What Might Have Been?: Imaginary History from Twelve Leading Historians [Hardcover]

There are several 'What If' history books around at the moment, and this is the first one I have read. It's a compendium of essays, all written by well known historians, which aims to speculate on how the world may have been changed, had some famous historical events somehow turned out differently. Essays range from the success of the Gunpowder plot, to Napoleon winning in Russia, to the Japanese not attacking Pearl Harbour.

The overall impression I was left with was that the essays, while never less than intriguing and enjoyable, are of varying quality, and varying levels of accessibility. The stand out, though, is probably Adam Zamoyski's piece on Napoleon winning in Russia, simply by withdrawing from the burning Moscow, and sensibly bedding his army down for the winter, rather than delaying and eventually embarking on the disastrous retreat. The consequences for Europe of Napoleon staying in power with an intact Grand Army would of course have been far reaching. This little essay is a wonderful companion piece to '1812 - Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow', Zamoyski's recent book on the subject, which I enjoyed very much.

One very small point of irritation was Andrew Roberts' clanging reference in his introduction to 'Sliding Doors', the lame Gwyneth Paltrow film. He obviously wasn't aware of 'Blind Chance', the great Krzysztof Kieslowski film made in Poland at the beginning of the 1980s (and therefore of great historical interest) which the former shamelessly 'borrowed' from in its structure of alternative life outcomes for the same character.

However if, like me, the idea of turning points and little decisions by individuals going on to change the world in random, unpredictable ways appeals to you, then this little collection is well worth a read. It may be overstating the case to say that it should be taken too seriously as history, but it's an interesting book nonetheless which will appeal to students of history and general readers alike.

History is a subject I found painful at school, did badly in, and gave up as soon as I was allowed to. It's only later that I came to understand that the subject concerns turning points which would have left a very different world if they had gone differently. I would have found that really interesting if it had been the theme that underpinned the school teaching, and I find it interesting now. I therefore sought this book out eagerly when I heard about it. I found it a considerable disappointment.

Articles that consider different outcomes for well known historic events are necessarily works of fiction. But in some of the contributions to this book, I wonder whether I am reading something of educational value or an episode of some TV cartoon. David Frum has President Gore hesitating over sending the US army into Afghanistan because the tanks will emit too much CO2. "Whatever we do, I want this to be the first environmentally sensitive war in history. Wes, you make sure our troops know: they're to watch out for migratory birds when they march. And no littering!"

I can't tell whether this is intended as a serious interpretation of what Gore would have done, or a ridiculing of Gore's ideas. I am not sure whether the fact that I am in doubt is my shortcoming or the author's. But if it's the latter it isn't the only place in the book that is scathing. Simon Heffer makes a convincing argument that had Mrs Thatcher been among those killed when the IRA bombed a hotel in Brighton, Michael Heseltine would have been her successor. But he then goes on to shred the man, as "showing, again, a resolute determination not to learn from the mistakes of previous prime ministers". I hold no brief for Heseltine but to me the tone here is just nasty.

It is the efforts of the editor, Andrew Roberts, that are in the most questionable taste. Pages 3 to 8 of the introduction are almost unreadable, because - like this, except some are several lines long - nearly every paragraph has an aside in parenthetical dashes which is meant to be an interesting affirmation of or exception to the main argument. The device is used so much that the result is wide eyed and jerky and leaves one wondering if there is a main argument at all.

In his own article, on Lenin being shot at the Finland Station, he Russifies his name to Andrei Simonovich Robertski. He identifies the assassin as Lev Harvievic Oswalt, "whose motive has never been satisfactorily established since he himself was murdered in police custody the very next day by a man with underworld connections". Is this scholarly, or is it corny?

And is citing that "if he had not sat next to the biographer Leonie Frieda in the Poissonerie restaurant in Sloane Avenue, she might not be his girlfriend today", in the biographical blurb on the dust jacket and repeated in the publisher's review here on Amazon, charmingly romantic or just plain cheesy?

These lapses of judgement (in my opinion of course, which is not necessarily anyone else's) are unfortunate companions to intriguing and persuasive contributions from others, notably from Anne Somerset on what would have happened if the Spanish Armada had landed in England, and Anthonia Fraser on the Gunpowder Plot succeeding. Perhaps it's easier to write alternative history about topics that are further in the past.

The field of counterfactual history, a sub-genre that only really found its academic feet with Niall Ferguson's Virtual History, is now crowded. `What If?' has spawned a number of follow up titles, and many publishers have rushed to fill the great demand for those most intriguing of historical questions.

It is easy to see the attraction. Almost every key moment in history seems to turn on a single event, a combination of coincidences, accidents or near misses. It seems natural that people should question what would have happened in a world where Hitler was accepted in the Viennese art school, where the assassin's bullet missed JFK or where Harold beat back the invading Normans into the sea.

A key problem for many writers of counterfactual history is how to pitch the essays that inevitably make up these books. Should they be academic articles that stand up to peer review and merely make conjectural points about the prevailing social, economic and political situations of the time, or should they be the racy alternative views of history, telling the story of what could have happened, but grounded as much in fiction as history?

Many books have fallen between these two stools. Virtual History was very much an academic's book, aiming to make counterfactual history a valid and useful tool for the historian. And as worthy as this is it does not necessarily make for light or interesting reading. Now I understand the reason why many historians are unwilling to write an alternative history. But I am glad that in this collection a few have taken the plunge.

What Might Have Been is very much on the creative side of counterfactual history. The various academic historians, and, importantly, writers of history, have created short essays in which they describe the court of Elizabeth II as if the Gunpowder Plot had been successful (this Elizabeth is James's daughter who would become known to history as the Winter Queen of Bavaria), an England under a victorious Charles I and a Soviet history following Stalin's decision to evacuate Moscow.

And for the most part the essays are interesting, well written and exciting. They delve into the what ifs with a gusto I have not seen in other history books. They are more akin to Fatherland or It Happened Here than Virtual History. And herein lies the problem. The one vision of a possible past is simply that - a guess, albeit an educated one, at what could have happened. But if that is what you felt was lacking from similar books then this may be up your street.

One large complaint I have on the book is a political bias that renders the modern world essays somewhat trite. In particular the final essay, a dialogue written in a War Room following 9/11 in a world where Al Gore is president. Whilst the other essays are serious flights of fantasy, this seems to be pure Republican propaganda. Gore is portrayed as a ridiculous liberal (in the American usage of the word), promising the world's first environmentally friendly war, generals worrying about a carbon footprint of action in Afghanistan, and worries of civil liberties. This was an unnecessary joke, one that wears very thin and makes a mockery of a whole section of the US population who happen not to be Republican. It was a disappointing finish.