Worst military mistakes.

[Che Roriniho]

my general opinion is that all these pathetic defeats can go both ways-
"one mans shameful defeat is anothers heroic victory" -hooahguy

Look! A really big Distraction! *Steals Motto*

Ah, there we have the mother of all mistakes...along with the german subwarine warfare waged against merchantships in the atlantic during WWI and the World Trade Center Attack, this must be the most military mistakes and stupid calculations. Attacking the US and praying for no retaliation is like putting your fingers into the fire and expect not to be burned....

They were expecting retaliation, but the whole point of this attack was to destroy the Entire US Navy in one swift blow. No navy-no problem.

Also, it wasn't the Submarine Attacks, it was partly the Zimmerman Telegram, and partly because of the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a civilian Ship, but German Intelligence indicatred that it was transporting arms to Europe.

And can you honestly say that the war on Terror is a success? More Americans have died from the 'Peacekeeping', than could have died in any reasonable amount of terrorist attacks on the US.

My problem with Magnesia wasn't the formation of Antiochos, it was the chariots. Antiochos didn't need the chariots to overwhelm the Roman cavalry as his own was perfectly suitable for the job. Furthermore, once the cavalry were in the rear the Romans would have been lost as even the spear-armed triarii could not stand against the xyston-equipped Seleukid cavalry.

As far as Parthia is concerned - they weren't invincible or some unstoppable juggernaut. The allusions to Caesar planning a campaign was mentioned in, I believe, Suetonius and either a Parthian or Dacian campaign. I think that he could have done it, but it would hardly be a foregone conclusion either way and would likely have been tedious, taking several years to do it successfully. In turn, Crassus' biggest problem was initiating a conflict with Parthia at all.

Probably one that is lesser known is Antiochos III's decision to winter in recently conquered territory. Rather than fall back to safer Seleukeia, which was also recently retaken, he split up his massive army into smaller garrisons and made his way to Ekbatana. Well, we all know what happened there and the world said goodbye to the last show of Seleukid strength.

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

[TWFanatic]

Just to nitpick:

Caesar would move back south rather than stay in Celtic Gaul.

True, but that was mostly for political reasons (so he could be closer to Rome). Cato was doubtless causing Caesar a considerable headache during and after the second thanksgiving celebration of the latter's victories. Caesar's legions generally wintered in Transalpine Gaul under their respective legates, who were not expected to show much initiative. They needn't have anyway, Caesar had no problem traveling at phenomenal speeds. His forces were kept together, however, not separated like Antiochus'.

[Hegix]

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

[Constantius III]

partly because of the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a civilian Ship, but German Intelligence indicatred that it was transporting arms to Europe.

It was transporting small arms to Europe. Didn't make it legal or cricket for the Germans to fire without a warning (by the rules of naval warfare of the day, anyway), but it did make the Lusitania a legitimate target.

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

Uh...there is an excellent reason he merited the epithet 'Megas'.

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

[Hax]

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

What? Antiochos' campaign against the Romans was indeed unsuccesful, but in earlier years he had stretched the Seleucid empire all the way back to Bactria again. He also (temporarily) stopped the Parthians from taking more Seleucid lands. I'm no expert on the subject, but this is what I know. I bet abou or Krusader could tell you more.

[Che Roriniho]

It was transporting small arms to Europe.

This is a common misconception, partially fuelled by a fact that exploded violently after sinking. This wasn't because it wasd carrying arms, but because of the tightly packed coal-dust (it was a steam ship, and a reasonably often-used one, so there was lots of compacted fuel), which, like any tightly packed flammable dust, exploded violently. I don't know exactly where the rumour of it carrying explosives started, but possibly It was German, to justify it's destruction, which would make sense, as their Intel was indicating this, even though it was false.

[Justinian II]

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

*SNORT*

So true.

I'd also add Manzikert to this list--that was a bungled campaign if there ever was one.

[tapanojum]

Not exactly military mistake, but more like a major mistake in general.

King Fu-Ch'ai of the state of WU being overrun by the state of Yueh.

Fu-Ch'ai had defeated Yueh and instead of exterminating the leading power in charge, he allowed Kou-Chien of Yueh to live. (Of course, great gifts and bribes were given for the survival). Then Fu-Cha'ai allowed his former enemy to influence his actions. Ultimately he ignored the advice from one of his best advisors/generals yet allowed Kou-Chien's propoganda to enter his mind.

The advice of course was to NOT invade the northern state. To finish taking over Yueh because they will eventually cause the destruction of Wu.

Long story short, Wu ended up invading another great state to their north while the Yueh broke alliance and invaded from the south and taking Wu for themselves just as was predicted.

[Constantius III]

I'd also add Manzikert to this list--that was a bungled campaign if there ever was one.

Uh...Romanos Diogenes did just fine for most of the campaign. What lost the battle for the Romans wasn't their own mistakes or inherent inferiority (both myths) but the treachery of Andronikos Doukas, who pulled back most of the army so that the emperor and a small detachment were able to be surrounded by the Seljuqs. And really, the battle wouldn't have been such a disaster were it not for the revolt in Bulgaria that diverted Emperor Mikhael VI's and strategos Nikephoros Bryennios' attention. They were only able to send a relatively small detachment to fight the Seljuqs under Isaakios Komnenos, which was defeated. They probably should've sent Bryennios to fight the Seljuqs and Komnenos to quash the Bulgars. Anatolia was more important.

As for the Lusitania carrying arms: listed on its manifest (on the first page) were 4.2 million rounds of Remington ammo and over a thousand 3-inch shells, and (I think) some fuses too. These, being small arms, would not have contributed to any explosion (they didn't explode when shipped in bulk). Has nothing to do with the famous 'second explosion', but they were there all the same.

[Justinian II]

Uh...Romanos Diogenes did just fine for most of the campaign. What lost the battle for the Romans wasn't their own mistakes or inherent inferiority (both myths) but the treachery of Andronikos Doukas, who pulled back most of the army so that the emperor and a small detachment were able to be surrounded by the Seljuqs.

That's the bungled part, IMO. I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to bring your enemy on campaign with you, AND HAVE HIM IN CHARGE of a contingent.

But yeah, Manzikert needn't have had the effect it DID have in the long run. Or even, if Romanos managed to keep the throne. It was the resulting cascade of civil war that really did Anatolia in, IMO.

[Constantius III]

That's the bungled part, IMO. I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to bring your enemy on campaign with you, AND HAVE HIM IN CHARGE of a contingent.

Yeah, it did kind of seem out of character for Romanos to leave Botaneiates at home and bring along Doukas. Kinda like Boney bringing Grouchy to Waterloo and leaving Davout behind, except Grouchy wasn't about to try to kill Napoleon (only ruin his chances of smashing the Prussians). Taking 'keep your friends close and enemies closer' to a whole new level. Normally, for roleplaying purposes in EB, I bring along generals with the 'Disloyal' trait with a 'Loyal' general on campaign, so they're not in control of a city and they don't have an army to themselves...guess this was the repercussion...

But yeah, Manzikert needn't have had the effect it DID have in the long run. Or even, if Romanos managed to keep the throne. It was the resulting cascade of civil war that really did Anatolia in, IMO.

Yup. Romanos' story after losing Manzikert is awfully sad. Depressing, even. Gets captured by Alp Arslan, ransoms his way out by promising to pay him when he retakes the throne, but the forces of the betrayers are too much for him, so he surrenders and promises to enter a monastery, but then gets blinded anyway and exiled. The blinding is done so badly he gets an infection and starts to die, but before he does, he collects all the money he can get to send to Alp Arslan as a gesture of good faith. Tragedy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Carrhae is really an example of everything going right for one side and wrong for the other. As far as Crassus is concerned I can see several failures, which are not the same as the mistakes.

1. Failure to support his cavalry with his infantry and vice versa.

2. Failure to fight on prepared ground of his chosing.

3. Failure to eliminate the Parthian supplies (as I recall the archers were dropping out and trotting off to reload.)

4. Failure to appreciate that a horse archer is both an archer and a horseman and therefore represents two of the three components of an army.

As far as I can see Crassus needed either more archers or more cavalry. While he was not an incompetant he was used to fighting other Romans and he failed to appreciate the nature of Parthian arms. That would seem to be exactly the same mistake that Darius, Xerxes and Mardonius made regarding the Greeks.

Lesson One, Know your enemy and yourself.

[Lusitani]

Well this one was a military mistake...for some anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...3%A1cer_Quibir

(Dont start bashing me for using wikipédia...dont have time for too much research :P lol)

[Celtic_Punk]

Hitler's biggest mistake was engaging stalingrad... he should have spearheaded for the oil fields like he planned in the firstplace... if he took stalingrad he would have just made the russian resolve stronger. his second biggest mistake was allowing the 6th army to be surrounded, and not letting them retreat. Of course he was completely barmy by this point in the war (YES there was a time when he wasnt such a raving lunatic!)

also i thought i might aswell say it, being a soldier n all...

"Our's is not to reason why, but to do and die."

[DeathEmperor]

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

I mean no offence to you when I say this Che Roriniho, but in all honesty I laughed when I read that.

Antiochos III the Great was the greatest and most successful of the Seleukid kings second only to Seleukos I Nicator himself. When he ascended the throne he ruled the bare heartlands of the empire namely Syria, Assyria and most of Mesopotamia. From the moment he was crowned he was at war with every kingdom in the East, and by the time he went to war with Rome he had successfully defeated the Armenian(Hayasdan), Parthian(Pahlava) and Baktrian kings in battle and brought them back into the empire as subservient vassal states. There are many other things he did worthy of note, but I don't want to make such a post when my fellow Seleukid supporters *winks at abou* can make one much more eloquent and understandable.

Antiochos Megas has an undeserved reputation as incompetent or foolish mainly because he was portrayed as such by Roman historians. The Battle of Magnesia and the number of troops the Romans had are greatly distorted as are the losses they recieved. Antiochus routed the entire left wing of the Romans leading a charge made up of Agema, Kataphracts and Hetairoi and yet Livy and Appian say the Romans suffered only 300 casualties?

[Che Roriniho]

I mean no offence to you when I say this Che Roriniho, but in all honesty I laughed when I read that.

Antiochos III the Great was the greatest and most successful of the Seleukid kings second only to Seleukos I Nicator himself. When he ascended the throne he ruled the bare heartlands of the empire namely Syria, Assyria and most of Mesopotamia. From the moment he was crowned he was at war with every kingdom in the East, and by the time he went to war with Rome he had successfully defeated the Armenian(Hayasdan), Parthian(Pahlava) and Baktrian kings in battle and brought them back into the empire as subservient vassal states. There are many other things he did worthy of note, but I don't want to make such a post when my fellow Seleukid supporters *winks at abou* can make one much more eloquent and understandable.

Antiochos Megas has an undeserved reputation as incompetent or foolish mainly because he was portrayed as such by Roman historians. The Battle of Magnesia and the number of troops the Romans had are greatly distorted as are the losses they recieved. Antiochus routed the entire left wing of the Romans leading a charge made up of Agema, Kataphracts and Hetairoi and yet Livy and Appian say the Romans suffered only 300 casualties?

Ooops... That'll be my bad then. Sorry, Antiochos Megas!

*Runs, accidently leaving a Fig Leaf behind*