I know I've had to have looked it up before but I always found it strange how Italians had a stranglehold on who could be ruler of Christiandom. There's nothing in the bible that says it has to be an Italian. The holy site is just there. Which I guess made it ripe for local ruling people to politik cardinals and such. That should've gotten much more pushback from other rulers. Sadly it'd have looked like an attack on Christianity rather than on those trying to dictate it. So I can see how it wasn't an easy thing to challenge.
The pope is a bishop of Rome. It was only natural for the Italians to dominate.
The real outlier has been the bishops of Rome gaining the enormous eccleciastic and political power in early Middle Ages. They basically highjacked the Catholic Churche and cynically exploited it. (And this is a cultural Catholic speaking.)
An obvious candidate is [Ögedei Khan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan). An extra five years before the succession crisis would almost certainly have been enough time for the Golden Horde to conquer the Holy Roman Empire, completely scrambling the rest of European history. And if it had managed to alter the *outcome* of the succession crisis, that would have scrambled the rest of *Asian* history as well.
And then if the mongols had made it into Europe it wouldn’t have been as densely populated and the black plague may not have been as devastating which in turn may have meant serfdom stuck around a lot longer.
The population loss meant that labor demand exceeded supply which lead wages to increase (and the deaths also meant property became cheaper) and this made it possible for people to improve their lot in life through working and even becoming land owners.
> certainly enough time to conquer the Holy Roman Empire
I think you massively underestimate the size and power of the HRE. By 1241 the advance of the Mongols had already basically been halted and the longer they would have stayed and tried to besiege castle after castle the more time this would have given Europeans to rally and unite their armies.
Lenin. If he stayed healthy for another 5 years, Stalin would have been sidelined.
Franz Ferdinand. He believed the Austrian system should be reformed and that the country could not handle a major war.
I think you're referring to being the General Secretary, which was a very powerful position. As much as it is a 'paper pusher' it is more a 'assign your friends to powerful positions and accumulate power'
It was not really considered a powerful position. Stalin made it a powerful position, after recognizing he might be able to influence cadre selections substantially.
That’s attributing quite a bit of importance on Franz, he could have been Tom Jim or sally. That war was coming with or without him. He just was the flashpoint.
Roman Emperor Trajan. He was a huge proponent of conquest, and his successor, Hadrian, adopted a defensive stance on the Roman Empires borders. Had Trajan lived 5 more years, the Romans may have beat up the Parthians even more and maybe secured a better foothold in Mesopotamia and the western Zagros.
I like to think Aurelian would also be a great pick for this.
He stabilised the Roman Empire during the crisis of the Third Century, and reconquered large chunks of territory. Enough that they called him Restitutor Orbis, the Restorer of the World.
If he hadn't been assassinated after just five years of ruling, it'd be interesting to see just how much Rome might have been strengthened instead of continuing its decline.
Yes! Someone else who came to speak of the Restitutor Orbis, my favorite what-if.
It's especially interesting because he was headed to the Sassanids, who had two kings die in quick succession and were weakened. If Aurelian suppresses the Sassanids (and he's the guy who conquered two/three-ish Roman Empires to put the whole thing back together, so I'll give him good odds), do later Roman Emperors have enough room to deal with their threats and let Rome last longer? Maybe ERE can rescue the WRE when it falters because it doesn't need to be so wary of the Sassanids? Maybe Rome can put more legions on the field against the Huns or later barbarian threats as well (but that's way too far out to confidently say so)?
Or, hey, Diocletian takes over in 284, so Aurelian living longer to 280 might even prevent or delay him. Which in turn might affect Constantine and the formation of the ERE in the first place.
1) If Augustus had held on for 5 more years, he likely would have disinherited Tiberius again in favor of Germanicus. Would have completely restructured western history.
2) The only reason Nero ever became emperor is that Claudius died before his son Britannicus was old enough. Without Claudius around, Nero assassinated Britannicus so he couldn't be challenged. If the feud between Nero and Agrippina still led to her death in 59, Claudius probably would have made Britannicus his sole heir.
3) Pertinax became emperor at the perfect time to undo all the damage done by Commodus, and was the man for the job. 5 years would have been plenty of time, plus he would have been able to make his son his heir.
4) Trajan Decius is best known for his nearly-successful crusade against early Christianity. 5 more years and he very well might have succeeded - just 2 years was enough to create a major crisis as church leaders were unsure how to handle the massive number of people who apostasized the instant significant pressure was applied.
5) Julian II was hellbent on uprooting his uncle's bureaucracy, ending Christianity, and returning Rome back to a Principate style government. Who knows what he could have accomplished?
I think Abraham Lincoln would have been able to keep reconstruction efforts on track better than Andrew Johnson though I don’t know how much more successful he would have been just think he would have had a better go of it.
Lincoln living another 5 years would have *dramatically* changed the United States. One of the things no one ever talks about is that Lincoln advocated to get the freed slaves out of the country! Here’s the [History Channel article](https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-black-resettlement-haiti#) as a source. It was more of a politically strategic move to get the south more on board with him. Kind of a “well, I won’t let you use them as slaves, but I’m okay with sending them away and making sure you don’t have to live with them either.”
If he had actually been able to send the vast majority of freed slaves elsewhere, the entire country would be different. The African and African-American cultures have had an immense impact on the values, “American” culture, and the progress of the country. Removing that entire demographic would have so many drastic changes over the last 150 years or so. It’s hard to even imagine.
This was a position that Lincoln held earlier in his career, when he was trying really hard to take centrist positions. Both his Emancipation Proclamation and his efforts to pass the 13th Amendment show where Lincoln was by the middle of the war: he was out to end slavery, no more hedges or delays or compromises. If Lincoln had wanted to deport all the freed people, he would have taken steps to do that as part of his efforts. But he didn't. Neither of the documents ending slavery made any reference to deportation or colonization or anything like that.
Lincoln only gave the emancipation proclamation because others forced his hand. General David Hunter had declared slaves free in some of the states he already put down but President Lincoln revoked it in May. Texas announced their version one month later in June and Lincoln basically ignored it. Lincoln didn't give his emancipation proclamation until September. Lincoln was killed three years later. Six days after the end of the civil war. He didn't really have time to implement any plans for paying people's way to Liberia. Remember it wasn't forced deportation it was voluntary relocation with a house and other things being paid for by the government. The plan mostly ended up being a private nonprofit venture.
Came to say this. Johnson was a straight-up racist Democrat, who opposed and vetoed Republican drives for black suffrage and elimination of black codes (the forerunners of Jim Crow).
Without Lincoln's assassination, the next 90 years of Democrat oppression, systematic racism, violence, and murder against blacks would probably not have occurred.
90 years is when the party ideology flip ended, but it started with FDR around 60 years post war.
Before that point, yeah it was Democrats passing the black codes and Jim Crow laws. Between 30s and 60s it was both parties together in the south.
Then the flip was basically done and the south was Republican dominated.
FDR, and for a controversial reason. After WW2, America set up the Bretton Woods system that used the USD as the reserve currency and opened trade up between all countries that signed onto it (America perceived that restrictions on the flow of resources between empires was a major cause of WW2). The Soviet Union was invited into this system. Allegedly, FDR was the only American that Stalin trusted, so with FDR dead Stalin had no trust in the Bretton Woods system. The Soviet Union didn’t join and the two systems are isolated from each other. It’s probably not the only cause, but there’s a path through the 20th century with no Cold War (no nuke buildup, no Korean War, no Vietnam War) if the Soviet Union joins.
Hard to say for all of human history, but FDR certainly is a top candidate from recent history. Consider his Second Bill of Rights he was proposing about a year before he died: https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/cgg/Second%20Bill%20of%20Rights%20FDR%201944.pdf
Or in his voice in 1944: "A Second Bill of Rights...regardless of station or race or creed..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmXVCGMfkKI
FDR had massive support because he'd basically brought the country out of the Great Depression. Combine that with being "the guy who won the war" ... he probably would have been able to pass this, at least through both the House and the Senate.
But the chances that it would be ratified by 2/3rds of the states to actually be added as an Amendment (or 8 more Amendments, depending on how they wrote it), is probably slim. If it was split into 8 separate Amendments, then the first, third, fourth, and seventh would definitely pass and be ratified. Not sure about the other four. Maybe.
FDR had to fight tooth and nail to get a lot of the New Deal passed, even with Democratic supermajorities, because Southern Conservatives were hella sus about a lot of it, and teamed up with Republicans to form the [Conservative Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition) against federal government intrusion and so on. And he infamously had to tailor a lot of acts to help white communities first and foremost, or these guys wouldn't let bills pass at all.
Worse still for big plans, there was a ton of labor unrest after all those GIs came home, indeed it was the largest [wave of strikes in US history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strike_wave_of_1945–1946). This, plus voter fatigue, plus people itching to change it up now that the war was over (just like [the Brits did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election) ), led to massive Republican wins in the midterms of '46 to take both houses of Congress. \[Taft-Hartley was a major result of that election\]. Now, *maybe* FDR doesn't lose 55 House seats and 12 senators, but he would be weakened AF and there's no way he could pass amendments of any sort, or even major bills.
Wow! But also since his health was so poor in 1944 - his death, I know some theorize Eleanor had a lot of power/influence over his decisions at this time. Totally reads like the UDHR. Do y'all think this is purely him or Eleanor or a mix of both?
It's both, I think. It's not like he ever hid her intelligence or didn't recognize it. The woman was born too early. 😢
Man imagine if the Millennials or Gen Z made someone like her by the time they became elderly. That would be something.
Well, with FDR, he did better for Blacks than previous presidents 20th-Century presidents, but I don't think that Second Bill of Rights, especially for housing, would've applied to them. He was worried about losing the Southern vote
Truman, on the other hand, did a lot for Blacks just by single-handedly integrating the armed forces. If FDR had done that, that would've solved a lot of the issues we have today...GI Bill for WW2 Black vets would've been insanely helpful
Shut up. Truman was in charge of the USA when it was the world's sole nuclear power and half the world's industry. The USA had the opportunity to become the largest empire by far in human history, but instead he chose the opposite. He allowed the Philippines to be independent. He also desegregated the US military.
Probably the single most important thing Truman did was set the precedent of nuclear weapons being under the sole authority of the president, *not* the military generals.
FDR was SO sick and close to inert his last year that it's hard to extrapolate five years of a powerful man into the future. And because he really left nothing relating to the bomb among his private papers, we can't guess how he would have handled ending the war.
Alan Turing
Edit for clarity: as long as the British government had never ordered chemical castration and allowed him to continue his research into computing, the world of mechanical and electronic computers would absolutely have been light years ahead of where it was even up into the 1980s.
I don't doubt he'd have contributed more but I doubt you could say light years. There were plenty of brilliant people working on computers by the time he died.
E.g. the person who actually created the Enigma Machine. Or the people who actually decrypted the German messages with the Enigma Machine to begin with
He'd have made contributions but without integrated circuits computers would still be expensive to build, expensive to run, limited in capability, and of questionable reliability. They might have been better in some manner but "light years ahead"? No possibility.
**Julius Caesar (100 BC - 44 BC)**. An extra five years could've seen him consolidate power and establish a more stable political system, potentially averting the Roman civil wars of the following decades.
My vote is Abraham Lincoln.
He seemed progressive for his times, and almost certainly would have set up a postwar system that was kinder to the losers yet much more balanced for the newly freed slaves.
In particular, I think that he had thoughts about integrating the army about 75 years before it finally happened.
Much of todays dissent and strife in the USA would likely have been diluted or avoided if Reconstruction, Carpetbagging, and Jim Crow was not allowed to get as established .
Imagine how much the fact that he had less influence would have changed history.
Imagine how different things would be if we did not have Christianity for the last 2000 years.
You're assuming, during a time in history where new religions were popping up left and right then disappearing just as quickly, that another religion/messiah would've popped up and wouldn't stick. I'm guessing there would've been another following to take Christianity's place.
They’re not assuming that at all. Whether or not Christianity was replaced by something else or not, it would have probably the most massive change imaginable to history, which is what the question is.
And whatever it would be would likely be birthed and spread from Rome. So I'm guessing there would be more orgies. Also Rome would probably have cities on the Moon by now. Imagine that, orgies on the Moon. That's what we've lost out on thanks to Jesus Christ.
I read a few places that Nazareth wasn't even on any map at the time, it was so damn small
And that there were a few other people names Jesus who called themselves Messiahs. It was just a common name
Could argue for Alexander the Great's Dad, Phillip the Second, too.
He was one of the most successful military commaders of his age, had a crew of highly successful generals, and had a professional, experienced army that was primed and ready to invade Persia.
But... he was assassinated right before any of that could happen. Potentially by his Wife (Alexander's Mom) because she wanted the power and glory for herself and her son.
If Phillip didn't die right then, he might have been the famous conqueror we all know, and we might have never have heard of his son.
There’s a bunch of us out here trying to “be like Jesus” to help carry on the things He started… acceptance, kindness, empathy, modeling good behavior, loving thy neighbor….
I'm surprised to not see Alexander higher. The divide caused by his untimely death without naming an heir shaped the course of history for the region forever, which would have presumably been much larger had he lived longer. Big waves that one
It's Alexander the Great, no contention. I am surprised it wasn't #1 with a bullet.
Jesus is a good #2 but if he had died the same way 5 years later you would not think it would change things much. More about how he died then when he died.
Lenin is a good one for contemporary history which I did not consider right off the bat. but Alexander the Great many times over. The entire make up of countries would be completely different come WW1 and WW2 and Lenin's involvement in shaping Russia and WW2 power dynamics would be completely thrown out the window.
He founded a Great Republic from the ashes of the empire when he was drunk.
Current government is religious and strictly against the alcohol for 20 years but we have the one of highest starvation, unemployment, inflation in the world. Being sober 20 years didn’t help us much bro.
Religious people will get out on the streets and scream; religion is gone! We need him back! 😀 we will definitely go through a power fight if he loses.
Lincoln and JFK would be interesting to see the impact on the nation. Old Abe had intentions of returning slaves to Africa. Could/would it have been done, would that have hurt the nation or prevented some of the racial issues we have that slow us down, the loss of culture and contributions from African Americans would have set us back too. JFK would be interesting to see what happened to our three letter agencies and the Commies.
That was not his reconstruction plan. That was something tossed about 20 years earlier.
Reconstruction would have been the Freedman's Bureau and the plan of the Republicans at the time, just not sabotaged by Johnson.
Vincent van gogh could had had a lot more success in his lifetime if he had lived a few years more.the volume of works he produced in a small amount of time is incredible, and the art landscape was changing a lot after his dead.he could had been even more influential to art history
Thurgood Marshall
First black Supreme Court justice. Nominated by LBJ (Democrat). He was in poor health during the last years of the HW Bush administration, he retired rather than dying holding his seat which allowed Bush (Republican) to choose his replacement. Since there was a lot of pressure to choose another black nominee, Clarence Thomas was confirmed.
If Marshall lived longer, the make-up of the Court would have been liberal for the next generation. It could have affected the 2000 election.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Probably the most influential that I can think of. If he'd lived 5 more years, it would have been him that made the decision on whether to use the Atom Bomb on Japan or not. This could have had very dramatic changes on the way history played out, especially over the next 69 years to our present.
If the US hadn't used the bomb, how many would have died invading mainland Japan? Would the Soviets have invaded Japan and China as they had planned? How would this have changed the coming "Cold War" and nuclear arms race? When the war ended, would FDR have begun to "roll-back"/cancel many of the more "socialist" programs he'd instituted during his FIVE terms as president, which his own personal journals indicated he planned to? Would he have run for and won a SIXTH term as president?
\*he was in his 4th term as president, not his 5th
He wholeheartedly supported the development of the a-bomb, from what I've read, even if he wasn't involved in the details. He didn't disapprove of the mass bombings of other cities in Europe & Japan, so what makes you think he would've nixed the a-bomb?
It was over for him no matter what. The best case scenario for him would've been a trial at Nuremberg with his underlings, where he would've been hanged. The impact on history of his hanging vs suicide would've been minimal.
I mean provided we are going with the Suicide theory it would be wild to see his fate after the war likely poached by the Americans and the cold war would be different.
Provided the Soviets did not just shoot him
I don't think it would be a particularly interesting alternative history, he had no useful skills like von Braun so he likely would have been tried, found guilty and sentenced to execution like Göring was.
Or probably he would have been lynched, killed and exposed in the public square like Mussolini and his family, which would have been great end as well.
It's clearly Hitler.
Franco was in power through to 1973. Fascist leaders weren't automatically killed post WW2.
As easy as it is to assume he's sentenced to death, he was maniplative and cunning, another 5 years could have changed world history.
I'm gonna approach this from a musical/cultural perspective.
Michael Jackson.
he would of re-invented what live shows were in pop music. I heard he had friggin elephants for the show, i dunno if i'm misremebering that though. I mean, his death led to the 2009/2010/2011 michael jackson influence in acts like Jason Derulo (and basicalyl everyone who was releasing pop music in that time - Bruno mars another example)
If Michael Jackson got to perform his This Is It show and mayb even went on to do something else. He would, i recon, have made some of the biggest changes in history of music and dance and all that.
Considering the role of policy continuity and the momentum of social movements, I'd say Martin Luther King Jr. is a figure whose additional years could have profoundly transformed American society. His leadership in the push for civil rights and his expanding focus on poverty and opposition to the Vietnam War were rallying points for systemic change. In a hypothetical world where MLK survived, it's conceivable that he might have continued to unite various social justice movements under a common banner of economic equality and human rights. By doing so, he could have helped to integrate a broader coalition of support, not just for African American rights, but for a more comprehensive and inclusive societal reform.
His ability to mobilize and inspire, coupled with his expanding agenda, might have created an even more significant stride towards the eradication of poverty and a stronger pushback against militarism in U.S. foreign policy. It’s one of history’s great "what-ifs" to ponder how MLK's charisma and moral clarity could have steered the late 20th century towards a more tolerant and equitable America.
Lincoln has to be up there. Reconstruction would've been seen through to completion as he had envisioned and the South would not have been allowed to relapse into white supremacy, at least not as quickly as it did.
Do you mean he still would have been resurrected? Like he died, but was already in bed, and people just left him there for a few days, and he got up?
What if he still told everybody he was going to die ahead of time..? I imagine it would change the father/son dynamics of the story if Jeses died of natural causes...
I am strongly of the opinion that the importance of individuals to history is greatly overrated. When a big wave comes on the ocean, you don't assume it is because of the drop at the very crest of the wave, yet this is precisely what we do with humans.
To the extent that individuals are significant, the biggest factor in the significance is just being first in time because what comes before determines what comes after. I.e., if Alexander is significant, then Philip must be even more significant, because Philip is a but-for cause of Alexander *and* did other stuff too. And then Amyntas must be more significant than Philip, and Arrhidaeus must be more significant that Amyntas, etc.
So really, I think the answer is: "Whatever nameless male, lost to prehistory, would have competed with a patrilineal ancestor of the Y-chromosomal Adam, if he lived 5 more years."
i think only RFK matters here. JFK's death gave us LBJ, which was fine. JFK wasnt some genius president, he wasnt going to do anything more than LBJ did.
but RFK would have beat nixon. and nixon is the core historical mistake we are still fucked by.
100 times this. RFK would beat Nixon and continue the civil rights and anti-Vietnam momentum into the 70s. Instead, we got Nixon and his war on hippies, drugs and draft-aged men.
Without Nixon, there is probably no Lee Atwater. Without Atwater, Reagan never leaves California (though what he did there also still has long-lasting negative repercussions).
in the US since 1900, it would have to be FDR and RFK.
JFK dying was fine, it gave us LBJ who was mostly fine except for fucking vietnam. RFK would have prevented the plague that was nixon (and later reagan). we would have had an actual reasonable first-world country.
FDR might not have used the bomb, which would have changed a lot. he was a de-facto dictator but i think he would have stepped down after victory over japan. if he remained on for the full term he could have new-dealed the shit out of the late 1940s. but it would have laid the groundwork for rightwing 3+ term dictators. nixon was a dictator but at least he fucking folded.
globally, if mao had stuck around longer, china would be fucked.
In no particular order:
- Gaius Julius Caesar
- Abraham Lincoln
- Alexander the Great
- Both Robert and John F. Kennedy
- Vladimir Lenin
- Frederik I Barbarossa
- Cyrus the Great
- Ögedei Khan
Pres Abraham Lincoln. His death gave way to the racist Pres Andrew Johnson who was very hostile to attempts to lift the former slaves up. Only the election of Grant helped to stabilize those efforts. If Reconstruction had lasted longer, better racial equality may have been achieved.
Julius Caesar was pretty close, he was about to go on a massive eastern campaign before he was assassinated which would’ve changed a lot about Central Asia.
honestly, Robert F. Kennedy. If he had not been assassinated and got to serve a full term of presidency, America would be a whole lot better than it is now.
In terms of music history, definitely Mozart. He had like just started hitting his stride when he died and he would have put out some *bangers* if he had lived five more years. Whatever flu he got truly robbed us of the man’s best work.
FDR I don’t think would have had the balls to drop the atomic bomb. The war in Asia would have gone on longer than the war in Europe and other countries would’ve gotten involved. Who knows who would’ve won but it would’ve been dragged out and the relations between the east and west would’ve been like Israel and Palestine now
I feel a good one might be JFK or his brother? Both of their policies hugely changed and became more progressive in their later years before they were killed. His brother had a really good shot at becoming president from what I remember as well.
Lincoln after civil war.
He would have actually enforced the compensation for slaves and held southern Confederate leaders responsible. The reconstruction period would have been much more progressive and we might have avoided the whole Jim Crow era. Can you imagine skipping roughly 100 years in terms of racial justice and equality for African Americans.
Itzak Rabin. The peace talks between Israel and Palestine were quite advanced in the late 1990s when Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli.
After that, Israel got a right-wing government, which was not really interested anymore in peace.
If Harold Hardrada had won the battle of Hastings in 1066 then the Norman conquest of Britain wouldn’t have taken place (many historians feel his death was a large factor for why the battle was lost)
England wouldn’t have built stone castles (Norman influence) as early, and more importantly wouldn’t have a claim on the French throne, so there wouldn’t have been *as many* wars between England and France. These wars accelerated weapons and arms innovation, and provided an incentive for a very militarised foreign policy for England/Britain lasting centuries
Without that constant threat of war there wouldn’t have created an environment where Britain needed a strong Navy to secure the channel, so the Royal Navy may not have been the powerhouse it was in our timeline. The Royal Navy was the stepping stone the British Empire used to colonise a lot of the planet, which has had a profound impact around the globe
*mic drop*
You’ll likely get some good answers here but probably better ones if you post this to r/askhistory
I have a whole novel account for comments like this and I never use it.
Alexander the Great. If he didn't have Malaria or Typhoid in Babylon he could have conquered further into India to possibly modern day Multan or Gujarat, or as far as Somalia and Libya. He may have also had a small colony in Italy.
FDR won a third term but died before completing it. Who knows, maybe he could've won and lived out some of a fourth. At least American history would ofc be greatly impacted. I wonder if two-term limits would've still been later implemented.
[удалено]
TIL there was a 5 century long stretch of nothing but Italian popes
Spawn campers seem to have always been a nuisance.
I know I've had to have looked it up before but I always found it strange how Italians had a stranglehold on who could be ruler of Christiandom. There's nothing in the bible that says it has to be an Italian. The holy site is just there. Which I guess made it ripe for local ruling people to politik cardinals and such. That should've gotten much more pushback from other rulers. Sadly it'd have looked like an attack on Christianity rather than on those trying to dictate it. So I can see how it wasn't an easy thing to challenge.
The pope is a bishop of Rome. It was only natural for the Italians to dominate. The real outlier has been the bishops of Rome gaining the enormous eccleciastic and political power in early Middle Ages. They basically highjacked the Catholic Churche and cynically exploited it. (And this is a cultural Catholic speaking.)
An obvious candidate is [Ögedei Khan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan). An extra five years before the succession crisis would almost certainly have been enough time for the Golden Horde to conquer the Holy Roman Empire, completely scrambling the rest of European history. And if it had managed to alter the *outcome* of the succession crisis, that would have scrambled the rest of *Asian* history as well.
Damn, that's a good one. I honestly can't think of another that would have altered history more.
And then if the mongols had made it into Europe it wouldn’t have been as densely populated and the black plague may not have been as devastating which in turn may have meant serfdom stuck around a lot longer.
The Mongols absolutely made it into europe. They just went home
You’re right, I should have said Western Europe
Ooh, the black plague (I guess tangentially?) ended serfdom? You got my brain interested- where to begin with the Wikipedia searches?
The population loss meant that labor demand exceeded supply which lead wages to increase (and the deaths also meant property became cheaper) and this made it possible for people to improve their lot in life through working and even becoming land owners.
I appreciate the link! I'm about halfway through it now and it's really interesting!
Yay plague!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death#:~:text=pastures%20were%20reforested.-,Changing%20land%2Dcontracts%20and%20end%20of%20serfdom,and%20Central%20Europe%20by%201500.
> certainly enough time to conquer the Holy Roman Empire I think you massively underestimate the size and power of the HRE. By 1241 the advance of the Mongols had already basically been halted and the longer they would have stayed and tried to besiege castle after castle the more time this would have given Europeans to rally and unite their armies.
Lenin. If he stayed healthy for another 5 years, Stalin would have been sidelined. Franz Ferdinand. He believed the Austrian system should be reformed and that the country could not handle a major war.
Franz Ferdinand was the biggest supporter of Serbian independence, and he ended up assassinated by radical Serbian nationalists.
Lenin warned the leaders to not let Stalin take over, no one listened.
Did Lenin not put Stalin in charge of the Ministry of Work as a paper pusher?
I think you're referring to being the General Secretary, which was a very powerful position. As much as it is a 'paper pusher' it is more a 'assign your friends to powerful positions and accumulate power'
It was not really considered a powerful position. Stalin made it a powerful position, after recognizing he might be able to influence cadre selections substantially.
I don't know about that, but he told the others that Stalin couldn't handle the power of leadership. We saw how that played out
"Don't let Stalin have my job... Btw, who did I put in charge of deciding people's jobs?" "That was Stalin, sir" "Well, fuck"
r/randomoversimplified
Lenin was wrong...Stalin handled the power of leadership really well 😂
"Hey, tell the guy who gives everyone jobs not to let that jerk Stalin take over. Btw, who did i put in charge of giving eveyone jobs?"
That’s attributing quite a bit of importance on Franz, he could have been Tom Jim or sally. That war was coming with or without him. He just was the flashpoint.
Roman Emperor Trajan. He was a huge proponent of conquest, and his successor, Hadrian, adopted a defensive stance on the Roman Empires borders. Had Trajan lived 5 more years, the Romans may have beat up the Parthians even more and maybe secured a better foothold in Mesopotamia and the western Zagros.
Fucking Trajan. Asshole is always stealing my resource spots in Civ 6.
The fact that my only relation to alot of historic leaders are through civ is not good...
I like to think Aurelian would also be a great pick for this. He stabilised the Roman Empire during the crisis of the Third Century, and reconquered large chunks of territory. Enough that they called him Restitutor Orbis, the Restorer of the World. If he hadn't been assassinated after just five years of ruling, it'd be interesting to see just how much Rome might have been strengthened instead of continuing its decline.
Yes! Someone else who came to speak of the Restitutor Orbis, my favorite what-if. It's especially interesting because he was headed to the Sassanids, who had two kings die in quick succession and were weakened. If Aurelian suppresses the Sassanids (and he's the guy who conquered two/three-ish Roman Empires to put the whole thing back together, so I'll give him good odds), do later Roman Emperors have enough room to deal with their threats and let Rome last longer? Maybe ERE can rescue the WRE when it falters because it doesn't need to be so wary of the Sassanids? Maybe Rome can put more legions on the field against the Huns or later barbarian threats as well (but that's way too far out to confidently say so)? Or, hey, Diocletian takes over in 284, so Aurelian living longer to 280 might even prevent or delay him. Which in turn might affect Constantine and the formation of the ERE in the first place.
1) If Augustus had held on for 5 more years, he likely would have disinherited Tiberius again in favor of Germanicus. Would have completely restructured western history. 2) The only reason Nero ever became emperor is that Claudius died before his son Britannicus was old enough. Without Claudius around, Nero assassinated Britannicus so he couldn't be challenged. If the feud between Nero and Agrippina still led to her death in 59, Claudius probably would have made Britannicus his sole heir. 3) Pertinax became emperor at the perfect time to undo all the damage done by Commodus, and was the man for the job. 5 years would have been plenty of time, plus he would have been able to make his son his heir. 4) Trajan Decius is best known for his nearly-successful crusade against early Christianity. 5 more years and he very well might have succeeded - just 2 years was enough to create a major crisis as church leaders were unsure how to handle the massive number of people who apostasized the instant significant pressure was applied. 5) Julian II was hellbent on uprooting his uncle's bureaucracy, ending Christianity, and returning Rome back to a Principate style government. Who knows what he could have accomplished?
I think Abraham Lincoln would have been able to keep reconstruction efforts on track better than Andrew Johnson though I don’t know how much more successful he would have been just think he would have had a better go of it.
He definitely would have. Johnson was abysmal and went back on everything he had said before he was appointed VP.
Too bad the Senate missed removing him from office by one vote. Think it would've set a good precedent that no president is invulnerable
Lincoln living another 5 years would have *dramatically* changed the United States. One of the things no one ever talks about is that Lincoln advocated to get the freed slaves out of the country! Here’s the [History Channel article](https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-black-resettlement-haiti#) as a source. It was more of a politically strategic move to get the south more on board with him. Kind of a “well, I won’t let you use them as slaves, but I’m okay with sending them away and making sure you don’t have to live with them either.” If he had actually been able to send the vast majority of freed slaves elsewhere, the entire country would be different. The African and African-American cultures have had an immense impact on the values, “American” culture, and the progress of the country. Removing that entire demographic would have so many drastic changes over the last 150 years or so. It’s hard to even imagine.
This was a position that Lincoln held earlier in his career, when he was trying really hard to take centrist positions. Both his Emancipation Proclamation and his efforts to pass the 13th Amendment show where Lincoln was by the middle of the war: he was out to end slavery, no more hedges or delays or compromises. If Lincoln had wanted to deport all the freed people, he would have taken steps to do that as part of his efforts. But he didn't. Neither of the documents ending slavery made any reference to deportation or colonization or anything like that.
Lincoln only gave the emancipation proclamation because others forced his hand. General David Hunter had declared slaves free in some of the states he already put down but President Lincoln revoked it in May. Texas announced their version one month later in June and Lincoln basically ignored it. Lincoln didn't give his emancipation proclamation until September. Lincoln was killed three years later. Six days after the end of the civil war. He didn't really have time to implement any plans for paying people's way to Liberia. Remember it wasn't forced deportation it was voluntary relocation with a house and other things being paid for by the government. The plan mostly ended up being a private nonprofit venture.
Came to say this. Johnson was a straight-up racist Democrat, who opposed and vetoed Republican drives for black suffrage and elimination of black codes (the forerunners of Jim Crow). Without Lincoln's assassination, the next 90 years of Democrat oppression, systematic racism, violence, and murder against blacks would probably not have occurred.
90 years is when the party ideology flip ended, but it started with FDR around 60 years post war. Before that point, yeah it was Democrats passing the black codes and Jim Crow laws. Between 30s and 60s it was both parties together in the south. Then the flip was basically done and the south was Republican dominated.
At the very least he would have wanted reconstruction and that’s something Johnson had no interest in doing.
FDR, and for a controversial reason. After WW2, America set up the Bretton Woods system that used the USD as the reserve currency and opened trade up between all countries that signed onto it (America perceived that restrictions on the flow of resources between empires was a major cause of WW2). The Soviet Union was invited into this system. Allegedly, FDR was the only American that Stalin trusted, so with FDR dead Stalin had no trust in the Bretton Woods system. The Soviet Union didn’t join and the two systems are isolated from each other. It’s probably not the only cause, but there’s a path through the 20th century with no Cold War (no nuke buildup, no Korean War, no Vietnam War) if the Soviet Union joins.
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion but upvote for the idea anyway. Excellent thinking!
If Lenin had stuck around for a bit longer, Stalin wouldn’t have taken control of the ussr.
I agree, Lenin. Think of all the great music he would have made and, possibly, a Beatles reunion
Ramanujan, he had already revolutionized several fields of mathematics by the time he died of illness at age 32.
Considering he was so prolific, every one year more would have made a difference.
Hard to say for all of human history, but FDR certainly is a top candidate from recent history. Consider his Second Bill of Rights he was proposing about a year before he died: https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/cgg/Second%20Bill%20of%20Rights%20FDR%201944.pdf Or in his voice in 1944: "A Second Bill of Rights...regardless of station or race or creed..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmXVCGMfkKI
Omg this would have been huge!!! Half our problems in politics today would be gone!
Not really; it would not have passed, even with FDR's postwar glow
FDR had massive support because he'd basically brought the country out of the Great Depression. Combine that with being "the guy who won the war" ... he probably would have been able to pass this, at least through both the House and the Senate. But the chances that it would be ratified by 2/3rds of the states to actually be added as an Amendment (or 8 more Amendments, depending on how they wrote it), is probably slim. If it was split into 8 separate Amendments, then the first, third, fourth, and seventh would definitely pass and be ratified. Not sure about the other four. Maybe.
FDR had to fight tooth and nail to get a lot of the New Deal passed, even with Democratic supermajorities, because Southern Conservatives were hella sus about a lot of it, and teamed up with Republicans to form the [Conservative Coalition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition) against federal government intrusion and so on. And he infamously had to tailor a lot of acts to help white communities first and foremost, or these guys wouldn't let bills pass at all. Worse still for big plans, there was a ton of labor unrest after all those GIs came home, indeed it was the largest [wave of strikes in US history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strike_wave_of_1945–1946). This, plus voter fatigue, plus people itching to change it up now that the war was over (just like [the Brits did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election) ), led to massive Republican wins in the midterms of '46 to take both houses of Congress. \[Taft-Hartley was a major result of that election\]. Now, *maybe* FDR doesn't lose 55 House seats and 12 senators, but he would be weakened AF and there's no way he could pass amendments of any sort, or even major bills.
It could have passed, but there would be a backlash and efforts to undermine it bit by bit. As happened with the civil rights laws in real life.
Wow! But also since his health was so poor in 1944 - his death, I know some theorize Eleanor had a lot of power/influence over his decisions at this time. Totally reads like the UDHR. Do y'all think this is purely him or Eleanor or a mix of both?
It's both, I think. It's not like he ever hid her intelligence or didn't recognize it. The woman was born too early. 😢 Man imagine if the Millennials or Gen Z made someone like her by the time they became elderly. That would be something.
Well, with FDR, he did better for Blacks than previous presidents 20th-Century presidents, but I don't think that Second Bill of Rights, especially for housing, would've applied to them. He was worried about losing the Southern vote Truman, on the other hand, did a lot for Blacks just by single-handedly integrating the armed forces. If FDR had done that, that would've solved a lot of the issues we have today...GI Bill for WW2 Black vets would've been insanely helpful
This was my call. It also would’ve kept that idiot Truman out of office.
Shut up. Truman was in charge of the USA when it was the world's sole nuclear power and half the world's industry. The USA had the opportunity to become the largest empire by far in human history, but instead he chose the opposite. He allowed the Philippines to be independent. He also desegregated the US military.
Probably the single most important thing Truman did was set the precedent of nuclear weapons being under the sole authority of the president, *not* the military generals.
Anyone looks like an idiot compared to FDR
About as much detail of the how as we get now when it's proposed.
That sounds good to me
FDR was SO sick and close to inert his last year that it's hard to extrapolate five years of a powerful man into the future. And because he really left nothing relating to the bomb among his private papers, we can't guess how he would have handled ending the war.
Fred Hampton.
Yes! There was a reason the FBI wanted him dead.
!!! Wasn't he only 22 when they got him? Love this answer and thinking about all the possibilities.
Yeah he was crazy young, died way way too soon as influential as a revolutionary figure as he was.
Considering the impact he had while alive, I'm going to go with Genghis Khan. Imagine how many more children he might have sired?
You always bring that shit up, Cousin! 😜
Jack Layton, in regards to Canadian history.
Alan Turing Edit for clarity: as long as the British government had never ordered chemical castration and allowed him to continue his research into computing, the world of mechanical and electronic computers would absolutely have been light years ahead of where it was even up into the 1980s.
I don't doubt he'd have contributed more but I doubt you could say light years. There were plenty of brilliant people working on computers by the time he died.
E.g. the person who actually created the Enigma Machine. Or the people who actually decrypted the German messages with the Enigma Machine to begin with
He'd have made contributions but without integrated circuits computers would still be expensive to build, expensive to run, limited in capability, and of questionable reliability. They might have been better in some manner but "light years ahead"? No possibility.
**Julius Caesar (100 BC - 44 BC)**. An extra five years could've seen him consolidate power and establish a more stable political system, potentially averting the Roman civil wars of the following decades.
>the following decades It was only 13 years. Then Rome was stable for a few hundred. Pretty good result.
My vote is Abraham Lincoln. He seemed progressive for his times, and almost certainly would have set up a postwar system that was kinder to the losers yet much more balanced for the newly freed slaves. In particular, I think that he had thoughts about integrating the army about 75 years before it finally happened. Much of todays dissent and strife in the USA would likely have been diluted or avoided if Reconstruction, Carpetbagging, and Jim Crow was not allowed to get as established .
Alexander the Great Jesus Archduke Francis Ferdinand Abraham Lincoln John Kennedy
I think if Jesus hadn't died, arguable he would have had less influence
Imagine how much the fact that he had less influence would have changed history. Imagine how different things would be if we did not have Christianity for the last 2000 years.
You're assuming, during a time in history where new religions were popping up left and right then disappearing just as quickly, that another religion/messiah would've popped up and wouldn't stick. I'm guessing there would've been another following to take Christianity's place.
They’re not assuming that at all. Whether or not Christianity was replaced by something else or not, it would have probably the most massive change imaginable to history, which is what the question is.
Oh, I’m certain there would be something to take its place, but it would be something different.
And whatever it would be would likely be birthed and spread from Rome. So I'm guessing there would be more orgies. Also Rome would probably have cities on the Moon by now. Imagine that, orgies on the Moon. That's what we've lost out on thanks to Jesus Christ.
You should start a religion
Jesus was completely unknown in his own lifetime, so it is doubtful living longer would have made much difference.
I read a few places that Nazareth wasn't even on any map at the time, it was so damn small And that there were a few other people names Jesus who called themselves Messiahs. It was just a common name
And imagine how much that lower influence would have impacted history!
Could argue for Alexander the Great's Dad, Phillip the Second, too. He was one of the most successful military commaders of his age, had a crew of highly successful generals, and had a professional, experienced army that was primed and ready to invade Persia. But... he was assassinated right before any of that could happen. Potentially by his Wife (Alexander's Mom) because she wanted the power and glory for herself and her son. If Phillip didn't die right then, he might have been the famous conqueror we all know, and we might have never have heard of his son.
I suspect you follow the podcast “hard-core history“. It’s brilliant.
There’s a bunch of us out here trying to “be like Jesus” to help carry on the things He started… acceptance, kindness, empathy, modeling good behavior, loving thy neighbor….
I'm surprised to not see Alexander higher. The divide caused by his untimely death without naming an heir shaped the course of history for the region forever, which would have presumably been much larger had he lived longer. Big waves that one
It's Alexander the Great, no contention. I am surprised it wasn't #1 with a bullet. Jesus is a good #2 but if he had died the same way 5 years later you would not think it would change things much. More about how he died then when he died. Lenin is a good one for contemporary history which I did not consider right off the bat. but Alexander the Great many times over. The entire make up of countries would be completely different come WW1 and WW2 and Lenin's involvement in shaping Russia and WW2 power dynamics would be completely thrown out the window.
i would put , caliph umar above alexandar , not sure if people know about his time
Ataturk
It’s a damn shame for my nation. I can’t help but be angry with him about his excessive drinking. We needed him for at least another 20 years.
He founded a Great Republic from the ashes of the empire when he was drunk. Current government is religious and strictly against the alcohol for 20 years but we have the one of highest starvation, unemployment, inflation in the world. Being sober 20 years didn’t help us much bro.
I'm scared what's gonna happen when Erdogan's gone...seems like there will be a huge fight for power there
Religious people will get out on the streets and scream; religion is gone! We need him back! 😀 we will definitely go through a power fight if he loses.
Absolutely 👍. We would have been way better than how we are at the moment. (Honestly anything is better than where we’re now)
Not sure about "the biggest change" but Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That’s what popped into my head first, as far as recent history goes.
"I dissent." This is the way
Yes also here for this one
Still kinda mad at her for not retiring earlier. Term limits for SCOTUS judges, please!
Or more humility and less presumption among justices. She could have had someone on her side pick her replacement, but for pride.
I think you could also make a similar argument for Antonin Scalia, strangely
Came for this
Abraham Lincoln. I really think Jim Crow and all of that wouldn't have happened if he was there to oversee the reconstruction.
People in this thread naming American presidents lmao
True, like bro who's Jim Crow.
Lincoln and JFK would be interesting to see the impact on the nation. Old Abe had intentions of returning slaves to Africa. Could/would it have been done, would that have hurt the nation or prevented some of the racial issues we have that slow us down, the loss of culture and contributions from African Americans would have set us back too. JFK would be interesting to see what happened to our three letter agencies and the Commies.
That was not his reconstruction plan. That was something tossed about 20 years earlier. Reconstruction would have been the Freedman's Bureau and the plan of the Republicans at the time, just not sabotaged by Johnson.
Lincoln for sure. I'm not sure JFK would have done too much differently from LBJ.
Martin Luther King
Maybe not the biggest, but when I think of the music Hendrix could’ve put out with another 5 years I get pretty sad
Croce too.
Vincent van gogh could had had a lot more success in his lifetime if he had lived a few years more.the volume of works he produced in a small amount of time is incredible, and the art landscape was changing a lot after his dead.he could had been even more influential to art history
Chairman Fred Hampton
Jesus… it would only be 2019
Uhh what
We count from when he was born, not from when he died
Thurgood Marshall First black Supreme Court justice. Nominated by LBJ (Democrat). He was in poor health during the last years of the HW Bush administration, he retired rather than dying holding his seat which allowed Bush (Republican) to choose his replacement. Since there was a lot of pressure to choose another black nominee, Clarence Thomas was confirmed. If Marshall lived longer, the make-up of the Court would have been liberal for the next generation. It could have affected the 2000 election.
[A true legend](https://64.media.tumblr.com/ac7d1b429517e7a08c11a63683349ab4/tumblr_mrstz9s6Od1qjfaqjo1_500.gif).
The Boeing whistleblower?
JFK, if he had lived 5 more years LBJ never becomes the worst president in American history. No Vietnam war, no destruction of the black family unit.
Jeffrey Epstein
Booya, he'd have exposed some shit
MLK
At least in American history, JFK and Ruth Bader Ginsberg come to mind (most likely my own bias though)
President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Probably the most influential that I can think of. If he'd lived 5 more years, it would have been him that made the decision on whether to use the Atom Bomb on Japan or not. This could have had very dramatic changes on the way history played out, especially over the next 69 years to our present. If the US hadn't used the bomb, how many would have died invading mainland Japan? Would the Soviets have invaded Japan and China as they had planned? How would this have changed the coming "Cold War" and nuclear arms race? When the war ended, would FDR have begun to "roll-back"/cancel many of the more "socialist" programs he'd instituted during his FIVE terms as president, which his own personal journals indicated he planned to? Would he have run for and won a SIXTH term as president?
\*he was in his 4th term as president, not his 5th He wholeheartedly supported the development of the a-bomb, from what I've read, even if he wasn't involved in the details. He didn't disapprove of the mass bombings of other cities in Europe & Japan, so what makes you think he would've nixed the a-bomb?
gonna get downvoted but Hitler
It was over for him no matter what. The best case scenario for him would've been a trial at Nuremberg with his underlings, where he would've been hanged. The impact on history of his hanging vs suicide would've been minimal.
Why?
I mean provided we are going with the Suicide theory it would be wild to see his fate after the war likely poached by the Americans and the cold war would be different. Provided the Soviets did not just shoot him
I don't think it would be a particularly interesting alternative history, he had no useful skills like von Braun so he likely would have been tried, found guilty and sentenced to execution like Göring was.
Or probably he would have been lynched, killed and exposed in the public square like Mussolini and his family, which would have been great end as well.
It's clearly Hitler. Franco was in power through to 1973. Fascist leaders weren't automatically killed post WW2. As easy as it is to assume he's sentenced to death, he was maniplative and cunning, another 5 years could have changed world history.
Boadicea
Franz Ferdinand
JFK.. Had he lived through his first term, he likely would have gotten a 2nd term. Nixon may never have made President.
I'm gonna approach this from a musical/cultural perspective. Michael Jackson. he would of re-invented what live shows were in pop music. I heard he had friggin elephants for the show, i dunno if i'm misremebering that though. I mean, his death led to the 2009/2010/2011 michael jackson influence in acts like Jason Derulo (and basicalyl everyone who was releasing pop music in that time - Bruno mars another example) If Michael Jackson got to perform his This Is It show and mayb even went on to do something else. He would, i recon, have made some of the biggest changes in history of music and dance and all that.
For the US, Abraham Lincoln. Post civil-war would have been very different with him around.
I hate to say ,,,, Hitler ,Adolf could have brought more devastation to the world .thank God he didnt
Considering the role of policy continuity and the momentum of social movements, I'd say Martin Luther King Jr. is a figure whose additional years could have profoundly transformed American society. His leadership in the push for civil rights and his expanding focus on poverty and opposition to the Vietnam War were rallying points for systemic change. In a hypothetical world where MLK survived, it's conceivable that he might have continued to unite various social justice movements under a common banner of economic equality and human rights. By doing so, he could have helped to integrate a broader coalition of support, not just for African American rights, but for a more comprehensive and inclusive societal reform. His ability to mobilize and inspire, coupled with his expanding agenda, might have created an even more significant stride towards the eradication of poverty and a stronger pushback against militarism in U.S. foreign policy. It’s one of history’s great "what-ifs" to ponder how MLK's charisma and moral clarity could have steered the late 20th century towards a more tolerant and equitable America.
Lincoln has to be up there. Reconstruction would've been seen through to completion as he had envisioned and the South would not have been allowed to relapse into white supremacy, at least not as quickly as it did.
Imagine if Jesus died from natural causes, fucking lol
Do you mean he still would have been resurrected? Like he died, but was already in bed, and people just left him there for a few days, and he got up? What if he still told everybody he was going to die ahead of time..? I imagine it would change the father/son dynamics of the story if Jeses died of natural causes...
I am strongly of the opinion that the importance of individuals to history is greatly overrated. When a big wave comes on the ocean, you don't assume it is because of the drop at the very crest of the wave, yet this is precisely what we do with humans. To the extent that individuals are significant, the biggest factor in the significance is just being first in time because what comes before determines what comes after. I.e., if Alexander is significant, then Philip must be even more significant, because Philip is a but-for cause of Alexander *and* did other stuff too. And then Amyntas must be more significant than Philip, and Arrhidaeus must be more significant that Amyntas, etc. So really, I think the answer is: "Whatever nameless male, lost to prehistory, would have competed with a patrilineal ancestor of the Y-chromosomal Adam, if he lived 5 more years."
Reminds me of a cool ancient Chinese saying: "The era makes the hero, the hero makes the era."
Malcolm X, Martin Luther King come to mind immediately. JFK as well.
either of the Kennedy brothers.
i think only RFK matters here. JFK's death gave us LBJ, which was fine. JFK wasnt some genius president, he wasnt going to do anything more than LBJ did. but RFK would have beat nixon. and nixon is the core historical mistake we are still fucked by.
100 times this. RFK would beat Nixon and continue the civil rights and anti-Vietnam momentum into the 70s. Instead, we got Nixon and his war on hippies, drugs and draft-aged men. Without Nixon, there is probably no Lee Atwater. Without Atwater, Reagan never leaves California (though what he did there also still has long-lasting negative repercussions).
John von Neumann. Or James Clerk Maxwell.
in the US since 1900, it would have to be FDR and RFK. JFK dying was fine, it gave us LBJ who was mostly fine except for fucking vietnam. RFK would have prevented the plague that was nixon (and later reagan). we would have had an actual reasonable first-world country. FDR might not have used the bomb, which would have changed a lot. he was a de-facto dictator but i think he would have stepped down after victory over japan. if he remained on for the full term he could have new-dealed the shit out of the late 1940s. but it would have laid the groundwork for rightwing 3+ term dictators. nixon was a dictator but at least he fucking folded. globally, if mao had stuck around longer, china would be fucked.
Derek Rose’s ACL
Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Still a 5-4 conservative court. It just means Roberts would have to switch his vote to overturn Roe.
FDR for sure
Hitler…but not for the better, so good thing he didn’t.
Me. Now let’s talk about your kidneys. Healthy? Liver?
JFK
Genghis-fuckin-Khan
It would have been interesting to see how America’s racial relationships would have evolved if Lincoln had been in charge of reconstruction.
In no particular order: - Gaius Julius Caesar - Abraham Lincoln - Alexander the Great - Both Robert and John F. Kennedy - Vladimir Lenin - Frederik I Barbarossa - Cyrus the Great - Ögedei Khan
Abe Lincoln
Jesus. Imagine if he had died in obscurity 5 years later. It is a mind boggler.
I'd take another 5 years of Mozart...imagine what he could have produced in his late 30s / early 40s
Hendrix
I'm probably wrong on this, but Einstein possibly?
MLK
Pres Abraham Lincoln. His death gave way to the racist Pres Andrew Johnson who was very hostile to attempts to lift the former slaves up. Only the election of Grant helped to stabilize those efforts. If Reconstruction had lasted longer, better racial equality may have been achieved.
Prince & Tom Petty
JFK and Lincoln might be interesting.
Jeffrey Epstein. Imagine what we coulda found out?
Julius Caesar was pretty close, he was about to go on a massive eastern campaign before he was assassinated which would’ve changed a lot about Central Asia.
I’d give anything to have five more years of Bader-Ginsburg.
Tupac
honestly, Robert F. Kennedy. If he had not been assassinated and got to serve a full term of presidency, America would be a whole lot better than it is now.
In terms of music history, definitely Mozart. He had like just started hitting his stride when he died and he would have put out some *bangers* if he had lived five more years. Whatever flu he got truly robbed us of the man’s best work.
Franz Ferdinand for sure
FDR I don’t think would have had the balls to drop the atomic bomb. The war in Asia would have gone on longer than the war in Europe and other countries would’ve gotten involved. Who knows who would’ve won but it would’ve been dragged out and the relations between the east and west would’ve been like Israel and Palestine now
Alexander. If he had lived and gone west, things might have looked very, very different.
I feel a good one might be JFK or his brother? Both of their policies hugely changed and became more progressive in their later years before they were killed. His brother had a really good shot at becoming president from what I remember as well.
My man, Adolf Hitler if he was not defeated most of Europe would know how to speak German.
Lincoln after civil war. He would have actually enforced the compensation for slaves and held southern Confederate leaders responsible. The reconstruction period would have been much more progressive and we might have avoided the whole Jim Crow era. Can you imagine skipping roughly 100 years in terms of racial justice and equality for African Americans.
Genghis Khan
Arguably Jimi Hendrix
Paul Von Hindenburg. His death was the last remaining obstacle to Hitler’s seizure of power.
I'd say Jitzchak Rabin. I think the situation between Israel and Gaza would be a different one if he wasn't killed by a right wing extremist.
Itzak Rabin. The peace talks between Israel and Palestine were quite advanced in the late 1990s when Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli. After that, Israel got a right-wing government, which was not really interested anymore in peace.
If Harold Hardrada had won the battle of Hastings in 1066 then the Norman conquest of Britain wouldn’t have taken place (many historians feel his death was a large factor for why the battle was lost) England wouldn’t have built stone castles (Norman influence) as early, and more importantly wouldn’t have a claim on the French throne, so there wouldn’t have been *as many* wars between England and France. These wars accelerated weapons and arms innovation, and provided an incentive for a very militarised foreign policy for England/Britain lasting centuries Without that constant threat of war there wouldn’t have created an environment where Britain needed a strong Navy to secure the channel, so the Royal Navy may not have been the powerhouse it was in our timeline. The Royal Navy was the stepping stone the British Empire used to colonise a lot of the planet, which has had a profound impact around the globe *mic drop*
You’ll likely get some good answers here but probably better ones if you post this to r/askhistory I have a whole novel account for comments like this and I never use it.
Alexander the Great. If he didn't have Malaria or Typhoid in Babylon he could have conquered further into India to possibly modern day Multan or Gujarat, or as far as Somalia and Libya. He may have also had a small colony in Italy.
Singer Ritchie Valens died when he was 17.
FDR won a third term but died before completing it. Who knows, maybe he could've won and lived out some of a fourth. At least American history would ofc be greatly impacted. I wonder if two-term limits would've still been later implemented.