What if?

What If #1

by Robert Cowley (editor)

Historians & philosophers have pondered historical turning points--events that altered the course of civilization. These essays ask "What if..."--Geo Washington hadn't made his escape from the British on Long Island in the dawn of 8/29/1776?--A Confederate aide hadn't accidentally lost Gen. Rbt E. Lee's plans for invading the North?--Alexander the Great had been slain in battle, instead of saved by a bodyguard?--The D-Day invasion had failed?--The Mongols had conquered Europe? Fascinating & frightening, What If? offers reflections on the monumental events of the past & speculations as to what things might be like had things gone differently.
List of Maps
List of Illustrations
Introduction/Rbt Cowley
Infectious alternatives: the plague that saved Jerusalem, 701 BC/Wm H. McNeill
A good night's sleep can do wonders/Barbara N. Porter
No glory that was Greece: the Persians win at Salamis, 480 BC/Victor Davis Hanson
Conquest denied: the premature death of Alexander the Great/Josiah Ober
Furor Teutonicus: the Teutoburg forest, AD 9/Lewis H. Lapham
The dark ages made lighter: the consequences of two defeats/Barry S. Strauss
The death that saved Europe: the Mongols turn back/Cecelia Holland
If only it had not been such a wet summer: the critical decade of the 1520s/ Theodore K. Rabb
If the Holy League hadn't dithered/Peter Pierson
The immolation of Hérnan Cortés: Tenochtitlán, 6/30/1521/Ross Hassig
The repulse of the English fireships: the Spanish Armada triumphs, 8/8/1588/Geoffrey Parker
Unlikely victory: 13 ways the Americans could have lost the Revolution/Thomas Fleming
George Washington's gamble/Ira D. Gruber
What the fog wrought: the Revolution's Dunkirk, 8/29/1776/David McCullough
Ruler of the world: Napoleon's missed opportunities/Alistair Horne
Napoleon wins at Waterloo/Caleb Carr
If the lost order hadn't been lost: Rbt E. Lee humbles the Union/James M. McPherson
A Confederate Cannae & other scenarios: how the Civil War might have turned out differently/Stephen W. Sears
Vietnam in America, 1865/Tom Wicker
The what ifs of 1914: the world war that should never have been/ Robert Cowley
Bismarck's empire: stillborn/James Chace
Thanks, but no cigar/David Clay Large
The armistice of desperation/Dennis E. Showalter
How Hitler could have won the war: the drive for the Middle East, 1941/John Keegan
What a taxi driver wrought/Williamson Murray
Triumph of the dictators/David Fromkin
Our midway disaster: Japan springs a trap, 6/4/1942/Theodore F. Cook, Jr
The case of the missing carriers/Elihu Rose
D Day fails: atomic alternatives in Europe/Stephen E. Ambrose
The Soviet invasion of Japan/Robert Cowley
Funeral in Berlin: the Cold War turns hot/David Clay Large
China without tears: if Chiang Kai-shek hadn't gambled in 1946/ Arthur Waldron
A quagmire avoided?/Ted Morgan
The end/Robert L. O'Connell

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Alternate History, Essays, Military Fiction, Military History, War

415 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Robert Cowley is an American military historian, who writes on topics in American and European military history ranging from the Civil War through World War II. He has held several senior positions in book and magazine publishing and is the founding editor of the award-winning MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History; Cowley has also written extensively and edited three collections of essays in counterfactual history known as What If?

As part of his research he has traveled the entire length of the Western Front, from the North Sea to the Swiss Border.

He currently lives in New York and Connecticut.

-Wikipedia

Reviews

[Mauri · Rating 2 out of 5]

Enh. A bit of a disappointment, for all that it took me more than four years to get to it. I skimmed a lot of the essays dealing with earlier history, as there was much moaning about how if such-and-such battle had been lost or so-and-so had died earlier or later then GREEK CIVILIZATION NEVER WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED AND WE'D ALL BE RIDING HORSES OR WEARING VEILS AND LIVING IN POLICE STATES AND SPEAKING ASSYRIAN/PERSIAN/SOME GOD-AWFUL ORIENTAL LANGUAGE OH NOES!!!!11!!

Right, *cough* color me unimpressed. When there was some "what if" speculation, it was usually pretty grim and/or racist. Many of the historians seemed to think that things have turned pretty well, and that things going otherwise would have meant doom and despair for all civilization. As I'm fairly sure not everybody is happy with how history turned out, how about a little speculation on how we could have done better? For example, China might want a do-over for the past 200 years...or say, the Middle East for the past 3000.

The later essays were better, though a better grasp of history than mine is recommended. I'll be checking out the sequel, if only because it's sitting right here. I do, however, recommend that if you're going to only read one essay out of this book, that it be the one about the Mongol horde.

[Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

What if...it were ALL written by top quality writers?

The premise of this book is explained by the title. The "What ifs...?" range in time from the failed Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. to an extremely tense period in the Cold War in November of 1983. There are 40 different scenarios in all. For me, the most interesting were the scenarios concerning the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and the American Revolution. Each of these had multiple "What ifs?" and I am now convinced that 2 of the luckiest men in all of history were Hernan Cortes and George Washington. They both could have failed in so many ways (13 are identified for Washington) and yet they persevered and had military success.

An unintended "What if?" is the reader's inevitable comparison of these historian's writing styles. More than once I thought to myself, "What if this story was written by a better writer?" However, most were very good, especially the ones written by well-known historians Stephen Ambrose and James M. McPherson.

http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/

[Ensiform · Rating 3 out of 5]

Replace “The World’s” in the subtitle with “American and British,” and you have an accurate description of the book. A series of essays, padded with a dozen or so one-page counterfactual presentations. An endlessly fascinating idea with great potential, unfortunately not fully realized. Through 2700 years of history the authors, with varying amounts of detail, and with varying degrees of success, review some great military turning points in history, and their alternate outcomes.

One great flaw is the lack of consistency in approach, layout, and thoroughness; Cowley is too lax an editor. Of particular note, some of the more well-known historians, like Keegan and Ambrose, present pieces that are so brief, and so lacking in academic rigor, one wonders if they weren't written on the back of a cocktail napkin. Others, like Josiah Ober’s essay which suggests a lasting, unified Roman-Persian empire (!!) simply if Alexander the Great had died early (!), are ridiculous. That said, there are also some truly outstanding pieces, such as Theodore Cook’s detailed, thoughtful consideration of American Pacific long-term strategy following a defeat at Midway, or Arthur Waldron’s speculation on a Nationalist China. About half of the one-pagers are good too, such as the one on the New York taxi that might have killed Winston Churchill. Overall, the essays provide good overviews of particular events, and at the very least, make you think about the whims of weather and men. Ultimately, this book is an enjoyable read, and a nice overview of military history. It cannot, however, be considered a work of serious scholarship. A few non-Western contributions, or some rebuttals of the sillier claims, might have given this book some weight.

[Derek Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book originally sometime in my senior year of high school, and I was enraptured by the concept of alternative history. Recognizing the fragility of our present and how it was shaped by an infinite number of discreet decisions made, actions taken, and random chances, was a mindblowing experience for me. Rereading it today showed me how much I've grown, and unfortunately how outdated and biased many of the authors are in this set of collected essays.

In particular, I remembered the essays about how the culture of Rome might have been Persian, rather than Greek, if not for a close battle. That Rome, the Grecian weebs that they were, would not have been obsessed with the hallmarks of Classical Athens if Greek culture weren't dominant through the Mediterranean during Rome's rise. I thought this was about the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis, but this was actually the take by the author of the essay, "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober about Alexander's Battle of Granicus River. More on that mix-up later.

The anthology is arranged chronologically, generally focuses on military decisions or close battles, and speculates on how different our society today would be. It is academic in nature (other alternative histories might delve more into the narratives of inhabitants in these worlds, but not this one) and is written by professors of history, but the tone and writing styles vary widely between the authors. Alternate history is, by nature, speculation, so the personal views of the authors ring clear in their essays.

2020 is the 2500th anniversary of the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis between the Greek city states and the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which reminded me of this anthology. Thermopylae is famous (infamous if you were in middle school circa 2006 like me) for the final stand of the 300 Spartans, and Salamis for being the decisive Athenian naval victory that ended the invasion. What If? was formative for my adult understanding of the world because it provided a clear series of events of what the world would be like if something simple changed, like the Greek city-states being overrun by Darius. It opened the world to me that how we understand things are entirely constructed by our own perspectives, which are always influenced by our parents, our teachers, our media, and of course, how we view history.

Persia is widely misunderstood in the West. Persia was an advanced civilization with a rich history, religion, and social structure. Unfortunately, writing was not nearly as widespread as in Greece, and the materials used more susceptible to degradation. Practically all of what we understand about Persia (including that name) comes to us from the Greeks and other non-Persians. As you might imagine, the perception of Persia from the people who successfully fended off an invasion is not going to be exactly glowing. The morals and ethics of Persians were not barbaric or insane - they literally came from a different place than Greek culture. The Persians had different worldviews and standards, owing to a different world. Greeks burned their dead and were horrified by Persians leaving the dead on bare hills for the vultures. But the Persians weren't disrespecting the deceased - they were honoring them in the way Zoroastrianism dictated. On the other side of the coin the Greeks sullying pure fire with the stench of death was revolting to the Persians. None of this is barbarism, but humans fundamentally acting in the way their cultures dictated.

This leads me back to the essay about the Battle of Salamis: "No Glory That Was Greece" by Victor Davis Hanson. By the title alone, I could tell this was not the balanced and nuanced essay about the relative merits of Persian vs. Greek culture vis a vis the Romans. Indeed, "No Glory That Was Greece" is a fawning panegyric about how close "we" came to never having the "glory" of Athenian democracy, Greek art, and all the tangible and intangible legacies the West inherited. It's a polemic against the barbaric Persians, their autocracy and how they could have "extinguished" the budding light of Greece in its infancy.

To say I was disgusted rereading the unabashed Western imperialist dribble coming from the pen of Hanson (whom I just looked up on Wikipedia and confirmed my suspicions about as a narrow-minded Classicist whose views should have died out decades ago) is an understatement. The essays that had once opened my eyes to the world were slapped back in my face as I could barely contain my anger reading the same adoration of Western culture that naive romanticists espoused that led the world to the path of the rise of nationalism, fascism, and the horrors of WWII, published in 1999. The anti-Middle Eastern views ring especially stark post-9/11 and the neverending Wars on Terror.

My utter disappointment with the essay on Salamis was somewhat redeemed by the essay I had conflated it with: "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. The context for the Battle of Granicus River was 150 years after Salamis, Alexander fought and conquered the known world by the age of 32. With his bloody wars came Hellenization, the distribution of Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean. The world the Romans came into knowing undoubtedly had Greek culture as dominant thanks to Alexander. The various successor kingdoms carried Greek culture and blended it with the local cultures. When the shabby Rome, good at fighting, but little in the war of the arts, encountered the Mediterranean, they encountered a world where Athenian ideals were dominant, and the Romans gobbled it up and coopted it.

Ober wrote the nuanced essay I remembered. Instead of falling into racist tropes about Persians, Ober describes how a Granicus where a headstrong and green Alexander winds up dead after taking his first steps into Asia Minor leads to a world where Persian culture is dominant. Alexander had little impact on the military rise of Rome, so there's little reason to believe that Rome would be stopped from conquering its historical territories of Egypt, the Levant, and Asia Minor. Instead of a Hellenized world with the Library of "Alexandria" and the "platonic" ideal, Rome would have adopted the rich culture of the dominant Parthian Empire. A world where Rome and Persia were culturally-aligned may have led to more integration between the worlds, and abrogated Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory.

Rereading What If? was a bit like growing up and realizing your parents aren't superheros. What If? isn't some kind of hidden well of all-knowledge; more often than not it's written by smug racist white men for whom the exercise of alternate history is an Aesop's fables parable of "thank God we don't have that." It isn't perfect. But What If? will always hold a special place in my heart for being a seminal text in my development of a nuanced worldview, and rereading it shows me how much I've grown in the past decade.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The path untrodden, counterfactual reality, or simply alternate history. Twenty of the late 20th Century’s eminent historians look might have been in the essay anthology What If? edited by contributor Robert Cowley.

The twenty essays range from 701 B.C. Assyrian siege of Jerusalem to Berlin and China early in the Cold War in the middle of the 20th Century, some deal with one event but some deal with several scenarios (i.e., the American Revolution, American Civil War, the beginning of World War I, and the early Cold War in/around Berlin). In addition to the essays were 14 sidebars from other contributors. Of the single scenario essays among the best was Ross Hassig’s “The Immolation of Hernan Cortes” and James M. McPherson’s “If the Lost Order Hadn’t Been Lost” while the two worst were Victor Davis Hanson’s “No Glory That Was Greece” and close second was Lewis H. Lapham “Furor Teutonicus: The Teutoburg Forest, A.D. 9”.

What If?: The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been is an good collection of counterfactual historical events and what the alternate history would have been for the world.

[Chris Dietzel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Parts of this were fascinating and parts were frustrating, but in the end the positives outweigh the negatives.

The positives are that there are a wide range of ideas posed by some great historians and some of the ideas put forth are really intriguing and get you thinking about history in a different way.

The one really big negative is the lack of editing and consistency. Cowley needed a real editor to clean this up. Some essays are poorly written and others are very polished. Some present the historical context / setup and then present the "what-if" scenario in interrogative ("but what would have happened if..." while other essays present the "what-if" scenario as if it's what actually happened, without any switchover or context, which leads to confusion.

Still worth reading though, especially if you're at all intrigued by how history might have unfolded if key events had played out differently.

[Pspealman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not one much for military history and yet this is easily one of the best history books I've read.

It isn't that the writing is particularly great - there are no lines that beat you in the face with the sublime till you spout ramblings about Grecian urns. But it is consistently clear with an excitement over the subject matter that is infectious to the general reader. The selection of writers is excellent and the tone, mostly, consistent hovering somewhere between a textbook and a deranged time traveling beltway think tanker. Maybe my appreciation of the book is because it isn't about history but the near-history.

Like a Lipstick Traces of close calls, near misses, and improbable long shots that still panned out, the book careens through the turbulent times of our bloody world to land, safely at last, on the deeply disturbing idea that the world is happenstance, coincidence, error, and seriously dim bulbs with armament.

[Sean · Rating 1 out of 5]

"What If? The World's foremost MILITARY Historians Imagine What Might Have Been" is a book with an interesting premise: to ask how certain historical events could have occurred differently. However, the book is wildly inconsistent, with some interesting, thought provoking articles outweighed by poorly conceived, poorly written, myopic ones.

The book is a collection of articles edited by Robert Cowley, editor of "Military History Magazine" which explore various historical scenarios. The scenarios, from the more generic (Robert E. Lee's Lost Orders, What if D-Day Failed, etc) to the more interesting (An Early Death for Alexander the Great, Success of the Spanish Armada) run over the course of five thousand years mostly encompassing events around Europe and the United States.

A counterfactual is most interesting when it does two things: one, show how small things could have a large impact and two, what are the implications of these small change. Generally the articles address the first. However some have a tendency to get wrapped up in the minutia of the event themselves. At times the articles seem like history lessons in battle tactics with the "implications" tacked on cursorily at the end. Others seem to have written their articles in haste, like hastily put together response papers. A historian should not just have knowledge but be able to tell a story and a slight majority of the articles here are written by people who cannot construct a compelling narrative.

The best articles are the ones that have a fine balance between history and speculation, create vivid scenarios and outcomes, and challenge some of our deepest held beliefs about history. My favorite in terms of premise was "The Repulse of the English Fireships: The Spanish Armada Triumphs" (Geoffrey Parker) because unlike most of the scenarios in the book, it speculates that just because the Spanish may have won does not mean that everything would change drastically from the current timeline. My other favorites included "Conquest Denied: The Premature Death of Alexander the Great" (Josiah Ober) for its vivid scenario/outcome and "If the Lost Order Hadn't Been Lost: Robert E. Lee Humbles the Union" (James M. McPherson), which is probably the best written in the bunch. The worst by far is "Our Midway Disaster: Japan Springs a Trap" (Theodore F. Cook, Jr.), an article which took considerable effort to get through before I just gave up. Another poor one is is "Ruler of the World: Napoleon's Missed Opportunities" (Alistair Horne) who, after going into many different scenarios neuters them by stating that the events probably wouldn't have changed given Napoleon's personality.

The most important lesson to draw from this series of articles is that counterfactuals are interesting, they should not be written by just any historian. It takes ones of prodigious imagination and creativity to come up with interesting scenarios. In the end, this volume is hampered by its narrow focus on martial history and idle speculation.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

The way the world is today came to be through a series of razor's edges (or hinges, or whatever cliche you want to use) throughout history. This is a fun book that deals with many of the most important turning points, and speculating on what might have happened if things turned out differently. Mostly, the world may have ended up unrecognizable to those of us living in this one - had the Muslims won at Poitiers we would all be Muslim, unless of course the Persians had won at Salamis which would have maybe meant Christianity and Islam did not rise at all. Likewise, had the Romans not lost in the Teuteborg forest or later at Adrianople, things may have turned out quite differently for Muslims and Christians. Lest we be dismayed, if the Mongol leader had not suddenly died, causing his generals to need to return home, the Mongols may have conquered all of Europe in 1242 putting an end to Islam, Christianity or whatever remnants of Persian or Roman religion existed.

Yeah, that Mongol one was the most terrifying.

What if Napolean had not invaded Russia, or even better not tried to take over the Iberian peninsula? Likewise, imagine Hitler choosing to strike east, following Alexander's route, rather than attacking Russia (why does anyone ever attack Russia?). He could have taken the oil fields he needed, linked up with Japan, and put himself in a position to strike at Russia from an easier route.

After a while I did find myself skimming some of these essays, but if you like history this is a fun read.

[Sherwood Smith]

When I saw the names James M. McPherson and John Keegan, I thought this would be fun, but as I trudged through it, enjoying speculative paragraphs here and there, just to be mired in tangents about tactical and cultural what-ifs, I realized that what these guys are doing is describing fiction without actually telling a story.

I guess this sort of thing is fun for a certain kind of mindset--the distant view of the chess board of history--but it became an exercise in frustration for me, who likes to try to get inside the heads of the history makers as much as I can.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was my first book completely focused on counterfactuals and it left me feeling pretty underwhelmed. Each counterfactual was written by a different author, so the quality varies significantly between them. One problem for me was the lack of illustrations. The majority of the essays would have at most one illustration. This seems like a major mistake to me because, if you are going to try and convince me that a general deciding to do one thing over another would have changed the entire trajectory of history, it'd be helpful to see something like a layout of the battlefield or an illustration of detailed troop movements. Most of the illustrations were pretty vague and illustrated things that I can easily picture, while events or occurrences that I struggled to imagine were just described.

A few of the authors committed major sins in my opinion that I'm sure are prevalent in the counterfactual community.
1. They extrapolated beyond where they should have stopped. They'll change one minor occurrence early in a war and then next thing you know, they've made wild assumptions and suddenly they are telling you their predictions of life a couple thousand years later. One of the major themes of the book was how so many events in history could have been massively altered by minor decisions and minor differences like a slight change in the weather. It seemed ridiculous to me that some of the authors would change their one detail, and then act like they could predict everything else. If anything, this book argues that it is complete folly to make predictions far beyond the immediate events because history has been shaped by razor thin margins repeatedly. So it seems dumb that some of the authors tell us how this one tiny little difference could change all of history, and let me tell you how that would have changed things for the next 3,000 years.
2. I was pleasantly surprised that most of the authors were pretty level-headed with their bias and didn't analyze everything in a one sided manner. A ton of my education growing up in high school and college would demonize the West and Christianity in particular, acting like Christianity was the source of all wrongdoing in the world while completely ignoring or praising Islam. A couple of the early essays did this a little bit and basically posited that life would've been so much better if Islam had conquered Europe and would still be far better today. Looking at the different trajectories Christian and Islamic nations have taken since the Middle Ages, I think most would objectively say that Christian nations have provided a better path towards freedom, liberty, and prosperity than Islamic nations that are still theocracies to this day. Of course, most people who would object to this claim just blame Christian nations for all of the woes of Islamic nations, but now we're going down the rabbit's hole. Later essays back off that train of thought, and I was happy to read pretty harsh rebukes of Communism in particular. Another annoyance from one of the first essays was how the author would continuously talk about what a "common sense" religion should be. Sorry to break it to this guy, but we've got quite a few religions in the world and people have vast disagreements over almost everything. There is nothing common sense about his arguments. He wasn't arguing for consistency in religious texts or anything like that. It was more like, common sense says god should be like this or common sense says religious beliefs should be structured in this way. Pure nonsense.



My favorite essay was what would have happened if D-Day had failed. I found it very interesting that the author was 100% confident that this still would've led to the complete collapse of Nazi Germany because the Soviet Union would've just conquered all of Europe. I am still not 100% convinced that this would've been a foregone conclusion, but it was interesting to follow through on this scenario with a conquered Europe leading to Britain and the US fighting for their lives and a likely land war in South America.

I think the most heart breaking was the decision by Chang Kai-Shek to listen to Marshall and try for peace with the communists instead of finishing them off. This decision was likely the only reason Mao was able to conquer China, which enabled the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the slaughter/starvation by Mao of something along the lines of 40 million of his own people, the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and most of the death and strife that gripped southeast Asia in the 20th century.

The likely events following an American defeat at Midway was pretty fascinating as well.

I would've enjoyed seeing more what if scenarios that weren't directly related to battles.

I just read a few of the other reviews and am disappointed but not surprised at all of the whining that this book is so focused on European and American events. What a bunch of babies. I typed up the topics:
The plague that saved Jerusalem (Asia)
The Persians win at Salamis (Europe/Asia)
The Premature Death of Alexander the Great (Europe/Asia/Africa)
The Teutoburg (Europe)
The Dark Ages Made Lighter (Europe/Asia/Africa)
The Mongols Turn Back (Europe/Asia)
Such a Wet Summer (Europe)
The Immolation of Hernan Cortes (Central America/Europe)
The Spanish Armada Triumphs (Europe)
Unlikely Victory (America)
What the Fog Wrought (America)
Ruler of the World (Europe)
If the Lost Order Hadn't Been Lost (America)
A Confederate Cannae (America)
The What Ifs of 1914 (Europe/Entire World)
How Hitler Could have Won the War (Europe/Asia)
Our Midway Disaster (America/Asia/Europe)
D Day Fails (Europe/Asia/America)
Funeral in Berlin (Europe)
China without Tears (Asia)

As you can see, most involved Europe in some way, but it was also involving the entire world. Much as these cry-babies don't like it, Europe controlled or influenced much of the world for a significant amount of time. In more modern history, the USA has also held this role. That means counterfactuals are pretty interesting for these regions because they were so influential. Do you think more people would be interested in how a battle like D-Day could have changed a world wide war that has major and somewhat clear implications on life today or would they prefer a counterfactual on something that happened in Kenya? None of the reviews I saw gave any examples of what would have been a better choice, they just whispered through their tears that this is racist. The fact of the matter is, the further back in history you go, the less accurate detail you are likely to have. You'll have a hard time doing a counterfactual on some minute detail of a military campaign when we don't have those minute details because it happened 5,000 years ago. Much of history that we have detailed enough knowledge to do a good counterfactual are during time periods that Europe was the dominant global power. But yeah, I guess it's all just racism.

[Glen Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this book up at Half Price Books, and didn’t take too long to get engrossed in it. It is filled with essays by leading military historians. Some of the topics include: what if Alexander the Great had died early, what if the Romans had won the battle against the Germans in the Teutoburg Forest, what if the Mongols had conquered Europe, what are the many ways the Americans could have lost the Revolutionary War, and what if World War I never happened. Some of the writers are better than others–Steven Ambrose, James McPherson, and Caleb Carr immediately come to mind–while others struggle to eliminate smugness and academia from their writing. The writing is, in other words, inconsistent for a book that is intended for the general public, with some very excellent writers, and some mediocre (at best) ones.

Some of the writers get bogged down in the telling of events leading up to the turning point, while others talk exhaustively about the actual event in question. It’s the ones who focus on how history could have changed that do a decent job of this.

Going on Amazon, I see that Cowley had at least one or two similar books in this series, so I presume he had a modicum of success with this project. If you’re a history buff, like me, or better yet, into speculative history, I recommend looking this up.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cowley uncovered a goldmine with this book, its successors and the probable series to follow. 'What if' a minor, but pivotal, factor had been different during a world historical event--such as a general with a fever on the eve of battle--or without one?--or a change in the weather?--or a misstep?

Most of the scenarios here are military--unsurprising for a book evolving out of 'The Quarterly Journal of Military History'. Most, but not all, are written by recognized, usually popular, historians. All are intriguing, appealing like computer war simulation games.

While I found this to be a quick read, it could be most profitably employed as a text supplementing readings in an historiography course dealing with matters like historical determinism vs. 'great man' hypotheses.

[liirogue · Rating 3 out of 5]

A compilation of essays that look at how things might have gone if battles had turned out differently. I found some of the scenarios very interesting. Unfortunately, either my attention span or the quality of the book began to suffer as it continued. Since the later essays were close in time, they seemed to become rather repetitive. There were even occasions when the same battle was written about twice, which really began to push my boredom level.

Overall, an interesting book, but it definitely could have used some diversification. It got to where I could predict some of the theories of where history may have gone if X had been changed - they needed to mix the formula up a bit.

[Julie Jenkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really, really interesting to read. I love alternative history novels, so why not a series of essays ranging from 700 BC to the 1980s? It really fired up my imagination, which I love. The concept is five stars, but my personal interest level varied by each author's writing style and period of history.

[Clay Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has some great history in it. The history experts come up with some very good explanations on the way events turned out the way they did and what could have happened

[Matthew Yglesias · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up because I enjoyed the scholarly counterfactual history speculations of Frank Ferdinand Lives! so much but I found this collection of essays disappointing.

The authors are largely drawn from the ranks of military historians and their main interest seems to be in talking about the operational mechanics by which various important wars could have come out differently. The essay on Napoleon, for example, speculates that he could have made more generous peace terms with Austria and Prussia and not provoked Russia by creating the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and thus created a stable empire for himself in Western Europe. That’s fine as far as it goes, but the whole essay is taken up with various accounts of other possible turning points with no room given to try to think about what difference it might have made had the French Empire persisted.

Even the great James McPherson who I don’t think of as a narrowly operationally focused military historian in this way falls into this trap. His essay is all about how had some particular lost order blunder not happened Lee could have successfully invaded the north and forced the Union to sue for peace.

Fair enough. But the interesting question is — and then what? What happens to the world with an independent Confederacy?

In his fictional work, Harry Turtledove posits that the post-war Union becomes an ally of Germany to counterbalance the Confederacy’s French alliance and that ends up meaning the Central Powers (plus the United States) win World War I creating a kind of Weimar Confederacy and the eventual emergence of a Dixie Hitler. Is that at all credible? That’s the fun stuff to ask about here.

[Terry Steinborn · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look at some of the (mostly military) turning points in history with speculation as to what might have been the outcome (short- and long-term) if things had gone the other way. The book is a compilation of potential history essays by a large number of noted historians, mostly well-published professors, current or retired. As a result, most of the essays are crowded with obscure historic detail and highly academic discussions of potential courses of history. I found the discussion of the military and political settings and backgrounds for all of these turning points to be the most interesting parts of the book, because, although I consider myself reasonably well-read, the details of all these events were quite enlightening. Many of the possible futures discussed seemed reasonable, as expected the discussions grew much more speculative the further (in time) the writers got from the actual events. The discussions necessarily took on a very narrow view of potential futures, many well beyond reasonable extrapolations. So many potential circumstances in the projected futures are possible that the conclusions reached by the authors, while creative, seem very hard to accept.

[Alger Smythe-Hopkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

This should be a book that I would enjoy. I have degrees in history, I write history, I love speculative history... I mean, I enjoyed The Guns of the South even though it was wholly insane. So a volume of best selling historians writing counter-factual fables collected from the pages of a well known popular history journal seemed promising as light entertainment at minimum and at best a chance to see major historical events from a new angle. But rather than find this collection an easy read, thought-provoking, or even informative I find it aggressively tedious. This is my second attempt at reading this book, my second bite at this apple, and let me assure you it is entirely made of worms. I simply cannot finish this mess without nausea.

So what went wrong?

The smallest problem is the dry style that prevails in these pages. 80% of each article is spent describing the circumstance and outcome of the historical battle, then only a few hundred words are expended describing the resulting counterfactual history. That is just backwards in a journal published for knowledgeable readers and prevents any speculation to the consequence of a battle beyond what is normal to the usual historical article. Equally irritating is that this template makes this a book of factual battle synopses rather than speculative history.

Far more serious than style is the limit of the events within the scope of the collection held to Europe and America. This is partly an artifact of the publication; The MHQ (Military History Quarterly) is a peer reviewed journal for specialists in Western Military History. The resulting problem is that the history that these authors are used to writing is a tale of Euro-American hegemony and how it was won or maintained. In the context of alternate history this means very little is different historically in India, or China, or South America as a result of any of these changed outcomes. Not-Europe/America is rendered as an inertial void of historical action. This dead momentum is so extreme that one author speculates that the Caliphate would cross the Atlantic in 1492 and colonize just like the historical Spaniards. Just consider the implications of how that skews what you believe is possible.

Another issue is a strong bias towards decisive tentpole victories. Too many of these stories conclude that "without this unlikely key event, Judaism/Christianity/Rome/western civilization would never have survived". That is silly and promotes a view that western civilization is a almost entirely product of warcraft and weirdly fragile. Certainly a change in the outcome of some major battle is an easier sell to the kind of armchair general that reads MHQ, but surely one in ten could see the cascading possibilities of an alternate history in some otherwise tiny skirmish going the other way. What if some consequential victory was reduced to a stalemate? How would that play out? What if the victory were only moderate rather than decisive?

Allied to this reliance upon tentpole victories is a serious lack of imagination as to what constitutes a key moment, even within this very restricted frame of reference to Euro-America. What if Henry had managed to slip away to Calais rather than being forced to make a stand at Agincourt? or the First Battle of Manassas had gone against the South, as expected? What if there never was a firing on Fort Sumter?

The tentpole victory angle also strongly biases the collection towards Great Man history, since the casual understanding of battle is that it is won by leaders, not the armies that they lead. Like the other objections related to this approach, the premise is that these leaders were somehow irreplaceable, and that their decisions helped create and sustain our modern world. As with the other objections this conception of history borders on teleology and is belied by how often the Great Men of our story arrive in their place of power by the removal of someone else who was equally qualified to be "irreplaceable". There is almost no room in these stories for new talent or a momentum of events capable of carrying someone else with the tide to victory. There would have been no Napoleonic Age without Napoleon, but surely circumstances in 1798 begged for a military dictator of his type.

In short, most of what I found objectionable about this collection was the extraordinary lack of imagination as to events and the outcomes resulting from a change. Then there are overstated consequences to these bizarrely binary (often Manichean) outcomes. If Jerusalem fell to the Assyrians then imagine a world without Judaism. If Roman Legions had prevailed in the German forests, an undefeated and stable Empire lasting centuries beyond its 450 expiration date. Had Lee's orders not been wrapped around some lost cigars, the American Civil War might have liberated the South. To be interesting, counterfactual history has to be more than the absence of that one event. Events in history cascade from each other, and it is not a directed path. Every closing door opens a window, as they say.

You might object that I am asking too much of what is essentially a bit of by-play in a serious magazine. I can only respond that these authors are supposed to be experts on these events, and therefore should have some grasp as to their importance. If they are merely archivists with writing skills, then maybe these articles need to be written by fiction writers with historian guidance.

This volume is dull, repetitious, and unimaginative. It is unsatisfactory on essentially every level. Read the The Man in the High Castle or The Separation for decent counterfactual military history. Ignore this dogs breakfast.

[David Freas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is another book that I read a long time ago (probably around 2000) but had forgotten about until now. The date I picked for finishing it is totally arbitrary.

It is actually a compilation of essays that envision what would have happened if great moments in history had gone the other way - If, for example, the Confederates had won the Civil War or the D-Day landings had failed.

Each essay was well thought out and realistic enough to be believable but some of the envisioned results were scary.

If you are a history buff, you'll find this book interesting.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first part of this review is for all three books in the “What If” series, and is about the idea of alternative history, or counterfactual history, explored in essay form. These essays are NOT like short-story version of Harry Turtledove’s Atlantis-type novels. Dismiss that from your mind.

Rather, an actual event in history is given a counterfactual twist and played out.

There are two main ground rules for practitioners of this type of writing.

The first is that ONLY ONE main twist is allowed. Now, some moderate-level twists may come directly off that, with allowances for how the main twist is extrapolated, and some smaller-level twists may be sidebars. But that’s it.

The second is “no time travel.” For Americans, especially military history buffs, this is usually expressed as “No machine guns at Gettysburg.” It could also be “no nukes at the second siege of Vienna, neither for the Holy Roman Empire nor for the Ottomans.”

As that indicates, a lot of this counterfactual history is military. Getting back to the U.S., and the Civil War in particular, a favorite is, what if in early September 1862, Robert E. Lee’s famous or infamous “Lost Order” hadn’t been lost? With that starting point, different essayists play things out differently.

Non-military history? In what is likely sacrilegious to “fundagelical” Christians, what if Jesus hadn’t been crucified? (That said, in the first volume, especially, many of the essays are either directly or indirectly military related.)

This also shows the “no time travel” angle. Mel Gibson can’t go up there to take his place, force Pilate to crucify him or anything else.

More seriously, on the no time travel, iron working can’t be brought to the pre-Columbian Americas or anything like that.

Why? Why the interest?

Some might call this nothing more than mental masturbation, history division.

I would instead very much reframe it in terms of Santayana’s dictum about not learning from history and being condemned to repeat it. Seeing alternative scenarios in the past may be cautionary for the future. Related to this, editor Robert Cowley notes in the introduction to the first volume that this counterfactual thinking can eliminate “hindsight bias.”

Besides, it’s entertaining, in a Soy Boy the History Nerd sense. (I’m surprised he hasn’t read these.) It can lead to discussion and even argumentation about how plausible a twist is.

Now, for each individual essay?

I’ll give you my rating of that essay and a brief overview without (much of) a spoiler alert. Ratings will be some mix of plausibility, per above, entertainment level, and degree the world would have changed.

===

What If? 3.5 stars rounded up, because no half stars, and I just can't go down, because of the concept. A few of the chapters had highly implausible scenarios, 2-2.5 stars. Also, this first volume, compared to the second main one, is pretty heavy on military alt-history vs non-military.

First: What if Sennacherib conquers Jerusalem because his army is spared the plague? 3.75. First, even with a plague or whatever happened, Hezekiah still wound up paying tribute to Assyria, as did son Manasseh. And, as author WIlliam McNeill notes, Manasseh worshiped gods besides Yahweh. And, though small in number, the Samaritans, religious descendants of those left behind in Israel by earlier Assyrian conquest, still survive today. Beyond McNeill, what became Judaism would have been different, and certainly no Christianity, but no Judaism out of post-700 BCE Yahwism? Doubtful.

Second: Persians win at Salamis. 2, mainly because of who the author is, VD, as I call Victor Davis, Hansen. Hellenic Greece was not some proto-United States, not even in Athens. As for separation between religious and political authority? Every Roman emperor, among other things, took the position of pontifex maximus. And, as for “democracy” even in Athens? That had to see off not one but two oligarchic coups after the end of the Peloponnesian War.

Third: Conquest denied. Imagine Alexander the Great killed at the Battle of the Granicus, as nearly did happen. 4.75. Without detailed spoiler, Josiah Ober is right in the big picture — the invasion would have collapsed and the Hellenistic world beyond Hellas never would have been.

Fourth: Quintus Varus never loses Augustus’ legions in the Teutoburgerwald. 2 for Lapham’s handling. A better alt-history than making Varus into a competent general is making him a prudent or even cowardly one, with Tiberius, freed from Pannonia, instead leading the charge a year or two later. And, in any case, the idea that Rome would have extended to the Vistula? Tosh.

Fifth: The Dark Ages Made Lighter (by changing two defeats). First, I’m not a fan of Barry Strauss in general. Second, Adrianapolis and Potiers are separated by 1,000 miles and 350 or so years, and thus this fails the “one major change” rubric. 1.5 stars.

Sixth: The Death that Saved Europe. 2 stars. The Mongol Empire continued to expand, including to the northwest, at least, after Ogadai’s death. Besides, the main focus was on subduing southern China, then southwest Asia, in reality, as the author notes. Western Europe would have been an afterthought no matter what.

Seventh: If Only It Had Not Been Such a Wet Summer. Theodore Robb postulates a less rainy 1529 not delaying the Ottomans in their original big assault on Vienna. Without going into spoilers, surely, the Diet of Augsburg a year later would have been different. 3. Theodore Rabb notes it was one of the wettest of the decade, but not, say, one of the wettest of the century.

Eighth: The Immolation of Hernán Cortés, June 30, 1521. As Ross Hassig, an expert on the Mexica (Aztecs) notes, Cortés was lucky many times. His alt-history is like that of Alexander — Cortés doesn’t escape an actual trap laid for him. He notes Cortés has no clear second in command and likely, whoever took over would have lost most of Spain’s Indian allies. Full 5 stars for pondering eventual Spanish response, Aztec learning from the attempted conquest and more.

Ninth: The Repulse of the English Fireships. The counterfactual is simple. The wind blows in a different direction. 3.5, as the author notes Philip’s mix of micromanagement and bullheadedness might have minimized gains from a successful landing. The author doesn’t consider the effect of the death of the Marquis of Santa Cruz, the originally planned naval commander, shortly before its launch.

Tenth: Unlikely Victory. 4.5; Thomas Fleming lists 17 ways the US Revolutionary War could have been lost. Most get 1-1.5 pages so a quick overview, part of why I won’t go a full 5, as well as two or three not being that likely. Also, I’ve never before or since seen Banastre Tarleton called “burly.” One is not about battle itself, but postulates Newburgh Conspiracy leaders ignoring Washington.

Eleventh: What the Fog Wrought. David McCullough calls the Continental Army’s escape from Manhattan, Aug. 29, 1776, America’s Dunkirk. 4 stars. The Battle of Long Island and the greater Battle of New York have been analyzed so much it would be hard to give this 5.

Twelfth: Ruler of the World. No, Napoleon never could have done that. In any case, like Fleming, but with one person, Alistair Horne ponders several different alternatives to the reality of the Napoleonic Wars. 3, maybe 3.5.

Thirteenth: If the Lost Order Hadn’t Been Lost. As noted in the overall review, this is the exemplar of American military alt-history. James McPherson presumes Lee and McClellan meet at Gettysburg, and with an October 1862 situation exactly reversed, as far as which army was where, to July 1863. McPherson postulates at least as crushing a defeat inflicted by Lee as he received in reality himself, a crushing Republican defeat in 1862 elections a month later, and the USA forced to enter peace talks. That’s pushing alt-history way too far on the conclusion, and a fair amount too far on Lee winning such a crushing victory, let alone in such a mirror fashion. 2.5

Fourteenth: A Confederate Cannae and Other Scenarios. Like Fleming, Stephen Sears posits a set of alternative endings to the US Civil War, though just five in his case. Three stars because the one scenario — McClellan winning the 1864 election WITH all military history the same as reality is laughable.

Fifteenth: The What-Ifs of 1914. Editor Cowley drops some good ones, from Britain staying out, through Moltke executing the Schlieffen Plan (including in reality invading the Maastricht area of Holland, contra the lying Ring of Fire) as its namesake intended and more, including the possibility of a Bavarian private being killed in the first month of the war. 5 stars.

Sixteenth: How Hitler Could Have Won the War. John Keegan discusses Hitler going for Middle Eastern oil, not the Soviet Union, in 1941. Only two stars, because, like the Ship of Theseus of philosophy, this requires too radical a change in mindset for the Nazi leader to still be Adolf Hitler. In addition, the necessary violation of Turkish neutrality would probably have caused many problems. Also, contra not only Keegan but others who postulate similar, Saudi Arabia was a minuscule producer in 1940, and Iran and Iraq together only produced just over half of what the USSR did.

Seventeenth: Our Midway Disaster. Japan figures out the US has broken its naval code, and rather than being trapped, baits a trap of its own. Had Japan won, even if it did not go on to invade Hawaii, the US might have been forced into a Pacific-first strategy by domestic pressure if nothing else. That said, this is the Japan who had been warned a full year earlier that its diplomatic code had been broken, so 3.5 stars.

Eighteenth: D-Day Fails. Stephen Ambrose ponders the options. Would we have dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin? Well, what if Russia was there anyway? And, Ike’s advance worries aside, hindsight shows a lot would have had to go wrong for D-Day to fail in the sense of withdrawing the invasion. More likely is a fumbled, contained invasion where the Allies only reach Paris by the end of the year, but Dragoon continuing pretty much as it actually did in the south of France. Naval, fighter and bomber support would not have been as interrupted as Ambrose claims had June 6 been like June 19. Yes, paratroopers would have been even more scattered, but they were scattered enough in reality. And, reinforcing Dragoon from Ike’s troops might not have been as difficult as Ambrose claims. Two stars even, in part because I’m not a fan of Ambrose.

Nineteenth: Funeral in Berlin. This postulates the Cold War getting hot over Berlin. 2.5 stars, in large part because David Clay Large’s first scenario, the Allies rushing to beat the Russkies in 1945, is pretty silly.

Twentieth: China without Tears. This presumes Chiang Kaishek lets Mao have Manchuria in 1946. Given that many of China’s dynasties before the Qing did not include Manchuria. Stalin would have been OK with a Maoist Manchuria under his thumb. The other option, Chiang ignoring George Marshall, probably would have failed in the long term. Mao’s troops would have gone to Mongolia, and struck again when Chiang proved to be an idiot again.

[Ellen Spes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actual historical events followed by different senarios. Good format.

[Steven Raszewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book of military what if counterfactuals. Didn't agree with all but all were insightful. My favorite was the one on the 1520's what a time. This book was a gift from daughters dearly departed mother-in-law. Thanks Michelle

[Frank Sanello · Rating 5 out of 5]

"What If?" belongs to a genre called alternate history in which the historian speculates how the past might have been altered if one or more events had or hadn't happened. One example: Britain would have been deprived of Winston Churchill's leadership which prevented the Nazi occupation of his country if the future prime minister had been killed instead of being injured when a taxi cab in New York in 1931 hit him as Churchill was crossing the street.

This nonfiction history contains discrete items (that's "discrete" as in self-contained or stand-alone, not "discreet" as in tactful or confidential. The two words may be the most incorrectly used adjectives in the English language). So, if one historical incident in the book doesn't interest you, you can still enjoy the book by reading other entries that do intrigue you.

The book was recommended by a friend and fellow author after I told him I was writing an alternate history novel, "If Nazi Germany Had Won the War." I'm still working on the book, whose premise isn't as implausible as it sounds.

In fact, as I wrote in a "Suite 101" magazine article

(http://ww2history.suite101.com/articl...),

if Hitler had made only three changes in his military strategy, a Nazi victory is not only plausible, but probable.

(Teaser: Germany had developed a primitive atomic bomb and a jet-bomber capable of making the flight from Europe to the east coast of the U.S. without refueling in mid-flight. The technological innovations came to late to change the outcome of the war, but both the bomb and the bomber would have been available earlier if Hitler hadn't cut funding for research on the two projects. Hitler would have undoubtedly shared the technology with his ally, Japan. Germany would have dropped atomic bombs on America's east coast and Japan would have destroyed American cities on the west coast. The unthinkable effects of a nuclear holocaust would have prompted the U.S to surrender, just as our atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally persuaded the Japanese emperor to accept the Allies' demand for unconditional surrender.)

Happy reading!

Frank Sanello
FSanello@aol.com

[Bfox · Rating 2 out of 5]

Super tantalizing book. I read it when I was on a major alternate history kick, one that (for better or for worse) lasted for most of my adolescence. Back then, I was fascinated by all the possibilities that the genre held. What if the Romans never went away? Hell, what if the goddam dinosaurs never went extinct?? Alternate history combines the detail and plausibility of actual history with the endless scope of fiction. History book fan fiction. I loved that. And What If? seemed to be exactly what I was looking for.

This book tries very hard not to be history book fan fiction. Indeed, the essays in What If? usually try to include as little counterfactual material as possible. Instead, you have tons of historical background information. Lots and lots of background information. Sure, the essays have extremely interesting premises: what if Napoleon didn't invade Russia? What if D-Day Failed? What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War? While reading this book, I remember anticipating with giddy glee the end of these essays, where the authors would turn staid military movements into world-shakingly interesting scenarios.

I was disappointed. There is very little speculative, extrapolative work in these essays. Most of the essays seems like military historians with their heads up their asses pontificating on all the little details of that one specific battle or hinge point of history that "could have" gone differently, rather than what "would have" happened if the event went differently. I know my words sound harsh, but if I wanted detail on a specific historical event, there's no shortage of history books. Good speculative essays? There aren't quite so many.

3/10

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two scriptural passages come to mind while reading this collection of might-have-beens: First, from Alma, "by small and simple things are great things brought to pass" (Alma 36:6-7) and second, paraphrasing Nephi, the rise and fall of nations are in God's hands. (1 Ne. 17:37). In many of these essays, the fates of empires, both ancient and modern, turn on a lieutenant's reflexes or on the sudden vagaries of weather. The quality of writings varies among the selections, as might be expected in any compilation. The essayists also vary widely in the scope of their discussions, some getting caught up in details of a particular conflict, and others carrying the counter-factual through a series of suppositions to imagine how our world today might be different but for the crucial event. But interesting patterns emerge, including in the choice of historical moments--all seem to be pivotal in some way to the current rise and dominance of Western (and Anglo-American) civilization. Ultimately, playing "what if" becomes more than an amusing parlor game of speculation--you begin to apprehend the profound consequences of some very small things and may even catch a glimpse of a divine finger nudging history in a particular direction.

[Alissa (Cricket) · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I Discovered From "What if? Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been."

I found this book a few months ago in my dad's office and decided to give it a try. The pages are that wonderful shade of aged yellow that comes to books that have been loved, lost, and learned from. A price tag on the back reads, "104$." My dad told me he bought it overseas. This book, although probably not worth 104$ to the average reader, was certainly worth a good deal to me. To be honest, this book has taken me longer to digest than many others, but it's a book that deserves pondering. I always read this book before I would write history exams and essays because, haha what better way to impersonate professional historian voice and style than to read the greats before writing.
I usually took this book to church in my violin case and read it in the hour or so that lapsed after worship practice and before worship began. More than once I had someone come into the church library and look with a stunned expression of Hitler on the cover. One friend noted,
"Well, you brought Hitler to church."
This review comes because I notice themes in history. The themes I noticed in this book were common factors in events that irrevocably changed everything.

1) Weather
From D-Day to Washington's escape from Brooklyn Heights, (Called the Revolutionary War's Dunkirk by historians). Weather plays a role that none can disregard. Weather calls off sailings, destroy's Hitler's army in the snows of the then Soviet Union, and consistently changes history with no regard to human wishes. (Although prayers often play a big part if I may say so.) The wet summer of the 1520's shaped the face of Europe. Conquerers fall, and tragedies arise simply due to weather. One such instance I read last night included what would have happened on the Beaches of Normandy if the weather hadn't cleared for the short window that it did. The weatherman, (As weathermen often do) was simply guessing about the lull and his guess was accurate. He said later that even if he had modern satellite imagery, he wouldn't have been able to see into the future and predict what he did.
I contemplated often, while reading of the numerous weather related Military achievements, (Or losses) what would have happened if humanity was able to control weather, (which we can now, albeit in a limited fashion with weather modification and cloud seeding.) Perhaps the reason weather plays so profound a role is simply because it's unpredictable. Will it be unpredictable forever?

2) Luck/Timing
Now luck, may often fall in the category of weather but I decided to put it in this category because it played a completely separate role in so many of the essays I witnessed. This theme of Luck, seems to come down to chance and sometimes timing. The Battle of Midway was decided in the five minutes that American Planes were in the air while the Japanese ones were refueling. Alexander the Great's life was spared when he was 22, so he could keep con questing (further than any other general to that date) for another decade. The only reason he lived was because one of his aides showed up out of nowhere and sacrificed his life for Alexander's. The Plague that struck the Assyrians outside of Jerusalem, (Therefore saving the Hebrew people and the line of Jesus) Saved three religions in total. And if the Assyrians had conquered Jerusalem... Western Civilization never would have existed as we know it. (In the Bible, the plague is not attributed to Luck but to Divine power, I like that version better honestly and the rest of these scenarios can definitely be divinely attributed as well.) "Milliseconds can influence Centuries" (Pg. 239). And that also goes for everyday circumstances that we believe commonplace, we may be making the decision that changes the entire world.

3) People and Choices
And lastly, this theme is not unique to this specific book. In fact, this theme I have dubbed the "Theme of the Year" because lately, everywhere and anywhere... I have been noticing the consequences of decisions.
Decisions change everything.
The Greeks decided to attack the Persians in a narrow channel, relying on naval power. Hence, saving Western Civilization.
Charles the Hammer attacked the Muslim invaders at Potiers and solidified a Christian Europe.
The Mongols decided to turn back from their attack on Vienna to mourn a death and squabble over succession, saving Europe from annihilation.
Hernan Cortes pressed on to Tenochtitlan, despite disease and pushback, and toppled a civilization.
George Washington accepted the role of General in the Revolutionary War. With anybody else at the helm of the American forces during the war; America would never have won.
Napoleon, "Did not know when to stop,"(Pg. 201) and pushed and pushed until he lost- but he won a great deal along the way.
Hitler invaded Russia, not the Middle East, (Which could have been immensely profitable for him.)
A code breaker in Hawaii noticed that the Japanese were discussing an attack on "AF" over the radio. He called it in and saved Midway.
A Nationalist leader of China decided to invade his Communist enemies and was defeated, ushering in a virtually united Communist China.
And these are only a few.
Single decisions, or successions of many decisions, change history forever. So surely, our freedom to choose, an utterly human right, changes history everyday.

Although this book took a long time to read and digest, required a bit of caffeine to finish, rambled, confused, occasionally warped my sense of time, and often was so boring I almost gave up-- it was well worth it.
Single changes in one war, can influence thousands of years and wars to come.
Indeed, this book revealed more to me about actual history than the counterfactual scenarios discussed. But I did gain some insight and out sight of the world based on single factors of change. Now, when I read a history book, I will wonder--- what would have changed if X had been different. Truthfully, I think that was the entire point of this book to begin with.

Favorite Quote: *too many to count but here's just on*
"We were hardly inevitable" (Pg. 156).

[Bill Forgeard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Counterfactual history... alternative outcomes at history's key turning points and how things could easily have turned out. Let's face it, it's pulp fiction for history buffs! I love it! Interesting that all the pre-1500 scenarios similarly observe that any slight change along the way would have derailed Christianity and thus changed the course of world history. Testament to the profoundly shaping influence Jesus has (in actual fact) had on the course of history, I guess.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting book - a lot of history is taught in a way that makes it seem inevitable that things turned out the way they did, but some events that could have easily gone differently would have led to a world today that might be hard to recognize compared to the one we inhabit. Some great writers here, sharing some deep and careful thinking.

[Rick Brindle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, OK, it's been a while since I read it, but I remember this book fondly. It takes several major wars and battles and tries to predict how the world would have been if the other side won. A very interesting way to predict what might have been.