I am sure that this thread must have been done before but have been unable to find anything.

Lets forget any science for the basis of this topic and pretend that a mad scientist has just given you a time machine (or parallel world transporter if you are worried about creating a paradox) and lets you get on with it. The only flaws are that you cannot visit the future (only backwards in time), you cant take any modern weaponry/equipment with you and you can only use the machine once (you do however get a return trip).

Where (or should that be when!) would you go, what would you do and would you change anything? What do you think would be the effects of your meddling in the past?

I would stop the younger Biff from getting the Sports Almanac.

I install Emperor Norton as Orwellian dictator of earth.

With Rod Blagojevich as his vice emperor.

i would get our land back, and tell my fellows not to drink away their land.
up in North america.

I think I'd probably try and save Lenin somehow

I'd get rid of Eucratides. Also probably Vytautas.

I'd go back to yesterday and not eat that dodgy sausage sarnie.

Seriously, my bowels have been in a perpetual state of chaos ever since.

I picked up a few PoDs that I built timelines off of:

-Prevent Eumenes of Cardia from gathering his army again prior to the Battle of Gabiene
-Have Justinian concentrate on his eastern front instead of the western one (make the Ostrogoths into Western Emperors! :D)
-Have Mustafa Kemal get shot when he was leading that nutty charge up the hill at Gallipoli
-Get Basil II a fertile wife
-Tell Meade to pursue the Confederate forces after the unsuccessful Pickett's Charge

memorise some secrets only know to a few, then some really indepth knowledge about the future and how to abuse it.

The first to gain trust/acceptance the second to get powerfull


basically...

Bring Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Lincoln, Washington, Napoleon, Mussolini, Queen Elizabeth, Pericles, Socrates, Karl Marx, Alexander the Great, Augustus, and a few other world leaders and philosophers, and give them universal translators. Then, I would lock them all up in one room and see them debate. And see if they kill eachother or not. Afterwards, I would shoot Hitler and Stalin.

I picked up a few PoDs that I built timelines off of:

-Prevent Eumenes of Cardia from gathering his army again prior to the Battle of Gabiene
-Have Justinian concentrate on his eastern front instead of the western one (make the Ostrogoths into Western Emperors! :D)
-Have Mustafa Kemal get shot when he was leading that nutty charge up the hill at Gallipoli
-Get Basil II a fertile wife
-Tell Meade to pursue the Confederate forces after the unsuccessful Pickett's Charge

All well and good, but how are you gonna get to Justinian, Kemal, Basil or Eumenes? You most likely don't speak the language, you're noone of significance, just some random, well kept peasant with strange cloths and an odd accent. Emperors generally don't give audiences to random weirdos.

In either case, no reason to mess with global history. It turned out the way it turned out. And in most cases, even traveling back in time with useful knowledge, you're not gonna be able to get yourself into a position to use it. I mean I can call the FBI and tell them that someone's gonna take a shot at JFK in Dallas, but are they really gonna believe it and take precautions? I'd probably just get arrested for my troubles.

Maybe you can stop some of these things, but you're not doing it with a wave of your hand. Myself, I'd skip the major events and go for personal enrichment. Hit an area shortly pre-gold Rush, California maybe, and collect all I can than bury it somewhere that I know goes undeveloped and dig it up on my return trip. Or bring a sports almanac and go that route.

All well and good, but how are you gonna get to Justinian, Kemal, Basil or Eumenes? You most likely don't speak the language, you're noone of significance, just some random, well kept peasant with strange cloths and an odd accent. Emperors generally don't give audiences to random weirdos.

In either case, no reason to mess with global history. It turned out the way it turned out. And in most cases, even traveling back in time with useful knowledge, you're not gonna be able to get yourself into a position to use it. I mean I can call the FBI and tell them that someone's gonna take a shot at JFK in Dallas, but are they really gonna believe it and take precautions? I'd probably just get arrested for my troubles.

Maybe you can stop some of these things, but you're not doing it with a wave of your hand. Myself, I'd skip the major events and go for personal enrichment. Hit an area shortly pre-gold Rush, California maybe, and collect all I can than bury it somewhere that I know goes undeveloped and dig it up on my return trip. Or bring a sports almanac and go that route.
Since this was such an absurd topic, I figured absurd answers would be somewhat appropriate. :p

Since this was such an absurd topic, I figured absurd answers would be somewhat appropriate. :p

Heh, nearly every topic in World History is an absurd one. 90% of them are what-if counter-factuals that real historians scoff at on general principle. And the rest of them are the history equivalent of a favorite movies list.

Heh, nearly every topic in World History is an absurd one. 90% of them are what-if counter-factuals that real historians scoff at on general principle. And the rest of them are the history equivalent of a favorite movies list.
Not anymore, now the favorite movies list type stuff is the 90% and the bad alternate history is the rest.

I mean I can call the FBI and tell them that someone's gonna take a shot at JFK in Dallas, but are they really gonna believe it and take precautions? I'd probably just get arrested for my troubles.


Especially since the FBI was in on it :D

I would give McCain the win in 2008.

I'd persuade the people who designed the Californian ballot papers in 2000 to have a really good think about redesigning them.

It would be lulsome to give the Kīngitanga (Maori Kings Movement) a supply of cannon balls during the Maori Land Wars. The Mere Mere line would have made a serious mess of British Imperial and Colonial troops and possibly allowed for a one-nation two-states solution to New Zealand.

I would be fine I can speak the lingo, look the part, don't need to dress the part and would only need to bring a couple of tonnes of gear :p

I'd go back to the Big Bang and fix things so that entropy works in the other direction somehow.

Assuming I actually have the power to do anything . . .

I might somehow force Britain and France into supporting an Arab state instead of just carving up the spoils of the former Ottoman Empire. I would then tell the Arabs that in exchange for my support, they would have to make a separate province in Palestine. I would then tell the Zionist leaders of Europe that they were going to have to buy up land from the Palestinians, pay to relocate them elsewhere in Arabia, and finance the resettlement of Jews in Palestine. And do it fast, you only have about 20 years.

Assuming I don't just go with the obvious and shoot Hitler like everyone else.

Oh, I think I would establish a Jewish homeland in Bavaria

Assuming I don't just go with the obvious and shoot Hitler like everyone else.
Oooh, ooh! Can I be General Nikos Stavros?
Oh, I think I would establish a Jewish homeland in Bavaria
Awww, and I barely fail to qualify. :(

Oh, I think I would establish a Jewish homeland in Bavaria
I would establish a Bavarian homeland in Israel.

Seriously, I like Eran's idea, although I might well go for personal enrichment. That, and impregnate my own grandmother, ensuring my birth and saving the human race, not to mention the rest of the universe, from marauding space-travelling brains.

@Dachs: What do you have against Ataturk? Jealous because he killed so many Australians? I know I am.

That, and impregnate my own grandmother, ensuring my birth and saving the human race, not to mention the rest of the universe, from marauding space-travelling brains.

Which would make your Y chromosome an ontological paradox - like the lyrics to the song "Johnny B. Goode" or the catchphrase that noted street entrepreneur CMOT Dibbler uses.

Which would make your Y chromosome an ontological paradox - like the lyrics to the song "Johnny B. Goode" or the catchphrase that noted street entrepreneur CMOT Dibbler uses.
It would however cause me to be born with a (somewhat) functional brain that was undetectable by said marauding space-brains. Good trade.

And nice to see that you're still posting, many mods don't.

I think I probably would have got Kaiser Wilhelm to put those Austrians in their place and stop that whole Serbian invasion nonsense. If he didn't co-operate, I'd simply replace him with an impersonator.

What would I change if I could go back in time.......

Prevent EA, or any other game developer, from signing an exclusive rights agreement with the NFL.

Imagine the quality of Madden 09 instead of the pile of horse dung that it is now.

I would establish a Bavarian homeland in Israel.
Illuminati vs. Hamas: THA FINAL BATTLE
@Dachs: What do you have against Ataturk? Jealous because he killed so many Australians? I know I am.
You joined after that particular episode. Nah, the main reason I used that as a PoD was cos Martin Gilbert made extended mention of the anecdote in his history of the First World War, which I had just read.

Did anyone here watch the Butterfly Effect movie? :)


Where (or should that be when!) would you go
The earlier the better.

what would you do and would you change anything?
Just walk open-mouthed and watch everything around. No world-saving, too trite and useless. No problem-solving, bored with it in this time. And no money-making... Because the dream of dreams would be achieved already...

What do you think would be the effects of your meddling in the past?
Wrappers, plastics and other trash buried in a soil... Government will find it in the future (ie nowadays) and will make it a secret. After science analysis they'll conclude that time travel is possible, then they'll make time-travel machine and somehow i'll come to be there and they'll send me to the past...

I would like to see what the effects would be of (1)Christianity never becoming the state religion of Rome and (2)Justinian not closing down the Greek schools of thought. I'm more attached to the latter, though. The possible effects of (1) concern me.

I would somehow make Napolean defeat England in the Napoleonic Wars.

I'd persuade the people who designed the Californian ballot papers in 2000 to have a really good think about redesigning them.

I hate to admit it but I don't remember a problem with the Californian ballots. I guess I overlooked it while all the talk was going on about the ballots in Dade County, Florida.

I like the idea of this thread turning into a legit alternate history thread. Cheezy will throw a fit. :p
I would like to see what the effects would be of (1)Christianity never becoming the state religion of Rome and (2)Justinian not closing down the Greek schools of thought. I'm more attached to the latter, though. The possible effects of (1) concern me.
For the first one, I have to ask: how are the mechanics of this coming about? Are you planning to replace this with Mithraism or something? Because as far as I know - Plotinus would be a better person to ask about this, but I think he has some disdain for counterfactuals - the Greco-Latin polytheism, though still numerically dominant, was pretty much spent. For the second...I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it would not have had a macrohistorical effect.

@Dachs: What do you have against Ataturk? Jealous because he killed so many Australians? I know I am.

Ataturk was an Australian didn't ya know?

^^^ Nah, if he were Australian he'd have been far too lazy to involve himself in a charge.

Did anyone here watch the Butterfly Effect movie? :)
The good one, or the sequel?

I hate to admit it but I don't remember a problem with the Californian ballots. I guess I overlooked it while all the talk was going on about the ballots in Dade County, Florida.

Oops. Those American states all look alike to me.

I like the idea of this thread turning into a legit alternate history thread. Cheezy will throw a fit. :p

For the first one, I have to ask: how are the mechanics of this coming about? Are you planning to replace this with Mithraism or something? Because as far as I know - Plotinus would be a better person to ask about this, but I think he has some disdain for counterfactuals - the Greco-Latin polytheism, though still numerically dominant, was pretty much spent. For the second...I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it would not have had a macrohistorical effect.

Some pagan cults, such as Mithraism, were in decline by the fourth century, but Roman paganism in general was perfectly alive and well. To say it was "spent" raises the question what people were believing instead! In fact it was flourishing. Maximinus Daia, ruler of the eastern empire until Licinius defeated him in 313, sponsored a new and vigorous pagan cult in Antioch which was modelled, in structure, after the Christian church. This did very well until Licinius arrived, executed its high priest, and banned it.

Now paganism did fade after Christianity was legalised, because the Christian church took over such important functions in society. The xenodocheia, for example, and the episcopal audience which Constantine established, ensured that the church in general and bishops in particular became very central to society. By the time of Julian, this had become an insurmountable obstacle to anyone hoping to restore paganism to its former position.

But the idea that paganism was just fading away before the Edict of Milan, and that Christianity naturally stepped into the breach is, I think, something of a Christian myth intended to avoid admitting that paganism only died out because the Christians went to enormous efforts to ensure that it did. In fact it was still doing pretty well even in the time of Justinian, which is why he enacted such extreme measures to try to stamp it out.

It's hard to imagine an alternate history in which the Roman empire never legalised Christianity. Apart from the Great Persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, there were no persecutions at all between Valerian in the 250s and the Edict of Milan. In fact the religion was effectively decriminalised as early as 306 or thereabouts in the western empire, not simply by Constantine but by Constantius I and also Maximus, and had been largely ignored by the authorities for most of the second half of the third century. So legalising it seems to have been a pretty natural thing for any Roman ruler to have done by the time of Constantine, whatever their own religious sympathies. What made the difference was that Constantine promoted it, meddled in its internal disputes such as the Donatist schism and the Arian controversy, and made it much more central to society in ways such as those mentioned above.

If these things had never happened, then Christianity would probably have turned out rather different. But I'm not convinced that history overall would have been so different, at least in Europe. After all, the Roman empire fell. The barbarians who inherited its territories were either already Christians anyway, or they later became Christians through the efforts of missionaries. Those who were Christians were Arians anyway, not Nicenes as the Roman Christians were by the time of the fall of the empire. So the subsequent history of Christianity in Europe would probably have happened anyway.

You might argue that if the Roman empire had never Christianised then Middle Eastern history would have been very different. Perhaps if the "True Cross" had not been in Jerusalem, the Persians wouldn't have made off with it, and if Heraclius had not been a Christian, he would not have been so concerned to get it back and devastate Persia in the process. And if that hadn't happened, perhaps the Arabs wouldn't have found the conquest of Persia so easy, in which case Islam would never have had the success it did. But this is getting into very speculative territory.

I would get a crocodile to eat moses as soon as he was put in the water

I would go for personal profit. Not only because I am egoist, but because any great changes (like convincing Franz Ferdinand to stay covered on that particular day) would certainly have unforeseeable implications. The world would just be screwed up another way, and not necessarily for the better.

I would go for personal profit. Not only because I am egoist, but because any great changes (like convincing Franz Ferdinand to stay covered on that particular day) would certainly have unforeseeable implications. The world would just be screwed up another way, and not necessarily for the better.

What would you change, exactly?

Ah, thanks for correcting me on that bit. I knew that Christianity certainly wasn't a majority religion in the Empire by the time of Constantine, but never really knew about Maximin's cult.
You might argue that if the Roman empire had never Christianised then Middle Eastern history would have been very different. Perhaps if the "True Cross" had not been in Jerusalem, the Persians wouldn't have made off with it, and if Heraclius had not been a Christian, he would not have been so concerned to get it back and devastate Persia in the process. And if that hadn't happened, perhaps the Arabs wouldn't have found the conquest of Persia so easy, in which case Islam would never have had the success it did. But this is getting into very speculative territory.
Meh, that whole episode was more of a continuation of past conflicts than anything else; the Crusade part wasn't really a motivation but an extra spur that Heraclius and Sergius very wisely elected make use of. (I've been promising to write an article on the First Crusader, maybe I should actually get down to that.)

I didn't mean that there would have been no war without the religious motivation, but perhaps Heraclius wouldn't have pursued it so far. Perhaps he would have been content to reconquer the territories that had been lost under Phocas.

It's been estimated that about 10% of Romans were Christians by the time of Constantine. Perhaps as many as 50% were Christians by the end of the fourth century.

I would woo Mitochondrial Eve and become everyone's daddy.

Think about how much more awesome the world would be if everyone had a little bit of Perfection in them.

I would cause the Battle of George Square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square) to result in a socialist revolution in Britain, so maybe it wouldn't suck quite as much as it does now. Could result in a long and bloody civil war between the North and South, but it hopefully wouldn't... If nothing else, Wales, Scotland and the North of England could form a separate, republican "Commonwealth of Great Britain" or something and we wouldn't have to put up with the crap that we did.

Also, Ireland could have Ulster, whether the unionists like it or not, save them the Civil War and the Troubles. Can't claim to be part of Britain if it doesn't want them.

I would cause the Battle of George Square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square) to result in a socialist revolution in Britain, so maybe it wouldn't suck quite as much as it does now. Could result in a long and bloody civil war between the North and South, but it hopefully wouldn't... If nothing else, Wales, Scotland and the North of England could form a separate, republican "Commonwealth of Great Britain" or something and we wouldn't have to put up with the crap that we did.

Also, Ireland could have Ulster, whether the unionists like it or not, save them the Civil War and the Troubles. Can't claim to be part of Britain if it doesn't want them.

No thanks, ye hang on to it. Have you been there?

I didn't mean that there would have been no war without the religious motivation, but perhaps Heraclius wouldn't have pursued it so far. Perhaps he would have been content to reconquer the territories that had been lost under Phocas.
But that's all he did, right? :p What was it Gibbon said - "he did not wish to enlarge the weakness of the empire"?

Install William Jennings Bryan as president in 1916 so the US would not enter WWI. The reasons are pretty obvious. Of course we would be criticizing the September Memorandum instead of the Versailles Treaty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/German_Empire%2C_Wilhelminian_third_version.png.PN G/800px-German_Empire%2C_Wilhelminian_third_version.png.PN G

I would make it a liberal democracy.

What would you change, exactly?

Well for one thing, he'd know every race winner and every stock climax day in history. :lol:

I would make it a liberal democracy.
:goodjob: APPROV'D.

World War I didn't happen because of Germany's shenanigans. It was a result of a hundred years of nationalism, secret treaties, military alliances, colonization/proxy wars, border disputes, militarism, protectionism, etc. There's basically nothing that could have been done to prevent it, unless you detonated a nuke on the French/German border, claimed that it was divine powers and said that anybody who declares war gets to face the wrath of God.

Prevent the asteroid What hit the earth and killed the dinosaurs from happening.

World War I didn't happen because of Germany's shenanigans. It was a result of a hundred years of nationalism, secret treaties, military alliances, colonization/proxy wars, border disputes, militarism, protectionism, etc. There's basically nothing that could have been done to prevent it, unless you detonated a nuke on the French/German border, claimed that it was divine powers and said that anybody who declares war gets to face the wrath of God.
I disagree with your argument of historical inevitability and also your perception that I want to stop the First World War in desiring a liberal-democratic Germany.

World War I didn't happen because of Germany's shenanigans. It was a result of a hundred years of nationalism, secret treaties, military alliances, colonization/proxy wars, border disputes, militarism, protectionism, etc. There's basically nothing that could have been done to prevent it, unless you detonated a nuke on the French/German border, claimed that it was divine powers and said that anybody who declares war gets to face the wrath of God.
WWI most definitely did happen because of Germany's shenanigans, specifically those of the Kaiser. Bismarck argued against taking Alsace-Lorraine from France - he was overruled. Later, he was replaced and, against his wishes, Germany pursued a policy of colonisation and naval expansion which threatened Great Britain. Combined with a hostile France, which may very well have not been hostile had it not been for the detachment of Alsace-Lorraine - after all, Austria-Hungary and Prussia became allies after Bismarck chose, to the surprise of everyone, not to demand any territory from the country - and Germany was pretty much screwed. Add to that Russia, well, night-night Germany.

Later, he was replaced and, against his wishes, Germany pursued a policy of colonisation and naval expansion which threatened Great Britain.
He started the colonization, actually. :p

He started the colonization, actually. :p
Not on anything like the later scale. Bismarck was fairly anti-colonial for the time period.

Not on anything like the later scale. Bismarck was fairly anti-colonial for the time period.
Yeah, but he still seemed enthusiastic enough to get his hands on stuff at Berlin. Probably he was just being his usual political-animal self, but saying that colonialism and the British relationship that came with it was a solely post-Bismarckian mistake is fallacious.

Yeah, but he still seemed enthusiastic enough to get his hands on stuff at Berlin. Probably he was just being his usual political-animal self, but saying that colonialism and the British relationship that came with it was a solely post-Bismarckian mistake is fallacious.
You're right. It was a primarily post-Bismarckian mistake. Happy? Or shall we grapple?

Oh yeah, best idea ever: keep Heraclius healthy instead of getting the friggin' dropsy.
You're right. It was a primarily post-Bismarckian mistake. Happy? Or shall we grapple?
Meh, good enough.

Germany pursued a policy of colonisation and naval expansion which threatened Great Britain.
I believe Britain aided Germany in its colonialism as to act as a continental force against France.

I believe Britain aided Germany in its colonialism as to act as a continental force against France.
Up to perhaps Fashoda and maybe a bit beyond that, that's a valid statement. After all, the Brits and Germans were amiable enough colonially to come up with that early 1900s plan to partition the Portuguese empire between them. The entente cordiale buried any necessity of that though.

I believe Britain aided Germany in its colonialism as to act as a continental force against France.
They wanted a Continental rival to France, not a naval rival to themselves. Germany's naval build-up worried them. Especially since Wilhelm was stupid enough to say his build-up was not due to Japan - a British ally.

Blackadder, anyone?