mindstalk: (0)
mindstalk ([personal profile] mindstalk) wrote in [personal profile] redrikki 2019-07-22 05:31 am (UTC)

But the same story has Palpatine, single-handedly making quite large changes.

Dictators may have limited power to fix things but they can have a lot of power to break things.

I read _The Crusades Through Arab Eyes_ recently. Even if the Crusades were doomed to ultimately loose their conquered lands -- which I don't think is really obvious -- whether Arab rulers were competent or not, and whether competent ones died early, made a huge difference to lots of actual people. Likewise the Crusader who basically destroyed Cyprus for loot and lolz.

I don't think you likely get the Holocaust without Hitler.

I'm not sure you get the moon landing without JFK, or maybe JFK's assassination to make it a point of commitment.

If Bush loses 2000 I don't think the US invades Iraq, so no massive power vacuum there, no or far weaker ISIS...

Not to mention that Russian guy, not even a leader, who is credited with keeping a level head and preventing WWIII from breaking out in 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
If he had decided otherwise, then Andropov could have become the one guy who changed the trajectory of history by ending it.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting