Op-ed: “The Whole Alternate History Thing” • by Bruce Bethke
The temptation when writing alternate history is to assume that your one
chosen detail of history has changed, but everything else—and every
one
else—has remained roughly the same. Yes, in your timeline Lincoln lost
the 1864 election and as a result the Union settled for a negotiated
peace with the Confederacy—but a decade later, you’ve still got General
Custer in command of the 7th Cavalry as it rides across the Dakotas,
towards its fateful appointment with the Sioux on the Little Bighorn.
Wait a minute. General Custer? General
George Armstrong Custer?
Who rose through the ranks so rapidly because he was the hero of the
Battle of Appomattox Court House? Which in our timeline took place on
the morning of April 9, 1865, which means that in your timeline, it
never happened?
You begin to see the problem?
History is Brownian motion expressed in human lives. We like to imagine
that we see grand sweeping vistas and irresistible forces working to
produce inevitable results, and those sorts of patterns are easy to
discern (or at least imagine we discern) in hindsight. But to the people
living in the moment, it's just a constantly swirling blizzard of tiny
changes, which only later can be thought to have had a pattern. Case in
point: as I was toying with the idea of an alternate timeline that might flow from one event, the tiny changes began to
snowball with astonishing rapidity. The U.S. never got into the
Spanish-American War—
Well, some claim this war was a historical inevitability. In the 1890s
the United States was feeling its oats, and the State and War
departments were full of younger men who’d missed the Civil War and were
eager to prove themselves. If not Spain, then somewhere else: perhaps
Mexico, or maybe China. We were a pugnacious young country then, and
history as told now conveniently elides the fact that in 1895 we even
went to the brink of a shooting war with England over the border dispute between
British Guiana and Venezuela. Luckily, trouble elsewhere in the British
Empire pulled our chestnuts out of the fire, by motivating the British
to accept a negotiated settlement so that they could turn their full
attention to more important matters, and by the end of the Second Boer
War the Brits had decided we might be more useful as allies than
adversaries.
But let’s stick with our initial assumption: that the U.S. never got involved in the Spanish-American War, and the jingoistic faction in our
government didn’t find another suitable war to take its place. What
kind of snowflakes are in motion and perturbed by this change?
How about these? In 1892, as part of a modernization program, the U.S.
Army replaced the post-Civil War single-shot Trapdoor Springfield rifle
with the Krag-Jorgenson, a beautifully made bolt-action rifle whose
.30-40 cartridge was perfectly suited to hunting whitetail deer.
Likewise, in the same year they retired the venerable .45 caliber 1873
Colt Single-Action Army (a.k.a., the SAA, or “Peacemaker” of cowboy
movie fame) and replaced it with the brand-spanking-new 1892 Colt
Double-Action Army, in the then-new caliber of .38 Long. Similarly, in
1895, the Navy and Marine Corps adopted the 6mm Lee, the rapid-firing
high-velocity wonder weapon of its days, along with the Colt “potato
digger” machine-gun in the same caliber and the M1892 Colt .38 revolver.
In the Spanish-American War, American casualties in combat were
relatively light: for every American killed in battle, ten more
succumbed to tropical diseases. This was largely due to the poor
training, morale, leadership, marksmanship, and equipment of the Spanish
soldiers, a fact which George Orwell would comment on at considerable
length forty years later in
Homage to Catalonia.
Once in a while, though, the Americans ran into Spanish soldiers who
were well-trained, -led, and -equipped, and then it was a different
story. The Battle of San Juan Hill, for example, would probably be
considered a classic military clusterf### of the
please-let’s-change-the-subject variety now, if not for the involvement
of a certain future President. In this battle, a force of 15,000
American troops assaulted a hill held by about 750 Spanish troops—no, I
did not drop a zero—who were adequately trained, led, dug-in, and armed
with the latest Mauser rifles.
The Mauser came as a nasty shock to the Americans. It was more accurate,
more powerful, and had longer range than the Krag. Worse, some of the
American troops were still armed with Trapdoor Springfields, and when
they fired their black-powder .45-70 cartridges they may as well have
been lighting smoke grenades and waving flags saying (in Spanish), “WE’RE HERE! SHOOT AT US!” The Americans took 1,400 killed or wounded
before they overran the Spanish positions, and probably wouldn’t have
taken the hill at all without excellent use of supporting fire from
their Gatling guns.
Nonetheless, take the hill they did, and in due time they won the war,
thus gaining control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
Whereupon a new problem arose: some Filipinos weren’t happy with the
notion of trading one colonial master for another, and the Philippines
promptly erupted in a bloody guerrilla war that lasted years.
If the .30-40 Krag-Jorgenson was a disappointment in Cuba, the .38 Colt
proved to be a disaster in the Philippines. As many Americans learned to
their profound but very short-lived dismay, you could shoot a charging
Moro tribesman six times in the chest with the Colt .38, but if you
weren’t lucky enough to hit his central nervous system, he could still
decapitate you with his
parang before he died or you finished reloading.
It was as a direct result of these two experiences, then, both related
to America’s involvement in the Spanish-American War—the inadequacy of
the Krag in Cuba and the failure of the Colt in the Philippines—and a
third experience, that of the discovered folly of equipping the Army and
Navy with completely incompatible rifles when soldiers and Marines
might end up fighting side-by-side—that the War Department launched two
crash development programs. The first was to find a rifle and cartridge
that equaled the Mauser and met the needs of both the Army and the
Marines, and the result was the legendary
M1903 Springfield, with
its entirely new .30-03 cartridge—which had some teething problems, and
was quickly superseded by the .30-06. The second was to find a pistol
and cartridge that would stop a charging Moro in his tracks, and the
result of that was the equally legendary
Colt 1911, and the all-new .45 ACP cartridge.
And to imagine a 20th Century without either .30-06 rifles or Colt .45 automatics...
Well, now you know why my alternate history prognostication process seized up shortly after 1900.
~brb
