Irreplaceable by History

As much of what is discussed here is about what if such and such didn't exist, I was wondering if there is anyone that you think is irreplaceable, i.e. if they had not been born no one else would have done what they did?

Any ideas?
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Hitler is a good one

Einstein in that I doubt ONE MAN would have come up with all he did, tho within a decade or so of each decision someone else would have come up with each one

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
That mean you think he made the whole thing up by himself ?

That means I don't think someone else would have been as successful as he was at spreading the message or leading the Arabs.

Whether he made it up or received it from Allah, a mortal man had to do the talking and persuading and so on.

And at a later time - even say, a generation later - the opportunity that Islam had would have eroded.

So Mohammad was the man who could do it, and who did do it. I don't think just anyone would fit the bill.
 
Jesus Christ. Wether or not one believes he was the son of God, I see few people who could have done what he achieved. His teaching have led to the rise of a Religion (Christianity) which 1/3 of the World's population believe in today.
 
Arguably from a US POV Ulysses S. Grant. The man really sounds improbable in too many things to be done away with. From a global POV, Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Ferdinand and Isabella.....and most blatantly Qin Shi Huang and Liu Bang.

Ironically Jesus was not irreplaceable, as the Sabbatean phenomenon showed having claims to be the Jewish Messiah that were flat failures is a more common thing than was realized.
 
Jesus Christ. Wether or not one believes he was the son of God, I see few people who could have done what he achieved. His teaching have led to the rise of a Religion (Christianity) which 1/3 of the World's population believe in today.

I think you mean Constantine the Great. Without him Christianity would have been "those funny pork-eating Jews."
 
Not necessarily. He was just a run of the mill Roman Emperor who embraced Christianity. There could easily have been another.

Not in the context of the Third Century Crisis, not at all. Nor is there any inevitable trend that Roman Emperors would embrace Christianity over some other imperial ideology. Christianity's rise began *after* it got the full patronage of the Roman state, not before.
 
Why would the Roman state begin to favor it if it hadn't already reached a certain level of importance before-hand?
 
Why would the Roman state begin to favor it if it hadn't already reached a certain level of importance before-hand?

A means to break the log-jam of endless endemic Civil War by going for something completely different? Not to mention that Constantine's mother was a Christian, so Constantine was already sympathetic enough to Christianity as it was. Remove him and another Roman Emperor will likely try a completely different method based on another set of reforms.
 
There are some improbably folks though, while others are mere products of their times.

True, but I can't see why they can be replaced by someone who does something similar or equally improbable. A certainly POD may butterfly Muhammad, but we might still see someone who rises up to create a religion and build a far reaching empire. Maybe not in Arabia, and maybe this religion is absolutely nothing like Islam, but there would be similarities.

I agree there are those who products of their times, but there are also people who products of the times of their own TLs. You don't really see improbable events a lot in AH as people are afraid of it being labelled implausible, but I find that most interesting myself. Weird and long shot things that happen.
 
Top