| 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 (2,976 Views) | |
| hjk561 | Dec 3 2012, 03:34 AM Post #21 |
|
He rules
|
I never meant to imply bad commanding had nothing to do with it, it did. Varus was lazy and incautious, and wasn't the best general by any stretch. But, he doesn't deserve to be called the worst military mind. That German Prince had actually served in the Roman army and been granted citizenship. He and Varus did become very good friends, but can you blame Varus for that? He had lots of other German kings and princes accompany him, so he was bound to make friends with one of them. Most likely the most roman one ![]() And Varus wasn't actually conquering anything. All he did in his time in Germany was march back and forth across the Rhine into eastern Germany to parade his troops. You could argue that they were conquering through "Romanisation", like they did the Greeks, and they probably were. Varus didn't do any fighting, though, until Teutoberg Forest. That "personal feud" misbelief of Varus' may not have been so stupid of him to think, as Arminius did run away with his daughter when she was meant to marry someone else. Arminius and the other rebel kings did leave, saying they would raise up men to surpress a faked rebellion up north, to lure Varus into the forest. They also killed any roman soldier in the surrounding German villages, who had previously been pulled away from the main army to answer previous fake calls for help by rebel german kings. Varus was perhaps a little too trusting, I agree, but the guy had known Ariminius for about 3 years, so he had little reason to suspect that a good friend would betray him. The march through the forest was indeed intended as a shortcut to get to the fake rebellion, but you could argue that Varus should still have been prepared for an ambush if he believed the rebellion was real. The lack of scouts was also a mistake on Varus' part, but whats to say that if he sent them out they would have returned anyway? Your other points are correct, but I don't think Varus is the sole reason for the defeat. He made some pretty odd decisions, such as marching through the forest, but there is no way he could have anticipated a 30,000 man ambush led by someone he considered a friend. And yes, the ramifications of the defeat were huge. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 3 2012, 08:23 AM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Yes. Let me ask you this, if you had a foreign-born commander, granted Roman training and citzenship (not unusual after they served in auxilia) and he was in command of one of your auxilia... then a member of his own family says he will betray you. Would you then, no matter how nice and friendly the guy, follow him into an unnecessary short cut, through muddy terrain and a narrow forest, which is against Roman policy regardless? Being the worst military mind isn't just about commanding a battle. It's also about tactical and strategic aptitude, something Varus was clearly lacking. He chose to go into the forest and follow Arminius, he chose to not march in formation when heading to a rebellion through a forest, he chose to not send out scouts, he chose to take a shortcut when none were needed. Those are some pretty ballsy and retarded calls that led to the loss of 15,000 + men. I'm not saying he could and should have anticipated an ambush or betrayal, but he sure went a long way from protecting himself from one. Arminius was of Germanic origin and he had already been warned of a betrayal. Even if he didn't believe it, he should still have kept his guard up. Especially when Arminius went to "drum up Germanic forces" when he already had an auxilia to take care of, or when he decided to "scout forwards" and leave Varus behind in a forest he was unfamiliar with. As I said, I overall picked Hitler because of his fantastic control-freakery and moronic over-ruling of some of the greatest military minds at the time. But P.Q.Varus was probably one of the worst military minds in Roman history, given the decisions he made, regardless of betrayal or not, he basically invited an ambush upon himself. |
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Dec 3 2012, 09:20 AM Post #23 |
![]()
|
First off, I just pointed out you used Vietnam twice to point out the fact, I didn't intend to challenge anything. Now that that's out of the way:Throughout history, generals have taken huge gambles. Sometimes they have paid off, and sometimes they haven't. (I took out the spoilers to save room). Several things. One, there are many reasons for the Germanic tribes sacking Rome, such as the Huns (who pushed groups like the Visagoths into Roman territory, and Rome's own hubris. Historical grievences take a back seat to those reasons (especially when you consider that the Germanic tribes were separate entities, and wouldn't have been too pissed at Rome if they themselves weren't attacked). Second, I agree with Hjk, the commander was an idot, but he was not the worse in history. Third, it didn't seem like the Roman commander had much of choice when it came to going through the forest. He thought it was a matter of vital importance (he got false reports of "friendly" tribes being attacked), and the quickest route was through the forest. Hitler didn't seem like the type of man who'd let a possible threat remain in existence. Had Great Britain remained an ally of Germany, eventually Hitler would have attacked them, wheter the reasons would be to destroy a threat, or to exploit some natural resource. Also, don't forget that Germany had a vendetta against Great Britain. They did force Germany into hyper-inflation, and made them give up all theri colonies after WWI. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 3 2012, 10:15 AM Post #24 |
![]()
|
And when it doesn't pay off it fails. This was an unnecessary gamble. He chose invade Russia. Historical grievances *always* count towards how a people behave. As does reputation. For example, Varus hadn't fought the Germans per se, and yet: " He was known and feared because of his ruthless actions and his crucifixion of defeated enemies. It is certain this was known to the Germans, and may have helped the tribes come together to resist him.". Unless of course you're telling me he crucified one man from every German tribe? Please show me where I made this statement. The only statement I made was to point out that he had a terrible military mind on the first page, then that he was probably one of the worst Roman military minds. You both are taking liberties in assuming what I am saying. I was clear in saying that Hitler was the worst IMO. I put Varus forward as a candidate as he *did* have a horrendous military mind. I never said he was the worst in history. There is always a choice. He heard of a rebellion, I can think of no rebellion in history which was so necessary to stop immediately that you must cross an easily ambushed forest location, going *against* Roman military principle, and following a man you had just been told might betray you. Can you?
Spoiler: click to toggle Clearly he did not want to invade the UK, then when we declared war on Germany, he had no choice but to fight back. Further evidence: Spoiler: click to toggle And another example: Spoiler: click to toggle More examples: Spoiler: click to toggle That is probably more than enough examples. The reason we are taught, especially in Britain, that "Hitler wanted to conquer Britain" is because without that, our soldiers were not fighting to defend our shores. They were fighting to defend our allies... which is a much, much less likely subject to gain popular support. In short, this reason was used to justify our war crimes at the time and to demonize/dehumanize the enemy, which is necessary in war. "Can't we all just get along" doesn't work if you think it's *you* they're trying to kill.The reality of the situation is that Hitler admired the British, wanted an ally and saw us as "Aryan" people, as we are naturally of Germanic/Saxon descent. Edited by Dantos4, Dec 3 2012, 10:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Dec 3 2012, 02:10 PM Post #25 |
|
He rules
|
The family member in question was the father of Arminius's daughter, who had left the person the father had wanted her to marry and married Arminius. If you had no retrospective knowledge of the Varus Incident, why would you assume anything other than "the father in law wants to make Arminius look bad?" And there were plenty of people in the Roman military who were not born in Italy, even during the reign of Augustus. Plenty of them were perfectly willing to help the Romans. Why should Varus have assumed Arminius was any different? It isnt known exactly why Varus decided to go through the forest. Maybe he had heard that Arminius had been captured by the rebels, and being an honourable Roman wanted to get there as fast as he could? If you were a good commander, that would be a silly thing to do. But Varus wasn't, which is why he obviously chose to go through the forest. Varus did lack tactical and strategic aptitude. After the first attack, he did a decent job trying to defend, but only survived another 2 or 3 days. But yeah, he wasn't a good general. However, if he hadn't been completely unsuspecting of the ambush (which is understandable), would he have done so terribly? The total number of Germans totalled about 30,000, and that was about 13 or 14 tribes. The rebellion Varus had been "warned" of wouldn't have been that huge, probably one tribe, so he probably didn't think his men would be overwhelmed by an ambush. In short, he was too trusting of Arminius, but that shouldn't be counted as bad military thinking. He was a lack lusture general, but that wouldn't have resulted in the total destruction of three legions on its own. The real reason Teutoberg Forest was such a success was because Arminius manipulated Varus so effectively. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 3 2012, 02:34 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
So what you're telling me is, if you had a subordinate who was in charge of an auxilia (not a main legion, but auxilia) who was from Germania originally and a member of his family states that he would betray you, you will still put your life in this man's hands?? I never said he should have completely hated Varus and completely distrusted him but he definitely should have regarded him with a hell of a lot more caution than to follow him blindly into a forest. Where did I say "He should have assumed he was a traitor from the start"? I never. I said he should have been suspicious, especially after he was told he would be betrayed. To be *told* by a German no less, that you will be betrayed by another German shoiuld warrant enough suspicion that you would not blindly follow him into a forest. That is having a poor military mind. He had no reason to other than Varus' offered him a shortcut. The guy he was told would betray him... So you're telling me now, with no evidence at all, that Varus was trying to save Arminius who was "captured"? So he picked a shortcut through a forest he had never traversed before in his entire life... The one forest that just happened to contain an ambush? Or was it more likely that Arminius directed him to this forest as a short-cut? As he knew the area. As suggested by historians: "Varus decided to quell this uprising immediately and take a detour through territory unfamiliar to the Romans. Arminius, who accompanied Varus, probably directed him along a route that would facilitate an ambush.[8]". Being completely unsuspecting of an ambush after you are TOLD it will happen is not "understandable" it is stupidity of the highest level. Even if he thought it was just a family feud, he should have upped security and questioned the situation and Arminius' motives and actions. At minimum. Anything else shows a lack of strategic competence. Again, you assume military command and tactical command are the be-all end-all of military thinking. Sun Tzu's (IMO the greatest military mind in history) Art of War does not deal with specific tactics of defending an ambush, but having the military mind of being able to unravel the opposition's plans. Very few men in history expected to be ambushed. Not all of them were freakin warned it would happen beforehand, then went blindly into a forest, making as many mistakes as humanly possible in regards to organisational choices. Again, the legions *WERE* eliminated because of Varus' in ineptitude. Did Arminius do a great job concealing and planning it? Yes. But who is to blame for walking into an ambush he had been warned of? Varus. Who was responsible for ensuring those men did *NOT* get ambushed? Varus was. Who was responsible for rooting out double agents and spies within his own jurisdiction? Varus. A military mind is not the same as a tactical-battle mindset, it is merely one part of it. To sum up what Sun Tzu says on this issue? A great military mind would never have to battle. He would root out spies, he would foil ambushes, he would ensure the enemy surrendered without battle. Varus failed to scout, he blindly trusted a man who he had been told would betray him, and he walked straight into an ambush, out of formation in a muddy, wet, dark forest when he had absolutely no need to do so. He had one hell of a horrible military mind and got all of his men killed. Overall he did have a horrible military mind. I can't see one thing he even did right in this campaign. If you do nothing right, you did everything wrong. Edited by Dantos4, Dec 3 2012, 02:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Squee913 | Dec 3 2012, 08:03 PM Post #27 |
|
Ok, I have to disagree with a lot of this list. The decision to invade Vietnam was made by politicians, not military commanders. The actual military commanders had no choice in the matter. When the military hit the ground, they faced a type of warfare they had never really encountered before. Given this fact, they adapted and learned very quickly. Mistakes were made, as is always the case when trying to learn how to fight a new type of enemy, but our military leaders learned quickly and did much better than most would have. Within the time frame of the war, we developed very effect strategy for fighting gorilla forces. Our loss was due mostly to political hand tying. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of dumb things going on, but it was largely coming from outside of the military. Napoleon? Invading Russia was a mistake to be sure, but it was not gross incompetence. Napoleon's goal was to force Russia into a decisive engagement and rout them quickly. Considering the fact that this tactic had already allowed him to defeat every single opponent he had ever come across, there is no reason for him to not attempt it with the Russians. In addition, he had even made plans in case this failed. The idea was to take Moscow, a city large enough to house his army and weather the Winter there. No one could have predicted the Russians would burn their own Capital to the ground. His invasion plan was sound, and based off of logical theories from past experiences. In addition, one mistake (no matter how big) does not negate everything else he accomplished. Ok... I am way to tired to re-look up all the facts, but in the book "Intelligence in war" by John Keegan, The Arthur depicts the genius and extreme planning by Napoleon. When he planed to invade Austria (I am fairly confident it was Austria) he locked himself in his map room for weeks. He spent days upon days anticipating every move and counter move. When he emerged and talked to his adviser, he pointed to a little village on the map and stated that the war would be decided there. the village did not seem very important and his advisory was very confused by this statement. Over the course of the campaign, many things did not go according to plan. Troops moved in unpredicted manners, Generals did not hold out as long as needed, supply lines were cut, and a host of other problems that forced Napoleon to change his plans. Despite all of this, the final battle and rout of Austria took place right where he pointed to on the map. the little village. He had planned and anticipated so much, that he was able to manipulate the enemy's every move despite all the set backs. His entire career is full of this sort of planning and execution. I really do not see how you can even put him near the worst military commander in history. Hitler... I am always torn on this one. Oddly, the paper that got me into grad-school was a detailed analysis of Hitler as a military commander, so I have spent an enormous amount of time on this subject. I almost look at him as two different people. the one that started the war, and the one that ended it. The later was every bit as bad as you say. Even worse, his "Super-hedgehog" defense tactics on the eastern front are nothing short of insulting to the Germans that died in them. In the beginning, however, Hitler made quite a few intelligent and successful military decisions. Hitler was one of the few to realize the ability of tanks as a blitzkrieg tool. Many in the military felt that the blitzkrieg was too risky or unrealistic. Hitler saw it's potential and was largely responsible for it's implementation. It was Hitler that realized the Northern Column of his tanks was out pacing his supply train in France. His generals were too eager, and Hitler was the one to recognize the danger to their flank and slow them down. Hitler's choice not to pursue the soldiers to Dunkirk was a logical choice given the information he had. The ground was boggy and he could have lost many tanks in the mud at the same moment that there was a risk of a flanking attack from France. No one could have anticipated the merchant fleet that would evacuate the soldiers from Dunkirk and so Hitler was not wrong to think he had time. The decision to invade Russia is not as stupid as many people seem to think. You have to understand that almost every single one of his military advisers were convinced that Russia was going to attack. It was not a question of if, but when. England was pushed back to their Island and not a clear threat to the European main land, and America had not Entered the war yet. Under these circumstances a preemptive strike against and enemy you were convinced would attack is not a bad idea if you have the resources. And he did, when the plan was conceived. Hitler's mistake was not in the original choice, but in the refusal to alter the choice after he suffered set backs to the time table. When he had to divert resources to the Balkans and push back his invasion of Russia, he should have called it off, but that does not make his original decision a bad one. If Operation Barbarossa had been launched as originally planned, there is very little doubt in my mind Russia would have crumbled and the war would have had a very different outcome. My point is, it seems Hitler suffered from the pressure of the war and this caused him to... well... turn into an idiot. However, if he must take responsibility for those mistakes, he should also get Credit for his correct actions and logical decisions. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 3 2012, 08:37 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
Are politicians not allowed to have military minds and be judged upon them? If a politician is going to declare war, he better be sure his military is capable of doing it. I wasn't very clear, but I was referring to the decision to invade Vietnam alongside the politician's underestimation of how the USA would deal with such things, not the generals failing to adapt. It takes time for every country to adapt to a new tactic. My point was regarding the politician's judgement of the situation and capability of their forces. Cutting to the point here as I've replied to the Russia stuff above. His entire career *was* full of this sort of planning and execution. But would a great military mind take such as risk as Moscow? Or what about Waterloo? He sort of failed there. Napoleon overall failed massively. How so? He set out to conquer Europe. He did not accomplish that. That is failure. Maybe I was a little harsh on him, but I have never been a fan of Napoleon's. To elaborate: I am not doubting that he was a tactical genius when it came to planning and executing a battle. Even his strategic battle planning and campaign planning was brilliant at times. But as for long term planning and military dominance? He falls well short. The botched invasion of England, the battle of Trafalgar, the failed Egyptian campaign, his failed "continental system" embargo was a shambles too, this system then indirectly led to the Dos de Mayo uprising which cost him a lot in terms of resources, then of course the failed Russian campaign, the taking of Paris and then the mutiny of his officers. Then there was his failed resurgence and Waterloo. These things do not represent, to me, somebody with a capable military mind. Regardless of his other successes, he still made these decisions and failed horrendously at many of them. It isn't hard to conquer a few places if you invade every country you possibly can, especially if you are a good tactical commander. In terms of an overall military mind though? He failed to subdue the populace of many occupied countries, or gain their support. He had many failed campaigns, Winning battles is arguably only the first part of a military mind (and even then he lost some very important ones). Keeping what you win is (to me) more representative of a military mind. EDIT: I just thought of a weird analogy as to how to give you my view of Napoleon. He reminds me of new players to Total War who play on V.hard difficulties and will just conquer everything in sight, winning most of the battles but losing a few important ones. They fail to garrison their cities properly and keep the population of occupied places very unhappy. Are they great tactical commanders? Sure, they win most of their battles and campaigns. Do they possess a military mind? No. Their provinces rebel, their advancement on all fronts wears them thin and they invade or annoy enough people that they eventually face a power-block of enemies who's combined strength, along with the rebellions, are too much for the player to combat. A great strategic and tactical general does not necessarily possess a great military mind. It is merely one slice of a larger pie to me. A pie which Napoleon was only in possession of a few slices. Like I said, maybe I am a bit harsh on him. But considering what a better man *could* have accomplished... Ah! I did forget this actually, to my shame But still, opening up two fronts with an enemy who you have very little intelligence of militarily is... not the best of decisions. Maybe he should have waited for them to attack? (As you said regarding the WW1 generals, the balance of power was with the defending force with this new techology. Although to counter that, it would have meant a military ideology change, too)To change my final conclusion from the first page then, as I mostly agree with your summary: Hitler, particularly the late-mid/end-war Hitler. I think much of the confusion on this thread seems to come from what people interpret to mean a "military mind". For me it is their overall ability to comprehend, participate and succeed in war, ruling, tactical battles and grand strategy. For others it seems to mean tactical aptitude on the battlefield and nothing else. E.g. if you are caught in an ambush it is not your fault, but your enemy being too good. For me, you can do things to avoid or limit an ambush and these, to me, are part of having a military mind. Edited by Dantos4, Dec 3 2012, 08:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Squee913 | Dec 3 2012, 09:30 PM Post #29 |
|
Ahhh, perhaps the confusion comes from the Thread title and the actual purpose of the thread. Warden actually asked in the first post who we thought was the worst Military Commander. That is a bit different than military mind. I Still defend Napoleon a bit. The risk he took to capture Moscow was no greater than many of the other risks any other Military Commander takes in war. It just did not go his way. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think success or failure should be the scale we use. After all the best laid plans can fail horrible and a bubbling fool can succeed. I believe the scale should be how intelligently the Commander goes about accomplishing the goal in front of him. The choice to attack Russia might have been stupid (He was an arrogant dick after all) but how he went about accomplishing that goal was logical and well thought out. He also lost Waterloo, but not due to gross incompetence on his part. The Duke of Wellington was no easy opponent. If two world class football teams face off and one beats the other, does that make the loser a bad foot ball team? If we start calling any commander horrible only because they failed, we would have to add Hannibal, Leonidas, Cromwell, Rommel, King Richard the 3rd, Genghis Khan, Timer the Lame, Robert E Lee, etc etc etc... it would be a very long list. As for Hitler, He certainly should have waited for Russia to attack, but I say that after knowing the outcome. As I said, the original plan was sound and damn well would have worked. Hitler's blind idiocy comes from his refusal to re-think the invasion after the time table was pushed back. So I am clear, I would agree that Hitler was one of the worst military Commanders after a certain point in the war. I only brought up the above point because it clashes so badly with his actions and intelligent decisions at the start. I really think his brain snapped. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 3 2012, 09:44 PM Post #30 |
![]()
|
You know, I didn't even notice the difference there! Damn you Warden ![]() Oh no, sure. But as is usual with these things, you take a huge risk (to use Shogun as an example: attacking Waddling Duck's Yamato, Navally invading Clan Europa, etc.) and if it succeeds it was a great plan, if it fails it was a bad decision. Success or failure maybe not, no. But I would judge it as you say, but also with the added condition of how they could have improved with the evidence they had available. Teutoberg was my best example for this as Varus went against Roman policy and followed a person he'd been warned against into a forest, while neglecting many military procedures (scouting, formations, etc). It's not so much the losing that bothers me with Napoleon, it's the fact that his best skill was being a good tactical commander of troops & planning battles/campaigns, yet even then he could have done so much better. It brings him down heavily in my estimations considering how badly he failed at economic warfare vs England and how he failed to quell rebellions and civil unrest. If your one skill as a football player (American football) is catching the ball, and you fail at running, throwing, tackling etc... and even then you can't catch it all of the time (as opposed to the great tight end, Alexander the Great, who could do this and could run and tackle), then you're not really that great of a football player. If we look at if he was a good commander or not, there is no other conclusion than that he was a fantastic commander. But an overall military mind? I have my doubts. Hitler for me is one of the most fascinating parts of history. Never have I seen one man behave so intelligently, have such perception and knowledge... yet also, this same man, behave so stupidly. I was always tempted to begin a thread on here about him and WW2 but it inevitably sparks some... tensions. To say the least. Mainly, IMO, because we forget that we heavily used propaganda too. |
![]() |
|
| 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