5 167

alternative history- a rather dangerous phenomenon, if we consider it over long time intervals. We all remember the example of creating an alternative historical myth about the "ancient Ukrainians", which significantly contributed to the launch of the anti-Russian propaganda machine. Was an integral part of it.

Of course, the consequences of the rapid growth of the alternative-historical sphere of knowledge may not be so bloody. However, like any river, overflowing its banks, an alternative history can bring damage to the “national economy”. The main harm of an ill-considered alternative history is the destruction of all historical ideas in general. History is a semantic logical construct that lives in the minds of people. If it collapses, a void is formed, which is very quickly filled with all sorts of speculation, false statements and propaganda myths.

The second danger lies in the spontaneous growth of national narcissism of the audience that accepted the theories of alternative history. While Ukrainians in Ukraine are developing theories about “great Ukrainians”, and Russian theorists in Russia, with the ease of Ostap Bender, substantiate the thesis that the Russians owned the whole world in the past (we don’t even talk about Eurasia and the Americas - our goal is Africa and Australia) , Armenian theorists, for example, are also on the alert. Here is a fresh example: a text is actively spreading on the Internet, the author of which claims that the Armenians were the founders of Russian statehood. Well, at least they founded Kyiv and Moscow.

The capital of Russia - Kyiv on the Dnieper was founded in 585 on the Castle Hill in the form of a fortress by the Great Armenian prince (nakharar) Smbat Bagratuni (see Sebeos, "History of Armenia", 7th century). Initially, the capital was named Smbatas. The descendants of Smbat Bagratuni - Kuar (Kiy), Shek (Meltey) and Khorean - erected new fortresses on the neighboring hills: Kuar (Kiy), Meltey (Schekovitsa) and Korean (Korevan). Four fortresses: Smbatas, Kuar, Meltey, Korevan later united under the name of Kyiv. The Armenian dynasty of Kievan princes existed for 300 years (585-882).

Moscow was founded by the Armenian prince Gevorg (Georgy) Bagratuni-Yerkaynabazuk (“Dolgoruky”, in Armenian), he is Yuri Dolgoruky, who is also mentioned in Russian chronicles by the name of Gyurgi, Kiurk. The first mention of Moscow refers to the "Boyar Chronicle" of the 12th century by Peter Borislavovich: April 4, 1147, etc.

The baptism of Russia also turns out to have been carried out under the strict guidance of the Armenians.

When in 988 Vladimir agreed with Anna's condition, the princess gathered Armenian clergy for the baptism of Russia and left Constantinopolis for Kyiv. On the banks of the Dnieper, the baptism of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (“in the baptism of Vasily”) and the people Kievan Rus. Since then, the Russian Church has been called Orthodox by the name of the Armenian Mother See of the Apostolic Church.

The great Russian sovereign Ivan IV the Terrible (who miraculously did not become an Armenian - with his hook-nosed appearance), also, it turns out, could not do without the Armenians.

In 1552, Russian troops under the command of Ivan the Terrible besieged Kazan, on the part of the Russians, two Armenian regiments fought, mainly Crimean Armenians under the command of the princes Pahlavuni (Pahlevanov) and Agamalyan (Agamalov), and on the part of the Tatars, gunners, Armenian descendants of those who were driven away from Crimea to Kazan in 1475. After the gunners refused to shoot at their own, the Tatars, in response, slaughtered them in a rage, burned their houses in Kazan, and killed all household members, young and old. The Armenian commanders held a council, a feeling of bitterness and reciprocal fury seized the Armenians:
- Let's go to death! Don't take anyone prisoner!
The Armenian regiments dismounted in the dark and in the morning went to storm the main gate. More than 5,000 fighters with sabers suddenly climbed onto the walls and, having killed the Tatars, opened the gates. The troops of Ivan the Terrible entered the city like an avalanche...

Well, at the end of the theme of the glorious state-forming role of Armenians in Russia, we find out that commander Alexander Suvorov and Prince Grigory Potemkin came from Armenians.

In 1780, the future Generalissimo of the Russian Empire, Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, wrote: “I am going to liberate Karabakh - the Motherland of my ancestors” ... Field Marshal Potemkin Grigory Alexandrovich (1739-1791), the most influential person among the Armenian public in Russia, the favorite of the Empress, who was prophesied to be king Armenia with the capital Bakurakert - Baku as part of Russia.

Such texts are born not only in the Armenian environment. Something similar can be found among the Kazakhs, and among the Georgians, and even among the Belarusians.

Within the framework of this article, we do not undertake to judge which of the above quotes corresponds to historical truth and which does not. Maybe that's how it really happened. It's about something else. Alternative-historical discourses of different countries develop in parallel, inconsistent with each other, and often lead to ideological clashes between their adherents. And from ideological clashes to real ones, the distance is not so great, which the tragic events in Ukraine have shown us very clearly.

In this regard, we urge our readers to be more restrained not only in their political views and statements, but also in historical judgments. If any author claims something, it is not necessary to blindly take his word for it. He may be completely right or completely wrong. Historical knowledge must develop gradually, through repeated cross-checking, research, and comparison. Other things being equal, it is better to only assume, and not to assert as the truth.

History is a science largely built on conjectures and interpretations. Absolute accuracy in it is impossible in principle. Even very recent events are interpreted differently by different people (for example, the return of Crimea to Russia and the war in Donbass). And there should always be room for other points of view. The same, however, as for the official version, which should be reformed, but not broken.

Today, the so-called alternative history is very popular. Increasingly, from TV screens, newspapers, the Internet, we learn about new sensational discoveries that completely contradict the traditional view of history. This is not surprising, because history has been rewritten more than once for ideological and political purposes. There is a famous aphorism: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Science has always been subordinate to politics. And this a big problem for science in general and for historical science in particular.

A great achievement of democracy is the liberation of historical science from the shackles of politics. The politicians themselves are more interested in financial issues. Many go into politics not in the name of high goals, but solely for the sake of a career. Some scientists do the same. Science is turning into a way to make money, going from one extreme to another: from tight control by politicians to complete chaos by amateurs.

In a market economy, there is a law: demand creates supply. If a product is in demand, then there will definitely be an offer. This is what alternative history is. Moreover, this product is quite diverse, which is not surprising, because there is a buyer for each product.

Why is it that alternative history, and not traditional history, is so popular? Probably because there are very attractive elements of fantasy and detective here, successfully hidden behind external form scientific presentation. The fantasy of alternative history is manifested in its incredible plot (you can’t call it otherwise). So, the Egyptian pyramids are declared to be the structures of some ancient highly developed civilization, surpassing even ours in terms of development (this theory was popularized by Erich von Daniken, Graham Hancock, Ernst Muldashev, Andrey Sklyarov). Almost always, alternative history is accompanied by a conspiracy theory. This theory boils down to the fact that the whole history is deliberately hushed up by the behind-the-scenes world government. The conspiracy theory gives alternatives the advantage that it allows any scientific fact to be declared fake. So, according to conspiracy theorists, all the museums of the world are completely unreasonably declared either as part of some commercial project, or as some kind of ideological mechanism that serves the purposes of a behind-the-scenes world government. It is impossible to disprove such a theory. As the British researcher and journalist Ollie Steeds aptly remarked in one of his films: "I cannot prove that the March Hare does not exist, nor can Santa Claus."

One of the most popular theories conspiracy today is the "New Chronology", developed by two famous mathematicians Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky. According to this theory The World History was much shorter than is commonly believed. All ancient history, as well as the history of the early Middle Ages is declared fictional, created artificially by analogy with more later events. Why was it necessary? The point is the following. According to the authors of the New Chronology, in the Middle Ages there was a certain world empire, after the collapse of which a global falsification of history began in order to justify the rights to the throne of the rulers of the newly formed states.

Despite the fact that this theory has long been refuted by scientists, today the New Chronology still has its followers (we will return to this topic).

The main supporters of alternative history are people with technical education having a rather modest knowledge of history. In general, the confrontation between "techies" and "humanists", which has a purely psychological basis, often manifests itself in its entirety precisely in alternative history. "Techies" like to reproach "humanitarians" for ignoring some technical issues. There is some truth in this. For example, not every certified historian will be able to clearly talk about the technologies for building ancient civilizations. In the meantime, this is a very important question. After all, if it suddenly turns out that ancient structures, such as the Egyptian pyramids, simply could not be built at that time from a purely technical point of view, then this will cast doubt on the whole history as a whole. However, this is precisely what supporters of alternative history claim. How, for example, the ancient Egyptians were able to lay 2.5 million stone blocks in the pyramid of Cheops in 20 years? After all, if you calculate, it turns out that they had to lay 1 block in 4 minutes without a break. Meanwhile, the average mass of blocks of the pyramid of Cheops is 2.5 tons. How did this happen to people who at that time had not even invented the wheel? It would seem that this contradicts the very laws of physics. However, if we take into account the number of workers employed in the construction of the pyramid (from 10,000 to 20,000 according to archeology), then everything will fall into place. For example, it was enough to have only 350 workers in the quarry in order to extract 2.5 million blocks within 20 years (for this, one worker needed to extract 1 block in 1 day). Thus, the seemingly unrealistic task of manufacturing 1 block in 4 minutes of continuous work (without taking into account the number of workers), turns into a very real figure, if we take into account the number of workers.

In general, the phrase: "it was impossible to do" has become the hallmark of alternative history. So, in one of his films, Andrei Sklyarov, trying to refute the traditional version of history, makes the following argument. The most modern crane is capable of lifting no more than 100 tons. For example, when installing a monument to Marshal Zhukov, whose mass is 100 tons, it was necessary to use a whole tank division. Meanwhile, in Egypt you can find stone monolithic blocks of 200 tons or more. How did the ancient Egyptians move such blocks, not having at their disposal not only mechanical vehicles, but even an ordinary cart on wheels? And again there is an illusion of a contradiction in the official history common sense. However, Sklyarov's adventurism becomes apparent if we take into account several interesting facts from history: the movement of 48 columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral (each weighing 115 tons), as well as the installation of the Alexander Column, which weighs 600 tons; it is also surprising that such an event as the transportation of the famous "Thunder-stone", whose weight was about 1600 tons (here at least a tank army was needed, if you follow the logic of Sklyarov). Meanwhile, all these events took place in the XVIII-XIX centuries before the onset of the industrial revolution. Of course, the level of development at that time was much higher than that of the ancient Egyptians, however, only manual labor was still used, and therefore a comparison of the methods of ancient engineers and engineers of the 18th-19th centuries is more correct.

However, all the arguments given above, refuting one alternative theory, give rise to another. In this sense, an alternative history behaves like a mythical hydra, in which a new one grows in place of one severed head. And now, we already have the newly minted alternativeist Alexei Kungurov, who declares that St. Petersburg could not have been built in the 18th-19th centuries by ordinary Russian peasants, and, therefore, some highly developed civilization was building. From this turn of events, even the team of Andrey Sklyarov is confused, stating on their website that this theory is "More like a bad joke." No, gentlemen of the alternatives, this is not a joke at all, this is the same crazy theory generated by you and brought to the point of absurdity by your followers.

The fundamental mistake of the alternatives is to oppose history to the natural and exact sciences. Historical science not only does not conflict with them, but, on the contrary, widely uses the methods of astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, biology and a number of other sciences, for example, in establishing the dating of historical events. On the contrary, alternative history, opposing traditional history, inevitably comes into conflict with all sciences, one way or another connected with historical science.

However, for many people, especially those with a technical mindset, there is a certain stereotype. In their view, historians are people of an exclusively humanitarian mindset, whose knowledge is just the result of memorizing information from a textbook without any critical reflection. Here we again encounter a misunderstanding of how historical science is organized. First of all, you need to understand that there are professional historians, and there are just graduates (graduates of the history department, school teachers in history). The latter play a very important role in the education system - they teach children the basics of history. Naturally, with the amount of information that a school teacher has to learn (history from ancient times to the present day), it is impossible to demand from him a thorough knowledge of the material on a particular special topic. The school teacher acts only as a herald on behalf of science. If some fact is given in a school textbook, which the historian has no opportunity to verify, then he is forced to rely on it. But this does not mean at all that he blindly believes in what is written in the book. Here, it is rather not faith that takes place, but trust and respect for centuries-old scientific achievements, since every historian knows how seriously any scientific fact passes. Thus, the reliability of written sources is verified by archaeological finds, which, in turn, are subjected to natural science research (for example, radiocarbon analysis). The natural science methods themselves complement each other (for example, the accuracy of radiocarbon analysis has increased significantly with the use of the dendrochronology method). Finally, there is such an auxiliary discipline as experimental archeology. The essence of this discipline is that ancient (forgotten) technologies are recreated on the basis of written sources and archaeological artifacts. Experimental archeology plays a very important role in debunking pseudoscientific theories. Suffice it to recall how many categorical statements were made by alternatives regarding the use of copper tools by the ancient Egyptians for cutting granite. However, experimental archeology has refuted this myth. The famous British Egyptologist Denis Stokes, based on the study of ancient drawings and artifacts, recreated copies of copper saws and tubular drills, and proved that they are suitable for cutting granite if sand is used as an abrasive.

Thus, history is the result of a complex of scientific works by a whole army of scientists of completely different profiles. If it is a military history, then it is studied by military experts; if it is a political history, then political scientists study it; if it is a history of state and law, then lawyers study it; if it is an art history, then art historians study it; if it is a history of languages, then it linguists are researching, if it is the history of science and technology, then it is researched by physicists, chemists, biologists, astronomers, engineers. As a result, millions of monographs appear on various topics, the main conclusions of which fall on the pages of textbooks.

Non-professional historians can only rely on accuracy and reliability scientific achievements. Of course, even scientists can be wrong. But, as a rule, these errors are corrected by the scientists themselves. Therefore, the statements of supporters of alternative history that exactly alternative view on science has always been its main engine, are just a crude substitution of concepts - one should distinguish between alternative history (pseudoscience) and alternative historical scientific theories that do not reject scientific concept in general, but they speak only of partial errors (however, not always justified).

Criticizing historical science for its conservatism, alternativeists, on the contrary, show an excessive readiness for hasty conclusions. So, having discovered on some European maps of the 18th century, instead of the Russian Empire, an unknown country called Tartaria, the supporters of the New Chronology loudly declared: no Russian Empire before the Pugachev uprising of 1773-1775. didn't exist. The following are links to European maps, as well as on the Encyclopedia "Britannica" 1771-1773. It really depicts a country (not a state!) called Tartaria. And it also talks about the Russian Empire, formed in 1721 and including the lands of this very Tartaria (Fomenko and Nosovsky did not say anything about this single word). Apparently, this is not a political map of Asia, but an ethno-historical one. This is confirmed by other sources (for example, Starchevsky's dictionary), which specifically states that Tartaria is “a common and indefinite name, which was once understood to mean most of the northern and Central Asia". But even without knowing all these details, it is enough just to think about the logic of the supporters of the "New Chronology" to make sure that it does not exist. Suppose there was Tartaria. Suppose after its fall, a global falsification began, which supposedly continues today. Even entire cities, such as Novgorod, were moved to another place, which causes bewilderment among archaeologists, especially considering that cultural layers were preserved during the transfer. All archives around the world have been rewritten. They created millions of artifacts by burying them in the ground, in the hope that they would then be opened. In general, they tried their best. But they forgot to remove the maps of this very Tartaria from museums and libraries. And they not only forgot to remove it, but also continued to republish it, which is completely unforgivable for such skillful falsifiers.

A special category of alternatives are lovers of puns (play on words), who are ready to enter into an argument with professional linguists at any moment. As a matter of fact, " scientific discoveries"Pun lovers" are not scientific for the reason that they are based on no method. In order to receive right word, pseudolinguists resort to arbitrary machinations: they read words backwards, pull out vowels for no reason, swap syllables, identify similar-sounding words, etc. Strange as it may sound, however, in an open discussion with linguists, puns often win. So, on the air of one TV show, a professional philologist entered into a discussion with Mikhail Zadornov. Zadornov stated that the word "mind" came from the word "Ra" (the ancient Egyptian god of the Sun) and the word "mind", therefore "mind" is a bright mind. Such an etymology was not to the liking of the philologist, who called it "nonsense" and explained that the word "mind" came from the words "times" and the word "mind". But Zadornov was not at a loss, and asked the philologist to explain the origin of the word "time". The philologist was speechless. He didn't know what to say. The audience applauded Zadornov, who allegedly taught a lesson to the scientist. In fact, this episode is a colorful example of the superiority of self-confidence over objectivity. It was objectivity, unwillingness to deviate a single step from scientific methods, the habit of being silent when you don’t know and speaking when you know - this was the reason that the scientist gave in to the amateur. Here scientific methods are powerless, because a real scientist follows certain scientific rules and the amateur is free in his fantasies. To understand the absurdity of the amateurish approach to deciphering words, you just need to apply their own logic to themselves. Let's assume that the word "mind" is "bright mind". Therefore, “slurry” is “light daub?”, “Ruined” is “light Valyukha?”, “Acceleration” is “light rut?”, “Confusion” is “light ford?”, “Difference” is "Light Nice?". So you can mock words ad infinitum. For this you do not need to know foreign languages, nor historical forms these languages, much less the laws of their development (after all, a language is not just a set of words, but whole system, which has its own rules).

Alternative history is a protest against reality, an unwillingness to accept facts as they are. The dispute between historians and pseudo-historians is very reminiscent of an ancient anecdote.

Two friends meet. One asks the other in surprise:

How are you alive? And they told me that you died.

As you can see, I'm standing in front of you.

Yes, but whoever told me about it, I believe more than you.

It is very difficult to convince such people. You show them a document, they declare it a fake, you show them an artifact, they declare it a fake. However, this does not at all prevent them from searching for those single copies from thousands of documents and millions of artifacts on which their pseudoscientific theory is based.

Artem Pukhov especially for

Alternative history(AI) - a genre of fantasy, dedicated to depicting reality, which could be if history at one of its turning points (bifurcation points, or bifurcation points) took a different path. This should not be confused literary genre with alternative historical theories, which suggest that the picture of the past portrayed by historical science is partially or wholly erroneous.

Genre features

In works created in the genre of alternative history, an indispensable element of the plot is a change in the course of history in the past (relative to the time the work was created). According to the plot of the work, at some point in the past for some reason, either by accident or as a result of the intervention of external forces, for example, aliens from the future, something different from what happened in real history happens. What happened may be associated with well-known historical events or historical figures, or it may seem, at first glance, of little importance. As a result of this change, a "branching" of history occurs - events begin to develop differently. In a world with a changed history, the action takes place. It can take place at any time: in the past, in the present, and in the future, but the events that take place are significantly affected by the fact that history has changed. In some cases, the events associated with the “branching” itself are described, in others the presentation focuses on situations that are unusual due to a change in reality, in the third, the main theme is the heroes’ attempts to return the story to its original course with the help of time travel, to change it again in a different direction. direction or, conversely, "fix" the altered reality. Classical literary example- the story of Robert Sheckley "The Three Deaths of Ben Baxter", where the action takes place in three, different from each other, worlds in the 20th century.

In some works, instead of or together with the idea of ​​moving in time, the idea of ​​parallel worlds is used - the “alternative” version of history is realized not in our world, but in a parallel one, where history goes a different way. This interpretation makes it possible to eliminate the well-known logical paradox time travel, sometimes referred to as the "dead grandfather paradox". Another option for eliminating this paradox is that perturbations in history are calmed down by endless enumeration random events, therefore, it is impossible to kill a person significant for history (R. Asprin, Time Scouts), or another world will arise with its own time loop.

History of the genre

The founder of the genre of alternative history is considered to be the Roman historian Titus Livius, who described the possible history of the confrontation between the Roman Empire and the empire of Alexander the Great, suggesting that Alexander did not die in 323 BC. e., but continued to live and rule his empire.

Subgenres and related genres

• Cryptohistory is a kind of alternative history. Cryptohistory depicts a reality that does not outwardly differ from ordinary history, but shows the participation of some other forces (aliens, magicians, etc.) in historical processes, or describes it as supposedly occurred events that remain unknown.
• Counterfactual history (English) based on the assumption of historical events that are directly opposite to the real ones.
• Alternative biochemistry - in this case, it is assumed that other natural conditions have turned out on Earth (in particular, a different atmosphere, a different average planetary temperature, a different liquid instead of water as a universal solvent) and, as a result, a different biosphere and a person who is biologically very different from a person from our reality, and other (including cultural and civilizational) differences that follow from this.
• Alternative geography assumes a different development of history as a consequence of a different geography of the Earth.
• Post-apocalyptic - a genre dedicated to the description of civilizations that have survived a severe global cataclysm (nuclear war, environmental catastrophe, epidemic, external aggression). Close to the dystopian genre.
• Steampunk (English steam - steam (meaning steam technology) and English punk - hooligan, nonsense) is a genre dedicated to describing societies that are either at the level of technologies of the 19th and early 20th centuries, or outwardly similar to them.
• Dieselpunk is a genre dedicated to the description of societies that are at the level of technologies of the middle of the 20th century.

It is customary to separate from pure alternative history novels about hitmen, where the hero, who accidentally or deliberately moved in time, deliberately changes historical reality, using his knowledge of the technologies of the future and the ways in which history develops. [ ] Something similar - more precisely, the second version of "hitting" - is also described by chrono-opera, in which time travel is a pre-planned process.

Notable authors and works of the genre

The list of examples in this section is not based on those directly related to the subject of the article or its section. Cinema Please bring the information in an encyclopedic form and distribute it to the relevant sections of the article. According to the decision of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, lists are preferably based on secondary generalizations containing the criteria for inclusion of elements in the list. (), - a film with a plot about the Third Reich's occupation of Great Britain, which is controlled by collaborators and attacked by the United States. "Red Dawn", USA, is a film about the third world war and the takeover of the USA by the allied Soviet-Cuban forces. The Philadelphia Experiment II, USA, is a film about an American stealth combat aircraft with nuclear weapons getting into the Third Reich due to a mistake by scientists, which, with their help, strikes at the United States and establishes a vassal-colonial dictatorship in them. “Motherland” (“Fatherland”), - World War II ended many years ago with the victory of Germany, the hero of the film, working in the SS, together with an American journalist, learn about the Holocaust hidden by the Nazis. Starring Rutger Hauer. Based on the novel by Robert Harris. Werewolves, Japan, is an anime film based on the Oshii Mamoru saga about life in the totalitarian Empire of Japan, which won World War II in the Pacific, but then became a Nazi vassal of the Third Reich. "The Second Civil War" ("The Second Civil War"), USA, - the plot of the film is based on the fact that the state of Idaho, led by the governor (Beau Bridges) because of a trifling issue (refusal to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants from Mexico, because the mistress who left the governor was Mexican by birth) rebels against the federal government. The President (James Coburn) issues an ultimatum and a deadline of 77.5 hours, after which he promises to open fire. Across the country, support for the rebellious state, famous for the production of quality potatoes, is growing, and soon the situation spirals out of control ... "Third World War" (English)(German "Der Dritte Weltkrieg"), Germany, is a film about the third world war between the USSR and the USA in 1990, which began as a result of a new Berlin crisis, organized by Soviet ultra-conservatives who seized power in the USSR as a result of a military coup. “Royal battle”, Japan, is an action film based on the novel of the same name by Koshun Takami, in which the action takes place in the totalitarian state of Great East Asia. "2009: Lost Memories", South Korea, - the plot of the film is based on the change at the beginning of the 20th century in the history of Japan and Korea. "CSA: The Confederate States of America", USA, is a film in which the Confederacy won the American Civil War. A series of films "Pirates of the Caribbean", USA, - - the first three parts of the film series represent an alternative history of the development of piracy, in the real history of mankind ending in the 1730s, and in the film it was further developed and strengthened, and it also overthrows English monarchism and slavery in Caribbean waters, securing the further prosperity of the robbers in the world's oceans.

There was no nail

The horseshoe is gone.

There was no horseshoe -

The horse limped.

The horse limped

The commander is killed.

The cavalry is broken

The army is running.

The enemy enters the city

Sparing no prisoners

Because in the forge

There was no nail.

English nursery rhyme

« History does not know the subjunctive mood... "This vulgar phrase is repeated generation after generation, although historians themselves treat it in much the same way as economists treat Brezhnev's maxim: "The economy must be economical." But if Brezhnev simply said that oil is oil, then the phrase about the subjunctive mood is sheer nonsense. History not only “knows” the subjunctive mood, it constantly operates with it.

We have some - not a small - number of facts. In the excavations they found this and that, the chronicler described the event ... And historians are trying on this basis to conclude that many years ago could happen. “If it were so, then the chronicler imyarek would have written this and that” - the historian’s current reasoning, because the farther from our days, the more gaps in the documents. And you have to fill them with a comparison of the logic of the versions ...

Moreover, the study of history - to spite the champions of "objective laws" - now and then slips "fatal accidents" when someone's mistake, or sudden death from illness, or unprecedented luck, or a stray bullet on the battlefield turns out to be the turning point of history. And if this had not happened, then the battle won would have been lost, and it is absolutely impossible to imagine that history would not have changed from this “little thing”.

Agree, it is interesting to understand what would happen if some of the well-known events did not take place or happened differently. Historians also seriously argue about this - from Titus Livius to Arnold Toynbee. Well, mere mortals write novels, stories about it, make movies... and, of course, make games.

In this article we will talk:

• about how alternative history differs from cryptohistory;
• about the methods of alternative history;
• about conspiracy theories and "new chronologies";
• about the Bradbury butterfly problem;
• about historical fantasy;
• about the most popular forks in world history;
• and, of course, about books and games on an alternative history theme

Covert versus overt

The direction that deals with the "unfulfilled past" is divided into two large branches: the actual alternative history and cryptohistory.

this is when something happened differently than they write in the textbooks, and this changed the entire subsequent course of history.

this is when something happened differently than they write in textbooks, but the course of history remained unchanged.

It can be said in another way: an alternative history is something that definitely did not exist, and cryptohistory is something that, in principle, could have been, although we are used to thinking differently.

Let's take a look at an example.

Historical fork: Emperor of All Russia Alexander I did not die in 1825, but lived after that for another forty years ...

Alternative history: ...he continued to rule Russia, after the death of his wife he married again, he had an heir, who later became Emperor Peter IV at the age of 35...

Cryptohistory: ...he faked his death and spent all the remaining years wandering around Russia under the name of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich. Meanwhile, there was an uprising of the Decembrists, the throne went to Nicholas I - in a word, everything else was exactly as we used to think.

Although both branches come from the same “it wasn’t like that”, their laws are completely different. An alternative history is free in its flight: it can create states, rulers, wars, revolutions, unprecedented in our reality, unknown in our reality. social systems... Cryptohistory is bound by a key requirement: that the fork should not be noticeable from our position. So that historians still write the same thing that they wrote, and this is important! - not as a result of a conspiracy of the world behind the scenes, but as a natural order. A cryptohistorian can, with the help of his constructions, find a new and unexpected explanation for known events, but he cannot change the events themselves.

Sometimes the alternative history does without any other fantastical elements: it just "happened" and that's it. Sometimes the principle is applied here parallel worlds ”: they say, in one “branch of reality” at Waterloo, England won, and in the other, France. But often the alternative is associated with time travel- and attempts to restore the "disturbed course of history" or, less often, vice versa - to consolidate the change made.

Strictly speaking, classic historical novels - by Walter Scott, Alexandre Dumas, Raffaello Giovagnoli and others - are close to cryptohistory. They often describe real events in which they embed their heroes in such a way that they turn out to be, as it were, the cause of what really happened. However, this is not entirely our case, because the classical historical novel does not aim precisely at changing history and its analysis.

There is also another branch. It is so similar to cryptohistory that we will have to talk about it separately ... so that it does not interfere with us in the future.

Games of the world behind the scenes

The second phrase about history is known, which is not inferior in vulgarity to the “subjunctive mood”: “ History is written by the winners". Say, all the same, we "study" only the version that the winner slipped us. And from this you can draw such conclusions!

But that's just not true either. The winners "write", that is, dictate, not history, but only a popular interpretation.

For example, the Tudor dynasty managed to convince the "public" of the incredible viciousness of the hunchbacked Richard III, and the Romanov dynasty - of the crimes of Boris Godunov; public, but not historians. They also know other points of view, nothing prevents them from weighing these opinions, comparing the facts in favor of each of them ... and sometimes coming to a decision that would greatly surprise many of us. Popular opinion can be distorted, but history is much more difficult.

By the way, the popular opinion can be formed not by the “winner” at all, but by virtually anyone. Now you can’t even say which particular bad person accused Salieri of killing Mozart. And it is not so obvious in whose interests it was. However, when asked what Salieri did, nine out of ten people will confidently say that he killed Mozart. But history was never convinced of this.

In practice, history is very difficult to fake: extraneous, inconsistent sources interfere. Someone left notes and hid them well, someone managed to emigrate and kept their memories in another country, you constantly have to dock your fantasies with documents of foreign authors ... In general, the task is completely unrealistic.

Therefore, for those who wish to “revise” the whole history of the Chom, to change the world chronology – in short, to shake the foundations, there is only one way left: to announce the existence of a global world conspiracy that was so comprehensive that it managed to forge thousands of documents in dozens of countries. The Catholic Church is often invited to this role - they say, she came up with an extra thousand years of history and entered it into the chronicles throughout Europe (and also into the chronicles of the Arabs, Indians, Persians, Chinese ... but the shakers of the foundations prefer to delicately remain silent about this).

However, this is also not enough. notorious Fomenko, in order to get their amazing evidence of the correlation of the terms of the reign of various monarchs, I had to do a lot of cheating with the initial data - remove some rulers, add some, redo the reign somewhere. With such manipulations, anything will correlate with anything you want. It was simply difficult for those who believed the academician to imagine such a primitive deception - when the data in the "cited" textbooks are actually grossly distorted. He did the same tricks to get "proofs" related to astronomy; unfortunately for fans of the new chronology, it does not correspond to astronomical data, unlike the traditional, where no contradictions have been found so far.

For works of fiction, conspiracy theories don't work well, mainly because they're so damn unconvincing. I can imagine how Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo, I can even imagine Napoleon being served by a demon... but I can imagine how the "behind the scenes" forge documents all over the world and delete all genuine ones, beyond my strength. In a word, we will not consider conspiracy theories in this article.

Over a dead butterfly

One of the main problems facing alternatives is what about the butterfly? The same Bradbury butterfly. Simply put: how much of the history we are used to will remain after we make a change in it? Will she become completely unrecognizable?

If the fork is not far from us, then, probably, it won’t. But if in the Middle Ages? Or even before Christmas?

It is logical to assume that then everything can change - both the map of the world and mentalities, and there will be no one from those who actually lived in five hundred years. There will be other countries with other people...

Logically, it’s logical, but I really don’t want to assume this, because why do we need a completely alien world? Brand reception of an alternative: show everyone famous people- say, Napoleon, Peter I, Cardinal Richelieu or Spartacus - in new circumstances. Show notable events, which are still recognizable but slightly changed. This is reminiscent of the old principle of horror film authors: the brightest and scariest of all is the monster that is very similar to a person, only slightly distorted. And in the "too alternative" world there are neither these people nor these events...

Therefore, many alternatives prefer a kind of fatalism: the story is completely different, but the people are the same, sometimes even too much the same. It may not be realistic, but from an artistic point of view... And representatives of another trend are most committed to this idea: historical fantasy.

Historical fantasy is an attempt to add magic to our past. It is usually done in one of two ways, which are very similar to the two main branches:

alternative history: everything was as we used to think, until someone discovered a way to create effective magic or some monsters appeared (from the portal, the underworld ...). And then everything changed.

Cryptohistorical: magic was active in ancient times - in fairy tales about elves, trolls, genies, centaurs, and so on, everything is true - and then it began to fade away until it completely disappeared.

But even those alternatives that avoid fantasy elements still usually try to keep more of our world. There are, of course, more daring fantasies, but they are in the minority. It is often written that this is because the authors follow the ideas of "historical inevitability", but it seems to me that everything is much simpler: it is not more correct, but more beautiful. After all, most masters of alternative history are not researchers, but writers.

Chronicle of wrong yesterday

And now let's try to write - of course, a very abbreviated - chronicle of an alternative history with the most beloved forks of all time. And at the same time we will mention some writers who worked with these forks, and games related to them.

Basically, we will talk, of course, about alternative history, but we will also mention a few bright examples of other forks. Therefore, in the future we will note the forks different types So:

- alternative history.

- cryptohistory.

- Historical fantasy.

Other antiquity

Before Ancient Greece our time was static. Not a single alternative, as far as I know, got to the bottom of the Sumerians, Egyptians and Babylonians. And the reason for this is very simple: the vast majority modern people they know practically nothing about them, and therefore they will not be able to distinguish the “alternative” from the real story.

Even about Egypt, which seems to be well known - and thousands of people from all over the world visit the pyramids and the archaeological museum of Cairo every day - we usually remember very little. How many pharaohs can we remember? Usually the most insignificant of them is remembered - Tutankhamun, glorified only by the fact that they forgot to plunder his tomb, Cheops thanks to the pyramid, and occasionally also Ramesses. Do not offer Cleopatra and Nefertiti, they are not pharaohs. And even these three are mostly remembered by names. So what is the interest in telling what would have happened if Thutmose III had lost the battle of Megiddo, since most of us do not suspect that such a battle took place?

Approximately XII-XIII century BC Trojan victory over Greeks

We all know how it ended Trojan War: the Greeks won, but few of the winners were able to return to civilian life. Ajax lost his mind and committed suicide, Agamemnon was killed immediately upon his return, Diomedes was expelled, Odysseus wandered for many years ... For mercy, does this look like winners? Or... more like losers?

This idea occurred almost two thousand years ago to the philosopher Dion Chrysostom; he traveled through the places where Troy once was, and made speeches about the deceitful Homer and how everything was "really." Here, for example, the allies now and then approach the Trojans, but not the Greeks; Is it seen that those armies whose affairs are going badly grow as allies? And the fiction that not Achilles, but Patroclus, was slain in the armor of Achilles - can this be? And most importantly - are the winners greeted like Agamemnon or Diomedes?

Well, the fact that we know something completely different about the outcome of the war, Dion reasoned, is quite natural. When the defeated Xerxes was returning from Greece, he also told his subjects about the victorious campaign...

It is unlikely that Dion said this in earnest; apparently, before us is a typical example of cryptohistory. If the Trojans really defeated the Greeks, they could write about it exactly as they wrote in reality. True, it is not entirely clear - what then led to the decline of Troy?

480 BC Xerxes conquers Greece

In the battle of Salamis, successfully taking advantage of the numerical superiority, the Persian fleet smashes the Greeks; after this, the Persians become masters of the Aegean, and the Greeks do not have time to form an alliance. Xerxes conquers all of Greece, as he conquered before Greek cities Asia Minor; and later his heirs take on Italy, still weak and fragmented.

The consequences are extensive: the "European" civilization is created on the basis of the culture of Persia, into which the Greek one also merges. Until the 10th century A.D. (they usually did not look further) most Europeans, except for the wild pagans of the North, profess the faith of the prophet Zarathustra. The concept of "republic" disappears, there are no trading cities of the Mediterranean; subsequently, Muslim Arabs drive the Persians out of their native lands, but Europe and northern Africa remain Persian. Such a picture is drawn to us by several authors who differ in details, but agree in the main.

323 B.C. Alexander the Great does not die of a fever

The early death of Alexander - as a clear example of a "fatal accident" - from ancient times inspired the search for an alternative.

If Dion Chrysostom is the first cryptohistorian known to us, then the first real alternative Titus Livy, who wrote a work about what would have happened if Alexander had lived longer - and, following Persia and India, he tried to conquer Italy.

Titus Livy was a great patriot, as befits a Roman; he was sure that Alexander had no chance. The indestructible spirit of the Roman soldier and the valor of the generals, in his opinion, cannot be compared with either the Persians or even the Macedonians.

And here Arnold Toynbee was of a better opinion about the prospects of the Macedonian Empire under Alexander the long-liver. With him, Alexander resumes the once dug Suez Canal, through which the Phoenicians, with his blessing, populate the coasts of the East and receive large benefits in trade. They become the dominant people of the eastern part of the empire, as the Hellenes - the western.

And there it will come to Rome; but not immediately, before he takes over Sicily, Carthage, Spain. The indestructible spirit will not help the Romans much, because in Italy there is a war of all against all - and Alexander turns out to be ... a peacemaker. And peace, as the Romans knew very well, is what they bring to conquered peoples...

(Toynbee also has another alternative - about how Alexander's father Philip did not die from the assassination attempt. In this case, Macedonia will conquer Rome instead of Persia - and also successfully.)

However, Rome will not fall into insignificance: the Romans will become governors of Alexander in Italy, like the Phoenicians in Arabia. With Roman soldiers in the army, you can conquer India for real, and not like in the last campaign. And then there is China...

The ocean-to-ocean empire thus obtained proved to be surprisingly stable and lasted for many centuries. True, the system in it has changed: one of the descendants of the king abandoned despotism in favor of an enlightened monarchy with elements of democracy. Why? And who knows!

Finally, to quote Toynbee himself:

He [Alexander] began to age rapidly, and when in the year 287, sixty-nine years old, he died in a state of complete insanity, many said that it would be more useful for Alexander's glory to die in his prime - then, in Babylon.

To us, citizens of the state founded by Alexander the Great, this opinion seems absurd. After all, in this case, there would be no our present beautiful world, which is now ruled by Alexander XXXVI! No, we were very lucky - both then, in Babylon in 323, and after, when Alexander's triumvirate of ministers took over all the actual work of running the empire.

Around 200 B.C. Rome captured by Carthage

Another most popular topic, although it was not developed by such venerable authors as the Alexandriad. And it is no coincidence: if the death of Alexander from a fever really falls into the category of a fatal accident, then the victory of Carthage in the war does not look very realistic.

Most often, Hannibal captures Rome, less often this happens already in the Third Punic; for example, Paul Anderson in one of the stories of the Time Patrol cycle, the death of the commander Scipio causes the fork in the road. A very dubious idea...

Curiously, the Carthaginian civilization does not become dominant in any of the options. It remains closed in the Mediterranean. In some realities, the Greeks returned to their former greatness, in others, both they and the Carthaginians fell under the onslaught of the barbarians. So, for example, Anderson's world becomes Celtic...

72 BC Assassination of Sertorius failed

But this alternative is very interesting and quite plausible. In 72 BC The rebel Sertorius, who fought in Spain against Rome, was killed by traitors. What if the murder had failed?

It would seem - what is it? Indeed, even so, the troops of Metellus and Pompey won, albeit slowly. But not everything is so simple! The fact is that in Italy at that time there was an uprising of Spartacus; he victoriously reaches the Alps ... after which he turns around and goes back towards Rome. Why, why? Historians are still guessing. And the developers of the alternative find a logical explanation: Spartacus was in alliance with Sertorius and wanted to fight against Rome together, maybe even was his old comrade in arms (Sertorius became a rebel because he was on the side of Gaius Marius; many other Marians were captured by the enemy Marius Sulla and... why not sold to gladiators?). And after the death of Sertorius, Spartacus had no realistic plans for victory.

Could they win together? It is possible, especially if, in the event of major military successes, Sertorius would have announced that Spartacus was not a contemptible slave, but a Roman citizen illegally sold to gladiators. Then they might have many allies in the City itself.

True, after that, the winners would have to deal with many more troubles: with a lack of bread due to the activity of pirates, with the intrigues of Mithridates ... Andrey Valentinov, for example, believes that Spartacus in this case would have destroyed Rome. Other authors see the prospect of a military dictatorship, which ultimately brings up ... all the same Caesar, and everything returns to normal.

V century. Rome copes with the invasion of the barbarians

This is probably the most popular "point of alternative" in ancient history: one or more convincing victories of Roman weapons - and ...

Numerous authors of all sorts offer a bright future for Rome; in its most modest version, it exists for another 800 years, more often it survives to this day, discovers America, develops technical progress - and all this while maintaining a stunningly effective state, bureaucracy, justice ...

However, this is strange. Because already by the time of the fall of Rome, it was largely barbaric - and the barbarians retained many of the imperial "rules of the game." Theodoric behaved like a "normal" Roman emperor; and everyone believed that Rome continues to exist, the ruler simply changed. And only half a century later, Justinian decided to look for a reason to conquer Italy - and said: they say, Rome has fallen, it is no more! And the plebeians don't even know...

Another Middle Ages

VI century. Arthur becomes King of Britain

The monumental work "History of the Britons", written Geoffrey of Monmouth, the same one from which the world learned about King Arthur, is essentially also a kind of cryptohistory. It is unlikely that Galfrid had serious information on this subject, but he needed to compose a respectable genealogy for the reigning monarch. And so that famous This did not contradict the information about history.

So King Arthur, his glorious knights, and at the same time many other interesting personalities were born - King Lear, for example. Galfrid was not very convincing in the details, but he succeeded in the main thing: although not everyone believed in the warriors who wear armor in the sixth century and fight in the tournament, few doubt the existence of King Arthur himself.

622 year. Muhammad accepts Christianity

More fully than others, this topic was developed by the famous historian and science fiction writer Harry Turtledove; in his version, Mohammed does not become the founder of Islam, but becomes a zealous Christian, makes a serious contribution to the development of Christianity, and after death is canonized as Saint Muamet.

The result is this: the Arabs did not become the conquerors of the entire Middle East, thereby giving a chance to Byzantium. She united again the lands of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire and became long years the main power of Europe, and the Orthodox doctrine prevailed over the Catholic (which was preserved mainly in the "barbarian" northwestern Europe). Persia remained the main enemy of Byzantium - a country with the same ancient culture as in Byzantium, and in some ways similar to its rival.

In our history, the followers of Mohammed conquered Persia, took away from Byzantium a considerable part of its possessions ... here it is often added “and led Byzantium into decline”, but this is not true: its decline began many centuries after that. But Byzantium's claims to pan-European hegemony ended there, but the Arab Caliphate appeared - one of the largest powers in world history.

732 year. Defeat of Charles Martel at Poitiers

Having swiftly captured northern Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic, the Arabs invaded Europe; The Iberian Peninsula, future Spain, fell, and the Arabs poured over the mountains into the territory of today's France. It seemed that a few more months or years - and the crescent would rise over Paris and Rome, as it soared over Alexandria and Toledo.

In our history, the Arabs were stopped by Charles Martell, the grandfather of Charlemagne. What if the battle of Poitiers had been lost? Oh, then Abd el-Rahman ibn Abdallah would hardly have stopped before the nightmare of Christian Europe became a reality. Constantinople would probably become the capital of Christianity - there were still many centuries before the "decline" of Byzantium, and it would most likely have survived. And even after the Arabs were pushed back beyond the Pyrenees (which would probably happen in a hundred or even two hundred years), Rome did not return to its former importance.

864 year. England conquered by the Vikings

In reality, the Danes captured England a century and a half later; however, nothing was impossible in the earlier campaign. And there is an opinion that in this case all Scandinavia and England could form a single pagan state.

Harry Harrison even concludes from this that such a state is extremely progressive (for example, he believes that religious tolerance and interest in knowledge will be natural for this country).

982 year. Eric the Red discovers America

The leader of the Vikings, Eric the Red, an Icelander, equips an expedition to the west; during this voyage, he discovers not only Greenland (as in the story known to us), but also the eastern coast of America - Labrador. Where he founds a colony.

This is first from numerous stories on the topic of how America was discovered not in 1492, but sometime else. However, it can rightfully be classified as cryptohistorical, because, strictly speaking, we cannot say with any certainty that it could not be so! The colony could easily disappear, perish, get lost - and, if some archaeologists were suddenly unlucky, we would never find confirmation of its existence. There is no direct evidence that Eric sailed further than Greenland... but the legend on this subject cannot be unequivocally dismissed.

988 year. The conversion of Russia to Islam

Let's give the floor to the Arab historian (or alternative historian?):

“Then they wanted to become Muslims so that they would be allowed to raid, and Holy war, and return to what it was before. Then they sent ambassadors to the ruler of Khorezm, four people from those close to their king, because they have an independent king and their king is called Vladimir ... And their ambassadors came to Khorezm and reported their message. And Khorezmshah rejoiced at their decision to convert to Islam and sent them to teach them the laws of Islam. And they converted to Islam...

According to legend, Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko received messengers from representatives of different faiths - Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, Jews. The Arabs confirm this legend (and even go a little further, as you have just seen). What if he really chose Islam?

Most likely, all of Russia would not have accepted it anyway: the inhabitants of Novgorod, Pskov and other cities near the Baltic would no longer be considered one people with Kievan Rus. But the new powerful Islamic state had every chance to spread to Central Asia- many centuries earlier than Russia did in reality. What next? I would suggest that Russia would have survived the Mongol invasion without great losses and would probably become the main thunderstorm for of Eastern Europe instead of Turkey. But for this glory and power, one would have to pay later - like Turkey - with the decline of both economic and political.

XII century. The Raven King's Coming

A human child raised by elves, taking the name of the Raven King, takes over the north of England - and introduces magic into use. This is how alternative history fantasy begins. Suzanne Clark Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.

1191. Great Schism

According to the game Lionheart, after the capture of Acre by the crusaders to Richard Lion Heart a cunning adviser suggested punishing the Saracens with God's punishment - for this it was only necessary to collect together a few relics from the time of Creation.

This action led to the rupture of the fabric of the universe and the arrival of magic into the world. Some people, having intermarried with supernatural beings, became half-humans - "demonids" and "sylvans". Richard and Saladin make peace to repel the invasion, but the magic remains anyway. Next crusade I've been against dragons...

The game takes place many centuries later - and in it you can meet the sorcerers Galileo and Leonardo da Vinci, the mad Cortes, who was defeated by the Aztec necromancers, Cervantes, who is haunted by the ghost of Don Quixote...

By the way, the peace between Saladin and Richard did not at all seem incredible to contemporaries: they respected each other very much, and there were even rumors that Saladin, out of respect for the enemy, was going to convert to Christianity and marry a noble European lady. It could hardly be true; but a common threat could easily force them to join forces, and even without the help of dragons.

1199 year. Richard the Lionheart recovering from a crossbow wound

God only knows why Richard's time is considered by so many writers to be the most suitable occasion for the appearance in our world of magic. However Randal Garrett suggests that if Richard had not died from a wound, he would have managed to raise a worthy successor - Arthur, his nephew, and only then the world would certainly have become magical.

How magic appeared there is not very interesting (and not very clear); it is curious that in this branch of reality it was possible to preserve the conquests of the British in France, and then to subjugate all of France; as a result, this empire became the sole owner of both Americas, and its main opponent turned out to be ... Poland, which captured a fair amount of Russian principalities, the Baltic states and Austria.

It is highly doubtful that even a very wise king would have been able to keep " Angevin Empire”, uniting the French and the British; but if this succeeded, then, it is possible, their combined strength would be enough to deprive Spain and other Western European peoples of all influence. What caused Poland to rise is not very clear; apparently, some piece of this alternative Garret is hiding from us.

1240 year. Union of Sartak and Alexander Nevsky

According to numerous scriptures Holm Van Bunny, it was in 1240 that Khan Sartak and Alexander Nevsky ... no, they didn’t even agree, but actually united their states. Moreover, the Chinese emperor soon joined them; all this led to the formation of a multinational power called Ordus. In the words of Carlson - "a typical case of plush fever."

1280 year. Mongols and Chinese discover America

Khubilai, Khan of the Mongols, was interested distant lands very active. His invasion of Japan was destroyed by a typhoon (oddly enough, alternatives to this I did not come across an invasion), but on this he did not lose interest in navigation.

Let's be honest, learn to swim through Pacific Ocean it was much more difficult for the Mongols than for Europeans - across the Atlantic, if only because the Quiet and wider, and less quiet. However, what if they succeeded? It is unlikely that the Indians would have been able to resist them, and it cannot be ruled out that the power of the Mongols would have extended throughout North America right up to the edge of the jungle. And then the Spaniards would be waiting on a distant shore by no means an easy prey!

What's interesting, hero Paul Anderson(in whose story this alternative is described), a descendant of the Indians, is not at all eager to correct this distortion of history. Not without reason, he believes that under the rule of the nomadic Mongols, the Indians would not have lost their way of life, and the Mongols would hardly have waged a war of annihilation with them.

However, now the Japanese and Chinese are vying to prove that they were the first to discover America, and they have reason to believe so, because archaeologists have found samples of things in America that are surprisingly reminiscent of Japanese and Chinese. Only now it is unlikely that the navigators managed to report this to their homeland: the North Pacific Current remarkably helps to sail to America, but it will not return back, quite the contrary. By the way, Paul Anderson's expedition eventually also managed to get to America - but not to return back.

1488. Bartolomeu Dias anchors off the coast of India

Bartolomeu Dias is one of the most unfortunate people in history: he was literally on the verge of a great discovery, successfully passed the Gulf of Storms (now known as Guinea), rounded the Cape of Good Hope and could relatively easily reach India - if the team had not rebelled. As a result, success was achieved by his compatriot Vasco da Gama ten years later.

What if Diash succeeded? It would seem that for the importance of ten years? And the importance is very great, because in this case it would never have occurred to anyone to spend money on the Columbus expedition! After all, as you remember, he was looking for a way precisely to India - so why cross the ocean if the way has already been found?

The further destinies of the world merge with the next alternative, in which...

1492. Columbus expedition disappears into the ocean

What is impossible here? Sailors in those days were always between life and death. And it is unlikely that the crazy idea to swim across the Atlantic would soon be raised again - especially since seven years later Vasco da Gama opens up a more “natural” route to India, bypassing Africa.

What will be next? Probably, America will be discovered a hundred years later. Whether the Indians will be able to take advantage of this is not a fact, although Orson Scott Card believes that they will succeed with the help of time travelers. Without this help - hardly; and by the end of the sixteenth century, America would still be conquered. Sailing to India, albeit around Africa, will inevitably raise the level of navigation among Europeans. In addition, in real history, Captain Pedro Cabral discovered Brazil only in 1500; he intended to take da Gama's route, but was simply blown too far west by storms. So even a hundred years of reserve is far from a fact.

But Spain, most likely, will not see its role as the strongest and richest country in Europe. Of course, they will drive the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula anyway, but they will have to forget about the “gold galleons” and claims to rule the world. Except that new discoverer will also carry the Spanish flag on the mast, which is doubtful.

Another new time

1529. Ibrahim Pasha captures Vienna

The Turkish army in the autumn of 1529 was damn close to taking Vienna by storm. The Turks broke into Europe and advanced rapidly. Hungary had been defeated three years earlier; the new leader of the Hungarians, Janos Zapolya, became an ally of the Sultan; Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, bogged down in a war with the French and unable to help his brother, Archduke of Austria.

However, the luck of the Turks ended there. Some of the heavy cannons sank in the floods of the rivers along the road, and there was nothing to break the walls with; and the experienced mercenary Zalm, appointed commandant of the city, managed to further strengthen them. There were not enough resources for a long siege - fodder for horses, gunpowder, and diseases pretty much knocked down the besieging army.

However, when Ibrahim Pasha lifted the siege, the Austrians considered it a miracle; they knew how close he was to the goal. What if Vienna fell?

In this case, the Turks would have every chance to put their paw on a fair part of Germany, the Czech Republic, probably Poland ... And the battle of Lepanto against the combined fleet of Christian countries - if it had taken place - ended, most likely, with the victory of the Ottoman Empire, after which the Turks could even enter Rome.

Robert Silverberg believes that they would be enough for the whole of Europe, but this, perhaps, is already too much. According to his version, Spain could have been under attack just a few years after Vienna - which means that Cortes simply would not have had time to conquer Mexico, and Pizarro the Incas. The Turk Silverberg considers bad seafarers (the galley fleet they love is really not suitable for the Atlantic), and therefore the Aztecs in his version remained unconquered, learned a lot and by the 20th century became the richest country in the world: their heyday fell just on the decline of Turkey.

1588. Invincible Armada lands troops in England

Despite the prowess of Sir Francis Drake and the British Navy, the Spanish Armada could very well have succeeded. Both the storm and the mistakes of the Spanish sailors helped the British. And if it had not been possible to stop it, then the superiority of the Spanish land army would almost certainly ensure the capture of London and the establishment of Catholic Spanish rule in England.

What would be next? Harry Turtledove in a wonderful, though not translated into Russian book, Ruled Britannia believes that England will be able to free itself (largely thanks to Shakespeare...). However, even after liberation, England is doomed to a not the best fate: the British fleet is no more (and it will not appear tomorrow), the country is heavily in debt, many thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed ... Not Spain - so France may well impose on her paw.

Keith Roberts sees the prospects even bleaker. With him, England will remain part of the Spanish empire. The result is that under the strict rule of the Inquisition, the scientific and technological revolution is delayed for many years; only by the middle of the twentieth century, Europe, at the very least, is mastering steam engines. And there is a certain logic in this.

1658. Cromwell recovered from malaria

Many alternatives arise from the idea "if such and such a statesman lived longer." And if we take AI works around the world, then Cromwell will seem to be the most popular "long-liver" after Alexander and Caesar. Moreover, from malaria, in general, they recovered. Then the dictator of revolutionary England had a chance to rule for at least another ten years, to prevent the restoration of Charles II and ...

But what's next - here the alternatives diverge very far. Everyone more or less agrees that Cromwell was a skilled ruler, unlike Charles (I’m not even talking about his heir, James II). And it is very likely that he would have kept the army in better condition, would have achieved more for the country European influence- but not much else.

But whether he could win anything for England in the colonies is a big question. In any case, many authors believe that after this there would not have been a single North American state (simply because all this territory would not have been English proficiency, but a lot of "patchwork"), and in India, the position of the British would have been much worse. However, there are those who are convinced that after ten years of the beneficent rule of Cromwell, England would not have missed the American colonies. It's a dark matter...

1666. Newton becomes bishop

Officials, the military and other influential people did not take Newton's discoveries seriously, and the promising scientist chooses a spiritual career. According to Randal Garrett, this could slow down the NTR for more than two centuries, so that only Einstein would have discovered gravity ...

It sounds beautiful, but in reality it is very doubtful: after all, Newton was not at all “a lonely genius in the desert.” Many of his discoveries have co-authors... and not in the sense of "people who developed the ideas of genius", but those who independently came to the same conclusions. In mathematics, Newton could well have been replaced by Leibniz (and, being a German, he did not depend on the British administration), in physics, by Hooke, and the theory of gravitation would sooner or later be pushed by the developments of Kepler.

1681. Newton's revolutionary discoveries in alchemy

In the "Age of Ignorance" Gregory Keyza we can read about another version of Newton's career: instead of scientific methods, he took up the development of alchemy, and there magic. And achieved a lot! A huge cannon, built according to Newton's ideas, ends up in the hands of the French, destroys England with a shot and ruins almost half of Europe (with the accompanying earthquakes and floods), and the mighty achievements of Newton's mind go to Peter I - and then he will show everyone .. .

“What an irony of fate,” exclaims Peter, having taken possession of the airships, “I fought so many wars to get access to the sea, and now I don’t need it at all!”

It is curious that, in fact, Newton and his followers became in fact the "gravediggers" of alchemy: after several decades of intense struggle between the two scientific schools the Newtonian method won, and alchemy lost on all counts.

1682 or 1686. Early death of Peter I

If many authors prolonged the life of Cromwell, then Peter, both ours and foreign alternatives, were repeatedly killed. After that, there was no one to cut a window to Europe, there was nothing to oppose Charles XII, and Sweden was strengthening its position in Europe, while Russia was losing. Several authors described the beginning of the 19th century in such a changed world: in their opinion, Bonaparte could then seize all of Europe and strangle England.

However, some of the petricide believes that Russia would not have suffered from this in the same way: after all, Alexei Mikhailovich, Peter's father, already tried to hire foreigners, build a warship, transform something according to the Western model (recall Nikon's reforms) ... But the path to power would have been for Russia, in their view, more long and thorny.

And the capture of Europe by Bonaparte as a result of the early death or decline of Russia is a popular story. The reasons are different: for example, the conquest of Russia by the Turks. But they look quite unconvincing.

End of the 18th century. American colonies remain part of England

How exactly did this happen - there are several different opinions. Some authors put reason and foresight into the unwise head of George III of England, so that he manages to keep the colonists from rebellion. A little more freedom for Americans, the right of representation in parliament - and now the organization "Sons of Liberty" did not meet; taxes were set with the interests of the colonies in mind, and there was no Boston Tea Party.

Others prefer to strangle the US in a war. Either the French and Spaniards did not support the young republic, and she was left alone with England (and the support of the French was significant, not to mention the fact that England actually had to fight on two fronts); whether the British managed to agitate the Indians, who were initially really set up more in favor of England than the colonists; whether Washington and Lafayette made several major mistakes, while their opponents did not ... However, in this case, England, realizing that it was in the balance of a grandiose failure, changed its mind and tried to destroy causes uprising (otherwise it will still happen, but a little later).

And now America remains under the rule of the British crown. What's next? It is possible that the French Revolution will also fail: without a single ally in the world, without American veterans, but with a powerful, not ruined by the loss of the colonies of England at hand - will the Republic hold out? If it holds out, Napoleon will no longer be able to conquer Western Europe. The position of England turns out to be incredibly strong; is there anything in the world to oppose it?

However, all the developers of this topic known to me agree that at least part Britain will lose colonies anyway. Some authors even suggest that at least one free state of North American Indians will remain in this world.

1775. Restoration of Peter III

A palace conspiracy is added to the military victories of the impostor Emelyan Pugachev - and now the rebellious Cossack becomes king under the name of Peter III, overthrowing Catherine. True, it is difficult to understand why the conspirators at court should support the Cossack; so some alternative people make Emelyan hereby Peter III(there is also a cryptohistorical story where Pugachev is a true tsar, but loses the uprising, as in the story known to us).

What's next? Certainly not reforms in favor of the people, as was commonly believed in Soviet times. On the contrary, much more rigid and reactionary rule than under Catherine. And why would one expect otherwise, if Pugachev himself recruited rebels, promising to restore the former way of life that Catherine destroyed?

Beginning of the 19th century. Napoleon's unknown victories

I'm not afraid to say: in terms of popularity among alternatives, Napoleon Bonaparte and his wars have no equal. Even the Second World War and she is forced to be content silver medal.

It happens that Bonaparte is forcibly cut off his career ahead of schedule - for example, when he flees from Egypt, he is intercepted by Nelson's fleet. Well, it could be so ... But more often he is allowed to fight for longer than in reality.

For example, on the advice of Talleyrand, he maintains an alliance with Russia until he deals with England. Or he captures Tsar Alexander with a bold raid on Petersburg and thereby ensures a “half-victory” (in fairness, few offer Napoleon a complete victory over Russia in 1812 - it’s hard to imagine what he could have done better then). Or simply wins at Trafalgar and then invades Britain.

And then you can afford a respite - if there is no England blocking the French from the sea, then there is no one of the main reasons for subsequent wars. You can really make peace with Russia and try to chew on what has already been bitten off. And even if you don’t put up with it, then with a restored economy and trade, decent supplies, without a “second front” in Spain, where Wellington supported the fight against the French ... In a word, with complete dominance in Western Europe, victory over Russia could become possible.

What's next? America is not a force; Russia is strong on the defensive, but it is unlikely to be able to crush Bonaparte beyond its own borders. The next step is to wait for the empire to fall apart on its own after the death of Napoleon. Or hope for some miracles.

But the most popular Napoleonic story is the French victory at Waterloo; at least fifteen tactical games on this topic alone have been made! Well, this is the most likely of all that we have talked about: Napoleon was close to success. Most often, the “fork” here is the actions of Marshal Grusha, who in reality missed the Prussian army and did not arrive on time at the battlefield; what if he didn't miss it?

However, even with a happy outcome, Bonaparte is unlikely to have a long and happy reign. He has lost too much to turn around again, and Russia, England, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, Spain will no longer let him go with an honorable peace. Too used to be afraid of him for so many years.

has been described ( Mikhail Pervukhin) even such an exotic alignment: Bonaparte flees from St. Helena and establishes an empire ... in Africa.

1825 Alexander I remains alive

I already cited this story as an example at the beginning of the article: Alexander did not die, but "escaped" from the throne and then lived incognito - like the elder Fyodor Kuzmich. This story is interesting because no one, in fact, really knows - but isn't it true? This is supported by the testimonies of several people who identified Fyodor Kuzmich as Alexander. The topic was developed for many years, but they could neither prove nor disprove the legend. Cryptohistory is sometimes very close to history...

1825-1826 years. Victory of the Decembrist uprising

If foreigners in our history are more interested in Peter, then domestic authors main topic for an alternative (at least until the 20th century) - the Decembrists. And not by accident.

The fact is that they were on the verge of victory - especially on Senate Square, where troops did not approach Nikolai for a long, long time. Lieutenant Sutgof, who brought the Life Grenadier to the square, completely by mistake (!) instead of the rebels appeared to Nicholas. He, without losing his presence of mind, pointed to the formation of the Moscow regiment: "You go there." Sutgof turned the soldiers around and went to his comrades.

And if he had arrested the emperor instead, what would he have been able to do? Or if, after Ryleyev’s categorical “I won’t take responsibility,” one of the officers on the square said: “But I will take it!”?

This last plot disassembles Vyacheslav Pietsukh in the story "Rommat". Everything turns out pretty creepy for him: the Romanovs are slaughtered like sheep, the Decembrists behave like in the Civil, the military dictatorship is falling apart under the uprisings of the peasants ... To be honest, it did not turn out too convincingly. Several other stories have been written in the same vein.

Lev Vershinin gives victory not to the northern, but to the southern uprising; however, his victory is incomplete, the southerners are forced ... to declare the independence of the south of Russia, to enter into an alliance with Crimean Tatars and organize terror, primarily against each other.

It is much more interesting to listen to the main specialist in that era - Nathan Adelman. He sees no reason for such prospects. In his version, the Southern Society also wins, and it looks like this.

Muravyov-Apostol takes Kyiv, and rumors about this lead to a massive desertion of government troops and the strengthening of the rebels. Immediately Poland rises and declares its independence; Decembrist troops march on Moscow. The tsar sends dispatches to the Caucasus to General Yermolov to lead his soldiers to Kiev, but he refuses "because of the Persian danger", but in fact because he prefers the Decembrists to Nikolai.

St. Petersburg is also restless, the guards are unreliable - and Nikolai flees by ship to Prussia, taking with him almost all imperial family. Remains the widow of Alexander I Elizabeth; the Decembrists proclaim her regent, and after her death - a republic! Yes, there will be many more problems, and probably that the brewed porridge will end with a lot of blood. But!

"Who will restore the canceled serfdom? Adelman asks. You can't put this genie in a bottle. This means that even if the Romanovs return again and try to drown everything that was achieved in December, this will no longer work. It is impossible to enslave the peasants again. Russia will have time to get used to the freedoms - they will appear before the revolutionary movement among the people matures. And even if it still ends in new blood, it will shed much less than in the history known to us.

1840s. Creation of esternates

Famous detectives Boris Akunin"Azazel" and "Turkish Gambit" can also be attributed to cryptohistory, since they give a peculiar explanation for the events that have happened, for example, Russia's mistakes in Russian-Turkish war.

According to "Azazel", the Englishwoman Lady Esther creates a network of "esternates" - educational institutions, the meaning of which is to search for talents in students and develop them. But the esternates are not limited to this; they actively influence society and politics through the introduction of their agents. Thus, in the Russo-Turkish war, the pulling of the strings by the pupil of the esternat Anvar-efendi is felt, and Akunin gives hints of other accomplishments of Lady Esther's pupils.

But we only know the details Turkish history. How did it happen that Russia with great difficulty won the war against a much weaker Turkey, got stuck in earnest and won almost nothing? Due to the stupidity of the military leaders - or due to the calculated actions of the agent?

1861-1865 years. The North does not win the South in a war

There are many works devoted to this topic, almost exclusively American and most of them surprisingly boring. Either the South and the North reconciled and united (sometimes under the influence of an external enemy - from the British to aliens!), Then the South managed to win a number of victories and stood out as a separate state, or even won the entire war with a devastating score. The theme is very popular, but the development, alas, leaves much to be desired - even when such masters of the alternative as Turtledove get down to business.

Most authors believe that if the South wins, nothing good USA it does not shine. No world leadership is in sight, the economy is in a mediocre state, and the industrial race in the world as a whole is delayed for a while.

Another twentieth century

1917-1924 years. The failure of the revolution in Russia

Russian revolution alternatives tried and rejected (winning Russo-Japanese War and the rescue of Stolypin, which, according to the plan, was to make Russia much stronger), and outplay. True, the replay was mainly through brute interference. higher powers, and the moment was most often chosen when the Civil War was already lost by the Whites as a whole - when Wrangel was defending the Crimea. So, for example, he writes Vasily Zvyagintsev.

A kind of "geographical alternative" was proposed by Vasily Aksenov- Crimea is not a peninsula for him, but an island, and therefore becomes a separate Russian state, modeled on Taiwan.

There are many options with the separation of the Far East, when the Soviets fail to crush Kolchak. Ways are described military victory whites - for example, Denikin in alliance with the insurgent peasants; there is a utopian picture of a bloodless victory Kronstadt rebellion(victory, perhaps, could have taken place, but hardly bloodless).

Stories about national reconciliation and stopping the Civil War, as they say, are standing apart. For example, in "Captain Philibert" Andrey Valentinov the idea of ​​reconciliation against the German intervention is presented.

There are also alternatives in which Lenin continues to live and achieves even more impressive successes than in reality.

Curiously, there are practically no alternatives to the First World War. Although she could, probably, "replay" the whole revolution as a fact. There is only a console game Resistance: Fall of Man, where America did not join the First World War and therefore the Depression and much more did not happen. But the fate of Russia, the authors of this game were not interested.

1929 The collapse of the United States as a result of the Great Depression

After the First World War, the movement of "regionalists" is growing in the United States, ties between the states are weakening; and after the stock market crash of 1929, Texas seceded from the United States, thereby starting the process of disintegration. It is followed by New York, California, New Jersey... Utah, having seceded, declares itself a religious Mormon state. Separatism is also infecting Canada: Quebec is falling away from it, and the maritime territories of the East are uniting with several states of the former USA in the “Marine Provinces”. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin - in ISHA (Industrial States of America).

All of North America is engulfed in the fires of petty wars - to the envy of South. The Caribbean Sea becomes filibuster again. The aviation of the newly formed states is fighting for dominance in the sky.

In Europe, things are a little better. Germany is on the verge of collapse, in France the nationalists have raised their heads. In the USSR, the Civil War flares up with renewed vigor. And only the Japanese silently do their job - they quietly privatize China and sneak up on Australia.

This is like the universe Crimson Skies. The game also exists on PC.

1939-1947 years. Another world

But most of all in the twentieth century, of course, attempts to replay the Second World War. As a matter of fact, we have seen quite a few of them: a fair share of WWII strategies (and simulators, such as Battle of Britain) offers us a campaign in which Germany wins. Many try to keep the historical truth, but not all.

There are also many novels about a world where the Germans won. In order to avoid an outburst of righteous anger, I will immediately note that no one draws utopias on this topic; as a rule, everything looks much worse than it actually happened.

Where did the fork occur? Most often - in the battle for Moscow, where Hitler really was very close to success, sometimes - near Stalingrad. Occasionally, everything happens much earlier: during Operation Sea Lion, Great Britain is captured, and with minimal aviation losses, which greatly facilitates the Barbarossa plan. So, for example, the game Turning Point: Fall of Liberty offers as a fork in the death of Churchill in 1931, after which the UK could not resist the blow; The game takes place when the Nazis are already attacking America.

There are alternatives in which the USSR or England and America act in alliance with Hitler and win.

Andrey Lazarchuk draws a world where the Germans were stopped only beyond the Urals, and the Siberian Republic was formed from the remnants of the USSR; The Reich survived until the 1990s, after which it collapsed under its own power - about the same as the USSR in our reality.

I can't help but mention Philip Dick, whose hero is a resident of a world where the Axis powers won, writes ... an alternative history novel about a world where the Allies won.

Sometimes after the victory of the Germans or before the end of the war between Germany and the USSR, a nuclear battle begins. Otto Hahn or another German physicist creates a bomb for Hitler - and ... In the variant Kira Bulycheva the bomb appears at the Soviets and falls on Warsaw, where Hitler is at the time; however, because of the careless handling of radiation, Stalin dies, and in general this world is perhaps more prosperous than ours (if only you do not look from the point of view of Poland).

The bomb could not have appeared in the hands of the Americans, and very easily. Roosevelt signed the Manhattan Project on Saturday, which is rather unusual; if he, as usual, had postponed this matter until Monday, the document had every chance of remaining unsigned for many years, since Pearl Harbor struck. And then what? Perhaps the Soviets would have been the first to do so. Or maybe the bomb would have been created twenty years later and there would have been no deterrent for the war between the USSR and the USA?

Many alternatives are devoted to trying to do without Hitler. Sometimes the time travelers simply eliminate it, sometimes the work is carried out more subtly ... One attempt of this kind is widely known in gaming world: when the chronosphere invented by Einstein served as an attempt to destroy Adolf ... and led anyway to a world war, but with Stalin. This is the plot Command & Conquer: Red Alert.

1962 The start of a nuclear war

The Cuban Missile Crisis is the moment when the world was hanging by a thread. A little more rigidity - and, perhaps, nuclear weapons would be used. In our history, Kennedy and Khrushchev found the strength to come to an agreement; what if one of the parties turned out to be even a little crazier?

Cuba has been destroyed, the suburbs of Moscow also ... Soviet troops are fighting in Europe with everyone at once and in the Urals with China. Gradually, the Northern Hemisphere becomes more and more uninhabitable, there is an active redistribution of Africa... This is how the consequences of the folly of world leaders in the game look like « Caribbean crisis».

And if the war still turned out to be non-nuclear, but the USSR managed to invade America? According to the developers of the game freedom fighters, the United States was not ready for war and was forced to resist already at the underground level.

But it could hardly be realized; both sides were too afraid nuclear consequences. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev would have been allowed to go too far. The project to "give the Nobel Peace Prize to the atomic bomb" is not as crazy as it might seem.

There are many more "distant" alternatives in the post-nuclear world. We all remember shelter Fallout and many of his imitators; there are other stories, for example, those where psionics actively developed in the world ( Sterling Lanier, "Jero's Journey") or under the pressure of radiation urgently learned to fly between the stars. In Fallout, the real fork, strictly speaking, occurred somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, when scientific and technological progress went a slightly different way.

1989 War between NATO and the Warsaw Pact

The USSR was disintegrating right before our eyes; but what if the country's leaders decided to save the regime... through war? This method is not new and is sometimes very effective.

According to the game world in conflict, the plan of the Soviets was as follows: to launch an offensive in Western Europe with the forces of the allies (the socialist countries of Eastern Europe), and when NATO would transfer troops there, attack the States with a landing force. From a military point of view, it's pretty crazy... as Niels Bohr said, the question is, is it crazy enough to work?

I still think it doesn't. Gorbachev did not have such power to start a war with NATO; Brezhnev didn't have it either. And in 1989 it was too late to save the regime's reputation.

Most Popular Alternative Heroes

Canadian alternative historian William Smiley has calculated what historical figures more often than others are used in the creation of historical forks. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate on how he calculated this, but noted that he used sources in English, French, German and Russian.

In addition, for each historical conflict, he included only one person in the list - discarding all those who are mentioned less frequently in connection with the same situation. This is logical, because otherwise, say, Wellinton, Marshal Grouchy and even the Prussian commander Blucher would have outstripped almost everyone on this list - having entered the rating in tow from Napoleon. Smiley also noted that he excluded Jesus Christ and Mohammed from the list and "will not give any comments on what places they would have taken on this list."

Here's what the top twenty of Smiley's list looks like, in descending order of popularity:

Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France.

Adolf Gitlerdictator of Germany.

Alexander the Greatking of Macedonia.

Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America. Here Smiley's choice is doubtful, because the protagonists of the alternatives are more often southerners than Lincoln.

Christopher Columbus, navigator.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States (it was he, and not Washington, who turned out to be the most popular).

Elizabeth the Great, Queen of England.

Peter I, Emperor of Russia.

KhubilaiKhan of the Mongols and Emperor of China. Probably would have been higher on the list if the Japanese and Chinese had participated in the ranking?

Isaac Newton, physicist, mathematician and astronomer.

Gaius Julius Caesar, Emperor of Rome. Oddly enough, not so popular - apparently, they could not figure out what happened to him “next”.

Oliver CromwellLord Protector of England.

Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist.

Richard the Lionheart, King of England.

Eric the Red, leader of the Vikings.

Vladimir Lenin, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the RSFSR.

Hannibal Barca, Carthaginian general.

Spartacus, the leader of the rebellious gladiators.

Ibrahim Pashacommander of the Ottoman Empire.

justinianEmperor of Byzantium.

There is also a separate list of the most popular alternative heroes who were not statesmen or generals. It, of course, intersects with the first, but not completely. This is what his top ten looks like: Christopher Columbus, William Shakespeare (he was ousted from the first rating by Elizabeth), Isaac Newton, Otto Hahn (in alternatives creates a German atomic bomb), Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Alexander Pushkin, Socrates, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier.

Strictly speaking, alternative history games are, for example, all or almost all historical strategy games, as well as games related to them. For example, in " Civilizations», « Victory Day», Europa Universalis, total war , « Pirates», « colonization», Age of Empires,Centurion we are literally creating an alternate history. And if in the early versions of these games a not very plausible story turned out, then, for example, Europa Universalis III or Victoria give you a tool that allows you to work with alternative history at the highest level. Change government policy national ideas- and not just redraw borders with fire and sword.

In "Europe" you can play for any country and from any year within the game; for which we rightfully assign the title to her best alternate history strategy. Here we are free to create any forks and explore the resulting plot - and then, if there are enough creative forces, describe the result. And it is very likely that it will turn out more believable than many of those described above.

Most tactical story games that have a set of missions also invite us to follow the path from the fork. Try to replay Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sea Lion, Rommel's African campaign, Cannes... But the consequences of forks in them, as a rule, are not considered. Not beyond the end of the war.

And the games I mentioned in Chronicle of Wrong Yesterday are the ones where the fork in already happened and we are seeing the consequences. It is very likely that in five years this direction will become even more popular: the conflicts of the 20th century have exhausted most of their potential, and World in Conflict is one of the first signs of a new fashion. Perhaps we will see how the listed forks change the world, not from a bird's eye view - as is customary in global strategies.

Historical facts, accepted as an indisputable truth, sometimes cause many doubts among those who are used to analyzing the course of events and reading “between the lines”. Frank contradictions, silence and distortion of obvious facts cause healthy indignation, since interest in one's roots is inherent in man by nature. That is why a new direction of teaching has arisen - an alternative history. Reading various articles about the origin of mankind, the development and formation of states, one can understand how far the school history course is from reality. Facts that are not supported by elementary logic and argumentation are laid in young heads as the only right way. historical development. At the same time, many of them do not stand up to elementary analysis even by those who are not luminaries in this area, but are only interested in world history and know how to think sensibly.

The essence of alternative history

This direction is considered to be unscientific, since it is not regulated at the official level. However, reading articles, books and treatises on alternative history, it becomes clear that they are more logical, consistent and justified than " official version» events. So why are historians silent, why do they distort the facts? There can be many reasons for this:

• It is much more pleasant to present your origin in a more advantageous light. Moreover, it is enough just to provide the bulk of the population with an attractive theory, even if it does not fit in with the context of real history - they will definitely accept it “as their own”, amusing their self-esteem on the subconscious.
• The role of the victim is advantageous only in the event of a successful ending, because, as you know, all the "laurels" go to the winner. If it didn’t work out to defend your people, then, a priori, the enemies must be bad and insidious.
• To act on the attacking side, destroying other nationalities is “not comme il faut”, therefore it is at least unreasonable to flaunt such facts in the annals of historical events.

The list of reasons for lies and cover-ups in history is endless, but they all originate in one single statement: if it is written that way, then it is beneficial. Moreover, in this context, the benefit implies not so much economic as moral, political and psychological comfort. And it doesn’t matter at all that any lie looks stupid, it’s enough just to analyze the indisputable facts of that time.

Over time, the alternative history becomes more complete and meaningful. Thanks to the work of people who are not indifferent to their origin in the annals of our country, and the world as a whole, there are less and less “dark spots”, and the chronology of events takes on a logical and consistent form. That is why reading about an alternative history is not only informative, but also pleasant - clearly verified facts make the narrative logical and reasonable, and accepting one's roots allows you to better understand the deep essence of historical events.

An alternative history of mankind: a look through the prism of logic

Darwin's theory of human origins is ideally suited to be taught to children as a cautionary tale about the benefits of work, with one acceptable context - it's just a fairy tale. Each artifact obtained during the excavations, each ancient find cause healthy skepticism regarding the official version of the story, since they clearly contradict the voiced version. And if you consider that most of them are simply kept under the heading "Secret", the origin of mankind looks vague and doubtful at all. A consensus on this issue has not yet been formed, but one thing is known for certain: a person appeared much earlier than history ascribes to him.

• traces of a man of the era of dinosaurs discovered in Nevada, which are more than 50 million years old;
• a fossilized finger, which, according to research, has been stored for about 130 million years;
• hand-drawn metal vase, about half a billion years old.

These facts prove the correctness alternative versions history is not limited - the number of traces of a person's stay in ancient world is growing steadily, however, not everyone is known to a wide range of people. Moreover, many theories regarding the course of historical events have already been voiced in the context of mythology, but scientists have dismissed them, since there was no evidence for this. Now, when the revealed facts convince of the opposite, they simply do not want to “lose face”, rewriting the history of mankind.

If in the course of evolution and technical progress people became more and more developed, then how were the famous Egyptian pyramids built then? After all, even now, having a huge arsenal of equipment and building materials, such a structure causes delight and awe, because it seems almost unreal. But such pyramids were built not only on the African continent, but also in today's America, China, Russia and Bosnia. How could such inept and technically illiterate ancestors, according to the version of academic history, be able to build this?

Turning to the ancient Indian treatises, one can find references to flying chariots - the prototypes of modern aircraft. They are also mentioned in the writings of Maharshi Bharadwaja, a sage of the 4th century BC. His book was found back in the 19th century, but never had a resonance thanks to the efforts of those who adhere to the official version of history. These works were recognized as nothing more than entertaining writings based on a fertile imagination, while the descriptions of the machines themselves, suspiciously reminiscent of modern ones, were considered mere conjectures.

Not only ancient Indian works confirm the dubiousness of the academic theory of human development - Slavic chronicles store at least the number of confirmations. Based on the described technical structures, our distant ancestors could not only move through the air, but also make intergalactic flights. So why is the alternate history suggestion of Earth populating the planet from space considered practically insane? It is a completely logical and reasonable version that has the right to exist.

The question of the origin of man is considered one of the most controversial, since rare facts make one only speculate and speculate. The academic version suggests that humanity came out of Africa, but this version hardly survives the elementary “strength test” modern facts and discoveries. The novelties of alternative history seem more convincing, since even the latest articles in 2017 consider several options at once as a possible course of events. One of the confirmations of the plurality of theories are the works of Anatoly Klyosov.

Alternative history in the context of DNA genealogy

The founder of DNA genealogy, which reveals the essence of the migration processes of the ancient population through the prism of chromosomal similarities, is Anatoly Klyosov. His works cause a lot of indignant criticism in his address, since the theories set forth by the scientist openly contradict the official version of events about the African origin of the entire human race. Critical Issues, raised by Klyosov in his books and publications, reveal the essence of the erroneous statements of popgeneticists that "anatomically modern man”(precisely in the context of the current genetic basis) went from the African people through constant migration to neighboring continents. The main proof of the academic version is genetic diversity Africans, however, this fact cannot be considered confirming, but only makes it possible to put forward a theory that is not supported by any justification.

The main features of the idea promoted by Klyosov are as follows:

• the genetic genealogy founded by him (DNA genealogy) is a symbiosis of history, biochemistry, anthropology and linguistics, and not a subsection of academic genetics, as is commonly believed in scientific circles, accusing the author of quackery;
• This approach allows us to formulate a new calendar of ancient migrations of mankind, which is more accurate and scientifically justified than the official one.

According to the data obtained in the course of a long and rigorous analysis of historical, anthropological and chromosomal studies, the development "from the African source" is not complete, since the alternative history of the Slavs at that time was taking a parallel course. The Proto-Slavic origin of the Aryan race is confirmed by the fact that the chromosomal halogroup R1a1 came from the Dnieper territory and the Ural River and went to India, and not vice versa, as the official version of events claims.

His ideas are being actively promoted not only in Russia, but throughout the world: he founded " Russian Academy DNA Genealogy” is an international online organization. In addition to publishing online, Klyosov has published many books and periodicals. His collection of articles on alternative history, based on a DNA genealogical database, is constantly updated with new works, which each time lift the veil of secrecy over the ancient civilization.

Tatar-Mongol yoke: an alternative history

There are still many "dark spots" in the academic history of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke, which allow not only historians of our time, but also ordinary people who are interested in their origins, to make assumptions and guesses. Many details indicate that the Tatar-Mongol people did not exist at all. That is why the alternative history looks very reliable: the details are so logical and justified that, willy-nilly, doubts arise, but are the textbooks lying?

Indeed, there are no mentions of the Tatar-Mongols in any Russian chronicle, and the term itself causes healthy skepticism: well, where could such a nationality come from? From Mongolia? But, according to historical documents, the ancient Mongols were called "Oirats". There is no such nationality and there was not, until in 1823 it was introduced artificially!

The alternative history of Russia in those days is clearly reflected in the work of Alexei Kungurov. His book “There was no Kievan Rus, or what historians are hiding” caused thousands of controversies in scientific circles, but the arguments seem quite convincing even to those who are familiar with history, not to mention ordinary readers: “If we demand to present at least some material evidence of the long existence of the Mongol empire, then archaeologists, scratching their heads and grunting, will show a pair of half-rotted sabers and several women's earrings. But do not try to find out why the remains of sabers are "Mongol-Tatar" and not Cossack, for example. No one will explain this to you for sure. At best, you will hear a story that the saber was dug up at the place where, according to the version of the ancient and very reliable chronicle, there was a battle with the Mongols. Where is that chronicle? God knows it, it has not reached our days ”(c).

Although the theme is thoroughly revealed in the works of Gumilyov, Kalyuzhny and Fomenko, who are undoubtedly experts in their field, the alternative history reveals the Tatar-Mongol yoke in such a reasoned, detailed and thorough manner precisely at the suggestion of Kungurov. Undoubtedly, the author is thoroughly familiar with the timing of Kievan Rus and studied many sources before putting forward his theory regarding that time. That is why there is no doubt that his version of what is happening is the only possible chronology of events. Indeed, it is difficult to argue with a logically competent justification:

1. Not a single "material evidence" of the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars remained. Even from the dinosaurs, at least some traces remained, and from the whole yoke - zero. Neither written sources (of course, you should not take into account subsequently fabricated papers), nor architectural structures, no coin trace.
2. Analyzing modern linguistics, it will not be possible to find a single borrowing from the Mongol-Tatar heritage: the Mongolian and Russian languages ​​do not intersect, and there are no cultural borrowings from the Transbaikal nomads.
3. Even if Kievan Rus wanted to eradicate the difficult times of the dominance of the Mongol-Tatars from memory, at least some trace would remain in the folklore of the nomads. But even there - nothing!
4. What was the purpose of the capture? They reached the territory of Russia, captured ... and that's it? Was the conquest of the world limited to this? Yes and economic consequences for today's Mongolia, it was never possible to find: no Russian gold, no icons, no coins, in a word, nothing again.
5. For more than 3 centuries of imaginary dominance, not a single mixing of blood has occurred. One way or another, domestic population genetics did not find a single thread leading to the Mongol-Tatar roots.

These facts testify in favor of an alternative history ancient Russia, in which there is not the slightest mention of the Tatar-Mongols as such. But why, over the course of several centuries, people were instilled with the opinion of the cruel attack of Batu? After all, something happened during these years that historians are trying to cover up with external interference. In addition, before the pseudo-liberation from the Mongol-Tatars, the territory of Russia was really in a huge decline, and the number of the local population decreased tenfold. So what happened during these years?

The alternative history of Russia offers many versions, but the most convincing seems to be forced baptism. According to ancient maps, the main part northern hemisphere was a Great State - Tartaria. Its inhabitants were educated and literate, they lived in harmony with themselves and with natural forces. Adhering to the Vedic worldview, they understood what was good, saw the consequences of planting a religious principle and tried to maintain their inner harmony. However, Kievan Rus is one of the provinces Great Tartaria I decided to take a different path.

Prince Vladimir, who became the ideological inspirer and executor of forced Christianization, understood that people’s deep convictions could not be broken just like that, so he ordered to kill most of the adult population, and invest in innocent children’s heads religious beginning. And when the troops of Tartaria came to their senses and decided to stop the cruel bloodshed in Kievan Rus, it was already too late - the province at that time was a miserable sight. Of course, there was still a battle on the Kalka River, but the opponents were not a fictional Mongol corps, but their own army.

Looking at the alternative story about the war, it becomes clear why it was so "sluggish": the Russian troops, who forcibly converted to Christianity, perceived the Vedic army of Tartaria not as an attack, but rather as a liberation from the imposed religion. Many of them even went over to the side of the "enemy", while the rest did not see the point in the battle. But will such facts be printed in textbooks? After all, this discredits the modern idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe "great and wisest" power. There are many dark spots in the history of Russia, as, indeed, in any state, but hiding them will not help to rewrite it.

An alternative history of Russia from ancient times: where did Tartaria go?

By the end of the 18th century, Great Tartaria was wiped out not only from the face of the Earth, but also from political map peace. This was done so carefully that there is no mention of it in any history textbook, in any chronicle and official paper. Why is it necessary to hide obvious fact of our history, which was revealed relatively recently, only thanks to the works of Academician Fomenko, who was engaged in New Chronology? But Guthrie William described Tartaria, its provinces and history in detail back in the 18th century, but this work remained unnoticed by official science. Everything is simple to the point of banal: the alternative history of Russia does not look as sacrificial and imposing as the academic one.

The conquest of Great Tartaria began in the 15th century, when Muscovy was the first to attack the surrounding territories. The army of Tartaria, which did not expect an attack, which at that time concentrated all its forces on protecting the external borders, did not have time to orient itself, and therefore yielded to the enemy. This served as an example for others, and gradually everyone sought to “bite off” at least a small piece of economically and politically profitable lands from Tartaria. So for 2 and a half centuries, only a weak shadow remained from the Great State, the final blow to which was the World War, referred to in the course of history as the “Pugachev Rebellion” in 1773-1775. After that, the name of the once great power began to gradually change to the Russian Empire, however, some regions - Independent and Chinese Tartaria - still managed to preserve their history for some more time.

Thus, the long war, which ultimately exterminated all the native Tartarians, began precisely with the filing of the Muscovites, who subsequently took an active part in it. This means that the territory modern Russia was brutally recaptured at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and our ancestors are precisely the attacking side. Will such textbooks be written? After all, if history is built on cruelty and bloodshed, then it is not as “wonderful” as they are trying to portray.

As a result, historians who adhere to the academic version simply took certain facts out of context, swapped the characters and presented everything “under the sauce” of the sad saga of devastation after the Tatar-Mongol yoke. In this perspective, there could be no talk of any attack on Tartaria. And what an alternative history of Tartaria, there was nothing. The maps are corrected, the facts are distorted, which means that you can forget about the rivers of blood. Such an approach made it possible to inspire many inhabitants, who were not accustomed to think and analyze, with exceptional integrity, sacrifice and, most importantly, the antiquity of their people. But in fact, all this was created by the hands of the Tartarians, who were subsequently destroyed.

An alternative history of St. Petersburg, or What is hidden in the chronicle of the Northern capital?

Petersburg is almost the main platform for the country's historical events, and the architecture of the city makes you breathless with delight and awe. But is everything as transparent and consistent as the official history shows?

The alternative history of St. Petersburg is based on the theory that the city at the mouth of the Neva was built in the 9th century BC, only it was called Nevograd. When Radabor built a port here, the settlement was renamed Vodin. A heavy fate fell on the locals: the city was often flooded, and enemies tried to seize the port area, causing devastation and bloodshed. In 862, after the death of Prince Vadim, the Novgorod prince who came to power destroyed the city almost to the ground, destroying the entire indigenous population. Having recovered from this blow, after almost three centuries, the Vodinians met another attack - the Swedish one. True, after 30 years the Russian army was able to regain their native lands, but this time was enough to weaken Vodin.

After the suppression of the uprising in 1258, the city was renamed again - in order to pacify the recalcitrant Vodinians, Alexander Nevsky decided to eradicate his native name and began to call the city on the Neva Gorodnya. And after another 2 years, the Swedes again attacked the territory and named it in their own way - Landskron. Swedish dominance did not last long - in 1301 the city returned to Russia again, began to gradually flourish and recover.

Such an idyll lasted a little more than two and a half centuries - in 1570 Moskhi captured Gorodnya, calling it Kongrad. However, the Swedes did not give up their desire to get the port territory of the Neva, so in 1611 they were able to recapture the city, which has now become Kanets. After that, it was renamed one more time, calling Nyenschanz, until Peter I won it back from the Swedes during the Great Northern War. And only after that the official version of history begins the annals of St. Petersburg.

According to academic history, it was Peter the Great who built the city from scratch, created St. Petersburg the way it is today. However, the alternative history of Peter I does not look so impressive, because, in fact, he received a ready-made city with a long history into submission. It is enough to look at the numerous monuments allegedly erected in honor of the ruler in order to doubt their origins, because on each of them Peter I is depicted in completely different ways, and not always appropriate.

For example, the statue in the Mikhailovsky Castle depicts Peter the Great, dressed for some reason in a Roman tunic and sandals. Enough strange outfit for the St. Petersburg realities of that time ... And the marshal's baton in an awkwardly twisted hand suspiciously resembles a spear, which for some reason (obviously why) was cut off, giving it the appropriate shape. And looking into Bronze Horseman”, it becomes clear that the face is made in a completely different way. Age changes? Hardly. Just a falsification of the historical heritage of St. Petersburg, which was adjusted to suit academic history.

Alternative history review - answers to burning questions

Thoughtfully reading school textbook according to history, it is impossible not to “stumble” over contradictions and imposed clichés. In addition, the revealed facts make us either constantly adjust the approved chronology for them, or hide historical events from people. But A. Sklyarov was right, stating: "If the facts contradict the theory, it is necessary to throw out the theory, not the facts." So why do historians act differently?

What to believe, which version to stick to, everyone decides for himself. Of course, it is much easier and more pleasant to close one's eyes to the obvious, proudly calling oneself a luminary in the field of historical sciences. Moreover, the novelties of alternative history are met with great distrust, calling them quackery and creative fiction. But each of these alleged fictions has much more logic and facts under it than academic science. But to admit this means to abandon an extremely convenient and advantageous position that has been promoted for decades. But if the official version continues to pass off fiction as reality, maybe it's time to stop being deceived ourselves? All you need to do this is to think for yourself.