• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

ZomgK3tchup

Into the Future
128 Badges
Dec 25, 2009
5.398
6.580
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Gettysburg
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Lead and Gold
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Pirates of Black Cove
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
What I'm asking the history forum is this: What change in global history do you think would have created the best possible outcome as of July 2012? Specifically, what single change would have resulted in humanity as a whole being better off in this universe than it is in ours? I only have three restrictions for you. The first is that you must be specific and explain how your divergence works and its consequences. The second is that the divergence must be plausible and within the realm of reason. The last is that the divergence must occur after the year 476 AD.

I ask this because I'm looking into possible alternate histories to write about, so try and be specific. Right now, I'm tinkering with ideas related to Charlemagne and possibly Ming China, but I'm not sure the feasibility of either of them. Thoughts?
 
What I'm asking the history forum is this: What change in global history do you think would have created the best possible outcome as of July 2012? Specifically, what single change would have resulted in humanity as a whole being better off in this universe than it is in ours? I only have three restrictions for you. The first is that you must be specific and explain how your divergence works and its consequences. The second is that the divergence must be plausible and within the realm of reason. The last is that the divergence must occur after the year 476 AD.

I ask this because I'm looking into possible alternate histories to write about, so try and be specific. Right now, I'm tinkering with ideas related to Charlemagne and possibly Ming China, but I'm not sure the feasibility of either of them. Thoughts?

How much are you paying us out of your book royalties for doing your groundwork?
 
How much are you paying us out of your book royalties for doing your groundwork?
Haha, if only. Just for fun writing mostly. It's a lost art, sadly.
 
No mongol? Earlier industrial revolution happen in China Song dynasty. Imagine what new technology today we already have if industrial revolution start to happen around 13 century.
 
What I'm asking the history forum is this: What change in global history do you think would have created the best possible outcome as of July 2012? Specifically, what single change would have resulted in humanity as a whole being better off in this universe than it is in ours? I only have three restrictions for you. The first is that you must be specific and explain how your divergence works and its consequences. The second is that the divergence must be plausible and within the realm of reason. The last is that the divergence must occur after the year 476 AD.

I ask this because I'm looking into possible alternate histories to write about, so try and be specific. Right now, I'm tinkering with ideas related to Charlemagne and possibly Ming China, but I'm not sure the feasibility of either of them. Thoughts?
Humans are not made to be "happy" or live in "best" worlds. Wherever we go, we create our own misery. People only realize the value of morals when they live in immoral worlds, and without tragedy there is no greatness in art. So I reject the premise of the original question, there is no "best world". No matter what you do to better peoples' lives, in the end they will find ways to throw everything down again.

Cheers :)
 
Honestly, as Leviathan said, the whole question is absurd. It relies on humans not acting like humans. No matter what changes you make you are dealing with trillions and trillions of individual, unpredictable variables over the centuries, and individual humans will always seize an opportunity to alter things for their benefit and the general detriment. The only rational means of stopping this is a mass extinction event. In other words, we are already living in the best possible history.
 
Charlemagne actually succeeding in uniting most of Western Europe in such a way that it didn't shatter might have saved a lot of bloodshed if it meant Europe not falling into the inter-rivalries of later eras. Might have prevented the colonial era too. Without dozens of tiny infighting nations Europe might not have become so belligerent as Spain, France, Britain and others became in later eras.

Of course, that would have required non-partible inheritence.
 
Probably the maintenance of the French and British Empires unto the point where the natives were totally civilised. Admittedly, with some large changes to the French model and minor changes to the British one.
 
Well, depending on how you define "best" you could argue that different outcomes at certain events could reasonably have led to lasting changes in this or that aspect of world history.

For example if you believe that human societies need order and stability above everything else, then it is possible to conceive a history where this became a stronger trend. China was arguable a society that shared this belief in order and stability, and compared to other comparably affluent and cultured societies they did manage this better.

However order and stability are not "better" by every moral standard. Just look at how Emperors like Qin Shi Huangdi established such order and stability, and what trends they set in Chinese philosophical thought. From "order and stability" it is only a small step to "it is okay to kill millions if this saves the empire". That the Chinese don't value individualism and human rights very highly has its roots in the philosophical thought that their society developed. The same goes for basically every "empire" that ever was, regardless of what philosophical principles it was founded on. They all eventually suppress individual liberties in the name of order. It's a godsend that Europe never actually coalesced into an all powerful empire, because even though this would have brought peace, it would also have warped European philosophical thought into something awful.
 
Probably the maintenance of the French and British Empires unto the point where the natives were totally civilised. Admittedly, with some large changes to the French model and minor changes to the British one.

Ah, yes. The civilizing influence of the British Empire. I'm sure a few minor reforms would have done the trick.

Re: the OP: I would turn your quesiton around. What changes would have made history worse? Why? How? The best of literature allows us to reflect on the nature of the human animal. This is not to sya you shoudl write about what change would make things "worse" but thinking about different view points to view your writing project might be fruitful.
 
Not a independet Poland.
No independet Poland equals Soviets succeed in taking over Germany --> No WW2---> No real big Cold War tensions and possible a more communist Europe *Mwahaha*
 
The problem is the question. Usualy there is no single change or event which did everything. However Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia not dieing from throat cancer might have changed alot. Might......
 
Humans are not made to be "happy" or live in "best" worlds. Wherever we go, we create our own misery. People only realize the value of morals when they live in immoral worlds, and without tragedy there is no greatness in art. So I reject the premise of the original question, there is no "best world". No matter what you do to better peoples' lives, in the end they will find ways to throw everything down again.
If there are worse outcomes than what we live in today then there are also better. If it's possible for the Cold War to have heated up and July 2012 exists in a post-apocalyptic society then it's possible for somewhere down the line, humans could have done something differently that resulted in the quality of life being significantly higher than on their July 2012 than ours.

You misunderstand the question entirely. Either that, or you're so caught up that humans are destructive creatures that you think it's impossible for us to have achieved anything better than what we have.

Honestly, as Leviathan said, the whole question is absurd. It relies on humans not acting like humans. No matter what changes you make you are dealing with trillions and trillions of individual, unpredictable variables over the centuries, and individual humans will always seize an opportunity to alter things for their benefit and the general detriment. The only rational means of stopping this is a mass extinction event. In other words, we are already living in the best possible history.
Scientists say that there were only 100 billion people throughout the course of history. That's significantly fewer variables.

In regards to what you're saying, I completely disagree with you. One influential person or event could change the course of history. Say a Byzantine Emperor was a better negotiator and threw off the Turkish conquest of Constantinople by a hundred years. That's a hundred years that the Balkans and Hungary don't get besieged by the Ottomans which would ultimately result in Austria not annexing Hungary and throwing the whole history of Eastern Europe out the window. Alternatively, say one of the 10+ assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler were successful. The entire history of World War II could be thrown off; it could have occurred later, not at all, and if it did, without Hitler mucking up with Barbarossa.

What I'm asking is this: What event could set off something that causes an early Industrial Revolution, an early establishment of the nation-state, the survival of a once great empire through reforms that creates a more peaceful and progressive world, etc?

NapoleonComple said:
Charlemagne actually succeeding in uniting most of Western Europe in such a way that it didn't shatter might have saved a lot of bloodshed if it meant Europe not falling into the inter-rivalries of later eras. Might have prevented the colonial era too. Without dozens of tiny infighting nations Europe might not have become so belligerent as Spain, France, Britain and others became in later eras.

Of course, that would have required non-partible inheritence.
I threw around this idea too; through Charles and his successors, the Western Roman Empire is revived as a sort of "Gallic Roman Empire."

How feasible it is to wash away non-partible inheritance and whether or not the states Charlemagne conquered were happily subjugated or ready to rebel is unknown to me. I'm not too familiar with the history of the Frankish Empire.

DoomBunny said:
Probably the maintenance of the French and British Empires unto the point where the natives were totally civilised. Admittedly, with some large changes to the French model and minor changes to the British one.
This is the most plausible one in modern history, I think. It would require the British and French Empires to confederate so that greater autonomy is given to the colonies but they ultimately answer to London and Paris for purposes of economics and military - essentially a more effective Commonwealth of Nations.

A divergence here would most likely occur after World War I. Anytime before, and the imperialist mindset is too strong.
 
Unfortunate. Necessary, to a point.

Necessary?

In short, imperliasm is never, by definition, good for the colony. The colony learns precisly what the Imperial power taught it about governance, *that* is why, for example, Latin America was worse governed than the US or Canada, but were better governered than Africa. these kinds of patterns tends to be reinforcing.

If I were going to answer the original question: whatever means, of your choice, to avert the European Colonial/Imperial period.
 
What I'm asking the history forum is this: What change in global history do you think would have created the best possible outcome as of July 2012?

The best possible history? History is but a collection of winners and losers. Just pick a person/society/organization/country and give it as much prosperity/power as you want, and that is your best history.

The best impossible history would be perfect communism. A society without differences, but when people are even distinguished at birth (Some are born with defeciencies), such a thing is impossible.
 
Necessary?

If the natives are going to resist their own betterment, then I'm sorry, but they need to be met with force.

You say it's never good for the colony? Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem to get along just fine.
 
If the natives are going to resist their own betterment, then I'm sorry, but they need to be met with force.

You say it's never good for the colony? Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem to get along just fine.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand was and to some extent still is, designed for the imperial part of the population, not the natives. The economic growth in these colonies was very stratified and this stratification can still be seen, especially in Australia and New Zealand. There was no "civilization of the natives" only robbery.
 
Scientists say that there were only 100 billion people throughout the course of history. That's significantly fewer variables.

In regards to what you're saying, I completely disagree with you. One influential person or event could change the course of history. Say a Byzantine Emperor was a better negotiator and threw off the Turkish conquest of Constantinople by a hundred years. That's a hundred years that the Balkans and Hungary don't get besieged by the Ottomans which would ultimately result in Austria not annexing Hungary and throwing the whole history of Eastern Europe out the window. Alternatively, say one of the 10+ assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler were successful. The entire history of World War II could be thrown off; it could have occurred later, not at all, and if it did, without Hitler mucking up with Barbarossa.

What I'm asking is this: What event could set off something that causes an early Industrial Revolution, an early establishment of the nation-state, the survival of a once great empire through reforms that creates a more peaceful and progressive world, etc?
You assume I'm referring only to people. I am not. I mean not just people, but the interactions of one individual with another and how this interaction affects the next individuals interactions with a different individual. Yes, a better emperor could have held off the Ottomans, and then peace would reign in the empire until a few seconds after a knife is thrust into his back, or a plague comes along, or an early industrial revolution leads to an early escalation of military techniques, and technology, and atom bombs and tyrants and general malaise, and Republican presidents.
Your question also ignores the simple fact that what makes one person happy, makes another miserable.

You assume that the Ottomans being held back would lead to a better history, I'm sure the Ottoman Turks would have had a different view.
Perhaps the question could be better framed as "Which alternate history would create a would that would make 'You' happy". But then we'd just get an endless stream of alternates in which the Muslims conquer all, or the Christians conquer all, Or the Jews conquer all, or Atheism conquers all and were no closer to answering the question. I still maintain that we live in the best of all possible existences. Take that as you will, but human beings are far more complex than you seem to give them credit for and cannot simply be distilled into "only 100 billion" individuals.
 
If the natives are going to resist their own betterment, then I'm sorry, but they need to be met with force.

You say it's never good for the colony? Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem to get along just fine.
As has been pointed out, what you really just wrote was "The colonizers of Canada, and the colonizers of Australia and the colonizers of New Zealand seem to get along just fine." The natives of these countries have no real interaction with each other of any great consequence. Doubtless necessary and for their own good. Should have known what was for their own betterment after all.