How would you change history?

[GenMarshall]

The votes did go to the other guy.

Tell that to the electoral collage and the Supreme Court .

 

[Naskra]

Had there been an observable naked-eye stellar parallax, neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism would have been in any way damaged. The parallax would just have served to provide an estimate of the size of the sphere of fixed stars. The issue against Copernicanism was that the lack of parallax implied a far greater minimum size for that sphere, and hence an inefficient Creator.

The retrograde motion of the planets is an observed fact, and must be accounted for by any system.
Ptolemy accounts for it by epicyclic motion, Copernicus by a combination of epicyclic and relative Earthly motion. The Tychonian system was more a suggestion than a system, so we can't say whether Tycho would have gone with epicycles or equivalent eccentric circles.

Prior to the telescope, no one of these systems had any advantage over the others in so far as saving the appearances is concerned. Tycho's vaunted observations did nothing to improve them, but only
accentuated their common failings, viz. they were best at aphelion and perihelion, shaky at quadrature.
It was differing philosophical prejudices that fed the geo/helio debate for a century. For the pure astronomer, there was no discernible reason to prefer one system to another.

 

[Mathalamus]

if i coudl change history i would:

1. subtly change history so theres a Byzantine Republic instead of Turkey

2. convince the mongols to conquer the Balkan, raze every city and kill every ethnic group there, exept for the serbs. much less of a headache.

3. destroy the 4th crusade.

kill the entire tribe of Osman.. every man woman and child, then for good meausre kill every other tribe and destroy the sultanate of Rum. (use chuck norris, if absolutely nessicary)

( not so serious changes)

give Germany a 50 megaton nuke. see who they use it against.

nuke berlin (1939) for no reason.

kill stalin.

give the native Americans some weapons so thet can fight without rolling over and dying.

split USA into two. one democratic one communist, both militaristic and HATE each other. then( as a communist) fire a nuke to Washington and flee to the present. (preferably turkey/Byzantine Republic) and read what happened in Wikipedia.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

3. destroy the 4th crusade.

kill the entire tribe of Osman.. every man woman and child, then for good meausre kill every other tribe and destroy the sultanate of Rum. (use chuck norris, if absolutely nessicary)

.

I take it #3 is forthe sole reason of keeping the Byzantine Empire afloat. I hate to break it to you, but Byzantium was already on the Highway to Hell, and had been since Justinian's death. The Fourth Crusade was just a speed up.

As for Chuck Norris- Good Choice

 

[TheWesley]

I take it #3 is forthe sole reason of keeping the Byzantine Empire afloat. I hate to break it to you, but Byzantium was already on the Highway to Hell, and had been since Justinian's death. The Fourth Crusade was just a speed up.

As for Chuck Norris- Good Choice

Assuming the Fourth Crusade had never occured, what was Byzantium's likely fate and why?

 

[Tabster]

@ Naskra

if you look at the moons of jupiter wouldn't you see that they just orbit the planet, there's no retrograde motion to them relative to jupiter at all. So that would disprove the epicycle idea completely, therefore just leaving the heliocentric version ?

 

[Phrossack]

Assuming the Fourth Crusade had never occured, what was Byzantium's likely fate and why?

Byzantium would die anyway, but later. I'm astonished that it survived as long as it did, what with its very frequent military defeats.

 

[aronnax]

I would want that the Ottoman Sultans to begin a lengthy but overall successful conversion of the Balkans into Islam.

Then I would want the Ottoman Sultans to be nicer to the Arabs and unify the Empire using Islam as its head.

And the Caliph shall be preserved for the modern era!

 

[Mathalamus]

um.. i think those actually happend. it failed.

the recovery of 1025 might have remained permadent if the turks didn't take over Anatolia.

until nationalism of course. i hate nationalism...

 

[Karalysia]

I would have the Ottomans win at Otranto, and Vienna thereby taking Italy, and Austria, and defeating the Portuguese in India and Indonesia. It would be glorious.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'd have the Mongols genocide only the Serbs in the Balkans.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would travel to the planet Skarro, after the Thaals War, and I hope someone sees where I'm going with this.

 

[aronnax]

um.. i think those actually happend. it failed.

the recovery of 1025 might have remained permadent if the turks didn't take over Anatolia.

until nationalism of course. i hate nationalism...

They never happened. Explanation below.

The Ottomans never really pressured the general Christian Population of their empire to convert to Islam. Sometimes it happens due to over-zealous generals and governors and the odd Sultan-Emperor but those are usually exceptions. If the Ottomans really tried then the Balkans would be Islamised more heavily. Look at the Arab Conquest of Iran. It took them 300 years to convert most of the population from the dominant Zoroastrianism to Islam.

The Turks were never really nice to the Arabs. While they might have been Muslims, the Arabs were scorned when it comes to the military and Governance. Janissaries were almost Christian Children and later Christians and Turks exclusively. Calvary came exclusive from Turkish Siphahis and Turkomen. Except in maybe Egypt and Hejaz, Arabs rarely came to high ranking positions such as Pashas or Beys. They were usually Turks.

The Ottomans attempts to unify their empire in the modern era came to late. Pan-Arabism took over without a fight. The Ottomans would have a shot at keeping their Empire if they used Islam to unify all of their possessions if they stressed on it in the mid-18th Century. Though Islam was used to unite the Empire in war against the infidel.

 

[Dachs]

I take it #3 is forthe sole reason of keeping the Byzantine Empire afloat. I hate to break it to you, but Byzantium was already on the Highway to Hell, and had been since Justinian's death. The Fourth Crusade was just a speed up.

Reductionist nonsensical drivel.

Byzantium would die anyway, but later. I'm astonished that it survived as long as it did, what with its very frequent military defeats.

"I'm astonished that it died as rapidly as it did, what with its very frequent military victories."

I would have the Ottomans win at Otranto, and Vienna thereby taking Italy, and Austria, and defeating the Portuguese in India and Indonesia. It would be glorious.

Mehmed was on a razzia, he wasn't trying to conquer anything.

 

[Mathalamus]

They never happened. Explanation below.

The Ottomans never really pressured the general Christian Population of their empire to convert to Islam. Sometimes it happens due to over-zealous generals and governors and the odd Sultan-Emperor but those are usually exceptions. If the Ottomans really tried then the Balkans would be Islamised more heavily. Look at the Arab Conquest of Iran. It took them 300 years to convert most of the population from the dominant Zoroastrianism to Islam.

The Turks were never really nice to the Arabs. While they might have been Muslims, the Arabs were scorned when it comes to the military and Governance. Janissaries were almost Christian Children and later Christians and Turks exclusively. Calvary came exclusive from Turkish Siphahis and Turkomen. Except in maybe Egypt and Hejaz, Arabs rarely came to high ranking positions such as Pashas or Beys. They were usually Turks.

The Ottomans attempts to unify their empire in the modern era came to late. Pan-Arabism took over without a fight. The Ottomans would have a shot at keeping their Empire if they used Islam to unify all of their possessions if they stressed on it in the mid-18th Century. Though Islam was used to unite the Empire in war against the infidel.

then the solutuion is simple. the Ottomans should have been a Christian nation. then all theyd lose was the mostly useless african and arabic lands. they would still exist.

( useless meaning desert inst very productive)

 

[Karalysia]

Mehmed was on a razzia, he wasn't trying to conquer anything.

Yeah its too bad isn't it? But I was thinking maybe if the Italian armies folded easily and Mehmed lived a bit longer he might have considered a more significant invasion of Italy. I mean the prospect of destroying Venice, and the Papacy should be appealing in and of itself surely?

then the solutuion is simple. the Ottomans should have been a Christian nation. then all theyd lose was the mostly useless african and arabic lands. they would still exist.

You don't know what you're talking about, Egypt and Greater Syria were generally very prosperous parts and wealthy of the Empire. Egypt became the power in its own right for a time, and it looked quite like the Ottoman Empire would be destroyed by Egypt. From the Cacuses, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan the Ottomans drew a variety of forces, from Jassinary, Georgian Malemuks, and Circassians which thus had value as a source of soldiers.

Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya were all Beyliks and thus were more profitable to the Ottomans than drains, and the Ottomans recieved a portion of the profits of the Barbary Corsairs I believe. The Hejaz contained Mecca and Medina which solidified the Sultan's claim as Caliph. Iraq meanwhile was required as a buffer to Iranian expansion (Safavid, and Nadir Shah really, the Qajars were in no condition to do much of anything) and the Turkoman and Kurdish clans along with the Malmeukl rulers of Iraq were used to stuanch the Safavid threath and Iraq would develop value in its own right, as it became a major shipping route and trade center to the Indian ocean after the British and other Europeans entered the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean region.

 

[Mathalamus]

oops i was thinking terrain. i didnt think of the strategic value.

i still think the Byzantine and ottoman empires expansion beyond Egypt was a mistake anyway, they both lost it.
in both cases, that gives you a smaller border to defend, and the far flung areas may not have much influence as Egypt. the ottomans far flung territories fell under the influence of France and Italy. for the Byzantines its just smaller borders. there was no major countries to exert influence. i think.

 

[aronnax]

Yeah its too bad isn't it? But I was thinking maybe if the Italian armies folded easily and Mehmed lived a bit longer he might have considered a more significant invasion of Italy. I mean the prospect of destroying Venice, and the Papacy should be appealing in and of itself surely?

Ah Two Romes and One Emperor. That would have been fascinating to watch. Better still, it pushes the Islam/Christian Frontier to Spain and South France. Heck, if the conquest of Central and South Italy was long-term, they could have better aid Granada against the Spanish Kingdoms.

You don't know what you're talking about, Egypt and Greater Syria were generally very prosperous parts and wealthy of the Empire. Egypt became the power in its own right for a time, and it looked quite like the Ottoman Empire would be destroyed by Egypt. From the Cacuses, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan the Ottomans drew a variety of forces, from Jassinary, Georgian Malemuks, and Circassians which thus had value as a source of soldiers.

Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya were all Beyliks and thus were more profitable to the Ottomans than drains, and the Ottomans recieved a portion of the profits of the Barbary Corsairs I believe. The Hejaz contained Mecca and Medina which solidified the Sultan's claim as Caliph. Iraq meanwhile was required as a buffer to Iranian expansion (Safavid, and Nadir Shah really, the Qajars were in no condition to do much of anything) and the Turkoman and Kurdish clans along with the Malmeukl rulers of Iraq were used to stuanch the Safavid threath and Iraq would develop value in its own right, as it became a major shipping route and trade center to the Indian ocean after the British and other Europeans entered the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean region.

This guy here seems to be obsessed with the Byzantine Empire. I enjoy my fair share of Ottoman masturbation but really, Byzantine North American and Australian Colonies? Ottomans go Christian? Making up falsehoods about the wealth of Syria and Egypt? I mean could you at least come up with more realistic Uber-Byzantine or drop the entire so called logic you came up with that involves the Modern Byzantines ruling lands from Balkan to Anatolia without as so much as a scratch from 19th-20th Century nationalism?

 

[Mathalamus]

more realistic? that is a realistic version of Byzantium. woudl you rather Byzantium be reduced to modern turkey? it would not be a major power by any means, and i didnt like that.

Byzantium never controlled Australia. Britain did.

nationalism didn't happen because the Byzantine Empire destroyed the culture of entire ethnic groups.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah its too bad isn't it? But I was thinking maybe if the Italian armies folded easily and Mehmed lived a bit longer he might have considered a more significant invasion of Italy. I mean the prospect of destroying Venice, and the Papacy should be appealing in and of itself surely?

Dunno how destructible all that stuff even is, though. It's asking an awful lot to presume that Mehmed can beat Venetian naval might (presumably with allies from other Italian states, too, like the Neapolitans; certainly the Genoese would balance the scales a bit, if they could be persuaded to make a deal with the Ottomans, but it's still an awful lot of enemy ships and an awfully tenuous supply line - Apulia is the graveyard of foreign armies invading Italy for a reason...besides, the expedition was a raid precisely because Mehmed's navy wasn't strong enough to stand against the Venetians in the open sea, but was restricted to winning battles among the countless inlets and along the long coasts of the Aegean), let alone beat Venetian naval might, and make it to Rome, and break into Rome (not an easy task in and of itself), and presumably break into Venice as well (even harder). Dude was pretty awesome, but he wasn't that awesome; few, if any, were. Even the brief expedition of Gedik Ahmed Paşa kicked off more diplomatic anxiety over an invasion than did Charles VIII's expedition a decade later - the Italian states were closer than they ever were to a unified effort to push the invader out, a rather ominous portent for future Ottoman operations.

It'd certainly be an eye-opener, but the whole affair just doesn't seem all that likely. Hell, even das had the Ottomans acquire some significant allies beforehand in his Mehmed invasion (Dauphine and Genoa), and those allies were aligned that way because of the preceding events in his TL, events which in OTL conspired to make their intervention impossible (Dauphine didn't exist) and improbable (Genoa).