The "Best" Possible History

[DarthJF]

How about medieval Russia not having been conquered by Mongols? Prior they had pretty tight contacts with Scandinavia, Poland and Germany, and the development gap between Western and Eastern Europe might not have happened.

[magritte2]

I wonder how things would have turned out if horses had died out at the end of the Pleistocene in Eurasia instead of the Americas.

[olvirki]

I wonder how things would have turned out if horses had died out at the end of the Pleistocene in Eurasia instead of the Americas.

I read in a magazine that the number of big herbivore species that could live in the plains may have dropped after the humans arrived but after some of those species had died out the species that remained were safe. That was because they no longer had to compete with as many species and could therefor have a larger population and could therefor take greater losses due to human hunting. And in the same article I read that luck played a part in "deciding" what species died out and what species lived. So I guess if the horse had survived in the Americas the American bison might have gone extinct.

And who knows, maybe civilization had started earlier in the Americans if they had the horse and they would therefor be more advanced when they meet people from other continents. And maybe the Native Americans would find Eurasia and Africa and the Eurasian and African populations would take a great hit because of germs that evolved in the Americas. So this history would maybe not be any better than our history.

[Rauchen]

Didn't stop..well.. most of Europe, really. The presence of something resembling true democratic socialist movements, that is.

Although I'll grant that the use of the "s word" to describe Obama is... amusing, even while I'll quibble that he's "almost as far to the right" as Romney.

Not sure the Native Americans tribes would have been "more environmentally conscious", that tends to be a stereotype that is, when examine closely, not all that accurate. Of course, ti would *still* have been better, as the Americas were very much a training ground for European colonialism.

This just made me think, however, of something that would have made a difference: a group of settlers arriving in the Americas sometime during the stone age or early bronze age who carry small pox and thereby make the populations there less susceptible to the disease. This alone would save millions of lives and might ahve made the diffrence bewteen the Americas lookins more like Asia vs what actually occurred, if nothing else.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 <--Obama is about one point further left and one point less authoritarian.

To a certain extent, the view of Native Americans being closer to nature can be seen as a stereotype, but I believe we can agree that they were (are? Almost all of the "natives" I've seen in Oklahoma are whiter than me) more in tune to nature, whereas European Americans destroyed trees, polluted and dammed rivers, and called it "progress." However, I'm willing to admit that my knowledge of Native American customs is rather lacking, and so I won't get into a debate about it; I hate to show my ass by arguing about something I'm not really an expert on. :P

Now, that hypothetical scenario is interesting. Definitely something to think about.

[Duke Leto]

Ooooh! Best of all possible histories? I'd send Voltaire and Dr. Pangloss back to strangle the first king with the guts of the first priest.

On the other hand, Sophocles tells us that the happiest man is he who is never born, so how about we go back and slaughter all the 10,000 Homo Sapiens ancestors that survived the Mt. Toba eruption. That solves ALL the problems of human history.

[Amallric]

To a certain extent, the view of Native Americans being closer to nature can be seen as a stereotype, but I believe we can agree that they were (are? Almost all of the "natives" I've seen in Oklahoma are whiter than me) more in tune to nature, whereas European Americans destroyed trees, polluted and dammed rivers, and called it "progress." However, I'm willing to admit that my knowledge of Native American customs is rather lacking, and so I won't get into a debate about it; I hate to show my ass by arguing about something I'm not really an expert on. :P

They were just too primitive and lacked the means needed to mess their environment up.

[DoomBunny]

And yet still managed to wipe out several hundred Buffalo whenever they felt like a new pair of slippers.

[Duke Leto]

And yet still managed to wipe out several hundred Buffalo whenever they felt like a new pair of slippers.

Self-defense, just like Hat and those toddlers.

[Chilango2]

They were just too primitive and lacked the means needed to mess their environment up.

Not to mention causing the extinction of american megafauna.

Re: Native American, environmentalism, and empire, google "Comancheria"

[olvirki]

And yet still managed to wipe out several hundred Buffalo whenever they felt like a new pair of slippers.

I doubt the killed hundreds of bisons whenever they needed a pair of slippers.

And the bison population remained large until the 19th century when white hunters almost exterminated the American bison.

Not to mention causing the extinction of american megafauna.

Re: Native American, environmentalism, and empire, google "Comancheria"

True though, I believe the reason the native Americans were able to extermanate so many large species was that they had never seen a human before and did not reconsize them as predators until to late. The same happened when people settled in Australia and New Zealand. The large animals in Eurasia and Africa did better because they had evolved with humans and were afraid of them.

And the Native Americans also cut down (and burned) quite a bit of forests.

[DoomBunny]

I doubt the killed hundreds of bisons whenever they needed a pair of slippers.

Hyperbole.

And the bison population remained large until the 19th century when white hunters almost exterminated the American bison.

Actually, native hunting techniques were more wasteful than that of the colonial hunters. The colonial method of killing a bison resulted in 1 death when 1 death was needed (Except when they shot them for sport). The Indian method, conversely, was to push the herd towards the edge of a cliff, sending a lot of them over and therefore killing many more than they actually needed to.

The reason the bison population declined was because of an increase in need, not because the colonials hunted more wastefully than the Indians.

[olvirki]

Hyperbole.

OK then.

Actually, native hunting techniques were more wasteful than that of the colonial hunters. The colonial method of killing a bison resulted in 1 death when 1 death was needed (Except when they shot them for sport). The Indian method, conversely, was to push the herd towards the edge of a cliff, sending a lot of them over and therefore killing many more than they actually needed to.

The reason the bison population declined was because of an increase in need, not because the colonials hunted more wastefully than the Indians.

But one also has to take into account that colonial hunters generally only took the hide and let all the meat rot. So the may have used something of every animal that they killed, but they only used a little part of the animal.

[Grosshaus]

Back on the original question, being a Finn and recently visited St. Petersburg made me more aware of the historical connections. Without the disturbance brought by communist revolution, we could have eventually become a rich suburb without much unneeded bloodshed over decades

[Buczkowski]

OK then.



But one also has to take into account that colonial hunters generally only took the hide and let all the meat rot. So the may have used something of every animal that they killed, but they only used a little part of the animal.

Again, the Native method often left hundreds of bison dead. Far more than any hunting party could ever process and transport. Lots more waste.

[Morrell8]

Self-defense, just like Hat and those toddlers.

Free Hat! Free Hat!

[SprightlyMonkey]

I believe that if the Dark Ages would never have happened, then we'd have a huge jump in modern technology and possibly be able to colonise other planets, as the Dark Ages left Christian nations at a huge loss behind the Byzantines and Muslims in the East.
If the Dark Ages wouldn't have happened, however, there is a good chance a fair few of the modern religions we have today may have been eradicated.

[Jokurr]

Again, the Native method often left hundreds of bison dead. Far more than any hunting party could ever process and transport. Lots more waste.

Though at many of these sites, there would be more than just a "hunting party," large numbers people would often relocate to the processing camps and stay there for some time to take advantage in the surplus of food and material. While there would likely be some waste, I don't think it really compares to the white man's hunting tendencies of only taking the hide before moving on.

And at the end of the day, it was the Europeans who drove the buffalo near extinction, not the natives. Even if you want to argue that the native hunting methods were more wasteful, they at least preserved balance while europeans didn't. Furthermore, the natives hunted the buffalo out of necessity to sustain their way of life, while buffalo hides and furs were a luxury item for Europeans.

[the_hdk]

best possible history? no religion

<runs and hides>

the farther you go and change stuff the harder it gets to predict what would have happened.

how about if Alexander the Great lived longer? conquered the west? establishing his dream of integrated culture. no divide between east and west?
would his sons have conquered the rest of the world? or would they fail eventually? most probably as there are some people who just want to see it burn.

[Jolt]

how about if Alexander the Great lived longer? conquered the west? establishing his dream of integrated culture.

For him to establish his dream, it would have brought death and misery to dozens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would the world have been better? I seriously doubt it. It'd be akin to saying that Nazi Germany winning the war might have brought a better future, though most probably not.

[noobermenschen]

No grant of lands from Pepin the Short to the papacy? The Holy Mother Church does not drink the poison of temporal power, and the religious history of Europe is more a spiritual journey of a people than a parade of scheming Italian princes.