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.

Lord Lucan who sent the Light Brigade torwards the turkish cannons

Poor Lord Lucan always gets the blame for the charge, while in fact it was several people who had been responsible for the disaster, the first was the CnC Raglan, who issued the first order which was inprecise to start with. His order was to "Tell Lord Lucan the cavalry is to attack immediately." What he didn't mean was to attack the front but to attack the heights, but from Lucan's position, he could not see the enemy positions on the hills and therefore could only assume to attack the only visiable enemy to his front.

Secondly, Captain Nolan, who failed to give precise messages from his commander Lord Raglan to Lord Lucan. Worst still was this exchange...

"Attack, sir! Attack what? What guns, sir?"
"There, my Lord, is your enemy!" Said Nolan contemptuously, vaguely waving his arm eastwards. "There are your guns!" (Kinglake: The Invasion of the Crimea, V, pp. 202–3 )

The waving of the arms was not towards the hill but towards the guns at the front of the light brigade.

Then there is Lucan, who should have questioned the orders more fully, but instead decided to attack on what little information he had. Hence due to a complete mix of disasters, the Light Brigade charged and was involved in one of the biggest disasters in military history.

However if you want a bad commander, I would have to say that Lord Chelmsford, who iniated the Anglo-Zulu War as one of the worst commanders ever to grace this planet.

To start with he started a war which he had no permission to do so (the British government had initially rejected a war), then at a crucial moment, split his forces up without knowing the disposition of the enemy forces. Then upon hearing the news that the main camp at Isandlwana was under attack did not rush to their help, which would have probably saved his men. Another fatal error was not ordering his men to dig in when they reached Isandlwana (which was actually part of his general orders - to dig in whenever his troops stopped). It would have also have helped to give his men sufficient ammo in order to fire continuously.

If sufficient ammo and a defensive position had been given, then the Zulu army would have had a more difficult time in overwhelming the British forces, in fact they may have lost and the Anglo-Zulu war could have ended earlier at a cost of far fewer British troops. Remember Rooke's Drift was fought with a ratio even larger for the Zulus and they lost with little loss of life to the British.

Another poor commander was Colonel Custer (or as he was at the time Captain) and his famous last stand. He went in with his force split and without the other two divisions which were attempting to flank the enemy. A totally rash charge that was neither needed nor ordered.

Alexander Samsonov. It takes an impressive degree of incompetence to lose 170,000 soldiers and 500 field guns to the enemy's 12,000 casualties in a little over a week. Why the Tsar let him keep his position after the Russo-Japanese War is beyond me.

Alexander Samsonov. It takes an impressive degree of incompetence to lose 170,000 soldiers and 500 field guns to the enemy's 12,000 casualties in a little over a week. Why the Tsar let him keep his position after the Russo-Japanese War is beyond me.
Probably because his record in the Russo-Japanese War wasn't all that bad - mixed, really - and he had a long record of good service going back to the 1877 war to counter it.

Furthermore it's pretty facetious to cite the number of casualties the enemy suffered but not their strength of 166,000 or their technical level advantages that were insuperable by the commander in question who had only gotten command of his troops at the beginning of the conflict scant weeks before.

General Mooreland from Vietnam, couldnt even achive a single decisive victory

Furthermore it's pretty facetious to cite the number of casualties the enemy suffered but not their strength of 166,000 or their technical level advantages that were insuperable by the commander in question who had only gotten command of his troops at the beginning of the conflict scant weeks before.

Walking right into an envelopment after announcing your battle plans uncoded, twice, isn't something you can blame on the enemy.

Walking right into an envelopment after announcing your battle plans uncoded, twice, isn't something you can blame on the enemy.
Well, the uncoded part was largely because he didn't have encryption facilities, which mattered because the Russian Army of World War I didn't have the capability to encrypt transmissions without putting through a long, laborious process that they were incapable of doing on the fly, as were the conditions in the East Prussian countryside. Hardly Samsonov's fault. Seriously, dude, the engagement is more of an indictment of the Russian late tsarist military than it is of Samsonov.

Well, the uncoded part was largely because he didn't have encryption facilities, which mattered because the Russian Army of World War I didn't have the capability to encrypt transmissions without putting through a long, laborious process that they were incapable of doing on the fly, as were the conditions in the East Prussian countryside. Hardly Samsonov's fault. Seriously, dude, the engagement is more of an indictment of the Russian late tsarist military than it is of Samsonov.

I'm not saying Samsonov is the reason why Russia lost the war, only that it's inexcusable to fall into such a catastrophe. Knowing that his transmissions were uncoded (not that I'm suggesting he had a choice), he should have been more careful, and he shouldn't have been stubbornly uncooperative with Rennenkampf.

I'm not saying Samsonov is the reason why Russia lost the war, only that it's inexcusable to fall into such a catastrophe. Knowing that his transmissions were uncoded (not that I'm suggesting he had a choice), he should have been more careful, and he shouldn't have been stubbornly uncooperative with Rennenkampf.
Pretty sure Rennenkampf was the source of a great deal of the problems, not Samsonov..."come help me pls plz plx pl0x" "ok just as soon as I completely fail to use my entire army to brush away a miniscule cavalry screen".

Anyway, far worse has happened, with far more command error by the general commanding.

I would say General Bazaine during the Franco-Prussian War. He basically made his country plunge into nearly a century of warfare by refusing to save the situation on the right flank of the French Army during the Prussian attack on French lines in Metz.

His words were,'you promised me a victory- but now you get me involved in a rout?!' and refused to protect the right flank of the French which caused the French to lose the battle and effectively lose the war.

I'd blame Napoleon III instead. The sorry old fool knew that the generals he appointed were not competent, and later were marching their armies into traps, but allowed it (led it, to Sedan) anyway!

I'd blame Napoleon III instead. The sorry old fool knew that the generals he appointed were not competent, and later were marching their armies into traps, but allowed it (led it, to Sedan) anyway!

Napoleon III wanted to recapture the glories, I guess. Why, he even optimistically named his army the Army of the Rhine.

Napoleon III wanted to recapture the glories, I guess. Why, he even optimistically named his army the Army of the Rhine.
France borders the Rhine for a great deal of its length and it was in that area the army would operate barring a total disaster. It's not really optimistic of them to have named an army that will fight in eastern France after one of the largest rivers in eastern France.

I was wondering if you guys could help me out a bit. It seems that I would like further information on a general named James Wilkinson, a veteran of the American revolution. He was known as the general who never won a battle, but never lost a court martial.

I want to know how this man thinks, what kind of man he was, anything about him will be useful. I have read the wiki about him, and he seems to have had quite a colorful career, however deceitful.
Its ironic that he best fits this thread. He is part of a story I am writing, and I think his character would bring some intrigue to the table, something at this point I am lacking. Thanks for your help

From wiki observation I have met with Arthur St. Clair

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.

Thats weird, that you should mention Stalin and fail to mention Hitler. Hm. Wonder why he didnt spring to your mind when you were talking about inept WW2 dictators who were militarily atrocious. Weird.

Thats weird, that you should mention Stalin and fail to mention Hitler. Hm. Wonder why he didnt spring to your mind when you were talking about inept WW2 dictators who were militarily atrocious. Weird.

Hitler was indeed a pretty poor commander, but he at least had some strategic sense. Stalin, on the other hand, thought it would be more de-moralizing to retreat than to be completely slaughtered, which was why Kiev was a catastrophic defeat for the Soviets. Though I suppose an argument could be made for Stalin being better because he at least recognized at some point that he was awful.

On topic:

I can't find anyone more incompetent than the two heads of the awfully ended Athenian expedition against Syracuse during the Peleponesian war: Alcibiades, that had the "briliant" idea of sending a expediction to do wild goose chase in Magna Graecia and Nicias ,for the completely stupid way he led the siege to Syracuse allowing himself to be besegied in a swampy area just because he wasn't smart enough to actually cutting all land acess to the city he was suposedely sieging, leading to a defeat so big that not even the coward guy that usually runs away to "deliver the news" to the motherland survived :D

I can't find anyone more incompetent than the two heads of the awfully ended Athenian expedition against Syracuse during the Peleponesian war: Alcibiades, that had the "briliant" idea of sending a expediction to do wild goose chase in Magna Graecia and Nicias ,for the completely stupid way he led the siege to Syracuse allowing himself to be besegied in a swampy area just because he wasn't smart enough to actually cutting all land acess to the city he was suposedely sieging, leading to a defeat so big that not even the coward guy that usually runs away to "deliver the news" to the motherland survived :D

Eh? Syracuse had a great financial value to it. While they were perhaps incompetent, their catastrophic defeat came about because they decided to do something strategically poor on the grounds of religious taboo.

On topic:

I can't find anyone more incompetent than the two heads of the awfully ended Athenian expedition against Syracuse during the Peleponesian war: Alcibiades, that had the "briliant" idea of sending a expediction to do wild goose chase in Magna Graecia and Nicias ,for the completely stupid way he led the siege to Syracuse allowing himself to be besegied in a swampy area just because he wasn't smart enough to actually cutting all land acess to the city he was suposedely sieging, leading to a defeat so big that not even the coward guy that usually runs away to "deliver the news" to the motherland survived :D

Surprising assessment - I always thought both Alcibiades and Nicias were strongly opposed to the expedition, but were appointed nonetheless. Nicias was respected as an honest figure but the more he described the challenge and scope needed to deal with it, the more enthusiastic the Athenian 'Imperialists' embraced it. Nicias was definitely overcautious and irresolute, their last chance to evacuate a losing campaign (never a popular thing to do) was pissed away because the auguries weren't right. Alcibiades fled at the first opportunity to escape wrongful accusation of treason and/or embezzlement from his political enemies. The man had a flair that landed him a job for the Spartans and again for the Athenians, in which he knew exactly what to do to bring either city to its knees. He even warned Conon before Aegospotamai, while living in exile.

Surprising assessment - I always thought both Alcibiades and Nicias were strongly opposed to the expedition, but were appointed nonetheless.
Alkibiades was the author of the plan.

Was he the one who originated the idea in the assembly - or the one who was responsible for planning it ? He certainly can't be blamed for the prosecution of it, since he never even reached Sicily.

Was he the one who originated the idea in the assembly - or the one who was responsible for planning it ? He certainly can't be blamed for the prosecution of it, since he never even reached Sicily.
The plan arose from the entreaty of the Segestan envoys, and Alkibiades expanded the envoys' original request for aid against Selinos into a plan to attack Syrakousai by stating that the place would be easy to conquer; Nikias then attempted to quash the plan by saying that it would be impossible without a large army, vastly increasing Alkibiades' original estimate. For his trouble, he got both the large army and a command.

hmmm - so he endorsed the idea. I had the impression that he secretly wanted to undermine the whole plan even though he was saddled with it, second thoughts maybe ? As the History reads, if they had acted quickly and decisively the city may have been the theirs regardless, but....Athens way overreached itself.

hmmm - so he endorsed the idea. I had the impression that he secretly wanted to undermine the whole plan even though he was saddled with it, second thoughts maybe ? As the History reads, if they had acted quickly and decisively the city may have been the theirs regardless, but....Athens way overreached itself.
The undermine-the-whole-plan-even-though-he-was-saddled-with-it guy was Nikias.

Any love for Nivelle and his wonderful offensive?

Any love for Nivelle and his wonderful offensive?

It makes me want to mutiny.

Any love for Nivelle and his wonderful offensive?

As much of a failure as it was, it wasn't a catastrophic disaster which permanently ended any hopes of French victory; which is more than can be said of other military commanders mentioned in this topic.

For the worst French commander in history, I would give the award jointly to Patrice de Mac-Mahon and Charles de Failly (sic) for the Battle of Sedan. "Oh, it seems as if we're being encircled... should we do something about that? 'Iunno."

As much of a failure as it was, it wasn't a catastrophic disaster which permanently ended any hopes of French victory; which is more than can be said of other military commanders mentioned in this topic.

For the worst French commander in history, I would give the award jointly to Patrice de Mac-Mahon and Charles de Failly (sic) for the Battle of Sedan. "Oh, it seems as if we're being encircled... should we do something about that? 'Iunno."

I would rather give that honour to General Bazaine.

I would rather give that honour to General Bazaine.

although I believe you identified a major blunder of Bazaine - after a few bloody ripostes he still held the fortress of Metz and tied down a Prussian army till near the end of the war - and was made a scapegoat by the Paris gov't. MacMahon's passive inactivity led to the surrender of the largest French field command (along with Napoleon III) instead of using it aggressively against Moltke's converging Prussian army corps.

Far be it from me to be a Haig apologist (indeed, I think he was more than a little ignorant as to the science of war, and it was this ignorance which cost the most British lives in 1914-1918), there are FAR worse British Generals from that war than Haig...

Someone's already mentioned Stopford. How about Hubert Gough, Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Ian Hamilton? Some of the French commanders in that war aren't much better. Petain was a moron.

I think the only thing that elevates Haig only slightly above some of these 'Donkeys', is that he was supportive of thorough, creative and ultimately decisive commanders, allowing them the leverage when they asked for it... men like Plumer, Currie and Monash.

Some of the French commanders in that war aren't much better. Petain was a moron.
Yeah, repeat offender at saving the French army in WWI...:crazyeye:

Yeah, repeat offender at saving the French army in WWI...:crazyeye:

I'd argue Foch did a much more effective job at "Saving the French Army" in WW1 than Petain did. True, he put the mutinies down, but when the Allies really needed someone to hold it together in March and April of 1918, it was Foch who stepped up and did the job..... not Petain (who at the time was performing an excellent impression of a stunned mullet).

Of the top of my head this late at night, I'd have to nominate "Black Mustafa", who almost single-handedly caused an Ottoman defeat so great, the empire never truly reached the same heights. At the time his troops weren't really as undertrained and underequipped as the European ones, so all the destruction he cause and almostbe placed on him alone.

Napoleon III wanted to recapture the glories, I guess. Why, he even optimistically named his army the Army of the Rhine.
Alternatively (at least according to the Biography of him I read) he knew things were in the crapper anyway, so he was hoping to get himself killed.

The fact that he was riding a horse while suffering from Kidney Stones that day probably contributed to the "I want to die" sense of things.

Stalin, on the other hand, thought it would be more de-moralizing to retreat than to be completely slaughtered
Usually when people say "On the other hand" they tend to use it to highlight the difference.

Though I think the title for most inept commander has to go to Heinrich Himmler, who attempted the brilliant strategy of building his defensive line PERPENDICULAR to the Front.

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.
SOrry it took me two years to notice this.
While yes he didn't close the Pusan pocket, and was caught with his pants down in Seoul, he basically had no good options in that scenario.
Closing the Pusan Pocket before American troops reinforced it was basically impossible, given Korean Geography, the equipment they had, etc, etc.
It simply couldn't be done fast enough.
And once he had that problem, his only hope to protect against amphibious assault was to withdraw his forces from the Pusan perimeter, back to a more defensive position, essentially admiting in advance that the war was lost.
The DPRK took a gamble that they could occupy the ROK without major American involvement. Once that happened there was no hope for North Korea.

Also, his very notable successes as a Guerrilla fighter show that he was certainly competent, and definitely above most the people on this list.

Of the top of my head this late at night, I'd have to nominate "Black Mustafa", who almost single-handedly caused an Ottoman defeat so great, the empire never truly reached the same heights. At the time his troops weren't really as undertrained and underequipped as the European ones, so all the destruction he cause and almostbe placed on him alone.
Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa ran that campaign reasonably well, IMHO. Most of the reason for the Ottoman defeat is attributable to the actions of the defenders of Vienna and of the Polish-Lithuanian relief army, not to any particularly outrageous Ottoman errors. Betrayals on the Ottoman side, notably by the Crimean Tatars, further weakened their army.

That main thing is, that campaign should have been a success. Too many mistakes were made fir the blame not to placed on him. He decided not to take any surrounding fortresses, despite every other leader urging him to do so. Then he decicded to besige a city with no thoughts or worries about defending it, leaving it exposed to almost any sort of attack. All of this may have been excusable if he insisted the city fall diplomatically, not through storming the walls. No, he has preferred to sit in an undefended camp outside of the gates of an imperial capital. The Polish army swiftly crossed the Danube and the King was even surprised how easy it was to reack Vieena. The battle was already slaughter before the Tartars fled, the Polish flank attack was devastating and once they reachedthe center camp, it was offically over. A good number of Janissaries were slaughtered by the now offense Viennese and Poles.

Side Note: Black Mustafa also lost Ukraine for the Ottomans, which would turn out to be source of plenty of suffering in the future. Ironically, the area was seized by th e Turks because of his success earlier.

Maurice Gamelain

Well, the reason to bypass Győr was seen as sound by some, because it didn't significantly hinder communications with the Vienna besiegers and allowed the Ottoman army to invest Vienna more rapidly - which was important, considering how long it took to get a campaign going. Then once he was at Vienna, he didn't exactly sit around. He made sure to place his guns in the proper spots, and launched several attacks on Vienna defensive bastions, carrying on an energetic sapping and countersapping struggle with the Habsburg defenders underground as well. There's really very little there that was truly terribly handled. I mean, sometimes it all comes down to luck, sometimes it comes down to friction, and sometimes you may be good, but the other guy is just better. :dunno: I mean, it was a pretty terrible loss, and it did have a pretty tremendous impact on the Ottomans' position in Europe, but the vezir didn't make any astoundingly bad moves to get there. He restarts the old war with the Habsburgs because Thököly offers him an opening, he builds a nice army, gets to Vienna, conducts a more or less conventional siege, then BAM here comes the King of friggin Poland-Lithuania who's supposed to be tied up in the Baltic right now with thirty thousand ish cavalry, then BAM he moves faster than anybody thought he would, compounded by a Tatar failure to hinder the Polish-Lithuanian army whatsoever, then BAM the Holy League troops hit the Turkish besieging army in a field battle that they launch at the same time as the Ottoman assault on the last Viennese bastion. I mean, seriously.

The point in mentioning the Tatars was that they were supposed to be the ones retarding the Polish-Lithuanian advance. Being a primarily cavalry force, they'd be good at that sort of thing, dontcha know.

Also, I think you may have the wrong guy for losing the Ukraine. Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa was one of the commanders in the victorious Ukrainian war, in the early 1670s. He played a role in the conquest of Kamianets and in managing Turkish aid to Petro Doroshenko's cossacks. In so doing, he actually ran up against Sobieski and fought him to at best a draw for the Poles - not a small achievement, in my opinion. When the Ottoman position in the Ukraine collapsed, it wasn't due to anything he did, really - it was Doroshenko, who had this unfortunate habit of meddling in Muscovy's sphere of influence, so the Muscovites finally got pissed enough to send an army to beat the crap out of his cossacks. Which they did.

I mean, I see what you're saying, the guy was clearly not an Alexander or a Napoleon or even a Sobieski, but he wasn't terrible either - otherwise he'd never have gotten to be a vezir. (Considering his teetotalism during a time when the reigning grand vezir, Fazıl Ahmed Paşa, was a notorious drunkard along with everybody else at court, I'm kind of surprised he managed to make enough friends to move up the ladder!) Maybe he just gets more grief because he was in charge when a disaster happened, whether he could've done anything about it or not. Like Herakleios and the Caliphal invasions. Or Darius III against Alexander the Great. Competent - hell, Herakleios was friggin genial - guys, but the odds were stacked against them, and in many ways out of their control.

I guess what I'm saying is, there's probably better targets for bile as "terribad generals" than Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa. Like Yeğen Osman Paşa. We need more people hating on Yeğen Osman!

I have come to the conclusion that the reason Dachs knows so much about history is because he's personally experienced it, making him either immortal, a time traveler, or a machine. I'm leaning towards time traveler because of his generous use of emoticons.

Well, I was just reading about this for an unrelated reason. :p

I have come to the conclusion that the reason Dachs knows so much about history is because he's personally experienced it, making him either immortal, a time traveler, or a machine. I'm leaning towards time traveler because of his generous use of emoticons.
I've reached the conclusion, from the sprinkling of "BAMs" in that last post, that he is a time-travelling Elzar.

It might have something to do with this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8545251&postcount=310)and this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8560616&postcount=322), but I'm personally leaning towards the time traveling part.

It might have something to do with this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8545251&postcount=310)and this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8560616&postcount=322), but I'm personally leaning towards the time traveling part.
Either that, or Dachs must literally do nothing but read history books all day everyday. I mean, damn, I'm pretty knowledgeable about history, and have no life to speak of, but I don't know half this crap.

The Worst C.O. title goes to...














[drum roll]














General George Armstrong Custer, for the Battle of Little Bighorn, for reasons readily apparent.

He was at least adequate in the Civil War, I will give him that much - and in the Union Army, "adequate" was quite an accomplishment.

Little Bighorn wasn't even his fault. He received terribly inaccurate intelligence from his scouts. Hell, he's not even the worst American general; of which the title should belong to either George B. McClellan or Horatio Gates.

Edit: I originally wanted to say Ambrose Burnside as well, but given that he actually at least obeyed Lincoln's orders, I give him a bit of credit; unlike McClellan, who even when he held in his hands a map of the entire Confederate war plan, still was unable to win a victory.

Little Bighorn wasn't even his fault. He received terribly inaccurate intelligence from his scouts. Hell, he's not even the worst American general; of which the title should belong to either George B. McClellan or Horatio Gates.

Edit: I originally wanted to say Ambrose Burnside as well, but given that he actually at least obeyed Lincoln's orders, I give him a bit of credit; unlike McClellan, who even when he held in his hands a map of the entire Confederate war plan, still was unable to win a victory.

well he may have even been deliberately misled, if you believe 'Little Big Man', but he didn't handle the situation very well. And his conduct in the Indian Wars was nothing to be proud of.

Hell, he's not even the worst American general; of which the title should belong to either George B. McClellan or Horatio Gates.

I'd like to throw in a mention of William Hull, the worst of the early-War of 1812 American commanders--and that's saying a lot!

I'm starting to think that Douglas MacArthur may have been the most derelict general of all time, but he was far from the worst.

Nah, If we are talking bad American Generals Mark Clark deserves a shout out. Hmm what should it be capture a large part of the enemy army on my front and possibly speed up the end of the war or take a strategically worthless city and get my name in the papers? great choice Clark really great choice. Also there is Lloyd Fredendall another fine example of American generalship.

I've never heard of either of them. But MacArthur may well have been the greatest practitioner of shameless self-promotion in history.

I'm starting to think that Douglas MacArthur may have been the most derelict general of all time, but he was far from the worst.
Closer then you might think!

Closer then you might think!
He proved himself capable, if not competent. I'm sure there are many worse generals, but that same flair for self-promotion means he's far better known than most.

He proved himself capable, if not competent. I'm sure there are many worse generals, but that same flair for self-promotion means he's far better known than most.
Certainly there were worse, he's not in the category of comedically bad leaders. He's certainly the worst commander to reach that height amongst the Americans during the second world war.

Who was up there castigating Mark Clark? Honestly I think Clark's been a bit bad hit by the whole Anzio thing, while his other performance in Korea and elsewhere in Italy and Africa has been downplayed, but I confess myself relatively ignorant on the relevant topics and am ready to be proven wrong. :)

Who was up there castigating Mark Clark? Honestly I think Clark's been a bit bad hit by the whole Anzio thing, while his other performance in Korea and elsewhere in Italy and Africa has been downplayed, but I confess myself relatively ignorant on the relevant topics and am ready to be proven wrong. :)

Yeah as far as I knew, Clark took the credit for keeping it together while they were in a pretty tight spot. He was brought in to replace the unfortunate Lucas, and the beachhead was secured. After all, he was dealing with Kesselring.

EDIT: scratch that - I think it was Lucian Truscott who replaced Lucas.

From what little I've read, Clark was a competent, if not particularly imaginative, commander. His reputation takes two big hits: his incessant self-promotion rubbed his fellow officers the wrong way - leading to even more of the inevitable backbiting by rivals and subordinates that seems to go with the high command - and his determination to garner laurels for himself and 5th Army as a whole led to higher casualty rates than may have been necessary - though any progress in the terrain of Italy was going to be a bloody mess - and some questionable decisions (the glory of entering Rome rather than the security of cutting off German escape routes after the Anzio breakout). Certainly not one of the leading lights of military prowess, he was far from one of the worst. Many other generals have been equally guilty of overweening pride and/or glory-seeking.

EDIT: scratch that - I think it was Lucian Truscott who replaced Lucas.

Lucas was in command of VI Corps, subordinate to Clark. Truscott was CO of 3ID, Lucas' subordinate until replacing him.