Printable View
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.
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...
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.
Among the first candidates I'd place Marshal Semyon Michailowich Budyonny and Sir Redvers Buller.
Psh, have you still not finished that?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
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/v...esass/haig.jpg
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.
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. 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.
Yup, that's where I learned to laugh at Buller.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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:
.
Who was the Commander of the commonwelth soldiers who attacked Galliopol in WW I ?
I have always thought that the attack was just waist.
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.
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!
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.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Ian Hamilton was effectively the commander I think, but it was Churchill's plan.
.
Burnside's main problem was that he was rather one-dimensional on the field. He failed to do things properly on his own initiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
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.
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.
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?Quote:
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.
:bow:
Haig was responsible for Passchendaele, Third Ypres.
That alone justifies his infamous inclusion in any Grand Order of the Idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
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 ~;)
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.
Isn't Haig known as 'the Scot who managed to kill the most Englishmen in history'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony