• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Titanic Alternatives

Alexander Rooksmoor

Active member
Very interesting article, thanks for this. Having been writing various AH novels over the last couple of years, set between 1914-37, I have often had to find appropriate liners for the characters to travel on. Quickly you see how many were pressed into service in the world wars as troop ships. It seems inevitable that if the 'Titanic' had not sunk in 1912, it would have been used to move troops from Canada and then later the USA. Many of the liners used in this way were torpedoed or sunk by mines in one of the world wars, so a surviving 'Titanic' could, in a 'what if?' story have an equally tragic fate, but with an impact on one or other of the world wars. The 'Titanic' had a capacity of over 3,300, but liners used as troop ships often exceeded the peacetime capacity many times over, so an entire brigade could have been lost, perhaps more.
 

RyanF

Satanic powers, Tricycle
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
Location
Falkirk
Good article covering a few PODs both before and during the voyage, and then the impact both to ocean travel and culture/science.

Certainly a better look than that short story I read were hundreds of survivors remain lost at sea for years and form a Pacifist nomad society in response to finding out about the First World War from another castaway.
 
I've always been intrigued by the 'Titanic' disaster and it's one of the bits of early C20th history which I learnt when I was around six or seven . I grew up near Southampton , the port from which it set sail, and lived by the nearby New Forest coast within sight of the channel down which the ship sailed in April 1912; I saw the 'Titanic' 's local crew's memorial in a park in Southampton when I was small and asked what it was.

I've read a good deal on this , and it is one of the most exhaustively studied cases of a well-documented modern history incident where we know (or think we know) what happened minute by minute from different eye-witness sources but there are still a lot of disputes over even small pieces of info. Also over the interpretations and possible 'cover-ups'. Examples of the 'minor incident that could have radically effected the whole episode and cost thousands of lives' (and created a major media industry) :
1. the length of time it took the officer in command on the bridge at the crucial point of the evening (Murdoch, not the captain) to respond to the telephone call from the lookouts in the 'crows nest' nearer the bow of the ship who spotted the iceberg - could a quicker 'pick-up' have led to the order to the helmsman to turn the ship away from the berg being issued a crucial minute or two earlier and the ship missing the ice;
2. the failures to pass on all the ice warnings to the captain (resting in his annexe near the bridge not down in his cabin, and able to come onto the bridge quickly after the crash);

3. the ship speeding too much to break the record for crossing or at least get to New York impressively quickly - on the orders of the owner, Bruce Ismay, who was on board and was vilified for getting on a boat not going down with the ship?

4. Murdoch not wanting to annoy Captain Smith by bringing him up onto the bridge when the visibility on the horizon got hazy, as it did shortly before the accident - though Capt S had asked him earlier to call him if the visibility declined. And did Murdoch or anyone else either shoot 'panicking lower-class non-British/ US passengers' trying to force their way onto boats, or shoot himself as the ship went down? (The James Cameron film revived controversy over both thee issues by depicting them.)

5. as indicated, the 'Captain Lord didn't bother to go up on deck on the 'Californian' and see the emergency rocket signals' question , what he thought the signals meant, and whether he was complacent, scared of moving his ship at all at night with ice around him, whether he thought that the ship firing the rockets couldn't be in danger but was just trying to make contact as it had not responded to a series of flashes from the Californian's signalling-lamp which he had ordered to be sent (he thought it was nearer than it was in reality ie within sight of the lamp), and numerous other issues - covered by plenty of books since the 1950s.

6. other 'Californian' issues, such as whether a ship with masthead and other lights that Captain Lord and some of his officers saw shortly before the crash but which Captain L said was only a smallish 'tramp' steamer not a huge liner was the T or not; was it a smallish ship a few, ie 4-5, miles away (the 'mystery ship') or a large liner much further away (20 miles?) which was visible due to freak weather conditions but appeared smaller than it really was due to the distance . And where exactly was the Californian - only 4-5 miles from the T, ie able to get there before it sank if it had fired up its engines and set out shortly after the rockets began to appear, or if it was c. 20 miles away ie it couldn't have got to T in under a few hours - and at best would have arrived when it was taking its final plunge or else within an hour or so, with many temporary survivors in the water but fewer left alive every minute.

7. what the mystery 'lights not far away' seen by the Titanic crew as they were launching the first boats meant - and why the lights 'moved away' as the boats headed for them. Was this a mystery ship between the T and the Californian, which 'ran away' rather than helping, or just a mirage (a view of the distant Californian?) due to the freak weather conditions, which receded as the boats got closer?

These and many other disputed points - plus the issues of 'cover-ups' or the company that owned the T leaning on surviving employees to slant their evidence to the later enquiries - are a sample of the issue of how we can 'know' what happened even when we have a seeming 'lot of evidence' but there plenty of different interpretations plus hordes of conspiracy theories. A bit like the JFK assassination (where we even have film of it) and all the stories of the 'grassy knoll', what Oswald was up to and why he was shot, etc. And for the UK, the events of 31 August 1997 in the underpass in Paris and the 'Diana plot cover-up' industry.

But for the Alt Hist perspective, it's a great snapshot of the whole potential and a major point of the genre -if events at a Major Incident could have been a lot different if things had taken a different twist at one or several points in a timespan of an hour or two (or even a few minutes), it shows that any concept of 'inevitability' is flawed and ditto lots of books of academic theory - though the social or economic or cultural background to a historical situation will constrain how events will turn out. Exploring the potential effects of changes to Titanic's timeline - a few night-time hours in the North Atlantic - is a snapshot of the 'butterfly effect' in a nutshell, as it is seemingly so well documented.
 

Thande

Jabs First Brexit
Published by SLP
Probably the single most harrowing thing about the Titanic disaster, to my mind, is that one of the passengers was the author Jacques Futrelle, who had been responsible for mystery stories starring 'Professor Augustus SFX Van Dusen, the Thinking Machine'. Whereas some authors playing off the Sherlock Holmes idea had gone in different directions, Futrelle's creation consisted of basically taking Holmes and turning everything up till the knob fell off in terms of both mental ability and lack of social skills - Van Dusen is one of those characters who can beat a chess grandmaster after studying the game for half an hour, etc. Perhaps the best-remembered story involves Van Dusen taking a bet that he can't break out of a prison cell, and hatching an elaborate plot to do so. He always wins in the end.

It's the collision of that fantasy with the harsh reality that in real life there was no clever escape from the Titanic disaster, and Futrelle ended up giving up his own life to make space for his wife and child.
 

Geordie

Big Ol' Soviet Deltic
Published by SLP
Pronouns
he/him
The one Titanic conspiracy theory I can't get over is the "it wasn't actually Titanic, it was Olympic that sank".

The proponents of this madness never seem able to explain a) what the line had to gain by swapping the ships and disguising them, or b) why the chuff it matters.
 

David Flin

A house of larks and owls
I'm a bit disappointed that no reference was made to the two recently released books by Brad Rousse from SFP:

Why The Titanic Sank,

and The Time Traveller's Tour Guide to the RMS Titanic.

It's perhaps unfortunate that this article has some errors in it, such as consistently getting Second Officer Charles Lightoller's name wrong (spelling it Lightroller).

Inevitably, such a short article can only give a thumbnail synopsis of the event.
 

M_Kresal

I am nerd, hear me bore.
Published by SLP
Location
North Alabama
I'm a bit disappointed that no reference was made to the two recently released books by Brad Rousse from SFP:

Why The Titanic Sank,

and The Time Traveller's Tour Guide to the RMS Titanic.

It's perhaps unfortunate that this article has some errors in it, such as consistently getting Second Officer Charles Lightoller's name wrong (spelling it Lightroller).

Inevitably, such a short article can only give a thumbnail synopsis of the event.
I'm afraid that's down to the fact that I sent the article off in mid-March, having started work on it as far back as last December when the idea first hit me. I don't think they got posted about on here until last week. For what it's worth, it wasn't any deliberate snub on my part, just my past self not being aware of them at the time of writing.

I did want to say "thank you" for picking up on the Lightoller/Lightroller mis-spelling. I suspect that was a Grammarly correction in the draft stage I failed to spot. Though neither did some fellow Titanic buffs who read the draft of the article before I sent it to Gary, either! Gary's corrected it now, I'm pleased to say.
 
Last edited:

Ogrebear

New member
Titanic is a huge hotbed of What If's as so many alt branches are packed into one event, there are so, so many!

In no particular order the What Ifs I'd like to resolve the most:

1. Californian's radio operator Cyril Evans, like Stanley Adams on Mesaba adding the Prefix to their messages that meant the messages had to be taken to the Bridge. I think it likely Capt Smith would have ordered a massive slow down and extra look outs, plus a black out ahead of the Bridge therefore leading to more chance of missing a berg.

2. The Officers not knowing that the davits and boats could be filled and lowered to capacity. While in the early stages of the sinking this would have meany filling with anyone nearby since some where reluctant to get into boats. It certainly would have made a difference later on and upped the total number of survivors.

3. Olympic not impacting Hawke and Titanic sailing on her original schedule.

4. Californian's radio operator Cyril Evans not logging off and reporting the CQD immediately. Could Californian made a difference at all?

5. What impact on the Taft - Roosevelt split could Butt have had? Teddy as President again in 1912 has huge repercussions.

6. More boats going back for survivors plus Boxhall not waiting as long to go looking.

7. Capt Smith being clearer with Murdoch about the weather conditions, and Murdoch being less rigid about calling the Captain.

8. The Marconi equipment not breaking down down so Phillips and Bride where not so far behind.

9. The iceberg opening one less compartment. How much longer could Titanic float?

10. The Board of Trade regulations changing to ensure 'space for all' - Titanic may have carried more boats, but how much difference would have have made in the time to evacuate?
 
Also, if the 'Californian' was near enough to have got to the sinking in time to pick up people from the lifeboats while the Titanic was afloat or just after it had sunk at 1.40 am (it was impossible to manoevure right up to the liner's decks and transfer them directly, as the ship was at such an angle and full of panicking passengers and Captain Lord of the C was a very cautious man) and thus free them to row back and pick others up - either from the ship or from the water. This might well have saved a few score lives, or if early enough even more. The majority of current analyses put the C at around 20 miles away from Titanic, and the time it would take to get the boilers working after an order to 'get up steam and the need to go slowly to avoid pack-ice and icebergs means that in that case the C would not have got to the site until around 1.30 to 2 am at the earliest from that distance.

Another issue raised in books on the 'Californian' . Whether the officers of the 'Californian' being more familiar with the way that the radio worked would have meant that one officer who went to the radio-operator's cabin (where the latter was asleep) to turn on the radio after he came off duty, while the T was still sending out distress calls and after he'd seen rockets go up, , would have meant that he waited for the radio to warm up and become operational. In the event he assumed that it would become operational as soon as he turned it on, so he heard nothing then and assumed that there were no distress calls so no problem on the ship that was sending up the rockets. If he'd have waited, or woken the operator up to ask him, he'd presumably have heard the calls and would have had to report them to Capt Lord - and Lord would have had to do something. (Traditional larger radios , 'wirelesses', still needed to warm up to become operational well into the 1960s , and did not work for a few minutes , when a light came on - I remember my parents' old 1950s 'wireless' doing this when I was small. The smaller portable 'transistor' was new c. 1960.)
 
Top