How many generals or political leaders are renowned despite losing the battles and wars they were in? I could think of three: Hannibal, Robert E. Lee and Erwin Rommel. Are there any more?

attila the hun, for starters, napoleon (twice), and dozens more.

Yuan Shikai, and Chaing Kai Shek

Yuan Shikai, and Chaing Kai Shek

What is so admirable Yuan Shikai? Chiang also won battles. The battles he lost were totally due to his own incompetence, unlike a Hannibal or Napoleon.

How many generals or political leaders are renowned despite losing the battles and wars they were in? I could think of three: Hannibal, Robert E. Lee and Erwin Rommel. Are there any more?

I don't like it when people praise Lee or Rommel. Their defenders note that Lee was an abolitionist and Rommel refused to savagely kill people as Germany was doing everywhere else, but neither of those points would have mattered had the side they were fighting for won the war. That being said, I do think Lee was a brilliant general.

John Quincy Adams is only known for swindling the presidency from Andrew Jackson, but he was humane to Native Americans, an abolitionist (see: the Amistad case) and he opened up treaties with all of central Europe. He was an excellent president that was ahead of his time.

Pyrrhus of Epirus, for the same thing Hannibal is known for.

Claude de Villars was a brilliant general, who gave the Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy a run for their money. Though France lost the War of Spanish Succession in the end. (And don't bring up how the Bourbons stayed in control of Spain; the objective of the war for France wasn't accomplished, and they end the war in a terrible economic situation.)

The only thing Harold Godwinson is known for is the Battle of Hasting these days, but he was also facing a war with Norwegians at the time. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was an impressive victory, as well, so he wasn't some incompetent nut.

Cato Minor was an incorruptible senator and philosopher that opposed Julius Caesar, but he simply did not have enough experience in battle so he lost the war. His name is still synonymous with honest politicians.

The only thing Harold Godwinson is known for is the Battle of Hasting these days, but he was also facing a war with Norwegians at the time. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was an impressive victory, as well, so he wasn't some incompetent nut.

As I understand it he had a pretty good record prior to 1066 as well against the Welsh for example.

I don't like it when people praise Lee or Rommel. Their defenders note that Lee was an abolitionist and Rommel refused to savagely kill people as Germany was doing everywhere else, but neither of those points would have mattered had the side they were fighting for won the war. That being said, I do think Lee was a brilliant general.

I don't think Lee could be considered an abolitionist. He might have thought slavery was morally evil but he didn't believe in direct action to bring it to a swift end. Lets not forget after all that it was Lee who was assigned to deal with the militant abolitionist John Brown.

Now he did use his position to argue for slaves to be used in the CSA armies and if they gave good service they'd receive manumission but this was in the twilight of the war when Lee was desperate for men. In the end it made no difference since there was no time to put the plan into action, and anyway Lee's problem wasn't just lack of men but keeping the men he had fed.

Cato Minor was an incorruptible senator and philosopher that opposed Julius Caesar, but he simply did not have enough experience in battle so he lost the war. His name is still synonymous with honest politicians.

And among the generals in that civil war I'd like to add Pompey, who was no incompetent. He just had the bad fortune of being surrounded by idiots (including a certain Cato ;)) who pushed him into starting a battle.

John Brown could be considered an admirable loser. Sure, he was a major contributing factor towards the US Civil War, but he died due to doing something that he thought was right, and was a hero to the North.

Romanos IV Diogenes, Eumenes of Kardia, Carl XII (of Sweden), Antiochos III, Demetrios I Aniketos, and Ulrich von Jungingen for starters. But the quintessential admirable loser is Nikephoros II Phokas, Roman Emperor, who was a brilliant general and a extraordinarily pious man, and who was called the 'White Death of the Saracens'; he was assassinated by his wife and her lover (another great general-emperor, Ioann I Tzimiskes). His epitaph reads "You conquered all but a woman!"
Claude de Villars was a brilliant general, who gave the Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy a run for their money. Though France lost the War of Spanish Succession in the end.
He won Denain, dude.
(And don't bring up how the Bourbons stayed in control of Spain; the objective of the war for France wasn't accomplished, and they end the war in a terrible economic situation.)
Uh...what do you think was the French objective in the War of the Spanish Succession? Louis didn't really even want the war; the alternative was to let Austria and the Maritime Powers secure, for free and at great cost in French prestige, a iron-tight position around France. They didn't get that because of the war.
Cato Minor was an incorruptible senator and philosopher that opposed Julius Caesar, but he simply did not have enough experience in battle so he lost the war. His name is still synonymous with honest politicians.
Cato was incorruptible when it served his purposes. He wasn't all perfect, sweetness, and light.
And among the generals in that civil war I'd like to add Pompey, who was no incompetent. He just had the bad fortune of being surrounded by idiots (including a certain Cato ;)) who pushed him into starting a battle.
Meh. Pompey was an organizer, not a tactician or strategist. He'd have done brilliantly on the German Greater General Staff but on the battlefield he was no great shakes. He also was brilliantly successful at taking credit for others' victories. :p

Isoroku Yamamoto, Xiang Yu, Heinz Guderian

Uh...what do you think was the French objective in the War of the Spanish Succession? Louis didn't really even want the war; the alternative was to let Austria and the Maritime Powers secure, for free and at great cost in French prestige, a iron-tight position around France. They didn't get that because of the war.

Spain gave up a large portion of their empire. France gave up several possessions in North America, most notably Newfoundland. I do admire Louis XIV for turning a disastrous war into only a minor defeat; but it was a defeat, nonetheless.

Spain gave up a large portion of their empire. France gave up several possessions in North America, most notably Newfoundland. I do admire Louis XIV for turning a disastrous war into only a minor defeat; but it was a defeat, nonetheless.
North America was a sideshow. :p Yes, the English gained a good deal of relatively useless territory in the Americas (useless as far as the French deemed it, anyway; Newfoundland was only a nominal part of their empire at best, and Acadia, though more valuable, was still not a huge loss), and secured the asiento, but the situation France faced in Europe had been fundamentally changed. Before 1701, France had enemies on all sides, including Spain; afterwards, it had a friendly neighbor to the south (the Bourbon Family Compact would be the bane of British sea strategy for the next hundred years, albeit with a few major defeats...France+Spain was a still formidable combination), easy pickings to the north, and retention of all earlier conquests. This was key: Louis fought to keep what he had, and he did, plus major geopolitical boni in the form of Spain and of the Austrian acquisition of the Netherlands (which would thereafter be relatively easy for French armies to overrun...look at the War of the Austrian Succession for example). Couched in those terms, the war wasn't really a defeat, but at worst a draw.

Austrian acquisition of the Netherlands (which would thereafter be relatively easy for French armies to overrun...look at the War of the Austrian Succession for example).
small detail here, it's the southern netherlands, and Joseph II couldn't keep it, his reform politics (up to how long the candles should be in church) were met with much scrutiny and finally, sparked a "conservative" revolt which resulted in the "united states of Belgium" in 1790. Although, Leopold II recaptured the lands in december 1790, it still sparked the idea for an nationstate for the southern netherlands.

small detail here, it's the southern netherlands, and Joseph II couldn't keep it, his reform politics (up to how long the candles should be in church) were met with much scrutiny and finally, sparked a "conservative" revolt which resulted in the "united states of Belgium" in 1790. Although, Leopold II recaptured the lands in december 1790, it still sparked the idea for an nationstate for the southern netherlands.
Yes, the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands/most of modern Belgium. Should've remembered to make that clearer. :p But yeah: the Austrians sucked at holding onto the territory, which was a perfect solution as far as France was concerned.

Tadeusz Kosciuszko is one, not for his American campaign but for his one in Poland.

Erich von Manstein, Douglas MacArthur (Philippines), and various others I have forgotten.

I'd say the entire western military tradition is based on the notion of admirable losers. Or rather on the notion that win or lose, a military man must remanin a man of honour, and should be recognised as such by the victor. It's a recognition of the uncertain vagaries of war, whereby equally worthy men will find themselves on different sides, and one of them will invariably end up on the losing side no fault or moral failure of his own.

Other times and parts of the world have developed theories of war rather based on the idea that losers are by definition morally inferior, that martial success is a good gauge of moral worth/righteousness etc.

Chaing Kai Shek

I would disagree, his poor policies, corruption, and authoritarianism was the reason he lost the Chinese Civil War, although compared to what Mao did later, those policies did not appear as bad. His rule in Taiwan was also authoritarian. He did learn from his mistakes on the mainland though. I guess thinking about it, he does have two things to admire about him: he learned from his mistakes and he was not Mao.

North America was a sideshow. :p

Come on, now. He gave up basically all of Canada. That was about half of their colonial possessions at the time.

Before 1701, France had enemies on all sides, including Spain; afterwards, it had a friendly neighbor to the south (the Bourbon Family Compact would be the bane of British sea strategy for the next hundred years, albeit with a few major defeats...France+Spain was a still formidable combination), easy pickings to the north, and retention of all earlier conquests. This was key: Louis fought to keep what he had, and he did, plus major geopolitical boni in the form of Spain and of the Austrian acquisition of the Netherlands (which would thereafter be relatively easy for French armies to overrun...look at the War of the Austrian Succession for example). Couched in those terms, the war wasn't really a defeat, but at worst a draw.

I'll accept calling it a draw, but the war was basically a disaster to Spain. Spain, comparatively, as much in the War of Spanish Succession as France lost in the Seven Years' War.

Come on, now. He gave up basically all of Canada. That was about half of their colonial possessions at the time.
No, he didn't. He gave up tenuous claims to Newfoundland, and Acadia. The former was relatively insignificant, and the latter, although somewhat important, was by no means "basically all of Canada". They still retained Quebec, for example. And there were still Caribbean and Indian territories to worry about.
I'll accept calling it a draw, but the war was basically a disaster to Spain. Spain, comparatively, as much in the War of Spanish Succession as France lost in the Seven Years' War.
Okay, sure. No disagreement there on the condition of Spain. And that has what do to with de Villars' victories rescuing France from a major defeat? Look at the difference between the Preliminary Articles and the peace that the Allies agreed to after Denain.

Erich von Manstein

I think it depends on your definition of "losing" a battle. Much of the second half of the war, Manstein was conducting (or at least trying to) an elastic defense, which involves by nature giving ground and withdrawing. The only real battle I can think of him losing outright was Kursk, even though his individual units performed better than expected. He was also not the supreme commander at Kursk, either.

John Brown could be considered an admirable loser. Sure, he was a major contributing factor towards the US Civil War, but he died due to doing something that he thought was right, and was a hero to the North.
I believe a certain US president called the man " a misguided fanatic"...

I believe a certain US president called the man " a misguided fanatic"...

Nevertheless, the Union still sang 'John Brown's Body', which includes the verse:

John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save;
Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.

I've always wondered how, with 20 kids, he managed to find time to do any 'revolutioning'.

He was also a cold blooded murderer but to each his own I guess.

Constantine XI; a tragic hero. :(

He was also a cold blooded murderer but to each his own I guess.

Killing people taking part in an abomination and a crime against humanity is fully justified. John Brown is a hero a martyr and a freedom fighter.

Killing people taking part in an abomination and a crime against humanity is fully justified. John Brown is a hero a martyr and a freedom fighter.

The first person his raiders killed at Harper's Ferry was a free black man. I wonder how many slaves that guy owned? James P. Doyle and his two sons who Brown and his fellow religious wackos kidnapped and subsequently hacked to death didn't own slaves either.

The first person his raiders killed at Harper's Ferry was a free black man. I wonder how many slaves that guy owned? James P. Doyle and his two sons who Brown and his fellow religious wackos kidnapped and subsequently hacked to death didn't own slaves either.

All Southerners were fair game. They supported directly or indirectly the institution of slavery and allowed it to persist. Some must die to destroy a greater evil. And I'm not a person who uses the word evil lightly.

All Southerners were fair game. They supported directly or indirectly the institution of slavery and allowed it to persist.

I suppose that includes President Lincoln and his vice president both being Southerners and all.:)

Calling Lincoln a Southerner is pushing it at best. Kentucky isn't really even in the South.

Calling Lincoln a Southerner is pushing it at best. Kentucky isn't really even in the South.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/South.JPG

Geographically debatable however KY (and West Virginia) is culturally southern. Historically, it was a slave owning state during and after the Civil War and provided dozens of regiments to the Confederate armies. I don't see how you could not view Kentucky as a part of the cultural south.

The only thing I can think of is that KY didn't succeed from the US and West Virgina literally succeeded from the Confederacy to form it's own state. But more to the point that not all southerners were pro-slavery or pro-succession despite what Silver believes.

Northern Virginia is culturally southern? :lol: Whoever made that map is using MS Paint out of his ass.

And how could I forget! The president of the Confederacy himself was also born in KY, barely 100 miles form Lincoln's birth place. Would it be a stretch to call Jefferson Davis a Southerner? I doubt it.

How is Virginia and Kentucky NOT part of the South? I thought everything below the Mason Dixon Line was part of the South.

Many Civil War personalities were born in one place and associated with another. Hood for example was another native of Kentucky but his name was always connected with Texas due to him leading the famous Texas Brigade, and if James E Kelly's memoirs are much of a guide quite a few Northern states tried to claim Sherman as one of its sons at some point.

The argument that Lincoln was a southerner is weak for a few reasons. First he hadn't lived in Kentucky since he was 7, as far as I know after that he lived in either Illinois or Indiana. Although he retained some ties to Kentucky, for example via his wife's family I don't think he spent any great length of time there or anywhere else in the south for the rest of his life. Just because a state is considered culturally one thing does not mean everyone born there automatically becomes aligned with that culture. Ultimately you have to consider how a historical person was percieved, both by themselves and the people alive at the time. I doubt that anyone North or South during the Civil War fought of him as southern, if you tried suggesting that in Richmond back then you'd be lucky if you were only laughed at.

Further Kentucky was hardly only south as you imply since more of its natives fought for the Union than the Confederacy (see link below) and even Magoffin and his supporters didn't feel enough sympathy for the cause to actually secede, perhaps recognising that the populace was deeply divided and trying to sit on the fence.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kylawren/LCM_CW_Re_KY.htm

None of this means by the way that I agree with the "shoot all southerners" argument. I don't hold much admiration for Brown, he may have had a good cause in abolitionism but his efforts on its behalf were ill thought out and caused nothing but trouble.

How is Virginia and Kentucky NOT part of the South? I thought everything below the Mason Dixon Line was part of the South.
Maryland is in the South too? :eek:

But more to the point that not all southerners were pro-slavery or pro-succession despite what Silver believes.

Does it matter? Do you shed a tear for all the poor Japanese and German civilians who died in carpet bombings of World War II? Sometimes colletral damage is necessary.

John Brown's intentions were good, and he was fully justified in taking action against what was a disgusting blight on the United States even at the time. He was one of the factors that sparked the civil war. That is not a bad thing. Indeed I say that is a good thing. If the civil war had been delayed longer or not happened at all who knows if the institution of slavery would have been annihilated. By martyring himself for his cause John Brown helped bring about its end, and for that should be admired and respected as a moral man, a hero, and a freedom fighter.

Maryland is in the South too? :eek:

Um yes? We were kept in the Union by occupation and illegal imprisonment. Many of the southern counties either actively or passively aided the Rebellion. One of the biggest reasons they put that huge POW camp at Point Lookout was to give a greater troop presence in St. Mary's County to keep the local populace from running arms and information across the river!

Even today, most of Maryland outside of the counties between DC and Baltimore are culturally Southern.

I thought it depended on which part of the state of Maryland was being discussed and that the people of Maryland like the other border states can't be simply lumped into one side or the other. Something like 60,000 Marylanders did serve in the Northern armies after all (more than twice the number serving in the Southern forces), and when Lee marched through the state in 1862 only a few hundred extra men flocked to the colours.

You know the biggest mistake that was made during the whole thing was the failure to adequately punish the South and not treating them like a defeated people. If we had done that successfully we wouldn't have all these Southern apologists today. The penalty for treason is death, the whole bunch of them should have been shot, hanged, imprisoned, and stripped of their voting rights particularly the generals, commanders, officers, and government officials, and state officials. Yeah that's right essentially a purge. That's how you deal with rebels and traitors.

The South should have then been kept under military occupation and Republican rule until the turn of the century. That would have stamped all the nonsense out of them. The failure to do this. Now that's the real tragedy. The Radical Republicans had the right idea. Too bad they couldn't fully implement their program. The US today would be a lot better place.

Does it matter? Do you shed a tear for all the poor Japanese and German civilians who died in carpet bombings of World War II? Sometimes colletral damage is necessary.

I can see why you're reluctant to use the word "evil" very much.

I can see why you're reluctant to use the word "evil" very much.

Greater evil > Lesser evil.

Fact is the ends do actually justify the means in some instances. Defeating the Nazi's and Japanese was very much worth the cost of the civilian casualness. Similarly destroying slavery was very much worth the cost of civilian lives.

In the end the world is better because of it. If John Brown hadn't martyred himself than Southern fear and Northern emotion wouldn't have been provoked sufficiently enough for the war to happen.

Fact is the ends do actually justify the means in some instances. Defeating the Nazi's and Japanese was very much worth the cost of the civilian casualness.
The firebombing of Dresden didn't do much, if anything, for the Allied war effort.

It's one thing to say that it was worth killing innocent people to prevent further deaths. That's a morally defensible position. It's quite another to say that they weren't worth shedding a tear over. That is not.

In the case of the US Civil War, saying it would have been justifiable to wipe out the entire population of the South, on the grounds that this would prevent later problems, goes beyond lunacy. You might as well say that killing everyone in the world would stop all wars.

In the case of the US Civil War, saying it would have been justifiable to wipe out the entire population of the South, on the grounds that this would prevent later problems, goes beyond lunacy. You might as well say that killing everyone in the world would stop all wars.

You misunderstand. I didn't suggest that the entire population of the South should be wiped out. He said that John Brown was a murder, and I said the the deaths of some innocent was worth the cause, and it could be further justified in that most were likely associated with slavery.

The firebombing of Dresden didn't do much, if anything, for the Allied war effort.

This:

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience.
—Letter, Sherman to Henry W. Halleck, December 24, 1864.[2]

Wonderful quote, relevant throughout history.

You must have meant something different by "the whole bunch of them" then.

You must have meant something different by "the whole bunch of them" then.

I thought I clarified:

The penalty for treason is death, the whole bunch of them should have been shot, hanged, imprisoned, and stripped of their voting rights particularly the generals, commanders, officers, and government officials, and state officials.

Douglas MacArthur (Philippines).

There is very little admirable about MacArthur. Being informed that the war had begun, he did nothing until the Philippines was attacked.

The firebombing of Dresden didn't do much, if anything, for the Allied war effort.

Neither did any of the firebombings, or even the nuking, of Japan.

To ostracise people, turn them into criminals and execute many of them for doing what they percieved to be their duty to their homeland is hardly any better than holding people in slavery. You may ask why and the answer is that if those men personally did no war crimes then they no more deserve to be executed than the average Wehrmacht officer. Executing officers for the crimes of their flawed state is frankly nuts. If you're going to execute officers for fighting for a country that permitted slavery you might as well go ahead and execute all the Northern officers too.

There were thousands of officers in the Confederate armed forces alone, I see no reason to believe that hanging every last one of them was likely to re-unite the country or bring about prosperity. The North is already accused of warcrimes for the likes of Sherman's march to the sea, one can only imagine what kind of bitterness would still bubble under the surface if those kind of plans had been carried out.

That's not to say that the reconstruction was handled particularly well however.

To ostracise people, turn them into criminals and execute many of them for doing what they percieved to be their duty to their homeland is hardly any better than holding people in slavery. You may ask why and the answer is that if those men personally did no war crimes then they no more deserve to be executed than the average Wehrmacht officer. Executing officers for the crimes of their flawed state is frankly nuts. If you're going to execute officers for fighting for a country that permitted slavery you might as well go ahead and execute all the Northern officers too.

There were thousands of officers in the Confederate armed forces alone, I see no reason to believe that hanging every last one of them was likely to re-unite the country or bring about prosperity. The North is already accused of warcrimes for the likes of Sherman's march to the sea, one can only imagine what kind of bitterness would still bubble under the surface if those kind of plans had been carried out.

That's not to say that the reconstruction was handled particularly well however.

Hey treason is treason:


Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.


The traitors were practically allowed to get off scot free not even Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee were punished in any serious manner.

Hey treason is treason:

Only if you loose, if you win you become freedom fighters or the "fathers of your nation". Its no coincidence that many southerners genuinely thought they were fighting their country's second revolution/war of independence.

Lee's father's generation had the right to break free from what they percieved as a foreign occupying power, set up their own government and fight to defend it, but if Lee and his generation did the same and lost they all deserve to be hung for having the temerity to try it? I don't think even George III would have been daft enough to suggest that had his ministers won the war Washington, all his officers, the entire continental congress and most colonial officials be shot.

The penalty for treason is death, the whole bunch of them should have been shot, hanged, imprisoned, and stripped of their voting rights particularly the generals, commanders, officers, and government officials, and state officials.

If one party in a war goes for the total annihilation of the leaders of the other party, and those happen to have strong political support, it'll either:

i) have to carry out a genocide;
ii) cause resistance to the death from everyone among their enemies, possibly getting bogged down and actually losing the war.

And no, not even the treacherous way of doing things would work. Or at least it tends to fail miserably: negotiate a peace treaty, then capture and execute all the enemy leaders. Inevitably someone escapes and starts another war, ending with at least the massacre of a large part of the population. Usual pattern in ancient warfare, especially by those lovable guys, the romans.

Fortunately most of the world is more civilized - smarter and more reasonable - now. As for those who are not... see Hitler vs. Stalin.
Still, I'm noticing a disturbing trend among indians on CFC to be homicidal maniacs. Oh, and a czech too... :rolleyes:

On, and on Dresden, even Churchill (he of the chemical weapons against "natives") was embarrassed and admitted that it was an unnecessary act of terrorism.

And no, not even the treacherous way of doing things would work. Or at least it tends to fail miserably: negotiate a peace treaty, then capture and execute all the enemy leaders. Inevitably someone escapes and starts another war, ending with at least the massacre of a large part of the population. Usual pattern in ancient warfare, especially by those lovable guys, the romans.
That actually worked pretty well for the Romans on many an occasion, for example the episode of the Saxons in 370. It's just that the successes don't get publicized as well as the failures. :p Ammianus, after recording that particular incident, though, goes on to say that the only reason that such an atrocity was permissible was because they were barbarians that were being slaughtered and thus not subject to having the same rights as "civilized" persons. Obviously this excuse was not valid then, nor is it now, and as such I should hope that it wouldn't be seriously suggested.

That actually worked pretty well for the Romans on many an occasion, for example the episode of the Saxons in 370. It's just that the successes don't get publicized as well as the failures. :p Ammianus, after recording that particular incident, though, goes on to say that the only reason that such an atrocity was permissible was because they were barbarians that were being slaughtered and thus not subject to having the same rights as "civilized" persons. Obviously this excuse was not valid then, nor is it now, and as such I should hope that it wouldn't be seriously suggested.

Yes, the romans did manage to do that successfully, but that was because they just didn't gave up, even after some greedy praetor got too greedy, caused a rebellion, screwed up, and got massacred with an army!
Really, I can't think of any other ancient empire to suffer so many defeats and still manage to will almost all of its wars. Tenacious bastards! :p

I had a history professor who tried to attribute that quality to their love for Stoicism. Unless my understand of that philosophy is horribly wrong, and I don't think that it is, that's a bit of a stretch.

Yes, the romans did manage to do that successfully, but that was because they just didn't gave up, even after some greedy praetor got too greedy, caused a rebellion, screwed up, and got massacred with an army!
I think we're thinking of different incidents?
Really, I can't think of any other ancient empire to suffer so many defeats and still manage to will almost all of its wars. Tenacious bastards! :p
In one sense, yes. But in another, I think the Roman ability to win wars hinged on its truly vast manpower pool...and when that came into crisis, truly bad stuff could happen...

The traitors were practically allowed to get off scot free not even Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee were punished in any serious manner.

Well, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Adams etc. got off scot free, in fact are lauded as heroes, but since "treason is treason"....

I don't know the constitution, but your quote isn't quite accurate since each state seceeded from the Union, and therefore weren't states (though I am not sure of the order in which things occur). And this is in a country created on the basis of self-determination and through rebellion less than 100 years prior.

I believe that there is no morally justified reason for the US government to resist secession by force. Yes the South did fire the first shots, but I think it can be agreed upon that the Union wasn't going to just let them go.

He was also a cold blooded murderer but to each his own I guess.

Yeah. Just to clarify, I wasn't saying I supported his actions, but more that he was viewed as a hero, and an admirable loser.

Killing people taking part in an abomination and a crime against humanity is fully justified. John Brown is a hero a martyr and a freedom fighter.

This I can't agree with. He may've been viewed as a hero, but he was fundamentally a murderer. Killing people to stop people possibly being killed makes no sense, and is just sheer hypocrisy.

Does it matter? Do you shed a tear for all the poor Japanese and German civilians who died in carpet bombings of World War II? Sometimes colletral damage is necessary.

Yes. Dachs got in before me mentioning the Dresden bombings.

If John Brown hadn't martyred himself than Southern fear and Northern emotion wouldn't have been provoked sufficiently enough for the war to happen.

Secondly, John Brown was not the only spark that started the Civil War. It certainly was a contributing factor, but I would've put Lincoln's election as a bigger reason.


For another entry into the admirable losers category, how about a group. And the most famous 'admirable losers' in this part of the world. The ANZACs at Gallipoli.

I had a history professor who tried to attribute that quality to their love for Stoicism. Unless my understand of that philosophy is horribly wrong, and I don't think that it is, that's a bit of a stretch.

I don't see how that could be the case; after all, the Romans showed that resilience long before Greek culture became en vogue in the 2nd C. BC.

I don't see how that could be the case; after all, the Romans showed that resilience long before Greek culture became en vogue in the 2nd C. BC.
Yes, the Gauls' sack, the episode at the Caudine Forks, and the siege of Veii...long list.

Hey treason is treason

Yep.:lol:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2463433334_e812571802.jpg?v=0

[QUOTE=Dachs;7754077]I think we're thinking of different incidents?[QUOTE]

Yes, different, I was thinking about their conquest of Hispania - but I expect that similar events happened in many other places.

[QUOTE=Dachs;7754077]In one sense, yes. But in another, I think the Roman ability to win wars hinged on its truly vast manpower pool...and when that came into crisis, truly bad stuff could happen..[QUOTE]

Yes, but it wasn't as if central Italy had a much bigger population than other Mediterranean regions. While others ceased fighting after enough setbacks (Carthage at the end of the first Punic War, and its unwillingness to really commit to all-out war during the second), the romans just got more united and kept fighting whenever they were trounced at some big battle (well, usually, I mean - they went on to have quite a lot of civil wars later...). Perhaps their ruling class did had some of the qualities later claimed by the stoics, even before stoicism became a philosophy. That might explain its popularity later among some "conservative" senators in Rome? Or did it simply meant that a professional militia was politically more stable than a professional mercenary army (a bit obvious anyway)? Rome's political stability went down the drain after Marius' reforms extending admittance to the army...

Anyway, sorry, this risks becoming threadjacking.

How has no one mentioned Leonidas yet?

Because "300" sucks.

How has no one mentioned Leonidas yet?

He didn't lose. He accomplished exactly what he set out to do.

How about Prince Max von Baden?

Yes, but it wasn't as if central Italy had a much bigger population than other Mediterranean regions.
Except due to the socii, the Romans didn't just have to draw on central Italy. By contrast, the Greeks didn't have anything like that - the only Hellenistic state that admitted natives on a large scale was Baktria, but they obviously never fought Rome. :p
Rome's political stability went down the drain after Marius' reforms extending admittance to the army...
Rome's political stability was crap before that too. Massive social problems during the fifth and fourth centuries BC(E) ring a bell?
He didn't lose. He accomplished exactly what he set out to do.
"Not much"?

Get famous and die in battle maybe?

Except due to the socii, the Romans didn't just have to draw on central Italy. By contrast, the Greeks didn't have anything like that - the only Hellenistic state that admitted natives on a large scale was Baktria, but they obviously never fought Rome. :p

Machimoi? Or even earlier, the Macedonian military system was very good at integrating different ethnicities into its army.

Also, Alexander saw to the equipping of large amounts of local troops in Arachosia, after his losses (and retirements) due to Spitamenes, and before his invasion of the Indus Valley.

Rome's political stability was crap before that too. Massive social problems during the fifth and fourth centuries BC(E) ring a bell?

"Not much"?

To be fair, the Spartans and those who stayed with them were to fight a delaying action, not to destroy the Persian army. Given the amount of faith put in the Oracle at Delphi, it is probably reasonable to assume that Leonidas and his band expected to die before they even left Laconia.

Americans tend to honor a lot of the Native American leaders. Tecumseh's a hero, and are Sitting Bull and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, who ultimately lost. One of my favorites is Little Turtle who defeated two American armies before finally getting beaten by Mad Anthony Wayne.

To be fair, the Spartans and those who stayed with them were to fight a delaying action, not to destroy the Persian army.
Yes, but they didn't last long enough to have a strategic impact. Athens was still taken along with many other cities. It was other decisive battles that beat the Persians not the slight delay.

"Not much"?

Delay the Persians. Also humiliate them in battle ("Xerxes has brought many men, but no soldiers"), thus raising the patriotism/morale of the Greek coalition.

Yes, but they didn't last long enough to have a strategic impact. Athens was still taken along with many other cities. It was other decisive battles that beat the Persians not the slight delay.

Delaying action = covering force. They were the rear guard for the rest of the army, which returned to Athens to organize further resistance.

Delay the Persians. Also humiliate them in battle ("Xerxes has brought many men, but no soldiers"), thus raising the patriotism/morale of the Greek coalition.
One of the Spartan kings dying along with the cream of the allied land forces (who fortunately didn't number all that many) actually didn't help morale that much. And the Persians were delayed for three days, which is something but wasn't much of a help, not if the Athenians were able to go through theatrics like Kimon and his fellow hippeis burning their reins.
Delaying action = covering force. They were the rear guard for the rest of the army, which returned to Athens to organize further resistance.
The troops who did manage to retreat numbered very little compared to the remainder of the army that won the Battle of Plataia next year. Compare that with the strategic disaster of the loss of an essentially impregnable position and Thermopylai should be recognized for what it was: a heroic, futile, relatively unimportant engagement.

One of the Spartan kings dying along with the cream of the allied land forces (who fortunately didn't number all that many) actually didn't help morale that much.

You're saying that Spartans killing twenty times their number of Persians wasn't an inspiration to fight against an empire that was considered almost invincible up until then? A dead king, likewise, is a motive for revenge for Greece.

You're saying that Spartans killing twenty times their number of Persians wasn't an inspiration to fight against an empire that was considered almost invincible up until then? A dead king, likewise, is a motive for revenge for Greece.
Uh, Marathon? Besides, if you're talking about "motivation to fight" why did Themistokles have to go through his subterfuge to force the allied Greek admirals to make a stand at Salamis, when they all wanted to retreat to the Peloponnesos and wait the Persians out? The allies were only motivated when they had no choice and the Egyptian squadrons were at their backs preventing an escape.

Tenacious bastards! :p

Try: Psychopathic.

The ANZACs would be the popular answer in this part of the world, but I personally see nothing particularly admirable about getting your arses handed to you by the locals when invading a sovereign nation, and largely through the stupidity of your own officers - not the British, as is the myth in this country. Kokoda was far more admirable, but we won that, albeit at one hell of a cost.

Maybe the Okinawans, holding out against American and Australian troops, especially considering the war crimes committed by the aforementioned Australians and Americans, which pretty much confirmed Japanese propaganda about us. Then again, there's a good chance Okinawan troops had partaken in war crimes themselves, so :dunno:.

Maybe the Okinawans, holding out against American and Australian troops, especially considering the war crimes committed by the aforementioned Australians and Americans, which pretty much confirmed Japanese propaganda about us. Then again, there's a good chance Okinawan troops had partaken in war crimes themselves, so :dunno:.

Well, the Okinawans may have partaken in war criimes (chances are good considering that they were part of the Imperial Japanese Army). However, it should be acknowledge that they were also victims of Japanese. The Okinawans were treated as second-class citizens, the best example I can think of right now is that they could not speak their native language. During the battle, Okinawan civilians suffered war crimes committed by soldiers of both sides; American Marines purposely shot civilians and the Japanese soldiers killed Okinawan civilians in caves to prevent them from being captured (this came from the Japanese soldiers who came from China and remembered how they treated the Chinese and expected the Americans to treat them the same way).

War is Hell for everybody involved.

War is Hell for everybody involved.
Not really. Some people can do very well out of war.

Except due to the socii, the Romans didn't just have to draw on central Italy. By contrast, the Greeks didn't have anything like that - the only Hellenistic state that admitted natives on a large scale was Baktria, but they obviously never fought Rome. :p

Rome's political stability was crap before that too. Massive social problems during the fifth and fourth centuries BC(E) ring a bell?

Most socii were from central and south Italy anyway. But Rome won even the socii war against some of those.

I wouldn't call its problems Rome had before the reforms of Marius massive, the senatorial class generally managed to hold on to its privileges. So what if they conceded veto power to representatives of the plebe, if they could bribe or even murder those when the issues got hot enough (controlling the army was a must for the last, of course)?
What I'd really like to know is if the walk-out on Rome by the plebeians really happened. It's just such a nice episode that I have difficulty believing it!

Try: Psychopathic.

We shouldn't judge past people using our standards... by the standards of their own time they were "insane" just on their unwillingness to concede a defeat.

And speaking of this, it seems that many or our admirable losers were just stubborn unlucky bastards or last-stand suicidal bastards. :D

Most socii were from central and south Italy anyway. But Rome won even the socii war against some of those.
That's true, though you can lay that to leadership in large part, and the really terrible job of propaganda the Italics did on another, which enabled the Romans to co-opt a lot of their supposed enemies.
I wouldn't call its problems Rome had before the reforms of Marius massive, the senatorial class generally managed to hold on to its privileges. So what if they conceded veto power to representatives of the plebe, if they could bribe or even murder those when the issues got hot enough (controlling the army was a must for the last, of course)?
Oh, the overall end of the patrician/plebeian conflict was never really that much in doubt, because the patricians, as you said, could always employ bribery to get around the leges they passed giving the plebs more powers. And there were some like Clodius who were able to acquire the tribunate by somewhat questionable legal means anyway. The problem was instability in that issues kept popping up at inconvenient times.
What I'd really like to know is if the walk-out on Rome by the plebeians really happened. It's just such a nice episode that I have difficulty believing it!
Happened multiple times, actually. While the episode of Sicinius personally may not have been wholly truthful, the real argument about the secessio struggles was how many there actually were, not whether the plebs walked out at all.

Not really. Some people can do very well out of war.

http://www.houstonist.com/attachments/houston_ji/031307_halliburton.jpg

You are right, I retract that statement

You are right, I retract that statement
I was thinking more like the argyraspidai, actually. Political statements aren't my thing tbh.

The ANZACs would be the popular answer in this part of the world, but I personally see nothing particularly admirable about getting your arses handed to you by the locals when invading a sovereign nation, and largely through the stupidity of your own officers - not the British, as is the myth in this country. Kokoda was far more admirable, but we won that, albeit at one hell of a cost.

But we must perpetuate the myth that it was the fault of the British, or numerous schoolchildren will not be able to partake in the ritual Winston-Churchill-bashing sessions that have become such an ingrained part of our society. I've never understood why we celebrate the day we made a disastrous amphibious landing, invading another country, only to be forced to withdraw within nine months. I agree, Kokoda was far more admirable, and would fit well into the 'Admirable Losers' section, apart from the whole winning bit. How about Tobruk?

Well, the Okinawans may have partaken in war criimes (chances are good considering that they were part of the Imperial Japanese Army). However, it should be acknowledge that they were also victims of Japanese. The Okinawans were treated as second-class citizens, the best example I can think of right now is that they could not speak their native language. During the battle, Okinawan civilians suffered war crimes committed by soldiers of both sides; American Marines purposely shot civilians and the Japanese soldiers killed Okinawan civilians in caves to prevent them from being captured (this came from the Japanese soldiers who came from China and remembered how they treated the Chinese and expected the Americans to treat them the same way).
And considering the massacres and mass rapes that took place, I'd say those Japanese soldiers were about right. And I wouldn't consider the IJA's massacre of Okinawan civilians a war crime. After all, many Okinawan women committed suicide and killed their own children in advance of the American invasion, because Japanese propaganda had told them they would be raped and murdered. For probably the only time, Japanese propaganda was right. What the IJA did in Okinawa is more akin to mercy-killing, which, while not exactly pleasant, isn't in the same category.

As for the Okinawans being treated as second-class citizens: they still are. Japan is still a very racist country.

Not really. Some people can do very well out of war.
<Insert Halliburton reference here>

True enough. Several Japanese businessmen and politicians benefited massively from Japan's defeat. And that just an example from a losing nation. The victors often come out even better.

But we must perpetuate the myth that it was the fault of the British, or numerous schoolchildren will not be able to partake in the ritual Winston-Churchill-bashing sessions that have become such an ingrained part of our society. I've never understood why we celebrate the day we made a disastrous amphibious landing, invading another country, only to be forced to withdraw within nine months. I agree, Kokoda was far more admirable, and would fit well into the 'Admirable Losers' section, apart from the whole winning bit. How about Tobruk?
Tobruk ftw. Only problem there is that Rommel was an honourable enemy. Then again, so was Ataturk.

I too have never understood what's so great about screwing up an unnopposed amphibious landing, failing to take advantage of the abundant defensible terrain, and being defeated by the rightful owners of the land we'd invaded through our own stupidity. But since when has venerating stupidity been unusual in Australian society? It's practically a legal requirement to play professional sport nowadays.

I too have never understood what's so great about screwing up an unnopposed amphibious landing, failing to take advantage of the abundant defensible terrain, and being defeated by the rightful owners of the land we'd invaded through our own stupidity.
The Greeks weren't at war yet, and when they did enter the war they were your allies. :dubious:

The Greeks weren't at war yet, and when they did enter the war they were your allies. :dubious:
The Greeks had been gone for centuries, you Near-East wh... Harlot.

Why do you keep mentioning how it was an invasion of a sovereign country inhabited by its rightful owners? They weren't trying to make Gallipoli part of the Empire, and the Turks had declared war, so what's the problem?

Why do you keep mentioning how it was an invasion of a sovereign country inhabited by its rightful owners? They weren't trying to make Gallipoli part of the Empire, and the Turks had declared war, so what's the problem?

In Australia we have a public holiday to commemorate it. So it seems a bit stupid to us. Yay! We failed! Therefore, we must make a mockery of it, whether it was right or wrong.

I know the whole idea behind it, but you weren't the one who mentioned like three times that the place being invaded belonged to someone else.

I know the whole idea behind it, but you weren't the one who mentioned like three times that the place being invaded belonged to someone else.
I'm mentioning it for the reason Camikaze mentioned. We got our butts whipped through our own stupidity, executing a plan that wasn't much brighter. The more that it can be mocked, the better, whether the reasons are legitimate or not.

And speaking of this, it seems that many or our admirable losers were just stubborn unlucky bastards or last-stand suicidal bastards.
Yeah, being unlucky is a huge factor in my estimation. But I don't think poor Nikephoros Phokas was unlucky; he was very clearly the victim of a vile plot by the Empress and Ioann Tzimiskes that he had no real way of preventing.
The Greeks had been gone for centuries, you Near-East wh... Harlot.
lolwut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919-1922))
The more that it can be mocked, the better, whether the reasons are legitimate or not.
oic

The ANZACs would be the popular answer in this part of the world, but I personally see nothing particularly admirable about getting your arses handed to you by the locals when invading a sovereign nation, and largely through the stupidity of your own officers - not the British, as is the myth in this country. Kokoda was far more admirable, but we won that, albeit at one hell of a cost.
I watched Gallipoli in school when I was 13 or 14, and it was just a couple weeks ago that I learned the bad general is apparently and Aussie (and the good Generals weren't nearly as good).
You can't blame the men for the situation they were put into, that is the government and high commands fault.

I watched Gallipoli in school when I was 13 or 14, and it was just a couple weeks ago that I learned the bad general is apparently and Aussie (and the good Generals weren't nearly as good).
You can't blame the men for the situation they were put into, that is the government and high commands fault.

And this is probably why they are viewed as admirable losers. You can't blame the soldiers who fought there, but the whole idea of celebrating it is a bit mindless.

I don't remember seeing Jim Bowie, Davy Crocket and the rest of the Alamo defenders mentioned yet in this thread.

lolwut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919-1922))

oic
Did Greece own Gallipoli in 1915? Or since the fall of Byzantium? No? I stand by my point.

And oic means what?

OIC- Oh, I see?

OIC- Oh, I see.
That was my thought, but I figured it was just my inherent sarcasm preventing me from figuring out what it was an abbreviation of by jumping to the first smartarse answer.

That full stop really should've been a question mark. Oh, wait, it is. I'm not really sure either.

Did Greece own Gallipoli in 1915? Or since the fall of Byzantium? No? I stand by my point.
You said the Greeks, not "Greece", and Greeks definitely lived in Gallipoli. And the fact that the Greek government didn't own Gallipoli at the time has little to do with the rightful owners of the land, which was the joke I was trying to make. Jeez.

And oic = oh, I see. I mean, what else could it be? Honestly.

You said the Greeks, not "Greece", and Greeks definitely lived in Gallipoli. And the fact that the Greek government didn't own Gallipoli at the time has little to do with the rightful owners of the land, which was the joke I was trying to make. Jeez.

And oic = oh, I see. I mean, what else could it be? Honestly.
No-one actually lived at Gallipoli Dachs. Therefore I emerge victorious via semantics. Yay!

Considering this is the internet, land of nonsense abbreviations, OIC could mean a lot of things. After all, it took me several years to discover what lol meant, and I still fail to see the point of OTOH, AFAIK, and IIRC, among others. JUST WRITE THE DAMN WORDS! :gripe:

No-one actually lived at Gallipoli Dachs. Therefore I emerge victorious via semantics. Yay!
Uh, Krithia? Maidos? :p

Oh, by the way, another actual loser of admirable quality: Friedrich V, Elector Palatine.

what exactly does "elector palatine" refer to? "kurfürst"?

what exactly does "elector palatine" refer to? "kurfürst"?
Specifically, the Kurfürst of Pfalz.

Charles Cornwallis was a rather admirable as well as respectable loser. Funny that Americans only know him for his role in their Revolution, when he gets so much more fame for his work as the first Governor-General of India.

Uh, Krithia? Maidos? :p

Oh, by the way, another actual loser of admirable quality: Friedrich V, Elector Palatine.
No-one lived there, it was a beach. Semantics rule!

Forgot about the Winter King, good choice.

No-one lived there, it was a beach. Semantics rule!
Gallipoli is a peninsula, on which are situated several towns. One of these is Krithia. It had a not insignificant Greek population, a remnant of the time during which Greeks had political control of the territory. Due to this political control and the fact that many Greeks still lived there, Gallipoli can be considered to be rightfully Greek territory at the time of the Allied invasion. I know you're trying to be amusing, and honestly I don't care.

Manco Inca Yupanqui - leader of the Incan rebellion against the Spanish...

Almost succeeding in ridding south america of the Spanish (well atleast kicking them out of what was the Incan empire), retook Cuzco (well all of Cuzco except the palace complex). Tried to take Lima but lost heavily, everything went downhill after that...

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/iesgranpoder/frances/vercingetorix_en_asterix.jpeg

ha, in the german version he says "auveh!".

I too have never understood what's so great about screwing up an unnopposed amphibious landing, failing to take advantage of the abundant defensible terrain, and being defeated by the rightful owners of the land we'd invaded through our own stupidity. But since when has venerating stupidity been unusual in Australian society? It's practically a legal requirement to play professional sport nowadays.

Aehm what? Unopposed? :p


My admirable losers are;
Romanos IV Diogenes,Constantine XI,Boudicea :p Pyhrrus of course.

@holyking: au weh? :p

exactly. not sure how it is spelled in the comic, but yeah, ave/au weh.

Aehm what? Unopposed? :p
We landed completely unopposed, at least in certain areas. The Turks were absolutely nowhere near us, largely because we actually landed at the wrong beach, if I recall. Instead of taking advantage of this fact to assume defensible positions in the unoccupied nearby highlands we dug trenches on the beach, much to the Turks' bemusement and delight.

We landed completely unopposed, at least in certain areas. The Turks were absolutely nowhere near us, largely because we actually landed at the wrong beach, if I recall. Instead of taking advantage of this fact to assume defensible positions in the unoccupied nearby highlands we dug trenches on the beach, much to the Turks' bemusement and delight.

A lot of casualties came in the initial landing, with the invaders coming under heavy machine gun fire from the Turks. One of the main reason why the wrong beach didn't work out was that sheer cliffs prevented cover from being sought in this initial amphibious landing, causing massive casualties in this first phase and leading to great problems in attaining a good position. Sure, these areas weren't as heavily defended as some, but we were definitely not unopposed.