Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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....


  • Options
    #36
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #40
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #41
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #44
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #46
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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" ?


  • Options
    #47
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #48
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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"


  • Options
    #50
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    hivizman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    Very interesting debate. Do we say "it's silly to ask 'what if things had been different?', because it's the job of historians to discover and help us to understand what actually happened?" ordoes asking "what if things had been different?" provide us with a firmer basis for analysing what actually did occur?

    E. H. Carr observes, in What is History? (Penguin paperback edition, 1964, p. 97), that he was criticised by some historians for not exploring, in his famous history of the Russian Revolution, various "what-if" (counterfactual) possibilities - his critics asserted that Carr was a determinist, who believed that the Russian Revolution turned out the way it did because this was inevitable. Carr lists various "what-if" suppositions offered by his critics, and then comments: "These suppositions are theoretically conceivable; and one can always play a parlour-game with the might-have-beens of history. But they have nothing to do with determinism; for the determinist will only reply that, for these things to have happened, the causes would also have had to be different. Nor have they anything to do with history."

    A relatively recent essay in The American Historical Review (Vol. 109, No. 3 (June 2004), pp. 845-858) by Martin Bunzl, "Counterfactual History: A User's Guide", presents the case that there is both "bad" and "good" counterfactual history. Bunzl argues that it is actually quite difficult to avoid counterfactuals when practising history, but he does not consider that mere appeals to imagination are sufficient to provide a basis for counterfactual reasoning. He suggests that counterfactual reasoning can be grounded in arguments that make use of notions of rationality (for example, if things had happened differently from the actual history, then this would have implied that historical actors were behaving in irrational or otherwise inexplicable ways) and of causation. Here, Bunzl suggests that use of causal analysis in history often implicitly but sometimes explicitly makes use of counterfactual reasoning - the historian concludes that A is the cause of Z by examining alternative causes B, C, D etc. and asking what would have happened if one of the alternatives had occurred instead of A. Overall, though, Bunzl regards counterfactual reasoning as an "informal method" of historiography.


  • Options
    #53
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Reekwind wrote: »

    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

    Well - now you know. :pac::)

    Edit: But to give you a more serious answer - the very fact that it is an internet forum would play into how it would affect discussions. What I said in a previous post on the thread still holds for me. While it is an interesting tool for those well versed on historic topics, on an internet forum like this IMO it would just lead to endless rounds of arguments here based on nothing but uninformed opinions clashing against each other, and I don't know how the boundaries of that could be reined in.


  • Options
    #54
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭conor.hogan.2


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    IMO it would just lead to endless rounds of arguments here based on nothing but uninformed opinions clashing against each other, and I don't know how the boundaries of that could be reined in.

    This happens in books too. There is jabs in footnotes and prefaces that I was told about in College.

    The mods would "police" it in this forum. It is a fine line.


  • Options
    #55
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    conor.hogan.2 wrote: »
    This happens in books too. There is jabs in footnotes and prefaces that I was told about in College.

    The mods would "police" it in this forum.     It is a fine line.

    Are you assuming that would happen using history as an academic discipline as a benchmark.

    Have the mods clarified that ?


  • Options
    #56
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well - now you know. :pac::)

    Edit: But to give you a more serious answer - the very fact that it is an internet forum would play into how it would affect discussions. What I said in a previous post on the thread still holds for me. While it is an interesting tool for those well versed on historic topics, on an internet forum like this IMO it would just lead to endless rounds of arguments here based on nothing but uninformed opinions clashing against each other, and I don't know how the boundaries of that could be reined in.
    More than likely a fair insight into what would probably happen.
    But is the poll not about the place of CF in historiography, generally, rather than just in this forum?


  • Options
    #57
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    slowburner wrote: »
    More than likely a fair insight into what would probably happen.
    But is the poll not about the place of CF in historiography, generally, rather than just in this forum?

    I think the proposal is about it's use in the forum and there is a what if thread running right now.

    The discussion here is bouncing between fantasy history and CF as a tool in limited defined circumstances .


  • Options
    #58
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    slowburner wrote: »
    More than likely a fair insight into what would probably happen.
    But is the poll not about the place of CF in historiography, generally, rather than just in this forum?
    CDfm wrote: »
    I think the proposal is about it's use in the forum and there is a what if thread running right now.

    CDfm - That's exactly my understanding too - that it's about enshrining, approving 'what if' threads for the forum. Big mistake IMO.


  • Options
    #59
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    CDfm - That's exactly my understanding too - that it's about enshrining, approving 'what if' threads for the forum. Big mistake IMO.

    Maybe the OP/the Mods can tell us what the situation is ?


  • Options
    #60
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Reekwind wrote: »

    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 agree with you and have often argued with the mods and those who run boards about it.

    You cannot avoid argument's in history , especially Irish history with it's romantic nationalism and unionism. How the forum gets moded has often less to do with history than trying to avoid offending either side and preventing sideswipes etc. I disagree with this as it is part of the discourse and provided political debate and soapboxing does not take over the forum it doesn't bother me or affect me.

    I do think that we should be able to have these discussions and if they want to engage here then let them bring their history to the forum and discuss it and it's sources. Nothing wrong with a bit of banter either.


    A lot of sources in history are accessible these days and I gave up on Irish history because lots of it in circulation , especially from traditional Irish historians, is just plain wrong and untrue.


    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

    A bit of a Carr fan . Are we :).

    He really did leave a mark on History Teaching in Britain and there was a spillover in Ireland recently on the WWII deserter issue when Professor Geoffrey Roberts an English historian teaching in Cork was given a deserved lesson by Diarmuid Ferriter.

    Our marxist influenced historian was more than a bit imperialist ;).

    Of course, I didn't need to know of Carr to appreciate it , but it helped.

    hivizman wrote: »
    "These suppositions are theoretically conceivable; and one can always play a parlour-game with the might-have-beens of history. But they have nothing to do with determinism; for the determinist will only reply that, for these things to have happened, the causes would also have had to be different. Nor have they anything to do with history."

    Nicely put, its the "parlour game" that I have reservation's about.

    A relatively recent essay in The American Historical Review (Vol. 109, No. 3 (June 2004), pp. 845-858) by Martin Bunzl, "Counterfactual History: A User's Guide", presents the case that there is both "bad" and "good" counterfactual history. Bunzl argues that it is actually quite difficult to avoid counterfactuals when practising history, but he does not consider that mere appeals to imagination are sufficient to provide a basis for counterfactual reasoning

    There is a crossover from other disciplines , like economics, where people test theories anyway. Back in Carr's day historians would have been trained in the classic's .

    Overall, though, Bunzl regards counterfactual reasoning as an "informal method" of historiography.

    There is always a bit of "but why" in history. "Hand's up class, why did DeV declare an economic war on Britain".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    Originally Posted by MarchDub View Post
    CDfm - That's exactly my understanding too - that it's about enshrining, approving 'what if' threads for the forum. Big mistake IMO.
    Maybe the OP/the Mods can tell us what the situation is ?

    The purpose of the thread was to garner the opinion of forum users towards this type of thread. I did not expect the result to be universally one way or the other and good points have been made on both sides. From a moderating point of view the views of people using the forum help form the basis on which threads are allowed to function. This is also why I have not expressed an opinion. It is absolutely not about 'enshrining, approving' couterfactual threads- in fact they are already a part of the forum.
    I note counterfactual threads are not a new thing on the history forum. For example from 2009 this thread titled 'If Lynch had invaded' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055669480 or this one from a few weeks time of the first 'Should Ireland have joined Allies in WW2' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055592204 .


Advertisement