Pathetic Historical Characters

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?

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

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

i'd second tis le's kill dat mutherfuker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havok.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STuNTz2023

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

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)

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||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:

Here's my pack

Quintus Sertorius
Marcus Fabius Romanus
Gaius Cassius Longinus

Antony and Cleopatra together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

"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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

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!?

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.

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.

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 ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

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.

Augustus Romulus. The last emperor.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

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.