What are the most improbable things that happened in history?

kolpo · Apr 6, 2014

1) The very long survival of the East Roman Empire after the fall of the western one: it just kept delaying the inevitable for quite a millennium, while quite each century had events that could(should) have destroyed them.
2) That Islamic religion and Arabic culture spread so fast. The conquests themselves aren't that improbable, many many tiny states have quickly conquered large amounts of land but quite never lasted the religion and culture in the conquered regions until now.

What do you think?

Grosshaus · Apr 6, 2014

Spread of early Christianity so quickly wasn't all that probable either.

A small European island nation being able to paint so much of the World in her favourity colour red was quite a feat

eleinvisible · Apr 6, 2014

The miracle of the house of Brandenburg.

soda7777777 · Apr 6, 2014

eleinvisible said:
The miracle of the house of Brandenburg.

Pretty much anything involving Prussia until the 19th century.

Nick Giordano · Apr 6, 2014

Napoleon's return to France in the 100 days.

Traveled from the Mediterranean to Paris with 1000 men and nobody stopped him, nobody got killed. Louis XVIII fled and Napoleon became Emperor again.

Druplesnubb · Apr 6, 2014

Grosshaus said:
A small European island nation being able to paint so much of the World in her favourity colour red was quite a feat

I'm not so sure about that. Once Scotland and England had united Britain was pretty much invincible to any army that didn't also have a better navy. This fact allowed Britain to prioritize the navy over the army much more than any other European nation (except maybe Portugal), turning it into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Add in the technological advantage Europe had over the rest of the world and how important the aforementioned navy is for colonization and The British Empire seems pretty probable to me.

I agree though that The 100 Days and War of the Sixth Coalition were pretty unlikely, mostly because it's the only war I know of that only happened due to a (really unlikely) prison break.

Amallric · Apr 6, 2014

One of the most bizarre events I can think of is the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain.

Magean · Apr 7, 2014

2) That Islamic religion and Arabic culture spread so fast. The conquests themselves aren't that improbable, many many tiny states have quickly conquered large amounts of land but quite never lasted the religion and culture in the conquered regions until now.

For me it's exactly the opposite. The Arab blitz against the two major powers of the region is what was unlikely, as well as the fact that they managed to hold their conquests for more than a few years. That the population of the conquered areas converted to Islam after some isn't that surprising, since conversion relieved from Jizya tax and other inequalities of status.

The spread of Arabic language is another thing, though.

Klausewitz · Apr 7, 2014

Druplesnubb said:
I'm not so sure about that. Once Scotland and England had united Britain was pretty much invincible to any army that didn't also have a better navy. This fact allowed Britain to prioritize the navy over the army much more than any other European nation (except maybe Portugal), turning it into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Add in the technological advantage Europe had over the rest of the world and how important the aforementioned navy is for colonization and The British Empire seems pretty probable to me.

I agree though that The 100 Days and War of the Sixth Coalition were pretty unlikely, mostly because it's the only war I know of that only happened due to a (really unlikely) prison break.

Only when the age of exploration started Europe was a backwater with nothing anybody would want to trade.
No technology, no ressources, no nothing.
Not just Britains history, the historical development towards world domination of the whole of Europe was kinda unlikely.

profxyz · Apr 7, 2014

The 100 Days' Revolution wasn't that improbable - the Bourbons weren't exactly popular in post-Revolutionary France, the peasants were afraid that the emigres were going to be given their land back, and of course you had a whole pool of ex-soldiers after 1814 who lionized Napoleon and had nothing better to do than to talk about the 'good old days' when they were tromping around Germany. Of course, you could fault the Allies for letting down their guard, but then again Napoleon wasn't that popular when he abdicated and the Allies were indeed considering moving him to St. Helena when the escape occurred.

For me:
1. Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity (esp. Milvian Bridge).
2. Mongol hordes stopping abruptly and sparing Central Europe because of Khan death (esp. Ogadai and Mongke)
3. The fact that unlike in other centers of civilization (e.g. China, India, Middle East), Europe did not coalesce around a single power after the Roman Empire (16th Century Spain came closest, imho), and Western Europe since Charlemagne's Empire. Sure, there were geographic and social reasons for it but I'm sure such reasons could have applied to India and China, had they stayed divided.

Bonafide · Apr 7, 2014

Magean said:
The spread of Arabic language is another thing, though.

I'm not sure about this, especially since many nations were in contact with the Arabs through trade and it wouldn't be surprising to consider that they had a huge influence on the general populous because of their exotic traditions and ways of life.

profxyz said:
For me:
2. Mongol hordes stopping abruptly and sparing Central Europe because of Khan death (esp. Ogadai and Mongke)

How is this improbable? Europe started to catch up with the military tactics that the hordes used and the famous, traditional coronation/assembly of the next Khan made the trip back to Europe a waste of time, probably, especially since the next Khan had other ambitions.

I'm just gonna drop the obvious/easy "most improbable" and ask why Hitler or even Stalin came to such power under such a lengthy period of time despite being men of dubious nature, which showed several times throughout their lifetime. Terror and deceit can only do so much.

Greenskyguy · Apr 7, 2014

profxyz said:
3. The fact that unlike in other centers of civilization (e.g. China, India, Middle East), Europe did not coalesce around a single power after the Roman Empire (16th Century Spain came closest, imho), and Western Europe since Charlemagne's Empire. Sure, there were geographic and social reasons for it but I'm sure such reasons could have applied to India and China, had they stayed divided.

I've always wondered why Europe lacked some 'Mandate of Heaven' to reunite the country.

AsdfeZxcas · Apr 7, 2014

I'd say the Texan Revolution was unlikely to succeed. The Texans are forced to withdraw, but then defeat a (slightly) larger force, capturing Santa Anna and only losing 9 men, winning the war.

Fishman786 · Apr 7, 2014

Bonafide said:
How is this improbable? Europe started to catch up with the military tactics that the hordes used and the famous, traditional coronation/assembly of the next Khan made the trip back to Europe a waste of time, probably, especially since the next Khan had other ambitions.

The death of the Khan is the improbable thing. Ogedei died at just the right time to spare Vienna from being besieged (and in all probability annihilated). Had Ogedei died five years later, I think Hungary would have become a part of the Mongol Empire and the west would have been sucked into a futile battle with the the Mongols in Bohemia, Austria and eastern Germany. Europeans couldn't fight the Mongols in the open, and the Mongols couldn't fight in wet forests and struggled with fortresses, so I think both sides would have struggled to get a clear victory over the other.

soda7777777 · Apr 7, 2014

So what you're saying is that Poland is always the stomping ground of invaders?

Buczkowski · Apr 7, 2014

At least since the Poles themselves first invaded.

magritte2 · Apr 7, 2014

profxyz said:
The 100 Days' Revolution wasn't that improbable - the Bourbons weren't exactly popular in post-Revolutionary France, the peasants were afraid that the emigres were going to be given their land back, and of course you had a whole pool of ex-soldiers after 1814 who lionized Napoleon and had nothing better to do than to talk about the 'good old days' when they were tromping around Germany. Of course, you could fault the Allies for letting down their guard, but then again Napoleon wasn't that popular when he abdicated and the Allies were indeed considering moving him to St. Helena when the escape occurred.

For me:
1. Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity (esp. Milvian Bridge).
2. Mongol hordes stopping abruptly and sparing Central Europe because of Khan death (esp. Ogadai and Mongke)
3. The fact that unlike in other centers of civilization (e.g. China, India, Middle East), Europe did not coalesce around a single power after the Roman Empire (16th Century Spain came closest, imho), and Western Europe since Charlemagne's Empire. Sure, there were geographic and social reasons for it but I'm sure such reasons could have applied to India and China, had they stayed divided.

Actually, in response to your #3, I'd say the fact that China kept reforming as a single political entity was one of the most extraordinarily improbable things. India was never united until the British, and Europe and the middle east were only dominated by a single nation (Rome, the Abbasids, the Ottomans) for relatively brief periods of history. China's the anomaly; Balkanization is the norm.

The rapid spread of both Christianity and Islam was extraordinarily improbable.

I'd say that of the European nations, the rise to global power status of the Netherlands was more improbable than England. Sure, control of the mouth of the Rhine is useful from a trade standpoint, but there's no particular reason a larger nation couldn't have had it. England's location on an island saved it from

Japan's rapid modernization seems quite improbable as well.

soda7777777 · Apr 7, 2014

Buczkowski said:
At least since the Poles themselves first invaded.

Bah, the Poles have always been there.

Calad · Apr 7, 2014

Fall of West Rome.

To make this sound absurd: Rome was highly civilized society and barbarians didnt have even permanent cities. How can Rome lose such fight? Look migration maps, whola nations travelled trough Western Rome, Vandals from Germany to Tunis like business usual. How this is even possible is incomprehensible. True reason for this isnt of course barbarians superiority but Rome had been in constant civil war and power strugle decades, making governing huge nation impossible.

Magean · Apr 7, 2014

Bonafide said:
I'm not sure about this, especially since many nations were in contact with the Arabs through trade and it wouldn't be surprising to consider that they had a huge influence on the general populous because of their exotic traditions and ways of life.

For a start, Arabic spread more easily were people already spoke languages related to it : Semitic languages in Mesopotamia/Syria/Palestine, very close to Arabic, or other Afro-Asiatic languages such as Coptic in Egypt, or Berber tongues - that still hold some ground today.
Indo-European languages, with no connection to Arabic, resisted : main examples are Persian or Kurdish. Since Persian became again a culture and prestige tongue starting from the Xth century, its resistance can be understood. But Kurdish, while not having this advantage, proved to be resilient.

What are the most improbable things that happened in history?

Major

Minister of Peace for Europe

seldom serious

Wer rettet uns den Frieden wenn nicht wir selbst?

Posting from Calfornia, USA

Lt. General

Field Marshal

Lt. General

Field Marshal

Major

Major

Colonel

Contrarian

Maharaja

Wer rettet uns den Frieden wenn nicht wir selbst?

Second Lieutenant

Passive Surrealist

Wer rettet uns den Frieden wenn nicht wir selbst?

Calad

Guest

Lt. General