Pathetic Historical Characters

[Constantius III]

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!

Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue. It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.

[Majd il-Romani]

Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue. It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.

OK I understand persia but with Britain he could have counquered and subjugated it so resistance would not be large and organized but small and scattered, giving the empire safetey in the long run because to attack Britain you'd have to cross the sea

[Ludens]

To my knowledge the English (whose powerbase was far closer to Caledonia than the Romans') only succeeded in subjugating the highlands after they constructed several military highways into the mountains. This gave their armies the opportunity to quickly mobilize and suppress any local discontent. The Romans didn't have this option: they could have marched in Caledonia all they liked, but the locals would simply scatter and reassemble when the Romans had left. Lack of agriculture in combination with lack of roads made stationing garrisons not viable: no foraging and difficult resupplying. And due to poor communications they would have need many of these garrisons.

In any case, the Picts were only part of the problems that the Roman garrison on Britain faced. Raiding Irish were also a major problem. The sea certainly didn't seem to impair them.

[Hax]

What about Antiochos IV Epiphanes? He has earned the reputation of a villain in Jewish tradition, but what about the guy himself?

[Subedei]

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

Does it? May well be...gotta do some research....never thought about that.

[Ibrahim]

as for the one who said henry V was the last englsh king to go to battle-that's plainly wrong. George II was the last one to do so, at the battle of dettingen in 1743(though he was quite old by then). the last king to visit the font lines if I recall was George V. now his (George II's) son, the duke of cumberland,should be on this list: out of half a dozen battles, that guy won only one (cullodun, 1746). www.britishbattles.com is quite a source. read the Austrian successin battles and have a laugh.

anoter pathetic fellow is honorius; Valentianus III as also a srewup. but neither of them have anyhing to Petronius Maximus. he was th redefinition of patheti imbecility. he helped orchistrate Aetius' killing with Valentinianus III. after the empreror gave im nothng in return, he ecruited 2 fellows fom Aetius' guard to assassinate Vlentinianus (so I have read) then as empreror himself, he stole hunnoric's bride, eudoxia the younger, thus causing his reign to last 9 weeks, since Geiseric and hunnoric cae to get her back, he panicked and tried to run frm rome, but thenthe poeple caught him and stoned him to death as e tried to run. this led to the sacking of roma in 455AD by the vandals. Valentinanus' reign did not see roa sacked BTW(onorius and petronius maximus, yes)

@Appo: napoleon I had a son, who was briefly declared Napoleon II (born 1811 or 1812, don't remember exactly when). but it was out of his second marriage, not his first(the first was Josephine). that's why Napoleon III is Napoleon III (r.1848-1871). he is also said to have fathered a girl from one of he women who came with him to St. Helena (the girl was said to look like him a lot). the wman BTW was also coincidentally known to be a cuckolder of her husand,who according to one theory, killed Napoleon I with arsenic (no I'm not reading pyramidiot alternative history stuff-ven a good deal of conventionl historians say so). wierd wt historians come up with.

I read about Napoleon a lot

[ServiliusAhala]

Antiochos IV Epiphanes in his conquering of Egypt, so close, and then Rome sends Gaius Popillius Laenas, to make him draw circles?

[Moros]

Does it? May well be...gotta do some research....never thought about that.

wikipedia:
From Italian fiasco (“‘bottle, flask’”) - the type of round wine bottle, sometimes wrapped in straw, used traditionally for Chianti wine. The failure sense specifically derives via French from the Italian phrase fare fiasco, literally meaning “make a bottle” (used in Italian theatre to mean “failure in a performance”). This is similar to the informal British English usage of "to bottle out" meaning to "lose one's nerve".

An alternative interpretation of the Italian "far fiasco" as a meaning for failure can be traced to production of glass bottles by glass blowing. A mistake in the process would result in a bottle of irregular shape with protruding or enlarged base is termed "fiasco" as opposed to "bottiglia"