What Single Shot Changed The Course Of World History The Most? (for Better Or Worse)
- Thread starter sonny
- Start date
- Status
cuchulainn
Member
Archduke Ferdinand? Yeah, probably.
But in contention is the first shot of the Russian Revolution -- the twentieth century (includingt WWI and WWII) would have been a lot different without a Soviet empire but rather a Tzarist Russia.
Also in contention, IMHO, is the first shot of the Engish against the Spanish Armada. Would England have colonized North America if it had fallen to the Armada in 1588? If not, there would be no United States, not to mention no British Empire ... different India, different Pakistan, different Middle East, different Africa, etc.
But in contention is the first shot of the Russian Revolution -- the twentieth century (includingt WWI and WWII) would have been a lot different without a Soviet empire but rather a Tzarist Russia.
Also in contention, IMHO, is the first shot of the Engish against the Spanish Armada. Would England have colonized North America if it had fallen to the Armada in 1588? If not, there would be no United States, not to mention no British Empire ... different India, different Pakistan, different Middle East, different Africa, etc.
Col. Mustard
Member
On the American history side, I'll suggest the shot that killed Stonewall Jackson. Had he been alive to assist Lee at Gettysburg, the South might have won that battle, and the Civil War.
Keith
Member
And the winner is... Colonel Mustard!
If Stonewall Jackson had not been accidently killed by his own men the South likely WOULD have won Gettysburg, splitting the US into two smaller states. If that had happened, the outcomes of both WWI and WWII would also likely have been changed. Or, if the British and French had not won in WWI, there likely would not have been a WWII to deal with in any case.
And it's all due to a messcook named O'Toole, who had neglected to get the coffee up to the picket lines! If those men had had their coffee they wouldn't have been so tired and cranky and willing to shoot at people without challenging them. O'Toole blamed it on a dog named Stinky which had bit him earlier that day and slowed him down. Stinky wasn't talking, but most people felt he was irritable because of all the shooting and furthermore had had his paw stepped on by some artilleyman's horse. Now, that horse...oh, never mind!
Keith
If Stonewall Jackson had not been accidently killed by his own men the South likely WOULD have won Gettysburg, splitting the US into two smaller states. If that had happened, the outcomes of both WWI and WWII would also likely have been changed. Or, if the British and French had not won in WWI, there likely would not have been a WWII to deal with in any case.
And it's all due to a messcook named O'Toole, who had neglected to get the coffee up to the picket lines! If those men had had their coffee they wouldn't have been so tired and cranky and willing to shoot at people without challenging them. O'Toole blamed it on a dog named Stinky which had bit him earlier that day and slowed him down. Stinky wasn't talking, but most people felt he was irritable because of all the shooting and furthermore had had his paw stepped on by some artilleyman's horse. Now, that horse...oh, never mind!
Keith
bogie
Member
Conjecture: It's been hypothesized that Lincoln likely wouldn't have lived long, regardless of the terminal lead poisoning. He wasn't in the best health, and had several conditions which could have resulted in his demise.
Kennedy wasn't one shot.
I'd go with the start of WWI.
Kennedy wasn't one shot.
I'd go with the start of WWI.
We could really go back and follow the consequences if King Harold of England hadn't been shot (albeit by an arrow) in the eye in 1066 in the Battle of Hastings. If I had to stick to firearms, I'd have to go with Ferdinand and his wife in 1914. Note that the goal was an independent Serbia which WWI achieved. It's all those unintended consequences that messed things up.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I'd have to say the Martini henry.
Mike Irwin
Member
Bogie,
Any of the shots that hit Kennedy likely would have been fatal.
Archduke Ferdinand wasn't a single shot, either. I think he was hit 3 times, his wife 2.
I really hesitate to say that a single battle would have hinged on a single person, but the supposition about Gettysburg is an interesting one.
Any of the shots that hit Kennedy likely would have been fatal.
Archduke Ferdinand wasn't a single shot, either. I think he was hit 3 times, his wife 2.
I really hesitate to say that a single battle would have hinged on a single person, but the supposition about Gettysburg is an interesting one.
Jim March
Member
Harald wasn't hit until towards the end of the battle. His 5,000 peasants (local call-up) had already taken a major beating, and his 5,000 pros were tired from a forced march from Scotland. He never had a prayer against William's 10,000 mercs.
gburner
member
The bomb at Hiroshima...not as immediately lethal as the conventional B-29 raids but ushered in our inalterable ability to destroy all life on earth. Have a nice day!
I have become death, the destroyer of worlds!
I have become death, the destroyer of worlds!
ACP230
Member
Nobody mentioned the shot fired by Tim Murphy a member of Morgan's Rifles at the Battle Of Freeman's farm. The shot, from a Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle, killed the British commander and the Brits "commenced to runnin...'" (The song this is from refers to the War of 1812, but I took some poetic license.)
That battle stopped Burgoyne from cutting the American states in two, and kept the Colonists in the fight. Without that win Washington might not have lasted long enough to beat Cornwallis in the south and the world might not have "turned upside down." (The World Turned Up Side Down was played at the British surrender.)
That battle stopped Burgoyne from cutting the American states in two, and kept the Colonists in the fight. Without that win Washington might not have lasted long enough to beat Cornwallis in the south and the world might not have "turned upside down." (The World Turned Up Side Down was played at the British surrender.)
Joe Gunns
Member
I can't agree that shots that started battles were in and of themselves significant since the battle would, in all cases cited thus far, have occured anyway.
The arguement for the immortal Jackson is interesting. Had he been present at Gettysburg he might have been successful where (was it Ewell?) failed in taking the hills south of Gettysburg, thereby turning the Union position. While it might have led to ultimate Northern defeat in the war, such does not automatically follow. Much of the Union army was still approaching, and Meade could have withdrawn to battle again on better ground. Grant still would have won at Vicksburg. There was still time before the 1864 elections for other victories to keep Lincoln in office.
In the Civil War context that shot that pinked Gen'l. Albert Sydney Johnson behind the knee, causing him to bleed to death at Shiloh is at least as significant as the one that got Jackson. Second in command Beauregard did not press the attack. Union reinforcements were gotten up river and the following day's counterattack gave Grant a victory. Had Johnson lived, Grant most likely loses, perhaps has his army destroyed -although that is less likely-, which severely handicaps his opportunities for later advancement given the already extant rumors of his drinking. No Grant on the Mississippi does Vicksburg get taken? No Grant in Virginia in 1864, does Lee get held in place and worn down?
Of the four presidential assassinations, Lincoln's had the greatest impact on US history. Regardless of how successful he could have been in promoting his let-'em-up-easy philosophy, the fight over it would have created a different chain of consequences. In another 50 years the tragic end of the sickly and vacillating Kennedy will be as dim as Garfield's or McK's.
Unlikely that the Kingfish would have been elected, although, had he lived, he might have drawn enough votes from Roosevelt so the Republicans won.
The non-shot at Washington, if not apocryphal (sp?), is certainly significant. But is, after all, an event that didnt happen. (What if Osama bin Laden had been eaten by that White shark while he was swimming in the Indian Ocean on a family vacation in 1974?)
Sadat was most likely dead sooner or later, he had stepped too far out of the box for most in his world to tolerate.
I think the shot/shots that did for the archduke Ferdinand get my vote. Unlikely that he would have been assassinated had Princip failed, based on subsequent survival rates of other world leaders following failed attempts. War might have come over some other issue, since the Kaiser was so hot to prove he could whip his cousins and uncles, but such an outcome is much less certain sans the dead archduke.
The arguement for the immortal Jackson is interesting. Had he been present at Gettysburg he might have been successful where (was it Ewell?) failed in taking the hills south of Gettysburg, thereby turning the Union position. While it might have led to ultimate Northern defeat in the war, such does not automatically follow. Much of the Union army was still approaching, and Meade could have withdrawn to battle again on better ground. Grant still would have won at Vicksburg. There was still time before the 1864 elections for other victories to keep Lincoln in office.
In the Civil War context that shot that pinked Gen'l. Albert Sydney Johnson behind the knee, causing him to bleed to death at Shiloh is at least as significant as the one that got Jackson. Second in command Beauregard did not press the attack. Union reinforcements were gotten up river and the following day's counterattack gave Grant a victory. Had Johnson lived, Grant most likely loses, perhaps has his army destroyed -although that is less likely-, which severely handicaps his opportunities for later advancement given the already extant rumors of his drinking. No Grant on the Mississippi does Vicksburg get taken? No Grant in Virginia in 1864, does Lee get held in place and worn down?
Of the four presidential assassinations, Lincoln's had the greatest impact on US history. Regardless of how successful he could have been in promoting his let-'em-up-easy philosophy, the fight over it would have created a different chain of consequences. In another 50 years the tragic end of the sickly and vacillating Kennedy will be as dim as Garfield's or McK's.
Unlikely that the Kingfish would have been elected, although, had he lived, he might have drawn enough votes from Roosevelt so the Republicans won.
The non-shot at Washington, if not apocryphal (sp?), is certainly significant. But is, after all, an event that didnt happen. (What if Osama bin Laden had been eaten by that White shark while he was swimming in the Indian Ocean on a family vacation in 1974?)
Sadat was most likely dead sooner or later, he had stepped too far out of the box for most in his world to tolerate.
I think the shot/shots that did for the archduke Ferdinand get my vote. Unlikely that he would have been assassinated had Princip failed, based on subsequent survival rates of other world leaders following failed attempts. War might have come over some other issue, since the Kaiser was so hot to prove he could whip his cousins and uncles, but such an outcome is much less certain sans the dead archduke.
answerguy
Member
Imagine how much different the USA would be now if we had faced the problem of racism in the 1860's rather than the 1960's.
We may have freed the slaves during the Civil War but we only set them up for something almost as bad.
Uncle Ethan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 156
A Sharps .44 bought from Bat masterson
And used by Billy Dixon at the 2nd Battle of Adobe Walls against the horde led by Quahna Parker. Billy's shot that shot an indian off his horse at 7/8ths of a mile made the indians a bit less enthusiastic. The out come of this battle marked the beginning of the Plains Indiansd being put onto Reservations. A single shot from a single shot.
And used by Billy Dixon at the 2nd Battle of Adobe Walls against the horde led by Quahna Parker. Billy's shot that shot an indian off his horse at 7/8ths of a mile made the indians a bit less enthusiastic. The out come of this battle marked the beginning of the Plains Indiansd being put onto Reservations. A single shot from a single shot.
There was a Dutch Resistance sniper who delayed the nazi occupation of the Netherlands by six months with 160 gr fmj from a 6.5 Mannlicher. He shot a German general in the head. The sniper waited until the staff car was driving directly at his position until he opened fire. The shot was placed through the windshield and maimed the officer but didn't kill him. The delay allowed the escape of tens of thousands of Dutch Jews from the Netherlands. Was this the most important shot? It was to the people who escaped! What other single shot saved so many lives?
The most important shot is the one that saves your life.
edited to read nazi occupation instead of invasion -- oops -- The nazis were already in country -- they just didn't have enough troops to fully occupy and control the country. It took several more months to get into position to start the "internment process" for the Jews
The most important shot is the one that saves your life.
edited to read nazi occupation instead of invasion -- oops -- The nazis were already in country -- they just didn't have enough troops to fully occupy and control the country. It took several more months to get into position to start the "internment process" for the Jews
Last edited:
RON in PA
Member
106rr: Could you please elaborate as this is the first time I've heard of this. Delaying the German invasion of Holland in 1940?. Don't believe it.
I'll have to agree with many of the others that suggested the shooting of the Austrian Archduke. Two world wars, the rise of Communism and the Cold War. That's a massive pile of corpses.
I'll have to agree with many of the others that suggested the shooting of the Austrian Archduke. Two world wars, the rise of Communism and the Cold War. That's a massive pile of corpses.
GoldenLoki
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 101
I'll nominate the shot Jack Ruby put into Lee Harvey Oswald. This launched a thousand conspiracy theories and a lot of distrust of our government. There is no telling what Oswald would have said had he made it to trial.
Probably not "the" most significant, but an important one none the less.
In my lifetime the most significant is the shot Lon Horiuchi put into Vicki Weaver. It caused me to look at our Government with a critical eye for the first time.
GL
Probably not "the" most significant, but an important one none the less.
In my lifetime the most significant is the shot Lon Horiuchi put into Vicki Weaver. It caused me to look at our Government with a critical eye for the first time.
GL
- Status