More on Creating Alternate Histories

There are a couple of schools of thought about the effects of a change in the stream of history. The first is that from the moment of change everything is different. The other is that there is a momentum to historical events, and that the changes will appear over time. Call this the inertia of Temporal Events.

I hold with the second one, and here's why: take the causation event (CE) for the Gina Stone stories, specifically Lord Sackville's Charge. In the first school, a king on an island in the Sulawesi Sea (on the other side of the world) does things different from that moment on because Lord George died and the French Army was destroyed. How would he know, would he care, and what would this do to the range of options open to him? I maintain that there would be no change made by that king, at least right away. Think of it as a domino effect. There will be ripples of decisions made because of Lord George and the men with him who died on August 1, 1759 who would have been alive in our world/history. But that domino effect takes time to reach the Sulawesi Sea.

Another name for the first one is The Butterfly Effect. Forcing a butterfly to change course in the mountains of Mexico means you get some effect on the other side of the world.

A simpler way to put it: everyone who was alive and not impacted by Lord George's Charge are still alive, and the decisions they make in every day life are still the same...for a time. As the ripples circle the globe these changes will appear. George Washington will still be a planter of note, and he will serve with distinction on the frontier. But peace breaking out in 1760 will give him different choices...in 1760 and afterward. The decisions he makes in the American wilderness in September of 1759 will still be the same as in our world.

Now what of other changes? One of the arguments you get with alternate history is that whatever changes you ring in must be linked to your CE. Yes...and no. Having Queen Victoria die in childbirth in 1847 is not required by the death of Lord George Sackville in 1759. But the English succession was fixed on George III (ascending to the throne in 1760). And if we assume Prinny (a logical assumption), then we can also assume Victoria will be around as that's the way things were shaping up. We could argue that this isn't necessarily so, but here I invoke the storyteller's privilege: I want it to work this way for purposes of the story I'm going to tell.

This last is the most important point of this post. If I am a historian involved in speculation, then everything has to flow logically. If I am a storyteller, then after the CE I can play with the history the way I want it. But I must do so in a logical and consistent manner. A French Revolution of some kind was going to break out; the situation in France almost guaranteed it. But the wars that followed can be played with. There might not have been a Napoleon Bonaparte, though it is likely there would have been somebody with his political ambitions (I think it unlikely that that person would have had Napoleon's military ability). And you might not have had the asinine Foreign Secretary running around unleashed in 1814. In fact, for story purposes you could have the French settle down in 1803 or 1804 without a monarchy or an empire. What then? More speculation.

Speaking of that, what of another incident? The Battle of Brienne in 1814. Napoleon's troops came within a whisker of capturing or killing Prussian Field Marshal Blucher and his Chief of Staff Gneisenau. Without his single-minded determination to seize Paris, the Allies might not have been able to succeed in the 1814 campaign. This is even better than 1815 where some historians play with Napoleon beating Wellington. A better scenario would have been Blucher getting captured at the Battle of Ligny--he was ridden over by French cavalry--leaving a general who flat out did not trust the English and Wellington in charge and if in command would have headed for the Rhine as fast as he could. Wellington, knowing the Prussians were retreating, would not have stood on the ridge at Mont St. Jean, but would have headed for the boats as fast as possible.

A third incident? What if an enterprising officer had pushed inland despite orders at Suvla Bay in 1915? He would have seized the high ground in the Gallipoli peninsula, most likely cutting of Liman von Sanders army facing the Anzacs and the French/British troops at the tip of the peninsula. Given that, it's very likely the British could have passed the Dardenelles and the whole history of WW1 (and what happened after) would have changed.

While this is fun, you have to follow several rules. First, make sure that this change could have occurred. The courier carrying orders to Sackville that halted his advance was the only one who practically rode his horse into the ground, and apparently this was the only time he did so. What if he didn't do that this time? Sackville would have been on the unprotected flank of the French Army, with fatal results to the latter (though not necessarily to Sackville). In 1814 the French could have sent a peletoon (platoon) to secure the rear of the chateau Blucher and Gneisenau were using, just like they did several other times in similar situations earlier in the wars. In 1915 an uppity and pushy officer could have ordered his men inland against the nearly non-existent Turkish opposition; there were plenty around, and all that was needed was one who trusted what he saw rather than orders he could see were wrong.

Second, you need to sit down and bat back and forth ideas, preferably with several people. Don't be afraid to be creative; by the way, the more historically informed these people are, the better.

Third, of course, is to either write your speculative paper, or, if a storyteller, now look at what you need to make the story you're writing come out. Here is where you actually have free license. And don't forget that along the way there will be several other possibilities that show up for you. File those, and get on with your story.