Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are literally thousands of different historical circumstances that i could use for this exercise, but in this thread I want to focus on just one:
Had Alexander of Macedon not died young, but lived another 15+ years, continued to expand & solidify his rule and produced an heir who was old enough to protect himself and continue the dynasty, for at least a few more generations, how would the world and history differ?
I have thought about this because it is a scenario that could have very easily been reality. How would western history and earth history and culture have differed if hellenistic culture been spread deep into India and the near east, and been able to sustain itself for multiple generations?
Might a great empire have risen on the Indian peninsula that could have rivaled, or even surpassed Rome. Might another region of the near east (Persia, Egypt) have advanced more rapidly. Would Alexander have eventually turned his attention to the northern regions of europe and how might their development be accelerated or altered as a result?
And how would the world be different today? More advanced? More/less enlightened? No very different?
I don't think the would would be much different today but if Alexander had not died in his prime, his myth might not have grown so large. Like most empires, Alexander would probably have overextended it and hastened the end.
The only difference might have been an "Alex-who?" if his name was said today.
Change one thing and you change everything over time. Had Alexander lived, all would have been different. To answer the question "How would they have been different?" is impossible...that would require writing an entirely new history of the world.
It isn't like..."If Alexander had lived, then Caesar would have...whatever" It is "If Alexander had lived, then it is extremely unlikely that Caesar would have been born." A particular individual's conception is incredibly fragile, alter the timing of the parental sex by a millionth of a second and a different sperm reaches the egg. Alexander living rather than dying when he did, would have thrown off the timing for thousands of people's sex acts and different people would have come into being. Their interactions with others would throw off the timing of others....a ripple effect takes place and eventually everything is different than it would have been had things not been changed by Alexander's survival.
Change one thing and you change everything over time. Had Alexander lived, all would have been different. To answer the question "How would they have been different?" is impossible...that would require writing an entirely new history of the world.
It isn't like..."If Alexander had lived, then Caesar would have...whatever" It is "If Alexander had lived, then it is extremely unlikely that Caesar would have been born." A particular individual's conception is incredibly fragile, alter the timing of the parental sex by a millionth of a second and a different sperm reaches the egg. Alexander living rather than dying when he did, would have thrown off the timing for thousands of people's sex acts and different people would have come into being. Their interactions with others would throw off the timing of others....a ripple effect takes place and eventually everything is different than it would have been had things not been changed by Alexander's survival.
That is why such questions are unanswerable.
Yes, this was well understood prior to creating this thread. Which is why I didnt name any individuals, because they likely would not have existed.
But the various regions of the earth populated with people would have still existed and there was a history of civilization prior to Alexander. This thread is not intended to be an objective scientific inquiry, however, it is possible I think to undertake an exercise imagining how different regions and civilizations might have been altered based on what we know of history before his birth and contrast it to actual history.
Yes, this was well understood prior to creating this thread. Which is why I didnt name any individuals, because they likely would not have existed.
But the various regions of the earth populated with people would have still existed and there was a history of civilization prior to Alexander. This thread is not intended to be an objective scientific inquiry, however, it is possible I think to undertake an exercise imagining how different regions and civilizations might have been altered based on what we know of history before his birth and contrast it to actual history.
Well, I'm not so sure that you do understand because if you did, you would not have posed the question in the manner that you did.
However, I do have the answer. Had Alexander lived, different stuff would have happened. If his empire had been held together by the force of his personality for an additional fifteen years, we cannot know what would have happened to it after that because those fifteen additional years would have featured different events, any of which could have contributed to either the continuing survival of his empire, or its collapse.
We are talking about counter factual history, we are talking about fiction....so anything can happen, limited only by the scope of the imagination of the person doing the speculating. But none of it is accompanied by any particular probability.
"What could have happened had Alexander lived?" is a fair question because it invites only speculation with no obligation to provide support. "What would have happened had Alexander lived" suggests that we have some reasonable means for getting at an accurate answer.
"What could have happened had Alexander lived?" is a fair question because it invites only speculation with no obligation to provide support. "What would have happened had Alexander lived" suggests that we have some reasonable means for getting at an accurate answer.
.
A matter of semantics and should be the the obvious default assumption of anyone reading this thread, as it is known by all that we do not possess a magical transdimentional machine capable of peering into alternate realities.
However, educated speculation is an exercise we can undertake based on what we know of history, geography and human nature.
A matter of semantics and should be the the obvious default assumption of anyone reading this thread, as it is known by all that we do not possess a magical transdimentional machine capable of peering into alternate realities.
However, educated speculation is an exercise we can undertake based on what we know of history, geography and human nature.
If you think the distinction merely semantic, then you still have not grasped my point. "would" and "should" are not interchangeable, they mean different things and will continue to mean different things despite your above attempt to make it seem like they do not. If you wish your meaning to be obvious, then select the proper vocabulary. Why would you employ language which gives the reader assorted interpretation options if your intent is to convey something specific?
However, your second sentence, where you solicit "educated speculation" suggests that you do understand. That is the proper way to phrase the question.
If you think the distinction merely semantic, then you still have not grasped my point. "would" and "should" are not interchangeable, they mean different things and will continue to mean different things despite your above attempt to make it seem like they do not. If you wish your meaning to be obvious, then select the proper vocabulary. Why would you employ language which gives the reader assorted interpretation options if your intent is to convey something specific?
However, your second sentence, where you solicit "educated speculation" suggests that you do understand. That is the proper way to phrase the question.
My meaning was obvious, to all sincere readers capable of employing basic reason, and for the obvious reason I stated prior.
I have no intention of continuing a petty low-minded tit-for-tat with a trollish thread saboteur, when it is obvious to all other readers the excercise that this thread is intented to commence.
I will thus await genuine replies.
My meaning was obvious, to all sincere readers capable of employing basic reason, and for the obvious reason I stated prior.
I have no intention of continuing a petty low-minded tit-for-tat with a trollish thread saboteur, when it is obvious to all other readers the excercise that this thread is intented to commence.
I will thus await genuine replies.
Well, the choices in situations like this are:
A) Learn something
B) Redeem ego.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
