Changing courses of history and war?

[Spart]

Is it actually ever possible to change fate, I mean fate is fate, if you change your fate then your ultimate fate was to change your fate (it gets confusing), but can actions ever change the course of anything (historical perspective not sci-fi or that kind stuff), If the Greeks lost on the first day of Thermopylae what would have happened? If Boudica beat the Romans what then? Things happened that way because of the course of the war, The Persians tried to attack a phalanx head on with little armour on their body ofcourse they were going to get slaughtered of course the Greeks would then get more time to prepare, things happen because of the course of war, cause and effect. People talk of the defeat of Hitlers' 9th army at Stalingrad changing the course of the war, why? If you lose a battle like that there will be litte chance of you gainin the advantage again.
Maybe I am misinterpreting the meaning, does anyone agree or disagree with the above?

[Julian the apostate]

wyrd bio ful aread, fate is inexorable
but i guess the question is was it predestined to be or did we as people make it so.

so the option for this thread now it seems is either to debate theoretical/quantum mechanics and to decide whether or not "God rolls dice".
but yeah with in a linear strain of time, fate is fate

[Marshal Murat]

One of the Greek playwrights often discussed fate (Sophocles with Oedipus Rex??)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When you can answer the question you pose, the question will no longer matter.

Btw, it was the 6th army at Stalingrad.

[The Wizard]

I don't think a victory for Boudicca would have changed much past the short term, save perhaps heavier repercussion from a vengeful Rome.

That said, it's always interesting to muse about the endless possibilities of what might have happened. Fact is, however, that past the immediate consequences debate is impossible. Why? Because after that point, so many variables come into play that a debate can easily turn into a fanciful series of speculations.

[Kraxis]

If there is such a thing as fate, then there is no free will, and if there is no free will then why should we bother with anything anyway? It is predestined whatever we do, hence we have no impact on what is to happen...

See the downward spiral on that one?

The free will is important to the human.

[CountArach]

If there is such a thing as fate, then there is no free will, and if there is no free will then why should we bother with anything anyway? It is predestined whatever we do, hence we have no impact on what is to happen...

See the downward spiral on that one?

The free will is important to the human.

This post sums up my thoughts on it. I was oging to say the same thing.

[Gurkhal]

It all depends on alot of things. One thing seldome actually creates a complex thing, most often it's a number of things which works together to create a situation. Such as the German defeat at Stalingrad.

For example Boudicca could maybe have driven the Romans out of Britain. What happend then is very hard to know.The Romans could've decided that it wasn't worth it, they could get really pissed-off and come back and hit ten times as hard, decide to invade again when things have colded down, make use of client kings rather than direct conquest or other solutions. Decisions being based on many other things than Boudicca herself. The price of different enteriprises, list of priorities for the empire and such. It's very hard to generally tell what MIGHT have happened.

As to fate, I do belive that there may be a big general fate. Such that the world will one day end (as is the case when the sun finally dies) but I don't think that every minor detail is predestined. Although I don't really see fate makes a free will no existent. I think that fate and free will could well exist at the same time, but that it would mean that free will was submitted to fate. But then again what is "fate" and what is "free will" is a rather philospical question.

[Duke Malcolm]

One of the Greek playwrights often discussed fate (Sophocles with Oedipus Rex??)

Isn't it Oedipus Tyrannus? Rex is latin...
But I digress...

There are too many things to speculate. And the further back one goes the harder it becomes to speculate, since that would mean more time is affected by the change. There would hypothetically be an infinite number of outcomes, since an infinite number of things could happen in the time, some more likely than others.
But that's all nonsense, of course...

[Stig]

Tarrak has it really

If we're all meant for one certain thing, if anything is decided before, why still bother?
If it's my destiny to become an Archaeologist, why would I still read my books and go to the exams, I will become one anyway.

If there's a destiny for all of us, why won't we just relax, grap a beer and lay down on the sofa, what has to come comes anyway, there's nothing for us to change about it.

[The Wizard]

And that is why this thread is neither about destiny nor about faith, for the original poster speaks of what could have happened should certain other choices have been made, should other things have happened. Since, in human history (which equals interaction), choices define what happens, we speak of free will here.

[Kraxis]

That depends on how you read the first line...

Is it actually ever possible to change fate, I mean fate is fate, if you change your fate then your ultimate fate was to change your fate
Fate... is rather prominent, would you not agree?

[Marshal Murat]

(Its always been Oedipus Rex in my book)

I figure something of a fate-choice hybrid.
The whole alternate universe thing is prominent.
You chose to do THIS. Well that means these choices are open to you. If you can imagine a tree, that every branch you go along brings you to another branch that splits, and you have to make a choice. It has already been decided what will happen if you chose, but the choice is still yours. Think of a pre-planned Interactive History. The creator has already determined what will happen if you go down this path, but you don't have to go down one path.
I also pose this question...
Is the author talking about a history cycle? That history will cycle around and around?

[Incongruous]

You could just call it intelligence couldn't you?
Or the ability of some humans to be better than others at certain apects of life.
Simple evolution, survival of the fitest?
Perhaps fate is the dominace of one over another and the fanciful/political musings of artists?

[The Wizard]

That depends on how you read the first line...

Fate... is rather prominent, would you not agree?

He misuses the term. He means choice, obviously. You cannot change fate, yet he speaks of changing it constantly. ~;)

[nokhor]

but most humans believe in both free will and predestination simultaneously, with the variable being time. things that are happening in the present or future, we view as there being different outcomes and we might choose different paths. for things that have happened in the past, we believe that there is only one past, and not multiple pasts and it could only have happened the way it happenned. so free will for the present and future and 'fate' for the past. it just depends on how the observer views the event along the time continuum.

[The Wizard]

But can you interpret fate as being of the past? Does it not always apply to the future? When you speak of fate, don't you always refer to what shall happen in the future? The past is history; fate or free will, it has happened.

And, as you can see throughout the history in this forum -- that the past is something that can only have happened in one way is an opinion not held by the monks of the Org ~;)

[Marshal Murat]

I kinda think that Fate is Fate, the future result. Its the road that varies.
Oedipus would have killed his father, and married his mother, one way or another.