Kevbeau Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Isn't it amazing how the most seemingly inconsequential of things (sending a short note) can end up changing EVERYTHING? That's what I love about history, it's the old "for want of a shoe, the horse was lost" factor. For instance....what if Jesus hadn't been crucified? Likely without martyrdom, his fame would not have spread, the old Pagan religions may have survived much longer, allowing the Roman tradition to continue in the west, sparing much of Europe from the Dark ages, etc.... 210762[/snapback] I read a book called "The Hinge Factor" a while back. Content was how significant military battles could have had a different outcome if a person had made one decision differently or committed one different action. Some of the theories were a reach, but definitely an entertaining read. If I remember correctly one chapter was devoted to Waterloo. A certain French officer forgot to bring a bag of nails to spike captured cannon. The cannon were eventually recaptured by the enemies (Prussian?...it's been some time since I read up on the subject) and used to fire into the French flank, turning the tide of the battle. From what I've gathered, Napolean was already losing his grip on the war prior to Waterloo, but you never know what might have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Technically (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), the Queen is the head of the British state...but as head of state, her power is strictly limited to inviting whatever party holds sway in Parliment to form a government and appoint ministers, or something like that. That, and keeping butt-ugly dogs as pets... 210144[/snapback] I thought that was the King! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I thought that was the King! 211200[/snapback] We don't currently have a king. Husbands of ruling queens in this country are titled princes. Prince Albert (the last one) and Prince Philip (the current one) being the two most recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 And the ugly dogs definitely belong to Liz. And while we're on the subject of German cousins, Phillip is also of German descent and isn't he a distant cousin of Liz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 We don't currently have a king. Husbands of ruling queens in this country are titled princes. Prince Albert (the last one) and Prince Philip (the current one) being the two most recent. 211285[/snapback] I was wondering about that. Freaking chauvinistic if you ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Talking about "what ifs" my favorite one is "what if Louis XV had actually cared about the french american colonies and sent there about the same forces the King of England sent during the French-Indian war?...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 There is no answer to the "who started it all?" in terms of liberty and modern democracy. The ideas of the "Sciècle des Lumières" of Voltaire, Rousseau or Diderot were inspired themselves by older events form the Antic Greece to the Magna Charta. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were not only inspired by the "french ideas" but they found a few themselves that people like Toqueville or Lafayette brought back in Europe and it goes on like this forever. It is true than in Europe the french revolution has inspired a lot of others, but are revolutions the better way to built a true democracy? A lot of the oldest and best democracies in the World have been built without a bloodbath (England, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands....) and in fact the French revolution even killed or try to kill a few ones (like the democratic organisation of the Bearn region in SW France or the invasion of Switzerland...). in fact I consider the French Revolution as a very dark page of French history. The proof that good ideas can bring the worst . (something today's America can relate to i think...) . Some english historians brought the theory a few years ago that in fact the french revolution was the end of the French domination on the World and that it made England the leader. Before the revolution it was France that was leading the pack toward industrialisation, that had the cultural, scientific and organisational edges. It took about 40 years for France to recover from the bloodbaths, the divisions, the wars and the mess the Revolution brought, by that time the English was ready to make the real Revolution that made our modern world, the Industrial one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 There is no answer to the "who started it all?" in terms of liberty and modern democracy. The ideas of the "Sciècle des Lumières" of Voltaire, Rousseau or Diderot were inspired themselves by older events form the Antic Greece to the Magna Charta. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were not only inspired by the "french ideas" but they found a few themselves that people like Toqueville or Lafayette brought back in Europe and it goes on like this forever. It is true than in Europe the french revolution has inspired a lot of others, but are revolutions the better way to built a true democracy? A lot of the oldest and best democracies in the World have been built without a bloodbath (England, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands....) and in fact the French revolution even killed or try to kill a few ones (like the democratic organisation of the Bearn region in SW France or the invasion of Switzerland...). in fact I consider the French Revolution as a very dark page of French history. The proof that good ideas can bring the worst . (something today's America can relate to i think...) . Some english historians brought the theory a few years ago that in fact the french revolution was the end of the French domination on the World and that it made England the leader. Before the revolution it was France that was leading the pack toward industrialisation, that had the cultural, scientific and organisational edges. It took about 40 years for France to recover from the bloodbaths, the divisions, the wars and the mess the Revolution brought, by that time the English was ready to make the real Revolution that made our modern world, the Industrial one... 213221[/snapback] The road to British democracy was a bloody one. I'm pretty sure the same goes for the Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 The road to British democracy was a bloody one. I'm pretty sure the same goes for the Netherlands. 213506[/snapback] well the Dutch freed themselves from a very distant spanish rule , the american way it can be said... for the british what do you call a bloody road? the Cromwell episode? the bases of the parlamentary monarchy were there before it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 well the Dutch freed themselves from a very distant spanish rule , the american way it can be said... for the british what do you call a bloody road? the Cromwell episode? the bases of the parlamentary monarchy were there before it... 213535[/snapback] Plenty of fights with the king(s) in order to wrench rights away from the monarchy, dating back to around the Magna Carta. Battle of Lewes 1264 was a fight between the Barons and the monarchy over rights and parliament, the English Civil War, plenty of conflict with the Jacobites and the government, throw in the odd skirmish here and there and we have spilt plenty of blood over the ages in the long road to our current system. However it was over a far more prolonged period of time so it may seem as though it we were more peaceful/civilised getting to our current democratic state, but that is an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 The thing about Kaiser Wilhelm that no one ever hears about, though, is that he tried to STOP the war...or almost tried. When the Serbs replied to the ten points of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, they actually accepted nine of them and were willing to submit the tenth to international arbitration (Austro-Hungarian oversight of the Serbian legal process in trying Prinzip's co-conspirators - basically, a demand that Austria-Hungary be given control of the Serbian judicial process, which is a ludicrous demand, and shows just how far the Serbs were willing to go to avoid war.) The Kaiser, on hearing of the response, composed a diplomatic note to Emperor Franz Josef advising that Serbia's response was acceptable and Germany thus would not back them if it came to war. His advisors talked him out of sending the note. If he had...who knows? Maybe the whole thing just becomes another skirmish in the Greater Balkan War of 1911-1919...no Russian Revolution, no Versailles, no anti-Versailles German nationalistic backlash, no Hitler or Stalin... I always had a tough time buying the story that Kaiser Wilhelm was any worse than his fellow royalty just because Germany was the strongest of the Central Powers...but still, should have stuck to your guns and sent the note, Wilhelm. 210223[/snapback] DAMN FLIP-FLOPPER! That is what I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Isn't it amazing how the most seemingly inconsequential of things (sending a short note) can end up changing EVERYTHING? That's what I love about history, it's the old "for want of a shoe, the horse was lost" factor. For instance....what if Jesus hadn't been crucified? Likely without martyrdom, his fame would not have spread, the old Pagan religions may have survived much longer, allowing the Roman tradition to continue in the west, sparing much of Europe from the Dark ages, etc.... 210762[/snapback] Interesting... Yet... It was preordained by the Father, so it wasn't going to not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts