Foolish

[Franconicus]

~:confused: What is the most foolish mistake in military history?
Who is the worst military leader of all times?

[Al Khalifah]

Prince William of Orange (1792 - 1849). - a pretty awful commander by anyone's standards and his incompetence was magnified by the fact he was put in command of such a large number of lives at such a pivotal battle in European history. Later became King William II of the Netherlands.

[Franconicus]

Here are some German:

Moltke (the nephew): He soiled the Schleiffen plan completely.
Falkenberg: His Verdun plan was as stupid as can be.
Paulus: Did not havethe courage to withdraw his troops from Stalingrad

Roman: Varus, of course!

But what about single mistakes ~:confused:

[Franconicus]

Look at this story. It seem very foolish to me! ~:)

FERDINAND VON SCHILL

The Pre-History of the Rebellion

In 1809 Emperor Francis I., inspired by the vigor of the Spanish popular war, called upon the Germans to rise against Napoleon, while Austria herself took the field. Among those who responded to the call was Prussian Freiherr FERDINAND VON SCHILL. Prussia herself stayed out of the war.

The Military Course of Events

Schill, with a regiment of hussars, left Berlin April 28th 1809, campaigning against French forces (in official terminology, he deserted with his regiment). As Prussia was at peace with France, he christened his regiment a "Freischar" (FREE CORPS). In order not to compromise Prussia, he had to campaign outside of Prussian territory. On May 1st he was in front of Wittenberg (Saxony) demanding the fortress commander to surrender - he did not, as Saxony was a staunch French ally.
Aware that he alone could not hope to defeat the French, Schill had hoped on Emperor Francis I. and on Germany's patriots to answer his call and rise, like he did. On May 13th Vienna surrendered to the French; yet the Austrian army still campaigned.
Schill withdrew to STRALSUND in Swedish Pomerania, where he overwhelmed the weak forces, occupying the city (May 25th) in the name of the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphys IV. (who at that time was under arrest in Sweden). Swedish soldiers and the Ruegen militia joined Schill in his fight. Schill faced a force outnumbering his 4:1; he died while fighting in the streets May 31st. 543 of his men were deported to the galleys, 11 of his officers brought to the city of WESEL, where they were executed.

[GoreBag]

Look at this story. It seem very foolish to me! ~:)

FERDINAND VON SCHILL

The Pre-History of the Rebellion

In 1809 Emperor Francis I., inspired by the vigor of the Spanish popular war, called upon the Germans to rise against Napoleon, while Austria herself took the field. Among those who responded to the call was Prussian Freiherr FERDINAND VON SCHILL. Prussia herself stayed out of the war.

The Military Course of Events

Schill, with a regiment of hussars, left Berlin April 28th 1809, campaigning against French forces (in official terminology, he deserted with his regiment). As Prussia was at peace with France, he christened his regiment a "Freischar" (FREE CORPS). In order not to compromise Prussia, he had to campaign outside of Prussian territory. On May 1st he was in front of Wittenberg (Saxony) demanding the fortress commander to surrender - he did not, as Saxony was a staunch French ally.
Aware that he alone could not hope to defeat the French, Schill had hoped on Emperor Francis I. and on Germany's patriots to answer his call and rise, like he did. On May 13th Vienna surrendered to the French; yet the Austrian army still campaigned.
Schill withdrew to STRALSUND in Swedish Pomerania, where he overwhelmed the weak forces, occupying the city (May 25th) in the name of the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphys IV. (who at that time was under arrest in Sweden). Swedish soldiers and the Ruegen militia joined Schill in his fight. Schill faced a force outnumbering his 4:1; he died while fighting in the streets May 31st. 543 of his men were deported to the galleys, 11 of his officers brought to the city of WESEL, where they were executed.

That sounds okay to me, just kind of unglorious.

Douglas Haig was a bit of a wanker. Of course, by "a bit of a", I mean, "a huge". He is quoted as having said "the machine gun is overrated".

Another Scot who should have had more brains or balls is the Earl of Mar, "Bobbing John", leader of the uprising in 1715 (his Chrisitan name eludes me right now). Basically, he raised thousands of troops, summoned the Highland Chiefs to a meeting and garnered their support, then sat around at Sheriffmuir in the hope that the French would send reinforcements. Predictably, they didn't, which allowed the English to raise a suitable army and crush the rebellion.

[Templar Knight]

John Erskine

[PanzerJaeger]

Look at this story. It seem very foolish to me!

I dont think that would rank up as one of the most foolish military mistakes in history.. it hardly ranks as foolish in my opinion. ~D

[sharrukin]

Here are some German:

Moltke (the nephew): He soiled the Schleiffen plan completely.
Falkenberg: His Verdun plan was as stupid as can be.
Paulus: Did not havethe courage to withdraw his troops from Stalingrad

Roman: Varus, of course!

But what about single mistakes ~:confused:

Well Von Paulus would have been removed from command and shot if he had tried to pull his troops back. It was Hitler's bungle not the general who carried out the idiotic orders. To be a bad commander you need to at least have been able to choose some other course.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

My vote would have to go for Charles the Bold of Burgundy whose wars against the Swiss were far from well fought

[sharrukin]

British General A.E. Percival commanding the defence of Singapore 1941.

Roman General Crassus in the battle of Carrhae 53 BC.

Italian General Graziani against O'Connor in the desert late 1940.

[ShadesPanther]

Himmler and his disasterous campaign in 1945
and i second Haig and most generals in WW1

[AlexPeters]

The french Marechal Bazaine in Mexico and later during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

The italian generals (Starace, Babbini, Maravigna, Pirzio-Biroli etc.) during the italian invasion of Ethopia 1935-36.

Marschall Göring and his "Operation Adler" or his idea of finishing the British Expeditionary forces at Dunkirk with planes only.

Dom Henrique (Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal) during his expedition to Tanger in 1437.

General Sir Ian Hamilton as the commander of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force during the Gallipoli disaster in 1915.

Most generals on both sides during the 1st WW

Medina Sidona and the Spanish Armada.

....

[Kongamato]

General Edward Braddock made a serious blunder in the French and Indian War. He did not adapt to the change in terrain and tactics.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/frenchindian/section2.rhtml

[Ironside]

Matthias Gallas, count von Campo

Very good on destroying armies during the 30-years war, his own armies that is. ~;)

[Ayachuco]

Goering, commander of the Luftwaffe
King John, lost the Angevin Empire

[SwordsMaster]

Marshall Zhukov, burned 2 tank armies in the streets of Berlin in '45. Pointlessly.
Failed to surround 3 German Caucasian armies in '43 and spent 8 months storming a pointless german position in Sukovka (or something similar) only to find (once he took it, 8 months and 2 armies later) that the germans had laid minefields and spent another few thousand lives to cross them.

[Duke Malcolm]

Prince Charles Edward Stuart/Stewart, Battle of Culloden.
After marching the Jacobite Army down to Derby, he then marched them back up to Inverness, because the Government's forces were closing in on them, even though a French force was waiting to assist him.
On arrival at Inverness, the army marched to a government base near Inverness to attack them by surprise, but dawn was breaking, and the enemy army was up, so the Jacobites had been marching all night without rest.
The Jacobite army marched back to Inverness, well, Culloden field. They set up with a wall to their right flank, and a bog to the front. The government army, led by the Duke of Cumberland, attacked them. The jacobite highlanders charged across the bog, which slowed them down, making them an easy target for enemy cannon, grapeshot, and musket fire. Enemy dragoons and musketeers set up along the wall, out-flanking the jacobites.

[AlexPeters]

Friedrich III. of Prussia and his glorious army of Jena and Auerstedt, more men, good discipline but he had choosen the oldest gernerals he could find in his country to command them. The youngest was about 65 i think. Instead of delaying the french armies they took them head on while a russian army was already on their way to support the prussians.
The commanders of the prussian fortresses in the same war are also top on the list, the garrison of the strongest prussian fortress Erfurt surrendered immediatly with 20000 men and 200 cannons because 20 french hussars were on the gates, if i'm remembering correctly.

Another one but i think it has been bad luck only:
The Admiral of the dutch fleet that had to surrender with his whole fleet because french Hussars had surrounded his ships while they were anchoring in friendly waters. His mistake, well, the weather was against him in this winter, his ships were enclosed by ice and the hussars rode over the frozen sea.

[RabidGibbon]

What about Raglan at Balaclava?

The orders may have been spectacularly carried out by the light brigade but that doesn't mean they should have been given, or they should have been clearer about which guns he mean't.

Or maybe Cardigan was to blame for following the orders.

Either way someone was pretty damn foolish.

[Duke Malcolm]

No, the Cardigan mis-interpreted the orders, because of bad grammar.
The orders were intended to move the Light Brigade down one valley, but Cardigan rode down the Valley of Death, because of bad grammar, and not pointing out which guns to go to.

[the Count of Flanders]

Marshall Zhukov, burned 2 tank armies in the streets of Berlin in '45. Pointlessly.
Failed to surround 3 German Caucasian armies in '43 and spent 8 months storming a pointless german position in Sukovka (or something similar) only to find (once he took it, 8 months and 2 armies later) that the germans had laid minefields and spent another few thousand lives to cross them.
and yet he is regarded as a war hero in Russia, he must have gotten something right...

[ShadesPanther]

well he had no regard for the nuimber of casulties, a few offensives failed but he eventually reached Berlin ~;)

[The Wizard]

Prince William of Orange (1792 - 1849). - a pretty awful commander by anyone's standards and his incompetence was magnified by the fact he was put in command of such a large number of lives at such a pivotal battle in European history. Later became King William II of the Netherlands.

Grmbl -- indeed, he was a fool and almost Greek in his hunger for power. He actually collaborated with the Belgians to spite his father in hopes of gaining a throne!

Also, it seems the number 'II' added to 'William of Orange' spells 'bad luck' in Dutch history. Prince William of Orange (1626 - 1650) was like the later member of his line also power-hungry and quite unable to understand the ways of politics and the division of power in the world of the time. Luckily, he died after three years, before he could do any permanent damage. Unluckily, the Republic fell into the hands of the landsadvocaat Johan de Witt, who was not very well-versed in the ways of war and totally underestimated the danger that Louis XIV posed. We were only saved by Michiel de Ruyter, bless him.

Oh, and how about Buller in the Second Boer War. Hooray for a very poorly executed offensive at Colenso, my fat friend... now make way for Jan Paulus Leroux (no, not a Brit, but a Boer)!



~Wiz

[Pooma]

Townshend, (Wanted to be Townshend of Baghdad). Oversaw one of the longest retreats in British history, and then was inside the walls for the absolute longest seige in British Army history; thought it would make him famous when some other army had to be sent to extract him.

It is interesting to note that at the time the British Army, and the dominion forces trained almost exclusively for the offensive, and were perhaps the most effective attacking (the Germans can claim to have been better overall with some justification) force the world had ever seen.

Many of the WW1 generals were a bit dim but this guy made an art of self promoting cretinry. Also one of his brigadiers died of eating grass.

The Scot in me demands that I vote for Edward II. The man was a total pillock. His father might not have been able to win at Bannockburn either, but then his father wasn't likely to have ever fought there. Unless he was stoned or something. Or someone mentioned that Bannockburn was holding the Scottish Sexeh Goat rally that year. OK, so I don't like Edward I very much, I can't help it. He does bring out the contrast with Mk 2 pretty well.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Hitler: Not snuffing the UK out when he had the chance.
Attacking Russia while fighting the UK.

[Krusader]

General Bernadotte in the French army. Did alot of things wrong, and ignored several orders from Napoleon, which could have ended disasterously sometimes hadn't it been for other skilled French commanders.

Most generals in WW1. French General Jonut/Jounot comes to mind.

Guy de Lusignan perhaps, for marching most of the crusader troops into open terrain, and defying earlier crusader state tactics.

A military mistake, was when six highly experienced Athenian admirals were executed by the Athens Council for allowing some Athenian sailors to drown during a battle. This ment inexperienced admirals and the morale in the navy spiralling due to the executions. Short while later, almost entire Athenian fleet was destroyed at Aigospotami.

Dien Bien Phu. French organization and poor plan of sending in reinforcements.

Fourth Crusade besieges Constantinople. Piss-poor leadership among Greek generals & officers, Greek troops ill-disciplined, low morale & poor training. Byzantine fleet had in addition not been maintained for 8-9 years under Emperor Alexius III rule.
Byzantine Emperors were very quick to flee.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

One word for worst military mistake ever: Verdun.
Another case could be made for the German Invasion of Belgium in 1914.
And also the Somme was pretty stupid at parts (the British at the Somme that is).
Another quite stupid military mistake had to be the Ardennes offensive.
And let us never forget the British at the Somme. I mean, seriously. SERIOUSLY! HOW STUPID CAN THEY HAVE BEEN!

Oh and for commanders, I'd have to say...
1. Burnside
2. Molkte (nephew)
3. Emannuel Grouchy
4. Ney
5. Zhukov
6. The dude that commanded the Russians at Borodino.
7. Varus

[Petrus]

~:confused: What is the most foolish mistake in military history?
Who is the worst military leader of all times?

French general gamelin stands among the top as he managed to find himself without any reserve left when the battle started in 1940 wich led to the following disaster.

And marechal petain of course, whose military doctrine corresponded fully to the needs of the battle of verdun in 1916 and to nothing else. Unfortunatly, as he exerced his most important role in the 1930's, this doctrine made france military defeated certain even before the war started in 1939.

[Basiliscus]

The Scot in me demands that I vote for Edward II. The man was a total pillock.

Indeed. The man was a fool. Only English arrogance would try and field heavy cavalry in marshland against a lighter armoured and better equipped Scots (for the terrain). I'm glad Edward I was dead by 1314, as I believe he could have defeated us.


Also Francisco Solano López, the man who annihilated nearly 60% of the population of Paraguay in a futile attempt to shift the regional balance of power in Latin America. This left around 28000 males in a total population of 221000. Not bad for those who survived, you might argue. ~;)

[Csargo]

I think that Hitler was the most foolish commander ever ~:confused:

[DisruptorX]

I think that Hitler was the most foolish commander ever ~:confused:

Err....have you read how he took France and Belgium?

[discovery1]

Err....have you read how he took France and Belgium?

Wasn't that idea von Mainstein's, but Hitler claimed it as his own?

[DisruptorX]

Wasn't that idea von Mainstein's, but Hitler claimed it as his own?

It wouldn't suprise me, actually, he wasn't so much a strategic genious as he was a diplomatic one. He took Czechoslovakia and Austria without bloodshed. That is truly impressive.

[Craterus]

IIRC, Czechoslovakia was taken because other world leaders were so foolish. Hitler kept saying "I just want one more piece of land, and I won't invade." "And another bit, this time, I promise I won't invade." He held armies on the borders and if they didn't give him the land he wanted, he would invade.

He got Austria by telling the Austrian Nazis to stir up trouble, he then sent in an army to be a "peacekeeper". His army just stayed there. And none fo the leaders seemed to care.

[Franconicus]

IIRC, Czechoslovakia was taken because other world leaders were so foolish. Hitler kept saying "I just want one more piece of land, and I won't invade." "And another bit, this time, I promise I won't invade." He held armies on the borders and if they didn't give him the land he wanted, he would invade.

He got Austria by telling the Austrian Nazis to stir up trouble, he then sent in an army to be a "peacekeeper". His army just stayed there. And none fo the leaders seemed to care.
Ave Craterus,
I think it is not as simple as that.
Austria: You know that Austria was part of Germany until Napoleon. In fact the German Kaiser was also the leader of Austria/Hungary. In 1871 the Prussians did not want to have Austria as a part of the new Germany, because they wanted to dominate it. And Austria was busy with his non German regions, that would not fit into the new Germany. However, after WW1 there was no good reason why Austria should not be part of Germany. O.k., France and Italy did not want that! But most people in Austria liked the idea to become part of Germany. The Austrian government was fascistic anyway. So the 'Anschluss' was not so evil.

Concerning the CSR. You know that there was a part of the CSR were mostly Germans lived. Hitler used that. The more he raised pressure on CSR, the more did they mistreat the German population. And Hitler also formed a kind of partisan army in that area looking for trouble. He was very good in creating a problem so the Western nations saw that there had to be a solution. It was very bad that CSR was not invited to the negotiations. By the way, Hitler was very upset about the Munich treaty. He wanted war!
I can understand Chamberlain. Britain was not ready for war. So he tried to give peace a last chance and ordered the new Spitfires. You know the rest of the story. The Spits saved England from the Blitz.

[The Wizard]

Actually, Germany was part of Austria until the King of Prussia proclaimed himself Emperor of Germany in 1871.

You see, the Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary etc etc was also Holy Roman Emperor, for whatever the title was worth.

Not that Germany was really an incorporated part of the Austrian Empire, but technically it was. Still, the Holy Roman Emperor did not have any real authority over the many princes of Germany, and had not had any since the Thirty Years' War.

The Anschluss happened because the representation of the Austrian people, its fascist government, agreed to it. Austria-Hungary had been partitioned into a whole slew of nations, chiefly Yugoslavia, after WW1 and it was too weak to go warring on its own alongside Germany. Yep, even weaker than in WW1.



~Wiz

[Franconicus]

Actually, Germany was part of Austria until the King of Prussia proclaimed himself Emperor of Germany in 1871.

You see, the Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary etc etc was also Holy Roman Emperor, for whatever the title was worth.

Not that Germany was really an incorporated part of the Austrian Empire, but technically it was. Still, the Holy Roman Emperor did not have any real authority over the many princes of Germany, and had not had any since the Thirty Years' War.

The Anschluss happened because the representation of the Austrian people, its fascist government, agreed to it. ~Wiz

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. In Middle Age the German had a Kaiser that was elected by the noble men. He was called Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of German NationThe Kaiser was a noble man too. So he had his own counties. Every noble man tried to increase his posessions and his power. As the Kaiser usually wanted his son to be elected he gave the noblemen more rights in return. In the end he had no rights as Emperor, but he was still a mighty nobleman. The last Kaiser gave up because some German nobles allied with Napoleon. After that there was no more German Kaiser. The one that retreated was still leader of his counties in Austria, Hungaria, Czech, Yugo... : He called himself Kaiser of Austria and King of Hungary. So Germany was never a part of Austria.
The representatives of Austria agreed because they had to. Hitler put too much pressure on them. In fact the old government was arrested and killed (at least I guess so)!

[Krusader]

The Emperor of Germany or Kaiser was proclaimed in 1871 in Versailles after the Prussians had defeated the French. He used to be King of Prussia before. Wilhelm was his name. He didnt claim the title Holy Roman Emperor.

The last Holy Roman Emperor was Emperor Francis of Austria-Hungary (although it was called Empire of Austria until 1866 I believe), who abolished the title in 1806 fearing Napoleon might claim it and thus have indirectly legal claims to all territories the old Holy Roman Empire had governed, being roughly Germany, Austria, France and Italy. He continued being Emperor of Austria-Hungary though.

The German states were never under Austrian rule, and the Holy Roman Emperor was an empty title.

Back on-topic:

Russian commanders at Tannenberg for just sending troops into the crossfire.

...and every other battle I can think of has been mentioned.

[Franconicus]

The German states were never under Austrian rule, and the Holy Roman Emperor was an empty title.
You are kidding. The title means that the Emperor is heir of Roman Emperor Constantine. That means he is defender of faith and leader of all Christian nations :balloon2: ~:grouphug: :balloon2:

[The Wizard]

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. In Middle Age the German had a Kaiser that was elected by the noble men. He was called Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of German NationThe Kaiser was a noble man too. So he had his own counties. Every noble man tried to increase his posessions and his power. As the Kaiser usually wanted his son to be elected he gave the noblemen more rights in return. In the end he had no rights as Emperor, but he was still a mighty nobleman. The last Kaiser gave up because some German nobles allied with Napoleon. After that there was no more German Kaiser. The one that retreated was still leader of his counties in Austria, Hungaria, Czech, Yugo... : He called himself Kaiser of Austria and King of Hungary. So Germany was never a part of Austria.
The representatives of Austria agreed because they had to. Hitler put too much pressure on them. In fact the old government was arrested and killed (at least I guess so)!

Effectively, it wasn't, as I said, and hadn't been since the Thirty Years' War. But purely in terms of technicality and state organization, the Austrian Archduke was the ruler of the area of Germany since he held the title of Holy Roman Emperor, by which he claimed the German princes as his vassals. That is one of the reasons that Prussia and Austria got into wars with each other so frequently.

And Franconicus, come now, but the title 'Holy Roman Emperor' held no weight, exercized no respect, and did not impress any of the princes it claimed suzerainity over. Steadily losing power over his feudal vassals, the Holy Roman Emperor lost all control, and all hope on control, after the Thirty Years' War. In effect, it was an even emptier title than Basileios ton Romaion and isapostolos, which were two of the titles of the Byzantine Emperor and really meant very little towards the very end of the Byzantine Empire. But still, it held more weight than the title of Holy Roman Emperor after 1648.

As Voltaire said: "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire". ~;)



~Wiz

[Mikeus Caesar]

I don't know if Hitler has already been mentioned, but i think he is the stupidest commander in history. If he hadn't of invaded Russia, and invaded us (the British) sooner, he would have won the war. But instead, he poked the big mean tiger with a stick, and paid the ultimate price.

[ShadesPanther]

Well he decided that wasn't enough so he decided to poke the other big mean tiger ~;)

[Craterus]

It's all part of war.

He was surrounded by the Mutual Assistance Pact (France and Russia's Alliance). He went for France, Russia would help France out. He had to go both ways. If he had gone for France, he would have needed a considerable army to attack them. Russia could send their army in while he was fighting the French and take over Germany.

And Britain wasn't going to let France lose their war.

[Franconicus]

Craterus,

are you talking about WW2? France already gave up before the Germans invated Russia.

[Basiliscus]

28th June 1575, Nagashino, Japan.

The most wasteful loss of life.

Consider the man who destroyed the single biggest threat to Nobunaga's unification of Japan - Takeda Katsuyori. Despite the territorial and political gains his father Takeda Shingen made, Katsuyori managed to lose all of it in one moment of madness, which in my opinion should easily top this poll.

His battle plan for the battle of Nagashino was to send the full might of the formidable Takeda cavalry, against the combined forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga. The Takeda army numbered around 14000, but 2000 were left to continue the siege of Nagashino castle, leaving 12000 soldiers in the field on the day of battle.

Marching to relieve the siege of Nagshino castle was Oda Nobunaga with 30000 men and Tokugawa Ieyasu with 8000 men. Although only around 3000 of Nobunaga's men were arquebusiers, they were reinforced behind wooden palisades, on a small hill near the river Rengogawa. The battlefield was marhsy, broken and wooded, making it difficult ground for cavalry to fight in.

The Takeda attacked, led by Katsuyori, despite the protests of his generals. Needless to say the outnumbered Takeda were slaughtered, as not only did they have to cross the river!!! making them sitting ducks, but they had to fight uphill against yari armed samurai defending the arquebusiers. Nobunaga had also perfected the idea of the rotating volley, meaning the Takeda soldiers were under a constant barrage of fire for their whole charge.

The battle was a resounding Oda victory, with 10000 of the 16000 slain Takeda bodies. Katsuyori was hated by the populace of Kai after the battle, not only did he kill off many of Shingen's 24 generals but also many retainers and veteran warriors who served Shingen.

Comparisons can be made with the Light Brigade at Balaclava, but these men were under misinterpretated orders (although please don't quote me on this because I'm no 19th century warfare expert!) whereas Katsuyori took this descision upon himself.

He should UNQUESTIONABLY be the most foolish commander ever.

[Craterus]

Craterus,

are you talking about WW2? France already gave up before the Germans invated Russia.

Sorry, I was right about Mutual Assistance Pact. I get mixed up between those two wars. I think they're boring anyway. Sword and spears is much better.

Unfortunately, we only learn about WW1 and WW2 in my history.

[cunctator]

There are so many. I think this example is suitable at least there are many very foolish mistakes.


Gaius Atilius Regulus, Battle a near Tynes 255Bc

The carthaginian had 12.000 infantry 100 elephants and 4000 cavalry.
The roman army had 15.000 inf. and 500 cav.

-Despite better knowledge he had decided to fight in the open flat country.
-To counter the elephants he increased the formation deep, making it still easier for the cart. cav. to outflank him.
-He has done nothing else to counter the protect the flank against the obvious attack despite placing his cavalry there.

As result all but 2000 romans were dead or prisoned.

[Meneldil]

Well, about the invasion of France in 1940, I just read a book written by Karl-Heinz Frieser (who's working for the Bundeswehr) in which he explains quite successfully that the invasion worked that well because the germans were lucky as hell.

And yeah, Hitler wasn't a military genius. The invasion of France was planned by Von Manstein only a few months before the attack (the german leaders were first planning to re-use the Schlieffen plan, and that would probably have meant lost for them).

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Actually, Germany was part of Austria until the King of Prussia proclaimed himself Emperor of Germany in 1871.

You see, the Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary etc etc was also Holy Roman Emperor, for whatever the title was worth.

Not that Germany was really an incorporated part of the Austrian Empire, but technically it was. Still, the Holy Roman Emperor did not have any real authority over the many princes of Germany, and had not had any since the Thirty Years' War.

The Anschluss happened because the representation of the Austrian people, its fascist government, agreed to it. Austria-Hungary had been partitioned into a whole slew of nations, chiefly Yugoslavia, after WW1 and it was too weak to go warring on its own alongside Germany. Yep, even weaker than in WW1.



~Wiz
Nope, Schnussnig and before him, Dollfuß hated the Nazi's, and Dollfuß was killed by Nazi Stormtroopers. Also the Anschluß wasn't bloodless, the border guards were killed, and Schnussnig was imprisoned untill freed by the allies at the end of World War Two.

Oh and Austria was NEVER part of Germany before 1938. Except for when they owned Germany in the days of the HRE. Yes, they owned Germany. Most of the Holy Roman Emporers were Habsburgs.

[Kagemusha]

In my opinion Adolf Hitler was the most foolish military leader.Becouse after fall 1941 When he took ower Direct command in German military operations.Every single major operation germans conducted ended in disaster.Before that constant succes.
But personally im just happy of that ~:cheers:

[InsaneApache]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned Prince Jerome and Marshall Ney at Waterloo.

Jeromes task was to create a diversionary attack on Hougomont farm but he got so ingrossed in this that he eventually committed his whole army corps. Thus weakening the French centre left. When his uncle had to go for a lie down ( he was feeling poorly...bless him) up stepped Ney. He thought it would be a jolly good jape to attack the English infantry centre with his cavalry corps...(oopps I'll get me coat) and when uncle Napolean came back to the battle his cavalry had been decimated and the French left was a lot thinner....then the Prussians arrived.

An honourable mention must go to Marshal Grouchy who instead of marching towards the sound of the guns, as urged by his senior officers, he stuck to his orders and followed Blucher.

No wonder Naplolean insisted HE hadnt lost the battle, he hadnt...his generals did it for him. ~:grouphug:

[Dâriûsh]

I have a one.

The last of the true Abbasid Caliphs of Baghdad, Al-Musta'sim, upon learning that a massive force of Mongols under Hulagu Khan was approaching the heart of the empire… did nothing. ”Mongols-schmongols”… No army was raised, and no reinforcements were sent for. Hulagu Khan promptly sacked Baghdad, allegedly killing 800.000 of its inhabitants, and ended the once mighty Abbasid Caliphate.

:charge:

[Franconicus]

Well, about the invasion of France in 1940, I just read a book written by Karl-Heinz Frieser (who's working for the Bundeswehr) in which he explains quite successfully that the invasion worked that well because the germans were lucky as hell.

And yeah, Hitler wasn't a military genius. The invasion of France was planned by Von Manstein only a few months before the attack (the german leaders were first planning to re-use the Schlieffen plan, and that would probably have meant lost for them).
Meneldil,
we all know that luck is an essential attribute to any good commander.

Here is a short anectode:
Napoleon was known for promoting officers with high skills very fast. Many of his general's were very young. On e day he was asked why he did not promote a young officer who was very smart. He replied: He has no luck. I do not need generals that have no luck!

[Basiliscus]

I suppose you could argue Emperor Montecuhzoma of the Aztecs was a fool also. He believed a prophesy that in the First Year of the Reed their God Quetzalcoatl would arrive and he would defeat the Aztecs and bring peace to Mexico. He would be recognisable as a bearded white man.

When Cortez arrived he fitted the description and Montecuhzoma handed over his Empire to the Spaniards with his famous speech:

"We have known for a long time that neither I nor the people who live here are the original inhabitants. We know it belongs to strangers who come from distant parts. We always knew that they would return one day to rule us. We will obey you and all that we own is yours."

Although there are many examples of people following false prophecies including King Croesus of Lydia who believed the Oracle of Delphi when it said that "A Great Empire will be destroyed" when he asked what would happen if he went to war with Persia. Infact he was defeated, as the Oracle meant HIS empire would be destroyed.

[The Wizard]

I doubt the Oracle meant either the Persian or the Lydian empire... whatever those stoned nutjobs said was open to the interpretation of everybody.



~Wiz

[Basiliscus]

I doubt the Oracle meant either the Persian or the Lydian empire... whatever those stoned nutjobs said was open to the interpretation of everybody.

LoL Very true, but in the topic of this discussion any commander who follows the advice of an oracle should be under the heading of 'Foolish'. Indeed, what the Oracle said to Croesus was anyone's guess and he was entirely a fool to plan a campaign based on its advice.