Pathetic Historical Characters

[J.Alco]

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

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

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

I'll start off with two names:

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

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

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

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

[QuintusSertorius]

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

[||Lz3||]

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

[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.

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

[QuintusSertorius]

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

[||Lz3||]

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

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

[Havok.]

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

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

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

[||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 (),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! , 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?

[konny]

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

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

[Ludens]

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.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev followed by Boris Yeltsen.

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

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

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

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

[Cambyses]

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

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

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

[Aodhan]

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

[QuintusSertorius]

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

He certainly did that.

[Celtic_Punk]

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

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

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

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


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

[Havok.]

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.

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

i'd second tis le's kill dat mutherfuker

[STuNTz2023]

i'd second tis le's kill dat mutherfuker

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

[Havok.]

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

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

[cmacq]

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

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

[cmacq]

Here's my pack

Quintus Sertorius
Marcus Fabius Romanus
Gaius Cassius Longinus

[Apgad]

Antony and Cleopatra together?

[Gaivs]

Here's my pack

Quintus Sertorius
Marcus Fabius Romanus
Gaius Cassius Longinus

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

[Vorian]

Emperor Phokas.

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

[Justinian II]

Emperor Phokas.

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

Doh! I knew I forgot somebody in my list.

[cmacq]

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

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

[Tyrfingr]

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

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

[Matinius Brutus]

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

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

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

[Col.Kurtz]

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


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

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

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

[polluxlm]

Augustus Romulus. The last emperor.

[Ailfertes]

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

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

[Hax]

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

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