Pathetic Historical Characters

(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 ;)

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Doh! I knew I forgot somebody in my list.

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.

Administrative message: please keep contemporary politics out of here. If wish to discuss those, go the Tavern Backroom (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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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!?

---

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

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.

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

Right,

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Agree 100% with that.

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Right,

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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.

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

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/wikiped...ion_poster.jpg

CmacQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

... 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

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).