I sure don’t know how you could figure it out. The further you go back in time to kill someone, the more lives today are likely to be affected. Go back real far and you could kill millions – or possibly change the genetic makeup of millions if the dead person’s partners hook up with others and produce different kids than they would have been.
Can we knock off Abraham? That would through a wrench in the works. No Judaism, no Christianity, no Islam, and a few smaller religions would probably be out as well. I’m not even sure if monotheism would have ever gotten started.
Nothing against the Abrahamic religions, but it would be interesting to see just how drastically this changes things.
I was going to pick James Earl Ray, the guy that assassinated Martin Luther King, but at first I decided not to since I thought he was still alive. I just looked him up, and it turned out he died in 1998. So I’ll go with knocking him off, obviously before he kills MLK.
MLK’s someone I think America could use right now. I think his death was the biggest setback that the civil rights movement’s ever had.
Strange I’d suggest destroying the existence of three major world religions and then advocate saving someone like MLK in the same post. But if you do the former, the latter probably wouldn’t be an issue.
Just pretend they weren’t necessary… maybe they had a different father or something, I’ve already clarified this. 
How about Jack Ruby? Then Oswald WOULD have gone to trial and we might not have so many goddamned JFK conspiracy nuts.
Exactly. Not really getting the point of the premise - is this a revenge thing? This is about as effective as digging up a corpse just to kick its ass.
Although I’d really be tempted to hunt down Reagan or Nixon, I’d probably finally just say “Nah” and go after Booth too.
Tomas De Torquemada, but first I’d slap him around a bit.
But why are you so sure he wasn’t a myth?
You’d save the life of a good man, but risk tarnishing his legend. MLK wasn’t perfect, he advocated the rather divisive policy of affirmative action and various other things.
It’ll change the lives of the people in the alternate timeline.
Good idea, this might actually be the best one. A nation of freemen, under the rule of law of a meritocratic government would be less likely to lose the first world war, fall to communism or suffer so much from later German invasions… Shesh! without the bugbear of Soviet Communism, the Nazis wouldn’t have gotten so much support.
Actually, it was Theodosius.
In reality, the Roman Empire had effectively had freedom of religion. Christianity was one of the rare exceptions in being illegal. What Constantine did was legalize Christianity and show favoritism to Christians.
You might do better if you off’d Friedrich Engels.
J. Edgar Hoover at birth. I think the USA would be better for it.
Possibly, but Lenin is the kind of scumbag who, IMO, would have had blood on his hands no matter what. Without The Revolution, I can easily see him as a plain old gangster running protection rackets, loan sharking, etc. The only reason I didn’t include his homies Trotsky and Stalin is because we’re limited to one target. The rest of his posse couldn’t have achieved power without him.
You could go for someone whose effects postdate your birth, but who is already dead. (Such as Muhammad Atta or Osama bin Laden, for example, assuming that you are more than 11 years old.)
Well, perhaps Christianity was prohibited to save religious freedom.
Most other devotional cults at the time worshiped a set of gods, but didn’t go round saying other people’s gods were unreal or demonic. It was live and let live.
The reason was the Christians refused to perform public religious rituals. The Romans didn’t care what you believed but they did expect you to go along with social norms. So the Romans wouldn’t have had any problem with the Christians believing whatever they wanted and even practicing their religion - as long as they offered the expected public sacrifices to the other established gods. The Christians, of course, refused to do this.
It was a fundamental difference in views. The Christians would say it was unthinkable for them to acknowledge any other gods - that was renouncing their own God. The Romans said “No, no, no, we’re not asking you to renounce your god. You can worship your god all you want. You can even put your god in first place. Just throw an occasional sacrifice to Jupiter and we’re cool. Heck, we’ll even put your god on the public schedule and give him some sacrifices of our own.”
Then there were the cannibalism rumors.
I’d heard that in later periods as Christianity became more popular, it was suppressed because it was seen as threatening the secular state- sort of as if rumors arose today that key public figures were secretly Scientologists.
Somebody that flies under the radar but reeked horrible consequences :
King Léopold II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo
If you want to understand how horrible he was (despite what some Belgian’s think) read King Leopold’s Ghost. http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905
What he did still impacts what is happening in Africa today.
Keep in mind that people really believed in Jupiter back then. They figured if the Christians insulted Jupiter by refusing to make sacrifices, then Jupiter would get pissed off and send an earthquake or something. And not just theoretically - a lot of people quite seriously blamed the Christians when the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410. They said the barbarians were a punishment sent by the gods for abandoning them.
Yes, he is perhaps the evilest man of the last 500 years, with the possible exception of the omnicidal warlord Zhang Xianzhong
Sir John A. Macdonald
because i want to be annoying…