We've had nothing like this as far as I can remember, so l here we go.
Who do you think is the world's worst general? Give your opinon and I will set up the poll. I will give my opinion once the poll is set-up.
Printable View
We've had nothing like this as far as I can remember, so l here we go.
Who do you think is the world's worst general? Give your opinon and I will set up the poll. I will give my opinion once the poll is set-up.
I nominate Stalin.
Hmmm.
OK - so in order to qualify, I'd guess you'd need to have been a command officer...
Ambrose Burnside commanded in one massive debacle; Pyrrhus of Epirus has achieved everlasting fame for his ineptitude. On the other hand, Leonidas of Sparta lost his entire force with no gain of ground; mere numbers are insufficient.
Hitler and Stalin both attempted command control of their militaries during WWII; it's possible that each would qualify. Stalin, however, did win his war... and Hitler, despite his myriad failings, did exhibit genius...
So here's my nominees:
- F.M. Haig [UK; WWI]
- Guy de Lusignan, King-Consort of Jerusalem
- Gen. James Ledlie [USA; Battle of the Crater]
- Philip VI of France [Agincourt]
- Maj. Gen. William Elphinstone
- Lord Chelmsford [Zulu War]
- President Lyndon Johnson [USA; Vietnam]
- Gen. Arthur E. Aitken [UK; Battle of Tanga]
- Gen. Kuropatkin [Russo-Japanese War]
- King Ethelred ("the Unready") of England
I'm deliberately ommitting such notables as Custer (who only lost his LAST battle), McClellan (incompetent, but led no slaughters), and Montgomery (he was surprisingly effective).
I'm not sure Johnson qualifies Gnerphk. But if so, his military ineptitude pales besides the Stanley Baldwin-Neville Chamberlain tag team, whose 'Peace at any cost' mentality amounted to near betrayal.
1st point there I must SayQuote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
Haig= Total Buffoon!
2nd point
Monty= Genius in The Desert had a few problems over his time (market Garden)but overall pretty good, basically redesigned the invasion of Sicily, got through the Gustav Line, Europe - he advocated for the expansion to the 5 div landing, he re-organized the 1st and 9th armies to fit as a whole force instead of peice meal, he then made it to the Rhine and crossed it without a bridge albeit after you yanks, he then cut off the dutch peninsula and took the surrender there.... (WW1 he was at Mons, Arras, On the Somme and at Passchendaele as part of IX Corps in Plumers Second Army)
My own for worst General?
Major General Hunter Weston- Gallipoli Campaign...
Lt. General Arthur Percival- Singapore....
Plus a couple others Im yet to name as it is late....
Hunter-Weston... called a rank amateur by Haig of all people. Yeah; he qualifies.
Did you know he was the only serving M.P. to simultaneously command an army in the field since the days of Napoleon?
And yes, I agree about Monty. He was extremely competent and occasionally brilliant; I've put him in the same list as McClellan and Custer because one can say the same thing about both of them. He was actually better than either, but then, he did have better intel and a far superior staff.
Wildor: I'm including Johnson only because of the "Commander-in-Chief" nominal rank awarded to the American presidents. No P.M. has ever held similar authority -- and in my opinion, this is a very good thing; political leaders have no business making purely military decisions. In my opinion, he's the worst of our CinCs -- miles beyond Truman or Dubya.
I'm sticking with Stalin. I'd like to see this thread lead into a new thread, with a poll, and each of us can "sponsor" a general. So I will present the argument that Stalin was the worst, Digger will present the argument that Haig was the worst, etc. I've never seen a thread like that attempted and I think it would be really cool.
Heh I could sponser a few of them actually but theres another story....Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
I think you're right, Bole... though not about Stalin. He did win his war, after all, and he did it at a severe technologic and logistic disadvantage.
It would be tough for me to present any single one on my list as my champion "worst" general (though I suppose I could give Chelmsford a bit of a break; like Stalin, he did eventually win his war).
So... why don't some others of you go ahead and start? I'm not even going to insist on one champion alone; frankly, Digger, you can likely make an excellent case for each of your two and Haig to boot if you like. Bole - it is your idea; go ahead and show us how it's to be done, eh?
I'll edit in the poll if we [hopefully] get any more reponses.
Sounds fun to me.
I'll be putting something together on my 'favorites'; I'm anxious to see what other people write.
I would actually disagree with this statement. King Pyrrhus I of Epirus was tactically effective with his skilled use of war elephants and heavy cavalry. The Epirote king managed to defeat the Romans at the battles of Heraclea in 280 BCE and Asculum in 279 BCE. Although Asculum was a Pyrrhic victory or a victory that was achieved at a great loss of soldiers, one must keep in mind that Pyrrhus' greatest weakness was his mercurial or erratic nature and lack of a coherent military objective as opposed to military incompetence. Plutarch in his Parallel Lives recorded that Hannibal Barca ranked Pyrrhus of Epirus as the greatest commander the world had seen up to that point while according to Appian, Hannibal placed Pyrrhus as the greatest general after Alexander III of Macedon. In his campaign in Sicily, Pyrrhus was able to seize the entire island [Including the strongest Carthaginian stronghold at Eryx] except for the port-city of Lilybaeum despite the loss of manpower that he suffered in his two victories over the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
King Pyrrhus of Epirus lived from 319-272 BCE and ruled as the autocrat of Epirus from 306-302 BCE and 298-272 BCE. Pyrrhus of Epirus fought at the great battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE in the Diadochian Wars of Successon that occurred after the dissolution of the Alexandrian Empire. Pyrrhus later reclaimed his throne and initially ruled in a duumvirate with Neoptolemus II. After the mysterious death of his co-ruler in the short-lived duumvirate, Pyrrhus became the sole sovereign of the Epirote Kingdom. After securing his throne, King Pyrrhus of Epirus with aid provided by the Diadochi Lysimachus drove out Demetrius I Poliorcetes [The son of Antigonus I Monopthalmus] from Macedonia proper. After the joint invasion of Macedonia, Lysimachus then expelled King Pyrrhus of Epirus from the Kingdom of Macedon.
Following on a plea from the Greek colonies in Magna Graecia or "Greater Greece" in southern Italy such as from the Tarentines, King Pyrrhus of Epirus invaded the Roman Republic in the conflict of the Pyrrhic Wars that lasted from 280-275 BCE. King Pyrrhus' army was a conglomerate: Epirote heavy phalangists in the phalangiarchies or phalanx formations, Macedonian pezhetairoi, Greek auxiliaries, peltasts or skirmishers, the hypaspistai, war elephants, cataphracts, the Hetairoi or Companion Cavalry, Epirote auxiliaries and levied forces. The Pyrrhic Wars of 280-275 BCE consisted of the main battles of Heraclea in 280 BCE, Asculum in 279 BCE and Beneventum in 275 BCE. King Pyrrhus of Epirus also invaded Sicily and managed to subjugate almost the entire length of Sicily but failed to wrest control of Lilybaeum from the Carthaginians. At the conclusion of this conflict with his defeat at the battle of Beneventum, King Pyrrhus of Epirus lost all his Sicilian and Italian holdings as he departed from the Italian Peninsula. In 272 BCE, the Epirote garrison capitulated to the besieging Romans alongside with the entirety of Magna Graecia. In 270 BCE, the Roman Republic maintained hegemony over the entire length of the Italian Peninsula from the Po River Valley in the north to Magna Graecia in the south.
--------------------------------
For the category of mediocre commanders, I nominate:
-Publius Quinctilius Varus
-Tiberius Sempronius Longus
-Gaius Terentius Varro
-Marcus Licinius Crassus
-Darius III Codomanus
Well written; clear, concise, and... I disagree. For a general, as with everyone else, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
Hannibal's approval, in my eyes, was simply an homage to one that had accomplished part of what Hannibal himself intended to do: to stand against Rome and defeat them on their own ground. It was entirely reasonable, understandable, and wrong.
Agreed, Pyrrhus did amazing things with too little manpower. He defeated forces that were better trained, better equipped, and had (variously) superior numbers or vastly superior supply. He won his battles.
BUT. His job was not to win battles but to gain objectives. Admittedly, Rome as an objective (battle of Asculum and the preceding campaign; origin of "Pyrrhic Victory") was extremely ambitious and he did well to get as far as he did -- but greatness is not about almost succeeding.
His subsequent campaign in Sicily was, again, fought against the odds. His allies were a positive hindrance, his strategy unsuccessful, and his decision to fight a war instead of gaining through diplomacy was in the event proved unwise. He was fairly effective in the field, but he was unable to control even his own side. While his proponents may say his undoing here was the fault of his supporters, I would argue that he failed because he chose the wrong war to fight - twice.
It was due in part to his absence from mainland Italy at this time that his defiance of Rome collapsed; he was unable to maintain the mercenary force he'd had earlier, and his excessive losses made his position untenable. All of his previous gains in Italy were undone by this.
While he was a fairly effective opponent to Rome, he was almost uniformly unsuccessful due to his decisions off the field. While his grasp of tactics and of strategy were excellent... tactics is the proper study of sergeants and lieutenants, strategy the realm of colonels and brigadiers. Commanding generals need skill in logistics over all else -- and this is where Pyrrhus failed.
Yes, I'm being harshly critical. The man fought uphill battles and he fought them well -- but history does not honor the loser, and that is what this man was: brilliant but ultimately ineffective.
Gideon Pillow
George McClellan
General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
I'll elaborate more on his major flaws and defeats later, but yeah, he's the first really bad one I could think up of on short notice.
I look forward to it, Jurnis...
Nice to see you, Mog. I'll give you Pillow, but McClellan... well, with him I for one would disagree. I've been hoping someone would pick him so I could debate it with them.
Time is short just now, though, so I'll just say that for an amateur, he built one heck of an army.
The peninsula campaign was a failure. He redeemed himself a little in the Battle of Antietam by blunting Lee's attack but it was poorly executed and it allowed Lee to escape.
Oh, certainly. With regard to Antietam, though, I'd suggest that much of the blame ought be placed on failed communications. The Peninsula was meddled in by Washington until it failed, in my opinion.
Oh, I'll grant that the man had no sense of the moment, no feel for battle or for timing. However, he created an impressive force from nothing, and he formed an effective strategic-level plan. As a general, he was fairly ineffective, but he kept his army alive and well against some of the greatest commanders in history.
Now, Gideon Pillow was inept and didn't care. In battle he tended to kill off his own command and had done so since Mexico, favoring direct assault into fortified positions over indirect advance and maneuver. Bloodyminded and deeply stupid, the man should have been retired in absolute disgrace twenty years before.
Ok ill give you the point :)
I added the poll!!! Vote.
I nominated Ludwig von Benedek and Isaac II Angelos. But my vote goes to Ludwig von Benedek, almost all of his military campaigns failed, especially at the Battle of Koniggratz. He left 44,000 ment to die at the hands of the Prussians and lost the Austro-Prussian war.
Oooo. Isaac II Angelos... now there's one leader that's tough to beat.
This is gonna be a hard decision. For my own choice, I'm eliminating Stalin, Crassus, and Santa Anna on the simple grounds that they were all great and effective leaders -- though sadly flawed. Santa Anna in particular did extremely well against the lesser American forces that had faced him; I'd submit that it's no great shame to number among Winfield Scott's defeated foes.
Haig is tough to beat, though - massed infantry charges over pre-sighted ground at machine gun nests and rifle trenches without benefit of effective artillery support may seem wise the first time, but on the fiftieth attempt one might be expected to have learned better. It's his high position that elevates him beyond mere buffoonery; theater command grants him a truly epic fail.
In my opinions one of the worst generals in history (though perhaps not the "worst") was Adolf Hitler. Here we have a man who was in the position of having superior generals, superior technology, and superior troops and squanders it all because of bad decisions.
Case and point: Stalingrad. Hitler messed up several times here before the battle for the city itself ever truly began. First, he devoted large amounts of manpower meant to cover the flanks of his assault on the Caucuses to the attack of a strategically unimportant city. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he strips all the armor away from the assault on Stalingrad to speed up his attack on the southern oil fields. The attack in the south finally starts to move again, but (surprise) his attack on Stalingrad now stalls out. So he turns his armor around again and sends it back up to Stalingrad leaving his assault on the Caucuses to stall out and inch forward.
Skipping ahead through the entire battle of Stalingrad to the end, once the Russians have encircled the entire sixth army. The Sixth Army could have, if they moved quickly, broken out of the encirclement to live to fight another day. Instead, Hitler orders them to stay put and hold until relieved under the assurance by Goering (another candidate for worst general simply because he cost Germany many men by deluding Hitler as to the actual power of the Luftwaffe for his own personal image) that the Luftwaffe could airlift the (if I recall correctly) 700 tons of supplies that the Sixth needed daily through the Russian Airforce (which now controlled the skies mind you). The army only got around 80 tons daily, a far cry from the necessary amount. So in one fell stroke Hitler had lost an entire army to the Russians. In fact, of the several hundred thousand men that surrendered at Stalingrad, only a few thousand would ever see Germany again. The rest would die in Russian POW camps (just a little aside).
That is just one of Hitler's many blunders. Another would be Normandy during Operation Overlord. He refused to allow Rommel to move his Tigers to the beaches because of his fear of an allied attack at Calais (a brilliant deception on the allied part if I may add). That is understandable, I probably would have done the same in Hitler's position. However, even after the landing had started and Hitler new the scope of the allied assault, he still held out on allowing Rommel to move his tanks for fear of an attack at Calais. At this point I feel that the true allied intentions would have been fairly obvious, and those tanks could really have made a difference in the days following the attack.
Hitler was a man with no real military experience who took over the armies of an entire nation and blatantly ignored (or even sacked in the case of the failed assault on Moscow, an assault which failed because he order the troops to wait until it was too late) his best generals. Germany has always been a source of amazing military minds, and instead of using this tactical genius to his advantage, Hitler wasted it by taking control himself. In fact, he even micromanaged German forces in Russia down to the battalion level.
Yes, Hitler did have a few strokes of genius (The Battle of the Bulge) but often they were too late, or not properly followed up on and supported. For these reasons, I feel that Hitler, though not strictly a general, is one of the worst military commanders in history.
I don't think you've been very accurate in your assessment of Hitler's military prowess, so i'll start by arguing the points you've mentioned.
While I can agree with superior generals and mostly superior troops, it's superior technology and bad decisions that I disagree with. What defines superior technology? Yes, for example the Panther and Tiger tanks were powerful vehicles but they were all notoriously unreliable. For example, if you take the Jagdtiger and Tiger II's, despite them never having been disabled by an Allied tank from the front (the metal plating being too thick), they were prone to breaking down. If I recall correctly, of the approximately eighty Jagdtigers produced, more went out of action from mechanical breakdown rather than actual combat, and for the Tiger I when bringing up unreliability, it consisted of 26,000 separate parts.Quote:
Here we have a man who was in the position of having superior generals, superior technology, and superior troops and squanders it all because of bad decisions.
On top of this, you have to acknowledge that the Allied blockade and bombing campaign resulted in Germany suffering material shortages later on in the war which required them to use material substitutes and to streamline their production techniques which made later vehicles of a reduced quality and despite being able to produce a greater quantity of vehicles their original mechanical issues were simply hampered by this.
Then you say that he made bad decisions. Well, it was exactly Hitler who ordered the invasion of France in 1940, and that was an astounding success. Hitler too acknowledged (although the whole "it was impossible" argument is raised, that's deflecting from the point) that in order to stand any chance of winning the war, Britain and the Soviet Union needed to be knocked out. Indeed, his execution of his attempted submission of Britain was lacking (wasting hundreds of aircraft and crews) and his occupation strategy for Operation Barbarossa didn't help at all, but he realised what he actually needed to do to win the war. It was only later on when he started to become mentally unstable that this started to fade from view and he insisted on resorting to trying to resort to unconventional methods such as constructing rockets and absurd vehicles (e.g. Maus).
I'd hardly say it was strategically unimportant. It's an industrial centre and a link between the Caucasus and Moscow fronts for Russia so severing that link would have made their position in the Caucasus quite untenable. You also criticise his insistence on protecting his flanks, but considering we're using Stalingrad as the example here, wouldn't protecting them have been logical considering what happened later on?Quote:
Case and point: Stalingrad. Hitler messed up several times here before the battle for the city itself ever truly began. First, he devoted large amounts of manpower meant to cover the flanks of his assault on the Caucuses to the attack of a strategically unimportant city. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he strips all the armor away from the assault on Stalingrad to speed up his attack on the southern oil fields. The attack in the south finally starts to move again, but (surprise) his attack on Stalingrad now stalls out. So he turns his armor around again and sends it back up to Stalingrad leaving his assault on the Caucuses to stall out and inch forward.
Despite him being wrong in his belief that Sixth Army could hold out, it was based on previous experience. General von Seydlitz-Kurzbach had been encircled at Demyansk during the winter of 1941-1942 and had been able to be broken out after being airlifted supplies to his encircled troops, so Hitler based his belief on that anecdote.Quote:
Skipping ahead through the entire battle of Stalingrad to the end, once the Russians have encircled the entire sixth army. The Sixth Army could have, if they moved quickly, broken out of the encirclement to live to fight another day. Instead, Hitler orders them to stay put and hold until relieved under the assurance by Goering (another candidate for worst general simply because he cost Germany many men by deluding Hitler as to the actual power of the Luftwaffe for his own personal image) that the Luftwaffe could airlift the (if I recall correctly) 700 tons of supplies that the Sixth needed daily through the Russian Airforce (which now controlled the skies mind you).
Well that's just a lie. I don't have the figures on hand, but it was more than 80 tons that they received and was clearly only in the very last days of the encirclement when tonnage dropped that low. Also, one has to consider that were it not for the heroic sacrifice of Sixth Army at Stalingrad, the Germans may not have been able to recover from the disaster. Manstein was able to stabilise the front during the early months of 1943 but if Sixth Army and Operation Winter Storm hadn't been launched which sapped at the Russian strength in the area then things could have ended up a lot worse.Quote:
The army only got around 80 tons daily, a far cry from the necessary amount. So in one fell stroke Hitler had lost an entire army to the Russians. In fact, of the several hundred thousand men that surrendered at Stalingrad, only a few thousand would ever see Germany again. The rest would die in Russian POW camps (just a little aside).
It's easy to say with hindsight that you would have just sent the tanks up front, but you have to bear in mind that the German intelligence system was a complete joke. As well as that, even now I disagree with Rommel's assessment of what should have been done at Normandy. Yes he was correct in guessing that the landing would have took place there, but the Allies had complete domination of the skies and naval superiority. The German counterattacks during Operation Avalanche and Operation Husky had both shown how devastating naval gunfire can be to armoured vehicles, and during Operation Overlord if I recall correctly the Panzer Lehr division lost approximately half of its complement of tanks while it moved up to the front due to Allied air sorties. Imagine then what it would have been like for the Germans to be approaching the beach with the largest armada ever assembled right there along with an enormous airforce which could pound their men and armour in to oblivion?Quote:
That is just one of Hitler's many blunders. Another would be Normandy during Operation Overlord. He refused to allow Rommel to move his Tigers to the beaches because of his fear of an allied attack at Calais (a brilliant deception on the allied part if I may add). That is understandable, I probably would have done the same in Hitler's position. However, even after the landing had started and Hitler new the scope of the allied assault, he still held out on allowing Rommel to move his tanks for fear of an attack at Calais. At this point I feel that the true allied intentions would have been fairly obvious, and those tanks could really have made a difference in the days following the attack.
The bocage was defensible terrain, along with the rivers, villages and urban areas of Normandy (Cherbourg, Carentan, Caen) so to organise a defense in-land seems like the logical decision to me. Yes, the Allied airforce will cause trouble, but at least you would be out of range of the naval guns, plus considering the terrain north of Caen and east of Bayeux was mostly clear, if you could have kept the Allies pinned there while having the protection of the bocage for your own troops that could have been far more deadly than simply rushing to the beaches.
Hyperbole. Hitler didn't manage forces down to battalion level, that would just be absurd and would have made the entire command structure redundant. Also, that goes entirely against German military doctrine. The reason the Germans did so well (and suffered so many casualties when it went wrong) during World War I and World War II is because unlike the Allied and Soviet structures which relied upon completing set objectives and then requesting orders from higher command (though the Allies did rectify this later on) they relied on their junior officers to take in the situation and simply act accordingly to circumstances. Has an objective been taken early? Then perhaps an assault can be organised deeper in to the enemy's defenses. Have the enemy occupied a command post? Then it's time to strike back and take it.Quote:
Hitler was a man with no real military experience who took over the armies of an entire nation and blatantly ignored (or even sacked in the case of the failed assault on Moscow, an assault which failed because he order the troops to wait until it was too late) his best generals. Germany has always been a source of amazing military minds, and instead of using this tactical genius to his advantage, Hitler wasted it by taking control himself. In fact, he even micromanaged German forces in Russia down to the battalion level.
I'd say he was a clever and rational man tainted by later insanity and his ideology. While his beliefs on race are morally wrong, to breed the strongest among a kind with the strongest of the same kind is biologically a perfectly good thing to do as it creates healthy children. It's morally where it goes wrong, as to do so Hitler wanted to exterminate other "inferior" races.Quote:
Yes, Hitler did have a few strokes of genius (The Battle of the Bulge) but often they were too late, or not properly followed up on and supported. For these reasons, I feel that Hitler, though not strictly a general, is one of the worst military commanders in history.
Actually thats true the average was 85 long tonnes per day with the highest being 260 odd tonnes with most of it being captured by the Russians and a large amount of it not required e.g. Vodka and summer uniforms... Sorry Ikeni he's rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Ikeni
Well quite frankly he commanded individual Battalions like Skorzeny's (before it enlarged) and it may go against the doctrine but it did happen and not just him every one has done it still continues to do and will in future do it thats the way it goes sometimes....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikeni
Just thought I'd clear a few bits up...
Serves me right for forgetting to read up again to make sure.Quote:
Actually thats true the average was 85 long tonnes per day with the highest being 260 odd tonnes with most of it being captured by the Russians and a large amount of it not required e.g. Vodka and summer uniforms... Sorry Ikeni he's right
Well the 502SS Jaeger Battalion was Germany's special forces so to use Skorzeny as an example doesn't really work because this isn't just a regular battalion you're talking about, unless you can show me cases of where Hitler tried to control a regular Wehrmacht battalion.Quote:
Well quite frankly he commanded individual Battalions like Skorzeny's (before it enlarged) and it may go against the doctrine but it did happen and not just him every one has done it still continues to do and will in future do it thats the way it goes sometimes....
Just thought I'd clear a few bits up...
Are you crazy? joseph stalin by himself murdered atleast 2m people plus how is he the worst he is a monstrousty if you go to russia he is loved their lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
Ohh do shutup fool and dont necro threads!
It's kinda funny how this is the only thread in this forum that's NOT archived...So is it dead completely?
"There's a big difference between dead and mostly dead."
Gotta love that quote...
But back on topic.
I nominate General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
He lost wars, then he lost Texas, then his dictatorship. Then, he got it back, somehow.
Then he lost not only Mexico's last vestiges of a claim on Texas (even down to the Rio Grande), but also nearly an additional third of his entire country, including Upper California (at the time).
He then lost his dictatorship AGAIN...
In total, I think he held it at about three different times, and at each occasion lost a major war because of his own mistakes, be it at the beginning, middle, or end...
All in all, I do believe that General Santa Anna was in fact one of the single worst generals in recorded history.
Look he's up there no need to keep blabbing on and on about him... I mean I could go on for days about Percival, Haig and Hunter Weston but I don't let the population find out for themselves and then decide ok? Good... Just because you believe something don't make it true!
There are plenty of pretty rotten generals to pull out of the history books, so in the end it sometimes boils down to a matter of opinion as to what generals did the best job of screwing up both their army AND country, if they managed to fail that hard.
And I tell you that Santa Anna stands on top of the heap when it comes to generals that managed to pull off some truly epic fails.
Get your facts right. Stalin killed about 5 million in the Holodomor ALONE. He killed another 2 million in the same famine. He sent thousands to the Gulags, where they were either executed or they died of exhaustion or cold. Russians hate him as a man. They hate him as a leader. But dammit, he was the best they had. Doesn't mean they like him. Stalinists are a minority in the former Soviet Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussein
Trust me, Stalin is really hated in Russia and especially the Ukraine. They even condemned him as a war criminal (Katyn, anyone?) and the CPRF supported that. If the Communist Party says that Stalin's an evil SOB, then how the heck can they like him?