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

If we're talking about China, Dowager Cixi executing the Hundred Days' Reformers counts too.

Ehhhhhh. If she hadn't couped them, the Hundred Days' Reformers would probably be on this list themselves. They were out-Gorbacheving Gorbachev. Totally ill-considered and unachievable schemes of reform layered chaotically into a legislative mess.

And if she couped them and didn't execute leaders she'd make the list for setting up a countercoup a few years down the road.
 
8 Deer Jaguar Claw not killing Four Wind. That undid his empire, and the potential unification of all the Mixtecs into one kingdom. Such a state would probably butterfly away the Aztecs and be relatively well-equipped for surviving the Europeans.

Where can I read enough to understand what you're talking about?
 
Athens‘ expedition to Syracuse(which of course got completely wiped out)in 415 B.C. during the
Peloponnesian War. Still a classic example of hubris.
 
Last edited:
The biggest "you blew it" moment in the American Civil War IMO has to be the Battle of the Crater. Great plan, ruined by first Meade's and then Burnside's meddling incompetence. The initial plan to dig a great big mine under rebel trenches and blow them all to hell a la a Battle of Messines 50+ years early worked at first, but the follow up was a mess because instead of the USCT regiments who had been practicing for this specific attack they changed their minds and send some unprepared white regiments in first that didn't know what they were doing and ran into the crater thinking it'd be a good rifle put only to discover it was to steep to climb back out of.

As far as Roman history goes, whichever damn fool thought it was a good idea to organize and pull off a conspiracy to murder Aurelian. Granted, Diocletian eventually got around to stabilizing the empire, but Aurelian seemed a bit more stellar and effective in his brief reign and was possibly the greatest emperor Rome ever had. Failing that, Marcus Aurelius's decision to name Commodus his heir and co-emperor was a really boneheaded decision from a guy amateur historians believe was the wisest philosopher-emperor.
 
Pretty much everything related to William Elphinstone's command of the British army in Afghanistan in 1841-1842. First when he did nothing in response to a riot in Kabul that stormed the home of a senior political officer and killed him and his staff. This resulted in the unrest in the city escalating out of control, forcing the British to evacuate just as winter was setting in. He tried to negotiate safe passage with the son of the leader the British had deposed several years earlier, and his representative was massacred, with the diplomat's mutilated body dragged through the streets of Kabul.

Again, Elphinstone did nothing. In fact, he tried to negotiate with Wazir Akbar Khan again, agreeing to hand over his gunpowder stores, his cannon and a good number of his available muskets. Once his army got moving, they were attacked almost immediately, and Akbar had again neglected to provide the escort, food or fuel he'd promised. The British were only a day out from Kabul at this point, but Elphinstone insisted on continuing forward without sufficient provisions instead of holing up in the Bala Hissar fortress to wait for spring. What did he do instead? Negotiate with Akbar again, of course.

This time, Akbar denied any wrongdoing or malfeasance on his part, and asked Elphinstone to wait in his indefensible and rapidly freezing position while he negotiated safe passage. You know, again. And Elphinstone did so, and even offered up some of his officers as hostages, one assumes because he'd run out of cannons to hand the enemy instead. Eventually they moved forward again, and were attacked by more Afghans, now armed with the same weapons the British had handed over previously.

The British took heavy casualties, both from the fighting and from the cold, not to mention several hundred men who deserted and made a run for Kabul, only to also get massacred. Fast forward a few days and a lot more guerilla attacks, frostbite, and hostage taking, and a column of 4500 troops and 14000 civilians had been whittled down to around 200 men. They had dug in and, thanks to Elphinstone having abandoned all pretense of commanding them, were giving the attacking Afghans heavy resistance. The general and his second met with Akbar for negotiations yet again, and one assumes Akbar had also gotten tired of this same song and dance by now, because when Elphinstone asked to return to his troops, Akbar just went "Lol, nope."

In the end, a single wounded doctor riding a dead man's pony was the only one who struggled his way through to Jalalabad to tell the garrison just what the hell had happened. Afterwards, even the pony laid down in the stable and never got up again.

It astounds me how certain people can be that Afghanistan was unconquerable given the awe-inspiring incompetence required to lose it.
 
As far as Roman history goes, whichever damn fool thought it was a good idea to organize and pull off a conspiracy to murder Aurelian. Granted, Diocletian eventually got around to stabilizing the empire, but Aurelian seemed a bit more stellar and effective in his brief reign and was possibly the greatest emperor Rome ever had. Failing that, Marcus Aurelius's decision to name Commodus his heir and co-emperor was a really boneheaded decision from a guy amateur historians believe was the wisest philosopher-emperor.

Well, Aurelianus was one of Gallienus’ murderers, and he was a damn fine emperor too, perhaps an even better one, if Aurelianus, Claudius and other members of the Illyrian clique could murder the one guy who was saving the empire from disintegration for no good reason, then it’s no surprise Aurelianus suffered the same fate, especially considering he was not popular at all among the soldiers.

I’ve said it countless times, and I’ll say it again, Commodus doesn’t deserve all the hate. Borders were secure, capable generals won several important campaigns, those not so capable were replaced, settlements prospered, internal problems were quickly resolved, he took care to read and sign himself as many documents he could, the people loved him so much Severus had to deify him and avenge him once he took over. Rome had way, way worse emperors than him.
 
Failing that, Marcus Aurelius's decision to name Commodus his heir and co-emperor was a really boneheaded decision from a guy amateur historians believe was the wisest philosopher-emperor.

What else was Marcus supposed to do? Even if he made someone else his heir instead, Commodus would represent a constant threat to the new regime and probably get killed off pretty quickly, assuming he didn't make a successful play for the throne himself and kill off the "official" heir.
 
What else was Marcus supposed to do? Even if he made someone else his heir instead, Commodus would represent a constant threat to the new regime and probably get killed off pretty quickly, assuming he didn't make a successful play for the throne himself and kill off the "official" heir.

Indeed. There’s not a single case in Roman history where an Emperor didn’t name his son as heir or co-emperor whenever he had one. Marcus simply did what everybody else would have done.
 
Indeed. There’s not a single case in Roman history where an Emperor didn’t name his son as heir or co-emperor whenever he had one. Marcus simply did what everybody else would have done.

There was Claudius and Britannicus, although this didn't end well for the latter, and contemporaries thought Claudius was weird for favouring his stepson over his natural one.
 
There was Claudius and Britannicus, although this didn't end well for the latter, and contemporaries thought Claudius was weird for favouring his stepson over his natural one.

To be fair, things are murky about that. Coinage shows that during the 50’s Claudius was giving more prominence to Britannicus rather than to Nero. Most sources also tell us Agrippina was increasingly worried about the “affection” Claudius was showing Britannicus. It probably meant either that Claudius was planning for a joint rule for Nero and Britannicus, or maybe he actually wanted Britannicus to succeed him. His sudden death, which may, or may not have been caused by poison, and Agrippina’s skilled placement of loyal men in key positions granted Nero the empire, but as far as we know, Claudius may have had other plans.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Gothic War could have ended in 5 years instead of becoming a 20-year war, had Justinian given Belisarius 20000-30000 men.
 
The Gothic War could have ended in 5 years instead of becoming a 20-year war, had Justinian given Belisarius 20000-30000 men.

Or even had he appointed more competent, less corrupt people to oversee Italy's incorporation into the Empire. The war was virtually won by the time Belisarius first went home, but the men who succeeded him so alienated both the remaining Goths and the native Italians that Totila was able to reconquer most of the peninsula within a couple of years.
 
What else was Marcus supposed to do? Even if he made someone else his heir instead, Commodus would represent a constant threat to the new regime and probably get killed off pretty quickly, assuming he didn't make a successful play for the throne himself and kill off the "official" heir.

In other words, as Lyndon Johnson once put it, Marcus
felt it was better to have Commodus inside the tent piss-
ing out, than outside pissing in.
 
The Second Crusade. For all the bad rep that the fourth one (rightly) gets, the second one was the real "Crusade That Ruined Everything". In the aftermath of the First Crusade, the Jerusalemites had maneuvered themselves into a remarkably strong diplomatic position, with Fatimid Egypt increasingly dependant on Christian mercenaries, and the Burids of Damascus afraid enough of the Zangids to ally themselves with Jerusalem. When Edessa fell to the Zangids, a crusade was called against them, but when the crusaders reached Jerusalem (necessary to accomplish the pilgrimage aspect of the crusade), they were unwilling to march back to Syria to attack Aleppo, and instead decided to attack the closest Muslim state nearby, Jerusalem's ally, the Emir of Damascus. This effectively united the Muslim states in Syria, and the crusader attack failed due to predictable poor logistics. If the crusade had arrived by sea to Jerusalem as originally intended, they could had done their dumb pilgrimage and then march to Aleppo, which they actually had a chance to reach supplying themselves from Samarta or Afrin.
 
Top