The World Would be Better Off Today If . . .

Which of the following PODs would have most benefited the world?

  • Alexander the Great lives to a ripe old age

    Votes: 30 5.1%

  • The Roman Empire never collapsed

    Votes: 67 11.5%

  • Constantinople doesn't fall to the Turks

    Votes: 58 9.9%

  • The Muslims are not driven out of Spain

    Votes: 55 9.4%

  • The Aztecs destroy the Cortez expedition

    Votes: 20 3.4%

  • There is no Protestant Reformation

    Votes: 22 3.8%

  • Peter the Great doesn't attempt to modernize Russia

    Votes: 8 1.4%

  • The French win the French and Indian War

    Votes: 35 6.0%

  • Woodrow Wilson never becomes President

    Votes: 142 24.4%

  • The British Empire never collapses

    Votes: 146 25.0%
  • Total voters
    583

Deleted member 5719

Joseph Solis in Australia said:
United States doesn't intervine in the European affairs and instead United States focuses only to develop Western Hemisphere and East Asia economically, thus avoiding the alienation of the Latin Americans to the North Americans.
Click to expand...

I see, Latin America is alienated with the gringos because they didn't intervene enough. All becomes clear.
 

Tyr

You don't need the British Empire to spread representative assemblies around the world. All that is needed is for countries to use the example of the success of representative assemblies in Britain to import the idea among themselves.
Click to expand...
Very unlikely to happen when their government is in the pocket of a (probally British) corporation who want everything to be kept nice, corrupt and totalitarian for them to make their profits.

The British had had India since the 18th century, and the full transition to democracy hadn't been completed by 1947. Democratic norms take a long while to be assimilated; the alternative British relationship with Africa would have been one similar to that between America and Mexico, which sees numerous armed interventions but no real attempt to assist with development.
Click to expand...
The Indian Empire was only formed in 1857 actually. The EIC period is utterly different to the British Empire period.
And the pattern of British rule there shows quite a continuous movement towards self-government and democracy.
 

PaganMonarchist

yay monarchies

I voted Woodrow Wilson never becomes President because the world would in fact have been better off with more monarchies, not to mention cooler.:cool: Look at the history of so many of the world's republics and ask yourself, is republicanism really all it's cracked up to be?
 

Orsino

Banned
Douglas said:
Old poll, but it's good to see that a full quarter of the site thinks imperialism was a grand idea.
Click to expand...
More than that, or does it not count as imperialism when it's ancient rome?

I think you're being disingenuous, people choosing a continuous british empire, which certainly had some positive influences, from amongst those options doesnt not equal saying imperialism is a good thing, just the most favoured amongst those options.
 

corditeman

Most favoured nation?

Lloyd-George remarked that he had Jesus on one side and the devil on the other - Wilson and Clemenceau.

America is only just beginning to learn that the role of the world's policeman brings more pain than profit.

There are so many viewpoints about the British Empire that it is hard to strike a balance, but they may have been the best of an indifferent bunch. Portugal and Spain I don't know enough about, Germany didn't do too badly with its Colonies, and I understand the Belgians were referred to as 'Bula Matadi'. France was cleverest with its overseas Departements, though I'm not sure if it beats the Dutch. Imperial Russia I'm not certain about. The USA never admits that it has had an Empire, although I think Panamanians and Felipinos would say so, maybe ethnic Hawai'ians as well...
 

evb

Banned
What is the question? In only one of them freedom, democracy and modernization is enhanced- and that is if Rome never fell. Another candidate would be no protestants- obviously the religion wars won't happen, but from what I know- the protestants were more pro- modernization and freedom. Except- they were inherently not subjected to the pope, who could and did horrible stuff sometimes. If a protestant leader does something bad- not all protestants follow.
 

evb

Banned
Joseph Solis in Australia said:
My countrymen, if that happens, it will be more sadistic Mesoamerica and more wars in Western Hemisphere.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't even have to happen. Say they destroy Cortes- they will be destroyed by European diseases in time to be ripe to be picked by other Europeans. It doesn't actually change anything. And if you say that they repel the Europeans- then Joseph is right.
 

Mikestone8

evb said:
What is the question? In only one of them freedom, democracy and modernization is enhanced- and that is if Rome never fell.
Click to expand...

Where is there the slightest evidence of that? It lasted until 1453 without producing anything noteworthy in the way of democracy, freedom and modernisation. Why should giving it another five centuries have been any more likely to do so?
 

evb

Banned
What??? It was the one to export freedom to the Med. basin, along with Greek technology. It's health alone was not to be matched until lat 18th century. Are you kidding me?! They are THE biggest bringers of modernization other than Cortes and Alexander the Great!
 

Mikestone8

evb said:
What??? It was the one to export freedom to the Med. basin, along with Greek technology. It's health alone was not to be matched until lat 18th century. Are you kidding me?! They are THE biggest bringers of modernization other than Cortes and Alexander the Great!
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow.

Before Rome conquered it, the entire eastern half of the Mediterranean world already belonged to Hellenistic kingdoms, so presumably already had Greek technology and Greek ideas generally. (The Romans got it from them, not vice versa). So did Carthage, which ruled most of the Western Med. Note that Hannibal had been educated by Greek tutors.

As to "freedom" the RE was a glorified military dictatorship. In what sense were the people it conquered any more free than they had been under whoever ruled them before?

And as previously noted, the Empire did survive till 1453. At that date, can you spell out in what way it was any more "free" or any more technically advanced than other parts either of Europe or of the Mideast?
 

evb

Banned
Right... You meant what would happen if it would stay after 14th century...
In that case id'e pick the protestants not existing- because of the immediate effects. Any other normal candidates? PS Romans did invent Aqueducts and improve in water... thingees :rolleyes:. And health too i'm pretty sure.
 

PaganMonarchist

excuse me?

evb said:
What??? It was the one to export freedom to the Med. basin, along with Greek technology. It's health alone was not to be matched until lat 18th century. Are you kidding me?! They are THE biggest bringers of modernization other than Cortes and Alexander the Great!
Click to expand...

Cortez brought a 90% population decline to Mesoamerica, destroyed what was quite probably the largest city on Earth at that time, and wiped out a flourishing millennia-old civilizational tradition with a philosophical development approaching that of ancient Greece! What kind of modernization is THAT?!:confused:

And exactly what modernization did Alexander III of Macedon bring to already wealthy and prosperous West Asia?
 

Elfwine

Okay, I can't believe I'm using Monty Python in a serious argument, but I am and I'm not doing it because its funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

And the ERE was at least as technologically advanced and probably more so as Western Europe up to the 13th century.

Still, most of the stuff mentioned in the video applies more to the West than the East.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top