Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, though uneven "History Lite"
Review: I really wanted to like this book a lot. It seems like such a great premise, but just doesn't live up to its possibilities. I found many of the essays interesting, but none were earth shattering, and some were downright boring. Some of the essays concentrated too much on retelling the actual events instead of investigating the ramifications of other outcomes. When other outcomes were posited, often the possible results were covered only in the vaguest and most general language. Overall, I'm not annoyed at having spent the time to read the book, but it's not nearly as good as it should have been given the generally high caliber of the writers.
Rating: 
Summary: What If? Boring!
Review: Many details of ancient wars presented as fact. If you didn't know the true facts you couldn't tell the difference.Expected more "what if" senarios instead of plodding fiction of each endeavor.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing Stuff from Good Historians
Review: There are a lot of horrible alternative history books out there. In my opinion some of the worst are by the popular writer Harry Turtletub. Other than his Guns of the South, I find most of his stuff really really bad.I was very pleased to see a book of alternate history written by distinguished historians. John Keegan the Great Military History, McCollough from American Experience and Author of Truman, and Caleb Carr just to name a few. As historians, teachers, history fans, we can argue all day about some of the scenerios and what ifs found in this book. That is the fun part. Who Knows.... But the bottom line is this: the book is very thought provoking. The scenerios are food for thought. The historians who are used in this collection know there stuff and can write. This is a fun book to read and even better to debate. Its time and money well spent.
Rating:
Summary: Great Beach Reading History
Review: This book is well described by its subtitle: "The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been." The twenty essays and numerous sidebars are actually only by American and British, so the use of "World's Foremost" is a bit of a reach, but nonetheless, there is a nice variety amongst the essays. Almost all of them are lively and compelling examples of what is known in jargon as "counterfactual reasoning," providing plenty of food for thought to chew on. The essays progress in chronological order, and in general I enjoyed the ones that concentrated on the older events more, perhaps because they are more removed from time and consciousness and thus are easier to credit. As might be expected, John Keegan's brief "How Hitler Could Have Won the War: The Drive for the Middle East, 1941" is the exception here. In general, the more titillating notions are found in essays like Thomas Fleming's "Unlikely Victory: 13 Ways the Americans Could Have Lost the Revolution." or Cecelia Holland's "The Death that Saved Europe: The Mongols Turn Back, 1242." Irrespective of one's particular interests, this is a spectacular anthology of alternate history. It should be noted that the maps accompanying each essay are outstanding.
Rating:
Summary: Get to the point
Review: Whilst interesting, it fails to expand on possibilites and rambles on about "what really did happen" (ie; true history). I see here the potential for a true masterpiece that fails to follow through. Personally, I would have liked to see future projections, not a rehash of history as it did happen.
Rating:
Summary: Inches and Milliseconds-34 reasons to thank/curse the fates
Review: As one would expect of any anthology, the quality of the content is somewhat uneven; taken as a whole, though, What If? serves as a thoroughly engaging and provacative account of how delicate the course of history truly is. If not for the caprices of (weather/fate/God/plain dumb luck), the world might be a very different place. While it is true, each topic could have been covered in greater depth, this sort of counterfactual positing is precluded by the very nature of the medium. To say this collection lacks depth is akin to criticizing John Keegan's "The Second World War," for insufficient attention to the life and career of Mongomery. The purpose of this collection is to highlight history, rather than offer a definitive view of it. In explaining the many might-have-beens, we gain a better appreciation for what truly was. If a reader of this collection is suddenly inspired to peruse Thucydides, as I was, has the book not accomplished its goal? The one complaint I have about this book is that it appears to have been rushed to the presses. I noticed a number of editorial errors on my first reading, and discover many more with each successive reading. That I continue to read the book again and again, though, offers a good indication the esteem I hold for it.
Rating: 
Summary: ENJOYABLE AND THOUGHT PROVOKING.
Review: I really enjoyed this book. I am a fan of "what if history", counter factual history, or whatever you choose to call it. This book presented a good range of "what ifs" in a chronological order. I feel fairly well versed on events from the Revolution until present, but appreciated the authors usually giving a synopsis of what actually happened in earlier times and places versus the what might have happened "if". Besides being entertained, I learned more than a few things. Good book. Just think, "what if" I hadn't read it?
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining read by some of our top historians
Review: "What If" is a reminder that we are blessed in this era to have so many gifted historians who know how to write in such a way that does not put the reader to sleep. Counterfactual history here leads to an even greater understanding and appreciation for what did happen. The essays are very readable and are quite concise. The scope is from ancient times to modern and a couple really make you think about how fundamentally different our world could be today (imagine a world without Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for example). Overall, a fascinating and stimulating book.
Rating:
Summary: Most good, but some bad
Review: There is many good essays in this book but some of them miss the point. There are some essays that are just historical overviews of the events with very little insight into the consuquances of the battles. There are others that tell a lot about the history but go so far out on a limb you begin to wonder if you are reading a sci book. Besides from a couple stories, the rest of the essays are a great read. Many of the authors are able to find the delicate balance between history and what could have been to make the reader wonder about how things could have turned out differently.
Rating:
Summary: Hits and Misses
Review: As with any work containing input from a variety of authors, there are good and bad sections. I was disappointed that the majority of essays contained far too much information about what did happen than concentrating on what might have happened, which is what I assumed the purpose of the book to be. James MacPherson's contribution is an excellent example of how the entire work should have been structured, but unfortunately was not. Counterfactual history is a fascinating field, and this work contributes to it, but not as much as it could have were all the contributions of equal strength.
| 
