Pathetic Historical Characters

[J.Alco]

Often we discuss the merits of the greatest historical characters that make it into the history books: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Napoleon, are but a few examples-now-rapidly-becoming-clichés. We also discuss overlooked historical characters: people who made significant contributions to the world in their lifetime yet were somehow forgotten by the limelight and the audience for whatever reasons there are. There are characters who are remembered for coming very close to changing history, only to fail through Force Majeure (Pyrrhos, Attila) and there are those who are remembered because their failure was not only extraordinary, it was also tragic in how close they came to success (Hannibal, William Wallace). We also talk about the most ruthless and evil people who've ever walked the earth and left behind them considerable corpses lining the way.

At some point or other, all these kinds of figures have been discussed on this forum, either in threads devoted to the subject or popping every now and then in posts, so I decided to take a different wind and talk about an overlooked aspect of history: it's losers (and I'm not talking about tragic, unjustly-beaten losers).

Basically: Who in your opinion qualifies as one of history's most pathetic characters? People who were given positions of power and who could have had sway or influence, but simply turned out to be totally and absolutely useless at their job, or otherwise unqualified. Who, in your opinion, is the historical character who doesn't even merit sympathy or hatred simply because of how shoddily, or lamely, or unremarkably, they did their job?

I'll start off with two names:

1 - Lepidus. He's been mentioned briefly in history, yet strangely enough this man was at one point one of the most powerful people in the world as a member of the triumvirate created by Anthony and Octavian which for a while ruled Rome after the victory at Phillippi. One wonders why not much more has been said about his position, but dig a little bit deep and you see that there really is nothing to say: He didn't do anything major, didn't even try. He generally stayed out of the conflict between Anthony and Octavian (if he did take a side evidently no-one noticed) and just Didn't. Do. Anything. (I don't mean by this that he sat on his hands, I mean he didn't do anything else other than be a member of the triumvirate). After Anthony's death he seems to have essentially been another servant of Octavian without, again, doing anything other than having a job. Long ago a poster somewhere on this forum described him as a non-entity, and given his role in history, that's a very accurate statement: The man might as well have not existed for what he did, and in fact most histories of the Roman empire mention him briefly, with some not even bothering. This is a man who in my opinion actually deserves obscurity. He was in a position of considerable power, albeit with Anthony and Octavian having greater authority and hold over him, but it was still power and if he had wished it (or even if he'd had balls, a backbone, guts, or something) he could have made of himself a more important and significant presence in the ancient world. Instead, he basically just stood there and did nothing of any real note. Way to go Lepidus, you useless sod.

2 - Richard Cromwell. Son of Oliver Cromwell and heir to what was for a brief time the Republic of the British Isles. Lord Protector of England and ruler of the country by right of being the eldest son. Described by one history book (from school) as a 'Total Loser'. He deserves the title. Consider: His father, Oliver Cromwell, from being a simple middle-aged farmer, becomes Lord Protector of England, king in all but name in 19 years (5 of which are spent ruling the country). He wins several successive civil wars, kills a king (and alot of english and irish along the way), effectively becomes Britain's first military dictator, and lays the foundations for what could have eventually become a true republic. It takes his son 'Queen Dick' less than a year to demolish all that work. Actually it took him less than nine months, after which time Britain was back to the good ol' days of having kings. How did one man manage to so utterly undo the work of another? By being completely and utterly incompetent at his job, so much so that he wasn't even considered worth the effort of killing. Just goes to show that being the eldest doesn't mean you're in any way qualified for rule (but we all already knew that).

(NOTE: I added Richard Cromwell so as to dispel the notion that people are in any way limited to EB's timeframe).

That's my two cents on only two of history's most pathetic characters. How about you? Who are your candidates for the position?

[QuintusSertorius]

Lepidus was depicted brilliantly in Alfred Duggan's Three's Company.

[||Lz3||]

caligula... seriously... if I were roman in those times... I would kill caligula for the sake of the empire :shifty:

[Megas Pyrrhos]

He's still around, so maybe what I'm about to say would technically only apply maybe 40 some years down the road from now. My pathetic character contribution:


U.S. President George W. Bush. :shame:

The verdict is still out on what exactly he's messed up on.

[QuintusSertorius]

Marcus Junius Brutus has to be up there. Quintus Servilius Caepio (who lost at Arausio, and ironically was Brutus' grandfather) too.

[Havok.]

He's still around, so maybe what I'm about to say would technically only apply maybe 40 some years down the road from now. My pathetic character contribution:


U.S. President George W. Bush. :shame:

The verdict is still out on what exactly he's messed up on.

i'd second tis le's kill dat mutherfuker

[STuNTz2023]

i'd second tis le's kill dat mutherfuker

could be just me but i didnt expect much out of him fromt the start.
but im all for that.

[Havok.]

could be just me but i didnt expect much out of him fromt the start.
but im all for that.

cant tell actually, i'm not american and i cant said i was following worlds events a few years ago as i am now, but after i saw a movie made by Michael Moore attacking bush, i thought
' i dont think i like this mr. bush from america '
lol
xD

[||Lz3||]

there are so many pathetic characters out there,.. I'll post more details of the following later in the night

Varro , Battle of the Teutoburg
The traitor SOB that betrayed the greeks in Thermopylae :p
Herman Goering (WW2)
Antonio Lopez de Santaanna (Mexico-US war 1847)

[Havok.]

there are so many pathetic characters out there,.. I'll post more details of the following later in the night

Varro , Battle of the Teutoburg
The traitor SOB that betrayed the greeks in Thermopylae :p
Herman Goering (WW2)
Antonio Lopez de Santaanna (Mexico-US war 1847)



I've heard of the three first
but never heard of that Antonio Lopez
and Lz3 you're mexican? :clown:

[HopliteElite]

George Armstrong Custer- Really only remembered for his crippling defeat and death at the battle of Little Bighorn.

Horatio Gates- So called "Hero of Saratoga" he stayed in his tent while his subordinates like Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan were out on the field truly being heroes. Later was ruined at the battle of Camden where he abandoned his army and fled 170 miles in three days. Truly pathetic.

Ambrose Burnside- Utterly incompetent Civil War general remembered only for his sideburns, which, of course, are named for him.

[cmacq]

Richard Cromwell. Son of Oliver Cromwell and heir to what was for a brief time the Republic of the British Isles. Lord Protector of England and ruler of the country by right of being the eldest son.


For both Cromwells, as figures that influenced family history in a somewhat negitive sense, I thus motion this name forthwith tossed to the can for all time.

[||Lz3||]

there are so many pathetic characters out there,.. I'll post more details of the following later in the night

Varro , Battle of the Teutoburg
The traitor SOB that betrayed the greeks in Thermopylae :p
Herman Goering (WW2)
Antonio Lopez de Santaanna (Mexico-US war 1847)


I think you all know the first 3...

about ALS , well , he was a hero during the independency , and he was charismatic , he also overthrone the first emperor... that's why he was elected president 11 times , but... 1836 he made horrible tactic decisions , then several years later during the war, he didn't won any single battle against the US, cause he was so damn arrogant that refused to listen to his generals and military advisors, cause of that war Mexico lost half its territory (:shifty:),THEN several years later he somehow managed to be elected again , he went mad , he imposed taxes for owning dogs, cats, damn there were even taxes for having doors and windows! :shifty:, not to mention that he sold part of the territory to the US without an obvious reason...all of that eventually caused a civil war... in wich he was overthrown and sent to exile...were he died of diaherrea

@havok you figured it out here or in the tavern? :smash:

[cmacq]

Here's my pack

Quintus Sertorius
Marcus Fabius Romanus
Gaius Cassius Longinus

[Apgad]

Antony and Cleopatra together?

[Justinian II]

George Armstrong Custer- Really only remembered for his crippling defeat and death at the battle of Little Bighorn.

Horatio Gates- So called "Hero of Saratoga" he stayed in his tent while his subordinates like Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan were out on the field truly being heroes. Later was ruined at the battle of Camden where he abandoned his army and fled 170 miles in three days. Truly pathetic.

Ambrose Burnside- Utterly incompetent Civil War general remembered only for his sideburns, which, of course, are named for him.


Seconding Burnside here.... I'd add Crassus to this list as well.

"OH HEY, LETS INVADE PARTHIA!"
*pwned*

I think this also calls of the Return of the Almighty Mustache, in reference to Surena's awesome pwnage.

I'd also add the Byzantine Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes, responsible for Manzikert, and whats-his-name who got pwned by the Goths at Adrianople (Valens? Or was it Valerian?)

I think I might list Alkabaides in this list too, although I'd also put him on the "Generals with Severe ADHD" list...

and Eatheread the unready. Though I'm not sure if I'd call him a General, per se.

[Nirvanish]

I think I might list Alkabaides in this list too, although I'd also put him on the "Generals with Severe ADHD" list...


Was thinking Alcibiades myself but I think he's more of a despicable character.

[cmacq]

"OH HEY, LETS INVADE PARTHIA!"
per se.

You make a very good point. However, we also must not forget his pathetic performance in the Third Servile War.

[tapanojum]

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev followed by Boris Yeltsen.

Gorbachev was awared peace prize for his perestroika (reconstruction) and dissolution of the Soviet Union. In fact, he managed to turn Stalins powerful (although not so nice) empire into a joke. He didn't break apart the Soviet Union because he wanted to, but because his rule was too weak to keep together such an empire.

Yeltsen was just a silly drunk. What's more to say?

Also, the kid from the first Narnia who led the armies. He had archers up top on a hill leading into a valley. He had artillery (Griphons tossing boulders), Cavalry, Spearmen, Archers...an entire formidable army. Instead he leads everyone in a head on charge into the open against a numeriocally superior enemy. *douchebag* =p

[Gaivs]

Here's my pack

Quintus Sertorius
Marcus Fabius Romanus
Gaius Cassius Longinus

I second Quintus Sertorius, the man fled to Spain. He was one of Romes most capable military men of the time, yet he retreats to Spain, and does practically nothing. He could of ruled Rome, instead...he goes to the barbarians hundreds of miles away. Why!?

[Vorian]

Emperor Phokas.

He murdered Maurikius, a brilliant strategist that spent his life in battlefields and wrote military guides used by Byzantium for years. In his brief rule (7 years I believe), he managed to destroy the army, the finances and pretty much everything until the governor of Carthage rebelled and placed his son Heraclius as emperor. Luckily he was the man for the job.

[cmacq]

I second Quintus Sertorius, the man fled to Spain. He was one of Romes most capable military men of the time, yet he retreats to Spain, and does practically nothing. He could of ruled Rome, instead...he goes to the barbarians hundreds of miles away. Why!?

He went native/renegade, as in Col Kurtz of Apocalypse Now, a thing I fear we shall soon learn more of, about a man who would be king. Marcus Fabius Romanus is a somewhat similar story.

[Tyrfingr]

I'd say QuintusSertorius (not to be confused with the real-life Quintus Sertorius). The man has started three AARs, which two ended in highly anticlimatic CTDs and the third one hasn't been updated for a really long time!!!!

(hope you can take both the joke and the hint QuintusSertorius ;))

[Matinius Brutus]

He went native/renegade, as in Col Kurtz of Apocalypse Now, a thing I fear we shall soon learn more of, about a man who would be king. Marcus Fabius Romanus is a somewhat similar story.

No, he didn't! He saw himself as the legitimate government of Rome. He created a Senate, started schools of the Roman type and reorganized the army in the Roman fashion. Hardly native/renegade's actions! Besides I don't thing he deserves obscurity - with his limited resources he became the biggest pain in the ass for Rome and was only defeated after being betrayed by his own men. The defeat might have been inevitable, but still it might have not been. I read a theory that Spartacus was trying to reach Sertotius and combine forces. Now that would have been something of a bother for Rome!

I don't think that my man Brutus also deserves obscurity, after all he is the second most famous traitor in history! May be even the first but I think Judas has that honour.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'd say QuintusSertorius (not to be confused with the real-life Quintus Sertorius). The man has started three AARs, which two ended in highly anticlimatic CTDs and the third one hasn't been updated for a really long time!!!!

(hope you can take both the joke and the hint QuintusSertorius ;))

:laugh4:

Third one is looking like it's been killed by CTD as well. Something about 1.1 and my machine appear not to play well together. :embarassed:

As to my namesake, I think it's a little harsh to include him here. He fled to Spain because the idiots left in charge of the Marian faction had over-inflated opinions of their miniscule military skill, and wouldn't listen to some upstart new man. He could have stayed and been killed with them, still being ignored, or achieved something meaningful elsewhere.

Interesting that neither Pompey nor Metellus Pius could actually beat him in battle, it took treachery for them to win. That war could have dragged on and on for a decade or more were it not for that bastard Perpena (who probably does deserve a mention in this thread). He was one of Rome's greatest generals (certainly superior to his mentor, Marius), and one of the best leaders of irregular troops of all time as well. He also schooled Pompey - many of his eastern victories featured ploys Sertorius had used on him.

[polluxlm]

Augustus Romulus. The last emperor.

[General Appo]

Hasdrubal Barca. Son of probably the second greatest general in Carthage´s history, and brother of the undoubtly greatest one, he got an army and all he had to do was bring it to Italy and join up with his bro. First contact with the enemy, he got his ass kicked and pretty much ended any realistic dreams of Carthaginian victory.

Titus Labienus: Served greatly under Ceasar, showing himself as an excellent commander. But when the going got though, he defected to Pompey, where after he participated in several battles and campaigns, all ending in complete defeat, and he himself probably not influencing the tactics at all, eventually dying in Spain. Had he followed Ceasar he could have become one of his closest men, instead he ended up as just another nobody in Pompeys gathering.

Pyrrhus of Epirus: Do I need to motivate this one? Started dozens of war, but failed to complete any of them, and even when he pretty much had (Sicily) he got all pretenious (he wanted to invade Africa) and eventually made such an ass of himself that the locals decided to kick kim out. Eventually died after an old woman threw a roof brick at him, after going away on yet another campaign before finishing hus current one.

Marcus Minucius Rufus: After much debate he finally managed to get the Senate give him co-command with Fabius Maximus, so he could finally stop using Fabius cowardly tactics and attack like a Roman. First battle, he got his ass kicked by Hannibal and was only saved by Fabius.

[Ailfertes]

1 - Lepidus. He's been mentioned briefly in history, yet strangely enough this man was at one point one of the most powerful people in the world as a member of the triumvirate created by Anthony and Octavian which for a while ruled Rome after the victory at Phillippi. One wonders why not much more has been said about his position, but dig a little bit deep and you see that there really is nothing to say: He didn't do anything major, didn't even try. He generally stayed out of the conflict between Anthony and Octavian (if he did take a side evidently no-one noticed) and just Didn't. Do. Anything. (I don't mean by this that he sat on his hands, I mean he didn't do anything else other than be a member of the triumvirate). After Anthony's death he seems to have essentially been another servant of Octavian without, again, doing anything other than having a job. Long ago a poster somewhere on this forum described him as a non-entity, and given his role in history, that's a very accurate statement: The man might as well have not existed for what he did, and in fact most histories of the Roman empire mention him briefly, with some not even bothering. This is a man who in my opinion actually deserves obscurity. He was in a position of considerable power, albeit with Anthony and Octavian having greater authority and hold over him, but it was still power and if he had wished it (or even if he'd had balls, a backbone, guts, or something) he could have made of himself a more important and significant presence in the ancient world. Instead, he basically just stood there and did nothing of any real note. Way to go Lepidus, you useless sod.


Just for the record: Lepidus helped Octavianus reconquering Sicilia (before the quarrel with Marcus Antonius), when things looked very ugly for him. When Lepidus demanded Sicilia as reward (which he, IMHO, deserved, since it was largely he who supplied the forces), Octavianus took Africa from him and banished him. So yes, he was a useless sod (who remained pontifex maximus until his death though), but he didn't sit around doing nothing. He just didn't have any political feeling and chose the wrong moments to act.
Also: when Julius Caesar died, he was his right-hand man, his master of horse. It was when Caesar died that Lepidus just didn't appear to achieve anything.

[Hax]

Third one is looking like it's been killed by CTD as well. Something about 1.1 and my machine appear not to play well together.

Chance is that extensive use of Force Diplomacy may also work in favour of constant CTD's.

[konny]

Quintus Servilius Caepio (who lost at Arausio, and ironically was Brutus' grandfather) too.

At least he can claim to be one of the greatest criminals in history, stealing the gold of Tolosa and getting away with it.

[Col.Kurtz]

(QUOTE):Originally Posted by Gaivs
I second Quintus Sertorius, the man fled to Spain. He was one of Romes most capable military men of the time, yet he retreats to Spain, and does practically nothing. He could of ruled Rome, instead...he goes to the barbarians hundreds of miles away. Why!?


He went native/renegade, as in Col Kurtz of Apocalypse Now, a thing I fear we shall soon learn more of, about a man who would be king. Marcus Fabius Romanus is a somewhat similar story.

:) Have to get into this one - thx for the information!!

My candidate would be: Anthony Eden (British Prime Minister - what a dork ;)

[Zarax]

Berenice IV of Egypt: Put on the throne by egyptian nationalists she failed to start a dynasty of her own and she didn't finish off Ptolemy Auletes, resulting in Egypt becoming a roman protectorate...

[Justinian II]

Emperor Phokas.

He murdered Maurikius, a brilliant strategist that spent his life in battlefields and wrote military guides used by Byzantium for years. In his brief rule (7 years I believe), he managed to destroy the army, the finances and pretty much everything until the governor of Carthage rebelled and placed his son Heraclius as emperor. Luckily he was the man for the job.

Doh! I knew I forgot somebody in my list.

[Dumbass]

Gorbachev can't be compared with the most pathetic men in history. He inherited an extremely stagnated soviet union which was upon the brink of collapse. Good on him, trying to reform USSR with Glasnost and Perestroika. Any other soviet leader would have just launched into producing more expensive and useless missiles and military stuff. Gorby actually wanted to resolve the cold war to focus on holding USSR together. It's because of Gorby that the cold war could end peacefully, seeing as Reagan really wanted to force USSR into submission and talked about winning a "limited nuclear war".

Good on Gorby for allowing countries to have more human rights and free elections. It was better that the USSR collapsed because of his actions than for it to remain the way it was. Yes, he probably could have got all Stalin on everyone's ass, but that would have provoked the USA and the cold war would have still been raging on right now, if USSR had not completely been blown to pieces or racked by stagnation.

[Ludens]

Administrative message: please keep contemporary politics out of here. If wish to discuss those, go the Tavern Backroom (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=19) (access can be obtained through your User CP).

Back to topic, I think that many of the people mentioned don't deserve to be on the list. Quite often they are being included because they lost, and their opponents never glorified them (like happened to Hannibal). To be considered pathetic, you have to have a track-record of repeated stupid, misguided or irrelevant decisions. Case in point: Marcus Antonius. He was a distinguished military officer that successfully took control of the eastern Roman empire. Being a soldier, he naturally went on to make war on Rome's enemies in that theatre: the Parthians. He had initial success and invested an important city, but due to his aggressive advance his siege trains had gotten behind (you don't want to take on mobile Parthian armies when you are being held up by heavy catapults, after all) and were destroyed. As a result, Antonius couldn't take the city and was forced to retreat. If this hadn't happened, his army wouldn't have been depleted and demoralized when he had to face Octavian, and he might have won. One mistake, and it cost him the empire.

Same thing for Hasdrubal: he failed to do what his genius brother did, so that makes him pathetic? It probably was a bad idea, but Hannibal was desperate for help. It should be noted that Hasdrubal and his brothers almost broke the Roman influence in Spain after Hannibal had left, so he clearly wasn't that incompetent. I don't even understand why Titus Labienus has been nominated. He was a distinguished officer that performed very competently for and against Ceasar. He just chose the wrong side.

Burnside on the other hand was a mediocre general, but several of his failures were the work of McClellan rather than his own. He also scored a couple of initial victories against the confederacy, which for some reason have been almost forgotten. It's McClellan that was the Union's prize idiot, not Burnside. Augustus Romulus is indeed insignificant, but was it his own fault? The western Empire was pretty much a paper entity at this point. None of his predecessors achieved anything either.


Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev followed by Boris Yeltsen.

Gorbachev was awared peace prize for his perestroika (reconstruction) and dissolution of the Soviet Union. In fact, he managed to turn Stalins powerful (although not so nice) empire into a joke. He didn't break apart the Soviet Union because he wanted to, but because his rule was too weak to keep together such an empire.

I am not very knowledgeable on Gorbachov, but frankly the SU was already becoming a joke before he had a hand in it. Despite the bureau's best efforts, the economy was lagging way behind. The DDR, which was supposed to be a showcase for the world to see the wealth of Communism, was clearly being outperformed by the BRD. Gorbachov just recognized the inevitable. The problem with admitting the inevitable, however, is that people will hold you responsible for it.


I second Quintus Sertorius, the man fled to Spain. He was one of Romes most capable military men of the time, yet he retreats to Spain, and does practically nothing. He could of ruled Rome, instead...he goes to the barbarians hundreds of miles away. Why!?

You mean, until Sulla kicked him out of Rome? He didn't really have a choice. I second the nomination of Perpedna, though.

[dominique]

I second the positive view on Sertorius. Hindsight is always 20/20 they say. Sertorius had a couple legions, no money, and was fighting Sulla. He was one mean Mofo, that Sulla. Vicious, cruel and incredibly talented. Sertorius thought outside the box and I find him very interesting.

Concerning pathetic characters, of all time frames, my candidates are;

-Cleon, the George W Bush of Athenian politics, who succeeded in three kind; 1) alienating Athens' allies by raising their tribute and treating them as vassals; 2) gave the moral high ground to Sparta by wanting and trying to slaughter all the male population of Mytilene 3) Restarted the war with Sparta only to get his army slaughtered by Brasidas at Amphipolis.

-Honorius and Valentinianus the turd (oh sorry, the III). The lamest dolts the Roman Empire got as emperors. It seems that the imperial court was hijacked by imbeciles these days. Dull/Uncharismatic/languorous with powerful advisors in EB linguo. Honorius AND Valentinian III are notorious for killing their best generals (Stilicho and Aetius) AND doing nothing while Rome was sacked. Their biographies are depressing.

-Muhammad II of Khwarezm, the dimmest bulb who ever shone on a muslim kingdom, who tried to usurp the caliphate and lost his army in a snowstorm and then, making things better, beheaded Gengis Khan's emissaries. Well. He got what he deserved. The people of Samarkand, Boukhara and of Khwarezm in general DIDN'T deserve this, though. I don't know any words that can tell the horror that can bring 200 000 angry and vengeful mongols on a country.

-Louis XV of France. He had it all, he lost it all. The colonial empire, European hegemony, a strong economy, a tight control of his country. Ah well, he's more remembered for his mistresses than for anything else. At least he had taste in women.

[Cambyses]

I really dont think you can have Quintus Sertorius on this list at all either, he remains recognized as one of the greatest generals in history in many quarters.

The easy target for this thread would be the Greek world really. A very large number of the monarchs there must have been staggeringly incompetent. Sadly I dont have enough detailed knowledge of the period to pick some over others, but there must be plenty of wannabe kings and princes with tragically short lives

My nominations for pathetic characters are:
Xerxes
L Sergius Catalina
Peter the Hermit
Lady Jane Grey
Andre Maginot

[cmacq]

Right,

McClellan would have to be on everyone's A list.

[Foot]

Lady Jane Grey is more of a tragic character than a pathetic one. Tragic in the classical sense of course. She didn't have a chance in hell, and none of it was her own doing.

Foot

[||Lz3||]

what about the parthian king who killed surena cause he was getting too much atention after winning carrhae? :shifty:

[johnhughthom]

Lady Jane Grey is more of a tragic character than a pathetic one. Tragic in the classical sense of course. She didn't have a chance in hell, and none of it was her own doing.

Foot

Agree 100% with that.

[Hooahguy]

i would say...
everyone but one (you can gues who) i agree with- complete flops.

[Aodhan]

Now, if I remember correctly Richard Cromwell had bitter hops brought to England, because he thought that if the beer was bitter than the masses wouldn't drink it. But he proved himself a total idiot again when people actually liked the Bitter Beers.
Now I would question his changing of beer/ales anyway, wasn’t his title “Lord Protector” NOT “Lord Protector of Bars and other Dinking Establishments Associated with the British Isles.”~:cheers:

[QuintusSertorius]

At least he can claim to be one of the greatest criminals in history, stealing the gold of Tolosa and getting away with it.

He certainly did that.

[johnhughthom]

Right,

McClellan would have to be on everyone's A list.

Would more likely be on most non-Americans who? list.

[The Persian Cataphract]

what about the parthian king who killed surena cause he was getting too much atention after winning carrhae? :shifty:

I doubt that was Orodes' motive. Court politics are always complex; You want to keep the true motive hidden, and you want to keep a clean outer facade. Iranologists widely agree that "jealousy" is an unlikely motive, and rather a contemporary popular perception. Orodes was in fact one of the most shrewd King of Kings ever conceived by the Arsacid dynasty, if you observe the entire time-line from the beginning of the first Parthian civil war, and until Orodes was murdered by the bastard prince Phraates IV, you will get a very varied spectrum of a successful career which ended in a tragedy.

[Krusader]

Most here have been brought up that I'd classify as idiots.

Some points though:

Don't know if Romanus IV Diogenes is that worse of a character. Now don't get me wrong he wasn't a good emperor, but the battle of Manzikert was kinda inevitable with the deterioration of the Themes, with the nobility of Constantinople demanding scutage (money) instead of using it locally on troops and whatnot. Basically the Byzantine military had declined since the days of Basil II and the battle itself was not that disastrous. It ended up being a disaster since the Byzantine nobles started quarreling amongst themselves, particularly the dynastoi in Anatolia making it much easier for the Turks under Alp Arslan to seize all of it.

And Hasdrubal. Well, he was plain unlucky in that the Romans captured his messengers and that the two Roman consuls actually decided to cooperate, instead of argue with eachother. So he faced a larger Roman army than he anticipated. He did the best he could, but that was not enough.

As for McClellan, anyone who have read about the American Civil War would list him I think. Some historians say that if a set of Confederate battle orders hadn't fallen into the Union's hands before Antietam, the outcome might have been better, as General Lee's battle plan was based on McClellan's know hesitation (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Thaatu]

I don't like judging any historical character, with a successful legacy or not. All of us fuck up more than once in our lives, and those listed above just fucked up conveniently enough to become famous for it. Some/most of the stories have been exaggerated, thus making the person look like a complete idiot. But at least they gained a high position which resulted in them becoming historical figures. Most of us are pathetic enough to never gain that position.

[cmacq]

McClellan's know hesitation (correct me if I'm wrong).

Hesitation was not the problem; the problem was McClellan. He was simply a Quartermaster and Sycophantic Political Wantabe, masquerading as a General. What most people don’t know about him is that he didn't resign his commission until the day of the election (a big traditional American No No), his political party had an anti-war platform that promised to withdraw from occupied territory, end the war, and negotiate a peace with the Confederacy. If he had been successful (which he may have won had not Lincoln's party lied and cheated) and defeated Lincoln in the 64 election, how the history of human kind would have been changed? In many ways I see Clark as a more modern version of McClellan. Except fortunately, the former general was too meek and timid to seize the opportunities his masters gave him to kill tens of thousands of his own troops.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/1864_US_election_poster.jpg/180px-1864_US_election_poster.jpg

CmacQ

[Ludens]

I don't like judging any historical character, with a successful legacy or not. All of us fuck up more than once in our lives, and those listed above just fucked up conveniently enough to become famous for it. Some/most of the stories have been exaggerated, thus making the person look like a complete idiot. But at least they gained a high position which resulted in them becoming historical figures. Most of us are pathetic enough to never gain that position.

Indeed. Hindsight is 20:20, the victors write history, and it makes for a better story if failure is the result of character flaws rather than simply bad luck.

[Starforge]

Most of us are pathetic enough to never gain that position.

I disagree with that statement. I'm sure there are many capable, credible folks even reading this forum who simply have no desire for such a position.

For my own addition to the thread:

Liu Ta Xia who scrapped the Chinese fleet in 1433.

[jhhowell]

Looking at the definition for this thread, I'd say Carlos II of Spain would be a perfect example. The ultimate triumph of Habsburg inbreeding.

[Hax]

Inbreeding.

Somehow, we always see imbreeding as prone to producing children with physical or mental handicaps. However, the chance that a child that is not imbred has a handicap is around 3-4 %. With inbred children, the chance is about 6-7%.

Good example?

Kleopatra VII

[Cyclops]

Fair point Thaatu, I think Clasuwitz commented that its a pretty hard job even to be mediocre in war.


... Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Napoleon, ...

"One of these things is not like the other ones, one of these things is not the same..."

United States is a massive entity and he helped start it all, but GW is more like Romulus than Augustus in my mind.

I know very little about McLellan, but wasn't R E Lee very concerned when he resumed command of the Union forces? Something along the lines of "This man will strangle us?". IIRC he advocated a methodical advance to Richmond accompanied by side actions in the Shenandoah valley, a bit like Grants victorious strategy, only his tatics were much more timid and slow.

Definitely a poor politician, but taking on Abraham Lincoln was never going to get him a good obituary. I think he's been done down: there were plenty of politicians masquerading as Generals in that war (eg Hooker) but Mclellan was at least a real general (and not a completely hopeless one) masquerading as a politician (a very hopeless one).

I'm with cmaq on the Cromwell thing. The father was all "oh down with the King (my son will rule after me), no plays (except about me), revolt against taxes (but we'll have to tax your arses to pay for our revolt). Nasty warty smelly cruel man, not pathetic but the son was.

However his opponent Charles the First gets my vote, he was such a loser. He started with three crowns and ended up without a head to wear any of them. To start a civil war in one of your kingdoms is a misfortune, to start a civil war in two looks like carlessness, well he tipped all three into turmoil. His queer old Dad must have turned in his grave.

[cmacq]

Again, very bad family history here with both the Charlesi, very bad so both the Roundheads and Caroleans toss to the trash can.

Try reading some of McClellan's letters and you'll have a better understanding of the man. If McClellan had lived in a country with a well trained professional army he would have never made captain. As it was the US army at the time was at best a militia, and except for some of the units that operated in the American west, it remained so until WWI, then again till WWII. In fact, at the beginning of the Mexican-American the US standing army was much smaller than that of the USM. That may have been why the USM army thought it was safe to ambush US troops.

[cmacq]

Definitely a poor politician, but taking on Abraham Lincoln was never going to get him a good obituary.

Actually Lincoln was loathed by the east coast elites, that was until he was assassinated and then deified as the Saviour of the Republic. He was satirized as Ape Lincoln.

[Celtic_Punk]

Henry the VIII, total useless womanizer, who blamed his own shitty genes on the women he slept with.

Napoleon was a pathetic person, he was a decent commander, and tactician, but in essence he was a lonely, pathetic, pompous arse.

Edward - Longshanks son total poofter and a useless git. nuff said.

actually most of the british royalty were either flaming homo's or just plain useless... or both.


I DO hold Henry V in great admiration. He was the (edit): LAST king to lead his men into battle.

[Havok.]

I think you all know the first 3...

about ALS , well , he was a hero during the independency , and he was charismatic , he also overthrone the first emperor... that's why he was elected president 11 times , but... 1836 he made horrible tactic decisions , then several years later during the war, he didn't won any single battle against the US, cause he was so damn arrogant that refused to listen to his generals and military advisors, cause of that war Mexico lost half its territory (:shifty:),THEN several years later he somehow managed to be elected again , he went mad , he imposed taxes for owning dogs, cats, damn there were even taxes for having doors and windows! :shifty:, not to mention that he sold part of the territory to the US without an obvious reason...all of that eventually caused a civil war... in wich he was overthrown and sent to exile...were he died of diaherrea

@havok you figured it out here or in the tavern? :smash:

Gotta say was here :yes:

[||Lz3||]

Napoleon was a pathetic person, he was a decent commander, and tactician, but in essence he was a lonely, pathetic, pompous arse.



Don't dare to insult napoleon! anyone with his name in a RTW mod deserves to be remembered as great (napoleon total war ) :clown:

now...seriously... Napoleon wasn't pathetic at all... he changed a country , hell his sole name scared Europe for more than 10 years, he also did several reforms to the french constitution ,his name figures in many biography books too, I think that if a french sees this he will start complaining as well...

Napoleon is by no means pathetic to me

oh and btw what about Richard III Lionheart ? he wasnt that bad...

[Cyclops]

I agree with Celtic Punk on Fat Harry, what a boofhead he was. Tried to strut his stuff against real Rennaisasance Princes like Francois 1er and Charles V and fell on his poxy arse. Most over-rated monarch ever.

Thats the problem when you groom an oldest son and let the secondary heir go to seed. If the PoW dies you're left with a dud back up: happened with Henry VIII (older brother Arthur died) and Charles 1st (older brother Henry died). Couple of massive "what-ifs" there.


Actually Lincoln was loathed by the east coast elites, that was until he was assassinated and then deified as the Saviour of the Republic. He was satirized as Ape Lincoln.

Yes, after Lincoln's apotheosis, Mclellan's reputation was screwed.

However Lincoln was too smart for him even at the low ebb of the war (of course Gettysburg helped a bit). He grabbed the Presidency despite those East Coast elites and rammed through quite unconstitutional actions to save the Union (eg arresting all those Maryland officials). Dealt with competitors from the elite like Chase and especially Seward and actually employed them effectively. McLellan wasn't in an equal fight vs Lee or Lincoln and I think he had more chance vs the Virginian.

Very very capable politician Lincoln: deceptive and effective. I wonder if he had lived what would've happened: third term (very likely), better resolved the constitutional issues that led to secession (quite likely) and become less well respected (the longer he was in office the more mud would've stuck).

[Cyclops]

...
Napoleon is by no means pathetic to me...

Agree. I'm a bit of leftist about historical theory ("its like a wave, man") but occasionally a great individual makes a lasting difference and he's one of those guys. Kinda like the Mule in "Foundation and Empire"


...oh and btw what about Richard III Lionheart ? he wasnt that bad...

Richard II Lionheart? The Queer Crusader? Spent his life fighting his father, his brother and dashing off to the Holy Land with his favourite minstrel, whilst failing to capture Jerusalem or impregnate his beautiful wife. Another over-rated monarch put up by the Whig revisionists (in this case to denigrate his bro John who reaffirmed papal sovreignty of England, a big no-no for the Protestant Establishment of the UK).

Richard the third wasted time "and now time doth waste me..."

[||Lz3||]

I meant the crusader :sweatdrop: , at least he and lead his troops in battle (wich eventually got him killed , oh well...)

[phonicsmonkey]

-Muhammad II of Khwarezm, the dimmest bulb who ever shone on a muslim kingdom, who tried to usurp the caliphate and lost his army in a snowstorm and then, making things better, beheaded Gengis Khan's emissaries. Well. He got what he deserved. The people of Samarkand, Boukhara and of Khwarezm in general DIDN'T deserve this, though. I don't know any words that can tell the horror that can bring 200 000 angry and vengeful mongols on a country.

That guy was certainly a loser, but a bigger loser (and almost his contemporary) was Caliph Al-Musta'sim Billah of the Abbasid dynasty of Caliphs at Baghdad.

It was his predecessor An-Nasir's entreaty to Genghis Khan for help against the Khwarezm Shah that brought the Mongols first to Samarqand, from whence, encouraged by their victory over Muhammad II, some twenty years later under Hulagu Khan they advanced to Baghdad.

And what did the Caliph do to prepare his country for their invasion and to defend Baghdad?

Absolutely nothing - having been persuaded by his Vizier that the Mongols could be scared off by the women of Baghdad throwing stones at them, he sat on his hands, prepared no defences, raised no army and paid the ultimate price for it - being rolled up in a carpet and trampled by horses after being locked in his treasury by Hulagu Khan.

Lame.

[Celtic_Punk]

Lionheart got nailed by a crossbow in France didn't he? whichever place he croaked, he introduced the crossbow to them... shows you that you don't hand out technology willy nilly Ricky!

Napoleon was just compensating by the way, its a confirmed fact that he suffered from micropenis condition (less than 2 inches erect [LETS BE ADULT ABOUT THIS!!!!]) if you want citations i can sift through my shelf of history books. If you dissect his actions and reactions throughout his reign of terror, you can see has a superiority complex, and has problems controlling himself. He was pretty much a big child. Plus any general that doesn't give a shit about his men like Napoleon grinds my gears.

It takes balls to lead your men into combat. it takes balls to say FOLLOW ME! but thats something Napoleon never had. Physically and metaphorically.

[||Lz3||]

Napoleon was just compensating by the way, its a confirmed fact that he suffered from micropenis condition (less than 2 inches erect [LETS BE ADULT ABOUT THIS!!!!]) if you want citations i can sift through my shelf of history books. If you dissect his actions and reactions throughout his reign of terror, you can see has a superiority complex, and has problems controlling himself. He was pretty much a big child. Plus any general that doesn't give a shit about his men like Napoleon grinds my gears.

It takes balls to lead your men into combat. it takes balls to say FOLLOW ME! but thats something Napoleon never had. Physically and metaphorically.

does the size matter to classify someone as pathetic?:inquisitive:

I'm pretty sure that for the people of france it wasn't a reign of terror but rather of glory , france was the strongest country in europe when he was around , when he came back from Elba island the people in paris welcomed him back with cheers.

Also I'm pretty sure I saw in a documentary that at Waterloo he wanted to lead a last glorious charge of the Old guard but his generals refused , saying that he was too valuable to be lost that way and that there were chances of him recovering the power and beating the allies however that didn't hapened cause he was at war with half Europe...

I say again... he's not pathetic...

EDIT: I'm not sure if Richard was killed in france... I think it was a bit more to the north , Ironic that the weapon classified as coward and only for peasants actually killed a king ...that surely was an offense to the knights :P

[dominique]

Napoleon dominated his era like Caesar did his. Even if they were not altogether successful, after them, there was no turning back. After Caesar the time of the city-state was gone. After Napoleon, absolutism and feodalism were no longer viable regimes.

Even if Napoleon had a small dick, he still the only one who conquered Europe from Madrid to Moscow. Wellington may have been well-hung, but he's remembered as the faire-valoir of Napoleon. Nothing else.

A bit like Brutus, in fact. We know them because they were party poopers. :laugh4:

[Celtic_Punk]

does the size matter to classify someone as pathetic?:inquisitive:

I'm pretty sure that for the people of france it wasn't a reign of terror but rather of glory , france was the strongest country in europe when he was around , when he came back from Elba island the people in paris welcomed him back with cheers.

Also I'm pretty sure I saw in a documentary that at Waterloo he wanted to lead a last glorious charge of the Old guard but his generals refused , saying that he was too valuable to be lost that way and that there were chances of him recovering the power and beating the allies however that didn't hapened cause he was at war with half Europe...

I say again... he's not pathetic...

EDIT: I'm not sure if Richard was killed in france... I think it was a bit more to the north , Ironic that the weapon classified as coward and only for peasants actually killed a king ...that surely was an offense to the knights :P

is that why they threw him out? and exiled him?

that is also very ironic, however the fact that he gave the bloody weapon to them is far funnier and ironic IMHO lol

i never said size matters to classify him, it was just something that drove him to be "bigger" in other areas. it also explains why he never had a son, since he was literally incapable.

[||Lz3||]

not to forget that his army admired(or even loved) him , when he returned from Elba , he was caught by a group of soldiers who were ordered to stop him , but instead he stood in front of them and shouted "Would you shoot your own emperor?!", then they started to chear him as a hero

as for wellington... not sure what would have happened if Blücher (Prussians) hadn't arrived:thinking2:

oh and.... he did had children... in fact he even had several bastard sons

and...
Historians place the generalship of Napoleon as one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived, along with Alexander and Caesar. Wellington, when asked who was the greatest general of the day, answered: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."

this was posted somewhere else not by me...Napoleon was decisive and always grasped the initiative if possible. His conquests are self-evidently important due to both their extent and the fact that there had not been a European conquerer of his scale since Karl der Grosse. There would not be another until Hitler or Stalin.

Was Naopleon's brilliance the result of his own abilities only?
Absolutely not. Napoleon was brilliant, of that there can be no question. His tactical skill is evidenced from his incredible articluation (reminiscent of Hannibal) to his mastery of the three arms of the military.
His articulation and army organiation is attributable to French military theorists who wrote just prior to the Revolution. I won't go into details but suffice to say that they gave Napoleon the clay with which he would be able to establish an Empire, not to mention the incredible staff he was blessed to have. His personal bravey is without question-look at Arcola, for example. Still, keep in mind that he had a ton of help getting France to the zenith of power, lots of help. Davoult seems to me to be one of the greatest Marshals of all time-simply incredible all around commander. And there were a host of others.

In terms of his rule itself-we ned to remember that essentially, in spite of his superior military strategic intelligence, he was basically from a backward backwater. He was not meant to be an enlightened ruler, he was at heart a tyrant, but with some ameliorating influences around him. Regardless, one of the greatest contradictions of the first empire was that a tyrant autocrat followed the peoples' revolution od 1789. This is vastly more interesting to me than his tactical skill which I would suggest is less historically important than why he was allowed to rule.

Is it because people are just more comfortable with a tyrant as their leader because he neither wants other people to make/inform political decisions (democracy) nor make informed decisions (enlightened despot) himself. Perhaps it is simpler this way, as people have decision making taken out of their hands. They are fed, thus they are happily ignorant (does this sound reminiscent of a particular US president?).

Keep in mind bereattrca that Napoleon actually repealed some property rights of women and their ability to divorce! Not very enlightened hmm? Perhaps, this sounds familiar? Like Russia after the revolution of 1917 and Stalin, or China and Mao, etc. History, as the saying goes, certainly does appear to repeat itself.

Still in the long view of things, his victory at Austerlitz, for example, is likely without comparison in terms of military history. Austerlitz is unique. To actually give your opponents (Russians/Austrians?) the advantage of high gound and then still proceed to smash them is the height of both supreme arrogance and self-assured skill.

As others have pointed out he did face many generals who retained outmoded tactics, but that should not diminish the scope of his accomplishments in terms of miltary thinking.

I'm not sure how peaceful his rest was Napoleon.

Its been recently suggested that he may have been poisoned. Be that as it may, he was not even allowed to ride his horse without an escort during his final exile. That must have been eternally galling for the once Emperor of all of continental Europe. Think of being reduced to living on a lump of rock in the middle of the Atlantic, this is an inauspicious and counter-climactic ending for a life so superficially sensationalistic. I think his isolated existence would have caused him many aggravations and self-questioning, the incessant "what ifs". Stil, in the end he was simply the son of a poor, uneducated Corsican farmer, so maybe it wasn't as distastful as we would envision?

One of my favourite quotes of his that has, strangley enough, nothing to do with warfare is his characterization of Tallyrand, his foreign minister. He called him,

"a silk-stocking full of shit"

That one always evokes a smile.

Chargez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dominique]

That guy was certainly a loser, but a bigger loser (and almost his contemporary) was Caliph Al-Musta'sim Billah of the Abbasid dynasty of Caliphs at Baghdad.
Lame.

It seems to me that all the muslim rulers living between 1080 and 1260 (with the exception of Saladin) were dumb bastards... In Spain, in Turkey, in Egypt, in the Khwarezm, in India the leaders were all pathetic.

:inquisitive:

They should have a honorary award just for them.

[cmacq]

Very very capable politician Lincoln: deceptive and effective. I wonder if he had lived what would've happened: third term (very likely), better resolved the constitutional issues that led to secession (quite likely) and become less well respected (the longer he was in office the more mud would've stuck).

He wouldn't have ran for a third term. Thats against all American political tradition.

Right,

“Lincoln lied hundreds of thousands died,” all very creepy and a bit scary?
History can't be playing that big a joke?

I actually did a little study on what role Lincoln played in starting the war. I uncovered some very interesting facts. For example, it was no accident of history that the war started in Charleston Harbor. There was a very good reason and as the Chief enforcer of Federal law Lincoln was deeply involved. Remember Lincoln was above all else a good lawyer.

[johnhughthom]

He wouldn't have ran for a third term. Thats against all American political tradition.


Not in the 1860s.

[Celtic_Punk]

Im surprised nobody has mentioned Hitler, of all tyrants, he was the most child like. exploding into tantrums whenever something didnt go his way.

did you know at the endgame, he was counting on "phantom armies" that never existed to begin with, or were destroyed in the battle for Normandy to come to his rescue and attack the Americans from behind. Its one thing to be a crybaby. Completely different to be a delusional, psychopath, with not only delusions of grandeur but unable to accept your own defeat.

that said...
Hitler at the beginning was incredibly intelligent and calculating. Verrrry charismatic.


Anyone here a fan of Robert the Bruce?

[cmacq]

Not in the 1860s.

Tradition not law.

Well it was until the first American king. Thereafter Congress had to codify the two term tradition.

[||Lz3||]

indeed hitler was a complete idiot regarding military disicions ... you can't complain to that otherwise he would have conquered the "whole frikin world " and that wouldn't be nice :smash:

indeed he's quite pathetic... prefering to let his country die rather than his... then just abandon his countrymen by killing himself...:shifty:

[phonicsmonkey]

It seems to me that all the muslim rulers living between 1080 and 1260 (with the exception of Saladin) were dumb bastards... In Spain, in Turkey, in Egypt, in the Khwarezm, in India the leaders were all pathetic.

:inquisitive:

They should have a honorary award just for them.

Going a bit far perhaps - Nur ad-Din was no slouch, neither was his general Shirkuh.

Certainly the various Caliphs, Sultans and Atabegs were divided, insular in some cases and somewhat complacent, which contributed to the fall of the Caliphate, the success of the First Crusade and the later Mongol invasion.

But to write them all off at the stroke of a pen is more than a little harsh, particularly if you're extending your point all the way to India. Over there, Muhammad of Ghor and Qutbuddin Aybak were successful in conquering large swathes of the Punjab and holding them for centuries (the Delhi Sultanate).

You could probably argue they were lucky to avoid invasion by the Mongols though..

[Celtic_Punk]

indeed hitler was a complete idiot regarding military disicions ... you can't complain to that otherwise he would have conquered the "whole frikin world " and that wouldn't be nice :smash:

indeed he's quite pathetic... prefering to let his country die rather than his... then just abandon his countrymen by killing himself...:shifty:

he came up with blitzkrieg... actually probably Rommel did... I'd bet 20 bucks that bloody Hitler stole the credit

ROMMEL, now there was a great soldier, led by example, he wasn't a freakin' Nazi and loved his family (which is why he killed himself to save his family from Hitler's wrath)

though i completely disagree with suicide (ill go out swinging thanks:duel:) given Erwin's situation when Hitler uncovered the plot he was involved with, I believe he made the right choice. He knew the game was up before everyone anyway. He knew the Atlantic wall wouldn't hold forever. And when Goering's massive air assault in the huge Battle of Britain failed to destroy fighter command... the war was lost.

[Fiddler]

Sorry, not on the mark.

The "official" Father of the german mechanized Warfare is Guderian, who wrote the manuals at the start of the thirties, formulated design specifications etc, although the first ideas in germany can be dated to to von Seeckt in 1925, when the german army started to plan for the rematch.

Rommel, while being an exceptional soldier, had nothing to do with tankwarfare until 1940. He was an infantry officer, commanded Hitlers guard battalion and got bestowed by Adolf with the command of a tank division, altough he had practically nil experience.
Though success laid any discussion about that at rest.

[||Lz3||]

indeed it was Gauderian, Rommel was a great Marshal , in fact I read somewhere that actually he had nothing to do with the plot... but his name appeared in some documents wich lead hittler to bealive he was involved...and he made him commit suicide... (I'm remembering surena for some reason...):shifty:

[Cyclops]

Tradition not law.

Well it was until the first American king. Thereafter Congress had to codify the two term tradition.

Yep. That tradition began with Washington being hounded from offiice in a way inconsistant with the subsequent Legend of the Founder.

What did King Franklin say? "I could see this country was headed for a revolution, so I decided to put myself at the head of it" or something. Still I have to hand it too him, he manipulated the causus belli with Japan very neatly, not unlike Lincoln at Charleston.

I have not doubt from my extremely limited knowledge that Lincoln would have gone the third term. The sheer willpower and ego of the bloke was monumental. He was prepared to rape the constitution to save the Union, and to unmake the South to preserve the whole. Like many great statesmen he is a bit to big to sum up in a sentence, and there's bad stuff the goes unexamined because of his magnitude and his legend.

If Washington is Romulus, then Lincoln is Augustus, or at least Marius.

[AlexanderSextus]

:idea2::idea2::idea2:

Hey, do any of you guys think you can attemp a comparison between the 43 US presidents and the Roman Emperors?

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?

[Gaivs]

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?

Im sorry... but What the fuck?

[AlexanderSextus]

Im sorry... but What the fuck?

Well, Caesar went to war with out the authority of the legislature, So did bush. (congress didn't declare war in Iraq, remember?)

Caesar assumed Dictatorial powers, So did Bush (PATRIOT ACT anyone?)

Caesar expanded the Bureaucracy of the Republic, and Bush increased Bureaucracy in our Republic (Halliburton, Tax Cuts for the rich, Eminent Domain, etc.)

[Ludens]

I know very little about McLellan, but wasn't R E Lee very concerned when he resumed command of the Union forces? Something along the lines of "This man will strangle us?". IIRC he advocated a methodical advance to Richmond accompanied by side actions in the Shenandoah valley, a bit like Grants victorious strategy, only his tatics were much more timid and slow.

Lee once described McClellan as a good but cautious officer. That is a bit of an understatement. At one point McClellan had actually obtained (through luck) a copy of Lee's campaign plan, and recognized it for what it was, yet still managed to lose by dithering to advance. I understand McClellan was terrified by what might be happening out of his sight. He regularly imagined the enemy had far more troops than in reality and as a result wasted the initiative.


Lionheart got nailed by a crossbow in France didn't he? whichever place he croaked, he introduced the crossbow to them... shows you that you don't hand out technology willy nilly Ricky!

Richard Lionheart was the Richard the first. The second and third Richard's both were dethroned and (according to Terry Jones) character-assassinated by their successors. Back to the first, however, he was killed by a crossbow when he incautiously approached a hostile building. However, according to Osprey it's probably a myth that he introduced the crossbow to France. Still, I think he should be included in this list. He extracted several fortunes of cash out of England and wasted them on crusade, ransom and a big castle in Normandy, but failed to accomplish anything lasting (apart from his name being enshrined as a romantic hero instead of the bloody rapist that he was).

And as for Napoleon, right. I mean, all he did was to reinvent military tactics, conquer half of Europe and an infuse the rest with a nationalistic and revolutionary spirit that is only just now abating. He clearly was pathetic.


Hey, do any of you guys think you can attemp a comparison between the 43 US presidents and the Roman Emperors?

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?

No contemporary politics, please

[AlexanderSextus]

:oops:~:doh::stupid:

[Teutobod II]

-Louis XV of France. He had it all, he lost it all. The colonial empire, European hegemony, a strong economy, a tight control of his country. Ah well, he's more remembered for his mistresses than for anything else. At least he had taste in women.


He didn´t have "taste" at all, he climbed on any woman in the neighbourhood that he got his hands on.

"In the dark all cats are grey."

[Foot]

Henry the VIII, total useless womanizer, who blamed his own shitty genes on the women he slept with.

Napoleon was a pathetic person, he was a decent commander, and tactician, but in essence he was a lonely, pathetic, pompous arse.

Edward - Longshanks son total poofter and a useless git. nuff said.

actually most of the british royalty were either flaming homo's or just plain useless... or both.


I DO hold Henry V in great admiration. He was the (edit): LAST king to lead his men into battle.

I'm sorry, how is someone's sexuality relevant to whether they are pathetic or not? I would be careful what you say.

Foot

[Chris1959]

I believe the quote "Tous les chat sont gris dans la nuit", is probably a very old French saying attributable to anon, but in history it was attributed to Louis-Philip, Louis XV's regent who was notoriously unfussy about his bed mates.

[General Appo]

Celtic Punk: Henry V (I presume you mean the english one) the last king to lead his forces into battle? Outrageous. I could cite numerous examples proving otherwise, but for now I shall only ask how exactly Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (man his english name sounds shitty) managed to get killed while leading a cavalry charge? Besides, what do you expect of a king, to stand in the frontline exposed to musketfire and almost certainly get killed? That´s a great way to improve your soldiers morale.

Also, what´s this with flaming homo´s? I agree with Foot, how does that make them pathetic. If you find being a homo pathetic then I would argue that it is you who is pathetic.

[AlexanderSextus]

If you find being a homo pathetic then I would argue that it is you who is pathetic.

O Damn! Did he just say dat?? :laugh4::laugh3:~:eek:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah yes, well an American Caesar is a book. :shrug:

[Celtic_Punk]

Celtic Punk: Henry V (I presume you mean the english one) the last king to lead his forces into battle? Outrageous. I could cite numerous examples proving otherwise, but for now I shall only ask how exactly Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (man his english name sounds shitty) managed to get killed while leading a cavalry charge? Besides, what do you expect of a king, to stand in the frontline exposed to musketfire and almost certainly get killed? That´s a great way to improve your soldiers morale.

Also, what´s this with flaming homo´s? I agree with Foot, how does that make them pathetic. If you find being a homo pathetic then I would argue that it is you who is pathetic.

I was speaking about English Kings, and i never said being homosexual was pathetic, but when it comes to Edward it was part of his downfall. Plus in that age it was considered terrible to be gay. Most English Kings who happened to be poofters weren't the strongest of kings. A king might not beable to lead from the front, but what about General Wolfe (yes he's no king duh) but he was killed right by the lines, and Tecumseh was killed leading his men, sabre drawn. If a king had the balls to do that back then, they'd get alot more
than just respect and admiration.

EDIT: trying to hide your sexual preferences generally takes you away from important matters such as ruling your country.
Tell me one King who excelled in most areas of kingship who happened to be gay (no challenge or w/e, id like to know if there was a good Gay English king) Hadrian was a pretty good emperor, and he was a bit of a poof. so that doesnt mean much, but medieval times it seems to be to their downfall

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Richard the Lionheart is getting unfairly slammed here. First off I don't believe he was Gay, though even if he was that's irrelevant. Secondly it's unfair to say he acomplished little. In the Holy Land he broke Saladin's power at Jaffa, of all places, and he did it with his reputation rather than force of arms. He did well in France as well. I think that with all these Mediaeval characters it's important to try to appreciate the world in which they lived. Politically it was a dog-eat-dog world and the fact that England was still powerful after Richard died and that he was not dethroned is praiseworthy in itself. Added to that it's easy now to forget the religious aspect of Crusade and the fact that Richard was required to make strategic decisions with a Council and only had direct command in battle. Despite this he managed to halt Saladin with only a relatively small army at his disposal.

That he gets slammed with Henry V is lauded in this thread is franklu beyond me.

Henry VIII likewise was no failure, he stood up to the other European powers and the Pope and kept his crown, he increased the power of the monarchy and he eventually produced an heir, though no spare.

Quintus Sertorius was in a league with Hannibal as far as generalship went, if no better given that no oman general beat him. Even in defeat as a traitor he was still respected.

[QuintusSertorius]

Quintus Sertorius was in a league with Hannibal as far as generalship went, if no better given that no oman general beat him. Even in defeat as a traitor he was still respected.

Absolutely. If people think Sertorius should be in this list, then Pompey most definitely should be, considering Sertorius beat him time and again. He only ever won against non-entity eastern generals and Roman traitors.

[Ludens]

Henry VIII likewise was no failure, he stood up to the other European powers and the Pope and kept his crown, he increased the power of the monarchy and he eventually produced an heir, though no spare.

Quintus Sertorius was in a league with Hannibal as far as generalship went, if no better given that no oman general beat him. Even in defeat as a traitor he was still respected.

You've got a point about Richard Lionheart. On the other hand, he may have defeated Saladin, but he failed in his objective to restore the kingdom Jerusalem. Similarly, he held of the French, but accomplished no lasting victory. And in order to accomplish all this he extracted three king's ransoms out of England (first to go on crusade, then to ransom him from an insulted ex-crusader, and finally to build a new, state-of-the-art castle in France). One might say he was rather inefficient as monarchs go.

I agree completely about Henry VIII and Quintus Sertorius, BTW.

[Matinius Brutus]

Absolutely. If people think Sertorius should be in this list, then Pompey most definitely should be, considering Sertorius beat him time and again. He only ever won against non-entity eastern generals and Roman traitors.
I agree completely about Pompey. He was a good general but I never saw what made him Magnus. No better then Luculus I think. And against Sertorius the praise should go to Metellus Pius. I am not even gonna mention the battles against the Marians. They were utterly incompetent. He hungered for power but he reached for it at the worst possible moment- by confronting Caesar.

BTW I think I should nominate Carbo. He just didn't have what it took to lead the Marians against Sulla. he was their undeserved leader and he failed completely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You've got a point about Richard Lionheart. On the other hand, he may have defeated Saladin, but he failed in his objective to restore the kingdom Jerusalem. Similarly, he held of the French, but accomplished no lasting victory. And in order to accomplish all this he extracted three king's ransoms out of England (first to go on crusade, then to ransom him from an insulted ex-crusader, and finally to build a new, state-of-the-art castle in France). One might say he was rather inefficient as monarchs go.

I agree completely about Henry VIII and Quintus Sertorius, BTW.

Well Richard's reign was cut short. He almost certainly would have gone back to the Holy Land and had he done so, taking what he had learned the last time with him, he would probably have done better. How much better we will never know. He's another one for the "What if" pile.

As to Magnus, great organiser and stratagist, but blinkered and only a respectable tactician. The suggestion that he wanted to sieze power is, I think, slander put about by Caesar. Let us not forget that Caesar was the rebel not Pompey and that Pompey had the backing of men like Cato and Cicero. He was also let down by his subordinates and as an Extraordinary Proconsul he was restricted by the will of the Consuls and Senate.

[Matinius Brutus]

As to Magnus, great organiser and stratagist, but blinkered and only a respectable tactician. The suggestion that he wanted to sieze power is, I think, slander put about by Caesar. Let us not forget that Caesar was the rebel not Pompey and that Pompey had the backing of men like Cato and Cicero. He was also let down by his subordinates and as an Extraordinary Proconsul he was restricted by the will of the Consuls and Senate.

I meant that he could have reached for the dictatorship twice before that- at the peak of his glory and power, but he didn't. And it was no secret that he wanted to share power with no one and that is why he instigated the civil war with Caesar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I meant that he could have reached for the dictatorship twice before that- at the peak of his glory and power, but he didn't. And it was no secret that he wanted to share power with no one and that is why he instigated the civil war with Caesar.

That is rubbish. There is no evidence Pompey wanted to be a dictator. There is a great deal of evidence he was frustrated with the Senate and the Republican system, such as his participation in the First Triumvirate but he used that arragement to secure land for his veterans and tellingly it broke down after that.

Pray tell in what manner did he instigate War with Caesar? I recall a law passed which prevented candidates standing for office in absentia but that's all that comes to mind off hand. Caesar was the rebel, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Caesar assumed the dictatorship for life.

[QuintusSertorius]

Problem is Pompey was an average, pedestrian general, an absolutely brilliant organiser and administrator, and a political lightweight. Combine those with his directionless ambition and overweening pride and you've got a problematic brew.

[Che Roriniho]

:idea2::idea2::idea2:

Hey, do any of you guys think you can attemp a comparison between the 43 US presidents and the Roman Emperors?

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?


ummm...
Trajan - Roosevelt

Diocletian - JFK

Constantine - Richard Nixon

Dubya - Romulus Augusulus

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pompey was the right man at the wrong time, or the wrong man at the right time. A lot has been made of his defeat at Pharsallus (nowhere near as crushing as it is made out to be) and his death in Egypt. Relatively little is said about his raising of his own Legions when he joined Sulla, or his fighting Sertorius to a standstill in Spain. Even less is made of the way in which Augustus emulated him as much as Caesar at the start of his carear.

As a general he was, I think, better than average but when he fought Caesar he seems to have suffered from chronic self doubt, which is probably what lost the Republic the war.

As a politician I believe the Roman opinion was that he was a poor speaker, rather than a bad operator.

[General Appo]

Pray tell in what manner did he instigate War with Caesar? I recall a law passed which prevented candidates standing for office in absentia but that's all that comes to mind off hand.

Rubbish. By passing that law he presented Ceasar with a choice, march on Rome or face the courts and be exiled for ever, possible even worse. Unless he was an utter fool he must have known what Ceasar´s answer would be. True, Ceasar was the rebel, but Pompey (and let´s not forget Cato and the Senate) first forced him to become it.

[Justiciar]

2 - Richard Cromwell.
Don't be too harsh on Richard Cromwell. The Protectorate was a Military Junta, and Richard held no rank within it. He knew that, and so did the Major Generals. The downfall of the Protectorate and Commonwealth, and the demise of the Good Old Cause as a whole had more to do with their actions than any supposed ineptitude of Richard. To be honest the only way the Restoration could have been avoided would have been for Monck to pre-decease Cromwell, and for one of the aforementioned Generals rather than Richard to be appointed his successor. Either way, the chances of Cromwell leaving a genuine republican legacy would have been nill. If that stint of British history showed us anything, it's that Parliament - ergo any vestage of democracy - was better off under the Monarchy than the Military.

[Zarax]

Not exactly a character but the Carthaginian senate was one of the assemblies that behaved most pathetically in history... Honestly they remind me of RTW senate...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rubbish. By passing that law he presented Ceasar with a choice, march on Rome or face the courts and be exiled for ever, possible even worse. Unless he was an utter fool he must have known what Ceasar´s answer would be. True, Ceasar was the rebel, but Pompey (and let´s not forget Cato and the Senate) first forced him to become it.

Why would he be exiled? Had he done anything wrong? Overstepped the bounds of his mandate maybe? Pompey actually placed an exception for Caesar into the law, which the Senate appear to have vetoed. May I remind you that a Consul does not make law, nor Veto it. Caesar was quite obviously aiming to become King of Rome, he was a Julian after all, and the Senate antagonised him, and they used Pompey to do it. Don't forget, Caesar could have returned earlier and been hailed as a hero. He didn't have to disobay the constitutional government. Caesar went against the Senate and hence against the City. Even after he won he wasn't able to change history enough to obscure his manifest guilt.

[QuintusSertorius]

Pompey was the right man at the wrong time, or the wrong man at the right time. A lot has been made of his defeat at Pharsallus (nowhere near as crushing as it is made out to be) and his death in Egypt. Relatively little is said about his raising of his own Legions when he joined Sulla, or his fighting Sertorius to a standstill in Spain. Even less is made of the way in which Augustus emulated him as much as Caesar at the start of his carear.

I'm not so certain he "fought Sertorius to a standstill" - he and Pius both lost repeatedly. Pompey made some really stupid mistakes, and was lucky to get away with it. Indeed were it not for the affection of his men, he wouldn't have managed to survive as long as he did in command.

Again yes he showed some initiative and more importantly organisational nous in raising and equipping his own men, and on the logistical side of things he was skillful. But in terms of tactical ability, he was nothing special. Sure he wasn't the sort to do anything stupid, but it's interesting that many of the clever little tactics he uses in the East are copies of ploys Sertorius fooled him with.


As a general he was, I think, better than average but when he fought Caesar he seems to have suffered from chronic self doubt, which is probably what lost the Republic the war.

Well in the case of Pharsalus, unfortunately Pompey's politican shortcomings scuppered him there. He was saddled with a pack-load of armchair generals who didn't have a clue about real command, yet kept on harrassing him to fight when his decided strategy would have worked.


As a politician I believe the Roman opinion was that he was a poor speaker, rather than a bad operator.

He wasn't simply a poor speaker, I don't think he was that canny an operator either. Years of being in sole command of an army without learning the vital skills of how to win people to your side and scheme will do that. It took alliance with two much slicker operators, Caesar and Crassus for him to achieve anything at Rome. He was wealthy, with a good name and reputation, but he really didn't know how to leverage them.

[cmacq]

If that stint of British history showed us anything, it's that Parliament - ergo any vestage of democracy - was better off under the Monarchy than the Military.

By this you mean the executive authority? Never really looked at it that way before? Interesting.

[dominique]

Inbreeding.

Somehow, we always see imbreeding as prone to producing children with physical or mental handicaps. However, the chance that a child that is not imbred has a handicap is around 3-4 %. With inbred children, the chance is about 6-7%.

Good example?

Kleopatra VII

That's true, but only in the first generation of inbreeding. If you repeat it generations after generations, the percentage raise uglily.

In the case of Carlos II, his aunt was also his grandmother...

But god bless, his father, Felipe IV, spawned a bastard on a lowly andalusian actress, la Calderona, and this bastard, Don Juan Jose de Austria was everything his half-brother was not. A good general, a popular politician, charming and graceful, well a testament against inbreeding...

Cleopatra might have been ok, but the rest of the family was creepy. The late ptolemies are a showcase of pathos by themselves.

[Captain Trek]

I'll second Ambrose Burnside... One word sums him up perfectly... Fredericksburg... Also George McClellan...

Assuming as we're allowed fictional characters... I'd nominate Starfleet's Fleet Admiral Cartwright... I mean, how did this racist, xenophobic asshole get to be one of the top brass? Easily one of Star Trek's most underrated slimeballs, he conspired with a Romulan ambassador and the Klingon General Chang to undermine what were perhaps the most important round of peace talks since the Organian peace treaty... Not only did this result in the death of a truely great man amongst Klingons (Chancellor Gorkon), but it nearly got the Enterprise destroyed and got Kirk and McCoy (two of Starfleet's most legendary personell) thrown into the worst hellhole imaginable... Not to mention that there would have been massive bloodshed had he succeded... He was even willing to kill his own president, and even sank so low as to hire his own personal brown-noser Colonel West to perform the hit!

And to top it all off, most of his concerns weren't even warrented! He complained about "the Star Fleet" supposedly being dismantled if these talks were to go ahead, but this was complete bull, as Starfleet's vessel's are, first and foremost, exploration vessels and as someone else pointed out, signing a peace treaty with the Klingons wasn't going to halt their exploration, not to mention the Federation would still need ships one hand to defend itself should something unexpected pop up...

What an asshole... Fleet Admiral Cartwright, surely the worst fictional character so far this thread... :thumbsdown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Um, okay.

anyway, viz Pompey, I must admit I have a soft spot for him but I think he is often judged unfairly because he failed. As failures go his was, I feel, pretty good going.

[Skandinav]

The following may be a bit local, but the three danish kings Christian the 7th, his son Frederik the 6th and his successor Frederik the 7th who were, with the too successful to be included Christian the 8th, the last kings of Denmark to hold any power over the state, and three who must be mentioned and best together. Frederik the 7th who was the last of them was also the one to give up most of his and his successors´ royal rights and through his actions ( among others ) the first danish democracy was born.

First we have the grandfather of the three, Christian the 7th :

https://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9893/christianviidenmarkbj7.th.jpg (https://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?image=christianviidenmarkbj7.jpg)

Christian ( 1749-1808 ), by Gods grace king of Denmark and Norway, the vends and the goths, duke to Slesvig, Holstein, Storman and Ditmarsken, count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst as was his official title, was even from his ascension to the throne in his teens known to suffer from a serious mental condition and never ruled Denmark in anything but name alone. His condition, described as something akin to scizofrenia, grew with his age and the adult Christian was known, and is still remembered, for his escapades with the prostitute "Støvlet-Cathrine", which means "Boot-Cathrine", in the night-life of Copenhagen where he toured the local bars with a rowdy and violent demeanor; known especially for his drunkeness and aggression towards the citizens and "vægterne", a kind of police force or night-watchmen with whom he often fought, and sometimes won if one is to trust the account of the many "morgenstjener", mauls or maces ( "vægternes" weapon-of-choice ), he had in his collection.
As mentioned above his reign were close to an oligarchy due to his lack of both sanity and ability, and the leading men of the state were locked in a constant struggle to control the crown, but one of these, the kings personal physician Struensee soon rose to power through his romantic relationship to king Christians wife, the queen Caroline Mathilde and she even bore him a son.
Such was the character of Christian the 7th that not much is to be remembered of him nor retold now except that he lost a good deal of danish land abroad, was forced to give his crown to his infant son and that other powerful figures in the kingdom soon took the power after Struensee and when his and the queens affaire was revealed, by others greedy for power, Struensee was cut into pieces and paraded on wheels while his head and hands were attached to long pikes and also paraded as was the customary punishment for treason.
Christian died, according to contemporary history, from a heart attack when he from his balcony saw Napoleons spanish allied-troops camping outside his castle "Rendsborg" in 1808, obviously a returning and much spoken of nightmare of his about black devils come true.

But besides giving Struensee a son the queen also managed to give birth to little Frederik, who became king Frederik the 6th :

https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4986/frederikvifp3.th.jpg (https://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=frederikvifp3.jpg)

Frederik the 6th ( 1768-1839 ) king of Denmark and Norway, was granted the authority ( in name only as with his mad father ) of kingship when he was only 4 years old as his father clearly was unfit to hold it, so the little Frederik began his life almost as his father had lived his; under the control, tyranny even, of the powerful government officials who happened to be in power at that time and who had forced his father to accept terms which were close to a resignation; at least it transferred kingly authority to the crownprince Frederik. The failings as a king and even as a human being which were later attributed to him were in part said to be the contribution of a harsh upbringing by his mothers lover the above-mentioned Struensee who raised the young Frederik in a manner inspired by the french philosopher Rousseaus book "Émile".
As he came of age the power of the kingdom was still primarily in the hands of other men ( the new king was known to have inherited the mental sickness of his father and atop of that a physical frailty and features of one clearly inbred that cursed him to be laughing stock all around the european courts ) A.P. Bernstorff, another official who had seized power after Struensee, and to be fair to both him and Struensee and their ilk a lot of progressive reforms was introduced in the periods of their unofficial rule, reforms which were not to the kings taste, freedom of speech for example, and some other ones important for danish history which I shall refrain from discussing further here as they hold no real relevance to the subject at hand. All in all the king Frederik was, like most his fellow aristocrats around europe, a reactionary in an increasingly progressive society.
These social and political advancements were quickly overthrown upon Bernstorffs death by the adult king Frederik who was then as unpopular as ever, and he had never been popular, and thus further alienated himself from the people he was meant to rule.
But it was not before the french revolution the king really shone in the context of this thread; when the french-british war began, Denmark-Norway, which then were united under the danish crown, sought neutrality along with Sweden, Russia and Preussia but were attacked by the English Royal Navy under Horatio Nelson due to its geography and for the king refusing to give up on his policy towards the war. A battle at sea followed with Denmark-Norway losing to Great Britain only by a small margin and with great losses on both sides. And with this loss also any hope for any neutral alliance.
Then, when Napoleon became emperor of almost all of europe except Great Britain, Denmark and Russia, the kings choice of allies made reality of the english threats and the ensuing bombardement of Copenhagen with rockets from the english man-o-war´s are known as history´s first civilian bombardement. The danish-norwegian fleet, which were at the time the worlds largest, were at the time of the attack on land for several reasons, some of the important of which are related to the economical turmoil created by the king who was increasingly set on ruling his kingdom ( and had among other things spent a lot of ressources and energy on "duties" like outfitting the army with the expensive but impractical uniforms of the day, a new dazzling design each month as was his mania ), although he bears this guilt only partly.
But then Frederik declared war on Great Britain, who had attacked without a declaration of war ( first such occurance in modern history if I am not mistaken, a trend which have grown common in our time ) and officially joined Napoleon but with the mighty danish-norwegian fleet stolen by the english this would be the beginning of the decline of the danish-norwegian empire which had begun with the swedes taking Skåne and Halland ( from where the danes originate ) on the scandinavian peninsula under Frederiks grandfather, and the eventual loss of danish sovereign over Norway to Sweden.
That Frederik the 6th then disbanded his foreign minister and took his duties upon himself during the diplomatic negotiations under the Wiener Congress and perhaps by his presence saved Denmark from utter ruin ( the Faroe Islands and Greenland remained on danish hands ) does not account for the lack of economical gain from these negotiations, where Denmark was bereft of Norway and parts of northern germany and were left on the brink of bankruptcy. But better still, no doubt, than the total extinction as a nation that it had faced.
And as it often goes in history Frederik the 6th was cheered as a saviour of the fatherland upon return, and was revered until his peaceful death in 1839. That a democratization of Denmark began near the end of his life was a testament to both his inclinations and perhaps the weakness of his character.

Frederik the 6th was followed by Christian the 8th, who rose to be a much too prominent and intelligent king for this thread, but he again was followed by Frederik the 7th :

https://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3695/friedrichviidenmarkbs9.th.jpg (https://img524.imageshack.us/my.php?image=friedrichviidenmarkbs9.jpg)

Frederik the 7th ( 1808 - 1863 ), king of Denmark, also known as the king of democracy, inherited the throne at the age of 39 from the popular Christian the 8th, and was met with much skepticism due to his lack of experience. The king met this with an affinity for drinking, shooting and whoring not very much unlike his grandfather Christian the 7th, and was soon known to have the common touch. He withheld the traditions of his family though and beat his servants like his forefathers before him with the blunt side of a sabre, and his wife too, but was otherwise completely uninterested in the affairs of the kingdom, which to make this short, were most fortunate for this the last real king of Denmark as the wind of change blew across europe in the wake of the revolutions, and brought with it power to the citizenry of the different capitals and a political desire for democracy and change.
Unlike most of his contemporaries around europe Frederik the 7th had, as previously stated, no real interest in the state nor in actual kingship, and because of this Denmark was the only country ( AFAIK ) to undergo a completely peaceful "revolution".
He simply said, when met by the new government of so-called national-liberals demanding his resignation: "Well, now at least I can sleep for as long as I like".

The fact that he willingly subjected to the newly formed democratic constitution and its collaborators - and perhaps his whoring and drinking - has earned him the title of "Frederik Folkekær" which means something like "Frederik, Friend of the People", and makes him somewhat malplaced in this thread of pathetic historical characters, but he more than fulfills the criteria of having had it all but the will to make use of what he had.
The danish royal blood-line of the time, the oldenborgs, died with Frederik the 7th but Denmark, as the worlds oldest kingdom, never lost its royal family which exist to this day, although by law "free" of any and all affairs of the state - a constitutional monarchy.


EDIT: I do not think the following characters belong in this thread and for obvious reasons when reading the first post : Napoleon, Hitler, Labienus, Pyrrhus, Hasdrubal, Marcus Junius Brutus, Pompeius, Sertorius, Marcus Antonius, Gorbatjov, Jeltsin.

[Marcus Ulpius]

ummm...
Trajan - Roosevelt

Diocletian - JFK

Constantine - Richard Nixon

Dubya - Romulus Augusulus

I wouldn't exaggerate and compare Dubya to Romulus Augustus. I'd compare him to some mediocre early 4-th century emperor. Actually I think from the Western point of view the geopolitical situation indeed looks like early 4-th century was for Romans.

[Che Roriniho]

I wouldn't exaggerate and compare Dubya to Romulus Augustus. I'd compare him to some mediocre early 4-th century emperor. Actually I think from the Western point of view the geopolitical situation indeed looks like early 4-th century was for Romans.

I want him to become anoytheer Maximius Daia, but sadly suicide isn't going to be likely. I do have a bit of a soft spot for MD, as not only does he have the same birthday as me, but he stood up against that utter pillock Constantine 'the Great' who set the destruction of the empire into motion. Still, he was a bit of a pillock. phailed at strategy as well, actually, now you've come to mention it?

[Marcus Ulpius]

I want him to become anoytheer Maximius Daia, but sadly suicide isn't going to be likely. I do have a bit of a soft spot for MD, as not only does he have the same birthday as me, but he stood up against that utter pillock Constantine 'the Great' who set the destruction of the empire into motion. Still, he was a bit of a pillock. phailed at strategy as well, actually, now you've come to mention it?

Absolutely agree that Constantine The Great was not so great as an emperor. He was proclaimed "The Great" by the church for recognizing Christianity, but as an emperor he did little good for an empire. That massive civil war he instigated was the last straw that have broken the camel's back. From there the things went downhill fast.

[Che Roriniho]

Absolutely agree that Constantine The Great was not so great as an emperor. He was proclaimed "The Great" by the church for recognizing Christianity, but as an emperor he did little good for an empire. That massive civil war he instigated was the last straw that have broken the camel's back. From there the things went downhill fast.

Don't even get me started on the Church. Destroying every great and noble deed done before, during and since it's creation. Fully half of the 6 wonders of thew world we have definate knowledge of their existence from (Hanging Gardens might not have existed) were destroyed by the Church. They torched he library of alexandria, and killed it's last, and arguably greatest, keeper, Hypatia in a horrible, horrible way (raped, then flayed, before being burnt alive). This caused the datrk ages. Who knows where we could be if they hadn't done that? Thanks christ. When you died, so did everything else.

[J.Alco]

That last post is out of place in this thread, not needed or wanted. Sorry if that sounds like I'm being a prick but you must understand that in the past, whenever the topic of religion has creeped into an EB thread, things have gotten ugly pretty quickly, offense has been taken, insults have flown and flaming has occured, and it has invariably ended with threads being locked down. There are places to discuss and debate the validity of religion in society, this thread is not one of them. Again, sorry if I sound like a prick but I've seen this sort of thing before so I'm just trying to, metaphorically, stop the flaming barrel before it hits the gas station. I hope you understand.

On the subject of this thread, I'm really pleased that my assertions about Lepidus and Richard Cromwell have been disagreed with. It's good to see that everyone has a different opinion about the actions of any historical character. I was pretty surprised to see Napoleon here! Of course, one man's genius is another man's buffoon, eh?

[Sarcasm]

Not biased or sensationalist at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't even get me started on the Church. Destroying every great and noble deed done before, during and since it's creation. Fully half of the 6 wonders of thew world we have definate knowledge of their existence from (Hanging Gardens might not have existed) were destroyed by the Church. They torched he library of alexandria, and killed it's last, and arguably greatest, keeper, Hypatia in a horrible, horrible way (raped, then flayed, before being burnt alive). This caused the datrk ages. Who knows where we could be if they hadn't done that? Thanks christ. When you died, so did everything else.

There is a difference between the Church and terrorists who call themselves Christians, it's the same difference now as it was then. I would suggest that you bear that in mind when discussing these things.

as far as Constantine goes, I think he had an interesting idea, using a hybridisation of the popular civilian and military religions to try to hold the Empire together, and in fact it sort of worked, if you look at Mediaeval Christendom and the Papacy you can see that it helped to hold the Western powers at least loosely together in terms of language and culture.

Unfortunately the Empire was already in terminal decline when Constantine took power and he was unable to find a successor who could continue things in the same direction. Change of direction was a major issue for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it.

As a man he was pretty ruthless and dispicable though.

[Celtic_Punk]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

[Che Roriniho]

There is a difference between the Church and terrorists who call themselves Christians, it's the same difference now as it was then. I would suggest that you bear that in mind when discussing these things.

as far as Constantine goes, I think he had an interesting idea, using a hybridisation of the popular civilian and military religions to try to hold the Empire together, and in fact it sort of worked, if you look at Mediaeval Christendom and the Papacy you can see that it helped to hold the Western powers at least loosely together in terms of language and culture.

Unfortunately the Empire was already in terminal decline when Constantine took power and he was unable to find a successor who could continue things in the same direction. Change of direction was a major issue for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it.

As a man he was pretty ruthless and dispicable though.

admittedly Diocletian set it on a bit of a downhill, but Constantine just destroyed it. plus, his milatary reforms turned ythe army into a shadow of it's former self. gone are the scutums, here are a sort of round thingy. Well done, you wazzok.

Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.

[Marcus Ulpius]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

I wouldn't describe Christianity as a source of all evils. The rise of Christianity took place at the same time as the destruction of the classical world, but Christianity was not the cause of that destruction. Actually the decline of the classical world and more precisely that of the Roman Empire was the cause of the rise of Christianity.

As to Christianity "stealing" all the stories, Christianity is hardly alone here. Judaism have incorporated a lot from Assyro-Shumerian mythology and Islam is pretty much built on the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

[Che Roriniho]

I wouldn't describe Christianity as a source of all evils. The rise of Christianity took place at the same time as the destruction of the classical world, but Christianity was not the cause of that destruction. Actually the decline of the classical world and more precisely that of the Roman Empire was the cause of the rise of Christianity.

As to Christianity "stealing" all the stories, Christianity is hardly alone here. Judaism have incorporated a lot from Assyro-Shumerian mythology and Islam is pretty much built on the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

Because of the emphasis of forgiveness from christianity, the empire became softer, so any trouble makers could become more powerful (ie, not dead).

Personally, if I had to have a religion, I'd be a polytheist. so much more FUN, don't you think? Plus, it explains everything, albeit wrongly, and it allows thinking. Unlike a certain monotheist religion.

oh, Celtic Punk, I want your babies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

Look, if you want to hate Christianity thats fine but throwing around accusations and pulling up vague linguistic oddities is not going to impress anyone. What does the egyptian "Krst" mean?

I will quite happily tell you where Christ comes from, from the Greek "Cristos" meaning "anointed one" which is the meaning of Messiah, an appelation given to such historical characters as David and the pagan Persian Cyrus the Great. As I title it really isn't all that gobsmacking and it certainly doesn't indicate he was the litteral son of God. What it does indicate is his status as a legitimate Israelite King, for which he seems to have had a fairly good genaeological claim.

Now to take the Library at Alexandria, it is said that the Patriarch ordered the burning all the pagan temples in the city but even a quick glance at wiki shows it's not that clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

The Emperor ordered the closing of all pagan temples at this time and the Church happily agreed but I see no evidence, in the contemporary or near contemporary sources, that he deliberately destroyed the Royal Library. To be honest I find it difficult to believe given the fairly generous view many Churchmen held of Pagan philiosohpy, an excellant exposition of the view was provided in "On the Christian Doctrine" by Saint Augustine.

[Che Roriniho]

Look, if you want to hate Christianity thats fine but throwing around accusations and pulling up vague linguistic oddities is not going to impress anyone. What does the egyptian "Krst" mean?

I will quite happily tell you where Christ comes from, from the Greek "Cristos" meaning "anointed one" which is the meaning of Messiah, an appelation given to such historical characters as David and the pagan Persian Cyrus the Great. As I title it really isn't all that gobsmacking and it certainly doesn't indicate he was the litteral son of God. What it does indicate is his status as a legitimate Israelite King, for which he seems to have had a fairly good genaeological claim.

Now to take the Library at Alexandria, it is said that the Patriarch ordered the burning all the pagan temples in the city but even a quick glance at wiki shows it's not that clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

The Emperor ordered the closing of all pagan temples at this time and the Church happily agreed but I see no evidence, in the contemporary or near contemporary sources, that he deliberately destroyed the Royal Library. To be honest I find it difficult to believe given the fairly generous view many Churchmen held of Pagan philiosohpy, an excellant exposition of the view was provided in "On the Christian Doctrine" by Saint Augustine.

But what about the Coptic Christians, the ones who savagely killed Hypatia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria? Does this not say something abot wthe typees of thing that happened under the Church, in this case St. Cyril?

I stand corrected, albeit on flimsy terms about the destruction of Bibliotheka Alexandeia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

admittedly Diocletian set it on a bit of a downhill, but Constantine just destroyed it. plus, his milatary reforms turned ythe army into a shadow of it's former self. gone are the scutums, here are a sort of round thingy. Well done, you wazzok.

Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.

Diocletian? Try Marius.

Under Constantine the Army was restructured to be more fluid and mobile and to prevent any one commander from amassing a large enough force for long enough to threaten Imperial authority. Getting rid of the scutum was beyond irrelevant, and the shield that replaced it was much better suited for the kind of legionary warfare that had developed, not to mention easier to use, lighter and cheaper to make. Ecenomics killed the Empire and that was down to about 100 years of Civil War.

I'm not denying that terrible things were done in the name of Christianity, but that in no way makes the Church itself an evil thing.

[Che Roriniho]

Diocletian? Try Marius.


Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.

[Hax]

Seriously, let's not get into religion here.

Each to his own thoughts. Yes, Christianity has caused a lot of pain and desolation in this world. Actually, I think that the power-mad idiots who said themselves to be christians and used men with weak wills to do what they wanted.

[russia almighty]

Lex Luthor is probably the most pathetic.


And this topic is proof that the EB board needs to keep the incest (ew) that's been going on for the longest time. That, or would the mods kindly close this topic?

[Starforge]

Lex Luthor is probably the most pathetic.


And this topic is proof that the EB board needs to keep the incest (ew) that's been going on for the longest time. That, or would the mods kindly close this topic?

Aye, it's sad that a few people can't address what the OP was looking for and have to bring their own prejudices (dubyah or Christianity for example) into it :).

IBTL.

[Juggernaut]

Why change a formula that works?

You see, there were these little dudes called the Sassanids...

[Perturabo]

Arrogant egomanical incompetents annoy me, so I will nominate Charles De Gaull as a famous 'loser'. Hung onto the skirttails of the Americans until the war was over then proclaimed himself the saviour of france :thumbsdown: Stole the glory at every opportunity while doing very, very little. The definition of loser.

Re religion, have to agree with the last posters, yes, Christianity has caused a lot of grief over the ages, but then, religious bigots (and the lowlife scum that exploit simple minded true believers) of all varieties are very bad news, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu etc etc. Look beyond the media we are fed every day and you will see some truly horrific religious violence. Best not to even debate it in semi polite forums.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.

I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)

Bingo, couldn't have said it better. To expand slightly, by changing the conditions of service without the necessary idiological or constitutional changes required to deal with the political fallout Marius paved the way for an unconstitutional tyranny in the form of the dictators Sulla and Caesar, which then led to the Principate, a nominally elected monarchy which short circuted the Republican institutions without actually properly reforming them. Once the army realised that it, and only it, could make the Emperor it began making them whenever it became unhappy, which led to the century of Civil Wars. The result was Diocletian and the Dominate.

It's like a massive domino effect.

[QuintusSertorius]

Arguably the disintegration of the Republic started with Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, not Marius. Marius was simply able to capitalise on what Gracchus had already begun. That being the creation of political consciousness amongst the lowest orders of the plebs, the same people Marius would come to recruit from.

[Poulp']

Arrogant egomanical incompetents annoy me, so I will nominate Charles De Gaulle as a famous 'loser'. Hung onto the skirttails of the Americans until the war was over then proclaimed himself the saviour of france Stole the glory at every opportunity while doing very, very little. The definition of loser.

Well, he was walking a tight rope and managed to exist between the US and the British while having little or no power. Starting from scratch, he managed (with a BIG help from Jean Moulin) to unite the different and antagonistic resistance groups into a single body as well as uniting the different political parties into a war coalition government in exile. At the fall of the "Regime de Vichy" (pro-german gov), that government quickly took over and it let the Allies turn their attention to most important matters (heading for Berlin) instead of wasting time subduing the country.
And he was arrogant enough to resign twice from office.

I'd like to fit in your definition of a loser.

French history is filled with losers, but I don't think De Gaulle fits in.
In the WWII French context, you've Petain; savior of France in 1914, he ends up 30 years later hitting rock bottom and labelled a traitor in most history books. Savior/traitor, now, that's a loser.
The harder they fall...

[Cyclops]

Vey hard to label Diocletian and Constantine as pathetic or losers, they were struggling to reunite a self destructing entity. Constantine's reforms may look ugly but they were probably more "real-workld" adjustments of policy to recognise the existing situation rather than disasterous pivot points ruining an otherwise perfect world.

Justinian was able to build on Constantine's work and re-establish a bit of a Mediteranean em,pire again: he used up the empire's strength and it was a disater, but he had the strength to try. Thats a testament to his (and Big C's) organisational ability, if not their foresight.

Had Constantine sat still in Rome and reinforced the state there the western Empitrer would probably have still been blown away, people would've criticised him for not taking a chance to do more to preserve the Empire.

Petain made the Devil's deal, and if there is a French Hell (full of McDonalds) he's there. Shame because he was apparently a somewhat able general. I would hate to have top make the choices he made (cooperate with the Nazis or see your country ploughed under), there's not really a good choice there.

Winston Churchill was saved by making one decent choice in his life, telling Hitler to get stuffed. Prior to that he was a loudmouth dishonest disloyal racist bigoted one-track-broken-record and somewhat incompetent drunk with no friends and no respect from anyone. There's a theory that he was made leader so that in case they had to surrender all the mud would stick to him. Even bad people can do good things, and he did a great thing.

[Marcus Ulpius]

Probably the word "pathetic" is not the good choice, but I'd still defend the choosing of Constantine, may be not as pathetic, but as one of the most "destructive" characters in the latter period of the empire. Of course his reforms were an effort to adjust the Roman war machine to the crumbling economy (thus worse equipment for the legions) and prevent the situation where each legion commander could suddenly decide he should be an emperor and start a mutiny (and that's what was happening in the empire for the most part of 3-rd century). But Constantine started a massive civil war, which was virtually the last Roman civil war, he depleted the empire resources to the level that Rome couldn't already defend itself without external help.

The question of whether the Western Empire could be saved or not is complicated as is the question about the inevitability of the general decline of the Roman world. I won't go deep into this because that would derail the thread and the time frame of those events is not related to the EB (although it is related to the BI). But there's a theory saying that every ethnos (or civilization) goes through several stages of it's development from rapid aggressive expansion to stability then decline and destruction (either by military force or by slow assimilation by stronger/younger group) and Romans in 4-th century and onward were drastically different from the Romans of the Republican times or even times of the early Empire, they were much much softer.

[Majd il-Romani]

caligula. need I say more?

and I can't believe noone said commodus! The guy was practically responsible for Romes stagnation and later, fall.

[Constantius III]

As to the actual topic of the thread, I'd have to say that Gallienus is one of the more unlucky historical characters, if not pathetic; the man gets dumped on a lot but did a bloody good job under the circumstances. His daddy Valerian was, at the end of his life, the most pathetic Roman Emperor in history, though. Poor guy - just goes to show you can't trust those nasty Persians when negotiating a cease-fire. ~;p And Krateros' end is somewhat sad; a great and brilliant general who dies when his horse falls on him? Come on! At least Neoptolemos died in an epic single combat with Eumenes.

But Constantine started a massive civil war, which was virtually the last Roman civil war, he depleted the empire resources to the level that Rome couldn't already defend itself without external help.
Not at all. Following Constantinus' reign and despite internecine troubles between his sons for the next twenty-four years, the Empire actually strengthened significantly from its low point in the 250s and 260s. The main problem for the Roman economy, which necessitated short-term moneymaking schemes like coinage debasement that ended up pushing them into more of a fiscal freefall during the Crisis of the Third Century (wow I write long sentences), was the rise of the Sassanid Empire. Instead of weak, crappy Pahlava, who never really could stand up to the Roman military - Ctesiphon was sacked something like three times in a hundred years, and Carrhae for all its epicness was a flash in the pan - there was a native Persian dynasty capable of mobilizing the kingdom's resources much better than their steppe predecessors. So the Roman budget suddenly had to make way for a vastly stronger military on the Eastern front during the years of the crisis. Odenathus' victories only partially alleviated the problem; Galerius still had to go into Persia during the time of the Tetrarchy and fight a war with Narseh. After Galerius' war, the Sassanids were largely beaten (though they obviously still remained a major threat, otherwise that whole mess with Maurikios, Phokas, Khusrau, and Herakleios wouldn't have happened...) and the budget was comparatively stabilized, mostly due to Diocletian's and the other tetrarchs' tax reforms. Economic growth continued to a large extent during the fourth century all the same, despite the increased taxation; take a look at Africa, where instead of grain, olives and vines were cultivated, allowing a much larger area of the land to be used for growing stuff (since olives don't need as much water as grain does). Throughout the Roman East, agriculture - the mainstay of any economy for another thousand years after the Romans' fall - was reaching its maximum output during the fourth and fifth centuries. Hispania, southern Gallia, and Roman Britannia are largely the same. Only in Italia and the Rhine frontier is there any evidence of major shortfalls in agricultural prosperity during these times. (Yes, I know about the old chestnut of the 'agri deserti' and the 'flight of the curials'. The former seems to be a reference to lands where no taxes were being collected, which in almost every case were territories that never were cultivated much anyway; the latter just means that instead of getting involved in local government, the 'curials' were joining the imperial bureaucracy. Those two myths really ought to be put to rest; they stopped being serious historical positions in the 1940s and 50s after Tchalenko published.)

Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...

and Romans in 4-th century and onward were drastically different from the Romans of the Republican times or even times of the early Empire, they were much much softer.
That's Gibbon talking. :book: On what grounds? The Empire was if anything more militarized than it had been in the Principate...

Commodus was a pretty ridiculous figure, but I don't know if I'd call him pathetic; a big dude all done up to look like Herakles wearing the skin of a lion looks pretty cool IMHO. He coulda been a lot less insane though. That tends to be a bonus, especially when you're emperor of the most powerful state in the world.

[||Lz3||]

Caligula WAS the worst emperor... really... man ...that guys was totally mAD! :rolleyes5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula

[Celtic_Punk]

in response to those guys who were trying to chew me out there, i didn't mention that its not the followers of Christianity whom were at fault (most religions have stolen different stories, gods, ideals, ect.) its the ones who head the religion. Its not for a form of worship for them, its for control. Im sorry if im offending you but when the topic arose, i just wanted to dish my 2 cents (or pence :chinese: ) Most religions are not in place for worship, but merely for control. I myself was a christian, but upon realization of what it was i denounced my religion ( i see myself as more of a pagan)
you are welcome to worship whichever god(s) you want, but at least know this, dont trust the pope. anyone who says they are closer to God then you is a total wanker. But by all means follow the teachings and ideals of Jesus, he was one Hell of a guy. *thumbs up*

[Subedei]

Giovanni Luigi de Fiesco, Duke of Lavagna, who lead a revolt against Andrea Doria in Genoa 1547. The revolt was a total success until he stepped on a plank to enter a ship and slipped. Wearing his bling-bling armour he sunk like a stone....goodbye Mr. Fiesco. They found him 3 days later on the shores.

Imagine this as a movie...everbody would say:" This ending is not very comprehensible!"...Well, Schiller actually made a drama about the revolt in 1547.

[Celtic_Punk]

I always thought that Benito Mussolini was an eegit (idiot for you non isles lads)

btw its not like mr fiesco would have been able to swim if he wasnt wearing armour! haha

[V.T. Marvin]

Giovanni Luigi de Fiesco, Duke of Lavagna, who lead a revolt against Andrea Doria in Genoa 1547. The revolt was a total success until he stepped on a plank to enter a ship and slipped. Wearing his bling-bling armour he sunk like a stone....goodbye Mr. Fiesco. They found him 3 days later on the shores.
Interesting, maybe this explains where the word "fiasco" came from...:clown:

[Dumbass]

in response to those guys who were trying to chew me out there, i didn't mention that its not the followers of Christianity whom were at fault (most religions have stolen different stories, gods, ideals, ect.) its the ones who head the religion. Its not for a form of worship for them, its for control. Im sorry if im offending you but when the topic arose, i just wanted to dish my 2 cents (or pence :chinese: ) Most religions are not in place for worship, but merely for control. I myself was a christian, but upon realization of what it was i denounced my religion ( i see myself as more of a pagan)
you are welcome to worship whichever god(s) you want, but at least know this, dont trust the pope. anyone who says they are closer to God then you is a total wanker. But by all means follow the teachings and ideals of Jesus, he was one Hell of a guy. *thumbs up*

Seems like you have had a bad experience with the catholic church. I find myself agreeing that the concept of having a pope is flawed, as it creates arrogance for a person to think they are the best Christian. I also disagree with many motives of the catholic church, as it seems it is based more upon doing good deeds and working your way into heaven than accepting Jesus. This just leads to people thinking they are "better" christians. Still though, you shouldn't give up your beliefs if you felt that people were trying to manipulate the religion, there are sects that don't focus on Christianity being a powerful faction in the world, but as a religion, such as protestants.

[Starforge]

Seems like you have had a bad experience with the catholic church. I find myself agreeing that the concept of having a pope is flawed, as it creates arrogance for a person to think they are the best Christian. I also disagree with many motives of the catholic church, as it seems it is based more upon doing good deeds and working your way into heaven than accepting Jesus. This just leads to people thinking they are "better" christians. Still though, you shouldn't give up your beliefs if you felt that people were trying to manipulate the religion, there are sects that don't focus on Christianity being a powerful faction in the world, but as a religion, such as protestants.

Human beings are, for the most part, selfish creatures who will use whatever method to get what they want. Manipulation of religion is merely one of the more obvious representations and yet removing it would change exactly nothing. Ethnicity, culture, political affiliation, economic status, etc ad-nauseum will always give people a reason and justification for comitting harm upon others. Of course, the fact that many people percieve religious folks (meaning Christians for most of the western world) as "telling them what to do" invariably elicits a reactionary response.

Any of you who think removing one motivation will actually help things - well, keep taking whatever you're taking - must be good stuff. There will always be strong ambitious folks who will use whatever tool necessary to herd weak willed fools (of which - there will also always be plenty.)

----------------------------------

Pierre-Charles Villeneuve would be another person I would add to the list. Not only in not having his fleet adequately trained but by also being caught with his shorts around his ankles when Nelson tried his unconventional tactics and then failing to react well to it. Kudos to Nelson, mind, and he deserves all the accolades but I wouldn't place Villeneuve at better than average and probably less so. The underlying reasons why he was in command rather than a more seasoned officer can be blamed on the revolution likely but doesn't mean he still failed to step up when it mattered.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

A possible entry mainly because his most famous act is the greatest military cock-up in modern history.

Who else but Cardigan and the charge of the light brigade. Now it may not have been his fault, and the charge may actually have succeeded, but the clear idiocy of an attack down a fortified valley staight at an artillery battery beggars believe. So much so that the Russians thought that the english cavalrymen must have been drunk or drugged and asked prisoners what they had been given to charge the guns to which one replied (in true British fashion), "By God, if we had so much as smelt the barrel we would have taken half Russia by this time."

I think he warrants a place purely because he is known for cardigans and near-suicidal cavalry charges.

[Justinian II]

Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...


For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC. (Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them :book:)

[Constantius III]

For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC.
Oh, absolutely. The Eastern economy had to be fantastic in order to give out all that tribute to first the Huns of Attila and then the various barbarians that Iustinianus kept bribed (and that Iustinus II decided to stop payments to...a brave notion, and plays well to the people, but sadly foolish). As to the state of the later Eastern Roman economy, I remember reading that Theophilos and Mikhael II had an awful lot of cash; apparently they were able to open up a significant number of new gold mines in 9th century Armenia. But the situation was of course terrible after the Anatolian themes were run over two hundred years later, so that Alexios I had to try to play around with making new stable currency to try to get the budget balanced again (it didn't work). Now you got me interested in this again...need to go look this stuff up! :book:

(Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them :book:)
Which Isaurians, the fifth century ones or Leon III's dynasty? Either one works...~;p

[Majd il-Romani]

oh and dont forget Hadrian. You may think I'm wrong but hear me out. Trajan greatly extended the borders of the empire, and Hadrian could have followed in his footsteps and totally conquered Britain and possibly even Persia, but he didn't, and those 2 borders ended up being the most problematic in the Empire. He couldve at least stayed where Trajan left the borders but he RETREATED! 200 MILES!

[Constantius III]

oh and dont forget Hadrian. You may think I'm wrong but hear me out. Trajan greatly extended the borders of the empire, and Hadrian could have followed in his footsteps and totally conquered Britain and possibly even Persia, but he didn't, and those 2 borders ended up being the most problematic in the Empire. He couldve at least stayed where Trajan left the borders but he RETREATED! 200 MILES!
Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue. ~;p It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.

[Majd il-Romani]

Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue. ~;p It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.


OK I understand persia but with Britain he could have counquered and subjugated it so resistance would not be large and organized but small and scattered, giving the empire safetey in the long run because to attack Britain you'd have to cross the sea

[Ludens]

To my knowledge the English (whose powerbase was far closer to Caledonia than the Romans') only succeeded in subjugating the highlands after they constructed several military highways into the mountains. This gave their armies the opportunity to quickly mobilize and suppress any local discontent. The Romans didn't have this option: they could have marched in Caledonia all they liked, but the locals would simply scatter and reassemble when the Romans had left. Lack of agriculture in combination with lack of roads made stationing garrisons not viable: no foraging and difficult resupplying. And due to poor communications they would have need many of these garrisons.

In any case, the Picts were only part of the problems that the Roman garrison on Britain faced. Raiding Irish were also a major problem. The sea certainly didn't seem to impair them.

[Hax]

What about Antiochos IV Epiphanes? He has earned the reputation of a villain in Jewish tradition, but what about the guy himself?

[Subedei]

Interesting, maybe this explains where the word "fiasco" came from...:clown:

Does it? May well be...gotta do some research....never thought about that.

[Ibrahim]

as for the one who said henry V was the last englsh king to go to battle-that's plainly wrong. George II was the last one to do so, at the battle of dettingen in 1743(though he was quite old by then). the last king to visit the font lines if I recall was George V. now his (George II's) son, the duke of cumberland,should be on this list: out of half a dozen battles, that guy won only one (cullodun, 1746). www.britishbattles.com is quite a source. read the Austrian successin battles and have a laugh.

anoter pathetic fellow is honorius; Valentianus III as also a srewup. but neither of them have anyhing to Petronius Maximus. he was th redefinition of patheti imbecility. he helped orchistrate Aetius' killing with Valentinianus III. after the empreror gave im nothng in return, he ecruited 2 fellows fom Aetius' guard to assassinate Vlentinianus (so I have read) then as empreror himself, he stole hunnoric's bride, eudoxia the younger, thus causing his reign to last 9 weeks, since Geiseric and hunnoric cae to get her back, he panicked and tried to run frm rome, but thenthe poeple caught him and stoned him to death as e tried to run. this led to the sacking of roma in 455AD by the vandals. Valentinanus' reign did not see roa sacked BTW(onorius and petronius maximus, yes)

@Appo: napoleon I had a son, who was briefly declared Napoleon II (born 1811 or 1812, don't remember exactly when). but it was out of his second marriage, not his first(the first was Josephine). that's why Napoleon III is Napoleon III (r.1848-1871). he is also said to have fathered a girl from one of he women who came with him to St. Helena (the girl was said to look like him a lot). the wman BTW was also coincidentally known to be a cuckolder of her husand,who according to one theory, killed Napoleon I with arsenic (no I'm not reading pyramidiot alternative history stuff-ven a good deal of conventionl historians say so). wierd wt historians come up with.:laugh4:

I read about Napoleon a lot :beam:

[ServiliusAhala]

Antiochos IV Epiphanes in his conquering of Egypt, so close, and then Rome sends Gaius Popillius Laenas, to make him draw circles?

[Moros]

Does it? May well be...gotta do some research....never thought about that.

wikipedia:
From Italian fiasco (“‘bottle, flask’”) - the type of round wine bottle, sometimes wrapped in straw, used traditionally for Chianti wine. The failure sense specifically derives via French from the Italian phrase fare fiasco, literally meaning “make a bottle” (used in Italian theatre to mean “failure in a performance”). This is similar to the informal British English usage of "to bottle out" meaning to "lose one's nerve".

An alternative interpretation of the Italian "far fiasco" as a meaning for failure can be traced to production of glass bottles by glass blowing. A mistake in the process would result in a bottle of irregular shape with protruding or enlarged base is termed "fiasco" as opposed to "bottiglia"