32. 如果呢？

你好。

Hello.

这是1964年4月，在柏林，阿道夫·希特勒正准备庆祝他的70岁生日。

It's April 1964, and in Berlin, Adolf Hitler is preparing to celebrate his 70 birthday.

小说家罗伯特·哈里斯在他的畅销反事实小说《祖国》中如此写道，这部小说设想了一个令人恐惧的可能：纳粹赢得了第二次世界大战。

So writes the novelist Robert Harris in his hugely popular counterfactual novel, fatherland, which imagines the frightening thought that the Nazis have won the second world war.

欢迎收听《余下的历史》，我是多米尼克·桑布鲁克和汤姆·霍兰德。

Welcome to the rest is history with me, Dominic Sambrook and Tom Holland.

今天，我们要讨论的是历史对话中最伟大的主题之一——反事实，也就是历史中的那些‘如果’：纳粹赢得二战、罗马帝国从未衰亡、英格兰从未经历宗教改革，可能性无穷无尽。

And today, we're talking one of the about one of the great subjects of all historical conversations, counterfactuals, the great what ifs of history, the Nazis winning World War two, the Roman Empire never falling, England never experiencing the Reformation, the possibilities are endless.

但这种思考方式真的是有效的历史研究方法，还是仅仅像酒吧里的闲谈游戏？

But is this really a valid form of historical inquiry, or is it just sort of pub game playing?

汤姆·霍兰德，你怎么看？

Tom Holland, what do you think?

我认为两者都是。

I think it's both.

如果这还不是模棱两可的回答的话。

If that's not a weasel reply.

我的意思是，一个模棱两可的回答。

I mean, a weasel reply.

这确实有点模棱两可。

It is a slightly weasel.

但我的意思是，比如，如果西班牙在1588年入侵英国，或者英国在不列颠战役中失败了，诸如此类的情况。

But I I mean, I think the, you know, what would have happened if the Spanish had invaded in eighty fifteen eighty eight or Britain had lost the Battle of Britain or whatever.

我觉得这很快就会演变成酒吧里的闲谈游戏。

I I think it very rapidly spirals into pub pub games.

但我确实认为，从另一个角度来看，撰写历史的整个过程几乎就是关于‘如果’的问题，因为你必须写得好像我们已经知道结果一样，但那些亲身经历这些事件的人并不知道。

But I do think that, seen from another perspective, the almost the whole process of writing history is a matter of of what ifs because you have to write history as though we know what's going to happen, but the people who are living through the events that you're writing about don't.

因此，你需要代入一种心态，认为各种可能性都存在，你不这么认为吗？

And so you need to inhabit a mindset in which all kinds of possibilities are open, wouldn't you say?

我认为

I think

在叙事历史中，不确定性往往是叙事成功的关键要素。

in narrative history, an element of uncertainty is often key to the success of your narrative.

但我认为文化和社会方面也是如此，你不这么认为吗？

But I think cultural and social as well, don't you think?

我的意思是，在文化、社会、经济上，事情都可能走向不同的方向。

I mean, culturally, socially, economically, things could go in different ways.

但这是个大问题，不是吗？

But this is the big question, isn't it?

他们本可以做到吗？

Could they have done?

我的意思是，想想看

I mean, think

如果你在撰写

if you're writing

分析时，你总会问：他们为什么没有选择选项B或C？

analysis, you're always going to ask, why didn't they choose option B or C?

会发生什么？

What would have happened?

他们本该如何避免这场危机，尤其是当你在评估一位首相、国王、总统或其他领导人的表现时？

How could they have averted this crisis, especially if you're assessing the performance of, let's say, a prime minister or a king or a president or something?

所以，当我撰写关于玛格丽特·撒切尔及其经济政策的内容时，始终萦绕在空气中的问题是：好吧，为什么她选择了这个而不是那个？

So for example, when I write about Margaret Thatcher and her economic policies, hanging all the time in the air is the question, well, Okay, why did she choose that rather than that?

会发生什么？

What would have happened?

他们当时认为会发生什么？

What did they think would happen?

所以我认为，你写了一系列吧，不是吗？

And so I think Well, got series, didn't you?

你为《新政治家》杂志撰写了一系列关于英国近期政治中各种“如果”的文章。

You wrote a series of essays for The New Statesman on kind of what ifs in recent British politics.

是的，那些都是关于英国的“如果”故事。

Yes, they were sort of British what ifs.

我想一共有40篇。

There were 40 of them, I think, in all.

而且它们都很短。

And they were quite short.

每篇大约四五百字。

They're about 400, four fifty words.

如果盎格鲁-撒克逊人赢得了阿斯顿战役，英格兰会怎样？

What England had what if the Anglo Saxons won the battle of A stings?

要是西班牙无敌舰队成功了呢？

Know, what if the Spanish Armada had succeeded?

要是福克兰战争的结果相反呢？

What if the Falklands War, had gone the other way?

但它们其实带着调侃的意味。

But they were quite tongue in cheek.

而且，实际上，我并不认为它们是被要求以调侃的方式写的，但事实上，

And I and, actually, I don't think they were commissioned to be tongue in cheek, but, actually,

很早就决定不这么做。

pretty early on not to.

我觉得提出这个问题既无意义又不可能不这么做。

I find it imposs I find it pointless and impossible not to.

所以，提出这样一个问题：如果盎格鲁-撒克逊人赢得了黑斯廷斯战役呢？

So to ask the question, what if the Anglo Saxons had won the the battle of Hastings?

在400字的篇幅里，实际上不可能严肃地回答这个问题。

In in 400 words, it's impossible to answer that actually in a in a in a serious way.

那你写了……

So did you write

用英语写，完全不用任何法语或拉丁语词汇吗？

it in English without any French any French or Latinate words at all?

或者基本上，什么是

Or Basically, what

我最终的做法是，历史学家、剑桥大学前雷吉斯教授理查德·埃文斯在他的著作《 altered Paths》中分析了我的这些文章，这本书是关于反事实的。

I ended up doing, the historian, the great historian, the former Regis professor at Cambridge, Richard Evans, he analyzed my own pieces in his book Altered Paths, which is about counterfactuals.

他注意到一件我之前根本没想到的事，那就是巴兹尔最终写的是平行历史，而不是‘如果怎样会怎样’。

And he spotted something that hadn't really occurred to me, which is the basil ends up writing parallel histories rather than what ifs.

也就是说，历史中的所有事件都如实际发生的一样，但基本上只是改了名字。

So history in which everything happened as it did happen, but, basically, the names were changed.

因此，克伦威尔家族继续统治英国，但在十九世纪初出现了一位名叫乔治·克伦威尔的统治者，他生活放荡、酗酒成性。

So the Cromwells remained the dynasty ruling Britain, but there was kind of George Cromwell in the early nineteenth century who was very dissolute and drank a lot.

是的。

Yeah.

然后在二十世纪初有一位H.H.克伦威尔，他对应的是阿斯奎斯，接着是玛格丽特·克伦威尔。

And then there was HH Cromwell who was Asquith in the nineteen tens and then Margaret Cromwell.

你知道，因为一想到要凭空编造故事，我就觉得这简直疯狂，纯粹是幻想小说。

You know, because to to to make start making stuff up just struck me as as bonkers, actually, as just sort of pure fantasy fiction.

我认为这正是问题所在——我是说，埃文斯在他的《改变的道路》一书中将反事实历史分为几类，他说，有些是愿望的满足，有些是反乌托邦式的幻想，还有一些纯粹是疯狂、自我放纵的虚构作品，对吧？

And I think that's the issue with can I mean, the Evans in his book Altered Pasts divides counterfactuals into he says, you know, there are some of them are wish fulfillment, some of them are kind of dystopian fantasies, or some of them are just completely sort of mad fictional, you know, self indulgence?

我的意思是，你怎么看？

I mean, what do you think?

好吧。

Well, okay.

所以，我认为在经典的假设性问题中，很多都围绕着战役或战争，因为这些是关键的时刻，一方或另一方将会获胜。

So so I I so I think on on the classic, you know, the the the the classic what ifs, I think that a lot of them revolve around battles or wars because those are kind of testing moments where one side or other is gonna win.

如果另一方赢了，你就可以推测接下来会发生什么。

And if the other side wins, then you could posit what would happen.

而且我猜，在你的领域里，选举也是另一个例子。

And I suppose also in in, you know, your field, elections is another one.

如果发生某些事情导致撒切尔夫人在1979年落选，或者其他类似的情况，会怎么样呢？

What happens if something happens to cause, I don't know, missus Thatcher to lose in 1979 or whatever?

然后，但战役战役

Then But battles battles

比选举更具偶然性。

are more contingent than elections.

战役更具偶然性。

They're Battles are more contingent.

所以我觉得有趣的是，第一个假设性问题出现在历史学的开山之作中，也就是希罗多德的作品。

And so so I think it's interesting that the very first what if appears in the very first work of history, which is Herodotus.

他写的是波斯战争。

And he's writing about the Persian Wars.

好的。

Okay.

波斯国王试图入侵并征服希腊。

The tempt of the Persian king to to to he invades and tempt to conquer Greece.

这是一个持久存在的假设性问题。

And that is one of the kind of enduring what ifs.

那么，如果雅典人在马拉松战役中失败了，会发生什么？

So, you know, what happens if if if the Athenians lose the battle of Marathon?

如果希腊人在萨拉米斯战役中失败了，又会怎样？

What happens if the Greeks lose the battle of Salamis?

希罗多德想表达的是，希腊人之所以能击败波斯人，主要归功于雅典人，而不是斯巴达人或其他希腊城邦。

And Herodotus is making a point about the fact that the reason the Greeks managed to defeat the Persians is principally down to the Athenians rather than to the Spartans or to any other Greek city.

他说，我知道这会是一个非常不受欢迎的观点，因为他是在雅典帝国主义的背景下写作的，而当时雅典非常不受欢迎。

And he says, I know that this is going to be very unpopular opinion because he's writing it against the backdrop of Athenian imperialism, where Athens is very unpopular.

但他表示，我还是要提出这个观点。

But he says, but I'm going to make this case anyway.

为了证明我的观点，想象一下，如果雅典人要么投靠了波斯人，要么收拾所有家当驶向西西里岛，建立一座新城——当时确实有人在讨论这个计划。

And to demonstrate my point, imagine if the Athenians had either gone over to the Persians or had packed up all their belongings and sailed away to Sicily to plant a new city, as some were talking about.

那会发生什么呢？

What would have happened then?

他说，那么发生的情况将是，波斯舰队将能自由进入伯罗奔尼撒半岛，也就是科林斯地峡下方的那片陆地。

And he says, well, what would then have happened is that that the Persian fleet would have had free access to the Peloponnese, so the chunk of fork that lies beneath the Ismith Of Corinth.

他们可以随意在伯罗奔尼撒半岛的任何地方登陆军队。

They would have been able to land troops wherever they wanted on the Peloponnese.

所有伯罗奔尼撒人都会投降。

All the Peloponnesians would have surrendered.

斯巴达人要么投降，要么会在英勇奋战后被彻底消灭，他们的壮举将流传千古，但最终他们还是会失败。

The Spartans would either have surrendered or they would have been wiped out doing incredible feats that would ring down the ages, but they would have have lost.

这就是为什么我认为雅典人基本上赢得了战争。

And that is why I think that the Athenians, you know, basically win the war.

没有雅典人，他们就不可能赢得战争。

Without the Athenians, they can't win the war.

我觉得这真的非常有趣。

And I think it's really, really interesting.

你知道，希罗多德在摸索着，历史实际上是他在创造的东西。

You know, Herodotus is kind of groping you know, history is something that that that he's essentially inventing.

我觉得这很有深意，因为这种观点在开篇就出现了。

And I think it's really telling that you do get that right in the very first

部分。

part.

再深入谈谈这一点，因为我觉得这实际上引发了一些关于‘如果当时’的有趣问题。

Pursue that for a second because I think that actually raises some interesting questions about what ifs.

让我们想象一下，希罗多德所描述的情景真的发生了。

Let us imagine that Herodotus' Herodotus' scenario, you know, happened.

希腊人失去了希腊，也就是说，在波斯战争中失败了，波斯人将希腊大陆或希腊诸岛普遍纳入了他们的帝国。

That Greece that the Greeks had lost, as it were, the Persian Wars, and that the Persians had incorporated Mainland Greece or the Greek islands generally into their empire.

那又怎样？

So what?

历史会怎样呢？希腊和波斯从来就不是完全独立的，你可以从这个角度来理解。

Would history you know, Greece and Persia were never you know, you can sort of take this on.

希腊和波斯无论怎样都始终交织在一起。

Greece and Persia were always enmeshed one way or another.

它们之间一直存在着大量的文化交流与互动。

There was always lots of cultural sort of crosscurrents between them.

我们所谓的希腊世界或近东世界，其发展轨迹可能也不会有太大不同。

The the the what we call the Greek world or the Near Eastern world would probably have evolved not massively differently.

亚历山大和他的征服行动本质上将希腊与波斯世界融合在了一起，而后来又因继业者战争而分裂。

Alexander and his conquests basically incorporated the Greek and Persian world, and they broke up with the Wars of the Successes anyway.

所以你实际上拥有一个文化大熔炉。

So you've got the kind of melting pot.

所以从长远来看，看似重大的那种‘如果’，在像我这样的决定论者看来，其实没那么重要。

So in the long run, what seems like a seismic what if arguably looks, to a determinist like me, looks rather less important.

你知道的吧？

You know?

所以我会这样回答这个问题：

So so I would I would answer that by saying that

我认为马拉松战役比萨拉米斯战役更具决定性，因为你完全可以想象波斯人占领希腊，雅典人和斯巴达人达成某种妥协，随后起义爆发，波斯人被赶走，希腊历史重新走上正轨。

I think the, the battle of Marathon is more decisive than, say, the battle of Salamis because you could imagine the Persians occupying Greece, the Athenians and the Spartans coming to some form of accommodation, rebellion rising up, the Persians being kicked out, Greek history resuming its course.

你可以想象这种情况会发生。

You could kind of imagine that happening.

我认为马拉松战役的目标是彻底摧毁这座城市，杀死所有男性，把妇女儿童掳为奴隶，运送到近东的深处——就像波斯人对爱琴海对岸的希腊城市米利都所做的那样。

I think that with Marathon, the aim was to wipe the city out, to to kill the men, to take the women and children into slavery, and transport them to to to the the depths of the Near East as it happened to Greek cities, Miletus, particularly on the other side of the Aegean.

如果真发生了这种情况，那肯定就不会有民主了。

So if that had happened, then certainly you'd have had no democracy.

当然，也许有人会说，希腊世界的其他地方最终仍可能发展出某种形式的民主制度。

I mean, could argue perhaps, again, some democratic form of government would have emerged elsewhere in the Greek world perhaps.

但我也认为，你不会拥有苏格拉底。

But also, I think you wouldn't have had Socrates.

你不会拥有柏拉图。

You wouldn't have Plato.

你不会拥有亚里士多德。

You wouldn't have had Aristotle.

我认为，如果没有柏拉图，他对后来基督教和伊斯兰教的影响是如此深远，以至于世界历史的进程会截然不同，因为像柏拉图这样的人物及其哲学，是一种偶然的存在。

And I think if you didn't have Plato I think Plato's influence on what becomes Christianity and Islam is so seismic that I think that the the course of world history would have been very different because I think that the existence of someone like Plato, his his philosophy is a kind of contingent fact.

当然，你可能会说，这不过是希腊文化土壤中自然孕育出来的产物，你知道，如果没有一个叫柏拉图的人，也会有另一个名字的人取代他。

Again, you could argue, well, it it's something that emerges from the seedbed of Greek culture perhaps, you know, if there wasn't someone called Plato, a Plato with another name would have emerged.

别。

Don't

知道。

know.

没错。

Exactly.

是的。

Yeah.

我不这么认为。

I I I I don't think so.

这就是那个观点：如果列宁和麦卡特尼没有相遇，其他英国乐队也会成为披头士。

That's the argument that says if Lenin and McCartney didn't meet, some other British band would have been the Beatles.

所以，我认为基督教和伊斯兰教的兴起是极其变革性的过程，深刻地塑造了世界。

So I do I do think that, the emergence of Christianity and Islam are vastly transformative processes that have shaped the world incalculably.

如果这些过程没有发生，我们今天所生活的世界将无法辨认。

And I do not think that the world that we live in now would be recognizable if they had not if that process had not happened.

而且你觉得

And And you think

这一切都取决于一两个个体吗？

that was contingent on one or two individuals?

我认为不是，我认为这一切取决于各种各样的因素。

I think it's no, I think it's contingent on all kinds of things.

但假如柏拉图从未出生，我认为欧洲的道德、文化、哲学，乃至宗教世界

But you could if Plato had never been born, I think that the the moral, cultural, philosophical, ultimately religious world of Europe

以及

and the

近东地区都会截然不同。

Near East would have been incalculably different.

我不知道。

I don't know.

我的意思是，假如耶稣被彼拉多释放了，

I mean, if if if Jesus had been let off by Pontius Pilate,

你可以想象事情会大不相同。

you could imagine things being very different.

有趣的是，当我们讨论假设和反事实时，几乎总是会回到一个问题，即历史中个体的作用。

Well, see, what's interesting about this is what ifs almost always when you start to discuss what ifs and counterfactuals, I think you always come back to the question about actually about individuals in history.

因为假设几乎总是基于某个特定个体或某个特定政权、一场战役等发生了变化。

Because WhatsApp's almost always premised on something changing for a particular individual or a particular regime, you know, a battle.

是的。

Yeah.

有人活着却本该死去，或者有人死去却本该活着，基本上就是这样。

Somebody lives who died or somebody dies who had lived, basically.

肯尼迪没有被暗杀。

Kennedy is not assassinated.

阿拉贡的凯瑟琳的第一个孩子活了下来。

Catherine of Aragon's first child lives.

你知道，这些就是你经常玩味的假设。

You know, these are the sort of the things you play with.

实际上，我认为当你深入探究这些假设时，往往会发现它们带来的改变远没有你想象的那么大。

And actually, I think when you start to dig into them, often you find out they're much less changes than you think.

所以，我经常举一个经典例子来故意惹恼我的听众：我说，如果玛格丽特·撒切尔在1978年被公交车撞死，英国今天会有什么不同吗？

So, I mean, the classic example that I always bring out when I'm sort of talk to annoy my audiences is I say, you know, if Margaret Thatcher had fallen under a bus in 1978, would Britain be at all different today?

你知道，她所代表的那些力量、她所体现的那些结构性变革，很可能无论如何都会发生。

You know, the the the forces that she incarnated, the the the structural changes that she came to embody would probably have happened one way or another anyway.

我认为这在历史上许多个体身上都是真实的，他们之所以被视为伟人，是因为他们体现了某种超越自我的东西——我们又回到我们的‘伟大’播客了。

And I think that's actually true of lots of individuals in history, that they become, as it were I mean, we're going back to our greatness podcast.

他们被视为伟大的行动者，是因为他们体现了比自身更宏大的东西。

They become they're they're seen as great actors because they incarnate something bigger than themselves.

而他们成为这种力量的化身，往往并非因为他们创造了它。

And and that's often the force that they become the the incarnation of, but it's not because they've generated it.

这可以说是一种布罗代尔式的视角，对吧？

I mean, it's a kind of Broydelian perspective, isn't it?

是的，没错。

There's Yeah.

就像海洋深处那永恒不变的部分，比如地理环境，一切皆如此。

The kind of the vast depths of the ocean that nothing changes, the kind of geography, everything.

你根本无法改变它。

There's nothing you can alter.

然后还有接近深层的潮汐，即经济与社会历史的浪潮。

And then there's the kind of the near deep the tides of economics and social history.

而在最上面，是那种泡沫。

And then on the top, there's the kind of the froth.

没错。

Exactly.

我会想到报纸的头版，以及头版下面的内容。

I think about the front page of the newspaper and then what's below.

头版内容很容易就会不同。

The front page could easily be different.

但下面才是社会的基石，我不认为——当然，有些情况下你会说，比如，如果斯大林没有领导苏联，如果希特勒没有在德国掌权。

But what's below the nuts and bolts of a society, I I don't think I mean, of course, there are some instances you say, you know, if Stalin hadn't been running the Soviet Union, if Hitler had not come to power in Germany.

但举个希特勒的例子吧。

But, you know, had take the Hitler example.

如果希特勒没有在德国掌权，会不会就没有第二次世界大战？

Had Hitler not come to power in Germany, is it plausible that there would not have been a second world war?

很可能还是会爆发另一场世界大战，不是吗？

There probably would have been another world war, wouldn't there?

德国会有一个专制的民族主义政权，渴望复仇。

There'd have been an authoritarian nationalist regime in Germany that would have wanted revenge.

当时还遗留着许多第一次世界大战结束后的各种问题。

There would have been there were all these problems left over from the, you know, end of the first world war.

实际上，最糟糕的情况发生在德国。

And and, actually, the worst happened to Germany.

你知道吗？

You know?

它陷入了纳粹的统治。

It fell into the regime with the Nazis.

数百万人丧生。

Millions of people died.

而如今，多年过去，德国再次成为欧洲的经济和文化强国。

And here we are all these years later, and Germany is Europe's economic and and cultural powerhouse once again.

无论如何，它是欧洲大陆的经济和文化中心。

So with Mainland Europe's economic and cultural powerhouse anyway.

因此，在这个意义上，纳粹的插曲只是德国漫长历史中的一个标点。

So in that in that sense, the the Nazi interlude was a punctuation point in Germany's long story.

而那种‘如果’——你知道的，虽然听起来可能很奇怪，但也许当第二次世界大战发生时，谁掌权其实并不那么重要。

And the the sort of what if, you know, maybe in the in the long weird as it might sound, maybe it doesn't really matter who was in charge when the Second World War happened.

是的。

Yeah.

是的，我接受这一点。

Yes, I accept that.

我认为，在历史被书写过的大部分时期里，人们普遍有一种观念，认为时间正朝着某个确定的终点前进。

And I think that, obviously, throughout the ages through which history has been written, for most of it, people have been governed by a sense that time is moving forwards to a kind of definite end.

因此，基督教的天命叙事是我认为最原始、最能启发其他叙事的模式，但马克思主义中也有类似的东西。

So the the Christian providential narrative is is the kind of primal one that I think inspires most of the rest, but you get it with Marxism as well.

我认为，你显然也能在‘进步’这个词本身中看到这一点。

And I think you definitely get it with kind of well, I mean, in the very word progressive.

如果事物是进步的，那就意味着你正不可避免地向前发展，道德宇宙的弧线虽长，但终将趋向正义。

If things are progressive, there's a sense that you're moving forwards inevitably, that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

我认为，这种观念在我们的假设中非常强烈，那就是它是不可避免的。

And I think that that is something that is very, very strong in our assumptions, that that that is inevitable.

我的意思是，这回到了历史终结论，我们曾讨论过九十年代的事，但历史确实有一个明确的终点。

I mean, it gets going back to the end of history, and we've talked about it the nineties, but history does have a definite end.

我认为，反事实的价值在于稍微打破这种观念。

I do think that the value of counterfactuals is in kind of slightly shaking that up.

我认为，在某种程度上，许多历史是一种被潜藏的神学。

And I do think that there is a sense in which a lot of history is a kind of sublimated theology.

它试图寻找可以追溯的模式，而其中隐含着一种必然终点的感觉。

It's an attempt to find patterns that you can trace through, and there is kind of buried in it a sense that there is a kind of inevitable endpoint.

我认为这并不完全正确。

I think that that's not entirely true.

因此，从某种意义上说，如果你没有这种模式化思维，如果没有能力追溯这些模式，那么本质上你就无法做历史研究，因为一切皆是偶然。

And so in a sense, if you don't have that patterning, if you don't have the sense that you can trace these patterns, then essentially you can't do history because it's all contingent.

一切都只是接连发生，一切都是混乱。

It's all just kind of one thing after another, and everything is chaos.

是的，你需要构建一个模式来赋予意义。

Yeah, you need to impose a pattern to impose meaning.

我的意思是，否则就只是随机事件的连续发生。

I mean, otherwise, just have a succession of random events.

我同意这一点。

I agree with that.

我认为有些人会区分不同类型的反事实。

I think there's people distinguish between different kinds of counterfactuals.

我认为杰弗里·帕克和菲利普·泰洛克写过一本书，我觉得他们是作者，书中讨论了某种非常有限、时间受限的反事实，比如你所说的战役，或者你的皇帝面临一个单一决策。

I think there's a book by Jeffrey Parker and Philip Tetlock, I think it's the authors, where they talk about so there's a very limited, time limited counterfactual where you say, for example, it's your kind of battle, or it's your emperor who's got a single decision to make.

他为什么选择A而不是B？

Why does he choose A rather than B?

如果他选择了B，会发生什么？

What happens if he did choose B?

然后还有那种不断蔓延的疯狂幻想。

And then there's the sort of spiraling out mad fantasy.

我认为，那完全是虚构的。

Now that, I think, is pure fiction.

你的意思是？

The you know?

但我觉得，你可以合理地聚焦于某个具体决策，说：在了解所有变量，或者尽可能多了解变量的情况下，我们能对丘吉尔如果选择这个而不是那个，希特勒如果做了X而不是Y，做出怎样的判断呢？你不觉得吗？

But I think you can reasonably zero in on a given decision and say, well, knowing all the variables or knowing as many of the variables as we can, you know, what can we say about if Churchill had chosen this rather than that, if if if Hitler had done x rather than y, don't you think?

有一个非常精彩的早期例子，对吧？是一位法国人，在滑铁卢之后不久写成的。

There's there's a a brilliant early one, isn't there, by a a French guy shortly after Waterloo who constructs a a brilliant Yes.

巫师。

Witch.

拿破仑赢了。

Napoleon wins.

他击败了俄国人。

He defeats the Russians.

他入侵了英国，征服了英国，最终成为世界皇帝。

He invades England, conquers England, ends up as kind of world emperor.

是的

Yeah.

他乘船从征服非洲或南美洲等地返回途中，经过圣赫勒拿岛，影子短暂地掠过它。

And he's he's, on a ship sailing back from the conquest of Africa or South America or whatever, and passes Saint Helena and the shadow briefly passes over it.

但那当然

But that of course

这完全是幻想，是愿望的投射。

is total fantasy, it's wish fulfillment.

这是愿望的投射。

It is wish fulfillment.

很多这类作品在80年代和90年代深受年轻英国保守派历史学家的欢迎。

A lot of them, so they were very, very popular in the 80s and 90s among young British conservative historians.

比如尼尔·弗格森、安德鲁·罗伯茨、约翰·查默利。

So the Neil Fergusons, the Andrew Roberts, John Charmley.

其中很多探讨的是欧洲与英国同欧洲的关系。

And a lot of them were about Europe and Britain's relationship with Europe.

他们想象英国避开了世界大战并保留了其帝国。

And they imagined Britain staying out of world wars and retaining its empire.

所以你可以看到，理查德·埃文斯明确地将他们视为保守派对帝国丧失和欧盟扩张的回应，人们沉迷于这些反事实叙事，部分是为了传递一种政治信息。

So you could see them actually I mean, Richard Evans sort of clearly sees them as a Tory response to the loss of empire and to the growth of the EU, that people indulge in these counterfactuals partly as a political message.

事情不必非得如此。

It doesn't have to be like this.

我们本可以成为一个帝国强国。

We could be an imperial power.

我们不必仅仅成为一个更大的比利时。

We don't have to be just a sort of greater Belgium.

但理查德·埃文斯也指出，这其实是一个更广泛的观点，不是吗？如果你持右翼立场，你更可能相信伟人能够塑造历史，而左翼则倾向于认为历史是由庞大的非人格化力量驱动的。

But Richard Evans is also I mean, it's kind of a broader point, isn't it, that if you you're likelier to believe in the ability of great men to shape history if you're on the right than if you're on the left and you believe that there are vast impersonal forces.

是的。

Yeah.

而这也正是，作为一名领先的左翼历史学家，我完全同意他的地方。

And that's where, you know, as a leading left wing historian, where I actually completely agree with him.

我认为，当你提出这类问题时，你不可避免地会回到那些决定历史为何如此发展的宏大进程。

I think that when you ask those sort of questions, you're inevitably brought back actually to the big processes that that meant that history worked out as it did.

他在书中举了一个例子，有人写了一篇论文，我认为是乔纳森·克拉克写的，探讨如果光荣革命从未发生，英国是否会保留美洲殖民地？

So he gives the example in his book of somebody who wrote an, an essay about I think Jonathan Clarke writes an essay about if the glorious revolution had never happened, would Britain have kept America?

他说，好吧，我同意，埃文斯认为这是正确的。

And he said, well, I'll be and Evans says, I think rightly.

问题是，这完全荒谬，因为光荣革命的发生是有原因的。

Well, the question is completely mad because the glorious revolution happened for a reason.

它不是因为偶然才发生的。

It didn't happen because of a fluke.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

这有点像我们经常对自己提出这类问题。

It's a bit like a side of saying, you know, we often ask the quite these questions of ourselves.

如果我出生在伊丽莎白时代的英格兰，我会是天主教徒还是新教徒？

If I had been born in Elizabethan England, would I have been a Catholic or a Protestant?

但这是一个无法回答的问题，因为那时的你会是另一个人。

But it's an unanswerable question because you'd be somebody else.

是的。

Yeah.

但还有那种

But also but also the kind

假设如果伊丽莎白一世去世，腓力二世征服了英格兰，或者詹姆斯二世击败了光荣革命，那么英格兰就会变成天主教国家。

of assumption that if Elizabeth the first dies and Philip II conquers England or James II defeats the glorious revolution, then England will become Catholic.

所以这并不是

And so there's not a

一个巨大的问题，把一个已经

huge issue turning an already

非常新教的国家转变为天主教国家。

very Protestant country Catholic.

但这就是为什么，回到耶稣和穆罕默德，我认为他们确实是道德典范，因为我确实认为，受难与复活的故事对于基督徒所构建的道德宇宙至关重要。

But that is why, just to go back to Jesus and Mohammed, I do think that they are ethical figures because I do I think that the the the story of the of the the crucifixion and the resurrection is fundamental to the way that the kind of the moral universe that Christians come to inhabit.

我认为这非常独特，并且彻底改变了太多东西。

And I think it's so distinctive and transforms so much.

同样地，对于穆罕默德这个人物，也有一种神秘的气息。

And I think likewise with the the figure of Muhammad, something mysterious around that.

这如此明显，你完全可以认为阿拉伯人注定会征服——我认为阿拉伯人终将征服。

It's it's so so you could absolutely say that the Arabs were going to conquer I think the Arabs conquer

我们本来就会征服，因为他们正在转向，我们就是征服者。

We're going to conquer anyway because they're turning on We're the conquer going

无论如何都会去征服。

to conquer anyway.

但其中有一种奇特的混合，我认为并非必然如此。

But there's some kind of peculiar admixture in there that I think is not inevitable.

伊斯兰教的出现没有任何必然性。

There's nothing inevitable about the emergence of what becomes Islam.

因此，我认为伟大的宗教——基督教和伊斯兰教，我真的相信，没有它们的世界将会截然不同。

And so I do think that the great religions, Christianity and Islam, I I really do think that that a world without them would be fundamentally different.

谁能想到汤姆会用谈论基督教和伊斯兰教来结束播客的上半部分呢？

Who could have possibly expected that Tom would bring the first half of the podcast to a close by talking about Christianity and Islam?

我们休息一下。

We'll take a break.

如果你还在听的话。

And and if you're still with yes.

如果你还和我们在一起，回来后我们将回答你们的问题。

Us If you're still with us, we'll go into your questions when we return.

欢迎回到《余下的历史》。

Welcome back to the rest is history.

周四，我们将采访记者兼作家乔纳森·威尔逊，探讨足球如何融入我们的社会与文化历史。

On Thursday, we'll be talking to the journalist and writer Jonathan Wilson on the way that football has become embedded in our social and cultural history.

也许如果我们把这期播客和周四的播客结合起来，就能论证英格兰赢得多次世界杯的可能性。

Perhaps if we combine this podcast with Thursday's podcast, we can make a case for England winning multiple World Cups.

如果弗兰克·兰帕德的那个进球被判有效了呢？

What if that Frank Lampard goal had been given?

如果马拉多纳的手球被取消了呢？

What if Maradona's handball had been disallowed?

我都可以就这个话题聊上几个小时。

I could be talking about this for hours.

嗯，也许这太难让人相信了。

Well, perhaps that's too difficult to believe.

汤姆·荷兰，我们来听一些问题吧。

Tom Holland, let's have some questions.

好的。

Yes.

第一个问题来自谢恩·雷根。

So we have, opening question from Shane Regan.

这是个很好的问题。

It's a great question.

为什么反事实历史往往偏向负面？

Why does counterfactual history tend to skew to the negative?

我们为什么如此热衷于悲观的替代历史小说？这说明了什么？

What does it say about us that pessimistic alternative history fiction, is so popular?

这很好，通常是反乌托邦的。

And that's great It's generally dystopian.

我的意思是，拿破仑的那个版本显然是一种幻想。

I mean, have the Napoleon one, is obviously a kind of fantasy.

总的来说，我想答案是我们喜欢被吓到，我想是这样。

By and large, I guess the answer to that is that we like to be scared, I suppose.

是的。

Yes.

某种程度上，这也是一种科幻小说的分支，不是吗？

And it's a kind of branch of science fiction in a way, isn't it?

有些是某种替代性的，他们管这叫什么来着？

Some some it's sort of alternative what do they call it?

替代历史。

Alternative history.

我认为，但同时也很有趣，因为从另一种角度看，它几乎是负面的：如果历史通常基于某些没有发生却实际发生了的事情呢？

And I think but also, I I think but it's interesting because the the it's it's almost negative in another way because what if history normally works on something not happening that did happen?

希特勒没有在二战中失败。

So Hitler doesn't lose the second world war.

肯尼迪没有被暗杀。

Kennedy isn't assassinated.

你知道，它并不是想象某个原本不存在的人出现了。

You know, it's not it doesn't imagine somebody existing who who who didn't otherwise exist.

它并没有在故事中添加什么新元素。

It doesn't add something to the story.

它是拿走了一些东西，不是吗？

It takes something away, doesn't it?

然后它创造了一个非常阴郁的反乌托邦情景。

And then what it does is it creates this very gloomy dystopian scenario.

我觉得因为我们喜欢这样，你知道的，因为以另一种方式来做会非常困难，不是吗？

I think because we love to be you know, we because it'd be very difficult to do it another way, wouldn't it?

你没法写一个乌托邦式的如果故事。

You couldn't write a utopian what if.

它实际上能让人振作起来，因为它提醒我们，我们并没有生活在纳粹暴政之下。

It actually serves to cheer you up because it reminds you of the fact that we're not living under an Nazi tyranny.

所以这还挺让人欣慰的。

So that's cheerful.

而如果你写一本全篇都美好的书，然后回到

Whereas if you write a whole book in which everything's brilliant and then you come back to

没错，就是这样。

Well, exactly.

历史中新冠病毒没有爆发的世界。

History in which COVID doesn't break out.

我的意思是，想到我们错过的这一切，可能会让人挺沮丧的。

I mean, would kinda be depressing to think of, you know, everything we've missed.

是的。

Yes.

没错。

That's right.

这是个非常好的观点。

That's a very good point.

而纳粹的架空历史，它们是胜利的产物，不是吗？

And, the Nazi what if histories, they're the fruits of victory, aren't they?

它们是你在逃脱了那种现实之后，允许自己享受的消遣。

They're the indulgences that you allow yourself if you've escaped that if you've escaped that reality.

这就是为什么我猜大多数这类作品都是由英国或美国的作者写的。

Which is why I guess that most of them are written by British or American Yeah.

作者。

Authors.

我的意思是，我猜是这样。

I mean, I would guess.

对。

Right.

因为这是德国作家写的，我的意思是，德国人了解。

Because it's a German writer writing I mean, the Germans know

或者法国人写的。

Or the what French.

是的。

Yeah.

这相当令人沮丧。

It's quite depressing.

是的，没错。

Yeah, exactly.

好的。

Okay.

马克·霍布斯，你最喜欢的架空历史小说和电影有哪些？

Mark Hobbs, what are your favorite alternative history novels and films?

那么，哪一个，如果有的话，提出了最合理的场景？

And which, if any, put forward the most plausible scenario?

嗯，这些正是个好问题。

Well, these are that that's a good question.

我想我们可能在之前关于历史小说的那期节目中讨论过这个。

So we've talked about this, I think, in historical fiction episode, maybe.

是的。

Yeah.

我们确实讨论过。

We do.

我喜欢金斯利·艾米斯的《变革》，讲的是一个天主教英格兰的故事。

So I like King James' book, The Alteration, about a sort of Catholic England.

我也想到电视上的一些作品。

I also think about on TV and so on.

我的意思是，我很喜欢《高堡奇人》里的那个世界。

I mean, I liked I liked the world of the man in the high castle.

看到它被搬上银幕，我觉得很有趣。

I I was entertained to see that realized on screen.

我认为伦·戴顿的《SSGB》很不错，虽然不如《父国》那么出名。

I think Len Dayton's SSGB is a is a pretty good one, not as well known as Fatherland.

那部剧被拍成电视剧了，是吗？

That was televised, wasn't it?

是的，拍过。

It was.

我没看过。

I didn't.

我只看了第一集，但我觉得原著其实更好。

I only saw the first episode of that, but I think it was better on the page, actually.

那你呢？

And what about you?

你一定读过那些关于罗马帝国依然存在的假设性书籍吧？

You must have did you ever read those books about what if the Roman empire still existed?

是的。

Yes.

我非常喜欢这类作品。

I'm I'm quite I'm quite quite a glutton for them.

但是

But

我觉得

I think

我对于这些作品的问题是，罗马帝国根本不可能维持下去。

the problem I the problem that I have with them is that the Roman empire was never gonna hold together.

是的。

Yeah.

这简直荒谬至极。

It's just eludicrous.

它根本不可能维持下去。

It was never gonna hold together.

我另一个对它们的不满是，罗马帝国几乎总是沿着现代西欧所走的技术进步道路继续发展。

And and the and the other problem I have with them is that almost invariably, Roman empire kind of continues along the the technological progress, this technological road that modern Western Europe does.

所以这是一个拥有汽车、飞机等的罗马帝国。

So it's a Roman empire with cars and planes and things.

但我认为这根本不是必然的。

And I don't think there's anything inevitable about that at all.

因为实际上，有一种有趣的技术假设路径。

Because actually, one of the interesting ways in there's a strand of technological what ifs.

所以所以

So So

我记得

I remember

阿诺德·汤因比曾探讨过，如果亚历山大港的工程师们发明了蒸汽机，会发生什么。

Arnold Toynbee looks at what would what would happen if Alexandrian engineers had developed the steam engine.

所以他们确实发现了蒸汽动力的原理，但只用它来在神庙里制造一些特殊效果。

So they they do develop the principle of steam power, but they use it for kind of special effects in in temples.