What are some moments in history where the bad guys actually won (excluding world wars for all you memers out there)?

Waterloo

>Siege of Baghdad 1258

Mongolians sack Baghdad, signalling the end of the Islamic Golden Age. It is said that the Euphrates turned dark blue/black from all the books, manuscripts etc that were dumped in to it. To me, this is on par with the great library of Alexandria burning to the ground in terms of how much it angers me.

Basically, a bunch of horse herding barbarians destroyed a city of beauty, knowledge, intellectuals and civilization, prematurely ending a boom of culture and science that could have spanned hundreds of years longer. The reason why the middle east is shit to this day is probably because of the sacking of Baghdad.

And nothing of value was lost.

Treaty of Union.

While the union was good for Scotland, the nobles of Scotland signing up to it when it had almost no public support, with more than a little bribery involved has the bad guys [Scottish nobles, can't blame the English for trying.] winning.

>muh Germans
Friendly reminder that Bismarck was a fuckwagon that ruined Europe's imperial age.

You can't possibly believe this.

>you could never have come to the most patent observation possible

The arbitrary division of the Ottoman empire into smaller nations without any regard to 1000 years of middle eastern history had a lot to do with it too.

Nowadays it's all about Israel though.

The Mongol Empire.

Nobody needed those fuckers. At all.

>nothing of value
Not knowing things is perfectly fine, user.

The Mongols destroyed the great library of Baghdad, aka "The House of Wisdom", which housed huge numbers of texts and manuscripts on medicine, architecture, mathematics, astronomy. Baghdad, and this intellectual centre flourished in the 8-900s when Europe was still wallowing in it's own ignorance after the collapse of the Roman Empire. They would have hard countless works from Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Al-Kindi, etc lost forever.

If you are capable of appreciating art, there is also the beautiful architecture that would have been destroyed/burned to the ground.

The so-called "Arab" Spring

Yeah, it would be foolish to only credit the current status of the middle east to one specific event.

I fucking hate this board

Spanish war of independence t.b.h. Pepe Botella please return, the Bourbon dynasty was a mistake.

Almost everyone look so smug in that depiction.

The Punic Wars.

Fall of Constantinople

The Hijra and all that is modeled after that

Tbh I kinda find that shitposting funny

t. not kurd
Fuck Saddam. God bless America.

Oh come on dude, this is bullshit. Constantinople was just a collection of villages by that time.
At least bring up something like the 4th crusade or Heraclius' defense against the initial Arab attacks in Egypt and the Levant

Saddam was the best safe space Kurds had

I hope from the bottom of my heart that you or one of your family members will get raped and killed.

It's a meme but it's true

Saddam was the bad cop that kept the asylum (ISIS) quelled. He is the lesser evil for all bystanders.

>when keeping it real goes wrong.

There was a new Caliph at the time and he went out of his way to talk shit to Helagu with nothing to back it up. Not saying the Mongols were the good guys, but the Caliph made it worse than it had to be.

...

Taiping Rebellion
French Intervention in Mexico
Spanish–American War

Lmao an Austrian is the emperor of Mexico
Fuckin cucks

The '''''Communist''''' Chinese winning the revolution basically destroyed Chinese culture. And millions of people died too I guess

IT´S OK WHEN TURKEY DOES IT

GREAT NORTHERN WAR

Battle of Alesia
Battle of al-Qādisiyyah
Battle of Hastings

>European powers actually backed todays biggest shit hole over todays richest country

This is the only real answer.

You can also add Timur to the list.

The fall of Constantinople

>French Intervention in Mexico
>Spanish–American War
aren't these mutually exclusive..?

meant to quote

>WWI
>October revolution
>Bush War
>Northern War
>American 'interventions'
>Fall of constantinople

>Mongols

QUEUE THE MONTOGE!

The French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.

ISIS is made up of former Baathist party members, so not really.

The after effects of Saddam's overthrow were exacerbated by the sectarian violence that flared up and that the Americans failed to stop.

The Boer War

Pretty much any war involving the UK ever

>American Revolution

People are going to think I'm trying to be edgy saying this but

The 1948 Palestine/Israeli """""Independence""""" war

All the current conflict in that particular region stems from that one conflict and the Israeli side winning. The fact that you had a bunch of racialist colonists bent on cleansing and replacing the local land/culture with one radically different and incompatible with the natives winning the final might makes right challenge meant that ever since there has been eternal conflict trying to shore up a radical political decision no one but the winners can accept but no one can fully stop either.

The moral case, or lack therefor of, for a violent colonial state is 200 years too late so we get this weird abortion where everyone for 100s of miles hates and can never accept the new state with said conquerors trying to convince the world that they are not conquerors while unbelievably using terra nullius rhetoric to justify themselves. They can't finish the job by simply massacring the locals fully and taking all the living space they want, as people would do in older days, because that would tip off the world to the fact they are conquerors as well as potentially sparking a real life badboy war, yet they can't by nature not act like antagonistic conquerors either. So shit just never ends.

CaoCao

Although only in some interpretation.

>Implying constantinopel was relevant before the Ottoman Empire

Spanish civil war/Spanish revolution.

American revolution
American civil war
American-indian wars

boo fucking hoo the arabs have allready taken over most off the middle east serves them right losing the levant

>Persians
>Kurds
>Blue eyed Syrians
>Assyrians

The Cold War.

>bad guys
>history

Back to your video games and American propaganda movies, kid.

>Some regents or states can not possibly have been better than other regents or states
eh, 3/10 responded

>Kurds
>Blue eyed Syrians
>Assyrians
All victims of arab imperialism. Especially Assyrians.
"blue eyed syrians" have pretty much assimilated and become arabs.
Kurds are fighting too become independent from the Arab and Turkish scum
>Persians
Their the exception
I wrote most of the middle east not all

Ottoman-Byzantine Wars

Persians are only independent from Arabs because they got extremely lucky. The Turks and Mongols conquered Persia from the Arabs, which led to the Azerbaijani Turks conquering Persia from the Timurids and creating a free Persia for the first time in centuries.

This.

I cry everytime.

The Opium wars

Wut?
Persia was already independent from the Abbasids since the 900's

It was French butthurt
WWI was won by the bad guy because there were only bad guys, and Belgium

t. butthurt anglo/frenchie

Germany is fucking your shit up again and nobody is going to help you this time.

>Implying Arabs wouldn't slaughter each other without the Israelis. The Israelis are actually the constant thorn in the side the arabs need. Literally the reminder that all their Hybris is ridicioulus

...

a fuckload of /pol/ shitposters go to Veeky Forums to defend hitler

>Napoleon shouldn't have come to power through the revolution
>Napoleon should have won the Napoleonic wars

It's a meme BECAUSE it's untrue

t. not even memester graduate

>Be CNT
>Be an organization that forces people into communism
>Unironically call themselves "anarchists"
>Be a de facto state that refuses to call itself a state
Now I'm not defending Franco's regime, just pointing out the other side's hipocrisy

American War of Independence
>rebellion for dubious reasons

French Revolution
>just downright evil behaviour, rebelling against their rightful king based louis xvi who did nothing wrong

Portuguese 1910 Coup d'état
>rebellion against the king

Russian Revolution
>french revolution only worse

Establishment of the Weimar Republic and of the Nazi Regime
>two repulsive regimes, especially compared to the german empire

Arab-Byzantine Wars
>what was their fucking problem?

Saudi-Hashemite Wars
>saudi shits come to dominate arabia instead of based hashemites

Spanish-American War
>america stealing spain's shit for dubious reasons

Fourth Crusade
>schemingvenetians.jpg

Anything to do with Mongol barbarians

Greco-Turkish War after WWI, though to be fair the Greeks shouldn't have gotten greedy

English civil war

"""""Glorious""""" Revolution (James II did nothing wrong)

That's because it's a revolution and basically every anarchist who isn't an anarcho-pacifist believes in doing that and has done since anarchism was invented.

No side was good there, but the best of the worst won.

By far and away the worst of the worst won, Franco was an absolute monster.

The best (as in morally right) outcome probably would have been a moderate republican victory, that is a victory by the actual government.

There was one bad guy. Germany. She was the only on that truly desired war. Austria too but not like that.

The point is that armed thuga forcing their ideology on people doesn't sound too anarchist. An anarchist attitude would be anarchists buying a lot of land and deciding to run it themselves without submitting people to their ideology.

>Revolutions aren't anarchist
wew lad.

Anarchism =/= being a hippie.

>nullified progressivist reforms by the republic
>helped create the Spanish Miracle
>suppressed separatists, communists, and anarchists
>smart enough not to involve himself in WWII
I dunno, he seems like an okay guy to me.

This argument is a bit like saying Franco didnt act Christian enough

Mongols did nothing wrong, they were based as fuck.

>nullified progressivist reforms by the republic
Nothing wrong with progressive reforms
>helped create the Spanish Miracle
And he also caused the economic mess that the "miracle" had to recover from
>suppressed separatists, communists, and anarchists
Nothing wrong with separatism. And regular, economically stable western countries did a fine job at supressing the radical left.
>smart enough not to involve himself in WWII
To be fair it took a team of colossal idiots to believe the Axis had so much as a shot at beating the entire planet. Being smart enough to not get involved in that shitshow isn't really worthy of congratulations.

All the wars of Independence of the Spanish colonies
Plus all the wars that Spain, the defender of the Catholic and only true faith, lost.

Battle of Yarmouk

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk

I said that forcing their ideology on people is not very anarchist.
>We are against authority, now obey the CNT and submit to our communist utopia!

Waterloo

>Nothing wrong with progressive reforms
Literally everything wrong.
>And he also caused the economic mess that the "miracle" had to recover from
Nah
>Nothing wrong with separatism.
Debatable. I think Spain splitting up into a Basque state, a Galician state, a Catalonian state, etc. would be pretty bad.
>And regular, economically stable western countries did a fine job at supressing the radical left.
No, they just dragged the discourse left until they weren't radical anymore.
>To be fair it took a team of colossal idiots to believe the Axis had so much as a shot at beating the entire planet. Being smart enough to not get involved in that shitshow isn't really worthy of congratulations.
They came pretty close, but I'll agree that not joining didn't take collosal thinking skills on Franco's part.

But it is.

Again, you seem to be confusing anarchism with being a hippie.

>Literally everything wrong.
Nah, it's inevitable. May as well make your peace with it rather than just chimping out for muh jeebus (who Franco didn't follow very well anyway).
>Nah
He did. The war he started absolutely fucked Spain's economy and on the count he extensively collaborated with Hitler and Mussolini it stayed fucked with the ensuing isolation of post-war Europe being reluctant to trade with Spain. By the 1940s the economy was exponentially worse than it had been 10 years before. Had the nationalists not chimped out Spain would probably be a normal western European country now.
>No, they just dragged the discourse left until they weren't radical anymore.
They didn't. 50 years ago we had communists calling for the annihilation of the bourgeoisie, these days we have teenagers calling for the recognition of their made up pronouns and the state to recognize gay people getting married.

>Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies,[1][2][3][4] although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8]
If they force people into a communist society, then there is herarchy and there is not voluntaryism, both concepts opposed to anarchy.

>people would want to reproduce the social relations of commodity production and wage labor because muh voluntary exchange

>It's inevitable
Inevitability doesn't make it right.
>By the 1940s the economy was exponentially worse than it had been 10 years before.
Oh, now I see what you mean. Anyway sure whatever, he started the war, and then he fixed the damage with interest.
>50 years ago we had communists calling for the annihilation of the bourgeoisie
We still have that now, though they get elected to positions of power and use slightly different words. Those progressivist reforms we were talking about, on the other hand, eventually led to the Tumblrinas.