Whose non-existence would have changed history the most?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aquilonian

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
168
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!! :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
On religious chaps existing or not: I'm pretty confident Jesus did exist (it's the Christ aspect that's more debatable).
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
3. Hitler
4. Stalin
5. Mohammed
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Snicklefritz N Scott Momaday whose work is considered the starting point for contemporary Native American literature Obituaries 0
D Where do you stand if you want to use an famous character whose out of copyright? Writing Discussion 13
Astro Pen Whose pen am I holding? Workshop 103
Ursa major PDFs whose printouts omit things that are shown in Acrobat Reader Technology 5
B (Found) YA Fantasy series (4+ books), set in 1990s-2000s, female protagonist whose family is all murdered & moonlight gives her powers Book Search 2

Similar threads


Back
Top