Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals [Paperback]

I borrowed this book on a whim from an e-library and was impatient to move onto the first of the analyses - how would British history have turned out had Cromwell never come to power. But I thought I had better read the introduction first. Over 80 pages later, I finally finished it, enthralled by a fantastic critique of various approaches to history (broadly the deterministic approach of the 'historicists' such as Marx and his followers, but also the Whig school, etc., and the idealists such as Collingwood). Ferguson ends by making a very strong case for 'counterfactual' history as consistent with the essentially chaotic nature of events and as allowing the historian to consider causality more critically - in a world of multiple necessary but not sufficient causes, how do we ascertain which were actually necessary? By considering what would have happened without them, he proposes. He places historical discipline on this: alternative courses of action should not only be obvious to us in hindsight, he proposes, to be appropriate for analysis, but must have been seen as possible to people at the time. And should be supported by historical records.

As an ex-historian myself in my first degree many years ago, I found this extremely interesting and plausible. Ferguson's use of modern science such as chaos theory and quantum mechanics and evolution is well-informed and also persuasive.

The introduction would be excellent, thought-provoking reading for a historian at A-level or International Bac level or in the first year or two of a university course. And of course for the general reader as well.

I have not yet read any of the eight actual counterfactuals and may comment or revise this review as I do so. But the book, for me, was worth reading for the introduction alone. Thanks!

OK I have now read three of the counterfactuals. To be honest I did not enjoy them nearly as much as the Introduction and so I did not go on. The problem is probably with me not with the articles. They are very much written by academic historians and focus on the types of issue that I found (to be honest) so boring in my old university course 40+ years ago: what were the ages of the more senior judges in 1639 and how might the composition of the bench have changed had the Covenanters not defeated Charles 1? How did the political views of members of parliament differ by their age and how long would it have been before few if any of the Commons had any personal memory of the King ruling through Parliament. In other words, data rich, highly analytical, very professional and really quite tedious to read. The same for the American war of Independence and even for the non-assassination of JFK.

This is exactly what Ferguson was arguing for - counterfactuals as a tool for professional historians - so there's nothing to complain about. But I put the book down with relief that I don't have to read this type of thing any more and picked up Jeremy Paxton's far less academic but infinitely more enjoyable and provocative history of the British Empire instead.

No reason to downgrade the 5 stars - this is a good book with a great introduction!