What do you see as overused settings in Alternate History

I always loved history. The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that.

All right, let's play this game. So ... Gavrilo Princip shoots the Arch-Duke of Austro-Hungary. Germany makes threatening noises but does nothing. In return, Russia also stays out of it. This means that it's Austro-Hungary vs. Serbia.

Where does that leave us?

- Nothing much changes in Germany. The Kaisers stay in power.

- In Austria, a young artist named Adolf Hitler either goes on struggling, OR joins the army ... and goes to Serbia instead of France. He later writes a book about the war, called My War, that nobody takes seriously.

- Czarist Russia is wobbly in any case, thanks to Rasputin's hold on the Czarina (because he seems to - somehow - be able to heal her son, even from a distance). However, there is disagreement in Moscow about the House of Romanov. Czar Nicolai II takes advantage of this disagreement and does anything he wants.

Without the endless wave of men being killed in the war, there is disquiet in the streets but no cries for revolution. The Duma tries to persuade Nicolai to let them have more power, but he refuses. Why should he? He's an autocrat, he was raised to be one and he always will be one, damn it.

- In Zurich, a young revolutionary called Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov ... becomes an old revolutionary called Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

- And finally: England and France continue dancing the cake walk, turkey trot, and the waltz.

Also, no WW1 means none of that endless poetry from Rupert Brooke, John McCrae, and Wilfred Owen.

Of course, no war also means the development of the tank, the aeroplane, the parachute, and a whole bunch of aircraft-related technologies (like the interrupter gear) remain undiscovered - for a while, anyway. Instead, the money goes towards developing the car and paving more roads.

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Probably all white fantasy lands. Ancient portraits and historical records solidly prove that every race on earth wasn't separate for all of history until recently. And yet, there are still entire Tv shows, movie trilogies, and fantasy books of pure white societies based on ancient times, mostly Europe. Christopher Columbus wrote that Africans knew a way to the Americas before the Europeans and Spaniards, and that he encountered them upon landing. But this is never discussed in academia, not in schools or media. Plenty of firsthand eyewitness accounts verify this truth...including the portrait of Christopher Columbus coming to America, which includes a Black Moor navigator in fine clothing. A portrait could have a black person wearing extravagant garments, gold jewelry, and being surrounded by courtiers, and yet modern historians will say "oh thats just a slave". Even though all the obvious evidence points to the opposite. It's pretty clear black history has for a long time been suppressed and nearly erased. I recently met a coworker at the school I work at (I'm a teacher) who actually knew about Black Moors ruling Spain for hundreds of years. I was delighted, because this is not common knowledge and whenever I talk about it with anyone it either confuses them or evokes a rage in them, simply because you mention something that isn't in a colonizerst extbook.

It is common knowledge, however, that "the victors decide the history" and yet no one ever really questions history. And then when we get shows like the Netflix Cleopatra with a black actress...people are up in arms and saying things like "there were never any black Egyptians". Which is patently false. There's plenty of black dynasties in Egypt and it has been extensively recorded in history. You may disagree that Cleopatra was black, but to say there were "no black Egyptians" is a bold-faced lie. Cleopatras body was never found, but her statues done by her own people do not depict a lily white woman, but people still persist she was purely white and thats it.

Which is how we get to where we are now, with countless media adaptations of stories with pure white fantasy lands and little to no black folks in sight.

 

I'm afraid he didn't claim that.

This is what he wrote about the people he encountered:
Their hair is short and coarse, almost like the hairs of a horse’s tail. They wear the hairs brought down to the eyebrows, except a few locks behind, which they wear long and never cut. They paint themselves black, and they are the color of the Canarians, neither black nor white. Some paint themselves white, others red, and others of what color they find. Some paint their faces, others the whole body, some only round the eyes, others only on the nose.

I know Ivan Van Sertima claims this, but he hasn't provided any real evidence.

And that's all I will say on the matter, as it's not all that relevant to the thread, and likely to turn into a Debate Room thread if I continue.

 

So you want to reply to me and then end the discussion? Lol. I don't need to debate you, I can just send you evidence if you're interested. If you're not interested in learning new things, and you're comfortable with the amount of historical knowledge you already have, then I won't send you anything. That's fine with me. But I do have free time, as I'm at work and there's nothign to do at the moment.

My comment to the topic of overused tropes was that all white fantasy lands are overused. And I also wasn't even talking about that quote you supplied, just fyi. I was talking about his quote of seeing black skinne dpeople arrive on the shore in a boat to trade with golden spears. And its curious how you cxompeltely ignored my quote of Columbus saying Africans knew a way to America already? Seems intentional. Can't refute it, eh?

I wasn't even JUST talking about Christopher Columbus, many firsthand eyewitnesses described, sketched, painted, and sculpted images of black people living in the Americas. Anyway, you don't want to talk about this, you just wanted to make one comment, and this is my reply to your statement. We can continue in direct messages if you change your mind.

Have a nice day btw!

 

I've seen this discussion many, many times on the history forum where I'm a moderator. I can assure you, any evidence you send, I'll have already seen in one form or another, and I don't particularly need, or care to see, the same thing here. I doubt anyone else does either.

I'll put you on ignore just for a few days until this passes. Have a nice day.

 

Until what passes? How curious. I was leaving a comment on a page like any other person here. I wasn't trying to debate anyone either...I was merely adding to the discussion. I don't know why you replied to me if these types of discussions bother you so much? I mean, you may not like historical documents but you can't say they aren't factual lol. A historical record or portrait by a firsthand eyewitness is all the proof anyone should need. If this is a "don't believe your lying eyes" kind of situation, I should let you know I'm much too well read and stubborn to be easily brainwashed.

(Edit: If this was in fact a debate, cherry picking quotes by historical figures would definitely be a point against you. You can't quote Columbus to prove your viewpoint and in the same breath completely ignore what he said about Africans sailing boats to the Americas before the colonizers figured it out lol )

 

I have never heard of Africans making ships that could cross the Atlantic. That isn't to say it is a fabrication. We do know the Polynesians were able to cross the pacific in small craft. So the possibility exists for someone to have managed the trip to South America. But a return trip would have required a high degree of knowledge about ocean currents. Even the vikings landing in America required them to make the trip in stages, with Iceland and Greenland as way points. Even Columbus came close to failure on his trip, with a near mutiny at one point.

 

Er ... right.

Since Cleopatra has been brought up, I have to ask: which Cleopatra? The famous one was the 7th (and last) female ruler with that name. More to the point, she was Greek - born to the Ptolemaic dynasty of the Greek rulers that had ruled Egypt since the days of Alexander of Macedon.

She did, however, have much to recommend her. It's impossible to know whether she was as beautiful as the movies make her out to be, but then, she was the first Ptolemaic to learn all the languages -- Greek, ancient Egyptian, Armenian, Aramean etc. -- of her complex and cosmopolitan realm. She was also shrewd and clever, and dedicated to her country.

To the Egyptians, she dressed up as an Egyptian. To the Greeks, she dressed up as a Greek matron. She knew well which face to present to which crowd, and how to appeal to the crowds.

Moving on (and returning to the original point of this thread), I'm not sure if Egypt is an overused setting in alternate history. Does anyone know?

 

Does Ancient Aliens count as alternate history, or just fiction?

 

On that Alternate History website I mentioned, this sort of Point off Departure is termed "ASB" - Alien Space Bats. It's generally frowned upon there.

 

I call it "time travelling ninjas". Any phenomenon that can be explained by aliens can also be explained by time-travelling ninjas.

 

I don't know about literature but in movies at least, I would say ancient Egypt is very much neglected- whether in alternate history or anything else- apart from Moses, Cleopatra and flashbacks in various mummy films. Some years ago there was talk that that weirdo John Milius might produce an ancient Egypt series, similar to his Rome series, set during the reign of Hatshepsut. It might have been great but nothing came of it.

 

Napoleonic Wars or any other historical period of the 19th century.
I mean, I understand the appeal; the Industrial Revolution was already a time of great change, so it's easier to sneak your alternate history in there.
Plus, cool aesthetics.

 

It depends what they do. If your story claims that they built the Egyptian Pyramids ... well, that's kind of insulting to the people who did. On the other hand, if all your Aliens do is walk around with antennae on their heads and make buzzing noises to freak out the locals ... no harm, no foul, but that's sci-fi, not history.

By "cool aesthetics", I presume you mean Steampunk, not people dying in droves of cholera, Phossy Jaw, bad water and arsenic in the sweets (and/or wallpaper).

 

Yup, definitely mean Steampunk!