Please stop with the "what if" scenarios

[aelf]

The problem with what if threads is really the random and stubborn statements that people come up with to support their desired conclusions. Leaps of logic, weird assumptions and bad arguments tend to have a field day and persist just because it's althist so it's not historical anyway. Thus, the effect that more knowledgeable students of history have is considerably less as various posters would feel free to ignore what they say without feeling that their own ridiculousness would be dismissed outright.

After a while it just gets frustrating.

 

[Phrossack]

What-if situations are interesting to discuss even though they're unrealistic. Besides, if you don't like them, you needn't read them.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm interested in discussing the iPad but I don't want to see threads about it in the History forum, irrespective of whether I have to read them or not. Because it's a History forum.

A discussion about some serious turning point in history, and some plausible way that things might have gone, is a legitimate discussion in a forum about history. Indeed, to ask whether X caused Y is, in part, to ask what would have happened if X had not occurred in the first place - to investigate the reasons why things happened is, in part, to consider counterfactuals. So there is no necessary disjunction between history and "alt history" - to study the one is, in part, to recognise the existence of the other. To ask what would have happened if a closely-fought battle had gone the other way, or if a significant historical person had not undergone some formative experience, or something like that, is a reasonable question and one which fits in with the discussion of history. This does not, however, legitimise threads about "Wouldn't it be cool if civ A went to war with civ B!!!1!!" or "What if Napoleon had been a llama!!1!" and the rest.

 

[RedRalph]

Poltonius,

for one who I have always considered an erudite, articulate and learned scholar, you display some appalling ignorance here. The ramafications of Napoleon having been a Llama should never be underestimated.

 

[Naskra]

I admit to not have much thought given much thought to the Napoleon-as-llama hypothesis, since I long ago dismissed it as an urban legend. Consider, would a llama, even a French one, really wear a bicorn in the athwart style?

 

[aelf]

I admit to not have much thought given much thought to the Napoleon-as-llama hypothesis, since I long ago dismissed it as an urban legend. Consider, would a llama, even a French one, really wear a bicorn in the athwart style?

It's the Phrygian cap. Kinda looks lama-like. Oh, wait you're talking about llamas. Umm... what if llamas are really lamas?

 

[BananaLee]

Mayber we should crack open another what if thread? This llama question needs to be explored more fully.

 

[Phrossack]

But seriously, I just said that because some people (not you, Plotinus) will throw decency out the window and rudely attack you in the history forum, of all places, for posing a hypothetical question that they need not even read. I agree that any outrageously unrealistic scenario ought to be moved to OT, especially if it includes local favorite Zheng He, but reasonable scenarios, like, say, the Hittites winning at Qadesh, should be allowed.

 

[Naskra]

More seriously, I've looked into this a bit and withdraw my earlier comment about the hat; I saw some photos and it seems llamas lack all fashion sense. Whowuddathunk? Also, recent genetic research has shown that llamas are Corsican, and not Welsh at all, as previously believed.

 

[.Shane.]

I give you three reasons why:

I'll give you a 4th.

THEY ARE NOT HISTORY.

This is a history forum. Not an alt-history or science fiction forum.

 

[Lord Baal]

The problem with what if threads is really the random and stubborn statements that people come up with to support their desired conclusions. Leaps of logic, weird assumptions and bad arguments tend to have a field day and persist just because it's althist so it's not historical anyway. Thus, the effect that more knowledgeable students of history have is considerably less as various posters would feel free to ignore what they say without feeling that their own ridiculousness would be dismissed outright.

After a while it just gets frustrating.

Tell me about it. It's incredibly frustrating to write a long post pointing out to a person how and why their suppositions are wrong, especially when you include links to sources which explain why in more detail and offer statistics to support what you're saying, only to have them say; "but if Hitler did this, and that, and also that, HE WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR!1!"

You then point out again why it is actually impossible for Hitler to do things like conquer the entire Middle East in 6 months or invade Britain - or even more stupidly, the US - only for them to say; "but if he DID, HE WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR!1!." God damn it to hell, that's annoying.

 

[BuckyRea]

It's the Phrygian cap. Kinda looks lama-like. Oh, wait you're talking about llamas. Umm... what if llamas are really lamas?

a comparison of Lamas

I intermittently participate in another forum for discussing counterfactuals in history. There is inevitably gonna be substandard contributions when alternate history is being discussed. But it seems to me that getting corrected for getting it wrong is entirely the point of having a discussion board. I presume none of us would go up to someone terribly out of shape in gym and start harassing them for doing their sit ups wrong.

 

[Lord Baal]

a comparison of Lamas

I intermittently participate in another forum for discussing counterfactuals in history. There is inevitably gonna be substandard contributions when alternate history is being discussed. But it seems to me that getting corrected for getting it wrong is entirely the point of having a discussion board. I presume none of us would go up to someone terribly out of shape in gym and start harassing them for doing their sit ups wrong.

The main problem is that when you correct people for being wrong in this forum they often persist in their wrongness.

 

[Masada]

THEY ARE NOT HISTORY.

Sure they are. Have a look at Dachs current time-line in his signature. The knoweldge and historical accuracy of that (even though it diverges!) is better that what the majority of posters here can muster.

 

[Atticus]

So would it help, if the forum was renamed to "history and alt history"?

The way I see it, the options are:
1. What ifs are posted in off topic.
2. What ifs are posted here
3. This forum will be renamed
4. There will be separate alt history forum.

Options 1 and 4 aren't satisfying to people who're into alt history, since they are interested about opinions of those who know something about history. Also I don't think there would be many threads in alt history forum.

Option 3 gives what iffers permission to start that kind of threads, and the forum is flooded with them. It's the worst option.

Option 2 means that what iffers will think twice before posting anything, and there's not so much threads about species of Napoleon.

Also, as this is Civilization forum, not history forum, I read "World history" to mean subjects related to world history and what lay man thinks as history.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm not trying to stomp all over your fun because I'm a big meanie, though if you want to toss all reasonable standards out the window in order to engage in counterfactuals, there's no reason you can't do it in the Off-Topic forum.

Yes, there is. The OT mods don't seem to like them, and often move them to the History forum.

Poltonius, for one who I have always considered an erudite, articulate and learned scholar, you display some appalling ignorance here. The ramafications of Napoleon having been a Llama should never be underestimated.

Absolutely! Plotinus, how do you know that some llama farmer/rancher has never named one of his animals "Napoleon"? Have you conducted a census of every llama in the world?

Folks, I love discussion of "what-if" history scenarios. To me, they're useful in developing one's abilities in seeing the possibilities in the events/trends of specific times and places and LOGICALLY EXTRAPOLATING what might (have) happen(ed) or develop(ed).

For example: Here in Canada, we had a (fairly) recent go-around with this during one of our interminable referenda on Quebec separatism. The idea was that the province would get the go-ahead to pursue sovereignty-association if the vote was 50% + 1 vote. All evening long, people watched as the results hovered thisclose to that mark - the final result was 49.something. The government of the day asked itself a series of "what if" questions and made certain preparations based on what they extrapolated might happen.

Thankfully we never had to find out. But it is an interesting bit of Canadian history to speculate about, and in fact people have already written books and at least one movie about it.

And I agree with those who say that if you don't like these threads, you don't have to read them. There are many kinds of threads I don't like, but I don't have the rudeness to call for their prohibition; I just don't read them.

 

[Plotinus]

Absolutely! Plotinus, how do you know that some llama farmer/rancher has never named one of his animals "Napoleon"? Have you conducted a census of every llama in the world?

Oh, but I was using "Napoleon" as a rigid designator, not as a descriptor. Doesn't everyone?

I hope I haven't started a new Ethiopian katana thing here.

And I agree with those who say that if you don't like these threads, you don't have to read them. There are many kinds of threads I don't like, but I don't have the rudeness to call for their prohibition; I just don't read them.

Yes, but by that argument, one would allow absolutely any thread on any subject in any forum. It's not unreasonable to expect the threads in any given forum to be on the subject to which that forum is devoted - advising people not to read threads in which they are not interested misses the point. There are plenty of threads in the History forum in which I'm completely uninterested and do not read, but I do not object to their presence because they are actually about history (at least, certain parts of it that occurred between 1939 and 1945). Whereas the aforementioned imaginary clashes of chronologically distinct armies, and the like, are not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oh, but I was using "Napoleon" as a rigid designator, not as a descriptor. Doesn't everyone?

Obviously not.

I don't know about the other posters, but I meant my "Napoleon" comment as a JOKE. You're supposed to at least smile a tiny bit, not get huffy.

I hope I haven't started a new Ethiopian katana thing here.

Huh? I don't play Civ III, so I have absolutely no idea what that thread is about. I'm not interested in it, but I'm sure it's a fine thread, as the other posters seemed to really like what you posted. I don't see how it's relevant to THIS thread, though.

Yes, but by that argument, one would allow absolutely any thread on any subject in any forum. It's not unreasonable to expect the threads in any given forum to be on the subject to which that forum is devoted - advising people not to read threads in which they are not interested misses the point. There are plenty of threads in the History forum in which I'm completely uninterested and do not read, but I do not object to their presence because they are actually about history (at least, certain parts of it that occurred between 1939 and 1945). Whereas the aforementioned imaginary clashes of chronologically distinct armies, and the like, are not.

Oh, please. Give people some credit for not being completely stupid or just plain trollish/spammish.

Are you saying that a discussion of what could have happened if some facet of a war or other set of circumstances had been different is absolutely NOT HISTORY? How else are we to LEARN from history if we're not supposed to consider the possible other consequences of events?

 

[Plotinus]

Obviously not.

I don't know about the other posters, but I meant my "Napoleon" comment as a JOKE. You're supposed to at least smile a tiny bit, not get huffy.

Sorry - I meant that as a joke too. It takes more than that to make me huffy! Perhaps I failed to get that across.

Huh? I don't play Civ III, so I have absolutely no idea what that thread is about. I'm not interested in it, but I'm sure it's a fine thread, as the other posters seemed to really like what you posted. I don't see how it's relevant to THIS thread, though.

Well, my innocent claim that Ethiopian swords look a lot like katanas started an argument about sword types which persisted for so many years that I wished I'd never said it in the first place...

Oh, please. Give people some credit for not being completely stupid or just plain trollish/spammish.

Are you saying that a discussion of what could have happened if some facet of a war or other set of circumstances had been different is absolutely NOT HISTORY? How else are we to LEARN from history if we're not supposed to consider the possible other consequences of events?

Calm! I said before that counterfactuals are part of the study of history. The point I was trying to make is that there are (reasonable) counterfactuals and then there are (absurd) counterfactuals. The former contribute to our understanding of history and the latter don't. The current problem which many people have commented on is that many of the discussions of counterfactuals seem, at the moment, to be closer to the latter category, for one reason or another.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I support the banning of what-if threads, along with other threads I don't like, such as threads about world war two, threads about the 18th century, threads which show comm'nism in any positive light, threads about the illuminate, threads about "Who Shot JFK?"... Hell, I think I should be the only person allowed to post threads.

Seriously, I have no problem with what-if scenarios being posted in the world history subforum. Alt-history, in my mind, is just an offshot or a subcategory of history itself, and disallowing it would be like not allowing discussion of Civ3PTW in the Civ3 sections. Discussions about "what happened" naturally lead to discussions about "what could have happened".

And as Dachs said, if you really feel that WH is being clogged up with "what if" threads, there's nothing stopping you from posting more non-what-if history threads to balance things out.

I hope I haven't started a new Ethiopian katana thing here.

That makes me think... Maybe we need a "What if... Zebras were domesticated" thread