| Alternate History Cliches | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 6 2010, 07:34 AM (604 Views) | |
| Simon Darkshade | Oct 6 2010, 07:34 AM Post #1 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Some of the most pernicious cliches, often thrown about without due thought: 1.) Nazi victory in WW2 2.) Sealion! 3.) CSA wins the US Civil War 4.) Balkanized United States of America 5.) Balkanized Ottoman Empire, with Greece ruling the Aegean coast of Anatolia 6.) Byzantine Empire 7.) Airships! 8.) Surviving empires Add more if you can think of them |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Oct 7 2010, 01:31 PM Post #2 |
|
Napoleon wins the Napoleonic Wars? Canada as part of the US proper? And why are these adds popping where youn learn "about full-day kindergarten in Ontario", half day was bad enough for the poor kids... |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Oct 8 2010, 02:23 AM Post #3 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I don't know that they are strictly cliche, although there are very obvious and commonly asked what-ifs. Most generate more controversy than answers. Some I'd add from our recent experiences: 11.) Anglo-American Oregon War in the 1840s 12.) A different War of 1812 leading to significant territorial revisions in NA 13.) Henry Clay wins in 1844, magically ensuring permanent Texan independence and no Civil War 14.) Mexico wins the Mexican-American War |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Oct 9 2010, 06:56 AM Post #4 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Of those, the 1812 one is most often repeated to the point of cliche status, usually to a US victory and conquest of Canada. An independent Texas often occurs in the balkanized USA scenario. British and French intervention in the Civil War/Anglo-US war over the Trent Affair falls into the cliche category. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Oct 9 2010, 11:36 AM Post #5 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Indeed. There are others on the opposite extreme that frequently make an appearance in alternate 1812s, such as the transfer of territory in Maine and New England to Britain, which would probably fall into the cliche category. Like the successful invasion of Canada scenarios, they usually ignore the political realities that would've prevented such an outcome. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Oct 9 2010, 01:52 PM Post #6 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Most certainly - they violate that certain tenet of alternate history that one needs to be true to the personalities and political realities of the time. The war was very much a minor affair from a British point of view, and the original objectives quite limited. The logistics of such an operation would be murderous, given that only a small amount of strength could be concentrated. To change that, the personalities need to be radically changed, or new ones injected, in addition to the strategic situation changing, such as Napoleon dropping dead and thus allowing the redeployment of the British Army and RN to North America. Most such scenarios don't do that, regardless of a grudging nod to strategic justification, such as securing an all year round connection to Quebec. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Nov 3 2010, 08:16 AM Post #7 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 07:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Nov 3 2010, 09:53 AM Post #8 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
That last one comes up a lot, whilst ignoring the underlying issues and nature of the Empire at that time; with America, there is much less emphasis on other endeavours. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Nov 3 2010, 02:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Yes indeed, the loss was sort of a redirection dyke, of sorts. Nice to see you EQ. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Nov 3 2010, 07:25 PM Post #10 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 07:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Nov 3 2010, 10:00 PM Post #11 |
|
Yeah, it would be hard to convince Americans OR Britons to fund large armies, it was anathema to both of our societies. The interesting thing to see would be the outcome of the the mixture of British capital with American potential and resources, but I don't really see there being much desire, on either side of the pond, for world conquest. It was just something neither of us really ever contemplated seriously. Edited by Matthew, Nov 4 2010, 01:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 14 2012, 07:03 PM Post #12 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
One from the Great War: Germany staying out of Belgium automatically means Britain will not enter the war. That ship had long since sailed. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 14 2012, 08:05 PM Post #13 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I assumed as much. My question was directed more toward the nefarious "Hun" image (rape of Belgium and all that). Eq also had talked about staying out of Belgium to keep the front smaller while he concentrated on Russia. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 14 2012, 08:17 PM Post #14 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Even if Belgium hadn't have been raped, France would have still suffered, and the outrage and imagery would have been transferred to those circumstances. Staying out of Belgium means abandoning the Schlieffen Plan, which, for all its flaws and drawbacks, made a fair bit of strategic sense. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |







8:40 AM Jul 11