Most common alternate history tropes?

[Skallagrim]

Regarding the origins of Western respect for the individual (which is unmatched by any other civilisation in history), Siedentop has written the fascinating Inventing the Individual. It cannot be dismissed as some reactionary screed; this is a thorough account of (classical) liberalism's strong individual impulses, written from a liberal perspective... and explaining how at the root of it all, you find the Catholic Church.

I found that it was very pleasantly paired with another book, namely God's Philosophers. I recommend that highly, as well. (By the way, it's reviewed by an atheist here. Spoiler alert: it's an extremely positive review.)



And as to the broader matter: yes, religion seems to be an inescapable element of any even vaguely complex culture. This is not surprising: human beings, to organise their conceptions, require a structure to do so. Such a structure is not in-born, and all partial structures (e.g. purely "political", "economic", "social" ones) are inevitably lacking. Consciousness is complex, and to try to make sense of the kosmos and one's place in it, people seek an encompassing structure that can provide a frame-work for both emotional and intellectual processing of really quite abstract experiences.

The result is religion. Not even deliberately. It's just that any structure that meets the above criteria is, by default, a religion. Even if it's a highly philosophical one without any explicit gods or such... people use intellectual short-hand rather than engaging in abstract philosophy, so anything that finds mass appeal will rapidly become increasingly more "religion-like".

This cannot be escaped. Only accepted.

 

[WolfBear]

To be fair, though, "Hurr durr if there's no religion, we'll have a much better world!" is a common AH trope. (Among high-schoolers, neckbeards and lefties, at least.)

Muh Communism.

Eh, true enough.

Concerning AH clichés again, though: ‘Julius Caesar Avoids Assassination’. Seriously, while the consequences certainly have potential, I still can’t get over how overused the POD itself is.

Which conquests did he plan right before his assassination?

 

[Skallagrim]

Muh Communism.

Ah, yes. The Gospel according to Saint Marx!

Which conquests did he plan right before his assassination?

What do you think? Everybody and his uncle wanted to emulate Alexander, back then! Off to the East, for glory and spoils!

 

[WolfBear]

Ah, yes. The Gospel according to Saint Marx!

I personally prefer to be a Marxist-Lennonist: Worship Groucho Marx and John Lennon lol:

 

[Zyobot]

Ah, yes. The Gospel according to Saint Marx!

"We like to say The Manifesto according to Comrade Marx." — Justin Trudeau, probably.

 

[WolfBear]

We like to say "The Manifesto according to Comrade Marx", but sounds legit otherwise.

He should have moved to Texas and become Lone Star Karl. That way, he could have perhaps had a more enlightened perspective on things lol. But as it was Lenin distorted his vision by attempting to impose Communism on a largely pre-industrial society.

 

[WolfBear]

WI: Marx goes to Texas?

Hello all, So, it's well-known that in the 19th century, Texas had a large German-speaking minority, many of whom were liberals and radicals who fled Europe after the failed revolutions of 1830 and 1848. Very nearly, Karl Marx would have been among their number -- as a young man, Marx had...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[Zyobot]

He should have moved to Texas and become Lone Star Karl. That way, he could have perhaps had a more enlightened perspective on things lol. But as it was Lenin distorted his vision by attempting to impose Communism on a largely pre-industrial society.

WI: Marx goes to Texas?

Hello all, So, it's well-known that in the 19th century, Texas had a large German-speaking minority, many of whom were liberals and radicals who fled Europe after the failed revolutions of 1830 and 1848. Very nearly, Karl Marx would have been among their number -- as a young man, Marx had...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[WolfBear]

Would a Texan Karl Marx really be that bad when you think about it, though? His descendants could become generic run-of-the-mill typical American-Jewish leftists such as Noam Chomsky, aka Gnome Chompsky.

 

[Skallagrim]

Would a Texan Karl Marx really be that bad when you think about it, though? His descendants could become generic run-of-the-mill typical American-Jewish leftists such as Noam Chomsky, aka Gnome Chompsky.

Well, that is pretty bad.

One Noam Chomsky in the world is one too many!

 

[WolfBear]

Well, that is pretty bad.

One Noam Chomsky in the world is one too many!

 

[Zyobot]

Returning to AH clichés again, I suppose “Carthage Beats Rome!” via victory in the Punic Wars also counts. Not as common as PODs surrounding more recent history, perhaps, but about as oft-suggested as “Julius Caesar Avoids Assassination!” is in Antiquity-centric AH discussion.

Even it were to pass, it’d produce a very different history indeed, what with Roman philosophy, law, and language as the basis for Western civilization as we know it. Hard to know how what ATL West would look like with a Punic foundation instead, though “quite different” is probably an understatement — despite the scant records from the Carthaginians themselves.

 

[ATP]

Returning to AH clichés again, I suppose “Carthage Beats Rome!” via victory in the Punic Wars also counts. Not as common as PODs surrounding more recent history, perhaps, but about as oft-suggested as “Julius Caesar Avoids Assassination!” is in Antiquity-centric AH discussion.

Even it were to pass, it’d produce a very different history indeed, what with Roman philosophy, law, and language as the basis for Western civilization as we know it. Hard to know how what ATL West would look like with a Punic foundation instead, though “quite different” is probably an understatement — despite the scant records from the Carthaginians themselves.

Chesterton in one of his essyes descripted them as if they were very devout american merchants from New England - who burned children.
So,notching changed compare to New England elites now?

 

[stevep]

Regarding the origins of Western respect for the individual (which is unmatched by any other civilisation in history), Siedentop has written the fascinating Inventing the Individual. It cannot be dismissed as some reactionary screed; this is a thorough account of (classical) liberalism's strong individual impulses, written from a liberal perspective... and explaining how at the root of it all, you find the Catholic Church.

I found that it was very pleasantly paired with another book, namely God's Philosophers. I recommend that highly, as well. (By the way, it's reviewed by an atheist here. Spoiler alert: it's an extremely positive review.)

Interesting review. Does seem to go somewhat OTT in places.

And as to the broader matter: yes, religion seems to be an inescapable element of any even vaguely complex culture. This is not surprising: human beings, to organise their conceptions, require a structure to do so. Such a structure is not in-born, and all partial structures (e.g. purely "political", "economic", "social" ones) are inevitably lacking. Consciousness is complex, and to try to make sense of the kosmos and one's place in it, people seek an encompassing structure that can provide a frame-work for both emotional and intellectual processing of really quite abstract experiences.

The result is religion. Not even deliberately. It's just that any structure that meets the above criteria is, by default, a religion. Even if it's a highly philosophical one without any explicit gods or such... people use intellectual short-hand rather than engaging in abstract philosophy, so anything that finds mass appeal will rapidly become increasingly more "religion-like".

This cannot be escaped. Only accepted.

Many belief systems are basically religious in nature I fully agree and have done for years. Its just what sort of belief systems they are. Some are at heart and frequently over their periods of power intolerant and some aren't. Again with big systems people matter, even if the system says they don't.

 

[Bassoe]

Returning to AH clichés again, I suppose “Carthage Beats Rome!” via victory in the Punic Wars also counts. Not as common as PODs surrounding more recent history, perhaps, but about as oft-suggested as “Julius Caesar Avoids Assassination!” is in Antiquity-centric AH discussion.

Even it were to pass, it’d produce a very different history indeed, what with Roman philosophy, law, and language as the basis for Western civilization as we know it. Hard to know how what ATL West would look like with a Punic foundation instead, though “quite different” is probably an understatement — despite the scant records from the Carthaginians themselves.

Chesterton in one of his essyes descripted them as if they were very devout american merchants from New England - who burned children.
So,notching changed compare to New England elites now?

Imagine That Carthage Had Won

Are our values the product of small accidents of fate?

classicalfuturist.substack.com

 

[ATP]

Imagine That Carthage Had Won

Are our values the product of small accidents of fate?

classicalfuturist.substack.com

Well,values come from cyviizations,and every cyvilization has religion.

 

[Skallagrim]

Returning to AH clichés again, I suppose “Carthage Beats Rome!” via victory in the Punic Wars also counts. Not as common as PODs surrounding more recent history, perhaps, but about as oft-suggested as “Julius Caesar Avoids Assassination!” is in Antiquity-centric AH discussion.

Even it were to pass, it’d produce a very different history indeed, what with Roman philosophy, law, and language as the basis for Western civilization as we know it. Hard to know how what ATL West would look like with a Punic foundation instead, though “quite different” is probably an understatement — despite the scant records from the Carthaginians themselves.

Carthaginian victory means the vindication of the Barcid strain of political thought-- although the old elite may well dispose of the victorious general once his work is complete, so as to secure their own position. They won't be able to kill his legacy, though. In this scenario, an evolution towards a more militarist/imperialist state is inevitable. It'll be less so than Rome, though, for cultural reasons and because they have a smaller citizen population (and less of an effective mechanism to turn clients into citizens). Conversely, they'll have a more mercantile frame-work to build on than the Romans did.

All in all, I think a victorious Carthage is set to rule of the Western Med, but will be unable to conquer the Eastern Med-- where, absent Rome, the internal Hellenstic power-struggle can continue on to its projected conclusion (which is "last one standing gets to be hegemon over the Eastern Med").

Imagine That Carthage Had Won

Are our values the product of small accidents of fate?

classicalfuturist.substack.com

It's amusing that the author first dismisses alternate history because everything is based on chance, and then imagines a scenario that goes against all logic and causality, first presenting this as a thought experiment... but then working towards the "conclusion" that this supposedly proves that everything as based on chance.

The circular reasoning is obvious.

Regardless of this, it is very true that societies based on very different values could easily arise, as these have existed in many places and eras. Although the "options", as it were, don't seem to be infinite, and certain basic models seem to recur again and again. For instance, a persistent tendency towards human sacrifice tends to be the result of uncertainty about communal survival or welfare. In reasonably advanced societies, this tendency is seen to last in conditions of climatological challenges. ("Shit. Two bad harvests in a row. Definitely time to appease the gods!")

North Africa and the Levant had issues with a population surplus through a generational rythm. Good times with good harvests produced more kids, but then when a few bad years came, it was the famine times. (The whole "seven fat years, seven lean years" thing derives from that, too.) Since it's understood that "too many kids have been born" was the problem, and since sacrifices of something you treasure are always considered more powerful, the leap to child sacrifice in times of famine is not that random. (Note that Meso-America had periodic droughts that could last a generation, and the Yucatan had a very delicate hydraulic balance. Structural human sacrifice should be viewed as a cultural construct with its roots in... environmentalist population control. Well! The more things change, huh?)

Anyway, these factors explain why some societies (e.g. those on the European side of the Med) turned away from human sacrifice pretty early on, and turned it into offering effigies. (Such ancient rites still existed during the Roman Empire. But a thousand years earlier, they weren't throwing effigies into the Tiber!)

To conclude: Carthage underwent an agricultural revolution that made the land far more useful, and indeed, previously marginal North Africa became a bread-basket for a few centuries. I think that this means that Carthaginian human sacrifice was on the way out, no matter what. In fact, it may have ceased before Rome even razed Carthage. Whatever the author of the linked article wants to claim, these things are not random. Sacrificing your children is something you do if something like a decade-long drought is a real prospect. If it's not, if things are stable for two or three generations... such practices are quickly abandoned. You only pay such a high price if the alternative is truly viewed as worse. The looming threat has to be real.

(Weird comparison, but notice how the American colonists were all very loyal to Britain, and readily paid taxes to a far-away King, until the threat of France was permanently removed in the Seven Years' War. Within a generation, they carried out a succesful war of independence because they didn't want to pay those stinkin' taxes anymore. The reason they paid them was gone! I assure you that sacrificing a child is about the highest tax imaginable. If the reason is gone, the sacrifice stops.)

 

[stevep]

Carthaginian victory means the vindication of the Barcid strain of political thought-- although the old elite may well dispose of the victorious general once his work is complete, so as to secure their own position. They won't be able to kill his legacy, though. In this scenario, an evolution towards a more militarist/imperialist state is inevitable. It'll be less so than Rome, though, for cultural reasons and because they have a smaller citizen population (and less of an effective mechanism to turn clients into citizens). Conversely, they'll have a more mercantile frame-work to build on than the Romans did.

All in all, I think a victorious Carthage is set to rule of the Western Med, but will be unable to conquer the Eastern Med-- where, absent Rome, the internal Hellenstic power-struggle can continue on to its projected conclusion (which is "last one standing gets to be hegemon over the Eastern Med").



It's amusing that the author first dismisses alternate history because everything is based on chance, and then imagines a scenario that goes against all logic and causality, first presenting this as a thought experiment... but then working towards the "conclusion" that this supposedly proves that everything as based on chance.

The circular reasoning is obvious.

Regardless of this, it is very true that societies based on very different values could easily arise, as these have existed in many places and eras. Although the "options", as it were, don't seem to be infinite, and certain basic models seem to recur again and again. For instance, a persistent tendency towards human sacrifice tends to be the result of uncertainty about communal survival or welfare. In reasonably advanced societies, this tendency is seen to last in conditions of climatological challenges. ("Shit. Two bad harvests in a row. Definitely time to appease the gods!")

North Africa and the Levant had issues with a population surplus through a generational rythm. Good times with good harvests produced more kids, but then when a few bad years came, it was the famine times. (The whole "seven fat years, seven lean years" thing derives from that, too.) Since it's understood that "too many kids have been born" was the problem, and since sacrifices of something you treasure are always considered more powerful, the leap to child sacrifice in times of famine is not that random. (Note that Meso-America had periodic droughts that could last a generation, and the Yucatan had a very delicate hydraulic balance. Structural human sacrifice should be viewed as a cultural construct with its roots in... environmentalist population control. Well! The more things change, huh?)

Anyway, these factors explain why some societies (e.g. those on the European side of the Med) turned away from human sacrifice pretty early on, and turned it into offering effigies. (Such ancient rites still existed during the Roman Empire. But a thousand years earlier, they weren't throwing effigies into the Tiber!)

To conclude: Carthage underwent an agricultural revolution that made the land far more useful, and indeed, previously marginal North Africa became a bread-basket for a few centuries. I think that this means that Carthaginian human sacrifice was on the way out, no matter what. In fact, it may have ceased before Rome even razed Carthage. Whatever the author of the linked article wants to claim, these things are not random. Sacrificing your children is something you do if something like a decade-long drought is a real prospect. If it's not, if things are stable for two or three generations... such practices are quickly abandoned. You only pay such a high price if the alternative is truly viewed as worse. The looming threat has to be real.

(Weird comparison, but notice how the American colonists were all very loyal to Britain, and readily paid taxes to a far-away King, until the threat of France was permanently removed in the Seven Years' War. Within a generation, they carried out a succesful war of independence because they didn't want to pay those stinkin' taxes anymore. The reason they paid them was gone! I assure you that sacrificing a child is about the highest tax imaginable. If the reason is gone, the sacrifice stops.)

On that last point what taxes did the colonists actually paid prior to ~1763? They may have paid indirect taxes as did everybody although with widespread evasion by smuggling and the like but as I understand it it was only after the 7YW that London decided that the colonists should pay something directly to the maintenance of a British garrison for maintaining security in N America. They made various attempts with taxes on tea, stamp duty and the like and withdrew each one in the face of local opposition but seem to have failed to understand it was objection to paying any tax at all rather than a specific type?

Agree that the removal of the French - and effective removal of the Spanish threat - along with weakening of Indian threats after the defeat of Pontiac's rising drastically changed the need the colonies had for external aid in their defence and hence they were more likely to revolt as they did but to the best of my knowledge direct taxes specifically to contribute towards their defence only emerged after the 7YW?