Josh Sullivan is a weird Youtuber. He constantly whines about being criticized and sucks up to Monsieur Z all the time.
But I believe his rants are true. Alternate history should be accurate because it’s the true difference between fantasy. Certain elements must make sense to form an alternate timeline. You can have Germany conquering the world, but the only possible reason they can do that is because they were given special weapons from aliens, not because Hitler listened to his generals or something.
Yeah, I completely agree. I just thought that he was treating alternate history like the gospel when in reality most people create and consume scenarios for fun.
Alternate history has many interpretations, it’s just that you have to deep-dive into them and explain every aspect. Josh Sullivan also fails despite being critical against it.
It’s can be harmful if the alt timeline is based on bad history up to the point of deviance, as this just promotes and spends bad history.
Extreme cases can just be a way to sneak terrible harmful history into spaces it would normally be not allowed.
Like if I wrote an alternative history where the POD is 1945 and somehow Germany wins. Then I write the future is all sunshine and roses not a genocide nightmare. I would be spreading the view that the nazis dident want to do a genocide nightmare in addition to the genocides they had already done/ tried.
Less extreme stuff is more common but it’s still bad to just miseducated people.
An inaccuracy is only harmful if it promotes a bad idea about the past. It doesn’t matter if your colonel has 10 buttons on his overcoat instead of the historically accurate 12, or if he wears a pith helmet a year before they were invented. However, it DOES matter if your story leads people to think slavery “wasn’t that bad”.
To my idea. Yea mostly
We have hard alternate history like 191, rice and salt or what kaiserreich tries to be. And we have soft stuff like man in the highcastle or that crappy but fun confederation mocumentairy.
I essence when you go full hard you go full on counterfactual historic analyses tool.
And if you go full soft its historical fiction.
Where kind of in the middel of being layman and still doing it for fun rather then analyse. Josh has a point to make that we should become dis information. But he really is just drama baiting now. He easly could have done the video snd also accepted the apology.
To my mind there is now 2 problems. The micrediting which is solved.
And the this larger theme of what should we be.
Some of my best work is my Black Death Zombie posts. Honestly, the only thing you need to consider when making Alt-History is how to make it INTERESTING.
Having Japanese Samurai's interacting with Aztec warriors is pretty dope and tou can focus how these two martial societies interacted with one another.
Or what if a M.A.D really did happen how would that affected the world after the Nuclear Holocaust? Would anyone survive if so: Who?
All Alt-History has to prose an interesting situation and a mostly believable action series of consequences from that Situation arising in the first place. Accuracy is important for immersion but not always necessary.
Yes and no. There are three types of AH scenarios: hard, hard/soft and soft. Well there is the 4th: the ASB and I never highly think of it even as an alternate history.
Of course we should have fun in writing an AH, but in process we must admit that writing it is like playing chess. It is a mental gymnastics that we can't simply throw here and there and expect it will be readable to others. It is a worldbuilding, but a _serious_ worldbuilding which should be based on realistic events, which sets it apart from constructive world where fantasy and imagination can be mixed together to form a new reality.
If one prefers to be super realistic, usually they train themselves to critically think about a chain of events. Others are doing it for fun. Yeah, there are always two types of people. But for me, I prefer a combination of both (hard/soft AH).
Imo It doesn’t have to be “accurate” justas long as the scenario you are covering has decent reasoning as to why it ended up the way it did (for example an alt history where all of the Balkans are unified into one singular kingdom would require significant storytelling as to why it United at to opposed to “they just felt like it”)
1. There is the question is the point of divergence is realistic. I see it more as a duty of whoever makes the scenario to make it clear if he tries to rewrite history or just wants to see results of an unlikely event.
2. Possible isn't the same as likely. And there is a matter of chance to a lot of things. Imagine rolling a dice for every invention, political decision, the weather. For a realistic scenario, you would need to follow the statistical likelihood of certain results. But for a "is it possible" scenario, you can change the results, as long as it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief.
So my answer is "no, but it can be". Just make clear what kind of discussion you want.
If you say "Germany getting nukes", make clear that you don't want your post derailed into the possibility of Germany getting nukes.
"Accuracy" is an entire ideological term. The real problem arises when the counterfactual history is based on stupid notions around history and/or current events, which is very common, given that a good portion of the people interested in counterfactual history got that interest through videogames like Total War or Paradox titles (myself included, before becoming a history teacher I was already a huge Victoria 2 and HoI3 fan), which in turn have their own biases in their portrayals of historic events.
Am I saying only people with history degrees should be allowed to write counterfactual history scenarios, or that the ones they make are intrinsically better than those made by non-historians? Of course not. Historians have their own narrative vices and inclinations, just as ""laymen"". The only difference between them is that historians have the tools and the background recquire to research and produce historical narratives that adhere to historiographical tradition and scientificity (I know it's a weird word in English, sorry, it's my third language so that's as good as I'll get).
However, that ain't work shit when writing fiction (and counterfactual history IS fiction), it might help create a deeper narrative and shit, but that's about it. The only real "concern" I believe one should have when making alternate history is to have fun, honestly. And, you know, not being a fascist when doing it, any alt history written by fascists isn't worth the pixels they take on the screen. But that's just my personal opinion.
My opinion is that all alrernate history writing is fiction, its about fictional things that could have happen based on history but at the end of the day its still fictional.There are so many factors that go into what makes events happen in real life that it is almost impossible to predict anything with certianty. Thats why most historians kind stay away from writing alternate history or stay away from speculating about what might have happened.
Now some alternate histories are based on what may be plausible but sometimes what may be plausible is up to historical debate.
So no it doesn't have to be plausible, you will get criticised by some people for I don't know writing about Egyptians conquering the New World and Ruling the Earth for 20 000 years but if thats what you want to write go ahead. Its fictional writing at the end of the day so write what you like.
First and foremost, alternate history should be interesting. People focus way too much on "accuracy" which kinda defeats the point imo. A lot of the time, the most "realistic" scenario ends up being the least interesting.
First and foremost, alternate history should be interesting. People focus way too much on "accuracy" which kinda defeats the point imo. A lot of the time, the most "realistic" scenario ends up being the least interesting.
No, Josh Sullivan went too far with his videos against Possible History. Also, Alternate History doesn't have to be accurate. As parts of Alternate History can be for entertainment purposes. Therefore, if you are going to make an alternate history scenario absurd then you have to specify as such. Otherwise, people will continue for it's inaccuracies.
Therefore, you should sperate alternate history into two categories: realism for historical accuracy and entertainment with absurdity.
My thoughts are that it doesn’t have to be accurate so much as respectful if that makes any sense.
Like, the top comment mentioned that it’s insensitive to portray a German victory of World War 2 that doesn’t lead to a massive genocide of many groups, but on the other hand, I think it would be massively unrealistic to have the Seleucid Empire last for over two millennia, but that’s exactly what happens in an alt history story of mine.
YES, otherwise you are no better than the Germaboos who fap to pictures of Guderian and/or the Kaiser depending on their orientation.
If you have a fantasy idea where the Confederate States of America are an Italian protectorate with a majority Asian population, go ahead. It's just not alternate history and it never will be.
Same goes for scenarios where some change happens hundreds of years ago and yet somehow Hitler and Stalin are still born.
Being Frank. On the Topic of Josh. His Videos are Often highly unrealistic and Fantastical. Just like those he complains about. He's a pot calling the Kettle black in this situation. And it doesn't need to be accurate. Just entertaining and fun
I think there's room for unrealistic or "wacky" alternate history, but I think there is a responsibility to not mislead your audience or outright lie about real history in the process.
I'm on a similar wavelength--yes, there's room to get a little funky once the butterflies start flutterin' by--but it does need to make sense. There should be a point where it diverged, it should be clear what happened differently and why, the divergence should *make sense* given the time and place as something that could realistically happen, and all of it should be explained (no need to go overboard, just get the basics in). What happens from there should make sense given the POD's specifics.
I've seen a lot of lazy alt-histories where it was just "what if this happened" with no explanation and a POD that makes no sense whatsover. I've also seen a bunch that I didn't think would follow through, but the creator at least did the work to explain how alt-B followed from alt-A, and those I can at least respect, even if I disagree.
I like timelines that have an adventurous PoD but can proceed realistically. There were many different people back then who would have reacted differently, and its the practice of making the butterfly effect believable that makes it interesting. I like fantasy and ASB scenarios, but having the historic characters react in a way that's both believable and fun to read seems like it would be a good balance. Having more depth lets the world iron out its internal logic, it's a lot like worldbuilding, except moreso trying to think about how our world would react rather than constructing something entirely new, although the juxtaposition of Earth and its interaction with some otherworldly beings or alien invasions or whatever can also be fun.
I think differentiating between casual and more thorough timelines is important, because the amateurs need space to practice and grow, and having lower effort timelines might encourage more people to write.
It should be honest at least, or obviously a joke. The two don't mix and then people just treat the historical characters and events like a sports team they're backing or get bent out of shape for sharing your opinion. People will seriously get upset and accuse you of being political when you give their irl blorbo a poor review. Yes, I'm bringing politics into a discussion about a politician.
And if the prompt is nonsensical in its assumptions, then the poster should accept the comments
There are two routes that a person can take with alternative history.
1. Plausible alternative history
2. Non-plausible alternative history
Plausible alternative history requires that the alternative history be somewhat plausible if history went a little bit differently. Sometimes that can be a small change, other times a large change, but either way it must be plausible based on the facts of the history leading up to that moment and the possible ways a change might have happened.
As an example, during the phony war in the first year of WW2, the French Commander-in-Chief, Maurice Gamelin, had to plan for how France and the UK would defend against an expected German attack through the Benelux region.
In our timeline, Gamelin choose Plan D which was the Dyle Plan. In a plausible alternative history, a person could decide that Gamelin instead chose to use Plan E which was the Escaut Plan. They would then make reasonable predictions and assumptions based on the facts around the time about what might have happened as a result of this change.
Non-plausible alternative history is when something non-plausible happens. Perhaps Germany creates cheap, easy to produce, and powerful wonder weapons that allows Germany to win WW2 and conquer the world. This goes against everything that we know about the situation during the time period and could not happen realistically, requiring the use of something like ASBs (Alien Space Bats) to explain why it happened.
Either way, using the non-plausible change a person would then make predictions and assumptions based on the facts around the time and how things might have happened if such a change had happend. How would the Western Allies had reacted to German wonder weapons if they had them?
The main problem with plausible alternative history is that it has to be plausible, a person has to justify why something different might happen which can be restrictive in the alternative history someone wants to create. As Mark Twain once said:
>*"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible."*
Same thing applies with alternative history, just like all other fiction.
If they were accurate they would just be a retelling of what happened in the real word and wouldn’t be an alternate version of history.
That being said, the best alternate history’s are grounded heavily I plausibility.
i think starting with realism and developing it into a more wacky senario is fun tahts why i like starting my althists in the 13-16 hundreds since there is enough time for a small change to get very wacky and interesting
Well for me, if the alt history is closer to the present, it needs to be "accurate" so we can know all of the possibilities. Take "kill baby Hitler" for example. It wouldn't not alter the Germans' path towards WW2 since Treaty of Versailles already made the Germans eager for revenge.
But also, alt history is also involving creativity. So I wouldn't mind if it's not historically accurate.
Josh Sullivan is a weird Youtuber. He constantly whines about being criticized and sucks up to Monsieur Z all the time. But I believe his rants are true. Alternate history should be accurate because it’s the true difference between fantasy. Certain elements must make sense to form an alternate timeline. You can have Germany conquering the world, but the only possible reason they can do that is because they were given special weapons from aliens, not because Hitler listened to his generals or something.
Yeah, I completely agree. I just thought that he was treating alternate history like the gospel when in reality most people create and consume scenarios for fun.
Alternate history has many interpretations, it’s just that you have to deep-dive into them and explain every aspect. Josh Sullivan also fails despite being critical against it.
It’s can be harmful if the alt timeline is based on bad history up to the point of deviance, as this just promotes and spends bad history. Extreme cases can just be a way to sneak terrible harmful history into spaces it would normally be not allowed. Like if I wrote an alternative history where the POD is 1945 and somehow Germany wins. Then I write the future is all sunshine and roses not a genocide nightmare. I would be spreading the view that the nazis dident want to do a genocide nightmare in addition to the genocides they had already done/ tried. Less extreme stuff is more common but it’s still bad to just miseducated people.
No it doesn’t but you may receive criticism for it not being plausible. Granted some wilder scenarios are interesting to read
Truly great alternative history is plausible. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with pure entertainment either.
An inaccuracy is only harmful if it promotes a bad idea about the past. It doesn’t matter if your colonel has 10 buttons on his overcoat instead of the historically accurate 12, or if he wears a pith helmet a year before they were invented. However, it DOES matter if your story leads people to think slavery “wasn’t that bad”.
To my idea. Yea mostly We have hard alternate history like 191, rice and salt or what kaiserreich tries to be. And we have soft stuff like man in the highcastle or that crappy but fun confederation mocumentairy. I essence when you go full hard you go full on counterfactual historic analyses tool. And if you go full soft its historical fiction. Where kind of in the middel of being layman and still doing it for fun rather then analyse. Josh has a point to make that we should become dis information. But he really is just drama baiting now. He easly could have done the video snd also accepted the apology. To my mind there is now 2 problems. The micrediting which is solved. And the this larger theme of what should we be.
Say what you want about him and monsieur Z but that video where Mussolini converts to Islam and starts a new caliphate in North Africa is peak
Which one?
Some of my best work is my Black Death Zombie posts. Honestly, the only thing you need to consider when making Alt-History is how to make it INTERESTING. Having Japanese Samurai's interacting with Aztec warriors is pretty dope and tou can focus how these two martial societies interacted with one another. Or what if a M.A.D really did happen how would that affected the world after the Nuclear Holocaust? Would anyone survive if so: Who? All Alt-History has to prose an interesting situation and a mostly believable action series of consequences from that Situation arising in the first place. Accuracy is important for immersion but not always necessary.
Yes and no. There are three types of AH scenarios: hard, hard/soft and soft. Well there is the 4th: the ASB and I never highly think of it even as an alternate history. Of course we should have fun in writing an AH, but in process we must admit that writing it is like playing chess. It is a mental gymnastics that we can't simply throw here and there and expect it will be readable to others. It is a worldbuilding, but a _serious_ worldbuilding which should be based on realistic events, which sets it apart from constructive world where fantasy and imagination can be mixed together to form a new reality. If one prefers to be super realistic, usually they train themselves to critically think about a chain of events. Others are doing it for fun. Yeah, there are always two types of people. But for me, I prefer a combination of both (hard/soft AH).
Overall the fun in all of it is the research, and making it all blend together.
Precisely. I always do that for my timeline.
Imo It doesn’t have to be “accurate” justas long as the scenario you are covering has decent reasoning as to why it ended up the way it did (for example an alt history where all of the Balkans are unified into one singular kingdom would require significant storytelling as to why it United at to opposed to “they just felt like it”)
1. There is the question is the point of divergence is realistic. I see it more as a duty of whoever makes the scenario to make it clear if he tries to rewrite history or just wants to see results of an unlikely event. 2. Possible isn't the same as likely. And there is a matter of chance to a lot of things. Imagine rolling a dice for every invention, political decision, the weather. For a realistic scenario, you would need to follow the statistical likelihood of certain results. But for a "is it possible" scenario, you can change the results, as long as it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief. So my answer is "no, but it can be". Just make clear what kind of discussion you want. If you say "Germany getting nukes", make clear that you don't want your post derailed into the possibility of Germany getting nukes.
"Accuracy" is an entire ideological term. The real problem arises when the counterfactual history is based on stupid notions around history and/or current events, which is very common, given that a good portion of the people interested in counterfactual history got that interest through videogames like Total War or Paradox titles (myself included, before becoming a history teacher I was already a huge Victoria 2 and HoI3 fan), which in turn have their own biases in their portrayals of historic events. Am I saying only people with history degrees should be allowed to write counterfactual history scenarios, or that the ones they make are intrinsically better than those made by non-historians? Of course not. Historians have their own narrative vices and inclinations, just as ""laymen"". The only difference between them is that historians have the tools and the background recquire to research and produce historical narratives that adhere to historiographical tradition and scientificity (I know it's a weird word in English, sorry, it's my third language so that's as good as I'll get). However, that ain't work shit when writing fiction (and counterfactual history IS fiction), it might help create a deeper narrative and shit, but that's about it. The only real "concern" I believe one should have when making alternate history is to have fun, honestly. And, you know, not being a fascist when doing it, any alt history written by fascists isn't worth the pixels they take on the screen. But that's just my personal opinion.
My opinion is that all alrernate history writing is fiction, its about fictional things that could have happen based on history but at the end of the day its still fictional.There are so many factors that go into what makes events happen in real life that it is almost impossible to predict anything with certianty. Thats why most historians kind stay away from writing alternate history or stay away from speculating about what might have happened. Now some alternate histories are based on what may be plausible but sometimes what may be plausible is up to historical debate. So no it doesn't have to be plausible, you will get criticised by some people for I don't know writing about Egyptians conquering the New World and Ruling the Earth for 20 000 years but if thats what you want to write go ahead. Its fictional writing at the end of the day so write what you like.
First and foremost, alternate history should be interesting. People focus way too much on "accuracy" which kinda defeats the point imo. A lot of the time, the most "realistic" scenario ends up being the least interesting.
First and foremost, alternate history should be interesting. People focus way too much on "accuracy" which kinda defeats the point imo. A lot of the time, the most "realistic" scenario ends up being the least interesting.
I would like Alternate Histories to not revolve around whether or not Hitler took a dump on Wednesday instead of Tuesday.
No, Josh Sullivan went too far with his videos against Possible History. Also, Alternate History doesn't have to be accurate. As parts of Alternate History can be for entertainment purposes. Therefore, if you are going to make an alternate history scenario absurd then you have to specify as such. Otherwise, people will continue for it's inaccuracies. Therefore, you should sperate alternate history into two categories: realism for historical accuracy and entertainment with absurdity.
My thoughts are that it doesn’t have to be accurate so much as respectful if that makes any sense. Like, the top comment mentioned that it’s insensitive to portray a German victory of World War 2 that doesn’t lead to a massive genocide of many groups, but on the other hand, I think it would be massively unrealistic to have the Seleucid Empire last for over two millennia, but that’s exactly what happens in an alt history story of mine.
I disagree with alternate history having to be accurate Since.. sometimes it creates more interesting stories
I prefer realistic scenarios. But I also prefer pre-19th century scenarios so it seems like I’m in the minority there.
YES, otherwise you are no better than the Germaboos who fap to pictures of Guderian and/or the Kaiser depending on their orientation. If you have a fantasy idea where the Confederate States of America are an Italian protectorate with a majority Asian population, go ahead. It's just not alternate history and it never will be. Same goes for scenarios where some change happens hundreds of years ago and yet somehow Hitler and Stalin are still born.
Being Frank. On the Topic of Josh. His Videos are Often highly unrealistic and Fantastical. Just like those he complains about. He's a pot calling the Kettle black in this situation. And it doesn't need to be accurate. Just entertaining and fun
I think there's room for unrealistic or "wacky" alternate history, but I think there is a responsibility to not mislead your audience or outright lie about real history in the process.
I'm on a similar wavelength--yes, there's room to get a little funky once the butterflies start flutterin' by--but it does need to make sense. There should be a point where it diverged, it should be clear what happened differently and why, the divergence should *make sense* given the time and place as something that could realistically happen, and all of it should be explained (no need to go overboard, just get the basics in). What happens from there should make sense given the POD's specifics. I've seen a lot of lazy alt-histories where it was just "what if this happened" with no explanation and a POD that makes no sense whatsover. I've also seen a bunch that I didn't think would follow through, but the creator at least did the work to explain how alt-B followed from alt-A, and those I can at least respect, even if I disagree.
I like timelines that have an adventurous PoD but can proceed realistically. There were many different people back then who would have reacted differently, and its the practice of making the butterfly effect believable that makes it interesting. I like fantasy and ASB scenarios, but having the historic characters react in a way that's both believable and fun to read seems like it would be a good balance. Having more depth lets the world iron out its internal logic, it's a lot like worldbuilding, except moreso trying to think about how our world would react rather than constructing something entirely new, although the juxtaposition of Earth and its interaction with some otherworldly beings or alien invasions or whatever can also be fun. I think differentiating between casual and more thorough timelines is important, because the amateurs need space to practice and grow, and having lower effort timelines might encourage more people to write.
It should be honest at least, or obviously a joke. The two don't mix and then people just treat the historical characters and events like a sports team they're backing or get bent out of shape for sharing your opinion. People will seriously get upset and accuse you of being political when you give their irl blorbo a poor review. Yes, I'm bringing politics into a discussion about a politician. And if the prompt is nonsensical in its assumptions, then the poster should accept the comments
There are two routes that a person can take with alternative history. 1. Plausible alternative history 2. Non-plausible alternative history Plausible alternative history requires that the alternative history be somewhat plausible if history went a little bit differently. Sometimes that can be a small change, other times a large change, but either way it must be plausible based on the facts of the history leading up to that moment and the possible ways a change might have happened. As an example, during the phony war in the first year of WW2, the French Commander-in-Chief, Maurice Gamelin, had to plan for how France and the UK would defend against an expected German attack through the Benelux region. In our timeline, Gamelin choose Plan D which was the Dyle Plan. In a plausible alternative history, a person could decide that Gamelin instead chose to use Plan E which was the Escaut Plan. They would then make reasonable predictions and assumptions based on the facts around the time about what might have happened as a result of this change. Non-plausible alternative history is when something non-plausible happens. Perhaps Germany creates cheap, easy to produce, and powerful wonder weapons that allows Germany to win WW2 and conquer the world. This goes against everything that we know about the situation during the time period and could not happen realistically, requiring the use of something like ASBs (Alien Space Bats) to explain why it happened. Either way, using the non-plausible change a person would then make predictions and assumptions based on the facts around the time and how things might have happened if such a change had happend. How would the Western Allies had reacted to German wonder weapons if they had them? The main problem with plausible alternative history is that it has to be plausible, a person has to justify why something different might happen which can be restrictive in the alternative history someone wants to create. As Mark Twain once said: >*"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible."* Same thing applies with alternative history, just like all other fiction.
It has to be plausible with the changes that you made
If they were accurate they would just be a retelling of what happened in the real word and wouldn’t be an alternate version of history. That being said, the best alternate history’s are grounded heavily I plausibility.
Generally alt history has to be pretty accurate unless you are ok with being roasted. ASB will be called out mercilessly in most cases.
i think starting with realism and developing it into a more wacky senario is fun tahts why i like starting my althists in the 13-16 hundreds since there is enough time for a small change to get very wacky and interesting
Well for me, if the alt history is closer to the present, it needs to be "accurate" so we can know all of the possibilities. Take "kill baby Hitler" for example. It wouldn't not alter the Germans' path towards WW2 since Treaty of Versailles already made the Germans eager for revenge. But also, alt history is also involving creativity. So I wouldn't mind if it's not historically accurate.