Most Epic Screwups in History?

[carmen510]

Basically, call it the Epic Fails of History. Such a category will usually include any decision that went wrong, with huge consequences.

I would include such screwups as the League of Nations and the Great Leap Forward in the list.

[TheLastOne36]

Well Poland, after the battle of Grunwald, was all "yippee!!! let's stop this war, we've crushed them!" and never thought of finishing the conquest in Malborg. The consequence? Well we never got a big enough SeaPort, and Prussia survived and at the end killed us...

[LightSpectra]

Charles I of England.

[Dumanios]

Nazi Invasion of the USSR.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by TheLastOne36

Well Poland, after the battle of Grunwald, was all "yippee!!! let's stop this war, we've crushed them!" and never thought of finishing the conquest in Malborg. The consequence? Well we never got a big enough SeaPort, and Prussia survived and at the end killed us...

The defenders at Marienburg had something to do with that too, you know. It wasn't about to fall unless Plauen lost his nerve; by gum, he didn't, and West Prussia was cleared easily enough.

[civiijkw]

The Indians helping to keep Jamestown and Plymouth from failing.

Hitler declaring war on the US.

Justininian failing to support Belisarius.

The fourth crusade to weaken or defeat the Moslems being led by Enrico Dandolo.

Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to Mecca.

Huascar believing Atahualpa.




And in a different direction (an epic fail with huge consequences that eventually turned out favorable for the sponsor of the failure).

Columbus thinking that he could reach Asia (in the ships of the day) by traveling west.

[eastsidebagel]

WW 2, it was epic and it was a failure for everyone, 'cause it led to the Cold War afterwards.

[Roller123]

the worst screwup in history, well without being specific i would say definitely The Middle Ages, a 1000 years setback. Imagine we could be now in a year 3009. Space travel etc.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Roller123

the worst screwup in history, well without being specific i would say definitely The Middle Ages, a 1000 years setback. Imagine we could be now in a year 3009. Space travel etc.

Setback in what terms? It wasn't a technological decline, and the period actually helped create a foundation for many of the political freedoms the West now (theoretically) enjoys. This should probably go in "real/perceived history", hmm?

[jeps]

Most of them can be explained by not studying history.

as an example, napoleon's russia campaign is excusable, while hitler's is not for the reason that hitler should have learned from napoleon.

[Roller123]

Dachs
Technologically. Political freedoms? Rome already had a working democracy. I could agree that middle ages helped separating religion and state. However atheism comes with critical thinking, and critical thinking comes with science. Which was more advanced in Antiquity. Hygiene utterly lacking, which helped spread things like plague, every second dead, survivors selected not by intelligence or adaptability, but by some genes. I just dont see anything good coming from the MAs but setbacks. at best a stagnancy, which can be regarded as a setback as well.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Roller123

Technologically.

That's a fallacy. There was plenty of technological development in several fields (e.g. agricultural, metallurgical) even in Europe during the vaguely-defined medieval times, and that's not counting chemical, mathematic, and other advances made outside of Europe by the Muslims and the Byzantines.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Political freedoms? Rome already had a working democracy.

Rome did not have a democracy.

Originally Posted by Roller123

However atheism comes with critical thinking, and critical thinking comes with science.

This chain of reasoning doesn't actually follow.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Which was more advanced in Antiquity.

For the most part, it actually wasn't.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Hygiene utterly lacking, which helped spread things like plague, every second dead, survivors selected not by intelligence or adaptability, but by some genes.

I suppose the twentieth century is one of the most stagnant times in all of history, then, for all of the deaths from disease that have occurred.

Originally Posted by Roller123

I just dont see anything good coming from the MAs but setbacks. at best a stagnancy, which can be regarded as a setback as well.

Only by people indoctrinated by the Renaissance.

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by Roller123

However atheism comes with critical thinking

As we can see from the fact that every scientist in history, such as Isaac Newton and Ibn al-Haytham, were atheists, right?

[Roller123]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Rome did not have a democracy.

What do you mean, they had yearly elections.

There was plenty of technological development in several fields

Who said it wasnt, however Pythagoras wasnt endangered of being burned by calculating the Earth is round in, i dont remember, 500 BC?

This chain of reasoning doesn't actually follow.

It is impossible to disprove god if you believe in him, as believing isnt affected by rational thinking.

I suppose the twentieth century is one of the most stagnant times in all of history, then, for all of the deaths from disease that have occurred.

I dont think so. World population in 2000 was 6mlrd. To get to the Middle Age plague numbers 2-3mlrd should have died. Which is hardly the case.

[Roller123]

Originally Posted by LightSpectra

As we can see from the fact that every scientist in history, such as Isaac Newton and Ibn al-Haytham, were atheists, right?

And not to forget G.W Bush. He may be not a man of science, but he certainly claims to be a believer.

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by Roller123

And not to forget G.W Bush. He may be not a man of science, but he certainly claims to be a believer.

There are stupid atheists, and there are theistic geniuses; and vice versa. Get over yourself.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Roller123

What do you mean, they had yearly elections.

Not for everybody. Not even for all free men. And they most certainly did not have everybody vote on all measures; in that sense, at the very most, they were a republic, but not a democratically elected republic. And even then only for a few centuries, during which time the degree of voting and representational inequality was somewhat improved but not enough to qualify the Roman republic as by any means 'by the people, of the people, and for the people'.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Who said it wasnt, however Pythagoras wasnt endangered of being burned by calculating the Earth is round in, i dont remember, 500 BC?

Actually, the Pythagoreans, insofar as they actually existed, were a persecuted sect for a significant portion of their existence.

Originally Posted by Roller123

It is impossible to disprove god if you believe in him, as believing isnt affected by rational thinking.

The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be reasoned or proven and has no connection with anything scientific whatsoever. It is when one attempts to assign actions to that deity, or gives the deity certain traits, that there is disagreement.

Originally Posted by Roller123

I dont think so. World population in 2000 was 6mlrd. To get to the Middle Age plague numbers 2-3mlrd should have died. Which is hardly the case.

Europe ain't the entire world, for one. For two, the Spanish 'flu and AIDS combined alone total greater worldwide deaths than the Black Death did. For three, arguing about the actual number dead is really irrelevant, because I just said that the twentieth century was pretty bad, based on your criteria. Anyway, it's well documented that one of the key factors leading to a pandemic is increased contact between peoples and trade ties. So wouldn't that indicate that the Middle Ages were a rather expansive and flowering period?

And, FYI, Milliard isn't the way you say it in English, it's billion.

[holy king]

dachs, is it really fun to win the special olympics 100m run being usain bolt?

[Roller123]

Dachs

Not for everybody. Not even for all free men.

For every citizen. Get the facts straight please.

And even then only for a few centuries

Like the current one lasted longer. Remind me again when did black people got their right to vote in USA. And if they did what did a certain Martin Luther King fought for. That was what, 50 years ago? Few centuries...

Actually, the Pythagoreans, insofar as they actually existed, were a persecuted sect for a significant portion of their existence.

And it is in no way helping the claim that MA people continued to race the tech tree.

Europe ain't the entire world, for one. For two, the Spanish 'flu and AIDS combined alone total greater worldwide deaths than the Black Death did. For three, arguing about the actual number dead is really irrelevant, because I just said that the twentieth century was pretty bad, based on your criteria.

Again, calculating total deaths, w/o regard to the total population is nonsensical. The world was significantly less populated than today. The biggest "thing" was the Spanish Flu in 1918-19 killing like 30mln worldwide(note worldwide, not Europe) I am gonna include all the deaths from WW1 and WW2, lets assume they all died from diseases right.., thats like 20mln and 50mln. Together 100mln, and thats very far fetched. now 100/6000 is 1% of total population. The plague took 50%. Sorry i dont see anything of even a near proximity to "just as bad" as the plague did during Middle Ages and claming otherwise is absurd.

Anyway, it's well documented that one of the key factors leading to a pandemic is increased contact between peoples and trade ties.

Talking to people does not kill. Talking to unwashed people can. True even today. Talking is not whats stopping the bird flu right now. Claiming that contacting people is dangerous is only true, if the contacted people are dangerously ill in the first place. Which was less of a case during the Antiquity.

The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be reasoned or proven and has no connection with anything scientific whatsoever

Aside from the fact that the above is clearly wrong since religion and science have different views on same subjects, noone claimed that anyway. I said science->critical thinking->atheism. Not science->atheism.

And, FYI, Milliard isn't the way you say it in English, it's billion.

Incorrect again. Numerical nomenclature is not language dependent. It depends on a system used, and the country. (and changes quite often) The language doesnt matter. Whats a "gram" in English, a "mile"?

[Dachs]

I find it hilarious that I, the inveterate classicist, am on this side of a discussion.

Originally Posted by Roller123

For every citizen. Get the facts straight please.

Citizens' voting rights were not equal due to the wonderful expedient of the tribal system, and the space for voting - the Campus Martius - was too small to allow for all citizens to vote and thus disenfranchised many of the potential voters. My facts are straight, sir.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Like the current one lasted longer. Remind me again when did black people got their right to vote in USA. And if they did what did a certain Martin Luther King fought for. That was what, 50 years ago? Few centuries...

When did I say the United States was far superior?

Originally Posted by Roller123

And it is in no way helping the claim that MA people continued to race the tech tree.

You brought Pythagoras up, not me. If you want to talk about going up the tech tree, as you put it, then please talk about my points on metallurgical, chemical, mathematical, philosophical (since that's in the tech tree too ), and agricultural technology.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Again, calculating total deaths, w/o regard to the total population is nonsensical. The world was significantly less populated than today. The biggest "thing" was the Spanish Flu in 1918-19 killing like 30mln worldwide(note worldwide, not Europe) I am gonna include all the deaths from WW1 and WW2, lets assume they all died from diseases right.., thats like 20mln and 50mln. Together 100mln, and thats very far fetched. now 100/6000 is 1% of total population. The plague took 50%. Sorry i dont see anything of even a near proximity to "just as bad" as the plague did during Middle Ages and claming otherwise is absurd.

You're ignoring all of the other wonderful epidemics we've had during the past century, for one thing. For another, you keep assigning me a strawman, and I'd like you to stop. I never said that the diseases of the twentieth century were worse or equal to the effect of those in the fourteenth, merely that they must have caused a pretty stagnant time in history (going by your assertion as to disease causing stagnation) and that the twentieth century's disease deaths number was pretty bad. I never said "just as bad".

And we can argue about whether that meant anything for a very long time, but I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the economic consequences of the plague, as it were. The Black Death didn't stop economic and technological development, but in fact stimulated it. In the words of Herlihy, "men were dying, but coins were not". Deaths from disease, in tightening the labor pool, made wages skyrocket across Europe, and with it went the standard of living of the great mass of people, something that hadn't really improved much for the preceding centuries. (And certainly not during Antiquity.) The concentration of wealth in fewer hands and labor shortages helped stimulate even further technological growth. Lots of people may have died, but those who survived fueled an impressive run of economic and technological development. So referring to the Black Death as evidence of a backwardness in medieval Europe is silly, because its consequences weren't actually bad.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Talking to people does not kill. Talking to unwashed people can. True even today. Talking is not whats stopping the bird flu right now. Claiming that contacting people is dangerous is only true, if the contacted people are dangerously ill in the first place. Which was less of a case during the Antiquity.

Not really. The Germans of the thirteenth century, for example, were much cleaner than the classical Greeks and Romans on average.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Aside from the fact that the above is clearly wrong since religion and science have different views on same subjects,

You're misrepresenting the subject, claiming that religion and science can't coexist (a rather lulsome proposition when the Church funded so much scientific research during the early modern period). Religion, furthermore, is not the opposite of atheism. I direct you to some schools of Buddhist thinking, for example.

Originally Posted by Roller123

I said science->critical thinking->atheism. Not science->atheism.

I take issue with your assertion that critical thinking always leads to atheism.

Originally Posted by Roller123

Incorrect again. Numerical nomenclature is not language dependent. It depends on a system used, and the country. (and changes quite often) The language doesnt matter. Whats a "gram" in English, a "mile"?

Not the same thing. Billion is not a unit of measurement, it's an order of magnitude. There is no such thing as the word Milliard in modern English; it is a German word.