Which historical event would you change and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

seconds that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders

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.

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

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

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. ~:)

How a Right Can Make a Wrong: The Fateful Encounter of Private Henry Tandey

Quote:

---

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.

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. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Degtyarev14.5

How a Right Can Make a Wrong: The Fateful Encounter of Private Henry Tandey

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!

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.

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:

I'd have gotten rid of Yeshua really early.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.