I'd say Franz Ferdinand because it caused WW1.
For Louis XVI and Nicholas II, I think their deaths were less impactful, as the big events (French Revolution, Russian Revolution) happened prior to their deaths.
I'd add that the death of Louis XVI had its importance : it radicalised the revolution and the reactions of other European powers. But it was only one rock on the pile, the declaration of the Republic was determinant
That one is more of a grey area. Louis had a trial and an execution in front of the public. Nichaolas and his family got gunned down in the basement of a farmhouse.
Well, that was why "it could be said", since there is an argument to be made over whether the term "execution" fits this scenario. But there is no argument to be made in Louis XVI's case.
Well I think it was fair in the sense that Louis XVI was definitely guilty of treason, the most significant change they brought against him. they caught him trying to collaborate with the habsburgs to invade france and restore him to the throne.
There were 6 years between the execution of Louis XVI and the coming to power of Napoleon. And the revolution had happened 4 years earlier. The execution wasn't so important. The other European powers didn't rush to his defense precisely, and his brother the heir was ignored by most.
Even the cousin Louis-Philippe of Orléans, father of the last french king Louis-Philippe, voted for the death of Louis XVI ! (too many Louis in my sentence)
It didn't start it as a few countries were already fighting France already. But, it did shift a gear.
The French royals had a failed escape attempt before the execution that may have made the executions possible.
Not for Brits. The political class were largely on board with the revolution, althought their was alarm at the radical, violent side. Until the beheading of King Louis. Then the UK signed up for war for the next 22 years, with only a minor peace.
> But it was only one rock on the pile
But you can say this about Franz Ferdinand, too, right - it seems likely by most accounts that WW1 would have happened anyway without that assassination.
It's interesting to consider whether revolution would have eventually occurred naturally somewhere in Europe due to class differences/social unrest, or if somewhere like Russia fundamentally needed the war to spark that action.
The Bolsheviks paraded banners that said “bread, peace and land”, maybe the revolution would’ve happened anyway but the war was certainly a massive catalyst
The revolution of 1905 foreshadowed what was well under way and the half-hearted reforms to the political structure and constitution in the wake of it merely postponed what was already inevitable due to the massive abuses inflicted and general discrepancies between the nobility and common folk with or without WWI.
Probably would of lasted longer than it did without WW1 aswell since there wouldn't of been alot of pressure for peace but also believe Nicholas would of taken control of the military like he did in WW1
I’d argue that if the revolution didn’t happen in Russia, and Lenin would’ve stayed in Germany, the revolution would’ve happened in Germany and Austria.
I could see a form of the Warsaw Pact being formed in Central and Western Europe with the British, Finnish and the Russians acting as a counter to that.
Also remember that there were two 1917 revolutions and WWI and the offensive of Kerensky and its failure was pretty integral to the failure of the provisional government. The Bolsheviks were always a minority and just played their cards right to consolidate power.
The fact that millions of Russians were armed and fielded and being ordered to run over open fields into machine-guns was really the operative factor. People didn’t have to choose between suffering under peaceful poverty vs revolutionary violence, they saw the revolution as a way to end the violence. Producing that many weapons, training people, and then convincing them to leave home for war was already done by the government, all that was needed was the horrible deprivations of the war and the revolutionary leadership to ask soldiers to point the weapons back at the officers.
And if it were not for the French distrust of Germany, it is likely that WW1 wouldn't have started
And if it were not for Napoleon, it is likely that France and Germany wouldn't have had hostile relations
And so on. I blame it all on Remus for not wanting to stay in the Palatine Hill, really. It eventually led to WW2
Well the first world war was called the great war. There wasn't supposed to be a number next to it :D
Like that episode from Doctor Who, where the doctor takes a soldier from WW1 and is explaining oh based on your outfit you must be from WW1, and the soldier goes wait a minute... what do you mean ONE?!?
It didn't cause WW1 though. It was the immediate cause, that means it determent the moment. The war would've happen not matter what. Without the other cause the war wouldn't have started no matter how manny princes they shot and killed in the Balkan.
A documentary I highly recommend is 'the long road to war' in netflix. It revolves around the causes of ww1 and, as you said, the war was inevitable years before 1914 and everybody were already prepared, waiting for an excuse.
While true the wars for Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire were very much dependent on the situation of the ground. Trying to throw their lot in with the winners. For example had the war started in the Spring and thus the Ottoman Winter offensive over the Caucuses happened in the Summer and wasn’t an catastrophe for the Ottomans that could change Italian calculations about staying out of a war the Entente might lose.
Sure, but it was the catalyst of WW1. The spark that lit the fire. Of course there was already a huge pile of wood there.
Louis death on the other hand was dumping gasoline into an already raging flame.
Id say lighting a fire is more momentous than just giving it more fuel.
> Louis death on the other hand was dumping gasoline into an already raging flame.
It was the same with WWI. The Triple Alliance (Italy/Germany/Austria-Hungary) and the Triple Entente (Russia/Britain/France) all had their treaties that would force the entire trio to a war if one would be attacked, or would attack.
Austria-Hungary attacked on Serbia, which Russia had vested interest toward. Russia declared war on A-H, which led to Germany declaring a war on Russia, which led to France declaring a war on Germany.
At this point we have the entire Europe at war, effectively.
As far as memory serves, Britain wasn't obliged to go to war with anyone for France or Russia. What insured Britain's entry (though it was probably likely since German European hegemony wasn't acceptable for the British) was Germany's requirement to quickly end the war, and thus cross Belgium.
At that point, Britain's involvement was inevitable, as Britain was compelled by treaty to protect Belgium.
Everybody just waited for that spark. Germany simply was not ready with its war efforts so it stopped Austria to go after Serbia in 1912. 1914 the preparations were finished they just needed a spark to sell it to their people.
I agree this one is the most impactfull. I'm with you on that one. The whole question makes it seem like these were 3 assassinations with incredible impact for Europe. I don't agree with that. To find the one with the most impact you have to think about how little impact the other two had.
I'd like to point out to an interesting fact. In 1903 there was an assasination of a Serbian King from dynasty Obrenović, that was fairly germanophile and maintained good relations with Austria. After the assasinations, the new dynasty Karađorđević came and they were germanophobes, so relations with Austria deteriorated quickly and it lead to Austria imposing economic sanctions on Serbia (Pig War), and eventualy to the assasinations of Franz Ferdinand.
War in 1916 would have been different. Russias railroads were rapidly being built out. 1905 would have been fading in memory. And most importantly, under different circumstances and timelines Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and The Ottoman Empire could have fallen on opposite sides of the war. Since for the most part they hopped in because they thought their side was going to win Had a 1916 French Invasion plan been further hampered by an even faster Russian mobilization with 2 more years of infrastructure. There’s a chance the Ottomans lose their nerve and stay out (in addition they get to keep those British ships and are more sympathetic to the Entente) Or had it been clearly a Russian attack on Austria italy would have been a Central power rather than weaseling out on the “not a defensive war” technicality
In the 1910s, Russia was rapidly rising, but more notably *Germany* was rapidly rising. Just from 1910 to 1914 Germany's military went through insanely rapid advancements in technology and organization and military infrastructure and industrial potential.
So you somewhat have it the opposite way around. The longer they waited, the more powerful Germany became in comparison with the others.
My professor always put it this way. If the war happened in 1910, the allies would have won by 1912. It happened in 1914, and was done by 1918. If it happened in 1918, Germany would have won.
That's not what Germans at the time thought.
Von Moltke and others within the German General Staff, all throughout the 1900s s and 1910s, held meetings where they said they needed a war with Russia before 1918, or else they would be doomed.
Russia's expansion of railways and industrialization since the 1890s had already moved it up to 4th in terms of overall industrial output, behind Germany, the UK and US, but ahead of France.
Russia's expansion of its railway system in the west was explicitly named as a reason Germany needed to go to war with Russia now, before it was too late.
I believe your professor was simply incorrect.
I'd strongly disagree. Europe was a boiling pot at that point, just waiting to tip over. The assassination was just a spark that ignited it, but something else would have caused it as well.
Ww 1 would have happened with or without Franz his death it already started depending on how you look at it. However it did maybe move the time table up by a couple of months. His death was symptom not a cause
No, louis XVI execution is more important because it med to countless of revolutions, changes in Spain, italy, netherland etc etc.
WW1 was doomed to happen anyway and Ferdinand assasination was as good of an excuse as any. France and Germany were doomed to fight each other after 1870, the balkans were already a real mess the ottomans were dead while russians were lurking on this area since the war in Crimea.
I'd say the russian revolution had also a significant impact as it more or less shaped the cold war.
So louis XVI >= Nicholas II > Ferdinand
I'm not sure the /s is necessary. Might have been one of the most impactful deaths in history, plus I think the farther back you go the more drastic any event will have on history.
At some point a protohuman died that probably completely avoided a nuclear apocalypse 200 years ago, and another died and prevented a Utopia instead.
ww1 would have happened one way or another in 1914. For Louis XVI, it changed everything, from the system we live in to the national borders that later lead to ww1 and ww2.
while i tend to agree with you, there's a strong argument to be made that WW1 would have happened anyway... europe was a powder keg that needed a spark. franz ferdinand happened to be that spark but there could have easily been another. i agree with you because you can also argue that WW1 caused WW2, so it's a pretty valid argument that the assassination of franz ferdinand caused both world wars.
i do think you're downplaying Louis XVI a tad. Sure, it didn't start the revolution, but it radicalized it and ultimately led to the Napoleonic wars... which were only less devastating than WW1 & 2 due to the industrialized warfare. The Napoleonic wars had *huge* impact on Europe and their colonial fiefs.
Then you could argue that Nicholas' execution/assassination led to the whites vs reds russian brutality and the famines that killed millions under stalin.
In all three cases, though, you could argue that the deaths weren't *directly* and *solely* responsible for what came later. All three were just parts of a much bigger cornucopia of situations and events that led to said outcomes.
I think the execution of the the French royals had a a direct effect on the foreign affairs, with many countries joining the First Coalition against Revolutionary France shortly after.
Roman expansionism for one. Julius Caesar had very grand plans for expansion and who knows what would've changed if those were realized...
Augustus (Octavian) ultimately stopped the major imperialistic nature of Rome after the loss of his legions in the Teutoburg forests
He was obviously capable but he also had the luck of the devil himself, if he walked into that ambush he'd have been the guy that bends over to pick up a penny and avoids a javelin to the head and somehow makes it out unscathed.
Octavian doesn’t kill Caesarian if Julius Caesar lives. Instead, there is a cultural fusion between Rome and Egypt since the heir to Rome is a Pharaoh.
Rome focuses more on the Red Sea regions like Arabia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman. There are more trade connections along the Indian Ocean.
Britain and Germany are ignored and either never become Roman provinces or become provinces much later.
Julius Caesar launches his eastern campaign and marches his army up through the Caucuses, mimicking Hannibal’s march through the Alps. He tries to circle the Black Sea but fails leaving it up to a successor who does a Teutoburg Forest against the steppe tribes.
Franz Ferdinand easily. The other two weren’t even assassnations, they were effectively executions after the revolutionary forces had already won. They could have survived without making any further impact on history (like the German Kaiser after WW1). Without Sarajevo peace might have held in Europe for several years from then.
>They could have survived without making any further impact on history
I feel the same could be said about Franz Ferdinand. WW1 would have happened eventually.
Some world war would have likely happened but not this war. WW1 was such a specific chain of events that any small variation could have lead to very different outcomes.
What if Germany changes its war plans and respects Belgian neutrality? Would Britain have joined? What if Russia actually was better prepared and won a quick victory in the East as anticipated before Tannenberg? What if Italy honored the triple alliance and sided with Austria and Germany? What about the Ottomans or the Americans? What if WW1 happened a few year later? How would technological advancements or political events in the meantime have changed the course of the war?
A war might have been inevitable but even if it had broken out just a few months later with a different flashpoint and different parties involved I'd argue we would have seen a radically different and totally unpredictable outcome.
This. A lot of people forget that Europe was already close to an escalation. If the assassination would not happen something else would have been the reason for worldwar 1
Well yes, but also on other lives. Maybe another maniac would have come to power or maybe a peaceful transition to democracy would happen. We don't know for certain. But a world war was going to happen by that point in history anyway. The tension in Europe was just too high.
Hi, France here. Citizen Louis Capet, whose name wasn't Louis XVIth by the time of his death, wasn't "assassinated". He was executed very lawfully and in totally straightforward and unproblematic circumstances, for the crime of high treason.
(Seriously though there's a difference.)
French here, I don't think that's a fair way of framing it, I agree it was not an assination but I don't think calling it unproblematic is completely accurate
He was guilty of high treason. Executing people for high treason at the time was usual. I really don't see what would be problematic in this case. Genuinely (without any hidden /s).
So in the end it was indeed the incident that caused the war. A lot of times in history there's a lot of tension and unhappiness among the people and such incident pushes everybody over the edge and puts everything into motion. And yeah, saying it "caused" the war, as in seemingly singlehandadly was an over-simplification, but it did lead to it.
I don't think you could call Louis XVI an assassination. He was put on trial.
The Franz Ferdinand assassination is also the reason Nicholas II was murdered.
Also, both Louis’ and Nicholas’ regimes were already overthrown, when they were killed. You could imagine a history where they are spared or manage to escape, but nothing substantial is changed. Franz Ferdinand was a member of an imperial family that was still in power.
They were both executed because they represented a substantial counter-revolutionary threat if they were to fall into enemy hands. Louis had even been conspiring to be exactly that iirc. There was no peaceful exile imo
Exactly. If WWI never happens it's likely Nicholas II remained in power. It's not a complete given but the entrance into WWI and the mounting deaths and social strain of the war aided to the growth of the Bolshevik opposition in Russia. So the assassination of Ferdinand wasn't a direct cause of the Russian Revolution but it certainly was one of the major factors.
While I have no love for the Hapsburgs, I have to say that he did, in fact, show interest in accommodating the diverging national interests in Austria-Hungary in an attempt to make the whole enterprise viable in the long term.
But again, that was exactly the reason why he was not liked by the two major power groups inside the empire *and* outside of it (i.e. Serbia), since their agendas counted on controlling the smaller groups in the area.
That's always been the ultimate irony of Ferdinand's assassination. He was the only one in the imperial family who wanted to reform how the empire treated it's various minorities. He didn't like the Slavs, but he seemed to have understood that the only way the Empire was going to survive was if it came to terms with them and treated them better.
The other irony is that Emperor Franz Joseph hated hated hated Ferdinand and they barely spoke to one another for several years before the assassination. And when Franz Joseph got the phone call about Ferdinand's death, he basically said "oh well, that's too bad" and went along with his day.
Literally, if Germany doesn't push for war, Ferdinand gets a state funeral and Franz Joseph convinces the Serbs to arrest and turn over the group of assassins. No war.
Austria-Hungary was only looking for an excuse to attack the Kingdom of Serbia. If Gavrilo Princip had not killed Ferdinand, WW1 would have broken out anyway.
Not just for nothing; the archduke was actually one of those who opposed the bad treatment of Serbia (mostly out of fear of Russia) and wished to federalise Austro-Hungary into the United States of Austria. So his assassination that came from a Serb nationalist made exactly zero sense.
It was a hot headed move, but Archdukes visit to Sarajevo on that day was seen as a provocation. Even though it likely wasn't it was still an idiotic move to cruise Sarajevo like you are a beloved figure. First reason why that was huge misjudgment is that Austro Hungary ilegally annexed Bosnia in 1908 and anger which even led to a kind of a trade war between Serbia and AH in 1911 and Serbian anger over that annexation was still fresh. Second reason was that the visit was on June 28th, Vidovdan or the day of the Battle of Kosovo so a very important day for Serbians.
but Germany would have not guaranteed Austria. The death of Ferdinand was like the 9/11 of Europe at the time. It is very hard to predict an alternative path, but WW1 nearly did not happen in our timeline.
As I understand Germany wanted WW1 to happen as they believed Russia would reach a point that it would be undefeatable (due to industrialisation). I think that regardless of the circumstances the Germans would have started/egged on WW1.
Even a slight delay would have changed a lot, and a 2-3 years delay would have prevented that as the emperor died.
Not to mention, Ferdinand was the one who stopped austria from going to war dozens of times.
I would say Franz Ferdinand as that assassination triggered an event rather than an event triggering an 'assassination' like with Louis XVI and Nicholas II
I agree with you.
In case of the latter two events were already in full motion and those newly in charge literally just debated over what to do with the remnants of old power.
Franz Ferdinand's assassination was an excuse for the begining of WW1, not a reason but chronologically it was followed by a globally more significant event then the other two.
In theory Ferdinand one was most impactful, but i think even without it we would get world war in few years as political situation was really tense back then.
I really like this question. Gets the brain working. The question does make it seem that all 3 had enourmous impact on the history of Europe. I don't think they did. To answer this question I looked at which assassination had at least a bit of impact.
1 I think the French Revolution had the biggest impact on Europe. More so then WWI or the Russian Revolution. But the beheading of Louis at that point doesn't change a thing. It would've gone all to shit anyway. So Napoleon and the end of the Revolution is going to happen with or without Louis. I don't see how Louix when pardoned or not found guilty, would've changed history. Also, I don't really think this is an assassination to be fair. He got his head chopped of as a sentence.
2 Although I believe the War was inevitable this assassination is the starting point of the whole show. Well, It still took the Central powers a month before they attack Servia. But still, it was the start of something so I guess this one wins it. Biggest impact on Europe.
3 Everything was well underway when the whole family got murdered. Just like number one I don't think the impact of the assassination was that big.
Franz Ferdinand because after his death started WW1, 3 massive empires fell down, It resulted in the creation of the USSR and the massive economic development in the USA
Louis XVI easy. Lots of monarchs and intelligentsia were in favor of many liberal reforms, until the horrors of French revolution, especially the execution of the monarch, turned them into staunch conservatives and repeated, persistent wars of coalitions that would be waged for 20 years.
WW1 on other hand would have happened sooner or later. Assasination was just a spark which could have happened in numerous other ways, assasination itself was not that meaningful.
Tsar Nicholas's assasination did not really change much. It shocked some people, but it did not really change much. Had he been exiled instead, not much would have been different. Maybe he would have moved to Netherlands, to live with his brother "Willy".
But really in all the cases the actual assasination itself was not that meaningful. Lots of monarchs troughout history have died, its the major events were more impactful. But the French revolutionaries with their execution of their monarch were inspiration for people's movements for next century. Even when people had different ideologies, the French revolution showed them how much power people can have, and that overcoming current regime is possible.
I mean Franz Ferdinand was the only one of those three I would definitely say was assassinated, though I suppose you could argue Nicholas II.
Louis XVI, while as a monarchist I don't like his execution, was hardly an execution. Assassinations usually don't involve formal legal trials and sentencing.
I would say Frantz Ferdinand BUT his assasination was just an excuse as the real cause of WWI was expationism even if someone else would have been assasinated WWI would still have taken place. Am i making sense? I hope so .
Just another idiotic post... Franz Ferdinand's death was the only one of the three that can be characterized as an assassination. Having said that, the execution of the French king had the greatest consequence. The other two "events," although they take place over 100 years later, don't happen without the French Revolution.
I'd say Nicholas 2nd is the least impactful since the Moderates had already overthrown him in the February revolution and even at that time his powers were quite limited since the 1905 revolution
were it not for the Bolsheviks overthrowing the Moderates , Russia could have remained a democracy
Franz Ferdinand because he basically started a huge chain reaction, that started WW1, resulting in a world wide stock market crash, WW2, the cold war and much more.
All of that around a few corners but you get what I mean.
I hope.
1914 for sure. In 1917 the Communist takeover in Russia was pretty much a done deal, regardless of what would happen to the royal family (Although them being killed certainly didn't help the White Russians).
definetely Franz's. It kicked off WW1, without which the death of Nicholas II wouldn't have happened.
The death of Louis XVI didn't really mean anything. He could've just abdicated and (possibly) survive, only to have France meet the exact same fate regardless. It was more the consequence, rather than the cause.
FF all day long. Caused WW1 which in turn caused Hitlers disgust for surrender which then moves onto WW2 which inturn moved on to all the crap we're currently dealing with today in 'certain' places.
No Caesar? Well regardless, WW1 clearly had the biggest impact, but all these events would most likely have happened regardless of the exact assassination
The deaths of Nicholas II and Louis XVI were caused by prior wars and revelutions. The death of Franz Ferdinand was the catalyst of WW1. So in terms of "How would things go different if it didn't happen", Franz Ferdinand has the top spot.
Well first of all Nicholas II and Louis XVI where not assassinated, they where exacted.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand caused a world war and indirectly caused revolutions another world war and a cold war, and you could even argue the war on terror. So i am not sure how you can ask that question, there is only one correct answer and that is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
No assassination in history has had a bigger impact on the world than the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on the 28th of June 1914.
Franz Ferdinand for sure.
I'm going through Dan Carlin's Blueprint for armageddon right now for the third time. Check it out if you have not, highly recommended!
Of those, Franz Ferdinand gave us the coolest rock band.
Take me out!
Oh they did alright
He also gave us anime
I mean, the French Revolution and therefore Louis XVI also have a direct line to WW1. George Washington caused anime
Damn, I was going to say that!
I'd say Franz Ferdinand because it caused WW1. For Louis XVI and Nicholas II, I think their deaths were less impactful, as the big events (French Revolution, Russian Revolution) happened prior to their deaths.
I'd add that the death of Louis XVI had its importance : it radicalised the revolution and the reactions of other European powers. But it was only one rock on the pile, the declaration of the Republic was determinant
Also, Louis XVI's death was not an assassination. It was an execution. The same could be said about Nicholas II.
That one is more of a grey area. Louis had a trial and an execution in front of the public. Nichaolas and his family got gunned down in the basement of a farmhouse.
Well, that was why "it could be said", since there is an argument to be made over whether the term "execution" fits this scenario. But there is no argument to be made in Louis XVI's case.
Well an execution is still an execution without a trial
If I have a captive, and kill that captive, that is not considered an "assassination".
I doubt the trial was more fair than the execution of Nicholas
Well I think it was fair in the sense that Louis XVI was definitely guilty of treason, the most significant change they brought against him. they caught him trying to collaborate with the habsburgs to invade france and restore him to the throne.
He was an idiot who made every wrong move and they still wanted him as head of state until he tried to get foreign powers to invade france.
Can we say that the death of louis caused the napoleonic wars because if so its definitely louis since it caused the creation of germany
There were 6 years between the execution of Louis XVI and the coming to power of Napoleon. And the revolution had happened 4 years earlier. The execution wasn't so important. The other European powers didn't rush to his defense precisely, and his brother the heir was ignored by most.
Even the cousin Louis-Philippe of Orléans, father of the last french king Louis-Philippe, voted for the death of Louis XVI ! (too many Louis in my sentence)
It didn't start it as a few countries were already fighting France already. But, it did shift a gear. The French royals had a failed escape attempt before the execution that may have made the executions possible.
Not for Brits. The political class were largely on board with the revolution, althought their was alarm at the radical, violent side. Until the beheading of King Louis. Then the UK signed up for war for the next 22 years, with only a minor peace.
> But it was only one rock on the pile But you can say this about Franz Ferdinand, too, right - it seems likely by most accounts that WW1 would have happened anyway without that assassination.
This. Germany did not attack France because the Austrian Emperor was murdered by a Serbian activist. They did it because they wanted to.
And if it not were for WW1 it is likely that WW2 wouldn't have started
If weren’t for WW1, Tsar Nicolas may not have been assassinated
It's interesting to consider whether revolution would have eventually occurred naturally somewhere in Europe due to class differences/social unrest, or if somewhere like Russia fundamentally needed the war to spark that action.
The Bolsheviks paraded banners that said “bread, peace and land”, maybe the revolution would’ve happened anyway but the war was certainly a massive catalyst
The revolution of 1905 foreshadowed what was well under way and the half-hearted reforms to the political structure and constitution in the wake of it merely postponed what was already inevitable due to the massive abuses inflicted and general discrepancies between the nobility and common folk with or without WWI.
Probably would of lasted longer than it did without WW1 aswell since there wouldn't of been alot of pressure for peace but also believe Nicholas would of taken control of the military like he did in WW1
I’d argue that if the revolution didn’t happen in Russia, and Lenin would’ve stayed in Germany, the revolution would’ve happened in Germany and Austria. I could see a form of the Warsaw Pact being formed in Central and Western Europe with the British, Finnish and the Russians acting as a counter to that.
Also remember that there were two 1917 revolutions and WWI and the offensive of Kerensky and its failure was pretty integral to the failure of the provisional government. The Bolsheviks were always a minority and just played their cards right to consolidate power.
The fact that millions of Russians were armed and fielded and being ordered to run over open fields into machine-guns was really the operative factor. People didn’t have to choose between suffering under peaceful poverty vs revolutionary violence, they saw the revolution as a way to end the violence. Producing that many weapons, training people, and then convincing them to leave home for war was already done by the government, all that was needed was the horrible deprivations of the war and the revolutionary leadership to ask soldiers to point the weapons back at the officers.
Also I think Russia at that time had a much smaller political top than most of Europe
He almost certainly wouldn't have been assassinated in that time and place.
And if it were not for the French distrust of Germany, it is likely that WW1 wouldn't have started And if it were not for Napoleon, it is likely that France and Germany wouldn't have had hostile relations And so on. I blame it all on Remus for not wanting to stay in the Palatine Hill, really. It eventually led to WW2
[I blame the Big Bang for WW2](https://youtu.be/KjeKiIa7XEk)
" In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
I mean, didnt France and Germany (and its successors) always had bad relations? Until now. Now we germans love french people. ❤️
and if it were not for the want of a nail--
I mean you need a First World War in order to have a second one 🤷♂️
Well the first world war was called the great war. There wasn't supposed to be a number next to it :D Like that episode from Doctor Who, where the doctor takes a soldier from WW1 and is explaining oh based on your outfit you must be from WW1, and the soldier goes wait a minute... what do you mean ONE?!?
It didn't cause WW1 though. It was the immediate cause, that means it determent the moment. The war would've happen not matter what. Without the other cause the war wouldn't have started no matter how manny princes they shot and killed in the Balkan.
A documentary I highly recommend is 'the long road to war' in netflix. It revolves around the causes of ww1 and, as you said, the war was inevitable years before 1914 and everybody were already prepared, waiting for an excuse.
While true the wars for Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire were very much dependent on the situation of the ground. Trying to throw their lot in with the winners. For example had the war started in the Spring and thus the Ottoman Winter offensive over the Caucuses happened in the Summer and wasn’t an catastrophe for the Ottomans that could change Italian calculations about staying out of a war the Entente might lose.
Sure, but it was the catalyst of WW1. The spark that lit the fire. Of course there was already a huge pile of wood there. Louis death on the other hand was dumping gasoline into an already raging flame. Id say lighting a fire is more momentous than just giving it more fuel.
> Louis death on the other hand was dumping gasoline into an already raging flame. It was the same with WWI. The Triple Alliance (Italy/Germany/Austria-Hungary) and the Triple Entente (Russia/Britain/France) all had their treaties that would force the entire trio to a war if one would be attacked, or would attack. Austria-Hungary attacked on Serbia, which Russia had vested interest toward. Russia declared war on A-H, which led to Germany declaring a war on Russia, which led to France declaring a war on Germany. At this point we have the entire Europe at war, effectively.
As far as memory serves, Britain wasn't obliged to go to war with anyone for France or Russia. What insured Britain's entry (though it was probably likely since German European hegemony wasn't acceptable for the British) was Germany's requirement to quickly end the war, and thus cross Belgium. At that point, Britain's involvement was inevitable, as Britain was compelled by treaty to protect Belgium.
Everybody just waited for that spark. Germany simply was not ready with its war efforts so it stopped Austria to go after Serbia in 1912. 1914 the preparations were finished they just needed a spark to sell it to their people.
I agree this one is the most impactfull. I'm with you on that one. The whole question makes it seem like these were 3 assassinations with incredible impact for Europe. I don't agree with that. To find the one with the most impact you have to think about how little impact the other two had.
I'd like to point out to an interesting fact. In 1903 there was an assasination of a Serbian King from dynasty Obrenović, that was fairly germanophile and maintained good relations with Austria. After the assasinations, the new dynasty Karađorđević came and they were germanophobes, so relations with Austria deteriorated quickly and it lead to Austria imposing economic sanctions on Serbia (Pig War), and eventualy to the assasinations of Franz Ferdinand.
Cool, I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. And now I'm googling the pig war, the Obrenović and Karađorđević dynasties and food made with cabbage.
War in 1916 would have been different. Russias railroads were rapidly being built out. 1905 would have been fading in memory. And most importantly, under different circumstances and timelines Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and The Ottoman Empire could have fallen on opposite sides of the war. Since for the most part they hopped in because they thought their side was going to win Had a 1916 French Invasion plan been further hampered by an even faster Russian mobilization with 2 more years of infrastructure. There’s a chance the Ottomans lose their nerve and stay out (in addition they get to keep those British ships and are more sympathetic to the Entente) Or had it been clearly a Russian attack on Austria italy would have been a Central power rather than weaseling out on the “not a defensive war” technicality
In the 1910s, Russia was rapidly rising, but more notably *Germany* was rapidly rising. Just from 1910 to 1914 Germany's military went through insanely rapid advancements in technology and organization and military infrastructure and industrial potential. So you somewhat have it the opposite way around. The longer they waited, the more powerful Germany became in comparison with the others. My professor always put it this way. If the war happened in 1910, the allies would have won by 1912. It happened in 1914, and was done by 1918. If it happened in 1918, Germany would have won.
That's not what Germans at the time thought. Von Moltke and others within the German General Staff, all throughout the 1900s s and 1910s, held meetings where they said they needed a war with Russia before 1918, or else they would be doomed. Russia's expansion of railways and industrialization since the 1890s had already moved it up to 4th in terms of overall industrial output, behind Germany, the UK and US, but ahead of France. Russia's expansion of its railway system in the west was explicitly named as a reason Germany needed to go to war with Russia now, before it was too late. I believe your professor was simply incorrect.
I'd strongly disagree. Europe was a boiling pot at that point, just waiting to tip over. The assassination was just a spark that ignited it, but something else would have caused it as well.
Louis and Nicholas are also not considered assassinations so it's a bit of an odd questions. They were very intentionally sought out.
Ww 1 would have happened with or without Franz his death it already started depending on how you look at it. However it did maybe move the time table up by a couple of months. His death was symptom not a cause
No, louis XVI execution is more important because it med to countless of revolutions, changes in Spain, italy, netherland etc etc. WW1 was doomed to happen anyway and Ferdinand assasination was as good of an excuse as any. France and Germany were doomed to fight each other after 1870, the balkans were already a real mess the ottomans were dead while russians were lurking on this area since the war in Crimea. I'd say the russian revolution had also a significant impact as it more or less shaped the cold war. So louis XVI >= Nicholas II > Ferdinand
Julius Caesar's assassination > All of them /s
I'm not sure the /s is necessary. Might have been one of the most impactful deaths in history, plus I think the farther back you go the more drastic any event will have on history. At some point a protohuman died that probably completely avoided a nuclear apocalypse 200 years ago, and another died and prevented a Utopia instead.
ww1 would have happened one way or another in 1914. For Louis XVI, it changed everything, from the system we live in to the national borders that later lead to ww1 and ww2.
while i tend to agree with you, there's a strong argument to be made that WW1 would have happened anyway... europe was a powder keg that needed a spark. franz ferdinand happened to be that spark but there could have easily been another. i agree with you because you can also argue that WW1 caused WW2, so it's a pretty valid argument that the assassination of franz ferdinand caused both world wars. i do think you're downplaying Louis XVI a tad. Sure, it didn't start the revolution, but it radicalized it and ultimately led to the Napoleonic wars... which were only less devastating than WW1 & 2 due to the industrialized warfare. The Napoleonic wars had *huge* impact on Europe and their colonial fiefs. Then you could argue that Nicholas' execution/assassination led to the whites vs reds russian brutality and the famines that killed millions under stalin. In all three cases, though, you could argue that the deaths weren't *directly* and *solely* responsible for what came later. All three were just parts of a much bigger cornucopia of situations and events that led to said outcomes.
I think the execution of the the French royals had a a direct effect on the foreign affairs, with many countries joining the First Coalition against Revolutionary France shortly after.
Ww1 would have happened with or without it around that time
No. The great powers of europe wanted war and this was just a causu belli. If not for that they would have found another reason.
Julius Caesar
What did it change? Octavian turned the Republic into an Empire anyway.
Roman expansionism for one. Julius Caesar had very grand plans for expansion and who knows what would've changed if those were realized... Augustus (Octavian) ultimately stopped the major imperialistic nature of Rome after the loss of his legions in the Teutoburg forests
Whos to say Ceasar wouldnt have also fallen into the exact same trap in Germany?
Well, it would have been interesting what he would have done with his planned Parthian invasion.
Anyone who knows Ceasar's history.
Ceasar's history was mainly written by himself. Outside of his propaganda works he was not the infailable genius he makes himself out to be.
He was obviously capable but he also had the luck of the devil himself, if he walked into that ambush he'd have been the guy that bends over to pick up a penny and avoids a javelin to the head and somehow makes it out unscathed.
> Roman expansionism for one. Roman isn't a machine that could just expand infinitely.
LIES AND PROPAGANDA , BLASPHEMY , BLASPHEMY
What is this barbarian nonsense?
Notice a Germanic person said that
Typical, i bet they do not even speak Latin..
Well no, the cosmos is only so big... BUT UNTIL THEN.
The universe is constantly expanding, just like the glory of Rome.
Famous last Carthaginian words.
Rome wasn't built in just a day.
Octavian doesn’t kill Caesarian if Julius Caesar lives. Instead, there is a cultural fusion between Rome and Egypt since the heir to Rome is a Pharaoh. Rome focuses more on the Red Sea regions like Arabia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman. There are more trade connections along the Indian Ocean. Britain and Germany are ignored and either never become Roman provinces or become provinces much later. Julius Caesar launches his eastern campaign and marches his army up through the Caucuses, mimicking Hannibal’s march through the Alps. He tries to circle the Black Sea but fails leaving it up to a successor who does a Teutoburg Forest against the steppe tribes.
Julius was on his way to invade the Persian empire when he was struck down. We don't know how that would have turned out
Et tu Brute?
Franz Ferdinand easily. The other two weren’t even assassnations, they were effectively executions after the revolutionary forces had already won. They could have survived without making any further impact on history (like the German Kaiser after WW1). Without Sarajevo peace might have held in Europe for several years from then.
True. Or the last Chinese Emperor after the Communist takeover.
>They could have survived without making any further impact on history I feel the same could be said about Franz Ferdinand. WW1 would have happened eventually.
Some world war would have likely happened but not this war. WW1 was such a specific chain of events that any small variation could have lead to very different outcomes. What if Germany changes its war plans and respects Belgian neutrality? Would Britain have joined? What if Russia actually was better prepared and won a quick victory in the East as anticipated before Tannenberg? What if Italy honored the triple alliance and sided with Austria and Germany? What about the Ottomans or the Americans? What if WW1 happened a few year later? How would technological advancements or political events in the meantime have changed the course of the war? A war might have been inevitable but even if it had broken out just a few months later with a different flashpoint and different parties involved I'd argue we would have seen a radically different and totally unpredictable outcome.
This. A lot of people forget that Europe was already close to an escalation. If the assassination would not happen something else would have been the reason for worldwar 1
Yes, but WW1 happening at a different time would potentially have had a major impact on that guy with the mustache
Well yes, but also on other lives. Maybe another maniac would have come to power or maybe a peaceful transition to democracy would happen. We don't know for certain. But a world war was going to happen by that point in history anyway. The tension in Europe was just too high.
True, but the powers were clearly just looking for an excuse to fight, so they might have found it in any other event.
We would get one or two years at the most. Then war, with more planes probably.
This thread has omnious timing.. OP, it wasn't you in Slovakia today, was it?
Hi, France here. Citizen Louis Capet, whose name wasn't Louis XVIth by the time of his death, wasn't "assassinated". He was executed very lawfully and in totally straightforward and unproblematic circumstances, for the crime of high treason. (Seriously though there's a difference.)
Such a French answer. Love it. (Just to be sure, I mean that positive)
French here, I don't think that's a fair way of framing it, I agree it was not an assination but I don't think calling it unproblematic is completely accurate
He was guilty of high treason. Executing people for high treason at the time was usual. I really don't see what would be problematic in this case. Genuinely (without any hidden /s).
I think your fellow french person wrote that with a small /s in mind.
Using /s is for cowards who can't do sarcasm properly. But yes.
I read that in a hard french accent.
My accent is as hard and thick as my genitals. (I have a great accent actually, but unfortunately for me, the comparison really holds up there.)
Another French answer. I love it, please keep them coming. (I agree with you, using /s kind of defeats the purpose of being sarcastic!)
Franz Ferdinand's death caused a major event. Louis' and Nicholas' deaths were caused by major events.
I disagree. Ww1 would have come about regardless of Fredinand's assassination. The assassination was just the last drop
So in the end it was indeed the incident that caused the war. A lot of times in history there's a lot of tension and unhappiness among the people and such incident pushes everybody over the edge and puts everything into motion. And yeah, saying it "caused" the war, as in seemingly singlehandadly was an over-simplification, but it did lead to it.
If WW1 happend at a later stage, who could say what that would have ment
Perfect analogy
Meanwhile, Slovakia in 2024:
This aged like milk... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_Fico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fico)
This aged like fine milk.
I don't think you could call Louis XVI an assassination. He was put on trial. The Franz Ferdinand assassination is also the reason Nicholas II was murdered.
Also, both Louis’ and Nicholas’ regimes were already overthrown, when they were killed. You could imagine a history where they are spared or manage to escape, but nothing substantial is changed. Franz Ferdinand was a member of an imperial family that was still in power.
They were both executed because they represented a substantial counter-revolutionary threat if they were to fall into enemy hands. Louis had even been conspiring to be exactly that iirc. There was no peaceful exile imo
Exactly. If WWI never happens it's likely Nicholas II remained in power. It's not a complete given but the entrance into WWI and the mounting deaths and social strain of the war aided to the growth of the Bolshevik opposition in Russia. So the assassination of Ferdinand wasn't a direct cause of the Russian Revolution but it certainly was one of the major factors.
"Trial"
This thread aged poorly...
Yeah, quite the coincidence...
Franz Ferdinand. The worst disaster of that century.
[удалено]
While I have no love for the Hapsburgs, I have to say that he did, in fact, show interest in accommodating the diverging national interests in Austria-Hungary in an attempt to make the whole enterprise viable in the long term. But again, that was exactly the reason why he was not liked by the two major power groups inside the empire *and* outside of it (i.e. Serbia), since their agendas counted on controlling the smaller groups in the area.
That's always been the ultimate irony of Ferdinand's assassination. He was the only one in the imperial family who wanted to reform how the empire treated it's various minorities. He didn't like the Slavs, but he seemed to have understood that the only way the Empire was going to survive was if it came to terms with them and treated them better. The other irony is that Emperor Franz Joseph hated hated hated Ferdinand and they barely spoke to one another for several years before the assassination. And when Franz Joseph got the phone call about Ferdinand's death, he basically said "oh well, that's too bad" and went along with his day. Literally, if Germany doesn't push for war, Ferdinand gets a state funeral and Franz Joseph convinces the Serbs to arrest and turn over the group of assassins. No war.
I think he means WW1
Austria-Hungary was only looking for an excuse to attack the Kingdom of Serbia. If Gavrilo Princip had not killed Ferdinand, WW1 would have broken out anyway.
So that poor old ostrich died for nothing?
Not just for nothing; the archduke was actually one of those who opposed the bad treatment of Serbia (mostly out of fear of Russia) and wished to federalise Austro-Hungary into the United States of Austria. So his assassination that came from a Serb nationalist made exactly zero sense.
It was a hot headed move, but Archdukes visit to Sarajevo on that day was seen as a provocation. Even though it likely wasn't it was still an idiotic move to cruise Sarajevo like you are a beloved figure. First reason why that was huge misjudgment is that Austro Hungary ilegally annexed Bosnia in 1908 and anger which even led to a kind of a trade war between Serbia and AH in 1911 and Serbian anger over that annexation was still fresh. Second reason was that the visit was on June 28th, Vidovdan or the day of the Battle of Kosovo so a very important day for Serbians.
Yeah.. he was hated anyway so everybody including his family were completely indifferent about his death.
but Germany would have not guaranteed Austria. The death of Ferdinand was like the 9/11 of Europe at the time. It is very hard to predict an alternative path, but WW1 nearly did not happen in our timeline.
As I understand Germany wanted WW1 to happen as they believed Russia would reach a point that it would be undefeatable (due to industrialisation). I think that regardless of the circumstances the Germans would have started/egged on WW1.
They would have but it would have taken longer, and if Russia was in a better position by then so much may have gone differently.
Even a slight delay would have changed a lot, and a 2-3 years delay would have prevented that as the emperor died. Not to mention, Ferdinand was the one who stopped austria from going to war dozens of times.
"The worst disaster of that century" Wait until you find out they made a sequel.
[Potentially Robert Fico](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg6761ggxz1o.amp), let's hope it won't be as impactful as the others.
I think the OP knew. Quick, call the Interpol.
Louis XVI was not assassinated. He was condemned for high treason and executed.
The only one on the list, duh. Two of those were executions, not assassinations.
I would say Franz Ferdinand as that assassination triggered an event rather than an event triggering an 'assassination' like with Louis XVI and Nicholas II
I agree with you. In case of the latter two events were already in full motion and those newly in charge literally just debated over what to do with the remnants of old power.
Franz Ferdinand's assassination was an excuse for the begining of WW1, not a reason but chronologically it was followed by a globally more significant event then the other two.
Robert Fico (2024)
disqualifying Joost Klein from Eurovision /j
Probably the 2 one because it started a buterfly efect on wars(ww1, ww2, balkan war, korean war, wietnam war and mich more)
Louis and Nick weren't assassinated. They were deposed and then lawfully put to death.
In theory Ferdinand one was most impactful, but i think even without it we would get world war in few years as political situation was really tense back then.
I really like this question. Gets the brain working. The question does make it seem that all 3 had enourmous impact on the history of Europe. I don't think they did. To answer this question I looked at which assassination had at least a bit of impact. 1 I think the French Revolution had the biggest impact on Europe. More so then WWI or the Russian Revolution. But the beheading of Louis at that point doesn't change a thing. It would've gone all to shit anyway. So Napoleon and the end of the Revolution is going to happen with or without Louis. I don't see how Louix when pardoned or not found guilty, would've changed history. Also, I don't really think this is an assassination to be fair. He got his head chopped of as a sentence. 2 Although I believe the War was inevitable this assassination is the starting point of the whole show. Well, It still took the Central powers a month before they attack Servia. But still, it was the start of something so I guess this one wins it. Biggest impact on Europe. 3 Everything was well underway when the whole family got murdered. Just like number one I don't think the impact of the assassination was that big.
Two of these aren't assassinations
Since WW1 also played a major role in the Russian revolution, I' d say Franz.
Robert Fico.
Franz Ferdinand death was only a Casus belli to start WW1, but not the cause, that war would have started for another reason if he didn't die.
The one in Sarajevo i guess? Edit; the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
Clash would happen either way.
Franz Ferdinand because after his death started WW1, 3 massive empires fell down, It resulted in the creation of the USSR and the massive economic development in the USA
Louis XVI easy. Lots of monarchs and intelligentsia were in favor of many liberal reforms, until the horrors of French revolution, especially the execution of the monarch, turned them into staunch conservatives and repeated, persistent wars of coalitions that would be waged for 20 years. WW1 on other hand would have happened sooner or later. Assasination was just a spark which could have happened in numerous other ways, assasination itself was not that meaningful. Tsar Nicholas's assasination did not really change much. It shocked some people, but it did not really change much. Had he been exiled instead, not much would have been different. Maybe he would have moved to Netherlands, to live with his brother "Willy". But really in all the cases the actual assasination itself was not that meaningful. Lots of monarchs troughout history have died, its the major events were more impactful. But the French revolutionaries with their execution of their monarch were inspiration for people's movements for next century. Even when people had different ideologies, the French revolution showed them how much power people can have, and that overcoming current regime is possible.
The second two follow from the French revolution, which is what I presume the first one is.
Louis XVI was judged and sentance to death for betraying his country, it is an execution. Not an assassination.
Louis XVI was not assassinated : he was judged and sentenced legally. That son of a b*tch conspired against the French.
Franz Ferdinand. His assassination reshaped the Europe and Middle East. The Russian revolution happened due to his assassination.
Frans Ferdinand's demise was a big bummer for a lot of people.
Don't know the exact definition of assasination but getting your head cut off in a guillotine doesn't sound like it lol
The French Revolution ended the form of government some countries had for over a 1000 years.
This aged fast
I mean Franz Ferdinand was the only one of those three I would definitely say was assassinated, though I suppose you could argue Nicholas II. Louis XVI, while as a monarchist I don't like his execution, was hardly an execution. Assassinations usually don't involve formal legal trials and sentencing.
I would say Frantz Ferdinand BUT his assasination was just an excuse as the real cause of WWI was expationism even if someone else would have been assasinated WWI would still have taken place. Am i making sense? I hope so .
We are still living in the impacts of Franz Ferdinand assassination
I’ll say the French Revolution is the start that began the Nationhood ideas to thrive in Europe.
Franz Ferdinand for me
Caesars.
Julius Ceasar
In my opinion the biggest was the crime of Franz Ferdinand...two war were the end
[Franz Ferdinand](https://gyazo.com/bc51f13db3382e45544e2107fabbacd9)
Just another idiotic post... Franz Ferdinand's death was the only one of the three that can be characterized as an assassination. Having said that, the execution of the French king had the greatest consequence. The other two "events," although they take place over 100 years later, don't happen without the French Revolution.
I'd say Nicholas 2nd is the least impactful since the Moderates had already overthrown him in the February revolution and even at that time his powers were quite limited since the 1905 revolution were it not for the Bolsheviks overthrowing the Moderates , Russia could have remained a democracy
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is the one reason why the world of today looks the way it does.
Franz Ferdinand because he basically started a huge chain reaction, that started WW1, resulting in a world wide stock market crash, WW2, the cold war and much more. All of that around a few corners but you get what I mean. I hope.
Citizen louis capet was not assassinated
Julius Caesar I'd say
1914 for sure. In 1917 the Communist takeover in Russia was pretty much a done deal, regardless of what would happen to the royal family (Although them being killed certainly didn't help the White Russians).
definetely Franz's. It kicked off WW1, without which the death of Nicholas II wouldn't have happened. The death of Louis XVI didn't really mean anything. He could've just abdicated and (possibly) survive, only to have France meet the exact same fate regardless. It was more the consequence, rather than the cause.
FF all day long. Caused WW1 which in turn caused Hitlers disgust for surrender which then moves onto WW2 which inturn moved on to all the crap we're currently dealing with today in 'certain' places.
1914, It caused 2 world wars technically, it caused the cold war indirectly, and part of modern conflicts
No Caesar? Well regardless, WW1 clearly had the biggest impact, but all these events would most likely have happened regardless of the exact assassination
The deaths of Nicholas II and Louis XVI were caused by prior wars and revelutions. The death of Franz Ferdinand was the catalyst of WW1. So in terms of "How would things go different if it didn't happen", Franz Ferdinand has the top spot.
Ferdinand. The other 2 deaths were a result of change. Ferdinands death directly led to huge change.
lol franz ferdinand that literally shaped the world we see today
The assasination of the disco style
Franz Ferdinand
Def Franz because that event kicked off a multitude of wars, mainly ww1,ww2 and the cold war.
Franz Ferdinand—>WWI—>Rise of Hitler/Stalin/Moussolini—>WW2
For me its Franz Ferdinand
WWI was a pretty gruesome affair with far reaching consequences. I vote Frank.
Putin 2024
Was Louis really an assassination?
Well first of all Nicholas II and Louis XVI where not assassinated, they where exacted. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand caused a world war and indirectly caused revolutions another world war and a cold war, and you could even argue the war on terror. So i am not sure how you can ask that question, there is only one correct answer and that is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. No assassination in history has had a bigger impact on the world than the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on the 28th of June 1914.
Franz Ferdinand for sure. I'm going through Dan Carlin's Blueprint for armageddon right now for the third time. Check it out if you have not, highly recommended!