What would you change?

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[Perfection]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would cause the 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.

 

[RedRalph]

I would cause the 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?

 

[Dachs]

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? What was it Gibbon said - "he did not wish to enlarge the weakness of the empire"?

 

[generalstaff]

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.

 

[Godwynn]

I would make it a liberal democracy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What would you change, exactly?

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

 

[Dachs]

I would make it a liberal democracy.

APPROV'D.

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

 

[chad187]

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

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Sharwood]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Sharwood]

He started the colonization, actually.

Not on anything like the later scale. Bismarck was fairly anti-colonial for the time period.

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Sharwood]

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?

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[amadeus]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.