HI, who do you think is the worst military commander in world history?

Whichever military leader planned France's defenses to hold back a potential German invasion :D.

Kim Il Sung and any head general of the North before Grant.

Heinrich Himmler. Man built a defensive line running West to East against the Russians, with the front running North to South.

Frederick Stopford; he was way too old and too cautious to be commanding a force at Gallipoli, he slept through the landings and refused to command his men forward at a point where it would have made a huge difference in the campaign.

Sir Douglas Haig--sent 100,000's of British troop into what was basicly a swamp ( British bombardment had destroyed the nateral drainage ) at Ypre's. One of his aids went to the front and stated " We are sending our men into that? " Haig had NEVER been to the Western Front lines and had no idea what the trenches looked like.

I would dispute that Haig was really one of the worst, though. At that point, there was little else that could be done effectively and there was pressure to produce results. Given the circumstances no one else would have done much better.

I would also nominate Haig. I mean he could have stopped it and attacked on another location. Anyway he was responsible for the worst casualities in British history and truly deserved a Pour le Mérite!

Adler

I would dispute that Haig was really one of the worst, though. At that point, there was little else that could be done effectively and there was pressure to produce results. Given the circumstances no one else would have done much better.

Well the attack went on for @ 4 months when it was know they couldn't achive their objectives @ 2 weeks into the attacks. Cost 310,000 English their lifes.

Kim Il Sung and any head general of the North before Grant.

If you're referring to the role of Commander in Chief I'm not sure Winfield Scott could be described as a bad commander, after all the Annacona plan was essentially put into practice and it can be argued that the cumulative effects of its two main aims dealt the Confederacy heavy blows. MacLellan was hardly an amazing field commander but he did turn the motley collection of troops outside Washington into the Army of the Potomac through effective organisation and training. Halleck continued this process of training and equiping the vast numbers of volunteers and conscripts, again hardly a brilliant field or strategy commander but at least of some use.

I doubt I would consider any of those three as candidates for the worst general ever as all had some saving grace.

Surely the worst of the worst are not even remembered in the annals of history.

The worst you can think of will be the worst.. of the best.

MacLellan was hardly an amazing field commander but he did turn the motley collection of troops outside Washington into the Army of the Potomac through effective organisation and training.


Maclellan doesn't get enough credit for turning 100,000 volunteers and rabble into a real army--acourse as far as using that army..........

Yeah his use of troops was hardly anything to write home about. I think Lincoln summed MacCellan's campaigns best when he called the Army of the Potomac "MacCellan's Bodyguard" :lol:

MacCellan would get the award for the SLOWEST General.
Even when he got hold of the three cigars he just had to procrastrinate.
(The horses were tired ... was my favourite of the excuses to Lincon)

Unfortunately with the notable exception of Pope (and briefly Burnside) most of the commanders in the East tended to be cautious in the extreme, causing no end of annoyance to Lincoln and later Grant.

Kim Il Sung and any head general of the North before Grant.
Why Kim Il Sung?

Lord Lucan who sent the Light Brigade torwards the turkish cannons

Surely the worst of the worst are not even remembered in the annals of history.

The worst you can think of will be the worst.. of the best.

I agree: the worst military commander in history was probably the leader of a tribe or kingdom who inherited the job and got his force totally wiped out through sheer stupidity. Professional soldiers who rise through the ranks of militaries have to be at least vaugely successul to get promoted and achieve command (for instance, Haig is generally regarded as being a successful Corps commander).

Well for some like Bazaine political influence made them to generals. That should not be forgot, too.
Others on this list could be:
- Bazaine: Commander of the French Rhine Army during the Franco- German war of 1870/71. Did not take any initiative, was beaten at Vionville by a lonely German corps, retreated and eventually surrendered at Metz.
- Czar Nicholas II.: Lost ww1 in the East due to his stupidity and stubbornness.
- General William Elphinston: Due to his lack of taking the initative and believing wrong promisses he lead his forces into doom in the first Anglo- Afghan war.
- Adolf Hitler: Shall I add anything here?
- Josef W. Stalin: If Hitler is listed he has to, too. He was only so clever to give his generals finally free hand.
- Major General Aitken: The man who tried to conquer Tanga in 1914...

I could remember more later.

Adler

Whichever Prussian was in charge of the mess that was Auerstadt deserves special mention. When the main body of your army is driven from the field by a single enemy corps which it heavily outnumbers you know you're in trouble.

Gnaeus Maximus & Quintus Caepio at Arausio

Outnumbered 3-1 they bicker and camp seperately on seperate sides of a river allowing the Germans to attack each seperately and wipe both out almost to a man, 80,000 dead Romans.

Whichever Prussian was in charge of the mess that was Auerstadt deserves special mention. When the main body of your army is driven from the field by a single enemy corps which it heavily outnumbers you know you're in trouble.


It was the Duke of Brunswick that Davout took out behind the woodshed.:spank:

I understand that Blucher and the King were also on the field too.

Winfred Scott was a brilliant commander. Even if his role in the Civil War is not immense due to his age, his performance earlier, such as the landing at Veracruz, was evident of skill as a tactician. He shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread.

Who was the Italian in charge of marching over the Izorno River over and over again in WW1? Was repulsed over a dozen times? He might deserve a place in this discussion.

The Italian plan to break through the lines and take Salzburg and threaten Munich and Vienna was perfect. But as Moltke said: No plan survives contact with the enemy. And most of them were Austrian farmers who fought until death in the Alps. They knew the conditions and their bravery stopped the Italians. At the Isonzo however the Italians tried it again and again until they were attacked and had to retreat.

Adler

Winfred Scott was a brilliant commander. Even if his role in the Civil War is not immense due to his age, his performance earlier, such as the landing at Veracruz, was evident of skill as a tactician. He shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread.

I only did so to refute someone who commented that every head union commander should have been included. Perhaps they meant men like Hooker and Burnside, but they were only commanders of the Army of the Potomac, and not the whole union army, although the distinction is often missed by some.

I only did so to refute someone who commented that every head union commander should have been included. Perhaps they meant men like Hooker and Burnside, but they were only commanders of the Army of the Potomac, and not the whole union army, although the distinction is often missed by some.

All right, I was reading it quickly and maybe misunderstood who was posting what argument. Consider my statement as a bolster to yours, then. :)

Soviet General Dmitry Pavlov, he was horrible that he was executed.

He contradicted Soviet General Zhukov in 1941, he is responsible in part for the disaster of 1941

Soviet General Dmitry Pavlov, he was horrible that he was executed.

He contradicted Soviet General Zhukov in 1941, he is responsible in part for the disaster of 1941

He was exonirated later tough. Mostly made a scapegoat by Stalin to have someoen to blame.

Why Kim Il Sung?

He totally wasted the opportunity his surprise attack (which was basically an overwhelming numbers charge) gave by allowing the pocket to maintain and letting the Americans land and retake Seoul. He was so bad that he was essentially exiled until the conclusion of the war and his replacement had less than good things to say about him.

He totally wasted the opportunity his surprise attack (which was basically an overwhelming numbers charge) gave by allowing the pocket to maintain and letting the Americans land and retake Seoul. He was so bad that he was essentially exiled until the conclusion of the war and his replacement had less than good things to say about him.
Given that the UN had complete naval superiority, almost total air superiority, and was holding a fairly contracted line around Pusan, Kim's failure - if it was his, and one doesn't lay it at Choi Yong-kun's feet - was simply another case of being overstretched. Going by that logic, Napoleon was the worst general in the world too, as were the Germans in OKH. :p The NKPA's failure to maintain a sizable reserve is inexcusable, but hardly a cause for calling them the worst led army in the world.

Kim Il Sung can't be any worse than Kim Jong-il

Elphinstone's my favorite disaster.

Then there's Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend who invaded Mesopotamia during World War I, succeeded in taking Kut, got beat by the Turks at Ctesiphon, got surrounded at Kut and eventually had to surrender his entire force. After the surrender he got to live in comfort near Constantinople while his men suffered in captivity. His superior, John Nixon, may have been even worse.

And I've read somewhere that what you need for a Battle of Cannae is a Hannibal on one side and Gaius Terentius Varro on the other.

Who was the Italian in charge of marching over the Izorno River over and over again in WW1? Was repulsed over a dozen times? He might deserve a place in this discussion.
That would be Luigi Cadorna, and his eleven battles of Isonzo. Mind you. given the limited theatre of operations he probably couldn't avoid the Isonzo river anyway.

Yeah, it's not like there was anywhere else to fight but the Isonzo. The only part of the Italian-Austrian border that wasn't pure alp.

He was exonirated later tough. Mostly made a scapegoat by Stalin to have someoen to blame.

No, you are mistaken. Dmitry Pavlov was the worst general of the USSR.

From Wikipedia:"In particular he insisted that tanks be shifted to infantry support roles, which in hindsight turned out to be incorrect."

Zhukov disagreed with him on this, Zhukov wanted to have tanks separated from infantry to be used as spearheads, but Pavlov...:wallbash:

Here's a good overview of the Isonzo battles: http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/isonzo11.htm

Adler: where were Austrian farmers to be found not wearing uniforms around the Isonzo?

Thanks for the link, but I meant more the war in the Alps and not Isonzo as example.

Adler

Probably not the worst, but all of Stalin's military decisions were catastrophic. When the german wave was flooding Russia he was obsessed with the idea of cutting their supply lines with cavalry, à la 19th Century. They did in fact attempt that, in one occasion, with predictable results. The war only begun going the right way for the soviets when Stalin finally realized that he was no general.

Soviet General Dmitry Pavlov, he was horrible that he was executed.

He contradicted Soviet General Zhukov in 1941, he is responsible in part for the disaster of 1941
Though I think Pavlov merely reflected the disarray of the Red Army at that time. Too many holes to plug after the purge, resulting in too many inexperienced officers given higher-level commands. Even if Pavlov were 200% more gifted than historically, he would still have become creamed by the Germans and shot by Stalin. The problem was much greater than Pavlov; what about subordinate units commanded by even more inexperienced officers?

Though I think Pavlov merely reflected the disarray of the Red Army at that time. Too many holes to plug after the purge, resulting in too many inexperienced officers given higher-level commands. Even if Pavlov were 200% more gifted than historically, he would still have become creamed by the Germans and shot by Stalin. The problem was much greater than Pavlov; what about subordinate units commanded by even more inexperienced officers?
"resulting in too many inexperienced officers given higher-level commands"

I agree to that, but still he failed to see that tanks should be used in mass formations instead of diluted among infantry units, he saw what happened in France but stubbornly kept his opinion. And he even had Zhukov talking to him about it.
Yes, Pavlov has a quite horrendous general.:mad:

I wonder how much more effective the USSR would have been in 1941 if the USSR had used its tanks on mass formations...:rolleyes:

"resulting in too many inexperienced officers given higher-level commands"

I agree to that, but still he failed to see that tanks should be used in mass formations instead of diluted among infantry units, he saw what happened in France but stubbornly kept his opinion. And he even had Zhukov talking to him about it.
Yes, Pavlov has a quite horrendous general.:mad:

I wonder how much more effective the USSR would have been in 1941 if the USSR had used its tanks on mass formations...:rolleyes:
I think the Russians would still have been creamed even if they had massed their tank formations. On paper, they had over 20,000 AFVs, but less than 2000 were more recent designs. The majority of old tanks were not terribly worse off than their German counterparts, but their lack of experienced crews and abysmal logistics -- lack of fuel, spare parts, and maintenance crew -- would have cut them to the ribbons. Not to mention that the entire army suffered from lack of transports: Not enough infantry and artillery would have marched with tanks to make combined-arms operations possible. To add insult to the injury, the Germans obtained absolute air superiority from the Day One, making large mechanized movements in daylight pretty dangerous. Their communications were just as horrible -- not enough radios to go around (both in quality and in quantity) and not enough officers familiar with wirelessly directing their forces. Finally, largely inexperienced Soviet tank crews had to face their veteran German counterparts.

Too many cards stacked against the Russians in the early months of the war.

General (or something like that) Pickett, who led picketts charge.

He didn't really lead it though, and it wasn't his plan. In fact it is now often known as the PPT Assualt (I think) for the 3 generals involved.

Pickett's Charge.

The naming of the attack caused considerable argument in the south during and after the war. Pickett himself disliked being associated with it and blamed Lee for destroying his division. There was also an argument between the states involved (principally between Virginia and North Carolina) as to which state's troops got the furthest during the attack, and who was to blame for its failure. At least part of why the name stuck was due to Virginian papers glamourising Pickett's role in the attack as his division was made up almost entirely of Virginia units. The same papers tended to blame Pettigrew and Trimble's divisions for not supporting Pickett enough, and some in North Carolina went as far as to accuse Pickett of hanging back during the attack i.e. cowardice.

I wish I still had an audiobook about the attack because it went into much more detail. Suffice to say however that both during and after the war there was a great deal of arguing and blame being thrown around by former generals.

Not to mention the artillery barrage by the Rebel forces was utterly ineffective due to poor quality of their fuses...all the shot they thought was exploding on the Union line was actually overshooting the line, leaving the fortifications intact and the Union troops alive to repulse the Rebel attack.

True but ultimatley I'm afraid blame for the costly assault lies not with men like Pickett or Alexander but at a higher level, principally with Lee and Longstreet. In my opinion Lee was more at fault than anyone else.

Didn't Longstreet advise against the attack? I seem to remember somebody mentioning that when we were talking about various generals...and Longstreet said no, but Lee said yes, and the fight was lost.

Longstreet is said to have told Lee that "It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arranged for battle can take that position.". He also showed marked reluctance to order the attack, and possibly even tried to leave responsibility for judging the moment to commence the attack on Alexander's shoulders. Ultimately Longstreet had seen it all before, he after all had commanded the Rebs at Marye's Heights (during Fredericksburg), so he knew the folly of attacking across open ground against troops deployed behind a stone wall on heights.

Unfortunately Longstreet's reputation after the war took a bit of a nosedive in the south due to his criticism of Lee and his post war politics. He was viewed by many (including former generals) as a traitor, and some even "reasoned" that if he was a traitor after the war he could well have been one during it. Lee on the other hand tended to be viewed almost as an untouchable perfect ideal of a Southern gentleman, the perfect soldier, the very embodiment almost of what the average Southern soldier fought for.

There were a lot of rather confused and partisan arguments put forward after the war. From what I recall of the audiobook the author mentions that Pickett's charge created a problem in the minds of many southerners afterwards. They could not believe that Lee would order an attack that was beyond the means of the troops involved, for that would break the image of Lee as a perfect general. To look at the flip side however if it was a viable assault (and it obviously couldn't have been Lee's fault that it failed) that meant that the soldiers and officers had failed in their duty. That's how some arrived at the notion that Longstreet caused it to fail, perhaps even wanted it to fail, because it the concept that Lee made a mistake, or that Southern soldiers failed their beloved general was totally alien to them.

It all rather reminds me of Napoleon's supporters blaming Ney and Grouchy for the defeat at Waterloo.

And I've read somewhere that what you need for a Battle of Cannae is a Hannibal on one side and Gaius Terentius Varro on the other.

That was the first name that popped into my head upon reading the title of this thread, but I just don't know enough about military history to say whether he's the absolute worst general of all time. Besides, he was up against one of history's greatest generals--no Roman commander before Scipio could defeat Hannibal in the field, and Scipio could only do so by copying his tactics.

John Talbot

Two battles two defeats ( Patay Castillon )

Grand Moff Tarkin. Started off well, but in the end he got his ass kicked by a hillbilly and his imaginary friend. Not an impressive way to go.

"Let us understand each other. I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies; from an army whose business it has been to seek the adversary and to beat him when he was found; whose policy has been attack and not defense. In but one instance has the enemy been able to place our Western armies in defensive attitude. I presume that I have been called here to pursue the same system and to lead you against the enemy. It is my purpose to do so, and that speedily. I am sure you long for an opportunity to win the distinction you are capable of achieving. That opportunity I shall endeavor to give you. Meantime I desire you to dismiss from your minds certain phrases, which I am sorry to find so much in vogue amongst you. I hear constantly of "taking strong positions and holding them," of "lines of retreat," and of "bases of supplies." Let us discard such ideas. The strongest position a soldier should desire to occupy is one from which he can most easily advance against the enemy. Let us study the probable lines of retreat of our opponents, and leave our own to take care of themselves. Let us look before us, and not behind. Success and glory are in the advance, disaster and shame lurk in the rear. Let us act on this understanding, and it is safe to predict that your banners shall be inscribed with many a glorious deed and that your names will be dear to your countrymen forever"

– John Pope, message to the Army of Virginia

I think i read somewhere once that after the failed charge at Gettysburg Lee said it was all his fault. IIRC

What about Custer?

Adler

didnt the american civil war generals just throw large masses of units at one another with no regards to the casualties?

and didnt the russians do that in world war II when invading finland, germany, etc?

didnt the american civil war generals just throw large masses of units at one another with no regards to the casualties?

Not all of them no that would be an exaggeration frankly.

There were always men like Burnside and incidents where even the best generals like Lee (Gettysburg) or Grant (Cold Harbour) dropped the ball but overall the generals didn't simply fling their men thoughtlessly into the face of their enemy's firepower. The longer the war went on the more generals appreciated that the napoleonic tactics that suited muskets were outdated in the face of massed rifle fire.

Custer's something of an unusual character. If the Civil War hadn't come along he'd have probably never made it as an officer, let alone achieved higher command and the notoriety that came with his death.

I think i read somewhere once that after the failed charge at Gettysburg Lee said it was all his fault. IIRC

Yes he did, he also tried to resign after the campaign finished. Davis flat out refused citing (something along the lines of) he could not think of a single general who was better than Lee. Unlike his subordinates and the people who later idolised him Lee was aware that any failure was his responsibility, and would not blame anyone else.

The squabbles surrounding Gettysburg and the war in general usually had the decency to wait until Lee had passed away, but once he did...

"resulting in too many inexperienced officers given higher-level commands"

I agree to that, but still he failed to see that tanks should be used in mass formations instead of diluted among infantry units, he saw what happened in France but stubbornly kept his opinion. And he even had Zhukov talking to him about it.
Yes, Pavlov has a quite horrendous general.:mad:

I wonder how much more effective the USSR would have been in 1941 if the USSR had used its tanks on mass formations...:rolleyes:

I don't think you should blast the tactic of "diluting tanks". A mass armor charge has its purposes but, in the end, the ground troops need support.

John Talbot

Two battles two defeats ( Patay Castillon )
The French count is 40 engagements won, 2 lost, and Talbot was a bloody scourge for the French in his day.:confused:

The two lost battles would have been a worse blot on his carreer, if warfare in his day hadn't been decided by sieges rather than field-battles.

Oh shoot, I started a whole 'nother conversation.

Pickets charge could have been coordinated better by Picket. The specifics were left up to him, not Lee.

What do you mean by worst? Worst as in "He did this when he should have done that" or "He did this in as cruel a way as possible"?

The specifics were left up to Longstreet, who tried to avoid making the charge, then tried to get others to take the decision of when to launch it but he was charged with making Lees order into reality. I doubt even if Pickett (or for that matter Longstreet) had organised the charge better it would have suceeded, any other breakthroughs would have been quickly thrown back by the faster arriving Union reinforcements.

Pickett's performance elsewhere like at Five Forks does leave something to be desired however.