What would you change about history?

[Sheltopolis]

If you changed something about history then it wouldn't be history.

What?

If you went back in time to change history, then the way in which you changed history would become history. Therefore it would be impossible to truly "change" history because the history in which you create would by definition become its own history.

[Kohr]

What?

If you went back in time to change history, then the way in which you changed history would become history. Therefore it would be impossible to truly "change" history because the history in which you create would by definition become its own history.

But this is alternative history we're speaking of here.

[Stellonia]

Roe v. Wade, the U.S. annexation of Hawaiʻi, and the World Wars.

[Kohr]

I'd probably stop Nigeria from discovering oil, because, I mean, who needs that?

[Finland SSR]

For a start, preventing mass extinctions, man-made problems in the Earth caused by man having no regard for the ecosystem, the usual crap. Thing is human society exists right now and as shitty as humanity is, the best slightly less shitty humans can do is stop the really shitty humans from being shitty. Besides, if I kill off homo sapiens before they reach more contemporary levels of intelligence, it's euthanasia, not murder.

So, let me get this straight:

You would kill off the most sapient, efficient, effective and advanced species on this planet, prevent civilization and a next step in the history of life for millions of years in order to preserve the everything else - not so advanced, not sapient, not useful - like it was.

Did I understand you correctly? Because if yes, I'm sick of these kinds of arguments for human extinction. In an evolutionary sense, the development of sapient life and the beginning of the Anthropocenic Era is no different from any other rapid change in ecosystems, whether it is meteor impacts, continents splitting or changes in climate. If some species can't adapt to us - well, fuck 'em, are they any use to us anyway? We're definitely not going to try and adapt to species who are inferior to us in sapience, advancement and culture.

[Tafhan]

Also, I would probably somehow stop Mao Tsedung and The Communist Party from beating the Republic of China. Basically just keep Chiang Kai-Shek in power.

While also modernizing and speeding up development in Tibet, so they could fight off an invasion/stand effectively as a modern country...somehow.

Another thing would be to Somehow preserve the written works of the Aztecs an Mayans that were destroyed.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

The evolution/creation of man.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Successful Mongol conquest of Europe.

Might be interesting to see that timeline.

[Obexer]

Attempt to Industrialize Australia, West Africa, and the Northeastern USA in 100 BC, just because I really want to see what would happen. If I were able to return to my own timeline, it would be the ultimate conversation starter, and if no one believed me I'd just write a novel about it.

[Perome]

Go back in time with our advanced weaponry, hand them out to random civs and see what happens.

[The Wolven League]

Go back in time with our advanced weaponry, hand them out to random civs and see what happens.

By civs do you mean nations or literal townspeople?

[DBJ]

Make McCain win the 2008 election. Imagine how much better the world would be.

[Perome]

Go back in time with our advanced weaponry, hand them out to random civs and see what happens.

By civs do you mean nations or literal townspeople?

Nations (but giving guns to random people on the street sounds like it would be quite funny.)

[The Wolven League]

By civs do you mean nations or literal townspeople?

Nations (but giving guns to random people on the street sounds like it would be quite funny.)

"I wonder if you pull this trigger- *BAM*"

[Avalon]

I would've let Horatio Nelson conquer Tenerife back in 1797.

[Wolfmanne2]

For a start, preventing mass extinctions, man-made problems in the Earth caused by man having no regard for the ecosystem, the usual crap. Thing is human society exists right now and as shitty as humanity is, the best slightly less shitty humans can do is stop the really shitty humans from being shitty. Besides, if I kill off homo sapiens before they reach more contemporary levels of intelligence, it's euthanasia, not murder.

So, let me get this straight:

You would kill off the most sapient, efficient, effective and advanced species on this planet, prevent civilization and a next step in the history of life for millions of years in order to preserve the everything else - not so advanced, not sapient, not useful - like it was.

Did I understand you correctly? Because if yes, I'm sick of these kinds of arguments for human extinction. In an evolutionary sense, the development of sapient life and the beginning of the Anthropocenic Era is no different from any other rapid change in ecosystems, whether it is meteor impacts, continents splitting or changes in climate. If some species can't adapt to us - well, fuck 'em, are they any use to us anyway? We're definitely not going to try and adapt to species who are inferior to us in sapience, advancement and culture.

In one word, yes.

[Aelex]

I would probably just kill Mahomet when he was a kid.
Not to stop Islam from being created but just to see what would have happened if the Muslims Invasions didn't cut the cultural and economic links the western world ad with the Orient thus creating the dark ages and indirectly making Charlemagne's Empire possible.
I would have also had liked to see if the Byzantines would have been able to finish what Justinian started and recreate the Roman Empire.

[The Wolven League]

I would probably just kill Mahomet when he was a kid.
Not to stop Islam from being created but just to see what would have happened if the Muslims Invasions didn't cut the cultural and economic links the western world ad with the Orient thus creating the dark ages and indirectly making Charlemagne's Empire possible.
I would have also had liked to see if the Byzantines would have been able to finish what Justinian started and recreate the Roman Empire.

Or kill Charles the Hammer before Tours, therefore letting the Umayyads conquer France.

That would be quite interesting.

[Jochistan]

I would probably just kill Mahomet when he was a kid.
Not to stop Islam from being created but just to see what would have happened if the Muslims Invasions didn't cut the cultural and economic links the western world ad with the Orient thus creating the dark ages and indirectly making Charlemagne's Empire possible.
I would have also had liked to see if the Byzantines would have been able to finish what Justinian started and recreate the Roman Empire.

I thought the dark ages started and we're in "progress" in Europe waaay before Islam started.

But if we're on the subject of Islam though, I might make Ali Caliph and see if it would make a difference.

And collect the hadiths while Muhammad was alive instead of 200 years later. Checking with The Prophet himself (saw) to assure accuracy.

not sure if blasphemy

[The Wolven League]

I would probably just kill Mahomet when he was a kid.
Not to stop Islam from being created but just to see what would have happened if the Muslims Invasions didn't cut the cultural and economic links the western world ad with the Orient thus creating the dark ages and indirectly making Charlemagne's Empire possible.
I would have also had liked to see if the Byzantines would have been able to finish what Justinian started and recreate the Roman Empire.

I thought the dark ages started and we're in "progress" in Europe waaay before Islam started.

But if we're on the subject of Islam though, I might make Ali Caliph and see if it would make a difference.

And collect the hadiths while Muhammad was alive instead of 200 years later. Checking with The Prophet himself (saw) to assure accuracy.

not sure if blasphemy

[Aelex]

Or kill Charles the Hammer before Tours, therefore letting the Umayyads conquer France.

That would be quite interesting.

You know that it was only Charles Martel's propaganda, right? This battle actually was more an escarmouche than a real battle as the muslim army was here for raids and plunders rather than conquest and didn't expected to have to face a real army.
Now, Charles Martel was intelligent enough to transform a simple victory against raiders into the "Magnificent Victory of Christendom over the Heaten's Army" because he desperately needed something to make himself look more legitimate as he basically usurped his position but it don't change the fact that even if he had lose, Muslims would have simply looted here and there before going back to their home.

[Apollinis]

Or kill Charles the Hammer before Tours, therefore letting the Umayyads conquer France.

That would be quite interesting.

You know that it was only Charles Martel's propaganda, right? This battle actually was more an escarmouche than a real battle as the muslim army was here for raids and plunders rather than conquest and didn't expected to have to face a real army.
Now, Charles Martel was intelligent enough to transform a simple victory against raiders into the "Magnificent Victory of Christendom over the Heaten's Army" because he desperately needed something to make himself look more legitimate as he basically usurped his position but it don't change the fact that even if he had lose, Muslims would have simply looted here and there before going back to their home.

In addition to these valid points, the key reason that the Umayyad Caliphate never conquered France is that it imploded less than two decades after the battle, through factors unrelated to it.

[The Wolven League]

Or kill Charles the Hammer before Tours, therefore letting the Umayyads conquer France.

That would be quite interesting.

You know that it was only Charles Martel's propaganda, right? This battle actually was more an escarmouche than a real battle as the muslim army was here for raids and plunders rather than conquest and didn't expected to have to face a real army.
Now, Charles Martel was intelligent enough to transform a simple victory against raiders into the "Magnificent Victory of Christendom over the Heaten's Army" because he desperately needed something to make himself look more legitimate as he basically usurped his position but it don't change the fact that even if he had lose, Muslims would have simply looted here and there before going back to their home.

Source that the Umayyad Invasion of Gaul was just a myth? The Wiki page doesn't even consider the possibility of the war being false.

[Apollinis]

You know that it was only Charles Martel's propaganda, right? This battle actually was more an escarmouche than a real battle as the muslim army was here for raids and plunders rather than conquest and didn't expected to have to face a real army.
Now, Charles Martel was intelligent enough to transform a simple victory against raiders into the "Magnificent Victory of Christendom over the Heaten's Army" because he desperately needed something to make himself look more legitimate as he basically usurped his position but it don't change the fact that even if he had lose, Muslims would have simply looted here and there before going back to their home.

Source that the Umayyad Invasion of Gaul was just a myth? The Wiki page doesn't even consider the possibility of the war being false.

It's not that it's a myth, merely that painting the Battle of Tours as one spectacular civilisational clash upon which the survival of Western civilisation depended is fairly spectacularly incorrect and exaggerated.

[Cartagine]

Honestly, if i had the chance to do such thing i'd prevent humans from becoming a major thing.