jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (8 posts)

Do you think history might have been different?

  1. Goody5 profile image70
    Goody5posted 5 years ago

    Do you think history might have been different?

    Do you think that the Hatfield & McCoy feud could have been avoided if both sides would have allowed Roseanna McCoy and Jonesee Hatfield to marry?

  2. profile image0
    Garifaliaposted 5 years ago

    I have no idea of the event you refer to but I do know that a different decision or different move (no matter how trivial) can make a great difference in how history develops. For instance, had the ancient Greeks been more united there would probably not been a Roman empire (etc).

  3. AlexK2009 profile image91
    AlexK2009posted 5 years ago

    In this case, Who knows? 

    I recall reading of a British Soldier after the German Surrender in WW I said he had Hitler in his sights at a riot. Had Hitler just been a bit more provocative WW II might not have happened, though the tensions and frustration of the Germans that helped it happen would have remained and the Holocaust would almost certainly never have happened.

    Had the Saxon Army been more disciplined at the battle of Hastings the Normans might never have conquered England.

    So yes, history could have been different. Sometimes  it would have taken a lot to change  the course of events, other times very little.

  4. kj force profile image70
    kj forceposted 5 years ago

    Perhaps..however..someone would have to give in and I don't believe either would have done that..as far as history goes..we can assume it would have been different, but, it can never be proven..Sometimes no matter what, things don't always go as planned. I don't really feel the Hatfield vs McCoy feud would have any bearing on history regardless..it's only one incident and I feel it takes multiples to change the course...very interesting question.

    1. kj force profile image70
      kj forceposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      thank you for choosing my answer...interesting question..have a great week-end

  5. alancaster149 profile image86
    alancaster149posted 5 years ago

    I saw a TV documentary about WWI with interviews of survivors. The interesting one was a Sherwood Forester (Nottinghamshire regiment), or was it one of the Staffordshires? Anyway he took a German Runner - trench messenger - between the legs. In Shirer's book about Hitler and the fall of the Third Reich, there's an episode about Hitler in the trenches as a Corporal Runner being taken to field hospital and undergoing an operation to remove one bullet-damaged testicle. That verifies the story of the sniper being in that particular part of the trenches. In the interview he joked, saying he was not aiming too low but was just engaged in population control.
    History is a mess of coincidences. English history maybe moreso than others. George III was brought up by his grandfather, George II, who 'mangled' his personality. He might have turned out better had his father Frederick not been killed playing cricket in Leicester Square, and maybe we'd never have had that stupid episode of the American colonies wanting independence. Just think, North America and Canada both in the Empire/Commonwealth - who gives tuppence about tea anyway!

    1. John MacNab profile image82
      John MacNabposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It goes without saying that history could have been different.   If the Boston Tea Party hadn't  happened, things would have been entirely different.    Hadrian's Wall kept the savage Scots at bay; without it, the Romans would have fled.

    2. alancaster149 profile image86
      alancaster149posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Scots were nowhere near Hadrian's Wall when the Romans were here. It was the Picts (the 'painted men') who occupied the land then. The Scots didn't arrive in 'Scotland' until after the Romans had gone and the Angles had landed in the north-east.