And what about the worst general? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

toundra -> And what about the worst general? (12/11/2001 11:37:00 PM)

General Pétain (WW2) Traitor, coward and way too old



Fredde -> (12/12/2001 1:23:00 AM)

Hitler no doubt. He should have stayed at corporal level. Most of all because he didn't even have the self-insight to leave the military job to those who knew the traade. I'm lucky for that, but he really deserves the badge of the worst military leader. Eisenhower. Great politican, keeping everyone happy although his very indecisive military leadership prolonged WWII far too long. Perhaps there would have been no divided Germany if someone else had been in charge..



Larry Holt -> (12/12/2001 2:48:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Fredde:
Hitler no doubt. He should have stayed at corporal level. Most of all because he didn't even have the self-insight to leave the military job to those who knew the traade. I'm lucky for that, but he really deserves the badge of the worst military leader.

Hitler made some very brilliant military decisions eary on. His decision to back the armor advocates when they were being ignored in France, UK & US was visionary. He personally ordered the long barrel 50mm gun into the PzKwIII J when his generals did not think it was needed. Then again, his decisions to divert battle of Britan aircraft from the RAF to cities, to attack the USSR, standfast order, stop weapons development because it was not going to be a long war, etc. were wrong. The trouble is that once he made a few decisions that were better than his generals, he would never accept that they might know more than he did.



Larry Holt -> (12/12/2001 2:53:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Fredde:
Hitler no doubt. He should have stayed at corporal level. Most of all because he didn't even have the self-insight to leave the military job to those who knew the traade. I'm lucky for that, but he really deserves the badge of the worst military leader.

Hitler made some very brilliant military decisions eary on. His decision to back the armor advocates when they were being ignored in France, UK & US was visionary. His generals were against occupation of the Rhineland. He drove the occupation of the Sudetenland, Austria & Czechloslovkia. He personally ordered the long barrel 50mm gun into the PzKwIII J when his generals did not think it was needed. Then again, his decisions to divert battle of Britan aircraft from the RAF to cities, to attack the USSR, standfast order, stop weapons development because it was not going to be a long war, etc. were wrong. The trouble is that once he made a few decisions that were better than his generals, he would never accept that they might know more than he did.



pauk -> (12/12/2001 3:14:00 AM)

well, well.. the worst general? we should focus eye on generals from the world war one... we have many canditates from this period...
just remember battle of verdun (more then milion soldiers died - for nothing)
those generals was absoulated, colonial-warfare minded....



Mikimoto -> (12/12/2001 3:33:00 AM)

Worst was Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Caudillo de España por la Gracia de Dios. Tyrant, fascist, dictator, bloody, cruel and stupid.



troopie -> (12/12/2001 9:08:00 AM)

Tactical or strategic? Paul Methuen, Redvers Buller, Douglas Haig, John French. The last two proved their incompetence in the Second Boer War and went on to worse things in WW1. Rennenkampf and Samsonov, Ludendorff and Nivelle. But my all time choice is Philip II of the Spains, with Sukhomlinov (he after whom the rule is named) as second choice.
troopie



VictorH -> (12/12/2001 10:28:00 AM)

Lee, Bragg, Burnside, Pope, Fremont, Van Dorn.



mogami -> (12/12/2001 9:03:00 PM)

"Varus give me back my legions"



pauk -> (12/13/2001 4:34:00 AM)

mogami, can you remind me, who said this... i know this was a roman cesar vhen the varus was defeated by the germans, am i right?
just can't remember name of cesar.... [ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: pauk ]



Mesa -> (12/13/2001 6:44:00 AM)

Charles XII of Sweden... I don't know if he is the worst general, but he certainly was eminently capable of turning a series of victories into disaster. Marched all the way from (Lithuania?) to Turkey. His troops were superb, his generals were competent, his equipment was adequate, but he should have stayed at home and helped rule his nation. Hindsight, I know. He and Peterhoff were great men (not good: great, huge, mighty). Imagine what both men could have accomplished without that awful war between Russ and Swede. It is really sad that Kings are no closer to God than any of us. The Swedes and Russyans deserved a better go at civil government. Sad. Very sad.



mogami -> (12/13/2001 9:10:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by pauk:
mogami, can you remind me, who said this... i know this was a roman cesar vhen the varus was defeated by the germans, am i right?
just can't remember name of cesar.... [ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: pauk ]

Greetings. It was Augustus
Publius Quinctilius Varusd. A.D. 9, Roman general. In 13 B.C. he was consul with Tiberius Claudius Nero (later emperor as Tiberius) and later was governor of Syria. Although unsuited for the position, he was appointed governor of Germany by Augustus. In A.D. 9, to suppress an uprising, he led three legions across the Rhine into the Teutoburg Forest, where they were massacred by the troops of Arminius. Varus himself committed suicide. This defeat was a major catastrophe for the Romans. It is said that afterward Augustus would start up from sleep, crying, Varus, Varus, bring me back my legions
"Quintili Vare, legiones redde!" Here after Augustus opposed any expansion of the empire. Actually I think Charles XII was a great general. Peter started the war with Sweden thinking the 15year old Swedish king would be an easy target. Charles however defeated first Russia's allies Poland and Denmark and then with 15k troops invaded Russia. He lost all his gains in a single battle but after years of constant victory against superior force. When ever Peter asked for peace Charles always answered with "You started it" While prehaps not a gifted statesman he did prove a brave and skillfull military commander. [ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]



Mesa -> (12/13/2001 10:30:00 AM)

quote:

Actually I think Charles XII was a great general. Peter started the war with Sweden thinking the 15year old Swedish king would be an easy target. Charles however defeated first Russia's allies Poland and Denmark and then with 15k troops invaded Russia. He lost all his gains in a single battle but after years of constant victory against superior force. When ever Peter asked for peace Charles always answered with "You started it" While prehaps not a gifted statesman he did prove a brave and skillfull military commander.
Yes, good points. His grand strategies suffered. Russian insistance on the burning of everything around his army. Swedish Soldiers being led about, their supplies dumped, their supply lines devestated, supporting corps distracted and decimated, poisoned and blind on barrels of captured vodka, attacking Poltava without guns, powder and allowing his army to be broken into little pieces the gleam of bayonets verses russian redoubts manned with pike armed levies, stuck into his centre like an impaling stake, attacking helter skelter, losing Riva TWICE, screwing with Poland. Fight fight fight.
If he were an American Tank commander in ww2, he might have fared better, as Patton was proof of.
As a grand strategist, he was not much brighter than the dancing bear he was said to have dumped out a window. Yep, he was a good tactician. But his strategy was lacking. He would have made a fine brigadier. [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Mesa ]



Mesa -> (12/13/2001 7:50:00 PM)

Who was the British commander who attacked New Orleans during (technically AFTER the conlclusion of peace) the War Of 1812? There was a badly done attack... I hafta read a bit more about it. That battle was glorious for General Jackson and that Pirate dude, but it was a disaster for the British. I gotta go find the name. Maybe he wasn't a bad general and it was just terrible luck or politics or something led him to march into a firestorm like he did. And that Jackson, HOLY SMOKES what a scrappy bugger he was!!! Nevermind



mogami -> (12/14/2001 11:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mesa:
Who was the British commander who attacked New Orleans during (technically AFTER the conlclusion of peace) the War Of 1812? There was a badly done attack... I hafta read a bit more about it. That battle was glorious for General Jackson and that Pirate dude, but it was a disaster for the British. I gotta go find the name. Maybe he wasn't a bad general and it was just terrible luck or politics or something led him to march into a firestorm like he did. And that Jackson, HOLY SMOKES what a scrappy bugger he was!!! Nevermind
Major General Sir Edward Pakenham he was killed in the battle. The War was not over, the treaty had been written but Britian did not ratify it intill after they lost this battle. Pakenham was the brother in law of the Duke of Wellington. His performance during the battle of Salamanca in Spain (aginst the French Napoleonic army)led to his promotion. [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]



mogami -> (12/30/2001 11:21:00 AM)

Hi, Lets not forget Saddam Hussien he sucks as a general. It was not intill after he stopped directing the war against Iran that the Iraqis started to make headway. (although both sides seemed to have studied WW1 more then the mechinized wars that followed)



m10bob -> (12/31/2001 10:17:00 PM)

McClellan....Good drill Sgt,but never wanted to fight..Extended the American war between the states about 3 years longer than was necessary.(But he wore a good uniform).



mogami -> (1/2/2002 3:27:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by m10bob:
McClellan....Good drill Sgt,but never wanted to fight..Extended the American war between the states about 3 years longer than was necessary.(But he wore a good uniform).

GB McClellan.........I can't even think about him with getting very sad. He had to be an intelligent person. So I am always wondering how he came to the conclusions he did. I really believe IQ wise he might have been one of the brightest Americans ever to command an army. Also I see a change in him take place after he has been in Washington for a while. (He starts out quite ready to fight, but then starts realizing things. In the beginning he really does improve his army but then grows reluctant to use it.) The Peninsula idea is quite sound but fails in the execution when he decides not to fight.
One of his veterans after the war said 'He never realized just what kind of troops he was in command of' He seems to have had several delusions that cost him a place among the great all time military commanders.
1. The size of the enemy force he faced (usually he accredited the CSA with 2x his own strength without ever wondering how this could possibly be so-several of his generals pointed out the census of 1860
2. He had grave miscalculations in the morale and ability of his army-he alternated between thinking it would follow him in a coup or it would dissolve if the wars intentions seemed to harsh.
3. He possessed great organization skills and good strategical understanding but had no tactical skill. (He thought Antietam was a masterpiece?) Finally I get the impression that he was a man who had a little boys idea of what a commanding general should be. Among the common troops it worked and they recipacated the genuine affection he had for them. However when dealing with his "real" combat leaders like Kearny and Sedgwick, and Hooker he failed to utilize his best assets. These men commanded first rate Divisions and were fighters. If he had just turned them loose all at once they might just have won the war for him.
To be fair no Civil War Army Commander started out with great success. He might actully have been given the command too fast (before he could develop the battle field skills needed). Grant and Lee both had a number of mishaps before rising to army command. McClellan had one minor victory inflated beyond reason and rode it to the top where all his faults were most exposed.
The absolute most damning thing about McClellan in my opinion was the way he treated Gen Pope. (not that I'm sorry for Pope, but the common soldiers paid very dear for his personal grudge)
I would have shot him for this. FJ Porter was court martial over the affair but you know he was following direction from Mac. (He was cleared in 1888 I think but that was political since he was clearly guilty).
So how many times did Mac lose a chance to win a battle that could have ended the war.
1. June 1862 in the Va Peninsula he retreats instead of attacking.
2. July 1862 he drags his feet and lets Pope get beat at 2nd Manassass
3. Sept 1862 somehow even with Lees orders he allows Harpers Ferry to fall and only gets a draw at Antietam. Yes I would have to place him in this catagory of one of the worst all time, maybe even the worst since he had more tools for victory then some of our other canidates. [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



AbsntMndedProf -> (1/3/2002 3:01:00 AM)

General Luigi Cadorna, Chief of Staff of the Italian armed forces during the First World War, would appear to more than qualify for a place among the worst generals. The following excerpt from 'The First World War' by John Keegan, (Alfred A Knopf, NY, NY, 1999.), gives a brief overview of Cadorna's failings: " . . . The [Italian] Chief of Staff, Luigi Cadorna, was a martinet. He not only stood on his constitutional rights of supreme authority - independant of King and Prime Minister - over the army once war began; he excercised that authority with a brutality not shown by any other general of the First World War. During its course, he dismissed 217 generals from duty and, in the crisis of 1917, ordered the summary shooting of officers of retreating units with pitiless inflexibility. This style of command, as opposed to leadership, had its effect on the Italian army at the outset. Hopeless attacks were renewed, heavy losses accepted with an abnegation as remarkable as that of the British on the Somme or the French at Verdun. Indeed, given the uniquely impenetrable nature of the front the italian army was set to attack, its early display of self-sacrifice may well be thought unparalleled by any other. The price was paid later, in its moral [sic] collapse at Caporetto in October 1917." p. 227 Eric Maietta



Ozgur -> (1/3/2002 8:11:00 PM)

here is a portrait from Ottoman Army: Enver Pasha; he was an admirer of Napoleon; and tried to imitate his invasion of Italy (when napoleon passed Alpins with his troops). In the Battle of Sarikamis(1914) ( a village in Eastern Anatolia) Enver tried to encircle the Russian garnison in Sarikamıs by moving his troops over the mountain known as "Allahuekber" by the Turks. It was a brilliant maneuvre for Enver but is was planned on the map withouth any attention on logistics and wheather. So a whole Turkish Corps tried to pass the mountain without any path or track, in the East Anatolian Winter under fierce blizzard without aduquate food and transport; the result: nearly 90000 troops died from frostbite, starvation and deseases without firing a shot to on the Russians. Ottoman military history is full of brilliant military commanders; but the "previlige" of succesfully destroying an infantry corps without firing a shot goes to Enver.Since they lost an Army on Eastern front Ottoman Government had to switch an Army from Southern Front, thus could not eploit their victory against British at Kut'el Amara (Iraq). In the long term The disaster of sarikamis is the main reason behind the Ottoman defeat in ww1.



rlc27 -> (1/4/2002 1:03:00 PM)

There was a certain British general who fought in the American revolution--and if I remember his name right it was Burgoyne? Anyway, I believe he defied Cornwall and massacred lots of colonists even when Kind Charles and just about every British general wanted to treat them a little bit more 'gently,' they were after all fighting a kind of civil war with their countrymen. Burgoyne got his when he marched into upstate NY without meeting up with his support first and was ambushed. He was, incidentally, one of the few British (or American, for that matter) generals that was not a Freemason...



Hauptmann6 -> (1/4/2002 4:01:00 PM)

Marc Clark, just look at the italian campain for explanation... As a group, the japanese naval high command takes the cake. Ordering ships that don't exist around...



mogami -> (1/6/2002 5:52:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kendokabob:
There was a certain British general who fought in the American revolution--and if I remember his name right it was Burgoyne? Anyway, I believe he defied Cornwall and massacred lots of colonists even when Kind Charles and just about every British general wanted to treat them a little bit more 'gently,' they were after all fighting a kind of civil war with their countrymen. Burgoyne got his when he marched into upstate NY without meeting up with his support first and was ambushed. He was, incidentally, one of the few British (or American, for that matter) generals that was not a Freemason... Greetings, you've been watching too many movies (The Patriot maybe?) Gentleman Johnny never massacred anyone. Burgoyne, John
Pronounced As: brgoin , 1722-92, British general and playwright. In the Seven Years War, his victory over the Spanish in storming (1762) Valencia de Alcántara in Portugal made him the toast of London. He was elected to Parliament in 1761 and took his seat in 1763. In 1772 his attack on the East India Company helped bring about some reform of the company in the Regulating Act of that year. As the American Revolution was beginning, he was sent (1775) with reinforcements to support General Gage at Boston. Burgoyne witnessed the battle of Bunker Hill and returned home in disgust (Dec., 1775). He joined (1776) Sir Guy Carleton in Canada and served at Crown Point; but, critical of Sir Guy's inaction, Burgoyne returned to England to join Lord George Germain in laying the plans that resulted in the Saratoga campaign. In the summer of 1777, Burgoyne began the ill-fated expedition with an army poorly equipped, untrained for frontier fighting, and numbering far less than he had requested. After minor initial success, stiffened American resistance coupled with the failure of Barry St. Leger and Sir William Howe to reach Albany led to his surrender at Saratoga (Oct. 17, 1777). He returned to England, was given (1782) a command in Ireland, and managed the impeachment of Warren Hastings. Burgoyne wrote several plays, of which The Heiress (1786) is best known. The supporting (or un-supporting) Generals deserve to be on this list more then he does.
The really nasty acts in the Revolotion were between colonist (loyalist/rebel) and mostly in the southern colonies. Hundreds of POW's also died in Philadelphia from disease, the British could have provided better conditions for them, but it was not a goverment policy to kill them. [ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



vils -> (1/14/2002 6:55:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mesa:
Charles XII of Sweden... I don't know if he is the worst general, but he certainly was eminently capable of turning a series of victories into disaster. Marched all the way from (Lithuania?) to Turkey. His troops were superb, his generals were competent, his equipment was adequate, but he should have stayed at home and helped rule his nation. Hindsight, I know. He and Peterhoff were great men (not good: great, huge, mighty). Imagine what both men could have accomplished without that awful war between Russ and Swede. It is really sad that Kings are no closer to God than any of us. The Swedes and Russyans deserved a better go at civil government. Sad. Very sad.
Sweden has never had a king with the name of Charles :-) Maybe you are referring to CARL XII GUSTAF, the monark of Sweden during early 1700. He was a brilliant tactician, and the loss you are talking about i guess is the Battle of Poltava, when roughly 8000 men was extremely close in winning over the 40.000 russian army. But due to alot of factors, and orders that never came through, it instead turned into disaster, and His majesty CARL XII had to flee with his survivors, some 2000 men, to turkey. You really should read about this! I can strongly recommend a book by Peter Englund called 'Poltava'
. An historical masterpiece!
/Vils



vils -> (1/14/2002 6:59:00 PM)

Fieldmarshall HAIGH no doubt. He should have been trialed for mass-murder and shot.



starbar -> (1/16/2002 12:39:00 AM)

What about Kitchener ? During the Sudan campaign kept the Toms from digging shell scrapes and trenches and suffered unecessary casualties. Egyptian and Sudan units led by British officers dug em and had no casualties.
Allowed 21 Lancer regiment to charge 20,000+ dervishers. This nearly got Churchill killed.
Could have ended the campaign much earlier many brits killed by disease.
During an advance allowed a rear Brigade to lag behind and had to deal with massive attacks from 40+K enemy. If this guy had been as bad as Martin (CO 21Lance)and Kitchiner then the Sudan campaign could have been different.
During Boer war this dope kept ordering massed infantry attacks against boer positions lots of casualties. Think of Somme on a smaller scale.



troopie -> (1/17/2002 1:23:00 AM)

In the Boer War Kitchener also deliberately disorganised the British transport and medical services, destroying a system that had worked in order to put in HIS system. Thousands of soldiers died of cholera because of it. He became known as Kitchener of Chaos. Kitchener and Roberts also pursued the concentration camp policy, not indicative of bad generalship, but gaining both of them eternal hatred from the Boers.
troopie



Bromley -> (1/17/2002 7:18:00 AM)

What about El Duce? Apart from his knack of deciding which hopelessly outclassed indiginous population was going to the the Italian army a hard time this month, my favourite anecdote relates to his inability to delegate (or even admit he doesn't have a clue). Apparently, when shown a selection of plans for the new Italian tank, he has no idea which is best (or even good) and randomly manages to choose one that was already five years out of date.



starbar -> (1/17/2002 7:51:00 PM)

My favorite bit about il duce was his airforce. said it was big enough to level London. When and brought dignitaries around they would have to fly planes from one base to another so it looked bigger than it was. Another bad one.
Colin Powell. Convinced the US president to stop going into Iraq to get Hussain



vlar -> (1/18/2002 12:49:00 PM)

According to the History channel the worst general was Ambrose Burnside. He's actually more famous for inventing sideburns. He was a general in the Union army diuring the american civil war.
He's first stupidity happened when he wanted his army to cross a river. There was a crossing about 3 miles downstream but he prefered to cross on the bridge. The problem was that 400 confederates were guarding that bridge. So he sent wave after wave of his soldiers and they were massacred there. Then he was given a new army and ordered to take a city (don't remember the name). The city had few troops garisoning it. But instead of entering the city immidiately he waited until reinforcements arrived into the city and it was fortified. And then he attacked at the most well defended place in the city. The result: a second army was slaughtered. Then Linkoln relieved him of command but even after that he was given another army to do another battle. For his last battle he came up with a "brilliant" plan. He would dig a tunnel from his camp to go under the confederate camp, then place explosives in it and blow up the enemy camp. So he did it and there was an explosion but since the ground absorbed most of the shock waves few confederate soldiers actually died. But there was a huge (25x25x10 meters) crater created in the middle of his enemy's camp. Then Burnside ordered his troops to advance... right into the crater!!! Then the confederates simply gathered around the rim of the crater and gunned down all the soldiers in it. The result: a third army slaughterd.
Now there's a bad general.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.656006