| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Worst Military Mind of All History | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2012, 12:42 AM (2,969 Views) | |
| Warden of Wisdom | Nov 30 2012, 12:42 AM Post #1 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
In your opinion, who's the worst military commander history has ever seen? Perhaps Crassus, or Darius III, or Custard, Burnsides, McKlellen, ect. Reasons as to why is much appreciated, of course. In my opinion, Grattan. Attacking an army while you're outnumbered 40:1 for almost no reason doesn't really seem like a great tactical decision. It's no wonder his first battle was his last. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grattan_massacre And regardless of what some might tell you, it was a BATTLE, not a MASSACRE. Edited by Warden of Wisdom, Nov 30 2012, 12:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| halospaz117 | Nov 30 2012, 10:10 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
that one guy from the beginning of band of brothers, he was not fit to lead and it was a good decision not to make him commanding officer |
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Nov 30 2012, 11:10 AM Post #3 |
![]()
|
I've never been a big fan of Bernard Mongomery. Welp, the enemies are retreating through France, but let's just march through the Netherlands and give them time to regroup and organize a counter attack (see: Battle of the Bulge). I still belive Patton could have gone right through Germany in half the time it took Montegomery, and for a lower cost in lives. But, no, Montgomery got command because Eisenhower wanted to be politically correct and choose the British plan. Heck, it's even stated the Montgomery took on a more WWI-style of battle. The only notes you should take from that is what NOT to do (with a few exceptions). |
![]() |
|
| sindre1818 | Nov 30 2012, 04:24 PM Post #4 |
|
Me, playing any strategy game ever made. |
![]() |
|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Nov 30 2012, 05:07 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Same. After playing Total War games twice, now when I try to load it up, there's only a popup saying: "Look, let's just spare you 30 hours of your life, and press the *lose* button".
|
![]() |
|
| Squee913 | Nov 30 2012, 07:01 PM Post #6 |
|
I thought about this and here is the problem I see with it. What is it that defines them as terrible? Do we judge them by success? Because Custer had amazing success in his military career (baring the last little part) He was really good at achieving his objectives and beating the enemy, but he was also a dick that did not care how many of his men he lost doing it. Darius III was not overly arrogant or incompetent per say. He was just up against Alexander. Let's face it, if anyone other than Alexander had lead his opposition, Darius would have crushed them. (I'm not saying he was great, just that he was not any worse than other average kings of the day) What about Cromwell? He was considered by many to be a brilliant commander with many victories, yet those upstart American rebels were able to defeat him. What about Hannibal? In some ways he was an utter Genius with amazing victories, but he also passed up vital opportunists and was sadly embarrassed on the plans of Zama. Are we going for fool hardy or arrogance? Because some of the greatest tacticians in the world had those in spades. basically, I have trouble judging any leader based off of one or two failures or successes. For example, if Alexander had faced a slighter smarter and less cowardly King, he would have been slaughtered at Battle of the Granicus. He attacked an enemy that badly outnumbered him on an open field of battle when he did not have to. He had great tactics to be sure, but he banked everything on beating Darius quickly. As it was, he almost lost the whole battle as his left flank collapsed. If Alexander's plan had taken even just a little longer, it would have been a disaster. Can we call that a good commander? Would not a good commander have avoided the conflict completely until he had a greater advantage? You might say, well he was smart for reading Darius correctly, but he did not really know him. He had never met Darius and only knew him by reputation and a few messages. Assuming he would break was a hell of a gamble that he did not even need to take. So after thinking long and hard I have come to the conclusion that the worse commanders in my view are not the stupid, or the arrogant, but the ones that failed to adapt. I present to you... The generals of WW1. All of them. At least all the ones that were in charge when the war started. they were so set in the old ways of fighting and so confident in their ability to end the war quickly that they never really understand how war had changed. They believed that the advantage of war still lay with the attacker. They could not bring themselves to admit that inventions like machine guns and artillery had thrown the advantage to the defenders. To make matters worse, they were very slow learners. time and time again they refused to acknowledge this defender advantage and continued to try and fight with the same tactics used a hundred years before. Edited by Squee913, Nov 30 2012, 07:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Warden of Wisdom | Nov 30 2012, 07:27 PM Post #7 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
This can also apply to almost all the generals in the Union during the early civil war. I think a general or such should be judged by their ability to succeed, but not their success. This may not make sense, but its like you said, Alexander should have lost at Granicus, and that's what I would judge him by in that battle, not how he won by a stroke of luck. Grattan tried to defeat an army that outnumbered him about 1,200 to 30 by standing and shooting. This could not have possible won, and thus I would judge him by it. Some say Cortes wouldn't have succeeded in defeating the Aztecs if it weren't for small pox and other diseases. He was outnumbered innumerably, and was fighting in entirely foreign terrain. It was a stroke of luck that they let him into the capital, and that they were carrying disease, and had success. I would judge him by this. Another example is the Battle of Stamford Bridge, it was complete and entire luck that Harold happened to arrive when Hardrada's army was unarmored, divided, and unprepared. It was more than likely he would have suffered many more casualties, if not lost all together, if they were armored and ready for battle. I would judge him based off this. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 1 2012, 10:02 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
My list in no particular order: Who's ever idea the Battle of the Somme was. Napoleon in general. The only moron who failed to invade Russia harder than him in recent years would be Hitler himself. Hitler for invading the USSR. Ideological differences aside, opening up another front is always a retarded move. So was Germany vs Stalingrad in general. Hitler for ballsing up basically everything he could possibly balls up. Upto and including overrulling his best generals constantly. USA invading Vietnam. USSR invading Afghanistan after witnessing the USA fail in Vietnam. "It won't happen to us! hurr durr!" Whatever retarded Roman thought pissing off the Germanic tribes was an excellent idea. Especially Teutoberg forst. Chaimberlain / Churchill rejecting the Nazi alliance / ceasefire deals. Although accepting them didn't turn out well for the USSR either. Hitler's whole "mobilizing the armour requires my personal approval" and "do not disturb me as I sleep" paradox. Same with L.B.Johnson's similar orders in Vietnam. My overall worst-military mind? Hitler. By a long, long country mile. Don't get me wrong, as much as we demonise the guy for the things he did (the victors write history, remember) he was a fantastic orator, economist, a decent politician and had some interesting... things which were far, far ahead of their time. ( ICBM/rockets, the type XXI sub, blitzkrieg tanks, the Tiger/Jagdtiger, anti-smoking, animal rights policies, NV goggles, even combating corporate capitalism with fascism etc etc.) But as a military leader? Lord Almighty, what a wet slipper. How someone manages to fail with people like von Manstein, Rommel, Guderian, von Kleist, Kretschemer, Topp etc on his side... it is just shocking. Edited by Dantos4, Dec 1 2012, 10:05 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Warden of Wisdom | Dec 1 2012, 10:21 PM Post #9 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
I'd agree, although I'm not sure he's the worst. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 1 2012, 10:24 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
I did spend a while looking at others such as Custer or King Phillip VI of France but Hitler just seems to be the one who messed as much up as possible, ignored his best generals/strategists and enforced stupid rules where he oversaw everything. Almost looks like he wanted to lose
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic » |









1:50 PM Jul 11