If you've seen the opening to Saving Private Ryan, then you're familiar with one of the most intense depictions of D-Day on film. The look of these scenes were based on the photographs of one Robert Capa, a correspondent for LIFE magazine. Capa's photos of the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War are massively famous, but the D-Day photos that we have now are a result of a pretty big mistake.

Capa was assigned to the very first wave of soldiers on Omaha Beach. Petrified with fear, he nevertheless took over a hundred photos, surviving the innumerable dangers before passing out from stress and exhaustion. The film was rushed to LIFE offices back in the US. The lab technician pulled them out of the developer, shouted that they were fantastic, and showed them to an editor. The editor was thrilled with their quality and ordered copies to be sent to several news agencies - but the copies couldn't be made while the film was still wet.

In his excitement, the lab technician closed the drying cabinet with the heat on high and melted the film. When he opened it, the strips of film were curled and streaked, and no images remained save for a few on the very first roll. These eleven images, the only survivors, are by far the most widely reproduced of the entire D-Day landing. But if not for the technician's mistake, the world would have had scores more images from that historic morning.

For an excellent piece of further reading, see this article on the subject, and you can scroll down to the bottom to see some of the images.

The popular version of Spanish conquest often paints Europeans as a vastly advanced people, armed with superior technology and biological organisms, who steam-rolled Native American nations without trouble. Cortés’ success against the Triple Alliance is often the poster child for this Spanish juggernaut narrative, completely omitting the role of native allies, impeccable timing, pure dumb luck, and the protracted nature of a prolonged, often tenuous, conquest. Conquistador failures in the New World far outnumber their successes, and underscore how the popular narrative completely fails to encapsulate the complex, messy nature of conquest. Here are a few examples showing the diverse fate of many would-be conquistadores in North America taken from a previous post I made in another history community.

• Juan Ponce de Leon’s second journey to Florida in 1521 ended in disaster shortly after landing on the Gulf Coast. The crew included roughly two hundred men, as well as farmers and farming implements, and associated livestock. While constructing shelters a Calusa party attacked the settlers, wounding Ponce de Leon with an arrow. The colonists abandoned their makeshift site, and returned to Cuba where Ponce died of his wounds.

• Lucas de Ayllón mortgaged his fortune to mobilize a group of 600 colonists to head toward the U.S. southeast. He established San Miguel de Gualdape, the first Spanish settlement in what is now the United States in 1526. The colonists arrived too late in the season to plant, and fell ill, likely due to contaminated water sources. After Ayllón succumbed to illness, the colony fractured and abandoned San Miguel. Less than 150 colonists survived to limp back to Hispaniola. It would take Ayllón’s widow, Ana Bezerra, years to pay off her husband’s debts.

• After losing an eye fighting Cortés at Cempoala in Mexico, Narváez was appointed adelantado of Florida. He finally arrived in Florida in 1528. His unfortunate decision to split his land and sea forces after landing near Tampa Bay was but one of many disastrous mistakes. Hunger, hostilities with the Apalachee, and illness diminished the strength of the land forces, who failed to reconnect and resupply with their sea-based comrades. Narváez decided to skirt the gulf coast back to Mexico, and died on a make-shift raft blown out into the Gulf of Mexico near Galveston, Texas. Only four men, including the famous Alvar Cabeza de Vaca, survived the final overland journey through Texas and into northern Mexico.

• Hernando de Soto survived the conquest of Peru, only to die in 1542 on the banks of the Mississippi after pillaging his way through the southeast. The exact location of his watery grave remains unknown and the tattered remnants of his forces limped south to the Gulf of Mexico.

• The 1540 entrada into New Mexico bankrupted Francisco de Coronado. He died in Mexico City, exonerated of changes of crimes against the Native Americans, likely because the magistrate considered him a broken man “more fit to be governed… than govern”. Coronado’s chief lieutenant faced similar charges of brutality, was tried in Spain, found guilty, and died in prison.

In Central and South America the story of failure continues. Here I'll quote this compilation by another user for ease of reading...

• Francisco Hernández de Cordoba: Cordoba led an expedition of 110 Spaniards to the Yucatan in 1517, four years before Hernan Cortés arrived in the region. After poking around at various locations, his men set up camp on the shore of the Western Yucatan to get some fresh water. His men clustered around a well near a Maya city called Champutun. Unbeknownst to him, the Maya of the Yucatan had already been informed of the Spanish and their intentions by a shipwreck survivor named Gonzalo Guerrero. The Maya promptly attacked Cordoba's camp and killed a great many Spaniards. The men retreated back to the boats. Cordoba himself was mortally wounded and died shortly after returning to Cuba.

• Juan de Grijalva: Grijalva's expedition followed very closely in the footsteps of Cordoba's. In 1518, one year after Cordoba, Grijalva left with about 300 men (probably) for the Yucatan. Once again he sailed around the Yucatan, stopping at Cozumel and a few other key areas, before landing outside Champutun. And once again, the army of Champutun arrived and clashed with the conquistadors. The way Diaz del Castillo told it, this encounter sounded more like a draw. The Spaniards won a few battles but, after encountering heavy resistance, they made a 'tactical decision' to withdraw. In all likelihood it was probably a defeat, and Grijalva just put a more positive spin on it.

• Aleixo Garcia: This poor guy was a Portuguese conquistador who had been exploring around the Río de la Plata area of South America (modern day Paraguay) when indigenous informants told him of a rich land to the west. A great king ruled over a huge chunk of territory in the mountains. Having heard of Cortés's conquest of the Aztecs, Garcia decided to try to replicate it for Portugal. In 1525 he gathered a group of indigenous allies from the region and marched west into, what he would later discover, was the Inca empire. He only really succeeded in raiding a few border communities before the Inca army arrived and kicked him to the curb. After retreating, what was left of his indigenous allies turned on him and killed him for leading them into a suicide mission.

• Gonzalo Pizarro: The younger brother of the better-known Francisco Pizarro who toppled the Inca empire. In 1541-42 Gonzalo led an expedition into the Amazon rain forest to find a legendary indigenous ruler named "El Dorado," a king so rich he supposedly covered himself in gold dust. Before the Spanish arrived, the Inca had previously attempted several incursions into the Amazon with disastrous results. Indigenous allies tried to explain to Gonzalo Pizarro why this was a terrible idea, but he was undeterred. They started moving East following the course of a tributary of the Amazon. Not surprisingly to the Inca who accompanied him, the expedition started going downhill almost immediately. Supplies were a serious problem, as was disease, and the terrain proved very difficult to navigate. 140 of the 220 Spaniards died en route, as did 3 out of 4 indigenous allies. After hitting an impasse, he sent his second-in-command ahead with a smaller party to find some source of food. However, the scouting party quickly became separated as it was clear that moving upstream was not an option. With little choice left, Pizarro turned back.

Shameless plug! I am co-organising a one-day conference on this very topic at the Institute of Historical Research in London. If you've ever wanted to know how Hungary tried to create a colonial empire in the 19th century, or how British people became obsessed with fire plots after Guy Fawkes' attempt to blow up parliament, or how the Teutonic Order thought it could stay relevant as its power crumbled in the 15th century - Best Laid Plans is where it's at.

It's on 8 April and if you're in the area you should totally go. It's going to be super fun.

Edit: this thread would not be complete without mention of the Sicilian Expedition. What do you do when your fragile empire is finally starting to recover from ten years of war and a devastating plague? Why, you go and lose half your fleet, tens of thousands of men, your best general and most of your money trying to capture the only Greek city that is as wealthy and powerful as you are, of course.

As much as I'd like to go over the entire World Hockey Association (1972-1979), especially as it had teams fold midway through seasons (as well as have teams never even begin), I'll just stick to the tumultuous history of the NHL. It has had its fare share of relocated and defunct clubs, dating back literally to the start of the league. A concise list exists on Wikipedia, but I've given a summary of every team below, including two that fall within the 20 year limit (simply for posterity):

• Montreal Wanderers (1917-1918): One of the legendary clubs of early hockey, they won the Stanley Cup 4 times prior to the formation of the NHL. However just 4 games into the first season of the NHL their arena burned down. Rather than play in a smaller rink, and having some financial issues, the club folded. The other Montreal team at the time did move to the smaller rink, and remains today, the Canadiens.

• Quebec Bulldogs (1919-1920): Another team that predated the NHL, the Bulldogs (which was never their official name) decided to sit out the first two seasons for financial reasons; in order to have 4 teams in the first season, the NHL formed a team in Toronto, which eventually became the Maple Leafs of today. The Bulldogs finally joined the NHL in 1919, but only played the one season before they were sold and relocated to Hamilton and called the Tigers (see below).

• Hamilton Tigers (1920-1925): The relocated Quebec Bulldogs, the Tigers lasted until 1925. That year the NHL increased the season by 6 games, without increasing player salaries. The Tigers players went on strike, demanding $200 for the extra games, or they wouldn’t play in the playoffs. Instead the league suspended them, fined them that $200, and kept them from the playoffs. The team’s rights were then sold and became the New York Americans (see below).

• Pittsburgh Pirates (1925-1930): One of the first American teams in the NHL, the Pirates didn’t do too bad, as hockey was popular in Western Pennsylvania (the first pro teams were based out of there). However the Great Depression hurt them, and they moved to Philadelphia in 1930, becoming the Quakers (see below).

• Philadelphia Quakers (1930-1931): The former Pittsburgh Pirates, the Quakers had one of the worst records in NHL history in their lone season, and compounded with the Depression led to them folding. The NHL wouldn’t return to Pennsylvania until the 1967 expansion, when both cities were granted teams (the Pittsburgh Penguins and Philadelphia Flyers).

• Ottawa Senators (1917-1934): One of the powerhouse clubs of early hockey, the Senators were originally established 1883. They dominated hockey in the early years, winning the Stanley Cup 11 separate years. However the Depression also hit them, and as Ottawa was not a large city (and still isn’t), they sat out the 1931-32 season in order to get themselves in order. They returned for 1932-33, but just couldn’t manage and were sold to St. Louis in 1934, to become the Eagles (see below). In 1992 a new franchise began in Ottawa named the Senators, but they are separate and not a continuation of that team (despite publicity stunts to the contrary).

• St. Louis Eagles (1934-1935): The old Ottawa Senators, they played one season in St. Louis. However with the closest team in Chicago, and the rest in the northeast in an era when trains were the primary means of transportation, it was too much financially for the Eagles, and they folded after one year. The NHL did return in 1967 though with the St. Louis Blues.

• Montreal Maroons (1924-1938): With the Canadiens the only team in hockey-mad Montreal, and marketed towards the Francophone population, there was space for an Anglophone-oriented team, as the Wanderers had been back in the day. So the Maroons joined, and won the Stanley Cup twice in their time, as well as build the Montreal Forum (which became more famous as the home of the Canadiens). However they too felt the effects of the Depression, and folded in 1938.

• New York Americans (1925-1942): Few people realise the New York Rangers were not the first NHL team in New York. The Americans, who were the franchise rights from the Hamilton Tigers, held that distinction. Owned by Bill Dwyer, a leading bootlegger, they began a full year before the Rangers. But like the others, the Depression hurt the club, which changed its name to the Brooklyn Americans in 1941-42 in an attempt to help (despite playing in Manhattan). It didn’t (and for the record, Brooklyn only got a team this past year when the New York Islanders moved to the Barclays Center, though they’ve kept the name New York).

• California/Oakland Golden Seals/Seals (1967-1976): One of the 6 expansion teams from 1967, the team was originally called the California Seals but changed early in their first season to just Oakland (where they played), and became the California Golden Seals in 1970. They were one of the more colourful teams in NHL history, but financial troubles led them to move to Cleveland in 1976 to become the Barons (see below).

• Kansas City Scouts (1974-1976): The Scouts were simply just a terrible team in their two seasons, with 27 wins combined out of 160 games those years. Really not much else to say, so they moved to Colorado and became the Rockies (see below).

• Cleveland Barons (1976-1978): The former California/Oakland team, the Barons problem was largely the location of their arena (way outside the city). This was the reason the WHA’s Crusaders folded right before, and why the Barons only lasted two seasons. In an unprecedented move, they merged with the struggling Minnesota North Stars (see below).

• Atlanta Flames (1972-1980): Founded largely to stop the WHA from going to Atlanta, the Flames didn’t do too bad in their time down there, despite more recent reports that surfaced when the Thrashers club moved in 2011 (see below). They were mostly a casualty of a mild recession and the owner losing money as a result. They moved to Calgary, where they remain today.

• Colorado Rockies (1976-1982): The old Kansas City team, the Rockies were also terrible, and couldn’t get people to watch. They moved to New Jersey in 1982, becoming the Devils. Minnesota North Stars (1967-1993): One of the 6 expansion teams of 1967, the North Stars had issues in part because they didn’t technically play in the Twin Cities, but in Bloomington (the arena was turned into a parking lot for the Mall of America). They moved to Dallas in 1993, becoming the Stars.

• Quebec Nordiques (1979-1995): A former WHA club (one of four), they were a casualty of a weak Canadian dollar and lack of modern arena (which was only resolved this past year). They moved to Colorado, becoming the Avalanche.

• Winnipeg Jets (1979-1996): Another WHA club, the Jets effectively had the same problems as Quebec (weak dollar, bad arena) and moved to Phoenix to become the Phoenix (now Arizona) Coyotes. They have since built a new arena, and in 2011 the Atlanta Thrashers (see below) relocated to Winnipeg, taking up the name Jets (but not the history of the team, though they honour it and such).

• The Hartford Whalers (1979-1997) jus miss the cutoff for here, while the Atlanta Thrashers (1999-2011) are way too recent, but I’ll quickly note them: the Whalers also needed a new arena (still waiting for one in Hartford), and were stuck between powerhouses in Boston and New York, so moved to Carolina as the Hurricanes. The Thrashers were a legal mess, and in 2032 I’ll gladly go over that, but as noted above they became the new Winnipeg Jets.

Benedict Arnold's failed invasion of Canada during the American Revolutionary War. The map he used was written by John Montresor, a British man who modified the map he gave Arnold. This map put Arnold on the worst possible route. Also, the ships he procured to cross the Kennebec river were made by a loyalist, who used green wood, which meant by the time Arnold was ready to use them the wood would have shrunk and had holes in it. Lastly, because of all the setbacks, the term of enlistment for many of his men ran up before he reached Quebec so they left and went home. Basically everything Arnold tried to do failed in his invasion of Canada, and this was all before his men ever fired a shot. Source: Attack on Quebec: The American Invasion of Canada 1775-1776

Nobody has yet mentioned a good technology failure.
Back in the 1960's the US auto industry began to be frightened by the appearance of cheaper, lighter more efficient cars from Japan, and the popular VW Beetle. Seeing the threat, GM came out with the Chevy Vega, in 1970. It was supposed to meet the competition, and it got amazingly glowing reviews from US car magazines for its innovative design: Motor Trends made it Car of the Year for 1971.

However, problems emerged. There was a lot of vibration, both in the ride and in the engine. This made it uncomfortable to ride in, also it meant the large carburetor tended to work loose, resulting in a lot of fuel being wasted and backfiring in the exhaust- which reminded everyone of the backfiring junk cars in comedies.The coolant level in the very small radiator had to be carefully maintained- if it dropped very little, the aluminum engine started to overheat and, being aluminum, distort, and this created a leaky head gasket. The design of the valve seals also was bad, and they became brittle and tended to leak. Combined with a warping engine and leaking head gasket, leaky valve seals tended to allow coolant into the cylinders where- because the cylinders were not sleeved with steel, but were surface-treated aluminum- it destroyed the lubrication , letting the pistons hack into the engine block, and the engine was trashed. This typically happened within the first 50,000 miles. Another problem emerged: the design of the body trapped water so effectively that cars began rusting almost immediately. The Vega was still saddling GM with free warranty repairs two years after it had ceased production of them.

In retrospect, it's a great example of technological hubris: GM like most of the US auto industry had been riding very high for decades, and became convinced that it could implement a lot of newly-designed elements in one car all at once, without going through extensive development beforehand to see how all the pieces would interact with each other, and with the real world over time. When the design flaws had been addressed, in the last two years of production, it was too late . More people had become convinced that GM just could not build a small, high-quality efficient car, and the Japanese would easily dominate that market for the next 20 years.

I'm adding the entire reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Man changes capital from Delhi to Devagiri(aka Daulatabad) to easily govern and takes the entire population of Delhi with him on a journey. After a while he shifted back to Delhi since his northern territories were exposed. And shifted people again.

Raised an army of around 35 hundred thousand soldiers to conquer the remnants of the khanates in Iran, Iraq. Paid them a year's pay in advance, kept them idle for a year and then dissolved the army since he couldn't pay them. Sent soldiers to northeast India(to conquer China according to Barani ) but failed to provision anything to cross the mountains. Entire army gets wiped out. Almost single handedly caused rebellions to break off territories and brought about the downfall of the empire.

P.S: On mobile at work, so will add sources later.

Any opinions on King John of England? I know little: wasn't he a good administrator, and with his personal failures was also unlucky in (1) facing Philip Augustus (2) dealing with Richard's aftermath?

Whenever the words 'Cao Cao' and 'failure' are mentioned together, people would usually immediately recall the Battle of Chibi. And true enough - it was a failure, and a major one enough that many consider it a turning point during the Three Kingdoms period. And yet when Zhuge Liang listed Cao Cao's failings in his book (Later Chu Shi Biao), the battle mentioned was not Chibi. Instead, Zhuge Liang cites the Battle of Ruxu as one of Cao Cao's greatest failures.

Two major battles took place at Ruxu 濡须 when Cao Cao went on the attack (the other two major clashes that happened in around the same area had Cao Cao's army defending at Hefei). And both times, Cao Cao was forced into a retreat, despite no longer suffering from the sea-sickness and disease that plagued his army during Chibi.

• The first Battle of Ruxu came 5 years after Chibi. Having finally settled the problem Han Sui and Ma Chao to the West, Cao Cao decided it was time to put Sun Quan in his place. Bringing along 400 000 troops (a much more moderate claim than his 800 000 at Chibi), Cao Cao decided to attack through Yang province rather than Jing province, picking his spot at the Ruxu river mouth. Unfortunately, someone in Wu had been expecting him - a great fort was blocking off the waterway between the two mountains, and along with it any chance of entrance into Jiangdong. With the fort's protection 70 000 troops proved more than enough for Lv Meng to resist Cao Cao's army, and the latter was forced to encamp on the other side of the river, refusing to be goaded into battle. Such was the wariness that Cao Cao held for Sun Quan, that even when the Wu leader went on an 'inspection trip' of the Wei camp, he ordered his troops to stop firing arrows, suspecting a trap of some sort (this would be the origin of 'borrowing arrows with straw boats', with Sun Quan in the lead role). Cao Cao also famously declared that "One should have sons like Sun Quan, whereas Liu Biao's sons are comparable to dogs and pigs", and Sun Quan returned the favour - in a masterstroke of diplomacy, Sun Quan wrote a letter declaring that "the Spring tides will be coming in, my Lord should quickly retreat" (giving Cao Cao a reason to back down) with words on the back "if you are not dead, I won't be at peace" (reaffirming their rivalry). Cao Cao laughed in appreciation of such a worthy opponent, and indeed retreated.

• The second Battle of Ruxu went in much the same manner, with Lv Meng once again foiling any chance for Cao Cao to advance. To make things worse, Gan Ning led a 100 daredevil troops into Cao Cao's camp under the cover of darkness to wreck havoc, and managed to escape without a single casualty. Morale dropped to an all time low, and Cao Cao was once again forced to a retreat.

In the late 1970s, Mobutu Sese Seko partnered with West Germany's Orbital Transport und Raketen AG (hereafter referred to as OTRAG), to construct a space launch facility in Katanga province. Here is a video of an early test launch. You don't have to speak french to get a sense of Mobutu's reaction.

However, initial test failures didn't doom this Zairan-OTRAG partnership. International pressure did. There was a lot of international pressure from France and the Soviet Union over concerns that OTRAG rocket launch designs being converted to become a West German ballistic missile program.

There were also parallel fears that the Zairan government could use the technology to create their own ballistic missile program, which would potentially destabilize relations in Central Africa.

So, under pressure from the Soviet Union and France, Zaire closed the facility in 1979 and OTRAG moved to....Libya. Which led to a whole new round of consternation from Libya's neighbors about the potential use of orbital launchers in developing a Libyan ballistic missile program. Under pressure from France and the Soviet Union, the West German government stepped in and forced OTRAG to shut down their program in the early 1980s, and West Germany instead shifted to supporting the Ariane program.

I have to nominate Enver Pasha.

Enver Pasha didn't just invade Russia in the winter. He invaded the Caucasus mountains in the winter. And he did it with an army that was utterly unprepared and woefully ill-equipped for the job. When he lost, and he lost badly, he resolutely refused to admit that he bungled the campaign. Instead, he heaped the blame on the Armenian minority. In many respects, the Armenian genocide began with his unwillingness to accept responsibility.

It's unsurprising that von Sanders thought he was incompetent.

I would like to nominate Napoleon III, though he is fairly well remembered anyway.

Napoleon was the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte (The III is because Bonaparte had named his son his successor and Napoleon was validating this) and came to power via election, then consolidated it through a military coup in 1851. His foreign policy goal was to eliminate the congress diplomacy of Europe which since his uncle had abdicated in 1815 had left France without any friends in Europe and then expand France, preferably through the Rhine and Low Countries.

He started with dismantling (possibly accidentally) the Holy Alliance, his politicking in the Ottoman Empire provoked the Russian Empire to reasserting her right and beginning the Crimean War in 1853. Austrian and Russian disagreements meant a death sentence to the Holy Alliance which had maintained the status quo for so long in Europe, in addition with Britain's help France had won a military victory against a great power for the first time since Bonaparte. The death of the Holy Alliance in the short-term seemed a fantastic result: Russia retreated into isolation and Austria was imperilled by losing her strongest ally, and Britain had fought the war by France's side. This seems bittersweet considering that Napoleon had now kicked the last prop supporting the status quo from Europe, now nationalism could advance.

Napoleon then turned to Italy, where he had served as a revolutionary in 1848, to expand France's borders. The Second War of Italian Unification (1859) led to strange consequences which Napoleon perhaps rashly ignored: the Austrians were not overwhelmed by the joint Franco-Piedmontese armies and continued to hold Venetia (which had been promised to Piedmont), France had regardless annexed Savoy and Nice as per her agreement with Piedmont, and as a result of the nationalist fervour ignited by Piedmontese gains a wave of revolt across Southern Italy led to the eventual unification of Italy in 1861. The revolt looked set to absorb Rome (then under Papal control) but Napoleon feared the domestic consequence and panicked. French troops occupied Rome (1860-70), much to the disgust of the Romans and Italian nationalists. Going into the war Napoleon had expected to gain a dependable (but weaker) ally at the expense of Austria - her rival, instead she had inadvertantly created a new great power on her doorstep and instantly annoyed it through Napoleon's half-baked war strategy.

Ever more calamitous was Napoleon's relationship with Prussian chancellor Otto Von Bismarck. Napoleon considered them equals, however Bismarck recognised that the Frenchman had gone into most of his foreign policy ventures without a long-term plan. Because of this Bismarck was able to commit Napoleon to neutrality as he attacked Denmark (1864), and then Austria (1866) by promising that France would receive compensation in territory on the Rhine. The compensation never came; instead Bismarck provoked Napoleon by interfering in the Spanish succession (1870), which Napoleon regarded as in the French sphere of influence.

France demanded blood, and Napoleon was only too happy to attack Bismarck after he had humiliated him twice. Napoleon had banked on Southern German (Catholic) states flocking to his cause, but they did not. Not only were they bound to aid any German state from outside aggression (as per the 1866 treaty) they also weren't keen on the idea of French domination of the Rhineland. The Franco-Prussian war (1870-1) was an absolute catastrophe and the French were humiliated, Alsace-Loraine was lost, and from the victory the German Empire had risen and loomed large over Europe. Napoleon was deposed shortly afterwards in 1871.

His reign saw the end of an alliance system which had maintained the status quo for almost forty years, the creation of two neighbouring great powers and the humiliation of France which would never again regain its dominant position over the continent.

I think English - Zulu war can be considered a gigantic failure for English military. Guys had freaking machine guns and struggled beating guys armed with spears