I started reading this book with great expectations of an intellectual stroll through history. On the whole, the essays contained in this book were disappointing, although (as one should expect) there is an uneven quality of entries.

First off, the reader should be aware that the book does not, in general, provide "alternative history;" instead, it is a compilation of important moments in world history (with weight on US history). Perhaps it should have been called (as is another, regrettably unread, book on my shelf) "Turning Points in World History." Some of the essays are excellent - inspired and thought-provoking (e.g., the first essay by W McNeill on ancient Jerusalem). Others are silly - the first such, by Lapham on Teutoburg, induced me to do a web search to discover his credentials (he hadn't appeared to have given it much thought). Some were infuriating (why did I waste my time?): for example, McPherson's essay on the "Lost Orders" in the Antietam campaign (OK, here comes the rant). Sure, this was a random, low-probability event that had a major effect on the war, and could easily had turned out otherwise. But McPherson (a highly regarded historian) goes on to speculate that, absent the discovery of the orders, the 1862 campaign would have been similar to the 1863 MD-PA campaign, with the Confederates moving north as far as Harrisburg and the Susquehanna, then concentrating (from the north and west) at Gettysburg; while the Union army, shielding Washington, moved up from the southeast (OK...). But then he supposes that the armies somehow switch positions, with the Union army attacking the Confederates from the north and west at Gettysburg!?!

Well, I know it's just for fun, but I'd like to see the authors put a little bit more into it. As it is, I can recommend this book for its entertainment value, and occasional nice essay. But, most of the time, you could probably do better yourself.

Who hasn't wondered about a decision not taken or the string of uninterrupted causation that is required for any single person to exist? Think about your own life: the chain of events which resulted in your parents meeting; how you ended up in your current job; the college you attended; you never attended college; or how you met your current significant other. We are all shaped by historical choices, both ones made by ourselves, and those made on a scale that can alter history.

"What If?" gathers some of the world's foremost military historians to offer hypothetical counterfactuals, including: What If Alexander the Great had died in battle at the age of 21, before he had built an empire? What if the American Revolution had resulted in disaster? What if certain key battles in the American Civil War had changed? This is fun reading as it is always interesting to consider alternative paths not taken or paths unavailable by happenstance.

This book contains a number of excellent examples of counterfactual speculation, with only a few medicore essays. The authors examine how individual actions can have an impact as can the whims of weather.

This is an enjoyable book and, because of the broad area of military history, invites the potential for sequels. For example: One counterfactual I've always wondered about occurred in December of 1814 here in my home town of New Orleans. A prosperous son of Creole planters was awakened by the sound of British troops landing at the back of his plantation. Young Mr. Villere jumped out the window and headed for New Orleans, dodging a shot from a British sentry. Villere arrived in New Orleans and spread the alarm. Gen. Andrew Jackson gathered his forces and launched a surprise attack on the British. The British, unsure of the forces facing them, slowed their advance to give time to consolidate their forces. This gave Jackson time to throw up some defenses on the plains of Chalmette. Within 2 weeks the British had been defeated after suffering enourmous casualties attempting to storm Jackson's fortifications.

But what if the British sentry had not missed young Mr. Villere? Had the British continued their advance it is conceivable that these veterans of the Peninsular campaign could have won the Battle of New Orleans. Today people only remember that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after a peace treaty had been signed. But the treaty had not yet been ratified. Further, in the treaty the British recognized the status of borders prior to the war. But Britain had never recognized the Louisiana purchase, as the Spainish had violated a treaty with Britain when Spain secretly sold Louisiana to France. Britain could have attempted to keep New Orleans. This would have meant a widening of the war. It also begs the following question: Would there have been sufficient British troops to win at Waterloo?

As you can see counterfactual speculation leads to a never ending string of alternative possibilities. But it is enjoyble to speculate, as is "What If?"

What if George Washington had been captured on Long Island in 1776 and summarily executed by the British?? What if Robert E. Lee and his forces had achieved a decisive victory at Gettysburg in 1862? What if the Normandy Invasion (D Day) had failed in 1944? Your guess is as good as mine but the guesses of eminent historians are much better. Specifically, David McCullough, James M. McPherson, and Stephen E. Ambrose, respectively, who ask "What if?" in reference to these key situations in military history. Others speculate on, for example, "The Immolation of Hernan Cortes" (1521), "The Repulse of the British Fireships" (1588), "How Hitler Could Have Won" (1941), and "China Without Tears" (1946). Robert Crowley has done a masterful job of editing this anthology of essays. You may disagree with many of the answers to the repeatedly asked question "What if?" but I am certain you will be entertained as well as informed while reading this splendid book. My hunch is that the eminent historians had at least as much much fun formulating their speculations as readers now have when sharing them.