Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 3666997" data-attributes="member: 8447">I love the concept of uchronia&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><a href="http://www.uchronia.net/" target="_blank">http://www.uchronia.net/</a>My major problem with how most (not all, but the vast majority) people present it, however, is that everything seems to hinge on a single battle.&nbsp; The South wins at Gettysburg.&nbsp; Napoleon wins at Waterloo.&nbsp; Augustus is defeated at Actium.&nbsp; Single battles, single militaristic hingepoints of history -- change this one battle and the whole world will alter wildly.I think that more authors should get away from the military and look to the social and technological aspects of the world.&nbsp; Historians learned a long time ago that history isn't just battles and kings, yet far too many alternate history writers seem to be stuck in this older view of what history is all about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wombat, post: 3666997, member: 8447"] I love the concept of uchronia :) [url]http://www.uchronia.net/[/url] My major problem with how most (not all, but the vast majority) people present it, however, is that everything seems to hinge on a single battle. The South wins at Gettysburg. Napoleon wins at Waterloo. Augustus is defeated at Actium. Single battles, single militaristic hingepoints of history -- change this one battle and the whole world will alter wildly. I think that more authors should get away from the military and look to the social and technological aspects of the world. Historians learned a [I]long[/I] time ago that history isn't just battles and kings, yet far too many alternate history writers seem to be stuck in this older view of what history is all about. [/QUOTE]

Verification