bob bobato
L'imparfait
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"?
Worst military commander-who is the worst general?
- Thread starter LOLZ
- Start date
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
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.
Pickett's performance elsewhere like at Five Forks does leave something to be desired however.
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. 2023 )
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
Eretz Yisrael
Korean Conscript
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.
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.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
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!
Eretz Yisrael
Korean Conscript
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
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
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
r_rolo1
King of myself
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
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
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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
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.
Similar threads
