The Agricultural Revolution probably altered the course of history more than any other event. The switch from hunter-gather to agriculture spawned what we now think of as civilization. By being able to stay sedentary and stockpile food, some members of tribes could specialize in jobs that didn't involve finding food and surviving the day. With job specialization comes religion and politics, since people could spend their time as spiritual leaders and political leaders instead of always contributing to the search for food. Pretty much everything we know stems from that.

The Industrial Revolution comes in 2nd place in my mind. It changed the world's economies, changed who the dominant powers in the world would be, and (eventually) gave the masses an opportunity to have actual leisure time.

Many historians consider the computer age the third phase of the Industrial Revolution, and computers have certainly altered the course of history in many ways.

If you need a specific day/event, James Watt perfecting the steam engine helped spark the industrial revolution and a second agricultural revolution, so you could go with that.

Guttenberg inventing the printing press. True, the Chinese had this technology centuries earlier, but Guttenberg introducing it in Europe had much more far reaching implications. It was basically the beginning of Protestantism, since the masses could now afford bibles to read for themselves. It also was responsible for a huge leap in literacy rates - not because people wanted to read the bible, but because they wanted to read the pornographic stories that were coming of the presses.

While the black death was important, it did not promote cleanliness or scientific thought. True, peoples who had better hygiene at the time, like the Jews, suffered from the plague less. But most (if any) people of the time did not know that that was the reason. Scientific thought does not really surge forward until the 1500s. And while Europe did come out of the dark ages around the time of the black death, I think it was more because they rekindled contact with the Asian and Muslim civilizations thanks to the Crusades that brought them out of the dark ages. The plague was just a nasty side effect.

I have to disagree with this. The Louisiana Purchase was the start of the United States march to the Pacific Ocean. Had the US been split into 3 or 4 nations at the start of WW1 it would have had a dramatic effect on world history.

Nelson victory at Trafalgar > Luther's 99 Theses > Hogan slamming Andre at Wrestlemania III

I don't think WWI is the greatest issue here; but instead the techno/domination of USA would be completely changed? I'm no pro on the US but the states gained alot from interreliance; and they would not have been able to become dominant around the world if they did not share the north easts intellectual capacity, the souths wealth, Atlanta's enterprise, and the bible belts patriotism? All together their only great as a result of each other; as such a lack of unity would have changed alot more than the result of WWI (which IMHO was only a border issue as opposed to the important ideological WWII issue)

I wouldn't say that, exactly. More the natural resources and the unbridled optimism available when your destiny seems limitless.

WWI set the stage for WWII which in turn set the stage for the modern era. Once the domino of WWI falls a different direction, everything that comes after is irrevocably changed.

You are correct that the US would have a much harder time becoming an economic and military superpower.

I doubt it would have made much difference. American trappers, prospectors, miners, and settlers went pretty much where they wanted regardless of nuisances like national claims to territories or treaties with Indian Nations. Possession is de facto ownership of territories and it was inevitable lands to the west of the expanding American population would become populated by those Americans.

No manifest destiny was required for the individuals who went to Texas despite its technical ownership by Mexico. No manifest destiny was required for them to simply claim the territory for themselves and wrest all control from Mexico when the time was right. And no manifest destiny was required for them to see their best future as part of the country where their relatives were and from which they came. Manifest destiny was just a fancy rationalization for the natural forces apparent to everyone. America was bound to expand to the west and occupy those lands because there was practically nobody else around to do it.




PairTheBoard

This led to the dissolution of many state wrestling commisions, as many states finally realized that it was entertainment
[and so f***ing what if it was occasionally rigged?]

The second Russian Revolution of 1917 was undoubtedly the most important single event of the 20th century. The rise of the Soviet Union shaped the whole realm of international relations, political discourse, and foreign and economic policy across the world for almost a century, and was ultimately the indirect link behind proxy wars such as Vietnam and Korea. It could also have led to end of the world if a nuclear WW3 were to have ensued, which as well all know, nearly did.


Cant believe this hasnt been mentioned yet!

Yes, but the Industrial Revolution wasnt really a revolution in so much as it was not an event that simply occurred over a matter of days/weeks/months - It happened across decades. Also, i see it less of something that 'altered the course' of history because i see it as part of wider fabric of socio-economic-political developments that take place over time.

Incorrect imo. The decline of the British Empire only began after WW1, where in fact it was at its zeneath. Common misconception to associate teh relative decline of British industry with the decline of her empire as a whole. Besides, the British Empire, although fairly important in bringing about structured societies and western language and culture to many parts of the world, was relatively unimportant in shaping the world we live in today.

Relatively unimportant? Relative to what exactly?

Language, sport (soccer, cricket and Rugby), railways and transportation, vacination, new standards of hygeine and medicine (see medical journal The Lancet), scientific enlightenment namely classical physics and the theory of eltromagnetism; Adam Smith and the division of labour, the birth of consummerism, the birth of the industrial revolution and the exploitation of fossil fuels (including oil), the invention of the television and the lightbulb, the forming of nuclear physics, the abolishment of slavery, colonies and thus the rise of the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada imbuing these with their character and identity, the jet engine and the steam engine, Shakespeare, the early computing device (babbage machine), the invention of the electric generator, the division of the middleast and rise of Israel, and probably someother stuff.

+ For a long time most democratic in the world,
Maintained BOP in Europe for ages leading to the shaping of nation states.
Age of enlgihtenment was CENTRAL in Scotland. the pol philosophy of democracy liberalism etc., owes so much to British thought (Scottish specifically but back then....)

Thank you. I was listing things from the top of my head. I believe also the fridge/freezer was invented in Scotland, but not certain.

If I were to use Google to investigate and identify the importance of the legacy of the British Empire to the world, I would have a list about 17, 000 pages long

I know its a bit of a joke sport but dont forget baseball.

Did not mean relatively unimportant - was pointing out that the British Empire declined much later compared to industrial its decline.

I meant relative industrial decline in sense of relative to other industrial nations who were industrialising at a faster rate late 19th century onwards. i.e. British industry was still growing but was it was in decline RELATIVE to other nations. As opposed to an absolute decline, which would be wrong.