Except, even though the Hellenistic world was politically divided, ideas still spread throughout it. Look at the spread of Aristotelianism, Stoicisim, and Epicurianism. I mean, if you look, the last two leaders of the Early Stoic school were Diogenes of Babylon (born in Seleucia) and then Antipater of Tarsus. In fact, the post-Alexander era is generally considered the flowering of Greek philosophy.
And when you say “the advent of the three Abrahamic religions”, what do you mean? Judaism didn’t really disembowrl Greek scientific and philosophical knowledge, Christianity didn’t come along until about 400 years later, and was pretty much dominated by Greek thought anyway (after the first century, Christianity was pretty much a mixture of Stoicism and Platonism) and Islam doesn’t really come along for about 900 years.
Henry VIII’s son Edward VI died at 15, he lived in a dangerous time and had he lived Bloody Mary and Elizabeth wouldn’t have been the tumultuous factors that they were.
Lincoln would have done a much better job with Reconstruction and had he lived perhaps organizations like the KKK would have been crushed and there would not have been a need for MLK.
I’m going to have to agree with the Captain here. Alexander’s early death had a profound political impact, but he had already ushered in the Hellenistic Age and Greek intellectual thought did not suddenly crumble and grind to a halt with his demise. Just as an example the court of Antigonus II Gonatas in Pella was ground central for Stoicism ( but also included important Cynic philosophers ) and was notable for its intellectualism. Unlike the megalomaniac Alexander, Antigonus humbly refused to be deified and true to his Stoic training ( and despite his personal worship of Pan ) adopted the workaholic attitude of the “royal servant.”
A unified Argead empire may have extended the ultimately ephemeral nature of Hellenism in the eastern half of the empire. Then again it may not of - Alexander himself was already leaning more on the trapping of the Persian state before his death. Nor can we predict that civil wars between rival princes may not have resulted in the same fission only a generation or two later than it actually occurred. Alexander’s survival for another 30 years is a very intriguing what if, but I’m not seeing it as causing a greater flowering of Greek intellectualism than what was already in the works.
Tut-ankh-amun, especially if still trading as Tut-ankh-aten. Perhaps even more so his sister-wife, Ankh-sen-pa-aten, had she managed to establish a dynastic link with the Hittites.
Harthacnut, or Harald-Harefoot, if they’d lived to establish an more lasting Anglo-Scandinavian empire they would probably never have been a successful Norman invasion. Similarly the elder son of Earl Siward, killed in combat with the armies of MacBeth, his death meant that the death of Siward allowed the earldom of Northumbria to fall into the hands of the Godwin and later Leofric families, leading to Tostig’s treacherous solicitation of the Norse and Edwin and Morcar’s defeat at Fulford. Going back further, Edmund Ironside.
Rasputin.
I’ve always favoured the idea that he was done in by the gods, for blasphemously displacing a slave from his Babylonian throne. OR drinking himself to death at a drinking contest (it’s known that several members of his army died that way). Or that arrow he got in the lung, that can’t have helped. Even with fourth century BC medical techniques, an arrow in the lung isn’t a nice thing.
I don’t think he showed any sign of movement towards establishing the Commonwealth as anything other that a bulwark for his own power. Certainly a man who banned football and Christmas was never going to be remembered fondly, no matter how long he lived.
Perhaps it would not have been Greek intellectualism that would’ve flowered had Alexander lived longer but intellectualism throughout Eurasia. The existence of a stable (and I emphasize stable) empire extending from Greece to India would’ve greatly improved trade and the flow of ideas among the region’s cultures and opened up other areas (e.g., China) for more direct exchange. (I am aware there was some contact–through many middlemen–between the Far East and the Mediterranean world at that time. However, an empire like Alexander’s may have made things more efficient.)
Also, there’s the question of whether Alexander was eventually planning to turn west and deal with the Romans. Even if he wasn’t, it would’ve seemed inevitable that the Greeks and Romans were eventually going to clash over something.
About Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon: Henry was (by all acounts) a clever lad who could write and speak several languages, write poetry, win jousts, spend money like water (once he got his hands on his father’s savings) - he was there for a good time, not for a long time. Or, he wasn’t too gifted re: thinking ahead.
Katherine spent most of her time in religious contemplation. We know she wasn’t too impressed when her first husband, Arthur, died shortly after their marriage (and she signed a confession that they’d never consummated their marriage). Instead of going back to Spain, her father in law married her to the playboy prince, partly because he didn’t want to give back her dowry. Henry VIII buckled under (after all, the old man couldn’t last forever); with one sister married to France and the other married to Scotland, he had only Katherine’s relations to worry about. Meh, what they didn’t know wouldn’t hurt them.
However, Henry VII had become king by conquest. He needed to leave an heir behind, and he needed to have his heir/s leave heirs. Henry VIII inherited this need for male heirs, and Katherine didn’t deliver.
The idea that a suitable heir via Katherine would have changed English history is an untested assumption, no? Henry left most of the long-term solutions to his ministers, and Katherine left most of her decisions up to God and the Virgin Mary. I am of the opinion that any child of their would not be stable enough to rule. And for proof, if you need it, look up “Bloody Mary”, her life and times. Can we not postulate that Katherine and Henry were not ideally suited to raising
marvellous monarchs?
Her’s was hardly a typical childhood even by Renaissance era royalty standards. Had her parents not separated and she not been forbidden to see her mother and literally been in fear of her life periodically she probably would not have been nearly as zealous in her hatred of non-Catholics. Plus to her credit she actually tried to be religiously tolerant but after the revolts she basically said “Queen Hardass is in the house!”
Or if Caligula had lived a normal life span (assuming he wasn’t actually crazy, maybe he would have mellowed out…haha) that would have extended the reign of the Julio-Claudians for another hundred or so years (assuming his daughter produced an heir or he went on to have a son).
Mary I was 17 when her younger sister was born - and demoted to Lady Mary rather than Princess Mary. She was removed from her mother at this time and ordered to dance attendance on her sister. And also declared illegitimate. These events did nothing to cement any sisterly affection.
Elizabeth was about 3 when her mother was executed, and Henry married Jane Seymour about two weeks later. (Jane was already pregnant - if the baby was a boy, he HAD to be legitimate). Now Elizabeth was known as ‘my lady Elizabeth’ instead of Princess. Although Elizabeth had a good relationship with her half brother, Edward, Mary wasn’t any too pleased to be anywhere near either of her half-siblings.
Next came Anne of Cleves, whom Henry styled, ‘a great Flanders mare’. Married for reasons of statescraft, Henry divorced her and married Catherine Howard, 30 years his junior. Catherine was related to Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth’s mother. She was a motherly type but her influence didn’t last long. Like her cousin Anne, she, too was executed - roughly 18 months after her marriage.
In '43 Henry married Catherine Parr. In her first ten years, Elizabeth had had four stepmothers - one died in childbirth, one executed, one divorced and one
who outlived Henry. She’d seen how Mary and she were treated. The rest of her life she steered clear of dominant men.
Edward VI was by all accounts a sweet child but he was never a player. He was
weak enough to parrot the wishes of those politicians he admired (look up Jane Grey and her ‘claim’ to the throne). He died of TB after disinheriting his two sisters.
So no, I stand by my contention that Henry and Katherine (and Anne and Jane and Anne and Catherine and Catherine) didn’t make great parental material.
Yes, Elizabeth I was a great Queen, but I doubt you can lay that at her parents’ doors.
Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon of his own free will
shortly after the death of his father Henry VII. It is quite
possbile he was in love with her at the time.
I am not sure the stern and miserly H7 would have put up
with much playboy activity from his son.
Since H8 sired the great Elizabeth it might be that the parental
fitness impeachment investigation should be limited to Katherine’s
bloodline. I do not think fair judgement can be made on the basis
of the career of one surviving child.
For those who have an attention span up to 800+ pages the book The Autobiography of Henry VIII (historical fiction) by Margaret George
is as good as it gets for the genre.
I don’t really see what having another great writer surviving the Holocaust would do to change the world. I mean, it’s a tragedy she died, of course, but what would she have done to change world history that Elie Wiesel couldn’t? And that, of course, is assuming that she would have been famous if she hadn’t died. Had she lived, she might not have chosen to publish her diary, and there’s no guarantee that she’d ever be able to write something that powerful again.
Yes, but the premise that’s been posited involves Henry and Catherine never separating in the first place: he would have taken lovers, but not married a string of women nor had half of them decapitated; there would not have been an Elizabeth or an Edward; Mary would have been displaced by her younger brother but would have remained a Princess, and would have been raised by both parents.
If she had lived longer you never would have heard of her . . . Or, do you mean the conditions that would have allowed her to live longer would be history-changing?
If we can stretch “young” to cover Lincoln (age 56), we can also include Ögedei Khan (age 55), whose timely death forestalled a Mongol invasion into central Europe.
