AH challenge poll.Worst Generals of ALL time

bill_bruno · Jun 24, 2004

My short list

Edward II. Oman referred to Bannockburn as the worst defeat suffered by an English army. Losing with the dominant pike-and-longbow system to a smaller army is pretty bad.

Gen. Elphinstone, whose irresolution got an entire British army (save one) wiped out on the road from Kabul.

Santa Ana. Not masking the Alamo, getting surprised at San Jacinto and losing every battle he fought in 1847.

Tag team of Samsonov and Rennenkampf, losing at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes.

I have to concur on Burnside (Rohrbach (later Burnside's) Bridge at Antietam, Fredericksburg, the Mud March and the Crater at Petersburg).

Bulgaroktonos · Jun 24, 2004

Hitler's High Command. Jodl and Keitel and Goering. They and Hitler lost the war for Germany. Even Paulus can be excused. He wasn't an experienced general on the scale of Stalingrad, and had his hands tied behind his back after Saturn.

Chris Oakley · Jun 25, 2004

The Iraqi army high command in both Gulf wars.

Midgard · Jun 25, 2004

Michael IX Palaeologus, at least if Norwich's description of his campaigns has any truth to it. Lost every major and minor battle he has ever fought, including defeats by the Latin principalities of Achaia, Turks, the Catalan Company, and just about everyone else he's ever fought against. After about 15 years of campaigning his reputation was so bad that even the rather incompetent Emperor Andronicus II (his father and co-ruler) had enough and deprived Michael of all command, retiring him practically to private life in Thessalonica. Worst of all, such military defeats could not have come at the worst time, as the Byzantine Empire was pressured on every front, and could barely hold on to any of its former territories.

Bulgaroktonos · Jun 25, 2004

I'll give Paleologus the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't like Byzantium was going to recover anyway. After 1204 they were done for, even with the brilliant leaders like those at Nicea.

Chris Oakley · Jun 29, 2004

Why's that?Was their society really that decayed?

Midgard · Jun 29, 2004

Bulgaroktonos said:
I'll give Paleologus the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't like Byzantium was going to recover anyway. After 1204 they were done for, even with the brilliant leaders like those at Nicea.

I would disagree, as up until around 1347 (the crisis centered around John Cantacuzenus) Byzantium had a reasonable chance for survival - not a return to the old borders, but rather maintaining a stable (albeit smaller) Empire of the earlier Palaiologi. After that, the Byzantine trade was largely taken over by Venice and Genoa, and the utilization of foreign troops in the civil wars of mid-XIV century led the way to foreign domination of Byzantine politics. During the reign of Andronicus II, the recovery was still possible, had the Byzantine military had little more luck (or had the Catalan company been handled better or utilized to the better effect).

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 29, 2004

midgardmetal said:
I would disagree, as up until around 1347 (the crisis centered around John Cantacuzenus) Byzantium had a reasonable chance for survival - not a return to the old borders, but rather maintaining a stable (albeit smaller) Empire of the earlier Palaiologi. After that, the Byzantine trade was largely taken over by Venice and Genoa, and the utilization of foreign troops in the civil wars of mid-XIV century led the way to foreign domination of Byzantine politics. During the reign of Andronicus II, the recovery was still possible, had the Byzantine military had little more luck (or had the Catalan company been handled better or utilized to the better effect).

No chance. With Stephen Dushan on one side and the Ottomans on the other, plus the circling Venetians, the situation was hopeless.

1204 depreived the empire of the administrative elite that had allowed it to survive calamity after calamity. After that, the Byzantines were just another medieval principality, the merest shadow of its previous splendor, the Lord of Europe and Asia and Vicegerent of God ruling over a ruined city and its despoiled hinterland.

Midgard · Jun 29, 2004

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
No chance. With Stephen Dushan on one side and the Ottomans on the other, plus the circling Venetians, the situation was hopeless.

1204 depreived the empire of the administrative elite that had allowed it to survive calamity after calamity. After that, the Byzantines were just another medieval principality, the merest shadow of its previous splendor, the Lord of Europe and Asia and Vicegerent of God ruling over a ruined city and its despoiled hinterland.

The Ottomans did not become a major power until about 1320s, and even then until about 1350s they were not invincible - the Byzantines still had significant manpower and financial resourses up until late 1330s or so (until the plague hit around 1346), and the loss of Nicaea and Asia Minor IMO was the final straw only when the Empire had no manpower or economical strength left to defend them.

The Empire of Stephen Dushan was a formiddable entity during his life, however, before the Byzantine power completely vanished, they could at the very least hold their own and protect most of their borders in the Balkans and Asia Minor, even after 1204 - in particular, between about 1261 and 1310.

Grey Wolf · Jun 29, 2004

Fiji said:
My vote is for Dick Advocaat, coach of the Dutch national team
.
.
.
well, at least his nickname's "the little general"

They'll probably go and win the thing now !!!

Grey Wolf

God_of_Belac · Jun 29, 2004

Mardonius may have been a good general in general, but the Greek campaign of 479-480 has to go down as his worst moment. Not only did 4000 Greeks bar his army's way for several days in front of a pass that he'd known his army would have to cross (criminal negligence in not having better maps), but he repeatedly let the Greek Hoplites get in positions where they could charge at and slay his light infantry. At Plataea, the Spartan and Athenian contingents, some 10,000 strong, routed ten times their number because the Persians were arrayed in such a way that the Greeks could outrun them in a flat charge.

Admiral Thomas Graves, RN. Only Admiral in the British Navy to lose a fleet-action to the French after 1700. Had he won the Battle of the Chesapeake Capes, Cornwallis would have been supplied in Yorktown and could have held out until (a) winter and (b) Howe in New York got off his ass with his 32,000 troops and marched to Virginia.

Street_Disciple · Jul 21, 2004

Varus. This guy wasted 3 perfectly good Roman legions, by marching them into the Germanic "Indian Territory" of the Teutonburger Forest. He was clearly the "Custer of the Ancient World".

Prunesquallor · Jul 22, 2004

Caepio. Arrogant, stupid, and greedy. At Arausio in 105 BC his refusal to co-operate with his colleague led to a disaster equal to Cannae. Afterwards he was prosecuted not only for incompetence but for the mysterious disappearance of a plundered treasure hoard which amounted (according to some sources) to over 100,000 pounds weight each of gold and silver.

Michael · Jul 22, 2004

I pick Churchill, "lets land the colonials on the cliff face, tell them to climb it when there is a perfectly good beach not a mile further along, not send that lone british group up to help them and just generally fluffy (fluffy is a nice way of saying f**k) up." Probably just an Australian bias

edvader · Jul 22, 2004

Freyburg.and possibly Mark Clark. Freyburg the New Zealander ordered bombing of Monte Cassino because he THOUGHT the germans had troops using the abbey. Not true. the German Commander-Von Senger who was Roman Catholic FORBADE troops to use the base. As a result of the orders the Abbey was demolished. Don't think Clark did a good job going on to Rome. But the New Zealander is the bad guy.

Ar Skoul · Jul 24, 2004

Bolivian general Toro during the Chaco war. He launched a summer offensive in the Chaco desert without bringing along any water supply. Out of his 5300 men 1600 died from thirst or suicide during the retreat his subordinates ordered against his will. The remainder fought each other when they reached the water tanks (which were safely in the rear). He was also responsible for leaving a whole two divisions in the middle of nowhere to be quietly surrounded by the Paraguayans (without water, of course) : 4000 prisonners and 2000 dead.

As a reward for his glorious exploits, Toro was appointed chief of staff, a position which allowed him to make a coup in 1936.
He was considered an incompetent even by his fellow Bolivian officers (guys about whom Bolivian president Salamanca said : "I have given them everything they asked for. Only brains I could not give them")

Habsburg · Jul 24, 2004

Santa Ana,

Could have used other measures against the Texicans to sucessfully defeat them at the Alamo but he just wanted to literally kill everyone so he choose to lay siege on very rough terrain and extremly superior position losing nine times the men for obsessiveness! He wasen't at La Bahia (Goliad) when the 'sucessful' massacre took place under Urrea. Then he split his army and lost horribly at San Jacinto.

Melvin Loh · Jul 31, 2004

What about Gen Lloyd Fredendall, the US II Corps cdr in Tunisia who was a cowardly incompetent whose ineptitude in leadership contributed to the disaster at Kasserine Pass in early 1943 ? Or the Jap gens in the island-hopping camapigns of the Pacific who kept on mounting pointless yhuman wave attacks on the invading US Marines and soldiers ?

Also, what about Sir William Birdwood, Aylmer Hunter-Weston and the other British senior commanders for the foulup at Gallipoli in 1915 ? And Mountbatten for the ill-conceived bloodbath at Dieppe ? Then you can have Josiah Harmar and Arthur St Clair too, for their failures as US Army gens campaigning against Little Turtle and his Miami Confederacy warriors in 1790-91, and Col. Johan Rall for his underestimation of the Americans at trenton, Christmas 1776, which led to Washington crossing the Delaware and surprising and capturing the Hessian garrison.

fhaessig · Jul 31, 2004

As a general group, I'd like to nominate the french High command and general officers in charge oif the preparation and fighting of the battle of France in 1940.

Macsporan · Aug 2, 2004

The worst general in history was Joseph Stalin. I believe he was even more inept than Hitler. The only reason he won was that he had more men, more tanks and more planes to throw away.

A partial list of Stalinist catastrophes might include:

ï‚· The Purge of the Soviet officer corps on the eve of war
ï‚· Persecution of advocates of massed armoured formations and the disbanding of said on the eve of war
ï‚· Refusal to listen to 80 different warnings of impending German attack
ï‚· Refusal to institute defence in depth in 1941
ï‚· Deploying the Red Airforce so far forward so as to allow it to be destroyed on the ground
ï‚· Refusal to permit timely retreats in the face of the blitzkrieg which cost millions of Soviet lives
ï‚· Predilection for half-baked, premature counteroffensives which cost millions of Soviet lives

It is likely that at least half the Soviet battle casualties and, by extension, countless civilian deaths were due to Stalin's incompetence.

Compared to him Lord Haig was a genius and even the justly criticised WW I Russian generals start to look good. Never in the whole of military history has more death and suffering been caused by the arrogance, malice and incompetence of one man.