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?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Megas Pyrrhos
Bookmarks