the greatest blunder

[Hetman]

What do You think was the greatest blunder in millitary history?

I have two proposals.


two battles:

The battle at Nikopolis in 1396.
The French ( and other western knights) charged Turkish army which was in a forest (), and after they failed they fled trampling their own infantry. After that it wasn't possible for the Hungarians to do anything than retreat.
Actually it was the Hungarian king who was the commander of the crusading army, but the western knights decided he is obviously not worthy ( and his knights look so pathetic ) to order them anything.
They didn't even think that fighting the Ottoman army is much different than in the western Europe.

Battle at Varna in 1444.
The Hungarian-Polish-Vallachian-Bohemian (Hussite mercenaries) army vs The Ottomans. Most of Turkish army was defeated, only the Jannissaries and camels they used to stop cavalry - entrenched and disciplined were left. Attack from all directions was all what was left to finish the Turkish, but at that moment the Polish-Hungarian-Lithuanian king Wladislaw III ( Władysław III) decided to charge leading his Polish bodyguard. They were killed of course and the battle was lost - this way the relief force for Constantinopole was stopped.


For the campaign

France 1939-1940.

The French army didn't attacked the German army in 1939 betraying the Polish army which fought almost whole German army at that time. This way the war lasted for 6 years resulting in innumerable deaths, the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain.

After that The French-British-Dutch-Belgian-Polish ( about 100 000 Poles fought there) army was able to lose the campaign in 1940 fighting for shorter period of time than the POLES ( - and they were attacked from all directions by armies 4 time bigger armies - German+Soviet+some Slovak units) and against smaller German army, along easy to defend ( and fortified ) border. Although several units fought very well (including Polish) it wasn't possible to change the all the blunders of the French command.


Regards Hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Fragony]

Quote[/b] (Hetman @ April 08 2004,03:41)]For the campaign

France 1939-1940.

The French army didn't attacked the German army in 1939 betraying the Polish army which fought almost whole German army at that time. This way the war lasted for 6 years resulting in innumerable deaths, the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain.

After that The French-British-Dutch-Belgian-Polish ( about 100 000 Poles fought there) army was able to lose the campaign in 1940 fighting for shorter period of time than the POLES ( - and they were attacked from all directions by armies 4 time bigger armies - German+Soviet+some Slovak units) and against smaller German army, along easy to defend ( and fortified ) border. Although several units fought very well (including Polish) it wasn't possible to change the all the blunders of the French command.


Regards Hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Eh? How did the french betray the poles? What could they have done? The french hardly made a blunder in WW2, they made a mistake. They had a well defended line but with a brilliant tactical manoevre the germans went into belgium instead and attacked from above.

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (Fragony @ April 08 2004,03:53)]Eh? How did the french betray the poles?
In 1939 they should start war seriously, I mean seriously, by assaulting the Zigfried Line, not fearing to cross the border.
It was betryal, because they simply decided that the war in Poland doesn't last for long ( it was around 12 september).

hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (Hetman @ April 08 2004,13:33)]
Citaat[/b] (Fragony @ April 08 2004,03:53)]Eh? How did the french betray the poles?
In 1939 they should start war seriously, I mean seriously, by assaulting the Zigfried Line, not fearing to cross the border.
It was betryal, because they simply decided that the war in Poland doesn't last for long ( it was around 12 september).

hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Pretty bold statement that. In hindsight you are correct but at the time I doubt the entente cordial would have held if the french took an aggressive stance towards Germany as many of the western nations still believed a world war could be avoided somehow (or at least prevent themselves getting dragged into it). Besides the French military wasn't ready for an invasion. You can't just mobilise like that you know.

And easy to defend borders??????? Have you ever been here?? Blitzkrieg was made for western europe because it's as flat as a billiard with very good transport infrastructure allowing rapid panzer advances.

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] ]The Hungarian-Polish-Vallachian-Bohemian (Hussite mercenaries) army vs The Ottomans. Most of Turkish army was defeated, only the Jannissaries and camels they used to stop cavalry - entrenched and disciplined were left. Attack from all directions was all what was left to finish the Turkish, but at that moment the Polish-Hungarian-Lithuanian king Wladislaw III ( Władysław III) decided to charge leading his Polish bodyguard. They were killed of course and the battle was lost - this way the relief force for Constantinopole was stopped.


Can you give a link to this information? The Battle of Varna was won by the Ottomans because of their superior numbers (Ottomans around 120,000 versus 30,000 crusaders) and better equipment. And on the contrary that crusade was not going to relieve Constantinople, the crusade had requested reinforcements from Constantinople, Wallachia, Bulgaria and Albania.

The crusade force went to relieve Constantinople was the one defeated in Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, not in 1444 Varna.

By the way why are those battles/campaigns all related to Poland? There should be more worst blunders in history? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Hetman @ April 08 2004,03:41)]What do You think was the greatest blunder in millitary history?
The greatest military blunder to my mind is the one alluded to in my sig; that of the Duke of Sung.

The Duke faced an inferior army across a river, while occupying a fortified position. However, he decieded to conduct honourable battle with his opponent, and allowed them to cross the river to meet in good order.

This was a stupid idea, because the opposing army would be fighting with its back to the river and therefore get the ' no retreat' morale bonus. But folly turned to disaster when the Duke, while trying to vacate his fortified position, managed to trigger a mass route, during which he was killed.

Now that, I say, THAT is a military blunder of note.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

British organisation at Colenso and spion kop in the boer war was quite shambolic. Of course Isandhlwana can't be overlooked as a serious blunder, but that is by no means disregarding the skill and discipline of the Zulus.`

The campaign of charles the 12th in russia, especially giving battle at Poltava was simply ludicrous.

Also Nicopolis was a fair battle and it was only the charge of the Serbian contigent which truely won the day for the Ottomans. The Burgundians/ Franco part of the army defeated the jannisaries but they later regrouped, virtually destroying the tired force who did fight very bravely.

The hungarians did fight and fought well against the Ottomans but when the prince of Serbia, Stefan Lazerevich hit the flank of the hungarian cavalry, the standard fell and that is when the rest of the force was routed

[Accounting Troll]

For the greatest military blunder in history, I would suggest the war between Paraguay and an alliance of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay between 1862-1870. Paraguay was under the rule of an insane dictator obsessed with being the next Napoleon and determined to conquer all of South America. The resources available to the Triple Alliance meant that Paraguay never had a chance, yet he continued the war until almost the entire population of Paraguay had been killed.

There have been plenty of battles decided by one side making a massive blunder, but most have not had such dire consequences for the defeated nation.

[Demon of Light]

Hitler not attacking Dunkirk
Hitler trusting Goering to bomb England into submission
Hitler's control of the German army
Hitler's election

[Leet Eriksson]

I can think of some military blunders:

French underestimating the vietnames in Dien Bei Hai(i think).

British-Zulu war was one big military blunder,imo.

Mongol Invasion of japan,not good timing or execution.

I did'nt explain much,but i doubt anyone does'nt know any of these,at least one was covered in a game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (Fragony @ April 08 2004,03:53)]They had a well defended line but with a brilliant tactical manoevre the germans went into belgium instead and attacked from above.
I agree they were brilliantly outmanoeuvred, but it was possible because the allied forces deployed their troops badly. Between the Maginot's Line and the sea you have about 400 kilometers of territory to defend (Holland not included) and quite big armies to use. Compare this to Poland in 1939 - about 3000 km border with Germany and Slovakia (German's ally) + 1400 km border with Soviet Union + about 4500 kilometer border to defend it wasn't possible whereas the defence of 400 km border is possible if not easy, of course the German's high command made an excellent work, but it couldn't be done without French "help". That's why I call it blunder. Blunder not just a mistake. also there wasn't even any major counterassault, nothing comparable to battle at Bzura ( or Kutno as the Germans call it)where two Polish armies attacked german right flank causing several problems - all Luftwaffe bombers were used to stop these armies and the Germans had to stop the offensive in central Poland for several days. In France only some divisions attacked ( e.g. Arras), but never such big forces as in Poland.
Also most of industrial centers were quite safe, so it was even possible to enlarge the army considerably during the war.

One more thing there is a curious fact concerning French aerial forces- they had more bombers when France capitulated than at the beginning of the war, and the biggest french airstrike during the war was made at...
Gibraltar ( Vichy government). The high command was not even able to use their forces correctly, even if just one well made airstrike could cause serious problems to the German army.

regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ April 08 2004,09:16)]By the way why are those battles/campaigns all related to Poland? There should be more worst blunders in history? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif
These were just proposals.
I could find more, but I leave it to You.
Second. They are related to Poland because I know this part of history better.
When it comes to Varna, my knowledge is based on several sources, but books, not websides. Still I'll try to find some links for You.

regards Hetman/Cegorach

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]The campaign of charles the 12th in russia, especially giving battle at Poltava was simply ludicrous.


Actually the battle of Poltava was a day when everything went wrong for the Swedes (thanks to bad luck and poor informaion). But the campaign itself was a bigger mistake.

In Swedish history: The battle of Nördingen and the defense of Finland 1809.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ April 08 2004,14:27)]
Quote[/b] (Hetman @ April 08 2004,03:41)]What do You think was the greatest blunder in millitary history?
The greatest military blunder to my mind is the one alluded to in my sig; that of the Duke of Sung.

The Duke faced an inferior army across a river, while occupying a fortified position. However, he decieded to conduct honourable battle with his opponent, and allowed them to cross the river to meet in good order.

This was a stupid idea, because the opposing army would be fighting with its back to the river and therefore get the ' no retreat' morale bonus. But folly turned to disaster when the Duke, while trying to vacate his fortified position, managed to trigger a mass route, during which he was killed.

Now that, I say, THAT is a military blunder of note.
Not the same, but similar after a fashion, was Maxentius' decision to attack Constantine across the Milvian Bridge in AD 312. Maxentius held a fortified position to the south of the River Tiber with a well-equipped and larger army. Constantine was the aggressor who needed to cross that bridge to come to grips with his adversary. For some reason Maxentius decided to attack, abandoning his complete tactical advantage. In the crush he was drowned after falling from the bridge. There is a theory that Maxentius was doubtful of his troops loyalty and this forced his hand, but it is difficult to prove this supposition.

[Lazul]

How about every damned attack on Russia?

First the swedes, then Napoleon, then the nazis and all of them made the same mistake...

... they forgot about winter... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[mercian billman]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ April 08 2004,15:24)]French underestimating the vietnames in Dien Bei Hai(i think).
Faisal the battle your thinking of was

Dien Bein Phu

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Quote[/b] (Hetman @ April 08 2004,09:41)]For the campaign

France 1939-1940.

The French army didn't attacked the German army in 1939 betraying the Polish army which fought almost whole German army at that time. This way the war lasted for 6 years resulting in innumerable deaths, the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain.

After that The French-British-Dutch-Belgian-Polish ( about 100 000 Poles fought there) army was able to lose the campaign in 1940 fighting for shorter period of time than the POLES ( - and they were attacked from all directions by armies 4 time bigger armies - German+Soviet+some Slovak units) and against smaller German army, along easy to defend ( and fortified ) border. Although several units fought very well (including Polish) it wasn't possible to change the all the blunders of the French command.


Regards Hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif


I totally disagree...

When Germany attacked Poland, the French and British forces were in no possible way able to mount an effective offensive campaign. By the time they would have been ready, but actually before, the war in Poland was over, and German forces were shifted West. The French and British in no way could, as they did not mobilize untill the war started.

First and foremost, there is a little obstacle known as the Rhine-river in between most of Germany and France. nicele preceded by hillyterrain. A lot of streetfighting would have to be done. Worst case scenario was that the advancing forces would be trapped on the wrong side of the Rhine.

Second, nobody, including the Poles thought that Germany would attack untill it was too late. therefor mobilzation only started at September 1st, and not before. Germany had won before the mobilzation was completed.

Third, the Germans attacked along the not so easily defendable border. That was their whole plan. And nobody but the Germans ever thought that the Ardennes would be passable by tanks... well, in that direction the were. the whole northern border towards Belgium and Luxemburg was not fortified at all.

Fourth, the operational plan was agreed upon by the Allied high command, which includes the British. In fact, IIRC I have read some suggestions that the whole operational plan was actually designed by the British.
The French did not bluinder in the execution of their plan. the plan itself was totally flawed, because it was based on the wrong assumptions, which were supported by most military annalists at the time.


If you want to talk about stupid blunders, talk about Kasserine pass. the Americans were warned in advance by the British about Rommels way of fighting. They simply dismissed it, and thus were suckerpunched at Kasserine pass...

Supposedly, on a smaller scale the same happened on a smaller scale at Overloon in the Netherlands. There the US 7th armored division supposedly would simply brush the German resistance aside, as the British were as bunch of p***ies ... after losing the equivalent of a whole armored and a whole infantry battalion, they had not come any further then the Britsih did and withdrew.


My choice for historical blunder:

F***ed up reconnasiance, and running headlong into an ambush. Or the battle of Lake Trasimene (217 BC), which a whole army of 25,000 men was destroyed (15,000 killed).

[ShadeFlanders]

My choice for #1 blunder:
the French actually trying to attack the Germans at the start of WW1. What where they thinking??? The germans of course anticipated it and butchered the french offensive completely. If it weren't for the Belgians stalling the Germans at Liege and later near the Yser the disaster would have been complete.

[Accounting Troll]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ April 09 2004,10:58)]How about every damned attack on Russia?

First the swedes, then Napoleon, then the nazis and all of them made the same mistake...

... they forgot about winter... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
To be fair to the Nazis, the Soviets made the same mistake when they invaded Finland in 1939-1940. I mean, didn't any Soviet general think to look at a map to find out where Finland actually is?

[discovery1]

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ April 09 2004,09:55)]My choice for #1 blunder:
the French actually trying to attack the Germans at the start of WW1. What where they thinking??? The germans of course anticipated it and butchered the french offensive completely. If it weren't for the Belgians stalling the Germans at Liege and later near the Yser the disaster would have been complete.
One of the major reasons the German offensive failed to take Paris was because German high command shifted troops out of the right wing of the advance to defend the German border. After the French armies were repulsed, German command ordered an attack on the weaken French, which was a total failure. It would have been so much better for the Germans if they simply let the French eat German territory.

Thus, the greatest blunder would have to be, IMNSHO, the decision of the German high command NOT to go through with the Schiffield(sp?) plan.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (Lazul @ April 09 2004,04:58)]How about every damned attack on Russia?

First the swedes, then Napoleon, then the nazis and all of them made the same mistake...

... they forgot about winter... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
The Swedes (a raiding party) actually took Moskow once (don't remmber when, I think it was during some Rusian civil war).

And the Swedes didn't have a problem with the Russian winter.
The main problem with invading Russia is the scorched earth tactics, and that the Russian forces have an extremly huge area to retreat through. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif
They simply retreats until you can't advance more and then they kill you during your retreat.

[Lazul]

damned russians... cowards ALL OF THEM... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(no im jsut kidding, I must say that russions have proved through history that they are Not cowards.)

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (mercian billman @ April 09 2004,09:39)]
Quote[/b] (faisal @ April 08 2004,15:24)]French underestimating the vietnames in Dien Bei Hai(i think).
Faisal the battle your thinking of was

Dien Bein Phu
Hmmmm,then i think the one i mentioned was the american fort where the N.V.A tried to "re-enact" the seige but failed.

[discovery1]

Wasn't that Khe Sanh (http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/khe/) 20000 Vietnamese against far fewer Americans?

Edit:spelling, link and numbers

[Leet Eriksson]

my vietnamese history is officially messed up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ,but yes it was the Khe Sanh,it was held by a small american unit called the professionals i think..

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ April 09 2004,10:58)]How about every damned attack on Russia?

First the swedes, then Napoleon, then the nazis and all of them made the same mistake...

... they forgot about winter... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
The armies of Batu seemed to enjoy the Russian winter quite nicely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

.........Orda

[Axeknight]

Marshall Grouchy was designated the task of chasing the Prussians away from Waterloo. He heard gunfire from there around midday on the day of the battle, and was (IIRC) 10 miles away, but decided to ignore it. If he'd turned around and joined the battle, Napoleon could have overwhemled Wellington's British and Coalition troops, then turned and beaten the Prussians. If Grouchy had pressed the Prussians back towards Berlin, Napoleon could have beaten Wellington then joined with Grouchy to fight (and likely beat) the Prussians near Berlin. Marshall Grouchy did neither. We all know what happened next.

Perhaps not the greatest blunder in history, but it lost Napoleon the battle of Waterloo, and therefore the war.

[mercian billman]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ April 10 2004,13:26)]my vietnamese history is officially messed up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ,but yes it was the Khe Sanh,it was held by a small american unit called the professionals i think..
Those professionals were called US Marines, also there were some Army troops I think.

In fact the whole Tet offensive was a military blunder but politicall the Vietameese with the help of Walter Kronkite managed to put a positive spin on it.

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] ]By the way why are those battles/campaigns all related to Poland? There should be more worst blunders in history?


ROFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

[BalkanTourist]

Quote[/b] (Hetman @ April 08 2004,03:41)]What do You think was the greatest blunder in millitary history?

I have two proposals.


two battles:

The battle at Nikopolis in 1396.
The French ( and other western knights) charged Turkish army which was in a forest (), and after they failed they fled trampling their own infantry. After that it wasn't possible for the Hungarians to do anything than retreat.
Actually it was the Hungarian king who was the commander of the crusading army, but the western knights decided he is obviously not worthy ( and his knights look so pathetic ) to order them anything.
They didn't even think that fighting the Ottoman army is much different than in the western Europe.

Battle at Varna in 1444.
The Hungarian-Polish-Vallachian-Bohemian (Hussite mercenaries) army vs The Ottomans. Most of Turkish army was defeated, only the Jannissaries and camels they used to stop cavalry - entrenched and disciplined were left. Attack from all directions was all what was left to finish the Turkish, but at that moment the Polish-Hungarian-Lithuanian king Wladislaw III ( Władysław III) decided to charge leading his Polish bodyguard. They were killed of course and the battle was lost - this way the relief force for Constantinopole was stopped.


For the campaign

France 1939-1940.

The French army didn't attacked the German army in 1939 betraying the Polish army which fought almost whole German army at that time. This way the war lasted for 6 years resulting in innumerable deaths, the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain.

After that The French-British-Dutch-Belgian-Polish ( about 100 000 Poles fought there) army was able to lose the campaign in 1940 fighting for shorter period of time than the POLES ( - and they were attacked from all directions by armies 4 time bigger armies - German+Soviet+some Slovak units) and against smaller German army, along easy to defend ( and fortified ) border. Although several units fought very well (including Polish) it wasn't possible to change the all the blunders of the French command.


Regards Hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
The battle at Nikopolis (nowadays Nikopol in Bulgaria) happened in 1396 and the crusader army was led by the Hungarian King who came at the request of the last Bulgarian King - Czar Ivan Shishman who, like others was a vassal of the Ottomans and who chose to rise against them and liberate the many Bulgarians who fell into slavery. It was an appeal from one christian king to the rest of Christianity for help. Although the Hungarian King managed to assemble a force, the majority of the Catholics did not choose to help. Reason was that they regarded Orthodox christians as even worse than muslims since muslims were just people not exposed to the true faith, but Orthodox believers had the chance to practice the true religion (Catholicism) but chose not to and misinterpreted the Bible. A lot of Orthodox people resented the Westerners was they had bad experiences with them. Most noble and rich crusaders traveled to the Holy Lands by ships. The scum had to travel by foot or horse and pass thru the Balkans. They raped, killed and pillaged as they please (after all crusades were nothing but economic enterpises to enrich poor nobles (who were not firstborn and therefore were not entitled to any of the enheritance), also inconvinient ones who were disloyal and causing trouble at home so they were sent by being promised riches and fame, and just poor populace that was either fanaticized (brainwashed by the church) or just believed they'd gain land in their new home in the Middle East. Anybody wants to tell me why there were no crusades after the discovery of the New World? Yeah the Ottomans and Arabs were strong, but Western Europe found a better way that fulfiled all of the above - get rid of the excess population and especially of the most disloyal ones and gain riches in the process.
Anyway, after an initial success, the Hungarians and French got soundly defeated at Nikopolis thus sealing the fate of the last independent Bulgarian state (Bulgaria had disintegrated into smaller feudal holdings just like in the rest of Europe with no strong centralized power) - the Vidin Kingdom (capital Vidin in nowadays Bulgaria on the Denube river).
The battle at Varna happened NOT in 1444, but rather in 1402 and was in support of a Bulgarian rebelion led by the last two noblemen with claims to the Bulgarian throne - Constantine and Fruzhin. They were in exile in Hungaria just like many Serbian, Wallachian and other noblemen. The force that was gathered was about 80,000 (really not claiming to be exact since I base this on memory, not research). The Ottomans were about 120,000 strong. The christian army was led by the Kings of Poland and Hungaria (I believe they both died at the battle, the Polish one - Wladislaw was named Varnenchik after the battle (meaning of Varna) and was cannonized by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The purpose was to liberate the christians fallen inder muslim rule. Main reason they lost was because the negotiations with the Venetians (or was it the Genovese) who had a strong fleet in the Black Sea (Varna is the bigest seaport in nowadays Bulgaria) who demanded a lot of money to transport the christian army from the Denube to Varna via the Black Sea and to blockade the Ottomans from getting reinforcements from Asia Minor. So the christians were badly outnumbered but fought bravely. The Polish Royal Guard killed many a man and so did their King - Wladislaw.They fought like there was no retreat, and NO they didn't just decide to charge, they were almost the last men to be left on the field. They chose to die for christianity. They lost, thus condamning Albania to islamization and Bulgaria, Serbia, Wallachia and Greece to live in 500 years of slavery that greatly retarded their evolution as peoples and nations.

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] (Demon of Light @ April 08 2004,21:19)]Hitler's election
Hitler's election can hardly be classified as a military blunder, more like a weakness of democracy.

[VikingHorde]

In danish history, it has to be Denmarks war with sweden where we lost southen part of todays sweden (16xx). The danish king was a big fool attacking the swedish, when he did not have the nobles support and was rather poor him self. It's kind of like when a small factions in MTW attack without having a chance. The king did build some nice building though...

[Nelson]

France lost Canada on the Plains of Abraham before Quebec. That was FUBAR.

McClellan’s failure to win big at Sharpsburg when he could have was a first class mistake too. He sent the war on for three more years. And he had Lee’s plans for Chrissakes

The Somme in WWI is clearly in the running for Biggest Blunder tactically.

The fall of Singapore to the Japanese was also a doozy.

In my opinion the all time Mother of All Blunders was Imperial Japan saying sayonara to common sense and making war on the USA. The turning point happened in just six months time and three years later they caught hell like it’s never been seen before or since.

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] ]FUBAR

what is this an acronym for?

[Suppiluliumas]

FUBAR
Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition

[Aurelian]

Here's my list. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Hitler probably commited the worst series of military blunders:

1) Stalingrad. Hitler became obsessed over taking and holding the city. He diverted critical resources away from the chief German aim for the year, which was to take Russia's oilfields. Then he refused to let the 6th Army withdraw or fight its way out of the city until it was too late.

2) The Blitz. Hitler became enraged over a small British air raid on Berlin, so he switched the focus of Germany's air attack on Britain from attacking the RAF's infrastructure to making terror attacks on London. The RAF could hardly believe their luck, since despite valiant resistance, they were on the ropes.

3) Declaring war on the United States. After Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the U.S. If he had not done so, the U.S. public would have been content to focus its attention on destroying Japan, and Hitler would have had a relatively free hand in Europe.

4) Not destroying the British army at Dunkirk. By letting the British army evacuate, Hitler ensured that the British would actually have an experienced cadre around which to rebuild their forces. I actually rate this mistake lower than the other three because he at least had a political objective in mind - negotiating peace with Britain - that he thought would be undermined by slaughtering British troops.


Custer's attack on Sitting Bull's encampment at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. He ignored intelligence reports about the size of the Indian encampment. He disobeyed orders and split his forces into three parts (in the face of a superior enemy). He didn't maintain adequate communications between the sections of his army. He then didn't support his subordinate Major Reno (who stopped when he realized he was walking into a trap), and instead attacked the main Indian camp. Bad. Much death.


The French declaration of war on Prussia in 1870 was a pretty horrible blunder. The French government of Napoleon III was unstable and depended on a Napoleonic patina of military glory for its legitimacy. Concerns that a German prince might be put on the throne of Spain caused national indignation in France. The French rather arrogantly asked the King of Prussia to declare his opposition to the plan. Prussia's Chancellor Bismarck was able to provoke France into declaring war by simply editing the Prussian King's response to make it seem more abrupt than it had been. The French press went nuts and demanded war.

The French plan was to invade Germany, but they were unable to mobilize their forces quickly enough. The Prussians, with the unexpected support of all Germany, mobilized immediately, took the war into France, and after several sharp battles crushed the French army and took the emperor prisoner.


Fredericksburg from the American Civil War, and the Somme from WWI also deserve mention for stupidly throwing soldiers into frontal meat-grinder attacks.

[Cebei]

OK a super blunder from me. You remember Golden Horde incident? Horde invades, into Eastern Europe, but they return back because Mongol Khan was dead?

A similar history from Ottoman Empire. After his conquest of Constantinople, Mehmet II learned from one of his spies in Italy, that Pope had written a letter to him, telling basically "You rule the Eastern Roman Empire and I rule the Western Roman Empire. Become Christian and I will crown you as the emperor of Rome.". This letter was never sent, but Mehmet learned about the letter from his spy. He understood the weakness of the Papacy and decided to invade Rome. He gathered his forces along East European coast and prepared to cross the sea for an amphibious attack on Rome.

The attack was exposed and Rome was evacuated, several weeks before the invasion, Mehmet died and the project was abandoned, because Ottomans believed that such an invasion would be useless because Europeans were too weak to be a threat to Ottoman Empire. Janissaries packed their lunch pads and went to Eastern Asia Minor to bash Safavids.

[VikingHorde]

Quote[/b] (Suppiluliumas @ April 12 2004,23:08)]FUBAR
Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
Thats a cool one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[The Wizard]

I would have to say Xerxes' campaign into Greece.

After winning an easy victory over a far inferior force of Greeks, where he killed 300 Spartan elites and a few thousand Greek allies, he got his armies overextended in hostile, difficult territory for his movement. Getting from north to south and vice versa in Greece was quite hard, it is one of the reasons that the Greeks started colonising the Mediterranean to get rid of their overpopulation and get more goods to flow through their markets. March a slow, clumsy Persian army with a huge baggage train through such a land, and then get it overextended and devoid of enough supplies and then split it up and you're asking for major trouble, which is exactly what he got. The Persians under Cyrus or Darius in their prime would have easily crushed the Greeks, due to numbers, tactics and just plain military prowess. But then again, Xerxes was an idiot firts class. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif



~Wiz

[Ellesthyan]

military prowess...?

Anyway, I seem to remember that Xerxes was assuming that if he wouldn't stop the Greeks now and defeat them utterly, they would destroy him and the whole of Persia. Therefore he gathered the largest army the world has ever seen: Herodus speaks of millions. Most of the historians seem to think that Herodus talked nonsens and say the Persians had about 50000, but some of them are finding good proof that it could have been a million; or even better, 2 million

The Persian forces were weak. Plainly, they sucked. Their strength lay in numbers, as the Persians were unrivaled in logistics. Therefore they could simply overwhelm the elite, superbly trained, Greek armies; if they had room to do it. That's why the Spartan defence was so effective; that's why the Greeks abandoned Athens; that's why every Greek soldier retreated to the Istmos (narrow passage between the Peleponessos and the rest of Greece). They simply couldn't stand a million Persians

The Persians were best at logistics. They had years before ensured they would have enough food to supply their armies, they had conquered Thrace solely for that purpose. Along the road lay many stockages filled with provisions for the invasion. It's a lie that the Persian army was defeated at their best point, that no nation has rivaled yet. (I admit, the Americans have come really close)

The Persians under Cyrus and Darius were no different of the ones Xerxes commanded. Cyrus was a great leader tho; I doubt Darius was so much better then his son Xerxes. What costed Xerxes the war was that he lost sea control. The Athenian fleet was magnificent and without their ships to supply the Persian army it would be only a matter of time before Xerxes had to retreat it.
Even worse, Athens was deserted and he could not deal a decisive blow. Fearing he would lose too many men that would bring no advantage anyway, Xerxes retreated a great portion of his army and let a commander take care of the Greeks the next year. Here the Persians were miraciously defeated, and could not hold their power in northen Greece. This probably allowed the Macedonians the enlarge their power, and become a nation of importance.

Of course it was foolish to bring 2 million troops into the rugged lands of Greece, but as Xerxes believed he had no choice. It was to attack the Greeks now or be defeated by them later. And history proved him right. Alexander the Great defeated the Persian armies, conquered the whole of Persia, and although you could say he was no absolute Greek, the Macedonian culture was close enough

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Aurelian @ April 13 2004,11:32)]Here's my list. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Hitler probably commited the worst series of military blunders:
4) Not destroying the British army at Dunkirk. By letting the British army evacuate, Hitler ensured that the British would actually have an experienced cadre around which to rebuild their forces. I actually rate this mistake lower than the other three because he at least had a political objective in mind - negotiating peace with Britain - that he thought would be undermined by slaughtering British troops.
The Hitler order @ Dunkirk is a bit of a myth. The topic has been covered in a previous thread - but the German Army was exhausted and was unable to attack the British at Dunkirk quickly enough with sufficient strength.

See here - http://snipurl.com/5p44

The same goes for Hitler's invasion of Britain in 1940. It was not feasible.

[Hetman]

Hello everyone

I am finally able to answer and correct some mistakes.

1)ShadeFlanders
Duke
"I doubt the entente cordial would have held if the french took an aggressive stance towards Germany as many of the western nations still believed a world war could be avoided somehow (or at least prevent themselves getting dragged into it). Besides the French military wasn't ready for an invasion. You can't just mobilise like that you know."

Primo - they simply had to attack Germany - it was according to the Polish-French alliance (the reason why they actually declared the war).
Secundo - "western nations trying to avoid..." Sorry, but when Your ally is fighting an enemy You have to help him, ANYTHING ELSE ( like thying to avoid the war) is a simple TREACHERY.

"And easy to defend borders??????? Have you ever been here?? Blitzkrieg was made for western europe because it's as flat as a billiard with very good transport infrastructure allowing rapid panzer advances."

No I have not, but that's not the point. How much time do You need to prepare the defence. They had whole September,October, November,December,January, February,March,April and 10 days in May (sometimes more). They were not going to attack, so why they didn't prepare the defence.
The terrain doesn't matter unless it is a desert. They could prepare tank traps, minefields, trenches and so on. There were towns and villages which could be fortified ( anti-tank cannons and so on) and bridges could be destroyed. And why they were not able to conterassault seriosly -the Poles were, so why not them ?



2)Michiel de Ruyter

Count


"Second, nobody, including the Poles thought that Germany would attack untill it was too late. therefor mobilzation only started at September 1st, and not before. Germany had won before the mobilzation was completed."

I'm sorry but You are wrong. The mobilization started earlier, that's why Luftwaffe couldn't destroy Polish Air Force at the ground. All the aircrafts were re-deployed BEFORE 1st September.
Second, although You are right that Germany attacked during polish mobilization You are wrong about the reasons - the Poles knew that the Germans are going to attack ( polish spy network in Germany and Enigma code broken by Poles to the point when it was possible to read much german orders), it was the France and Britain who persuaded Polish government to cancel the mobilization which started on 30th August.
The Poles knew where and when the Germans would attack, but there wasn't much they could do about it - look at polish borders at that time - see why.

"The French and British in no way could, as they did not mobilize untill the war started."

And what they actually did... Answer nothing. It is funny, but the Poles occupied more German territory at a time than the French, the difference is that polish units called it probing, not an offensive ( the French claimed they are actually attacking - they were lying to a polish ambasador who was asking what the french army is doing to help their ally).

"Third, the Germans attacked along the not so easily defendable border. That was their whole plan. And nobody but the Germans ever thought that the Ardennes would be passable by tanks... well, in that direction the were. the whole northern border towards Belgium and Luxemburg was not fortified at all."

Look at the second answer. During the Great War they attacked through Belgium and Luxemburg, didn't they?

3)Cebei

Khan of the Lime Horde

"The Battle of Varna was won by the Ottomans because of their superior numbers (Ottomans around 120,000 versus 30,000 crusaders) and better equipment. And on the contrary that crusade was not going to relieve Constantinople, the crusade had requested reinforcements from Constantinople, Wallachia, Bulgaria and Albania."

You are right, but the numbers are deceiving in a way. From the Ottomans only about 50 000 were soldiers, the rest was just a 'cannon fodder' and nothing more than 'armed crowd'. And moreover, most of Ottomans couldn't defeat Hungarian and Polish knights, they could only hope these will charge fortified jannissaries.
Look at Eastern Europe Battles post.

4)The Blind King of Bohemia

Sightless Leader of the Bohemian Realm

"Also Nicopolis was a fair battle and it was only the charge of the Serbian contigent which truely won the day for the Ottomans. The Burgundians/ Franco part of the army defeated the jannisaries but they later regrouped, virtually destroying the tired force who did fight very bravely."

The point is that the battle shouldn't happen. It was because the French decided to attack without the Hungarian king's orders. I agree that the charge of Serbian cav. and Ottoman Sipahi was crucial, but still the battle a horrible mistake - check my Eastern Europe Battles post.

5)Lazul Duke & Orda Khan Mongol Horse Archer

"How about every damned attack on Russia?

First the swedes, then Napoleon, then the nazis and all of them made the same mistake...

... they forgot about winter...

The armies of Batu seemed to enjoy the Russian winter quite nicely"

Mongol invasion is different matter- they were nomadic people and millitary wonder at that time.
They were simply used to that kind of weather. Fighting in Russia is very different from western Europe. Actually only the Poles and Lithuanians were the only western nations, which really have learnt how to fight there - that's the reason why the Russians had so many problems fighting the Polish army in XVIth and XVIIth century.

6)Ironside

Count

"The Swedes (a raiding party) actually took Moskow once (don't remmber when, I think it was during some Rusian civil war)."

Sorry Ironside, but You are wrong, the Swedes were never able to capture Moscow. During the whole history only Mongol Tatars, Poles ( twice in 1610 and in 1812 in Napoleon's army) and Napoleon were able to do it.

"And the Swedes didn't have a problem with the Russian winter.
The main problem with invading Russia is the scorched earth tactics,"

But, You should notice that they had the same problem during the war against Poland (1655-1660). The result was the same...

7)Czar Ivan Asen II

Man at Arms

"The battle at Varna happened NOT in 1444, but rather in 1402"

I'm sorry but You are wrong. This battle couldn't happen in 1402. Primo - there was no Polish-Hungarian alliance at that time.
Secundo - The Ottomans were fighting Tamerlan losing the battle at Ankara.
Tertio - I guess You was thinking about other battle which, as I remember, really happened in 1402. It was during Bulgarian rebellion I think.

"The force that was gathered was about 80,000 (really not claiming to be exact since I base this on memory, not research). The Ottomans were about 120,000 strong."

No, the crusaders were not able to gather more than 30 000 - 35 000 soldiers.

"The christian army was led by the Kings of Poland and Hungaria"

There was only one king - Wladislaw III - King of Poland and Hungary. You were probably thinking about Jan Hunyadi - Hungarian commander, who was in fact commander of all allied crusaders( and was very good, but the Polish king f****d whole battle).

"Wladislaw was named Varnenchik after the battle"

You are right in polish it is Władysław III Warneńczyk.

"they were almost the last men to be left on the field."

NO, Hunyadi was able to save several thousands + Vallachian cavalry fled the battle during the battle.

Finally, YOU are absolutely WRONG when it comes to the date. The Polish-Hungarian king couldn't fight at Warna in 1402, because at that time HE WASN'T EVEN ALIVE, HE WAS BORN AROUND 1425. And at 1402 Poles were preparing the war against Teutonic renegate Crusader Order ( battle at Tannenberg in 1410). Check my Eastern Europe Post.

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Hetman,

I strongly disagree with you...

First of all, you severely underestimate the effects of World War I. The western European nations wanted to avoid war at all cost, due to the massive losses the suffered. I hope you do realize that France in WW I lost 50% of the male population aged 21 - 30. The UK was not that far behind. So up untill Hitler invading Chechoslovakia they thought they could reason with him. A sever mistake, but something thught by most of the world at that time...

It is really easy for you, or us, to state that the French simply had to attack... First of all France could not, as they had not yet mobilized. Second, nobody assumed that Hitler would invade this soon, and, more important, the war in Poland would be over that quick. Russia had to rush in ill-prepared troops, because the Germans had already reached in many places the "Russian zone" (as agreed upon by Ribbentrop and Molotov). The Germans themselves were actually stunned by the ease of their victory, and encountered numerous problems because of the unexpected speed of their advance. By stating that the French simply should have attacked, you have violated the most basic rule of any military campaign: be prepared yourself before attacking.

By the time that France had any chance to attack, the Germans had most of their troops back towards the French borders...

Further, for you to suggest that the French had no plan for the defence, if you really believe so, shows an utter lack of knowledge about the subject. There was a defence plan, based on their experience of WW I. The bulk of the allied force was concentrated on the left flank, and was supposed to march north when the Germans attacked, forming a line stretching from say Gorinchem in the Netherlands towards the Maginot-line. It probably would have worked for the original German invasion plan.

The genious of von Manstein was that he realized, unlike 99% of the commanders on this planet that the Ardennes could be passed by tanks, and he could use this route to cut of the cream of the allied army from the rest.
Further, the Germans were by far the most innovative in the use of combined arms (the Luftwaffe was specifically designed for this, which would cost them dearly later) and new types of troops (the paratroopers). Mind you that 4 years later the allies forgot again that the Ardennes were passable by tanks.

And the fact that Blitzkrieg was designed with Western Europe in mind is certainly the point (it is one of the reasons things went wrong in Russia).

It is kind of hard to counterassault when you have your forces in the wrong places, just as fortifications are pretty useless when they are in the wrong place as well. Most bridges were destroyed, but as most of the allied troops were in the wrong place, the Germans could cross fairly easy, and have their engineers make bridges.

Enigma was not broken for the first time untill the summer of 1940 by the British. They could only do so, however, because they got their hands on a Enigma machine which was captured by the Polish resistance. Shortly afterwards the Germans added another wheel to the machine, which made them unbrakeable untill they cought U-571.

[Trax]

Poles and the Enigma
http://www.pan.net/history/enigma/enigma3.htm

[Spino]

Napoleon's decision to invade Russia has to be one of the worst military blunders of all time. Despite the fact that Spain was not fully secured and Napoleon's advisors and Marshals were strongly urging him not to break the peace with Tsar Alexander and invade Russia he followed his instinct and ego and went through with the plan. Napoleon's decision was not completely unfounded though, Tsar Alexander was in the process of amassing his armies for an invasion of Poland so a successful pre-emptive strike before the Tsar's armies were fully deployed was, in theory, a reasonably wise decision

The folly of attacking Russia was threefold; first of all Russia was about as developed as Poland and its road system, infrastructure, and forageable areas were not nearly as developed as in Western and Central Europe. Secondly, never before had such a massive army (500,000+) been fielded and despite an unprecedented level of logistical preparation it still wasn't enough to sufficiently supply an invasion of Russia. Thirdly and most importantly, Napoleon never took into account that Russia's military leadership would opt to avoid direct conflict with the French/Allied armies and retreat before their advance. This strategy denied Napoleon the quick and decisive battlefield victories he was seeking and drew him deep into Russian territory. By the time the main body of the army reached Moscow it barely numbered 100,000 men, several hundred thousand less than when it first crossed over the border into Russia

The infamous Russian winter was NOT the primary reason behind the French defeat. By the time 'General Winter' came into play the French/Allied was already on the brink of destruction and was nearly out of Russia The largest causes of losses in Napoleon's French/Allied army were desertion, sickness, hunger and lastly, battlefield losses. Oddly enough, most losses were sustained on the march into Russia, not during the retreat. Napoleon's decision to retreat from Moscow along the same road his army took to get their sealed the Grand Army's fate. Before leaving Moscow Marshal Davout insisted they take a more southerly route in order to pass through countryside which had been virtually untouched with respect to food and resources but Napoleon opted to stick to the same road he took into Russia and his pre-established supply lines (which by this point were barely trickling supplies forward to the army) rather than risk marching into unknown territory. By the time Napoleon's armies crossed back into Poland I think the grand total barely surpassed 40,000 men. Most of the survivors were counted among the corps that protected the northern and southern flanks of the main army and had not stripped the countryside bare as they marched into and out of Russia.

Even though Napoleon rebuilt France's armies to an impressive state after the invasion they never fully recovered from the losses sustained during the Russian campaign. The horrendous losses of veteran soldiers, experienced officers and virtually the entire crack cavalry arm left Napoleon fighting at a considerable disadvantage until his final defeat at Waterloo.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]6)Ironside

Count

"The Swedes (a raiding party) actually took Moskow once (don't remmber when, I think it was during some Rusian civil war)."

Sorry Ironside, but You are wrong, the Swedes were never able to capture Moscow. During the whole history only Mongol Tatars, Poles ( twice in 1610 and in 1812 in Napoleon's army) and Napoleon were able to do it.

"And the Swedes didn't have a problem with the Russian winter.
The main problem with invading Russia is the scorched earth tactics,"

But, You should notice that they had the same problem during the war against Poland (1655-1660). The result was the same...

Depends how you see it, the commanders of the Russian- Swedish (the Swdish part was the biggest) army was Mikael Sjujski and Jakob Pontusson De la Gardie and they liberated Moskow from a siege 12 mars 1610. So we didn't took Moskow but we had Swedish troops inside Moskow for 2 month. The Swedes tried to support the TzAr Vasilij Sjujski during a Russian civil war.
It was to attemt to prevent that the Poles got to much influence in Russia.
The attemt failed, mostly thanks to disloyalty in the army.

And the Polish situation is quite different, Karl X tried to take all of Poland thanks to the EXTREME success during the first year. Thanks to that, he triggered a full-blown uprising and did in the end lose everything.

And about winter-cold, the Swedes started offensives during the winter and didn't lose half thier army thanks to the cold, infact during the 30-years war did the Swedes gain advantage several times thanks to that they was insane enough to continue thier offensives after the enemy had gone to winter-quaters.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ April 13 2004,21:03)]military prowess...?

Anyway, I seem to remember that Xerxes was assuming that if he wouldn't stop the Greeks now and defeat them utterly, they would destroy him and the whole of Persia. Therefore he gathered the largest army the world has ever seen: Herodus speaks of millions. Most of the historians seem to think that Herodus talked nonsens and say the Persians had about 50000, but some of them are finding good proof that it could have been a million; or even better, 2 million

The Persian forces were weak. Plainly, they sucked. Their strength lay in numbers, as the Persians were unrivaled in logistics. Therefore they could simply overwhelm the elite, superbly trained, Greek armies; if they had room to do it. That's why the Spartan defence was so effective; that's why the Greeks abandoned Athens; that's why every Greek soldier retreated to the Istmos (narrow passage between the Peleponessos and the rest of Greece). They simply couldn't stand a million Persians

The Persians were best at logistics. They had years before ensured they would have enough food to supply their armies, they had conquered Thrace solely for that purpose. Along the road lay many stockages filled with provisions for the invasion. It's a lie that the Persian army was defeated at their best point, that no nation has rivaled yet. (I admit, the Americans have come really close)

The Persians under Cyrus and Darius were no different of the ones Xerxes commanded. Cyrus was a great leader tho; I doubt Darius was so much better then his son Xerxes. What costed Xerxes the war was that he lost sea control. The Athenian fleet was magnificent and without their ships to supply the Persian army it would be only a matter of time before Xerxes had to retreat it.
Even worse, Athens was deserted and he could not deal a decisive blow. Fearing he would lose too many men that would bring no advantage anyway, Xerxes retreated a great portion of his army and let a commander take care of the Greeks the next year. Here the Persians were miraciously defeated, and could not hold their power in northen Greece. This probably allowed the Macedonians the enlarge their power, and become a nation of importance.

Of course it was foolish to bring 2 million troops into the rugged lands of Greece, but as Xerxes believed he had no choice. It was to attack the Greeks now or be defeated by them later. And history proved him right. Alexander the Great defeated the Persian armies, conquered the whole of Persia, and although you could say he was no absolute Greek, the Macedonian culture was close enough
My, that post is so full of historical innacuracies and misunderstandings regarding the Persians and the relation between the Greek city states and Achaemenid Persia that I was a bit taken aback.

Anyway, let's start with the Persian army. You mistake the Persian army at the time of Xerxes' invasion of Greece for the army of Darius III. It is true that Xerxes was the one that started the degradation of the Persian army to the army one should expect from a hedonistic state, but not at the time of Xerxes. It still was the army that had served Cyrus the Great, Cambyses and Darius the Great. This means that the army had a sizeable core of extremely well-trained, disciplined and capable troops, of which most were well capable of handling a phalanx's advance. The rest were simply either mercenaries, troops of vassals or village louts levied and expected to fight and die for the king of kings.

In comparison, the Greek army was a civilian army of nobles expected to use part of their money to buy the equipment of a hoplite and train a bit in their spare time. Most of the Greek army, in fact, were skirmishers called psiloi, which were completely inferior to the Persian army and the Greeks only really had them there for the reason the Persians had levies: to weaken the enemy formation a bit, so that the main force of hoplites had a slightly easier time. Greek armies weren't all that trained. The trained part of a Persian army was far more accustomed to campaigns and war than the average Greek hoplite.

You think Thermopylae was a grand, huge, massive success for the Greeks? It was no more than a simple victory for the Persians. Do you think it was a Tolkien-esque battle with wave after wave after wave of Persians storming the Greek positions? Not at all. Persians didn't like close combat, and only got into the thick of it if they had to, like at Marathon where Datis had positioned and deployed his troops inefficiently and badly. No, Thermopylae was more a shoot-off between Persians and Greeks which the Greeks were going to lose anyway, all they were doing was blocking the only way the Persian army could take, in all its clumsy size. Why do you think the Spartans asked the other Greeks to leave? The Persians would have slaughtered each and every one of the Greeks at little procentual casualties to themselves.

And you say whatnow? Persians scared of the Greeks? That's a good one. Xerxes invaded Greece not because he was afraid of the Greeks conquering his empire. On the contrary. It was the Greeks that were afraid of him conquering them. Xerxes only did so because there were many former tyrants at his court, which were good with words and managed to convince him to invade Greece to restore them. It went the same way with Darius the Great. Xerxes was not the strong king his father had been, rather a man of intrigue. I guess that he was tired of the constant urging of the Greek party at his court, which found a powerful ally in Mardonios, a man intrigued and obsessed with Europe, and wanted to end it quickly and finally, to then turn his effort to the far more interesting east, such as India. The Greeks were no threat whatsoever to the Persian empire. They were split, they were contemptuous of each other, they could not unify unless threatened by a universal enemy or if by force. Take the Greek-named 'liberation' of Egypt by the Greek alliance. It failed miserably, and was annihalated by Xerxes' armies. A hoplite army, like the later maniple-based legion, could not campaign efficiently, unlike a Persian army.

As me and at a far more detailed level Kalle posted in the thread on Persian numbers, millions of Persians is a load of crap. Even hundreds of thousands of Persians is unlikely. The army of Persia (a single nation) and the army of the entire () mainland Greek world were quite evenly matched in numbers.

Simply put, the Greek commanders took all the right decisions, while the Persian ones did not. 'Nuff said.



~Wiz

[71-hour Ahmed]

OK, my contribution for the stupidest series of military blunders ever....Japan

Oh boy....

1) Sino-Japanese War. (1937-45) Yup, let your army start a war for you without you knowing it, then let them bugger it up by brutality, losing you international support and creating popular resistance.

Germany was allied with the Kuomingtang in the war against communism. Odds are without a Japanese invasion, they Kuomingtang (yes I know, spelling it wrong) would have won with Nazi support and become a fascist state. On the USSRs right flank, and with an immense border. Can anyone spell "flanking manouver?"

Speculation yes, but still based on facts to an extent.

Plus the Japanese army was pinned down in China all war fighting the Chinese. They could never occupy the whole country either... and their puppet states (i.e. Manchukuo) were never properly supported to become useful.

Worst of all though, it lead to anti-Japanese sentiment and politics that in turned sent the Japanese Empire to do something rather stupid....

2) Pearl Harbour....

W.....T......F????

OK, so nice idea for trying at taking out the carriers but WHY? Phillipines are not that valuable and they couldn't invade the US. Gah They could easily sweep down through SE Asia from their position through Vietnam and Malaysia into the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and once they took them all their resource problems would be over. No need to attack the Philipines. Australia and New Zealand could be isolated using the Japanese Imperial fleet, victory would occur fairly rapidly without the US in the war. British Empire was a little busy then, and there are no other powers in the area (again other than USA) to contest them.

3) No invasion Soviet Union

OK....no wasting of resources elsewhere, this becomes possible. Chances of German victory in the west soar, and chances of an axis victory go up with it. Not in the Japanese interest? ---- british are destroyed by germany, japanese are unopposed across the SE Asia area, India might well rise up for independence, they would be left the sole force in all of eastern asia...

OK - some of this is hindsight....but some is common sense surely

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (Hetman @ April 14 2004,09:54)]Hello everyone

I am finally able to answer and correct some mistakes.

1)ShadeFlanders
Duke
"I doubt the entente cordial would have held if the french took an aggressive stance towards Germany as many of the western nations still believed a world war could be avoided somehow (or at least prevent themselves getting dragged into it). Besides the French military wasn't ready for an invasion. You can't just mobilise like that you know."

Primo - they simply had to attack Germany - it was according to the Polish-French alliance (the reason why they actually declared the war).
Secundo - "western nations trying to avoid..." Sorry, but when Your ally is fighting an enemy You have to help him, ANYTHING ELSE ( like thying to avoid the war) is a simple TREACHERY.

"And easy to defend borders??????? Have you ever been here?? Blitzkrieg was made for western europe because it's as flat as a billiard with very good transport infrastructure allowing rapid panzer advances."

No I have not, but that's not the point. How much time do You need to prepare the defence. They had whole September,October, November,December,January, February,March,April and 10 days in May (sometimes more). They were not going to attack, so why they didn't prepare the defence.
The terrain doesn't matter unless it is a desert. They could prepare tank traps, minefields, trenches and so on. There were towns and villages which could be fortified ( anti-tank cannons and so on) and bridges could be destroyed. And why they were not able to conterassault seriosly -the Poles were, so why not them ?



2)Michiel de Ruyter

Count


"Second, nobody, including the Poles thought that Germany would attack untill it was too late. therefor mobilzation only started at September 1st, and not before. Germany had won before the mobilzation was completed."

I'm sorry but You are wrong. The mobilization started earlier, that's why Luftwaffe couldn't destroy Polish Air Force at the ground. All the aircrafts were re-deployed BEFORE 1st September.
Second, although You are right that Germany attacked during polish mobilization You are wrong about the reasons - the Poles knew that the Germans are going to attack ( polish spy network in Germany and Enigma code broken by Poles to the point when it was possible to read much german orders), it was the France and Britain who persuaded Polish government to cancel the mobilization which started on 30th August.
The Poles knew where and when the Germans would attack, but there wasn't much they could do about it - look at polish borders at that time - see why.

"The French and British in no way could, as they did not mobilize untill the war started."

And what they actually did... Answer nothing. It is funny, but the Poles occupied more German territory at a time than the French, the difference is that polish units called it probing, not an offensive ( the French claimed they are actually attacking - they were lying to a polish ambasador who was asking what the french army is doing to help their ally).

"Third, the Germans attacked along the not so easily defendable border. That was their whole plan. And nobody but the Germans ever thought that the Ardennes would be passable by tanks... well, in that direction the were. the whole northern border towards Belgium and Luxemburg was not fortified at all."

Look at the second answer. During the Great War they attacked through Belgium and Luxemburg, didn't they?
I was going to make a thundering response but Michiel summed it up quite nicely. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif As for 'Why didn't the low countries increase their defence after Poland was invaded.'
The reasons are political: the Netherlands had hoped they would not be drawn in (it worked in WW1). Belgium and Luxembourg at the time were neutral. And Belgium had good relations with Germany, mainly because of economic reasons. Furthermore nobody in Belgium wanted to even think about war, WW1 had left Belgium in ruins. Mainly the Flemish population (which was hit devastatingly in WW1) was fanatically against any anti-German toughts (such as reïnforcing the border).
Making border reïnforcements costs a lot of money and a lot time, neither were available in Belgium in the interbellum. And blitzkrieg was made for western europe, the low countries were simply overwhelmed.
Effectively Belgium was still suffering from severe war fatigue, Belgium surrendered quickly because of the above reasons.
In hindsight mistakes were made, but at the time there were little choices and I think I would have made the same choices as the governments of the low countries.

[Axeknight]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ April 14 2004,16:35)]Napoleon's decision to invade Russia has to be one of the worst military blunders of all time.
I agree. You know Napoleon repeatedly said 'Russia has nothing I want.' Okay, Russia was mobilizing, but why not provoke a war then fight on the the defensive? Or better, provoke a war, advance a few hundred miles, then slash 'n' burn? The Tsar's armies 'lived off the land' too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif

[Auxilia]

These spring immediately to mind, in no particular order -

1. Charles the Bold losing repeatedly, and ultimately his life, to the Swiss in spite of all the practice he got fighting them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

2. The failure of the English to adapt more up-to-date tactics in the second half of the 15th Century, thereby losing virtually all her continential possession to France, who had made reforms to her military. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif

3. The failure to recognise the military strength and intentions of Japan during the thirties and early forties, writing her soldiers off as weaklings who couldn't fight in the dark.

4. The TOTAL unpreparedness Britain was in at the start of World War 2, together with the Western Allies failure to prosecute a more vigourous war with Germany at a time when she was relatively weak.

5. Gallipoli - enough said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

6. Alexander's failure to name a successor, thereby ensuring the fragmentation of his Empire into squabbling states, which fell like ripe plums to a certain city state from Central Italy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

He had a successor, his son, which had been appointed by him. Alexander was such a terribly arrogant, self-assured bastard that he appointed his unborn son, the one he gave Roxanna, heir. It just never corssed his mind that he should die of other than natural causes. The result was an inevitable squabble and endless war over his lands, of which most was conquered by the Parthians, the 'successors' of Achaemenid Persia.

I am not sure if this son was unborn at the time he was appointed only heir, but the fact stands that Alexander was sure that he would be strong, smart and as great as himself. However, Alexander died long before his heir matured, who was a sickly youth who wasn't a strong ruler at all, leaving the way open for the wars over his empire to begin.



~Wiz

[Auxilia]

Yeah I knew he had a son - murdered fairly early on wasn't he. I'm also aware that when asked on his deathbed to whom his empire should go, he answered 'to the strongest'. Either delirious, or as you say hugely arrogant http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Auxilia @ April 17 2004,10:38)]3. The failure to recognise the military strength and intentions of Japan during the thirties and early forties, writing her soldiers off as weaklings who couldn't fight in the dark.
I saw a TV program on that,a british intellegince officer once said"the british intellegince changed what they did'nt like to hear,so they portrayed the japanese as cowards and barbaric people who cannot operate their machinery" IF thats true,that explains why they initially lost singapore and got pushed to india.

[mercian billman]

Ahmed if the japs were to begin a war with the US they couldn't leave PI (Philippine Islands) alone. PI contained the largest independent US military command. During their invasion of PI the japs made alot of blunders fortunately for them Macarthur made just as many blunders. While the defense of PI is often seen as a failure. it did suceed in slowing the japaneese advance (my history is a bit rusty here) but the japs planned on conquering PI within 50 days it took them 60 months to do so, meaning the crack 10th army (not sure) had to be used in the invasion they were supposed to be held for the invasion of Australia and Papua New Guenia. Had PI been properly supported they would've probably held out and the war in the Pacific may have ended in May, 1943.

Also for Japan to control SE Asia, control of PI would have been a tremendous help, just check out a map, from PI the japs would be in a position to support forces in Indo-China and Indonesia (why do you think the US wants to relocate troops there, to support counter-terror ops in the area,), Manila Bay also makes a perfect Naval harbor.

Faisal maybe you could help me but during the Yom Kippur War, I believe there was a Syrian general who penetrated into Israeli territory and was only 50 miles from the coast, with no IDF forces between him. He ordered a halt to the advance beliving the IDF layed an ambush. He was later driven back to Syria and executed after the war, any info you give would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mercian Billman

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] ]but the japs planned on conquering PI within 50 days it took them 60 months to do so

um, do you mean 6 months or 60 days? my history's a bit rusty too, but Japan have to attack the PI after pearl Harbor, so that means late 41's to early 42's. Sixty month's just too long, that would have been 1946-47 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif


other blunders in history is the UN/US failure to accurately determined How many Chinese soldiers were on the border in the Korean War, that blunder costs tens of thousands of US lives, Hitler's blunders are too numerous to be counted, but some that stands out is his decision to invade S.U> didn't finished off G.B. and didn;t reinforced Rommel until it was too late.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

[mercian billman]

I meant 6 months or 180 days, 3 times longer than planned. The attack came in late December, Pearl Harbor was attacked on 7 Dec 1941, so the attack came shortly after.

One thing that's swept under the rug is that the japanese screwed their timing up and attacked Pearl Harbor 8 hours before Manila. When Macarthur heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor, he locked himself in a room and didn't order his planes to patrol like he should have. As a result Fil-Am forces fought the Japanese without air superiority and without support. Japanese forces on the other hand had air and naval superiority and support from home.

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (mercian billman @ April 17 2004,23:05)]Faisal maybe you could help me but during the Yom Kippur War, I believe there was a Syrian general who penetrated into Israeli territory and was only 50 miles from the coast, with no IDF forces between him. He ordered a halt to the advance beliving the IDF layed an ambush. He was later driven back to Syria and executed after the war, any info you give would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mercian Billman
Hmmm i would like to help,let me dig up a book i had about the 1973 6th october war...i'll edit this post when i find it.

EDIT:The book does not mention unit commanders,but only the generals who led them,the syrian were led by their leader Havez al Assad obviously,although the book did mention that accompanying the 60,000 man syrian offensive were the Morrocan brigade who assualted and eliminated the isreali anti-tank line,while several syrian commandos poured into to elimnate the isreali tanks before they could damage the syrian armoured legion(600 tanks,primarily T-55 and T-54s,it also mentions some T-62s,that were just recently purchased from russia)the MtHermont fort the isrealis had on the Golan was assualted by several iraqi brigades and irregulars assited by a 1000 syrian guns of different calibers.Obviously this mysterious commander was pretty good at handling the offensive,he penetrated the isreali border 32 kilometers and reached El'al before they signed the peace treaty on the 22nd of october.

Before the isrealis retreated from the golans they made a scorched earth manuever where everything of value or importance was destroyed,that did'nt stop the syrian president from temporarily planting the flag before the isrealis re-occupied the region.

I'll try and find the syrians commanders name though...right now i can't seem to find it in the book.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]other blunders in history is the UN/US failure to accurately determined How many Chinese soldiers were on the border in the Korean War

Actually it was mostly ignorence from the UN/US side. Let see now China threatened to join the war, they fought chinese troops, CIA reported that China had 30-40k men in Northkorea and 700k on the border.
So when the Chinese troops in Korea withdrew (after showing thier willingness to fight and to see what the reaction were), MacArthur thought that suffered from military exhaustion and continued the offense.

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ April 18 2004,02:11)]
Quote[/b] ]other blunders in history is the UN/US failure to accurately determined How many Chinese soldiers were on the border in the Korean War

Actually it was mostly ignorence from the UN/US side. Let see now China threatened to join the war, they fought chinese troops, CIA reported that China had 30-40k men in Northkorea and 700k on the border.
So when the Chinese troops in Korea withdrew (after showing thier willingness to fight and to see what the reaction were), MacArthur thought that suffered from military exhaustion and continued the offense.
Actually the CIA did not accuratly provide the numbers of the chinese forces in the korean war,the first recon report said there were 25,000 chinese troops on the border,when infact there were 250,000.700,000 is a bit unrealistic becuase china also stations troops near the indian borders and near taiwan.out of the 2 million,700,000 is pretty unrealistic,especially at the small border with north korea.

[John86]

i would have to say the greatest military blunder is the atlantic wall. It cost a huge amount of lives and resources and could hardly hold the british for a half and hour.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]Actually the CIA did not accuratly provide the numbers of the chinese forces in the korean war,the first recon report said there were 25,000 chinese troops on the border,when infact there were 250,000.700,000 is a bit unrealistic becuase china also stations troops near the indian borders and near taiwan.out of the 2 million,700,000 is pretty unrealistic,especially at the small border with north korea.


Maybe, but it's a good time to actually investigate the numbers, considering that "only" 180.000 chinese soldiers invaded. Thats only about a quarter of the reported amount and it was still enough to cause most of the UN/US and South-Korean forces to rout.
And after rereading, CIA reported it on 8:th nowember and it was 700.000 in Manchuria (sp?) not on the border.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]I agree. You know Napoleon repeatedly said 'Russia has nothing I want.' Okay, Russia was mobilizing, but why not provoke a war then fight on the the defensive? Or better, provoke a war, advance a few hundred miles, then slash 'n' burn?

Exactly. But by the time of the planning of the invasion of Russia Napoleon had enjoyed a long, virtually uninterrupted series of successes (Spain excluded). Napoleon's ego combined with his unshakeable belief in 'offensive' operations would not permit him to go on the defensive, even if it meant drawing the Tsar's armies into friendly territory (Poland) where he could defeat them on his own terms.


Quote[/b] ]The Tsar's armies 'lived off the land' too.

Very true. A little known fact is that after Napoleon withdrew his Grand Army from Moscow and began his retreat back to Poland the Russian army's losses were almost as bad as those of the French & Allied forces. Their only saving grace was that their logistical situation was far better than that of the French.

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ April 19 2004,10:09)]
Axeknight

Knight

"I agree. You know Napoleon repeatedly said 'Russia has nothing I want.' Okay, Russia was mobilizing, but why not provoke a war then fight on the the defensive? Or better, provoke a war, advance a few hundred miles, then slash 'n' burn? The Tsar's armies 'lived off the land' too."

Why ? First of all, there were Austria and Prussia waiting for Russians to come, they wouldn't fight their recent allies.
Second Napoleon knew that Russia has huge 'cannon-fodder' resources and the war would last for years.
Third "slash 'n' burn ?" You can't win the war by destroying territory
of your ally, actually the real Russia is starting in the east of Smolensk, every mile between the Duchy of Warsaw and Smolensk was considered Polish. Remember Napoleon called this war 'the Second Polish war' and not without the reason. About 22% of the whole invading army was Polish, and more important for them it was the liberation of eastern Poland not invading Russia. I'm sure You've heard their units were of quality better than just average.
Finally, Russia could be defeated, but not in one year, and probably taking the Ukraine was much better idea.

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Hetman]

Hi Ironside

"So we didn't took Moskow but we had Swedish troops inside Moskow for 2 month."

This way yes, they did, but that case the Poles were there 3 times
- all the ones I've mentioned + when so called 'false' Dymitrij captured the city.

"The attemt failed, mostly thanks to disloyalty in the army."

Hmm... Interesting, what do You mean ?

"And the Polish situation is quite different"

Sorry, my mistake, I was thinking of the polish tactic at that time, especially in late 1656 when Charles X tried to take the resisting towns in southern Poland ( Zamosc, Lviv), the superior ( at that time) Swedish army couldn't get Polish cavalry which played 'the cat and the mause' game with Charles. I suppose You'll agree that he was wiser than Charles XII because retreated, and decided not to pursue any more.

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Hetman]

Michiel de Ruyter

"First of all, you severely underestimate the effects of World War I. The western European nations wanted to avoid war at all cost"

"It is really easy for you, or us, to state that the French simply had to attack..."

I'm aware of these reasons, but simply according to Polish-French alliance they were expected to attack in about two weeks time ( 12 days as far as I remember). What they were going to do, to wait them age and die because of natural causes ? As far as I remember according to surveys in France in 1939 about 65% of population did want to support Poland in possible war ( I own a reprint of a newspaper from 1939), although what whey were ready to do is a different matter.
Although Polish leaders ( especially foreign affairs minister Beck) realised the French couldn't be trusted ( several reasons - lack of support in 1920 war with Soviet, and a failure of polish plans concerning pre-emptive war against Hitler in 1934-36) there wasn't much to do than try to trust them in 1939.

"and, more important, the war in Poland would be over that quick."

As far as I know it was decided not to attack around 10-12th September, when the big battle at Bzura (Kutno) was just started. The war would last at least one month more without Russian help.

"Russia had to rush in ill-prepared troops, because the Germans had already reached in many places the "Russian zone"

The "Russian zone" was starting in eastern WARSAW along Vistula river, on the 17th September still about 45% of the territory was controlled by the Polish.
There are several reasons why the Soviet attacked on 17th, and reaching the Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact line by German forces wasn't the most important of these.

"be prepared yourself before attacking."

They had two weeks at least, but failed to use it.

"Further, for you to suggest that the French had no plan for the defence,"

I don't, but they failed to learn more from the September 1939 campaign. But they were eager to belive in Goebbels fairy tales about ulhans charging tanks and such like. They believed too much in their defence plan. I really do believe they had enough time to create much,much better defence.

"It probably would have worked for the original German invasion plan."

Yes, but the Germans couldn't expect to win using the same strategy.

"It is kind of hard to counterassault when you have your forces in the wrong places,"

I agree, but were there any serious reinforcements, to counter any offensive ( I mean strategic level) - in Poland about 25% was prepared
for that kind of task - so called "Prusy" army ( 8 inf. divisions, 1 cav.brigade + 2 tank battalions and other units) and northern and southern reserves ( 2 inf. div. each), which failed, but in case of the army it was because it's commander was an idiot.



"Enigma was not broken for the first time untill the summer of 1940 by the British."

It really was possible to learn much about german army's movements because of breaking the code, although probably not in 1939 ( the code was broken earlier, but it wasn't the same in 1939).
The Polish spy network was much more important, and according to many sources the Polish high command was quite aware of German plan, especially invasion routes, but there wasn't much to counter their offensive, although there were several ideas of flank attack, wasted unfortunatelly. Actually there were several moments which could cause much headache to the German high command.

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Hetman]

mercian billman

"While the defense of PI is often seen as a failure. it did suceed in slowing the japaneese advance"

According to my sources The Japanese planned to capture Philippinnes in 50 days, Singapure in 100 days and Indonesia in 150 days starting on 7th December, actually they menaged to accomplish this task earlier than they thought it is possible- the American troops in the Phil. were quite annoying , but were isolated and not very important, almost all of the Phil. were captured according to the plan or earlier.


"Had PI been properly supported they would've probably held out and the war in the Pacific may have ended in May, 1943."

It is possible, but only if everything goes according to the plan, actually there was a big problem - not enough troops and ships to make it possible - Australia was quite a difficult target, probably almost as difficult as everything before added together. I know the Japanese planned this, but only after taking Hawaiian Islands, Fiji and so on which wasn't so easy, You know.

"One thing that's swept under the rug is that the japanese screwed their timing up and attacked Pearl Harbor 8 hours before Manila."

As far as I know the Japanese Navy Airforce from Taiwan ( 21st and 23rd Koku Sentai) tried to attack as soon as possible, but because of the weather ( fog and clouds) it wasn't possible so early.

"he locked himself in a room and didn't order his planes to patrol like he should have."

What is Your source, may I ask ?
Actually Pacyfic II World War ( and generally japanese history) is my favourite and it's the first time I read about it.
As far as I know, the American command learnt about Pearl Harbor between 3 and 4 a.m. and first fighters took off around 4-5 a.m (3rd Fighter Squadron).
The American airforce was destroyed not because nobody expected the airstikes, but rather because the fighter units were not used correctly ( lack of coordination).

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]Hi Ironside

"So we didn't took Moskow but we had Swedish troops inside Moskow for 2 month."

This way yes, they did, but that case the Poles were there 3 times
- all the ones I've mentioned + when so called 'false' Dymitrij captured the city.

So we can atleast agree that Swedish troops has "marched into Moscow", but haven't actually taken it.


Citera[/b] ]"The attemt failed, mostly thanks to disloyalty in the army."

Hmm... Interesting, what do You mean ?

It begins 1609 were a large portion of the army refuses to go any further and turns home. After reinforcements from Sweden, the campaign continues.

23 June marches the Swedish army towards Klusina were the Polish army is. The disloyalty in the army is at this point extreme.
The Swedish tears down a gärdsgård (don't have a English dictionary so I can't check out for now, think fence or simular, a light defensive structure atleast) against given orders and doesn't put out guards. When the morning comes, the Polish army is prepared for battle infront of the Swedish army.

The Swdish cav leads a counter-attack that's repelled, and the Swedish infantery shows no signs to help. Most of the Swedish mercs also decides to change sides.
This I call disloyalty.

To point out, all other Swedish battles during this campaign was successful, or even better.


Citera[/b] ]"And the Polish situation is quite different"

Sorry, my mistake, I was thinking of the polish tactic at that time, especially in late 1656 when Charles X tried to take the resisting towns in southern Poland ( Zamosc, Lviv), the superior ( at that time) Swedish army couldn't get Polish cavalry which played 'the cat and the mause' game with Charles. I suppose You'll agree that he was wiser than Charles XII because retreated, and decided not to pursue any more.

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif


The Swedish had at the start of this campaign defeated the Danes and the Poles that had a alliance with eachother (and Russia) to attack Sweden to retake their lost lands. So now it was time to take out the Russians.
The Russian tactic was to avoid battle, use delay tactics and scorce the land in a 200 km deep zone (it started in Poland). The Swedes was succesful for quite some time, but at last did the logistic problem causes enough problem to cause the Swedish army to go south, towards Ukraine.

It's possible that the Swedish army could have gone towards the coast, but it was hardly a big mistake. And at Poltava, the choises was to attack (something the Swedes had wanted all time) a fortified camp, or to retreat through a scorced territory with a undefeated army behind them. Think Napoleon's Russian campaign.

A victory on the other hand would probably had given the Swedes a good peacetreaty and possibly Peter the Great as a prosoner.
So yes it was a mistake, but hardly a really big mistake. It's consequences had more to do with a fatal day on the battlefield then some big mistake.

[Hetman]

Ironside
"So we can at least agree that Swedish troops has "marched into Moscow", but haven't actually taken it."

Yes, of course.

"It begins 1609 were a large portion of the army refuses to go any further and turns home. After reinforcements from Sweden, the campaign continues."

I didn't know the fact. Soo thanks for it.

"the Polish army is prepared for battle infront of the Swedish army.

The Swdish cav leads a counter-attack that's repelled, and the Swedish infantery shows no signs to help. Most of the Swedish mercs also decides to change sides."

According to Polish sources, the army arrived during the night, and only because of a fence before Swedish positions the Polish commander
the Grand Hetman of the Crown Zolkiewski ( Żółkiewski) decided to wait for 200 infantrymen with 2 cannons which were necessary to demolish it.

About the counter-attack. I belive You are thinking about the one when Swedish cav. was trying to use caracole tactic to stop Polish Husaria.
The Husaria just charged them when the Swedes were reloading. I agree
the infantry failed, because the Poles were outnumbered 6 to 1 by Russian-Swedish army ( 30 000+ Russians "poor quality", 5000 Swedes vs 6500 Poles) and won also because the Swedes and Russians were 'cut to pieces" alone.
Actually, I knew about Swedish merc. changing sides after the battle
( about 50% decided to do it) and was thinking this is the disloyality
You've mentioned before. I've read most of the sources about the battle, even the Hetman's book (re-print of course), but I was interested in the foreign sources, but unfortunatelly the Russians almost always ignore the battle and mention something about "superior Polish army", even though the Polish commander was NOT GOING to take Moscow, just to defeat the relief force the Russian-Swedish army was ( at the same time other Polish units were blocking other Russian forces at Biala, which were not aware that the majority of Polish troops just left to intercept the relief force.
Only because the relief forces were virtually annihilated he decided to
take the city.
Klushino campaign is often rated as the most successful Polish campaign in the early XVIIth century. Between 1570 and 1621 Polish millitary art reached it's peak - superb troops ( Husaria) and commanders.
As far as I know during the war between Polish Republic and Sweden between 1600 and 1616 the Poles didn't lose a single battle ( sieges excluded), even though the Swedes were almost always more numerous and there were several battles, do You agree?
By the way, do You know any interesting web sides about XVI-XVII century wars, especially in the east and not the Polish ones ?

Regards Hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Hetman,

they did take note, at least partiallz of what happened in POland in September 1939. The big problem is though that nobody thought the Ardennes could be passed by armored columns... Everbody thought that the tankforces had to come through Belgium.

So on this assumption the disposition of troops and reinforcements was placed. Therefor, when the German dispositions became clear, it was also obvious that the French reinforcements were in the wrong place. As a matter of fact, French reinforcements were in the north of Belgium, and South of the Netherlands to reinforce the Dutch and Belgian armies..


It might be stunning news for you, but the original German invasion plan was remarkably similar to the plans used by the Germans in 1914. Unfortunately, the plans were captured (IIRC March 1940), and then von Manstein came up with the plans of Fall Gelb, the plan which was executed.


As soon as it became clear what the Germans had done, the Fench and British decided to attack (the infamous attack at Arras). The French rushed in all kinds of troops, but as they had to come from other sectors, they were not able to coordinate their attack with that of the British.


So yes, the French did have reinforcements, but they were in the wrong place; therofor, they had to scrape their reinforcements form other places which they did, but the counterattack failed (barely). And now the planned reinforcements, together with the British were cut of in an ever smaller salient.