Counterfactual history- Does it have a place on the History forum?

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

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

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

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

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-Military-Historians-Imagine/dp/0330487248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337378890&sr=1-1

Manach

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

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

[QUOTE=Manach;78759768
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.[/QUOTE]

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

thecommietommy

MarchDub wrote: »

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

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

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

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

'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 (:p) - 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/showpost.php?p=74321427&postcount=2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74320772&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

thecommietommy wrote: »

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

MarchDub wrote: »

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

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

'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

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

'Counterfactual History' is a contradiction in terms. But this is a history forum and, unless I'm mistaken, not a forum exclusively for historians.

I am not a historian but use history as a discipline when discussing it. History describes the method.

If people want to discuss history using the 'What if' structure then I see no harm in it

And then it would no longer be a history forum but an " I can't believe it's not history forum".

slowburner

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

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

I neither want to, or can dispute anything you say. The Roman period in Ireland is probably a bit off the wall in this discussion, falling somewhere between pre-history and history, with a dose of proto-history thrown in for good measure - I accept that there is more room for speculation on this particular subject than elsewhere in history.

But I like Marchdub's verdict:

It might be an entertaining tool to those well versed on the actual record to play around with

The emphasis in this statement, is the crux of the matter.

By the way, how am I a dissenter - consensus has not yet been established?
In fact, according to the poll, the majority appear to favour a tolerance of speculative history.

indioblack

There are historical facts and "facts" - the former being unarguable and therefore, I suspect, in the minority. The latter is probably a mixture of accepted fact and subjective opinion. History is open to agenda and bias, even when appearing objective.
This is why statements and historical claims can be challenged for their sources in this forum.
I'm not sure if alternate histories belong here - but I have enjoyed reading a few - presumably the better ones have to give an accurate background to the changes they wish to make in history.
The danger lies in wandering too far from what is the accepted reality - I'd say the better counterfactual histories are those which take the fewest liberties with actual history.
An example of perceptions of historical fact is the battle of the Somme.
I've occasionally been challenged by my Irish relatives to explain this and other WW1 battles with regard to the huge casualties for apparently little gain.
I was raised on AJP Taylor and others of his time and was influenced by the attitude of bitterness, waste and stupidity that prevails in accounts of, (usually British), battles in that war.
But in the last two decades there has been a shift in opinion, with some historians, whilst still having to acknowledge the dreadful casualties, (they are facts, after all), now see the Somme, for example, as the beginning of the decline of the German army.

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

I neither want to, or can dispute anything you say. The Roman period in Ireland is probably a bit off the wall in this discussion, falling somewhere between pre-history and history, with a dose of proto-history thrown in for good measure - I accept that there is more room for speculation on this particular subject than elsewhere in history.

Not at all, you provoke a great response and put a structure in place that faciltate's wide ranging discussion.

But I like Marchdub's verdict:
The emphasis in this statement, is the crux of the matter.

That's for MD.

indioblack wrote: »

There are historical facts and "facts" - the former being unarguable and therefore, I suspect, in the minority.

Michael Collins was killed on 22 August 1922. That is an established historical fact unless someone discovers verifiable evidence to the contrary it will remain so.

Was it DeV's gig ? My opinion is irrelevant only what the contemporary and later sources tell us and reveal.

I was raised on AJP Taylor and others of his time and was influenced by the attitude of bitterness, waste and stupidity that prevails in accounts of, (usually British), battles in that war.

Taylor was very left wing and it goes without saying that he was a master of the fact's and, for me ,his interpretation of issue's can be a bit off the wall. That said, he was sympathetic to the Irish.

FSL Lyons in Ireland was our foremost historian and his footnotes and throwaways themselves are nuggets. Unlike Taylor he was not a popular or populist historian.

indioblack

CDfm wrote: »

Not at all, you provoke a great response and put a structure in place that faciltate's wide ranging discussion.


That's for MD.





Michael Collins was killed on 22 August 1922. That is an established historical fact unless someone discovers verifiable evidence to the contrary it will remain so.

I wasn't doubting that Collins died on that day - that is a fact.
Perhaps "interpretation of history" would have been more accurate.
In using the example of the Somme I was thinking of large historical events which could, and have, resulted in different perspectives being put upon them.

CDfm

indioblack wrote: »

I wasn't doubting that Collins died on that day - that is a fact.

And that's what history is based on.

Perhaps "interpretation of history" would have been more accurate.
In using the example of the Somme I was thinking of large historical events which could, and have, resulted in different perspectives being put upon them.

I used the example of Gustav Adolphus Magnus who with his premier Axel Oxenstierna shaped Sweden and Oxenstierna survived his kings death. In fact, its a perfect example for as you can assess what event's may have been different if the king had survived.

But is this "virtual" history history . Nah.

What you seem to be talking about is theories. We have Marxist historian's who seek to explain history with reference to Marx's theories.

When Military fans do this war games are used for particular scenario's and the emphasis is on the word game. To assess a components importance remove it.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

And that's what history is based on.

Yes indeed - and it is the primary sources that help us establish facts.

CDfm wrote: »

What you seem to be talking about is theories.

Or interpretations. And it is the secondary sources that are frequently the interpretations of the primary sources. But no where in actual historiography should we have invented facts or speculations not grounded in fact.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not a historian but use history as a discipline when discussing it. History describes the method

*Shrugs* Personally I'd describe history as '**** that happened in the past'. Now that's not necessarily more valid than your definition but then the nature of history has always been a debating point. Running the forum on the basis of a particular overly methodological approach does not necessarily make for good discussions

Personally I find this forum to be of far too narrow scope and obsessed with sources in a way that you only really find amongst pseudo-historians. The result is a near-exclusive focus on micro history and local sources. Some people may enjoy that but I don't see the point in maintaining such limitations

And then it would no longer be a history forum but an " I can't believe it's not history forum".

Only if you've somehow reduced history to a set of rules. I have no problem with someone discussing, say, 17th C Irish politics if they do so using the device of an early Cromwell death

MarchDub

Reekwind wrote: »

Only if you've somehow reduced history to a set of rules.

It's not a reduction - it's the norm. Historic knowledge is subject to "a set of rules" otherwise it would all be just speculation and opinion - and while a discussion without any rules to help establish actual facts - a real free for all - has a place somewhere, it's not within the area of history.

If we are going to have a forum dedicated to History based on actual knowledge of the past as best as we can establish it - then rules and guidelines have to be the norm. Otherwise close the forum or call it something else.

indioblack

[ But no where in actual historiography should we have invented facts or speculations not grounded in fact.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but you can be sure it happens. Even historians are not immune to this subjectiveness.
The example of Collins death tells us he died on the 22nd of August 1922.
A fact. When we wish to know more we expand the canvas and, in the case of Collins, spend a long time in the realm of speculation. That is the nature of history for most people - eventually research and objectivity may produce a more accurate account of the event.
The example of the Somme is of a canvas broad enough that constant referrals to the facts must be very hard - even for a historian.
In that example I touched on two different points of view of the same event - perhaps both are bad history!
But we put our colour on the past all the time - even in a history forum.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

MarchDub wrote: »

It's not a reduction - it's the norm. Historic knowledge is subject to "a set of rules" otherwise it would all be just speculation and opinion - and while a discussion without any rules to help establish actual facts - a real free for all - has a place somewhere, it's not within the area of history

This is an internet message board, not an academic journal. I'd suggest that the place for a rigorous and thorough combing of sources is the latter. Otherwise you are merely stifling debate here for the sake of procedure

Frankly I have never had a discussion with an historian or a history student in which we first had to sit down and hammer out a set of rules on referencing or the like. You have the discussion, preferably over drinks, and if there is a point of dispute then, and only then, do you question sources. The purpose of the debate is not to get caught up in fact checking or methodologies but to discuss and contrast interpretations

If we are going to have a forum dedicated to History based on actual knowledge of the past as best as we can establish it - then rules and guidelines have to be the norm. Otherwise close the forum or call it something else.

"Actual knowledge of the past" does not and should not mean a literal and source-obsessed approach. By all means substantiate your assertions but not at the dogmatic exclusion of interpretation and speculation

MarchDub

Reekwind wrote: »

This is an internet message board, not an academic journal. I'd suggest that the place for a rigorous and thorough combing of sources is the latter. Otherwise you are merely stifling debate here for the sake of procedure

Frankly I have never had a discussion with an historian or a history student in which we first had to sit down and hammer out a set of rules on referencing or the like. You have the discussion, preferably over drinks, and if there is a point of dispute then, and only then, do you question sources. The purpose of the debate is not to get caught up in fact checking or methodologies but to discuss and contrast interpretations

"Actual knowledge of the past" does not and should not mean a literal and source-obsessed approach. By all means substantiate your assertions but not at the dogmatic exclusion of interpretation and speculation

Your discussion has drifted away from counter-factual history to interpretation - which is an entirely different matter and is of course a part of historic discussion. See my post above on secondary sources and interpretation. And when disputes arise - the source material is the basis for resolution.

Counterfactual history is decidedly by definition not based on fact - and is certainly not an interpretation.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

'Counterfactual history' is nothing more than a framing device used to compare various interpretations. By discussing what would have happened had, say, the 1916 leaders not been executed, we can explore the topic of independence-era Irish nationalism, politics and class in a different way to simply throwing up newspaper cuttings. The idea is not to build new worlds (that would be the fictional realm of 'alternative history') but to examine what evidence we do have in a different light

This all lies well within the sphere of history discussions, unless perhaps you're writing an academic paper or decide to reduce 'history' to mere procedure

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

*Shrugs* Personally I'd describe history as '**** that happened in the past'. Now that's not necessarily more valid than your definition but then the nature of history has always been a debating point. Running the forum on the basis of a particular overly methodological approach does not necessarily make for good discussions

Actually as history forums go this is very lax on history as a discipline. I recently ran the gauntlet on an American site over the controversial topic of mixed race and the Irish.

It was moderated by an American history professor and I had to navigate my way thru the race issue.

Personally I find this forum to be of far too narrow scope and obsessed with sources in a way that you only really find amongst pseudo-historians. The result is a near-exclusive focus on micro history and local sources. Some people may enjoy that but I don't see the point in maintaining such limitations

Irish history is very biased and the traditional history taught in schools is very removed from what actually happened. Its makey upey.

See, when dealing with a controversial topic it gives structure for discussions. If it does not deal with a fact then it can't be called history.

You wouldn't want a football match report that didn't deal with the match and history is the same.

Fenian Army

If everyone knows what the craic is, and the facts of the matter then it can be useful to explore "What ifs" but thats not the case here.

If its allowed it will be, as others have said, a lot of people asking "what if" and others just spouting opinions.

Pointless.

I dont use the forum any more really as it is mainly opinion sharing with little basis in fact these days but a forum full of what ifs would be the final nail in the coffin.

MarchDub

Fenian Army wrote: »

If everyone knows what the craic is, and the facts of the matter then it can be useful to explore "What ifs" but thats not the case here.

If its allowed it will be, as others have said, a lot of people asking "what if" and others just spouting opinions.

Pointless.

I dont use the forum any more really as it is mainly opinion sharing with little basis in fact these days but a forum full of what ifs would be the final nail in the coffin.

+1

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

If it does not deal with a fact then it can't be called history

I recently finished reading an excellent work on Norman Italy in which the author, a history academic, liberally and admittedly speculated on motives, characters involved and, occasionally, entire events. He had no choice given that a mere handful of primary chronicles survive (and are often inaccurate and contradictory at that) to cover a century long period. In this case facts are exceptionally short on the ground. This professor of history would no doubt be driven off this forum with people dismissing his "opinions"

You wouldn't want a football match report that didn't deal with the match and history is the same.

A match report is the author/journalist regaling us with his/her view of the game. The actual 'facts' are condensed at the end of the report for those who care only for those. But then it's a silly analogy

But I find this idea that 'counterfactual history' has nothing to do with facts to be very strange. Of course any hypothetical scenario has to have a firm basis in fact and reason. Asking 'what if Nazi Germany had Godzilla on its side?' is fantasy; asking 'what if Nazi Germany had invented a nuclear bomb by 1939?' can lead to a discussion around why this was impossible; asking 'what if Army Group Centre had ignored Kiev in 1941?' crops up in almost every historical discussion/work on Barbarossa.

There is a clear difference in the above questions and I see no reason why moderating this would be impossible. Or render more local history threads impossible

Fenian Army wrote:

I dont use the forum any more really as it is mainly opinion sharing with little basis in fact

I'm confused, when did the two become mutually exclusive?

I could regale you with my opinions on, say, early 20th C Russia. I'd like to think that they'd be pretty sound opinions given that I'm quite well read in the area and they'd certainly be based on numerous primary and secondary resources. They'd be supported by facts (as is, incidentally, counterfactual history) but still be my opinion. Unfortunately the attitude of some on this board is that it's better to swap snippets from local Irish newspapers on attitudes to Russia than it is to enter into a proper discussion of ideas and interpretations

Fenian Army

I'm confused, when did the two become mutually exclusive?

I could regale you with my opinions on, say, early 20th C Russia. I'd like to think that they'd be pretty sound opinions given that I'm quite well read in the area and they'd certainly be based on numerous primary and secondary resources. They'd be supported by facts (as is, incidentally, counterfactual history) but still be my opinion. Unfortunately the attitude of some on this board is that it's better to swap snippets from local Irish newspapers on attitudes to Russia than it is to enter into a proper discussion of ideas and interpretations

You'd be the exception.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

In that I've (sort've) stuck around, yes. The snobbish and sub-Rankean attitude that history is simply swapping sources leads to a very narrow range of forum topics being discussed by a very select group of posters. If you insist that you must be 'this tall' to enter the ride then you discourage new posters and limit intelligent discussion

So I see nothing wrong with inviting discussions that don't have to be underpinned by decades old Irish Times cuttings. 'Counterfactuals' should be one element of this

MarchDub

Reekwind wrote: »

In that I've (sort've) stuck around, yes. The snobbish and sub-Rankean attitude that history is simply swapping sources leads to a very narrow range of forum topics being discussed by a very select group of posters. If you insist that you must be 'this tall' to enter the ride then you discourage new posters and limit intelligent discussion

So I see nothing wrong with inviting discussions that don't have to be underpinned by decades old Irish Times cuttings. 'Counterfactuals' should be one element of this

Seeing as how you have now 'reduced' the discussion to throwing insults around - your charges of 'snobbish' and 'sub-Rankean attitude' - at the regular or what you choose to refer to as a 'select group of posters' here - you can see how low a factless debate would go.

And who posts only Irish Times cuttings?

We really ARE in Afterhours....

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

*Shrugs* My posts are these MarchDub, feel free to respond to the content when you wish

I consider the attitude that only those who have access to a sufficient set of sources should be permitted to partake in this forum to be snobbish. It automatically excludes those who have no interest in the topics that predominate on this forum or those who simply wish to learn. Dismissing such people (these 'opinion spouters') as undesirables who threaten to flood the forum is... well, snobbish

Particularly so when it corresponds with the apparent belief that there is only one 'real' way to discuss history - your way. I generally have little problem with people following Ranke, even if that approach is hopelessly misguided (and there are plenty of academic opinions to that effect), but insisting that it is the only real way to discuss history is not something I condone or find advisable

So yes, I see the concerns expressed here as having very little to do with counterfactual history itself and more an expression of an unwillingness to engage with those who take a different approach to history or who are perhaps more interested in learning than rolling out quotes or the like

MarchDub

Reekwind wrote: »

*Shrugs* My posts are these MarchDub, feel free to respond to the content when you wish

I consider the attitude that only those who have access to a sufficient set of sources should be permitted to partake in this forum to be snobbish. It automatically excludes those who have no interest in the topics that predominate on this forum or those who simply wish to learn. Dismissing such people (these 'opinion spouters') as undesirables who threaten to flood the forum is... well, snobbish

Particularly so when it corresponds with the apparent belief that there is only one 'real' way to discuss history - your way.

Leaving aside the insult that I have insisted on some personal agenda - I have never devised a personal way to discuss history. I have only stated what is the accepted norm in history circles and the forum charter.

Reekwind wrote: »

I generally have little problem with people following Ranke, even if that approach is hopelessly misguided (and there are plenty of academic opinions to that effect), but insisting that it is the only real way to discuss history is not something I condone or find advisable

So yes, I see the concerns expressed here as having very little to do with counterfactual history itself and more an expression of an unwillingness to engage with those who take a different approach to history or who are perhaps more interested in learning than rolling out quotes or the like

I disagree - especially as regards myself. My concern has been singularly around the introduction of counterfactual history - however you chose to see it otherwise for your own purposes.

In fact your posts read like a diversion from the actual topic as a purposeful way of letting off steam or a masked resentment at posters who stick to the historic record - hence your throwing around the flimsy "Irish Times' charge - which you never answered BTW.

jonniebgood1

Both sides of this argument are noted. I suggest that it would be better to let the discussion move on if possible (you could continue by PM if you wish), rather than get bogged down at this point. This is of course up to those in the discussion but I really would prefer that.

Moderator.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Both sides of this argument are noted. I suggest that it would be better to let the discussion move on if possible, rather than get bogged down at this point. This is of course up to those in the discussion.
Moderator.

I agree and see no purpose in going any further...

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

I recently finished reading an excellent work on Norman Italy in which the author, a history academic, liberally and admittedly speculated on motives, characters involved and, occasionally, entire events. He had no choice given that a mere handful of primary chronicles survive (and are often inaccurate and contradictory at that) to cover a century long period. In this case facts are exceptionally short on the ground. This professor of history would no doubt be driven off this forum with people dismissing his "opinions"

I have posted on this earlier.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78777339&postcount=11

In the absence of particular sources you use the next best thing.

A match report is the author/journalist regaling us with his/her view of the game. The actual 'facts' are condensed at the end of the report for those who care only for those. But then it's a silly analogy

If you say so.

But I find this idea that 'counterfactual history' has nothing to do with facts to be very strange. Of course any hypothetical scenario has to have a firm basis in fact and reason. Asking 'what if Nazi Germany had Godzilla on its side?' is fantasy; asking 'what if Nazi Germany had invented a nuclear bomb by 1939?' can lead to a discussion around why this was impossible; asking 'what if Army Group Centre had ignored Kiev in 1941?' crops up in almost every historical discussion/work on Barbarossa.

By definition , it would cease to be history.

There is a clear difference in the above questions and I see no reason why moderating this would be impossible. Or render more local history threads impossible

I'm confused, when did the two become mutually exclusive?

AS above

I could regale you with my opinions on, say, early 20th C Russia. I'd like to think that they'd be pretty so

:eek:

conor.hogan.2

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

Interpreting history is very important and "what if" has a big role to play in this.

What if is perhaps not the best wording for this though, more along the lines of interpreting events in light of certain "events" and how those events influenced later decisions/etc would be better wording.

There is a line though. Pure "what if" discussions are fun but not very useful in History discussions.

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

I consider the attitude that only those who have access to a sufficient set of sources should be permitted to partake in this forum to be snobbish. It automatically excludes those who have no interest in the topics that predominate on this forum or those who simply wish to learn. Dismissing such people (these 'opinion spouters') as undesirables who threaten to flood the forum is... well, snobbish

In fairness, it doesn't . If you want to discuss a topic you should just get on with it but be prepared for others who take the trouble to check their facts to have a better grasp of the topic.

That is because history is based on facts and if a new fact is uncovered it can change the known fact's.

History is about seeking the best possible information.

I got into this forum during the Brian era and that is how it was done.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

History is about seeking the best possible information

No, no it's not. That's just very, very wrong. I've gone through this enough above but please read Carr's seminal What is History? sometime. It may correct a few of the misconceptions that abound in this thread

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

No, no it's not. That's just very, very wrong. I've gone through this enough above but please read Carr's seminal What is History? sometime. It may correct a few of the misconceptions that abound in this thread

Carr was controversial and rejected somewhat the empirical approach used by lots of historians. He is dated and no longer in vogue.

This University of Cambridge site summarizes Carr and the debate he spawned and criticizes it (rightly IMHO),

http://www.historycambridge.com/default.asp?contentID=777

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

That's hardly a damning critique, I could point to much worse elsewhere. But then that is in itself an indication of how varied and fluid the field of historiography is and the silliness in taking one approach as dogma. To insist that history is "seeking the best possible information" (essentially a return to Ranke's wie es eigentlich gewesen) is not only out of step with historical thought but is an attempt to codify and constrain what is a constantly evolving discipline

So yes, laying down the law and insisting that history is X or Y is wrong. Suggesting that everybody else on a forum follow this schema is silly

As for Carr himself, of course a lecture given in 1961 is not current; it wasn't recommended because it's an example of contemporary thought (which would be impressive given that Carr's been dead three decades) but because it's a massively influential work that strongly challenges the literal and fact-obsessed notion of history. It's something that you should read yourself and then agree/disagree with. I'm not sure there's an historian alive today, in the English speaking world at least, who hasn't

CDfm

I read it a long time ago and disagree with it, though I can see its attractions for some.I always marvel at the scholarship of FSL Lyons.

There are some great resources available on the internet and they don't get used and cited enough.

Edit : That's not to say Carr wasn't a handy historian and he was criticized on the generalization thing which had as much to do with his politics as anything else, as I remember it.

In Carr's case he didn't advocate abandoning facts.So Reekwind, where did Carr advocate "Counterfactual History" ?

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

In Carr's case he didn't advocate abandoning facts.So Reekwind, where did Carr advocate "Counterfactual History" ?

He didn't, wot with it not being around then and all. Nor did I suggest as such. What he did do was criticise the obsession with facts (and the idea that the role of the history is recording or seeking out new facts) that has underpinned criticism to change in this thread

That and mischaracterisation. You will struggle to find anyone in this thread who advocates "abandoning facts" because that's not what counterfactual history is about. Every good 'what if' scenario should rest on a plausible base of fact and reason. It is not alternate history, that is the realm of science fiction writers. Asking what if Cromwell had conquered Mexico is silly; asking what the consequences of a decisive Parliamentarian defeat at Edgehill opens the floor to fruitful and novel discussion on 17th C English society and the forces at work within

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

In Carr's case he didn't advocate abandoning facts.

Yes, that's correct - in fact one of his issues was with the nineteenth century emphasis on some facts over others. And the issue of which facts actually contributed to historical development.

I don't recall if he attacked 'whig history' specifically but it would have made a good target for him - as indeed it ought to have. Bu like you say, much of his work remains controversial.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, that's correct - in fact one of his issues was with the nineteenth century emphasis on some facts over others

His core thesis, to simplify massively, was that an "emphasis on some facts over others" was inherent in the very act of writing history. Or, in his words, "it used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the door and in what order or context"

Edit: It's also worth noting that Carr's own work, particularly the later collaborations with RW Davies, are massively detailed and draw on a wealth of sources. But this discussion has never been about "abandoning facts"

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

His core thesis, to simplify massively, was that an "emphasis on some facts over others" was inherent in the very act of writing history. Or, in his words, "it used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the door and in what order or context"

And, that work's when writing history as it is a passive exercise.

And a forum is not a passive media.

I can't help thinking that he was also writing in an era when a lot of convention's were being challenged and education democratized so a lot of stuff was coming out.

So maybe he was going "right lads, save the copious referencing etc for the new stuff "

Edit: It's also worth noting that Carr's own work, particularly the later collaborations with RW Davies, are massively detailed and draw on a wealth of sources. But this discussion has never been about "abandoning facts"

He was a reputable historian.

So as Carr himself had high standards it is debatable whether he would have advocated counterfactual history in the context of this type of format.

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

And, that work's when writing history as it is a passive exercise.

And a forum is not a passive media

Passive as in how? In that Carr would not be expected to defend his interpretations/histories before his peers? It's already been noted, a number of times, that his work was occasionally controversial...

Either way, I find it bizarre that the History & Heritage section of boards.ie should be expected to have higher standards than an academic journal or publication

I can't help thinking that he was also writing in an era when a lot of convention's were being challenged and education democratized so a lot of stuff was coming out.

So maybe he was going "right lads, save the copious referencing etc for the new stuff "

I'd point out that, as anyone who's read one of his works knows, all Carr's works, spanning five decades from the 1930s through to the 1980s, were always meticulously referenced and packed full of obscure and carefully researched references

But that's not really the point. Carr wasn't arguing against good academic practice, and I'm certainly not either, but that facts be placed in the correct context. Facts are only part, and often the less interesting part, of an interpretation. Again, the idea that counterfactuals imply a disregard for academic practice is false; if you make an assertion that can be referenced then of course you should reference it

So as Carr himself had high standards it is debatable whether he would have advocated counterfactual history in the context of this type of format.

Only if you somehow associate "high standards" with disdaining counterfactual history. As it is, it was Carr's Marxism, which did lean towards determinism at times, that ensured that he had no truck with it

Ironically of course Carr's magnum opus was itself underpinned by an implicit, and certainly unacknowledged, 'what if'. Later volumes of his History of Soviet Russia detail the 'corruption' of the Russian Revolution by Stalin with the implicit, and slightly wounded, assumption that things would have been better under Trotsky