History's Greatest Failures

Can we start a new thread for interminable discussion about whether or not Constantine was a ninny? It's totally drowned out the topic, interesting as it is.
 
The Islamic Revolution in Iran. Theocracy cannot and will not EVER work. But the biggest failure ever is letting North Korea get nukes. The greatest power in history in the hands of an insane fool.
 
I found it interesting how the emperors abandoned their links to Augustus and Pericles, and claimed Constantine and Justinian instead. Their view on empire was heavily informed by Christianity. The emperor, starting with Constantine, was viewed in quasi-religious terms. The empire itself was viewed as heaven on earth, perfect and unchangeable.


Even supposing that you are right about the Byzantine Empire being non-Roman, and I don't even agree that this is true, surely you can admit that the Byzantine Empire, the legacy of Constantine, was a success. I simply don't see how you can say that Constantine was a failure, when clearly all of the evidence shows that he was wildly successful.

In your initial post you said he was an art thief, how on earth does his stealing of art make him into a failure? He used it to build up one of the most important cities in the world. A city which holds vast cultural and religious importance to this day.

You claimed that he was a bad theologian, I fail to see what was bad about it, Orthodox Christianity persists to this day, and the trinity is the foundation stone of all modern Christianity. By holding that council, Constantine insured the survival of Christianity, a religion which has helped shaped the world. This makes him one of the more successful and influential figures in history, hardly a failure.
 

Skokie

Banned
Even supposing that you are right about the Byzantine Empire being non-Roman, and I don't even agree that this is true, surely you can admit that the Byzantine Empire, the legacy of Constantine, was a success. I simply don't see how you can say that Constantine was a failure, when clearly all of the evidence shows that he was wildly successful.

His legacy is a lot longer than the empire during or shortly after his lifetime. I'm judging him by the innovations he set up. I think they were Epic Failures that we're still dealing with.

In your initial post you said he was an art thief, how on earth does his stealing of art make him into a failure? He used it to build up one of the most important cities in the world. A city which holds vast cultural and religious importance to this day.

They had to literally rip apart and mine pagan temples because they lacked the knowledge and skills to build or make new art. Fail.

You claimed that he was a bad theologian, I fail to see what was bad about it, Orthodox Christianity persists to this day, and the trinity is the foundation stone of all modern Christianity. By holding that council, Constantine insured the survival of Christianity, a religion which has helped shaped the world. This makes him one of the more successful and influential figures in history, hardly a failure.

I think it turned out to be a tremendous failure for Christianity, in addition to being a failure for mankind. Orthodoxy (with a lower-case "o"; not the particular Eastern Christian religion) or religious beliefs enforced by a state is a mad, lethal and toxic concept that we haven't fully recovered from yet, either in the West or in the Islamic world. Constantine innovated that by allying with the bishops and starting the precedent (that continues to hamper Eastern Orthodox, btw) of emperors calling councils, defining dogma, and defining and suppressing "heresies." He introduced into the fabric of religion the values of the Dominate.

The Byzantines themselves achieved a local Pyrrhic victory. At the expense of 90% of the knowledge of the ancient world (a failure in my book, maybe not yours), they won themselves the right to race horses at the hippodrome and bow before glowering, badly painted Madonnas for a period of around 1000 years. They achieved damned little else. No philosophy, no science, no great art. Just stagnation. It has a certain Romantic appeal, I'll give you that. But fluffy bunny Romanticism is not the only game in town. ;)
 
I think it turned out to be a tremendous failure for Christianity, in addition to being a failure for mankind. Orthodoxy (with a lower-case "o"; not the particular Eastern Christian religion) or religious beliefs enforced by a state is a mad, lethal and toxic concept that we haven't fully recovered from yet, either in the West or in the Islamic world. ;)

I will refrain from engaging in a theological discussion in this thread, if you have anything further to say, send me a pm. I will say that your comment is both insulting and illogical. I don't see how you can say that religious orthodoxy is so "lethal," considering that both Christianity and Islam have been extraordinarily successful religions.
 

Skokie

Banned
I don't see how you can say that religious orthodoxy is so "lethal," considering that both Christianity and Islam have been extraordinarily successful religions.

Really? These are issues we're still dealing with today. They're all over the news. Islam and Christianity have been successful, yes, but they've also gone to war countless times against each other and against themselves. They've burned books, blown up Pagan treasures, and suppressed science. It didn't and doesn't have to be so terrible, is all I'm saying. I don't mean to offend Christians or Muslims. I think there are plenty of both who share my opinions, in fact. State orthodoxy = bad idea. Maybe even an impossible idea. Let people decide for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Once again, this thread isn't about how good or evil people or actions are but about how miserably they failed. Also, Skokie, if you want to continue this discussion with me, send me a pm.
 
Well, yeah, these days, state-defined orthodoxy for a given religion is bad. But hindsight is 20/20; Constantine had no way of knowing that his successors would take it too far. His implementation of it was entirely to settle a violent dispute among Christians in his empire; it intended as a temporary measure to prevent civil unrest.
 

Skokie

Banned
Well, yeah, these days, state-defined orthodoxy for a given religion is bad.

I don't see why it would start being bad only recently.

There's a famous Chinese expression, spoken by a prime minister in the 7th century BC: "The way of heaven is far; the way of man is near." There are similar expressions in Greco-Roman and Indian civilization.

But hindsight is 20/20; Constantine had no way of knowing that his successors would take it too far. His implementation of it was entirely to settle a violent dispute among Christians in his empire; it intended as a temporary measure to prevent civil unrest.

How was it a temporary measure?

Nobody in history knows the outcome of their actions. We judge them nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
I think that the biggest failure in history was the battle of manzikert and the byzantine answer because it brought the end of this magnificient empire, the bloddy crusades and in a greater plan the muslim actual problem, because without the defeat maybe islam could be less aggressive towards christendom
 
An argument kind of undermined by how Muslims and Christians have done plenty worse things to one-another since (and on a global scale the Christian countries have been the bigger pricks; not the fault of the religion that the industrial colonising powers practiced it, but there it is), and also lived perfectly well in peace together since.

And then, mightier empires yet have suffered crippling blows; greater military disasters have been inflicted.
 
How has Iran's government failed? It's still going after three decades, unlike, say Hitler. It had checks and balances, as do the Kims. Though, Iran's seems to've followed the same fate as Putin's from Ahmadinejad. And, even if NK's nuclear bombs and long launchers actually worked (both look like flubs), how would they be up to USAF's power? How would it be worse than Stalin's USSR getting the bomb?

My favorite failures are in my computer field. These are both utterly vast industrial failures in which billions, at least, have been sunk.

Intel Itanium (or, Itanic, as many were increasingly apt to call it): A failed try at obsoleting their own decades-old x86 architecture. It failed because, first, Intel had absurdly overoptimistic ideas of what Itanium could do, and second, had mgt not atall up to a big job like that, missing deadline after deadline. Itanium sells today only in a handful of supercomputers today instead of the massive consumer market wholesale replacement planned.

Microsoft XBox line, especially 360: They've sold huge #s, and the 360's a pretty powerful box, xbut only by taking a huge loss, in a try at monopolizing the game console market. Except, their competition's as strong as ever, because they don't have the same grasp on any layer of the game console industry as Microsoft's Windows does on PC makers. SO dumb.
 
Top