History's greatest fails

[Conserative Morality]

Most emphatically yes. Romans brought civilization, culture and peace (when treaties were not broken) to regions plagued with internecine and tribal warfare. Admittedly they also produced avaricious governors, mostly during the Republican era, but their influence is still a major part of western civilization, law, culture and governance.

Avaricious governors > Avaricious warlords.

[Nazis in Space]

What? Lots of good came out of WW2 in the areas of military strategy (combined arms and maneuver warfare)

Extant since the invention of spears, cavalry, and bow & arrow.

technology (rocketry, jet engines, nuclear fission)

~ 1000 A.D.; pre-WW2 by a couple months; pre-WW2 by a couple months.

military technology (anti-ship missiles, HEAT munitions, APDS munitions)

See rocketry; Pre-WW2 by a decade; valid

it dragged America out of its isolation, and permanently changed the political landscape of Europe.

What kept America out of its isolationism in the post-war era was the cold war; Pre-war, America's colonial possessions and economic interests had ended american isolationism in the early 19th century. The changes to the political landscape of Europe (Expansion of the Soviet Union, iron curtain) were not a favourable outcome.

The best description of WW2 I've ever seen, echoing the sentiments of Nazi Flower Power, is 'Both sides tried their hardest to lose, and the Germans gave that little extra bit of effort.'

[Buffett and Colbert]

The lack of resources (agriculturally speaking) in the Americas, Africa, and Australia as well as the alignment of the continents' axes after 10,000 BC.

That, actually, wasn't the problem in Africa. The problem in Africa was a simple mistake of geographical proximity to gunpowder-using states. Too far away to acquire gunpowder the way the European States did, and yet close enough to feel the effects of their gunpowder using neighbors (IE the North African States).

While sub-Saharan Africa did develop livestock, the agriculture was lacking for a while. The point isn't really relevant, since Australia and the New World were very far from gun-powder using states, and we know that that didn't make a difference in the end...

[Airstrip 100]

What? Lots of good came out of WW2 in the areas of military strategy (combined arms and maneuver warfare), technology (rocketry, jet engines, nuclear fission), military technology (anti-ship missiles, HEAT munitions, APDS munitions), it dragged America out of its isolation, and permanently changed the political landscape of Europe.

Yay...

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

The lack of resources (agriculturally speaking) in the Americas, Africa, and Australia as well as the alignment of the continents' axes after 10,000 BC.

The Americas and Africa have a lot of agricultural potential, hell the US is number 3 in the world in agricultural output. The native Americans just didn't do any large scale agriculture like the west did, they mostly relied on subsistence farming.

[Conserative Morality]

Extant since the invention of spears, cavalry, and bow & arrow.

Updated for modern warfare. I don't believe the same combined arms tactics used with spears, cavalry, and bows will work with rifles, tanks, and artillery.

~ 1000 A.D.; pre-WW2 by a couple months; pre-WW2 by a couple months.

Modern computers aren't inventions silly, they've been around since Greek times! Therefore, the actual modern computer is not an invention, and we might as well be using the Antikythera mechanism. And both of those were IMPROVED over the course of WW2.

What kept America out of its isolationism in the post-war era was the cold war; Pre-war, America's colonial possessions and economic interests had ended american isolationism in the early 19th century. The changes to the political landscape of Europe (Expansion of the Soviet Union, iron curtain) were not a favourable outcome.

American isolationism was very much a post-WW1 problem, and showed no signs of stopping without the Cold War, which was ENABLED by WW2.

The best description of WW2 I've ever seen, echoing the sentiments of Nazi Flower Power, is 'Both sides tried their hardest to lose, and the Germans gave that little extra bit of effort.

Doesn't mean that we didn't get anything out of it.

[ImperialPoland]

When Vader killed Obi Wan, only for him to become more powerful than he could possibly imagine.

^this

[Conserative Morality]

While sub-Saharan Africa did develop livestock, the agriculture was lacking for a while. The point isn't really relevant, since Australia and the New World were very far from gun-powder using states, and we know that that didn't make a difference in the end...

But the Americas and Australia were never developed on the level that parts of Africa were. The Mali, the Songhai, the Bornu, the Axumites/Ethiopia, all of them were perfectly civilized agricultural states. Gunpowder is what could make or break them, and the Portuguese decided to screw over all of Mali, and by extension, the rest of West/Central Africa.

The Axumites/Ethiopia (I'm never sure where one begins and the other ends, honestly) were isolationists on a scale worthy of 1930s America.

[Baltenstein]

The Maginot Line. There was a Belgium-sized hole in it.

Well, there was little the French could have done about it.

- Completing it along the Franco-Belgian border, locking the Belgians out and leaving them alone with the Germans? Belgium minds.
- Completing it along the Belgo-German border, thus branding it officially as a joint anti-German maneuver? Germany minds.

The main flaw of the Maginot line was basically the existence of Belgium.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The lack of resources (agriculturally speaking) in the Americas, Africa, and Australia as well as the alignment of the continents' axes after 10,000 BC.

The Americas and Africa have a lot of agricultural potential, hell the US is number 3 in the world in agricultural output. The native Americans just didn't do any large scale agriculture like the west did, they mostly relied on subsistence farming.

The Americas and Africa have since been exposed to Eurasian crops, livestock, and farming methods.

[Nazis in Space]

The Americas and Africa have a lot of agricultural potential, hell the US is number 3 in the world in agricultural output. The native Americans just didn't do any large scale agriculture like the west did, they mostly relied on subsistence farming.

Thanks to old world animals and crops. Previous to these becoming available, the Americas had neither a beast of burden to improve yields, nor a fantastically easy to use, low-maintenace crop like wheat, which limited agricultural yields.

[Buffett and Colbert]

While sub-Saharan Africa did develop livestock, the agriculture was lacking for a while. The point isn't really relevant, since Australia and the New World were very far from gun-powder using states, and we know that that didn't make a difference in the end...

But the Americas and Australia were never developed on the level that parts of Africa were. The Mali, the Songhai, the Bornu, the Axumites/Ethiopia, all of them were perfectly civilized agricultural states. Gunpowder is what could make or break them, and the Portuguese decided to screw over all of Mali, and by extension, the rest of West/Central Africa.

The Axumites/Ethiopia (I'm never sure where one begins and the other ends, honestly) were isolationists on a scale worthy of 1930s America.

True, but lack of gunpowder is only a proximate cause.

[Wazkyraque]

Ethiopia.

[Schwabenreich]

The Battle of Karánsebes, that ignominious battle which may or may not have happened, in which the Austrian army under Emperor Joseph II, while scouting for Ottoman forces, opened fire on what was believed to be a Turkish army and later turned out to be the rest of the Austrian army. As mercenaries and soldiers from throughout the empire panicked and fired on one another, while officers concluded that the cavalry were Ottoman and ordered artillery fire. Sometime during the (possible) battle, the emperor wound up unhorsed in a ditch while the entire army fled. Two days later the Ottomans finally arrived, finding 10,000 dead and wounded soldiers of the original 100,000.

I remember lolling when I heard how it supposedly started over soldiers make a small fort to keep other soldiers away from their schnappz. Its one of those stories that are so funny that you hope they really happened.

[Conserative Morality]

True, but lack of gunpowder is only a proximate cause.

Not really. Africa was little different from Europe before the Renaissance. Better, arguably. Gunpowder not only allowed the establishment of military hegemony over non-gunpowder using states, but also led to a strengthening of centralized States and a reduction in the strength and importance of the nobility (Though not of their wealth). From these things, all the glory of the Renaissance flowed.

That might be a little dramatic, on second thought. From these things, MUCH of the glory of the Renaissance was ENABLED.

[Airstrip 100]

The biggest failure of history was the Russian Revolution. Specifically, the October one.

[Buffett and Colbert]

True, but lack of gunpowder is only a proximate cause.

Not really. Africa was little different from Europe before the Renaissance. Better, arguably. Gunpowder not only allowed the establishment of military hegemony over non-gunpowder using states, but also led to a strengthening of centralized States and a reduction in the strength and importance of the nobility (Though not of their wealth). From these things, all the glory of the Renaissance flowed.

That might be a little dramatic, on second thought. From these things, MUCH of the glory of the Renaissance was ENABLED.

Gunpowder is only proximate, though. The ultimate cause would be the reason gunpowder landed in the hands of the Europeans first and not the Africans.

[Conserative Morality]

Gunpowder is only proximate, though. The ultimate cause would be the reason gunpowder landed in the hands of the Europeans first and not the Africans.

And what reason would that be?

Wait a minute... Did you just finish reading Guns, Germs, and Steel?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

The Americas and Africa have a lot of agricultural potential, hell the US is number 3 in the world in agricultural output. The native Americans just didn't do any large scale agriculture like the west did, they mostly relied on subsistence farming.

The Americas and Africa have since been exposed to Eurasian crops, livestock, and farming methods.

And Europe has been exposed to American crops such as the potato and corn, both of which are very easy to farm and versatile crops. Also, the Americans could have come up with european farming methods, or bred domesticated animals into good farming animals, they just didn't, the continents and climate have nothing to do with it.

[Schwabenreich]

Not really. Africa was little different from Europe before the Renaissance. Better, arguably. Gunpowder not only allowed the establishment of military hegemony over non-gunpowder using states, but also led to a strengthening of centralized States and a reduction in the strength and importance of the nobility (Though not of their wealth). From these things, all the glory of the Renaissance flowed.

That might be a little dramatic, on second thought. From these things, MUCH of the glory of the Renaissance was ENABLED.

Gunpowder is only proximate, though. The ultimate cause would be the reason gunpowder landed in the hands of the Europeans first and not the Africans.

I was under the impression that Egyptians made use of gunpowder in their territory and potentially North Africa before the europeans were? Or did I just imagine that.

[Unilisia]

Gunpowder is only proximate, though. The ultimate cause would be the reason gunpowder landed in the hands of the Europeans first and not the Africans.

I was under the impression that Egyptians made use of gunpowder in their territory and potentially North Africa before the Christians were? Or did I just imagine that.

If the Egyptians were given gunpowder weapons they would have destroyed the Hittites entirely, occupied Anatolia, and also expanded as far south as Lake Victoria and ruled most of the surrounding lands of the Nile River.

[Ecans]

Most emphatically yes. Romans brought civilization, culture and peace (when treaties were not broken) to regions plagued with internecine and tribal warfare. Admittedly they also produced avaricious governors, mostly during the Republican era, but their influence is still a major part of western civilization, law, culture and governance.

Avaricious governors > Avaricious warlords.

True, but the Romans were MUCH better at it...i.e. the use of the Temple goodies in Jerusalem to build the Coliseum.

[Conserative Morality]

If the Egyptians were given gunpowder weapons they would have destroyed the Hittites entirely, occupied Anatolia, and also expanded as far south as Lake Victoria and ruled most of the surrounding lands of the Nile River.

Yeah, they were called the Ottomans. Minus the Lake Victoria bit.

[Hypparchia]

I suppose this could be one the greatest FAILures in history. That's when it comes to technology.

If we're talking about events, I suppose the Korean war. No territorial changes, millions killed, and 60 years after the end of active hostilities we're still seeing the results.

[Unilisia]

If the Egyptians were given gunpowder weapons they would have destroyed the Hittites entirely, occupied Anatolia, and also expanded as far south as Lake Victoria and ruled most of the surrounding lands of the Nile River.

Yeah, they were called the Ottomans. Minus the Lake Victoria bit.

I'm talking Pharaoh times, before even the Osmans were around to make the Ottomans. If the Egyptians had been armed with gunpowder during the times before/during the Roman Era, things would have been immensely different.