Inspired by @Byzantine fanatic’s thread (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-top-ten-worst-decisions-in-history.456386/), I decided to create this one: what were the top ten best decisions in history?
I’ll try to give my list tomorrow, I need to sleep now.
I do believe you meant me, not @Byzantine
Nice idea for a thread, though I do expect to receive 50% of any royalties arising from this thread
Well let's give this a go:
1. Brutus' decision to overthrow the last king of Rome, in 500BC and found the Republic instead.
2. Cyrus the great, founding the Persian Empire on the basis of religious tolerance.
3. Prophet Muhammad, decision to sign the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. This peace treaty turned out to be a defining moment for the early Muslim community, and led to major success in the near future as it prompted widespread popular support. Despite being a controversial choice at the time, it turned out to be a wise and far sighted move.
4. Christopher Columbus, decision to go west. Even though he was wrong about reaching Asia, his discovery of land across the ocean had incalculable vast effects worldwide
5. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Decision to establish Turkey as a modern secular republic. Turkey won its independence against all the odds and the Treaty of Lausanne was a truly remarkable historic achievement.
Honourable mention: Constantine I: decision to make New Rome (Constantinople) on the site of Byzantium. Turned out to be one of the most successful decisions in all of history.
I do believe you meant me, not @Byzantine
Nice idea for a thread, though I do expect to receive 50% of any royalties arising from this thread
Well let's give this a go:
1. Brutus' decision to overthrow the last king of Rome, in 500BC and found the Republic instead.
2. Cyrus the great, founding the Persian Empire on the basis of religious tolerance.
Christopher Columbus, decision to go west. Even though he was wrong about reaching Asia, his discovery of land across the ocean had incalculable vast effects worldwide
Even more importantly IMO, King Ferdinand's decision to humour Columbus' batty ideas.4. Christopher Columbus, decision to go west. Even though he was wrong about reaching Asia, his discovery of land across the ocean had incalculable vast effects worldwide
Harnessing fire.
5. Augustus establishing the principate, setting the stage for the Pax Romana
9. The US supporting the allies in WWII, so that the Nazi Regime would not be a world superpower.
It's a good thing because it saved the Roman state from anarchy and desintegration. And hereditary monarchy is not backward in human progress, since its a form of government that would dominate the future. The Roman state is in better health during the Empire than in the last century of the Republic, so that is not backward at all. It is the Republic that had proven itself as backward.How was this a good thing? At best, it meant salvaging something workable from the wreckage of the late Republic, but establishing a hereditary monarchy was a backward step in terms of human progress.
Emperors like Nero and Caligula and later Commodus, put the empire on the path to ruin.
As for point 9) , Germany and Japan declared war on the US so this wasn't really a 'decision', although I am aware that the US was already helping Britain significantly before the actual declaration of war.
It is the Republic that had proven itself as backward.
And Caligula and Nero and even Commodus did not set the empire in ruin. ...I mean, could you really blame Nero for the fall of Constantinople in 1453, or for the events of 476?
Anyway, I look at whether a decision is good or bad on the perspective of who made the decision. From the perspective of Augustus, the principate was a wonderful thing.
3. This can be good. But surely consequences matter. For example the treaty of Hudaybiyyah was condemned by some at the time, as it appeared to them to be a bad deal. But from a historical perspective, when one considers the consequences, it turned out to be a great idea.
All sorts of things could appear to be a good or bad idea at the time but history is surely about taking the long view on what worked out over time and what didn't.
1. Probably more a case that the Republic was destroyed by the same forces unleashed by its own success. It worked brilliantly when Rome was small/medium size. But the wealth of conquest eventually destroyed its functioning and upset the balance.
2. Nero didn't cause 1453, but I mean the concept of absolute monarchy which did not exist in the Republic, caused periods of instability and bad rule. These are what wrecked both halves of the Roman Empire more than any other factor.
I don't go for that. A decision is something an individual does, or a group of individual does, that would benefit them, or least prevent harm for them.
It is a good decision if it succeeds with their aim and makes themselves or their group better.
It is bad if it does not and even makes it worse for the decision makers because it backfired.
I'll give an example.
Genghis Khan made the decision to unify the Mongol tribes.
Surely, that is a good decision for him and the mongols.
But not for the Jin, the Song, the Russians, the Khwarezm. It led to millions dying.
But was it a bad decision to do for Genghis?
No. Of course not.
Another example. Alexander the Great decided to conquer the Persian Empire.
Was it a good decision? Yes, for himself and the Greeks, since it succeeded, and it permanently eliminated the Persian threat. Was it a good decision for the Persians? Of course not.
But was it a wrong decision for Alexander to make? No. Because it succeeded in its goals.
Another example.
Mikhail Gorbachev initiated Glastnost and Perestroika in order to save the Soviet State.
Was it a good decision from Gorbachev's and the Soviet's perspective? Of course not. It led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and led the lost of its' empire.
But was it a good decision for the United States and the West? Of course! But surely, that was not what Gorbachev had in mind.
And so, he made the wrong decision.
Another example.
Deng Xiaoping made the decision to crush the protests at Tiananmen Square. Was it a good decision from Deng's perspective? And from the Chinese communist perspective?
Yes. It solidified their power.
It was a good decision.
Was is a good decision from the persective of the protestors? Of course not!
Did Deng make the wrong decision? No.
How was this a good thing? At best, it meant salvaging something workable from the wreckage of the late Republic, but establishing a hereditary monarchy was a backward step in terms of human progress.
Emperors like Nero and Caligula and later Commodus, put the empire on the path to ruin.
As for point 9) , Germany and Japan declared war on the US so this wasn't really a 'decision', although I am aware that the US was already helping Britain significantly before the actual declaration of war.