Worst military commander-who is the worst general?

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 and this, but I'm personally leaning towards the time traveling part.
 
It might have something to do with this and this, 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom