Worst military mistakes.

Partly inspired by the pathetic characters thread, What are the biggest mistakes made in the theatre of war throughout the ages. I will start with just a few. However if you have an insignificant yet random/funny mistake like the one I'm including, I wanna hear it.

Charge of the light Brigade - 'you see that fortified valley with artillery at the end? Charge at it lads.'

A minor action in the Korean war - A british unit was under intensive attack and taking heavy fire and casualty and when asked how heavy the fighting was, he told the american radio operater that it was "getting a bit sticky". Unfortunatly, the American didn't understand typical British Understatement and the unit suffered heavy casualty when no reinforcements or support was sent to them. Always remember the language barrier in war when dealing with multinational armies.

On a side note which you shouldn't discuss here. And I'm WARNING YOU! This Website is the funniest thing I Have EVER READ! Not this specific blog, but it's general themes I find hilarious as they are A) Completly Juxtaposed to my own, and B) Mainly mad. http://depleteduranium.blogspot.com/...ycott-bbc.html

operation barbarosa... WWII ... ,that war front anhihilated the german army
Teutoberg forest... surely there were ways to avoid it...
Carrhae
Cannae

the list goes on and on...

Carrhae
Cannae
Phyrrus war with Romans
Iraq War
USSR war in Finland
WW1 period
1967 war between Israel and Arabs

WWI war of position period.

We're stalled ? Alright, time for another offensive. Machine guns and artillery ? Nothing that can't be dealt with a bit of bravery...
Or, in more general terms, applying 19th century warfare in the first 20th c. war.

War in general?
:beam:

Metaurus aka: why using fabian tactics doesn't work in Italy if you aren't the romans.

The Charge of the Light Brigade was so crazy it almost worked. If they'd stopped to spike the Russian guns, history might have remembered them a little differently.

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah :angry: ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

French invasion of Russia 1812

Aleutian Islands Campaign in WWII

Peloponnesian War - Sicilian Expedition

Don't remember the name of the battle, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about and can help me.

During WWI. British positions were taking cover in a trench, their goal was to advance onto a german fortified position, provided with stationary machine guns etc. The british officer in charge thought it would be a good idea to charge head on, all out infantry, on this fortified position.

The Germans were so shocked by this, they eventually stopped firing their guns and allowed the survivors to escape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tapanojum

Don't remember the name of the battle, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about and can help me.

---

possible the battles of Ypres

german nickname for such battles "Die Knochenmühle" something like "the bonegrinder"

Wasn't that the one where they used the gases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

Wasn't that the one where they used the gases?

---

yupp, at the second battle 1915 i think,
after the french tested gas 1914...

As the gas warfare goes, it's perhaps one of the finer examples of the phenomenom of escalation. What it started out as was the French using simple tear gas grenades against bunkers; what it developed into was kilometer after kilometer of the battlefront being wrapped up in clouds of whatever nasty shit the chemists had managed to come up with, and civilians *kilometers* behind the front having to be issued masks during the worst saturation attacks...
Seriously nasty stuff, and not even particularly militarily effective actually.

yep, but the french used tear gas from police supplies, the germans went the whole way and used chloride.

One of the all time highs probably is azincourt.
Don't wait for your crossbowmen to do their part, charge across a muddy field, get bogged down, cut to pieces and let a third of the army flee before getting involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

As the gas warfare goes, it's perhaps one of the finer examples of the phenomenom of escalation. ...
Seriously nasty stuff, and not even particularly militarily effective actually.

---

Absolute!

War is made by peopel how know, but don´t kill each other and fought by peopel how don´t know but have to kill each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiddler

One of the all time highs probably is azincourt.
Don't wait for your crossbowmen to do their part, charge across a muddy field, get bogged down, cut to pieces and let a third of the army flee before getting involved.

---

The crossbowmen had kind of already lost the arrow-fight, but anyway that's the limitations of the feudal chain of command and period methods of communication (ie. shouting loudly) for you. C^2 issues were actually the main reason the French armied seemingly paradoxically tended to perform way better when they were small, and blundered disastrously when they were large.

As far as military mistakes go... if Operation Barbarossa was heavy on the desperate gambling, wistful thinking and pure blinkered superiority complex on the part of the Germans, their initial success was most certainly greatly assisted by the blunt fact that when it came to the disposition, deployement etc. of the Red Army in Poland Stalin had picked up the Idiot Ball and hung on to it quite stubbornly. Massing the divisions densely right at the border just meant the German assault promptly overran through both lines before the reserves had any time to react, nevermind now being something of a textbook example of How Not To Deploy Your Forces Period anyway. Putting an incompetent sycophant in charge of the whole front for the better part of the peace period, and then pretty much panicking and issuing idiotic orders to the commanders when the Germans attacked, weren't exactly Uncle Joe's brighter moments either.

End result was that the Soviets had to fight a desperate rearguard action all the way to the gates of Moscow with shattered remnants and hastily raised conscripts until the massively overstretched German logistics finally keeled over...

Allied invasion of Gallipoli (WWI) - Yeah, like attacking entrenched turks is a good idea.

Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990) - "Nobody will care if we just walk in there, right?" (Saddam Hussein to his advisors, august 1990)

USSR invasion of Finland 1939 - How to get your ass handed to yourself by knife-wielding alcoholics.

All marches towards Russia (Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler) - ...becausing learning from history is boring

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

All marches towards Russia (Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler) - ...becausing learning from history is boring

---

The funny thing is, Napie and Adolf failed because aiming for Moscow terminally overstretched their lines of communication; Charlex XII failed because he didn't aim for St. Petersburg (which would've forced Peter to stand and fight or lose his pet new city) but instead rather pointlessly chased the Russian field army down into the Ukraine, terminally overstretching his lines of communication to the Baltic littoral.

Dumb kid got his priorities wrong, basically. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tapanojum

Don't remember the name of the battle, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about and can help me.

During WWI. British positions were taking cover in a trench, their goal was to advance onto a german fortified position, provided with stationary machine guns etc. The british officer in charge thought it would be a good idea to charge head on, all out infantry, on this fortified position.

The Germans were so shocked by this, they eventually stopped firing their guns and allowed the survivors to escape.

---

Pretty much any battle in WW1. The whole thing was bloody stupid.

BOT, I would say that Arnham in WW2 was pretty bad, likewise was Charge of the light Brigade. Mind you, the latter was just misunderstood instructions, the commander sent the message 'Charge those guns', but the LBV got the wrong ones.

Any and all military decisions made by the Carthaginian Senate throughout its history.

Gotta agree with the USSR invasion of Finland, poorly planned invasions by poorly equiped untrained soldiers with incompetent commanders seldom works.

Speaking of the USSR I feel compelled to mention Afghanistan. By all rights the USSR should have steamrolled but they got their arses handed to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

Any and all military decisions made by the Carthaginian Senate throughout its history.

Gotta agree with the USSR invasion of Finland, poorly planned invasions by poorly equiped untrained soldiers with incompetent commanders seldom works.

---

Plus, Finland were damned good at artic warfare:

https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/39...fdgfgfgey9.png
https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/39...117bb198f2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The crossbowmen had kind of already lost the arrow-fight, but anyway that's the limitations of the feudal chain of command and period methods of communication (ie. shouting loudly) for you. C^2 issues were actually the main reason the French armied seemingly paradoxically tended to perform way better when they were small, and blundered disastrously when they were large.

---

I would go as far as to say the problem was the character of the french army in the first part of the second half of the war (:dizzy2:). Large armies could only be assembled by calling up the feudal levies (i.e. knights) and they where a independent-minded, unruly mob, going as far as to squable the night before the battle about who would get a place in the vangaurd.
The english army of Henry of the other hand was a professional force, and henry was the undisputed leader, so c2 (or c3, for a closed loop) where much easier to attain.
Whenever the french got a commander who could get things done in his way (DuGuesclin, Dunois etc) and weren't burdened with a swath of overzealous nobles, the english faced a much steeper task.

Quote:

---

The funny thing is, Napie and Adolf failed because aiming for Moscow terminally overstretched their lines of communication; Charlex XII failed because he didn't aim for St. Petersburg (which would've forced Peter to stand and fight or lose his pet new city) but instead rather pointlessly chased the Russian field army down into the Ukraine, terminally overstretching his lines of communication to the Baltic littoral.

---

Hitler was rather erratic in his decisions, i.e. the german armored forces were suddenly reassigned to the south to get the "wheatbasket" of the ukraine, spent 4 weeks destroying the russians around kiew and then had to restart the drive to moscow, getting bogged down in mud and later snow.
Stands to questions what would have happened if Army Group Centre had 4 more weeks to get moscow.
Luckily, the world never had to find out.

Maybe the rule "never wage a land war in asia" should be ammended with "without having a clear, reachable objective. No, conquering the world is not a clear reachable objective."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Plus, Finland were damned good at artic warfare:

---

While it's certainly quite frosty around here in the winter, the arctics proper only start at the northern part of the country. The issue was really simply that the Finnish army was fighting according to how it was trained and equipped for, ie. as a light-infantry army oriented for forest warfare. Even without their absurd lack of reconnaissance and proper preparations the initial Soviet thrusts made the cardinal mistake of trying to operate like the force oriented for mobile warfare on the Eurasian plain that the Red Army primarily was, and were duly completely out of their depth in the endless forests of the Northern Coniferous Belt. (The Germans would have the selfsame problem against the Soviets in northern Finland - and forested lands in general - later on; their fancy Blitzkrieg stuff just didn't work there.)

That IIRC the formations used hailed from the steppe regions and duly didn't know the first thing about forests in general of course didn't help one bit.

Something of a modern re-enactement of the infamous Braddock Expedition really, when you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodge

Speaking of the USSR I feel compelled to mention Afghanistan. By all rights the USSR should have steamrolled but they got their arses handed to them.

---

Oh the Russkies could steamroll all right. But just like the British a century earlier, that didn't avail them much because the local opposition just didn't fight in those terms.

Persistent guerilla warfare is like that. There's no question that in anything approaching a straight fight the Soviets and the British could reliably enough pulverize whoever was foolish enough to expose himself as a target that way. It was the endless ambushes, raids and the sheer inability to actually establish a secure hold on the land that sent them packing. (The Brits back in the day had more or less made like the Romans in Germania, largely staying the hell out save for punitive expeditions and settling for securing the border of their actually valuable lands.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiddler

Maybe the rule "never wage a land war in asia" should be ammended with "without having a clear, reachable objective. No, conquering the world is not a clear reachable objective."

---

It's actually just "don't wage war in general unless you actually know what you're doing". The Russian climate and geography was after all never much of an obstacle to invaders who actually prepared accordingly and knew the score (eg. the Polish-Lithuanians and Swedes in the 1500s), or hailed from the selfsame environment and were duly up to the task by default (eg. the steppe nomads).

The ones who floundered were those who came half cocked and/or failed to appreciate the sheer scale of the Eurasian interior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodge

Speaking of the USSR I feel compelled to mention Afghanistan. By all rights the USSR should have steamrolled but they got their arses handed to them.

---

That, and the fact that they destroyed a fair amount of the Ruins of Baktra. Bastards. But yeh, I think Afghanistan is one of those places that is almost impossible to conquer, we failed back in C19, the Russians failed pre-USSR, and in the '80s, and I believe the chinese Unsuccesfuly attempted an invasion at one point, don't quote me about that though.

Weren't the Chinese just rustling horses though ? (Albeit with an army...)

my list-
umm.... cant think of any that havent been said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah :angry: ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

---

I agree.

And before anyone attempts to argue:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...78&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...95&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

Carrhaë was a brilliant Parthian victory. A smaller Eastern cavalry force decisively defeats a significantly larger body of Romans, through an excellent strategical plan and thanks to swift interception. The Romans could barely pass Zeugma before they went in circles in the desert until the Parthians had mounted their move of defence. To just declare the Roman defeat as a moment of incompetence is to completely overlook the brilliance of Surena.

Hey, let's use the same fallacious reasoning and declare Alexander III The Great as someone who just picked his victories from an incompetent Achaemenid King of Kings who couldn't get anything right. Read a book for once, you dolts. Crassus did what he could, and worst of all, Marcus Antonius who did pick the "Armenian route" marched to Atropatene with a force of approximately 100,000 men, and fled with his tails between the legs. The Parthian King of Kings then was not the shrewd and cunning Orodes II, but it was the crazy lunatic fratricide Phraates IV.

*cue some Roman fanboy who is going to mention Trajan or Septimius Severus as a "response"*

I must admit that I've always especially enjoyed Watchman's posts for their lack of bias and nationalism (something far too prevalent on internet forums). Very informative.

I would have to disagree with some of the previous posters on Cannae being a military mistake--at least tactically. Strategically, it never should have happened. If I may indulge in hindsight here, ol' Fabius the Cunctator was right. Of course, Varro did not have the advantage of hindsight and lacked Paullus' caution.

Having said that, Varro did not do anything wrong. At least, he did not do anything any other mediocre general would have seen as out of the ordinary. He deployed his cohorts in the standard triplex acies with the Roman legions in the center and the allies on the flanks. He positioned about a third of his cavalry (the citizens) river-side and the rest (the allies) on the left. Hannibal’s Balearic slingers dominated the skirmish, and so Varro, making his last mistake, chose to advance.

That Hannibal was able to encircle the legions is not do to any shortcoming on Varro’s part or that of his men, it is do the genius and cunning of Hannibal. AFAIK, the double envelopment was never used before in history--Varro had no way of knowing what his foe had in store for his legionaries. Which is my next point--the tenacious Romans were highly successful in breaking Hannibal’s center. The latter, as he so often did, merely used his opponents' own strengths against them. The principle of Judo comes to mind. Use your opponents momentum against him--e.g., you push, I pull; you pull, I push. Hannibal also played mind games with them, tempting them to do exactly what he wanted and expected. That is one reason why I believe that Hannibal was a better general than Alexander (on the battlefield, at least). The former would tempt the latter into doing something rash and would have no trouble capitalizing on it.

Did Varro fall for it? Most certainly. But I believe that few commanders would have done any better. Any armchair general who claims he would have seen the pincer coming is abusing the objective study of history by injecting the usage of hindsight into it. Regardless, Varro's countrymen certainly forgave him, and we should as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I agree.

And before anyone attempts to argue:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...78&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...95&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

Carrhaë was a brilliant Parthian victory. A smaller Eastern cavalry force decisively defeats a significantly larger body of Romans, through an excellent strategical plan and thanks to swift interception. The Romans could barely pass Zeugma before they went in circles in the desert until the Parthians had mounted their move of defence. To just declare the Roman defeat as a moment of incompetence is to completely overlook the brilliance of Surena.

Hey, let's use the same fallacious reasoning and declare Alexander III The Great as someone who just picked his victories from an incompetent Achaemenid King of Kings who couldn't get anything right. Read a book for once, you dolts. Crassus did what he could, and worst of all, Marcus Antonius who did pick the "Armenian route" marched to Atropatene with a force of approximately 100,000 men, and fled with his tails between the legs. The Parthian King of Kings then was not the shrewd and cunning Orodes II, but it was the crazy lunatic fratricide Phraates IV.

*cue some Roman fanboy who is going to mention Trajan or Septimius Severus as a "response"*

---

I have long ago stopped attributing the success of a people or nation in war as due to their greatness as individuals. In other words, that the Persians repeatedly defeated Romans throughout history is not due to an inherent superiority as a people, just as Caesar’s success in Gaul is not due to the inherent greatness of his legionaries in being Roman. Cue the ideas of social Darwinism and nationalism. I am not saying you are doing this, I just want to be careful.

My opinion (and it is nothing more than that) is that the Parthians were able to inflict such crushing defeats on the Romans due to their respective methods of warfare. The "Parthian shot" was virtually impossible for an army based entirely around heavy infantry to counter. The testudo was worthless as the horse archers could ride right up to the legionaries and target their vulnerable limbs and faces. Even worse for the legionaries, they would quickly grow exhausted. Then the Parthians’ could pick them off almost at will (with the assistance of heavy cavalry of course). Cue Saladin at the Battle of Hattin--you don't need to inflict casualties on a heavily armored foe in the desert. Just forcing them to wear their full armor (or, in our case, remain in the immobile testudo) is enough, and horse archers are of course a most valuable tool for this purpose. Once the heavily armored troops are tired and broken the real slaughter may commence.

That is not to discount the genius of Surena. I merely wanted to point out the tactical superiority of the Persian armament on their home terrain as equally consequential in their repeated victories of Roman legions. So I agree with you, I just wanted to extend your argument further--Carrhae was not solely the result of a fleeting moment of Roman incompetence or Persian genius, but a culmination of many factors (including third party variables we haven’t discussed such as traitorous guides).

Eh, just to nitpick, but Hattin was plenty rife with ferocious hand-to-hand combat. The Middle Eastern armies used Turkic nomads as skirmishers and light cavalry for all they were worth, certainly, but their "main strength" decisive component was shock troops.

And as the armour went, the locals often enough sported more of it than the Europeans. Old cataphract country, recall.

my general opinion is that all these pathetic defeats can go both ways-
"one mans shameful defeat is anothers heroic victory" -hooahguy

Yet we must also give credit where it is due. "Fighting on equal terms" is an illusion that we must evict. Little of it pertains to nationalism, but regardless of view of point (Whether we want to attribute brilliance or incompetence) we must be consistent. I have personally had it with the academical dogmas of western historiography. I am saying that to every coin there are two sides, and when you watch crappy History Channel shows like "Decisive battles", all we get is "Crassus did not listen, Crassus was not a general but a Roman mortgage broker, Parthians used Parthian Shot, boo-hoo here, boo-hoo there, his soldiers were mercilessly butchered, more boo-hoo, cue scene from Greek theater". And that's it.

The traitorous guide in question was depending on which source you refer to (Ariaramnes or Abgar) a client ruler, who probably remained in close affiliation to Orodes II. When you think about it, it wasn't the first time that the Romans had transgressed a treaty. Pompey had likewise his own adventures in the western reaches of the Parthian empire. Additionally, we can hardly blame the Parthians for having enough clairvoyance to know where they could count upon loyalties to their work. What we get ultimately is not so much a Parthian tactical victory but a complete strategical showcase.

To the contrary, until recent scrutiny, Orientals of antiquity have continuously been projected as back-water nations of weaklings while Graeco-Roman culture mirrors today's "Western society". Don't believe me? Recently I stumbled upon yet another one of those crazy Judeo-Christian sites that argued about the historical inspiration of the biblical "Four Horsemen" and while it is known that the first of the four may have been inspired by the Parthians, the article went as far as projecting the Romans as today's coalition forces in Iraq while the Parthians were mirrored as "Iraqi insurgents".

It is only healthy and not least, fair, to mirror the rationale by flipping the coin, just to make a point. Crassus' plan of invading the Parthians was not some random anomaly. Lucullus had his double-dealings in Armenia (Scrutinized by Cyril Toumanoff), Pompey evicting Parthian governors, Crassus leading a "private" expedition (Supported by Julius Caesar), and finally Julius Caesar himself prepares to embark an expedition against the Parthians, before he got murdered; Marcus Antonius picks up the torch, reinforces the army, chooses "the other route", and still faces defeat, not once, but twice. You know what all of this rings to my ears? Escapism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

That Hannibal was able to encircle the legions is not do to any shortcoming on Varro’s part or that of his men, it is do the genius and cunning of Hannibal. AFAIK, the double envelopment was never used before in history--Varro had no way of knowing what his foe had in store for his legionaries. Which is my next point--the tenacious Romans were highly successful in breaking Hannibal’s center. The latter, as he so often did, merely used his opponents' own strengths against them. The principle of Judo comes to mind. Use your opponents momentum against him--e.g., you push, I pull; you pull, I push. Hannibal also played mind games with them, tempting them to do exactly what he wanted and expected. That is one reason why I believe that Hannibal was a better general than Alexander (on the battlefield, at least). The former would tempt the latter into doing something rash and would have no trouble capitalizing on it.

Did Varro fall for it? Most certainly. But I believe that few commanders would have done any better. Any armchair general who claims he would have seen the pincer coming is abusing the objective study of history by injecting the usage of hindsight into it. Regardless, Varro's countrymen certainly forgave him, and we should as well.

---

Indeed, and in fact there is nothing to say that even Fabius Maximus would have acted differently, when he used his Cunctator tactics Rome did not have the army that fought at Cannae, and it´s quite possible that Fabius only tried to delay Hannibal long enough for such an army to be assembled, which would then destroy Hannibal. After all, I doubt that Fabius plan was to play mouse-and-cat with Hannibal until his army died of old age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...78&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...95&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

---

That is one of the most amusing and enlightening series of posts I've ever read, and highlights how little I really know about the Parthians. Seems that both Romans and Persians were awfully good at exploiting each others' little civil wars and internecine conflicts, and for every Herakleios (who, IMHO, was a total freakin' genius who really oughtn't have gotten dropsy in his later years) there was a Surena or a Pacorus. You mentioned the late Professor Shahbazi a lot; do you think there would be any English translations of any of his works that I could pick up?

Frankly I haven't a clue as to why it's so impossible to credit the Parthians with genius at Carrhae; it means that the Romans look better too, and that the engagement was more of a clash between an extremely skilled opponent and a competent one as opposed to a blundering farce on both sides.

As for real terrible military mistakes, I'd probably go with Demetrios' pursuit of Antiokhos off the field at Ipsos as opposed to keeping his cavalry where it could actually make a difference. While Antigonos still might not have been able to win the battle, he would have had a much better chance of things that way.

Don't mean to add fuel to a potential fire but I agree with TPC. Most historians and armchair generals today are too quick to say that " (insert name) won because they faced a stupid opponent or (insert name) lost because they were outnumbered/ambushed/etc." rather than look at battles, events and people from a sober and unbiased view. Was Crassus arrogant? Yes. Was he an incompetant and stupid general? Hardly, unless you believe the propaganda of the past 2000 years. True he did make mistakes in his campaign against Parthia, but this should not give historians and people in general the right to write him off as an idiot. It also disgusts me when people judge a person's actions 2000+ years ago by our "modern" standards such as when certain "historians" call Alexander 'A spoiled teenager who inherited his father's army and used it to satisfy his adolescent yearning for adventure.'.

I'll get off this topic for now as I'm getting irritated just thinking about those people. Not any of you guys, but certain individuals I know in real life.

Now back to the topic of Worst Military Mistakes, I would have to say the formation that Antiochus the Great used for his army at Magnesia. Stationing elephants in-between the divisions of his phalanx may have helped give the phalanx stability, but it was a catastrophe when they rampaged through the phalangites after being bombarded by pila and other missiles. The use of the obsolete war chariot in the battle is a mistake in itself, which led to them turning back from their failed charge against the Roman right and instead wreaking chaos on the Seleucid left. If Antiochus had used conventional Hellenistic tactics against the Romans (phalanx and heavy infantry in the center, elephants and cavalry on the wings, screw the chariots) he would've most likely won a solid victory in my opinion. He might've tried the knew formation after remembering Philip V's defeat, but the plains of the Hermos were near-perfect for phalanx warfare compared to the hills of Cynoscephalae where Philip met with disaster. :shame:

There's a book I have on this very topic which is quite amusing and shocking: Military Blunders: The How and Why of Military Failure by Saul David.

Featuring such highlights as British Retreat from Kabul; the Battle of Dien Bien Phu; the Fall of Singapore; the Siege of Kut; Mussolini's Invasion of Egypt; the Battle of Colenso and many more.

Quote:

---

It is only healthy and not least, fair, to mirror the rationale by flipping the coin, just to make a point.

---

Ah, I see what you were doing now. I just wanted to ensure that you were not a reactionist to what you aptly termed “the academical dogmas of western historiography.” Believe me, I had to wade through all that bull with my professors and brainwashed fellow students as well. I happened to study with a large number of Persian immigrants who challenged the system, so thankfully I was not allowed to grow dogmatic.

That said, there are also many academics who put political correctness above the objective study of history, injecting their beliefs that all things western are bad into the classroom. However they are vastly outnumbered by the other extreme from my experience. There are people from all sides who would rather inject subjectives into the debate, and it would help if objective academics from all backgrounds condemned all forms of dogmatic historiography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah :angry: ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

---

So that's why you joined the team. You can view alternate timelines.



I've had been wondering about that. :book:

As always Sarcasm, your posts make my day.:balloon2:

carrhae was a military mistake not entirely cause crassus' tactical mistakes but also cause... well they shouldn't have even tried to invade parthia :sweatdrop:



I have one no one has mentioned yet! :smash:

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn :shifty:"


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

Well there were little things like logistics and the fact the BEF and French were being rather obstructive limiting what exactly the Germans could achieve.

'Sides, given how hideously high stakes they'd gambled at and, to no small surprise to even themselves, won in that campaign, large parts of the BEF and the French northern forces getting away was a minor inconvenience.

In addition, Hitler was given an inflated damage report, where someone had represented the tanks that had broken down as "destroyed". So Hitler thought his Panzer divisions were in far worse shape then they really were.

Pearl Harbor 7/12/41 !!!!!!

My problem with Magnesia wasn't the formation of Antiochos, it was the chariots. Antiochos didn't need the chariots to overwhelm the Roman cavalry as his own was perfectly suitable for the job. Furthermore, once the cavalry were in the rear the Romans would have been lost as even the spear-armed triarii could not stand against the xyston-equipped Seleukid cavalry.

As far as Parthia is concerned - they weren't invincible or some unstoppable juggernaut. The allusions to Caesar planning a campaign was mentioned in, I believe, Suetonius and either a Parthian or Dacian campaign. I think that he could have done it, but it would hardly be a foregone conclusion either way and would likely have been tedious, taking several years to do it successfully. In turn, Crassus' biggest problem was initiating a conflict with Parthia at all.

Probably one that is lesser known is Antiochos VII's decision to winter in recently conquered territory. Rather than fall back to safer Seleukeia, which was also recently retaken, he split up his massive army into smaller garrisons and made his way to Ekbatana. Well, we all know what happened there and the world said goodbye to the last show of Seleukid strength.

Abou, any chance for a link about that last seleukid offensive? Sounds like an interesting story...

It's split up between Justin and Diodotus and discussed in Bevan as well as in Grainger's The Cities of Seleukid Syria. The idea of moving back to Seleukeia as a better alternative is my own since we see it a lot with other generals. Antiochos III, for example, would winter at Ephesos during his Thraikian campaign and Caesar would move back south rather than stay in Celtic Gaul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris1959

Pearl Harbor 7/12/41 !!!!!!

---

Ah, there we have the mother of all mistakes...along with the german subwarine warfare waged against merchantships in the atlantic during WWI and the World Trade Center Attack, this must be the most military mistakes and stupid calculations. Attacking the US and praying for no retaliation is like putting your fingers into the fire and expect not to be burned....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

my general opinion is that all these pathetic defeats can go both ways-
"one mans shameful defeat is anothers heroic victory" -hooahguy

---

Look! A really big Distraction! *Steals Motto*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

Ah, there we have the mother of all mistakes...along with the german subwarine warfare waged against merchantships in the atlantic during WWI and the World Trade Center Attack, this must be the most military mistakes and stupid calculations. Attacking the US and praying for no retaliation is like putting your fingers into the fire and expect not to be burned....

---

They were expecting retaliation, but the whole point of this attack was to destroy the Entire US Navy in one swift blow. No navy-no problem.

Also, it wasn't the Submarine Attacks, it was partly the Zimmerman Telegram, and partly because of the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a civilian Ship, but German Intelligence indicatred that it was transporting arms to Europe.

And can you honestly say that the war on Terror is a success? More Americans have died from the 'Peacekeeping', than could have died in any reasonable amount of terrorist attacks on the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

My problem with Magnesia wasn't the formation of Antiochos, it was the chariots. Antiochos didn't need the chariots to overwhelm the Roman cavalry as his own was perfectly suitable for the job. Furthermore, once the cavalry were in the rear the Romans would have been lost as even the spear-armed triarii could not stand against the xyston-equipped Seleukid cavalry.

As far as Parthia is concerned - they weren't invincible or some unstoppable juggernaut. The allusions to Caesar planning a campaign was mentioned in, I believe, Suetonius and either a Parthian or Dacian campaign. I think that he could have done it, but it would hardly be a foregone conclusion either way and would likely have been tedious, taking several years to do it successfully. In turn, Crassus' biggest problem was initiating a conflict with Parthia at all.

Probably one that is lesser known is Antiochos III's decision to winter in recently conquered territory. Rather than fall back to safer Seleukeia, which was also recently retaken, he split up his massive army into smaller garrisons and made his way to Ekbatana. Well, we all know what happened there and the world said goodbye to the last show of Seleukid strength.

---

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

Just to nitpick:

Quote:

---

Caesar would move back south rather than stay in Celtic Gaul.

---

True, but that was mostly for political reasons (so he could be closer to Rome). Cato was doubtless causing Caesar a considerable headache during and after the second thanksgiving celebration of the latter's victories. Caesar's legions generally wintered in Transalpine Gaul under their respective legates, who were not expected to show much initiative. They needn't have anyway, Caesar had no problem traveling at phenomenal speeds. His forces were kept together, however, not separated like Antiochus'.

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

I have one no one has mentioned yet! :smash:

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn :shifty:"


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

---

My grandfather was a Royal Marine at Dunkirk with the BEF. They survived for a week on boiled sweets. He was underage too, just 15 when he ran away to join up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

partly because of the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a civilian Ship, but German Intelligence indicatred that it was transporting arms to Europe.

---

It was transporting small arms to Europe. Didn't make it legal or cricket for the Germans to fire without a warning (by the rules of naval warfare of the day, anyway), but it did make the Lusitania a legitimate target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

---

:inquisitive: Uh...there is an excellent reason he merited the epithet 'Megas'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hegix

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

---

What? Antiochos' campaign against the Romans was indeed unsuccesful, but in earlier years he had stretched the Seleucid empire all the way back to Bactria again. He also (temporarily) stopped the Parthians from taking more Seleucid lands. I'm no expert on the subject, but this is what I know. I bet abou or Krusader could tell you more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

---

I mean no offence to you when I say this Che Roriniho, but in all honesty I laughed when I read that.

Antiochos III the Great was the greatest and most successful of the Seleukid kings second only to Seleukos I Nicator himself. When he ascended the throne he ruled the bare heartlands of the empire namely Syria, Assyria and most of Mesopotamia. From the moment he was crowned he was at war with every kingdom in the East, and by the time he went to war with Rome he had successfully defeated the Armenian(Hayasdan), Parthian(Pahlava) and Baktrian kings in battle and brought them back into the empire as subservient vassal states. There are many other things he did worthy of note, but I don't want to make such a post when my fellow Seleukid supporters *winks at abou* can make one much more eloquent and understandable.

Antiochos Megas has an undeserved reputation as incompetent or foolish mainly because he was portrayed as such by Roman historians. The Battle of Magnesia and the number of troops the Romans had are greatly distorted as are the losses they recieved. Antiochus routed the entire left wing of the Romans leading a charge made up of Agema, Kataphracts and Hetairoi and yet Livy and Appian say the Romans suffered only 300 casualties? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

My grandfather was a Royal Marine at Dunkirk with the BEF. They survived for a week on boiled sweets. He was underage too, just 15 when he ran away to join up.

---

yes it was tough for the BEF... and well thanks god that hitler was a military idiot (he had his moments...but... not that many...)

"hey, we have those super jets ME 262, I have an idea lets transform them into useless bombers instead of actual fighters! :idea2:"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

So that's why you joined the team. You can view alternate timelines.

I've had been wondering about that.

---

You had been wondering for long that why I've joined (And actually I have been invited not joined by myself) the team? lol Poor Sarcasm what a great pain you had :laugh4: Now I hope you feel better after disclosing this mystery :wink:

@The Persian Cataphract
Thank you for very informative posts :yes: I have PMed you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hegix

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

---

*SNORT*

So true.

I'd also add Manzikert to this list--that was a bungled campaign if there ever was one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathEmperor

I mean no offence to you when I say this Che Roriniho, but in all honesty I laughed when I read that.

Antiochos III the Great was the greatest and most successful of the Seleukid kings second only to Seleukos I Nicator himself. When he ascended the throne he ruled the bare heartlands of the empire namely Syria, Assyria and most of Mesopotamia. From the moment he was crowned he was at war with every kingdom in the East, and by the time he went to war with Rome he had successfully defeated the Armenian(Hayasdan), Parthian(Pahlava) and Baktrian kings in battle and brought them back into the empire as subservient vassal states. There are many other things he did worthy of note, but I don't want to make such a post when my fellow Seleukid supporters *winks at abou* can make one much more eloquent and understandable.

Antiochos Megas has an undeserved reputation as incompetent or foolish mainly because he was portrayed as such by Roman historians. The Battle of Magnesia and the number of troops the Romans had are greatly distorted as are the losses they recieved. Antiochus routed the entire left wing of the Romans leading a charge made up of Agema, Kataphracts and Hetairoi and yet Livy and Appian say the Romans suffered only 300 casualties? :inquisitive:

---

Ooops... That'll be my bad then. Sorry, Antiochos Megas!

*Runs, accidently leaving a Fig Leaf behind*

Not exactly military mistake, but more like a major mistake in general.

King Fu-Ch'ai of the state of WU being overrun by the state of Yueh.

Fu-Ch'ai had defeated Yueh and instead of exterminating the leading power in charge, he allowed Kou-Chien of Yueh to live. (Of course, great gifts and bribes were given for the survival). Then Fu-Cha'ai allowed his former enemy to influence his actions. Ultimately he ignored the advice from one of his best advisors/generals yet allowed Kou-Chien's propoganda to enter his mind.

The advice of course was to NOT invade the northern state. To finish taking over Yueh because they will eventually cause the destruction of Wu.

Long story short, Wu ended up invading another great state to their north while the Yueh broke alliance and invaded from the south and taking Wu for themselves just as was predicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

---

:laugh4:

About Pearl Harbour, back in my childhood I possessed a series of old Reader's Digest books containing war stories of WWII. It was practically entirely American propaganda. For example, they claimed that Japan's attack was inspired by an US navy war simulation in which exactly the same scenario was played out. Attacking US planes sneaking up on the battleships stationed in Pearl Harbour could get a very clear shot, especially if the anti-aircraft defences were caught unprepared. Even at time, I wondered that, if it were true, didn't it mean that the Americans had made the same mistake twice?

I am not sure if it was true, however. For all I know, the attack was inspired by the British raid on Taranto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

---

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...7&page=1&pp=20

Not that I like the Austrians or anything, but this is one case where they didn't screw up. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constantius III

It was transporting small arms to Europe.

---

This is a common misconception, partially fuelled by a fact that exploded violently after sinking. This wasn't because it wasd carrying arms, but because of the tightly packed coal-dust (it was a steam ship, and a reasonably often-used one, so there was lots of compacted fuel), which, like any tightly packed flammable dust, exploded violently. I don't know exactly where the rumour of it carrying explosives started, but possibly It was German, to justify it's destruction, which would make sense, as their Intel was indicating this, even though it was false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

You had been wondering for long that why I've joined (And actually I have been invited not joined by myself) the team? lol Poor Sarcasm what a great pain you had :laugh4: Now I hope you feel better after disclosing this mystery :wink:

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Huh?

---

So it wasn't just me going completely mental then? *whew* Also, Double-You Tee Eff?

Back to the topic :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Back to the topic :whip:

---

Agreed. Arnhem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

I'd also add Manzikert to this list--that was a bungled campaign if there ever was one.

---

Uh...Romanos Diogenes did just fine for most of the campaign. What lost the battle for the Romans wasn't their own mistakes or inherent inferiority (both myths) but the treachery of Andronikos Doukas, who pulled back most of the army so that the emperor and a small detachment were able to be surrounded by the Seljuqs. And really, the battle wouldn't have been such a disaster were it not for the revolt in Bulgaria that diverted Emperor Mikhael VI's and strategos Nikephoros Bryennios' attention. They were only able to send a relatively small detachment to fight the Seljuqs under Isaakios Komnenos, which was defeated. They probably should've sent Bryennios to fight the Seljuqs and Komnenos to quash the Bulgars. Anatolia was more important.

As for the Lusitania carrying arms: listed on its manifest (on the first page) were 4.2 million rounds of Remington ammo and over a thousand 3-inch shells, and (I think) some fuses too. These, being small arms, would not have contributed to any explosion (they didn't explode when shipped in bulk). Has nothing to do with the famous 'second explosion', but they were there all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constantius III

Uh...Romanos Diogenes did just fine for most of the campaign. What lost the battle for the Romans wasn't their own mistakes or inherent inferiority (both myths) but the treachery of Andronikos Doukas, who pulled back most of the army so that the emperor and a small detachment were able to be surrounded by the Seljuqs.

---

That's the bungled part, IMO. I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to bring your enemy on campaign with you, AND HAVE HIM IN CHARGE of a contingent.

But yeah, Manzikert needn't have had the effect it DID have in the long run. Or even, if Romanos managed to keep the throne. It was the resulting cascade of civil war that really did Anatolia in, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

That's the bungled part, IMO. I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to bring your enemy on campaign with you, AND HAVE HIM IN CHARGE of a contingent.

---

Yeah, it did kind of seem out of character for Romanos to leave Botaneiates at home and bring along Doukas. Kinda like Boney bringing Grouchy to Waterloo and leaving Davout behind, except Grouchy wasn't about to try to kill Napoleon (only ruin his chances of smashing the Prussians). Taking 'keep your friends close and enemies closer' to a whole new level. Normally, for roleplaying purposes in EB, I bring along generals with the 'Disloyal' trait with a 'Loyal' general on campaign, so they're not in control of a city and they don't have an army to themselves...guess this was the repercussion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

But yeah, Manzikert needn't have had the effect it DID have in the long run. Or even, if Romanos managed to keep the throne. It was the resulting cascade of civil war that really did Anatolia in, IMO.

---

Yup. Romanos' story after losing Manzikert is awfully sad. Depressing, even. Gets captured by Alp Arslan, ransoms his way out by promising to pay him when he retakes the throne, but the forces of the betrayers are too much for him, so he surrenders and promises to enter a monastery, but then gets blinded anyway and exiled. The blinding is done so badly he gets an infection and starts to die, but before he does, he collects all the money he can get to send to Alp Arslan as a gesture of good faith. Tragedy.

9/11 - how is that a military mistake?

1) You couldn't say that it helped America very much or that the terrorists are dead or ever will be.

2) You could argue that they don't represent a military force and was purely civilians attacking a civilian target.

3) and the option it wasn't terrorists but the government in which case it was a mistake because they are now stuck in Iraq.

PS: No talk about conspiracy theories are a load of crap or that the American government is evil and did it. It isn't relevent. Understood?

Regarding Pearl Harbour,
U.S embargoes against the imported oil dependent Japan were important triggers for the japanese "surprise" attack, for whom, as with the rest of the worlds political spectators, the war in the pacific was inevitable; Roosevelt desired it and the stage was set with, despite the obvious threat of a vengeful Imperial Japanese Navy, a completely unprepared american garrison on an island with a strategical advantage for a U.S attack thought more than likely by the Supreme War Council.
This could by some be considered historical revisionism but I fail to believe that any would argue against the fact ( and historical evidence ) that the attack was not as unexpected as it is often made to be.

actually ive gone to the national archives and read declassified documents of roosevelts contact with his secretary of state about pearl harbor

i believe it was at start of november or middle that the US intel detected the 4 fleet carriers and 2 battleships +-12 destroyers were gone from there northern japan harbor area
after that another doc said that roosevelt got intel of troop movement in southeast asia

well tbh US was preparing 4 war by 1940 starting with lend lease
(what better, hey lets make free tanks for allies! get those factories started)
bam 1942-- more shermans more shermans!!!!!4 years later
50,000 variants produced... epic! ... not rly

my worst i would say would be in the american revolution
general cornwallas? (SP)
barracaded himself and was surrounded by french/american force on land and sea and surrendered
thus ending the revolution and effectively saying the United states of America was borned...US of A!!

anyone mentioned the eastern font in 1941? that was the bggest blunder anyone ever made in the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

anyone mentioned the eastern font in 1941? that was the bggest blunder anyone ever made in the 20th century.

---

at the first page :2thumbsup:

Operation barbarossa

oh, i thought that read assorabrab or something..mustbe the headache.

as for that battle in romania, that was retarded: 10,000 casualties because some stupid Hussars didn't feel like sharing?? well, at least the ottoman turks had a free victory. nice to see them actually having anything after 1683 going right for them.:book::book:

My vote would go with Krusader. For "Battle of Karansebes" :laugh4:

Russian invasion of East Prussia 1914 + their further action the following 3 years

British/Indian landing attempt of Tanga 1914 with halftrained Indian troops and no recon of the area

British defence of Hong Kong 1941