[jonniebgood1]

This has come up in a recent thread on this forum.

Counterfactual history is the exploration of different conclusions to historical events (as in different to what actually occured). This is its description in the new world encyclopedia-

A form of historical speculation known commonly as virtual history ("counterfactual history") has also been adopted by some historians as a means of assessing and exploring the possible outcomes if certain events had not occurred or had occurred in a different way. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/History

There are varying arguments as to whether there is value or entertainment in this type of discussion.

What do people think of this type of historiography?
What do forum users think of counter factual or 'what if' threads?

[Cork boy 55]

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

This has come up in a recent thread on this forum.

Counterfactual history is the exploration of different conclusions to historical events (as in different to what actually occured). This is its description in the new world encyclopedia-

There are varying arguments as to whether there is value or entertainment in this type of discussion.

What do people think of this type of historiography?
What do forum users think of counter factual or 'what if' threads?

The main problem is 99.99% of CF threads or shows on TV about CF history
are about WW2 the main theme being could Hitler have won!!!
They are just boring and unreadable , too many people who have watched too much of the hitler channels yapping about this and that.

[Nitochris]

I voted yes
but I would qualify that with it would be difficult to do well. What I mean by that is I start a thread on what if the Invincibles had failed in their attack on Burke and Cavendish. I argue that without the murders there is no Parnell Commission, early Home Rule etc. Another poster points out that instead Piggott's forgeries link Parnell to dynamitards we could still have a commission, Unionist opposition and the Lords veto still stand in the way of Home Rule. I say prove it the other poster can't because we are dealing with an entirely speculative scenario.

[Kilkenny14]

Usually it is on WW2 but there have been interesting counter factual ideas put forward on WW1, Napoleonic wars and medieval history to name a few.

Robert Crowley's book "What If' combined the best of these - its an interesting read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-If-Mili...7378890&sr=1-1

[Manach]

Counterfactual history is used at a degree level in History - which was part of my curriculum -to aid understanding of what actually happened and what might have easily have otherwise occurred (perhaps as an antidote to the fallacy of hindsight bias).
There can be valid criticism made of it, that it veers at times into ungrounded speculation but historians such as Neil Fergusson have employed it.
Thus counterfactual analyis is valid part of the historian's toolbox.

[MarchDub]

Originally Posted by Manach;78759768
There can be valid criticism made of it, that it veers at times into ungrounded speculation but [B

historians such as Neil Fergusson have employed it.[/B]
Thus counterfactual analyis is valid part of the historian's toolbox.

Ah Ferguson...the apologist for Empire - which tells you all you need to know about it....

[thecommietommy]

Originally Posted by MarchDub

Ah Ferguson...the apologist for Empire - which tells you all you need to know about it....

Depends on the Empire, not too found of a certain one that blitzed England in 1940 etc . It's just ok for the British to do it to anyone else but don't dare do it to them.

( BTW MarchDub, your private messages inbox is full, tried to PM you but got the foremetioned reply, time for a bit of housekeeping )

[JohnFalstaff]

Counterfactual history can be useful because when we speculate on how things might have developed had circumstances been different it often helps to shed new light on what actually did happen.

Threads like the one on the executions of the 1916 leaders that is currently being debated work well as jumping-off points for historical discussion, especially on forums like boards.

Diarmaid Ferriter hosted a great series on RTE radio a few years ago called 'What If?' Contributors included historians like Michael Laffan and Eunan O' Halpin - none of whom seemed to have a problem with the concept of counterfactual history.

[CDfm]

Its a bit like abstract painting , the basics have to be correct otherwise it is just fantasy and fiction.

" What if Prince Charles had never married Diana ? "

That's just fantasy. I didn't bother voting .

[slowburner]

'Counterfactual History' - what a nonsensical piece of jargon. The implication is a branch of history which is 'against fact'.
If it does as it says on the tin, then there is no place for it anywhere. It is simply fiction.

'Suppositional History' or 'Speculative History' on the other hand, most definitely does have a place, but only when it based on accurate fact.
Significant turning points in history cannot be grasped properly, or even identified, without speculation about what might have happened, if the causal facts had been different.
Take for example, the absence of evidence for a Roman invasion of Ireland () - we know that we on this little island were not part of the Roman empire.
But what would we be like today, if we had been part of that empire? That's worth thinking about and discussing. That is how we come to understand the significance of the event (or lack of).
There is no reason why speculative history should be any less informed than its alternative - whatever that is, 'Factual History'?

'What if?', to my mind, is one of the primary motivators for any interest in history. How things might have been different, can tell us a lot about how things were.
To categorically rule out speculative history would, in my opinion, make the subject very, very, very dull indeed.

As regards how this might apply in this forum, I think it is simply a question of the mods' judgement, but I don't think an update to the charter is required.

[CDfm]

When you do the Roman stuff SB your approach is to ascertain the Roman influence in Ireland and you do it very well.

Lot's of speculation exists in history such as was WWI inevitable etc and it challenges us to look at things differently.

If Gustavus Adolphus hadn't died when he did would Sweden be different ? Who knows but he left a legacy and administration in place.

So as an analytical tool it is useful but otherwise it is fantasy.

EditJust to clarify .Archaeology & pre-history is different and I have often read your threads avidly SB and you have made it fun for me. And, as the era is largely undocumented ,the techniques you use have validity. For example, you couldn't tackle "Roman Ireland" without comparing building technology. I am sure Bannasidhe put in a note on pre-history that got stickied.

As Bannasidhe said

1) Pre-History : The preserve of the archaeologists and folklorists - this refers to the study of a culture/people before they were literate i.e they produced no written records = no primary sources.
2) Proto-History : When written references are made to a particular people by literate 'foreigners' -( in the case of Ireland these are usually Greek and Roman sources) - but there are no indigenous written records. These 'foreign' records are usually not the result of actual experience - so are more 'hearsay'.
3) History : The arrival of literacy results in a society producing documents which relate to itself. In Ireland Proto - History and History overlap slightly. Irish History proper is generally deemed to begin with the arrival of Christianity, specifically two documents ascribed to St Patrick - Confessions and Letters as they were written in Ireland. However, Prospero of Tiro wrote of Palladius being despatched in 431 to minister to the Christians living in Ireland. This is prior to the arrival of Patrick so there may have been documents which failed to survive.

Long winded reply - to summarise: History as a discipline can only exist where there are primary sources. Without Primary sources there can be no secondary sources as these are essentially interpretations of the evidence contained in the Primary sources.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...27&postcount=2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...72&postcount=4

[MarchDub]

Let me add my voice to the dissenters to this...introducing so called 'counter-factual' history would only lead to endless fictional discussions and nothing more than sheer speculations based on nothing but the posters' opinions such as 'well you know I think" and so on.

It might be an entertaining tool to those well versed on the actual record to play around with - but having it here would reduce the History forum into an Afterhours barrage of endless 'I thinks' countered with 'no, you know I've always thought' and so on and on.... disastrous for any serious history discussion: Fiction, fantasy and sheer unsupported speculation.

I'm not voting.

[indioblack]

[QUOTE=thecommietommy;78764952]Depends on the Empire, not too found of a certain one that blitzed England in 1940 etc . It's just ok for the British to do it to anyone else but don't dare do it to them.

I think they blitzed a few places in 1940 - If I remember rightly they were called the Third Reich.
"It's just ok for the British to do it to anyone else but don't dare do it to them" Sounds like a good reason to let the Wehrmacht take a vacation in western Europe.

[CDfm]

Originally Posted by MarchDub

endless 'I thinks' countered with 'no, you know I've always thought' and so on and on.... disastrous for any serious history discussion: Fiction, fantasy and sheer unsupported speculation.

Michael Collins II - The Sequel ~ the Big Fella Strikes Back.

I'm not voting.

+1

[Reekwind]

'Counterfactual History' is a contradiction in terms. But this is a history forum and, unless I'm mistaken, not a forum exclusively for historians. If people want to discuss history using the 'What if' structure then I see no harm in it