Briefly about the article:“History has no subjunctive mood.” This maxim has long turned into a commonly used banality, which both historians and people who have nothing to do with this field of science flaunt it with a thoughtful air, with or without reason. However, some features human life from time to time push out-of-the-box individuals to the seditious assumption - “What if?” This is how “alternative history” (AI) is born.

What if?

Alternative history as science

What kind of outrages could shameless scoundrels commit? Let me give you a few examples.

Such as going back in time and destroying Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, all our greatest spiritual teachers when they were children.

Such as warning the greatest villains about the dangers that threaten them in the future, in order to allow them to deceive fate and provide the opportunity to further harm humanity.

Such as the theft of art treasures from the past, depriving millions of people over many centuries of the opportunity to enjoy them.

Such as the ability to give deliberately false advice to the great rulers of the past, thereby luring them into terrible traps.

I gave all these examples, my friends, because these types of crimes actually happened.

Robert Silverberg "Up the Line"

“History has no subjunctive mood.” This maxim has long turned into a commonly used banality, which both historians and people who have nothing to do with this field of science flaunt it with a thoughtful air, with or without reason. However, some features of human life from time to time push out-of-the-box individuals to the seditious assumption - “What if?” This is how “alternative history” (AI) is born.

The roads we choose

In principle, alternativeness is an integral part of the life of any of us. Every morning, leaving the house, we cannot say with one hundred percent confidence that the coming day will not bring anything unexpected. Almost every minute we find ourselves faced with microscopic choices. Our life is a kind of crossroads, and any step can theoretically lead to events that radically change our destiny.

You go left - and find a wallet with a large amount money, which guarantees “dreams come true” and pushes you to do things that are impossible with an established routine. You go to the right - and you meet the person you have been looking for all your life and with whom you want to be together forever and “die on the same day”: love, children, grandchildren, accompanying family life joys and problems. If you had stopped to tie your shoelaces 5 minutes ago, a “beautiful vision” would have floated past your nose. A man walks straight and collides with a dump truck suddenly flying around the corner, which will certainly have serious consequences for both him and the bungling driver. The same untied lace could save a passerby from a premature grave, and the “driver” from prison gruel...

And so - ad infinitum, human fate resembles a deck of cards, fanned out by the trembling hand of an inexperienced banker: if you are lucky, the joker will appear, if not, you will be left with a lousy “six”... And after all this there are people who believe that history does not know subjunctive mood. And almost everyone believes them. Paradox!

Variability human existence and pushed the inquisitive and open minds of some people directly involved in historical science to thoughts and ideas of “alternativeness” of both individual events and the entire historical process as a whole.

Pioneers of alternative history

The first AI assumption known to us was made by the ancient Roman historian Titus Livius in his epic treatise “The History of Rome from the Foundation of the City.” In Book IX, written around 35 BC, several pages were devoted to the hypothetical campaign of Alexander the Great against Rome in 323 BC, which, according to Livy, would have ended in the complete defeat of the great conqueror. Despite the obvious bias, some of the historian’s assumptions sound quite reasonable. However, this was just an episode, an ornate passage within a completely traditional historical work.

In the 19th century, the term “alternative world” appeared, which was first used by the English critic and writer Isaac Disraeli in his work “The Curiosities of Literature”; a little later he developed the idea in the collection of stories “Of a History of Events Which Have Not Happened” (“About history of events that never happened”, 1849). However, the first author of a full-fledged scientific AI work was the famous British historian George Trevelyan. True, this happened in the scientist’s relatively young years, when he won the same competition with the work “If Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo” (1907), and at that time this article did not attract much attention.

It’s a different matter with another Englishman, Sir Arnold Toynbee, who, already a world figure in historical science, produced articles “If Alexander had not died then...” and “If Philip and Artaxerxes had survived...” (in the first he considered hypothetical consequences of lengthening the life of the hero of antiquity, and in the second - his earlier death). With these sensational works, Toynbee actually laid the foundation for such a direction in history as retroforecasting. However, Toynbee's evidence was based on the use of imagination, and therefore was much closer to fiction than to genuine science. Fellow historians perceived Toynbee’s exercises as “a prank of a genius,” a kind of scientific leisure, salon chatter on the topic “what would have happened if.”

Another Englishman, D. S. Squire, collected various publications on this topic and in 1931 published the first collection of this kind of popular science essays, “If It Had Happened Otherwise,” among the authors which was noted by G. K. Chesterton and W. Churchill. The works of Trevelyan, Toynbee and Squire's collection were the basis for the “scientific-historical alternative,” which for a long time was considered the stepson of historical science.

Main types of “alternative scenarios” modeling

Alternative modeling - variants of history that had a real chance of coming true are analyzed. With AM, certain forces (influential individuals, organizations, social groups), advocating an alternative course of events or recognizing its possibility, and there are no objective factors that make an alternative course of events impossible. For example, some scenarios of Napoleon's triumph or the longer/shorter life of Alexander the Great. Counterfactual modeling - analysis of scenarios that could not come true in principle. Under KM, there is no evidence that any of the contemporaries of the “fork” proposed the practical implementation of a version of events different from the one that took place (an attempt at such implementation was impossible for objective reasons). An example of such a study is “19th century America without railroads” according to Vogel. Although there were no objective reasons, which would prevent the Americans from building steamships and stagecoaches instead of railroads, there is no evidence that such an idea occurred to anyone.

On the thorny path to recognition

Serious, academic historical science has long treated AI as a parascientific freak. They say that AI is not a science, but just pampering, the lot of foolish scientists (who will soon come to their senses and engage in real research) or losers and mediocrities: writers, journalists, and other riffraff trying to cover up catastrophic ignorance with delusional theories and pompous reasoning. By the way, most often this was the case - and, to a certain extent, it still remains. Very many “alternative historical” theories, alas, contradict not only existing real facts and historical patterns, but even elementary common sense...

Among the main disadvantages of variable versions of historical events, one can highlight the initial “preset alternative”. Ordinary scientific-historical research proceeds from the particular to the general, that is, the scientist, having shoveled through a pile of materials and sources, either confirms (refutes) existing assumptions, or comes to new conclusions and builds a theory based on the information obtained. The authors of scientific and historical alternatives repeat this path exactly the opposite. First, they come up with a certain theory, which they begin to fit the evidence into. In principle, there is nothing seditious in this approach (it is often used by traditional historians). After all, the root of any AI version is the postulate “what if?” However, too often the authors of AI openly cheat and distort, adjusting only one thing to confirm their hypotheses. historical facts and deliberately ignoring or even distorting others.

However, alternative history gradually gained momentum. Science fiction writers got involved in the development of the new “gold mine,” which also had an impact on the popularization of AI. The heyday of the “scientific-historical alternative” came after the Second World War, when many wondered whether it was really possible to avoid the nightmare that happened? Since traditional science at that time was either not ready or unable to give suitable answers, variability in the writing of quite serious historical works became increasingly wide use. AI emerged from the ghetto of pseudo-scientific curiosity, primarily in the USA and Western Europe (in socialist countries the idea of ​​an “alternative” history was not welcomed).

The most developed AI themes were events related to the American Revolutionary War and Civil War, as well as World War II and the Napoleonic Wars. As we see, the emphasis in scientific and historical alternatives was on events in military history, which is not surprising, because elements of AI have long been used in training in military schools and academies.

Published scientific AI works gradually began to enjoy mass popularity, and some of them were not disdained to be written by quite serious and prominent historians - for example, “If the South had won the Civil War” (1960) by M. Cantor and “If Hitler had won the Second World War” ( 1961) W. Shirer.

However, in the eyes of the bulk of specialists, AI continued to remain an “unknown little animal.” Help came from unexpected places.

The Rise of the “Ugly Duckling”

The breakthrough came thanks to the American economist Robert Fogel, when in 1964 his now infamous book with the nondescript title “Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History” was published.

The fact is that in American historical science it was traditionally believed that the massive construction of railroads in the 19th century was one of the main reasons for such vigorous economic development of the country. Vogel, through mathematical calculations, built the so-called counterfactual model - hypothetical option development of the United States, in which, instead of railroads, stagecoaches and steamships would remain the main means of transportation across the American expanses. The result of impartial calculations turned out to be paradoxical - the real contribution of railway construction to economic development turned out to be negligible (it was equal to national product USA for a few months), and the demand for railways was artificially provoked by steel magnates. Thus, Vogel’s work completely killed one of the “sacred cows” of American historical scholarship! And in this case, the weapon was not theoretical mental juggling, but the harsh language of numbers.

In 1974, Vogel published the book “Time on the Cross. The Economics of American Slavery,” which convincingly argued that by the mid-19th century, American slavery had not at all become obsolete from an economic point of view, as was commonly believed. If we take only the economic aspect of the problem, when growing cotton in the USA, it would remain profitable until the advent of modern cotton harvesters in the fifties of the 20th century!

Here American liberals howled furiously, mistakenly believing that Vogel was allegedly defending slavery. Only after the release in 1989 of his new book, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in America, did it become clear to everyone: Vogel argued that the abolition of slavery was caused not by economic, but by ideological reasons. American society followed the path of a bloody Civil War, since free people could no longer live with the knowledge that someone nearby was deprived of this freedom. In 1993, the scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research.

Although Vogel’s conclusions were not approved by all specialists, the main result of his work was a radical change in the views of the scientific community on the “alternative”. From now on, retroforecasting began to be perceived as an integral part of a very serious direction in historical science, the so-called. “cliometry” (historical and mathematical research). The construction of AI models has also begun to be considered a completely acceptable, albeit somewhat exotic, scientific method for other areas of historical science.

Another cornerstone of retroforecasting is the ideas of the famous Belgian scientist, Nobel laureate in chemical physics by Ilya Prigogine. According to his synergistic approach, the development of society is not strictly predetermined. There is an alternation of periods of evolution when the vector of development of society cannot be changed. While studying the physics of highly nonequilibrium systems, Prigogine discovered new effects, which are reflected in the title of his program book “Order from Chaos.”

The subject of retroforecasting is the study bifurcation points(a more common term is “fork in the road”), certain key moments in history, during which the choice of the path for further development of society occurs from a range of different alternatives. The choice in such situations almost always occurs under conditions of uncertainty and instability of the balance of social forces. Therefore, bifurcation can be influenced by absolutely, at first glance, insignificant and subjective circumstances. “The transition through a bifurcation is the same random process, like tossing a coin” (Prigozhin).

A unique symbol of such a “coin” may well be the rotten board of a ship’s gangway, which gave way under the feet of Gian Luigi Fieschi, the leader of the conspiracy against the Genoese dictator Andrea Doria. Result - Fieski splashed into the water, and the heavy shell pulled him to the bottom. The beheaded revolt was suppressed, and Doria ruled Genoa for another 13 years. Of course, this is a small event for the world, but it is a significant fact: one single piece of wood could really change history, albeit on a small scale.

Alternative history in Russian

It cannot be said that AI was “terra incognita” for Russian historical science; however, for obvious reasons, Soviet historiography, guided by the principles of Marxism and party affiliation, resolutely rejected the “alternativeness” of the development of society.

Although AI research was rarely found in Soviet popular science literature. For example, in the book “Apostle Sergei. The Tale of Sergei Muravyov-Apostol” (M., 1975) famous Soviet historian Nathan Eidelman published an AI scenario “The Impossible Year 1826” (a hypothetical development of events during the victory of the Chernigov Regiment uprising).

In the 1980s the situation improved. In the article “Possible and Real and Problems of Alternativeity in Historical Development” (“History of the USSR”, 1986, No. 4), Kovalchenko defined alternative situations in history, noting that ignoring such moments impoverishes our understanding of historical reality. In the article “Stolypinskaya agrarian reform: Myths and Reality” he himself built several variant models of the development of peasant farms in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

In the “troubled” 1990s, the focus of public attention was focused on something else, such as the craze for mysticism and various pseudo-historical theories (the “works” of Academician Fomenko alone are worth it!). Unfortunately, in currently Truly scientific AI research in Russia is episodic and local in nature.

In popular science literature, progress is a little more noticeable, although the practice of publishing multi-volume anthologies, so in demand in the West, has not yet reached the point. In fact, the “first sign” was V. Polikarpov’s book “If... Historical Versions,” which contained about 20 AI scenarios, many of which lacked scientific argumentation.

One cannot help but recall “The Russia that never existed” famous science fiction writer A. Bushkova. True, there is not much actual AI here: just a few chapters describing the forks in Russian history. Main disadvantage Bushkov's AI scenarios - the lack of historically objective analysis and the obvious bias and emotionality of the writer.

There is a little bit of AI in A. Valentinov’s sensational novel-hypothesis “Spartacus,” dedicated to the largest slave uprising.

And, finally, another terribly popular “alternative”, which is truly unique in nature, since the author passes off the AI ​​script he created... as a real story! It's about about the cycle of pseudo-historical works by V. Suvorov (Rezun) “Icebreaker”, “Day M” and others, more precisely, about the operation “Thunderstorm”, fictional by the author (allegedly the invasion of Soviet troops into Europe planned in 1941).

In addition to the works of home-grown authors, several books by foreign authors have been translated into Russian in recent years. This is a popular collection of scientific and historical alternatives “What if?” edited by Robert Cowley, written by prominent American scientists and telling about key points history - from antiquity to modern times. Also, the AST publishing house published the collective collection “Military History Library” in the “Military History Library” series. Napoleonic Wars: What if?”, collections of military-historical AI essays by E. Durschmid “Victories that might not have happened” and K. Massey “Hitler’s Missed Opportunities”.

True, these publications of foreign authorities are not free from numerous shortcomings. After all, despite the fact that AI has long been recognized abroad, it has not yet been fully formed as a science. There is not even a single generally accepted name: in addition to retroforecasting, the terms “counterfactual history”, “experimental history”, “virtual history”, “retro-alternative studies” are used.

Alternate History Problems

The Achilles heel of modern retroforecasting is the lack of a clear methodology for scientific research, in which the creation and analysis of an AI scenario would be carried out according to generally accepted rules, and not depending on creative imagination and personal preferences of the author. Even R. Vogel used methods suitable only for specific case and do not claim to be universally applicable.

So, let's name some problems of scientific alternative history.

1. The problem of the reality of the initial assumptions of AI scenarios, that is, the need to clearly distinguish between real possible options the course of history from unreal. This may include an exaggeration of the role of individual factors in possible changes in history. For example, numerous models relating to the triumph of Napoleon after he won the Battle of Waterloo (although the lion's share of them still falls on works of art). Napoleon could well (and should) have won this ill-fated battle, however, for a number of objective reasons, this would not have brought him much benefit - unless it would have prolonged the agony of the Empire, and modern historians would have studied the period not of the “Hundred Days”, but Let's say two hundred.

Another typical example- script by H. Belloc, who considered a more successful version of the “Escape of Varennes”, when Louis XVI tried to escape from revolutionary France (the escape failed due to an absurd accident). Belloc excitedly describes the rescue of the fallen king and the events that allegedly followed - the defeat of the revolution and the prevention of the advent of capitalism. But even if Louis had escaped, what difference would it have made? He did not shine with either intelligence or military talents... What would he have achieved? His younger brothers, Count of Provence and Count of Artois, managed to emigrate, but were unable to stop the revolution.

2. The problem of internal logic of AI scenarios. The retroforecast must contain a chain of events welded together by consistent cause-and-effect relationships. This means that the reconstruction of the possible course of events is not determined by the richness of the historian’s imagination, but follows from the initial conditional assumption. Alas, the objectivity of the assessment of hypothetical events too often depends not only on the imagination, but also on the ideological preferences of the researcher (however, this is one of the traditional problems of all historical science).

IN in this case The main method of the researcher may be the use of analogies. Almost all historical events were repeated many times during the development of our civilization. Therefore, the author of a retroforecast, when developing an AI scenario, must first select similar events that occurred in real history. Another method is the use of extrapolation, when the researcher, in his AI model, considers the further development of those trends, the origins of which are visible in the current flow of historical events.

3. The problem of the probability of AI scenarios, when a retroforecast of the likely consequences of a hypothetical event involves the development of a fan of possible scenarios that had different probability of implementation. The very essence of retroforecasting is the assumption that the real course of history has alternative options that could have come to life, but did not. However, a plurality of development paths must be assumed within an alternative flow of events, and the number of such scenarios can be quite numerous. A scientific retroforecast should contain not only their most full list, but also a comparative assessment of the probability of implementation.

Historical process resembles a mountain collapse: it is impossible to predict one hundred percent which stones will fall down and which ones will remain in place. The authors of scientific and historical alternatives actively use this “landslide” principle in their work, but only up to a certain point. Once they “change” history, they are almost guaranteed to “forget” both the previously declared principle of alternative events and the avalanche-like flow of historical processes.

A typical example is the classic work of A. Toynbee “If Alexander had not died then...”, which is still a standard for many AI authors. Based on the assumption of the miraculous recovery of Alexander the Great, Toynbee builds a brilliantly written diagram of the emergence of a “worldwide” Macedonian empire with the subsequent serious change in history. However, having already achieved the desired result, Toynbee pushes aside, as unnecessary trash, the principle of that very variability that he so successfully used in building his world. His model of events that occurred resembles the famous plan Battle of Austerlitz armchair thinker Weyrother, so visibly written out by Leo Tolstoy: “Di erste columne marchirt, di tsvaite columne marchirt...” The question is, what will Napoleon do while the enemy troops are marching, as in a parade? Stand in stupor before the intellectual power of the German “genius”?

After all, there is no guarantee that the expansionist plans of Alexander the Great, if he had truly recovered from his illness, would have brought him success. Alexander could have died in another battle or as a result of a palace conspiracy (there are suggestions that he did not die from illness, but was poisoned). He could have failed in the next campaign, as happened in reality during the Indian campaign - the human factor came into play when the troops insisted on returning home. He could have simply wised up, deciding to be content with what he had already captured... But Toynbee rejects all options - leaving only the only one, the most incredible: Alexander crushes his enemies, destroys Rome, and the Macedonian, not the Roman, empire becomes the basis of Western civilization.

Literature

There was no nail -

The horseshoe is missing.

There was no horseshoe -

The horse went lame.

The horse went lame -

The commander was killed.

The cavalry is broken -

The army is running.

The enemy is entering the city

Without sparing prisoners,

Because in the forge

There was no nail.

English nursery rhyme

« History does not know the subjunctive mood..." This vulgar phrase repeats 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 butter is butter, then the phrase about the subjunctive mood is outright stupidity. History not only “knows” the subjunctive mood, it constantly operates with it.

We have some - a considerable - amount of facts. In the excavations they found this and that, the chronicler described the event... And historians are trying to draw a conclusion on this basis about what happened many years ago could happen. “If it were so and so, then the chronicler of the name would have written such and such” is a common reasoning of the historian, because the further from our days, the more gaps there are in the documents. And they have to be filled out precisely by comparing the logic of the versions...

Moreover, the study of history - to spite the champions of "objective laws" - every now and then slips in "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 a turning point in history. And if this had not happened, then the won battle would have been lost, and it is absolutely impossible to imagine that history would not have changed because of this “little thing.”

Agree, it is interesting to understand what would have happened if one of the well-known events had not taken place or had happened differently. Historians, from Titus Livy to Arnold Toynbee, also seriously discuss this. Well, mere mortals write novels, stories, make movies about it... and, of course, make games.

In this article we will talk:

• about how alternative history differs from cryptohistory;
• about the techniques of alternative history;
• about the theories of conspiracy theorists 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 vs. Overt

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

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

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

You can say it another way: alternative history is something that definitely did not happen, and cryptohistory is something that, in principle, could have happened, although we are accustomed to thinking otherwise.

Let's understand it with an example.

Historical fork: Emperor of All Rus' 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 his remaining years wandering around Russia under the name of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich. Meanwhile, the Decembrist uprising took place, 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. Alternative history is free in its flight: it can create states, rulers, wars, revolutions, unprecedented social systems unknown in our reality... Cryptohistory is bound by a key requirement: that the fork should not be noticeable from our position. So that historians still write what they wrote, and - this is important! - not as a result of a global conspiracy behind the scenes, but by natural order. A cryptohistorian can, with the help of his constructions, find a new and unexpected explanation for known events, but cannot change the events themselves.

Sometimes alternative history does without any other fantastic elements: it just “happened this way” and that’s it. Sometimes the principle “ parallel worlds”: they say, in one “branch of reality” England won at Waterloo, and in the other, France. But often the alternative is related to time travel- and attempts to restore the “disturbed course of history” or, less often, on the contrary, to consolidate the change made.

Strictly speaking, classic historical novels - Walter Scott, Alexandre Dumas, Raffaello Giovagnoli and others - are close to cryptohistory. They often describe real events into which they insert their characters so that they turn out to be the cause of what actually happened. However, this is not entirely our case, because the classic historical novel does not set as its goal precisely the change of history and its analysis.

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

Games of the world behind the scenes

There is a well-known second phrase about history, which is as vulgar as the “subjunctive mood”: “ history is written by the winners" They say, anyway, we “study” only the version that the winner gave us. And from this we can draw such conclusions!

But this is also not true. The winners “write,” that is, dictate, not history, but only the popular interpretation.

For example, the Tudor dynasty managed to convince the “public” of the incredible evilness of the hunchbacked Richard III, and the Romanov dynasty - of the crimes of Boris Godunov; the 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, a popular opinion can be formed not by the “winner” at all, but by virtually anyone. Now you can’t say which specific bad person accused Salieri of killing Mozart. And it is not so obvious in whose interests this was. However, when asked what Salieri did, nine out of ten people will confidently say - he killed Mozart. But history was never convinced of this.

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

Therefore, for those who want to “reconsider” the whole history, change world chronology- in a word, to shake the foundations, there is only one way left: to announce the existence of a global world conspiracy, which was so comprehensive that it managed to falsify thousands of documents in dozens of countries. The Catholic Church is often invited to play this role - they say that it invented an extra thousand years of history and wrote it into the chronicles throughout Europe (as well as 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 missing. To the notorious Fomenko In order to obtain his amazing evidence of the correlation of the reigns of various monarchs, he had to greatly cheat with the original data - remove some rulers, add some, change the reign somewhere. With such manipulations, anything will correlate with anything you want. For those who believed the academician, it was simply difficult to imagine such a primitive deception - when the data in the “cited” textbooks was in fact grossly distorted. He did the same tricks to obtain “evidence” related to astronomy; Unfortunately for fans of the new chronology, it does not correspond to astronomical data, unlike traditional, where no contradictions have yet been identified.

Conspiracy theories are poorly suited to works of fiction, mainly because they are so damn unconvincing. I can imagine how Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo, I can even imagine Napoleon being served by a demon... but imagining how the "behind the scenes" forge documents around the world and delete all the genuine ones is beyond my strength. In short, we will not consider conspiracy theories in this article.

Over the dead butterfly

One of the main problems facing alternativeists is what to do with a butterfly? The same Bradbury butterfly. To put it simply: how much of the story we know will remain after we make a change to it? Will she become completely unrecognizable?

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

It is logical to assume that then everything can change - both the map of the world and mentalities, and in five hundred years from now none of the people who actually lived will be there. There will be other countries with other people...

It’s logical, logical, but I really don’t want to assume this, because why do we need a completely alien world? Alternative artist's signature move: show everyone famous people- say, Napoleon, Peter I, Cardinal Richelieu or Spartacus - in new circumstances. Show famous events that are still recognizable but have changed slightly. This is reminiscent of the old principle of horror authors: the brightest and scariest monster is the one 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 alternativeists prefer a kind of fatalism: the story is completely different, but the people are the same, sometimes even too the same. This may be unrealistic, but from an artistic point of view... And representatives of one more direction are most committed to this idea: historical fantasy.

Historical fantasy is an attempt to add magic to our past. This 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 a 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, all true - and then began to fade away until it completely disappeared.

But even those alternativeists who avoid fantasy elements still usually try to preserve 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 " historical inevitability“, but, as it seems to me, everything is much simpler: it’s not more correct, but more beautiful. After all, most masters of alternative history are not researchers, but writers.

Chronicle of a wrong yesterday

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

We will mainly talk, of course, about alternative history, but we will also mention a few striking examples of other forks. Therefore, in the future we will mark forks of different types as follows:

- alternative history.

— cryptohistory.

- historical fantasy.

Another antiquity

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

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 name from memory? Usually the most insignificant of them comes to mind - Tutankhamun, famous only for the fact that they forgot to plunder his tomb, Cheops thanks to the pyramid, and occasionally Ramesses. Do not offer Cleopatra and Nefertiti, they are not pharaohs. And even these three are remembered mainly by their names. So what's the point in telling what would have happened if Thutmose III had lost the Battle of Megiddo, since most of us have no idea that such a battle took place?

Approximately XII-XIII century BC. Victory of the Trojans over the Greeks

We all know how the Trojan War ended: the Greeks won, but few of the winners were able to return to peaceful 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 victors? Or... rather on the losers?

This idea came to mind almost two thousand years ago to the philosopher Dion Chrysostom; he wandered through the places where Troy once was, and made speeches about the deceiver Homer and how everything “really” was. For example, allies constantly approach the Trojans, but not the Greeks; Have you ever seen those armies whose affairs are going badly become allies? And the fiction that it was not Achilles who was slain in Achilles’ armor, but Patroclus - can this be true? 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 returned from Greece, he also told his subjects about the victorious campaign...

Dion hardly said this seriously; Apparently, this is a typical example of cryptohistory. If the Trojans actually defeated the Greeks; they could have written about this exactly as they actually wrote. True, it is not entirely clear what then led Troy to decline?

480 BC Xerxes conquers Greece

In the Battle of Salamis, successfully taking advantage of their numerical superiority, the Persian fleet crushes the Greeks; After this, the Persians become masters of the Aegean Sea, and the Greeks have no time left to assemble an alliance. Xerxes conquers all of Greece, as he had previously conquered the Greek cities of Asia Minor; and subsequently his heirs take on Italy, which is still weak and fragmented.

The consequences are extensive: “European” civilization is created on the basis of the culture of Persia, into which the Greek one merges. Until the 10th century AD. (they usually didn’t look further) most Europeans, except 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 oust the Persians from their native lands, but Europe and northern Africa remain Persian. This picture is drawn to us by several authors who differ in details, but agree on the main points.

323 BC Alexander the Great does not die of fever

Early death Alexandra, as a clear example of a “fatal accident,” has inspired the search for an alternative since ancient times.

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

Titus Livius 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 commanders, in his opinion, cannot be compared with the Persians or even the Macedonians.

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

And then it will come to Rome; but not right away, first he will take Sicily, Carthage, and Spain into his hands. An indestructible spirit will not help the Romans much, because in Italy there is a war of everyone with everyone - and Alexander turns out to be... a peacemaker. And peace, as the Romans knew very well, is what is brought 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 Alexander’s governors in Italy, like the Phoenicians in Arabia. With Roman soldiers in the army, India can be conquered for real, and not like the last campaign. And then there is China...

The resulting empire from ocean to ocean turned out to be surprisingly stable and lasted for many centuries. True, the system in it has changed: one of the tsar’s descendants abandoned despotism in favor of an enlightened monarchy with elements of democracy. Why? And who knows!

Finally, I will quote Toynbee himself:

He [Alexander] began to grow old quickly, and when in 287, at the age of sixty-nine, he died in a state of complete insanity, many said that for Alexander’s glory it would have been more beneficial for him to die in the prime of his life - then, in Babylon.

To us, citizens of the state founded by Alexander the Great, this opinion seems absurd. Indeed, in that case, our current beautiful world, which is now ruled by Alexander XXXVI, would not exist! No, we were very lucky - both then, in Babylon in 323, and after, when Alexander’s triumvirate of ministers took into their own hands all the actual work of governing the empire.

Around 200 BC Rome captured by Carthage

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

Most often, Rome is captured by Hannibal, less often this happens already in the Third Punic; for example, Paul Anderson in one of the stories in the “Time Patrol” series, the death of the commander Scipio is the cause of the fork. A very dubious idea...

Interestingly, 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, while in others, both they and the Carthaginians fell under the onslaught of barbarians. So, for example, Anderson’s world becomes Celtic...

72nd year BC The 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’s wrong? After all, the troops of Metellus and Pompey won anyway, albeit slowly. But not everything is so simple! The fact is that in Italy at this time there was the uprising of Spartacus; he triumphantly 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 longtime 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 be 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 despicable slave, but a Roman citizen illegally sold as a gladiator. Then they could have found many allies in the City itself.

True, after this the victors would have to deal with many more troubles: the shortage of bread due to the activity of pirates, the machinations 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 to the top... the same Caesar, and everything returns to normal.

5th century Rome copes with barbarian invasion

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

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

However, this is strange. Because by the time of the fall of Rome it was largely barbarian - and the barbarians retained many of the imperial “rules of the game.” Theodoric behaved like a "normal" Roman emperor; and everyone believed that Rome continued to exist, the ruler had simply changed. And only half a century later, Justinian decided to look for a reason to conquer Italy - and declared: they say, Rome has fallen, it no longer exists! But 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 where the world learned about King Arthur, is essentially also a kind of cryptohistory. It is unlikely that Geoffrey had any serious information on this matter, but he needed to compose a venerable pedigree for reigning monarch. And so that famous This did not contradict historical information.

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

622 Muhammad converts to Christianity

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

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

In our history, the followers of Muhammad conquered Persia, took away a considerable part of Byzantium’s possessions... here they often add “and brought 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 there appeared Arab Caliphate- one of the largest powers in world history.

732 Defeat of Charles Martell at Poitiers

Swiftly capturing northern Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic, Arabs invaded Europe; The Iberian Peninsula, the future Spain, fell and the Arabs poured over the mountains into what is today France. It seemed that a few more months or years - and the crescent moon would soar over Paris and Rome, as it soared over Alexandria and Toledo.

In our history, the Arabs were stopped by Charles Martel, 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. The capital of Christianity would probably be Constantinople - there were still many centuries left before the “decline” of Byzantium, and it most likely would have survived. And even after the Arabs were pushed back beyond the Pyrenees (which would probably have happened a hundred or even two hundred years later), Rome did not return to its former importance.

864 Vikings conquer England

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

Harry Harrison even draws from this a conclusion about the extreme progressiveness of such a state (for example, he believes that religious tolerance and interest in knowledge will be natural for this country).

982 Eric Red discovers America

The Viking leader Erik the Red, an Icelander, equips an expedition to the west; During this voyage, he discovers not only Greenland (as in the story we know), but also the eastern coast of America - Labrador. Where he founded a colony.

This first from numerous stories on the topic of how America was discovered not in 1492, but some other time. However, it can rightfully be classified as cryptohistorical, because, strictly speaking, we cannot say with any confidence that this could not have happened! The colony could easily disappear, perish, get lost - and, if some archaeologists were suddenly unlucky, we would never have found confirmation of its existence. There is no direct evidence that Eric sailed further than Greenland... but legends on this topic cannot be unconditionally rejected.

988 Conversion of Rus' to Islam

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

“Then they wanted to become Muslims so that they would be allowed to raid, and have a holy war, and return to what 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 envoys from representatives of different faiths - Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, Jews. The Arabs confirm this legend (and even go a little further, as you just saw). What if he really chose Islam?

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

XII century. Coming of the Raven King

A human child raised by elves, taking the name of the Raven King, takes over the north of England - and introduces magic. This is how alternate 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, a cunning adviser proposed to Richard the Lionheart to punish the Saracens with divine punishment - for this it was only necessary to collect together several relics from the times of Creation.

This action led to a rupture in the fabric of the universe and the arrival of magic into the world. Some people, having become related to supernatural beings, became half-humans - “demonids” and “sylvans”. Richard and Saladin made peace to repel the invasion, but somehow the magic remained. The next crusade was 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 Aztec necromancers, Cervantes, who is haunted by the ghost of Don Quixote...

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

1199 Richard the Lionheart recovers from a crossbow wound

God alone knows why so many writers consider Richard’s time to be the most suitable case for the appearance of magic in our world. However Randal Garrett suggests that if Richard had not died from his wound, he would have had time 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 British conquests in France, and then to subjugate all of France; As a result, this empire became the sole ruler of both Americas, and its main enemy turned out to be... Poland, which captured a fair chunk of the Russian principalities, the Baltic states and Austria.

It is extremely doubtful that even a very wise king would have been able to preserve the “Angevin Empire”, uniting the French and the British; but if this had succeeded, then, it is possible, their combined strength would have been enough to deprive Spain and other Western European nations of all influence. What made Poland rise is not very clear; Apparently, Garrett is hiding some piece of this alternative from us.

1240 Union of Sartak and Alexander Nevsky

According to numerous scriptures Holm Van Zaychik, 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. As Carlson said, “a typical case of bun fever.”

1280 Mongols and Chinese discover America

Kublai Khan, Khan of the Mongols, was very interested in distant lands. His invasion of Japan was destroyed by a typhoon (oddly enough, alternatives about this I didn’t come across any during the invasion), but he did not lose interest in sailing.

Let's be honest, learn to swim through Pacific Ocean It was much more difficult for the Mongols than for the Europeans - through the Atlantic, if only because the Quiet is 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 have been waiting on the distant shore, not an easy prey!

What's interesting, hero Paul Anderson(in whose story this alternative is described), a descendant of 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 extermination against 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 in America archaeologists have found samples of things surprisingly reminiscent of Japanese and Chinese. But it’s unlikely that the sailors were able to report this to their homeland: the North Pacific Current is great at helping to sail to America, but it won’t bring you back, quite the opposite. By the way, Paul Anderson’s expedition also eventually managed to reach America - but not return back.

1488 Bartolomeu Dias anchors off the Indian coast

Bartolomeu Dias is one of the most unlucky people in history: he stood literally on the threshold of a great discovery, successfully passed the Gulf of Storms (now known as Guinea), rounded the cape Good Hope and could have reached India relatively calmly - if the crew had not rebelled. As a result, his compatriot Vasco da Gama achieved success ten years later.

What if Dias had succeeded? It would seem that ten years is so important? And the importance is very great, because in this case no one would even think of spending money on Columbus’s expedition! He, as you remember, was looking for a way to India - so why cross the ocean if the way has already been found?

Further destinies worlds 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 of ​​​​swimming the Atlantic would soon be raised again - especially since seven years later Vasco da Gama opens a more “natural” route to India, bypassing Africa.

What will be next? America will probably 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 chronotravelers. Without this help - hardly; and by the end of the 16th 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, Brazil was discovered by Captain Pedro Cabral only in 1500; he was going to sail along the route of da Gama, but he was simply carried away by storms too far to the west. So even a hundred years of reserve is far from a fact.

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

Another new time

1529 Ibrahim Pasha captures Vienna

The Turkish army in the fall of 1529 was damn close to taking Vienna by storm. The Turks broke into Europe and advanced rapidly. Three years earlier, Hungary had been defeated; the new leader of the Hungarians, Janos Zapolyai, became an ally of the Sultan; Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, was bogged down in a war with the French and could not help his brother, to the Austrian Archduke.

However, this was where the Turks' luck ended. Some of the heavy cannons sank in the river floods along the road, and there was nothing to break down 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 crippled 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 had fallen?

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

Robert Silverberg believes that there would be enough of them for the whole of Europe, but this is perhaps too much. According to his version, Spain could have been under attack just a few years after Vienna - which means that Cortez simply would not have had time to conquer Mexico, and Pizarro would not have conquered the Incas. Silverberg considers the Turk to be bad navigators (their beloved galley fleet 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 came precisely during the decline of Turkey.

1588 The invincible Armada lands troops in England

Despite the valor of Sir Francis Drake and the British fleet, the Spanish Armada might very well have succeeded. The British were helped by both the storm and the mistakes of the Spanish sailors. And if it had not been possible to stop it, then the superiority of the Spanish ground army would almost certainly have ensured the capture of London and the establishment of Catholic Spanish rule in England.

What would happen next? Harry Turtledove in the remarkable, although 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 not the best fate: the British fleet no longer exists (and it will not appear tomorrow), the country is deeply in debt, many thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed... Not Spain - so France may well be imposed on her paw.

Keith Roberts sees the prospects even bleaker. For him, England will remain part of the Spanish empire. The result is that the scientific and technological revolution is delayed for many years under the harsh rule of the Inquisition; Only by the middle of the twentieth century did Europe, at the very least, master 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 had 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, people generally recovered from malaria. 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 alternativeists 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 maintained an army in better condition, would have achieved greater European influence for the country - but who knows what else.

But if he could win something for England in the colonies - big question. In any case, many authors believe that after this, unified North American states would not have formed (simply because this entire territory would not have been English proficiency, but with many “shreds”), 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 Cromwell’s beneficial rule, England would no longer miss out on the American colonies. It's a dark matter...

1666 Newton becomes bishop

Officials, military men and other influential persons did not take Newton's discoveries seriously, and the promising scientist chose a spiritual career. According to Randal Garrett, this could have slowed down the scientific and technological revolution 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 “lone genius in the desert.” Many of his discoveries have co-authors... and not in the sense of “people who developed the ideas of a 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 was not dependent on the British administration), in physics by Hooke, and the theory of gravity would sooner or later be pushed forward by the developments of Kepler.

1681 Newton's revolutionary discoveries in alchemy

In "The Age of Unreason" Gregory Keyes we can read about another version of Newton's career: instead of scientific methods took up the development of alchemy, and then magic. And I 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 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 gain access to the sea, but now I have no use for 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 Newton's method won, but alchemy lost on all counts.

1682 or 1686. Early death of Peter I

If many authors extended Cromwell’s life, then both ours and foreign alternativeists repeatedly killed Peter. After which there was no one to open the window to Europe, there was nothing to oppose Charles XII, and Sweden strengthened its position in Europe, and Russia lost it. Several authors described the beginning of the 19th century in such a changed world: in their opinion, after this Bonaparte could capture all of Europe and strangle England.

However, some petrobicides believe that Russia would not have suffered so much from this: after all, Alexei Mikhailovich, Peter’s father, already tried to hire foreigners, build a warship, transform some things according to Western models (remember Nikon’s reforms) ... But The path to power for Russia, in their view, would be longer and more thorny.

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

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

How exactly this happened - there are several different opinions. Some authors put intelligence and foresight into the unwise head of George III of England, so that he managed to keep the colonists from revolting. A little more freedom for Americans, the right to representation in parliament - and the Sons of Liberty organization did not meet; taxes were set with the interests of the colonies in mind, and the Boston Tea Party did not happen.

Others prefer to strangle the US in war. Either the young republic was not supported by the French and the Spaniards, and it 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); either the British managed to persuade the Indians, who were initially really inclined more in favor of England than the colonists; either Washington and Lafayette made several major mistakes, but their opponents did not... However, even in this case, England, realizing that it was on the verge of a colossal failure, came to its senses and tried to destroy causes uprising (otherwise it will still happen, but a little later).

And so 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 England, not devastated by the loss of its colonies, at hand - will the Republic hold on? Even if he holds out, Napoleon will no longer be able to conquer Western Europe. England's position turns out to be incredibly strong; Is there anything in the world that can oppose it?

However, all the developers of this topic I know agree that at least Part Britain will lose colonies in any case. 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 would support the Cossack; that's why some alternativeists make Emelyan hereby Peter III (there is also a crypto-historical story, where Pugachev is the real king, but loses the uprising, as in the history known to us).

What's next? Certainly not reforms in favor of the people, as was commonly believed in Soviet times. On the contrary, it is a much tougher and reactionary government than under Catherine. And why would we expect anything different if Pugachev himself recruited rebels, promising to restore the former way of life that Catherine destroyed?

Beginning of the 19th century. Unknown victories of Napoleon

I’m not afraid to say: in terms of popularity among alternativeists, Napoleon Bonaparte and his wars have no equal. Even World War II had to be content with a silver medal.

It happens that Bonaparte's career is forcibly ended prematurely - for example, when he flees Egypt, he is intercepted by Nelson's fleet. Well, it could be so... But more often they let him fight 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 in a bold raid on St. Petersburg and thereby ensures a “half-victory” (to be fair, few people offered Napoleon a complete victory over Russia in 1812 - it’s hard to think of what he could have done better then). Or he simply wins at Trafalgar, after which he invades Britain.

And then you can afford a break - if there is no England blocking the French from the sea, then there is no one of main reasons for subsequent wars. You can truly make peace with Russia and try to chew what you have already 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 power; Russia is strong in defense, but is unlikely to be able to crush Bonaparte beyond its own borders. Next - expect that the empire will collapse 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; There have been at least fifteen tactical games on this topic alone! Well, this is the most probable of all the things we talked about: Napoleon was close to success. Most often, the “fork in the road” is the actions of Marshal Grusha, who in reality missed the Prussian army and did not arrive on time at the battlefield; what if I hadn’t missed it?

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

Was described ( Mikhail Pervukhin) even such an exotic scenario: Bonaparte flees St. Helena and founds 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 really knows - but isn’t it true? This is supported by the testimony 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 sometimes comes very close to history...

1825-1826. Victory of the Decembrist uprising

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

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

And if he had instead arrested the emperor, what would he have to do? full opportunity? Or if, after Ryleev’s categorical “I will not take responsibility,” one of the officers on the square said: “But I will!”?

This last story disassembles Vyacheslav Pietsukh in the story "Rommath". Everything turns out pretty creepy for him: the Romanovs are slaughtered like sheep, the Decembrists behave much like they did in the Civil War, military dictatorship falls apart under peasant uprisings... To be honest, it didn't turn out too convincingly. Several other stories have been written in a similar vein.

Lev Vershinin allows 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, enter into an alliance with the Crimean Tatars and organize terror, primarily against each other.

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

Muravyov-Apostol takes Kyiv, and rumors about this lead to mass desertion of government troops and the strengthening of the rebels. Poland immediately rises up and declares its independence; Decembrist troops march on Moscow. The Tsar sends dispatches to the Caucasus to General Ermolov so that he would lead his soldiers to Kyiv, but he refuses “in view of the Persian danger,” but in fact because he prefers the Decembrists to Nicholas.

St. Petersburg is also restless, the guard is unreliable - and Nicholas flees by ship to Prussia, taking with him almost the entire imperial family. The widow of Alexander I, Elizabeth, remains; 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 in a lot of blood. But!

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

1840s. Creation of eternates

Famous detectives Boris Akunin“Azazel” and “Turkish Gambit” can also be classified as cryptohistory, since they provide a unique explanation for the events that happened, for example, Russia’s mistakes in the 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 eternates are not limited to this; they actively influence society and politics through the introduction of their agents. Thus, in the Russian-Turkish war, the pulling of the strings of the Esternat pupil Anvar Effendi is reflected, and Akunin gives hints about other achievements of Lady Esther’s pupils.

But we only know Turkish history in detail. How did it happen that Russia, with great difficulty, won the war against the 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. The North does not defeat the South in a war

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

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

Another twentieth century

1917-1924. The failure of the revolution in Russia

The alternativeists tried to both reject the Russian revolution (by winning the Russo-Japanese War and saving Stolypin, which, according to the plan, was supposed to make Russia much stronger) and outplay it. True, the replay was mainly through rude interference higher powers, and the moment was most often chosen when the Civil War was already generally lost by the Whites - when Wrangel defended Crimea. So, for example, he writes Vasily Zvyagintsev.

He proposed a kind of “geographical alternative” Vasily Aksenov— for him, Crimea is not a peninsula, but an island and therefore becomes a separate Russian state, modeled on Taiwan.

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

The stories about national reconciliation and stopping the Civil War, as they say, halfway, stand out. For example, in "Captain Philibert" Andrey Valentinov the idea of ​​reconciliation against German intervention is presented.

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

Interestingly, there are practically no alternatives to the First World War. Although she could probably “replay” the entire 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 authors of this game were not interested in the fate of Russia.

1929 Collapse of the United States as a result of the Great Depression

After the First World War, the “regionalist” movement grew in the United States, ties between states weakened; 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 separated, declares itself a religious Mormon state. Separatism also infects Canada: Quebec falls away from it, and the coastal territories of the East are united with several states of the former USA into the “Maritime Provinces”. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin - in ISHA (Industrial States of America).

All North America engulfed in the fires of small wars - to the envy of the South. The Caribbean is becoming a filibuster again. The aviation of the newly formed states is fighting for supremacy in the skies.

In Europe, things are little better. Germany is on the verge of collapse, nationalists have raised their heads in France. In the USSR from new strength The Civil War flares up. And only the Japanese are silently doing their job - quietly privatizing China and creeping up on Australia.

This is, for example, the universe Crimson Skies. The game based on it also exists on PC.

1939-1947. Another world

But most of all in the 20th century, of course, there were attempts to replay the Second World War. In fact, we've 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 maintain historical truth, but not all.

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

Where did the fork occur? Most often - in the battle for Moscow, where Hitler was indeed very close to success, sometimes - at Stalingrad. Occasionally, everything happens much earlier: during Operation Sea Lion, Great Britain is captured, and with minimal aviation losses, which significantly facilitates the Barbarossa plan. So, for example, the game Turning Point: Fall of Liberty proposes as a fork the death of Churchill in 1931, after which Great Britain 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 paints 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 on its own - much the same as the USSR in our reality.

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

Sometimes after the victory of the Germans or before the end of the war between Germany and the USSR, a nuclear massacre begins. Otto Hahn or another German physicist creates a bomb for Hitler - and... In the version Kira Bulycheva the bomb appears from the Soviets and falls on Warsaw, where Hitler is at the time; however, due to careless handling of radiation, Stalin dies, and on the whole this world is perhaps more prosperous than ours (unless you look at it from the point of view of Poland).

The Americans might not have gotten the bomb, and very easily. Roosevelt signed the Manhattan Project on Saturday, which is quite unusual; If, as usual, he 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 to the war between the USSR and the USA?

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

1962 Start of nuclear war

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a moment when the world hung by a thread. A little more rigidity - and perhaps it would have worked nuclear weapon. 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 outskirts of Moscow as well... Soviet troops they are fighting in Europe with everyone at once and in the Urals with China. Gradually, the Northern Hemisphere is becoming more and more unsuitable for life, an active redistribution of Africa is underway... This is what the consequences of the unreasonableness of world leaders look like in the game “ Caribbean crisis».

What if the war turned out not to be nuclear, but the USSR managed to invade America? According to the game developers Freedom Fighters, The United States was not ready for war and was forced to resist at the underground level.

But this could hardly come true; both sides were too afraid of nuclear consequences. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev would have been allowed to go too far by their entourage. The project of “giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the atomic bomb” is not as crazy as it might seem.

There are many more “distant” alternatives for a post-nuclear world. We all remember shelters Fallout and many of his imitators; There are other stories, for example, ones where psionics has actively developed in the world ( Sterling Lanier, “The Journey of Hiero”) or under the pressure of radiation, they 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 took a slightly different path.

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 Soviet plan was this: to launch an offensive in Western Europe with the forces of the allies (the socialist countries of Eastern Europe), and when NATO transferred troops there, to attack the United States with troops. From a military point of view, it's pretty crazy... as Niels Bohr said, the whole question is, is it crazy enough to work?

I still think not. Gorbachev did not have the 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.

The most popular alternative heroes

Canadian alternative history specialist William Smiley made calculations about which historical figures are most often used in creating historical forks. Unfortunately, he did not go into detail about 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 often in connection with the same situation. This is logical, because otherwise, say, Wellinton, Marshal Grushi and even the Prussian commander Blucher would have been ahead of almost everyone on this list - having entered the ranking in tow from Napoleon. Smiley also noted that he excluded Jesus Christ and Muhammad from the list and “will not make any comments about what places they would occupy on this list.”

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

Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France.

Adolf Gitler, dictator of Germany.

Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia.

Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America. Here Smiley's choice is questionable 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.

Kublai, Khan 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, he’s not that popular—apparently, they couldn’t figure out what happened to him “next.”

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England.

Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist.

Richard the Lionheart, King of England.

Eric the Red, Viking leader.

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

Hannibal Barca, Carthaginian commander.

Spartacus, leader of the rebel gladiators.

Ibrahim Pasha, commander of the Ottoman Empire.

Justinian, Emperor of Byzantium.

There is also a separate list of the most popular alternative heroes who were not statesmen or commanders. It, of course, overlaps with the first, but not completely. Here's what his top ten looks like: Christopher Columbus, William Shakespeare (he was supplanted from the first ranking by Elizabeth), Isaac Newton, Otto Hahn (in alternatives creates the 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 strategies, as well as related games. For example, in " Civilizations», « Victory Day», Europa Universalis, Total War , « Pirates», « Colonization», Age of Empires,Centurion we are literally creating an alternative history. And if in the early versions of these games the story was not very believable, then, for example, Europa Universalis III or Victoria They 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 scope of the game; for which we rightfully assign her the title best alternative history strategy. Here we are free to create any forks and explore the resulting plot - and then, if we have enough creative strength, describe the result. And it is very likely that it will turn out to be more plausible than many of those described above.

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

And the games that I mentioned in “The Chronicle of a Wrong Yesterday” are those where the fork already happened and we are seeing its consequences. It is very likely that in five years this direction will become even more popular: the conflicts of the twentieth century have exhausted most of their potential, and World in Conflict is one of the first signs 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 immutable truth, sometimes cause a lot of doubts among those who are accustomed 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 arose - alternative history. Reading various articles about the origin of mankind, the development and formation of states, one can understand how school course stories are far from reality. Facts not supported elementary logic and argumentation, are laid in young heads as the only true path of historical development. At the same time, many of them do not withstand elementary analysis even by those who are not luminaries in this field, 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 the “official version” of events. So why are historians silent, why do they distort the facts? There could be many reasons for this:

• It’s much more pleasant to present your origins 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 into the context of real history - it will certainly be accepted “as if it were their own,” stroking their subconscious self-esteem.
• The role of the victim is advantageous only in case of a successful ending, because, as we know, all the “laurels” go to the winner. If you failed 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, flaunting such facts in the chronicle of historical events is at least unreasonable.

The reasons for lies and cover-ups in history can be listed endlessly, but they all originate in one single statement: if it is written exactly like this, then it is profitable. Moreover, in this context, 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, alternative history becomes more complete and meaningful. Thanks to the works of people who are not indifferent to their origins, there are fewer and fewer “dark spots” in the chronicles of our country, and the world as a whole, and the chronology of events takes on a logical and consistent form. This is why reading about alternative history is not only educational, but also pleasant - clearly verified facts make the narrative logical and reasonable, and accepting one’s roots allows one to better understand the deep essence of historical events.

Alternative history of humanity: a view 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 only one acceptable context - it is just a fairy tale. Every artifact obtained during excavations, every ancient find, causes healthy skepticism regarding official version stories, since they clearly contradict the voiced version. And if you consider that most of them are simply kept classified as “Secret”, the origin of humanity looks vague and doubtful. A common opinion on this issue has not yet been formed, but one thing is known for certain: man appeared much earlier than history attributes to him.

• traces of humans from the era of dinosaurs discovered in Nevada, which are more than 50 million years old;
• a fossilized finger, which, according to research, has been preserved for about 130 million years;
• a metal vase with a handwritten design that is about half a billion years old.

These facts prove the truth alternative versions history is not limited to - the number of traces of human presence in the ancient world is steadily growing, however, not all of them are known to a wide circle 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 because there was no evidence for this. Now, when the emerging facts convince us otherwise, they simply do not want to “lose face” by rewriting the history of mankind.

If, in the course of evolution and technological progress, people became more and more developed, then how were the famous Egyptian pyramids built? Indeed, even now, having a huge arsenal of equipment and building materials, such a structure causes delight and awe, since 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 incompetent and technically illiterate ancestors, according to academic history, build such a thing?

Turning to ancient Indian treatises, you can find references to flying chariots - prototypes of modern aircraft. They are also mentioned in the works 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 works based on a rich imagination, while the descriptions of the machines themselves, suspiciously reminiscent of modern ones, were considered mere speculation.

Not only ancient Indian works confirm the dubiousness of the academic theory of human development - the Slavic chronicles contain no less evidence. 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 suggestion of an alternative history of the Earth about the settlement of the planet from space considered practically insane? A completely logical and reasonable version that has a right to exist.

The question of human origin is considered one of the most controversial, since rare facts force one to make only guesses and assumptions. The academic version suggests that humanity came out of Africa, but this version hardly stands up to the basic “strength test” of modern facts and discoveries. New alternative history items seem more convincing, since even recent articles from 2017 consider several options at once as a possible course of events. One of the confirmations of the multiplicity of theories is 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 ancient populations through the prism of chromosomal similarities, is Anatoly Klyosov. His works provoke a lot of indignant criticism, since the theories presented by the scientist openly contradict the official version of events about the African origin of the entire human race. The critical questions 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) came from the African people through constant migration to neighboring continents. The main evidence for 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 (DNA genealogy) he founded 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 makes it possible to formulate a new calendar of ancient human migrations, which differs greater accuracy And scientific basis, rather than the official one.

According to the data obtained through a long and scrupulous analysis of historical, anthropological and chromosomal studies, the development “from an African source” is not complete, since the alternative history of the Slavs at that time followed a parallel course. The Proto-Slavic origin of the Aryan race is confirmed by the fact that the chromosomal halogroup R1a1 left 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 actively promoted not only in Russia, but throughout the world: the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, founded by him, is an international online organization. In addition to online publications, Klyosov published many books and periodicals. His collection of articles on alternative history, based on a DNA genealogical base, is constantly updated with new works, which each time lift the veil of secrecy over the ancient civilization.

Tatar-Mongol yoke: alternative history

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

Indeed, there is no mention of the Tatar-Mongols in any Russian chronicle, and the term itself evokes healthy skepticism: where could such a people come from? From Mongolia? But, according to historical documents, the ancient Mongols were called “Oirats”. There is no such nationality and there never was until it was introduced artificially in 1823!

The alternative history of Russia in those days is clearly reflected in the work of Alexei Kungurov. His book " Kievan Rus did not exist or what historians are hiding" has caused thousands of contradictions in scientific circles, but the arguments seem quite convincing even to those 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 the archaeologists, scratching their heads and grunting, will show a pair of half-rotten sabers and several women's earrings. But don’t try to figure out why the remains of sabers are “Mongol-Tatar” and not Cossack, for example. Nobody can explain this to you for sure. IN best case scenario you will hear a story that a saber was dug up at the place where, according to an ancient and very reliable chronicle, there was a battle with the Mongols. Where is that chronicle? God knows, it hasn’t reached our days” (c).

Although the topic is thoroughly revealed in the works of Gumilyov, Kalyuzhny and Fomenko, who are undoubtedly experts in their field, alternative history reveals the Tatar-Mongol yoke in such a cogent, 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 sound rationale:

1. There is not a single “material evidence” left of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Even from the dinosaurs there were at least some traces left, but from the whole yoke - zero. No written sources (of course, you should not take into account the subsequently fabricated papers), no 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 left from the Transbaikal nomads.
3. Even if Kievan Rus wanted to eradicate from memory the difficult times of the dominance of the Mongol-Tatars, at least some trace would remain in the folklore of the nomads. But even there – nothing!
4. What was the point of the capture? They reached the territory of Rus', captured... and that’s all? Was the conquest of the world limited to this? And the economic consequences for present-day Mongolia were never discovered: 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 has not found a single thread leading to Mongol-Tatar roots.

These facts testify in favor of an alternative history of ancient Rus', in which there is not the slightest mention of the Tatar-Mongols as such. But why, over the course of several centuries, were people instilled with the idea of ​​Batu’s brutal attack? After all, something happened during these years that historians are trying to disguise with external interventions. In addition, by the time of the pseudo-liberation from the Mongol-Tatars, the territory of Rus' was really in great decline, and the number of the local population had decreased tenfold. So what happened during these years?

The alternative history of Russia offers many versions, but forced baptism seems the most convincing. According to ancient maps, the main part of the 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 instilling a religious principle and tried to preserve their inner harmony. However, Kievan Rus - one of the provinces of Great Tartary - 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 easily broken, so he ordered to kill most of the adult population and put a religious principle into innocent children’s heads. And when the troops of Tartaria came to their senses and decided to stop the brutal bloodshed in Kievan Rus, it was already too late - the province at that time was a pitiful sight. Of course, there was still a battle on the Kalka River, but the opponents were not the fictional Mongol corps, but their own army.

Looking at the alternative history of the war, it becomes clear why it was so “sluggish”: Russian troops, who forcibly converted to Christianity, perceived the Vedic army of Tartaria not as an attack, but rather as liberation from an 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 published in textbooks? After all, this discredits the modern idea of ​​the “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 rewrite it.

Alternative history of Rus' from ancient times: where did Tartary go?

TO end of the XVIII century, Great Tartary was erased not only from the face of the Earth, but also from political map peace. This was done so carefully that no mention of it can be found in any history textbook, or in any chronicle or official document. Why is it necessary to hide such an obvious fact of our history, which was revealed relatively recently, only thanks to the works of Academician Fomenko, who worked on the New Chronology? But William Guthrie, back in the 18th century, described in detail Tartaria, its provinces and history, but this work remained unnoticed by official science. Everything is banal and simple: the alternative history of Russia does not look as sacrificial and impressive as the academic one.

The conquest of Great Tartary began in the 15th century, when Muscovy was the first to attack the surrounding territories. The army of Tartary, which did not expect an attack, which at that time concentrated all its forces on protecting the external borders, did not have time to get its bearings, 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 advantageous lands from Tartary. So, for 2 and a half centuries, only a faint shadow remained of the Great State, the final blow to which was the World War, called in the course of history “Pugachev’s Rebellion” in 1773-1775. After this, the name of the once great power began to gradually change to the Russian Empire, but some regions - Independent and Chinese Tartary - still managed to preserve their history for some more time.

Thus, the long war, which eventually exterminated all the indigenous Tartarians, began precisely at the instigation of the Muscovites, who subsequently took an active part in it. This means that the territory modern Russia was brutally conquered at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and our ancestors are precisely the attacking party. Will textbooks write such things? After all, if history is based on cruelty and bloodshed, then it is not as “wonderful” as they try to portray.

As a result, historians adhering to the academic version simply took certain facts out of context, swapped the characters in places and presented everything “with the sauce” of a sad saga about the devastation after the Tatar-Mongol yoke. From this perspective, there could be no talk of any attack on Tartary. And what an alternative history of Tartaria, there was nothing. The maps have been corrected, the facts have been distorted, which means that you can forget about the rivers of blood. This approach made it possible to instill in many ordinary people, not accustomed to thinking and analyzing, the 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.

Alternative history of St. Petersburg, or What does the chronicle of the Northern capital hide?

St. Petersburg is almost the main site of historical events in the country, and the architecture of the city makes you hold your breath with delight and awe. But is everything as transparent and consistent as official history shows?

An alternative history of St. Petersburg is based on the theory that the city at the mouth of the Neva was built back in the 9th century BC, only it was called Nevograd. When Radabor built a port here, the settlement was renamed Vodin. A difficult fate fell on local residents: the city was often flooded, and enemies tried to seize the port area, causing destruction and bloodshed. In 862, after the death of Prince Vadim, who came to power Prince of Novgorod destroyed the city almost to the ground, destroying the entire indigenous population. Having recovered from this blow, almost three centuries later the Vodino residents faced another attack - a Swedish one. True, after 30 years the Russian army was able to regain its 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 rebellious Vodino residents, Alexander Nevsky decided to eradicate his native name and began to call the city on the Neva Gorodnyaya. And after another 2 years, the Swedes again attacked the territory and named it in their own manner - Landskron. Swedish dominance did not last long - in 1301 the city returned to Russia and gradually began to flourish and recover.

This idyll lasted a little more than two and a half centuries - in 1570, Gorodnya was captured by the Moskhs, calling it Kongrad. However, the Swedes did not give up their desire to acquire the port territory of the Neva, so in 1611 they were able to recapture the city, which now became Kantz. After that, it was renamed one more time, calling it Nyenschanz, until Peter I recaptured it from the Swedes during Northern War. And only after this the official version of history begins the chronicle of St. Petersburg.

According to academic history, it was Peter the Great who built the city from scratch, creating St. Petersburg as 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 under his control. It is enough to look at the numerous monuments erected supposedly in honor of the ruler to doubt their origins, because on each of them Peter I is depicted completely differently, and not always appropriately.

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

Review of alternative history - answers to pressing questions

Reading thoughtfully school textbook According to history, it is impossible not to “stumble” over contradictions and imposed clichés. In addition, emerging facts force us to either constantly adjust the approved chronology to them, or to hide historical events from people. But A. Sklyarov was right when he argued: “If the facts contradict the theory, you need to throw out the theory, not the facts.” So why do historians act differently?

What to believe, which version to adhere to, everyone decides for themselves. Of course, it is much easier and more pleasant to close your eyes to the obvious, proudly calling yourself a luminary in the field of historical sciences. Moreover, new alternative history products are met with great distrust, calling them quackery and creative fiction. But each of these supposed fictions is based on much more logic and facts than academic science. But admitting this means abandoning 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 deceiving ourselves? All you need to do is think for yourself.

5 167

Alternative history is a rather dangerous phenomenon when viewed over large time periods. We all remember the example of the creation of an alternative historical myth about the “ancient Ukrainians,” which significantly contributed to the launch of the anti-Russian propaganda machine. He 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, if it overflows its banks, alternative history can cause damage to the “national economy.” The main harm of a thoughtless alternative history is the destruction of all historical ideas in general. History is a semantic logical construct that lives in people's heads. If it collapses, a void is created, which is very quickly filled with all sorts of speculation, false statements and propaganda myths.

The second danger is the spontaneous growth of national narcissism in the audience that has 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 in the past belonged to the whole world (we are no longer talking about Eurasia and the Americas - our goal is Africa and Australia) , Armenian theorists, for example, are also not asleep. Here is a recent example: a text is being actively distributed on the Internet, the author of which claims that Armenians were the founders of Russian statehood. Well, at least they founded Kyiv and Moscow.

The capital of Rus' - Kyiv on the Dnieper was founded in 585 on Castle Hill in the form of a fortress by the Grand 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 - built new fortresses on the neighboring hills: Kuar (Kiy), Meltey (Shchekovitsa) and Corean (Korevan). Four fortresses: Smbatas, Kuar, Meltei, Korevan were later united under the name Kyiv. The Armenian dynasty of the Kyiv princes lasted 300 years (585-882).

Moscow was founded by the Armenian prince Gevorg (George) Bagratuni-Erkaynabazuk (“Dolgoruky” in Armenian), aka Yuri Dolgoruky, who is also mentioned in Russian chronicles by the name 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 Rus', it turns out, was also carried out under the strict leadership of the Armenians.

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

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

In 1552, Russian troops under the command of Ivan the Terrible besieged Kazan, on the Russian side two Armenian regiments fought, mainly Crimean Armenians under the command of princes Pakhlavuni (Pakhlevanov) and Agamalyan (Agamalov), and on the Tatar side, gunners were 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 responded in rage by slaughtering them, burning their houses in Kazan, and killing all their household members, young and old. The Armenian commanders held a council, a feeling of bitterness and retaliatory rage gripped the Armenians:
- Let's go to our death! Don't take anyone prisoner!
The Armenian regiments dismounted in the dark and in the morning stormed the main gate. More than 5,000 fighters with drawn sabers suddenly climbed 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 topic 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 Homeland 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 predicted to become king Armenia with its 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 historical truth, and what not. Maybe that's how it really was. It's about something else. Alternative historical discourses different countries develop in parallel, not consistent with each other, and often lead to ideological clashes between their adherents. And the distance from ideological clashes to real ones is not that great, as the tragic events in Ukraine showed 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, you don’t have to blindly take his word for it. He may be completely right or completely wrong. Historical knowledge must be developed gradually, through repeated cross-checks, research, and comparisons. All other things being equal, it is better to only assume, and not state as truth.

History is a science largely built on guesses and interpretations. Absolute accuracy 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.