I am very confused about all this. Devoted readers to the blog can offer assistance?
Counterfactual history versus alternative history. And what is the difference?
"Counterfactual history, also sometimes referred to as virtual history, is a form of historiography that attempts to answer 'what if' questions known as counterfactuals . . . 'It is, at the very root, the idea of conjecturing on what did not happen, or what might have happened, in order to understand what did happen.'"
COUNTERFACTUAL NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH ALTERNATIVE HISTORY SO WE ARE TOLD!
1. "On Counterfactual History"
2. "What if the Crossing had Failed?"
Items # 1 and # 2 as seen above courtesy of Professor van Creveld.
My understanding of this topic basically as follows:
A. Alternative history an account of what COULD have happened, but never did!
B. Counterfactual history an account of what DID happen but might have occurred otherwise.
"What did not happen . . . what might have happened . . . what did happen."
Again, I am confused here and need input as to my error, correctness or just plain confusion.