Poll: Who do YOU believe fired the Shot Heard Around the World?

[spartan1077]

Obviously, the shooter was a time travelling assassin hired to time travel from the year 2087 to create America and stop the British from taking over the land since the people who hired the time traveller were tired of having to drink tea. Duh, it's in the history books.

[sub][sub]Or, the history books are wrong and the shot was never an actual thing. It's a metaphorical or made up shot that was just the cause of the war summed up easily and sounded cool[/sub][/sub]

 

[EboMan7x]

The Americans where most definitely more into the idea of having a war.

 

[KaiRai]

The Belgians. Recent EU developments prove them to be quite skilled in the art of Warless prickery.

 

[cryogeist]

I would say the minutemen (HA). they were itching to start a fight with the british, That one guy said "The hell with it," and fired. Tensions were so high that it escalated pretty quickly.

what he said

 

[SteewpidZombie]

IT WAS ME! My cursed time machine backfired as I started it up after realizing I wasn't far back enough in the past to ride a dinosaur.

 

[Danny Ocean]

I'm not trying to belittle the Archduke's death (what is an Archduke in charge of? are they more powerful than regular dukes?),

I assume you're kidding.

I just wanted to set the record straight that the Revolutionary War was the first shot and the second was most definitely Archduke's death that led to WW1. Just wanna clear the fog

In my eyes you are belittling it, because the US revolution was a comparatively little thing. To place the first shot of the US revolution as anything near the same level as the shot that started the First World War is basically reducing the importance of the First World War to the level of the US Revolution.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I've heard the theory that the first shot was a pistol shot. Pistols were primarily carried by British officers. Therefore, the British.

Also, OP: you may be surprised to find out that very few people outside the states actually care about the US revolutionary war. So it's hardly considered a big deal.

That's kinda sad

Why? There is far too much history for any one scholar to know it all, let alone lay people. People tend to get taught about their own history, and have its significance exagerated, becuase they can't learn everything.

In my eyes you are belittling it, because the US revolution was a comparatively little thing. To place the first shot of the US revolution as anything near the same level as the shot that started the First World War is basically reducing the importance of the First World War to the level of the US Revolution.

Well...it could be argued that it was more important, simply because it was much further back in time, the effects were therefore much more long lasting and wide-reaching. But that's getting into weird speculation and mucking about with causality.

 

[Danny Ocean]

In my eyes you are belittling it, because the US revolution was a comparatively little thing. To place the first shot of the US revolution as anything near the same level as the shot that started the First World War is basically reducing the importance of the First World War to the level of the US Revolution.

Well...it could be argued that it was more important, simply because it was much further back in time, the effects were therefore much more long lasting and wide-reaching. But that's getting into weird speculation and mucking about with causality.

Exactly. The Revolution was the direct proximate cause of the creation of the USA. It contributed to other revolutions, but they would probably have happened anyway.

The Assassination was the direct proximate cause of the deaths of about 16.5 million people, the wounding of 21 million others, and the total annihilation of vast tracts of Europe. It also lead to the Treaty of Versailles, and then played a massive role in starting the Second World War, arguably more so than the WSC. This then lead to the deaths of at least another 40 million and even more destruction. The creation of the UN. The polarization of the world, and so on. It's more easily linked to more things that each had a bigger impact.

Look at it this way: In 200 years time, will people the world over still be taught about WWI? Probably. Are people the world over, 200 years after the US revolution, now being taught about it? Nope.

Of course, that's just speculation.

 

[Hectix777]

I'm not trying to belittle the Archduke's death (what is an Archduke in charge of? are they more powerful than regular dukes?),

I assume you're kidding.

I just wanted to set the record straight that the Revolutionary War was the first shot and the second was most definitely Archduke's death that led to WW1. Just wanna clear the fog

In my eyes you are belittling it, because the US revolution was a comparatively little thing. To place the first shot of the US revolution as anything near the same level as the shot that started the First World War is basically reducing the importance of the First World War to the level of the US Revolution.

And I assume that you are kidding. The American Revolution showed that it was possible for a tiny colony like America to defeat the British Empire. It I spired other nations to rebel. Ever hear of the French and Greek Revolutions

 

[FalloutJack]

D. the 24th Doctor.

No no, he put an end to it. The Master started it.

 

[Danny Ocean]

No, really. You must've been kidding about Franz Ferdinand.

And I assume that you are kidding. The American Revolution showed that it was possible for a tiny colony like America to defeat the British Empire. It I spired other nations to rebel. Ever hear of the French and Greek Revolutions

Yup. We spent time looking into the French revolution. To argue that the US revolution caused it is a stretch at best. In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that it would've happened anyway. The biggest contributing factors were enlightenment thinking (Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau), a distanced aristocracy, and extreme poverty and social inequality. The fact that the US revolution was the first in a string of them doesn't mean that it caused the others wholesale. That'd be a genuinely crazy claim to make.

We also spent a massive amount of time looking into chartism, which was the closest thing the UK had to a revolution. The main motivation wasn't that the US successfully rebelled, but other, more pressing factors.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but the US revolution just isn't that big a deal for the rest of the world. It was one revolution in a revolutionary time. It was the first, but the others seemed inevitable anyway. It was a contributing factor to the others, if that makes you feel any better, but it wasn't the main cause of them.

To argue that the creation of the US was more important than The First World War just seems like pure hubris to me. Perhaps a more knowledgeable historian will disagree. In fact, I'll ask my History/Politics/Economics teachers on Monday, and get back to you.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but the US revolution just isn't that big a deal for the rest of the world.

The American revolution meant the British couldn't send convicts over there anymore, so they founded colonies in Australia.

If it wasn't for the American revolution, the history of the arguably most important nation in the 2nd least important continent...nevermind.

 

[Danny Ocean]

If it wasn't for the American revolution, the history of the arguably most important nation in the 2nd least important continent...nevermind.

haha. xD

That genuinely made me laugh. Thanks.