Most Important Non-Existant Person
- Thread starter Chingo360
- Start date
Its not the actual changes to history that get ye, its those damn butterflies in the endImajin said:
i voted atila the hun without him the huns might not have been so succesful and not get as far as hey did in our TL, so they don't force a massmigration and the roman empire might not fall, o atleast stay around for several more hundereds of years. that would probarly have made a huge change in history.
W/O Ceasar, Vercingetorix would never had risen as he did.pisces74 said:
And the Teutons were defeated half a century begore Vercingetorix.
Anyway, this poll is a no-brainer, because of the butterfly effect. If "nameless egyptian farmer, circa 1000 BC" was an option, he'd have the biggest effect.
Alexander didn't really affect any parts of the world important later. Rome would probably have expanded without him, and Europe would probably also have taken over later. Islam might or might not have developed and conquered the area, but that wouldn't matter too much - it would at best make the news a little bit more boring.
I choose Caesar. Without him, Rome might have stayed a republic, maybe even modernized a little bit. That would make Rome much more powerful, much better organized, and much less in danger of being ruled by some of the whackos following Caesar. It might also have lead to Rome developing into some kind of "hyper nation" like China, which continues to exist even if the government falls apart every once in a while. This Rome might develop similar to China, but 500 years earlier, and then similar to Europe but 1000 years earlier. Imagine air planes at about the year 1000.
I choose Caesar. Without him, Rome might have stayed a republic, maybe even modernized a little bit. That would make Rome much more powerful, much better organized, and much less in danger of being ruled by some of the whackos following Caesar. It might also have lead to Rome developing into some kind of "hyper nation" like China, which continues to exist even if the government falls apart every once in a while. This Rome might develop similar to China, but 500 years earlier, and then similar to Europe but 1000 years earlier. Imagine air planes at about the year 1000.
jolo said:
Jolo
I am afraid I am disagreeing with everything you say this week.
Alexander's conquests Hellenized the urban Near East, massively affecting world science, culture and philosopy - think of the intellectual output of the city of Alexandria.
Christianity might not have developed. let alone Islam.
The development of Islam would matter rather a lot, in terms of its own intellectual output and its affect on Christianity.
It is a bit out of place to say it would just make the news quieter.
It is hard to see the Roman republic surviving with or without Caesar, it was no longer a sustainable political system. It is interesting to note how little negative effect the "whackos" had.
Wozza said:
Don't worry - I'm used to that.
Wozza said:
As I see it, without the uniformisation of this area, Greek, Egyptian and other knowledge might have survived with much fewer losses/interruptions. The effect might therefore be rather neutral, all in all. Egypt was a center of culture before and could have returned to that status without Greek occupation - if not Alexandria (named differntly, of course), then maybe Cairo or some cities outside of Egypt. As it is, much of what was collected in Alexandria got lost.
Wozza said:
I don't see Christianity as having contributed much to European development. The opposite might be true.
Wozza said:
Then again I suppose some intellectual, cultural, or technological golden ages would probably have happened under other circumstances, too - and maybe without some of the backlashes inbetween.
Wozza said:
Maybe a little bit crude. But not really meant to be offensive. I suppose even Muslims have to agree that Islamic countries have been lagging behind a little bit in the last 400 years.
Wozza said:
The whackos managed to destroy in 400 years what the republic build up in 600 years. I don't see the Roman system as not reformable - I suppose Rome could easily have transformed into a more modern society. Only with dictatorships was that impossible.
Max Sinister
Banned
I voted for Pythagoras. If he hadn't invented all those mathematical ideas, it could be that noone had (why did scientific progress in the Roman world stop immediately with Archimedes?), and that would really change history.
Ok, first of all, Alexander has nearly 3 centuries on Caesar, so the butterflies alone will be huge. Regardless of where he campaigned, it'll change everything.jolo said:
Second, the area's he campaigned were incredibly important. Are you willing to sit there and tell me that Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Iran, India, and Pakistan are unimportant? I may be a bit of a neo con, but damn, you're being Eurocentric.
Third, how can you say that the emergence of Islam wouldn't matter? Muslims created one of the largest empires the world has seen, and on the corpses of two of the oldest.
Ok, first of all, you keep on admitting that there will be huge changes.jolo said:Don't worry - I'm used to that.
As I see it, without the uniformisation of this area, Greek, Egyptian and other knowledge might have survived with much fewer losses/interruptions. The effect might therefore be rather neutral, all in all. Egypt was a center of culture before and could have returned to that status without Greek occupation - if not Alexandria (named differntly, of course), then maybe Cairo or some cities outside of Egypt. As it is, much of what was collected in Alexandria got lost.
I don't see Christianity as having contributed much to European development. The opposite might be true.
Then again I suppose some intellectual, cultural, or technological golden ages would probably have happened under other circumstances, too - and maybe without some of the backlashes inbetween.
Maybe a little bit crude. But not really meant to be offensive. I suppose even Muslims have to agree that Islamic countries have been lagging behind a little bit in the last 400 years.
The whackos managed to destroy in 400 years what the republic build up in 600 years. I don't see the Roman system as not reformable - I suppose Rome could easily have transformed into a more modern society. Only with dictatorships was that impossible.
Second of all, the 'whackos' did not destroy in 400 years what the republic built up in 600.
- The Republic was founded in 509 BC and fell in 31 BC (i'm gonna give you the years of Caesar and civil wars afterward as part of the republic, cuz I'm nice). Thats 478 years.
- The principate was founded around 31 BC and fell in 476 BC. Thats 507 years. Longer than the length of the Republic.
- Shall we even point out the extre millenia of existance that the Roman principate enjoyed centered around Constantinople (which was the capital a century before the west fell)? Nah, thats not fair, as it doesn't just shoot down your argument, it riddles the corpse with so many bullets that it'd make the LAPD blush.
- Alright, so lets say the Republic is reformable. I agree. But snuffing Caesar isn't the way to do it. It just deprives Rome of one of her best generals and an ardent supporter of the common people. Without Caesar, the optimates might win the civil wars, and you get an oligarchy thats resented as close as italy. Or, somebody else succeeds in unifying the Roman republic under their rule.
jolo said:Don't worry - I'm used to that.
1. As I see it, without the uniformisation of this area, Greek, Egyptian and other knowledge might have survived with much fewer losses/interruptions. The effect might therefore be rather neutral, all in all. Egypt was a center of culture before and could have returned to that status without Greek occupation - if not Alexandria (named differntly, of course), then maybe Cairo or some cities outside of Egypt. As it is, much of what was collected in Alexandria got lost.
2. I don't see Christianity as having contributed much to European development. The opposite might be true.
3. Then again I suppose some intellectual, cultural, or technological golden ages would probably have happened under other circumstances, too - and maybe without some of the backlashes inbetween.
4. Maybe a little bit crude. But not really meant to be offensive. I suppose even Muslims have to agree that Islamic countries have been lagging behind a little bit in the last 400 years.
5. The whackos managed to destroy in 400 years what the republic build up in 600 years. I don't see the Roman system as not reformable - I suppose Rome could easily have transformed into a more modern society. Only with dictatorships was that impossible.
1. Small point - Cairo is not founded until after the Islamic conquests. I have just cheated and checked online and not until the Fatimids.
Your view of history is too linear, ignoring the interplay of cultures. Someone has pointed out to me that Iranian influences would continue to increase in Syria and Egypt, intellectual development would be completely different.
2. Christianity massively affected European culture, determining views on sexual morality - pederasty, homosexuality, marriage, incest.
Also views on warfare - Truce of God, Peace of God, Just War
Most medieval scholarship is carried out by Churchmen.
Also there is a substantial architectural and artistic heritage.
3. Indeed it might have done, but the point is that is would all have been very different to the world we know.
4. I would agree with you in many ways, although Islam has plenty of achievements historically. We also live in rather sensitive times.
5. It does not really add up to say that they spent 400 years destroying the Empire, especially as the Eastern Empire survived in recognisable form until the late 7th C. It can be argued that the Empire has considerable vitality until very near the end, most modern explanation focus on the Empire being overwhelmed rather than internal decay. This is extremely well well described in Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire.
The empire does for instance survive the 3rd century crisis,