Greatest Blunders in History

[sydhe]

The Kwarezm Shah executing the envoys of Genghis Khan.

Although the story is probably fictional, I like the story in Herodotus on how Gyges became king of Lydia. Candaules, King of Lydia, had a beautiful wife and he insisted that Gyges hide himself to see her naked (to prove to the doubting Gyges how beautiful she was). The queen caught Gyges and gave him a choice: (1) be put to death or (2) kill Candaules, seize the throne and marry her. When you put it like that...

 

[Agent327]

lolwut strawman? I'm not supporting terrorism, I'm saying that he ended up achieving his goals. Doesn't mean I think that it's justified, just that the events that the action sparked ended up in Serbia's favor...

Only after the war was over. The immediate result was that Serbia was overrun.

Also assassinating a political figure isn't terrorisim.

Yes it is: political assassination is a terrorist act. Just check your laws.

 

[Dachs]

Only after the war was over. The immediate result was that Serbia was overrun.

And the Serbians were, in part, banking on the impermanence of that occupation, albeit for the wrong reasons. But they were right all the same.

 

[Ambidexter]

Chevrolet trying to sell Novas in Mexico and not realizing that the name translated into Spanish as "No go."

I realize this is from the first page but I can't let this urban legend go unchallenged. snopes calls it false for several reasons:

• Nova means "new" in Spanish. It's one word, pronounced differently than no va.
• No va would not be how a Spanish speaker would describe a non-functional car. No marcha or no camina would be much more likely.
• Pemex, the Mexican government's oil company, sold (and still sells) a brand of gasoline called Nova. If Mexicans were to associate anything to the name Nova, it would probably be this gasoline.
• The Chevy Nova sold quite well in its two major Latin American markets, Venezuela and Mexico. Venezuelan sales actually exceeded General Motor's expectations.

This myth just isn't true. Sorry.

 

[Agent327]

And the Serbians were, in part, banking on the impermanence of that occupation, albeit for the wrong reasons. But they were right all the same.

Very nice, but the assassin himself was a blundering idiot. (Political assassins have a way of being just that.) No way he could have seen the ultimale result of his act. (And what "the Serbs" thought of it is quite irrelevant - although they do have a history of being Balkan troublemakers.)

 

[Dachs]

Very nice, but the assassin himself was a blundering idiot. (Political assassins have a way of being just that.) No way he could have seen the ultimale result of his act. (And what "the Serbs" thought of it is quite irrelevant - although they do have a history of being Balkan troublemakers.)

He killed his targets, didn't manage to kill himself. Two out of three isn't terrible, especially when the third part is comparatively irrelevant to Serbian history. That started a war that the Central Powers had basically no chance of winning - that Austria-Hungary in particular would be screwed over by - and that Serbia would eventually profit from.

 

[Agent327]

He was a blundering idiot: in the trial following the assasinations he declared his goal was to create some kind of South Slav state. In this he failed, as killing the Austro-Hungararian heir did not lead to any such state, obviously. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo#Sarajevo_trial_.28October_1914.29)

That the terrorist attack inadvertently led to WW I, the Russian Revolutions and the Treaty of Versailles was not something the planners had anticipated. The breakup of Austo-Hungary was caused by the ultimate defeat of the Centrals, not some terrorist plot.

 

[silver 2039]

He was a blundering idiot: in the trial following the assasinations he declared his goal was to create some kind of South Slav state. In this he failed, as killing the Austro-Hungararian heir did not lead to any such state, obviously.

So Yugoslavia never came into being? Really?

 

[Sharwood]

He was a blundering idiot: in the trial following the assasinations he declared his goal was to create some kind of South Slav state. In this he failed, as killing the Austro-Hungararian heir did not lead to any such state, obviously. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo#Sarajevo_trial_.28October_1914.29)

That the terrorist attack inadvertently led to WW I, the Russian Revolutions and the Treaty of Versailles was not something the planners had anticipated. The breakup of Austo-Hungary was caused by the ultimate defeat of the Centrals, not some terrorist plot.

And that terrorist plot is what led to the war, that led to the collapse of Austria-Hungary, that led to the creation of Yugoslavia, which was a South Slav state. Seemed to accomplish his goals to me.

 

[Agent327]

Let me see: terrorists kill Autro-Hungarian successor. Result: trial by Austro-Hungary of the perpetrators, Serbia overrun, WW I starts. Hm, now how could these visionaries have foreseen the participation of the USA in 1917 and the defeat of the Centrals?

I think it's time for some What Ifs: what if Germany had been able to transport Lenin from Zurich to Petersburg? What if the USA had stayed out of the war? Just two examples of factors the assassins of 1914 would have no influence on whatsoever. Saying that the treaty of Versailles was the result of a terrorist attack in 1914 seems to me stretching the facts beyond any reasonable truth. (But hey, that's just me.)

 

[Dachs]

Hm, now how could these visionaries have foreseen the participation of the USA in 1917 and the defeat of the Centrals?

The Central Powers were not expected to win the war.

I think it's time for some What Ifs: what if Germany had been able to transport Lenin from Zurich to Petersburg?

That happened.

 

[Sharwood]

The Central Powers were not expected to win the war.

That happened.

This. The Central Powers were thoroughly expected to lose the war from the moment Britain entered it. If Britain had remained neutral - not gonna happen - the story might have been different. Honestly, Serbia couldn't really have calculated it better if they'd tried.

 

[Dell19]

Honestly, Serbia couldn't really have calculated it better if they'd tried.

I'm tending to agree more with JEELAN. The direct consequence was Austrian invasion, everything else becomes more a more watered down with an essentially infinite number of additional decisions being made that contributed to the eventual path that history took.

If you claim that Yugoslavia was a direct consequence then you must also accept that its break up was also a direct consequence and additionally you are then trivialising the lives of millions of people who died - who the majority would have cared nothing at all about Serbia.

Finally Austria-Hungary was seemingly on a major decline having to split power with Hungary and this trend was likely to continue so with or without Princip, it was likely that Austrian dominance over the region would end eventually.

 

[silver 2039]

Finally Austria-Hungary was seemingly on a major decline having to split power with Hungary and this trend was likely to continue so with or without Princip, it was likely that Austrian dominance over the region would end eventually.

On the other hand Franz Ferdinand was a reformer and he was in favor of granting more rights to Slavs. It may have resulted in a Tripartitie Monarchy with a third Slavic portion if he became Emperor satisfying the minorities within the Empire so Serbia may never gain those territories.

The goals of the assassins was to prevent this from occurring. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

 

[Sharwood]

I'm tending to agree more with JEELAN. The direct consequence was Austrian invasion, everything else becomes more a more watered down with an essentially infinite number of additional decisions being made that contributed to the eventual path that history took.

If you claim that Yugoslavia was a direct consequence then you must also accept that its break up was also a direct consequence and additionally you are then trivialising the lives of millions of people who died - who the majority would have cared nothing at all about Serbia.

Finally Austria-Hungary was seemingly on a major decline having to split power with Hungary and this trend was likely to continue so with or without Princip, it was likely that Austrian dominance over the region would end eventually.

The break-up of Yugoslavia was due to the way the nation was organised and governed, not anything inherently wrong with the idea. And I don't doubt that Austria's influence in the region would have been gone soon anyway. But I don't see the result of said decline being a South Slav state, which is what Serbia wanted. Therefore, provoking an Austro-Hungarian dissolution, rather than a slow decline, was in their interests.

While I doubt the Serbs where too happy with the immediate results, they had to know that Austria-Hungary would lose a war, and the establishment of a South Slav state was a likely follow-up event, which is what actually happened. Therefore, not a blunder, even if Princip himself was a blundering fool who got lucky.

 

[Dell19]

The break-up of Yugoslavia was due to the way the nation was organised and governed, not anything inherently wrong with the idea. And I don't doubt that Austria's influence in the region would have been gone soon anyway. But I don't see the result of said decline being a South Slav state, which is what Serbia wanted. Therefore, provoking an Austro-Hungarian dissolution, rather than a slow decline, was in their interests.

On the first point I generallly get the impression that it was never really going to work as the various nations never had a history of being fully united and history sometimes seems to be the only thing that keeps larger nations together (Scotland want to leave etc) plus common languages and traditions...

While I doubt the Serbs where too happy with the immediate results, they had to know that Austria-Hungary would lose a war, and the establishment of a South Slav state was a likely follow-up event, which is what actually happened. Therefore, not a blunder, even if Princip himself was a blundering fool who got lucky.

They were likely to lose a war, but which one? Its within the realms of possibility that Austria-Hungary declare war immediately and within a week have made enough gains to stop the various other decisions being made to start WWI. I do agree with your last sentence and I guess quite a few of the other blunders mentioned in this thread could also ultimately be put to question if anyone cared to.

 

[Sharwood]

On the first point I generallly get the impression that it was never really going to work as the various nations never had a history of being fully united and history sometimes seems to be the only thing that keeps larger nations together (Scotland want to leave etc) plus common languages and traditions...



They were likely to lose a war, but which one? Its within the realms of possibility that Austria-Hungary declare war immediately and within a week have made enough gains to stop the various other decisions being made to start WWI. I do agree with your last sentence and I guess quite a few of the other blunders mentioned in this thread could also ultimately be put to question if anyone cared to.

They were almost as close culturally as the people of Germany were, and the Germans had a long history of internecine strife. Even when they were under one government, such as the Holy Roman Empire, they were never really united. Same with the Italians. France unified several different linguistic and cultural areas under its control. It happens, it's just the organisation of Yugoslavia promoted conflict.

If Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia, Russia would invade Austria-Hungary. That was a given, as was the fact that Austria-Hungary would lose such a war. I doubt anyone expected the war to take the course that it did, but it was pretty much accepted that Austria-Hungary couldn't defeat Russia at this time, and German involvement would bring on French involvement, and Germany couldn't win a two-front war etc.

All of the Black Hand's goals were accomplished, and probably quicker than they expected, by the assassination. Hell, Princip stupidly failing to kill himself probably worked out in favour of his goal. Therefore, not a blunder. Now, even if he'd missed, it still might have worked out. The whole plan was very well thought-out by Serbia.

 

[KROL]

How about some blunders not involving Franz Ferdinand?

In no particular order:

1. Xerxes bringing one of the largest, most sluggish, most ineffective armies in the history of mankind to invade a group of loosely-affiliated city-states (Greece).

2. Mansa Musa's shopping spree in Cairo. He gave away a large portion of his country's wealth over the course of a few weeks. The Malinese kingdom began a steady decline - I wonder why...

3. Xiang Yu not killing Liu Bang outside the imperial city. Xiang Yu would have reigned as Emperor of China, and the Han Dynasty would have never existed. Considering how long the Han Dynasty lasted, I have to wonder how things would have turned out differently. China may have become more divided than it already was and eventually fall to barbarians.

I have to agree with the guy that mentioned Zheng He's navy. If those expeditions had continued, the Chinese probably would have settled the new world, and may have even held land in Africa and Europe. That navy brought about the founding of Hong Kong, didn't it?

And if Rome had been burned to the ground by Hannibal, things would be radically different. Christianity wouldn't even exist, most likely. Then again, maybe some barbarian (maybe even Hannibal himself) would have taken up the mantle of Roman emperor, similar to how Charlemagne was granted the title of HRE.

 

[Dachs]

1. Xerxes bringing one of the largest, most sluggish, most ineffective armies in the history of mankind to invade a group of loosely-affiliated city-states (Greece).

I wouldn't call the Achaemenid military "sluggish and ineffective", but rather "out of its element".

And if Rome had been burned to the ground by Hannibal, things would be radically different. Christianity wouldn't even exist, most likely. Then again, maybe some barbarian (maybe even Hannibal himself) would have taken up the mantle of Roman emperor, similar to how Charlemagne was granted the title of HRE.

I want to see implementation of this burning down business. Also I would be most interested in seeing how anybody is going to be interested in the tradition of Roman emperors that started two hundred years after Hannibal won the battle of Cannae.

 

[Sharwood]

How about some blunders not involving Franz Ferdinand?

In no particular order:

1. Xerxes bringing one of the largest, most sluggish, most ineffective armies in the history of mankind to invade a group of loosely-affiliated city-states (Greece).

2. Mansa Musa's shopping spree in Cairo. He gave away a large portion of his country's wealth over the course of a few weeks. The Malinese kingdom began a steady decline - I wonder why...

3. Xiang Yu not killing Liu Bang outside the imperial city. Xiang Yu would have reigned as Emperor of China, and the Han Dynasty would have never existed. Considering how long the Han Dynasty lasted, I have to wonder how things would have turned out differently. China may have become more divided than it already was and eventually fall to barbarians.

I have to agree with the guy that mentioned Zheng He's navy. If those expeditions had continued, the Chinese probably would have settled the new world, and may have even held land in Africa and Europe. That navy brought about the founding of Hong Kong, didn't it?

And if Rome had been burned to the ground by Hannibal, things would be radically different. Christianity wouldn't even exist, most likely. Then again, maybe some barbarian (maybe even Hannibal himself) would have taken up the mantle of Roman emperor, similar to how Charlemagne was granted the title of HRE.

Hannibal not burning Rome wasn't a blunder. There was no way he possible could burn Rome. One needs a seige train to partake in a seige, and Hannibal didn't have one. There's a thread on this on the first page of the forum.

And I doubt China would have colonised the New World, even if they'd discovered it. After all, the natives in many of these places gave the Europeans a damn good fight. China had no impetus to colonisation, and thus no reason to fight for Mexico, Australia, etc.