The top ten worst decisions in history

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Byzantine fanatic, Nov 21, 2018.

  1. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Because that would be over extension and due to the inland pagans in Luzon which can only be eliminated by famine...and the British would treat Luzon better than the Spanish did.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  2. Incanian By the Glory of Inti the Incas will never die.

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    You need to restate this. In hindsight, this was a bad decision, but at the time it was not a bad decision at all.
     
  3. Hegemon of words and thoughts

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Location:
    Ribeirao Preto, World State
    Another bad decision just came to me: the Jin Dynasty ignoring the danger of the five barbarians until it was too late.
     
    kasumigenx likes this.
  4. Incanian By the Glory of Inti the Incas will never die.

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    One of the worst decisions in hindsight was Georgian Monarch Erekle II's decision to disband his army of 20,000 Georgians, which lead to his defeat against Agha Mohammad Khan in 1795, leaving 4,000 of his soldiers dead, and 15,000 women and children sent to Iran as slaves and paving the way for Russian annexation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  5. Byzantine fanatic Pasha of the Rumistan beylik

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    The Old World
    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk knew it was a bad idea from the start. If only he had been in command of Turkey at the time, things could have gone differently.

    I understand that ostensibly it did present an opportunity to regain Egypt from the British, but with Allied naval superiority it should have been obvious that the war would go against the empire and the central powers.
     
  6. Johnrankins Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    You are the one behind the times. With shale oil we have at LEAST a century or two of oil and gas while we also have several centuries of coal. With generation IV breeder reactors we can make right now (They merely need to work ways out to scale them up more ) we have millions , if not billions, of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is around a million times more efficient than chemical energy.

    As far as agriculture is concerned we can either reserve oil for agricultural use by using nuclear plants or we can make gasoline out of CO2 and water using the waste heat from the same to make them. This can be done now, it is just inefficient. Scaling up genIV nuke plants would make it much more efficient. Other power sources that it could make is hydrogen gas.

    We have millions of years of metals even without recycling while we have more wood now than we did 100 years ago. In fact I would thin many of the forests out west as they are too thick which is the biggest reason you have big forest fires. You are using outdated, discredit Malthusian economics. That went out the window decades ago.
     
  7. cmakk1012 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Wow, can I get a whole nuclear power of my own? Is it like a superpower? :p

    What I mean to say is what’s your unit of measurement?
     
    GauchoBadger and Hegemon like this.
  8. Byzantine fanatic Pasha of the Rumistan beylik

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    The Old World
    Right, and man made global warming has nothing to do with it...
     
  9. WilliamOfOckham Frog Emoji

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Has anyone said "the Battle of New Orleans" yet? Because wow, there were a lot of ways the British screwed that one up. There have been plenty of threads about how the peace following would have been different (people tend to overstate the war of 1812's impact), but as for the battle itself practically any tactic, including straightforward assault, would have been better than Pakenham's dilly-dallying. At the first sign of difficulty he abandoned all of his flanking and bombardment plans, but went through with the frontal assault anyway (???), leading obviously to a massacre and the practical end of British encroachment onto US policy, as well as the rise of the man who made America - well, America. His genius almost compares to those of the Austrians.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2019
  10. Hegemon of words and thoughts

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Location:
    Ribeirao Preto, World State
    Alexander Severus not crushing the Sassanid rebellion. Especially in hindsight, it allowed a far more powerful dynasty to come into power in the east, stripping crucial resources from the west.
     
  11. Incanian By the Glory of Inti the Incas will never die.

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Could he have seen the war as a bad idea? Yes, but I severely doubt he would have thought it would end up in the restriction of the Ottomans to Anatolia. And the problem is, the entire Ottoman population, and almost everyone in the government thought being on the central powers side was a good idea. I don't know if you know, but a government and heavily public funding for two dreadnoughts from Britain were withdrawn almost complete from the government without any payback, right before the war, and the order Greece had for dreadnoughts was not canceled. Also, Britain was supportive of Russia, the Ottoman's natural enemy, so Germany and Austria were the only real allies the Ottomans had left, and it's not like the British saw the Ottomans as allies.

    The British initially supported the Young Turks, but then they realized the Young Turks were actually more of a threat to Britain than Abdulhamid II had been. Abdulhamid had used Pan-Islamism to protect the Ottomans, but the Young Turks planned to use Pan-Islamism to liberate Muslim occupied places and gain territory for the Caliphate and made plans for Islamic revolution as seen from their missions to India. And the idea of a Global Jihad was actually not that far off, because every day more and more Muslims showed devotion towards the Ottoman Empire, as they were one of the last independent Islamic empires, and one of the last Islamic nations that were still independent for the most part, unlike Persia or Afghanistan.

    The war was not to regain Egypt, as while Egypt was highly pro-Ottoman, the initial aims for war was the restoration of lands in the Caucasus pre-1877, dismember the Ottoman Capitulations, and more importantly than any territory was to get rid of as many unequal treaties as possible, and reassert the Ottomans as an independent sovereign state. One of the Young Turks dreams was a Muslim bourgeoisie that could invest in Muslim owned businesses in the empire, and across the world. They also wanted a pro-Ottoman Albania under Austrian protection, and gain influence in Transcaucasia.

    Allied naval superiority was obviously considered during war plans, yet the Ottomans had a navy of their own, with two German dreadnoughts, commanded by Germans, and also, the Ottomans knew the British wouldn't waste their ships on areas not of worth, the main city they'd attack would be Constantinople, as the world's most powerful navy should attack a capital with water on both sides, and when that happened, it failed.
     
  12. Sertorius126 Badass guerrilla fighter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Not like he could really do anything about it, like the Sassanids never manages to crush the empire in all its civil wars.
     
  13. Johnrankins Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Years, as there is a whole lot of thorium out there. Thorium is as common as lead.
     
    Laqueesha and cmakk1012 like this.
  14. Johnrankins Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    There has been little or no change in temperature in over a decade. What this pause means is subject to debate. IMO it probably means that at least the top end of the scenarios fail. We are talking maybe a couple C or so not 4 or 5.

    Even if I am wrong since there has been no observed global warming in a decade it couldn't have such an effect. Forests overstocked with fuel does. US forest policy for decades has been to plant two trees for every one chopped down. The downside to that is over thick forests. The US forest service assumed we would be chopping down the trees not having Greens throw a hissy fit every time a few conifers are felled.
     
  15. Hegemon of words and thoughts

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Location:
    Ribeirao Preto, World State
    Well at that time, the sassanids were in their infancy, beginning in Pars and expanding to conquer the rest of the Parthian empire and expand its borders even further than Parthia ever had. The rebellion came after the Roman occupation of Mesopotamia in the 210s. Had the Romans been able to crush the sassanid rebellion, it’s possible that a much weaker Parthia could be propped up as a quasi-vassal. Perhaps Roman Mesopotamia could even be maintained.

    Mind that I’m not saying that the Romans needed to conquer Parthia, or even Mesopotamia, or even formally vassalize Parthia, but they just needed to keep their eastern border as an ineffectual buffer state. The Sassanids were the exact opposite of “weak” and “buffer”.

    Also, this is much easier to see in hindsight, when we can look back at all the grief the Sassanids caused for the Roman Empire
     
  16. SealTheRealDeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Not to mention all the red tape around and activist opposition to controlled burns.
     
  17. Sertorius126 Badass guerrilla fighter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Yeah but Romans probably weren’t even certain what the whole thing was about. It was Parthia’s business to deal with, and Romans would have had to strike a deal with Parthia to help her crush the rebellion, which thing I doubt they had any interest in doing, Parthia still was a nuisance after all. It indeed was a mistake, not crushing the Sassanids, but one that could be hardly avoided by the Romans, thus not technically a “mistake”.
     
    Fabius Maximus and kasumigenx like this.
  18. Hegemon of words and thoughts

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Location:
    Ribeirao Preto, World State
    Yeah, which is why I say this is mostly in hindsight.
     
  19. Koprulu Mustafa Pasha Sadrazam of the Roman Empire

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Location:
    Sarajevo
    Mustafa Kemal had the experience that helped him since 1919 onwards. You could say MKA would be much different than he was OTL had he been in power from 1913. In which he would be 32 years old.

    Besides, everybody knew what kind of bad idea it was to fight the British and Russians at the sams time. But considering Russian Threat existed and this time by using the Armenians, it was "either victory or destruction" in the minds of the three Pasha's... probably.
     
    Byzantine fanatic likes this.
  20. Byzantine fanatic Pasha of the Rumistan beylik

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    The Old World
    The expansion of Russia to the south combined with the decline of the Ottoman Empire is one of the great disasters of history.

    Before entering in the war, the question is: How would the Ottomans achieve naval superiority?

    Do you think the Ottomans could have gained something from the war, if the leaders made some different decisions?

    What is the best case scenario for Ottomans at this period?