Scan barcode
tac107's review against another edition
3.0
So this one is a little questionable to me for several reasons.
Firstly, it's worth mentioning this is a combo of two books. The first one is all about wars and battles, and the second one is mainly about things adjacent to wars and battles. That isn't my issue with this book. The issue is a seeming lack of quality control.
"Eminent historians" in the title is also suspect. There are some highly respected writers, like Stephen Ambrose, and a good chunk of university professors, but some of these people have the qualifications that they wrote a book or two. Anyone can write a book about a historical event, but that doesn't mean it's good or passes any kind of rigorous evaluation (looking at you, Tim Pat Coogan).
Also, many of these essays spend more time recounting what actually happened than posing what MIGHT have happened. I was still mostly ok with this because I wasn't familiar with the intricacies of many of these events, so I still enjoyed reading about them. But that's not the point of the book. I found it off-putting that literally the first essay basically states that its alternate universe is too complicated to predict so it doesn't really try to suggest alternate events at all.
This is very good for casual reading but there are better counterfactual narratives readily available.
Firstly, it's worth mentioning this is a combo of two books. The first one is all about wars and battles, and the second one is mainly about things adjacent to wars and battles. That isn't my issue with this book. The issue is a seeming lack of quality control.
"Eminent historians" in the title is also suspect. There are some highly respected writers, like Stephen Ambrose, and a good chunk of university professors, but some of these people have the qualifications that they wrote a book or two. Anyone can write a book about a historical event, but that doesn't mean it's good or passes any kind of rigorous evaluation (looking at you, Tim Pat Coogan).
Also, many of these essays spend more time recounting what actually happened than posing what MIGHT have happened. I was still mostly ok with this because I wasn't familiar with the intricacies of many of these events, so I still enjoyed reading about them. But that's not the point of the book. I found it off-putting that literally the first essay basically states that its alternate universe is too complicated to predict so it doesn't really try to suggest alternate events at all.
This is very good for casual reading but there are better counterfactual narratives readily available.
milos_dumbraci's review
4.0
Some ”What If”s are 5/5s, some 4/5s for being too on the light side or, on the contrary, close to typical academic ramble, and some are fascinating (the best is the WW1 scenario written by Cowley himself, the editor of the book). The total is somewhere between 4 and 5, but closer to 4 for me (I am European) because it is too American-centered: way too much about the Independence War and Civil War, which gets really boring.
More...