Pathetic Historical Characters

[Marcus Ulpius]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

I wouldn't describe Christianity as a source of all evils. The rise of Christianity took place at the same time as the destruction of the classical world, but Christianity was not the cause of that destruction. Actually the decline of the classical world and more precisely that of the Roman Empire was the cause of the rise of Christianity.

As to Christianity "stealing" all the stories, Christianity is hardly alone here. Judaism have incorporated a lot from Assyro-Shumerian mythology and Islam is pretty much built on the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

[Che Roriniho]

I wouldn't describe Christianity as a source of all evils. The rise of Christianity took place at the same time as the destruction of the classical world, but Christianity was not the cause of that destruction. Actually the decline of the classical world and more precisely that of the Roman Empire was the cause of the rise of Christianity.

As to Christianity "stealing" all the stories, Christianity is hardly alone here. Judaism have incorporated a lot from Assyro-Shumerian mythology and Islam is pretty much built on the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

Because of the emphasis of forgiveness from christianity, the empire became softer, so any trouble makers could become more powerful (ie, not dead).

Personally, if I had to have a religion, I'd be a polytheist. so much more FUN, don't you think? Plus, it explains everything, albeit wrongly, and it allows thinking. Unlike a certain monotheist religion.

oh, Celtic Punk, I want your babies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

Look, if you want to hate Christianity thats fine but throwing around accusations and pulling up vague linguistic oddities is not going to impress anyone. What does the egyptian "Krst" mean?

I will quite happily tell you where Christ comes from, from the Greek "Cristos" meaning "anointed one" which is the meaning of Messiah, an appelation given to such historical characters as David and the pagan Persian Cyrus the Great. As I title it really isn't all that gobsmacking and it certainly doesn't indicate he was the litteral son of God. What it does indicate is his status as a legitimate Israelite King, for which he seems to have had a fairly good genaeological claim.

Now to take the Library at Alexandria, it is said that the Patriarch ordered the burning all the pagan temples in the city but even a quick glance at wiki shows it's not that clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

The Emperor ordered the closing of all pagan temples at this time and the Church happily agreed but I see no evidence, in the contemporary or near contemporary sources, that he deliberately destroyed the Royal Library. To be honest I find it difficult to believe given the fairly generous view many Churchmen held of Pagan philiosohpy, an excellant exposition of the view was provided in "On the Christian Doctrine" by Saint Augustine.

[Che Roriniho]

Look, if you want to hate Christianity thats fine but throwing around accusations and pulling up vague linguistic oddities is not going to impress anyone. What does the egyptian "Krst" mean?

I will quite happily tell you where Christ comes from, from the Greek "Cristos" meaning "anointed one" which is the meaning of Messiah, an appelation given to such historical characters as David and the pagan Persian Cyrus the Great. As I title it really isn't all that gobsmacking and it certainly doesn't indicate he was the litteral son of God. What it does indicate is his status as a legitimate Israelite King, for which he seems to have had a fairly good genaeological claim.

Now to take the Library at Alexandria, it is said that the Patriarch ordered the burning all the pagan temples in the city but even a quick glance at wiki shows it's not that clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

The Emperor ordered the closing of all pagan temples at this time and the Church happily agreed but I see no evidence, in the contemporary or near contemporary sources, that he deliberately destroyed the Royal Library. To be honest I find it difficult to believe given the fairly generous view many Churchmen held of Pagan philiosohpy, an excellant exposition of the view was provided in "On the Christian Doctrine" by Saint Augustine.

But what about the Coptic Christians, the ones who savagely killed Hypatia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria? Does this not say something abot wthe typees of thing that happened under the Church, in this case St. Cyril?

I stand corrected, albeit on flimsy terms about the destruction of Bibliotheka Alexandeia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

admittedly Diocletian set it on a bit of a downhill, but Constantine just destroyed it. plus, his milatary reforms turned ythe army into a shadow of it's former self. gone are the scutums, here are a sort of round thingy. Well done, you wazzok.

Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.

Diocletian? Try Marius.

Under Constantine the Army was restructured to be more fluid and mobile and to prevent any one commander from amassing a large enough force for long enough to threaten Imperial authority. Getting rid of the scutum was beyond irrelevant, and the shield that replaced it was much better suited for the kind of legionary warfare that had developed, not to mention easier to use, lighter and cheaper to make. Ecenomics killed the Empire and that was down to about 100 years of Civil War.

I'm not denying that terrible things were done in the name of Christianity, but that in no way makes the Church itself an evil thing.

[Che Roriniho]

Diocletian? Try Marius.

Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.

[Hax]

Seriously, let's not get into religion here.

Each to his own thoughts. Yes, Christianity has caused a lot of pain and desolation in this world. Actually, I think that the power-mad idiots who said themselves to be christians and used men with weak wills to do what they wanted.

[russia almighty]

Lex Luthor is probably the most pathetic.


And this topic is proof that the EB board needs to keep the incest (ew) that's been going on for the longest time. That, or would the mods kindly close this topic?

[Starforge]

Lex Luthor is probably the most pathetic.


And this topic is proof that the EB board needs to keep the incest (ew) that's been going on for the longest time. That, or would the mods kindly close this topic?

Aye, it's sad that a few people can't address what the OP was looking for and have to bring their own prejudices (dubyah or Christianity for example) into it :).

IBTL.

[Juggernaut]

Why change a formula that works?

You see, there were these little dudes called the Sassanids...

[Perturabo]

Arrogant egomanical incompetents annoy me, so I will nominate Charles De Gaull as a famous 'loser'. Hung onto the skirttails of the Americans until the war was over then proclaimed himself the saviour of france Stole the glory at every opportunity while doing very, very little. The definition of loser.

Re religion, have to agree with the last posters, yes, Christianity has caused a lot of grief over the ages, but then, religious bigots (and the lowlife scum that exploit simple minded true believers) of all varieties are very bad news, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu etc etc. Look beyond the media we are fed every day and you will see some truly horrific religious violence. Best not to even debate it in semi polite forums.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.

I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)

Bingo, couldn't have said it better. To expand slightly, by changing the conditions of service without the necessary idiological or constitutional changes required to deal with the political fallout Marius paved the way for an unconstitutional tyranny in the form of the dictators Sulla and Caesar, which then led to the Principate, a nominally elected monarchy which short circuted the Republican institutions without actually properly reforming them. Once the army realised that it, and only it, could make the Emperor it began making them whenever it became unhappy, which led to the century of Civil Wars. The result was Diocletian and the Dominate.

It's like a massive domino effect.

[QuintusSertorius]

Arguably the disintegration of the Republic started with Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, not Marius. Marius was simply able to capitalise on what Gracchus had already begun. That being the creation of political consciousness amongst the lowest orders of the plebs, the same people Marius would come to recruit from.

[Poulp']

Arrogant egomanical incompetents annoy me, so I will nominate Charles De Gaulle as a famous 'loser'. Hung onto the skirttails of the Americans until the war was over then proclaimed himself the saviour of france Stole the glory at every opportunity while doing very, very little. The definition of loser.

Well, he was walking a tight rope and managed to exist between the US and the British while having little or no power. Starting from scratch, he managed (with a BIG help from Jean Moulin) to unite the different and antagonistic resistance groups into a single body as well as uniting the different political parties into a war coalition government in exile. At the fall of the "Regime de Vichy" (pro-german gov), that government quickly took over and it let the Allies turn their attention to most important matters (heading for Berlin) instead of wasting time subduing the country.
And he was arrogant enough to resign twice from office.

I'd like to fit in your definition of a loser.

French history is filled with losers, but I don't think De Gaulle fits in.
In the WWII French context, you've Petain; savior of France in 1914, he ends up 30 years later hitting rock bottom and labelled a traitor in most history books. Savior/traitor, now, that's a loser.
The harder they fall...

[Cyclops]

Vey hard to label Diocletian and Constantine as pathetic or losers, they were struggling to reunite a self destructing entity. Constantine's reforms may look ugly but they were probably more "real-workld" adjustments of policy to recognise the existing situation rather than disasterous pivot points ruining an otherwise perfect world.

Justinian was able to build on Constantine's work and re-establish a bit of a Mediteranean em,pire again: he used up the empire's strength and it was a disater, but he had the strength to try. Thats a testament to his (and Big C's) organisational ability, if not their foresight.

Had Constantine sat still in Rome and reinforced the state there the western Empitrer would probably have still been blown away, people would've criticised him for not taking a chance to do more to preserve the Empire.

Petain made the Devil's deal, and if there is a French Hell (full of McDonalds) he's there. Shame because he was apparently a somewhat able general. I would hate to have top make the choices he made (cooperate with the Nazis or see your country ploughed under), there's not really a good choice there.

Winston Churchill was saved by making one decent choice in his life, telling Hitler to get stuffed. Prior to that he was a loudmouth dishonest disloyal racist bigoted one-track-broken-record and somewhat incompetent drunk with no friends and no respect from anyone. There's a theory that he was made leader so that in case they had to surrender all the mud would stick to him. Even bad people can do good things, and he did a great thing.

[Marcus Ulpius]

Probably the word "pathetic" is not the good choice, but I'd still defend the choosing of Constantine, may be not as pathetic, but as one of the most "destructive" characters in the latter period of the empire. Of course his reforms were an effort to adjust the Roman war machine to the crumbling economy (thus worse equipment for the legions) and prevent the situation where each legion commander could suddenly decide he should be an emperor and start a mutiny (and that's what was happening in the empire for the most part of 3-rd century). But Constantine started a massive civil war, which was virtually the last Roman civil war, he depleted the empire resources to the level that Rome couldn't already defend itself without external help.

The question of whether the Western Empire could be saved or not is complicated as is the question about the inevitability of the general decline of the Roman world. I won't go deep into this because that would derail the thread and the time frame of those events is not related to the EB (although it is related to the BI). But there's a theory saying that every ethnos (or civilization) goes through several stages of it's development from rapid aggressive expansion to stability then decline and destruction (either by military force or by slow assimilation by stronger/younger group) and Romans in 4-th century and onward were drastically different from the Romans of the Republican times or even times of the early Empire, they were much much softer.

[Majd il-Romani]

caligula. need I say more?

and I can't believe noone said commodus! The guy was practically responsible for Romes stagnation and later, fall.

[Constantius III]

As to the actual topic of the thread, I'd have to say that Gallienus is one of the more unlucky historical characters, if not pathetic; the man gets dumped on a lot but did a bloody good job under the circumstances. His daddy Valerian was, at the end of his life, the most pathetic Roman Emperor in history, though. Poor guy - just goes to show you can't trust those nasty Persians when negotiating a cease-fire. And Krateros' end is somewhat sad; a great and brilliant general who dies when his horse falls on him? Come on! At least Neoptolemos died in an epic single combat with Eumenes.

But Constantine started a massive civil war, which was virtually the last Roman civil war, he depleted the empire resources to the level that Rome couldn't already defend itself without external help.

Not at all. Following Constantinus' reign and despite internecine troubles between his sons for the next twenty-four years, the Empire actually strengthened significantly from its low point in the 250s and 260s. The main problem for the Roman economy, which necessitated short-term moneymaking schemes like coinage debasement that ended up pushing them into more of a fiscal freefall during the Crisis of the Third Century (wow I write long sentences), was the rise of the Sassanid Empire. Instead of weak, crappy Pahlava, who never really could stand up to the Roman military - Ctesiphon was sacked something like three times in a hundred years, and Carrhae for all its epicness was a flash in the pan - there was a native Persian dynasty capable of mobilizing the kingdom's resources much better than their steppe predecessors. So the Roman budget suddenly had to make way for a vastly stronger military on the Eastern front during the years of the crisis. Odenathus' victories only partially alleviated the problem; Galerius still had to go into Persia during the time of the Tetrarchy and fight a war with Narseh. After Galerius' war, the Sassanids were largely beaten (though they obviously still remained a major threat, otherwise that whole mess with Maurikios, Phokas, Khusrau, and Herakleios wouldn't have happened...) and the budget was comparatively stabilized, mostly due to Diocletian's and the other tetrarchs' tax reforms. Economic growth continued to a large extent during the fourth century all the same, despite the increased taxation; take a look at Africa, where instead of grain, olives and vines were cultivated, allowing a much larger area of the land to be used for growing stuff (since olives don't need as much water as grain does). Throughout the Roman East, agriculture - the mainstay of any economy for another thousand years after the Romans' fall - was reaching its maximum output during the fourth and fifth centuries. Hispania, southern Gallia, and Roman Britannia are largely the same. Only in Italia and the Rhine frontier is there any evidence of major shortfalls in agricultural prosperity during these times. (Yes, I know about the old chestnut of the 'agri deserti' and the 'flight of the curials'. The former seems to be a reference to lands where no taxes were being collected, which in almost every case were territories that never were cultivated much anyway; the latter just means that instead of getting involved in local government, the 'curials' were joining the imperial bureaucracy. Those two myths really ought to be put to rest; they stopped being serious historical positions in the 1940s and 50s after Tchalenko published.)

Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...

and Romans in 4-th century and onward were drastically different from the Romans of the Republican times or even times of the early Empire, they were much much softer.

That's Gibbon talking. On what grounds? The Empire was if anything more militarized than it had been in the Principate...

Commodus was a pretty ridiculous figure, but I don't know if I'd call him pathetic; a big dude all done up to look like Herakles wearing the skin of a lion looks pretty cool IMHO. He coulda been a lot less insane though. That tends to be a bonus, especially when you're emperor of the most powerful state in the world.

[||Lz3||]

Caligula WAS the worst emperor... really... man ...that guys was totally mAD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula

[Celtic_Punk]

in response to those guys who were trying to chew me out there, i didn't mention that its not the followers of Christianity whom were at fault (most religions have stolen different stories, gods, ideals, ect.) its the ones who head the religion. Its not for a form of worship for them, its for control. Im sorry if im offending you but when the topic arose, i just wanted to dish my 2 cents (or pence ) Most religions are not in place for worship, but merely for control. I myself was a christian, but upon realization of what it was i denounced my religion ( i see myself as more of a pagan)
you are welcome to worship whichever god(s) you want, but at least know this, dont trust the pope. anyone who says they are closer to God then you is a total wanker. But by all means follow the teachings and ideals of Jesus, he was one Hell of a guy. *thumbs up*

[Subedei]

Giovanni Luigi de Fiesco, Duke of Lavagna, who lead a revolt against Andrea Doria in Genoa 1547. The revolt was a total success until he stepped on a plank to enter a ship and slipped. Wearing his bling-bling armour he sunk like a stone....goodbye Mr. Fiesco. They found him 3 days later on the shores.

Imagine this as a movie...everbody would say:" This ending is not very comprehensible!"...Well, Schiller actually made a drama about the revolt in 1547.

[Celtic_Punk]

I always thought that Benito Mussolini was an eegit (idiot for you non isles lads)

btw its not like mr fiesco would have been able to swim if he wasnt wearing armour! haha

[V.T. Marvin]

Giovanni Luigi de Fiesco, Duke of Lavagna, who lead a revolt against Andrea Doria in Genoa 1547. The revolt was a total success until he stepped on a plank to enter a ship and slipped. Wearing his bling-bling armour he sunk like a stone....goodbye Mr. Fiesco. They found him 3 days later on the shores.

Interesting, maybe this explains where the word "fiasco" came from...

[Dumbass]

in response to those guys who were trying to chew me out there, i didn't mention that its not the followers of Christianity whom were at fault (most religions have stolen different stories, gods, ideals, ect.) its the ones who head the religion. Its not for a form of worship for them, its for control. Im sorry if im offending you but when the topic arose, i just wanted to dish my 2 cents (or pence ) Most religions are not in place for worship, but merely for control. I myself was a christian, but upon realization of what it was i denounced my religion ( i see myself as more of a pagan)
you are welcome to worship whichever god(s) you want, but at least know this, dont trust the pope. anyone who says they are closer to God then you is a total wanker. But by all means follow the teachings and ideals of Jesus, he was one Hell of a guy. *thumbs up*

Seems like you have had a bad experience with the catholic church. I find myself agreeing that the concept of having a pope is flawed, as it creates arrogance for a person to think they are the best Christian. I also disagree with many motives of the catholic church, as it seems it is based more upon doing good deeds and working your way into heaven than accepting Jesus. This just leads to people thinking they are "better" christians. Still though, you shouldn't give up your beliefs if you felt that people were trying to manipulate the religion, there are sects that don't focus on Christianity being a powerful faction in the world, but as a religion, such as protestants.

[Starforge]

Seems like you have had a bad experience with the catholic church. I find myself agreeing that the concept of having a pope is flawed, as it creates arrogance for a person to think they are the best Christian. I also disagree with many motives of the catholic church, as it seems it is based more upon doing good deeds and working your way into heaven than accepting Jesus. This just leads to people thinking they are "better" christians. Still though, you shouldn't give up your beliefs if you felt that people were trying to manipulate the religion, there are sects that don't focus on Christianity being a powerful faction in the world, but as a religion, such as protestants.

Human beings are, for the most part, selfish creatures who will use whatever method to get what they want. Manipulation of religion is merely one of the more obvious representations and yet removing it would change exactly nothing. Ethnicity, culture, political affiliation, economic status, etc ad-nauseum will always give people a reason and justification for comitting harm upon others. Of course, the fact that many people percieve religious folks (meaning Christians for most of the western world) as "telling them what to do" invariably elicits a reactionary response.

Any of you who think removing one motivation will actually help things - well, keep taking whatever you're taking - must be good stuff. There will always be strong ambitious folks who will use whatever tool necessary to herd weak willed fools (of which - there will also always be plenty.)

----------------------------------

Pierre-Charles Villeneuve would be another person I would add to the list. Not only in not having his fleet adequately trained but by also being caught with his shorts around his ankles when Nelson tried his unconventional tactics and then failing to react well to it. Kudos to Nelson, mind, and he deserves all the accolades but I wouldn't place Villeneuve at better than average and probably less so. The underlying reasons why he was in command rather than a more seasoned officer can be blamed on the revolution likely but doesn't mean he still failed to step up when it mattered.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

A possible entry mainly because his most famous act is the greatest military cock-up in modern history.

Who else but Cardigan and the charge of the light brigade. Now it may not have been his fault, and the charge may actually have succeeded, but the clear idiocy of an attack down a fortified valley staight at an artillery battery beggars believe. So much so that the Russians thought that the english cavalrymen must have been drunk or drugged and asked prisoners what they had been given to charge the guns to which one replied (in true British fashion), "By God, if we had so much as smelt the barrel we would have taken half Russia by this time."

I think he warrants a place purely because he is known for cardigans and near-suicidal cavalry charges.

[Justinian II]

Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...

For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC. (Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them )

[Constantius III]

For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC.

Oh, absolutely. The Eastern economy had to be fantastic in order to give out all that tribute to first the Huns of Attila and then the various barbarians that Iustinianus kept bribed (and that Iustinus II decided to stop payments to...a brave notion, and plays well to the people, but sadly foolish). As to the state of the later Eastern Roman economy, I remember reading that Theophilos and Mikhael II had an awful lot of cash; apparently they were able to open up a significant number of new gold mines in 9th century Armenia. But the situation was of course terrible after the Anatolian themes were run over two hundred years later, so that Alexios I had to try to play around with making new stable currency to try to get the budget balanced again (it didn't work). Now you got me interested in this again...need to go look this stuff up!

(Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them )

Which Isaurians, the fifth century ones or Leon III's dynasty? Either one works...

[Majd il-Romani]

oh and dont forget Hadrian. You may think I'm wrong but hear me out. Trajan greatly extended the borders of the empire, and Hadrian could have followed in his footsteps and totally conquered Britain and possibly even Persia, but he didn't, and those 2 borders ended up being the most problematic in the Empire. He couldve at least stayed where Trajan left the borders but he RETREATED! 200 MILES!