Is stuff guarenteed to happen?

If america loses wars with mexico, or conquers canada, or doesn't absorb texas or does just about anything big before 1850, is a civil war still going to happen? What does winning/losing wars do to the timing of a civil war (if any)
 
If america loses wars with mexico, or conquers canada, or doesn't absorb texas or does just about anything big before 1850, is a civil war still going to happen? What does winning/losing wars do to the timing of a civil war (if any)

That's the butterfly theory. Some things can affect other things, for example no WW1, no Bolshevik revolution. And it really matters what the POD is, because that can have direct and indirect ramifications on historical events.
 
Well a conquest of Canada means more free states in the union. Which in turn means a harder southern push for war against Mexico. You could see the session crisis of 1828(or 1832 I forget)blow up.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Yes and no. Yes, what happened was guaranteed to happen, because it happened and, since there in only one reality all things that did happen happened the only way they could. No, in the future, no event guarantees any other, the chain of causality can diverge in any one of a multiplicity of paths at an almost infinite number of points and everything is a matter of probabilities. Because these vary we can make predictions of the future based on the past, and some can have a high degree of confidence but in the end noone knows what will happen until it does.

AH is a method of speculation, a means to write stories, and has no relationship to actual reality. "Actual" or "virtual" AH doesn't "work" or not in any one way or another because it does not exist.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Yes and no. Yes, what happened was guaranteed to happen, because it happened and, since there in only one reality all things that did happen happened the only way they could. No, in the future, no event guarantees any other, the chain of causality can diverge in any one of a multiplicity of paths at an almost infinite number of points and everything is a matter of probabilities. Because these vary we can make predictions of the future based on the past, and some can have a high degree of confidence but in the end noone knows what will happen until it does.

AH is a method of speculation, a means to write stories, and has no relationship to actual reality. "Actual" or "virtual" AH doesn't "work" or not in any one way or another because it does not exist.

Ever heard of parralel universes;)?


:DIt would be odd if you didn't, because you live in one*

*Or 2. Or 3. Or more.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Ever heard of parralel universes;)?


:DIt would be odd if you didn't, because you live in one*

*Or 2. Or 3. Or more.

Of course, but they're undemonstrable by definition. You can't talk about an "alternate" reality "in reality" anymore than you can have a square circle.

Under Bell's Many Worlds Theorem everything that can happen, does, but even here the absolutely deterministic nature of the past and the chaotic character of the future remains inviolate. There are an infinite number of Universes where the South won the ACW but we will never see any of them. There are a billion, trillion ways one raindrop can wet our forehead but once it falls we will forever know only one.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Of course, but they're undemonstrable by definition. You can't talk about an "alternate" reality "in reality" anymore than you can have a square circle.

Under Bell's Many Worlds Theorem everything that can happen, does, but even here the absolutely deterministic nature of the past and the chaotic character of the future remains inviolate. There are an infinite number of Universes where the South won the ACW but we will never see any of them. There are a billion, trillion ways one raindrop can wet our forehead but once it falls we will forever know only one.
I get what you are saying, but they would be very much reality to someone in said parralel universe.
 
Some events have a statiscally greater chance of happening than others.
The ones that seem extraordinary to our world appear so because an individual was the catalyst for an event. For Example the Rise Of Napoleon: without him France develops substantially differently.


On the side of more probable I present.......

The Bolshevik revolution: my feeling is that any war
without a quick Russian victory would have a caused a revolution.
The disparity between rich and poor was too great, and wealth was too concetrated. Which is the witch's brew of making Marxist Revolts.

WW I, If if wasn't Ferdinand it would have been something else perhaps
in 1915 or 1916. The situation seemed akin to Our Nuclear War Strategic
dilemma. He who doens't mobilize on nearly the same time frame is anihilated. Everyone had a hair trigger and more importantly it was part
of their strategic plan. It could not be undone.

The fall of Rome: when it finally happened nobody was surprised,
and by then there was no lamenting it's fall because the benefits and
obligations of being part of rome NO LONGER EXISTED.
 
There are forces & trends at work, That can't be stopped.
The folk wanderings of the 3rd~5th century once started meant the end of the Roman Empire.
The growing split between the Industrial north with Free labor, and the Agriculture south with it's bonded Labor ensured a crisis.

The details of these thru depend on a lot of factors that can be changed, A Different General Killed or politican elected, or Etc.
Means a completly different outcome.
 
Top