8 ms·

Counterfactuals are great for students, for readers of popular fiction, for philosophers and pundits. They just suck for historians. That's because a historian

Counterfactuals are great for students, for readers of popular fiction, for philosophers and pundits. They just suck for historians. That's because a historian is fortunate to concentrate on what actually happened, removed from his or her opinion about things at large. When engaging in a counterfactual, all of that subjective "nonsense" (in strictly historical terms) comes to the surface and the historian is just engaging in a form of intellectual self-stimulation. I love reading them, and coming up with my own, but they're a form of polemic, not an academic pursuit of their own. I think most professional historians understand that.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Historians' "customers" are other historians. We do have people building historically-rich entertainment product ( in the manner of Michener ) out of that grist. It's hard to say that is worse than, say, just-television. One thing we get is actually good television - I consider "Vikings" a great deal of fun, and it has at least legend integrated in to a narrative framework. Somebody has to popularize things or it just dries out. And I can't tell you how much history of things long ago has changed just in the last five decades or so. The things didn't change... but the story did. It's sad how little faith we have in nonfiction mass media.