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.

(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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

...
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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

...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..."

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

-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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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.

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...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

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

---

Not in the 1860s.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Not in the 1860s.

---

Tradition not law.

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||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:

---

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

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.

: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?