Basically, call it the Epic Fails of History. Such a category will usually include any decision that went wrong, with huge consequences.

I would include such screwups as the League of Nations and the Great Leap Forward in the list.

Well Poland, after the battle of Grunwald, was all "yippee!!! let's stop this war, we've crushed them!" and never thought of finishing the conquest in Malborg. The consequence? Well we never got a big enough SeaPort, and Prussia survived and at the end killed us...

Charles I of England.

Nazi Invasion of the USSR.

Well Poland, after the battle of Grunwald, was all "yippee!!! let's stop this war, we've crushed them!" and never thought of finishing the conquest in Malborg. The consequence? Well we never got a big enough SeaPort, and Prussia survived and at the end killed us...
The defenders at Marienburg had something to do with that too, you know. ;) It wasn't about to fall unless Plauen lost his nerve; by gum, he didn't, and West Prussia was cleared easily enough.

The Indians helping to keep Jamestown and Plymouth from failing.

Hitler declaring war on the US.

Justininian failing to support Belisarius.

The fourth crusade to weaken or defeat the Moslems being led by Enrico Dandolo.

Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to Mecca.

Huascar believing Atahualpa.




And in a different direction (an epic fail with huge consequences that eventually turned out favorable for the sponsor of the failure).

Columbus thinking that he could reach Asia (in the ships of the day) by traveling west.

WW 2, it was epic and it was a failure for everyone, 'cause it led to the Cold War afterwards.

the worst screwup in history, well without being specific i would say definitely The Middle Ages, a 1000 years setback. Imagine we could be now in a year 3009. Space travel etc.

the worst screwup in history, well without being specific i would say definitely The Middle Ages, a 1000 years setback. Imagine we could be now in a year 3009. Space travel etc.
Setback in what terms? It wasn't a technological decline, and the period actually helped create a foundation for many of the political freedoms the West now (theoretically) enjoys. This should probably go in "real/perceived history", hmm? :p

Most of them can be explained by not studying history.

as an example, napoleon's russia campaign is excusable, while hitler's is not for the reason that hitler should have learned from napoleon.

Dachs
Technologically. Political freedoms? Rome already had a working democracy. I could agree that middle ages helped separating religion and state. However atheism comes with critical thinking, and critical thinking comes with science. Which was more advanced in Antiquity. Hygiene utterly lacking, which helped spread things like plague, every second dead, survivors selected not by intelligence or adaptability, but by some genes. I just dont see anything good coming from the MAs but setbacks. at best a stagnancy, which can be regarded as a setback as well.

Technologically.
That's a fallacy. There was plenty of technological development in several fields (e.g. agricultural, metallurgical) even in Europe during the vaguely-defined medieval times, and that's not counting chemical, mathematic, and other advances made outside of Europe by the Muslims and the Byzantines.
Political freedoms? Rome already had a working democracy.
Rome did not have a democracy. :)
However atheism comes with critical thinking, and critical thinking comes with science.
This chain of reasoning doesn't actually follow.
Which was more advanced in Antiquity.
For the most part, it actually wasn't.
Hygiene utterly lacking, which helped spread things like plague, every second dead, survivors selected not by intelligence or adaptability, but by some genes.
I suppose the twentieth century is one of the most stagnant times in all of history, then, for all of the deaths from disease that have occurred.
I just dont see anything good coming from the MAs but setbacks. at best a stagnancy, which can be regarded as a setback as well.
Only by people indoctrinated by the Renaissance.

However atheism comes with critical thinking

As we can see from the fact that every scientist in history, such as Isaac Newton and Ibn al-Haytham, were atheists, right? :rolleyes:

Rome did not have a democracy.
What do you mean, they had yearly elections.

There was plenty of technological development in several fields
Who said it wasnt, however Pythagoras wasnt endangered of being burned by calculating the Earth is round in, i dont remember, 500 BC?

This chain of reasoning doesn't actually follow.
It is impossible to disprove god if you believe in him, as believing isnt affected by rational thinking.

I suppose the twentieth century is one of the most stagnant times in all of history, then, for all of the deaths from disease that have occurred.
I dont think so. World population in 2000 was 6mlrd. To get to the Middle Age plague numbers 2-3mlrd should have died. Which is hardly the case.

As we can see from the fact that every scientist in history, such as Isaac Newton and Ibn al-Haytham, were atheists, right? :rolleyes:

And not to forget G.W Bush. He may be not a man of science, but he certainly claims to be a believer.

And not to forget G.W Bush. He may be not a man of science, but he certainly claims to be a believer.

There are stupid atheists, and there are theistic geniuses; and vice versa. Get over yourself.

What do you mean, they had yearly elections.
Not for everybody. Not even for all free men. And they most certainly did not have everybody vote on all measures; in that sense, at the very most, they were a republic, but not a democratically elected republic. And even then only for a few centuries, during which time the degree of voting and representational inequality was somewhat improved but not enough to qualify the Roman republic as by any means 'by the people, of the people, and for the people'.
Who said it wasnt, however Pythagoras wasnt endangered of being burned by calculating the Earth is round in, i dont remember, 500 BC?
Actually, the Pythagoreans, insofar as they actually existed, were a persecuted sect for a significant portion of their existence. :)
It is impossible to disprove god if you believe in him, as believing isnt affected by rational thinking.
The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be reasoned or proven and has no connection with anything scientific whatsoever. It is when one attempts to assign actions to that deity, or gives the deity certain traits, that there is disagreement.
I dont think so. World population in 2000 was 6mlrd. To get to the Middle Age plague numbers 2-3mlrd should have died. Which is hardly the case.
Europe ain't the entire world, for one. For two, the Spanish 'flu and AIDS combined alone total greater worldwide deaths than the Black Death did. For three, arguing about the actual number dead is really irrelevant, because I just said that the twentieth century was pretty bad, based on your criteria. Anyway, it's well documented that one of the key factors leading to a pandemic is increased contact between peoples and trade ties. So wouldn't that indicate that the Middle Ages were a rather expansive and flowering period? ;)

And, FYI, Milliard isn't the way you say it in English, it's billion.

dachs, is it really fun to win the special olympics 100m run being usain bolt? :lol:

Dachs
Not for everybody. Not even for all free men.
For every citizen. Get the facts straight please.

And even then only for a few centuries
Like the current one lasted longer. Remind me again when did black people got their right to vote in USA. And if they did what did a certain Martin Luther King fought for. That was what, 50 years ago? Few centuries...

Actually, the Pythagoreans, insofar as they actually existed, were a persecuted sect for a significant portion of their existence.
And it is in no way helping the claim that MA people continued to race the tech tree.

Europe ain't the entire world, for one. For two, the Spanish 'flu and AIDS combined alone total greater worldwide deaths than the Black Death did. For three, arguing about the actual number dead is really irrelevant, because I just said that the twentieth century was pretty bad, based on your criteria.
Again, calculating total deaths, w/o regard to the total population is nonsensical. The world was significantly less populated than today. The biggest "thing" was the Spanish Flu in 1918-19 killing like 30mln worldwide(note worldwide, not Europe) I am gonna include all the deaths from WW1 and WW2, lets assume they all died from diseases right.., thats like 20mln and 50mln. Together 100mln, and thats very far fetched. now 100/6000 is 1% of total population. The plague took 50%. Sorry i dont see anything of even a near proximity to "just as bad" as the plague did during Middle Ages and claming otherwise is absurd.

Anyway, it's well documented that one of the key factors leading to a pandemic is increased contact between peoples and trade ties.
Talking to people does not kill. Talking to unwashed people can. True even today. Talking is not whats stopping the bird flu right now. Claiming that contacting people is dangerous is only true, if the contacted people are dangerously ill in the first place. Which was less of a case during the Antiquity.

The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be reasoned or proven and has no connection with anything scientific whatsoever
Aside from the fact that the above is clearly wrong since religion and science have different views on same subjects, noone claimed that anyway. I said science->critical thinking->atheism. Not science->atheism.

And, FYI, Milliard isn't the way you say it in English, it's billion.
Incorrect again. Numerical nomenclature is not language dependent. It depends on a system used, and the country. (and changes quite often) The language doesnt matter. Whats a "gram" in English, a "mile"? :mischief:

I find it hilarious that I, the inveterate classicist, am on this side of a discussion. :lol:
For every citizen. Get the facts straight please.
Citizens' voting rights were not equal due to the wonderful expedient of the tribal system, and the space for voting - the Campus Martius - was too small to allow for all citizens to vote and thus disenfranchised many of the potential voters. My facts are straight, sir.
Like the current one lasted longer. Remind me again when did black people got their right to vote in USA. And if they did what did a certain Martin Luther King fought for. That was what, 50 years ago? Few centuries...
When did I say the United States was far superior?
And it is in no way helping the claim that MA people continued to race the tech tree.
You brought Pythagoras up, not me. If you want to talk about going up the tech tree, as you put it, then please talk about my points on metallurgical, chemical, mathematical, philosophical (since that's in the tech tree too :p), and agricultural technology.
Again, calculating total deaths, w/o regard to the total population is nonsensical. The world was significantly less populated than today. The biggest "thing" was the Spanish Flu in 1918-19 killing like 30mln worldwide(note worldwide, not Europe) I am gonna include all the deaths from WW1 and WW2, lets assume they all died from diseases right.., thats like 20mln and 50mln. Together 100mln, and thats very far fetched. now 100/6000 is 1% of total population. The plague took 50%. Sorry i dont see anything of even a near proximity to "just as bad" as the plague did during Middle Ages and claming otherwise is absurd.
You're ignoring all of the other wonderful epidemics we've had during the past century, for one thing. For another, you keep assigning me a strawman, and I'd like you to stop. I never said that the diseases of the twentieth century were worse or equal to the effect of those in the fourteenth, merely that they must have caused a pretty stagnant time in history (going by your assertion as to disease causing stagnation) and that the twentieth century's disease deaths number was pretty bad. I never said "just as bad".

And we can argue about whether that meant anything for a very long time, but I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the economic consequences of the plague, as it were. The Black Death didn't stop economic and technological development, but in fact stimulated it. In the words of Herlihy, "men were dying, but coins were not". Deaths from disease, in tightening the labor pool, made wages skyrocket across Europe, and with it went the standard of living of the great mass of people, something that hadn't really improved much for the preceding centuries. (And certainly not during Antiquity.) The concentration of wealth in fewer hands and labor shortages helped stimulate even further technological growth. Lots of people may have died, but those who survived fueled an impressive run of economic and technological development. So referring to the Black Death as evidence of a backwardness in medieval Europe is silly, because its consequences weren't actually bad.
Talking to people does not kill. Talking to unwashed people can. True even today. Talking is not whats stopping the bird flu right now. Claiming that contacting people is dangerous is only true, if the contacted people are dangerously ill in the first place. Which was less of a case during the Antiquity.
Not really. The Germans of the thirteenth century, for example, were much cleaner than the classical Greeks and Romans on average.
Aside from the fact that the above is clearly wrong since religion and science have different views on same subjects,
You're misrepresenting the subject, claiming that religion and science can't coexist (a rather lulsome proposition when the Church funded so much scientific research during the early modern period). Religion, furthermore, is not the opposite of atheism. I direct you to some schools of Buddhist thinking, for example.
I said science->critical thinking->atheism. Not science->atheism.
I take issue with your assertion that critical thinking always leads to atheism.
Incorrect again. Numerical nomenclature is not language dependent. It depends on a system used, and the country. (and changes quite often) The language doesnt matter. Whats a "gram" in English, a "mile"? :mischief:
Not the same thing. Billion is not a unit of measurement, it's an order of magnitude. There is no such thing as the word Milliard in modern English; it is a German word.

World War I: no truly innocent parties save the millions of men who destroyed themselves for the welfare of nationalists, aristocrats, and war-funders. I don't know if anything good came of it except for its serving as an example of what nationalism and unquestioning allegiance can do.

A personal favourite is from the Russo-Japanese War, the Russian Baltic Fleet's "Voyage of the Damned".

The mission: Send a large naval force all the way from the Baltic around Africa to the Far East to defeat the Japanese navy.

Started going wrong already in the North Sea when the Russians mistook British fishing vessels for Japanese torpedo boats and fired on them, sinking one and damaging four others (plus damaging two of their own cruisers from friendly fire).

It kept getting worse from there.

More details:

http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm

World War I: no truly innocent parties save the millions of men who destroyed themselves for the welfare of nationalists, aristocrats, and war-funders. I don't know if anything good came of it except for its serving as an example of what nationalism and unquestioning allegiance can do.

Agreed, that was one epic world-scale screwup!

Not on the scale of other screw-ups, but probably funniest screw-up in history: Battle of Caransebeş (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes)

Just so you know, Roller123, Rome was a republic, not a democracy. There's a large difference, as most national governments today are republics in one form or another. ;)

I think there is an epic screwup in the form of Christians and the persecution of 'witches', probably the biggest mass murder of women in the history of humankind.

Alright, found an epic business screwup.

A trader working for Mizuho Securities Co., part of the Mizuho Financial Group, mistyped and sold 610,000 shares for 1 yen, instead of the intended 1 share for 610,000 yen, of the stock J-Com Co.
This represented a sell order for more than 42 times the number of shares on issue. Mizuho Securities managed to buy back about 480,000 shares, during which time the price rose to 700,000 yen.
The eventual losses are expected to be around 100 billion yen which is roughly equivalent to $100 million (US).

I think there is an epic screwup in the form of Christians and the persecution of 'witches', probably the biggest mass murder of women in the history of humankind.
__________________
this is simply wrong, the death toll of the "witches" wasn't that high, somewhere in the hundreds, over hundreds of years.

First of all, Benedicts, who were tasked with bringing back poeple who strayed off the path, first tired to preach persons back, or punishing poeple with an pilgrimage or prayer, whereas the cases of burning were very rare, and even then, it was decided by a wordly court, not a church one. it's not the benedicts fault that the worldly courts still had things as the "fireproof" or the "watertest". even more, for one to be burned he/she had to be turned over to an worldy court.

Also, witch huntings only came in full force in the early modern age, more specifically under spanish reign, and even then it figured more as some sort of secret police, to remove unwanted subjects under the disguise of "witchcraft".

the cases of burning were very rare, and even then, it was decided by a wordly court, not a church one. it's not the benedicts fault that the worldly courts still had things as the "fireproof" or the "watertest". even more, for one to be burned he/she had to be turned over to an worldy court.

Yes, the Catholic clergy really learned how to wash their hands. It's amazing that they didn't promote Pilate to patron saint of the persecutions of heretics!

Battle of Sedan. Italian invasion of Balkans in WW2.

What? The actual witch hunts were far worse in Protestant countries than in Catholic ones, and far more often instigated by what were effectively local lynch mobs than by the official authorities.

It is ridiculous to say that the death tolls of the early modern witch hunts were only in the hundreds. No-one knows how many people died, but current estimates tend to be around the 35,000 mark (although Ronald Hutton, who is one of the biggest experts on this, thinks it was more like 70,000).

It is true, though, that they were mostly done by Protestants, not by Catholics.

It is also worth pointing out that there were witch hunts in antiquity which dwarfed those of early modern times. Livy describes enormous massacres of supposed "witches". Moreover, there are still witch hunts today in various countries around the world.

I tried to respond to Roller123's daft assertions about the Middle Ages, but couldn't because of the forum bug. Fortunately Dachs did a fine job, but this is what I tried to write anyway, just to back him up.

Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to Mecca.

What was wrong with that?

Dachs
Technologically. Political freedoms? Rome already had a working democracy. I could agree that middle ages helped separating religion and state. However atheism comes with critical thinking, and critical thinking comes with science. Which was more advanced in Antiquity. Hygiene utterly lacking, which helped spread things like plague, every second dead, survivors selected not by intelligence or adaptability, but by some genes. I just dont see anything good coming from the MAs but setbacks. at best a stagnancy, which can be regarded as a setback as well.

This is absurd. Dachs has answered it well already, but I would also point out that if you think that science and critical thinking are important, then the Middle Ages advanced these things considerably. They were a very rational time, one when people believed that the world was fundamentally rational and comprehensible and could be understood by the power of the mind if you thought carefully enough. Despite your ignorant comments about religion and rationality, this mindset was to a large extent fostered by Christianity, which held that because God created the world through the Logos (his reason), the world is fundamentally rational and comprehensible.

The intellectual achievements of the Middle Ages were subsequently undermined in the Renaissance, when many people argued that in fact the world is irrational and incomprehensible. The result was superstition and obscurantism on a large scale, which was not cleared up until early modern times. In fact it could be said that the intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century and the beginnings of the Enlightenment were a matter of undoing the bad work of the Renaissance and getting back to a more medieval way of thinking about things.

In short, if you don't see anything good about the Middle Ages, I'm afraid that says far more about your knowleddge of them than it does about anything else.

Pythagoras wasnt endangered of being burned by calculating the Earth is round in, i dont remember, 500 BC?

He wouldn't have been in AD 1200 either. And Socrates was executed partly for saying that the moon is made of rock, which wouldn't have happened in the Middle Ages either. So I don't really see what you're trying to get at.

Remember the proposed new Iraqi flag which looked like the Israeli one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_iraq screwup extraordinaire

It doesn't look like the Flag of Israel to me...

It doesn't look like the Flag of Israel to me...

Compare it with Israel's and with the other Arab naitons flags... if you cant see it you are blind!!!;)

It is ridiculous to say that the death tolls of the early modern witch hunts were only in the hundreds. No-one knows how many people died, but current estimates tend to be around the 35,000 mark (although Ronald Hutton, who is one of the biggest experts on this, thinks it was more like 70,000).

It is true, though, that they were mostly done by Protestants, not by Catholics.

I have gotten that number from somewhere... I don't think it included protestants, and has to do with the benedicts ordering it.. I should check that up.

...Multi-quote not working regarding the pilgrimage...

What was wrong with that?

...

After thinking about it, I guess the pilgrimage itself technically achieved its aims. The gross over-expenditure from Mansa Musa's country (felt by some to have directly led to its decline) and the sudden influx of gold flooding the Egypt had significant effects, but technically it doesn't fall into this topic.

This is absurd. Dachs has answered it well already, but I would also point out that if you think that science and critical thinking are important, then the Middle Ages advanced these things considerably. They were a very rational time, one when people believed that the world was fundamentally rational and comprehensible and could be understood by the power of the mind if you thought carefully enough. Despite your ignorant comments about religion and rationality, this mindset was to a large extent fostered by Christianity, which held that because God created the world through the Logos (his reason), the world is fundamentally rational and comprehensible.

The intellectual achievements of the Middle Ages were subsequently undermined in the Renaissance, when many people argued that in fact the world is irrational and incomprehensible. The result was superstition and obscurantism on a large scale, which was not cleared up until early modern times. In fact it could be said that the intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century and the beginnings of the Enlightenment were a matter of undoing the bad work of the Renaissance and getting back to a more medieval way of thinking about things.

In short, if you don't see anything good about the Middle Ages, I'm afraid that says far more about your knowleddge of them than it does about anything else.

I know the so-called Dark Ages have gotten a bad rap for much of history, but this revisionist rehabilitation of the age isn't much better. The fact is literacy disappeared almost completely except for the monasteries, urbanization diminished, trade was a fraction of its former levels, travel and cultural intermingling was limited compared to other eras. Your peasants lived lives of chronic ignorance and the nobles didn't receive much better. The Classics of Greece and Rome were nearly forgotten. Most never went more than a few miles from their homes in their lives. The legal systems (certainly for the earlier part) were irrational and unsophisticated. While Justinian was laying out what would be the foundation for Civil Codes centuries years later, much of the rest of Europe was retreating to old tribal practices. While armies of antiquity could reach hundreds of thousands, anything over 10,000 would have been an ENORMOUS medieval army.

One of the reasons it was called the Dark Ages was that there was comparatively very little literature and other written records from the era. There was a demographic decline. Limited building projects and cultural achievements. Almost all technological advances were coming from further East and trickling in ever so slowly. Cities didn't begin to approach the population levels or sophistication of Rome til the 18th century most likely. Europeans didn't begin to reverse the East-West scale of cultural and technological advancement til the 15th century.

Compared to the eras before and after it, compared to the Arab world, the Chinese Dynasties, the Byzantines...they were a backwater. It was a Dark Age comparatively. This mass academic aversion to the term seems more due to political correctness than actual reality. Recent archeology and unearthed records have helped us re-evaluate the era, but I don't really see where the initial conclusion changes all that much. Maybe it wasn't quite as 'dark' as we thought it was, but it was still pretty bleak.

And not to forget G.W Bush.

Speaking of epic screwups...

I'd also say World War I, I mean, wow. Not to say it wasn't going to happen, but still.

I nominate this thread.:lol:

I know the so-called Dark Ages have gotten a bad rap for much of history, but this revisionist rehabilitation of the age isn't much better.

But we were talking about the Middle Ages, not the Dark Ages. When exactly are you thinking of?

But we were talking about the Middle Ages, not the Dark Ages. When exactly are you thinking of?

I'm hoping I got it right... The middle ages was the whole 800-1000 year period between the Roman times and the "Rennaisance"? (Before checking up in the wiki, I thought the Rennaisance was actually the last era of the Middle Ages before Early Modern exploration age, but hey, I'm flexible!)

Whereas, the Dark Ages is a debunked concept. (though from the wiki it appears it's still in use and limited to regions and times where we have very few records, like Britain and Dacia just after the decline of Roman control). Various parts of Europe actually managed to survive and prosper for most of the following thousand years. For instance, Hagia Sofia, built during the depths of the "Dark Ages" blows the previous Roman architecture out of the water...

Back to topic, a most epic screwup: General Custer's last stand.

Yessss, Byzantium was amazingly civilized and developed during the time of the Dark Ages. :) Hagia Sophia is just one of the examples. Actually, now that you mentioned Dacia, pretty much all the records we have up to the year 800-900 or so were from Byzantine sources. So not only that they were civilized, but they had many record-keepers over the ages, advanced theories of music and literature, and an amazing lot of spiritual influence over that part of the world.

Is it just me, or is this thread almost exactly the same as the blunder thread?

Is it just me, or is this thread almost exactly the same as the blunder thread?
A bit more vague, but yeah it's mostly the same thing.

A bit more vague, but yeah it's mostly the same thing.
Then it's only a matter of time before an argument over exactly which screw-up is worse breaks out. Not to mention the inevitable classification of things as screw-ups that aren't.

Then it's only a matter of time before an argument over exactly which screw-up is worse breaks out. Not to mention the inevitable classification of things as screw-ups that aren't.
Already happened. :p

Already happened. :p
I was referring to multiple-page arguments about WWI.

Whereas, the Dark Ages is a debunked concept. (though from the wiki it appears it's still in use and limited to regions and times where we have very few records, like Britain and Dacia just after the decline of Roman control). Various parts of Europe actually managed to survive and prosper for most of the following thousand years. For instance, Hagia Sofia, built during the depths of the "Dark Ages" blows the previous Roman architecture out of the water...

The Dark Ages is not a debunked concept, its a re-examined and subsequently shortened one. Society in most relevant respects did collapse. It took forever for them to recover previous levels of literacy, urbanization, commerce, wealth, trade, agricultural output, travel, engineering, technological and cultural output.

The Dark Ages is not a debunked concept, its a re-examined and subsequently shortened one. Society in most relevant respects did collapse. It took forever for them to recover previous levels of literacy, urbanization, commerce, wealth, trade, agricultural output, travel, engineering, technological and cultural output.

The use in my most recent university courses seems to be limited from 500ish to the Carolingian Renaissance.

The biggest scewup: battle of Saratoga for the British. If they had not lost, America would be under there control for proabably a lot longer wich would effect the history of the world dirasticaly.

Systematically destroying our own means of survival.

Second that.:(

King Harold racing to defeat William and losing rather than gathering more levies in order to crush him utterly.

The Zimmermann Telegram has gotta be up there amongst the worst.

The Zimmermann Telegram has gotta be up there amongst the worst.

Not really - it was the inevitable result of Germany's decision to pursue unrestricted submarine warfare.

And millard might not be the right word, but a thousand million in English is just that. It's the crazy Americans again who decided that a billion ought to be a thousandth of its real value.

Technically milliard is the right word, from a mathematical and scientific viewpoint. Plenty of books used it prior to the popularisation of billion. It may be a loan word from German, but how many other loan words does English have?

World War I: no truly innocent parties save the millions of men who destroyed themselves for the welfare of nationalists, aristocrats, and war-funders. I don't know if anything good came of it except for its serving as an example of what nationalism and unquestioning allegiance can do.

While the war in itself was definitely not good, it did have the positive effect of allowing small countries like mine to become independent.

While the war in itself was definitely not good, it did have the positive effect of allowing small countries like mine to become independent.
That's only positive if you're not Russian.

Only by people indoctrinated by the Renaissance.

:rotfl: What a great line.

Here's an epic screwup, which I already mentioned in the "unexpected wars" thread. The ruler of Khwarazem, a Muhummad II, had sent envoys to make a pact with Genghis Khan. He basically stipulated that Genghis was the rightful ruler of the Eastern half of the world, and that he was the ruler of the Western half of the world. Rather than being enemies and competing for it all, he proposed that they work together for mutual trade and benefit. Genghis seemed to agree, or at least had no immediate plans for an invasion of of SW Asia, and so the two were at peace. However, Muhummad suspected, perhaps rightfully so, that Mongol caravans passing through his lands were acting as spies. When one of his governors in Transoxiana took a large caravan sent by the Khan himself, supposedly as a gesture of goodwill, into custody, Muhummad ordered them slaughtered. One of the camel herders escaped, however, and returned to tell the Khan of the massacre. By this harsh show of force, Muhummad hoped to show the Khan he meant business, and to leave him the hell alone. Interestingly, the Khan responded rather weakly, and sent three more emissaries to Urganj. Muhummad had one killed, and shaved the beards of the other two, who then returned to their master in shame. Genghis thus felt compelled to right these wrongs, and began assembling one of the largest armies in history for an invasion of Kara Kitai and Khwarazem. This army then continued on to Afghanistan, India, Persia, and up around the Caucasus, where it participated in the invasion west, into Europe, with further armies coming East.

Great job Muhummad II. :clap:

Not really - it was the inevitable result of Germany's decision to pursue unrestricted submarine warfare.

I suppose that the Zimmermann Telegram was not a blunder, in that it was probably a good idea to pursue an alliance with Mexico, but more of a screwup, in that it fell into enemy hands, and was the major contributing factor, in combination with the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, that led to the US entry into the war, which was a major factor in Germany's loss of the war.

This, of course, led to the Treaty of Versailles (I won't even bother with the Yugoslavia mess), which caused an environment susceptible to right wing loonies in Germany, leading to the rise of Hitler, causing World War Two. This war led to the development of nuclear weapons, aided the rise of Communist China, and entrenched communism in Eastern Europe causing much tension in the Cold War. The Cold War caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, possibly leading to the assassination of JFK, and also the Vietnam War. Also, the Cold War caused America to back Saddam Hussein (screwup #2), leading to the Gulf War, and of course, the second Gulf War (or whatever you want to call it).

As you can see, the actions of Arthur Zimmermann on that fateful day of January 16, 1917, directly caused World War Two, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the assassination of JFK, and of course, both Gulf Wars.

I still disagree - Germany was expecting to go to war with the US anyways, which is why Zimmerman, when confronted, bragged rather than denying it.

Sure, Germany was expecting to go to war- otherwise they wouldn't have been seeking an alliance with Mexico. But the Telegram (which I'm pretty sure they didn't want publicised) put the nail in their coffin.

The future Charles VII's arrangement of the murder of John the Fearless, the Duke of Burgundy, which cemented the alliance between England and Burgundy and came close to losing Charles his country.

Xiang Yu's vicious sack of the Qin capital after Liu Bang had deliberately spared it, which showed China the vast difference in temperament between the two men.

Not the same thing. Billion is not a unit of measurement, it's an order of magnitude. There is no such thing as the word Milliard in modern English; it is a German word.

I know off-topic but this is bugging me.

How can Milliard be a German word when it is derived French word?

Only by people indoctrinated by the Renaissance.

Am sigging this, kgthx.

That's only positive if you're not Russian.

And I'm pretty certain that we Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Liethuanians and Poles are very happy that we aren't Russian. No thanks to any lack of trying on the Russians part to Russianize us, of cource.

The fact that Russia fell into civil war and turned into Soviet-Russia and then the Soviet Union is not a positive thing by any means, but it's an unfortunate side effect of the First World War. I just wanted to mention that something good happened to some people after the First World War too, the aftermath wasn't all bad for everyone.

And I'm pretty certain that we Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Liethuanians and Poles are very happy that we aren't Russian. No thanks to any lack of trying on the Russians part to Russianize us, of cource.

The fact that Russia fell into civil war and turned into Soviet-Russia and then the Soviet Union is not a positive thing by any means, but it's an unfortunate side effect of the First World War. I just wanted to mention that something good happened to some people after the First World War too, the aftermath wasn't all bad for everyone.
The aftermath of any war is good for someone. After all, WWII may have been the best thing to happen to the US, the CCP, etc. But it usually comes at someone's expense, which was my sole point.

Technically milliard is the right word, from a mathematical and scientific viewpoint. Plenty of books used it prior to the popularisation of billion. It may be a loan word from German, but how many other loan words does English have?

Interesting connection with the Norman invasion: English has quite a bit of French in it - as does German (Milliarde); France and Germany evolved from the same (Frankish) empire, of Charlemagne. With Louis XIV France temporarily became a lingua franca, instead of Latin, disused with the emancipation of native languages such as Italian (music!), French, Spanish, German, English etc.

Winrich von Kniprode letting Kestutis escape. I mean, come on. He was in the middle of Marienburg castle, the most well defended place in Eastern Europe, and yet he contrives to escape and takes the grandmaster's personal horse out the gates with no contest? Jeez, dude. Talk about your royal cockups.
And millard might not be the right word, but a thousand million in English is just that. It's the crazy Americans again who decided that a billion ought to be a thousandth of its real value.
Technically milliard is the right word, from a mathematical and scientific viewpoint. Plenty of books used it prior to the popularisation of billion. It may be a loan word from German, but how many other loan words does English have?
It's archaic. :p Meseems an we such words oft use, iwis we'll get all the hell confused. Nobody says Milliard auf Englisch anymore, so using it on a message board is right silly.

Winrich von Kniprode letting Kestutis escape. I mean, come on. He was in the middle of Marienburg castle, the most well defended place in Eastern Europe, and yet he contrives to escape and takes the grandmaster's personal horse out the gates with no contest? Jeez, dude. Talk about your royal cockups.


It's archaic. :p Meseems an we such words oft use, iwis we'll get all the hell confused. Nobody says Milliard auf Englisch anymore, so using it on a message board is right silly.
Hang on, let me get this straight. Of all the people on this message board, you're the one bashing the use of milliard for being archaic? Because you've never once used archaic non-English terms?

Hang on, let me get this straight. Of all the people on this message board, you're the one bashing the use of milliard for being archaic? Because you've never once used archaic non-English terms?
There's a difference between using archaic English words conversationally and using non-archaic non-English words for the topics that they're supposed to describe. Anglicization of non-English place names ain't the same as Anglicization of orders of magnitude. :p

There's a difference between using archaic English words conversationally and using non-archaic non-English words for the topics that they're supposed to describe. Anglicization of non-English place names ain't the same as Anglicization of orders of magnitude. :p
In which case milliard should be the word used, as milliard is not an Anglicisation, it's a loan-word.

In which case milliard should be the word used, as milliard is not an Anglicisation, it's a loan-word.
A loan-word that isn't used anymore? We're not talking about German use of numbers here, we're talking about the use of the number in general. That's not the same thing as referring to a historical event, person, or place in a non-English setting by a closer transliteration of the actual name. I call equatism and therefore BS. :p

A loan-word that isn't used anymore? We're not talking about German use of numbers here, we're talking about the use of the number in general. That's not the same thing as referring to a historical event, person, or place in a non-English setting by a closer transliteration of the actual name. I call equatism and therefore BS. :p
Now equatism, that's not a word. And it's a loan-word that should be used, as it's a hell of a lot more accurate than "billion." I mean, wtf is that?

Pearl Harbor.

Not really, it was their best bet. It failed, and really had no chance of success, but they were screwed either way.

Not really, it was their best bet. It failed, and really had no chance of success, but they were screwed either way.
They could have, you know, not invaded China? Or negotiated with the US? Pearl Harbour was their best bet to prolong the war, they could never have won it, no matter how much they thought they could.

They started the war under very different conditions than they were in in late '41. They had a good supply of oil and looked to be able to easily crush the Chinese. There was no reason not to.

At the time, stopping the war with China was not possible, nor was swiftly winning it. The Japanese people likely would not have accepted peace and the General staff most definitely wouldn't. If they had went to the Chinese for peace, teh Chinese would probably have demanded their at least some of land back, and there is no way the Japanese could have given into that.

With the US embargo (and that wasn't going away no matter the diplomacy without ending the war, which they could not end) they had to get oil, and the best source was the Dutch East Indies. And what happens to be stuck in a very strategic spot in the sea lanes from the East Indies to Japan? The Philippines, US territory.

Now at this point they have no choice but to attack the US, and a victory at Pearl could have bought them a significant amount of time.

While it is clear Pearl Harbour turned out badly, they really had few other viable options. When I think of screw-ups I believe there must be a realistic option that would have resulted in something better, at approximately the same time.
Say Italy's invasion of Greece. Italy was already involved in the African War, there was no reason to invade Greece at the time. It also placed the Allies on Germany's flank and possibly a critical delay in Barbarossa.

On the other hand, if the British had not moved their troops from North Africa to Greece, Lybia may have fallen in 1941, greatly changing the war.

Now at this point they have no choice but to attack the US, and a victory at Pearl could have bought them a significant amount of time.

So let me get this straight. There best option was to enter into a war with the other major Pacific power?

As I should, they shouldn't have invaded China in the first place. There was absolutely no reason to invade China, nothing to gain from doing so, and plenty to lose. And the US offered diplomatic solutions several times, Japan just turned them down, misunderstood them. Negotiations could potentially have averted this. Though, after the Rape of Nanking became public knowledge in the US, a diplomatic solution became more unlikely.

I'm surprised that Versailles has been brought up only tangentially thus far. It was clearly a disaster.

I'm not sure whether I want to include St. Germain/Trianon along with it, though. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was clearly unsustainable and would have collapsed on its own given time. Euthanasia may have been the least bad option.

Or, on the theme of big empires needlessly collapsing, Glasnost.

Or, on the theme of big empires needlessly collapsing, Glasnost.
I don't think there was anything needless about that collapse. Glasnost may ave actually been along the lines of pulling off a band-aid really quick - it hurts, but only for a short time. Pull it off slowly, it's worse. The real blunder there was in the post-break-up handling of the economy.

Trianon was in many ways a recognizance of a fait accompli. To all intents and purposes the Habsburg state had collapsed by the winter and spring of 1918-9 anyway. Emasculating Hungary may have been a poor decision, but TBH I can't see Bela Kun or another Hungarian revolutionary not popping up in a Hungary closer to the borders of the Crown Lands of St. Istvan.
As I should, they shouldn't have invaded China in the first place. There was absolutely no reason to invade China, nothing to gain from doing so, and plenty to lose. And the US offered diplomatic solutions several times, Japan just turned them down, misunderstood them. Negotiations could potentially have averted this. Though, after the Rape of Nanking became public knowledge in the US, a diplomatic solution became more unlikely.
Yes, I like to bring this up, but none of the Japan apologists seems to care. If Japan hadn't gone all imperialist and genocidal, there would have been no oil embargo. Simple enough, right?

I don't think there was anything needless about that collapse. Glasnost may ave actually been along the lines of pulling off a band-aid really quick - it hurts, but only for a short time. Pull it off slowly, it's worse. The real blunder there was in the post-break-up handling of the economy.

True. While the policy of perestroika was a good idea, it failed due to aspects involved in it such as decentralization (contributing to breakup of USSR). This was followed up by the bigger screwup- Boris Yeltsin's 1991 policy of shock therapy. While it may have been less painful regarding civil liberties, it certainly wasn't regarding the economy. It basically tried to open Russia up to the world overnight. It caused hyperinflation in the Russian economy, making Russia a less attractive investment option. So, in effect it achieved the opposite of its goal. I think Russian GDP almost halved in the next five years, and the country only really recovered from the depression caused by this just in time for the 1998 Russian Financial Crisis.

Versailles wasn't in and of itself a disaster - it was just too harsh for a people who didn't see themselves as defeated. Then it was not enforced.

As I should, they shouldn't have invaded China in the first place. There was absolutely no reason to invade China, nothing to gain from doing so, and plenty to lose. And the US offered diplomatic solutions several times, Japan just turned them down, misunderstood them. Negotiations could potentially have averted this. Though, after the Rape of Nanking became public knowledge in the US, a diplomatic solution became more unlikely.

The real screwup then would be the failure of democrats over autocrats in Japan itself - somewhat similar to what happended in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.

So let me get this straight. There best option was to enter into a war with the other major Pacific power?

They were going to war with the US, no matter what realistic action they took. It was just a matter of time. Due to decisions made in the past, they were in an impossible situation.

They started the war on their own terms with an attempt to cripple the US Navy. It was their best chance in a hopeless situation.

As I should, they shouldn't have invaded China in the first place.
Then that is the screw-up. Not even the Japanese had time machines in 1941.

Japanese culture and the military leadership would not have allowed a treaty that would be fair in the eyes of the West.
They refused to accept defeat when they were being beaten everywhere, and the home islands were threatened with invasion. They would not have accepted anything other than a clear victory when their military was winning, especially one that would still leave them at the mercy of a foreign country's supply of oil and other raw materials.

Athens trusting Phillip II to take Amphipolis "on their behalf." :lol:

I thought of another one: Elphinstone's decision not to stay in the Bala Hissar through winter during the First Anglo-Afghan War. Elphinstone had two options, once the cantonment had been effectively overrun: coop up in the ancient fortress of Kabul, or retreat to Jallalabad. Of the two other British forces in the area, only one had chosen to respond to the distress call from Kabul; that from Kandahar. After it had been stopped by Ghilzai tribesmen just north of Ghanzi, Elphinstone was forced to retreat from his fortified camp. The other army, in the north, had, though a mistake in communication, turned and garrissoned Jallalabad instead of coming to Kabul's aid. Elphinstone, having just been cooped up in the Bala Hissar for three weeks, absolutely despised the place, and made the decision to retreat East to Jallalabad. After negotiating free passage from the city, the large army came under heavy assault from Ghilzai tribesmen, some stirred up by local clerics into Jihad against the British, others simply out taking their shots at the retreating invaders. The retreat became a massacre in the narrow gullies and canyons along the route, and, once on even ground, became a desperate running battle between thousands of Ghilzais and forty or so British troopers through two feet of snow. Few of the men had any working guns, and most simply relied on their swords. The Afghans delivered the coupe de grace atop a small hill. When a surgeon named William Brydon stumbled into Jallalabad days later, just barely alive, the garrison set out lights atop the towers of the city to guide any more wandering survivors. It took several days for them to realize that Brydon was the only man of the 15,000 who left Kabul to make it alive.

Here's a painting capturing the event, called "Remnants of an Army."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Remnants_of_an_army.jpg

The Khitan ruled an empire north of Song China; they called themselves the Liao Dynasty and ruled over 16 prefectures of China itself. which the Song resented, but got creamed whenever they tried to get them. So when the Jurchen revolted in the 12th century, the Song allied with them, and the two of them took out the Liao, and the Jurchen promptly turned on the Song and took over the Northern half of China, forming the Jin Dynasty.

A century later the Southern Song made an alliance with the Mongols to take out the Jin... Well, at least China got reunited.

Treaty of Versailles.
That set Germany up for some serious anger, which Adolf Hitler more than took advantage of.
Another huge error- Nazi Germany created the Me-262, the first jet aircraft, in time for the battle of britain, but Hitler wanted it to be converted to a bomber, wasting 1-2 years in development.

Nazi Germany created the Me-262, the first jet aircraft, in time for the battle of britain
No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.
Beat me to it.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the Anglo-Zanzibar war is one of the most comical events in world history.

No, they didn't.

Not like it would have mattered anyway. German air strategy at the time focused more on the Stuka and they would have still blundered it up.

Not like it would have mattered anyway. German air strategy at the time focused more on the Stuka and they would have still blundered it up.
If German air strategy at the time focused on dive-bombing, why were anti-aircraft guns and air superiority aircraft taking up such a huge portion of their industrial capacity? :p

Planned ottoman expansion to Malta,I guess.. :(

Planned ottoman expansion to Malta,I guess.. :(
Meh, that wasn't such a big deal. Bayezid Yilderim demanding tribute from Timur's vassals, now that was an epic screwup.

Planned ottoman expansion to Malta,I guess.. :(
Planning it wasn't the screw-up. Failing, now that was a screw-up.

Meh, that wasn't such a big deal. Bayezid Yilderim demanding tribute from Timur's vassals, now that was an epic screwup.

Well I don't think it was a screwup.He did have the chance and might have won the war,if the serbs didnt betray him.And the other turkish soldiers of anatolian beyliks eliminated by Bayezid...

He did good by eliminating other minor beyliks but his only screwup is; he didnt kill the ruler families of those.Just because he was married with their daughters:)

I actually never heard the story of a Serb betrayal at Ankara, and always thought the primary reasons were that Bayezid was outgeneraled and that he had lost his water supply.

I actually never heard the story of a Serb betrayal at Ankara, and always thought the primary reasons were that Bayezid was outgeneraled and that he had lost his water supply.

Yildirim was planning the siege of Constantinople,when Timur arrived(actually invited by other anatolian beyliks) Anatolia.Serbia supposed to provide Yildirim with soldiers.What really happened there I dont know.But other turkish soldiers changed their sides,because their ex leaders were fighting against Yildirim.About the serbs,it might be an alliance like thing between Serbs and Byzantium,and they went to Timur's side too.Yildirim ended up with only loyal ottoman soldiers,as he understood he is losing the game,he tried to flee,but couldn't success.

So he got hit with both operational screwups and betrayal. That kinda sucks.

Epic screwup: Frederik II's decision to hire a mercenary army in the Nordic Seven Years' War. They captured Älvsborg just fine in the initial blitz, but the mercs' incredibly high cost (contrasted with the cheaper and more numerous Swedish levies) prevented Frederik from undertaking serious offensive operations for most of the rest of the war, consigning him to mere reaction to Erik XIV's raids and the occasional raid of his own. It also caused a political crisis in Denmark...GG?

Epic screwup: Frederik II's decision to hire a mercenary army in the Nordic Seven Years' War.

On the other hand, using Norwegian levies to conduct offensive operations against Sweden never worked very well for the Danish kings, largely because the Norwegian peasants didn't see any point in it. On occasions when it was tried, the guys would show up, receive whatever soldiering gear that was handed out, think "hey cool, free stuff" and promptly go back home.

On the other hand, using Norwegian levies to conduct offensive operations against Sweden never worked very well for the Danish kings, largely because the Norwegian peasants didn't see any point in it. On occasions when it was tried, the guys would show up, receive whatever soldiering gear that was handed out, think "hey cool, free stuff" and promptly go back home.
Yeah, Fred kinda had a catch-22 there. I really don't see much of a way for him to edge out the Swedes in the war other than naval victories, but the Swedes actually had an advantage during the Seven Years' War.

Versailles wasn't in and of itself a disaster - it was just too harsh for a people who didn't see themselves as defeated. Then it was not enforced.

There's an interesting perspective which holds that the Treaty of Versailles was not harsh enough. It failed to severely weaken Germany. Germany maintained remained a sovereign political entity with much the same capabilities it had pre-war. It wasn't even occupied. Compare with the harsh conditions imposed on Russia in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Strategically one could argue that Germany was far more secure then it had been at the turn of the century. The collapse of the Austria-Hungarian Empire alongside instability in Russia (as well as the creation of Poland as an independent entity) meant that the only border Germany was threatened on was its west. The probability of war on multiple fronts was greatly reduced, unless of course Germany decided that was what it wanted ;)

As for the West itself, Germany was far superior to both France and Belgium. As a coherent entity Germany was larger, more industrialised and more populous then both together. In 1914 France would have been overwhelmed without British support, and in 1940 it was anyway.

Thus it was not the harshness that condemned the treaty to failure. It was the fact that it was a deeply flawed compromise between Wilson's leniency and Clemenceau's inclemency.

That, plus Germany was able to think of itself as not having been defeated in battle. Everyone forgot that they had basically been starving.

More importantly, it wasn't enforced.

If it was enforced (which may or may not have been politically possible), then we see a greatly weakened Third Reich. While Germany beat the west in 1940, in 1936 (remilitarization of the Rhineland), or even 1938 (Munich agreement) the story likely would have been different.

I had been under the impression that in 1936 the story would have been very different, but we needed time by 1938 to start our own war economies.

That, plus Germany was able to think of itself as not having been defeated in battle. Everyone forgot that they had basically been starving.

starving? it was the joooos and socialists!

In 1938 the British and French economies weren't really ready for war, but they were in a better position than the Germans overall.

You can see a huge increase in the power of Britain during that year between Munich and Poland, especially in the RAF, but there is a much greater increase in power for the Germans (Czechoslovakia was huge for them).

But they lacked the political will or ability to start a war.

As I should, they shouldn't have invaded China in the first place. There was absolutely no reason to invade China, nothing to gain from doing so, and plenty to lose. And the US offered diplomatic solutions several times, Japan just turned them down, misunderstood them.

What!?
You need to go back to your books, dude. Japan wanted to be up there with the big boys of Europe. They initially wished to emulate the British in having a great empire and believed they had grown up and were ready to join the world - whatwith the industrialisation of the Meiji period and all.
However, the epic fail of Versailles (and Woodrow Wilson) caused the Japanese to feel highly slighted. The Washington Treaty was also handled stupidly and pissed the Japanese off even further.
Then, to seal the deal, the US told the Brits to not be so friendly with Japan - which the Brits duly did.
Isolated, slighted, and suffering from inferiority syndrome ("why don't the others treat us like equals!?"), they decided to go for their empire and expand into China. Everyone else was doing it, why not the Japanese?

I'm not saying if these actions are right or wrong, but the key is to understand why these actions came about in the first place. They didn't invade China for fun. China had resources, China has space, China had "inferior people" and China was a good chance to show the world that Japan was just as capable as the other great powers.

Then the US got heavy-handed with their deterrance policy and embargoed the crap out of Japan, which made expansion even more necessary for Japan and so on and so forth.

The roots of Japanese aggression in Asia could arguably have come from the fact that the rest of the great powers in Europe didn't give a crow's hoot to a "bunch of gooks" in the East who were trying their best to be considered equal on the world stage.

What!?
You need to go back to your books, dude. Japan wanted to be up there with the big boys of Europe. They initially wished to emulate the British in having a great empire and believed they had grown up and were ready to join the world - whatwith the industrialisation of the Meiji period and all.
However, the epic fail of Versailles (and Woodrow Wilson) caused the Japanese to feel highly slighted. The Washington Treaty was also handled stupidly and pissed the Japanese off even further.
Then, to seal the deal, the US told the Brits to not be so friendly with Japan - which the Brits duly did.
Isolated, slighted, and suffering from inferiority syndrome ("why don't the others treat us like equals!?"), they decided to go for their empire and expand into China. Everyone else was doing it, why not the Japanese?

I'm not saying if these actions are right or wrong, but the key is to understand why these actions came about in the first place. They didn't invade China for fun. China had resources, China has space, China had "inferior people" and China was a good chance to show the world that Japan was just as capable as the other great powers.

Then the US got heavy-handed with their deterrance policy and embargoed the crap out of Japan, which made expansion even more necessary for Japan and so on and so forth.

The roots of Japanese aggression in Asia could arguably have come from the fact that the rest of the great powers in Europe didn't give a crow's hoot to a "bunch of gooks" in the East who were trying their best to be considered equal on the world stage.
WTF are you on about? So Japan was miffed at being slighted by them whiteys. Big deal. Why invade China? Why invade the one nation that had absolutely nothing Japan wanted or needed, besides land? I reiterate:

"There was absolutely no reason to invade China, nothing to gain from doing so, and plenty to lose."

And I am well-aware of the roots of Japanese aggression. They go back to the Russo-Japanese war, if not further, and had not one damn thing to do with the Europeans treating them like a "bunch of gooks." (apologies KD). It did have everything to do with their feeling of entitlement, which the Japanese have always had, as have most other nations. "The strong do as they please, and the weak do what they must." - Thucydides. Probably an incorrect translation, but the gist is there.

Actually, what BananaLee posted is basically how it happened - plus the failure of democrats against autocrats on the Japanese political scene. Reiterating what you said before doesn't make it true. You really should check your history books before posting your replies.

Actually, what BananaLee posted is basically how it happened - plus the failure of democrats against autocrats on the Japanese political scene. Reiterating what you said before doesn't make it true. You really should check your history books before posting your replies.
And you and he should both check my posts before you make yours. Give me a reason to invade China. Give me something to be gained. Tell me what Japan didn't have to lose. Point out where anything I said was wrong. This invitation is open to BL as well, who failed to do so in his first post.

Now, you can make an argument that there was plenty for Japan to gain from invading and conquering Manchuria. Which they did. And they damn well should have stopped there. China proper was a whole other kettle of fish, and any intelligent group of people would have realised that. Unfortunately, those people were on their lunch break in Japan from about '34 onwards.

Japan's militarism steadily increased from the Russo-Japanese war on. It didn't become predominant until the 1930s, and was directed primarily against China, the one nation in the area Japan had absolutely no logical reason to attack, and no gain to be had from attacking. Counter-point? You have one?

Japan's militarism steadily increased from the Russo-Japanese war on. It didn't become predominant until the 1930s, and was directed primarily against China, the one nation in the area Japan had absolutely no logical reason to attack, and no gain to be had from attacking.
You can actually make an argument that Japanese militarism had its genesis much earlier. For example, the samurai revolt in that Tom Cruise movie had a real-life analogue, the Satsuma Rebellion, which was caused in large part because the feudal lords of Satsuma, who had previously allied with the Meiji government in the Boshin War, had a falling-out with the Emperor et al because the warlords wanted to go on a military adventure and invade Korea. Korean invasion plans were constantly floated during the early days of the Meiji state, and were actually acted upon in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5. A case can be made to say that during the earlier Taisho state things were a bit different, and certainly figures like Saionji Kinmochi had a moderating effect on politics, but even then the Army and Navy held serious power over the Cabinet (I think both land and naval staffs had veto power over the imperial cabinet :eek: ) and by the early 1930s there really wasn't much voice for non-militarism in Japan.

You can actually make an argument that Japanese militarism had its genesis much earlier. For example, the samurai revolt in that Tom Cruise movie had a real-life analogue, the Satsuma Rebellion, which was caused in large part because the feudal lords of Satsuma, who had previously allied with the Meiji government in the Boshin War, had a falling-out with the Emperor et al because the warlords wanted to go on a military adventure and invade Korea. Korean invasion plans were constantly floated during the early days of the Meiji state, and were actually acted upon in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5. A case can be made to say that during the earlier Taisho state things were a bit different, and certainly figures like Saionji Kinmochi had a moderating effect on politics, but even then the Army and Navy held serious power over the Cabinet (I think both land and naval staffs had veto power over the imperial cabinet :eek: ) and by the early 1930s there really wasn't much voice for non-militarism in Japan.
*ahem*

And I am well-aware of the roots of Japanese aggression. They go back to the Russo-Japanese war, if not further, and had not one damn thing to do with the Europeans treating them like a "bunch of gooks." (apologies KD). It did have everything to do with their feeling of entitlement, which the Japanese have always had, as have most other nations. "The strong do as they please, and the weak do what they must." - Thucydides. Probably an incorrect translation, but the gist is there.
I'm well-aware of all that, but didn't feel it worth mentioning, since it had nothing to do with Europeans, which is what BL's rant was about.

I'm well-aware of all that, but didn't feel it worth mentioning, since it had nothing to do with Europeans, which is what BL's rant was about.
Who was correcting you? I was agreeing. Stop being so defensive.

And you and he should both check my posts before you make yours. Give me a reason to invade China. Give me something to be gained. Tell me what Japan didn't have to lose. Point out where anything I said was wrong. This invitation is open to BL as well, who failed to do so in his first post.

Now, you can make an argument that there was plenty for Japan to gain from invading and conquering Manchuria. Which they did. And they damn well should have stopped there. China proper was a whole other kettle of fish, and any intelligent group of people would have realised that. Unfortunately, those people were on their lunch break in Japan from about '34 onwards.

Japan's militarism steadily increased from the Russo-Japanese war on. It didn't become predominant until the 1930s, and was directed primarily against China, the one nation in the area Japan had absolutely no logical reason to attack, and no gain to be had from attacking. Counter-point? You have one?

not really a counter point but pre ww1 everyone wanted a piece of china so there must be something worth possessing there, its been suggested that if ww1 hadnt happened china may have gone the way of africa

and as for versailles i think it was more a bad compromise than anything else, just tryed to please everyone there they should have either decided to be harsh or be lenient but they went for some confused middle ground

And you and he should both check my posts before you make yours. Give me a reason to invade China. Give me something to be gained. Tell me what Japan didn't have to lose. Point out where anything I said was wrong. This invitation is open to BL as well, who failed to do so in his first post.

Now, you can make an argument that there was plenty for Japan to gain from invading and conquering Manchuria. Which they did. And they damn well should have stopped there. China proper was a whole other kettle of fish, and any intelligent group of people would have realised that. Unfortunately, those people were on their lunch break in Japan from about '34 onwards.

At the time China was in the process of being unified under Chiang Kai-Shek. The Japanese leaders would've felt their interests in China (and Manchuria, which at the time was something like 80% Han) was threatened. The 1937 War was partly to stop this potential challenge in the region. Also, the War in China was for the Japanese military what the Spanish Civil War was for the German Air Force - a chance to test modern equipments and tactics. Why China, well look on the map - China was the only target Japan could strike without provoking war with a Great Power.

But the main reason though was pretty much as BananaLee said. The Japanese militarists, like Mussolini and Hitler, wanted an empire. China offered Japan cheap labour (the Japanese assuming the Chinese were inferior people who would be easily conquered), vast markets for Japanese goods, untapped resources, and Lebensraum. Most importantly though was prestige. In the 1930s the idea of Empire still appeals to Japan and the other Axis powers. It was still a source of pride. And Japan wanted to be accepted into the league of Great Powers.

not really a counter point but pre ww1 everyone wanted a piece of china so there must be something worth possessing there, its been suggested that if ww1 hadnt happened china may have gone the way of africa
Pre-First World War China and 1937 China are not comparable in any sense of the word in terms of military and civilian capability to resist external enemies.

and as for versailles i think it was more a bad compromise than anything else, just tryed to please everyone there they should have either decided to be harsh or be lenient but they went for some confused middle ground

Indeed. Case in point: Shantung, China. The German possessions there was conquered by Japan during the War. Japan then issued the 21 Demands to Yuan Shikai effectively handing over control to Japan. Then Yuan Shikai died and China joined the Allies, and at the Conference the Chinese wanted the return of Shantung. However, the racial equality clause which was one of the main objectives for the Japanese at Versailles was turned down, and Wilson had little choice but to gave Japan want it wanted in Shantung. Then a few years later, Japan (semi-forced by the Western powers) gave Shantung back to China.

Give me a reason to invade China. Give me something to be gained.

Shanghai cotton
Jiangnan silk
Chengdu tobacco
Coal from the Northwest
Cheap labour
A pride in the fact that there is an Empire (Empire for Empire's sake). You don't seem to put much value of pride, but in the context of world politics, one-upmanship is quite important (in case you haven't noticed, world politics is like a playground).
The Northeast only had two main resources at that point in time, timber and ginseng.
The resources I named are just the few which I mentioned in my own essay about Chinese economy during the Ming and Qing dynasties - so yes, I have sources and I have done my research.

China proper was a whole other kettle of fish, and any intelligent group of people would have realised that. Unfortunately, those people were on their lunch break in Japan from about '34 onwards.

Any intelligent group? Of course, any intelligent group would have figured out that MAD was a stupid policy, as was balance of power, as was the South Sea bubble. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Oh, did I mention grain as well? After all, people DO need to eat. 11% of Japan is arable, whereas almost all off China proper (i.e. the plains around the two rivers) was ridiculously, overly, intensively farmed and produced ludicrous yields. 3000:1 seed yield from my lecturer's figures

Why invade China? Why invade the one nation that had absolutely nothing Japan wanted or needed, besides land?

I think land's a pretty important thing. It's like asking the question, "Why take an oxygen tank when climbing up Everest? It has absolutely nothing a climber needs, besides oxygen"

China had people, land and resources. It would also give Japan a place on the world stage, or so the Japanese believed. Those are their reasons for invading. The same as why the Europeans went out conquering places.

Maybe I can add France's epic fail at creating a sizable colony in New France?

New France population 1759: about 25,000-30,000 for a huge territory spreading from Louisiana to Newfoundland. The population of the New England colony at the same time was at least ten times higher and concentrated in modern New England.

Of course, France had a lot of issues at the time, financially, and it was more concerned about its position in Europe itself, but still, they probably underrated what they could get from New France. Most of its time, New France was a fur-hat factory.

They didn't want large colonies. They just wanted the money from the fur trade, which just required small posts.

They didn't want large colonies. They just wanted the money from the fur trade, which just required small posts.

Yeah, like I said, a fur-hat factory, hehe. Although I guess the hats weren't made there. I guess the colony was dependent on the fluctuations in how fashionable fur was. :crazyeye:

Hmm, I thought this wa a different thread :mischief:

But still I don't think they would have got that much more out of larger colonies. Canada was not as good a place for colonies, and all of the French colonies would have been in Canada, the British had some more southern ones without the harsh winters (yes I realize they also had Boston and stuff).

Their colonies just had different purposes, look at the settlements in Rupert's Land, where they had a more similar purpose.

A different purpose, but doomed to be swallowed by someone else with a better plan I guess. It's not as if France decided from the beginning that New France was going to be a short-lived colony to exploit for as long as they could until it was going to be captured. They actually had, at various points, sort of a hope that it'd become a good colony for them.

Ooh, the Temptation... I'll just stick to the British side of the US War of Independace

Who was correcting you? I was agreeing. Stop being so defensive.
I wasn't being defensive, just pointing out that I hadn't mentioned them for a reason. I thought you were correcting me.

At the time China was in the process of being unified under Chiang Kai-Shek. The Japanese leaders would've felt their interests in China (and Manchuria, which at the time was something like 80% Han) was threatened. The 1937 War was partly to stop this potential challenge in the region. Also, the War in China was for the Japanese military what the Spanish Civil War was for the German Air Force - a chance to test modern equipments and tactics. Why China, well look on the map - China was the only target Japan could strike without provoking war with a Great Power.
Chiang Kai Shek was a negligible threat to Japan. He could be taken care of through assassination, proxy wars, etc. No need for a full-scale assault. China was a terrible target for testing new equipment and tactics on, due to its weakness. Look what happened to Japan when it went toe-to-toe with Russia in 1939. And a war with China would damn well provoke a war with a Great Power, because the US, USSR, Britain and France would all intervene to prevent a Japanese conquest of China. It would make them the dominant force in East Asia and the Pacific, and none of those states could accept such a change in the status quo.

But the main reason though was pretty much as BananaLee said. The Japanese militarists, like Mussolini and Hitler, wanted an empire. China offered Japan cheap labour (the Japanese assuming the Chinese were inferior people who would be easily conquered), vast markets for Japanese goods, untapped resources, and Lebensraum. Most importantly though was prestige. In the 1930s the idea of Empire still appeals to Japan and the other Axis powers. It was still a source of pride. And Japan wanted to be accepted into the league of Great Powers.
Land I've already mentioned, it was of great importance to Japan, which had a population crisis. Manchuria took care of that problem nicely. The assumption that the Chinese oculd easily be used for cheap labour due to their inferiority was incorrect, and the Japanese should have known it. No-one willingly accepts slavery, and China was not an easy conquest. Far more resources would be expended on pacification than would be acquired through conquest and slavery. And China, with the exception of a few major cities, would not be good markets for Japanese goods.

You are correct about Japan wanting prestige. But such a benefit is massively outweighed by the problems inherent in a conquest of China. Hence my comment about them having nothing to gain and plenty to lose.

Shanghai cotton
Jiangnan silk
Chengdu tobacco
Coal from the Northwest
Cheap labour
A pride in the fact that there is an Empire (Empire for Empire's sake). You don't seem to put much value of pride, but in the context of world politics, one-upmanship is quite important (in case you haven't noticed, world politics is like a playground).
The Northeast only had two main resources at that point in time, timber and ginseng.
The resources I named are just the few which I mentioned in my own essay about Chinese economy during the Ming and Qing dynasties - so yes, I have sources and I have done my research.
Japan had its own silk, which it considered - correctly or otherwise, I don't know - superior to China's. The expenditure required to get their hands on that coal would be worth far more than the coal itself. I've already mentioned the cheap labour, it doesn't offset pacification. Tobacco and cotton could be acquired from other sources through legitimate trade, at far less cost. Timber I knew about, ginseng I did not. But by Northeast, I assume you mean Manchuria, so they should already have had that. Timber would be especially important to Japan.

As for pride, I am well-aware of the importance of one-upsmanship on the world scene. But Japan already possessed an overseas empire, albeit a small one, and she faced threats on several sides, especially the USSR. Prestige =/= willing allies and an army not bogged down invading a territory as vast as China. Japan needed protection from outside threats, not to throw away millions of lives in a meaningless conquest which would only win them more enemies.

Any intelligent group? Of course, any intelligent group would have figured out that MAD was a stupid policy, as was balance of power, as was the South Sea bubble. Hindsight is always 20/20.
What? MAD and the balance of power are great policies. MAD ensures that no-one fires off nukes, and the balance of power ensures that no one group becomes dominant, though the theory is being superceded by balance of threat, in my opinion are more accurate, though still incomplete doctrine. The South Sea bubble I don't know enough about to comment, aside from knowing it was a massive failure.

Oh, did I mention grain as well? After all, people DO need to eat. 11% of Japan is arable, whereas almost all off China proper (i.e. the plains around the two rivers) was ridiculously, overly, intensively farmed and produced ludicrous yields. 3000:1 seed yield from my lecturer's figures
I assume you mean rice. Rice could far more easily be acquired for the Japanese through legitimate trade, primarily with the Phillipines. The fact that Japan still needed rice in 1941, after conquering a pretty sizeable part of China, shows that it's not the grain itself that is important, but its cultivation and transportation, which suffered under Japanese rule. Such legitimate trade would also have strengthened Japan's economy while not angering and frightening its neighbours.

I think land's a pretty important thing. It's like asking the question, "Why take an oxygen tank when climbing up Everest? It has absolutely nothing a climber needs, besides oxygen"
Japan had already acquired all the land it needed for colonisation in Manchuria, Korea, Formosa and its Pacific Island territories. It had no need for more. Especially not when the land was absolutely teeming with Chinese.

China had people, land and resources. It would also give Japan a place on the world stage, or so the Japanese believed. Those are their reasons for invading. The same as why the Europeans went out conquering places.
The Europeans didn't do it at the expense of their own security (most of the time). Japan did. That's why the few benefits were massively outeweighed by the extensive problems - especially security, I cannot stress this enough, only an idiot would send the bulk of his forces into a place like 1930s China while engaged in a territorial dispute with Russia - such an attempted conquest would place on them.

The fact is that Japan could never have conquered China without the acquiescence of the Great Powers, and the Great Powers would never acquiesce. Japan should have accepted its place as a major power and worked on improving its economy and perhaps extending its empire slowly, primarily by winning concessions in China as the Europeans had done in the past. The invasion of China was a huge strategic mistake on Japan's part, hence they shouldn't have bloody invaded it, and had no real reason to do so. "Because it makes me feel like a big man" may work for Jimbo Jones, but national leaders should know better, especially the goddamn military.

It may not have been a good idea, but the Japanese leadership believed they could easily crush the Chinese.

They made many bad assumptions, but if they had conquered China that would have dramatically changed the political and military situation throughout Asia, primarily for Japan's benefit.

Looking at China's modern history you see repeated examples of swift defeats and quick, and significant, concessions by the Chinese government, and yes 1930s China was different, but the Japanese likely didn't take this into account.

Yes invading China was a major screw-up, but they did have reasons for it (some of them quite good), the costs was just greater than what they would receive.

It may not have been a good idea, but the Japanese leadership believed they could easily crush the Chinese.

They made many bad assumptions, but if they had conquered China that would have dramatically changed the political and military situation throughout Asia, primarily for Japan's benefit.

Looking at China's modern history you see repeated examples of swift defeats and quick, and significant, concessions by the Chinese government, and yes 1930s China was different, but the Japanese likely didn't take this into account.

Yes invading China was a major screw-up, but they did have reasons for it (some of them quite good), the costs was just greater than what they would receive.
Agreed, and I never claimed that there wasn't anything at all to gain from a conquest of China - though I can see why some people might jump to that conclusion. What I meant was that the gains were incredibly disproportionate to the losses, so much so as to make an invasion of China a relative loss, not a relative gain.

And I stand by my statement that the Japanese leadership were idiots for believing otherwise.

What I meant was that the gains were incredibly disproportionate to the losses, so much so as to make an invasion of China a relative loss, not a relative gain.
And I stand by my statement that the Japanese leadership were idiots for believing otherwise.

I still disagree with that statement. As I said, hindsight is 20/20. Japan was keen for an Empire - for the prestige reasons which I mentioned earlier and you seem to treat as completely useless - and justified it for the reasons I've mentioned earlier.
China at that point in time was a motley collection of warlords who were busy squabbling and undergoing a lot of infighting. Previous experience (First Sino-Japanese War) indicated that the Chinese were rubbish in a fight. There's loads of reasons why China would be seen as an easy target for some free resources.

--

What? MAD and the balance of power are great policies. MAD ensures that no-one fires off nukes, and the balance of power ensures that no one group becomes dominant, though the theory is being superceded by balance of threat, in my opinion are more accurate, though still incomplete doctrine.

The idea of MAD and balance of power is just plain bollocks. The idea of two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent to prevent war is a fun fantasy doctrine. All it would take is one small thing to spark off massive problems (WW1 is the perfect example)as shown on Richardson's Arms Race Model. Any increase in the g-factor (greviances) or decrease in f-factor (fatigue/war-weariness/etc.) could easily push the solution into an unstable arms race (i.e. war).
I would grant that I can't think of any alternative solution (I'd be a Nobel Peace Prize winner if I did) - but just because there's no alternative solution, it doesn't mean the concept is bollocks. Similar to how "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried"

Basically, call it the Epic Fails of History. Such a category will usually include any decision that went wrong, with huge consequences.

I would include such screwups as the League of Nations and the Great Leap Forward in the list.
I would rate Napolean's and Hitler's eastward invasion into the near-Arctic steppes of Russia, with hostile climate and population, no ability to live off land, and doubtful value as high on the list.

I would rate Napolean's and Hitler's eastward invasion into the near-Arctic steppes of Russia, with hostile climate and population, no ability to live off land, and doubtful value as high on the list.
The population didn't start off hostile to Hitler everywhere. And the "near-Arctic" part wasn't as big a problem as the rasputitsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa).

Also, yeah. Those'd be pretty big ones on the list. Napoleon's campaign somewhat less than Hitler's, as mentioned somewhat earlier in the thread.

I still disagree with that statement. As I said, hindsight is 20/20. Japan was keen for an Empire - for the prestige reasons which I mentioned earlier and you seem to treat as completely useless - and justified it for the reasons I've mentioned earlier.
China at that point in time was a motley collection of warlords who were busy squabbling and undergoing a lot of infighting. Previous experience (First Sino-Japanese War) indicated that the Chinese were rubbish in a fight. There's loads of reasons why China would be seen as an easy target for some free resources.

--
A competent military leadership should not have fewed China as an easy target. Let's face it, Japan has tried to invade China several times in its history, the idea is nothing new. Every single time they failed miserably. Looking at it objectively, they should have seen that this time would be no different, but they were too caught up in their own delusions of superiority to do so.

Regarding the Chinese being rubbish in a fight, they actually put up a half-decent fight in the first war - considering it was basically Japan versus one warlord, not a unified China - and any Japanese illusions of Chinese inability in a fight should have been dispelled by Shanghai. But Japan's military leadership was incapable of looking at anything objectively. The infamous strategy session prior to Midway, where sunken ships were magically resurrected to provide victory is the perfect example of the Japanese mindset at the time. Hindsight isn't what's needed to see that that's idiocy, mere common sense is.

I said earlier that prestige is pointless without anything to back it up. And Japan could back up everything they said in 1937, but pissed it away by attacking China, as any objective analyst should have seen at the time. It's not like Japan didn't have accurate intelligence or anything, they simply viewed it from an ideological, rather than military or diplomatic point of view. Or for that matter, an economic one.

The idea of MAD and balance of power is just plain bollocks. The idea of two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent to prevent war is a fun fantasy doctrine. All it would take is one small thing to spark off massive problems (WW1 is the perfect example)as shown on Richardson's Arms Race Model. Any increase in the g-factor (greviances) or decrease in f-factor (fatigue/war-weariness/etc.) could easily push the solution into an unstable arms race (i.e. war).
I would grant that I can't think of any alternative solution (I'd be a Nobel Peace Prize winner if I did) - but just because there's no alternative solution, it doesn't mean the concept is bollocks. Similar to how "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried"
MAD is a great idea in a nuclear world, for the simple reason that, as you said, there's no other feasible one. WHen you have no other options, you go with what you've got. Admittedly, MAD is a trap, but it's a completely unavoidable one, and as such should be embraced readily.

And any claim that balance of power is bollocks makes me seriously doubt your knowledge of international relations. Balance of power is positively fundamental to an understanding of how nations relate. Or are you simply referring to the Cold War specifically? Even then, I'm not sure how it can be considered bollocks, unless you're knowledgeable about the balance of threat doctrine, and it's still not a very widespread idea, and frankly doesn't so much change BoP as add to it.

And democracy is not the best system of government. Benevolent despotism ftw.

Japan has tried to invade China several times in its history, the idea is nothing new.

wat?

Regarding the Chinese being rubbish in a fight, they actually put up a half-decent fight in the first war - considering it was basically Japan versus one warlord, not a unified China

wat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War

I said earlier that prestige is pointless without anything to back it up. And Japan could back up everything they said in 1937, but pissed it away by attacking China, as any objective analyst should have seen at the time.

Give me a contemporary source which posits this theory. "Any objective analyst"? Like whom? Otherwise, that whole point is pure hogwash.


MAD is a great idea in a nuclear world, for the simple reason that, as you said, there's no other feasible one.

It's not great because there's no other feasible one. That's like saying eating poo is great because there's nothing else to eat. "Nothing better" is not a reason for something being awesome.

Even then, I'm not sure how it can be considered bollocks, unless you're knowledgeable about the balance of threat doctrine, and it's still not a very widespread idea, and frankly doesn't so much change BoP as add to it.

Why don't you go and read up the Richardson's Arms Race Model and come back to me? The numbers don't work out and it would inevitably lead to conflict - again.

I already said I can't think of any other way to do it but just because there's no better way doesn't mean it's a good way.

And democracy is not the best system of government. Benevolent despotism ftw.

Give me a benevolent dictatorship which didn't turn into a hot, steaming mug of Horlicks after the awesome dictator left office.

Pearl Harbor.

Operation Barbarossa.

America starting their war against Spain.

Attack on the Alamo.

What was so screw-up about the Spanish-American War? It went well for the US, notwithstanding it was just imperialist chest thumping. If that is a criteria for something being a screwup, what war isn't?

Pearl Harbor:
No, they had no better, realistic, option. The screw-up was getting themselves into that position.

Barbarossa:
Pretty bad, but you can look at the war is Russia and see plenty of possibilities for victory lost do to other strategic blunders.

Spanish American War went well for the US. Kicked the Spanish out of Cuba and established a bit of an overseas empire.

Attacking the Alamo:
No. The battle wasn't very important, sure it provided a rallying cry, but nothing of great importance, it wasn't like it crippled Santa Anna's army, and it needed to be taken. Though I don't know much about it, I have to assumed someone royally effed something up for the disaster of San Jacinto

wat?
Japan invaded Manchuria on several occasions. They also invaded Korea when it was under Chinese control many times. It never worked out for them.

wat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War
And? You did note where I said all things considered, right? Ethiopia did a decent job against Italy too, all things considered.

Give me a contemporary source which posits this theory. "Any objective analyst"? Like whom? Otherwise, that whole point is pure hogwash.
At least a few Australian analysts were positively orgasmic when Japan invaded China, because they were certain it guaranteed Australian safety. They're probably the closest you can come to an objective analyst in the '30s. Everyone had an agenda at that time, pretty much every major nation was on a racial superiority kick, and Japan was among the worst. But I notice you didn't contradict my point about the Japanese mindset sure as hell not being able to look at the situation with anything even approaching objectivity.

It's not great because there's no other feasible one. That's like saying eating poo is great because there's nothing else to eat. "Nothing better" is not a reason for something being awesome.
Awesome? No, and please point out where I said that. I said it was great, because it is. Anything that leads to there not being a large-scale nuclear war is great by me, and MAD does that. Sure, if things get out of hand, were screwed, but they're a lot less likely to get out of hand with MAD than without.

Why don't you go and read up the Richardson's Arms Race Model and come back to me? The numbers don't work out and it would inevitably lead to conflict - again.

I already said I can't think of any other way to do it but just because there's no better way doesn't mean it's a good way.
And that has exactly how much to do with balance of power? You know, that thing that keeps one nation from dominating all the others?

Give me a benevolent dictatorship which didn't turn into a hot, steaming mug of Horlicks after the awesome dictator left office.
Spain. Said dictator established a constitutional monarchy. But, regardless of that, I've said on these boards many times that succession is the only problem with benevolent dictatorships.

Give me a democracy that hasn't royally effed itself in the a on several occasions.

Everyone is posting some war or messed up invasion.

What about human presumption, arrogance with lack of insight, wisdom, knowledge, and realization of facts.

Greed, corruption, pride, gulliblity, single-mindedness, self-righteouness or importance. Although these concepts can serve to be good they tend to find themselves in excess.

That's not "a screwup" though. I'm sure the OP was only referring to one-time events. :) Events that were such a big blunder to have costed their makers an amazing cost.

Human nature itself hardly counts as a screwup, in my view. It's not like we as a species chose to have those tendencies.

I thought hatred was a 'learned' experience. You can, unfortunately, teach someone to hate. It's probably the cause of gang membership and all kinds of wars.

The most epic screw up in history will be not doing anything to ebb hatred before it's too late.

Nick Leeson anyone?

I thought hatred was a 'learned' experience. You can, unfortunately, teach someone to hate. It's probably the cause of gang membership and all kinds of wars.

The most epic screw up in history will be not doing anything to ebb hatred before it's too late.
You can also teach someone to love. Human nature isn't a screw-up, unless you're saying God screwed up worse than anyone.

It goes to human nature. So you might say human nature's history's biggest screw up - the examples listed on this thread all being a case in point, to which might be added the number of species extinct through human action.

The population didn't start off hostile to Hitler everywhere. And the "near-Arctic" part wasn't as big a problem as the rasputitsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa).

Also, yeah. Those'd be pretty big ones on the list. Napoleon's campaign somewhat less than Hitler's, as mentioned somewhat earlier in the thread.

I'd say the other way around: Napoleon's army got virtually annihilated on the way back and the "Christian" Russians took no prisoners from "the Antichrist", whereas in WW II it was more a question of which terror regime was the most effective (in several regions the German invader was actually seen as a liberator from the Soviets, but they messed that up big time).

It goes to human nature. So you might say human nature's history's biggest screw up - the examples listed on this thread all being a case in point, to which might be added the number of species extinct through human action.
Human nature can't possibly be history's biggest screw-up, since it's involuntary. It's simply part of who we are. We're born with emotions and other drives we can't control. Now, there's nothing in human nature that says we can't do things rationally and reasonably, so when we don't do this, then we are screwing up. Our nature is not.

I'd say the other way around: Napoleon's army got virtually annihilated on the way back and the "Christian" Russians took no prisoners from "the Antichrist", whereas in WW II it was more a question of which terror regime was the most effective (in several regions the German invader was actually seen as a liberator from the Soviets, but they messed that up big time).
Eh? I was just claiming that his invasion, since the only precedent was the basically incomparable Poltava (as well as several successful Polish-Lithuanian expeditions during the Smuta and before), was more excusable in its failure. Von Clausewitz said that it was a reasonable plan as well. Made no judgment as to the palatability of Napoleon to the Russian peasants.

Eh? I was just claiming that his invasion, since the only precedent was the basically incomparable Poltava (as well as several successful Polish-Lithuanian expeditions during the Smuta and before), was more excusable in its failure. Von Clausewitz said that it was a reasonable plan as well. Made no judgment as to the palatability of Napoleon to the Russian peasants.
Yeah, Napoleon was pretty unpalatable to everyone outside of France, Italy and Poland. Even many Frenchmen hated him. Funnily enough the British intelligentsia, on average, were probably more fond of him than the French. But he was a much better strategist than Hitler, of that everyone can agree.

The recent thread by Winner in OT prompted me to look up whether my bizarre recollection of Rozhdestvensky's Escadre taking British trawlers off Dogger Bank for Japanese torpedo boats was actually true. Thus I came about this account of the entire voyage. Epic. Truly epic. Don't miss it. What happened to those poor British fishermen was just a tip of the iceberg.

http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the pre-WW2 policy of appeasement.

The Munich Agreement was surely on of the most idiotic decisions by Western powers in their modern history.

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the pre-WW2 policy of appeasement.

The Munich Agreement was surely on of the most idiotic decisions by Western powers in their modern history.


there really was very little they could have done by the time Czechoslovakia was dismembered. Had the French chased the Germans out of the Rhineland however, history might have been so different

there really was very little they could have done by the time Czechoslovakia was dismembered. Had the French chased the Germans out of the Rhineland however, history might have been so different

Actually, there was a lot the Western powers could have done. Caving to Hitler like a bunch of silly cowards they were only convinced him that he could do whatever he wanted. If he had started a war over Sudetenland, his chances of winning it would have been much lower.

Do I have to remind people of the fact that half of Nazi Germany's heavy artillery came from Czechoslovakia, as well as lot of other military stuff? Liddel Hart was right when he said that by giving up on Czechoslovakia, the Allies had lost dozens of divisions and insane amount of military equipment in one moment. Worse, they had not only lost it, they handed it over to their enemy in one piece.

If that doesn't count as a screwup, I don't know what does.

I really dont think that was the difference between winning the war or losing it. dont forget, France and UK were weaker than too, and in no state to attack Germany

I really dont think that was the difference between winning the war or losing it. dont forget, France and UK were weaker than too, and in no state to attack Germany

Yeah, but in order to crush Czechoslovakia, Nazi Germany would have to commit about 2/3 of its military to the East. In fact, they'd have to leave the western border only lightly defended.

Also, the dissent in Germany still existed when Hitler escalated the crisis. His victory when he exposed the British and French as cowards only helped him to silence his opponents, who then started to believe that his strategy was working.

In the end, the fall of Czechoslovakia helped Germany immensely (all the industry it got, all the military equipment, shorter borders to defend, elimination of a strong potential adversary on the eastern flank...), while the Western powers only got a year or so to prepare - and they wasted most of this time anyway. An extremely idiotic deal if you ask me.

The recent thread by Winner in OT prompted me to look up whether my bizarre recollection of Rozhdestvensky's Escadre taking British trawlers off Dogger Bank for Japanese torpedo boats was actually true. Thus I came about this account of the entire voyage. Epic. Truly epic. Don't miss it. What happened to those poor British fishermen was just a tip of the iceberg.

http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

wow. just wow.

when i got to the part where a supply ship with with fur boots and winter coats met the fleet in madagascar i was finally convinced that this wins the thread.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

wow. just wow.

when i got to the part where a supply ship with with fur boots and winter coats met the fleet in madagascar i was finally convinced that this wins the thread.

The article is hilarious. Someone should make a TV comedy series about the expedition :lol:

"During the funeral for one of her dead, the "Kamchatka" fired a salute. Unfortunately a live shell was used which hit the cruiser "Aurora" which was by now becoming used to being a mobile target for Russian gunnery."

http://www.hfboards.com/images/smilies/biglaugh.gif

At the time France was in no position to fight, and neither was Britain. I agree they should have pushed the issue, in hind-sight. Neither would have attacked. It would have been just like Poland: the west sits on its behind waiting as Czechoslovakia gets over-run. Heck if the Germans had went on to invade Poland the same thing would have continued.

Not to mention that the Dominions told the British that they would not support a war over the Sudetenland and based on the Allied policy of national self-determination, the Germans had every right to the Sudetenland.

The Germans likely would have been defeated if the Allies launched an offensive in 1938, especially if the Soviets joined in (but at that time we didn't want that because of the idea that once they got into Eastern Europe they wouldn't get out). Granted British air defences were hugely improved during the intervening 2 years (both RAF and Radar), but a successful war on the continent was possible negating that problem.

Ideally the Germans would have gotten crushed in 1936 after the re-militarization of the Rhineland.

At the time France was in no position to fight, and neither was Britain. I agree they should have pushed the issue, in hind-sight. Neither would have attacked. It would have been just like Poland: the west sits on its behind waiting as Czechoslovakia gets over-run. Heck if the Germans had went on to invade Poland the same thing would have continued.

Germany was not prepared for a war either. Even if the Western powers had only declared war and did nothing to help, it would have complicated German preparations for the "real" war. Not to mention that they would not get Czechoslovakia's industry and military equipment served to them on a silver plate and that they'd alienate their later ally, the USSR (which started helping the Germans politically only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed). Without raw material imports and enough time to recover from the war with Czechoslovakia, they wouldn't have had the strength to successfuly invade Western Europe like they did in OTL.

Not to mention that the Dominions told the British that they would not support a war over the Sudetenland and based on the Allied policy of national self-determination, the Germans had every right to the Sudetenland.

The Germans likely would have been defeated if the Allies launched an offensive in 1938, especially if the Soviets joined in (but at that time we didn't want that because of the idea that once they got into Eastern Europe they wouldn't get out). Granted British air defences were hugely improved during the intervening 2 years (both RAF and Radar), but a successful war on the continent was possible negating that problem.

Ideally the Germans would have gotten crushed in 1936 after the re-militarization of the Rhineland.

There was still time to do something in 1938. The war couldn't have been avoided, but it could have been shorter and much, much, much, much less bloodier.

Of course I'd not be writing this now, because most of Bohemia and Moravie would have been totally devastated and their population reduced by the revengeful Germans. Tourists wouldn't be able to see much of Praque either.

In hindsight, it is clear that Munich was bad, but from the perspective of those involved, it was much more reasonable. In fact Hitler wanted them to resist, them giving in screwed up his plans.

There was no popular support for a war in 1938. Britain would be severely weakened without the support of the Commonwealth, the RAF was essentially negligible, France simply could not fight. Based on the Versailles ideal of national self-determination, Germany should have had the right to the Sudetenland. In fact the British had no intention of giving the Sudetenland to the Czechs after a war with Germany in 1938.

As well, the Germans only major actions at this point had been the re-militarization of the Rhineland and Anschluss, both viewed as perfectly reasonable actions for a German state to undertake. Yet, despite what Chamberlain said to the people, he did expect war, but it was not seen as a viable option at the time, and they didn't see how much more effectively that the Germans would use the time.

In hindsight, it is clear that Munich was bad, but from the perspective of those involved, it was much more reasonable. In fact Hitler wanted them to resist, them giving in screwed up his plans.

Hitler was a delusional idiot. German military wasn't so eager to go to war, since the generals were generally prone to overestimating the military capabilities of the Western powers.

I don't think it was a reasonable decision even from their perspective. Churchill was against it from the beginning and his reasons were exactly the same as those I am giving you now.

Incompetence can hardly justify a clearly wrong decision.

There was no popular support for a war in 1938. Britain would be severely weakened without the support of the Commonwealth, the RAF was essentially negligible, France simply could not fight. Based on the Versailles ideal of national self-determination, Germany should have had the right to the Sudetenland. In fact the British had no intention of giving the Sudetenland to the Czechs after a war with Germany in 1938.

Yeah, and under the same treaty, Alsace-Lorraine should have remained a part of Germany. Nobody gave a damn about it, it was only used to justify aggressive foreign policy.

As well, the Germans only major actions at this point had been the re-militarization of the Rhineland and Anschluss, both viewed as perfectly reasonable actions for a German state to undertake. Yet, despite what Chamberlain said to the people, he did expect war, but it was not seen as a viable option at the time, and they didn't see how much more effectively that the Germans would use the time.

Again, incompetence doesn't justify making wrong choices. There was nothing that prevented the Western politicians from realizing that appeasement was a suicidal policy. In fact, many people opposed it, just not those who were in charge.

That's why I nominate is as an Epic Screwup in this thread :)

I really wouldnt see it as such, maybe a mistake but not an epic screwup by a long shot. I think you may be looking at this through biased eyes, understandably, Winner.

Biggest screw-up in history?
I would say the Americans in their War of Independance.
Why? Ever since then they seem to have wanted nothing more than to be a part of the Empire again.

You still neglect the fact that the British people would not support a war, and they could not prosecute a major European war without the support of the people.

The British military was completely unprepared for war, especially the RAF. Sure Germany was weak at the time, but you can't assume your enemy is weak. And Britain alone has never been a military force on the continent without their ally, which was in even worse shape then them. Add to that the Commonwealth staying out of it and the British still had to worry about the Japanese and Italians taking advantage of the situation.

Yeah, and under the same treaty, Alsace-Lorraine should have remained a part of Germany.
The difference: France won the war. The point is that the British would have given the Sudetenland to a German state anyways, peacefully or after a war.

And still Hitler's aggressive expansionism only became really apparent to the people after the invasion of Czechoslovakia proper, everything else was in protecting German people, which was viewed as acceptable. While yes, the government could and did see that Germany was going towards war (Chamberlain did), even with appeasement, but they bought time for the British military that had a lot more to worry about than just Germany, and France was vastly improved in the intervening year. Unfortunately Hitler did better.

Yes they SHOULD have went to war then, or earlier, but it wasn't unreasonable to make that decision at the time.

Biggest screw-up in history?
I would say the Americans in their War of Independance.
Why? Ever since then they seem to have wanted nothing more than to be a part of the Empire again.
The Hartford Convention was a dead letter, you know. After the Treaty of Ghent there was no chance in hell of a reunification, and the assertion that they wanted to go back to the Empire is, well, lunacy. :p

Krushchev's Virgin Lands Program. It did everything right, and worked wonderfully at first...but overfarmed the land into dust. Crop rotation is not a hard concept.

I really wouldnt see it as such, maybe a mistake but not an epic screwup by a long shot. I think you may be looking at this through biased eyes, understandably, Winner.

Biased? Where? When?

If I wanted to be biased, I'd have started ranting about the French traitors who threw us to the wolves or something. I didn't. Sacrificing Czechoslovakia for nothing was obviously bad for everybody for the reasons I gave. It's a sort of tragic satisfaction to know that some light tanks the Germans have captured in 1939 in Czechoslovakia were then used during the campaigns in Poland and France.

You still neglect the fact that the British people would not support a war, and they could not prosecute a major European war without the support of the people.

The support was not much higher when the government declared war on Germany a year later, so I think this argument doesn't have much relevance to it.

We can speculate about the circumstances - let's say the British and French are more courageous - they say "no" to Hitler and instead make a deal with Czechoslovakia - the Czechs will give the Sudeten Germans a wide autonomy. Chamberlain isn't such an idiot as he was in OTL and he sells it as a great compromise.

Hitler is screwed - if he ignores the deal and invades Czechoslovakia anyway, there will be a formal declaration of war from France. This means that the USSR probably intervenes too (they had treaties with Czechoslovakia, but their help was tied to French intervention) and Britain will most likely follow suit. Alternatively, he backs off. Germany sufferes a diplomatic defeat, Hitler's position in Germany is slightly weakened and Germany doesn't get anything from Czechoslovakia. The West has more time to prepare, and so does Czechoslovakia and Poland. If the war erupts later, Germany will have much harder time winning it.

The British military was completely unprepared for war, especially the RAF. Sure Germany was weak at the time, but you can't assume your enemy is weak. And Britain alone has never been a military force on the continent without their ally, which was in even worse shape then them. Add to that the Commonwealth staying out of it and the British still had to worry about the Japanese and Italians taking advantage of the situation.

So? Germany was much weaker than it was in 1939, which means declaring a war against Czechoslovakia and the West would be something like a suicide.

As for the Western perspective: nobody had ever believed that Germany could defeat France in few weeks. They were not overestimating the Germans, they were UNDERestimating them, even after they saw what they did in Poland and Norway. They were not scared to death of German military might, they just didn't want to go to war because, well, war was unpopular at the time.

I am not saying the Western allies were ready to fight, no. I am saying that the balance of military strength in 1938 was much less favourable to the Germans, even if I discount Czechoslovakia, which would have been a tough nut to crack if it was allowed to fight.

The difference: France won the war. The point is that the British would have given the Sudetenland to a German state anyways, peacefully or after a war.

And you base this opinion on what, exactly? Which sources say so? (You don't have to give me links or names, I am not RedRalph. Just a general idea.) The so-called "Sudetenland" had never been a country, it had never been a part of Germany either. It was a part of Bohemia/Moravia. In 1918, there was no serious discussion about that (not even remotely as serious as the one about future Slovak borders). Bohemia and Moravia had clearly defined historical borders since the medieval times. Given the fact that the Germans in Czechoslovakia enjoyed more civic rights than the Germans in Germany itself, I don't really think that anybody could justify giving Sudetenland to Germany after a VICTORIOUS war against the German aggressor. That would be really absurd: "We defeated you, but we will give your everything you want, here..." :crazyeye:

And still Hitler's aggressive expansionism only became really apparent to the people after the invasion of Czechoslovakia proper, everything else was in protecting German people, which was viewed as acceptable. While yes, the government could and did see that Germany was going towards war (Chamberlain did), even with appeasement, but they bought time for the British military that had a lot more to worry about than just Germany, and France was vastly improved in the intervening year. Unfortunately Hitler did better.

For the third time: incompetence or stupidity doesn't justify anything. Anybody with a brain could see where it was heading - Churchill did as well as many other people. After the Anchluss, it was obvious that Germany wanted to expand.

Anyway, the fallacy of appeasment didn't die in 1939 either, it's been a part of British/French foreign policy ever since. Just look at what happened in Kosovo, Georgia, Israel etc.

Appeasement in any form is an Epic Screwup. Burke was right, when he said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Yes they SHOULD have went to war then, or earlier, but it wasn't unreasonable to make that decision at the time.

Explain to me how going to war after annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia would have been better. In 1938, Czechoslovakia had a relatively strong and determined military full of young men willing to fight the invaders. In 1939, Czechoslovakia's army was demoralized, the fortified border areas were now part of Germany and Slovakia's loyalty was seriously compromised.

It was totally unreasonable to sacrifice the only devout ally with a relatively modern and strong military that the Allies had in Central Europe. Again, anybody with some military insight could see that.

I am sure that for some spineless politicians in the West who only cared about the number of votes they'd get in the next elections, instead of long-term well-being of their countries, it seemed perfectly reasonable to ignore common sense and sacrifice some "far away country" they knew "nothing about". But then again, incompetence is no justification.

I really wouldnt see it as such, maybe a mistake but not an epic screwup by a long shot. I think you may be looking at this through biased eyes, understandably, Winner.

Capitulating to Hitler, when he was weak, was an epic screwup and as a result we got a German army that now had the production capacity to wage war, and they did not even had to fight for it. If that is not epic, then I don't know what is. Neville Chamberlain proclaimed that he brought peace, when all it did was just make a war, when had they shown strength against Hitler, he would have not chance to get what he wanted. Making him much less of a threat. You just do not understand how bad a mistake it was to give him that.

Napoleon's invasion of Russia..if he had not invaded Russia i belive the world could very well be French dominated today..via he would have beaten Britain in the end and created yet another puppet state..or even occupied it.

i think the royal navy would have had a say in that...

Capitulating to Hitler, when he was weak, was an epic screwup and as a result we got a German army that now had the production capacity to wage war, and they did not even had to fight for it. If that is not epic, then I don't know what is. Neville Chamberlain proclaimed that he brought peace, when all it did was just make a war, when had they shown strength against Hitler, he would have not chance to get what he wanted. Making him much less of a threat. You just do not understand how bad a mistake it was to give him that.

but the French and Brits werent ready for a war then!!! they said it themselves. what use is it being morally upstanding when you are just going to get creamed anyway?

The support was not much higher when the government declared war on Germany a year later, so I think this argument doesn't have much relevance to it.
It was significantly higher after the German invasion of Czechoslovakia and with the invasion of Poland.

USSR support was unlikely.
They wouldn't have went in without ACTIVE western involvement which was NOT going to happen with what forces the French and British had. And the Czechs didn’t want Soviet involvement, based on the likely correct theory that once Soviet soldiers were in the country they weren’t leaving.

To add that the Soviets only had access to East Prussia, Poland and Romania were unlikely to get involved, especially if it meant Soviet troops within their borders.

Germany was much weaker than it was in 1939, which means declaring a war against Czechoslovakia and the West would be something like a suicide.
No because the Germans could beat the Czechs either way, and the West would not take the fight to Germany, just they did historically. Maybe you have a weaker Germany, but not weakened enough to save France.

They underestimated the Germans in 1940, but in 1938 the British were effectively alone, and had no RAF or radar to defend most of Britain. France was deemed hopeless and the Dominions said they weren’t fighting over Czechoslovakia.

The problem is the British didn’t anticipate how well the Germans would build up in that period.

Explain to me how going to war after annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia would have been better.
• More popular support at home. The people only really turned against Hitler with the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Kristallknacht.
• A much stronger RAF and established radar around Britain.
• Support from the Dominions, which was essential to Britain.
• A more prepared France

And you base this opinion on what, exactly?
I am sorry, I am away for reading week and don’t have my sources with me (didn’t really expect this discussion this week). But I believe it was Chamberlain’s aide, and he said essentially: no matter what happened the Czechs weren’t keeping the Sudetenland. That and discussions with a man with a PhD specializing in 20th Century Europe.

It was a screw-up, but it wasn’t the worst that was made in the lead up to WWII. They should have pushed aggressively with the re-militarization of the Rhineland. In that case the Germans would have been a pushover, with what the British and French had at hand.

but the French and Brits werent ready for a war then!!! they said it themselves. what use is it being morally upstanding when you are just going to get creamed anyway?
Not to mention that based on prevailing theories at the time, Germany truly did have the moral right to the Sudetenland.




Napoleon's invasion of Russia..if he had not invaded Russia i belive the world could very well be French dominated today..via he would have beaten Britain in the end and created yet another puppet state..or even occupied it.
Napoleon had no way of defeating Britain in any reasonable time frame. And Russia along with most of Europe was just biding its time, and Napoleon knew that. His Continental program was doomed to failure, Britain had too many other markets.
Granted it was a major screw-up and probably had a huge impact, but not that decisive as France would have ruled the world.

Napoleon had no way of defeating Britain in any reasonable time frame. And Russia along with most of Europe was just biding its time, and Napoleon knew that. His Continental program was doomed to failure, Britain had too many other markets.
Granted it was a major screw-up and probably had a huge impact, but not that decisive as France would have ruled the world.

To expand: Napoleon abandoned his plans to invade Britain after the Wars of the Second and Third Coalition started. At one point, he had well over 100,000 men training in Normandy and was building ridiculous numbers of smaller gunboats and transports to cross the Channel and invade once the French Navy pulled enough British ships away to the Caribbean in a feint attack, but the Royal Navy did not forfeit control of the Channel. This army was then used to attack the Austrians.

On the other hand, I think Napoleon could have been successful fighting Russia. By the time this invasion occurs, France is losing its edge in military organization and discipline (or, I should say, the rest of Europe is catching up), and Napoleon's tactics went from brilliant to mediocre towards the 1810's. Fewer and fewer clever maneuvers just straightforward, frontal assaults turned into bloodly slaughters. I've read theories that he had bad medical conditions that were distracting him, but I don't know if there is a significant consensus as to why his skills diminished.

I think it is being cocky and thinking "I am so great I will win no matter what I do."

While yes, the French could have dominated Europe for some time, the only people who liked them were the Poles, Italians, and a few German states. There was so much animosity that with British money supporting them, someone would fight the French, and eventually win.

Make no mistake, I believe his stupid invasion of Russia deserves a place in this thread, it just isn't to the extent that the one poster said.

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the pre-WW2 policy of appeasement.

The Munich Agreement was surely on of the most idiotic decisions by Western powers in their modern history.The same strategy as those who support "negotiations" with Hamas or Ahmenajad.

Generally speaking the Germans were as weak in 1938 as the British and French. The fact that the British had no radar and a weak RAF in 1938 for example is a moot point since the Luftwaffe was hardly in the position to launch a concerted assault until it could secure airfields in France or the Low countries anyway, and the Luftwaffe itself came on in leaps and bounds between 1938 and 1940.

That said I can understand why Chamberlin didn't go to war over Czechslovakia for the reasons outlined, but I would still consider it a blunder.

I think it is being cocky and thinking "I am so great I will win no matter what I do."

While yes, the French could have dominated Europe for some time, the only people who liked them were the Poles, Italians, and a few German states. There was so much animosity that with British money supporting them, someone would fight the French, and eventually win.

Make no mistake, I believe his stupid invasion of Russia deserves a place in this thread, it just isn't to the extent that the one poster said.

I think it was a case of Napoleon using finesse when he needed it, but resorting to brute force when he had a strong enough military force. Ulysses S. Grant is another one who turned to brute force when he got enough troops.

I think it was a case of Napoleon using finesse when he needed it, but resorting to brute force when he had a strong enough military force. Ulysses S. Grant is another one who turned to brute force when he got enough troops.And he was successful.

The recent thread by Winner in OT prompted me to look up whether my bizarre recollection of Rozhdestvensky's Escadre taking British trawlers off Dogger Bank for Japanese torpedo boats was actually true.

I believe I already mentioned that earlier in this thread. But yeah, it bears mentioning more than once. Truly a screwup (or series of screwups, or compound screwup if you will) of epic proportions.

On the other hand, I think Napoleon could have been successful fighting Russia. By the time this invasion occurs, France is losing its edge in military organization and discipline (or, I should say, the rest of Europe is catching up), and Napoleon's tactics went from brilliant to mediocre towards the 1810's. Fewer and fewer clever maneuvers just straightforward, frontal assaults turned into bloodly slaughters. I've read theories that he had bad medical conditions that were distracting him, but I don't know if there is a significant consensus as to why his skills diminished.
You know, the irony is that all Napoleon wanted was for the Russians to show up in force somewhere along the Polish border, where he could confront and beat them in a series of short, sharp engagements.

This would force the Russian emperor back to the negotating table, where the Franco-Russian alliance would then be reinvigorated, and the UK again left out in the cold. With the eastern border secure, the new in-laws in Vienna eventually getting used to their new son-in-law etc., perhaps Napoleon would have had the time to eventually build enough of a navy to seriously challenge the UK? The continental system was after all hurting it, causing massive unemployment.

Problem being, as Napoleon had amassed a 600 000 man army, there was no hope in hell the Russian generals would just march their troops in convinient range of such a beast. And while the Russian generals were absolutely shame-faced about it, they very reasonably retreated instead, forcing Napoleon to go after them into Russia, just to get the opportunity to defeat them. And then a war supposed to be quick turned into a bitter meat-grinder, devastating large tracts of Russia, making future peace between Russia and France more or less unthinkable.

Sometimes it really doesn't pay to be too superior in strength.

(And no, there's no consensus about the causes of Napoleons late career track record. The "pathological school of history" tends not to be the favoured one though.);)

perhaps Napoleon would have had the time to eventually build enough of a navy to seriously challenge the UK? The continental system was after all hurting it, causing massive unemployment.

As I understand it he was already undertaking a large scale rebuilding programme after Traflagar. The problem for the French navy (or to be more exact the Ships of the Line since Frigates, sloops etc were another story) is that whilst France built very good ships the crews had major gaps in their training and experience due to having to spend so long in blockaded ports. Whilst it was possible for individual ships to specialise in some actions (such as Redoutable in musketry and boarding) and many of the captains were brave and skilfull the overall effect was often clumsy and ineffective in comparison to the Royal Navy.

Therefore whilst a rebuilt fleet could numerically challenge British control of the seas it would still have to overcome the sizable tactical disadvantages it laboured under.

Having said that Russia dropping out of the war would have left Britain in a very tight spot and possibly force some form of negotiated settlement at some point. Do you have any links for the unemployment figures in the UK during the wars though? I know that it was pretty bad when they ended but I've never seen any figures for what it was whilst the war was still going.

Only more proof that Napoleon was more effective with fewer troops than many. His strategy at Borodino was an utter disappointment. I suspect he was just too aggravated with the Russian retreats and wanted a quick bloodbath...and it turns out that is exactly what happened, although he might have wanted a different outcome. Patience might not have been his strong suit.

The French were always building ships, even these somewhat lighter gunboats just to cross the channel with troops. They just had skittish commanders (like Villeneuve, although I might be mispelling his name).

The blockaded Franco-Spanish fleet didn't have good gunnery training...and to this, I can only attribute poor planning. Why couldn't the crews practice gunnery drills in the harbors, with their guns pointed out to sea? For a nation that supposedly had the most advanced artillery of the era, this is a little bit of an oversight. Were they afraid of angering their neighbors? :)

Napoleon had the resources to continue a naval fight after Trafalgar, even soon after (remember, he didn't lose all his ships--Ganteaume still had a smaller fleet that was in port at the time). He just decided it wasn't worth the effort and instead focused on the continent.

The blockaded Franco-Spanish fleet didn't have good gunnery training...and to this, I can only attribute poor planning. Why couldn't the crews practice gunnery drills in the harbors, with their guns pointed out to sea? For a nation that supposedly had the most advanced artillery of the era, this is a little bit of an oversight. Were they afraid of angering their neighbors?

One explanation is a lack of ammunition, during the voyage across the Atlantic he was unable to practice gunnery because of this.

As for other reasons (much of this from Howarth's book on Trafalgar):

Firing naval cannons when a ship is at sea and firing them when in harbour are not comparable really. When at sea you had to compensate for the ships roll as this would impact on the elevation of the gun being fired. Since the French used slow-matches to fire naval cannon which involved a delay that couldn't be exactly predicted the elevation and range were often a matter of chance. The French and Spanish also tended to shoot at rigging with bar and chain shot. Should this type of ammunition go too high it missed entirely and if it went too low it didn't often penetrate the hull and seldom ricocheted.

The British tended to use round shot and fire at the hull. This had the advantage of if it went low it might ricochet off the water into the target and still do some damage, or if it went high it sometimes hit the rigging instead. We also used flintlocks to fire the guns, a method that was nearly instantaneous.

The problems in gunnery were just one aspect of the problems Villeneuve faced though. Seamanship is something you need the open sea to train, and experience of that was sadly lacking in the Franco-Spanish crews that fought at Trafalgar. According to Howarth the Spanish drafted large numbers of ex-convicts to serve on their ships, and some of them hadn't even been to sea before, let alone seen a naval battle. You simply can't turn that kind of person into an efficient crewman in harbour, it takes time at sea.

The Franco-Spanish fleet were badly outclassed by the far more experienced Royal Navy and although Trafalgar wasn't a foregone conclusion it isn't hard to see why the result was so one-sided or why Nelson was so confident of victory.

I have a lot of sympathy for Villeneuve because he had to deal with an Emperor who only had a limited grasp of Naval affairs and high expectations. Contrary to what his critics said he was a brave man and quite a skilful commander. Even normally francophobic Royal Navy men like Freemantle and Collingwood liked him.

Lack of ammunition and powder is a good reason, but I figured the French would be able to supply their ships. After all, they could supply their land artillery with enough ammo. I know it's not the same stuff, but it shows they had the capacity to produce munitions. Why wasn't it loaded while they were spending months in harbor? Oversight?

The tactic of firing at riggings was foolish to start with...I am at a loss to explain why they continued with this tactic after the British trumped every naval engagement, sans one, in the American Revolution. If the goal was to eliminate, not capture, the British fleet to make a landing in England, then it makes sense you would use the most direct and brutal tactic--firing directly into the deck with round shot--to take out the British ships. It seems to me the French had all the resources required to make this a success, but used faulty tactics to their own demise (and should have realized such).

To my understanding (and, I should say, the professor I had for my French Revolution class when I was an undergrad), Villeneuve was a little skittish and afraid to engage Nelson directly after the Battle of the Nile (another failure on the French side). Although, this professor was enamored of sorts with the Spanish and thought Gravina to be a far superior commander.

For tactics, the rigging was the most vulnerable par of a ship, and the easiest way to cripple a vessel, if you could hit it.

Overall the French were playing catch-up, and Napoleon had little experience, skill, or likely desire for naval warfare, he only cared about getting to Britain, and when that wasn't viable in the short term he found other uses for his resources.

While the French Empire could have remained in control of the continent for quite a while (perhaps until Napoleon's reign ended) and perhaps survived in France with different results from Russia, I don't see long-term French dominance outside Western Europe.
The Austrians, Russians, and Prussians would have rose up any chance they got, not to mentioned various other smaller states and people. The British would have taken a long time before giving up and jumped at any opportunity to take down France, and the French were not going to get Portugal (insane defensive positions and an inability of the land to support any large army). And Napoleon lacked any inclination to actually make a large fleet (and had little chance to make it effective)to threaten Britain and its qualities.
For an empire built on warfare, it would need to find a new enemy or it would likely fall apart fighting itself, napoleon doesn't seem to prevent that.

Really, vastly different outcome better results in 1812, but I don't see any greater lasting French influence in the rest of Europe, or dominance even without Britain.

The most interesting difference may have been Poland, if it had survived long enough to become accepted before France fell, if that was possible.

Lack of ammunition and powder is a good reason, but I figured the French would be able to supply their ships. After all, they could supply their land artillery with enough ammo. I know it's not the same stuff, but it shows they had the capacity to produce munitions. Why wasn't it loaded while they were spending months in harbor? Oversight?


Its usually too dangerous to load a ship with powder (or keep it loaded) during long stays in harbour. I don't know about the French but in Liverpool ships were usually required to offload their powder at magazines sited some distance away prior to entering the docks. One story doing the rounds back then is that someone living near one of the magazines sent a letter to the council asking why if powder was so dangerous they cited the magazines in a residential area, what would happen if there was a fire in the magazine? The reply was "Dear sir... You will all be blown straight to hell. Regards". One ship did blow up in the river, it was quite a sight apparently.

And yes, the rigging was very vulnerable and if hit enough it was easy to leave a ship almost dead in the water. The British on the other hand aimed to capture the enemy ship with as minimal damage to the rigging as possible so it was easier to use after the battle without extensive repairs.

As for Villeneuve's skittishness I doubt he was afraid personally since his personal bravery was shown a number of times during Trafalgar. I think he just had a very health respect for the talents of Nelson and the Royal Navy, and knew that the fleet he commanded simply wasn't up to the tasks alloted to it by Boney.

Villeneuve was gifted his sword back in England - as a sign of respect by those who defeated him. From that I guess its possible to say that his peers on the other side of the channel respected him as a commander. Although apparently he was quite a charmer at parties so it might well have been for that reason :p.

I don't think anyone could rightly blame Villeneuve for being skittish, your facing the premier naval state in its own turf, caution is definitely warranted. He had misgivings to begin with about the whole venture and from memory he expressed those in some letters before he left France.

It also doesn't help that the enemy commander is probably the best going at the time, is willing to try a relatively new tactic and your van keeps sailing and doesn't get back around for the better part of the day. The unfortunate thing is once the battle had started it was already lost irregardless of the bravery of the individual ships of the Spanish and French fleet. You quite simply cannot fight an enemy who has cut your line and is busily cutting it to pieces with significantly more guns than you can bring to bear with the engaged part of your line.

Now if I remember correctly Villeneuve was informed about the possibility of Nelson cutting his line and refused to take measures accordingly [in the lead up to the battle].

Its usually too dangerous to load a ship with powder (or keep it loaded) during long stays in harbour. I don't know about the French but in Liverpool ships were usually required to offload their powder at magazines sited some distance away prior to entering the docks. One story doing the rounds back then is that someone living near one of the magazines sent a letter to the council asking why if powder was so dangerous they cited the magazines in a residential area, what would happen if there was a fire in the magazine? The reply was "Dear sir... You will all be blown straight to hell. Regards". One ship did blow up in the river, it was quite a sight apparently.

While this is important for the safety of the harbor (nobody likes a blockaded harbor...by your own sunken ships, none-the-less), this really doesn't answer my question. If you were spending months in port and then planned a mission, why didn't you load your ships first? This had to be a spur-of-the-moment decision or based on literally a day's weakness in the British watch over the harbor.

While this is important for the safety of the harbor (nobody likes a blockaded harbor...by your own sunken ships, none-the-less), this really doesn't answer my question. If you were spending months in port and then planned a mission, why didn't you load your ships first? This had to be a spur-of-the-moment decision or based on literally a day's weakness in the British watch over the harbor.

Ah sorry, misunderstood the context of the question, thought you meant why didn't they keep them loaded constantly in harbour.

If I had to guess why Villeneuve didn't load enough ammunition I would suspect it was lack of available supplies. Certainly the plan itself was not made up on the spare of the moment, and whilst its possible to explot temporary lapses in British crews (e.g. a shortage of blockading ships for a few days) Napoleonic sailing ships aren't ideal for spare of the moment moves. When Villeneuve slipped out of harbour you can be reasonably sure he had been preparing for it for a while.

Its also worth remembering that Villeneuve only initially commanded 11 ships of the line and 6 frigates in his squadron, he'd have little or no control over the loading of the the other ships that joined him prior to Trafalgar. Since the Caribean move was a feint to draw the English out from blockade and away from the channel the chances are that the ships were loaded enough for one major engagement. It didn't help that the Spanish were both short of supplies and reluctant to release what supplies they had.

Regardless of whether he trained his crews in gunnery on the Atlantic jaunt though it still wouldn't have made up for their inefficiencies in operating the other parts of the ship, and that's just as imortant.

And may I just say that I agree with what Masada said as well.

Privatization of the Central Banking System.

Privatization of Healthcare and Education.

Nationalization of Farming.

The genocide of jews was pretty bad to. Hitler got more tricked than he could ever imagine. And I'm not talking about the human cost here, that's one thing. But it was a complete . .. .. .. . up. The Jews themselves weren't to blame and the whole process cost Germany many good and smart men. I guess the relocation of jews and the cost of that was at least equalized by the slave labour produce.

Letting Rome become a dictatorship was a bad . .. .. .. .up. With a roman republic and a greek democracy we could've had a lovely world here today.

Stalins guillible and at the same time paranoid nature made what could be a good leader into a monster and fool.

Letting Rome become a dictatorship was a bad . .. .. .. .up. With a roman republic and a greek democracy we could've had a lovely world here today.
Except "Greece" as a single unified state didn't actually exist (the closest they got is probably the Hellenic koinons of Alexandros, Philippos, and Antigonos Doson) and when it was unified it certainly wasn't a democracy; as for the Roman republic, it had its good and bad points. Certainly the end of the intense republican civil strife of the last hundred years and the intermittent open warfare of the last fifty can't have been all bad.

Except "Greece" as a single unified state didn't actually exist (the closest they got is probably the Hellenic koinons of Alexandros, Philippos, and Antigonos Doson) and when it was unified it certainly wasn't a democracy; as for the Roman republic, it had its good and bad points. Certainly the end of the intense republican civil strife of the last hundred years and the intermittent open warfare of the last fifty can't have been all bad.

I actually wrote "greek-democracy", it was "greek democracy" even though Greece didn't exist. Perhaps, PERHAPS athenian democracy is a better word but fewer people are familiar with that. City-state democracy is the best there is. Ofcourse their democracy wasn't perfect. They had prejudice against women in some city states and there were slaves. But that is a product of the time then.

About the Roman Republic. As the first republic ever there were issues. Issues that led to far less blood spillt than the horror that was to come with absolute monarchs later on.

I actually wrote "greek-democracy", it was "greek democracy" even though Greece didn't exist. Perhaps, PERHAPS athenian democracy is a better word but fewer people are familiar with that. City-state democracy is the best there is. Ofcourse their democracy wasn't perfect. They had prejudice against women in some city states and there were slaves. But that is a product of the time then.
And that democratic system had its inherent, non-temporal-specific problems too, including vicious factionalism and a distinct inability to conclude conflict rapidly. Athenian democracy prolonged the Peloponnesian War to the detriment of all of Greece, for example.
About the Roman Republic. As the first republic ever there were issues. Issues that led to far less blood spillt than the horror that was to come with absolute monarchs later on.
The Roman monarchy was never an absolute monarchy and it did not provide a precedent for absolute monarchy.

The Roman Empire was first a Monarchy, then a republic then a totalitarian monarchy in which the "dictator" was selected for life and ruled with an iron fist. Stop spreading disinformation.

The war between Athens and Sparta was a war of Democracy against Dictatorship.

Sparta was not a democracy, it was a military junta. A good/just one, but still a military junta.
I am not familiar with the war, but claiming that a democracy by its definition prolongs wars is completely bogus. If that was not the intention of your statement then your statement lacks any value in the debate.

The Roman Empire was first a Monarchy, then a republic then a totalitarian monarchy in which the "dictator" was selected for life and ruled with an iron fist. Stop spreading disinformation.
If you seriously think that the principate or even the dominate was an iron-fisted state you are deluded. The emperor had plenty of elites he had to appease and constituencies he had to play to. He had legal and later religious responsibilities.
The war between Athens and Sparta was a war of Democracy against Dictatorship.
No, it wasn't. Athens and Sparta were not the only states involved in that war, and Athens certainly didn't stay democratic for the entire conflict.
Sparta was not a democracy, it was a military junta. A good/just one, but still a military junta.
Sparta was not a junta. It had a constitution, a citizen assembly, and its kings were virtually powerless.
I am not familiar with the war, but claiming that a democracy by its definition prolongs wars is completely bogus. If that was not the intention of your statement then your statement lacks any value in the debate.
Have you read Thukydides? Several times Sparta made peace overtures to Athens on various terms, and several times the citizen assembly rejected them. The Athenian democracy had been more willing to prolong war even when their fortunes were low because of the personal investment the people had in their institutions.

Stop hailing Sparta, please.
Their whole culture built on power, war and obedience/discipline.
It was a military culture in its core, it was racist and it was hereditary.

Sparta was also responsible for starting the war.





And Rome was a totalitarian empire which was lucky to have caring emperors that at times listened to the senate and the people but at other times were brutal, totalitarian and viscious, especially towards non-roman citizens.

Stop hailing Sparta, please.
I am not "hailing" Sparta. Stop making strawmen out of my statements, please.
Their whole culture built on power, war and obedience/discipline.
It was a military culture in its core, it was racist and it was hereditary.
Yes, and? Never said it wasn't. That is different from a military junta. Well, except for the "hereditary" part. The gerousia and the ephoroi were definitely elected officials.
Sparta was also responsible for starting the war.
The commencement of hostilities was a consensual act. Had Perikles withdrawn the Megarian Decree there would have been no war.
And Rome was a totalitarian empire
You don't know what the word totalitarian means, nor how it is impossible to apply it to any premodern society.
which was lucky to have caring emperors that at times listened to the senate and the people but at other times were brutal, totalitarian and viscious, especially towards non-roman citizens.
I don't know where you're getting the "non-Roman citizens" bit, and I wholly agree that Rome was lucky in getting some good emperors and unlucky when it got bad ones. But the "bad" ones are often misrepresented, and were generally not totally autocratic. Attempts at autocracy were generally met with revolt and removal.

The Roman Empire was first a Monarchy, then a republic then a totalitarian monarchy in which the "dictator" was selected for life and ruled with an iron fist. Stop spreading disinformation.

The princeps did end the republic when they took the power to appoint magistrates, but he was just continuing Sullas' work anyway, taking from the senate what had been taken from the comitia. The passage from Republic to Empire was not a break but a gradual evolution. While constitutionally the emperor might well seem an absolute monarch his rule was tenuous all across the empire - most cities had a large degree of independence, the bureaucracy depended on local oligarchs.

Sparta was not a democracy, it was a military junta. A good/just one, but still a military junta.

No, it was somewhat "democratic", but the citizens who had a voice on politics were few (a few thousands, at some points perhaps only hundreds), and property mattered - I'd call it also an oligarchy. As for justice, I guess that opinions would vary, between citizens and servants/slaves... not that democratic Athens didn't had those too!

The Roman Empire was probably more of a "military junta" than Sparta ever was. Most emperors either were generals or depended on the support of important generals. Control over the professional army of the empire was the main support for the emperor's power. An emperor who lost the support of the army was finished - the first one to commit suicide, Nero, did it when he believed he had lost that support (a pity he didn't wait some time...).

@D~
The Roman People were at the mercy of their dictators and had to revolt to even have a chance to get them out of office. And you claim that this system of dictatorship and rebellion was to prefer over a republic?

At least in the republic they could get rid of the bad dictator or through changing the senate get different things done. Also back then the dictator or president in modern terms would just sit for a maximum of 6 months, the emperor sat for lifetime and had more influence.



(a pity he didn't wait some time...).

Are you kidding me? Wasn't Nero the madman?

The Roman People were at the mercy of their dictators and had to revolt to even have a chance to get them out of office. And you claim that this system of dictatorship and rebellion was to prefer over a republic?
You're throwing these strawmen all over the place. I said that there were pluses and minuses to having an empire as opposed to a republic, and that one of the pluses was the end of factional strife. If you were the average Italian during the last hundred years of the republic, you would have wanted to be in a peaceful Empire too.
Are you kidding me? Wasn't Nero the madman?
Nero was not insane.

Oh common...Nero was like ultra-authoritarian and is suspected of burning down his own city.

Oh common...
I think that both Nero and I, while dissimilar in most ways, are not common by any stretch of the imagination.
Nero was like ultra-authoritarian
He was not authoritarian. Kindly provide evidence for these policies.
and is suspected of burning down his own city.
And most sane, well-respected historians don't believe that that particular rumor has so much as a grain of truth. Read Tacitus pls.

HE WAS NOT AUTHORITARIAN?!


I'm not even going to debate this with you.
I'd rather have Mussolini than him. :eek:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Great_Fire_of_Rome


CTRL+F

= Tyrant
= Power
= Murder


Try that :)

HE WAS NOT AUTHORITARIAN?!


I'm not even going to debate this with you.
Because you'd lose?
I'd rather have Mussolini than him. :eek:
Meh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Great_Fire_of_Rome


CTRL+F

= Tyrant
= Power
= Murder


Try that :)
:lol: It's funny that you're being condescending to me. Did you even read the article? Have you any clue as to how serious historians generally disregard the sensational aspects of Suetonius' (and Dio's, but to a lesser extent) history, and why in this case Tacitus' version is generally accepted? Did you note the part about how Nero actually rushed over from his Antium villa and organized a relief effort for the poor (the poor of Rome actually being very well off under him, due to his battles with the Senate and privileged aristocrats over urban poor welfare measures)?

Meh.
You're obviously far more knowledgable than me in these matters but that does not stop me from disagreeing with you.

I commented on how a democratic ancient world would've been better than the authoritarians winning. You claim there are problems with the democratic system and cite isolated cases without providing background information to why they happend. (The early social revolts in the Republic and the War that i still firmly hold to be Spartas fault + the deep rift between the militaristic, roaylist Spartian society and the freer, philosophical democracy of Athens).

You claim Nero not to be authoritarian despite the fact that he was.
I should indeed read more, perhaps he was a good emperor. I am not familiar with all the things he's done for the poor and underprivileged.
But the many rumours surrounding him and the horrible facts that haunt his history such as the murder of relatives are definetly to be taken as a sign of at least a limited insanity of some form or at the very least as a reflection of his extravaganza.

Meh.
You're obviously far more knowledgable than me in these matters but that does not stop me from disagreeing with you.
That's a good thing. Question historical authority, it's fun.
I commented on how a democratic ancient world would've been better than the authoritarians winning. You claim there are problems with the democratic system and cite isolated cases without providing background information to why they happend. (The early social revolts in the Republic and the War that i still firmly hold to be Spartas fault + the deep rift between the militaristic, roaylist Spartian society and the freer, philosophical democracy of Athens).
Freer being a rather important word, there. Athens had an empire; a loose empire, admittedly, but an empire all the same, in which political, economic, foreign policy, and military decisions of the members were subordinated to those of Attika. They permitted slavery. They were engaging in economic imperialism at the time of the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (the aforementioned Megarian Decree) and actively attempting to subvert the treaty-defined power blocs of Greece (the Korkyraian crisis). Athens was not blameless in the war by any stretch of the imagination, anyway. That does not mean that I personally hold Sparta to be totally blameless or that I think that their society was particularly good, much less "superior" to that of the Athenians. But attempting to whitewash the events of the war, to claim that the Athenians did no wrong, is intellectually lazy. There are two sides to every coin, after all.

Too, I would avoid referring to the oligarchies that dominated Greece after the fall of the Athenian empire as totalitarian or authoritarian universally. Some were; the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, for example, at Athens was a despicable system, arbitrary and invasive, and I personally applaud Thrasyboulos' revolution against it (I also like Thrasyboulos for being a totally wicked badass general). But many weren't, and there is a clear reason why so many enjoyed popular support in their particular cities. It can be somewhat similar to many of the tyrannoi of early classical Greece; many were bad, but some were pretty good, and Athens would certainly be the worse for not having had Peisistratos.
You claim Nero not to be authoritarian despite the fact that he was.
But he wasn't. Most of his reign involved a quasipopulistic fight against aristocratic privilege, which is why he got such a bad rap in Suetonius.
But the many rumours surrounding him and the horrible facts that haunt his history such as the murder of relatives are definetly to be taken as a sign of at least a limited insanity of some form or at the very least as a reflection of his extravaganza.
Yeah, even I won't claim that he didn't do some stuff badly. Certainly his personal life was pretty screwed up. But if two pseudo-Nero pretenders arose in the East with popular support after his death, there has to be at least something good about the man. At any rate, I think that he was a much more complex figure than the one-sided "pyromaniac lunatic murdering deluded charioteering fatso" that one might think of when reading Suetonius.

Oh common. The Thirty Tyrants were imposed by Sparta after the defeat of Athens in the war we are discussing and later overthrown!

Common.....stop filling your otherwise extremely informative and well written posts with bull please?

Infraction for flaming. - KD

Oh about the Athenian democracy. It was young. I said in my first post it was imperfect. I would have liked it to develope.


About Nero.
You can be populist and authoritarian to.
This because the senate in fact was not democratic but racist and oligarchic in its nature. O_o

complicated stuff here.

Oh common. The Thirty Tyrants were imposed by Sparta after the defeat of Athens in the war we are discussing and later overthrown!
...yes, which is why I used them as an example of bad dudes. There were pretty good dudes around too.
Common.....stop filling your otherwise extremely informative and well written posts with . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....please?
But that part is the most fun. :p

...yes, which is why I used them as an example of bad dudes. There were pretty good dudes around too.

But that part is the most fun. :p

Obviously those dudes don't count as they were not elected freely and thus were not part of the Athenian democracy at all. :sad:

this discussion has been comfortably surreal so far.

Dachs-driven pwnership threads tend to be like that.

Most epic screwup in history? I'd have to say this discussion here might qualify.

Regardless of whether he trained his crews in gunnery on the Atlantic jaunt though it still wouldn't have made up for their inefficiencies in operating the other parts of the ship, and that's just as imortant.

Some things to add to this point.

Of Officers and Men:

The French Revolution had gutted the French navy and swept away most of its competent admirals, many of its officers had been driven out and it had been left to rot in port for years. To boot the French naval gunnery corp which was associated with the crown was particularly hard hit. The navy was a shadow of what it had been pre-revolution.

Villeneuve also had the absolute dregs of France to crew his vessels, he ended up with criminals, invalids and generally terrible sailors. Why? Because the Grand Armee had already swept up all the decent men and most of the decent sailors had sought more fertile ground after not being paid for long periods during the revolution. The Spanish were in an even worse situation with regards to their crews, which was nothing new because they had always traditionally had poor crews.

Of the skill of French and Spanish Gunnery:

As a general point about French gunnery it must be remembered that the French heavily emphasized chain shot, range and accuracy vs. the British preponderance towards solid shot, close range and rapid fire. This showed in Trafalgar, the French could not make use of their advantage in range fire. The Spanish were also completely inept with their cannon even if they did have good ships the Santasima Trinidad comes to mind.

In any case you don't achieve much more with gunnery practice with gunpowder to be honest when your dealing with such a weak core to start with. Assuming you had the experienced gunnery officers and enough trained gunnery crews to start with your still going to have problems training them up sufficiently in the given time not to match the English. Besides the majority of training for a gun crew was mock loading without actual gunpowder, you went through the motions endlessly, simply because gunpowder was so darn dangerous.

Conclusion:

In any case it still wouldn't have mattered it would have been a drubbing whatever happened. You can't expect anyone to extricate themselves from having their line cut, with their van ditching them - good job Dumanoir - with the bit which only overshot later in the day forced to turn around and spend most of the rest of the day tacking aroundand only just managing themselves to get away - don't forget that the van itself was a significant slug of the combined fleets.

The French and Spanish preformed quite admirably with a great deal of individual bravery and the fate of the Santasima Trinidad and the Redoutable for their respective more than illustrates that. It's also important I think to remember that the first ship and second ships of the British line the Royal Sovereign and Belleisle were minimum forty five minutes ahead of the rest of the line and only a kilometer ahead of their fellows.

Agreed and good additional points.

Obviously those dudes don't count as they were not elected freely and thus were not part of the Athenian democracy at all. :sad:
He was referring to all the 'good' tyrants out there. And there were many. Tyrant simply means one who gains power through unconventional means, there's nothing perjorative about it, though it has come to be seen that way. Probably due to the fact that those "unconventional means" usually involved betrayal and murder. But this was not always the case. The legendary Oedipus was a tyrant, for example, and he became king by slaying a monster - the Sphinx - that was terrorising Thebes.

As for the rest of your comments, well, Dachs has quite thoroughly schooled you, and it was great to watch. And please stop saying "common." It's "come on," or "c'mon." Or, if you're Joe Pesci, "C'maaaaaaaaarn." One must also beckon a person with their fingertips, preferably while brandishing a switchblade, for that last one.

The Athenians had lost the war with their fiasco in Sicily, if I recall correctly. They still managed to drag out the conflict for years afterwards...but losing that many troops and ships to a single Spartan general with Sicilian troops...embarassing, no? Don Kagan's book was quite good --that was my intro to the period.

I remember Nero being more concerned with poetry and music than anything else. He participated in the Greek poetry and theatre competitions, again if I recall correctly, and the Greeks lauded him, and they built statues of Nero and littered them around Greece. Earlier posters may be thinking of Caligula, who became cruel, paranoid, and perverse by the end of his short reign. Or any number of later dictators like Commodus, of which little good can be said.

The thing is, monarchies are "official"--as in, the hereditary head of state is officially recognized as the head of the government. Although Augustus is often recognized as Rome's first emperor, he never held the official title. He was "just" a senator, and everybody obeyed him. Same thing during Rome's Golden Age (5 Good Emperors). I can recall very few occasions when the Roman people rose against a dictator...maybe Maxentius in the Imperial Crisis period counts. I remember several engagements between generals trying to take the empire after the last military dictator died.


EDIT: How dare I forget the original reason why I posted? One of my friends from my undergrad days called Sparta the North Korea of its day...basket case economy, huge army...it's not a perfect analogy, but it's still funny.

The Athenians had lost the war with their fiasco in Sicily, if I recall correctly. They still managed to drag out the conflict for years afterwards...but losing that many troops and ships to a single Spartan general with Sicilian troops...embarassing, no?
Embarrassing, yeah. But even if he ultimately was the reason for the failure of the expedition, Nikias was right: there really was no gain to be had from conquering Syrakousai. It was populous, and far away, and therefore difficult to control. Judging from the inability of the Karchedonians to hold the city against Timoleon, the Athenians, even had their conquered the place, would have lost it relatively quickly, and gained nothing with which to tip the balance in the Aigion. So yes: quite an epic screwup, from start to finish, which even when it was going well would have been a disaster in the end. I feel kinda bad that Lamachos and Demosthenes had to get themselves dragged into the whole fiasco, they were both quite able leaders. Would've been nice to have Demosthenes in particular around later...he and Thrasyboulos would've made a fantastic team.

But if you want to find the actual turning point of the war, I usually go for Mantineia in 418 BC(E).
Don Kagan's book was quite good --that was my intro to the period.
Yeah, I liked it too. Since I didn't have a copy of the Hellenika for the longest time, it was pretty handy for the latter part of the war, which ultimately interests me the most.
I remember Nero being more concerned with poetry and music than anything else. He participated in the Greek poetry and theatre competitions, again if I recall correctly, and the Greeks lauded him, and they built statues of Nero and littered them around Greece.
He did some other minor stuff too, like carry out a legislative war with the Senate over the urban poor, and have a little tea party with the Parthian army. ;)
EDIT: How dare I forget the original reason why I posted? One of my friends from my undergrad days called Sparta the North Korea of its day...basket case economy, huge army...it's not a perfect analogy, but it's still funny.
It's not half-bad, except the Spartan economy wasn't that terrible until they lost the battles of Leuktra and Mantineia (the other Mantineia), while their army was a lot higher quality and comparatively smaller than the North Koreans. I'd liken it more to the rebellious states during the American Civil War (down to the slave economy :p), though the analogy breaks down quite a bit there too. But yeah, Sparta: not a way to run a country. Don't do it, kids.

What I found interesting was the Spartan demographics: their population shrunk since they instituted the Lycurgan system.

Their 100%-male-citizen-in-army policy led to their troops being in barracks rather than with women during their prime years. Their phalanx shrank from 10,000 in the 5th century to only 700 when the Romans came through. Calling it a slave economy isn't far from the truth--didn't they declare war on their helot slaves every year, beat them, and have their teenagers spy on them and kill them if they so chose?

There's just nothing close to the level of brutal awesomeness of Sparta around these days. Probably because the system was so utterly self-destructive. :)

What I found interesting was the Spartan demographics: their population shrunk since they instituted the Lycurgan system.
Yep, which is why this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=306947) happened. :p
Calling it a slave economy isn't far from the truth--didn't they declare war on their helot slaves every year, beat them, and have their teenagers spy on them and kill them if they so chose?
Bit of a simplification of the krypteia system, but yeah, something like that.
There's just nothing close to the level of brutal awesomeness of Sparta around these days. Probably because the system was so utterly self-destructive. :)
I myself range towards the ambivalent to disgusted view of Spartan history. :dunno:

He was referring to all the 'good' tyrants out there. And there were many. Tyrant simply means one who gains power through unconventional means, there's nothing perjorative about it, though it has come to be seen that way. Probably due to the fact that those "unconventional means" usually involved betrayal and murder. But this was not always the case. The legendary Oedipus was a tyrant, for example, and he became king by slaying a monster - the Sphinx - that was terrorising Thebes.

As for the rest of your comments, well, Dachs has quite thoroughly schooled you, and it was great to watch. And please stop saying "common." It's "come on," or "c'mon." Or, if you're Joe Pesci, "C'maaaaaaaaarn." One must also beckon a person with their fingertips, preferably while brandishing a switchblade, for that last one.

No he hasn't.
And no, he was speaking of a specific group called "the thirty tyrants" which were all evil bastards put there by Sparta against whom the population revolted. So they can't be counted, feel free to give examples of other tyrants in Athenian democracy. Now go and do something I can't write here.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

And no, he was speaking of a specific group called "the thirty tyrants" which were all evil bastards put there by Sparta against whom the population revolted.
I was giving them as an example of bad tyrants, dude. Learn how to read in the English language, it's helpful. I even clarified that I was using them as examples of such, and you conveniently ignored me.

Infraction for flaming. No personal attk, pls. - KD

So they can't be counted, feel free to give examples of other tyrants in Athenian democracy.
Easy: Peisistratos, who was already mentioned. I win. I got another one: Demetrios Phalereus. And those are just Athenian good tyrannoi...

That Demetrius of Phaleron is considered a good tyrannoi should be a measure of how futile your position is, Ondskan.

That Demetrius of Phaleron is considered a good tyrannoi should be a measure of how futile your position is, Ondskan.
Well, he wasn't all that bad. I think that the sumptuary laws are balanced by the legal reforms, which were mostly positive. Green, IMHO, has a bit of a bone to pick with Demetrios, and doesn't show much of the good side of him, while constantly harping on the fact that his reforms were motivated by his philosophical background and painting him as nothing better than a puppet of Kassandros (if Green has any faults, they are ideological ones...). Probably was a bit of hyperbole to call him good, but he certainly can't be called bad.

I myself range towards the ambivalent to disgusted view of Spartan history. :dunno:

I figured I would get a "stop hailing Sparta!" post. :)

Well, he wasn't all that bad. I think that the sumptuary laws are balanced by the legal reforms, which were mostly positive. Green, IMHO, has a bit of a bone to pick with Demetrios, and doesn't show much of the good side of him, while constantly harping on the fact that his reforms were motivated by his philosophical background and painting him as nothing better than a puppet of Kassandros (if Green has any faults, they are ideological ones...). Probably was a bit of hyperbole to call him good, but he certainly can't be called bad.

Yeah, that and the whole "butchering everyone I don't agree with" deal, but then that's rather par for the course in Athens, even during the Democracy.

Yeah, that and the whole "butchering everyone I don't agree with" deal, but then that's rather par for the course in Athens, even during the Democracy.
Exactly. Context, context. :p

I was giving them as an example of bad tyrants, dude. Learn how to read in the English language, it's helpful. I even clarified that I was using them as examples of such, and you conveniently ignored me.


Why the hell do you write so many stupid things among the your otherwise great posts. Your example was of no importance, it had no value, it was like a light breeze trying to propell a modern destroyer.

Warning for flaming. - KD

If it was the spartans that put the dictators called "the thirty tyrants" there and did so not through democratic process but through force then how is that in any way relevant to the debate we were having about Athenian DEMOCRACY? And how are they examples of athenian leaders who were bad as the athenians had nothing to do in their leader election. There were no examples of what we were discussing.

:crazyeye:

Your other example is also formed of peopel who more or less overthrew the Athenian democracy. As such they cannot be counter to the democracy. Neither in positive nor negative regard and as such shouldn't even have been mentioned in the discussion.


Then again it can be interesting and fun to add cool facts surrounding the Greek peninsula overall. If that was the intention then I beg my pardon. But if the intention was to use them as an argument against the Athenian democracy then that does not make sense and is a logical fallacy.

Why the hell do you write so many stupid things among the your otherwise great posts. Your example was of no importance, it had no value, it was like a light breeze trying to propell a modern destroyer.

If it was the spartans that put the dictators called "the thirty tyrants" there and did so not through democratic process but through force then how is that in any way relevant to the debate we were having about Athenian DEMOCRACY? And how are they examples of athenian leaders who were bad as the athenians had nothing to do in their leader election. There were no examples of what we were discussing.

:crazyeye:

Your other example is also formed of peopel who more or less overthrew the Athenian democracy. As such they cannot be counter to the democracy. Neither in positive nor negative regard and as such shouldn't even have been mentioned in the discussion.


Then again it can be interesting and fun to add cool facts surrounding the Greek peninsula overall. If that was the intention then I beg my pardon. But if the intention was to use them as an argument against the Athenian democracy then that does not make sense and is a logical fallacy.

this post didn't make any sense. This must be a fallacy.

this post didn't make any sense. This must be a fallacy.

also he spelled 'people' wrong, so his entire post is more meaningless than it already was. ;)

also he spelled 'people' wrong, so his entire post is more meaningless than it already was. ;)

Ever heard of a typo jackass?
Right, I'll explain it in a way even you lesser beings can understand.
Is Franco an authoritarian and quite brutal example of Spanish democracy?

Infraction for name-calling and flaming. - KD

Ever heard of a typo jackass?
Right, I'll explain it in a way even you lesser beings can understand.
Is Franco an authoritarian and quite brutal example of Spanish democracy?

dear, before you even try and make a point, make sure what your point is, and that you take up a basic course in linguistics, before making one.

No personal attk pls. - KD

for example: did you know that revolution was used for centuries without having the meaning it has today? try looking it up, in an historic dictionary.

now, try looking up dictator, read the entry, re-read yours and Dachs posts, and post a small apology. :)

dear, before you even try and make a point, make sure what your point is, and that you take up a basic course in linguistics, before making one.

for example: did you know that revolution was used for centuries without having the meaning it has today? try looking it up, in an historic dictionary.

now, try looking up dictator, read the entry, re-read yours and Dachs posts, and post a small apology. :)

Alright, explain to the unenlightened what the hell revolution now has to do with anything?

Alright, explain to the unenlightened what the hell revolution now has to do with anything?

I was referring to etymology and i gave an example. I don't think my last post was that hard to understand.

Locked.

This thread is not worth moderating anymore.