Biggest "You Blew it!" moments in History (Pre-1900)

[Mikestone8]

The Long Parliament failing to vote for Charles I's removal/execution, thus directly causing the Army to purge them - they failed to see the writings on the wall: Charles must die for the conflict to end. The Pride's Purge was largely driven by the Army's frustration over Parliament's inaction over Charles, not power ambition.

Executing the King would not have saved them. The Rumpers *did* so, but they still got thrown out four years later.

Parliament's mistake was not giving the Army its arrears of pay, and seeing them safely off home to spend it. They should have done so no matter what the cost, as the restored Charles II was smart enough to do in 1660.

 

[Mikestone8]

Tsar Alexander I's insistence on acquiring most of the Duchy of Warsaw. Had he just restored it to Prussia and Austria, those Polish revolts would have been their problem, not Russia's

 

[SunKing105]

Offhand, I can't recall who it was, but there was the dolt in the Mideast who tried to march across a desert without adequate water, along an unmarked route (& contrary to advice, IIRC) instead of taking an easier (marked?) route, & having his ass handed to him...

Are you thinking of Crassus?

 

[sampleswift]

Are you thinking of Crassus?

There was also an incident where Shapur I captured a Roman Emperor who had made a tactical blunder (another you blew it moment?)
This is a separate moment from whatever happened with Crassus. 2 Roman You Blew It's.
Could the tetrarchy be a you blew it? It was a horrific failure...

 

[Sertorius126]

There was also an incident where Shapur I captured a Roman Emperor who had made a tactical blunder (another you blew it moment?)
This is a separate moment from whatever happened with Crassus. 2 Roman You Blew It's.
Could the tetrarchy be a you blew it? It was a horrific failure...

The tetrarchy did work in the short term though.

 

[Tyler96]

Are you thinking of Crassus?

Guy de Lusignan also had some troubles based on a lack of water.

 

[Mikestone8]

Philip II for not giving Dutch Protestants an "Edict of Nantes".

Most of the Netherlands was still Catholic in 1568, and he main Protestant areas were in the *south*, not he north. Had he granted toleration in those places only, Protestants from other areas would have drifted into them, so that the rest of the country became more solidly Catholic. As the Jesuits got to work in the Catholic areas, by the end of his reign the Protestant enclaves would have been isolated and he could have revoked the Edict and polished them off with little difficulty.

 

[Osman Aga]

Battle of the Maritsa (1371)
- Serbs have 50-70,000 troops
- They camp outside the River, close to Edirne
- 800 Ottoman Soldiers attack the camp at night while most Serbs were drinking and sleeping
- Serbs rout and flee to the river, drowning

This was closest chance the Serbs could have driven off the Ottomans from Europe. The result was Serbia losing Macedonia to the Ottomans.

 

[isabella]

Guy de Lusignan also had some troubles based on a lack of water.

Guy of Lusignan was also an idiot without a good grasp of military strategies

 

[Vinization]

Practically everything about the reign of Khosrow/Khosrau II. From the decision to execute the uncles who saved his life from Bahram Chobin, a decision that caused a six-year civil war, to starting the Byzantine-Sasanian war of 602-628, to refusing Heraclius' peace terms in 615, by which time his generals' enormous successes had gone straight to his head.

 

[Historymaster]

The Long Parliament failing to vote for Charles I's removal/execution, thus directly causing the Army to purge them - they failed to see the writings on the wall: Charles must die for the conflict to end. The Pride's Purge was largely driven by the Army's frustration over Parliament's inaction over Charles, not power ambition.

Well, I can't blame them for being unwilling to mar theyr souls with regicide.

Philip II for not giving Dutch Protestants an "Edict of Nantes".

Most of the Netherlands was still Catholic in 1568, and he main Protestant areas were in the *south*, not he north. Had he granted toleration in those places only, Protestants from other areas would have drifted into them, so that the rest of the country became more solidly Catholic. As the Jesuits got to work in the Catholic areas, by the end of his reign the Protestant enclaves would have been isolated and he could have revoked the Edict and polished them off with little difficulty.

The if he revoked it that would have been a reason to end in this list too. Protestants are an imprenditorial coetus which need to be cultivated and not expelled.

 

[phx1138]

Are you thinking of Crassus?

That name isn't ringing the bell. IIRC, he was British, but might have been Arab/Egyptian.

That said, it might very well have been Crassus... I just don't recall enough. (It was covered in a book of notorious military blunders.)

 

[Awkwardvulture]

The Sassanids not capitalizing on their victory in the Battle of The Bridge....

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Henry of Flanders releasing Oberto II of Biandrate.

 

[Silver01]

khowsrow II in general but his biggest you blew it was wanting to kill shabarraz ... like really this is the man who destroyed Heraclius army in 613 and did most of the conquest sure he was defeated from 622 to 626 but it was partially his fault for not given him over all comand and that allowed for heraclius to slaugther the forces there
but no instead of demoting him or for him to give an explination etc you wanted to kill him and that cost you what ever chance you had to win the war

 

[Vinization]

khowsrow II in general but his biggest you blew it was wanting to kill shabarraz ... like really this is the man who destroyed Heraclius army in 613 and did most of the conquest sure he was defeated from 622 to 626 but it was partially his fault for not given him over all comand and that allowed for heraclius to slaugther the forces there
but no instead of demoting him or for him to give an explination etc you wanted to kill him and that cost you what ever chance you had to win the war

He was like a Persian Justinian, really: enormous (and honestly achievable if things went better) ambitions, but too paranoid to let his best generals do their thing. The main difference was that Belisarius, unlike Shahrbaraz, had no desire to take the throne.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

He was like a Persian Justinian, really: enormous (and honestly achievable if things went better) ambitions, but too paranoid to let his best generals do their thing. The main difference was that Belisarius, unlike Shahrbaraz, had no desire to take the throne.

What was achievable under Khosrow II had events gone better for him with his best generals having a Belisarius like disposition in ATL?

Additionally how much longer could Khosrow II have lived as well as how much further could he have gone and who would have been a competent successor or few to better prepare the Sassanids against the Rashidun Caliphate?

 

[Silver01]

What was achievable under Khosrow II had events gone better for him with his best generals having a Belisarius like disposition in ATL?

Additionally how much longer could Khosrow II have lived as well as how much further could he have gone and who would have been a competent successor or few to better prepare the Sassanids against the Rashidun Caliphate?

Well khavad II was as pyscho as his dad seeing has how he murdered any one related to him for the throne he is more responsible than any one for the sassanid civil war of 628 to 632 since there was no clear ruler even if khosrow won a rebellion against him is almost a granted if Khavad II takes the throne well it's civil war

 

[Vinization]

What was achievable under Khosrow II had events gone better for him with his best generals having a Belisarius like disposition in ATL?

Additionally how much longer could Khosrow II have lived as well as how much further could he have gone and who would have been a competent successor or few to better prepare the Sassanids against the Rashidun Caliphate?

Considering how much land the Sasanian armies conquered despite all their issues, I don't think it's that farfetched for them to occupy all of Anatolia (and basically restore the Achaemenid Empire in the process) and then guard it from Byzantine counterattacks. That could be achieved by having Heraclius be overthrown in 610 or, alternatively, having him lose his nerve and flee to Carthage as some think he almost did. If the war ends in, say, 620 (eight years earlier than OTL), the empire would have more breathing space before the Arabs arrive in force.

Considering that Khosrau was 58 when he was murdered, I don't think he would live much longer than OTL. Knowing him, however, he'd probably still find a way to screw something up before he kicked the bucket.

Well khavad II was as pyscho as his dad seeing has how he murdered any one related to him for the throne he is more responsible than any one for the sassanid civil war of 628 to 632 since there was no clear ruler even if khosrow won a rebellion against him is almost a granted if Khavad II takes the throne well it's civil war

Should Wikipedia be correct, Kavad may not take the throne ITTL since Khosrow's preferred heir (and thus most likely successor) was Mardanshah. The article doesn't say anything about him though.

 

[Inquisition]

Napoleon saying no to Metternich's Frankfurt Proposals after Leipzig - though I do wonder if he might have been able to maintain power after having fallen so far, so it might've just ended with his overthrow or him trying to reconquer his Italian and German holdings a few years down the line and starting the Seventh Coalition early.

Also, Julian the Apostate deciding he wanted to be Alexander 2.0 and attacking the Sassanids. Would he have reversed Christrianity? Probably not, but his reforms could have led to a much healthier and better organized Hellenic faith, and at best we (ironically) might see a pagan Western Europe divided from a Christian East.