Worst military mistakes.

[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.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

9/11 - how is that a military mistake?

1) You couldn't say that it helped America very much or that the terrorists are dead or ever will be.

2) You could argue that they don't represent a military force and was purely civilians attacking a civilian target.

3) and the option it wasn't terrorists but the government in which case it was a mistake because they are now stuck in Iraq.

PS: No talk about conspiracy theories are a load of crap or that the American government is evil and did it. It isn't relevent. Understood?