If you can see the outcome of just one historical event going differently up to the present-day, which one would you choose?

WolfBear

Well-known member
If you can see the outcome of just one historical event going differently up to the present-day, which one would you choose? As for me, it would be Gavrilo Princip failing to shoot Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. I'd like to see if World War I would have ever occurred later on in such a scenario as well as how such a world would have looked like right now.

If I could choose a second event as well, I would choose Tsar Peter III of Russia not making peace with Prussia in 1762 and instead fighting the Seven Years' War up to the very end, destroying Prussia as a military power in the process and seizing East Prussia from Frederick the Great and giving it to the PLC in exchange for Courland while Austria gets Silesia back. I'd certainly like to see how that world would have turned out by the present-day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
If you can see the outcome of just one historical event going differently up to the present-day, which one would you choose? As for me, it would be Gavrilo Princip failing to shoot Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. I'd like to see if World War I would have ever occurred later on in such a scenario as well as how such a world would have looked like right now.

If I could choose a second event as well, I would choose Tsar Peter III of Russia not making peace with Prussia in 1762 and instead fighting the Seven Years' War up to the very end, destroying Prussia as a military power in the process and seizing East Prussia from Frederick the Great and giving it to the PLC in exchange for Courland while Austria gets Silesia back. I'd certainly like to see how that world would have turned out by the present-day.
1- change notching,everybody then wonted war.
2 - yes,it would be change.

My idea - Machomet dying on his way to Medina.No islam,no problems.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
Single change that would best improve the modern world?

1992, a year after the end of the cold war, the Saudis are getting clobbered by an asteroid strike. Tunguska Event-scale. At a minimum.

Wahhabism is effectively a dead ideology as its greatest supporters and funding source went up in a mushroom cloud, so no 9/11 and accompanying neoconservative authoritarian bullshit like the Patriot Act and War On Terror in America. Instead, we get a level of public concern and funding for an asteroid deflection system and all the trickle-down technologies involved in building one* equivalent to that which in reality was wasted on the Perpetual Middle-Eastern Dumpster Fire and instead of Saudi oil, the equivalent of the petrodollar is based off American thorium reactors and powersats**.

* Heavy-lift orbital launch capabilities. Probably Sea Dragon or NERVA nuclear rockets.
** See "trickle-down technologies".
 

ATP

Well-known member
Single change that would best improve the modern world?

1992, a year after the end of the cold war, the Saudis are getting clobbered by an asteroid strike. Tunguska Event-scale. At a minimum.

Wahhabism is effectively a dead ideology as its greatest supporters and funding source went up in a mushroom cloud, so no 9/11 and accompanying neoconservative authoritarian bullshit like the Patriot Act and War On Terror in America. Instead, we get a level of public concern and funding for an asteroid deflection system and all the trickle-down technologies involved in building one* equivalent to that which in reality was wasted on the Perpetual Middle-Eastern Dumpster Fire and instead of Saudi oil, the equivalent of the petrodollar is based off American thorium reactors and powersats**.

* Heavy-lift orbital launch capabilities. Probably Sea Dragon or NERVA nuclear rockets.
** See "trickle-down technologies".

Why not target Waschington,Moscov and Pekin instead? Berlin ,too ,just in case.
But,jokes aside,we have better future in your scenario.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
1- change notching,everybody then wonted war.
2 - yes,it would be change.

My idea - Machomet dying on his way to Medina.No islam,no problems.

Unless at least one of his supporters begins getting visions that build upon Muhammad's previous visions. Then Islam could still be created, but perhaps in a somewhat different form relative to real life.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Unless at least one of his supporters begins getting visions that build upon Muhammad's previous visions. Then Islam could still be created, but perhaps in a somewhat different form relative to real life.

Then killed in Mecca when he tried run with all supporters.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Well, if we're allowing ASBs, the Greens win the Russian Civil War. That's the agrarian faction that opposed farm collectivization but didn't want to be associated with the Whites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
Well, if we're allowing ASBs, the Greens win the Russian Civil War. That's the agrarian faction that opposed farm collectivization but didn't want to be associated with the Whites.
Good idea - unfortunatelly Wall Street paid reds and,for a time,whites,but not greens.Send somebody who would blown up Wall street barons first?
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Good idea - unfortunatelly Wall Street paid reds and,for a time,whites,but not greens.Send somebody who would blown up Wall street barons first?
That would only make things worse. It would have to be either the start of an American Communist uprising or an act of God that would probably set one off.

I said ASB. They catch a sudden and irreversible case of common sense and actually realize they're investing in people whose business case is "first we murder all the investors, second we take their stuff, third profit!"
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Hmm, many possible choices. Some personal favorites:

1. Nicholas Trist dies of Yellow Fever, derailing peace talks with Mexico in late 1847. By the time a new American diplomat has been sent, positions have been hardened with the All Mexico movement that the U.S. fights the war to a decisive conclusion in 1848 before annexing the whole of Mexico.

2. Stephen of Blois does not defects from the siege of Antioch, and Emperor Alexios I Komnenos goes all the way to relieve the Crusaders.

3. André Masséna dies of typhoid early on during the Siege of Genoa in 1800, leading to the surrender of his army well ahead of schedule and in totality. Napoleon thus gets smashed coming down from the Swiss Alps, resulting in the War of the Third Coalition ending with French defeat by 1801. The monasteries of Europe aren't dissolved, the Napoleonic Code is not propagated across the World either.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Hmm, many possible choices. Some personal favorites:

1. Nicholas Trist dies of Yellow Fever, derailing peace talks with Mexico in late 1847. By the time a new American diplomat has been sent, positions have been hardened with the All Mexico movement that the U.S. fights the war to a decisive conclusion in 1848 before annexing the whole of Mexico.

2. Stephen of Blois does not defects from the siege of Antioch, and Emperor Alexios I Komnenos goes all the way to relieve the Crusaders.

3. André Masséna dies of typhoid early on during the Siege of Genoa in 1800, leading to the surrender of his army well ahead of schedule and in totality. Napoleon thus gets smashed coming down from the Swiss Alps, resulting in the War of the Third Coalition ending with French defeat by 1801. The monasteries of Europe aren't dissolved, the Napoleonic Code is not propagated across the World either.

1.Dunno
2.Dunno
3.Sadly,no.Masons ruling Europe would steal monasteries anyway.And made their own code,worst then Napoleon.

@Atarlost ,Wall Street could be killed by some anarchists/commies,so there would be no revolution.
And,even if such revolution started,americans from 1917 would kill it.They were still normal then.
 

DarthOne

☦️
Someone else besides Woodnew Wilson is elected President, either keeping America out of WW1 or joining on the side of the Central Powers in response to British Shenanigans. Either way the Central Powers win WW1. So likely a much more socially conservative world, Wilson doesn’t get to make a mess of the USA and racial relations, the Soviet Union is likely strangled in its crib, Hitler never has a reason to rise to power and the USA doesn’t become a bloated Empire.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Jean Jaque Rousseau gets struck by lightning as a teenager.
Other idiots would still live.So,notching change ,with possible exception of "nible savage" myth.
Or somebody else would made it,too.

Someone else besides Woodnew Wilson is elected President, either keeping America out of WW1 or joining on the side of the Central Powers in response to British Shenanigans. Either way the Central Powers win WW1. So likely a much more socially conservative world, Wilson doesn’t get to make a mess of the USA and racial relations, the Soviet Union is likely strangled in its crib, Hitler never has a reason to rise to power and the USA doesn’t become a bloated Empire.

All germans need was not be idiots and not change Schieffen plan.You do not need alternate president for that.
And,as long as prussian elites would rule Germany,they would start another WW and lost it thanks to their own stupidity.
It is Frederick the Great Thief legacy.
 
Someone else besides Woodnew Wilson is elected President, either keeping America out of WW1 or joining on the side of the Central Powers in response to British Shenanigans. Either way the Central Powers win WW1. So likely a much more socially conservative world, Wilson doesn’t get to make a mess of the USA and racial relations, the Soviet Union is likely strangled in its crib, Hitler never has a reason to rise to power and the USA doesn’t become a bloated Empire.


Either central powers win or the two sides fight themselves into oblivion until either balkanization or the glassing of Europe occurs. Either way everything occurs as you say above so win -win
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top