Which historical event would you change and why?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[caesar44]

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

[Somebody Else]

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

[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...

[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 )!

[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.

[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.