We've had so many posts about which significant event(or top10) or man/woman(or top10) has changed our world.

I'm curious to know what event you guys think would have had the greatest impact on our world if it had succeeded in taking shape or had failed.

For example:
1) Like if we didn't have home computers(if computers still required those punch cards)
2) or like if alexander or napolean had succeeded to take india and russia respectively.
3) hitler never lost the war(that is to say the allies losing)
4) the phone was never invented


The one I think would have teh greatest impact would be if genghis khan's sons never broke up his land.

I mean if the event was an object, people would usually argue that if that inventor didn't create it someone else would have. So like fire, boats, phone, computers though significant would have been invented otherwise.

But for a society to crumble thats different. Thats why i picked genghis khan

In my opinion the biggest never happened scenario is two fold:

- The failed Moorish invasion of France.
- The failed Ottoman advance on Vienna.

Those two imo would have changed the world forever, and America will still be under native rule today. An Islamic Europe would ensue, and there would be three world orders, Islamic, Russian, and Chinese.

The Ottomans failure at Vienna. In North America, Lee's decision to take the war into the North, which culminated with his failure at Gettysburg, possibly kept McClellan from defeating Lincoln in the '64 election and ending the Civil War, as was his campaign promise, with the Union permanently split.

I think if Vikings had brought a handfull of europeon diseases to North America in the medievel ages then by the time the conquistadors got to the new world the native populations would already have been resistant to european diseases and probably would of been able to hold off invading forces desptite their low tech not to mention hand a different strain of infectious disease back to the europeans.

Yes, had the Muslims been victorious at Tours we would all be living in a very different world today. Also, something significant, things might be different if Hirohito hadn't declared war on the United States.

Failed intents of Hitler. One wonders what would have happened had Hitler's dreams been realized.

Had Athens won over Sparta in the Pelopenisian war (right war I hope)

Had Einstien decided not to quit his job at the Patent office and continued a life of ennui and dead end work.

Had he never proposed the idea of the atom bomb to the US during WWII.

If Hitler had not been rejected by the Vienna Acadmey of Art...

I think also another “what if”, would be, what if Alexander the Great lived much longer. I think the Roman Empire probably would have never happened, or you would have had a Roman empire that was in a "cold war" with the Greek empire in the East. I think that trade, philosophy, religion, and other such important things being traded east-west, west-east to create a much different world then today.

Another thing is the failure of Byzantium, and Christianity in the Middle East. I think that would have been the single most important event in our "common" era history. The idea of a Christian world from Portugal to India would have systematically changed the way the world works.

One more thing, if the Chinese were stupid and if they kept their expeditions to the Americas, and build colonies there, we would be in Europe right now, or we would be speaking Mandarin. The Chinese did come to America before any Europeans, I suggest you read 1421.

yes being chinese..i know how great the ancient society once was...we gave faith to too many bad leaders and crumbled under our own will.

i still think genghis khan would have expanded far greater than any other leader.

If the first man a woman on the Earth didn't have children.

No radar in the UK in WW2? No Atomic bombs cos the right people didnt escape germany and others didnt get together at the right time? Ford died in an automobile crash? The Armada of 1588? The 1707 act of union of the parliaments of Scotalnd and englad hadnt gone through? Alaska hadnt been bought by the USA, or the louisiana purchase hadnt happened? Quinine hadnt been found? The structure of DNA not unravelled so early? Nietzche had died younger? There hadnt been the PLague in 14th century Europe? Malta had fallen to the turks in 1555 or so? The early europeans hadnt invented an improved, larger loom for weaving greater areas of cloth on?
Ghengis Khan had fallen off his horse aged 9 and died? The Tao Te Ching had not been written down? Or how about the Vikings had not suffered overpopulation pressures and suchlike and never invaded Europe? that would have led to England still being Anglo-saxon, no Normans, less trade throughout central Russia, very few Icelanders, the early christian saxon and Irish civilisation would have been preserved.

If the big bang decided not to happen after all. :bugeye:

"If Hitler had not been rejected by the Vienna Acadmey of Art..."

It's even possible that someone with greater competence would have taken his place.

one failed event in history may trigger more failed events, so.......
I don't know whether to go with Ozy or cosmic :)

If Klanthog the Psychic Emperor had failed to not be born.

If kennedy would not have been assasinated.

If the Chinese had not rejected an offer by an admiral to explore the pacific and to expand their empire...

What failed event?

The Communist Revolution.

If the meteor had never struck setting the stage for mammals.

Bush not being elected.

if the library of alexandria had never been destroyed (around 5th century)

there were plans for a steam engine among other works, the industrial revolution would have happened a millenia sooner...We'd be far beyond mars by now...sigh

If joe smiths mum had never met joe smiths dad.

The Philadelphia Experiment.

The biggest what if in Latin America would have been the failure of the Spanish to take Mexico, and the Incas. A modern failure is the failure of Paraguay to enlarge her empire from the Gran Chaco to the Rio De La Plata.

I would have to say:

The Bible was never written and the events never recorded. :D

(not reading the whole thread) But what will the world be like if the A-Bomb hadn't been dropped in those two Japanese cities or if Nuke and the H-Bomb Hadn't been made. Also what would the world be like if the all the loser in the past wars won...... ehhh?

If joe smiths mum had never met joe smiths dad.
Then no Joe Smith here

If Pontius Pilate had decided to imprison Jesus Christ for life instead of crucifying him.

but still didn't Jesus still had many followers before he was crucifyed

If Trotsky instead of Stalin usurped the dead body of Lenin as leader of the USSR.

Critical turning points are a fascinating study. There have been many, some accepted by most as critical, some debatable. I hope this thread contiues and there are more turning points listed.

Inventions, technology, and scientific theories seem to have a certain inevitability, given the proper cultural and technological context. They do not seem like candidates for critical turning points. For example, as soon as there was a shift toward technology based cultures, there was a motive to produce calculating and data processing devices. Computers were inevitable. Babbage designed a plausible analogue computer prior to the civil war. It was never built due to lack of sufficient technology, although somebody built one in the last 20-30 years to prove that it would have worked. The first mechanical calculators were built prior to 1900, and punched card processing devices were built for use by the census bureau early in the 20th century or late in the 19th. The steam engine, autos and the airplane arrived about as soon as technology allowed them to be built.

I would take the Kennedy assassination off the list. He just did not seem to have the potential for effecting the world possessed by men like Churchill, Washington, Jefferson, Alexander, et cetera. Those who are assassinated are often over rated. I wonder if Lincoln would have had that much effect if he had lived.

I would add the Spartan confrontation with the Persian army at Thermopylae. 300 hundred Spartans held back a huge Persian army at a narrow pass. At the time, Greece was a group of city states, none of whom had an army capable of dealing with the Persian invasion. The Spartans held the Persians back long enough for the city states to mobilize. Otherwise the Persians would probably have defeated the Greeks one city at a time. Persian control of Greece probably would have had a significant effect on the development of Western culture. I think the Spartans might have held out a few days longer if the Persians had not found a route allowing them to attack from the rear. If that route had been found the first day, the Persains might have overrun Greece.

BTW: There was at least one excellent movie based on the events at Thermopylae.

I especially agree with the defeat of the Moors at Tours in 732. Note that Charles Martel (The Hammer) always pursued defeated retreating foes, attempting to annihilate them. He so demoralized the Moors that they never again attempted to expand out of Spain. Had Martel lost, the Arab culture might have dominated Europe well into the 17th century. There influence would still be significant today, and who knows how the New World would have developed if the Islamic culture had expanded there.

BTW: I am unfamiliar with the Ottoman attempt to expand into Europe from their Turkish base. Does somebody have a link leading to the events when they advanced on Venice?

Vague issues do not belong in a list of critical turning points. For example, what if Nazi Germany had won WW2. That is just too vague without further analysis. Could they have won? Actually, the Nazis actually had a good chance of dominating Western Europe. After Dunkirk, they were in control of all of Western Europe and the United States was doing little other than supplying money, armaments, and a few pilots who flew with the RAF. If Hitler had approached England with a peace treaty, I doubt that Churchill would have been able to prevail over those opposed to the war. England had little hope for re-conquering Europe at that time, and many feared an invasion by Germany. Instead of attacking England or trying to negotiate a treaty leaving him in charge of Europe, Hitler attacked Russia. Now that decision could be classified as a critical turning point.

BTW: There were a lot of dumb Nazi Actions/policies that cost them dearly. They viewed Relativity, Quantum Theory, and nuclear physics as Jew Physics, and would only support what they considered Aryan physics. Furthermore, they actively opposed any research into Jew Physics. They might have had an atom bomb by the late 1930's or early 1940's. Also, the first German soldiers were greeted as liberators by Russian peasants, or at least not as invading enemies. If the Germans had acted more decently, the scorched earth policy would not have been successful. The Germans might have been able to beat Russia if they did not have to rely on long supply lines for food, tools, repair facilities, fuel, et cetera. A little known fact is that when Germany attacked Russia, communistic propaganda switched from extolling the party & exhorting cooperation for five year plans to saying Fight for Mother Russia. The average Russian at that time was not fond of their government. During WW2, there was little mention of the party and communist principles.

but still didn't Jesus still had many followers before he was crucifyed

Seriously? No, I'm thinking he had no where as many followers as he did after the 'resurrection'. I think the 'he died for your sins' thing was the beginning of Christianity. Without the crucifiction, there would have been no resurrection, or at the very least, if he had simply languished for years in prison before finally dying it wouldn't have the same impact.

but didn't his 'followers' spread Christianity anyway :confused:

but didn't his 'followers' spread Christianity anyway

But that was my point. Would his followers have had 'Christianity' to spread if he hadn't died on the crucifix and supposedly risen three days later? If he had just been arrested and wasted away in prison would that have had any impact at all? No martyrdom. No 'he died for our sins' and ascended to heaven. Fading away in a prison cell just isn't quite as powerful.

You know, that is a very interesting point. The religion probably wouldn't have had anywhere near as much ompact, if any as all. In all likelyhood, it would have most liely died out in a decade or so if not sooner.

good point about jesus-
sad that good intentions lead to bad actions, but anyways.

aside from the battles named, (good analysis i might add Dino) i believe one event would have the greatest effect on the world. u guys might attack me for saying this but it must be done.

what if the technology Tesla discovered in the early 1900's wasnt snatched by the government and kept secret? What if he could have showed the world (like he was trying to) these advanced ZPE devices?

it would have revolutionized the world INSTANTLY, far greater than any of these things mentioned on this thread, i personally believe.

we wouldnt need fossil fuels anymore, and global warming would stop INSTANTLY also.
our technology would advance FAR faster than it is now.

Oil Companies wouldnt have EVERYONE in the WORLD in CHECK anymore. This new technology that Tesla carefully analyzed and engineered would have been able to get us out and into deep space by now.

kind of similar to this:

if the library of alexandria had never been destroyed (around 5th century)

there were plans for a steam engine among other works, the industrial revolution would have happened a millenia sooner...We'd be far beyond mars by now...sigh

i know you guys probably meant ancient history but i believe this event would have the greatest effect on our advancement as a human race. greatest effect on our 'world' as we know it.


woah- just saw sargeant's post

If the meteor had never struck setting the stage for mammals.
that, i have to say, beats mine. although its not really a "failed event" kind of thing.

bush not being elected, damn that one is pretty good too.

Fading away in a prison cell just isn't quite as powerful.
Always go down strong to spread your message

I thought it was a forgone conclusion that if Rome lost the navel battle of Actium to Cleopatras egypt' then the the balance of world power would have shifted to he near east, and the progression of the world would be Asian, andnot Roman

If the
roman
empire failed to win the battle of actium, then cleopatras egypt would have ruled the world ; the world today would be asian instead of european.

Julixia: Excellent turning point. I did a little research on the Battle of Actium in 31 BC between Marc Anthony and Octavian. It could have gone either way. If Anthony & Cleopatra had won, it would have had a big effect.

A battle that could hardly have gone the other way is not my idea of a critical turning point. A friend of mine always talks about what might have happened if Sparticus and his gladiators had beaten the Roman army. If would have had a big effect, but Sparticus never had a chance of winning. The best he could have hoped for was escaping from the Italian Pennsula.

I'm not so certain that a victory at Actium by Marc Antony would have turned Rome into a province of Egypt and shifted the center of power to Cairo. That was pretty much just a myth spread by Octavian himself to turn the Roman people against Antony. Octavian claimed to have found Antony's will, which supposedly left everything to Cleopatra's children, but historian's doubt this was anything more than a rumor started by Octavian. Antony had enjoyed a lot of popularity in Rome, the city was pretty much divided in its support of the two leaders, so Octavian had needed to turn Rome fully against Antony. But it is just as likely that had Antony won he would have returned triumphantly to Rome and ruled from there.

But a naval victory over Octavian would have still left Agrippa's legions, who supported Octavian, to be dealt with, and that was no sure thing for Antony. Antony's army had been surrounded in its base and had its communications and supplies cut off by Agrippa's legions prior to the naval battle. Of course, Agrippa might have given his support to Antony if Octavian had been defeated, but it is just as likely that if Antony had indicated he was going to establish himself in Cairo, that Agrippa, or another general, would have challenged him, although Agrippa was the most likely.

According to prominent historians, if the Romans lost the battle of Actium against Egypt, then the world would have proceeded with asian dominance instead of european, and society would be advanced today by 200 years

If the Romans lost the battle of Actium, we would be advanced by 200 years and basking in an asian culture instead of european.

If the Romans lost the battle of Actium, then the world today would be totally asian and not european. society today would be 200 years advanced.

Why? It would have been Romans losing to Romans either way. And even if Antony had won, Octavian losing still left formidable Roman forces loyal to Rome intact. It would have been the equivalent of the British losing at Yorktown. The British simply decided to cut its losses in the colonies and save the rest of the empire. Yorktown did not signal the defeat of British forces. A loss at Actium would not have automatically shifted the center of influence to Egypt.

I tend to agree that the battle of Actium would not have shifted the balance of power in the Roman Empire toward Asia or the Middle East. However, it probably woould have allowed of a lot of cultural influences from Egypt. Egypt at that time was heavily influenced by Greek culture via Alexander. The Roman engineering and military orientation might very well have been modified toward the Greek culture which put more emphasis on philosophy, pure mathematics, art literature, et cetera.

Failed event? thats not nessecarily a war is it? how about if the extinction of the dinosaurs failed? that would have a pretty grand effect on the world.

If Nirvana would have survived much longer... :( :(

Miss you. :(

bye!

What if Gorbatchev and Andropov saved the USSR:

Suppose that on the day Breshnev decided to invade Afghanistan,
Andropov and Gorbatchev had successfully convinced the central committee of the party, and the supreme command of the Red Army that Breshnev was a dangerous old fool, best to be "retired" immediately...
and that the Red Army should NOT go to Afghanistan...

Imagine the celebrations in 2001 of the 80th birthday of USSR with Andropov, Gorbatchev and Janajev on the tribune in Moscow.
G.W.Bush, T.Blair, J.Chirac and G.Schroeder and many other international statesmen are obviously guests at these ceremonies.

Evolution in the 90ties:
Andropov is governing USSR with an "iron fist" and Gorbatchev as minister of economy has made all necessary capitalist reforms.
But Eastern Europe is freed, the Baltics inclusive, because the Soviets have understood that "smaller is more effective". The Comecon and "Treaty of Warsaw" have been denied by USSR itself.
Cold war and armement race of East and West have been ended as well, because Andropov understood it was to expensive and had no single advantage.
So USSR is economically successful, but politically a one-party regime, like China....

Hadn't President Bush (Sr) not puked on his Chinese hosts at the banquete. :o

Hadn't President Bush (Sr) not puked on his Chinese hosts at the banquete. :o

:-?

In 2001 G.W.Bush (junior) is US president.
Not the father (sr).

Did G.Bush (sr. or jr.) anytime puke on somebody at a banquette? I don't know such an incident...?

Zira,


Did G.Bush (sr. or jr.) anytime puke on somebody at a banquette? I don't know such an incident...?

ANS: Yes, Bush senior puked on the Chinese leader at the State Dinner during his visit to China. I don't temember the year but he was a one term president and I believe it was in his 3 - 4 year of the term.

Zira,



ANS: Yes, Bush senior puked on the Chinese leader at the State Dinner during his visit to China. I don't temember the year but he was a one term president and I believe it was in his 3 - 4 year of the term.


MacM,
Oh, that was a diplomatic "faux-pas"....
Imagine how important especially hygiene is in the eyes of any Chinese.
How did it occur? Was it an intended gesture to express disregard for the person? Or was it by mistake, for example by forced unintended caughing while eating or drinking...?

zira,

I don't think it was the food they served but he had caught the flu or something and was still trying to carry out his diplomatic mission. This wasn't a mere spoon full of coughed up flem. He vomited all over the guy and supper table infront of national TV.

Here it is:

George HW Bush
... 25 Oct 1974, George Bush is sent to China as Chief of the US Liaison ... 8 Jan 1992,
President George HW Bush vomits in the lap of Japanese Prime Minister Miyazawa ...
www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/ - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

I think
bush got a whiff of the broccoli warfting out of the kitchen

evolution would have been completly differnt if the dinosaurs had never become extinct...think about it... how the dinos had evolved in there time period... if they were never killed off them what would they have evolved into.. would man have been the dinos prey... would lifes exhists mean to flee from them, then none of these wars or pople dying would have taken place... how ever they were killed.. thank god cuz i wouldnt b here typing to u guys

Continuing with the Vikings (around 1000 AD), imagine if they had developed a permanent settlement in North America and taught the Natives how to make iron, or brought the horse over. Good gravy that would have changed things.

Or if that Chinese explore Zheng He (1400's AD) had not been stopped by his government and kept exploring, and china had started opening trade routes to India and settling in Australia.

evolution would have been completly differnt if the dinosaurs had never become extinct...think about it... how the dinos had evolved in there time period... if they were never killed off them what would they have evolved into.. would man have been the dinos prey... would lifes exhists mean to flee from them, then none of these wars or pople dying would have taken place... how ever they were killed.. thank god cuz i wouldnt b here typing to u guys

Interesting idea.
A world with mamals only as tall as mice.
Would the dinos have evoluated into variants running on two feet, using their hands, and speeking...?

Maybe there would now be a "homo sapiens" with biological dino characteristics, for instance the skin...
Something like the species of the aliens in "Visitors".
And I'm sure a world dominated by that creature would be very similar to our's, not better, not worse.
:)

The major difference:
these humans would have other dinos as cattle.

Big ones instead of cows and pigs.
Small ones like archiopterix as replacement for chicken.

Would "dinoboys" ride on dinos instead of horses, in the Wild West?
:)

Dinosaurs were very successful for well ove 100 million years without evolving a hint of intelligence. No reason to suppose they would have developed it if they had not become extinct.

Dinosaur,


Dinosaurs were very successful for well ove 100 million years without evolving a hint of intelligence. No reason to suppose they would have developed it if they had not become extinct.

?: Am I wrong? I thought they had decided that Raptors were highly intelligent and worked collectively with communication and planning.

The raptors showed intelligence, cooperation, and planning in the Jurrasic Park movies, but I find it hard to believe that we have any evidence relating to their behavior.

How large were their brains? Do we have any idea of dinosoaur brain structure?

Dinosaur,

Not specifically, however, I do anticipate that the general rule "Brain Mass vs Body Mass" ratio held then as it does now and the Raptors did have a larger head per body size than most.

Even so, their intelligence probably wouldn't have been on the same level as most mammals. Are u sure that the mass ratio-intelligence correlation is not confined only to mammals?

John C.,

Not sure about that at all, only that the mass ratio reflects general intelligence.