History - What would have you made different?

[Serutan]

I'd give Ivan the Terrible a personality transplant, so he didn't
kill his son in a fit of rage, and destroy the boyar class. Russia
might have avoided the Time of Troubles, and continued to
connect to Western Europe in the 17th century, and all in all
evolved more along the lines of Germany than it actually did.

 

[wildWolverine]

I'm not sure that would have been an entirely good thing...

 

[Margim]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7


Hey! I'm a Roman Catholic! Ah well...Why do so many people think Rome corrupted Christianity?

Because for a long time it did. The politics of the Church took over the actual message of Christianity. As Christianity became fashionable, church office became seen as a way to gain political power - the last thing that Christ himself was on about. Wealthy Italian families contested with each other for the papacy, and the popes were sometimes the most corrupt people in the church. Some maintained harems, many were involved in murders and assassintation plots. At one point, there were three 'popes' contesting each other. Bishoprics were sold to the highest bidder, sometimes ending up in the hands of 11 year old kids - nothing like the guidlines laid down for Christian leaders in the scriptures. I'm not saying that the entire Catholic Church was corrupt, but certainly Roman adaptation of Christianity had its negative impact. The history of the church through the middle ages is the history of all Christians, protestant, catholic or otherwise, and thus all of us should recognise that for many years it was bordering on evil itself (ie those things mentioned above, plus the crusades and inquisition, jsut to name a few).

 

[Amenhotep7]

Ahh...Well, you're right...Thank goodness Church and State are now seperate!

P.S. It's my birthday today.

P.P.S. No, I won't tell you my age...I'm nitpicky about that...My favorite quote is:

It's the 30th celebration of my 29th birthday.

 

[Emperor Xerxes]

Taught the peoples of meso-America how to use the wheel on a large scale, bring a crap load of horses and teach them the components of gunpowder. I would also see to it that the monarchies and theocracies were overthown and replaced with a city state system like Greece.

Maybe then it would be the Aztecs or the Inca discovering Europe.

Also I would have Babylon invade Europe and the whole Middle-East, destroying all rival civilizations, even if cities had to be burned.

Finally I would try and ensure the rise of China globally like it should have.


But REALLY I don't think I would change a thing because my civilizations, Britain, already has a huge legacy to be proud of.

 

[HalfBadger]

Originally posted by Michael York
Well, there was a girl back in.........

I would prevent Caeser and Cleo from inadvertantly burning the Great Library to the ground. With, by some estimates, that extra 1000yrs of progress, would my leader have challenged us for Mars or the colonoy on Alpha Centari?

This is the best thing I came up with to. For some reason I thought of preventing the great depression, which lea to Hitler's power as well other economical problems, then I thought of preventing the Dark Ages, since Civilization seemed to go backwards.

Then I remembered my Grade 11 Physics teacher talking bout how the Ancient Greeks knew the earth was 'round' and had been able to calcuated it's mass and/or circumference.

 

[wildWolverine]

The existence of the so called "Dark" Ages was a myth created by some rather foolish/humanist historians. Today it is generally accepted that the early middle ages were a period of growth/expansion/invention similar (if somewhat slower) to later centuries. Take a look at the workings of a flour mill and try to call the people that invented it backwards...

 

[Esuh]

Compare the amount of inventions created during the dark ages with the amount of inventions earlier. The only "original" invention during the dark ages was a better horse collar, and tilling using the three-field system.
In addition, the view on human value was at a low point.

 

[wildWolverine]

That's the viewpoint espoused by many well regarded history texts written for the past fifty years. However, in about the past five, historians have drastically revised their outlook on that time period. Previously, most opinions had been based on accounts written in the late fourteenth century. That would have been fine, except that many writers in the late fourteenth century were humanists -- they believed that they were on par w/ the "geniuses" of anitquity, and that the generations immediately preceding them were backwards and dumb. This outlook colored our perception of the early middle ages. While feudalism may not appear to be as advanced as the Roman Republic or Greek city-states to our eyes, the time period from 500 -- 1300 definitely were not "dark."

 

[Esuh]

In my eyes, they were darker than the years before 500, and darker than the years after 1300. IMO, that can make them "dark". BTW, the most common definition for the middle ages is that they were the period between the fall of the roman empire and the rise of more "enlightened" civilisations. If you want to remove the expression dark ages, then the middle ages have to go as well.
In addition, it should be mentioned that education, except for the richest, did not come until 1300-1400, while the romans had it (Except for the lowest classes). In addition, many inventions and feats of engineering were not repeated until after 1300.

 

[samildanach]

Crac des Chevalier ? Completed 1150 AD

 

[Amenhotep7]

Originally posted by samildanach
Crac des Chevalier ? Completed 1150 AD

Que?

 

[wildWolverine]

Originally posted by Esuh
In my eyes, they were darker than the years before 500, and darker than the years after 1300.

Why? Universal education was not prevalent during the Roman Empire, especially in some of the more remote provinces. Besides, I am not stating that the Roman civilzation was not advanced, I am merely stating that the following centuries were not, in fact, as backwards as previously believed, regardless of the common conception of them as "dark."

In addition, the phrase "middle ages" has nothing to do with "dark ages." The term Middle refers to just that -- the middle of the span between the beginning of the Common Era and the beginning of the "neo-modern" era. The term Dark refers to a lack of literacy and general decline in society.

HERE is a link to an article that supports the old school of thought (and your argument). However, as I stated earlier, our understanding of the past has evolved recently.

HERE is another link, this one describing the more modern approach to the Middle Ages.

 

[samildanach]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7


Que?

While Esuh is correct in saying that many of the engineering feats of antiquity were not repeated until much later, the denizens of the middle ages muddled along somehow and built the great fortress of Crac des Chevalier which I believe is in modern day Syria.

 

[Esuh]

I never stated the view that european civilization was at the skin of it's teeth and was close to not surviving. I merely stated that the middle ages were darker, as in less enlightened, than the ages preceding and after.
I do not think we will be able to agree on this topic, so shall we agree to disagree?

BTW:

Middle ages: the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in the 5th century AD to the period of the Renaissance (variously interpreted as beginning in the 13th, 14th, or 15th century, depending on the region of Europe and on other factors).

From the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[wildWolverine]

I can agree to disagree, and admire you for being willing to read opposing viewpoints (i.e., actually going to the link I provided), unlike so many of the "debaters" here...

oh, and I have an Encyclopedia Britannica that says things like "top technicians are currently attempting to design a telephone with buttons instead of a rotary..." and "someday soon man will walk on the moon..." The set may be a little old, but this shows that even the best books, while accurate for their time, can become outdated. Last gasp attempt -- three years ago, the smartest dietician in the world would have told you to eat 3/4 carbohydrates and low amounts of protein for the perfect diet. That is definitely different from the outlook today.

 

[Lord_Sidious]

Me? It would probably be to tell the Roman Emperor to not let the Goths across the River Danube...I think that was Rome's biggest mistake.

Or I would also kill Hitler as a baby.

And prevent the Portuguese king Sebastião to go to battle. Then Portugal would continue to be a great Empire.

 

[Finmaster]

I would've made Urho Kekkonen live forever and forever and forever as Finland's eternal president.

Or kill Stalin as a child. I dislike both Hitler and Stalin, but if I'd have to chooce which one to kill, it would be Stalin.

 

[Tathlum]

No Potato blight.

 

[Amenhotep7]

Originally posted by Finmaster
I would've made Urho Kekkonen live forever and forever and forever as Finland's eternal president.

Or kill Stalin as a child. I dislike both Hitler and Stalin, but if I'd have to chooce which one to kill, it would be Stalin.

But how would WWII turn out with no Soviet Union? Was the Soviet Union stronger militarily than Czarist Russia?