NationStates Jolt Archive

All right, we've heard about the best military leaders, generals, commanders of troops. But now, something less educational and more fun: your votes for the top ten WORST military leaders of all time, plus any supporting examples you care to include.

Well, as I said in the other thread, certainly on that list would be that American General in Italy who "liberated" Rome rather than destroy the German armies retreating.

Cant remember his name though irritatingly.

Someone French hmmm... guy that lost trafalgar. Hitler interfering with his armies. Silly man.

Ambrose Burnsides perhaps?

Cornwallis for getting himself TRAPPED at Yorktown :D

George McClellan

Had a force far superior to Lee's, and did almost nothing with them.

It took 4 years from the start of the Civil War before the Army of the Potomac was ably led (by General Ulysses S. Grant)

History doesn't seem to remember bad military leaders as well as the good ones. Or I'm just in the dark.

Every French general except Charles Martel :sniper:

George McClellan

Had a force far superior to Lee's, and did almost nothing with them.

It took 4 years from the start of the Civil War before the Army of the Potomac was ably led (by General Ulysses S. Grant)

Well I won't argue this one.

Hoa about some Persian kings like Darius and Xerxes. With their MASSIVE armies they couldn't beat the drastically smaller Greek forces back in ancient times.

How about Custer? probably Santa Anna too

Mcclelan
BUrnside
Westmoreland-the US army moron in Vietnam
Every French general except for Charles martel

How about Custer? probably Santa Anna too

Custer was actually a brilliant and daring cavalry commander. During the battle of Gettysburg he and his men held off a cavalry charge which was about to overrun Union positions on the third day of the battle. And at the end of the war at The Battle of Five Forks. Where his cavalry broke the Confederates and foced them to retreat. At the Little Big Horn he was just a little high strung.

History doesn't seem to remember bad military leaders as well as the good ones. Or I'm just in the dark.
Agreed. For example, no one remembers Julius Caesar's brother, Larry.

Hoa about some Persian kings like Darius and Xerxes. With their MASSIVE armies they couldn't beat the drastically smaller Greek forces back in ancient times.
Yeah, 'cause the Spartans weren't great soldiers or anything.

The worst commander? Me. :( I always lose in Rome:Total War.

Agreed. For example, no one remembers Julius Caesar's brother, Larry.
Well, very few know of Jesus' brother Craig either.

At the Little Big Horn he was just a little high strung.

That is code for being an arrogant jackass who got all his men killed right?

Lord Raglan and other British generals/ admirals of his ilk. The problem is a lot of those duffers were brilliant in their youth with acts of personal bravery you wouldn't credit to their older selves, but by the time they're in a position to really muck things up they're either too set in their ways or senile, or have simply used personal connections to get promoted way above what the Peter Principle would allow.
On another note what Mark Clark did in Italy in WW2 was pretty bad, not to say inexcusable.

That is code for being an arrogant jackass who got all his men killed right?

Yeah...I was trying to sewwten the truth a little. But not all the men were killed. The men with Reno and the other guy survived the battle. Manily because they weren't with Custer :p

Chiang Kai-shek

Managed to lose the whole of China to a small group of rebels. Such an idiot. He did just about everything wrong which he could have.

Yeah, 'cause the Spartans weren't great soldiers or anything.

The worst commander? Me. :( I always lose in Rome:Total War.

I'm not saying the Spartans weren't great warriors. It's just that Darius really sucked. A Persian army of 200,000 defeated by 7,000 Greeks. And on the last day it was just 300 Spartans. darius is a bad military leader because he led the army into that damn bottle neck at Thermopalye.

darius is a bad military leader because he led the army into that damn bottle neck at Thermopalye.
That I can definantly agree with. Too cocky 'cause of his numbers, me thinks.

I'd probably put either General Longstreet (for never taking any risks) or General Meade as the worst leaders that I can name right off the bat.

Haige (is that the correct spelling?).

Nice one there, Haige. Sort of buggered up at the Somme, really.

"Ah yes, I have a plan. If I send enough soldiers at the enemy machine-gun posts then their entrail's clog the barrels! I'm a tactical genius!"

That I can definantly agree with. Too cocky 'cause of his numbers, me thinks.

Darius was OVERLY confident. And look where it got him. 30,000 dead persians as compared to a fw hundred Greeks.

Well, very few know of Jesus' brother Craig either.
Is he the one who turned wine into yellow water?

Custer was actually a brilliant and daring cavalry commander. During the battle of Gettysburg he and his men held off a cavalry charge which was about to overrun Union positions on the third day of the battle. And at the end of the war at The Battle of Five Forks. Where his cavalry broke the Confederates and foced them to retreat. At the Little Big Horn he was just a little high strung.
Hmm ok kinda point. But Little Big Horn was a colossal screwup. And now that I think about it I remeber something on the History channel saying that if the the last guy had done what he was supposed to (the one that lived) there was a chance that they could have broken the Indians.

With that said, any arguments aginst Santa Anna?

Haige (is that the correct spelling?).

Nice one there, Haige. Sort of buggered up at the Somme, really.

"Ah yes, I have a plan. If I send enough soldiers at the enemy machine-gun posts then their entrail's clog the barrels! I'm a tactical genius!"

To be fair, that was everybody's tactic at that time. War of attrition, y'know.

Darius was OVERLY confident.
That's the word I was looking for!

Hmm ok kinda point. But Little Big Horn was a colossal screwup. And now that I think about it I remeber something on the History channel saying that if the the last guy had done what he was supposed to (the one that lived) there was a chance that they could have broken the Indians.

With that said, any arguments aginst Santa Anna?

Custer did make a huge screw up. he waited and watched Reno try and fight the Indians. He was actually doing alright but then the Indians became too much. If Custer had rode in to save him, they could've routed the Indians.

Santa Anna. His major mistake at the Alamo was not waiting for the heavy artilley to come in. he wanted to squash the Texans as quickly as possible. At San Jacinto he split up his forces too much and camped out in an open field.

Hoa about some Persian kings like Darius and Xerxes. With their MASSIVE armies they couldn't beat the drastically smaller Greek forces back in ancient times.

This is specifically because the Greek hoplites were so much better protected than the Persian infantry (who often had little more than cloth head covering). 300-odd Spartans were able to hold off some 20000+ Persians at Thermopylae for as long as they did for this reason. Even the Persian 'Immortal' heavy infantrymen did not have head protection or other armor on par with the Greeks.

So yes, the Persians get the Worst Military Leaders of All Time award for failing to follow one of Sun Tzu's basic precepts, which is to Know Your Enemy. Instead of equipping their own men better to compensate for heavier Greek armor, the Persians opted for the 'human wave' approach. History shows us repeatedly whom this favors.

This is specifically because the Greek hoplites were so much better protected than the Persian infantry (who often had little more than cloth head covering). 300-odd Spartans were able to hold off some 20000+ Persians at Thermopylae for as long as they did for this reason. Even the Persian 'Immortal' heavy infantrymen did not have head protection or other armor on par with the Greeks.

So yes, the Persians get the Worst Military Leaders of All Time award for failing to follow one of Sun Tzu's basic precepts, which is to Know Your Enemy. Instead of equipping their own men better to compensate for heavier Greek armor, the Persians opted for the 'human wave' approach. History shows us repeatedly whom this favors.

At the end, darius finally got the brilliant idea to shower the remaining Spartans and kill them off. After a Greek betrayed them and showed them a path around to behind the Greeks. they should've done all that in the beginning.

Liasia']To be fair, that was everybody's tactic at that time. War of attrition, y'know.
Plus the lack of radios along with the smoke and all the rest of it meant you could never know whether the earlier waves were sitting on top of their achieved objectives waiting for reinforcements before the Hun came to knock them back again, or whether they'd been cut down to the man by machine gun fire. If you guess wrong then you lose huge amounts of people for nothing. It's a tough call.

What about Hull during the War of 1812. He surrendered his entire army of over 1,000 and Fort Detroit without firing a single shot to a few hundred Canadians. of course, they fooled him into believeing that their force was much bigger.

Is he the one who turned wine into yellow water?
No, but he and Judas grew some hydroponic shit.

Liasia']To be fair, that was everybody's tactic at that time. War of attrition, y'know.
That doesn't make it alright to tell your soldiers to walk across miles of no-mans' land that you assume will be safe because you fired shells into the German trenches for about a week.

Crap tactics are crap whether your peers are doing it as well or not.

Ambrose Burnsides perhaps?

Ambrose E. Burnside was the raddest general ever, his dumb superiors just refused to listen to the awesome wisdom of the hairy lambchops and had to do things their own way.

The best example is the Battle of the Crater, in which Burnside's master plan would have completely worked if his racist bosses Meade and Grant hadn't withdrawn Ambrose's specially trained black unit at the last second in favor of untrained honkeys who got drunk and didn't do what they were supposed to.

And just check out his crazy hat:
http://www.geocities.com/amierka/BurnsideGraphics/burnside.jpg

The private, Hitler.

Whenever he made military decisions (instead of listening to his generals) things went horribly wrong.

So there, worst military leader ever.

Toss up between George McClellen and Queen Boudica at the Battle of Watling Street.

Ambrose E. Burnside was the raddest general ever, his dumb superiors just refused to listen to the awesome wisdom of the hairy lambchops and had to do things their own way.

The best example is the Battle of the Crater, in which Burnside's master plan would have completely worked if his racist bosses Meade and Grant hadn't withdrawn Ambrose's specially trained black unit at the last second in favor of untrained honkeys who got drunk and didn't do what they were supposed to.

And just check out his crazy hat:
http://www.geocities.com/amierka/BurnsideGraphics/burnside.jpg

Thats a pilgrim hat isnt it?

Toss up between George McClellen and Queen Boudica at the Battle of Watling Street.

Boudica did mess up real bad and lost most of her huge army.

That doesn't make it alright to tell your soldiers to walk across miles of no-mans' land that you assume will be safe because you fired shells into the German trenches for about a week.

Crap tactics are crap whether your peers are doing it as well or not.

I never said otherwise.

With that said, any arguments against Santa Anna?

Santa Anna was a complete military bonehead, I agree. He extended his supply lines too far and allowed personal ego to dictate strategy (a constant among bad commanders). He could've sieged the Alamo with one-third of his force (or just waited for them to run out of food, but he didn't have the patience for that, either) and gone after Sam Houston with the other two-thirds and wiped him out. By getting stalled at the Alamo for as long as he did, Santa Anna allowed Sam Houston to gather and train his forces and carry out a scorched-earth policy while retreating all the way across Texas.

After the War of Texan Independence and the Mexican War, they pretty much sandblasted Santa Anna's name off all the monuments and wrote him out of the history books.

And then Santa Anna got shafted during the Mexican War with the United States. Buena Vista was one HUGE upset.

I would say anybody who has tried to invade Russia, esp. during winter.

Stalin?

Marshal Ney , for beinng stopped by 8,000 Nassauians at Quatre Bras and his other major cockups during his time as a Marshal

I would say anybody who has tried to invade Russia, esp. during winter.
Like Napoleon?

Ambrose Burnsides perhaps?
he was good, jsut not at the command of an army, great at lower levels tho

That doesn't make it alright to tell your soldiers to walk across miles of no-mans' land that you assume will be safe because you fired shells into the German trenches for about a week.

Crap tactics are crap whether your peers are doing it as well or not.
What tactics should he have adopted? He got ordered to attack and had no other real tactical options beyond shelling and firing (at least until the latter parts of the war with tanks, mines etc). Lloyd George was the worst when he tried to intefere with military policy.

Whilst not the worst, I'd say Montgomery. El Alamein was a massively overplayed victory in which he defeated a enemy with a much smaller force than his, and yet somehow failed to destroy Rommel and his troops despite Rommel having about 10 tanks and 10,000 men and Montgomery several hundred tanks and more than a few extra troops.

Not to mention Market Garden - a godawful plan that relied too much on luck and unrealistic speeds for armour through enemy territory, and wiped out an entire Airborne Division. Plus he withheld information about the SS Armoured Divisions. Really was a bad General, even if not the worst.

Lord French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_French%2C_1st_Earl_of_Ypres)

Idiot.

Whilst not the worst, I'd say Montgomery. El Alamein was a massively overplayed victory in which he defeated a enemy with a much smaller force than his, and yet somehow failed to destroy Rommel and his troops despite Rommel having about 10 tanks and 10,000 men and Montgomery several hundred tanks and more than a few extra troops.

I think too much is made of Montgomery's numbers at Alamein almost as though it was unsporting of him. But the reason the desert campaign had gone back and forwards so many times was that neither side was able or had the inclination to amass the forces to maintain the push until the other side was defeated. And plenty of earlier British commanders had been taught a sharp lesson from rushing forward precipitously to decisively destroy Rommel. When you consider that Montgomery knew that Rommel's retreat was ultimately cut off by Operation Torch it made a lot more sense to merely push Rommel back than risk running headlong into a prepared ambush and setting the campaign back months.

Not to mention Market Garden - a godawful plan that relied too much on luck and unrealistic speeds for armour through enemy territory, and wiped out an entire Airborne Division. Plus he withheld information about the SS Armoured Divisions. Really was a bad General, even if not the worst.
Market Garden was nothing more or less than a huge gamble. The risks were high, but the potential rewards were higher still. It was ultimately Eisenhower's choice to take the risk and he thought it was worth it. And despite appallingly bad luck, radios malfunctioning, the plans falling into the hands of the enemy, and bad decisions by unit commanders including the transport pilots, as well as brilliant generalship on the part of the Germans in throwing together scratch formations to meet the threat, at times it could easily have worked.

I think too much is made of Montgomery's numbers at Alamein almost as though it was unsporting of him. But the reason the desert campaign had gone back and forwards so many times was that neither side was able or had the inclination to amass the forces to maintain the push until the other side was defeated. And plenty of earlier British commanders had been taught a sharp lesson from rushing forward precipitously to decisively destroy Rommel. When you consider that Montgomery knew that Rommel's retreat was ultimately cut off by Operation Torch it made a lot more sense to merely push Rommel back than risk running headlong into a prepared ambush and setting the campaign back months.

Whilst numbers can indeed be made too much of, Monty did have more than a idea of what Rommel's numbers were from intelligence, and could have made a better push. Yes, rushing forward blidnly is a bad thing, but Montgomery essentially made an extremely slow and conservative move, which allowed Rommel and many of his troops to escape, despite the TORCH landings. He also took credit for plans that were not his; El Alamein and SUPERCHARGE were plans created and set in motion by Auchinlek and his staff.

Market Garden was nothing more or less than a huge gamble. The risks were high, but the potential rewards were higher still. It was ultimately Eisenhower's choice to take the risk and he thought it was worth it. And despite appallingly bad luck, radios malfunctioning, the plans falling into the hands of the enemy, and bad decisions by unit commanders including the transport pilots, as well as brilliant generalship on the part of the Germans in throwing together scratch formations to meet the threat, at times it could easily have worked.

Montgomery had vital intelligence suppressed, and his staff ignored vital intelligence from the Duth resistance. That may have just been a staff officer, but there is evidence that he had a hand in suppressing evidence of enemy armour. Yes, the Dutch resistance had been penetrated, but there was no attempt to corroborate such a vital piece of information. As to it being a gamble - yes, it was. However, there was sloppy planning throughout the operation, from Montgomery down.

The Scheldt Estuary operations were also badly conducted and resulted in casualties that were unneccesary and avoidable.

Wow. Not one mention of Andre Maginot? The Maginot Line was one of the biggest failures in the history of warfare...the Line itself was workable, but they failed to take one important thing into account: The Germans didn't attack it directly. THey used a decoy force to make them THINK they were attacking it directly, and then went through Belgium and effectively went AROUND the Maginot line. And I bet the French just didn't see that coming at all.

France thought that this would really wear down the Germans by doing this, and if the Germans had attacked the Maginot Line head-on, it would have worked and the Germans would have had a lot tougher of a time taking France. But there's a reason the Germans had almost no trouble. The Maginot Line's Achilles heel was too obvious.

I can't think of what the French could have done better off-hand, but I can say this: The French still thought it was World War I. The Germans got a position advantage on them and there was no time to catch up. The next thing they knew, the Germans dashed through the north part of the continent, effectively dodging the Line, and getting the Paris before the French knew what hit them. In World War I, the Germans would have shelled the hell out of the French, jockeyed for position, engaged in a war of attrition, and the French would have had enough time to recover. But by the time the French are ready to plug the hole in the Line, the Germans are all the way to Paris, and the soldiers are asking, "Wha--ha--happened?"

Grand Moff Tarkin...so many valiant Imperials died on that horrible day.:(

Never Forget 0 ABY

Grand Moff Tarkin...so many valiant Imperials died on that horrible day.:(

Never Forget 0 ABY

IT'S A TRAP!

"Stonewall" Jackson's gotta be on there. Can't remember his real first name. (He was a Confederate general in the American Civil War by the way)

"Stonewall" Jackson's gotta be on there. Can't remember his real first name. (He was a Confederate general in the American Civil War by the way)

Why should he make the list?

Adolf Hitler - he wasn't really a military commander, but his interfering during WWII had terrible ramifications for the German military.

General "Photo Opportunity" Mark Clark - victory was less important than getting himself noticed by the media.

Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_W._Clark) His conduct of operations remains controversial, particularly the attack on Monte Cassino, the slow progress of conquering Italy, and the failure to entrap and capture German units during the Battle of the Winter Line, when Clark sent his units towards Rome, in an attempt to be the first to enter the city, rather than to exploit a gap in the German positions. As a result of Clark's actions, the Gothic Line was not broken for another year, and the provisional governments and safe areas which the Allies had encouraged the Italian Partisans to set up were smashed by the German Army, at great loss to the partisans.

"Stonewall" Jackson's gotta be on there. Can't remember his real first name. (He was a Confederate general in the American Civil War by the way)


Say what?

Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson was most certainly not any sort of worst general by any measure.

McClellan from the American Civil War. What a douchebag.

General "Photo Opportunity" Mark Clark - victory was less important than getting himself noticed by the media.

That was the guy I was thinking of! He was a total twat.

And I think whoever it was was being too harsh to Montgomery. I wouldnt claim him to be one of the greatest, and a suspect many other British people overrate him, but he was a very capable commander. He may have been more methodical than many Americans would have preferred, but the British army was designed with methodical warfare in mind. The attempts at running around dashing all over the place (like the armour charges in the desert for many years) failed miserably. And he was able to maintain enough pressure to keep Rommel on the run right into Tunisia. He boosted the morale of the Eighth army, he planned to win, not just to attack when put under pressure to, building up the supplies he realised were required to keep any offensive going.

Yet it is true he 1) had probably one of the most arrogant and irritating personalities of many of the British Generals, and 2) is, as I said, overrated by may British people.

No one mentioned Donald Rumsfeld yet?

No one mentioned Donald Rumsfeld yet?
He gets an honourable mention.

Besides Hitler, I'd also suggest Keitel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel) and Jodl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodl), as well as Paulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Paulus) (gutless bastard). From WWI, von Moltke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Younger) makes the cut for ignoring Schlieffen.

And who could forget the eternal idiot...Hermann Göring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ring).

Third Worst Military Leader:

Winston Churchill at Gallipoli.


Second Worst Military Leader:
Field Marshall Douglas Haig at The Somme and Ypre.


Sadly their both British...

No! Wait! Even worse...

Absolute Worst Military Leader:

Tsar of Russia, Nicholas Romanov III

He took personal command of his armies from Grand Duke Sergei when the First World War turned against the Russians. He knew absolutely nothing of military strategy and made the situation worse for the Russian Army.

Custer was actually a brilliant and daring cavalry commander. During the battle of Gettysburg he and his men held off a cavalry charge which was about to overrun Union positions on the third day of the battle. And at the end of the war at The Battle of Five Forks. Where his cavalry broke the Confederates and foced them to retreat. At the Little Big Horn he was just a little high strung.

High Strung? If you call underestimating a loosely banded but much larger group of Indians with superior arms in their own turf "high strung". It was racist, Manifest Destily bullshit mentality that doomed Custer.

No one mentioned Donald Rumsfeld yet?

He is the Secretary of Defense, not an actual millitary leader per se. He directs policy but does not make actual decisions as to what goes on in the battlefield. The President is the head of the millitary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense

He is the Secretary of Defense, not an actual millitary leader per se. He directs policy but does not make actual decisions as to what goes on in the battlefield. That is up to the heads of the millitary.

I would be very surprised if he wasn't interfering in the decisions taken by the military.

Still my own vote would go to George Armstrong Custer - a vain fool who managed to accidently shoot his own horse.

The private, Hitler.

Whenever he made military decisions (instead of listening to his generals) things went horribly wrong.

So there, worst military leader ever.
He did pretty well up until 1941, when it all went a bit Pete Tong.

Every single Allied general in WW2 with the exception of Patton.

Third Worst Military Leader:

Winston Churchill at Gallipoli.

And Norway in WWII


Second Worst Military Leader:
Field Marshall Douglas Haig at The Somme and Ypre.

Haig is always unfairly damned as an awful general, which IMHO he wasn't.
He was getting orders from the politicians (the French politicians particularly) to attack, was in a situation which hadn't ever existed before (trenches had been used before, but never on such a scale) and didn't have the technological capabilities to do anything other than frontal attack (particularly when Lloyd George became PM and started constantly undermining him). The question his critics can rarely answer well is what should he have done instead?

Haig was unlucky in being handed as a career defining war, the shortest of short straws and is always unfairly remembered as being much worse than he was. At the time Pershing (US general) thought that Haig got too much flak for what he did.

Haig is always unfairly damned as an awful general, which IMHO he wasn't.
He was getting orders from the politicians (the French politicians particularly) to attack, was in a situation which hadn't ever existed before (trenches had been used before, but never on such a scale) and didn't have the technological capabilities to do anything other than frontal attack (particularly when Lloyd George became PM and started constantly undermining him). The question his critics can rarely answer well is what should he have done instead?

Haig was unlucky in being handed as a career defining war, the shortest of short straws and is always unfairly remembered as being much worse than he was. At the time Pershing (US general) thought that Haig got too much flak for what he did.


Perhaps you're right about Haig there. But as an officer in the British Army, I don't hold Winston Churchill in much respect.

Perhaps you're right about Haig there. But as an officer in the British Army, I don't hold Winston Churchill in much respect.
He was a decent enough actual soldier, and good at the morale side. Just needed to leave the actual decision-making alone. But then again a lot of leaders find that incredibly difficult to do

Burnside. End of story.

He had his men march across a narrow bridge where they were easy targets, when they could've forded the river a few miles down. He waited until Fredricksburg was fortified and reinforced by confederate troops before attacking up a steep hill defended by a stone wall. And he made a giant crater at Petersburg and had his men run through it, instead of around.

Yup. Definitely Burnside.

"Stonewall" Jackson's gotta be on there. Can't remember his real first name. (He was a Confederate general in the American Civil War by the way)
Thomas. And while his maneuver at Chancellorsville was brilliantly executed (thanks to Lee's planning) his way of commandeering the troops during the 7 days battle near Richmond was, well, less brilliant and more questionable.

(How do I know? I just did an oral report on Chancellorsville when we talked about "The Red Badge of Courage" in English class...)

He did pretty well up until 1941, when it all went a bit Pete Tong.
He didn't do anything till then and let his generals make the war decisions. That's why.

As soon as "the private" started telling the generals what to do things went astray.

As soon as "the private" started telling the generals what to do things went astray.
That's not really fair. He was a corporal after all.:p

Custer was actually a brilliant and daring cavalry commander. During the battle of Gettysburg he and his men held off a cavalry charge which was about to overrun Union positions on the third day of the battle. And at the end of the war at The Battle of Five Forks. Where his cavalry broke the Confederates and foced them to retreat. At the Little Big Horn he was just a little high strung.

Custer was a self-important and arrogant asshole who would have been forgotten in history if his domineering wife hadn't made it her life's mission to act as is personal Public Relations firm . . . particualarly after his death.

"General Sir Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton"
The Commander of the Gallipoli Campaign, WWI

I mean, sure, he found himself in a difficult to impossible mess and was facing a rather able commander, but he did not help the situation at all.

-He repeatedly failed to tell his subordinates what to do.
-He threw non-Birtish troops in harm's way without a second thought
-He refused to authorise a pull-out for four months after his position had become clearly completly untenable

Someone mentioned the French generals, except Martel, were bad generals.
That's a lie.
From the Republic/Empire period, we have everyone's favourite Napoleon, as well as Davout among his Marechals.
Oh, and note that de Foix also conducted successful campaigns in Italy, and earned commendations from Machiavelli if I remember correctly. That's in addition to the leaders of the Golden Age, including Richelieu and Turenne
I'd vote Varus as the worst commander...three legions lost in ambush, Roman prospects in Germania crushed, etc.

People are clearly mixing up two completely different things - the worst desicions and the worst generals. Napoleon is called the worst because he ddi a mistake in Waterloo, Cornwall because he screwed in Yorktown, Jackson for some of his rather suicidal moves...

THESE ARE NOT THE WORST GENERALS IN THE HISTORY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE FUCKED UP.

The thing is, they have also succeeded. To be the worst, you can't do that. I personally don't really know who could have that title - perhaps Mussolini, even though he wasn't actually a general. His every move that had anything to do with warfare was a horrible failure.

Or Publius Quintilus Varus, who took few beatings in skirmishes against the Germans, before buying himself the position of an army leader and getting three legions of the world's best troops slained in one of the most inane operations the history knows.

My third candidate is the French marshall Ney, who was brave yet incredibly stupid. Napoleon's greatest failure was his trust to this man who let him down in battle after another - Leipzig being perhaps the best (or worst) example.

Or Publius Quintilus Varus, who took few beatings in skirmishes against the Germans, before buying himself the position of an army leader and getting three legions of the world's best troops slained in one of the most inane operations the history knows.
True dat! He went "mission accomplished" way too soon :Dhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/varus.jpg:D

Ney is a good candidate, as is Lord Cardigan (Crimean) for the same silly move, but how much of their personal failures are the result of the environment in which they rose to power and the adversries they faced. Is it not the nature of militant societies to only trust command of their armies to competant men. Outragious fools don't tend to survive long enough to march the best of thier forces onto the feild. No doubt there were plenty of mediocre to poor generals in charge of unitis in most conflicts, we don't remember them unless they really screw up.

Every single Allied general in WW2 with the exception of Patton.

I'm going to have to question this.

*snip*

that would be Cornwallis not cornwall.

True dat! He went "mission accomplished" way too soon :Dhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/varus.jpg:D
-"Varus, give me back my legions" to quote the Caesar. He was in imbecile, no doubt.

And Norway in WWII


Haig is always unfairly damned as an awful general, which IMHO he wasn't.
He was getting orders from the politicians (the French politicians particularly) to attack, was in a situation which hadn't ever existed before (trenches had been used before, but never on such a scale) and didn't have the technological capabilities to do anything other than frontal attack (particularly when Lloyd George became PM and started constantly undermining him). The question his critics can rarely answer well is what should he have done instead?

Haig was unlucky in being handed as a career defining war, the shortest of short straws and is always unfairly remembered as being much worse than he was. At the time Pershing (US general) thought that Haig got too much flak for what he did.


Haig was a good cavalry commander before the war and was also partially responsible for the 1908 pattern cavalry sabre which is arguably the best cavalry sabre ever made for any cavalry.

General Elphinstone

Why?

Not only persuing a unatainable goal in trying to pacify Afghanistan (too few troops, didn't understand the local tribe system and treating it like India), he also led the disasterous retreat from Kabul in January 1842. Of which only 1 person of the 16,000 survived.

Nice.

that would be Cornwallis not cornwall.

Yes, my mistake.

Yeah, how about Napoleon III? He sort of got his entire army encircled by the Prussians, while his subordinate generals weren't much smarter, causing France, with a much larger population and a much bigger army etc., to lose the war really, really quickly. (How many weeks did it take again?)

Yeah, how about Napoleon III? He sort of got his entire army encircled by the Prussians, while his subordinate generals weren't much smarter, causing France, with a much larger population and a much bigger army etc., to lose the war really, really quickly. (How many weeks did it take again?)

What about just reading the Wiki article about the Franco-Prussian War, before posting anything about it? It's too late for you now already, I'm afraid, but perhaps you will remember to do something like that next time.

"Much larger population, much bigger army..."

*SIGH*:rolleyes:

People shouldn't post based on sheer "I kinda feel like I almost knew that I sorta remember that perhaps it went something like this...?"-crap.

While your initial point was quite good. Napoleon was a really lousy leader. General Bazaine is however more responsible for the defeat, due the performance of his in Gravelotte-St.Privat.

THESE ARE NOT THE WORST GENERALS IN THE HISTORY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE FUCKED UP.

The thing is, they have also succeeded. To be the worst, you can't do that.

I agree entirely. Hitler showed extraordinary genius is previous campaigns before going mad, just as an example. Battle of the Bulge, anyone?

Montgomery held Rommel at bay for months, that alone is a extraordinary feat, not counting his final victory in the Alamein.

Napoleon owned every european army launched against him before messing up trying to seize russia in winter. With outstanding genius.

Custer also did a nice job before that...

Varus is a perfect example of an inept general, because he never achieved success before wasting an entire army against the germans. Another roman example, Crasus against Partia. "I'll lead my infantry through this open desert against a full army of cavalry archers and cataphracts, isn't it smart?". Military achievements?, none.

Another example following Crasus is the King of Jeruselem Guy of Lusignan in Hattin, another complete idiot. "I'll lead my heavy armoured cavalry to a pocket in the middle of the desert where they can die of starvation before Saladin owns them all with light and mobile cavalry. Ain't I smart?". Military sucesses before that? Nil. I do not know his name, but the Teutonic Knights Master that led his extremely heavy german knights through a frozen lake in Russia also made a nice blooper. That's about medieval.

Admiral Medina Sidonia commanding La Armada Invencible. "Those brits are not going to put any fight to my fleet of unmovable galleons, but they have almost 100 cannons each!. Nevermind it is storm season!". Sucesses before the wreckage? 0. I also fail to see any military campaign of Napoleon III that didn't end in complete disaster at the hands of Bismarck's boys.

WWI, and even WWII were wars of attrition. They were won by the countries with more men and production rates. Strategy counted, but it wasn't the main factor involved. Maginot in WWII gets an honorary mention, although. "Those germans are NEVER getting past this fortificated lines. Nevermind the gap of Belgium, our flank is protected by sheer diplomacy and political restraint!"

After that, it depends more in technology level than in military leadership. We have Game Theory and Decision Techniques. Tarek Aziz gets another mention just for being SOOO deluded.

That officer who was tricked by the scarecrows while invading Canada. I forget his name.

McClellan or the GENIUS behind the Somme in WWI.

George McClellan

Had a force far superior to Lee's, and did almost nothing with them.

It took 4 years from the start of the Civil War before the Army of the Potomac was ably led (by General Ulysses S. Grant)

that would be Cornwallis not cornwall.

Was Cornwallis the Duke of Cornwall?

The question must be asked.

Was Cornwallis the Duke of Cornwall?

The question must be asked.

The more important question, though, is "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Cornwillis?"

Burnside. End of story.

He had his men march across a narrow bridge where they were easy targets, when they could've forded the river a few miles down. He waited until Fredricksburg was fortified and reinforced by confederate troops before attacking up a steep hill defended by a stone wall. And he made a giant crater at Petersburg and had his men run through it, instead of around.

Yup. Definitely Burnside.

The crater mistake wasn't his fault! He'd got a specially trained unit for the job but his superiors wouldn't let him use them because they were black (the unit, not the superiors). At the last minute the trained soldiers were replaced by untrained whites who didn't know what to do.

Anyway, his facial hair makes up for any legitimate military mistakes he may have made.

Well Montcalme certainly failed at protecting New France... not the WORST but he could have defnitely won over Wolfe using Guerilla tactics.

1. Whoever was in charge of the French Army during the French Revolution.
2. The person (people?) who made it impossible for the American military to do anything in Viet Nam except lose.
3. The Japanese leader who brought America into WWII.

He did pretty well up until 1941, when it all went a bit Pete Tong.

Well.... the thing was he largely (not completely) left the army to its own devices up until then.

He had his men march across a narrow bridge where they were easy targets, when they could've forded the river a few miles down.

Ooh... sounds like that English leader at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

McClellan or the GENIUS behind the Somme in WWI.

Somme? Dude McClellan was a CIVIL WAR GENERAL and an idiot for not pressing his advantages but instead failed utterly at his task. Why do you think he was sacked TWICE?

Czar Alexander I. Adolf Hitler.

Ooh... sounds like that English leader at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

Yeah, but the Anglo-Saxons still decisively won the battle and ended Viking control in the north, so it wasn't that bad a tactic. Besides, a single width bridge with a large angry viking who can skilfully wield a two handed war axe is always going to be hard to cross without missle weapons to bring him down.

I agree entirely. Hitler showed extraordinary genius is previous campaigns before going mad, just as an example. Battle of the Bulge, anyone?

Well, most of the genius he showed wasnt actually his.

And he had dropped out of doing that before the Battle of the Bulge, which arguably just threw away Germany's last reserves in an offensive that would have never achieved its objectives.


Montgomery held Rommel at bay for months, that alone is a extraordinary feat, not counting his final victory in the Alamein.

Well, while I think many Americans have too low an opinion of Monty, he wasnt in the desert for that long before Alamein. A lot of keeping Rommel at bay was dont by his predeccessors. Though he still did a good job at what he was meant to do, and apart from having an ego to rival Patton's he made one major mistake, which he really more backed than planned (Market Garden).


Napoleon owned every european army launched against him before messing up trying to seize russia in winter. With outstanding genius.

IN fact, some of his best generalship arguably came after 1812... though too late to prevent him being deposed the first time.


Custer also did a nice job before that...

Now squat about him except he massacred a bunch of Indians, and then got himself slaughtered soon afterwards... so I will have yo take your word for it.


WWI, and even WWII were wars of attrition.

Well... WW1 certainly, and no one knew how to deal with the defenses before them before 1918 really (German Storm Troopers, and then the more combined arms strategy of the Allies which actually was very successful in 1918). WW2... hmm... yeah, in a grander sense... I guess.


Maginot in WWII gets an honorary mention, although. "Those germans are NEVER getting past this fortificated lines. Nevermind the gap of Belgium, our flank is protected by sheer diplomacy and political restraint!"

Well, do remember, when they had built the line Belgium was a firm ally, and when the Belgians declared their complete neutrality (which obviously didnt save them in the end) they did start extending the line... and it was built with the last war in mind... whats that phrase... Generals always prepare for the next war by fighting the last? Or something like that.


Tarek Aziz gets another mention just for being SOOO deluded.

Tarek Aziz? Is he a military leader? Who are you thinking of?

I do not know his name, but the Teutonic Knights Master that led his extremely heavy german knights through a frozen lake in Russia also made a nice blooper.

Can't count them, they'd already conqured vast swathes of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia as well as giving the Prussians, who were pagan, a right good kicking.

Not exactly unsuccessful.

Yeah, but the Anglo-Saxons still decisively won the battle and ended Viking control in the north, so it wasn't that bad a tactic. Besides, a single width bridge with a large angry viking who can skilfully wield a two handed war axe is always going to be hard to cross without missle weapons to bring him down.

Eh.... whats that? That certainly isnt the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

The Battle of Stirling Bridge was Wallace being all sneaky and unfair by not taking on a larger English army by butting the head of their column off just as they crossed the bridge, trapping the rest of the large English army on the Bridge, people falling off it and drowning due to the lack of space to move, and I believe the bridge eventually collapsed while the head of the column was butchered by the Scots... Anglo Saxons and Vikings had nothing to do with it...

Or are you talking about the Battle you were originally talking about? Whoops... didnt think of that.

Agreed. For example, no one remembers Julius Caesar's brother, Larry.

LMAO!!

The clash between vikings and saxons was Stanford bridge.

The clash between vikings and saxons was Stanford bridge.

Really? (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Battle+of+Stamford+Bridge&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Don't think so. (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&GridE=-0.91140&GridN=53.98990&lon=-0.91140&lat=53.98990&search_result=Stamford%20Bridge%2CEast%20Riding%20of%20Yorkshire&db=freegaz&lang=&keepicon=true&place=Stamford+Bridge,East+Riding+of+Yorkshire&pc=&advanced=&client=public&addr2=&quicksearch=Stamford+Bridge&addr3=&scale=100000&addr1=) :rolleyes:

Well, most of the genius he showed wasnt actually his.

And he had dropped out of doing that before the Battle of the Bulge, which arguably just threw away Germany's last reserves in an offensive that would have never achieved its objectives.

Fine. Norway, then. It was HIS idea after all...Amongst others. again, I'm not defending the man because I like it or anything, I am talking about his military decisions in a pure objetive way.

Well, while I think many Americans have too low an opinion of Monty, he wasnt in the desert for that long before Alamein. A lot of keeping Rommel at bay was dont by his predeccessors. Though he still did a good job at what he was meant to do, and apart from having an ego to rival Patton's he made one major mistake, which he really more backed than planned (Market Garden)

He still did the job in North Africa. In the long run, he won. You cannot say a man is a bad general if he won, even at high costs. As far as I know, Market Garden wasn't Montgomery's decision. He participated, but didn't make the definitive call.


IN fact, some of his best generalship arguably came after 1812... though too late to prevent him being deposed the first time.

The battle of Jena, for example. Most of the austrian armies bit the dust, and they were one of the most feared forces in Europe. He had some success before Leipzig.


Now squat about him except he massacred a bunch of Indians, and then got himself slaughtered soon afterwards... so I will have yo take your word for it.

Again, even if his tactics were brutal, (see Hitler above)...He was effective as a military commander, until he got slaughtered, yet he initially had some success.

Well, do remember, when they had built the line Belgium was a firm ally, and when the Belgians declared their complete neutrality (which obviously didnt save them in the end) they did start extending the line... and it was built with the last war in mind... whats that phrase... Generals always prepare for the next war by fighting the last? Or something like that.

The french had heard about german tactics in Poland. They could had pulled a smarter plan after that. They also knew Belgium didn't have the men, the resources or the power to stop the germans. Not changing the original plan no matter the cirscumstances is not exactly what a good general must do.

Tarek Aziz? Is he a military leader? Who are you thinking of?

He had a military grade nevertheless. He made military decisions and spoke in the name of the military.

Fine. Norway, then. It was HIS idea after all...Amongst others. again, I'm not defending the man because I like it or anything, I am talking about his military decisions in a pure objetive way.

Well... Even Norway was a bit iffy, getting much of the German surface fleet torn to rags... but again that was before he really got involved in the minutia of military planning, more "We're attacking this country next" and then leaving it up to others to plan things. Most of the actual tactical planning he was involved in was poor in the end, and even some of his strategic decisions were iffy at the beginning (and by the end, downright lunacy).


He still did the job in North Africa. In the long run, he won. You cannot say a man is a bad general if he won, even at high costs. As far as I know, Market Garden wasn't Montgomery's decision. He participated, but didn't make the definitive call.

Oh, no I wasnt disagreeing with you. I personally think Monty was a very capable commander. Just giving part of the argument anti-Montyists usually give. I think he did a good job in the desert, Northern Europe (and in France in 1940 even, as he seems to have been about the only one that bothered to train his troops for tactical retreats properly, which of course came in very good use) and most of what he did in general. And yes, that was the point I was making, that he was more a backer of the Market Garden plan than the actual executer. I think he gets blamed for a lot of it due to his high profile, and the way he refused to accept it had been a failure and forever got his name tagged to it with that "90% successful" malarky. That is a personality problem rather than a comment on his generalship.



The battle of Jena, for example. Most of the austrian armies bit the dust, and they were one of the most feared forces in Europe. He had some success before Leipzig.

Dont know any specific examples, so I will take your word for it, but yeah, that kind of thing was what I was thinking of.


Again, even if his tactics were brutal, (see Hitler above)...He was effective as a military commander, until he got slaughtered, yet he initially had some success.

As I said, I only know about his failure, so I couldnt really make a comment. I wasnt saying he was bad, just that I only know of his failure.


The french had heard about german tactics in Poland. They could had pulled a smarter plan after that.

Well, asking them to change a plan which their entire army was based around in a few months is a bit harsh. And they didnt have any real reason to know that what they had planned wouldnt work. The major error was not watching the Ardenne (and whoever was tasked with doing that in 1944 was even worse... god.. falling for the same trick twice. Thankfully the American (and some British) forces were stronger than the French in 1940, and the Germans were essentially at their last gasps.


They also knew Belgium didn't have the men, the resources or the power to stop the germans.

Well, thats why the BEF and the French were moved up into Belgium. They were to be the real fighting force to beat off the Germans, not the Belgians.


Not changing the original plan no matter the cirscumstances is not exactly what a good general must do.

I dont think Poland gave them enough information to really consider their previous plan invalid. They didn't think the same thing would happen to modern armies like the French and the BEF.


He had a military grade nevertheless. He made military decisions and spoke in the name of the military.

But who are we talking about? Who is this Tarek Aziz? The only one I know is the Tarek Aziz who is a political commentator of the left in Britain... wait... thats Tarek Ali... so who is this Tark Aziz? Is that Comical Ali?

Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers.

These men allowed their political masters bring dishonor to the armed services of the United States and STILL suck up to the cretins.

They deserve to be branded.

Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers.

These men allowed their political masters bring dishonor to the armed services of the United States and STILL suck up to the cretins.

They deserve to be branded.

Oh utter horse crap.

Oh utter horse crap.


Its true.

The worst of all the deficits in US is the shameful 'honor deficit' from which we now acutely suffer.

The disastrous military failure of the Iraq occupation combined with the dishonesty surrounding our dishonorable torture of prisoners darkens enormously the reputation of the US and the US military.

The unfolding scandal of the massacre of civilians in Iraq by marines - which, lets face it, is probably not a unique occurrence - is only serving to further this.

The Iraq war could have gone well if the nation's and the military's leaders had had the honor to demand it be prosecuted properly.

Many seem to have been cowed by the firing of general Shinseki at the outset when he spoke truth to power regarding the troop numbers necessary to succeed in Iraq.

*snip*

Sorry but no. The problem lies with the Politicians and NOT the generals.

Adolf Hitler :D

Sorry but no. The problem lies with the Politicians and NOT the generals.


Wrong again corneliu.

Now write it out again and address the points I made specifically.

No enlisted man worth his salt trusts the upper echlons of the military. Not a hair's breadth seperates most generals from politicians. Generals are practically uniformed politicians. Shame on you, its hard to believe you're actually related closely to someone in the armed forces, much less know one well.

Did your veteran relations serve in vietnam?

*snip*

Its still the politicians that are the problem New Granada. That's where it all boils down to. The politicians. The Military is at the politicians mercy.

Its still the politicians that are the problem New Granada. That's where it all boils down to. The politicians. The Military is at the politicians mercy.


The generals, the politicians, they're more or less the same people. Obviously there are exceptions, like Shinseki and others, but there are fundamental problems in both camps.

The generals, the politicians, they're more or less the same people. Obviously there are exceptions, like Shinseki and others, but there are fundamental problems in both camps.

Ok. Here I will agree with you.

Virtually every British general starting in the 1700s save Wellington and Nelson.
In fact, every European general who earned his position through noble birth or some really good toadying (the second one harnesses the Nazi generals, who all, with the exception of Rommel, were douchbags).

Most European generals were, in general, total idiots. Mainly because they favored blue blood over grey matter.

Oh utter horse crap.

Dont' even pretend you understand, because I guarantee you that you don't.

I have served directly under Generals that KNOW honor, and know that they are obligated to not only follow orders, but follow orders that are legal, proper and do not abuse the awesome power that they hold the keys to unlocking for reasons of political convenience.

Three of the past four Commanders of CENTCOM have been harshly critical of the neo-cons in the Defense Department.

You want to know their opinions on the conduct of the people who started this piece of shit excuse for a war?

General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep—and it has been for some time, in my judgment—to get rid of these people."


General Anthony Zinni, 1997-2000: He believes the neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy: "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."


General Tommy Franks, 2000-2003: Doug Feith is "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."

Tommy Franks, being of this opinion still allowed himself to be ordered into an operation run in major part by these assholes. Did he choose to refuse the orders and resign? No. He sucked it up, even knowing that things were not going to turn out the way these incompetent, ass clowns predicted.

Then he defended them and the administration. That is letting your uniform and the men who trust you down. He is tarnished goods and a used car salesman.

General Myers, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had a special responsibility to avert this course of action. Instead of sitting down with the President and explaining the facts of life to him, he backed down and let Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld have their way despite having superb data that painted a much different picture as to what would happen upon our taking Iraq.

He failed in his responsibility as leader of the Joint Service Chiefs. He allowed his politics to overrule his pragmatism and experience as a General with combat time. He has forever lost my respect. He lost his way, and now the military faces multiple crisis' in recruiting, image and credibility because of his failure to lead firmly.

There has always been firm evidence that the little adventure we are in right now was doomed, not because we couldn't or even SHOULDN'T do it, but because we were asking for unrealistic results.

The first Bush President was right, and his son ignored him at the behest of the neo-clowns. Myers and Franks could have reversed this course, or at least allowed time for a more realistic, long-term plan for intervention in Iraq to win the day.

But, naturally your view of the world is ruled by ignorant jackasses that think that we are supposed to unquestioningly follow the orders of a President who rarely spent a sober moment until he reached the dawn of age 40.

Sickening, and you call yourself a patriot.

Dont' even pretend you understand, because I guarantee you that you don't.

I was going to read your post but I never got past sentence one. This invalidates your post for the simple reason that you already judged that I would not understand it. You have a problem with that. I understand the military. I understand war. I have studied war. I have studied blunders and successes. Have you?

Sickening, and you call yourself a patriot.

Grow up.

Not sure if anybody has mentioned this yet but Gamad Abdel Nasar of Egypt around the time of the Six Day War.

Well let's see Israel beat us in the War of Independence in 1948 and crushed us in 1956 before the UN came in so we'll attack them again and see what happens.

And here is what happened Israel destroyed over 90% of his air force on the ground and captured all of the Sinai desert.

Along with other territories such as the West Bank and Gaza (which were won legitimately in war.)

I was going to read your post but I never got past sentence one. This invalidates your post for the simple reason that you already judged that I would not understand it. You have a problem with that. I understand the military. I understand war. I have studied war. I have studied blunders and successes. Have you?



Grow up.


No corneliu, go back and read over it and address it point-by-point and then write your response out again,

Stop acting like a child.

James Wilkinson. Not that he didn't have a clue, though I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't, but he was a corrupt bugger.

General William Hull. He surrendered Detroit when an ably-trained army could have convinced Britain they were heading for a no-win situation.

Captain James Dacres, Royal Navy. He arrogantly thought he could smash the Constitution with a glorified piece of scrapwood. Fifteen minutes later, his ship was a dismasted hulk and Constitution had little damage.

I'd argue U.S. Capt. William Bainbridge (USN) was overrated because Constitution actually had the worst of the exchange against Java for a time until the American ship eventually let its superior firepower tell.

No corneliu, go back and read over it and address it point-by-point and then write your response out again,

Stop acting like a child.

It doesn't deserve a response and no matter the answer he'll just tell me that I do not understand despite the fact that I have studied war and military history.

It doesn't deserve a response and no matter the answer he'll just tell me that I do not understand despite the fact that I have studied war and military history.


Corneliu, stop acting like a child.

Read it over, address the points he made, write your response out again.

If you respond to something, you are OBLIGATED to read it thoroughly.

You often give the impression that you haven't read what you purport to respond to, and it looks like that impression might be dead on in many cases.

This of course gives the impression that you dont read the history you purport to study, which makes you look dishonest.

If you think your child's nonsense is going to get you anywhere in college or the military you have a painful reality-check in the works.

Change and start TODAY.

I was going to read your post but I never got past sentence one. This invalidates your post for the simple reason that you already judged that I would not understand it. You have a problem with that. I understand the military. I understand war. I have studied war. I have studied blunders and successes. Have you?



Grow up.

Why yes I have.

Air Command and Staff College and War College among other career requirements for Field Grade officers.

I have taught ACSC.

I help teach civilian understanding of military simulations and wargaming by running War College type simulations at wargaming conventions.

I too have studied war. I too understand the military. I too understand war.

Your initial response to me was "Oh, utter horsecrap." If you want a productive answer and explanation for my assertions (which I gave you anyway), then don't cast aspersions or dismiss my opinion in the first place.

You started it, Corneliu.

Your turn.

Why yes I have.

Air Command and Staff College and War College among other career requirements for Field Grade officers.

I have taught ACSC.

I help teach civilian understanding of military simulations and wargaming by running War College type simulations at wargaming conventions.

I too have studied war. I too understand the military. I too understand war.

Your initial response to me was "Oh, utter horsecrap." If you want a productive answer and explanation for my assertions (which I gave you anyway), then don't cast aspersions or dismiss my opinion in the first place.

You started it, Corneliu.

Your turn.

What rank are ya because your credentials sound awfully familiar.

If ya truly studied war then you would realize the fact that everything still runs through politicians and politicians have this annoying habit of altering the plans as well as troop numbers. You do know this right? You being a military officer should know this.

Why yes I have.

Air Command and Staff College and War College among other career requirements for Field Grade officers.

I have taught ACSC.

I help teach civilian understanding of military simulations and wargaming by running War College type simulations at wargaming conventions.

I too have studied war. I too understand the military. I too understand war.

Your initial response to me was "Oh, utter horsecrap." If you want a productive answer and explanation for my assertions (which I gave you anyway), then don't cast aspersions or dismiss my opinion in the first place.

You started it, Corneliu.

Your turn.

Corneliu, or "corny" as many people call him, is somewhere between 15-17 years old and likes talking a whole lot more than he likes listening.

A search of the forum will betray the fact that he has a history of being loud and wrong and having to appologize.

Your credentials and your experience - which were obvious in your post -aside, you spoke truth to child.

When child hears truth, he just don't wanna listen.

Corneliu, or "corny" as many people call him, is somewhere between 15-17 years old and likes talking a whole lot more than he likes listening.

You actually think I'm that young? heck I have about a year left till I graduate *gasp* college. You underestimate me grasshopper.

What rank are ya because your credentials sound awfully familiar.

If ya truly studied war then you would realize the fact that everything still runs through politicians and politicians have this annoying habit of altering the plans as well as troop numbers. You do know this right? You being a military officer should know this.


Wait, god almighty!

Isnt what you asked SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN HIS POST?

On your knees corneliu, and thank god that Schwartzchild isnt your actual teacher, or you'd be in a very uncomfortable situation.

You actually think I'm that young? heck I have about a year left till I graduate *gasp* college. You underestimate me grasshopper.

Underestimated...

??

Wait, god almighty!

Isnt what you asked SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN HIS POST?

On your knees corneliu, and thank god that Schwartzchild isnt your actual teacher, or you'd be in a very uncomfortable situation.

There's a difference between Centcom and Joint Chiefs and Politicians. Not much of one but there is a distinct difference. There is also this thing called chain of command. I'm sure you have heard about it. People higher up can change the plans regardless of what the lower people want.

Underestimated...

??

Yep. You underestimate me. You said I was 15-17 years old and I proved you wrong. Also, you underestimte my abilities. I''m more than willing to show them to you if ya care to visit me at college.

Yep. You underestimate me. You said I was 15-17 years old and I proved you wrong. Also, you underestimte my abilities. I''m more than willing to show them to you if ya care to visit me at college.


A college senior who gets mistaken for a high school sophomore isnt being underestimated for christ's sake.

A college senior who gets mistaken for a high school sophomore isnt being underestimated for christ's sake.

No its just flat out lying. Besides, i'm a much better debator in public than on a chat forum I hvae come to notice. Even my professors knows I'm a good debator in class and they even tell me so.

So yes... you are underestimating me.

No its just flat out lying. Besides, i'm a much better debator in public than on a chat forum I hvae come to notice. Even my professors knows I'm a good debator in class and they even tell me so.

So yes... you are underestimating me.


What's lying?

At any rate, word's fail me.

"underestimated"... yeah...

Well Rommald I respect, he was fearless, and had exelent stragities.
Patton his counterpart I respect equaly as well.

But I wouls say Naponain attacking Russia in September with the early Russain winters right around the corner. (Moron)

Adolf Hitler, If there is one thing I learned, it's this (History Repeats Itself). He made the exact same mistake as Napolaon. But he is dead now, who cares?

Mussolini This Jackass can't fight a war, only talk big then turn tail and run.

The idoit with the bright Idea to send British Commandos to the small sea port Of Dieppe, France to raise Moral. 1000 dead and 2000 taken prisoner.

General Herman Hoth, he attacked a Russain troops with 700 panzers. But was over run by Marshul Pavel Rotmistrov with his 850 T-34's and the German lines were broke, pushing in 150 miles. The germans lost 70,000 men 1400 planes, and 1500 panzers.

Failed by 2 days to save Gordon in Khartoum; developed the concept of the concentration camp during the Boer War, with repercussions to this day; knew WWI would cost millions of lives and last years, yet still recommended the Western Front strategy; supported the Gallipoli campaign; and was lost at sea when travelling to Russia to garner support. (Although the way things worked out in Russia, he couldn't have made things worse!)

Coot

What rank are ya because your credentials sound awfully familiar.

If ya truly studied war then you would realize the fact that everything still runs through politicians and politicians have this annoying habit of altering the plans as well as troop numbers. You do know this right? You being a military officer should know this.

Lt. Colonel. The resume should sound familiar because all military officers at the rank of Captain in the US Air Force are required to attend Air Command and Staff College before being promoted to the rank of Major. The Captain-Major break point is where you go from being a Company grade officer to being a Field grade officer.

War College is a further requirement before being given billets that have a Command designator. (Command or Vice-Command of Wings and Groups). War College is part of the preparation process where an officer is slotted or anticipated to make the rank of Colonel (the minimum rank for a Base Command billet).

Upon pinning the eagle on your shoulders, you are immediately considered for both Senior Staff College and Senior War College, sometimes earlier. I chose to retire rather than chase the elusive stars that I was certain that I did not have the "political" juice to gain. I sat one Colonel's board and saw I was correct.

So, yes I am quite aware that political masters may indeed alter war plans, but war planning is a collaborative effort between senior command grade officers of the General Staff or Admiralty (Flag Officers as the Navy so quaintly puts it) and their civilian equivalents, the voices in those rooms are roughly equal.

Undersecretaries of Defense (like Feith and Wolfowitz were at the time) are a dime a dozen unless they enjoy the special attention of the SecDef and may normally contribute to such grand planning in the way that Colonels and Brigadier Generals do, quietly and respectfully.

The balance of the process is thus. The Command Staff is not obligated to agree if they believe or know that the facts being presented are faulty or excessively optimistic. If so, they are by duty required to point out the problems and flaws in the planning.

The politicians may issue orders, but it is generally considered unwise to give orders that Generals do not think will work. In this case, a good number of Generals refused and retired, or were reluctant to give the plan a full measure of support. Despite this, Feith and Wolfowitz prevailed because Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his Generals and went with the overly optimistic plans that Feith and Wolfowitz put forward. Only Franks and Myers fully embraced these plans, and they KNEW what a mess it would be in the end.

As such, when you ask me who I think are modern failures as senior Generals, I include these men. They either allowed their personal politics to prevail or they were gutless and did not do the right thing for their services and their men and women.

Lt. Colonel. The resume should sound familiar because all military officers at the rank of Captain in the US Air Force are required to attend Air Command and Staff College before being promoted to the rank of Major. The Captain-Major break point is where you go from being a Company grade officer to being a Field grade officer.

Yes I know that. I was just wondering that's all. Thank you for your service sir from the military brat.

Undersecretaries of Defense (like Feith and Wolfowitz were at the time) are a dime a dozen unless they enjoy the special attention of the SecDef and may normally contribute to such grand planning in the way that Colonels and Brigadier Generals do, quietly and respectfully.

Ok, here I will agree with you. There does seem to be alot of undersecretaries. I think most aren't needed but hey, that's my opinion :D

The balance of the process is thus. The Command Staff is not obligated to agree if they believe or know that the facts being presented are faulty or excessively optimistic. If so, they are by duty required to point out the problems and flaws in the planning.

Yep yep. 100% accurate.

The politicians may issue orders, but it is generally considered unwise to give orders that Generals do not think will work. In this case, a good number of Generals refused and retired, or were reluctant to give the plan a full measure of support. Despite this, Feith and Wolfowitz prevailed because Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his Generals and went with the overly optimistic plans that Feith and Wolfowitz put forward. Only Franks and Myers fully embraced these plans, and they KNEW what a mess it would be in the end.

And yet Baghdad fell within one month. The only place I fault alot of them is in how they handled the insurgency. Even the Germans had problems with this in France and in other places.

As such, when you ask me who I think are modern failures as senior Generals, I include these men. They either allowed their personal politics to prevail or they were gutless and did not do the right thing for their services and their men and women.

Even though the 1st part of the war went smoothly but combating the insurgancy has not? I'm just asking if you differentiate between the two.

And yet Baghdad fell within one month. The only place I fault alot of them is in how they handled the insurgency. Even the Germans had problems with this in France and in other places.

Thank you. Now allow me to point this out. The rough spot in the planning did not fall on whether we would conduct a successful first phase. Everyone at the table KNEW that we could topple Hussein with a minimum amount of effort and deaths.

The failure in planning came after the first operational phase. We had more than enough evidence based upon the history of the region that long term occupation, no matter how benign the intentions, would trigger insurgency and the longer the occupation period the harder it would be to bring events to a successful conclusion. Even cursory readings of the non-fiction works of TS Lawrence point out that military occupation in the Middle East is a bloody serious business, and would require an inordinate amount of manpower to maintain security.

We ignored these lessons and others at our own peril. Now we have both a full-blown insurgency and a civil war to deal with. We do not have the manpower to guide Iraq through this period properly. What is odd is that Lawrence of Arabia cited a figure of some 400,000 troops would be needed in the British history in Turkey, General Shinseki believed we would need at least 400,000 troops to conduct the post-war phase successfully.

130,000 overstressed troops just doesn't cut it in that environment. Especially when roughly 40% of that figure is National Guard troops. No offense to my brethren in the ANG, but they just weren't trained up to the level we needed from them, their training is primarily Disaster Preparedness and Assistance, Rescue Operations and Rear Echelon Operations.

Not to mention the fact that the reasons we were asked to go there in the first place were pure bullshit cooked up by politicians to burnish up an image.


Even though the 1st part of the war went smoothly but combating the insurgancy has not? I'm just asking if you differentiate between the two.

No successful warplan differentiates between operational and post-operational phases. Both must be taken into account before engaging in wartime operations. It means the difference between winning the battle and losing the war.

Our carelessness has already cost us immensely in reputation. We have allowed this thing to drag out to the point to where Anti-American feelings have almost completely overriden everything else.

Italy is fully withdrawing their troops starting next month and other nations are going to follow suit. In the end, it will be the US, UK and Australia and no one else.

We have squandered our good reputation over something that in the end was not crucial to our security, not to mention the butcher's bill that we see paid every day.

I find that sad and embarassing.

I thank you for the wonderful explaination without it sounding like you were talking down to me.

I do agree with most of what you said but not all of it but then... no one will ever agree on anything 100% of the time.

Again thank you.

I thank you for the wonderful explaination without it sounding like you were talking down to me.

My pleasure.

You asked me respectfully and that gained you a respectful response :)

I wish you well, and I hope if you choose to serve the US in uniform that you will remember that the ability to critically think will serve you much better than blind obedience.

Not all politicians are worthy of respect and the ability to win an election is not all that is required for a man who is President to gain my respect. The office deserves respect, the man or woman occupying it must demonstrate to me their worthiness before I salute anything other than their office.

My pleasure.

You asked me respectfully and that gained you a respectful response :)

I wish you well, and I hope if you choose to serve the US in uniform that you will remember that the ability to critically think will serve you much better than blind obedience.

It is unfortunate however that I am ineligable due to medical reasons to serve in uniform but I do support those who serve. My own parents served and still is serving in uniform. My dad is actually doing the air drop at Normandy for the anniversary :)

As for asking respectfully, I do try to do so but sometimes, on this forum, it is hard to do due to all the mudslinging that occurs.

I hope that we can stay in contact via telegrams if you want to know more :)

Not all politicians are worthy of respect and the ability to win an election is not all that is required for a man who is President to gain my respect. The office deserves respect, the man or woman occupying it must demonstrate to me their worthiness before I salute anything other than their office.

Now here I agree 100%. I have always said respect the office of the President but you don't necessarily have to respect the person in the office.

Im sure someone already mentioned him in the many page before, but Santa Anna was very incompetent

One word, Bill Clinton

One word, Bill Clinton

Sorry, Troll. Bill Clinton was not a military leader, and still you are wrong.

There were more than just a fair share of Presidents worse than him, including the present one.

Y'see President Clinton understood his place as a President who had not served. This guy is under the delusion that flying obsolete fighter jets for the Texas Air National Guard and running political campaigns in his spare time while serving in the TANG qualifies him to understand real military service members.

His father beats him hands down in that department.

Don't mistake me, I didn't like everything Clinton did, nor did I like everything that Bush Sr did either. But neither one of them made me as mad as this little turd of a man does.

One word, Bill Clinton

You mean two words. :rolleyes:

Sorry, Troll. Bill Clinton was not a military leader, and still you are wrong.

.


You have got to be kidding. The President of the United States, under the Constitution, is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES. The commander in chief is not a military leader? Interesting logic.

Virtually every British general starting in the 1700s save Wellington and Nelson.

Eh... that would explain why many British units were quite successful during the Second World War... While I admit many members of the British officer classes were, well, stupid, such a blanket statement is rather unjustified.


In fact, every European general who earned his position through noble birth.

Surprisingly, some of them even turned out to not be too bad at all. Though, yeah, it also resulted in some total twits.


Most European generals were, in general, total idiots. Mainly because they favored blue blood over grey matter.

Hmm... wouldnt say so. The Prussian (and then German) Officers were usually very professional, as were the French, and though the above may be more true for the British, they produced some quite good commanders.

You have got to be kidding. The President of the United States, under the Constitution, is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES. The commander in chief is not a military leader? Interesting logic.

Well, he is the commander in Chief, but did he make any tactical decisions? No. He told them what they were to do (or they told him of a threat that had to be dealt with), and then he let them sort out how to do it. He would have set perameters on what they could do, almost certainly, but I doubt he was in any way involved in military decision making.

You have got to be kidding. The President of the United States, under the Constitution, is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES. The commander in chief is not a military leader? Interesting logic.

(sarcasm) Thank you for that reminder. I am a fairly learned person, but I never realized that the President has this function. Moron. (/sarcasm)

The question was the opposite of another question on this forum and refers to senior military leaders, not politicians.

The President in the US system is not only the Head of the Government, they are also the Head of State. In this system, the President and Congress share joint responsibilities in overseeing the military. The President ceremonially is the Commander in Chief and may order the military to take action, but only after Congress has declared war or authorized action. The President does not lead the military on a day to day basis. Presidents are not members of the General Staff or the Admiralty (except in a retired status if they are previous service). They are the civilian leadership over the military, not specifically MILITARY leaders.

Further, the President is beholden to the US Congress who gives military officers their commissions by ACT of Congress.

For a clear understanding, read Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution. The title of this section is "Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments" where it explains the President and Congress' joint responsibilities over the military.

Bill Clinton was a bad Commander-in-Chief; Jimmy Carter was the worst.

Well, he is the commander in Chief, but did he make any tactical decisions? No. He told them what they were to do (or they told him of a threat that had to be dealt with), and then he let them sort out how to do it. He would have set perameters on what they could do, almost certainly, but I doubt he was in any way involved in military decision making.

In that case then you cannot logically include all the presidents for they are not military leaders.

Bill Clinton was a bad Commander-in-Chief; Jimmy Carter was the worst.

I'll give Clinton credit where it is due. The whole Bosnia thing if I recall correctly where Clinton went in without a UN Mandate. Instead he got a NATO mandate.

In that case then you cannot logically include all the presidents for they are not military leaders.

Aha, but what about Ulysses Grant?

Aha, but what about Ulysses Grant?

Unconditional Surrender Grant who fed his troops into the meat grinder because he had more men than the Confederates did?

I liked his surrender conditions but not the tactics.

Worst millitary leader of all time. Wasn't that the job that humoung gouring had?

He actually told Hitler he wasn't good enough to command the Luftwaffe.

I'm not saying the Spartans weren't great warriors. It's just that Darius really sucked. A Persian army of 200,000 defeated by 7,000 Greeks. And on the last day it was just 300 Spartans. darius is a bad military leader because he led the army into that damn bottle neck at Thermopalye.
That was Xerxes. Darius never led armies to Greece. He got Datis and Artaphernes to do it for him. And in fairness he executed them for incompetence after Marathon.

Major-General Sir George Pomeroy Colley, lost againt rebel Boers in the first Boer war, killed during his 3rd rout

Haig "your country needs you " to walk very slowly towards barbed wire protected machine postions.

EVERy Union general of the Army of the Potomac except for Grant, Hitler, Hitler's General Lackeys, Custer, Howe, Clinton (Revolutionary War), Monty (For ignoring Patton's advice), The commander of Hussein's Republican Guard...

on the Flipside, the best are
Lee
Jackson
Longstreet
Grant
Patton
Ike
Rommel
Washington
McArthur (both Korea and WWII)

Any Union general not named Grant or Sherman.

Bill Clinton was a bad Commander-in-Chief; Jimmy Carter was the worst.

You sir, are a closed minded nincompoop, but I forgive you because the internet allows trolls like you to give an opinion in an area you are supremely unqualified to give one.

Yes, James Earl Carter was probably not the best Commander-in-Chief among the Presidents, despite him being a retired Navy man and graduating 59th out of a class of 820 at the US Naval Academy.

I disagree on President Clinton. The meat of my middle to late service years were under Mr. Clinton (12th through 19th year). He did not pretend to know more than his Generals, and he made some tough decisions in the clutch that lesser men would have fumbled. Though not the best CIC, he was not bad at all.

Demonstrably the worst Commander in Chief I served was the current one. He thinks he knows more than his senior command staff, he has frequently overruled them on key issues that later came back to haunt him among other truly disgusting things about this man and his affiliation with the military.

He has cut the VA budget to crisis levels, in a time of war.

He ignores senior command staff almost routinely, going back to civilians like Don Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle to reinforce his fantasy world with the opinions of men who never served and vigorously avoided service.

Those senior command people he listens to are only the ones that "agree" with him. (see Franks, Tommy; Myers, Richard B.; and Pace, Peter.)

This President has not once gone to the funeral of a man killed in action for HIS foolishness.

This President does not allow pictures of the coffins of the dead coming into Dover Air Force Base to be printed in the newspapers. While I think this is marginal, I KNOW he does this because it would undermine him personally and politically if the people were allowed to see those flag draped coffins in the newspaper.

This President is a damn fool, plain and simple. My brothers still in uniform may not criticize him openly, but I know well enough their private opinion of this man from hard personal experience.

Schwarzchild. Are you married?

But I wouls say Naponain attacking Russia in September with the early Russain winters right around the corner. (Moron)


Heh, dont knock him for one cock up. he had raised another army within the year. And if he hadnt been shafted by the politicians France would rule all of europe now.

THERES a wierd thought....


I say the worst was either Lord Cardigan (Think Light Brigade) or General Elphinstone (the one who arsed up the retreat from Kabul)

Donald Rumsfeld... you don't have to look all that far back kids. ;)

Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf, the true leader of the Austrain-Hungarian army during WW1. I mean... he even lost against the Russians (=at that time peasants who sometimes had a gun)! He couldn't conquer a tiny nation like Serbia and needed to call his German friends for support, which he did a lot. He wasn't only a bad tactician, he also is responsible for the hanging of innocent Serbian civilians.

The Germans were convinced they could have won the war if only the Austrians weren't allied with them.

Donald Rumsfeld... you don't have to look all that far back kids. ;)

He's not a military leader :rolleyes:

Wow. Not one mention of Andre Maginot? The Maginot Line was one of the biggest failures in the history of warfare...the Line itself was workable, but they failed to take one important thing into account: The Germans didn't attack it directly. THey used a decoy force to make them THINK they were attacking it directly, and then went through Belgium and effectively went AROUND the Maginot line. And I bet the French just didn't see that coming at all.

France thought that this would really wear down the Germans by doing this, and if the Germans had attacked the Maginot Line head-on, it would have worked and the Germans would have had a lot tougher of a time taking France. But there's a reason the Germans had almost no trouble. The Maginot Line's Achilles heel was too obvious.

I can't think of what the French could have done better off-hand, but I can say this: The French still thought it was World War I. The Germans got a position advantage on them and there was no time to catch up. The next thing they knew, the Germans dashed through the north part of the continent, effectively dodging the Line, and getting the Paris before the French knew what hit them. In World War I, the Germans would have shelled the hell out of the French, jockeyed for position, engaged in a war of attrition, and the French would have had enough time to recover. But by the time the French are ready to plug the hole in the Line, the Germans are all the way to Paris, and the soldiers are asking, "Wha--ha--happened?"

To be fair the original plan for the Maginot Line was for it to extend along the French-Belgian border but Belgium managed to prevent that from happening via politics. The Line itself was a good idea; even after circling back to destroy it, the Germans took several weeks to defeat it (thus showing how it would have been an effective defensive tool). If France was allowed to have extended the line, they would've held out much longer.

Also, keep in mind that German tactics were revolutionary for the time (even if Gengis and co. did it before them) and the open spot in the Maginot Line was the best possible place for the weakness thanks for the relatively flat, open terrain which was more conducive for German tank tactics than say the Ardennes.

Schwarzchild. Are you married?

:blink: Why do you ask?

I'd say Donald Rumsfeld to, but we all know he couldn't lead a dog to a poo field.

Phyrrus of Epirus then? He certainly cannot be blamed for his failures. No Greek had expected that Romans could be so tough to beat. He ran his kingdoms like armies, forgetting the finer points of economics. Then understandably underestimated the Spartans. No, he did not really underestimate them, but underestimated the situation. A city that has no protective walls, it's only line of defense away fighting, and only non-soldiers present to puts up any fight at all. Would seem easy, or wishful thinking. But to be knocked out by a clever old woman, that never looks good for someone's record.

As for the one who said Marginot, I disagree. It's a little known fact that the French tanks where considered to be of superior quality. People who had staked their defense on the hope of Allied reinforcements looked up to the French. They where consider to be the ones able to quickly come to their defense. Their leadership was still considered to be an authority on many matters of war by smaller nations. Due in part to France's attempts to get many countries in one line against the nazis before the war. France had a Marginot line to block their border with Germany. And the rest of the army not assigned to the defense WAS ready to defend Belgium a second time from Germany, it was a possibility the Allies always acknowledged. But they didn't count on the Germans doing it different this time around. As is known, tanks aren't as suitable to hilly terrain as to open plains. The mere mention of 'Ardennes' was met with laughter by many generals, and they didn't necessarily have to be of French ethnicity. And you have to acknowledge the fact the Americans made that same mistake in 1944, although for different reasons.

As much fun as it is to bash French sometimes, they are actually a Phyrric nation. Luck plays a considerably role in decisive battles, and Lady Luck is a French hater.

:blink: Why do you ask?

:wink: guess...

:wink: guess...

<chuckle> I am not in the habit of making a friendly guess before I know the sex of the questioner. ;)

Filthy habit I know, but since I'm "wicked" I have to be careful.

The French Armoured divisions and their Air Force was massively superior to the early Panzer tanks. One on One a Panzer stood no chance against a French Tank.

It was the superiority of the German Tactics that defeated the French. The French tactic was to spread their tanks out alone a thin line, much like they did during WWI. The germans simple hit one area and smashed straight through to Paris before the French could respond. The French Air Force was also wiped out on the ground, I forget the exact figure but approx only 15 French Aircraft were destroyed whilst actually flying.

The French Commanders weren't the worst though, that prize goes to Hitler.

On May 20th 1940 the German army had effectively destroyed the French army and the British were on the run, Hitler at this point ordered the advanced Panzer Divisions to stop. If he hadn't done this the Tanks would have destroyed the British at Dunkirk and probably have forced a British Surrender. And then he went and invaded Russia, *sigh* no one will ever conquer Russia.

My best Commander goes to Alexander the Great, he turned a tiny semi-barbarian kingdom into the largest empire of the Ancient World, that was pretty impressive

Female. Being clarified that you are male, explanations are out of order

Female. Being clarified that you are male, explanations are out of order

Err, um actually...I had to know, you see...

I'm gay. Lied to get into the military and all of the things a gay man (or woman) has to do to serve their country. No regrets, I just wish I never had to worry about that.

To be fair the original plan for the Maginot Line was for it to extend along the French-Belgian border but Belgium managed to prevent that from happening via politics. The Line itself was a good idea; even after circling back to destroy it, the Germans took several weeks to defeat it (thus showing how it would have been an effective defensive tool). If France was allowed to have extended the line, they would've held out much longer.

Also, keep in mind that German tactics were revolutionary for the time (even if Gengis and co. did it before them) and the open spot in the Maginot Line was the best possible place for the weakness thanks for the relatively flat, open terrain which was more conducive for German tank tactics than say the Ardennes.

The Maginot line was in decay by the start of WW2 and even in its prime I have my doubts as to whether it would have been suited to the demands of mobile warfare. That said, I think Heinz Guderian's tank assault through the Ardennes was a moment of sheer military brilliance.

George McClellan

Had a force far superior to Lee's, and did almost nothing with them.

It took 4 years from the start of the Civil War before the Army of the Potomac was ably led (by General Ulysses S. Grant)

I think it was more General Lee being "that good"

The South shall rise again!

bubba klintoon

At the battle fo the somme in WW1 General haig said to our chaps, Walk, dont run - RETARD! Machine Gun + Walking soldiers = in one day we had 60,000 csualties and 20,00 dead and by the end of the battle it was around 1 million

At the battle fo the somme in WW1 General haig said to our chaps, Walk, dont run - RETARD! Machine Gun + Walking soldiers = in one day we had 60,000 csualties and 20,00 dead and by the end of the battle it was around 1 million

Well, the problem was that the vast majority of the soldiers were in fact new conscripts. Training had gone seriously downhill since before the war, and they couldnt be hoped to have the tactical skill of the BEF. Running would have likely led to units falling apart and getting split up. And remember it had been thought (rather optimistically) that the artillery would have essentially cleared the front lines.

While it is criticiseable, but know the context when you do it.

Tell me, what would have you done in that situation? What could you have done that would have changed it all? Nothing. With the military situation of the time there was little else people could do.

EVERy Union general of the Army of the Potomac except for Grant, Hitler, Hitler's General Lackeys, Custer, Howe, Clinton (Revolutionary War), Monty (For ignoring Patton's advice), The commander of Hussein's Republican Guard...

on the Flipside, the best are
Lee
Jackson
Longstreet
Grant
Patton
Ike
Rommel
Washington
McArthur (both Korea and WWII)


Missing a few key names like, Napoleon, Wellington, Kitchener, Sun Tzu

I think it was more General Lee being "that good"

The South shall rise again!

Lee was a gambler and a good one till Gettysburg. McClellan was an asshole who didn't know how to fight and never wanted to engage the enemy. When he did, it was a disaster for the Union.

That was why he was canned, TWICE!

That well known French general, McMahon :p

one of the reasons the Prussians walked all over France

bubba klintoon

I still think Carter was worse.

I still think Carter was worse.

Why don't you boys start a seperate thread? You could call it "Whiny bitchy Republicans who hate all Democrats."

Or "Conservative boys cruising for like minded companions."

It is completely obvious to me that neither of you have a thimbleful of expertise in the topic.

Why don't you boys start a seperate thread? You could call it "Whiny bitchy Republicans who hate all Democrats."

Or "Conservative boys cruising for like minded companions."

It is completely obvious to me that neither of you have a thimbleful of expertise in the topic.

Please oh Please God No. Not another thread like that. Of course...it'll balance out the GWB threads! LOL

Besides, not all republicans hate all democrats.

"Whiny bitchy Republicans who hate all Democrats."


Zell Miller was good.

French and German armys had been decimated in the war and they developed stormtroopers who rushed in small groups from hole to hole and used flamethrowers and grenades to clear trenches.. This tactic gained the germans more land than the rest of the war with the ludendorff offensive and thier men were conscripts so i dont see how we couldnt have managed to run rather than walk

P.S

Not from the USA, is the Republicans like the conservatives and the democrats like new labour?

Failed by 2 days to save Gordon in Khartoum; developed the concept of the concentration camp during the Boer War, with repercussions to this day; knew WWI would cost millions of lives and last years, yet still recommended the Western Front strategy; supported the Gallipoli campaign; and was lost at sea when travelling to Russia to garner support. (Although the way things worked out in Russia, he couldn't have made things worse!)

Coot


That wasnt Kitchener he was still a Junior Rank then in fact it was Wolsey that led the the relief of Khartoum, Kitchener's conquest of the sudan was quite a sucess

French and German armys had been decimated in the war and they developed stormtroopers who rushed in small groups from hole to hole and used flamethrowers and grenades to clear trenches.. This tactic gained the germans more land than the rest of the war with the ludendorff offensive and thier men were conscripts so i dont see how we couldnt have managed to run rather than walk

But they were usually very well trained, many were very experienced, and they were well equipped. As soon as they were mostly killed the offensive petered out, as the replacements just couldnt do the same job. The British conscript soldiers of 1916 were not well trained or experienced, so they could not be expected to operate in the same way.

P.S

Not from the USA, is the Republicans like the conservatives and the democrats like new labour?

Well, thats a bit simplistic. American politics is more skewed to the right than here in Britain. Looking at their policies the Tories and the Democrats would have a lot in common, and would overlap to quite a degree (though in the end, the Tories are probably right of the Democrats). The Democrats (by British and European standards) are probably centre right, while New Labour is still just about staying on the centre lef.t

Liasia']To be fair, that was everybody's tactic at that time. War of attrition, y'know.

The Freach had 3 Divisions attacking at the very south end of the Somme attack. All of their attacks made more than the projected first day objectives because they had an integrated fire-plan that was controlled by Forward Observation Officers connected to the artillery by field telephones. The British had arigid fire plan thet fell to pieces when the forward troops couldn't keep up with it.

The British troops went over, with the notable exceptioons of one brigade and the London Scottish Regiment, went over the top carrying occupation kit not assault kit having beed ordered too by Staff officers who thought that the wire and Garman trenches would have been wrecked by the shell fire.

The shells used in the barrage also caused the major problem for the troops in that it did not clear the wire. There was a shortage of blast type shells in early 1916 so the majoity of the shells fire to break the wire were shrapnel shells. This does not work.

Therer was insufficient First Aid Provision and not traffic management plan for the trench system which caused gridlock.

So your answer was a little simplistic.

J.E.B. Stuart; good most of the time, but it kind of sucked for Lee when he arrived late for Gettysburg


Hmmm.... they already mentioned Goring.

Blank

Well, thats a bit simplistic. American politics is more skewed to the right than here in Britain. Looking at their policies the Tories and the Democrats would have a lot in common, and would overlap to quite a degree (though in the end, the Tories are probably right of the Democrats). The Democrats (by British and European standards) are probably centre right, while New Labour is still just about staying on the centre lef.t

Very nice explanation, Peveski. I think that sums up US Politics much more succinctly than the way I could have explained it. There are generally no center left or left leaning parties in the United States by the European standard of measure. Just individual politicians that are more left-leaning than others.