Well, as per the scenario I have been developing with these past few questions, I was thinking of putting this scenario in the year 2500 CE.

For those of you whom have been living under a rock for the entire time, I will explain.

The Extraplanetary Wars were a series of conflicts that were fought between Earth and her colonies, between 2391 and 2396 in the First Extraplanetary War, sparked by the discovery of non-Earth derived phosphorus, although political factors such as the strengthening of the UN Authority for Planetary Affairs (or UNAPA for short) into Earth's de facto military and law enforcement branch and the failure of the UN Resolution on the Political Status of the Colonies' passing, combined with cultural factors such as the use of pantropy by the colonies in the Outer Solar System and the availability of genetic engineering to allow this, were set in place decades prior. The First conflict lasted until 2396 when the Outer Solar System became independent states, and Mars' uprising was crushed by UNAPA. However, the Outer Solar System in the Interbellum quickly became the new Africa and Middle East combined as the newly formed states were unable to decide on their future, and the only ones that did (the Republic of Europa, the People's Republic of Ganymede and the Titan Federation), became hegemons over the region, while Earth slowly established puppet states in the Belt.

The Second Extraplanetary War began in 2466 after a diplomatic incident between UNAPA and the Titan Federation occurred over interference of both sides in the Ceresian Civil War, combined with several minor skirmishes between Europa, Ganymede and UNAPA's puppet government on 511 Davida. Then the situation quickly escalated and the two regions were forced into a state of war. The war lasted for six years and as the Outer Solar System fought a losing battle against UNAPA, in a final act of defiance and desperation, they redirected asteroid 2000 VN2 on a collision course with Earth, and despite a series of attempts to stop it by UNAPA's Orbital Guard, Space Forces and Espatier Corps, the joint forces of the Titan Federation, the Republic of Europa and the People's Republic of Ganymede were able to successfully redirect the asteroid and on April 15, 2472 at around 17:00 hours UTC, the asteroid slammed into Earth at a speed of ~40 km/s 2 km off the coast of Guam, releasing 5.35 teratonnes of TNT upon collision, resulting in devastation across the Asia-Pacific Region and causing a nuclear winter that killed off 40% of Earth's population at the time. The UN, crippled from the attack, with an economy in shambles and with the surviving governments of the 2000 VN2 attack absorbed into the UN, it was forced to negotiate, and thus release Mars and its moons as its own independent states under a UN-like planet-wide structure, and renounce its authority over the Outer Solar System (long since lost).

Now, the Solar System is recovering, with the colonies rebuilding and Titan, Ganymede and Europa back to outwitting each other and Earth being reduced to the Moon, Venus and Mercury as its last holdouts outside its atmosphere. With this in mind, how will historians from 2500 CE remember these days from a neutral standpoint?

To those of you who think the UN is the sole authority of Earth prior to 2477, I suggest thinking again. The UN in this case refers to a more powerful version of the modern UN...at least prior to 2477 when 1999 FN53 attack occurred, and the UN was forced to absorb Earth's remaining governments (particularly, those in the developed world) in an attempt to restore stability across the globe. So....the reason why by 2500 Earth is under UN control is understandable.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "Neutral" historians only 34 years after 10% of Earth population was killed? You are somewhat optimistic, aren't you? (I understand that you meant 2476 and not 2376 for the asteroid attack, since the war started in 2466). $\endgroup$
    – SJuan76
    Apr 15, 2016 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ Wow, earth is officially devoid of freedom if the main governing body is the United Nations. That aside, I think the best place for neutral histories to come from would be natives of the inner solar system, since they were the least involved in the war. It would be slightly skewed in earth's favor though, even if they had little connections to earth. $\endgroup$ Apr 15, 2016 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ @XandarTheZenon Er....to clarify, the UN is not THE main governing body of Earth de jure or de facto until after 2477, when governments across the globe began to collapse and decay from the ensuing economic crisis and the UN was forced to absorb Earth's remaining governments as law and order broke down. :/ $\endgroup$ Apr 15, 2016 at 14:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't the neutral viewpoint the thing that you just typed? $\endgroup$
    – Fhnuzoag
    Apr 17, 2016 at 12:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It gives the bare facts of the conflict without taking sides. $\endgroup$
    – Fhnuzoag
    Apr 18, 2016 at 1:41

5 Answers 5


History is never neutral. Only the 'victor' writes it.

In your case its perfectly possible to have multiple versions of the same events. Titan, Ganymede and Europa each teaching a variation. Each version will invariably blame the other for the failures.

If you take Mars, for one side it is liberation from the oppressive yolk of empire. For the other, it's separatists/rebels

  • $\begingroup$ The obvious parallel is the separation of Ireland from the British empire after WW1. I am sure people will disagree even now as to the events that took place! $\endgroup$
    – ECiurleo
    Apr 15, 2016 at 9:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Even when trying to do this neutrally, There will still be one side that likely is objectively more "righteous" than the other, or one side will arguably have been more evil than the other, otherwise there probably would not have been a reason for the war to begin with. Trying to describe why each side is fighting neutrally is pretty much impossible, as there will always be some kind of moral issue involved. Even today Americans know past Americas heavily wronged Native Americans even though we won that "war", but history will always bias the winners (we changed or their way is not possible) $\endgroup$
    – Ryan
    Apr 18, 2016 at 18:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ History textbooks in classrooms fail in this way, because they are selectively chosen by governments for this purpose. There is a huge difference between textbooks and historical accounts. $\endgroup$
    – user8827
    Apr 18, 2016 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ @SeanBoddy Historical accounts are also written by humans, and all humans have bias. Bias doesn't just materialize in form of outright lying about facts but also subconsciously in deciding which historical facts are important enough to describe in detail and in picking the words used to describe these facts. $\endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Apr 19, 2016 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ @philipp, you aren't wrong at all. But as the son of a woman who was a reporter on the Houston police beat for twenty years, I can safely say that writers that understand bias and logical fallacy can avoid it fairly easily, provided they feel a duty to do so. $\endgroup$
    – user8827
    Apr 19, 2016 at 15:44

Historians themselves are not particularly concerned with being neutral, so much as accurate and in depth.

It might help to think of historians as exceptionally diligent writers of non-fiction, and they write and report on what they believe happened with what (hopefully) amounts to at least some journalistic integrity. This is the ideal case.

All too frequently, however, people allow themselves to have their judgment colored by their feelings; this is when the academic community comes into play, and why it should be protected and encouraged in any free nation. When you say things like 'Hitler was insane' and 'John Wayne Gacey was a pervert', in a historical context it should be at the end of a paper containing research, or else the actual historians will pop up with 'citation required'.

This process is self regulating - if someone makes a contentious statement, their professional reputation is on the line. If they don't have one of those to risk at the moment, they'd better be spot on, or else what they've done is posted the academic equivalent of an obnoxious YouTube comment - only this time their real name and credentials are written at the top. This is why peer review is a good thing.

In your world, if what you want is neutral coverage, then you need free speech, freedom of the press, and an academic community willing and able to police itself - and take note that we don't necessarily always succeed on these points in the modern day.


The historical example is probably most similar to the squabbling Greek City States during the classical period. Some of the events could be compared to events from the Persian Wars, and some (especially the Earth meddling in and subsidizing various polities in the outer Solar System) could be compared to events in the Peloponnesian War.

The actual records of these events will be coloured by who is actually writing them. Just like the Spartans or the Athenians would have different takes on events (i.e. who was responsible and why these events happened the way they did), writers in the various polities will generally emphasize their own participation in the events and minimize or even discount the actions of the others. The only "balanced" versions of events might require high ranking leaders from one polity being exiled or moving to a different polity at some point during the wars (Thucydides was exiled from Athens for his role in a naval battle, while the later historian Xenophon was an Athenian who eventually transferred his person and loyalties to Sparta).

Depending on how the historians are inclined, the future history might resemble "The Histories" by Herodotus, or the "History of the Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides. Earth based historians will have a much different take on these events...


As the other answers have eluded to, the issue with trying to get a neutral standpoint on anything is primarily emotion and perspective.

Say a man walks into a bar, puts a gun to the head of one of the bar patrons and shoots him. The perspective of the other bar patrons could be that of an unprovoked, random act of violence. The emotion of the victims family will probably make them view the act as evil.

If it then comes to light that the victim raped and murdered a member of the shooters family, chances are the attached emotion changes, as does the perspective.

in a final act of defiance and desperation, they redirected asteroid 2000 VN2 on a collision course with Earth

From the perspective of the people of Earth, this was an atrocity. From the populous of the Outer Solar System, it may also have been an atrocity. The redirection of the asteroid may have in fact been the act of redirecting the asteroid may have been the work of a very small group, unaffiliated with either side, but leaving the Outer Solar System to take the blame.

In my opinion, if you wanted a truly neutral standpoint of the history, then you have to remove emotion and vastly increase perspective.

I haven't read any of your other questions, so I don't know how realistic this would be from a technology point of view, but I would look at some sort of mass data gathering exercise, from ship sensor logs, planetary communication and any other available sources, followed by data analysis by a computer able to collate the data into a meaningful format.


I don't know about a neutral, but I will try. First The historians could look back at the and say catastrophe while unfortunate was necessary to save lives on both side of the war. If you want to look at a historical example look at the bombing of Hiroshima.

As for the war itself History would be very vague, no detailing any massacres committed on ether side. When they had to talk about they would put all the blame on the commanders not the generals or the leader of the factions involved. Look up the wars with the American Indians for example.

Histories would have probably focus on the positive effects of war. History have a habit of doing especially with controversial wars. Look up the crusades or the Mongol invasion.

The overall view of the histories would that the war was over a tragic misunderstanding and that despite the billons that died in the end it was ultimately a good thing, because earth became united under UN and the colonies are now free.

Of course this more neutral view point would be possible for a very long time, because of the destruction that colonies brought to earth there would be animosity between the two for a very long time. Picture like America and England after the revolution, the two country didn't get along until at least a hundred year had past.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .