# Whose non-existence would have changed history the most?



## Aquilonian (Mar 1, 2014)

Reading the threads on "time travel" and "greatest empire in history" set me thinking on the following question. 

Which single historical character would leave the biggest gap if they had not existed, or at least been killed before they achieved most or all of their life's work? In other words, if you could go back in time and delete one person, who would you need to get rid of to achieve the greatest possible change in history and thus in the situation of the world today?

My own choice would be Alexander the Great. Although the Macedonians were such a powerful army, without his megalomaniac vision I don't reckon they'd have done more than conquering the civilised parts of Greece and imposing tribute on them. Although Alexander's achievements in his lifetime are overrated, his successor Empires (the Seleucid Empire and the Egyptian Empire of the Ptolomeic dynasty) were cultural melting-pots whose legacy has influenced several of the world's most influential religions and philosophies. His military successes owed a lot to his personality, since he inspired his men by his own example of courage and self-denial, made efforts to integrate the different races of his Empire, and respected the Gods and (most of) the ruling elites of conquered peoples. All of these were personal policies rather than cultural norms that anybody would have followed.


----------



## Victoria Silverwolf (Mar 1, 2014)

Interesting question.  I'm tempted to go with Mohammed, but perhaps I should avoid all religious figures.

Sticking with strictly secular figures, how about Napoleon?  It seems that he had a great deal to do with the shape of "modern" Europe.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 1, 2014)

If we're going modern, it must be Hitler. The whole latter half of the 20th century and 21st to date is defined by what he did.

The ancient world's harder. One chap I'd like to nominate is Aurelian, the best emperor most people have never heard of. He restored the empire and ended or at least delivered a respite from the Crisis of the Third Century. If he hadn't been assassinated (by that era a national sport) he might have solidified the Roman Empire fully.

If he had been rubbish or a rubbish emperor had taken over after the Gothic Claudius (another top chap who isn't much heard of) then the empire could easily have crumbled. The Dark Ages would've arrived centuries earlier. On top of that, Byzantium would never have become the capital of the empire (and then the Eastern Empire). Without Byzantium to act as a shield (for which the Latins/West showed neither recognition nor gratitude) against Islam/the Turks eastern Europe would've fallen to the Ottomans or their forerunners centuries earlier. Before the west (most notably in France and England) recovered from the crumbling of Rome it could have fallen to the Saracens or Seljuks etc etc.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Mar 1, 2014)

Adam and Eve? Or whatever you believe the point of origin of humanity characters are.


----------



## farntfar (Mar 1, 2014)

Take out Victoria and you've certainly changed history for the last 150 years.

Probably no British empire.
Certainly no Kaiser Bill, and therefore maybe no 1st world war.
Therefore probably no 2nd world war.

Tsar Nicholai II married Alexandra (Vicki's granddaughter) and was apparently preoccupied with his children's health problems (haemophilia) at the time of the revolution.
No Victoria, No Alexandra, No Russian revolution?? who knows.

Her children and grand children were also married into most of the the royal families of Europe. 

Liz and Phil both disappear in the wash.

But most of all NO PRINCE BLEEDIN' HARRY!!


----------



## Harpo (Mar 1, 2014)

Noah's wife (whatever her name is)

more recent: Mao


----------



## paranoid marvin (Mar 2, 2014)

Aside from religious figures, I would say if Henry VIII had not existed (or if Catherine of Aragon had given him a male heir) Western Europe would be an entirely different place today.


----------



## Mirannan (Mar 2, 2014)

It's probably some figure whose identity we will never know. Ugg, who discovered how to make fire rather then relying on lightning strikes, perhaps.


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 2, 2014)

As Stephen Palmer said, Mohammed and Jesus - but since they weren't real, we'd have to stop people thinking they ARE real...

As for real people - William The Conqueror. He basically ended the celtic/anglo-saxon world, which in time led to the Crusades (which have festered in the muslim mind for centuries, even though we in the west didn't realise it), then later gave rise to the endless conflicts in Europe, which led to...and so on and so on


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 3, 2014)

Having looked at a few things on the 'greatest empires' thread, I would say that it has to be an emperor that is most singularly responsible for a single empire (if you follow).

Some empires would be inevitable given the local geopolitical system (I think the British Empire would fall under this heading) and as such an emperor would be a 'mere' figurehead, relatively speaking, but others had leaders of such charisma or brutality that they almost singularly were responsible for their own rise. 

As such, I think my short list would be, religious leaders whose existance are open to debate, excluded. (as I understand it, the person Mohammed has been proven to have lived historically, obviously the religious aspects are, well... I'm an agnostic so would rather not go into them):

So in no particular order:

1. Alexander the Great 
2. Ghenghis Khan
3. Hitler
4. Stalin
5. Mohammed

If a single historically proven person existed who Christianity could be attributed to I would definitely say them, for the time being we'll call that person 

6. Jesus


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 3, 2014)

On religious chaps existing or not: I'm pretty confident Jesus did exist (it's the Christ aspect that's more debatable).


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 3, 2014)

ralphkern said:


> If a single historically proven person existed who Christianity could be attributed to I would definitely say them, for the time being we'll call that person
> 
> 6. Jesus



Or Saint Paul, or the emperor Constantine would be good candidates as being largely responsible for the subsequent spread and influence of Christianity.


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 3, 2014)

I suppose, following the butterfly effect, anyone would potentially have massive repercussions. 

However for sheer direct lineage, and as mentioned in the empires forum, ghengis khan... took such advantage of his position (if you follow my meaning) that nearly 1% of the current worlds population would cease to exist if he dissapeared. 

That's a fella who knew how to live.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Mar 3, 2014)

Gramm838 said:


> As Stephen Palmer said, Mohammed and Jesus - but since they weren't real, we'd have to stop people thinking they ARE real...
> 
> As for real people - William The Conqueror. He basically ended the celtic/anglo-saxon world, which in time led to the Crusades (which have festered in the muslim mind for centuries, even though we in the west didn't realise it), then later gave rise to the endless conflicts in Europe, which led to...and so on and so on


 
Where did I say that? They were real. I probably did say religion was rubbish though.

My character would be Gilgamesh - first ever historical written-about figure.


----------



## Aquilonian (Mar 3, 2014)

ralphkern said:


> Having looked at a few things on the 'greatest empires' thread, I would say that it has to be an emperor that is most singularly responsible for a single empire (if you follow).
> 
> Some empires would be inevitable given the local geopolitical system



Yes this is more what I'm getting at. For example, if you went back in  time and killed the inventor of the fire-drill or the wheel, it would  make no difference at all to life on earth today, because someone else  would have discovered these things- indeed they were probably discovered  independently by several different people. I'm interested in people whose personal talents or peculiarities meant their effect on history was powerfully different from that of any potential replacement. 



> So in no particular order:
> 
> 1. Alexander the Great
> 2. Ghenghis Khan
> ...



Alexander I've already spoken for. Ghengis probably similar though I don't know so much about him, but he seems to have welded into an invincible force the Mongol tribes who would otherwise have been content to only fight each other as they had done for centuries already. 

Same goes for Muhammad. Before him, Arabia was a multi-cultural collection of warring tribes (Pagan, Jewish and varieties of Christian) who were merely a nuisance to the Roman Empire. Muhammad unified them through religion, and within one generation after his death his successor Caliphs had conquered most of the ancient centres of civilisation. A more negative personal quality was his inability, for whatever reason, to sire a son who would survive to adult life. His lack of an undisputed heir set off the Sunni/Shia split which continues (often very violently) to this day. 

Hitler and Stalin are another similar pair- their personal peculiarities undermined their respective Empires, which could have lasted much longer under more rational governance. 

Hitler's famous "halt order", when he halted his armies as they closed in on the beleagered British and French forces in 1940, allowed the British Army to be evacuated from Dunkirk. These men formed the nucleus of the much larger British invasion force who landed back in France 4 years later. The halt order seemed so irrational that experienced army commanders ignored it at first, assuming a decoding error. His declaration of war on the USA following Pearl Harbour was another suicidal and seemingly irrational move. Finally his underestimation of the Russians led to inadequate preparation for the invasion of Russia- this underestimation was prompted by the anti-Slav racism that was an intrinsic feature of Nazism and its antecendents, however a different Fuhrer might still have taken less arrogant approach.

Stalin's unique feature was his extreme paranoia, which resulted in the execution of thousands of loyal communists who were no threat to him at all. This resulted in a talented elite being largely replaced by servile time-servers, doubtless to the great detriment of the Soviet economy and military effort. 

If Hess had replaced Hitler, Europe might be Nazi-ruled to this day. If Stalin had died early, the Soviet Union might still exist. If Muhammad had died young, Egypt Syria and Iraq might still be Orthodox Christian, the Patriarch of Constantinople would be equal or superior to the Pope, there would have been no crusades and no modern Israel.


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 3, 2014)

I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory. 

The chief one was the Axis not provoking the Americans into such an 'early' entry of the war until they had consolidated their gains in Europe. Also having more focus on securing oil fields rather than driving into Russia at the wrong time of year. 

A relatively interesting albeit dry read that you can pick up for free if interested.


----------



## Aun Doorback (Mar 3, 2014)

For me, it's gotta be Garben Zenmore - Wthout her, we would never have invented time travel in 1975 and been able to stop both world wars happening.


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 6, 2014)

Stephen Palmer said:


> Where did I say that? They were real. I probably did say religion was rubbish though.
> 
> My character would be Gilgamesh - first ever historical written-about figure.



I didn't say *you* said they weren't real...!


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 6, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> On religious chaps existing or not: I'm pretty confident Jesus did exist (it's the Christ aspect that's more debatable).



And your confidence is based on what?


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 6, 2014)

Gramm, there's a fair amount of historical evidence. 

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus is pretty solid. To clarify, in case you were uncertain, I don't believe Jesus was anything other than a man. I'm an atheist.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Mar 7, 2014)

Gramm838 said:


> I didn't say *you* said they weren't real...!


 
I see the second sense of the sentence now!


----------



## coinspinner (Mar 7, 2014)

The "god" of the christians.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 8, 2014)

Point of order: he's also the god of the Jews and Muslims.


----------



## Harpo (Mar 8, 2014)

Aun Doorback said:


> For me, it's gotta be Garben Zenmore - Wthout her, we would never have invented time travel in 1975 and been able to stop both world wars happening.


 
Thankyou for seconding the nomination I will make here next week.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 8, 2014)

ralphkern said:


> I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory.



I would say Hitler, for all of the obvious reasons...so, I think no one else could have dominated German/Austrian politics the way that he did, but also anyone who might had the personal charisma to have come close (had Hitler never existed) couldn't possibly have been the genocidal madman that he was. And too, his strategical errors likely lost him the war with the Soviet Union...dividing his army, and going after the oil fields when Barbarossa began was just a huge error, and he forced similar errors on his generals throughout this (and really all) campaigns (he should have, perhaps, left his army mainly in one piece and either consolidated the oil field conquest, or driven directly to Moscow with the unified Wehrmacht). (But it really did benefit humanity that he was such a poor war-leader!) WW 2 was the greatest destructive episode in human history, so yes, I vote Hitler!  

Also, Garben Zenmore was a brilliant answer!


----------



## ethelredtheunredey (Mar 8, 2014)

Genghis Khan in with a shout. No Golden Horde? history looks very different


----------



## ethelredtheunredey (Mar 8, 2014)

of all the 'If Axis Powers had won' tales the classic has to be PK Dicks Man in a High Castle.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 8, 2014)

ethelredtheunredey said:


> of all the 'If Axis Powers had won' tales the classic has to be PK Dicks Man in a High Castle.



PKD's Man in the High Castle  is an all-time favorite of mine! I love so much of his work, but this is truly an amazing book!


----------



## ethelredtheunredey (Mar 8, 2014)

Cat's Cradle said:


> PKD's Man in the High Castle  is an all-time favorite of mine! I love so much of his work, but this is truly an amazing book!




my mistake  

I'm working my way through his collected short stories atm as well- wonderfully paranoid and inventive. Bit of that grating olden day early sci fi disdain for women characters but we can forgive him that. Man of his time etc.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 8, 2014)

ethelredtheunredey said:


> my mistake
> 
> I'm working my way through his collected short stories atm as well- wonderfully paranoid and inventive. Bit of that grating olden day early sci fi disdain for women characters but we can forgive him that. Man of his time etc.



Oh, sorry ethelredtheunredy! I didn't underline the title of the book to point out any error, I just always try to underline book titles--somewhere in the ancient realms of memory I utilize I seem to recall being told that that should be done. Honestly, I hadn't noticed the tiny-tiny problem with the book title until I saw this message!

And I also love his wonderful paranoia, but in re-reading some short stories recently I too was saddened by the treatment of women in his  work....that is, sadly, an all-too-familiar problem in much science fiction.


----------



## Aquilonian (Mar 8, 2014)

ralphkern said:


> I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory.
> 
> The chief one was the Axis not provoking the Americans into such an 'early' entry of the war until they had consolidated their gains in Europe. Also having more focus on securing oil fields rather than driving into Russia at the wrong time of year.
> 
> A relatively interesting albeit dry read that you can pick up for free if interested.



Thanks I'll look that one up. Another very Hitler-specific thing I forgot to mention was that because AH had been a corporal in WW1, like many front line soldiers he thought he knew better than the generals. In the latter part of WW2 he therefore took personal control of the German campaign, not very competently, when the campaign had been going as well as could be expected until his intervention.


----------



## ethelredtheunredey (Mar 8, 2014)

Aquilonian said:


> Thanks I'll look that one up. Another very Hitler-specific thing I forgot to mention was that because AH had been a corporal in WW1, like many front line soldiers he thought he knew better than the generals. In the latter part of WW2 he therefore took personal control of the German campaign, not very competently, when the campaign had been going as well as could be expected until his intervention.



Notably his insistence on the taking of Stalingrad which basically ate whole divisions, at a time when leaving them with a besieging force and moving on could have pressed home his advantage. But it had become a point of honour for the little austrian man with the funny tache.

By the time russian winter came in Barabossa as an operation was SNAFU.

Also the initial gains/well going campaigns of ww2 were largely down to a half prepared and divided enemy. Once the Allies were off the back foot, and US production capability was added to the force- the writing was on the wall for the Fourth Riech. Most of the high command knew this a good 3 years before the Normandy push to VE.


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 8, 2014)

ralphkern said:


> I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory.
> 
> The chief one was the Axis not provoking the Americans into such an 'early' entry of the war until they had consolidated their gains in Europe. Also having more focus on securing oil fields rather than driving into Russia at the wrong time of year.
> 
> A relatively interesting albeit dry read that you can pick up for free if interested.



The Germans didn't provoke the US into entering the war - the US declared war on Germany as a result of the Pearl Harbor. So if the Japanese and Germans had not signed the Axis Agreement, in theory the US would have declared war on Japan and not Germany.

As for 'the wrong time of the year', Barbarossa was delayed by about 6 weeks due to the Germans having to sort out the Balkans to aid Italy; so if they had attacked Russia in mid-April '41, they _might_ have had time to take Moscow before the winter set in.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 9, 2014)

I have a question, which I hope no one minds my asking here. It has to do with the USA, and the post Civil War era. Lincoln is my favorite American president, and I see his death as a great loss to the country. He was committed to healing the Union after the war, and integrating the former slaves into the various societies around the country (he recognized this as an imperative for the future of the nation I believe, but knew it would be a long, painful process). So my question is, do you think the United States would be a dramatically different country today if Lincoln had not been assassinated?  Or do you think it would not really have changed things all that much. A 'What if?' I have always wondered about...


----------



## Vladd67 (Mar 9, 2014)

Gramm838 said:


> The Germans didn't provoke the US into entering the war - the US declared war on Germany as a result of the Pearl Harbor.



Not quite
Germany declares war on the United States &mdash; History.com This Day in History &mdash; 12/11/1941


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 9, 2014)

Japan, a member of Axis provoked the US into the war, as Vlad indicates, that effectively dragged Germany into the war with them.


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 10, 2014)

Vladd67 said:


> Not quite
> Germany declares war on the United States &mdash; History.com This Day in History &mdash; 12/11/1941



Well, yes, but that's really just splitting hairs...no direct German military action against the US  had drawn a declaration of war, but when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, it gave Germany a reason to declare war on the US.


----------



## Aun Doorback (Mar 10, 2014)

So could we say that it was actually a 'good thing' - (poor choice of words, I know) that Hitler did exist to make those errors of judgement, as a more competent Nazi leader could have actually won the war and caused a worse scenario for modern times. Therefore all bad people must remain in history because we are all still here and that's why no time travellers would want to go back and remove them.


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't know about win as such, I think a more competent leader would have stopped and consolidated their gains far earlier though, possibly turning the war into one of attrition in which both sides would have tired and arrived at an uneasy truce. It would have been an interesting geography, with potentially three (or even four) super power blocks, Allies (NATO as it would evolve too), Nazi Europe, the Soviet Union and a Japanese empire in the East, depending on how the Axis defined itself. 

And if they all developed nuclear technology the dead lock might have lasted to this day. After all the SU would have more incentive to hold together with a powerful enemy on its doorstep, no matter the cost. 

A potentially worse scenario would be the fortification of Europe might have led to nuclear weapons being deployed there to break that deadlock. 

Obviously conjecture, and only one possible outcome.


----------



## The Ace (Mar 10, 2014)

Without Sir William Wallace, and his brutal murder, would Robert the Bruce have seized the vacant Scottish throne ?

Without John Balliol, would the Wars of Independence have happened ?

Without David I (the youngest of six bothers) - Neither Bruce nor Balliol would've existed, but what would've happened to the Scottish crown ?


----------



## Aun Doorback (Mar 11, 2014)

The Ace said:


> Without Sir William Wallace, and his brutal murder, would Robert the Bruce have seized the vacant Scottish throne ?
> 
> Without John Balliol, would the Wars of Independence have happened ?
> 
> Without David I (the youngest of six bothers) - Neither Bruce nor Balliol would've existed, but what would've happened to the Scottish crown ?




Ah but If Margaret, the maid of Norway, not perished?  What then?


----------



## Aquilonian (Mar 15, 2014)

Aun Doorback said:


> So could we say that it was actually a 'good thing' ...that Hitler did exist to make those errors of judgement, as a more competent Nazi leader could have actually won the war ... and that's why no time travellers would want to go back and remove them.



you seem to assume that time travellers are "good people!"

Nazi time travellers might well go back and try to kill Hitler during WW1. 

Anti-Nazi time travellers might go back in order to protect him. Perhaps they did? He must have led a "charmed life" during WW1, surviving the war despite sufficent reckless courage to win him two iron crosses, stuck in hospital at the psychologically devastating moment of the German surrender (when he might have killed himself otherwise), and surviving the assassination attempt due to being shielded from the bomb by a table.


----------



## Aun Doorback (Mar 16, 2014)

Aquilonian said:


> you seem to assume that time travellers are "good people!"
> 
> Nazi time travellers might well go back and try to kill Hitler during WW1.
> 
> Anti-Nazi time travellers might go back in order to protect him. Perhaps they did? He must have led a "charmed life" during WW1, surviving the war despite sufficent reckless courage to win him two iron crosses, stuck in hospital at the psychologically devastating moment of the German surrender (when he might have killed himself otherwise), and surviving the assassination attempt due to being shielded from the bomb by a table.




A valid first point and one which I cannot argue against, because I was viewing it from the perspective of the good time traveller.  Your second point follows that train of thought, but with some insider knowledge perhaps??


----------



## JoanDrake (Mar 17, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> On religious chaps existing or not: I'm pretty confident Jesus did exist (it's the Christ aspect that's more debatable).




My understanding has always been that there's as much evidence of his existence as there is of several figures we do accept. However, that is also to say there are a lot of figures we accept for which there is little real evidence. Jesus was a 'wonder worker' and at that time, such were all over the Roman Empire and particularly popular in the Middle East.



Gramm838 said:


> *The Germans didn't provoke the US into entering the war - the US declared war on Germany as a result of the Pearl Harbor.* So if the Japanese and Germans had not signed the Axis Agreement, in theory the US would have declared war on Japan and not Germany.
> 
> As for 'the wrong time of the year', Barbarossa was delayed by about 6 weeks due to the Germans having to sort out the Balkans to aid Italy; so if they had attacked Russia in mid-April '41, they _might_ have had time to take Moscow before the winter set in.




No offense but I must directly contradict that. We declared war on Japan only and it is doubtful that Congress would have declared war on Germany too if Germany had not declared war on us on December 10. Roosevelt didn't ask for a declaration of war on Germany, and the Tripartite Axis Pact only obligated the parties to go to war if another member was_ attacked. _Many people did think Hitler would go to war under any circumstances if Japan did, but it was by no means an assured thing


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 19, 2014)

JoanDrake said:


> No offense but I must directly contradict that. We declared war on Japan only and it is doubtful that Congress would have declared war on Germany too if Germany had not declared war on us on December 10. Roosevelt didn't ask for a declaration of war on Germany, and the Tripartite Axis Pact only obligated the parties to go to war if another member was_ attacked. _Many people did think Hitler would go to war under any circumstances if Japan did, but it was by no means an assured thing



Yes I concede you're right, but still war between Germany and the US was not the result of any outright military action by one side against the other (US ships being torpedoed didn't provoke a declaration of war)


----------



## The Ace (Mar 19, 2014)

Aun Doorback said:


> Ah but If Margaret, the maid of Norway, not perished?  What then?




Margaret's claim to the throne was based on her descent from David I - if Malcolm III hadn't married Margaret the Atheling (his second wife), or if he hadn't existed in the first place to kill Macbeth and Lulach and regain his father's throne.....


----------



## dekket (Mar 21, 2014)

Abraham, if we are talking about religious figures.  If he had never existed, would we have the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity)?


----------



## Gramm838 (Mar 21, 2014)

dekket said:


> Abraham, if we are talking about religious figures.  If he had *EVER* existed, would we have the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity)?



Fixed that for you


----------



## Aquilonian (Mar 23, 2014)

dekket said:


> Abraham, if we are talking about religious figures.  If he had never existed, would we have the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity)?



Yes, because he probably did not exist but we still have those religions. Same goes for Moses. The Bible only starts to become historical about halfway through the Books of Kings and Books of Chronicles, with guys like Ahab and Omri. 

King Josiah is another matter- as it was he who created the Jewish religion as we know it, ie monotheistic and based on a set of laws regulating behaviour in great detail. Like most religious reformers he claimed to be "restoring" Judaism to its original purity, but there's no evidence that more ancient Judaism had ever resembled the type of religion that he enforced. 

Josiah seems to have got a huge boost because when Jerusalem was besieged by the Assyrians in his reign, an epidemic broke out in the Assyrian camp and killed so many that they had to quit the seige. This was interpreted as a mark of God's favour to Josiah's policies.

Of course epidemics were very common among large armies encamped in areas with poor water supply.


----------



## rwspangler (Jul 2, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> If we're going modern, it must be Hitler. The whole latter half of the 20th century and 21st to date is defined by what he did.



I have to agree. Without Hitler and his crazy, egotistical war, many things would have been different. The largest one being the isolationist USA and our technological upgrades. We would not have taken on the Manhattan project, space travel or jets. Radar, a lot of aircraft design and rocket tech came from England (transferred just prior to our entry) and Germany (after the war). 

Even better, consider which country would be dominate if Hitler had taken a break just before taking France and if he had kept the friendship with Russia. Now THAT would make for a huge alternate history. Germany with jets, bombs, space travel.......

IMHO


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

Imagine if Winston Churchill had never become prime minister ? He committed the UK  to fighting Nazi Germany . Without him, Hitler ends up controlling all of Europe and probably Northern Africa as well.


----------



## Gramm838 (Jul 6, 2014)

Maybe Gavril Princip? If he was not around to kill Archduke Ferdinand, western Europe MAY not have gone to war, and there MAY not have been a Russian revolution, and no Versailles treaty so therefore no Hitler; or

John Logie Baird...his invention of TV has altered the way the world appears.

(I wonder if, when he first got it to work, he looked at the picture and though "dammit, there nothing worth watching on tonight")


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

Gramm838 said:


> Maybe Gavril Princip? If he was not around to kill Archduke Ferdinand, western Europe MAY not have gone to war, and there MAY not have been a Russian revolution, and no Versailles treaty so therefore no Hitler; or
> 
> John Logie Baird...his invention of TV has altered the way the world appears.
> 
> (I wonder if, when he first got it to work, he looked at the picture and though "dammit, there nothing worth watching on tonight")




Even If Archduke Ferdinand had lived, World war I would happened anyways. It might postponed things for a few years, but sooner or later another crises would have occurred which would have set things off.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 6, 2014)

rwspangler said:


> I have to agree. Without Hitler and his crazy, egotistical war, many things would have been different. The largest one being the isolationist USA and our technological upgrades. We would not have taken on the Manhattan project, space travel or jets. Radar, a lot of aircraft design and rocket tech came from England (transferred just prior to our entry) and Germany (after the war).
> 
> Even better, consider which country would be dominate if Hitler had taken a break just before taking France and if he had kept the friendship with Russia. Now THAT would make for a huge alternate history. Germany with jets, bombs, space travel.......
> 
> IMHO



There's no way that Stalin would never have gone to war with Germany.In my opinion Hitler's main reason for invading Russia was jump Stalin before Stalin jumped him. If the Germans had won WWII, then the chances are that WWIII would have annihilated most of the USSR and Europe.

And if somehow the Germans won and made peace/beat the US and USSR then yes there would have been massive step forwards with space technology; no expense would have been spared to explore space. The cost in human lives would have been immense though.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 6, 2014)

I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure it 'works.' When talking about people like Genghis Khan, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin or even the like of Jesus or Mohammed so long as you don't have religious beliefs, then you need to be careful about how much is down to the person and how much down to the times. I have heard it said, for example, that Hitler was the inevitable result of Versailles. In other words if Hitler hadn't existed would someone else have filled his place? Or if Alexander hadn't existed some other son probably would have and maybe the same circumstances would have driven that other son to similar outcomes?

I'm no historian, but it's just a thought.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> There's no way that Stalin would never have gone to war with Germany.In my opinion Hitler's main reason for invading Russia was jump Stalin before Stalin jumped him. If the Germans had won WWII, then the chances are that WWIII would have annihilated most of the USSR and Europe.
> 
> And if somehow the Germans won and made peace/beat the US and USSR then yes there would have been massive step forwards with space technology; no expense would have been spared to explore space. The cost in human lives would have been immense though.



If Hitler's invasion of Russia hadn't been delayed and had he captured the Russian oil fields , It's possible that he could have beaten the Russians.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 6, 2014)

And with that oil there's every chance he might of beaten the allies...


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> And with that oil there's every chance he might of beaten the allies...



I  think after gobbling large chunks up Russia, He's  stretched pretty thin. It's less likely that he would have been able to beat the US or The UK. But with Europe completely under his thumb and with Russia out of action.  The Invasion of Normandy doesn't happen because now he has the means and the resource to hold on to his gains.  One possibility, the war ends in a stalemate, We either get few years of peace with  3 world War  or a cold war with Germany


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 6, 2014)

Ah sorry, yes I meant in Europe only.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> Ah sorry, yes I meant in Europe only.




I went a bit overboard.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 7, 2014)

Imagine how the Battle of Britain could have turned for Britain out without Hugh Dowding .


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 7, 2014)

Prince Arthur elder brother to Henry the 8th lives to become king England.  And Englans without Henry the 8th ,  now  that one would have had a few ripples down the time line.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jul 7, 2014)

Crispus, eldest son of Constantine the Great, would've been a bigger change. Crispus was intelligent and successful militarily, but his father had him executed. As a result, when Constantine died the empire was split between his three younger sons (cunningly called Constantine, Constans and Constantius), who almost immediately went to war with one another.

Crispus might've been a great emperor like Aurelian and really improved things for the empire, so that the West wasn't doomed to fail.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 7, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> Crispus, eldest son of Constantine the Great, would've been a bigger change. Crispus was intelligent and successful militarily, but his father had him executed. As a result, when Constantine died the empire was split between his three younger sons (cunningly called Constantine, Constans and Constantius), who almost immediately went to war with one another.
> 
> Crispus might've been a great emperor like Aurelian and really improved things for the empire, so that the West wasn't doomed to fail.



The actions Julius of Caesar and his nephew Octavian, killed the Roman Republic and  sealed Rome's long term fate.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jul 7, 2014)

Not so sure about that. The Republic was already on its last legs, it was only a question of how it ended and what replaced it.

Augustus could've formalised power better. With power effectively being delivered by whoever the army backed it was a recipe, later, for continual civil war. A hereditary or (better) an adoptive principle set down in law would've helped stabilise the Empire.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 7, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> Not so sure about that. The Republic was already on its last legs, it was only a question of how it ended and what replaced it.
> 
> Augustus could've formalised power better. With power effectively being delivered by whoever the army backed it was a recipe, later, for continual civil war. A hereditary or (better) an adoptive principle set down in law would've helped stabilise the Empire.



If I remember correctly Augustus did keep all the trappings  of the Republic which was a rather brilliant   PR move to lull the Roman Populace into believing that he was saving the Republic.  He was not willing to set down any kind of laws that would in any way hinder his autocratic rule . He was not willing to share power with any person or Institution.  He didn't seem to really give the hereditary issue enough thought. One biggest mistakes was adopting Tiberius and making him successor, which forced him to divorce his wife.  That likley embittered him to fair degree.He was competent administrator but he was neither a good nor likable  or trustworthy emperor .


----------



## Extollager (Jul 24, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> Gramm, there's a fair amount of historical evidence.
> 
> Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tacitus is pretty solid. To clarify, in case you were uncertain, I don't believe Jesus was anything other than a man. I'm an atheist.



Unfortunately, you have to pay to read the full-page review, in the *Times Literary Supplement* of 6 April 2007, of Richard Bauckham's *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses*.  It really is worth tracking down if one has any interest in the "historical Jesus," etc.  You might be able to get hold of it at your library. Reviewer A. E. Harvey concluded, 

--...Richard Bauckham’s careful and eloquent presentation of his argument,  supported not just by careful scholarship but by admirable common  sense, deserves earnest consideration by all who have the training and  the perseverance to pursue the elusive explanation of one of the most  tantalizing literary relationships in ancient literature, appropriately  known since the nineteenth century as "the Synoptic problem".---

If one's interested enough to read not just a review but a brief book on the topic, one can get  Bauckham's *Jesus: A Very Short Introduction* in Oxford University Press's series of concise monographs.

http://www.veryshortintroductions.c.../9780199575275.001.0001/actrade-9780199575275

Jesus is my nomination for the person whose non-existence would have made the most difference for world history, whether one is a Christian of some sort or not.  Without Jesus, no Christian transformation of the Greco-Roman world, no Islam, no universities (the university is the creation of the Christian Middle Ages), no Carolingian civilization, possibly no Byzantine preservation for a thousand years of Greek classics such as all of the works of Plato except the _Timaeus_ (which the West did have), no universal missions, etc.  The religious element in the "Wars of Religion" would be different or absent, although since secular considerations were so prominent in them, I suppose there'd have been plenty of territorial wars in Europe anyway.  Without Jesus there would not have been the writings of St. Paul, which, it should be recognized, did much for _improving_ the status of women in the ancient world; for this claim, see Sarah Ruden's *Paul Among the People*.  Here's what the _Washington Post_ reviewer said about this book:

 Just where do the Scriptures fit into contemporary lives? The Bible  remains a global bestseller, resonating with people in many cultures.  Yet it is also widely viewed as a difficult book to engage with on one's  own. In the United States, where the great majority call themselves  religious, studies show an astonishing lack of knowledge about the Good  Book. Sixty percent of Americans can't name five of the Ten  Commandments, and fewer than half can name the four Gospels or even the  first book of the Bible. While most Christians view it as either the  inspired or inerrant word of God, many are reading it less. Even some  seminaries are falling short in biblical preparation for those entering  the ministry. 
  The difficulties seem to involve more than busy lives. Some people have  been shaken by research that raises doubts about the historicity of  biblical narratives. Others find it difficult to relate the Bible's  agricultural idiom to their urban experience. And some are anguished  over traditional teachings on the role of women in the church and  homosexuality. 
  Are people getting the help they need to engage with the sacred texts as  spiritual and moral guides for today's complicated lives? Two new books  address this predicament from different angles, while aiming to breathe  new life into the encounter with the Bible. In each case, the author  unlocks meaning and relevance by offering a deeper understanding of the  context in which the narratives were written. 



 In "Paul Among the People," Sara Ruden brings a unique perspective to  the teachings of the apostle most responsible for spreading Christianity  throughout the Greco-Roman world. As an accomplished translator of  classical literature, Ruden offers a wholly fresh reinterpretation of  Paul's most controversial writings -- on slavery, the role of women in  the church, homosexuality, love -- by examining them alongside the  writings of the polytheistic culture of his day. 

 Ruden viewed Paul negatively before undertaking this effort. But she  developed a profound appreciation for what he was saying as he grappled  with a pagan society that "deified violence and exploitation," while he  called people to a radically different way of life. Quoting from  Aristophanes, Petronius, Juvenal and others, she provides startling  insights into the prevailing values regarding the status of women and  slaves and the widespread practice of raping young boys. While some of  her examples are more definitive than others, she shows how the apostle  encouraged cultural progress regarding people's status. For example, he  called on Philemon to take in a runaway slave who had become a Christian  and treat him as a Christian brother. 
   "More than anyone else," she says, "Paul created the Western individual  human being, unconditionally precious to God and therefore entitled to  the consideration of other human beings." Yet his writings still stir  controversy among Christians today. Some denominations, for instance,  use his letters to argue against letting women serve as church leaders.  With this provocative reconsideration of his words, Ruden is urging  those on both sides of the issues to reexamine their assumptions.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 24, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> The actions Julius of Caesar and his nephew Octavian, killed the Roman Republic and  sealed Rome's long term fate.


 
The Republic was already dead thanks to Marius and Sulla.

The corpse simply hadn't stopped twitching by the time Caeser and Co came along.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jul 24, 2014)

Null Zone, not quite my period, but I thought Sulla tried restoring the republic?


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 24, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> Null Zone, not quite my period, but I thought Sulla tried restoring the republic?



Only after proving that rich people with personal armies could manipulate the law, ignore anything and anyone they didn't like and slaughtering their opponents in the street. Restoring the resemblance of the republic when you tore the thing apart in your own interests isn't all that easy. Especially when you provide first hand lessons to Pompey and Caesar.

Of course Marius deserves his share of the blame.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jul 24, 2014)

Wasn't a precedent set for 'important' people flouting tradition/law when Scipio Aemelianus got given the... (let me try and recall...) command of the army in Iberia, I think, to put down a rebellion? I believe he should've had to wait for the office. Under him fought Jugurtha, who rebelled as King of Numidia and was put down by Marius/Sulla (much to the annoyance of the Metelli, who sponsored Marius' rise and then found themselves usurped in popular affection by him).


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 24, 2014)

The republic was under threat plenty of times and definitely broken, given the sources harking back to a romantic age we may never know all the details, but by Caesar there wasn't the republic was long since dead.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 24, 2014)

Aristotle would be my vote.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 25, 2014)

Scripco Africanus


----------



## Gramm838 (Jul 25, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Scripco Africanus



If you mean Scipio Africanus, he only came to the fore due to his battles with Hannibal, so no Hannibal, no Scipio


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Michael Colton said:


> Aristotle would be my vote.



Aristotle and Plato. one of the consequences of the their writings and philosophies was that they contributed to the stagnation of empirical science.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Aristotle and Plato. one of the consequences of the their writings and philosophies was that they contributed to the stagnation of empirical science.



I think this is totally unfair on those two. What scholars did with their works well after their deaths was decided by the latter system not something that either of these two philosophers said.  So I disagree 

If none of A&P's works had survived, the church would have continued being just as stagnant with respects to science in that period, they just would have different poster boys as their primary works and been as fiercely dogmatic about them.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> I think this is totally unfair on those two. What scholars did with their works well after their deaths was decided by the latter system not something that either of these two philosophers said.  So I disagree
> 
> If none of A&P's works had survived, the church would have continued being just as stagnant with respects to science in that period, they just would have different poster boys as their primary works and been as fiercely dogmatic about them.



Fair enough. But it did take a long time for them to finally disprove Spontaneous Generation.

Now let's talk about Ptolemy and his novel _contributions _to Astronomy.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Aristotle and Plato. one of the consequences of the their writings and philosophies was that they contributed to the stagnation of empirical science.



I'm sorry, but did you just say the person that invented logic hindered empirical science? Wat.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Michael Colton said:


> I'm sorry, but did you just say the person that invented logic hindered empirical science? Wat.



Aristotle may have invented Logic but he also came up with Spontaneous Generation?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jan 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Spontaneous Generation


Don't Atheists and "God as Watchmaker" ultimately believe in a limited form of 'Spontaneous Generation'?  As an article of faith, as there is no evidence either way.
i.e. 
Where did the first living thing(s) come from?


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Are you forgetting  Spontaneous Generation?



No, but I think logic and the good in Aristotle and Plato, respectively, more than make up their faults.

Historical importance should be measured by impact and nobody else started more important discussions about the world we live in than those two. Justice, ethics, logic, the concept of 'philosophy' and by association the concept of 'political philosophy.' The importance of these topics for Western civilization cannot be overstated. Other areas of the world have their own early thinkers that are just as important, but not enough can be said about people in history that started the discussions that rightly never end. Despite their faults (which were minuscule when put into the context of their times), Plato and Aristotle were the gravity that our civilization used to slingshot itself into a world worth living in.

"All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato." - Alfred North Whitehead


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Don't Atheists and "God as Watchmaker" ultimately believe in a limited form of 'Spontaneous Generation'?  As an article of faith, as there is no evidence either way.
> i.e.
> Where did the first living thing(s) come from?



If you talking amino acids yes.

But in the classical interpretation of Spontaneous Generation, fully formed  organism like horses and sheep ect would spring into being from non living matter.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Aristotle may have invented Logic but he also came up with Spontaneous Generation?



I could go through every single scientist and philosopher and cherry pick out all the daft things they came up with or believed as well 

Newton was a genius for his work in mathematics and physics in my mind, but he felt that his <_cough_> alchemy was just as important. And he pored over the bible to try and decode the messages that were there for the end times. 

Einstein's relatively shook up the physics world - but he got QM totally wrong. QM has since been the most tested and still intact theory in the history of humanity and has far exceeded Albert's expectations of it.

Kepler did well with his three laws...but told us that the planets emitted musical notes. 

Copernicus put the Earth in its place, and the sun in the centre of the solar system...yet the model he concocted to do this was in fact more complex and convoluted than the Ptolemaic model that wanted to replace it with - a proper scientist at the time, with the evidence of the time should have dismissed the Copernican model instantly using Occums razor. 

And before you dismiss Ptolemy...yes, I'll give you that he got it wrong with his insistence that circles are perfect and that you can only use circles in his workings but the general jist of the model, given the evidence that he had was actually quite sound. They didn't have telescopes to make the real breakthrough that disposed of the geocentric model (that Venus had phases) nor could they measure parallax of even the closest star accurately - i.e. parallax looked like it was zero. And if parallax was zero then the heliocentric model was telling them that the stars had to be an infinite distance away. Which didn't make a lot of sense. (an argument apparently actually used by Tycho Brahe  against Copernican Heliocentrism I see!)

With the evidence they had at in the 2nd Century AD, a geocentric model made a better fit. I'd give Ptolemy a pat on the back for his effort.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Michael Colton said:


> No, but I think logic and the good in Aristotle and Plato, respectively, more than make up their faults.
> 
> Historical importance should be measured by impact and nobody else started more important discussions about the world we live in than those two. Justice, ethics, logic, the concept of 'philosophy' and by association the concept of 'political philosophy.' The importance of these topics for Western civilization cannot be overstated. Other areas of the world have their own early thinkers that are just as important, but not enough can be said about people in history that started the discussions that rightly never end. Despite their faults (which were minuscule when put into the context of their times), Plato and Aristotle were the gravity that our civilization used to slingshot itself into a world worth living in.
> 
> "All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato." - Alfred North Whitehead



All excellent points .


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Sir Isaac Newton's experiments in Alchemy lead to the creation of Chemistry.  I tend to forget that  all these men of their times who didn't have a 21st century tech tools or prospective.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Sir Isaac Newton's experiments in Alchemy lead to the creation of Chemistry.  I tend to forget that  all these men of their times who didn't have a 21st century tech tools or prospective.



Robert Boyle - his arch-enemy (or is one of his arch-enemies is probably a better description) seemed to have a better mind for sound 'good alchemy'. He seemed to focus on questions and experiments which we would recognise as chemistry today. 

Newton seemed more focused on trying to produce the philosopher's stone and the Elixir of life*. I'm not sure Newton's work produced much that had any impact on the nascent field of chemistry. 

--------------------------------------------------------------

* I have to admit that Boyle did as well believed in the transmution of base metals to gold and therefore attempted to discover the philosopher's stone. But then most of European intelligensia probably dabbled in an attempt to get rich quick or gain immortality at the time when they could...


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 18, 2015)

Wait, you folks are saying I can't turn the graphite from my pencil into gold? So much time wasted.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Michael Colton said:


> Wait, you folks are saying I can't turn the graphite from my pencil into gold? So much time wasted.



Only Midas brand pencils have that magical property and only during a full moon.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 18, 2015)

I thought only Ellie Goulding had the Midus Touch.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jan 18, 2015)

Jk Rowling's pen.

Einstein didn't suggest an alternative to Quantum Mechanics, or deny it. He just didn't like it! 



BAYLOR said:


> Spontaneous Generation, fully formed organism like horses and sheep ect would spring into being from non living matter



I thought it was more Tapeworm, maggots and fleas ...  I was sure they thought sheep came from Ewes, though they did think that the Ram was mainly responsible, with the Ewe being hardly more than the flower pot. The ancients had some interesting contraceptives too, some of which do work, other such as worn charm obviously were not rigorously tested. In the end the Catholic Church decided any woman providing working contraceptive remedies was "obviously" a witch and this resulted in one of the first edicts about witches.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Jk Rowling's pen.
> 
> Einstein didn't suggest an alternative to Quantum Mechanics, or deny it. He just didn't like it!
> 
> ...




The Basilisk a mythical monster was widely feared in Ancient europe , To look upon it meant death . It was believed that a Basilisk was created as a  result of Toad incubating a chicken's egg. There was case where a farmer found a toad in his barn lying next to a chicken's egg. They put the toad on trial and burnt it at the stake.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jan 18, 2015)

Burning the egg might have been important too.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 18, 2015)

Oh, oh, I know! Boy George.

Yus.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 18, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Burning the egg might have been important too.



Unfortunately, the poor Toad had nothing to say in it's defense.


----------



## AscribedPurpose (Jan 19, 2015)

My first thought was Stalin as a complete no brainer (just because of the amount of his victims). Then again, he could have easily been someone else, considering the fact that it all started before him, with an ideology. Plus, we see examples of the same kind of dictatorship with fewer deaths around the world. So, no Stalin.

I'd probably say someone like Tesla. Basically, someone who affected our way of life, not just through wars. Without pennicilin, soap, electricity and smiliar things, our lives would look a lot different.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 19, 2015)

AscribedPurpose said:


> My first thought was Stalin as a complete no brainer (just because of the amount of his victims). Then again, he could have easily been someone else, considering the fact that it all started before him, with an ideology. Plus, we see examples of the same kind of dictatorship with fewer deaths around the world. So, no Stalin.
> 
> I'd probably say someone like Tesla. Basically, someone who affected our way of life, not just through wars. Without pennicilin, soap, electricity and smiliar things, our lives would look a lot different.



Inventions seem to be 'discovered' by several people at the same time though, don't they? Or if you are Thomas Edison (particularly), Alexander Graham Bell etc... you just steal the inventions that you find. 

I agree that Tesla was smart and wildly innovative, (although poor in his business ventures, and he had to compete with the Edison who was a class A *******), but surely a lot of the concepts/inventions that he tried to push were eventually replicated or reproduced by others?


----------



## AscribedPurpose (Jan 19, 2015)

Absolutely, that's why I said "someone like Tesla", and not Tesla in particular. I just wanted to point out that it's not ALL about the warlords.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 19, 2015)

AscribedPurpose said:


> Absolutely, that's why I said "someone like Tesla", and not Tesla in particular. I just wanted to point out that it's not ALL about the warlords.



Never said it was  Can't then be about inventors either though


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jan 19, 2015)

Inventions seem to have their time due to where science, technology, maths, engineering etc has got to. So mostly several people "discover" in a similar time period often unknown to each other initially.
Cinema, Light bulbs, telegraph, Radio, FM Radio, Superhet Radio, Tungsten in light bulbs, electronic and mechanical TV, Electronic valves/tubes, transistors, digital computers etc.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 19, 2015)

AscribedPurpose said:


> My first thought was Stalin as a complete no brainer (just because of the amount of his victims). Then again, he could have easily been someone else, considering the fact that it all started before him, with an ideology. Plus, we see examples of the same kind of dictatorship with fewer deaths around the world. So, no Stalin.
> 
> I'd probably say someone like Tesla. Basically, someone who affected our way of life, not just through wars. Without pennicilin, soap, electricity and smiliar things, our lives would look a lot different.



As you say, it did start before him. But Stalin is notable for one primary reason: he was simply a butcher. It is very unlikely he believed anything about the ideology or anything of which he said. As more and more evidence is uncovered, it is looking more and more likely that he was quite simply a mass murdering, power-hungry, talented psychopath. He did mark a distinct change. For all of Lenin's many faults, he at least believed that what he was doing was the right thing. That was not even a concept for Stalin. Just a butcher.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 19, 2015)

Michael Colton said:


> As you say, it did start before him. But Stalin is notable for one primary reason: he was simply a butcher. It is very unlikely he believed anything about the ideology or anything of which he said. As more and more evidence is uncovered, it is looking more and more likely that he was quite simply a mass murdering, power-hungry, talented psychopath. He did mark a distinct change. For all of Lenin's many faults, he at least believed that what he was doing was the right thing. That was not even a concept for Stalin. Just a butcher.



It doesn't matter whether he believed  he was right , Lenin monster too.  He brought into being the nightmare that was the Soviet Union , Checka  precursor to the KGB and the the so called peoples Commissars. He  killed his share of people including  the Romanov's , and he did bring in Stalin.  The consequences of his decisions and actions in no small measure contributed, directly and indirectly to death and suffering of the Russian people .  The world would have been a better place had he stayed in exile or never been at all .


----------



## Michael Colton (Jan 19, 2015)

When attempting to understand history it can be useful to examine and study the motivations behind events. Doing so does not constitute an endorsement of that which you are examining.


----------



## tinkerdan (Jan 20, 2015)

I view history as a number of support systems seeking leaders. Every leader mentioned has had a support system so to find the one most influential you might have to look at the one with the smallest support system, because it's the support system that needs the leader and it takes the one (anyone) that takes the lead. I would agree that each of those mentioned were strong leaders, but which of the strong leaders accomplished everything without a support system and without any other subordinate leadership. It is typical of great pride that one might assume that they are indispensable when in fact everyone can easily be replaced.

One of the largest lessons learned while standing at the grave site is that for the living life goes on. When we die it does effect those nearest us and the ripples can reach far but the earth does not stop nor does time.

That much said and though I would have to do much more study to know the man better and understanding all arguments against Jesus' existence;  I would then have to nominate someone such as Ghandi.
But I'm not absolutely certain that that void might not have been filled eventually.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 20, 2015)

Michael Colton said:


> When attempting to understand history it can be useful to examine and study the motivations behind events. Doing so does not constitute an endorsement of that which you are examining.



Your absolutely correct on that point.

Yes I do know it doesn't constitute an endorsement .


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 8, 2015)

George Washington .  Not the best military mind of all time he lost more battle then he won  but, but was  a great leader. Without him, the American Revolutions chances of success are greatly diminished, even doubtful.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 16, 2015)

Ulysses S. Grant . Without him the American Civil War has very different out come.  Yes he had Sherman was a superb General , But against Robert E Lee  Grant had the edge .


----------



## steelyglint (Mar 16, 2015)

Ghengis Khan.

He did quite a lot himself, but even more indirectly - he is supposed to have fathered hundreds of kids. That would have multiplied into millions by now. An ever-increasing number of small nudges over centuries would have to have more effect on history than any single lifetime.

.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 16, 2015)

steelyglint said:


> Ghengis Khan.
> 
> He did quite a lot himself, but even more indirectly - he is supposed to have fathered hundreds of kids. That would have multiplied into millions by now. An ever-increasing number of small nudges over centuries would have to have more effect on history than any single lifetime.
> 
> .



Without him there would been no  Kubla Khan or Yuan Dynasty Dynasty of China.  I wonder how that would have affected Marco Polo?


----------



## Faisal Shamas (Apr 7, 2015)

Not Christ for me, such a movement in middle-east was called for, it was a pot brewing with such ideas. I would Alexander of Macedon, it spread Greek thought and culture out to rest of the world, though Vatican did manage to curb it. Another man would be Descartes, he opened philosophical discussions, and set the process of rational thought in progress. To a degree, I would even add Elizabeth the First to the list


----------



## Ed Ryder (Jul 31, 2016)

J. Michael Straczynski. Imagine a world with no Babylon 5!! 

Historical figure-wise, Julius Caesar had a huge influence on the landscape and politics of the time. Would there have been a Roman Empire at all, or would it have remained a republic?


----------



## Calum (Aug 7, 2016)

Michael Colton said:


> As you say, it did start before him. But Stalin is notable for one primary reason: he was simply a butcher. It is very unlikely he believed anything about the ideology or anything of which he said. As more and more evidence is uncovered, it is looking more and more likely that he was quite simply a mass murdering, power-hungry, talented psychopath. He did mark a distinct change. For all of Lenin's many faults, he at least believed that what he was doing was the right thing. That was not even a concept for Stalin. Just a butcher.




That does raise the question of whose worse, people who kill in the name of causes they don’t even believe in or ones who sincerely view what they’re doing is right but follow abhorrent ideologies? Monsters who believe their own propaganda are more often than not worse than ones who are in it just for the glory, power, bikini girls and the swimming pools full of money.

Stalin’s one saving grace was that he was only as bad as he felt he could get away with being. His pragmatism kept him from launching a full scale war on Europe and America which would have likely cost millions of lives and limited his expansionist tendencies to periods when the other powers were occupied. When confronted with the possiblity of conflict with Britain in Iran his self preservation instict kicked in and he made a quick exit.

Contrast that to Mao and Hitler. Both of them earnestly believed every bit rubbish that came out of their mouths. The former was never content to merely sit back and relish the luxuries his position gave him. He was a true believer in the Communist cause who spent decades tinkering with China’s economic and governmental systems to make them fall in line with Marxist theories. The result was a clown car pile-up of incompetence and thick headed mishaps that left 40 million people dead, twice as many as Stalin. It also drove him to expand the Communist cause into Tibet and intervene in the Korean war (which the more pragmatic Stalin was content to sit out), wasting even more lives.

Hitler’s racial bile was to him a glorious crusade, one which he followed zealously even when it was against his own self-interest. In 1944 Germany took control of Hungary when it tried to pull out of the war. By this point Germany was on the retreat with Russia pushing in from the east and the D-Day landings only months away. Despite this Hitler chose to invest vast resources and man power into senselesly murdering the nation’s hundreds of thousands of Jews rather than in fighting the war. This shows that Hitler valued his perverted beliefs above pragmatism as he put his barmy campaign of ethnic cleansing above victory. But anyone with an iota of moral sense can see that doesn’t mitigate the horror of his crimes in the slightest.

On a gut level a dishonest dictator disgusts us but that very self-interest at least means they can be bought, negotiated with and controlled to some extent. Fanatics, whether they’re from Shankhill, The Bogside, The Gaza Strip or a backwater village in Austria will fight to the death for what they believe is right even if that constitutes exterminating any and all human being with the audacity to wear odd socks.


----------



## Faye HG (Aug 7, 2016)

Genghis Khan - despite the carnage changed the face of many social factors and spread his seed somewhat into the gene pool!
Einstein - would have taken some decades more to discover what he found out via this thought experiments.
Hitler - his non existence would be most welcome on several fronts!


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 25, 2016)

Genghis Kahn (and the successors) would be my pick of we are barring to theological (it's hard not to make a case for Jesus otherwise)

The Kahns conquered China and the Middle East. Their impact was so great that a lot of Historians believe Crusader Kings invented invented legends like "Prestor John" (the Christian King in the East) to explain why they were meeting so many diminished and confused armies in the Arab world. It truth, it was the Kahns coming out of the East and kicking the hell out of the Muslims while they were trying to fight the Chrisitians in the West.

The Kahns may be a side note in Western History, but if you snoop deep enough you find they had a tremendous Infulance on a lot of what we have today.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 25, 2016)

Dulahan said:


> Genghis Kahn (and the successors) would be my pick of we are barring to theological (it's hard not to make a case for Jesus otherwise)
> 
> The Kahns conquered China and the Middle East. Their impact was so great that a lot of Historians believe Crusader Kings invented invented legends like "Prestor John" (the Christian King in the East) to explain why they were meeting so many diminished and confused armies in the Arab world. It truth, it was the Kahns coming out of the East and kicking the hell out of the Muslims while they were trying to fight the Chrisitians in the West.
> 
> The Kahns may be a side note in Western History, but if you snoop deep enough you find they had a tremendous Infulance on a lot of what we have today.



Under the Khan's China looked outward to the world . When the Ming Dynasty came to power, China closed itself off to the world.


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 25, 2016)

@BAYLOR 

Right and, in a round about sort of way, the Kahns established a united China by conquering it. China was broken into a couple nation-states when Genghis left the steps. The Ming over threw the Yun _(I believe it was, the previous dynasty)_ at the tail end of the Mongol empire and that usurpation won a unified China.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 26, 2016)

Dulahan said:


> @BAYLOR
> 
> Right and, in a round about sort of way, the Kahns established a united China by conquering it. China was broken into a couple nation-states when Genghis left the steps. The Ming over threw the Yun _(I believe it was, the previous dynasty)_ at the tail end of the Mongol empire and that usurpation won a unified China.



Looking inward proved be a disastrous decisions  for China. Technologically the Chinese  were in some ways, more advanced then then Europe . Had they decided they wanted to become world power, they could have done so quite easily and would and could  have kept Europe in check.


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 26, 2016)

The Chinese were WAY more advanced than Europe and the Middle East. The Kahns assimilated their conquered, the siege engines and armies they brought into the Middle East and Eastern Europe were Chinese. There was nothing particularly disastrous about looking inward post-Kahn, especially considering the rest of Europe went back to fighting with itself. The Kahns made Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like philanthropists -- with the amount of murder, pillaging and rape the Eastern Armies did it is not surprising they wanted to take a break for a bit.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 26, 2016)

Having just gotten to this thread, I haven't yet managed to read it all -- but I find myself pondering whether we're incorrectly overlooking Muhammad (i.e., the Prophet of Islam). The movement he founded conquered a larger portion of the world than did Genghiz Khan, and then converted many of the Khan's descendants. And they almost took Europe.
The world might have been very different...

On the other hand: I think a really good argument could be made that the southern fringe of Eurasia was, at the time the Prophet began to preach, ripe for almost galvanizing message -- so was it the Prophet who did it all, or just the people who embraced his message and ran with it?


----------



## Mirannan (Aug 26, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> Having just gotten to this thread, I haven't yet managed to read it all -- but I find myself pondering whether we're incorrectly overlooking Muhammad (i.e., the Prophet of Islam). The movement he founded conquered a larger portion of the world than did Genghiz Khan, and then converted many of the Khan's descendants. And they almost took Europe.
> The world might have been very different...
> 
> On the other hand: I think a really good argument could be made that the southern fringe of Eurasia was, at the time the Prophet began to preach, ripe for almost galvanizing message -- so was it the Prophet who did it all, or just the people who embraced his message and ran with it?



Galvanizing. Well, that's one word for it, I suppose. The message being basically "kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with me."


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 26, 2016)

@2DaveWixon Like I was saying above, the Kahns were all about assimilation. Provided you bent the knee to Khagan _(Great Kahn) _you could maintain a degree of autonomy in respect to Faith and Government _(not unlike the Romans)_. Rather progressive for a blood thirsty barbarian. Mohammad, at the time of his death, had captured the Arabian Peninsula. Following Caliphates culminating with Ottoman Empire were a churning mass of undulating border lines. In all it maybe 2 million sq miles _(this is a guess really, like I said, there was ALOT of undulating)_ 

Genghis himself conquered twice as much as any man in history, his line captured something like 11 million sq. miles of territory  _(which is roughly the size of Africa)_ 

As a Theological Leader he surely blows Kahn away, really it would he tough to many any comparison outside of Jesus -- which is completely relevant to the topic at hand. I am just pointing out that if we remove Ideology, its not a big step to select the Steppe people.


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 26, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> Galvanizing. Well, that's one word for it, I suppose. The message being basically "kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with me."



You sort of have to take a step back when looking at these historical figures. They come from an era of casual violence and even the best of them is sure to offend out modern sensibilities.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 26, 2016)

Dulahan said:


> You sort of have to take a step back when looking at these historical figures. They come from an era of casual violence and even the best of them is sure to offend out modern sensibilities.



These were not nice people, they couldn't afford to be given  the type of world they lived in.


----------



## logan_run (Aug 11, 2017)

George  Washington. Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## sinister42 (Aug 11, 2017)

Well if you go back far enough, the first spark of "life" that emerged out of the primordial soup.


----------



## sinister42 (Aug 11, 2017)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Don't Atheists and "God as Watchmaker" ultimately believe in a limited form of 'Spontaneous Generation'?  As an article of faith, as there is no evidence either way.
> i.e.
> Where did the first living thing(s) come from?



"Life" evolved from whatever preceded it.  The point at which the amino acids in the "primordial soup" of ancient Earth gained the qualities necessary to call them "alive" is when life began.  Scientists have a lot of competing theories.  See, that's the thing about science - there's no "THIS IS THE TRUTH" for anything.  There's "this is likely what happened" but there can be a lot of those coexisting and competing with each other at once. 

The alternative notion put forth by religion, "I don't know - therefore GOD" is patently nonsense.  Ok, that's an oversimplification and some might find my explanation disrespectful, for which I apologize, but isn't that ultimately what it comes down to?  What other evidence does religion have?  

Yes, there are religious movements (mine - Reform Judaism - included) some members of which take a more holistic view - holy books are allegories and ethical guidelines, but not to be taken as historical truth, you can have evolution and God simultaneously, maybe God is a hands-off creator that after he went POOF he sat back and let evolution happen.  

To call the scientific process an "article of faith" is patently nonsense, as the notion of "faith" is anathema to how science actually works.  Science works on evidence.  We don't have all the answers, but we're working on it.  And as we find them, the notion of a supernatural God shrinks a bit into the gaps we haven't explained yet. 

You find me God using the scientific method and I'll go to Temple tomorrow.


----------



## Mirannan (Aug 11, 2017)

sinister42 said:


> "Life" evolved from whatever preceded it.  The point at which the amino acids in the "primordial soup" of ancient Earth gained the qualities necessary to call them "alive" is when life began.  Scientists have a lot of competing theories.  See, that's the thing about science - there's no "THIS IS THE TRUTH" for anything.  There's "this is likely what happened" but there can be a lot of those coexisting and competing with each other at once.
> 
> The alternative notion put forth by religion, "I don't know - therefore GOD" is patently nonsense.  Ok, that's an oversimplification and some might find my explanation disrespectful, for which I apologize, but isn't that ultimately what it comes down to?  What other evidence does religion have?
> 
> ...



"God of the gaps" is fairly pathetic, but on the other hand there is a gigantic gap right at the Beginning that God fits right into. Hawking put it quite well, as the "One who breathed fire into the equations".

The thing is, it may well be that in some Platonic sense there is a single, perfectly logical structure comprising all of physical law that, if activated, leads inevitably to a Universe much like ours (perhaps with some minor alterations, such as sapient dinosaurs instead of humans) but that doesn't mean it actually has to exist in a "real" sense. (Definitions of "is" and "exists" and "reality" are quite difficult, aren't they?)

Some people think that God created everything there is just as it now is, a relatively short time ago. The opposite end of that spectrum of belief might be that God created the structure (the equations, if you like) in such a way that if activated it would lead inevitably to sapient beings, somewhere and at some time, while leaving open the details of their biology - and then "breathed fire into the equations" and walked away.

In my humble opinion, the latter is much more impressive than bodging the whole thing up "by hand". But that's just me.

Oh, just one more thing and maybe the most controversial; IMHO assigning a sex to a singular, omnipotent being is ridiculous.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 11, 2017)

As we're drifting into religious discussion here, I think t's best to let this old thread die away - if anyone wants to bring up the original topic in a new thread, they are welcome to.


----------

