Discussion: Anticlimactic moments in History (Pre-1900)

GameBawesome

GameBawesome

Whenever I study history, it always fascinates me. Societies formed, empires and kingdoms rose and fell, and people made decisions that culminate change the course of history. However, there are some moments in history, where something that seemed so built up, only to never culminate, whether that be wars, battles won or lost, explorations, scientific-discovers, arranged-marriages, etc, and end up feeling anticlimactic. It is either due to key-figures deaths, weather, or etc that made these things never happen.

So, here we are going to discuss some moments in history that felt anticlimactic and explain why? It can range from wars, battles won or lost, explorations, scientific-discovers, arranged-marriages, etc

For example, here are a moment that I felt anticlimactic:

1. Uesugi Kenshin's death- The Dragon of Echigo had just defeated Oda Nobunaga at Battle of Tedorigawa. He was going to attack the Oda again, by allying with the Takeda Clan... then he died, causing his clan to fall into a small civil war, destroying Uesugi influence
 

Jimbo808

I feel Henry 8ths reign was anti climatic. He inherited a strong country financially and in terms of geopolitics, and frittered it away. Imo worst king in England
 
HortenseMancini

HortenseMancini

Jimbo808 said:
I feel Henry 8ths reign was anti climatic. He inherited a strong country financially and in terms of geopolitics, and frittered it away. Imo worst king in England
Click to expand...
Henry was too obsessed with winning military glory in France to ever conserve the nest egg that his father left him. Also, I will never not find it ironic that both of his sons, whom he so desperately wanted, died in their teens without children of their own.
 

Hastings

Part of what made it so anticlimactic though is there was no military glory in France. England fielded armies of 10,000 men in France in 1512, 25,000 in 1513, 11,000 in 1523, 40,000 in 1544. All that happened was a couple successful sieges, one defeat of a much smaller French army, and controlling Boulogne for six years. A climactic reign does not require conserving the nest egg, generally the opposite, the problem was there was practically no military glory won by spending the nest egg and the results were pretty mediocre considering France was primarily focusing on the Habsburgs. True the English army was perhaps somewhat backward in this era, but safe to say that Henry VIII was no Edward III, Black Prince, or Henry V.
 
Dauntless

Dauntless

Bonnie Prince Charlie's English campaign in 1745.

Taking the whole Jacobite Rising into account, Culloden was very much a climactic event in British and particularly Scottish history. But the previous year's march towards London got as far as Derby, and then he just went back to Scotland for fear of being trapped between loyalist armies. The government might well have pulled itself together in time, but for campaign which has been so romanticised, turning back instead of boldly advancing against an enemy in disarray seems like a disappointment.
 
Flavius Phocas

Flavius Phocas

Heraclius dedicating his entire reign to reconquering the provinces lost to the Persians, succeeding and then living long enough to see it all lost again to the Arabs has got to be up there.
 
Whiteshore

Whiteshore

Flavius Phocas said:
Heraclius dedicating his entire reign to reconquering the provinces lost to the Persians, succeeding and then living long enough to see it all lost again to the Arabs has got to be up there.
Click to expand...
To quote someone in the thread on rulers who were unlucky:
"If Heraclius had died in 631, his achievements would have been immortal. If Heraclius had died in 636, he would have been seen as a great man, but flawed. Alas, he died in 641, what more can one say."
 

kholieken

Diadochis War ? generals and bodyguards, successor of mighty Alexander battling each other to unify his realm. ended up conquered by two barbarian state (Roman and Parthian).
 
PariahNihil

PariahNihil

Well if I recall correctly it was 1899 when the United States and Imperial Germany had battlefleets nearly collide in Samoa while Great Britain was watching from afar but it might have been 1900. A typhoon came and destroyed them and prevented a battle from breaking out and eventually Samoa was split three ways. If that's not anticlimactic idk what is lol
 

Jan Olbracht

Collapse of USSR. Who'd guess, that Cold War would end with Soviet Union peacefully dissolved? That Moscow would give up its outer and inner empire without trying to burn the world?
 

prani

Fall of Rome? I mean we sorta made it climatic in retrospect but at the time people didn't made it a big of a deal when Rome fell people just continued with their life as if nothing had happened. Yes Byzantine existed and people sorta thought "The Rome" continued but Rome, the city fell to the Barbaroii. Compare and contrast to the fall of Byzantium which was Climatic compared to the fall of Rome.

To add, we mark the European history as before the fall of Rome and after the fall of Rome but Europe went post Roman way before the fall of Roman and continued to drift away from Romaness ? and fall of Rome had no impact even a Psychological one but fall of Constantinople had butterflies, Rise of Muscovy, rise of Osman Dynasty, formation of modern identity in the Balkans etc etc
 
Last edited:
H.Flashman(VC)

H.Flashman(VC)

Three deaths connected to Holland/Netherlands:
1256: Willem II, count of Holland and Zeeland, anti King of the HRE, killed by the Frisians.
1477: the death of Charles the Bold.
1650: Willem II, stadhouder died of smalpox, after staging a coup d'etat.
 

AtomicWaffles

Honestly the Crusades as a whole were incredibly anticlimactic. Most of them failed and the ones that succeeded were fleeting success at most that saw the lands conquered returned to Muslim rule in short order. The only real climactic crusade was the 4th, and that's because it was so much of a failure it essentially destroyed the Byzantines. As a whole the Crusades completely failed in their objectives of protecting Byzantium and guaranteeing safe passage for Christians in the holy land, and really had very little impact on history despite there being so many of them and being such massive undertakings by Christians.
 
Last edited:

Fulano

Definitively the death of Miguel da Paz, the Prince of Asturias. The Catholic Monarchs uniting Aragon and Castile after generations and years of wars, them finally conquering the last bastion of Muslim rule in the region, then reconciling with Portugal and having his daughter (and heir of both thrones) marrying Manuel, the new King of Portugal (and well more liked than the former King, who only caused them problems), plus having control of the Navarrese heirs as well (the daughters of Catherine of Navarre) was an incredible feat at the time.
Everything was aligned for the Iberian Kingdoms to unite into one big entity just for this promised child to die and for a distant German cousin to inherit Castile-Aragon, instead.

AtomicWaffles said:
Honestly the Crusades as a whole were incredibly anticlimactic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, especially the Third Crusade. Frederick Barbarossa drowning before reaching Holy Land and his army going home instead of fighting must be one of the most anticlimactic events in European history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top