• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

What Do You Think Was Most Stupid And Pointless Battle (not war) Ever?

MrPresident

Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
8,511
Location
The Prosperous Part of the EU
What is the most pointless battle of all time. For me a contender has to be the battle for New Orleans during the 1812 war between Britain and the USA. Not only was the war over 2 weeks ago but the British employed the worst tactics ever. I think only about 12 Americans died (don't quote me on that) compared to thousands of British. Also it made the career of one Andrew Jackson (7th President of the United States). So what do you think?
 
Overall, I think that the British 1916 offensive on the Somme wins it hands down. 400,000 Commonwealth, 200,000 French, and 500,000 German (give or take) killed or wounded for a total of 12km gain.

Had it been abandoned as soon as it became obvious that it wasn't working, it could be written of as an offensive that went wrong, but to carry on for months after was ludicrous.
 
I'd say Pascheandale (forgive my spelling) kicks the Somme in this contest. Because if they hadn't learned not to do what they were doing by the Somme, they certainly should have learned it FROM the Somme enough not to try the same 'trick' a year later.

Can I split up the question, though? Because they are separate things. New Orleans topped my list of pointless battles, but San Jacinto/Buffalo Bayou (in the Texas War of Independance) tops my list of stupid ones, given that Santa Anna managed to turn a winning position into total annihilation just by letting his troops have a siesta. A small fight, by European standards, but probably one of the top four decisive battles in North American History (after Quebec, Yorktown and Gettysburg, of course) and a one-sided rout of Mexico's imperial ambitions.

R.III
 
In all fairness to the battle of New Orleans, I would like to point out that the reason it was after the war ended was because the news hadn't gotten there yet. This may be obvious to most, but I just wanted to point it out, because to me, it highlights the difference between pointless and stupid as was noted by R3.

As for important battles in NA history, I would replace Yorktown with Bunker Hill. A crushing defeat there might have ended the rebellion, but had Yorktown gone the other way it likely would not have changed the ultimate results of the war, IMHO.
 
I can think of several, any from the western front from 1914-17 easily fit.

Italy's attack on the French Riveria in 1940 (They advanced a few hundred YARDS)

Italy attacks Greece through Albania (Really amusing, the Greeks take half of Albania from the "invaders" :rolleyes: )

Let's go for the Italian hatrick, and add the "advance" into Eygpt, the Italians stopped a few miles in, built forts that were not mutally supporting, and were subsequently defeated by a force three times smaller then themselves!

Balaclava in the Crimean war (The poem makes it heroic, the truth was the senior British commanders hated each other, so one carried out a bad order to make the other look bad.)

Any battle commanded by Braxton Bragg (The man had an almost mystical ability to turn victory into defeat).

Lots of candidates for this subject also.
 
My own vote is for Verdun, in WW I. Passchendaele and the Somme were both horrific battles, but at least they both had a goal, an aim - even if it was unrealistic or futile. Verdun's aim was simply Falkenhayn's belief that he could get more Frenchmen killed than Germans, and that the losses would push Paris to an armistice. It would of course have been nice to achieve a breakthrough, but the Germans weren't fighting for real estate and didn't expect to get far. They wanted the fortresses, and more importantly they wanted heaps of dead Frenchmen in them. They were aware they'd have to pay in heaps of dead Germans to get those heaps of dead Frenchmen, but they gambled that 100,000 dead Frenchmen were a more potent loss to Paris than 100,000 dead Germans were to Berlin. In the end, they were wrong and the French didn't break, but they did get their heaps of dead Frenchmen and Germans.

As for the Battle of New Orleans, it was an unfortunate battle because it took place after the peace had been signed (meaning the battle should never have taken place) but while it took 1000 dead British boys it did prove a point and the U.S. did benefit from the battle. First of all, it buttressed an otherwise fairly embarrassing record for the Americans in the 1812-14 war, having a bunch of country ruffians like Jackson defeat British regulars who were returning from victory in the Iberian campaigns. More importantly, however, as the British historian Paul Johnson points out, was that up until this battle no European power, least of all Britain, had officially recognized Napoleon's sale of the "Louisiana Purchase" to the Americans. The Mississippi River was still critical to the vestiges of imperial dreams some European states held for the remainder of North America (hence the British attack on New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi), so the American victory essentially sealed the American Mid-West from European penetration and exploitation. The U.S. firmly controlled the whole Mississippi, and that recognition only came after this fateful battle.
 
Verdun. Definately.
On second place, there's a run... Kadesh, maybe, or any other battle that ended in a stalemate.
 
Verdun / Somme hold the first place in my books. Stalingrad comes in second.
 
Probably not the stupidest, but Dieppe is up there.
 
Let's go for the Italian hatrick, and add the "advance" into Eygpt, the Italians stopped a few miles in, built forts that were not mutally supporting, and were subsequently defeated by a force three times smaller then themselves!
The British force of about 30,000 captured an Italian force of about 100,000+. There is a really funny quote from a British tank commander when him and 2 other British tanks were guarding 1,000 Italian prisoners. "We desperately need help, come quick, we all surrounded by prisoners". The Italian military history peaked around 150AD and from there its been downhill ever since.
Stalingrad comes in second.
Stalingrad wasn't a pointless/stupid battle it was one of the most decisive battles of WWII. Sure the reason Hitler attacked with such a large force was questionable but it did needed to be attacked, if not captured.

As for the battle of New Orleans. Well it may have not been stupid/pointless from an American point of view. However from for us British it was, over one thousand of our best troops were slaughtered. The war was over two weeks ago but no-one thought to check. And, as Vrylakas points out, the Americans gained quite a bit from the battle.

Did you know that Washington was one of the worst military commanders of his era, if not ever, but despite his best efforts we still managed to lose. Thats just my homage to the glory that was British military command, how we got the world's largest empire is beyond me. Anyway, I think one of the most important battle of NA American history was the Battle of Boston in the revolutionary war. This was the first major victory against the British showing ordinary Americans who wanted independence (only 1/3 of the population) that it was possible. It showed the France that there may be something to this rebellion (although I admit it wasn't the decisive battle for French intervention). Also it showed that a Virginia general could command a force of mainly New Englanders. As a side note, it made George Washington the first President of the United States and the historical figure he is today.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
Stalingrad wasn't a pointless/stupid battle it was one of the most decisive battles of WWII. Sure the reason Hitler attacked with such a large force was questionable but it did needed to be attacked, if not captured.

With stupidity I meant the way the battle was run - sending the 6th Army to fight a city war instead of encircling it, then leaving them to their own devices without supplies and reinforcement.

300,000 men on the German side and even more on the Soviet side were sacrificied for Hitler's and Stalin's vanity, not wanting to give in to another mad dictator, and ultimately Paulus' cowardice to disobey an order that meant the doom for his men.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident



Did you know that Washington was one of the worst military commanders of his era, if not ever, but despite his best efforts we still managed to lose.

whoa there, big dog -- lets give Washington some credit. While he may not have been a brilliant military strategist, his ability as a leader to his troops should not be in dispute. They emerged from a terrible situation at Valley Forge better prepared and more loyal than ever -- and that is what Washington is best remembered for -- rallying the troops.
 
whoa there, big dog -- lets give Washington some credit.
I am sorry if you think that I am not giving Mr Washington due credit. He was a great President and surely up there as one of the best. No-one at the time could have possibly do as good a job as him. He set the standards and was well aware that he was doing so, for example he was reculant to take a second term in case he died in office setting a precendent that meant President would continue in power until they died. However you must remember what a bad military commander he was. The British we not much better but the reason America won the war was not because of Washington's success at military tactics. He constantly wanted to you use amphious assaults in the battle, which would have been a massacre, but was luckly always talked out of it. The Battle at Boston was not won by Washington but by his artillary commander who realised the use of cannons against the British fortications. And then transported some hundreds of miles in a journey which has become legendary. His name was Henry Knox. Valley Forge was a complete disaster for Washington the majority of his troops deserted and it is a miracle that he was left with any and that the British didn't try to destroy him.
 
Originally posted by cephyn
whoa there, big dog -- lets give Washington some credit. While he may not have been a brilliant military strategist, his ability as a leader to his troops should not be in dispute. They emerged from a terrible situation at Valley Forge better prepared and more loyal than ever -- and that is what Washington is best remembered for -- rallying the troops.

I agree completely there, and his leadership performance at Trenton and in cleaning up the mess made by Lee at Monmouth was in each case brilliant. Obviously the War of Indepedence would not have been won without him. But nevertheless, as a general, I can't help but LOL everytime I read the line about "only General Howe could have been beaten by General Washington, and only General Washington could have been beaten by General Howe." The line refers, of course, to the mutual stupidity of Washington hugging the coast at a time when naval mobility and a huge line-of-battle were Britain's chief advantages, and to the fact that Howe somehow managed to squander them even as Washington made it easy for him.

As for his performance as President, well, it was good enough, but Jefferson, Lincoln, Polk, Roosevelt, Roosevelt and Reagan are all much more likely to inspire my admiration for the Republic, and generate croc tears at the sight of the Washington Mall than Washington himself ever could. As a flag-waving fan of the Federalist Papers, I have to add that Washington did a hell of a bad job of preventing "the evils of faction," probably because of the understandable indifference one gets when you know your best public service is already behind you.

R.III
 
understandable indifference one gets when you know your best public service is already behind you.
You raise an interesting point, what is Washington most famous for? Being the commanding general in the revolutionary war or being the first President of the United States? Also I think you are being a bit hard on Washington for the development of factions. I think that can mostly be placed at the feet of Hamiliton and Jefferson.
 
My fault with Washington is not that he caused the factions, but when pressed to do something with his prestige to control them, he stepped back instead and said, "whatever!"

BFK
 
Now wait a minute. You can't really blame factions forming on Washington. Jesus himself likely couldn't get people not to form factions of differing opinions. People are going to group together into factions. You can outlaw it, but it is still human nature.
 
MrPresident wrote:

Did you know that Washington was one of the worst military commanders of his era, if not ever, but despite his best efforts we still managed to lose.

The statement is a little strong, but it is true that Washington was weak as a military strategist. It was Colonel Washington who fumbled to the attack at Fort Duquesne in 1759, sparking the Seven Years War. General Washington lost far more battles than he won in the Revolution. Especially embarrassing is his defeat at New York, having placed his inexperienced troops in a suicidal position; it was his luck that even greater British incompetence allowed he and his army to escape back to the mainland. Even in 1781 with a glorious opportunity dangling in front of him, Washington had to be lobbied hard by Rochambeau to move his forces south for the attack and seige at Yorktown (which won the war); Washington was still smarting from the NY debacle and wanted to attack Clinton in NY instead.

However, Washington deserves some credit in the sense that while he often made foolish mistakes, he never repeated them. He learned quickly and never let his pride get in the way. Washington was of immense value to the Revolution not so much as a military leader but as a quartermaster for the army; he kept the ragtag militias and army supplied as best he could in extremely adverse conditions, and kept the army together - which meant he kept the Revolution together. He knew his limits and allowed true military geniuses like Greene and Morgan do their thing. His greatest military victories, like those in New Jersey (Trenton, Princeton, Springfield) were not so much military victories as political and propaganda victories - things he understood well and things critical at that stage of the Revolution. Washington never pretended to be a military genius, and in fact when he was chosen he is reported to have commented on how desperate the colonies were that they had to rely on a discredited militia colonel for leadership. Another great "military victory" that was a typical Washingtonian political move was when, at war's end, he very conspicuously came to Congress and resigned his commission, in essence turning his authority over to a civilian government; many were sure he would establish a military junta, as he indeed had the prestige and power to do so. (The recent McCollough biography of John Adams mentions that the British Court was stunned when he did this.)

Washington was the glue that kept the American Revolution together through 6 years of war, through highs like Saratoga and Yorktown, and lows like New York and Philadelphia. It is reported that as his "army" began to panic and run away in a route at New York, Washington stood on a ridge overlooking the battle absolutely disgusted and stunned, unable to speak. A very worried aid had to finally grab Washington's horse and lead him away to flee for his life and that of his army. Had the pursuing British captured him that day, it is highly unlikely the Revolution would have lasted much longer.
 
It seems George has suffered some here, but it needs some clarifacation, given the subordinates he had, almost no support from Congress, and being finacially in dire straights, he accomplished more then any thought possible.

He fought the whole war with only a few goals in mind, harrass the british while preserving his forces.

Let's review this.

Knox did not come up the artillery plan for Dorchester hieghts, only the field disposition of the guns, from a discussion with Isreal Putnam and Washington on how best to deal with the British.

Washington oppossed the invasion of Canada, a disaster. (1775)

He had formal orders to defend New York from Congress, as it was the largest city in the colonies, but did not have the force needed to do it.
His underlings failed him at Brooklyn hieghts (they failed to detect a British flanking movement), yet skillfully extracted his forces from Long Island, and then Manhatten, led the British on a merry chase through new Jersey, before turning on them at Princeton, one of the most brillant manuvers of the age, and then Washington escaped encirclement by Cornwallis, and struck at Trenton, before retiring to Morisstown for the winter.(early 1777)
His handling of a major defeat and withdrawl with a force that had little or no military training is a tremendous feat of arms, as was rallying them to counterattack, accross a river in the dead of winter, is one of the boldest and finest accomplishments in war, let alone his age.

The 1777 campaign was forced on him by congress, who ordered Philidelphia be protected.
At Brandywine, Washington had a good plan, covering the four stream crossings, and leaving reserves to smash the British flank when the crossing began.
Once again, an underling erred, and left the most distant crossing undefended, and here the British crossed, and were now in postion to roll up Washington's flank and destroy his army!
A young general, appointed by Congress, whom could barely speak English, rallied the panicing Americans long enough for Washington to pull off a fighting withdrawl, and with it, LaFayette's reputation was made.

Washington also sent his best subbordenent, Arnold, to upper New York, where he defeated the British at Saratoga (and didn't get the credit for it).
Washington retired to Valley Forge, and kept his Army together (there was NOT heavy desertion, most of his army was made up of short term enlistments, 6 months or one year, and included state militias, which always retired to home at the end of a campaigning year)
Washington realized he needed better organization, and had Nathenial Greene made head of his commisariat, and the newly arrived Von Stueban his drill master.
As a result, in the spring of 1778 the Americans were the strongest they would be in the war.
France also entered the war at this time, and Washington wanted a combined offensive against New York, but before this could be discussed, the British began to withdraw accross New jersey to NY, and Washington was etermined to engage them, and hopefully overwhelm their rear guard.
He wanted Greene on one wing, and LaFayette on the other, but the recently exchanged General Charles Lee (who thought the war unwinable) demanded the command based on senority.
Washington reluctantly agreed, and Lee's conduct was horrendous, ordering a retreat when his force was winning!
A livid Washington caught up to him on the battlefield, and cursing a blue streak (this was confirmed at Lee's court martial by sworn testimony), grabbed him by the scruff of the neck, and had to be restrained from thrashing the foolish Lee.
The British escaped at Monmouth, the battle was a draw.

He spent most of 1779 trying to get the French to commit to an offensive (they always backed off, or half-heartedly agreed, like the ill-fated Savannah attack and the Providence campaign.

Gates, the "hero" of Saratoga (he really wasn't, he just took the credit) had been placed in command of the Southern department, and led it to a series of dsisasters, one loss after another, so Washington sent his two best men to fix this, Greene to command the Southern department, and LaFayette to raise a force in Virginia.

Greene led the Brits on a merry chase, and eventually, the Brit commander Cornwallis retired to Yorktown to regroup and set up a fleet base on Clinton's orders (he disliked the postion).
When Washington got wind of this, he got the French to agree to a joint land/sea attack, marched his forces from the NY aera to Virginia undetected by the British, the French landed 5,000 men at Yorktown and fought off a British fleet attack (the famous battle of the Chessapeake), and Washington forced Cornwalliss' surrender.
This whole campaign was Washington's idea, and he pulled it off with forces seperated by thousands of miles apart with poor communications.
With this, the war was effectivly won, by George Washington's plan.

Not a good general?

I think not!
 
I think Somme was the most pointless, although Verdun was also a very stupid battle, in terms of lives lost.
 
Top Bottom