Biggest failures in history

The army was more proffesinal and powerful than previously. The reason it's outer holdings crumbled so quickly is because of the civil war taking place at that time. The civil war took place in Italy. I don't need to give another source because that one somes up my whole arguement. You are too imcompetant to realise this. Interesting thing I found on the interenet.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/04/10/gays-blamed-for-the-fall-of-rome/

First of all are you talking about republic times or empire, cause at the end of the empire the roman army couldn't even be called an roman army anymore, just full of Germans who where pissed at the Romans especially over the entire Hun situation (which i would argue was one of the main causes of Roman downfall) Next not to familiar with civil wars involving slaves at the end of the empire, i only know of the three servile wars during the republic which where crushed.

the entire fall of the empire can not be placed onto one thing but a mixture of factors, one of which was slaves but was at the bottom of the list.

Most of the "Barbarian" armies were composed of Roman slaves. It was one of the biggest failures in history that past civilizations relied on slaves so much that when they revolted it caused the downfall of many empires. The Roman army at the end of the empire was very powerful especially the Western's but they had too many civil wars in Italy and could not get to the borders in time. The armies were so weakend they couldn't do anything. The Goths were the "Scourges of Rome" not the Huns. Rome defeated the Huns. Attila is a very overated general. The Visigoth army that sacked Rome had almost all slaves and a few thousand ACTUALL Visigoths. The sack is very overated in general. I personally think the fall of Rome was during the Renaissance.

Most likely German slaves i would assume, well almost all countries have relied on slaves alot; look at the ottoman Turks and the north African empires. (Tough we have more slaves now then during any time in history) the roman army was a shell of its former self and the majority of the true elite forces had already relocated to Constantinople. The Goths where the Scourges of Rome because of the Huns betting the shit out of theme forcing them to move and the Romans just being dicks to them, the entire hunnic invasion played a huge role in the collapse of the empire, tough Attlia is overplayed as mr.badass. (so immigration played another huge role) The sack of Rome was pretty much wait outside the walls for a year until the citizen got so hungry they let you in.
Rome never falls it just reshapes and changes its self.

This post is wrong on so many ways....

First of all, the German were not forced into Roman territory by the Romans. They were forced out of their lands by other more powerful German tribes that were taking their land, such as the Huns under Atilla. The army was not made up of slaves, just German immigrants if you would call them that. The Roman army was so bad at this time in history I do not even think you can call it an army. And what do you mean by "civil wars in Italy"? The last major civil war in Italy was when Constantine took power and last time I checked he was not fighting slaves nor was he a slave. The fact that you say Atilla is extremely overrated is laughable as well. The Huns were nothing before and after Atilla. He practically brought both the East and Western Roman Empire to their knees. The East was forced to pay him tons og gold a year in tribute. Atilla was only stopped by Aetius because Aetius (who happened to grow up with the Huns) gathered his own enemies, the Visigoths, to fight a common enemy. And still Atilla was never actually defeated. The whole reason the Visigoths began to flood over into Roman territory was BECAUSE OF ATILLA THE HUN. He basically forced them to flood over the borders. And we are not talking about the fall of Rome as in the fall of the city we are talking as in the fall of the Empire.

I want to point out that Hitler turned a poverty stricken state into the worlds greatest power.

You just showed how icompetant you are. THE ARMY GREW STRONGER. Look this up. Attila is way overated and was easily defeated. Just because you destroy farms doesn't mean you are a good general. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what you are talking about. And Viking Socrates that is basically what I believe. The army was better than history gives it credit. The army was very powerful. It was weakend by the civil wars in Italy.

Not into the greates world power in any means, their economy was still shit, the Wermacht though was the best military around in 1938.

Any and all forms of prohibition.

the reasons for the first world war and the treaty of Versailles and the end because it set up ww2 in europe

Thats rubbish the Wehrmacht was probably the best trained and equipped army the world has ever seen and Hitler created huge amounts of jobs and greatly improved the German economy

If you are talking before ww2 started then well you are full of shit...

French had more tanks and they were better than German,

Russians had mobile infantry, unlike Germans who's infantry walked to battle.

And Germans could have used more submachine guns against Russians who had ppsh

Germans only had mp 40 for officers, Russians had entire battalions full of ppsh

And its true Hitler did make Germans economy better but only by butting citizens to weapon factory's

Meaning its a short time solution to the economic problem but not long time solution...

He may have only created a great nation my bullying jews but no one can say Hitler didnt create a great nation

Shame he cocked it up so badly. He had the world in his grasp and let it slip.
Note to self: Bomb the airfields, prepare a defensive line for the winter, and don't let Japan attack the US.
And if the Wehrmacht wasn't better equipped, it was certainly better trained to be able to defeat the more numerous but sparsely deployed French tanks, to cut off the larger numbers of Allied soldiers, to devastate the Red Army and take so many of them prisoner. And with an economy that was ultimately unprepared for a long war.
Still, too much success here to be the 'biggest failure in history', not sure who that should go to to be honest. Pol Pot has no redeeming features, maybe him? Or Louis XVI for his myriad failures?

And I'd like to point out that when Hitler took power Germany was already leaving its depression....

It had left that and gone, *sigh* really a pro-Hitler nut do we really need this. FUCK YES WE DO.

The Crusades, Euopeans really FAILED when it came to this, as well as any other thing when it come to the church....you know what how about the entire medevil era?

4th crusade was a fucking epic fail. Hey lets go attack the middle east, fuck im bored lets go attack Constantinople for the lulz. Oh and does anyone here now that much about the children's crusade???

I agree! Stupid 4th Crusade. You could argue Constantinople would never have fallen without it. Anyone who reckons the entire Medieval period to be a 'failure' though is a bit of a jerk if you ask me (no offence). Scratch beneath the surface, and the peasants aren't totally ignorant and exploited, the knights and lords aren't complete bastards and it was a bit more than 'durrh, we do wot the church sez bicoz we's so afraid of God'