Rating: 
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Excellent versions of what might have been.A note to the reader from Long Island (September 10,1999)--don't review books until you have read them!
Rating:
Summary: I LOVED IT!
Review: The amzing thought provoking ideas brought forth in this thrilling expedition back through the depths of our rich culture. This is a most read with a few great laughs and some heartwarming american triumphs.
Rating: 
Summary: yes, it could have been better, but it's awfully stimulating
Review: There have been some accusations that this book is "light" history, and I can see why the charge is made. But as a university professor, I in no way felt that the volume was too lowbrow. It is true that at times the authors spend far more time summarizing the real-life events than exploring their alternate scenarios in sufficient detail. Although this was probably necessary for a general audience that may not already be aware of the details of Poitiers or the Golden Horde, it did often leave a hungry feeling in the pit of my stomach. In many cases, I wished there had been a much lengthier version of the scenario available. I also agree that more consideration of "second-order counterfactuals" would have helped, but the general point of this work is well-taken, and should jolt the reader out of the lazy sense of historical determinacy into which we all tend to drift when we're not thinking very hard about the past. As must have happened with many readers, the book also caused me to run through the past 15 years of my own life in search of equally intriguing near-miss counterfactuals-- "what if I had moved to Rhode Island in 1996?", "what if I had married Ms. X after all?" I mention this anecdote because it is good evidence that the book can work its magic on the reader's mind despite the flaws that have been mentioned. The bottom line is that I found this book hard to put down _despite_ reading it for the most part in a loud and seedy neighborhood bar.
Rating: 
Summary: What if "What if?" had taken itself more seriously?
Review: To quote dave-o below, this book is definitely "History Lite", and I, for one, am frankly disappointed with this work, even more so because of its pedigree. Three things stand out as the worst offenders. 1) Many of the essayists spend a lot of time on the actual event in question, and spend very little extrapolating the future based on this change. 2) A lot of the historians (especially for the earlier events) are enamored with the notion of permanency , i.e. the change itself would result in a power/nation that would still dominate today. 3) Very few of the historians consider Second Order counterfactuals, or (what I consider the worst crime), assume that there doesn't exist an immediate second crux that history can turn on. For example, Civil War historians love to discuss the Cigars wrapped in battle plans--Harry Turtledove created a What If? series of novels based on this premise. But the fact remains that there exists hundreds if not millions of possible "nails" on which history may turn but are ignored because an earlier one was discovered first. I.E. If it wasn't the cigars that were discovered, something else probably would have been discovered. While those unschooled in history may find the essays interesting, I recommend serious historians play the game without this book.
Rating: 
Summary: History-lite
Review: Less filling, and sometimes tastes good. It is true that this book offers interesting scenarios about what might have been, but I do not think it pushes its potential to the limits. The book does provide some historical facts, but it is more of an exploration of various historians' imaginations. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book is where various historians identify "watersheds" in history: the point at which things could have changed (or did change) drastically. Naturally, some of the essays are stronger than others. For example, Josiah Ober's insights on Alexander the Great are intelligent and expressed lucidly. However, he doesn't pursue one of his most fascinating conjectures (no Christianity without Alexander) any further than about two sentences. Of course, the essays needed to be concise to appeal to a broad market, but some omissions and missed opportunities are lamentable. Overall, I think this book reaches its target audience, which should enjoy the version of history-lite that it offers. There are ample possibilities for a "sequel" with more counterfactual essays. If such a book is compiled, I hope that the essays will push their conjectures even further and truly capitalize on their potential.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Gold
Review: This book is fantastic. Every page of every essay keeps the reader enthralled. The best part about this book is that the longest essay is about 30 pages long, so if you don't have alot of time, you can read one essay and put the book down. This is a must have for any history buff. Awesome!
Rating:
Summary: A Few What Ifs Your History Class Should Have Included
Review: My son and I are reading this book. His verdict is that he likes the more recent examples than the ones from ancient Greece. It is interesting that the what ifs provide a test of the historical reality and make the reader understand what the environment was like in the time in question. Non-Events like the Newburgh Conspiracy at the end of the Revolutionary War look a lot more interesting for example.
Rating:
Summary: Students of History
Review: As an educator and student of history, I found this book both interesting and insightful. The two things needed in the classroom. "What If" allows students to debate history. "What If?" teaches the actual facts to the reader without them (students) getting bored with "textbook" information. Their learning and having fun at the same time. Students enjoy creating their own counterfactual histories and "What If" offers excellent essays written by some of the best historians as examples. Highly interesting!
Rating:
Summary: Historical Multiple Choice, Or, What If Annie Oakley Missed?
Review: The reason I could not go with 5 stars was due to the lack of notes. There are events described that are familiar, but there are many that unless a good deal of prior knowledge is brought by the reader, the full benefit of a given essay is missed. On balance this is a great read. I am new to the, "Counterfactual Study" of History, but I am also a new fan. One note of caution, there are authors who make value judgments about a given Culture/People that may clash with a belief a reader may hold dear, but these are the exception and not the rule. It did seem at times inappropriate to make value judgments about History even if an alternate one is proposed. As it was still being treated as "A" History if not "The" History, should not the same objectivity be maintained? An alternative outcome of events does not require a value Judgement, or an editorial to be admitted or even needed. I am not advocating a view, rather stating that no personal views by the Author are needed. Tell us your theory, not who or what you may not like about who is involved. Anyway it is a great book. Do you know when the Declaration Of Independence was signed? I thought I did. No one I asked got the date correct either. I spent some time researching the issue because I had trouble believing that what I read was correct, and that even my small poll showed no one else knew the date either. This is an example of where a footnote would have been helpful. There are also some great details. Did you know the Kaiser volunteered to be shot at by Annie Oakley? What if she had shot him instead of what she did hit? Or how about a New York Taxi-Driver than came within inches of fundamentally altering the 20th Century? Or how one blow of a battle-axe caused disorientation of he who was hit, but the second blow, having been prevented by a bodyguard changed history. Big events do alter History; this book demonstrates how totally unforeseen events, individual action, or the smallest detail or mistake can have the same impact as an event thought to be a major turning point.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good
Review: Entertaining, intelligent look at what could have happened had things been a bit different. Well considered fun with history makes one think.
| 
