View Full Version : History's biggest boobs
King Henry V
10-25-2005, 16:06
No, this is not about voluptious women in history, but more about commanders and rulers who have been pionneers and have pushed the realms of stupitidy even further than thought possible. I am reading Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser and General Elphinstone, commander of the British expeditionnary force in Afghanistan, seems to be one of the worst commanders in history. A bed-ridden old woman would have been better suited to commanding an army than he did.
Reverend Joe
10-25-2005, 16:08
And I thought I had just run into history's shortest-lived thread...
Gimme a second, I'll think of a good one.
Ah, hell...
King Henry V
10-25-2005, 16:10
Shoot, this is meant to be in the Monastery.
Cebei once told a story of a sultan that insisted his sapihi's payed their taxes before letting them pass, while the enemy was attacking them from behind, they all died and the gold was gone. That is pretty stupid.
Geoffrey S
10-25-2005, 16:34
Among the first candidates I'd place Marshal Semyon Michailowich Budyonny and Sir Redvers Buller.
Duke Malcolm
10-25-2005, 17:54
I am reading Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser and General Elphinstone, commander of the British expeditionnary force in Afghanistan, seems to be one of the worst commanders in history. A bed-ridden old woman would have been better suited to commanding an army than he did.
Psh, have you still not finished that?
Yes, well, General Lord Elphinstone certainly must win the ticket. But. Bonnie Prince Charlie during and before the battle of Culloden was a fool. He marched the jacobite army 8 miles to the Government camp during the night, only to find them getting up instead of still in bed, so they army marched back to Culloden to fight the battle without so much as a rest before the battle on flat boggy moorland perfect for the Government guns, but awful for a Highland Charge. A handy wall to one flank was ignore and used by the government during the battle to get the highlanders in crossfire as they charged.
Well, before this thread takes a boatride to the Monastery, I'll offer one up.
Douglas Haig.
What a colossal idiot and mindless waster of life and limb.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/haig.jpg
Duke Malcolm
10-25-2005, 17:59
At least he did something extraordinarily beneficial in establishing the Royal British Legion and the Earl Haig fund.
...for all the good it did. Rot in pieces, Haig.
Reverend Joe
10-25-2005, 18:20
What was the name of the boy-Czar who halted the Russian invasion of Prussia, and led the way to one of the low points in Russian history? All I remember is that he was a worshipper of Friedrich I and he didn't want to see Friedrich defeated, even if it was by his own armies.
If you really want to learn about a lot of nitwits, I highly recommend The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157488252X/qid=1130261168/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-9402933-5792057?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). They also have equally amusing books on Naval Blunders, Flying Blunders and Historical Blunders.
I'll be happy to post some examples from them when I get home.
Geoffrey S
10-25-2005, 18:34
If you really want to learn about a lot of nitwits, I highly recommend The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/157488252X/qid=1130261168/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-9402933-5792057?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). They also have equally amusing books on Naval Blunders, Flying Blunders and Historical Blunders.
Yup, that's where I learned to laugh at Buller.
Red Harvest
10-25-2005, 19:56
CSA Generals John B. Floyd and Gideon Pillow deserve joint mention for their ineptitude at Fort Donelson during the American Civil War.
A lawyer by profession, controversy and failure were Floyd's companions throughout life. He lost a fortune in a cotton planting venture. Ironically, he was former U.S. Sec. of War under the incompetent pre-ACW U.S. President Buchanan. He transferred some arms to the South and had serious personal financial irregularities in govt. After resigning and accepting a CSA commission, he argued incessantly with General Wise in Western Virginia before ending up at Donelson. His career effectively ended with the Fort Donelson fiasco. He died at home in 1863.
Pillow was yet another example of failed lawyer/politicians appointed general. Pillow horrified CSA President Davis by siezing Columbus, Kentucky, thereby violating Kentucky's expressed neutrality and allowing Federal forces to capitalize on the blunder. Grant routed Pillow's forces at Belmont in a joint naval landing along the river. Grant was forced to withdraw when attacked by reinforcments from other divisions on the other shore. Pillow's choice of ground had been perfectly horrid: exposed on open ground facing the tree line--with the river to his back. He did not display cowardice in this action only stupidity.
At Fort Donelson, Nathan Bedford Forrest managed to create a rupture in Federal lines, but Floyd/Pillow would not follow up. This doomed the command and forced the surrender of the garrison. Disgusted at the intent to surrender, Forrest and his cavalry escaped through a marsh. Floyd and Pillow fled by boat, rather than surrender with their men. :shame: Fort Donelson was a key turning point in the ACW and revealed the shape of things to come. Some consider this early surrender a bigger blow than the eventual loss of Vicksburg.
Pillow later was accused of cowardice at Murfreesboro/Stones River for cowering behind a tree in the rear while his men advanced.
Mouzafphaerre
10-25-2005, 22:45
Cebei once told a story of a sultan that insisted his sapihi's payed their taxes before letting them pass, while the enemy was attacking them from behind, they all died and the gold was gone. That is pretty stupid.
.
Don't know about that one but remember a Sadrâzam (Grand Vizier) ordering the city walls be painted so that the enemy navy would see them uptight and get scared, and withdraw from bombardment. ~:joker:
.
Kagemusha
10-26-2005, 03:39
Who was the Commander of the commonwelth soldiers who attacked Galliopol in WW I ?
I have always thought that the attack was just waist.
Papewaio
10-26-2005, 03:46
Winston Churchill was responsible for Gallopolli.
He was blasted for his failure and was out of his job, then went to the Western Front as an Officer.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-26-2005, 03:47
Burnside. Idiot who caused countless deaths at Antietam...wait...they were Union deaths...so he was a great man! But an idiot. Plus, at fredericksburg....GAH!
Mongoose
10-26-2005, 04:18
hmm, i would say Mccellan, from the ACW. He a good "Arm chair" General, but was too slugish and wouldn't react until forced to(Or at least IMHO)
To be fair, he was part of a long line of highly defective people.
More information:His first battle was afew miles west of Richmond. Ironicly, it was also Lee's first battle in the ACW. He was in command of the army of the potomac. he got stuck on the peninsula and after awhile was forced out of virginia. Later, he went on the mess up the battle of antietam, along with good 'ol burn side.
Mouzafphaerre
10-26-2005, 04:33
Who was the Commander of the commonwelth soldiers who attacked Galliopol in WW I ?
I have always thought that the attack was just waist.
.
Ian Hamilton was effectively the commander I think, but it was Churchill's plan.
.
Red Harvest
10-26-2005, 06:52
Burnside. Idiot who caused countless deaths at Antietam...wait...they were Union deaths...so he was a great man! But an idiot. Plus, at fredericksburg....GAH!
Burnside's main problem was that he was rather one-dimensional on the field. He failed to do things properly on his own initiative.
However, he did good work commanding the North Carolina expedition. It was a joint army/navy operation that caused some havoc and forced the surrender of some garrisons, giving the Union a good base. It was one of the early Union successes. Strangely, few know anything about it.
He also was able to repel Longstreet during the Knoxville campaign.
As for the bridge at Antietam, what I've read of it suggests McClellan shares part of the blame. He had badly muddled the command structure and treated Burnside poorly in the process.
Fredricksburg was a fiasco, and considerable credit for that was due to McClellan as well. Yes, even though he wasn't there, his lack of initiative had lead Lincoln to take a very hands on approach, and force Burnside into making a winter advance. It might have worked, but the weather turned on him. Also, Burnside had a struggle with the slow moving bureaucracy that characterized all Army of the Potomac affairs. What was meant to be an unopposed advance across the river turned into a heavily contested affair.
Anyway, while Burnside was not a military genius and made several large blunders, he did have his moments.
English assassin
10-26-2005, 12:03
Whilst Haig isn't going to win a place in the pantheon of great generals, he wasn't as bad as people think. No one, French, German or British, solved the problem of assaulting a trench line until the British at Cambrai in 1917 using tanks, or the Germans in the spring of 1918 using infiltration. So if he was an idiot he was in good company. Some of his tactical decisions were actually quite good.
His predecessor, Sir John French, was far worse, and easily the worst British commander of WW1 (a hotly contested title).
IMHO not finding a way to have accomodated the reasonable political aspirations of the Northern American settlers within the UK or at least a UK commonwealth has been shown by the subsequent course of history to be a pretty big boob from the UK's point of view, not that it would necessarily have been easy to do.
InsaneApache
10-26-2005, 12:13
IMHO not finding a way to have accomodated the reasonable political aspirations of the Northern American settlers within the UK or at least a UK commonwealth has been shown by the subsequent course of history to be a pretty big boob from the UK's point of view, not that it would necessarily have been easy to do.
A pipe dream I'm afraid. The colonists were always going to secede, despite what our American friends have been spoon fed for the last 200+years the war wasn't really about freedom, accountability and justice, but rather a handful of powerful landowners that saw an opportunity to run their 'own' country. Let's face it, what would you rather be. A big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond....or have your own pond and charge rent?
:bow:
Haig was responsible for Passchendaele, Third Ypres.
That alone justifies his infamous inclusion in any Grand Order of the Idiot.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-26-2005, 12:54
...for all the good it did. Rot in pieces, Haig.
While it is certain that Haig will not go down in history on the list of the world's "great captains." You might want to re-think a few things.
Few if any of WW1 commanders had a clue what they were getting into, and nobody in senior leadership had any idea what they were in for. They tried mass waves, they tried bombardments, they tried poison gas -- nothing broke the stalemate. Haig didn't do much worse than his contemporaries. The whole this was a ghastly mess.
cegorach
10-26-2005, 14:11
What was the name of the boy-Czar who halted the Russian invasion of Prussia, and led the way to one of the low points in Russian history? All I remember is that he was a worshipper of Friedrich I and he didn't want to see Friedrich defeated, even if it was by his own armies.
It was Peter III - a real idiot - it is most likely that his greatest wish was to be one of Friderick grenadiers, even if it was Russia which he was fighting against.
Thanks to him Prussia survived untill another miracle with Napoleon and final destruction in 1945 ( HItler hoped for another miracle which didn't happen this time ~;) ).
Regards Cegorach ~;)
Ianofsmeg16
10-26-2005, 14:46
What about hitler himself? Didnt he stop those panzer divisions advancing onto the british positions during the dunkirk campaign? plus he wasnt a very good strategist anyway, although to be honest i'm a bit fixxy on the details
I think Publius Quintus Varus is a contender since his total complacency resulted in a loss that essentially halted Roman expansion into Germany forever. I'd also like to toss out the Sultan (can't remember his name) who took the heads of the Mongolian trade emissaries and thus sparked off the entire Mongolian invasion of the west.
While it is certain that Haig will not go down in history on the list of the world's "great captains." You might want to re-think a few things.
Few if any of WW1 commanders had a clue what they were getting into, and nobody in senior leadership had any idea what they were in for. They tried mass waves, they tried bombardments, they tried poison gas -- nothing broke the stalemate. Haig didn't do much worse than his contemporaries. The whole this was a ghastly mess.
Isn't Haig known as 'the Scot who managed to kill the most Englishmen in history'?
Geoffrey S
10-26-2005, 15:08
I think Publius Quintus Varus is a contender since his total complacency resulted in a loss that essentially halted Roman expansion into Germany forever.
I was tempted to include him, but from what I know there's not really enough information on the subject and what there is is very one-sided; I'm not convinced that most Roman commanders wouldn't have reacted in a very similar way to the threat of a rebellion.
The Wizard
10-26-2005, 17:17
Cebei once told a story of a sultan that insisted his sapihi's payed their taxes before letting them pass, while the enemy was attacking them from behind, they all died and the gold was gone. That is pretty stupid.
Yes, that was a Sultan of the Ottomans -- of whom the name escapes me -- who did that upon crossing the Danube after a successful campaign against Vlad the Impaler. Vlad was on the way, however, and blasted the Ottomans, who thanks to the Sultan were crossing the river ever so slowly, with cannonry. So many sipahis died that they never again were a force to be reckoned with, and Vlad took the gold back as well.
English assassin
10-26-2005, 17:36
Isn't Haig known as 'the Scot who managed to kill the most Englishmen in history'?
I don't know, but if you regard a general as responsible for the deaths in his armies then he probably IS the Scot who killed the most Englishmen in history.
Mind you the Duke of Wellington is probably the Irishman who managed to kill the most Englishmen in history but no one says that makes him a bad general.
I think Publius Quintus Varus is a contender since his total complacency resulted in a loss that essentially halted Roman expansion into Germany forever. I'd also like to toss out the Sultan (can't remember his name) who took the heads of the Mongolian trade emissaries and thus sparked off the entire Mongolian invasion of the west.
Neither of those are good.
Varus was an administrator, and was assigend to Germania because the province was considered pacified. The population seemed ok with this, just like the Gauls had been a generation earlier. But this didn't factor in a second generation Germano-Roman citizen revolting with a whole lot of local warriors just as the army was lured into the space where it couldn't respond properly (by the same aristocrat mentioned). Varus was unfortunate to be put into a position he had absolutely no ability of controlling. Sure he could deal with simply uprisings but a massive ambush like this would have been beyond 99% of all commanders.
The Mongol emmisaries were there to spy. So much in fact that it was made obvious to provoke the Kwarazmian state. But why should they btw be scared of those filthy steppe people? The war with China was draining them and going slowly, so it wasn't as if they would be expected to be able to mount a major offensive against Kwarazmia.
No, give me the Russian admiral at Tzushima... He was a total head-under-arm fellow, but even he couldn't have done as bad, so he was supported by a drunken officer corps and crews that brought every kind of odd creature onboard (at one point there were both giraffes and leopards on the battleships).
Uesugi Kenshin
10-26-2005, 22:32
A pipe dream I'm afraid. The colonists were always going to secede, despite what our American friends have been spoon fed for the last 200+years the war wasn't really about freedom, accountability and justice, but rather a handful of powerful landowners that saw an opportunity to run their 'own' country. Let's face it, what would you rather be. A big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond....or have your own pond and charge rent?
:bow:
Actually my AP US History class went into that a great deal. The majority of classes may not deal with that, and classes under the High School level don't. But we focused a great deal on that issue.
Mount Suribachi
10-27-2005, 22:43
Can't believe no-one included this fella
http://bogusgold.com/files/chamberlain38.jpg
Nice bloke by all accounts, but not what you need when you're dealing with one of the most evil meglomaniacs in history...
And to him can be added the top ranks of the French government and military in 1940...
As for Haig, didn't he build himself quite a reputation during the colonial wars in Africa? Or am I confusing him with another British commander of that era?
What about hitler himself? Didnt he stop those panzer divisions advancing onto the british positions during the dunkirk campaign? plus he wasnt a very good strategist anyway, although to be honest i'm a bit fixxy on the details
Actually I believe he merely approved von Runstedts request that the over-stretched and weakened Panzers could be better deployed elsewhere as the British were "already beaten".
AntiochusIII
10-27-2005, 23:10
Actually my AP US History class went into that a great deal. The majority of classes may not deal with that, and classes under the High School level don't. But we focused a great deal on that issue.Yup. I am taking it now, and the textbook states that the American wealthy class included the sweeping statement of human equality because they sought support by the masses. Nonetheless, one could presume reasonably that Thomas Jefferson, an idealistic genius that he was, probably have more in his mind than just realpolitik, while his fellow Congressmen might percieve it as such.
On the other hand, the "lower" history classes are paper thin in motives, and much more prone to propaganda. They don't state the propaganda, of course, but the very lack of information itself leaves the students to agree with the popular patriotic concept (reinforced by earlier propaganda from the earlier wars) of the motives of that age.
By the way, that textbook is very depressing if the reader tries to truly understand American history. Racism, segregation, conflicts, fraud, mob stupidity, higher class greed, troubles, stupid/evil presidencies, with the last one getting worse as years gone by--all were examined in it. And things looks no better at the start of America's 3rd century.
Actually I believe he merely approved von Runstedts request that the over-stretched and weakened Panzers could be better deployed elsewhere as the British were "already beaten".
Which he did becasue some poor sod managed to present the tank losses in such as way that it made Hitler believe the 'damaged' tanks were indeed 'destroyed' tanks... Add to those that were indeed estroyed and it is not surprising that he chose to keep them out of a dense fight against entrenched enemies with a navy and city at its back. It would have been costly.
Remember that the damaged tanks included broken down tanks, and the Germans were at the end of a long rush for the coast. And we all know how fast tanks break down, especially when they have run a while.
Alexanderofmacedon
10-28-2005, 02:01
You couldn't consider Darius a boob, but he did make quite a few mistakes.
Of course Alexander just kicked ass...~D
Reverend Joe
10-28-2005, 02:13
Dariush III was actually a suprisingly competent general, and he was definitely a better organiser than the oh-so-beloved Alexander (no offense to you, Alexanderofmacedon :bow:, but I hate the guy). He just had the deck stacked against him. If his armies had been led by Hannibal and his staff, on the other hand, Dariush might have had a chance.
Alexanderofmacedon
10-28-2005, 02:16
I beg to differ, but I respect your opinion~:)
Reverend Joe
10-28-2005, 02:35
When I say organiser, I mean as a strategic leader, not tactical. He was a better leader of a country, but he was still not his forefathers (Dariush I and Xerxes.) And he was a good tactical leader, if you look at his tactics alone- but when he is compared to Alexander, he does not look so good. He also lacked a great deal of nerve, which was a critical problem, and which cut down severely on his tactical finesse. You can draw up good tactics all you want, but if you fail to handle your army properly and adjust to the circumstance, you will not succeed as a military leader.
Basically, Dariush III should have stuck to his imperial duties and let his generals try to handle Alexander.
I also respect your opinion, sir.~:cheers:
ShadesPanther
10-28-2005, 02:42
Whilst Haig isn't going to win a place in the pantheon of great generals, he wasn't as bad as people think. No one, French, German or British, solved the problem of assaulting a trench line until the British at Cambrai in 1917 using tanks, or the Germans in the spring of 1918 using infiltration. So if he was an idiot he was in good company. Some of his tactical decisions were actually quite good.
His predecessor, Sir John French, was far worse, and easily the worst British commander of WW1 (a hotly contested title).
Haig wanted a breakthrough but Joffre and one of Haig's Generals (I just can't remember his name) wanted a battle of attrition. As you can clearly see with the deployments it was never an attempt at a breakthrough. Of Course It is kind of his fault for not getting his way.
One thing people never mention is that the British won the battle of attrition. The Germans lost more men and better trained and experienced men too.
As for Haig, didn't he build himself quite a reputation during the colonial wars in Africa? Or am I confusing him with another British commander of that era?
He fought in India, Sudan (Ommaduran) and the Boer war.
He was relativel successful and was like by the PM so basically he replaced French, Who did try but was untimately out of his depth.
Azi Tohak
10-28-2005, 03:41
First thought: Dolly
Second thought: McClellan.
Azi
Mouzafphaerre
10-28-2005, 04:32
.
Now I would say Napoléon and all of you would laugh at me so I won't. ~D But if I siad, I would affirm that it wasn't about his tactical genius on land but the ultimate lack of it at sea. ~;)
.
.
Now I would say Napoléon and all of you would laugh at me so I won't. ~D But if I siad, I would affirm that it wasn't about his tactical genius on land but the ultimate lack of it at sea. ~;)
.
He was an artillery officer... It is perfectly understandable that he didn't understand the sea. He did try to force Britain's hand, but his navy simply wasn't up for the task. Outnumbered and outgunned (in rate of fire), it didn't have a chance.
Anyway, lets not go into the Darius III discussion again. We did that a couple months ago and firmly established that he was more than capable, just he met a genius in the field.
Mouzafphaerre
10-28-2005, 12:32
.
I didn't say. ~D
.
Prodigal
10-28-2005, 14:18
I am reading Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser and General Elphinstone, commander of the British expeditionnary force in Afghanistan, seems to be one of the worst commanders in history. A bed-ridden old woman would have been better suited to commanding an army than he did.
Are you reading them for the first time? If so congratulations! The footnotes on some of the people that crop up are amazing...The doctor from Philly that the Man who would be king was based on. The general who got expelled from Rugby school for mutiny, they blew in the headmasters door with a cannon apparently...Class stuff.
For real military idiots through history, Hitler hands down, then Napoleon. Reasons: "Lets declare war on America!", "Russia, yeah lets invade Russia..."
Grey_Fox
10-28-2005, 16:52
Elphinstone in his younger days was a very competent soldier. It was criminal of his superiors to put an old, tired, bed-ridden man in charge of an expeditionary force that was expected to cross rough, hostile territory.
Kongamato
10-28-2005, 20:14
Anybody here read of Sukhomlinov? This man was responsible for Russia's war preparations in World War I. Why Nations Go to War describes him as a lazy, debauched man in his 60s who saved all his energy for a wife that was 32 years younger than him. He prided himself in not reading a military manual in 25 years. Sounds like a boob to me.
Grey_Fox
10-28-2005, 20:36
He prided himself in not reading a military manual in 25 years.
He was probably better off not reading the doctrines of other militaries - they invariably advocated a massive frontal attack upon enemy defences.
The Stranger
10-28-2005, 20:38
Meeeeee!!!
Alexanderofmacedon
10-28-2005, 22:31
First thought: Dolly
Second thought: McClellan.
Azi
McClellan actually could have been one of the best, he had one flaw:
He hesitated too much.
:duel:
Grey_Fox
10-29-2005, 00:16
He hesitated too much.
Now, that is a real understatement. The man's reluctance to make a decision, any decision during battle goes beyond hesitation into the realm of cowardice. One needs only look at the Peninsular Campaign - there was less than 14000 Confederate troops between Richmond and the 100,000 strong Union army and McClellan dithered for two whole months before he made a single offensive move at a time when all he had to do was march forward, take a few casualties and keep on marching. The war could have (and should have) ended in 1862, instead this monumental lack of action caused the war to be extended for another 3 years causing the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides.
Or you could look at Antietam - the only thing that convinced McClellan to start marching was the Lost Order, and even that couldn't make him fight a decisive action when everything was going for him.
The ironic thing is that his men loved him.
The Wizard
10-29-2005, 00:54
Whichever fool decided the Turks in WW1 were gonna be a pushover. Whoops -- they were Turks after all. Fought like lions:charge:
ShadesPanther
10-29-2005, 01:14
Whichever fool decided the Turks in WW1 were gonna be a pushover. Whoops -- they were Turks after all. Fought like lions:charge:
The Turks were defeated by the Russians in the Caucasus and did quite well in Palestine and Iraq.
The landings at Gallipoli would of had a quite f]good chance of success if they hadn't landed on the wrong beach and/or hesitated
The Wizard
10-29-2005, 01:31
I thought the Russian attack over the Caucasus was a big disaster? It didn't accomplish anything...
Adrian II
10-29-2005, 01:33
And I thought I had just run into history's shortest-lived thread...My first thought was of the Fallen Madonna by Van Klomp -- I am Dutch, what can I say?
Seriously, without feeling the urge to engage in 'what-if' history, I must say that the Ming ban on overseas trade in the early 16th century strikes me as arguably the most eventful blunder in history.
Well I would have to discover if we are wanting to discuss overall military career or just the greatest boob based upon one battle.
Several come to mind - when looking at just one battle.
For instance just look at the American War of Independence. Cornwallis allowed his troops to become trapped at Yorktown, and according to some histories this happened because he disobeyed an order to defend in the Carolinas. (Not sure on the validity of that one - since I can not remember where I read it.)
Other key battles were lost because a medium capability general made a poor decision at a crucial moment.
However if I was going to label any one General one of the greatest boobs in History - it would be General George Custer. Now that general was definetly a boob. Disobeyed orders, attacked what he knew was going to be a superior force, seperated his units across terrian that hampered their efforts to overwatch each other, and the worst of them - refused the advice of his scouts. They suspected and had the signs that told them the force they were facing was far superior in numbers then what the orginial expectations were.
Red Harvest
10-29-2005, 02:33
McClellan's men loved him because he lavished supplies on them and acted more as their protector than as their general.
What is really frightening about McClellan is that he was so egotistical and self deluded that he flirted with the idea of marching on Washington. The guy was like a timid version of Julius Caesar. He had Caesar's ambition, but not his courage. Walter Mitty meets Caesar? He was one of the bigger threats to our nation as he did not appreciate the idea of the military being a servant of the civilian leadership; lucky for us he lacked the cojones to act on his ambition.
If you read enough of McClellan's own letters and dispatches you will be inclined to view him as vainglorious and somewhat insane. He was driven by fear of what the enemy was doing out of his sight, and he let his imagination get the better of him as a result.
This is in marked contrast to Grant. Sherman said this of Grant, ""I'm a darned sight smarter than Grant; I know a great deal more about war, military histories, strategy and grand tactics than he does; I know more about organization, supply, and administration and about everything else than he does; but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."
Red Harvest
10-29-2005, 02:43
However if I was going to label any one General one of the greatest boobs in History - it would be General George Custer. Now that general was definetly a boob. Disobeyed orders, attacked what he knew was going to be a superior force, seperated his units across terrian that hampered their efforts to overwatch each other, and the worst of them - refused the advice of his scouts. They suspected and had the signs that told them the force they were facing was far superior in numbers then what the orginial expectations were.
And there was more. According to Indian witnesses/scouts, he could see what was happening to Reno, and could have come to his aid perhaps routing the Indians, but did not. Instead, he allowed his divided command to be defeated in detail.
Custer was always wreckless. His regiments suffered tremendous casualties during the ACW. However, this boldness was what the Federal cavalry arm was lacking in many instances, so he got results, despite the heavy losses. (Things like killing J.E.B Stuart and routing his forces at Yellow Tavern.)
Mouzafphaerre
10-29-2005, 05:02
.
The proto-fascist "İttihad ve Terakki" government is responsible for the Ottoman Empire being in WW1, if at all on the wrong side. Actually, the British were really surprised by the declaration of war.
A self decorated genius and Paşa (general) from lieutenant, Enver, caused some 30,000 troops die without firing a single bullet nor being fought by anybody, at the Caucasus.
.
Mouzafphaerre
10-29-2005, 05:03
I thought the Russian attack over the Caucasus was a big disaster? It didn't accomplish anything...
.
Yes. Turks were defeated by their own commander in chief, Enver Paşa.
.
The Wizard
10-29-2005, 15:52
.
The proto-fascist "İttihad ve Terakki" government is responsible for the Ottoman Empire being in WW1, if at all on the wrong side. Actually, the British were really surprised by the declaration of war.
A self decorated genius and Paşa (general) from lieutenant, Enver, caused some 30,000 troops die without firing a single bullet nor being fought by anybody, at the Caucasus.
.
Ah yes, Enver Pasha. Clear-cut madman if there ever was one! Well, excluding Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot... he fits right in ~;)
Grey_Fox
10-30-2005, 01:27
Well, another factor that pushed Turkey into the war was the German warships that anchored just outside Istanbul. They bombarded a Russian base, then scuttled back to Istanbul. When Russia started threatening Turkey to hand over the German ships, the Germans threatened to bombard Istanbul. This added to the fact that Britain decided to stop the sale of dreadnoughts that had already been paid for by the Turks brought them into the war.
Tribesman
10-30-2005, 02:47
Well, another factor that pushed Turkey into the war was the German warships that anchored just outside Istanbul. They bombarded a Russian base, then scuttled back to Istanbul. When Russia started threatening Turkey to hand over the German ships, the Germans threatened to bombard Istanbul.
How can that be ?
When the Goeben attacked Sebastopol it did it in company with 3 Turkish ships , the Breslau attacked Novorossisk and Theodosia with another Turkish ship and the attack on Odessa was done solely by Turkish ships .
Reverend Joe
10-30-2005, 03:31
Now that I think of it, the greatest boob in history was Al Tennyson, the jerk who helped to overblow the disastrous Light Brigade charge on the Don Cossack battery (I can't remember the name of the battle.) Only around 100 brigadiers were killed, and another 50 were captured, yet they took all the glory, whilst the Turks, the real heroes of the battle, held for three hours, under far more severe bombardment (30 guns), and against a massive Russian assault. They were used as scapegoats by the British commander, who got there three hours late, and came just in time to see the four redoubts fall. They also formed two-thirds of the thin red line, and without the disciplined, hardy Turks the Scots would have collapsed. And afterwards, they were porters for the wounded French and British.
Okay, maybe Tennyson wasn't the Boob in this situation, but I'm still pissed about it.
Mouzafphaerre
10-30-2005, 04:34
Well, another factor that pushed Turkey into the war was the German warships that anchored just outside Istanbul. They bombarded a Russian base, then scuttled back to Istanbul. When Russia started threatening Turkey to hand over the German ships, the Germans threatened to bombard Istanbul. This added to the fact that Britain decided to stop the sale of dreadnoughts that had already been paid for by the Turks brought them into the war.
.
That was a simple, too simple plot arranged by the government, determined to go to war on the German side from day 1. ~:handball:
.
Grey_Fox
10-30-2005, 12:43
Hmm. I really should have looked again at 'Castles of Steel' again before I wrote that. Sorry.
Red Harvest,
you mentioned mcclellan flirted with marching on washington, and didn't lincoln suspect hooker of wanting to do the same also? why did some of the commanders of the best equipped and supplied union army harbor treason thoughts?
i could understand if their men were suffering due to a lack of war material, or if they felt lincoln was too soft on the objective, but lincoln was for total victory too so that negates that idea. i assume the horror of a civil war within the civil war partially held them back.
Tribesman
10-30-2005, 16:55
Among the first candidates I'd place Marshal Semyon Michailowich Budyonny and Sir Redvers Buller.
Yup, that's where I learned to laugh at Buller.
Geoffrey , Buller was made a scapegoat for the failings of the military and the politicians (plus some disgraced businessmen who should never have been influencing policy , let alone strategy) .
Buller never wanted to split his forces , neither did he want to cross the Tuegla until he and his forces were ready .
White should never have advanced and been cut off , Baden-Powell was a complete failure in his mission to re-enact the Jamestown raid and like White ended up besieged .
By exagerating the threat of the sieges Rhodes forced the armies hand , with disasterous results .
Roberts , who replaced Buller , managed to not only destroy the only large mobile force the British had he also lost his supplies condemning his men to suffering from hunger and disease .
The Boer war on the whole was one blunder after another , and the lessons were not learned , which makes it a very big boob .
Oh and Baden-Powell should have been in front of a courts-martial facing up to the serious charges against him , not trying to repeat an previously failed pre-emptive strike that had no chance of success and was guarateed to start an uneccesary conflict for the most dubious of reasons .
A far better candidate for an incompetant British commander would be Gen. Townsend and the Iraq campaign .
The Wizard
10-30-2005, 18:19
Now that I think of it, the greatest boob in history was Al Tennyson, the jerk who helped to overblow the disastrous Light Brigade charge on the Don Cossack battery (I can't remember the name of the battle.) Only around 100 brigadiers were killed, and another 50 were captured, yet they took all the glory, whilst the Turks, the real heroes of the battle, held for three hours, under far more severe bombardment (30 guns), and against a massive Russian assault. They were used as scapegoats by the British commander, who got there three hours late, and came just in time to see the four redoubts fall. They also formed two-thirds of the thin red line, and without the disciplined, hardy Turks the Scots would have collapsed. And afterwards, they were porters for the wounded French and British.
Okay, maybe Tennyson wasn't the Boob in this situation, but I'm still pissed about it.
That is true, to a certain extent. There was a brilliant Turkish commander present at Balaclava (the battle in question IIRC), whose name escapes me, who held off the Russians masterfully in Moldavia as well, on the outset of the war.
Ah, I remembered. It was Omar Pasha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Pasha) (not sure if that link is correct -- it is quite pro-Turkish, especially in its description of his actions at Eupatoria).
Geoffrey S
10-30-2005, 18:33
Wizard, what's up with the new avatar?
Geoffrey , Buller was made a scapegoat for the failings of the military and the politicians (plus some disgraced businessmen who should never have been influencing policy , let alone strategy) .
...
Oh and Baden-Powell should have been in front of a courts-martial facing up to the serious charges against him , not trying to repeat an previously failed pre-emptive strike that had no chance of success and was guarateed to start an uneccesary conflict for the most dubious of reasons .
I'll read up on some more info about all this; taking what was said in that Greatest Blunders book for granted wasn't too bright, considering their goals.
The Wizard
10-30-2005, 18:37
What's wrong with it?
And you must admit that Buller made some important mistakes that greatly protracted the Second Boer War.
Mouzafphaerre
10-30-2005, 19:49
.
On Ömer Paşa
I'm holding the relevant volume of the Ottoman History by Ziyâ Nur Aksun*, which is quite reliable in its access and analysis of primary and secondary sources, but definitely not in his solid apologetic "Ottoman" stance, although it's almost a non issue in this case.
:duel:
Ömer Paşa was promoted to "Serdâr-ı Ekrem" (Commander-in-Chief) following his triumphant defense of Chatana. The following accounts are related to later events.
Aksun quotes from a letter of the British ambassador Canning, without credit:
"I sent Sir J. Burgoyne to convince Ömer, about thoughtlessly to cross the Danube, which would endanger himself, his army and the Empire. He seems to have calmed down by now."
(non-verbal translation)
Aksun's apologetic style makes a brief entrance to accuse Ömer Paşa for being sold out to the British (which almost obviously contradicts with his own quotation) but the status of Austria, who auto-proclaimed herself the guardian of the Donau (phrase taken from Aksun) with the subtext of entering the war on the Russian side, was the true concern of Canning et al. Indeed, with Bucaresht secured and Russia practically defeated, an overpowered Ottoman Empire would alert Austria in the most radical way.
:charge:
The next account, though, a qoute from the History of Cevdet (contemporary chronicler) is apparently in favour of Ömer Paşa, who suggested to assault and capture Besarabia. The British and French disagreed and Crimea was attacked instead. The pronounced reasoning of this was more effective naval support, and for the British, the destruction of the Russian base at Sevastapol (Akyar). But Cevdet thinks it was due to Austrian threat.
:knight:
My quick and dirty conclusion of Ömer Paşa is a brilliant tactician but lacking in greater (political) strategic aspect.
:book2:
Ziyâ Nur Aksun, Osmanlı Târihi, V. 2 pp. 348 - 349, Ötüken Neşriyat Istanbul 1994, ISBN 975 - 437 - 145 - 8
*I know the author personally. He has been parallyzed since 1976 and wrote more than half of his history in that state. Whatever the outcome, the endeavor is respectworthy. :bow:
.
Geoffrey S
10-30-2005, 20:27
What's wrong with it?
And you must admit that Buller made some important mistakes that greatly protracted the Second Boer War.
The fact that he made some large mistakes isn't in question; whether they were enough to merit him the dubious award of 'one of history's biggest boobs' may be. As I said I don't know enough about him to really make a fair judgement, since my only real knowledge of him is from various small bits of information and the Military Blunders book, which may not be the most reliable or balanced source for such information.
Tribesman
10-30-2005, 23:01
Wizard , Buller did make mistakes , mainly giving in to political pressure over military neccecity , but also by using unsuitable tactics for modern warfare .
His successors continued to use those same tactics throughout most of the battles which is even more of a blunder . Kitchener even over ruled others and ordered a frontal assault against entrenched positions at walking pace in mass formation as though it was some sort of parade ground .
14 years later they would prove that they hadn't learned anything at all .
Buller is often criticised for the loss of the guns at Colenso (where Roberts' son died "saving the guns") yet in 1914 they still lost lots of men doing exactly the same thing , deploying artillery in the open without protection where there crews would be cut down and any one who tried to "save the guns" faced the same fate .
So perhaps the nomination for biggest boobs should go to the multitude of military commanders who have , throughout history , failed to adapt to new innovations , changing tactics and the various different landscapes and climates on different battlefields .
Byzantine Prince
10-30-2005, 23:47
This thread is a huge blunder. Where are the damn b00bs!?!? :furious3:
Strike For The South
10-31-2005, 00:57
This thread is a huge blunder. Where are the damn b00bs!?!? :furious3:~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:
Gregoshi
10-31-2005, 01:16
This thread is a huge blunder. Where are the damn b00bs!?!? :furious3:
BP & sfts - thanks for volunteering. ~;) What a pair! :laugh4:
Byzantine Prince
10-31-2005, 01:21
BP & sfts - thanks for volunteering. ~;) What a pair! :laugh4:
One does as one sees... ~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.