your posts when you responded to them, when you didn't really read my post. (Either one of them, apparently.)

 

[Mouthwash]

I do not subscribe to a determinist view of history - I've written hundreds and hundreds of pages of alternate history, for Christ's sake - and I think that the scenario is incredibly silly.

It's kind of funny how you complained about people not reading your posts when you responded to them, when you didn't really read my post. (Either one of them, apparently.)

What didn't I acknowledge? Let's examine my response and see what I missed or ignored:

The point is that the "one fabricated, alien event" doesn't tell anybody anything about history, and neither do the reactions to it.

That wasn't the point of the book... as I said.

The speculation that non-European societies would not have been "conquered as easily" in the event is a) still pure speculation and b) irrelevant.

I happen to believe that there are geographical and social restraints on history, which I made clear.

The speculation about the colonization of Europe by non-Europeans makes no sense because it is a situation that could never have actually happened; any plague that hit Christian Europe would necessarily have hit the Muslim world as hard, if not harder. It's sort of like "if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle"; it's pointless, doesn't lead anywhere.

As I pointed out, the entire thing is based on this one nonhistorical event happening. It's not supposed to emulate a real historical scenario. Let me go waaaay back and see what you could have read which might not have necessitated me repeating myself here:

No, using freak or irregular circumstances in order to provide a deus ex machina device isn't good writing, I agree. But the entire plot is predicated on it. It's not meant to give you a realistic alternate history scenario, it's meant to explore radical possibilities. It's more useful for understanding historical trends like geopolitics or anthropology.

See how much easier this becomes?

 

[Lord Baal]

I don't see what it has to do with anthropology, and there are much better ways to understand geopolitics.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't see what it has to do with anthropology, and there are much better ways to understand geopolitics.

It's an interesting method.

 

[Lord Baal]

If you want to understand geopolitics, take a course on international relations theory. I guarantee you they won't have anything remotely resembling that story.

 

[Dachs]

That wasn't the point of the book... as I said.

The point of the book was to entertain people. It's a novel.

But you're not looking at it for that. You asked if alternate history could help somebody understand history.

Would reading alternate history be helpful? 'The Years of Rice and Salt' sounds extremely interesting... from an anthropological perspective as well.

I provided a post full of information on this that you completely ignored. Instead, you picked an alternate history novel that has virtually nothing to do with history at all.

So I don't see where "the point of the book" enters into the conversation. It doesn't matter that Robinson never really bothered to try to explain the unexplainable plague, and instead chose to focus on stories about the world after it. If you want to use alternate history to understand something about history, the way that that alternate-historical scenario occurs is fundamentally important, much as it's fundamentally important to understand the facts about a historical situation before one can begin to analyze it.

I happen to believe that there are geographical and social restraints on history, which I made clear.

That's nice. (Don't you mean "constraints"?) It's also completely irrelevant, especially since you refuse to state what you believe these constraints actually are, or why they matter.

What matters is this: you claimed that Years of Rice and Salt had interesting, thought-provoking things to say about colonization and its effects on non-European societies. But what it does actually say is neither interesting nor thought-provoking; it's unfounded speculation.

As I pointed out, the entire thing is based on this one nonhistorical event happening. It's not supposed to emulate a real historical scenario. Let me go waaaay back and see what you could have read which might not have necessitated me repeating myself here:



See how much easier this becomes?

If it's not supposed to emulate a real historical scenario, then what good is it for understanding history?

 

[Mouthwash]

If you want to understand geopolitics, take a course on international relations theory. I guarantee you they won't have anything remotely resembling that story.

If I wanted to understand geopolitics, I'd read an alternate history book/future projection that is meant to be as realistic as possible and written by someone with expertise in the subject. Hold on, that exists. And I found it to be much deeper and than this Moderator Action: <link snipped> . But just my personal experiences.

Moderator Action: Link removed - I don't think that's a legal site.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mouthwash]

The point of the book was to entertain people. It's a novel.

But you're not looking at it for that. You asked if alternate history could help somebody understand history.

I provided a post full of information on this that you completely ignored. Instead, you picked an alternate history novel that has virtually nothing to do with history at all.

So I don't see where "the point of the book" enters into the conversation. It doesn't matter that Robinson never really bothered to try to explain the unexplainable plague, and instead chose to focus on stories about the world after it. If you want to use alternate history to understand something about history, the way that that alternate-historical scenario occurs is fundamentally important, much as it's fundamentally important to understand the facts about a historical situation before one can begin to analyze it.

That's nice. (Don't you mean "constraints"?) It's also completely irrelevant, especially since you refuse to state what you believe these constraints actually are, or why they matter.

What matters is this: you claimed that Years of Rice and Salt had interesting, thought-provoking things to say about colonization and its effects on non-European societies. But what it does actually say is neither interesting nor thought-provoking; it's unfounded speculation.

If it's not supposed to emulate a real historical scenario, then what good is it for understanding history?

I just realized that this is taking us nowhere. Can we quit?

 

[Dachs]

You're the one who asked for help and is apparently intent on rejecting it at every turn; if you want to quit, I certainly won't stop you.

 

[Mouthwash]

You're the one who asked for help and is apparently intent on rejecting it at every turn; if you want to quit, I certainly won't stop you.

No, I mean the argument.

 

[Dachs]

Sure, whatever.

 

[Masada]

If I wanted to understand geopolitics, I'd read an alternate history book/future projection that is meant to be as realistic as possible and written by someone with expertise in the subject. Hold on, that exists.

Super-Poland. Enough said.

 

[Mouthwash]

Sure, whatever.

Fine, I'm sorry. Does that put you at ease?