Not likely, given how complicated the procedure really is.
It's not about harshness (although they were indeed better adapted to such environments than we are), it's about basic physiology. A Neanderthal was a powerful short-distance runner, but had relatively low stamina when compared to homo sapiens. This meant that neanderthals were skilled at the sort of short, fast chase that would occur in the closely-packed forests of Ice Age Eurasia, but were weaker in the thinner forests and plains that began appearing as the Ice Age ended. Homo sapiens- a species which had longer remained in the African plains where humanity evolved- was better suited for this sort of environment, so we out-competed the Neanderthals to extinction.Let's just assume the Neanderthals were able to adapt to an environment not too harsh, but similar enough to ours so that we could posibly coexist... or not...
What's your point? All I said was that the significance of any particular event is relative, and that's true. There is no measurable "grand scheme" and, even if there was, there's no way of determining the effect of any given event on it, especially when one considers that there's no way of calculating all the evens that lead up to that. All we can safely say is that some events may have some effect on some results at some level, and, frankly, that doesn't sound like anything to get all that excited about.That's a very narrow-minded view, IMHO. 1 person counts immensely in the "grand scheme". Do you realize that 1 child walking on the street will totally change who accidentally met who in what day, and that will have huge effects on events from there on? In fact, a person is much more than enough!
*snip*
What if... Karl Marx got run over by a horse carriage at age 13?
What if Mohammed converted to Christianity?
We're actually discussing that in another thread. Some interesting points made.What if the Britished had won in the American Revolution?
Chances are someone else would have tried it a few years later. It was too tempting an idea to ignore for long. Of course, how this later discovery would change things is debatable, but I wouldn't even know how to start figuring that out...What if Columbus's ships and subsequent navigators never returned back to the Old World?
Highly unlikely, given that Neandethals had a far more limited environment than Homo sapiens, and therefore would not have been in a position to out-compete most of the human race at the time. Possibly a more highly evolved form of Neanderthal could manage it, but the results of that would depend on the manner of the Neanderthal's evolution.What if Homo neanderthals drove out Homo sapiens into extinction?
Why 1204? To stop the 4th Crusade?What if... a screw-up in the time vortex transported 100 Greek troops from World War II (including a few tanks and planes, as well as supplies) back to Constantinopole, 1204?
What if... Vietnam never existed?
Why 1204? To stop the 4th Crusade?
Bartholomaï;6102035 said:Japan would have still conquered it during WW2 and after they retreated at the end of the war, there would some kind of Europe like "Chinese Union"
Exactly. The implications of that would be...
Then they would have won the peace, by feeding the Persian empire the fruits of Greek ingenuity a couple of centuries earlier than was done after Alexander's rampage. It would be Hellenism come early.What if the greeks had lost the persian wars.
Hellenism was successful because Alexander's successes forced it on the Persians. If Persia had conquered Greece, that effect would be minimised, and far outweighed by Persian influence on Greece.Then they would have won the peace, by feeding the Persian empire the fruits of Greek ingenuity a couple of centuries earlier than was done after Alexander's rampage. It would be Hellenism come early.