Which historical event would you change and why?

[King Henry V]

I don't this needs an introduction. Just which event in history would you alter and why?

[cunctator]

The battle in the teutoburg forest.

It is merely speculation but i think that would be enough for the roman empire to survive, at least for a couple of centuries.
A great roman victory would probably have secured the province germania to them. The romanization process already had begun. The first new roman towns had be established before 9 ad.

Many important tribes that later destabilised the empire and contributed to it`s fall, would never have existed. The franks, the Alamanni, the Lombards, the saxons, the amrcomani. They all lived in or around planned provinces.

[King Henry V]

Yes, but if Varius had won, the victory would have to be consolidated by a strong invasion of Germania, which could have proved costly on the Empire's resources.

[edyzmedieval]

I would change the Fall of Constantinople.... Because it's a shame such a big and splendid city has fallen in the hands of the Turks..... I voted this because the Byzantines are my favourite nation in the world(in the game also!!!)....

Cheers!

[Kalle]

How about stopping the murder committed by gavrilo princip in 1914.

The scenario to hope for would be that both world wars had been avoided ~:cheers:

But since there were many underlying factors something prolly would have sparked the wars anyways.

Kalle

[King Henry V]

I would change the Fall of Constantinople.... Because it's a shame such a big and splendid city has fallen in the hands of the Turks..... I voted this because the Byzantines are my favourite nation in the world(in the game also!!!)....

Cheers!
Or that Dukas had not run away at Manzikert and the Turk would have been defeated. By 1453 the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire was inevitable, and even if the siege had failed, the Ottomans would have been back with yet more troops.

[Dâriûsh]

Operation Ajax, Iran, August 1953. The Anglo-American reestablishment of the autocratic Pallahvi Dynasty. This would eventually lead to the 1979 revolution in Iran, replacing the shah with the tyrannical clergy and the Islamic Republic.

If only the west could have kept its nose out of Iranian affairs…

[Kralizec]

I'd have it so that the Brits and the French would attack Hitler's Germany and put a stop to him before he could spark WWII. In the early years Nazi Germany was actually quite weak due to the Versailles restraints, wich Hitler ignored. I still can't understand how GB and France stould idly by when Hitler was obviously coursing for another great war.

[King Henry V]

Because the public did not want a war. If Germany had been invaded by by France and Britain, the governments would probably have been voted out of office. And at that time, no one knew ho evil the nazi regime was

[Duke Malcolm]

The Loss of the Indian Empire, in 1947. We should have kept India...

[cunctator]

Yes, but if Varus had won, the victory would have to be consolidated by a strong invasion of Germania, which could have proved costly on the Empire's resources.

There were two additional legions avaible in Mogontiacum and on in Vetera plus auxilaries. Combined with Varus army of 3 legions 3 alae and 6 auxilia cohorts this force should has been strong enough to supress any remaining unrest. Also I think after a decisive early defeat of arminus army the rebellion should has collapsed fastly.

[Big_John]

the destruction of the royal library of alexandria.

[Oaty]

I'd kill every person trying to change history

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I woudln't change anything without a whole lot more thought, because who knows how the world would come out with history changed even in a very small way? One of the ones I would consider the most would be the entry of the US into WWI, perhaps prevented by stopping the sinking of the Lusitania. This would have let the UK, France and Germany bleed each other dry and hopefully let Germany off a bit better from the war and preventing Hitler from gaining power.

[Franconicus]

The assasination at Sarajewo in 1914!

[sapi]

I woudln't change anything without a whole lot more thought, because who knows how the world would come out with history changed even in a very small way?
i agree


The assasination at Sarajewo in 1914!
think about it:
no assasination -> no ww1 -> no treaty of Versailles -> no nazis in germany -> no ww2 -> no extended communist power (russia) -> no korean/vietnam etc. wars -> no cold war -> a completely different world....

Be careful what you wish for...

[Franconicus]

Sounds great, doesn't it?

[xemitg]

I would have prevented both of the Red Scares. One would be ignorant to believe communism could survive in America. We are simply too wealthy for communism to manifest. All it did was ruin many innocent people and made Americans stop trusting each other for a time. Many people such as Lucille Ball had their careers ended due to Marxist accusations.

[Conqueror]

I would change something precisely because I'd like to see just how different the world would turn out to be. So what event would I change? The Second Punic War: make Hannibal march to Rome and conquer it. I bet that could make the world of today look very different indeed ~:cool:

[Petrus]

If i had this power, i think i would feed a slow eating crocodile with gavrilo princip on the 27th of june 1914.

Being slowly eaten alive is probably the best thing that could happend to this man and the ultimate horrors that were the consequences of his act in sarajevo on the 28th of june deserve it.

[Byzantine Prince]

That trator, bastard, piece of dung that showed the Persians the way around the mountains and so many of those beautful ancestors destroyed for nothing. :furious3:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Operation Ajax, Iran, August 1953. The Anglo-American reestablishment of the autocratic Pallahvi Dynasty. This would eventually lead to the 1979 revolution in Iran, replacing the shah with the tyrannical clergy and the Islamic Republic.

OMG we have an Iranian member. Please let him into the backroom as theres much we could discuss with him back there and this thread could well wind up back there. How about we just change the 1979 revolution in Iran, replacing the shah with the tyrannical clergy and the Islamic Republic? How old are you and whats the current political status in your country. Are you free to make anti government statements here?

[Byzantine Prince]

He doesn't really live there. You may notice the city he is saying his location is is no longer inhabited. ~:eek:

[Hurin_Rules]

the destruction of the royal library of alexandria.

I'll second that.

[Nelson]

I would stop the Archduke’s assassination in 1914 or at least prevent Russian mobilization.

WWI may well have been prevented thereby, as I do not believe that the Great War was inevitable.

[Colovion]

I would have had that bloody messenger reach Hannibal in Southern Italy so that he and his Brother could have joined forces and trounced the Romans once and for all, freeing the people of Italy and saving the history of Kart-Hadasht from the Roman destruction.

It's amazing how one accident can change so much in history.

[the Count of Flanders]

1586, Fall of Antwerp to the Spanish in the 80-years war. This meant the resistance against the Spanish in the southern netherlands was broken and the low countries were effectively split up. For the dutchspeaking population in the south it meant 350 years of oppression and poverty while the north prospered. One can only wonder what could have been if the low countries could have gained independance as a whole. It would have been a power to be reckoned with I think.

[Brutus]

1586, Fall of Antwerp to the Spanish in the 80-years war. This meant the resistance against the Spanish in the southern netherlands was broken and the low countries were effectively split up. For the dutchspeaking population in the south it meant 350 years of oppression and poverty while the north prospered. One can only wonder what could have been if the low countries could have gained independance as a whole. It would have been a power to be reckoned with I think.
I thought the fall of Antwerp was in 1585. But seriously, I don't think it would have worked out. Antwerp was far less easy to defend then the northern Netherlands, and there was already a major difference in policies and interests between north and south. Also, most of the northerners (calvinist preachers and Antwerp refugees excluded) would have nothing to gain by having Antwerp joining the Republic, first of all because Antwerp was still too much a commercial concurrent for Amsterdam, secondly, because that would have made the religious issue far too difficult. The regions of the Southern Netherlands that did become part of the Republic (the marquisate of Bergen op Zoom, the Barony of Breda and the Meierij of s'Hertogenbosch in northern Brabant, the "Vier Ambachten" in northern Flanders and eventually much of Opper-Gelder and parts of Overmaas including Maastricht) were not given any rights in the Government of the Republic (being governed directly by the Staten General, these regions were still among the poorest and most backward parts of Western Europe in the 19th century. This was mainly because most of the populace of these regions were Catholic and thus eventually not considered suitable for government.) and I don't think Antwerp alone could have changed this, especially with the still enormously powerfull Spanish army in the South (as well as in the eastern Netherlands, at the time).

BOT, I would't change anything about history since I can't imagine the world would be a better place if something in the past was altered, arguably, it would be even worse.

[Craterus]

A little-known fact.

Hitler fought in the first world war. His trench was struck by a shell, all his comrades died; he got away with a shell splinter. If he had died and another of his comrades have lived, we may not have had WW2.

But, if you mess around with the tiniest part of history, anything could happen. Haven't any of you ever seen that Simpsons episode where Homer accidentally makes a broken toaster into a time-machine and goes back to prehistoric times? He squashes a bug, and the modern world is changed forever.

To be honest, I wouldn't mess around with it. What's done is done, things haven't turned out too bad.

[sharrukin]

The overthrow of the Russian provisional government by the Communists.
The rise of Hitler would have been much more difficult as many of his followers who had been former socialists or communists would not have been as great a force in Germany. He would not have been able to use the communist threat of a takeover of the German government to advance his own agenda. Russia would have been spared the nightmare of communism and the cold war would not have been so ideological in character. I suspect there would have been some rivalry but it would not have taken on an almost religious tone.

[sapi]

A little-known fact.

Hitler fought in the first world war. His trench was struck by a shell, all his comrades died; he got away with a shell splinter. If he had died and another of his comrades have lived, we may not have had WW2.

But, if you mess around with the tiniest part of history, anything could happen. Haven't any of you ever seen that Simpsons episode where Homer accidentally makes a broken toaster into a time-machine and goes back to prehistoric times. He squashes a bug, and the modern world is changed forever.

To be honest, I wouldn't mess around with it. What's done is done, things haven't turned out too bad.

seconds that

[cunctator]

I would have had that bloody messenger reach Hannibal in Southern Italy so that he and his Brother could have joined forces and trounced the Romans once and for all, freeing the people of Italy and saving the history of Kart-Hadasht from the Roman destruction.

It's amazing how one accident can change so much in history.

The people of italy have had their opportunity to change sides and regain their freedom after cannae. They didn`t use it. I believe 207BC was too late to change the outcome of the war. Hannibal also has had his chance.

The romans "only" destroyed the city and (most of) the people of Kart-Hadasht. It`s history survived. Emperor Claudius himself has written a book about carthaginian history.

[caesar44]

1914 put some poison in hitler's soup , but alas , this is just a dream :embarassed:

[Spino]

A little-known fact.

Hitler fought in the first world war. His trench was struck by a shell, all his comrades died; he got away with a shell splinter. If he had died and another of his comrades have lived, we may not have had WW2.

But, if you mess around with the tiniest part of history, anything could happen. Haven't any of you ever seen that Simpsons episode where Homer accidentally makes a broken toaster into a time-machine and goes back to prehistoric times. He squashes a bug, and the modern world is changed forever.

To be honest, I wouldn't mess around with it. What's done is done, things haven't turned out too bad.

Actually had you gone back a little further and killed Alois Hitler before he decided to turn his young son Adolph into a human punching bag you might have given a child with a fair amount of artistic talent a shot at contributing something to western civilization instead of burning a good portion of it to the ground which he did before expiring.

While you're at it track down Beso Djugashvili, father to Joseph Djugashvili (a.k.a Joseph Stalin) and kill him as well. Both Adolph and Joseph were mercilessly beaten and abused by their fathers when they were young, actions which proved to be the key ingredient in the making of those men of infamy. However unlike Adolph Joe was not a man of considerable intelligence or talent. At best Joseph might have lived the kind of anonymous life one expects from a peasant farmer or laborer.

But if you're limiting yourself to dealing with WWI simply persuade Woodrow Wilson to keep the United States out of the Great War and the rise of Nazi Germany should be easily avoided. WWI would have probably ground to a draw or a marginal Allied victory had the US not thrown its hat in the ring on the side of the Allies. It's a safe bet that the treaty of Versailles would not have been so extreme had this been the case. The US contribution to the Allied cause in WWI wasn't nearly as great as it was in WWII but it was enough to keep France from collapsing and prevent the war from grinding to an inconclusive draw.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I second that Spino! Without the US in the war Germany probably could have fought the allies to a standstill. They even made an effective offensive that almost took Paris before the US joined. But despite the inexperience of the American troops there were too many of them and the Germans were unable to hold out.

[the Count of Flanders]

I thought the fall of Antwerp was in 1585. But seriously, I don't think it would have worked out. Antwerp was far less easy to defend then the northern Netherlands, and there was already a major difference in policies and interests between north and south. Also, most of the northerners (calvinist preachers and Antwerp refugees excluded) would have nothing to gain by having Antwerp joining the Republic, first of all because Antwerp was still too much a commercial concurrent for Amsterdam, secondly, because that would have made the religious issue far too difficult. The regions of the Southern Netherlands that did become part of the Republic (the marquisate of Bergen op Zoom, the Barony of Breda and the Meierij of s'Hertogenbosch in northern Brabant, the "Vier Ambachten" in northern Flanders and eventually much of Opper-Gelder and parts of Overmaas including Maastricht) were not given any rights in the Government of the Republic (being governed directly by the Staten General, these regions were still among the poorest and most backward parts of Western Europe in the 19th century. This was mainly because most of the populace of these regions were Catholic and thus eventually not considered suitable for government.) and I don't think Antwerp alone could have changed this, especially with the still enormously powerfull Spanish army in the South (as well as in the eastern Netherlands, at the time).

BOT, I would't change anything about history since I can't imagine the world would be a better place if something in the past was altered, arguably, it would be even worse.
Ah yes, 1585. But protestantism was very much alive in the south too. The "beeldenstorm" started in south. Antwerp, at the time was not in competition with Amsterdam, Amsterdam simply took over when Antwerp fell, it's connection to the North Sea was blockaded, and saw its merchants (and their money) flee north. I believe it would have worked, the southernmost provinces (mostly francophone) would have been a problem though. But most of currentday flanders would have fitted well in the new state. Almost all the high members of society were protestant. And these were the ones doing politics.
You can say the prosperity of the north was for a large part built on the ruins of the south. Together they would have been stronger. It would have been very difficult to accomplish because Spain was the world power at the time, but still...

[Somebody Else]

I would prevent the first ever separation of a monocellular organism. Would make things so much easier.

[Brutus]

Ah yes, 1585. But protestantism was very much alive in the south too. The "beeldenstorm" started in south. Antwerp, at the time was not in competition with Amsterdam, Amsterdam simply took over when Antwerp fell, it's connection to the North Sea was blockaded, and saw its merchants (and their money) flee north. I believe it would have worked, the southernmost provinces (mostly francophone) would have been a problem though. But most of currentday flanders would have fitted well in the new state. Almost all the high members of society were protestant. And these were the ones doing politics.
You can say the prosperity of the north was for a large part built on the ruins of the south. Together they would have been stronger. It would have been very difficult to accomplish because Spain was the world power at the time, but still...
It is true Protestantism was very strong in the south (indeed, the beeldenstorm only weakened when it got to the northernmost provinces. Actually, provinces like Groningen and the Ommelanden were among those who remained the most staunchly Catholic in the beginning). However, by 1585, the Counter-Reformation had done much of his work in the south (especially since the main base of Spanish government, Brussels, was closer by) and many people were so catholicised they never thought of becoming Protestant again (for example, Breda was very much a protestant town before it was captured by the Spanish in 1581. By 1590, when the rebels recaptured it, the population had become so influenced by the Counter-Reformation it remained predominantly Catholic to this day). Another problem would be that the Nortern Netherlands, and especially Holland, were much harder to invade militarily because of its many small rivers, lakes and other waters, whereas the south was more open to land-based conquest. Also, the Spanish needed not only a very strong army in the south (instead of the north) to quell the rebellion, but also to stop the French from invading.

Anyway, if it had happened, no way of telling what would have happened next; it isn't even sure there would have existed a seperate state, or at least a Republic. It is much more likely the rebels would have invited some foreign prince to become the new ruler (as, indeed, they actually did twice) or that they even would have subsided under the Habsburgs if those would have taken a more tolerant stance.

[IliaDN]

Termination of the USSR , because it really sucks now ( I mean life in the former republics )! :bow:

[lancelot]

Id reverse the outcome of the war of independence. With the americans kept in the fold of the british empire, world peace would have been a lot more manageable...

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Maybe without America peace would be more manageable, but the crown wanted to keep people on the coast and thus easier to control so there would also be a new nation. Who knows what it would have done. As I have said before changing anything leads to all sorts of unwanted or unforseen outcomes.

[the Count of Flanders]

Another problem would be that the Nortern Netherlands, and especially Holland, were much harder to invade militarily because of its many small rivers, lakes and other waters, whereas the south was more open to land-based conquest. Also, the Spanish needed not only a very strong army in the south (instead of the north) to quell the rebellion, but also to stop the French from invading.
Well, that would be the part that I would change eh. I fully realise it's not very realistic. ~;)


Anyway, if it had happened, no way of telling what would have happened next; it isn't even sure there would have existed a seperate state, or at least a Republic. It is much more likely the rebels would have invited some foreign prince to become the new ruler (as, indeed, they actually did twice) or that they even would have subsided under the Habsburgs if those would have taken a more tolerant stance.
I don't see how it could be worse for the flemish then how it really happened. ~:)

[Degtyarev14.5]

How a Right Can Make a Wrong: The Fateful Encounter of Private Henry Tandey (http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/tandey.htm)


The annals of history are full of fateful moments which scholars refer to as the great "what if's" of history, where if events had taken only a slight deviation the course of human affairs would have been dramatically different.

Such a moment occurred in the last moments of the Great War in the French village of Marcoing involving 27 year old Private Henry Tandey of Warwickshire, UK, and 29 year old Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler of Braunau, Austria.

[...]

As the ferocious battle wound down and enemy troops surrendered or retreated a wounded German soldier limped out of the maelstrom and into Private Tandey's line of fire, the battle weary man never raised his rifle and just stared at Tandey resigned to the inevitable. "I took aim but couldn't shoot a wounded man," said Tandey, "so I let him go." [2]

The young German soldier nodded in thanks and the two men took diverging paths, that day and in history.

[...]

One evening the telephone rang and Henry went off to answer it, when he came back he commented matter-of-factly that it had been Mr Chamberlain. He had just returned from a meeting with Hitler and whilst at Berchtesgaden had noticed the painting by Matania [of Tandey] of the 2nd Green Howards at the Menin Cross Roads in 1914. Chamberlain had asked what it was doing there and in reply Hitler had pointed out Tandy in the foreground and commented, "that's the man who nearly shot me" [4]For your consideration.

A.

[Basiliscus]

Ensure Takeda Shingen was not killed by a sniper (or TB) at the siege of Noda castle in Mikawa. A very talented and capable general as well as a shrewd administrator he was lost to history as the man who could have challenged Oda Nobunaga as the man to rule Japan.

A power struggle of that proportion would have made intresting reading.

However, this may have instead prolonged the period of disunity and caused more harm than good. Would have been nice to meet him though. ~:)

[sharrukin]

How a Right Can Make a Wrong: The Fateful Encounter of Private Henry Tandey (http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/tandey.htm)

For your consideration.

A.

That would have been 1938-39
Must have been a hell of a thing to live with for the next few years!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

While we're saving Shingen we may as well save Kenshin by getting him to lay off the sake and save himself from the most likely cause of his death. Stomach or Liver cancer probably brought on by his fondness of drink.

[Auctoritas]

I'd delay discovery of the North and South American continents by Europeans/Asians for another 200 years. It would be interesting to see what developments the Central American and South American civilizations would have made during that time.

Don't think it would have made a huge difference in the long term results, mind you.
:book2:

[GoreBag]

I'd have gotten rid of Yeshua really early.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The reckless actions taken by the Paratroopers at Bloody Sunday in 1972 if reversed could have prevented thousands of young men from Joining the ranks of the Provisional IRA and having the war becoming a long and bitter one with death lasting more than 25 years.

[PanzerJaeger]

I would have Germany win ww1. They would have handled European affairs much better than France and Britain and IMO would not have punished the allies so harshly.

[Craterus]

And then we would have had a nutjob (Kaiser Wilhelm II) ruling Europe. Who knows what could have happened in that sort of situation? As he wanted Germany to be the best, I think an empire would have been forged. This is not always a good thing.

[PanzerJaeger]

Wouldnt have been any worse than the empires of France and Britain.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

It would have been hard to do worse than WWII so having Germany win WWI could very well have helped save many lives and prevent a later though short-lived empire from forming.

[Basiliscus]

Although I don't believe Germany would have left France to govern themselves. Bismarck antagonised Napoleon III to gain control of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871, declaring the new German Empire in the process. These were only part of the treaty which also took a large indemnity from France.


I would have Germany win ww1. They would have handled European affairs much better than France and Britain and IMO would not have punished the allies so harshly

The new German Empire was not exactly lenient on France in that particular treaty, so who says they would act differently in 1918? So you could argue that if the Prussians under Bismarck hadn't been so harsh on France then the allies would not be thirsting for revenge in 1918. But then you could argue further back and further back and further back... ~:confused:

Probably it's best not to meddle in history, only discuss what could have been. Probably the best thing for the planet was that humans never came to be! Allthough you can argue cases for and against that also.