7
   

Alternative History: Post Alternative Theories Here

 
 
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 09:43 am
There actually is a fringe discipline known as "alternative history." The historical treatises that Dan Brown used as background for DaVinci Code and Lost Symbol are an example.
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:20 am
The 1982 book, Holy Blood Holy Grail, was written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Here is an excerpt from an early book review in The St. Petersburg Times:

Quote:
Research began with Lincoln's preparation of a 1972 BBC documentary on a 19th century French priest, Berenger Sauniere. The cleric reputedly amassed great wealth after discovering and deciphering four parchments hidden in a hollow pillar of his church at Rennes-le-Chateau, a hilltop village in the south of France.

The authors say they have discovered those parchments, or facsimiles, still exist and disclose the existence of a secret society called the Prieure de Sion, founded in the 11th century at the start of the Crusades. Its aim was to guard the Holy Grail - according to medieval legend, the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper.

The authors claim the society remains active, and that its adherents over the years included Isaac Newton, Andre Malraux, Victor Hugo, Claude Debussy and Charles de Gaulle.

According to the authors, the words "Holy Grail" are a mistranslation of early French words for "royal blood," and the true purpose of Prieure de Sion is to protect alleged royal descendants of Jesus and prepare the way for their accession to world power.

To bolster their description of the society, they provide several chapters of scholarly references from legends, romances, paintings, documents and the Bible.

All this is controversial enough, but author Leigh said it led the three to reexamine the conventional interpretations of the New Testament. That study led them to propound a "hypothesis" that:

-Jesus literally had a claim to being "king of the Jews" and was descended from the royal house of the Israelite King David.
-He married Mary Magdalene and had at least one child by her.
-He and sympathizers staged his Crucifixion and Resurrection and he survived into old age somewhere outside the Holy Land.
-Mary Magdalene and her offspring made their way to southern France - then Roman ruled Gaul.
-Jesus' bloodline mixed with that of the Franks and started the Merovingian dynasty of the early Middle Ages.
-The Merovingian line extends into the modern noble houses of Europe, so Jesus' descendants are alive today.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:28 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
The historical treatises that Dan Brown used as background for DaVinci Code and Lost Symbol are an example.


What historical thesis would that be? I have long suspected that Brown was inspired to write his drivel (he is a horrible, horrible author, and i've never got even as far as a dozen pages into any book of his) was inspired by a rather unpretentious and fun little novel which i read several years ago. The Serpent Garden by Judith Riley was set in 16th century England and France, and is total fantasy, involving as it does--as an example--actual demons and angels. However, at the heart of her novel is a conspiracy tale about phoney Knights Templar and supporters of a Merovingian heir to the French thone, with lots of murder most foul and heroic daring-do by an unwilling but valiant young man. Merkel's novel was published in 1997, Brown's tripe in 2003.

Whatever one thinks about that little theory of mine, history has exactaly that relationship to Brown's work as science does to Christian Science.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:40 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

There actually is a fringe discipline known as "alternative history." The historical treatises that Dan Brown used as background for DaVinci Code and Lost Symbol are an example.

That's not "alternative history," that's just "bad history."
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:43 am
Maybe Wandel means "altenative history" in the same sense that the "theory" of intelligent design constitutes alternative science.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:54 am
Good points, joefromchicago and Setanta.

The writers that pursue theories of historical events that are "outside of the mainstream" refer to their field as "alternative history." I believe they have their own organizations and publish their own journals.
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 12:50 pm
I wish them joy of it, then. I do not for a moment doubt that their prospects of making a modest living publishing works which in effect preach to the choir are good.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:26 pm
@joefromchicago,
It's just a subdivision of 'science fiction'. (Is science fiction a subdivision of science?)
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:27 pm
@Setanta,
Can I sell you a magazine subscription?

http://www.sphinxmystery.info/images/nexus.jpg
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
When I hear the term "alternative history," I think of those "what if?" books -- like "what if Napoleon had a B-52 bomber at Waterloo?" It's fiction informed by history, but it's fiction nonetheless.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:41 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

When I hear the term "alternative history," I think of those "what if?" books -- like "what if Napoleon had a B-52 bomber at Waterloo?" It's fiction informed by history, but it's fiction nonetheless.


Understandable (coming from a layperson such as yourself). The "what if" accounts of history are referred to as "alternate history" in order to distinguish it from the investigative discipline of "alternative history."
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 02:07 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
When I hear the term "alternative history," I think of those "what if?" books -- like "what if Napoleon had a B-52 bomber at Waterloo?" It's fiction informed by history, but it's fiction nonetheless.

By that standard, it seems pretty much all historical writing is fiction as soon as it connects its raw data with any statements about causes and effects. For example, consider the claim that "by delivering the atomic bomb in 1945 and not 1946, the Manhattan Project saved thousands of American lives". I see no problem with this at all. And yet, it's logically equivalent to saying, "if the Manhattan project had delivered the bomb in 1946 rather than 1945, every conceivable alternative history would have led to thousands more American deaths". By your standards, then, how is the original claim not fiction?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 02:57 pm
@Thomas,
It's true that all historical writing is based on implied counterfactuals. But that's quite a bit different from writing the history of that counterfactual situation. That sounds like a subtle distinction, but it's not. If I write the history of the Confederate States of America, 1860 to the present, I'm writing fiction. If I write that the battle of Gettysburg marked the turning point in the Civil War, I'm writing history.
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 03:21 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
But that's quite a bit different from writing the history of that counterfactual situation. That sounds like a subtle distinction, but it's not.

That makes sense. Point taken.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 03:25 pm
i've liked some of the short fiction in the What If... series, and another book of short stories called Other Worlds (?)

now listening to Coast to Coast AM, there are plenty of guys who think that there is a secret history of the world, that man is way older than we're told, that civilizations at least as advanced or more advanced than ours existed millions of years ago and destroyed themselves in some kind of nuclear holocaust

it's fun stuff to listen to, some great entertainment
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 04:36 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
The writers that pursue theories of historical events that are "outside of the mainstream" refer to their field as "alternative history."
They have not the honor of first coinage. The term "Alternative history", (science, view, reality), is a long honored way to traduce anothers "pet theories">Its cooler to use the term as one which suggests that there is actually some faint bit of credibility in there. Its all a joke though.

"Billy, Im sure the class would love to hear your alternative historical view that aliens first discovered the Americas and their intergalactic express vehicles left long runways in the Plains of NAzca"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 05:26 pm
@Thomas,
Claims about probable American lives lost are based on the projections for casualties in invading the Japanese "home islands," and to that extent are reasonable. Imagining B-52 bombers in Belgium in 1815 is not at all reasonable. Anyone incapable of distinguishing between the two has no business judging the merits of historical synthesis.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 05:29 pm
@Setanta,
Yeh Curtis Lemay was still a little kid then.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 09:44 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Claims about probable American lives lost are based on the projections for casualties in invading the Japanese "home islands," and to that extent are reasonable. Imagining B-52 bombers in Belgium in 1815 is not at all reasonable. Anyone incapable of distinguishing between the two has no business judging the merits of historical synthesis.

How about the claim that it wouldn't have mattered if the South had won the Civil warm, because slavery was on its way out of American history anyway? It seems like a valid, if debatable, claim a historian might make. It is also the point that seems to underlie Harry Turtledove's alternate-history book Guns of the South. (Admittedly I didn't read the book. I found it through Joefromchicago's link to Turtledove's Wikipedia page, and I'm going by Wikipedia's summary of its content.)

Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 01:38 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
How about the claim that it wouldn't have mattered if the South had won the Civil warm, because slavery was on its way out of American history anyway? It seems like a valid, if debatable, claim a historian might make. It is also the point that seems to underlie Harry Turtledove's alternate-history book Guns of the South. (Admittedly I didn't read the book. I found it through Joefromchicago's link to Turtledove's Wikipedia page, and I'm going by Wikipedia's summary of its content.)


Actually, i heard that book read on the NPR program "Radio Reader." It sucked, but it played at the same time every day at which i ate my lunch in the office--it wasn't really worth my time to tune in another station, and then have to tune back to the NPR station when the lunch hour was over. As i recall the basic premise, "time travelers" from 20th century South Africas who also happened to have been racists, brought AK47s to the Confederate States to assure that they would win the war. Then, at the end of some other goofy plot scenario, Yankees and Rebs had to unite to destroy the evil interlopers from the future. It wasn't about slavery at all.

And your post is only about slavery for as long as it takes you to launch yourself on that flight of fancy. Yes, slavery was, economically, a failing institutio. But in a broader economic sense missed by most historians, it already was a failure. Small holders and small skilled laborers already couldn't compete with the slave economy, and either sank into not genteel at all poverty of migrated to "free" states where they could pursue their ambitions.

But what is most pernicious about your remark is that it partakes of the apologetics of the distorted popular view of that war. It implies that slavery would have died if the North would just have left the South alone. But the South started that war--before Lincoln was inaugurated, before he even reached Washington, the states of the South were engaged on a course in violation of the constitution, and had taken up arms against the Federal government. Whether or not slavery would have collapsed as an institution is not relevant, because the southern states started that war solely on the basis of Lincoln having been elected, and not as the result of any direct action on the part of the Federal government.

And many of them have been whining about the consequences now for over 140 years. You've been suckered by the whole "war of Northern aggression" bullshit.

Wanna buy a bridge?
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Alternative History: Post Alternative Theories Here
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 12:09:20