This comes out of a conversation: Saddam, alive or dead, or does it matter?
In the course of history, has the death of any one single person caused a war to turn? We came up with several names, but nothing definitive.
Tojo was killed, but the US were going to win that war anyway.
Rommel died, and perhaps he could have convinced the German high command that the invasion was really at Normandy. If the beaches were held, would Germany have held Europe?
Stonewall Jackson was dead at the time of Gettysburgh. If he was there, could the Confederates have won and thus gotten Britain on their side and achieved a truce?
Helen of Troy was kidnapped, and started a war, which clearly turned the tide of the war. Doesn’t count, talking about a man’s death.
The best I could come up was that one guy, the father of one of the Khan’s, who died as the Mongols were at the gates of Vienna. They all turned around for the funeral, and Europe remained European.
Not Tojo, but Yamamoto. Tojo lived to be tried for war crimes.
Holding Normandy would have changed the face of Europe by allowing the Soviets to win the war in northern Europe single-handedly, but they were going to beat Germany, anyway.
You can make an argument for Jackson, but it would simply be an argument. (It is easier to argue that Jackson would have been a big help at Gettysburg than to argue that Britain would have ignored all the abolitionists in Britain to openly support the South.)
The arrow-in-the-eye death of Harold (last of the Anglo-Saxon kings) at the Battle of Hastings might be a good candidate for one man’s death turning the tide of a war. Although it’s not a certainty that it was actually Harold himself who died like that. Then again, it was probably somebody important whose death may have had the same effect.
How about this one: The murder of the Czar of Russia during WWI. The subsequent withdrawal of Russia from the fighting certainly influenced the progress of the war, but maybe not the outcome.
Well, I think the case of the Czar’s death didn’t really turn the war, if by “turn” it means “change the course so the other side could win.”
I think that the allies would have won (assuming all else stayed pretty much the same - e.g. the U.S. joining) regardless of the man’s status (i.e. dead or alive).
That was Ogotai Khan, the son of Genghis Khan. Ogotai wasn’t just the father of a Khan, he was the Khan himself following his father’s death. When he died in 1241, the Mongol leaders in Europe returned not just for his funeral, but also to pick the new Khan (which ended up being Ogotai’s son Kuyuk).
I’d say the death of Gustavus Adolphus in 1632 turned the course of the Thirty Years War.
Czar Nicholas II abdicated (under pressure) in March, 1917. The Bolsheviks took power at the end of that year and completed a truce with Germany in March, 1918. Nicholas was not murdered until July, 1918.
Yes, tomndebb, it was Yamamoto. I was too excited with the topic to check my facts, my bad.
Re the South winning at Gettysburgh: there’s almost no doubt that Lee would have taken Washington, the path was clear. Not gonna argue that Jackson would have won it, just a “what if”.
I did check on the battle for Europe. I don’t know North Park University, but this did show up, which jives with what I remember reading a while back:
Batu Khan was the grandson of Ghenghis Khan and the son of Odegai Khan.
Here are the pertinent paragraphs (the year is 1222):
"Two days after the disaster at Liegnitz, Batu himself crushed the army of Hungary at the city of Mohi, on the banks of the River Sato. The same day, the Croatians frustrated him at the city of Grobnok. Undiscouraged, he headed south again. The next two blows would fall in December, with the destruction of the city of Lahore on the 22nd, and culminating in the destruction of the great city of Pest on Christmas Day. With a string of terrible defeats behind them and a new year soon approaching, Europe was in serious trouble.
However, the expected apocalypse was not to be, for in early 1242, word reached Batu of the death of his father, the Great Khan. Tradition demanded that a successor be chosen, and Batu and Khaidu were forced to return to the capital in Krakorum. They were forced to pull out of Europe, and the decimated nations of Eastern Europe were given a chance to rebuild their homes. Christendom may owe its existence today to the death of an old Asian war chief back in 1241."
I’m still curious, and at this point I’m thinking Tolstoy > Dostoyevski.
Because among the brilliant, witty, and caustic (but always ethical) people who populate these boards, we also encounter, from time to time, a nasty troll who would post horrible insults, then, after eliciting outraged rejoinders, edit them out for the purpose of claiming that he had been unjustly attacked. Thus, EDIT is disabled.
Just back from a little online research on Mogolian geneology. It is quickly apparent that transcribing Mongolian spelling to English is not an exact science. But here goes.
Presumedly everyone has heard of Genghis Khan (aka Chingiz, Jengis) who was Emperor from 1206 to 1227. When he died, he was suceeded by his son Ogotai Khan (aka Ogotay, Ogedei, Ugedey) who was Emperor from 1227 to 1241. When Ogotai died, his son Kuyuk Khan (aka Guyuk) was named as his successor, but because of his age, Ogotai’s widow Turakina Khatun (aka Toregene) acted as regent for Kuyuk from 1241 to 1246. Kuyuk Khan became Emperor in 1246 and died in 1248. He was, incidentally, succeeded by Mongke Khan (aka Mangu, Monakka, and Monkey which I admit is my own invention) who was Emperor until 1257, and who has no other bearing to this post.
Batu Khan was the grandson of Genghis Khan but his relationship to Ogotai is less clear. I found sources that called Ogotai his father and others that said Ogotai was his uncle. Who knows? Maybe there was a particularly drunken party going on the night Batu was conceived. But anyways, Batu Khan was the leader of the European expedition that turned back after Ogotai’s death. But he was not chosen as Ogotai’s successor.
There was a Khaidu who was a general in Batu Khan’s army, but Khaidu apparently was a fairly common name among the Mongols as Khaidu was the founder of the first unified Mongolian kingdom. I found references to at least four seperate Khaidus in my quick search, so it seems to have been the equivalent of Scott in Medieval Mongolia.
Had President Kennedy lived, would he have escalated our presence in Viet Nam or would he have withdrawn our troops? While he was in office, we were still in an “advisory” capacity .
Rommel, given the choice of suicide for his role in the assasination attempt on the fuhrer. While WW 2 would have been won anyways , there is always the possilbility that Rommel may have made it more expensive had he not gotten involved.
Yamato, probably the best leader the japs had, could have made the war more expensive to prosecute to the final.
Patton, dead of a car accident, might have continued WW2 with the russians as the enemy.
Gorby , still alive and well , but was removed briefly in a coup.Had the idiots in charge of that coup been more smart , a brief nuclear civil war was possible.
China, can’t remember who was in charge , but the whole leadership of the chinese govt was ready to pull out and boogie in mass to russia , with the events leading up to the tiamnen massacre, again possible nuclear civil war.
Saddam , present day. Personally I think he is a smear on some wall but had he not been targeted its probable that the Army and the Republican gaurds would have had a more cohesive battle plan ,rather than the fragmentary situation as present.
The death of Empress Elizabeth of Russia in 1762 is generally credited with saving Frederick the Great and Prussia during the Seven Years War. Elizabeth was succeeded by her German-born nephew, Peter III, who admired Frederick and immediately withdrew Russia from the coalition which had been successfully fighting Prussia. The remaining coalition partners then agreed to a peace treaty which left Prussian territory inviolate and confirmed it as a major European power.
Alexander the Great was only 33 when he kicked (by poison or infection; no-one’s sure), in the middle of his conquests. Had he lived long enough to consolidate his Empire… well, I dunno…
Sorry, not really pertaining to the original question but…
If Saddam and Osama are dead, wouldn’t it be better not to say anything and let their memories dissipate instead of making them martyrs for their cause?