NationStates Jolt Archive

...What would it be?

I'd have my ancestors magically flown to America to buy all the Microsoft stocks possible whenever it was founded.

Karl Marx would never have been born.

Paul of Tarsus would have never been born.

If you could change one thing in history ... What would it be?
That Julius Caesar never had the opportunity to destroy the Great Library at Alexandria. Had the Library continued through the Middle Ages as a seat of great learning and scholarship, I firmly believe that the world would be a much different, much better place than it is now.

That Julius Caesar never had the opportunity to destroy the Great Library at Alexandria. Had the Library continued through the Middle Ages as a seat of great learning and scholarship, I firmly believe that the world would be a much different, much better place than it is now.

Ooooooh ... good answer.

Ooooooh ... good answer.
But of course! You would expect less than that from the Great Sage of Ages? :D

1. Showen that one dude who invented the steam wheel thing in Alexandia how to build a steam engine and set off the Industral Reveloution 1700 years before it happened.

2. Shot Hitler

3.Stoped the stupid Russians from getting Nukes.

Paul of Tarsus would have never been born.
Y'know... I was going to say "The Prophet Mohammad" would never have been born.... but I didn't want to go there. :headbang:

That's making a huge assumption that no other civilization would raze the library.

I would change nothing, as changing a significant event could lead to more harm than good. Sure, I'd love to alter history and let Augustus know that if he doesn't setup a sound inheritance deal with the imperatorship that Rome will suffer periods of 4 emperors in one year, that Varus is an incompetent fool and shouldn't be leading the legions in Germania and that efforts should be made to ensure economic prosperity based not solely on conquest.

However, this might lead to undesirable and unforseen results. Thus, I would change nothing.

That Julius Caesar never had the opportunity to destroy the Great Library at Alexandria. Had the Library continued through the Middle Ages as a seat of great learning and scholarship, I firmly believe that the world would be a much different, much better place than it is now.

Touche, salesman.

I can guarentee at least one idiot will say the Iraq war.

I'd have to say, The inquisition. It's a terrible dark spot on Christianity's history. The Church completely forgot their fundamentals and teachings of Christ, and people suffered because of it.

Either that, or WWII. Terrible, terrible times.

Y'know... I was going to say "The Prophet Mohammad" would never have been born.... but I didn't want to go there. :headbang:

Hey big difference.

Jesus preached love and brotherhood and kindness to all mankind. Jesus was a great guy. Paul came around and said kill queers, hate women, and conquer in the name of Jesus.

I can rag on Paul. I love Jesus.

Hey big difference.

Jesus preached love and brotherhood and kindness to all mankind. Jesus was a great guy. Paul came around and said kill queers, hate women, and conquer in the name of Jesus.

I can rag on Paul. I love Jesus.

:p Jesus loves you back

I would have the french not build the maginot line, investing instead on a mobile military. This would let the french nip ww2 in the bud, and maintain their power through the 20th century(and not let america/russia polarize the world as two military superpowers).

:p Jesus loves you back

I certainly hope so. I can only hope to be worthy of such a great man's love.

Maybe we should say something like JFK would never have been born. Without him, starting Vietnam, bay-of-pigs, starting the age of Americans not trusting their own government because it suddenly became untrustworthy. Before JFK people made mistakes, but they didn't design mistakes... It was even JFK that brought about people voting for the guy on TV, before him, it was actual debate and position on issues that got a person elected.

After JFK, it was all down hill


:) Everything I said is true, but I'm not really blaming JFK, it was just his time in history, and he was hardly ready for the challenges that ultimate leadership would bring. Nixon then might have been better, and the Nixon then might not have become disillusioned with the system and became the person that was afraid of TV and reporters and thus, never becoming the person that thought spying would be necessary.... Hmmmm

Now, now! It's not like he tried to burn it, it was simply another casualty of war. Caesar was a big fan of public libraries, he had Rome's first one built. He could have been too embarassed to put it in his commentaries, or perhaps he intended to but did not get to finish them himself and had someone else finish them post-death. Either that or it was destroyed by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria and Caliph Omar of Damascus or earthquakes and floods after his death.

Ohh, and I'd try and stop Caesar's assassination, while also taking back in time a printing press so I could distribute my 'phropecies' and be recorded in history and prevent things like 11/09/01.

Hey big difference.

Jesus preached love and brotherhood and kindness to all mankind. Jesus was a great guy. Paul came around and said kill queers, hate women, and conquer in the name of Jesus.

I can rag on Paul. I love Jesus.

Of course Jesus Rocks over Paul. Jesus, savior, Messiah, and Paul doing nothing but pointing at Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't pick Paul himself? Perhaps you should go back and actually read what Paul wrote in it's entirety and not just the few quote you don't like...

I'd prevent the posting of this thread.

I'd prevent the posting of this thread.

Ooooooh.....Oooooooh.....oh snap.....what now?

Sorry. Way too much caffeine.

Of course Jesus Rocks over Paul. Jesus, savior, Messiah, and Paul doing nothing but pointing at Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't pick Paul himself? Perhaps you should go back and actually read what Paul wrote in it's entirety and not just the few quote you don't like...

You have to understand ... I think of Jesus as a man, nothing more. He made a mistake when he picked Paul. He liked Paul, but didn't know what Paul would do in his stead.

I've read what Paul wrote. As the prophet Isaiah said, "Even your good deeds are as dirty rags before Hashem". Paul fits this bill. Everything Paul may have written is soiled by his hatred and misogynistic viewpoint.

That's just the way it is.

Now, now! It's not like he tried to burn it, it was simply another casualty of war. Caesar was a big fan of public libraries, he had Rome's first one built. He could have been too embarassed to put it in his commentaries, or perhaps he intended to but did not get to finish them himself and had someone else finish them post-death. Either that or it was destroyed by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria and Caliph Omar of Damascus or earthquakes and floods after his death.
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm

You have to understand ... I think of Jesus as a man, nothing more. He made a mistake when he picked Paul. He liked Paul, but didn't know what Paul would do in his stead.

I've read what Paul wrote. As the prophet Isaiah said, "Even your good deeds are as dirty rags before Hashem". Paul fits this bill. Everything Paul may have written is soiled by his hatred and misogynistic viewpoint.

That's just the way it is.

Never mind, obviously you haven't read it. Jesus didn't even know Paul until after the crucifixion. Paul was called Saul and he went around trying to persecute the Christians that wouldn't go away after the crucifixion.

Ohh, and I'd try and stop Caesar's assassination, while also taking back in time a printing press so I could distribute my 'phropecies' and be recorded in history and prevent things like 11/09/01.

If you tell people what is going to happen (in your timeline), there will be some who try to prevent that from happening. Then, when it doesn't happen, you look like an idiot and you completely changed the course of history, which could possibly lead to you never being born, which would mean that you never could have gone back to the past and said what was going to happen. Since you never said what would happen, nothing would change, and you'd be born, find a way to travel to the past with a printing press, and tell the world what will happen. Then, someone prevents that from happening, leading to you disappearing from existence, preventing you from travelling back in time and changing history, which eventually leads to you being born and trying to change history, and so on and on and on and on. The only result of this is that there is no future, since time always stops and repeats itself once it gets to your lifetime. Now THAT is something to aim for!

Never mind, obviously you haven't read it. Jesus did know Paul until after the crucifixion. Paul was called Saul and he went around trying to persecute the Christians that wouldn't go away after the crucifixion.

Oh. Ok. If you say so.

I'll just ignore all of the bad things he wrote, which were in direct contradiction to not only Torah (God's Law) but to Jesus's own words.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

Hint: Paul never wrote a single Epistle as Saul. His calling for women to be subservient and never teach in the church - a direct violation of Torah, which states that *only* women may deliver certain blessings and prayers - was after his "enlightenment".

I suspect Paul was simply telling a lie about his adventure on the road to Damascus. You feel free to believe him, though. It is your right. No witnesses, but hey ... who needs those, right?

go way back in time and set up a universal religion that included peace and stuff like that and have a uniform respect for all the people of the world and such and so forth, and while i was at it id become king of the world and "find" new diamond mines where they are today

another good thing would be to stop the radical muslims from getting even a toehold and instead have it denounced as heresy right away(im a semi-atheistic agnostic so this doesnt have anything to do with my religious beliefs) so that things like 9/11 and much of the trouble in the middle east wouldnt be happening

another good religious thing would be to go and try to make the jews less warmongering, throughout history they have started wars and massacred people and eventually they got whats was coming to them(i am not a nazi and do not support nazism in any way i am saying it was going to happen sooner or later)

one good thing would be to poison hitler with cyanide or something very potent when he was in prison for war crimes after ww1 so that the nazi movement would never have had a start because if u did it later one of his followers would have stood up and taken his place

another would be to stop the crusades from happening they were a bad point

maybe do something to avoid the great depression, this is the only thing that u can give hitler praise for: he put an end to depressions in basically all countries because the war industry employs sooo many people

soo many things but i dont want to be rediculous

If I could change anything I would enable the Wermacht to hold the Eastern front against the Russian advance until the allies get there, then and only then the Germans would crumble. This would keep Stalin from taking control of Eastern Europe and greatly weaken the Red Army from the prolonged fighting. Thus, the Cold War would have never started (or at least not been as big a deal) and the US would still become the world's sole super power, abeit a bit sooner.

http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm
An interesting read, indeed!

I'd stop the evolution or creation of humanity all together.

You know, just to see where we'd all be. Or something.

Oh. Ok. If you say so.

I'll just ignore all of the bad things he wrote, which were in direct contradiction to not only Torah (God's Law) but to Jesus's own words.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

Hint: Paul never wrote a single Epistle as Saul. His calling for women to be subservient and never teach in the church - a direct violation of Torah, which states that *only* women may deliver certain blessings and prayers - was after his "enlightenment".

I suspect Paul was simply telling a lie about his adventure on the road to Damascus. You feel free to believe him, though. It is your right. No witnesses, but hey ... who needs those, right?

Well, he needed a Chiristian to come and heal him of blindness, A Christian that had a hard time believing that he was being called to heal a scoundrel and persecutor of the followers of Chirst. He saw the scales removed.

Well, he needed a Chiristian to come and heal him of blindness, A Christian that had a hard time believing that he was being called to heal a scoundrel and persecutor of the followers of Chirst. He saw the scales removed.

Jews had been healing people like that for centuries. Paul needed someone who believed totally and submitted to God, not a Christian. The NT never once uses the word "Christian".

One who believes totally and submits to God completely is a Muslim. No partner, no son, no intercessor. He needed someone like a Abraham. The man who healed him was not a witness to how he was blinded.

Paul's words speak for themselves. They are full of hatred and misplaced passions. Paul was no Christian. Paul was possessed of Satan. That people still fall for his lies brings me sadness.

That said, I must be done with this conversation. I will not change your mind nor you mine. It is as it stands.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422826

I'm not hijacking the thread anymore...

An interesting read, indeed!
I thought so too. :)

Jesus was a great guy. Paul came around and said kill queers, hate women, and conquer in the name of Jesus.
*writes on the blackboard, 1000 times:

I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah. I will not go into the Qur'an, history books and current events to point out examples of people doing the same and worse in the name of Allah...*

Ooh, easy answer! I'd change it so the agricultural revolution didn't happen and humanity stuck with hunting and gathering and didn't bother with so-called "civilization." Really, if you look at history, civilization has been the cause of most human misery and suffering.

everybody says stop WW2 and kill hitler. but compared to all of history WW2 wasnt that bad.

If you tell people what is going to happen (in your timeline), there will be some who try to prevent that from happening. Then, when it doesn't happen, you look like an idiot and you completely changed the course of history, which could possibly lead to you never being born, which would mean that you never could have gone back to the past and said what was going to happen. Since you never said what would happen, nothing would change, and you'd be born, find a way to travel to the past with a printing press, and tell the world what will happen. Then, someone prevents that from happening, leading to you disappearing from existence, preventing you from travelling back in time and changing history, which eventually leads to you being born and trying to change history, and so on and on and on and on. The only result of this is that there is no future, since time always stops and repeats itself once it gets to your lifetime. Now THAT is something to aim for!

This is assuming that time travel allows these paradoxies, which in my mind is unlikely.

Ooh, easy answer! I'd change it so the agricultural revolution didn't happen and humanity stuck with hunting and gathering and didn't bother with so-called "civilization." Really, if you look at history, civilization has been the cause of most human misery and suffering.

Yeah, but then we wouldn't have any beer, and everybody that really knows, knows that it was Beer, not bread, that inspired the very first attempt at civilization and specialization of trade, building farms and homes and towns etc. All for the sake of beer. :)

everybody says stop WW2 and kill hitler. but compared to all of history WW2 wasnt that bad.

Killing hitler would have only ended up in a different sort of cold war, or a different war. I feel my idea is much better. But as your comparison, when in six years were more people killed, and destruction committed?

I woiuld have WWI somehow averted, with all the nations agreeing "Hmmm... wait a minute, this really isn't a good idea."

Lots of bad shit came out of WWI, to name a few examples-
Hitler (without the postwar conditions of Germany, he would have no fuel for his fire)
Mussolini (to a lessar degree)
The European front of WWII (without bitter Germany, no WWII)
The Soviet Union (a smaller revolution would have probably taken place, the Russian society was rotting, but such extremes probably would have been avoided)
The Cold War (and without that, loads of other blotches on the history of the twentieth century might have been avoided)

Just my 2 cents.

I'm really thinking hard about this one... it seems that society has lessons they need to learn, painful lessons... but did we need to learn them so harshly? Would we have got the message if Hitler would only had come to power and killed fewer people? And whose to say that if we changed something in history that the events we know actually would have happened because we choose to change history?

...rock and a hard place...

Sure, there's lots that I want to change, but the risk is too great. Maybe I could just change something personal in my life and see how that turns out. If it works, then I could try it only a worldwide historical scale.

This is assuming that time travel allows these paradoxies, which in my mind is unlikely.

This is assuming that time allows this travel, which in my mind is unlikely. :D

I would change history so that all the major powers in non-European regions advanced at the same technological rate as Europe did.

Imagine if Columbus had landed to find a civilzation as advanced as that of Europe, or if attempted European efforts to colonize Africa were met with several significant military defeats that led to the entire Mediterranian region fearing an African retaliation.

Pretty crazy stuff. :p

Knocking off Joe Stalin would have been a good one, Might have gone and capped Sam Houston, the guy who lead Texas. I just HATE Texas. Saul of Tarsus is also a good possiblity for my Hit list.

Amung things I would do, I would try convincing the early founders of the US To kill the idea of Political Parties as insitutions enshrined in law. I also would try to become a Pope - or at least control one - such that we could impliment reforms much earlier.

Might have gone and capped Sam Houston, the guy who lead Texas. I just HATE Texas.
A good chunk of us Texans would have been just fine and dandy with Texas staying its own nation and the rest of you could've fucked off. :mad:

A good chunk of us Texans would have been just fine and dandy with Texas staying its own nation and the rest of you could've fucked off.

Hear hear. (or is it here here can't ever get that strait)
I simply can't stand irrational Texas bashing. If they want to go after us cause you think we are a bunch of racist hicks, Mississippi, Alabama or Arkansas make much finer candidates for their hatred.

Hear hear. (or is it here here can't ever get that strait)
I simply can't stand irrational Texas bashing. If they want to go after us cause you think we are a bunch of racist hicks, Mississippi, Alabama or Arkansas make much finer candidates for their hatred.
Hell, I saw more open racisim in one weekend in Indianapolis than I ever have in all my life in all of Texas. :headbang:

This is assuming that time allows this travel, which in my mind is unlikely. :D

It is possible that Hitler could have actually been killed but somebody from the future went back in time and somehow saved him.

Anyway, what about stopping Truman from bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Oh and I would stop Sherman from doing what he did to Georgia during the American Civil War.

I would have me try harder to get into Susan's pants back on that weekend my senior year. Mmmmmmmm.....

Explain the scientific method to Romes foremost philosophers and inventors.

You have to understand ... I think of Jesus as a man, nothing more. He made a mistake when he picked Paul. He liked Paul, but didn't know what Paul would do in his stead.

I've read what Paul wrote. As the prophet Isaiah said, "Even your good deeds are as dirty rags before Hashem". Paul fits this bill. Everything Paul may have written is soiled by his hatred and misogynistic viewpoint.

That's just the way it is.


Um... when did Jesus ever pick Paul? The two never met...

Hmmm... Go back to 1852, invent the self-contained metallic cartridge and smokeless powder, sell them to the United States government in-quantity in 1861, along with the bolt-action rifle and the light machinegun.
This would:

1. prevent the combustion of Georgia by Sherman
2. End the siege of Richmond two years early
3. keep George Custer from becoming famous, thus preventing that fuckup from becoming a Martyr in the Indian wars.

I'd also shoot John Chivington in the head, before he massacred the Indians at Sand Creek, which cost the U.S. a major ally in the west, and kicked off the prairie wars.

I'd also secure good legal representation and competent Lobbyists to hold the Government to its original treaty obligations. Setting up "Mineral rights" contracts and an income for the American Aboriginals (and legal protections backed by force) would probably slow assimilation, but the result would be more smoothly achieved, and maybe those pricks on the East Coast and in California would pay more attention to the needs of the interior states and territories.

I'd sell AK-47's to the Sioux in exchange for placer-mined gold from the Black Hills-this would prevent the Rosebud Reservation from ever coming into existence, since the trade would have stabilized more than conquest did, and equivalent technology would have probably averted both massacres, and post-conquest injustices.

Let's see, what else... by establishing legal and political power for the Plains peoples in D.C. (backed by, yup. Force. Governments don't listen to anything else-at least, not willingly), and commercially marketing buffalo meat, it becomes a resource that's "Owned". Property Rights can be enforced by the law-which means that the "Train Hunters" who just randomly fired out into the herds, leaving the bulk of the meat to spoil in the open, would be punished-one way or another.
:sniper: Further, well-armed native peoples would have to be dealt with as equals-and promises would have to be kept. Assimilation in one direction or the other would be inevitable, but we wouldn't have 'Reservations' today, AIM, or pricks like Ward Churchill.

Lessee... ending Slavery would not be difficult-sell tractors, combines, and other mechanized systems in the Old South in exchange for freeing their economic burdens and staking them in territory taken from those groups that wouldn't buy my guns, or deal with the bluejackets.

Improve Industrial Mechanization to WWI levels by 1875 in the Midwest and Mountain states. I figure by 1890 we could have Airplanes, and Jets by 1925, though there might be an "American Air Force" and a "Cherokee" or "Sioux" air force.
Pushing economic interdepence would relieve a lot of stressors, and again, those who won't deal will certainly be hammered flat by those who will.
Nuclear power by 1890 would be nice-skip the whole "Oil-fired-power-plant" thing and go to a closed-cycle process before Europe's finished using Coal.

Keeping America out of WWI wouldn't be too tough, ditto for preventing the 1898 war-Spain would likely just back down and pay reparations-unless, of course, the Maine had six sixteen inchers and a three foot torpedo belt.

A hundered years' advance in technology, an Isolationist/noninterventionist foreign policy, and the idea that maybe America's next big step is the moon and mars, rather than this crippling involvement in European and Asian affairs... We could have cities on Mars by 1970, and an FTL project in the works, with resource extraction from the Asteroids, Luna, etc. instead of making devil-deals with African Psychopaths.

First, before anything else, I command ANYONE who suggested going back in time to "enlighten" earlier civilizations to go find a copy of "Aristotle and the Gun" by L.Sprague de Camp and read it immediately. ~grin~

http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/book_decamp_aristotle.html


That Julius Caesar never had the opportunity to destroy the Great Library at Alexandria.

My understanding has always been that he didn't DESTROY the library, as much as he "damaged" it (Plutarch was the only one who claimed it was entirely destroyed). While many historians dismiss the idea that it was actually destroyed by Muslims in the 7th century, the possibility DOES exist that it was still there in the 4th century, when it may have been destroyed in a period of civil war.


Paul of Tarsus would have never been born.

Without Paul's particular spin, though, would Christianity have been popular enough to compete with the Mithraism that was extant around the same period (and which was FAR more popular than the more "pacifistic" religion of the Christians to the Roman Legions)?

It's possible that by stopping Paul, you'd divert Christianity into a course which led it to wither and die rather than conquer the West. This would also likely prevent the existance of Islam.

But would whatever other religions took their place be better, or worse?


If you tell people what is going to happen (in your timeline), there will be some who try to prevent that from happening...

A-causal loops, which is what you are describing, is actually one of the LEAST popular theories with time travel, though. You'd be more likely dealing with history that REFUSES to change (no matter how hard you try, history cannot be changed, thus you can never prevent yourself from going back to change it), or history is changable, but the changes live on even if you prevent yourself from having made them (with you either fading into oblivion or living out your life as an alternate possibility that never was).

Of course, some theories also suggest that to create a paradox of the magnitude you're suggesting would destroy all of time and space, so we'd better make sure we know how Time works before we start screwing with it...


It is possible that Hitler could have actually been killed but somebody from the future went back in time and somehow saved him.

I always love ideas like this... mostly because of the irony of it. For all WE know, killing Hitler as a youth merely means another skilled political demogogue takes power in Germany and still triggers WWII - but that this hypothetical new German leader would be capable enough to win where Hitler lost. Moreover, perhaps HIS "evil" is worse than Hitler's (what if he eventually develops a virus which kills the ENTIRE human race, not just the 12 million innocents of Hitler? Or what if the Nazi Holocaust eventually reached EVERY Jew (and other "undesireable") in Europe AND the Americas?)...

This is the danger with changing ANY facet of the past - you never know if your seemingly altruistic changes will lead to something better, or something worse. Which is why, even if I HAD a time machine, I'd never try and use it to change the future for the better.

Now, going back in time to set myself up as a God, however, I might go for. ~grin~

It's very difficult to pick just one event in history, as it is almost impossible to tell how much and in what way it would influence our world today.

The library of Alexandria is a good idea at heart, but I doubt that the scrolls would have survived medieval European ideas, Islam and the crusades. After all, the Middle Ages were dark not because the Antique ideas were forgotten but rather because they were deemed to be the work of the devil.

Shooting Hitler would have had no effect at all. It would only have changed the names in the history books. WWII was just waiting to happen after WWI, which was just waiting to happen after the German-French war of 1870 and so on.

The world is a pretty messed-up place at this stage, and it took thousands of years and events to become like this.

I think if I had to pick one event, I would have had Mozart live to become 80. No big gain for humanity on the whole, but just imagine the music...

It is possible that Hitler could have actually been killed but somebody from the future went back in time and somehow saved him.

Anyway, what about stopping Truman from bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Oh and I would stop Sherman from doing what he did to Georgia during the American Civil War.

I wouldn't have done either of those things you mentioned. Why? Because I wouldn't be alive, in the case of the first, and in the second, the destruction was deserved in my opinion.

At the end of the war, with invasion imminent, there was a plan being carried out to arm the entire Japanese population with bamboo spears to resist the American invaders every step of the way.

Some of the generals wanted to hold out even after the first atomic bomb was dropped and the Soviets entered the war. My criticism is that Hiroshima was not a military target. Nagasaki was the site of a large port, where much of Japan's navy had been built, but there were still better targets than these two cities.

It can be argued that the atom bombs actually saved Japanese lives, as we were a lot easier on them in the occupation than we would have been had there been a long, bloody invasion with fighting like that on Okinawa.
-------------------------

In the case of Sherman, I would have preferred that he burned more of South Carolina. They asked for war, they got war.

This is the danger with changing ANY facet of the past - you never know if your seemingly altruistic changes will lead to something better, or something worse. Which is why, even if I HAD a time machine, I'd never try and use it to change the future for the better.

Now, going back in time to set myself up as a God, however, I might go for. ~grin~

If I had a time machine, I wouldn't actually try to change a thing (there would be little worth changing that I could change in any case), but I would use it a lot to witness events that happened long before I was born.

Prevent my ex-boyfriend from ever being born...make sure his parents are sterlized. :D

Yes, I'm petty, and I don't give a damn about the crap that happens around us. Shit happens; life goes on. Personal vendettas stay. :D

I wouldn't have done either of those things you mentioned. Why? Because I wouldn't be alive, in the case of the first, and in the second, the destruction was deserved in my opinion.

So why did Georgia deserve what it got? Sherman should have been shot.

Rather than changing history, I'd like to have a simulator where I could experiment with history by making small alterations, and see what would have happened.

Hell, I saw more open racisim in one weekend in Indianapolis than I ever have in all my life in all of Texas. :headbang:

Heh. I've been there a few times, and they're pretty hick there. That's the only city that I'd ever describe as "hick".

*points to Indianapolis Motor Speedway"

It all comes down to chaos theory, my friends - chaos theory

Ooh, easy answer! I'd change it so the agricultural revolution didn't happen and humanity stuck with hunting and gathering and didn't bother with so-called "civilization." Really, if you look at history, civilization has been the cause of most human misery and suffering.

I seriously hope that that was sarcasm and you just forgot to add the emoticons.

Back on topic:

Time paradoxes and the possibility that I wouldn't exist aside, I would ensure that the Romans conquer and "romanize" the Germanic tribes. It was they who eventually brought about the fall of Rome and the beginning of the dark ages that crippled Europe for over a thousand years.

Stop that Serbian idiot from shooting Archduke Ferdinand. That kid started two total wars.

...What would it be?

“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine', and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody'.”
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau


that.

1) Stopped christianity from catching on

2) destroyed paul/saul