Ada Palmer

The simulated papal election is but one of many topics, but it raises an interesting question Palmer doesn't directly address.

How do you study history when particulars determine outcomes but those outcomes remain fundamentally unpredictable?

Her students aren't learning to predict what happened.

They're learning something else entirely.

Understanding what that something else is reveals not only why her experiment succeeds, but how it reshapes historical methodology.

Asterisk, asterisk, asterisk.

Palmer's simulation transforms students into the political actors of Renaissance Italy.

Some play powerful cardinals wielding vast economic resources and influence networks, with strong shots at the papacy.

Others are minor cardinals burdened with debts and vulnerabilities, nursing long-term hopes of rising on others' coattails.

Locked in a secret basement chamber, students play the crowned heads of Europe, the King of France, the Queen of Castile, the Holy Roman Emperor, smuggling secret orders via text messages to their agents in the conclave.

Still others are functionaries,

Those who count the votes, distribute food, guard the doors, direct the choir.

They have no votes but can hear, watch, and whisper.

Each student receives a character packet detailing their goals, personality, allies, enemies, and tradable resources.

Treasures, land, titles, holy relics, armies, marriageable nieces and nephews, contracts, and the artists or scholars at their courts.

I'll give you Leonardo if you send three armies to guard my city from the French.

The simulation runs over multiple weeks.

Students write letters to relatives, allies, rivals and subordinates.

If you write to a player, the letter will be delivered to that person and will advance your negotiations.

If you write to a non-player character, you will receive a reply which will also affect the game.