Foolish

[DisruptorX]

I think that Hitler was the most foolish commander ever

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

[discovery1]

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

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

[DisruptorX]

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

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

[Craterus]

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

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

[Franconicus]

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

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

Ave Craterus,
I think it is not as simple as that.
Austria: You know that Austria was part of Germany until Napoleon. In fact the German Kaiser was also the leader of Austria/Hungary. In 1871 the Prussians did not want to have Austria as a part of the new Germany, because they wanted to dominate it. And Austria was busy with his non German regions, that would not fit into the new Germany. However, after WW1 there was no good reason why Austria should not be part of Germany. O.k., France and Italy did not want that! But most people in Austria liked the idea to become part of Germany. The Austrian government was fascistic anyway. So the 'Anschluss' was not so evil.

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

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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



~Wiz

[Franconicus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Krusader]

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

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

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

Back on-topic:

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

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

[Franconicus]

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

You are kidding. The title means that the Emperor is heir of Roman Emperor Constantine. That means he is defender of faith and leader of all Christian nations

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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



~Wiz

[Mikeus Caesar]

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

[ShadesPanther]

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

[Craterus]

It's all part of war.

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

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

[Franconicus]

Craterus,

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

[Basiliscus]

28th June 1575, Nagashino, Japan.

The most wasteful loss of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He should UNQUESTIONABLY be the most foolish commander ever.

[Craterus]

Craterus,

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

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

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

[cunctator]

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


Gaius Atilius Regulus, Battle a near Tynes 255Bc

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

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

As result all but 2000 romans were dead or prisoned.

[Meneldil]

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

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

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

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

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



~Wiz

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

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

[Kagemusha]

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

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

[Dâriûsh]

I have a one.

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

[Franconicus]

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

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

Meneldil,
we all know that luck is an essential attribute to any good commander.

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

[Basiliscus]

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

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

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

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

[The Wizard]

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



~Wiz

[Basiliscus]

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

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