Worst military mistakes.

[TWFanatic]

I agree.

And before anyone attempts to argue:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...78&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...95&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

Carrhaë was a brilliant Parthian victory. A smaller Eastern cavalry force decisively defeats a significantly larger body of Romans, through an excellent strategical plan and thanks to swift interception. The Romans could barely pass Zeugma before they went in circles in the desert until the Parthians had mounted their move of defence. To just declare the Roman defeat as a moment of incompetence is to completely overlook the brilliance of Surena.

Hey, let's use the same fallacious reasoning and declare Alexander III The Great as someone who just picked his victories from an incompetent Achaemenid King of Kings who couldn't get anything right. Read a book for once, you dolts. Crassus did what he could, and worst of all, Marcus Antonius who did pick the "Armenian route" marched to Atropatene with a force of approximately 100,000 men, and fled with his tails between the legs. The Parthian King of Kings then was not the shrewd and cunning Orodes II, but it was the crazy lunatic fratricide Phraates IV.

*cue some Roman fanboy who is going to mention Trajan or Septimius Severus as a "response"*

I have long ago stopped attributing the success of a people or nation in war as due to their greatness as individuals. In other words, that the Persians repeatedly defeated Romans throughout history is not due to an inherent superiority as a people, just as Caesar’s success in Gaul is not due to the inherent greatness of his legionaries in being Roman. Cue the ideas of social Darwinism and nationalism. I am not saying you are doing this, I just want to be careful.

My opinion (and it is nothing more than that) is that the Parthians were able to inflict such crushing defeats on the Romans due to their respective methods of warfare. The "Parthian shot" was virtually impossible for an army based entirely around heavy infantry to counter. The testudo was worthless as the horse archers could ride right up to the legionaries and target their vulnerable limbs and faces. Even worse for the legionaries, they would quickly grow exhausted. Then the Parthians’ could pick them off almost at will (with the assistance of heavy cavalry of course). Cue Saladin at the Battle of Hattin--you don't need to inflict casualties on a heavily armored foe in the desert. Just forcing them to wear their full armor (or, in our case, remain in the immobile testudo) is enough, and horse archers are of course a most valuable tool for this purpose. Once the heavily armored troops are tired and broken the real slaughter may commence.

That is not to discount the genius of Surena. I merely wanted to point out the tactical superiority of the Persian armament on their home terrain as equally consequential in their repeated victories of Roman legions. So I agree with you, I just wanted to extend your argument further--Carrhae was not solely the result of a fleeting moment of Roman incompetence or Persian genius, but a culmination of many factors (including third party variables we haven’t discussed such as traitorous guides).

[Watchman]

Eh, just to nitpick, but Hattin was plenty rife with ferocious hand-to-hand combat. The Middle Eastern armies used Turkic nomads as skirmishers and light cavalry for all they were worth, certainly, but their "main strength" decisive component was shock troops.

And as the armour went, the locals often enough sported more of it than the Europeans. Old cataphract country, recall.

[Hooahguy]

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

[The Persian Cataphract]

Yet we must also give credit where it is due. "Fighting on equal terms" is an illusion that we must evict. Little of it pertains to nationalism, but regardless of view of point (Whether we want to attribute brilliance or incompetence) we must be consistent. I have personally had it with the academical dogmas of western historiography. I am saying that to every coin there are two sides, and when you watch crappy History Channel shows like "Decisive battles", all we get is "Crassus did not listen, Crassus was not a general but a Roman mortgage broker, Parthians used Parthian Shot, boo-hoo here, boo-hoo there, his soldiers were mercilessly butchered, more boo-hoo, cue scene from Greek theater". And that's it.

The traitorous guide in question was depending on which source you refer to (Ariaramnes or Abgar) a client ruler, who probably remained in close affiliation to Orodes II. When you think about it, it wasn't the first time that the Romans had transgressed a treaty. Pompey had likewise his own adventures in the western reaches of the Parthian empire. Additionally, we can hardly blame the Parthians for having enough clairvoyance to know where they could count upon loyalties to their work. What we get ultimately is not so much a Parthian tactical victory but a complete strategical showcase.

To the contrary, until recent scrutiny, Orientals of antiquity have continuously been projected as back-water nations of weaklings while Graeco-Roman culture mirrors today's "Western society". Don't believe me? Recently I stumbled upon yet another one of those crazy Judeo-Christian sites that argued about the historical inspiration of the biblical "Four Horsemen" and while it is known that the first of the four may have been inspired by the Parthians, the article went as far as projecting the Romans as today's coalition forces in Iraq while the Parthians were mirrored as "Iraqi insurgents".

It is only healthy and not least, fair, to mirror the rationale by flipping the coin, just to make a point. Crassus' plan of invading the Parthians was not some random anomaly. Lucullus had his double-dealings in Armenia (Scrutinized by Cyril Toumanoff), Pompey evicting Parthian governors, Crassus leading a "private" expedition (Supported by Julius Caesar), and finally Julius Caesar himself prepares to embark an expedition against the Parthians, before he got murdered; Marcus Antonius picks up the torch, reinforces the army, chooses "the other route", and still faces defeat, not once, but twice. You know what all of this rings to my ears? Escapism.

[General Appo]

That Hannibal was able to encircle the legions is not do to any shortcoming on Varro’s part or that of his men, it is do the genius and cunning of Hannibal. AFAIK, the double envelopment was never used before in history--Varro had no way of knowing what his foe had in store for his legionaries. Which is my next point--the tenacious Romans were highly successful in breaking Hannibal’s center. The latter, as he so often did, merely used his opponents' own strengths against them. The principle of Judo comes to mind. Use your opponents momentum against him--e.g., you push, I pull; you pull, I push. Hannibal also played mind games with them, tempting them to do exactly what he wanted and expected. That is one reason why I believe that Hannibal was a better general than Alexander (on the battlefield, at least). The former would tempt the latter into doing something rash and would have no trouble capitalizing on it.

Did Varro fall for it? Most certainly. But I believe that few commanders would have done any better. Any armchair general who claims he would have seen the pincer coming is abusing the objective study of history by injecting the usage of hindsight into it. Regardless, Varro's countrymen certainly forgave him, and we should as well.

Indeed, and in fact there is nothing to say that even Fabius Maximus would have acted differently, when he used his Cunctator tactics Rome did not have the army that fought at Cannae, and it´s quite possible that Fabius only tried to delay Hannibal long enough for such an army to be assembled, which would then destroy Hannibal. After all, I doubt that Fabius plan was to play mouse-and-cat with Hannibal until his army died of old age.

[Constantius III]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...78&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...95&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

That is one of the most amusing and enlightening series of posts I've ever read, and highlights how little I really know about the Parthians. Seems that both Romans and Persians were awfully good at exploiting each others' little civil wars and internecine conflicts, and for every Herakleios (who, IMHO, was a total freakin' genius who really oughtn't have gotten dropsy in his later years) there was a Surena or a Pacorus. You mentioned the late Professor Shahbazi a lot; do you think there would be any English translations of any of his works that I could pick up?

Frankly I haven't a clue as to why it's so impossible to credit the Parthians with genius at Carrhae; it means that the Romans look better too, and that the engagement was more of a clash between an extremely skilled opponent and a competent one as opposed to a blundering farce on both sides.

As for real terrible military mistakes, I'd probably go with Demetrios' pursuit of Antiokhos off the field at Ipsos as opposed to keeping his cavalry where it could actually make a difference. While Antigonos still might not have been able to win the battle, he would have had a much better chance of things that way.

[DeathEmperor]

Don't mean to add fuel to a potential fire but I agree with TPC. Most historians and armchair generals today are too quick to say that " (insert name) won because they faced a stupid opponent or (insert name) lost because they were outnumbered/ambushed/etc." rather than look at battles, events and people from a sober and unbiased view. Was Crassus arrogant? Yes. Was he an incompetant and stupid general? Hardly, unless you believe the propaganda of the past 2000 years. True he did make mistakes in his campaign against Parthia, but this should not give historians and people in general the right to write him off as an idiot. It also disgusts me when people judge a person's actions 2000+ years ago by our "modern" standards such as when certain "historians" call Alexander 'A spoiled teenager who inherited his father's army and used it to satisfy his adolescent yearning for adventure.'.

I'll get off this topic for now as I'm getting irritated just thinking about those people. Not any of you guys, but certain individuals I know in real life.

Now back to the topic of Worst Military Mistakes, I would have to say the formation that Antiochus the Great used for his army at Magnesia. Stationing elephants in-between the divisions of his phalanx may have helped give the phalanx stability, but it was a catastrophe when they rampaged through the phalangites after being bombarded by pila and other missiles. The use of the obsolete war chariot in the battle is a mistake in itself, which led to them turning back from their failed charge against the Roman right and instead wreaking chaos on the Seleucid left. If Antiochus had used conventional Hellenistic tactics against the Romans (phalanx and heavy infantry in the center, elephants and cavalry on the wings, screw the chariots) he would've most likely won a solid victory in my opinion. He might've tried the knew formation after remembering Philip V's defeat, but the plains of the Hermos were near-perfect for phalanx warfare compared to the hills of Cynoscephalae where Philip met with disaster.

[QuintusSertorius]

There's a book I have on this very topic which is quite amusing and shocking: Military Blunders: The How and Why of Military Failure by Saul David.

Featuring such highlights as British Retreat from Kabul; the Battle of Dien Bien Phu; the Fall of Singapore; the Siege of Kut; Mussolini's Invasion of Egypt; the Battle of Colenso and many more.

[TWFanatic]

It is only healthy and not least, fair, to mirror the rationale by flipping the coin, just to make a point.

Ah, I see what you were doing now. I just wanted to ensure that you were not a reactionist to what you aptly termed “the academical dogmas of western historiography.” Believe me, I had to wade through all that bull with my professors and brainwashed fellow students as well. I happened to study with a large number of Persian immigrants who challenged the system, so thankfully I was not allowed to grow dogmatic.

That said, there are also many academics who put political correctness above the objective study of history, injecting their beliefs that all things western are bad into the classroom. However they are vastly outnumbered by the other extreme from my experience. There are people from all sides who would rather inject subjectives into the debate, and it would help if objective academics from all backgrounds condemned all forms of dogmatic historiography.

[Sarcasm]

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

So that's why you joined the team. You can view alternate timelines.



I've had been wondering about that.

[TWFanatic]

As always Sarcasm, your posts make my day.

[||Lz3||]

carrhae was a military mistake not entirely cause crassus' tactical mistakes but also cause... well they shouldn't have even tried to invade parthia



I have one no one has mentioned yet!

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn "


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

[Watchman]

Well there were little things like logistics and the fact the BEF and French were being rather obstructive limiting what exactly the Germans could achieve.

'Sides, given how hideously high stakes they'd gambled at and, to no small surprise to even themselves, won in that campaign, large parts of the BEF and the French northern forces getting away was a minor inconvenience.

[Ludens]

In addition, Hitler was given an inflated damage report, where someone had represented the tanks that had broken down as "destroyed". So Hitler thought his Panzer divisions were in far worse shape then they really were.

[Chris1959]

Pearl Harbor 7/12/41 !!!!!!

[abou]

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 VII'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.

[Zarax]

Abou, any chance for a link about that last seleukid offensive? Sounds like an interesting story...

[abou]

It's split up between Justin and Diodotus and discussed in Bevan as well as in Grainger's The Cities of Seleukid Syria. The idea of moving back to Seleukeia as a better alternative is my own since we see it a lot with other generals. Antiochos III, for example, would winter at Ephesos during his Thraikian campaign and Caesar would move back south rather than stay in Celtic Gaul.

[Tyrfingr]

Pearl Harbor 7/12/41 !!!!!!

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....

[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.

[Krusader]

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

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

[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.

[QuintusSertorius]

I have one no one has mentioned yet!

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn "


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

My grandfather was a Royal Marine at Dunkirk with the BEF. They survived for a week on boiled sweets. He was underage too, just 15 when he ran away to join up.

[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.

[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?

[||Lz3||]

My grandfather was a Royal Marine at Dunkirk with the BEF. They survived for a week on boiled sweets. He was underage too, just 15 when he ran away to join up.

yes it was tough for the BEF... and well thanks god that hitler was a military idiot (he had his moments...but... not that many...)

"hey, we have those super jets ME 262, I have an idea lets transform them into useless bombers instead of actual fighters! "

[kambiz]

So that's why you joined the team. You can view alternate timelines.

I've had been wondering about that.

You had been wondering for long that why I've joined (And actually I have been invited not joined by myself) the team? lol Poor Sarcasm what a great pain you had Now I hope you feel better after disclosing this mystery

@The Persian Cataphract
Thank you for very informative posts I have PMed you.

[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.