Admirable Losers

[Babbler]

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?

 

[philippe]

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

 

[silver 2039]

Yuan Shikai, and Chaing Kai Shek

 

[Azale]

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.

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Tee Kay]

Isoroku Yamamoto, Xiang Yu, Heinz Guderian

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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. 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.

 

[philippe]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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. But yeah: the Austrians sucked at holding onto the territory, which was a perfect solution as far as France was concerned.

 

[TheLastOne36]

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

 

[carmen510]

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

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[generalstaff]

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.

 

[LightSpectra]

North America was a sideshow.

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.