History's greatest fails

[Polinikia]

Any event involving the invasion of Russia. I believe only the Mongols succeeded while everyone else failed epically.

Yes, the only people to succeed have been the Mongols.

and that was because the Mongols came in through Russia's "back door", plus the Mongols were used to those infamous winters The winters in Mongolia doesn't exactly inspire one to don shorts and slather on the sunscreen.

[Strykla]

The Maginot Line. There was a Belgium-sized hole in it.

Well, come to think of it, the French Army.

[Cameroi]

a thread called history's greatest fails, when less then 10% of posts even consider anything further back then a few hundred years.

[Lessnt]

for the quality of sentient life, and the well being of all life, history's greatest fail was the invention of armed combat and the rise of the very first and earliest empires.

Its not armed combat.
Its organized armed people who focus on getting better at combat...(which challenges everyone to come together and be better than everyone else.Which prompts more things on a ever growing scale.)

If it were just any random individual that was armed it is not that bad.

[Conserative Morality]

a thread called history's greatest fails, when less then 10% of posts even consider anything further back then a few hundred years.

With the number of people discussing Rome and Carthage and the Mongols?

[The Archregimancy]

a thread called history's greatest fails, when less then 10% of posts even consider anything further back then a few hundred years.

Actually, that undeniable statistic that we've both made up would probably work just as well written as "less that 10% of posts consider anything further back than 1933" - because most people in these threads seem to think there was no history before Hitler.


That said:

April 1204, when the Byzantine Empire and the Fourth Crusade, and allowed them in Constantinople. Byzantium was never the same after that, and eventually led to its utlimate fall to those Ottoman Turks.

The Byzantine Empire didn't 'allow' anyone into Constantinople, unless you argue that the incompetence of the Angeli 'allowed' in the Crusaders by default. And as I noted earlier, without the Battle of Manzikert there would have been no Crusades to begin with.

I know a lot of folks feel that 'New Coke' was history's biggest failure but I believe that it was the Battle of Watling Street myself.

10,000 Romans defeated 230,000 Britons. The Romans lost less than 500 men while the Brits lost about 80,000.

That's failure on a New Coke level!

Historically illiterate bollocks; sorry.

First of all, that 230,000 figure is a vastly inflated exaggeration found only in Cassius Dio; even Tacitus only placed the British army at 100,000.

Second of all, modern scholarship places the maximum size of the British army at only 50,000 - still five times larger than the Roman army, but a much more manageable figure; you simply wouldn't have been able to supply an army of 230,000 in the field in later Iron Age Britain. Classical sources vastly inflate the size of opposing armies - see Herodotus and Arrian for particularly egregious examples.

Thirdly, given the probable army sizes, Watling Street wasn't anywhere close to the most unlikely victory in history; it's not even the most unlikely victory in Classical history.

Finally, for Watling Street to be a 'fail', we'd have to argue that the Roman conquest of Britain was a Bad Thing. And everyone knows it was a Good Thing; 1066 And All That tells us as much.

[Malgrave]

Allowing Hitler to take the Sudetenland.

[Cameroi]

a thread called history's greatest fails, when less then 10% of posts even consider anything further back then a few hundred years.

Actually, that undeniable statistic that we've both made up would probably work just as well written as "less that 10% of posts consider anything further back than 1933" - because most people in these threads seem to think there was no history before Hitler.


That said:

April 1204, when the Byzantine Empire and the Fourth Crusade, and allowed them in Constantinople. Byzantium was never the same after that, and eventually led to its utlimate fall to those Ottoman Turks.

The Byzantine Empire didn't 'allow' anyone into Constantinople, unless you argue that the incompetence of the Angeli 'allowed' in the Crusaders by default. And as I noted earlier, without the Battle of Manzikert there would have been no Crusades to begin with.

I know a lot of folks feel that 'New Coke' was history's biggest failure but I believe that it was the Battle of Watling Street myself.

10,000 Romans defeated 230,000 Britons. The Romans lost less than 500 men while the Brits lost about 80,000.

That's failure on a New Coke level!

Historically illiterate bollocks; sorry.

First of all, that 230,000 figure is a vastly inflated exaggeration found only in Cassius Dio; even Tacitus only placed the British army at 100,000.

Second of all, modern scholarship places the maximum size of the British army at only 50,000 - still five times larger than the Roman army, but a much more manageable figure; you simply wouldn't have been able to supply an army of 230,000 in the field in later Iron Age Britain. Classical sources vastly inflate the size of opposing armies - see Herodotus and Arrian for particularly egregious examples.

Thirdly, given the probable army sizes, Watling Street wasn't anywhere close to the most unlikely victory in history; it's not even the most unlikely victory in Classical history.

Finally, for Watling Street to be a 'fail', we'd have to argue that the Roman conquest of Britain was a Bad Thing. And everyone knows it was a Good Thing; 1066 And All That tells us as much.

lacking your scholarship which i salute and admire, i'm one of those who has never been convinced the rise of rome itself was ever a good thing. somewhere between the invention of agriculture and the fall of minoen crete is where i estimate things to have started going sour, though again i must confess my own inadequacy to put an actual date or specific series of events on it.

they built some roads and some aqueducts which were certainly impressive accomplishments, but was anyone happier with their lot in life then they would have been without roman hegemony?

[Airstrip 100]

Marx

Everybody forgets Engels...

[Conserative Morality]

they built some roads and some aqueducts which were certainly impressive accomplishments, but was anyone happier with their lot in life then they would have been without roman hegemony?

Yes.

[Nazis in Space]

Going back to page one because, hey, why not...

Operation Barbarossa was pretty damn stupid.

The plan was decent, thinking it would be a walk-over was stupid. But, yeah.

It wasn't. The only reason it achieved the initial successes it did was that Stalin was even worse than Hitler when it came to running the operations.

Barbarossa, in contrast to Fall Gelb, relied on a frontal assault pretty much all over the front - with some concentrations of force, yes, but it was still essentially a frontal attack, and the Generalship praying that the Soviets would be retarded enough not to systematically retreat like in 1812, but actually try and hold their ground (They did). The plan was fundamentally based on 'Lets hope the Soviets will be even dumber than we are.', which really... Is a lousy plan, with its initially positive results being the consequence of being lucky - not smart.

It's worth noting that the original plan (Which Hitler rejected) did not call for this, but instead went for a giant encirclement by way of punching through the Ukraine, then turning North to take Moscow/ Leningrand, and then rolling up the entire Soviet defence from the back. While that plan, too, was optimistic (The Soviets concentrating their defences in the Ukraine, and being rather successful in their defence down there until the forces in the centre moved south to help out), at least it had some elegance, and didn't rely on the Soviets being retards. It also, incidentally, actually put the tank divisions on ground that was ideal for tank warfare (Steppe), as opposed to letting them roll through forests and swamps (As Barbarossa eventually did), with the justifiable expectation being that the Soviet force concentration could be beaten in detail thanks to the German tank divisions' superior maneuverability.

Incidentally, it should be noted that the most common criticism of the German plans - that they assumed the Soviets would be 'Too Easy' - is IMHO invalid. The first year of operations pretty much supported the assessment of the Soviet military by the General Staff (Just not Hitler's desperate overoptimism). And its assessment was a hell of a lot more sensible than the western allied assessments thereof (Always worth remembering that Anglo-French assessments in 1939, 1940 assumed that a quick bombing run on Baku and little else would be enough to collapse the Soviet Union! And even in june/ july 1941, the Anglo-American assumptions concerning the end of Soviet resistance were rather more optimistic than the German ones). If anything, the German mistake was in underestimating the United States' industrial strength, and its willingness to support the Soviets with material - especially oil, trains, trucks and planes. But that was a relatively minor matter for the first few months of the campaign.

Publius Quinctilius Varus in the Teutoberg Forest.

Meh, Arminius (allied German militia leader) stabbed him in the metaphorical back.

A political problem, not Varus' fault. Who knew Arminius was that stupid?

The Empire struck back the next summer, assembling a vast fleet and 55,000-70,000 veteran soldiers, drawn from three continents.

Arminius was so epically fucked - the Romans methodically turned much of Germany into a burned-out desert, Arminius was forced into the open, defeated repeatedly in pitched battles and then killed by his own allies who were looking to cut a deal.

If by 'Epically fucked', you mean 'Continuing to fight for a decade and repeatedly meeting the Romans in open battle, with mixed (Draws, wins, losses, all happened) results, and ultimately forcing the Romans to stay on the west side of the Rhine', then yes.

---

Since some complaints concerning 'Not long enough ago' came up, I'm going to throw in Nabonidus, last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire. His legacy:

• Inherit the Neo-Babylonian Empire
• Spend some time as amateur archaeologist, digging out ancient sumerian cities while his neighbor, a random dude named Cyrus, conquers a number of countries around the Babylonian sphere of influence
• Piss off the Babylonians - especially the powerful priests - by way of trying to force substantial religious changes hurting the Babylonian's self-esteem (Trying to remove Marduk as major deity)
• Vanish for an entire decade to a random desert-village to deliberate a little more about religion, as opposed to actually, I don't know... Run the empire
• Finally return to Babylon, only to be kicked out by his own subjects and his priests, who proceed to welcome and cheer Cyrus (Now known as Cyrus the Great, founder of a little something called the Persian empire) without bothering to put up a fight

Some parts of the list, particularly concerning the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, are heavily anecdotal, with evidence existing that the actual conquest wasn't quite as easy and bloodless as depicted. But hey.

[Ethel mermania]

The Ford Pinto.

I would add ford's decision not to fix the thing because they calculated that it would be cheaper to settle the lawsuits from the customers deaths, than correct the product flaw.

The Chevy Vega also belongs in this catagory.

for 20 years these products convinced Ford and GM that small cars could not be profitable.

[The Archregimancy]

they built some roads and some aqueducts which were certainly impressive accomplishments, but was anyone happier with their lot in life then they would have been without roman hegemony?

Yes.

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: Yes.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?

Xerxes: The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

Masked Activist: And the sanitation!

Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...

Matthias: And the roads...

Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...

Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...

Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...

Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...

Activist Near Front: And the wine...

Omnes: Oh yes! True!

Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.

Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!

Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.

Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)

Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

[Conserative Morality]

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: Yes.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?

Xerxes: The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

Masked Activist: And the sanitation!

Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...

Matthias: And the roads...

Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...

Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...

Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...

Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...

Activist Near Front: And the wine...

Omnes: Oh yes! True!

Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.

Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!

Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.

Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)

Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

"Brought peace?"

"What? Oh yes, brought- OH SHUT UP!"

[The Archregimancy]

"Brought peace?"

"What? Oh yes, brought- OH SHUT UP!"

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!

People called Romanes they go the house!!

[Conserative Morality]

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!

People called Romanes they go the house!!

Ah, Life of Brian was such a great movie on so many levels.

[Genivaria]

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: Yes.

Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?

Xerxes: The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

Masked Activist: And the sanitation!

Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...

Matthias: And the roads...

Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...

Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...

Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...

Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...

Activist Near Front: And the wine...

Omnes: Oh yes! True!

Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.

Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!

Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.

Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)

Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

"Brought peace?"

"What? Oh yes, brought- OH SHUT UP!"

Replace the word Romans with the word Government and its all still true....except for the wine.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The lack of resources (agriculturally speaking) in the Americas, Africa, and Australia as well as the alignment of the continents' axes after 10,000 BC.

[Conserative Morality]

The lack of resources (agriculturally speaking) in the Americas, Africa, and Australia as well as the alignment of the continents' axes after 10,000 BC.

That, actually, wasn't the problem in Africa. The problem in Africa was a simple mistake of geographical proximity to gunpowder-using states. Too far away to acquire gunpowder the way the European States did, and yet close enough to feel the effects of their gunpowder using neighbors (IE the North African States).

[Galla-]

The Maginot Line. There was a Belgium-sized hole in it.

Well, come to think of it, the French Army.

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

The Stalingrad of France.

[Genivaria]

The lack of resources (agriculturally speaking) in the Americas, Africa, and Australia as well as the alignment of the continents' axes after 10,000 BC.

That, actually, wasn't the problem in Africa. The problem in Africa was a simple mistake of geographical proximity to gunpowder-using states. Too far away to acquire gunpowder the way the European States did, and yet close enough to feel the effects of their gunpowder using neighbors (IE the North African States).

To put it simply, they lucked out.

[Maltropia]

The Battle of Karánsebes, that ignominious battle which may or may not have happened, in which the Austrian army under Emperor Joseph II, while scouting for Ottoman forces, opened fire on what was believed to be a Turkish army and later turned out to be the rest of the Austrian army. As mercenaries and soldiers from throughout the empire panicked and fired on one another, while officers concluded that the cavalry were Ottoman and ordered artillery fire. Sometime during the (possible) battle, the emperor wound up unhorsed in a ditch while the entire army fled. Two days later the Ottomans finally arrived, finding 10,000 dead and wounded soldiers of the original 100,000.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

The "Watch on the Rhine".
It was nothing but a prime example at Hitler's inadequacy at military tactics. It ended up starting the Battle of the Bulge, and cost Germany more men than necessary, men that Germany could have used to defend the Rhine River when the time came or fight Zhukov's army to the east.

Why get so specific? All of WWII was one big fail.

What? Lots of good came out of WW2 in the areas of military strategy (combined arms and maneuver warfare), technology (rocketry, jet engines, nuclear fission), military technology (anti-ship missiles, HEAT munitions, APDS munitions), it dragged America out of its isolation, and permanently changed the political landscape of Europe.

Anyway, the very best fail in all history? That would be a tough one, but I would have to vote for the Khwarezmian Shah killing Genghis Khan's diplomats who offered gifts and trade, even when given a second chance. I mean this man who conquered several large empires in a short period of time shows up on your door step offering trade and gifts and you kill his diplomats. He forgives you sends another group, and you kill them again? Really the Khwarezmian Empire deserved to be exterminated if their rulers were that arrogant. Lets not forget the indirect results of that either, like the Mongols entering Europe and the near east allowing them to conquer Russia, molest Europe, and destroy Baghdad, one of the most developed and advanced cities in the world at the time.

Either that or Alexander III of Macedon not naming a specific heir, that was truly retardation on an epic scale.

[Unilisia]

Either that or Alexander III of Macedon not naming a specific heir, that was truly retardation on an epic scale.

I actually facepalmed the first time I ever read that

[Ecans]

they built some roads and some aqueducts which were certainly impressive accomplishments, but was anyone happier with their lot in life then they would have been without roman hegemony?

Yes.

Most emphatically yes. Romans brought civilization, culture and peace (when treaties were not broken) to regions plagued with internecine and tribal warfare. Admittedly they also produced avaricious governors, mostly during the Republican era, but their influence is still a major part of western civilization, law, culture and governance.

The "peace" part didn't last in Europe, though. After the fall of Rome they embarked on a series of tribal wars that only ceased when the aftermath of WWII injected some measure of sanity.