This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Adam: I think Alternate history needs to have an additional sub-trope. "For want of a nail" implies small, plausible change to the time line. "Alien Space Bats" implies an entirely unlikely change to a timeline. So the South managing to win the American civil war because of a few more key victories is an example of "for want of a nail", while the South winning because of AK-47s is an example of "Alien Space Bats" The term is widely used on alternate history discussion forums and the like.
Tulling: Note to Smapti regarding Red Alert: If the war was between the Soviets and the US, why is the supreme commander who briefs you between missions a German and his right hand a Greek? Why was there no explicit mention of the US participating from the beginning or intervening later? I consider it fairly clear that it was the locals who constituted the Allies in that scenario, or at least the bulk of them. Of course, there remains the question as to why the map was drawn with modern borders (ie Germany ends at the Oder-Neisse line) when it took place in a timeline where WW 2 had not occured and the reason for having the allied soldiers speak with american accents.
Nezumi: "The main Command And Conquer series, set Twenty Minutes Into The Future at the time of its release, may be considered honorary alternate history, though the Word Of God has indicated that it's what happens if the Soviet side wins in the Red Alert series."
a) I'm pretty sure that's a fan theory, not Word Of God.
b) Even if it is Word Of God, it can't be taken seriously, as it makes no sense. GDI formed from a subdivision of NATO. If the Soviets won, there'd be no NATO. Additionally, there's no reason for Kane to form NOD if the Soviets won—as an influential advisor, he'd be in the position to execute his plans regarding the future of humanity without resorting to a terrorist organization.
Nirual: This theory is largely based on the final cutscene in the Sovjet campaign, featuring Kane as the Man Behind the Man. Stalin dies from poisoned tea and Kane informs the player about waiting until the time arrives for Nod to strike. As in, Tiberium Dawn. The implication is that in the wake of the war, Nod would have an easy time taking over Europe (which they do, as shown in the GDI campaign. Look at the map at the start, most countries are red). As for the borders, noone said that Command and Conquer pays attention to historical detail, although I am amused to see that Switzerland is the only neutral country in the GDI campaign. I somehow doubt Nod would give a damn about that. However, it seems like that idea got largely retconned with Red Alert 2. No sign of Kane and Nod, and Yuri being the manipulator. Of course, the expansion introduced even more time traveling, so it's hard to tell what happens in which timelime. It's probably better not to think about it too much.
Nerem: Code Geass's alternate history actually goes back as far as the original British Islanders (Celtics and such) defeating the Romans. They later established a new calender. So Code Geass takes place a couple /hundred/ years in an alternate history future.
Noaqiyeum: The producers have established that Tiberian Dawn follows Red Alert under the assumption that one side wins (I forget which), and Red Alert 2 (and then Generals) follows if the other wins. Sorry, I don't remember a source for this.
Daibhid C: Pulled Recent episodes of Doctor Who could be said to be an Alternate Present Day to ours, due to all the alien "interference". I don't think anyone voted Saxon in the real world.....
Doctor Who isn't set in the real world, and never has been. You might as well say Buffy is set in an alternate history where there's vampires (and a town called Sunnydale).
Wascally Wabbit: On the Code Geass example: Wasn't the stuff about Caesar and the Celts in-universe progaganda. I don't have The Manual so all the background is second hand to me.
- Well (natter, but hey, there are two schools of thought here), that kinda depends on how one defines "really well". Is it doing well if your empire is bigger and stronger and lasts into the present day, but betrays all the things which make you yourself? And is ruling the world worth loosing your own native land? Interesting questions.
Natter is natter. `` You should be discussing this over here.
- Averted in Jared Diamonds 'Guns Germs and Steel'. Here he explicitly examines why Europe overran America and not vice versa and points out that the lack of animals suitable for domestication, the North South verses East West Axis of the continents (it makes sense when you read it) as well as a host of other factors, make the outcome inevitable and NOT subject to alteration by stepping on butterflies (supplying small pox vaccines or guns would be another matter). In a second example he shows that printing was in fact invented about 2000 years ago, but a lack of paper and a literate market make it impractical to develop, thus inventions come about because all the pieces are in place and are not dependent on any one individual (though short term differences of 20 years, while insignificant in world history, could allow for a moderately different present)
It's not the inevitable outcome, it's just... the outcome that happened in this world. He specifically says you can't say wether or not things would've been different.
- The broader historical Turn Based Strategy games, like the Total War or Europa Universalis series, often enable this trope. If there's no built-in obligation to follow historical outcomes, what-ifs like a Polish conquest of Europe or Scottish colonization of American can be posed.
Split this into specific examples, please.
