The objective criteria of the success of the corporation is profit it produces.
If you are more on the humanistic side, you can consider number of people it employs multiplied by salary as well, because each person employed is a family having bread and butter on the table.
But how to to judge historical events objectively?
Abstract question:
Suppose A had defeated and conquered B. Naturally, many descendants of B will be upset over that outcome regardless of the nature of A, nature of B and results of the conquest unfolded after the conquest. But it would be subjective estimate.
How can we tell that such conquest was a progressive or regressive event from the objective historical point of view?
How can we compare A conquering B with C conquering D even if we determine that both conquests advanced civilization? In which of those 2 cases progress was better?
What would be the criteria for such estimate?
Please, do not tailor criteria to the particular historical events you do not like or which are commonly considered bad. Please, try to formulate criteria first and only then apply them to the particular historical events to prove your point.
I would propose to consider the human life as the highest objective treasure. And in this case is after A conquered B population of the sufficiently fed and sheltered humans on the combined A+B territory increased, it is a progress. If population on A+B territories had decreased, then it was a regress. The more people land can feed, the better the progress.
If people are multiplied, but on the barely fed and worked 20 hours a day almost to death, it does not count as population increase for the purpose of the proposed measurements..
What would be your opinion?
If you are more on the humanistic side, you can consider number of people it employs multiplied by salary as well, because each person employed is a family having bread and butter on the table.
But how to to judge historical events objectively?
Abstract question:
Suppose A had defeated and conquered B. Naturally, many descendants of B will be upset over that outcome regardless of the nature of A, nature of B and results of the conquest unfolded after the conquest. But it would be subjective estimate.
How can we tell that such conquest was a progressive or regressive event from the objective historical point of view?
How can we compare A conquering B with C conquering D even if we determine that both conquests advanced civilization? In which of those 2 cases progress was better?
What would be the criteria for such estimate?
Please, do not tailor criteria to the particular historical events you do not like or which are commonly considered bad. Please, try to formulate criteria first and only then apply them to the particular historical events to prove your point.
I would propose to consider the human life as the highest objective treasure. And in this case is after A conquered B population of the sufficiently fed and sheltered humans on the combined A+B territory increased, it is a progress. If population on A+B territories had decreased, then it was a regress. The more people land can feed, the better the progress.
If people are multiplied, but on the barely fed and worked 20 hours a day almost to death, it does not count as population increase for the purpose of the proposed measurements..
What would be your opinion?