Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good, but some absurdity thrown in
Review: I liked this book quite a bit and would recommend it. The chapter dealing with the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th Century was simply outstanding, and the chapter on the American Revolution was quite thought-provoking. But I thought the Civil War section was unimaginative; in speculating as to what might have happened if Lee's orders hadn't been lost in September, 1862, the author describes a battle taking place at (surprise, surprise) Gettysburg. The chapter dealing with the Aztec defeat of Cortez had great promise but a good deal of nonsense; how on Earth could the Aztecs have built a navy? Also, the sections on World War One and World War Two could have been much better. Still, for all its faults, I thought this book was an entertaining read.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Read, hope for more!
Review: Some of the "What If's" in particular I really liked, particularly the Civil War chapters and the World War II chapters. In my humble opinion, the Revolutionary war scenarios also show just how close the Americans could've lost the war, it wasn't so much a longshot "what if" as to a "fate had it another way" sort of "what if". Anybody who is interested in history gone the other way must have this book!
Rating:
Summary: An Intellectually satisfying Book
Review: This is one of the most intellectually satisfying books that I have ever read.Might have beens are always great food for thought. But in the hands of superb Historians like Alastair Horne,David McCullough,James McPherson, Stephen Ambrose and Sir John Keegan what could have happened is an absolute feast. My favorites are on the Civil War and the second world war.James McPherson gives us a quite plausible scenario of how a Confederate victory might have been achieved had it not been for the loss of Lee's special order no.191 before the battle of Antietam.Tom Wicker gives a sobering picture of what might have happened if Lee had been persuaded by His artilllery commander Porter Alexander not to surrender but to wage guerilla warfare instead, Picture the U.S. like Lebanon or the Balkans or Northern Ireland.Stephen Ambrose shows us how close the D-Day invaision came to failing and how that might have changed the whole course of the war. But most fascinating and sobering of all is Sir John Keegan's analysis of how a slight change of direction in Hitler's invaision of the Soviet Union could have resulted in a Nazi victory. It is a fascinating book and I highly reccomend it.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Read!
Review: This book is fantastic! It is a great pick for any military buff, with history storys ranging from the mongolian empire, to world war 2. I gives great detail into what actually occured, and asks the question what if, an event had been different. I suggest this to anyone interested in history.
Rating:
Summary: Uneven, but enjoyable
Review: "What If?" is a work of great potential that is only partially realized. Through 2700 years of history the authors, with varying amounts of detail, and with varying degrees of success, review the great military turning points in history, and their alternate outcomes. I say with varying degrees of success because the pieces are in no way consistent in approach, layout, or thoroughness. Of particular note, some of the more well-known historians, like Keegan and Ambrose, present pieces that are so brief, and so lacking in academic rigor, one wonders if they weren't written on the back of a cocktail napkin.That said, there are also some truly outstanding pieces in "What If?", in particular, a consideration of American Pacific strategy following a defeat at Midway is excellent. Overall, the essays provide good overviews of particular events, and serve to direct the reader for approaches for more rigorous reading and research. Ultimately, "What If?" is an enjoyable read, and a nice overview of military history. It cannot, however, be considered a work of serious scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: Counterfactuals - How historians have fun
Review: Counterfactuals are simply 'What if's'. Here they take the form of twenty essays by well known military historians covering significant battles from mankind's warring past - from the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC to Chiang Kai-shek's war with Mao's communists in 1946. When historians use a pretentious term like 'counterfactual' to describe this type of historical analysis it leads us to cringe in anticipation of tedious, fact-filled, starchy descriptions of the battles. Not so at all. First of all the essays are by some of the best military historians writing today - William McNeill, John Keegan, David McCullough, Alistair Horne and Stephen Ambrose to name a few. Secondly and more importantly, it is obvious that each and every one of the essays is a work of considerable research, creative thought and attention to the possibilities of what might have been. Regardless of what battle, era or commander intersts you - ancient Israel, Persia, Greece, the Mongols, Cortes, the American Revolution, the Civil War, Napoleon or Hitler - you'll find an essay describing an alternative outcome. And while it is true what the editor quotes historian E H Carr as saying, that this is not an "idle parlour game", there is no doubt in my mind that each and every one of these historians enjoyed themselves fully and had fun writing these essays.
Rating: 
Summary: what if tower of babel=towers of NASA?
Review: There is relevance to Revelation, Genesis and Daniel here in 2,001. How? If you have and know how to use your concordance (and are feeling so inclined) you will discover that our space program is very reminisant of the tower of babel (sorry to burst your bubble) and the so called fall of mankind in the garden of eden (if you are looking for common threads you will find them). If you will recall, the snake promised that the (increased) knowledge that came with the fruit (like the increased knoweledge predicted to happen, like what we see today)would enable Eve, and later Adam, to become as the gods who said, come, let US make man in OUR image. Then, after the close call with extinction at the (so-called "flood") (which I am allowing for some possibility in my mind may have occurred in some facsimile) It is said that after repopulation, in BABYLON, that the tower of Babel was constucted and that would (enable man to) reach up into the heavens so they could be with the gods and become as the gods (having their own charriots of fire). Obviously, humans once again seek to become as the gods while trying to work out their own salvations (preserve ourselves from extinction). Why else build the tower of babel? A world wide flood with but a few surviving (think of it in symbolic terms, because currently I do, too) is a close call with extinction. Then, fastforward to Babylon, in Daniel. Daniel is said to have interpreted a dream of king Nebucanezzer's(sp?) to which the king erects an image of solid gold as a symbol that his (man's) kingdom shall endure forever (a form of denial that persists as Daniels interpretation predicts that all subsequent kingdoms shall be inferior to Babylon in splendor). Fastforward to our space program of today. Once again, it appears, we are repeating what those kings Babylon attempted, as predicted in revelation that the Babylon in the last days would do, which is to construct towers that will enable us to reach up (travel) into the heavens and attempt, you guessed it, a settlement on Mars (we spend billions if not trillions on this currently). Why? Ultimately, we know that we are not being good stewards of the Earth (there is a passage that says that god comes to destroy those who destroy the Earth. Funny, conservatives are usually the worst when it comes to being conservationists). So, our space program serves as our foot out the backdoor in case (when) we have trashed the Earth too much or... Like it or not, there is much relevance here and the towers of old may have been our early ancestors trying to copy what they saw in their day. Those pharohs of Egypt may have not been so mistaken when they went to such great lengths to preserve their bodies. With todays scientific minds, it is easy to see that they may have been hoping to have their well preserved cells cloned into making a twin (hey, a twin of the king and his family is better than no twins at all) Thank you very much for your time and co-operation !
Rating:
Summary: EXAMINING HISTORY THROUGH A CREATIVE LOOKING GLASS
Review: You will find this book thoroughly enjoyable. Noted historians imagine what might have happened at the fork in the road, if historical events had unfolded differently. What the creative imagination of gifted writers can do with D-Day, Hitler, the siege of Jerusalem in 701, Alexander the great, Robert E.Lee, Christianity, and even Chaing Kai Shek is remarkable, and entertaining. Somewhat like looking at history through a magnifying glass, turning everything upside down, shaking the pieces and forming a new puzzle. The writing is skillful. The premises are sometimes outrageous,but they certainly stimulate the thinking process. History buffs will like "What If?" I did.
Rating:
Summary: Uneven, but overall excellent
Review: For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc. The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable Yet Uneven Speculation
Review: Who hasn't wondered about a decision not taken or the string of uninterrupted causation that is required for any single person to exist? Think about your own life: the chain of events which resulted in your parents meeting; how you ended up in your current job; the college you attended; you never attended college; or how you met your current significant other. We are all shaped by historical choices, both ones made by ourselves, and those made on a scale that can alter history. "What If?" gathers some of the world's foremost military historians to offer hypothetical counterfactuals, including: What If Alexander the Great had died in battle at the age of 21, before he had built an empire? What if the American Revolution had resulted in disaster? What if certain key battles in the American Civil War had changed? This is fun reading as it is always interesting to consider alternative paths not taken or paths unavailable by happenstance. This book contains a number of excellent examples of counterfactual speculation, with only a few medicore essays. The authors examine how individual actions can have an impact as can the whims of weather. This is an enjoyable book and, because of the broad area of military history, invites the potential for sequels. For example: One counterfactual I've always wondered about occurred in December of 1814 here in my home town of New Orleans. A prosperous son of Creole planters was awakened by the sound of British troops landing at the back of his plantation. Young Mr. Villere jumped out the window and headed for New Orleans, dodging a shot from a British sentry. Villere arrived in New Orleans and spread the alarm. Gen. Andrew Jackson gathered his forces and launched a surprise attack on the British. The British, unsure of the forces facing them, slowed their advance to give time to consolidate their forces. This gave Jackson time to throw up some defenses on the plains of Chalmette. Within 2 weeks the British had been defeated after suffering enourmous casualties attempting to storm Jackson's fortifications. But what if the British sentry had not missed young Mr. Villere? Had the British continued their advance it is conceivable that these veterans of the Peninsular campaign could have won the Battle of New Orleans. Today people only remember that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after a peace treaty had been signed. But the treaty had not yet been ratified. Further, in the treaty the British recognized the status of borders prior to the war. But Britain had never recognized the Louisiana purchase, as the Spainish had violated a treaty with Britain when Spain secretly sold Louisiana to France. Britain could have attempted to keep New Orleans. This would have meant a widening of the war. It also begs the following question: Would there have been sufficient British troops to win at Waterloo? As you can see counterfactual speculation leads to a never ending string of alternative possibilities. But it is enjoyble to speculate, as is "What If?"
|
