And what about the worst general?

toundra · Post by **toundra** » Tue Dec 11, 2001 9:37 pm

General Pétain (WW2)

Traitor, coward and way too old

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Tue Dec 11, 2001 11:23 pm

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.. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 12:48 am

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 · Post by **Larry Holt** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 12:53 am

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 · Post by **pauk** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 1:14 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 · Post by **Mikimoto** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 1:33 am

Worst was Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Caudillo de España por la Gracia de Dios.

Tyrant, fascist, dictator, bloody, cruel and stupid.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 7:08 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 · Post by **VictorH** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 8:28 am

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

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Wed Dec 12, 2001 7:03 pm

"Varus give me back my legions"

pauk · Post by **pauk** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 2:34 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 · Post by **Mesa** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 4:44 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 · Post by **mogami** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 7:10 am

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 · Post by **Mesa** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:30 am

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 · Post by **Mesa** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:50 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 · Post by **mogami** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 9:03 am

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 · Post by **mogami** » Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:21 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 · Post by **m10bob** » Mon Dec 31, 2001 8:17 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 · Post by **mogami** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:27 pm

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 · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Jan 03, 2002 1:01 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 · Post by **Ozgur** » Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:11 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.