Wait a minute. Isn't counterfactual history and alternative history the same thing? I always thought they were interchangeable.
Alternative history is generally labeled 'historical-fiction' and there is a broad understanding that alternative history is not scholarly in any way, and is meant, mostly, for fun reading. Counterfactual history is a pseudo-academic (in my opinion) field that legitimately, however legitimately so, attempts to actually answer those serious 'what if' questions and its impact on linear historical development. For instance, what if the Muslims and Africans teamed up after the fall of the Roman Empire in the west and invaded Europe and were not defeated at Tours in 732, would Europe have become dominated by the Arabs and subsequently the Islamic religion, and what impact would that had had on our history, understanding of sociology and class conflict, etc. The Major difference to most professionals would be that CFH is a more 'acceptable' academic discourse where alt. history doesn't pretend to be scholarly but fun fiction reading.
As for me, I don't see that distinction as I outlined in my prior posts discussing the subject since, history only gets one shot, so to ask these 'what if' questions is counterproductive to what we actually do, or should be doing, as historians (historiographers). Thus, I don't see CFH as any more scholarly than alt. history but that they are, in fact, one and same but with CFH attempting to present itself as something more scholarly (we can debate why things happened the way they did, but I have little patience with these whole 'what if' questions, well, it didn't happen like that -- just get over it and actually study what did happen and the results of that). But who am I, a lowly researcher working up the ladder to obtain a PhD and someone only with a B.A. in history know!
