The top ten best decisions in history

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 ;):p

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 ;):p

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.

Yes, I’m trying to change that right now.

And I can assure you that royalty in this thread will be few and far between. But you can have them all ;).
 
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 ;):p

Well let's give this a go:

1. Brutus' decision to overthrow the last king of Rome, in 500BC and found the Republic instead.

As archeological evidence now proves, the transition from “kingdom” to “republic” was far less smooth than tradition would lead us to believe, there had been civil strife aplenty and Rome went through a period of major crisis after the general prosperity of the kingdom’s last decades, what came out of that political shitstorm probably didn’t even closely resemble what would later be known as the Roman Republic. Brutus, whose existence itself is highly debatable, had nothing to do with its foundation, credit should rather be given to the promoters of the law Licinia-Sextia, that was the real turning point where Rome became the Roman Republic.

2. Cyrus the great, founding the Persian Empire on the basis of religious tolerance.

Which is pretty much what nearly every empire in antiquity did. Religious persecution was rare in ancient times, mostly focused upon Jews and creeds derived from Hebraism, like Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
Some more suggestions:

George Washington stepping down after two terms.

The thorough education of Germans about the holocaust post wwii (honestly, this is one of the things we need to prevent genocides)

Giuseppe Zangara missing FDR (dunno how much of a decision it was, but whatever)

The invention/discovery of pasteurization, sewer systems, germ theory, plumbing, and basic hygiene, the last especially for surgery, childbirth, treating wounds, and healing the sick.

The discovery of anesthetics.
 
The decision by the British government to voluntarily give up their colonies after WWII rather than try to hang on to them like France did (I know this is an overgenerslization). If India and other British colonies had been forced to fight a violent struggle for independence, the human cost could have equalled that of WWII.
 
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.

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.
 
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'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.


And Caligula and Nero and even Commodus did not set the empire in ruin. During their reign, the empire had internal peace, the machinery of government went on, and it lasted several centuries after their deposition. It did not even end the Pax Romana. 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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

You could find instability, chaos and corruption aplenty in the Roman Republic, once it became more than a regional power. The empire was way more solid, it withstood pretty much everything thrown its way until outside pressure became far too much to handle, and it still carried on in the East for a thousand more years. What really made its hegemony collapse was not absolute monarchy, but the overall lack of a deep rooted cultural unity, amongst other things. The army was what kept the empire together, with that gone, the empire was lost.

There was no extended and united political structure in ancient times that relied upon democracy or parliamentary government, it was either absolute monarchy, or let centrifugal forces make everything fall apart.
 
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.


I wouldn’t say effects are so black and white. For example, it could be argued that Alexander didn’t succeed in his goals. His empire fragmented immediately after his death, and Greece would be occupied by Rome and Parthia.

Genghis bolstered world trade and cultural exchange. It could also be argued that, without his empire, China and especially Russia would remain fragmented into separate.

Then there’s the issue that the idea of the group is also subject to interpretation. For themselves, at the particular moments in time, Deng and his closest allies’ decision to crush the revolt was a good one. But extend the group to China, and even humanity as a whole, and it’s still unclear what the effect will be.

What I’m trying to say is that I don’t think this question has a right or wrong answer, nor one answer, nor any such straightforward answer(s).
 
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.

For the principate part, I think others have already answered the question. A republic at that time kind of parallels communism in our time, come to think of it. Maybe an ideal, maybe good in theory, but we weren’t/aren’t ready for it. The principate, and even dominate, were far more stable and less corrupt than the republic.

And what I mean for the nazi part was especially the informal aid part. IIRC, Britain couldn’t have fought on without American support and lend/lease. Especially, if due to a few divergences, the Americans actually supported the Nazis (or at least maintained a tense de facto instead of simply de jure neutrality with them).
 
Diocletian ushering in the Dominate. By any and all rights Rome should have been as good as dead following the Crisis of the Third Century, Diocletian and later Constantine cut some fat and created a more practical empire which was able to soldier on for centuries longer.
 
It was mentioned upthread but I'm a vote for the discovery of vaccination/inoculation. Smallpox alone has killed what, hundreds of millions of people? Much less all the rest of the nasty stuff we have shots for these days.
 
Top