Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 6th, 2013, 03:09 PM   #91

The Second Horseman's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Alesia
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Trajan View Post
Here is my list of the worst gernals in History


2. Romulus Augustulus- failure to keep an empire together and to stop barbarian onslaughts



That is my list
Okay Romulus Agustulus was just a kid when the empire collapsed. For all intensive purposes the Western Empire no longer existed. 476 is just a convenient date that some historians use to signal the end because it was when a "barbarian" became emperor. Augustulus was not a commander just a kid who was a puppet of other men. The empire west died with the death of Stilico. However, at that point nothing could be done to prevent collapse.

I think the worst emperor is someone we have never heard of.
The Second Horseman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 6th, 2013, 03:57 PM   #92

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 7,689
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
At the Granicus, he set up one of the worst battlefield deployments of all time by having his light cavalry in front, defending the river, while he had the Greek mercenaries in the rear, where they would be perfectly useless for the battle. If he thought doing this would win glory for the Persian element in his army, then maybe we can comprehend what he was actually thinking, but if he was actually trying to win and stop Alexander, then...well...
The plan wasn't that bad. They wanted to form a defensive position at the river, to try and take advantage of a weakness in the phalanx, the ability in losing cohesion whilst fording the river. The deployment may not have been spectacular, but it was Alexander's quick thinking in attacking immediately, that changed the outcome of the battle. Parmenio wanted to ford at a shallower part.

The Greek mercenaries were under Memnons control. Yes, they became useless, but Memnon didn't want to fight there in the first place.

Quote:
As for trying to kill Alexander (thus winning that way) it could have been done with the opposite deployment. The point was, in his mind at least, HE had to be the one to do it.
Possibly, but the cavalry may have been able to take advantage of the fissure more than the mercenaries. Its up for debate ofc. As it was, the opportunity to kill Alexander did arise. He entered too fa into the enemy position on his own. Cleitus saved Alexander's proverbial behind in this battle. The same Cleitus Alexander murdered in a drunken rage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
True, but he certainly didn't make success difficult for them in the instances where they each respectively faced him. Though I honestly might replace Villeroi with the Duke of Burgundy for Marlborough and Eugene's worst opponent. Oudenarde may not have gone so badly for the French had Vendome not been held back (figuratively) by Burgundy.
I would agree with this assesment. Burgundy was a fool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
Fair enough, his performance at Monmouth was completely abysmal though. Then again, he was practically accused of treason, which probably wasn't right.
He was able, but his performance in the ARW was pathetic, and he literally got caught in his dressing gown by Tarleton.

Quote:
Maybe, but he definitely should have been far more careful and aware of his situation than he ended up being.
Napoleons maneouvering was a masterpiece in this particular battle. I don't see how. He just got pinned by a slowly decreasing net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Haig has a claim to be the greatest British General ever, none before had to face his problems, none had to use such a large army, none had to create that army from almost nothing, none had to face the changing technology,

"stumble from one costly catastrophe" in four short years they went from '19th century' warfare to armoured all arms attacks thats a great deal to get your head around!!

I agree with this for the most part. He made many mistake, but he was ultimately a winner. I would've been interested to see how Grierson handled the war if he didn't die in the early stages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
As redcoat opined about Haig above, Chelmsford won his war too. Ultimately, it was difficult for him to have lost it, given the firepower at his disposal.

He made the mistake of splitting his column at Isandlwana, but even the force left behind could well have been enough to beat the Zulu, given sufficient preparation, which the local commander, Colonel Pulleine, did not take.
Chelmsford was definitely outwitted by the Zulus in this particular battle, but made up for it later on, with devastating squares. He was mediocre though, imo.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 03:59 PM   #93

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,640
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
I would actually argue Henry Halleck should be considered the worst Federal of the war, followed by Franz Sigel.
A good case can be and has been made (by you) for Halleck. While Sigel makes the list, I don't think he should top it; there's some minimal redeeming moments for him. He actually performed competently at Second Manassas, helping significantly with the rearguard action on the second day, and his tactical performance on the second day of Pea Ridge was very good. I don't see any redeeming value to Fremont or Butler, as generals.
Viperlord is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 04:00 PM   #94

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
¤ Blog of the Year ¤
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,280
Blog Entries: 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Trajan View Post
1. Xerxes I of Persia- failure to kill 300 Spartens for 3 days.
It's not as though he threw his army against theirs (and their 1000-some allies) on an open field. They enjoyed the advantage of position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Trajan View Post
2. Romulus Augustulus- failure to keep an empire together and to stop barbarian onslaughts
There is so much wrong with this statement, but I will start with the obvious - he was a kid and a puppet ruler (not to mention, not a general).
Salah is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 04:02 PM   #95

xander.XVII's Avatar
Alalai!
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Outer world
Posts: 3,701

Cadorna, Badoglio, Bastico,Soddu, Guzzoni,Capello, Persano, La Marmora, Graziani
Aside from Italy: Townshend,Emperor Valens, Mack, Joseph Bonaparte, Haig, Lord Chatham, Budyonny, Himmler, Keitel, Nivelle (at least his offensive), Percival,Dupont as far as I can remember.
xander.XVII is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 04:04 PM   #96

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 7,689
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
It's not as though he threw his army against theirs (and their 1000-some allies) on an open field. They enjoyed the advantage of position.
Yep, agreed. The Hot gates were a force multiplier which utterly favoured the Spartans, until they were flanked. They had the advantage of nullfying the numbers, the advantage of facing a frontal attack, the advantage of heavy vs light infantry and th ability to put their superior killing power into operation.

Xerxes was no fool. He flanked them as soon as he was able. His efforts after the defeat at Salamis were half -assed though.



Quote:
There is so much wrong with this statement, but I will start with the obvious - he was a kid and a puppet ruler (not to mention, not a general).
I think the first one suffices
Mangekyou is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 04:05 PM   #97

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,479

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
Yeah, you're right, I did get the wrong Miles. Nelson Miles was the highly competent commander who won the Indian Wars.

As for the other two, i guess it's just my perception. Who would you say were the worst Civil War commanders?
Fremont, Banks, Kilpatrick, and Howard for the Union. For the Confederates AS Johnston, Floyd, Pillow, Polk, Hood, and Van Dorn. Northrop escapes the list only by not being a general.
Fiver is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 04:11 PM   #98

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Virginia
Posts: 10,311

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Haig won his war
With the help of Marshall Foch and General Pershing. Westmoreland had no competent help.
Wenge is online now  
Old June 6th, 2013, 08:04 PM   #99

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
With the help of Marshall Foch and General Pershing. Westmoreland had no competent help.
And one could also make the case that the Allies "won" the war on the Marne, and could thus add Joffre to the list of generals that assisted Haig...

Though, I'd suppose that would be entirely based on hindsight, since I don't think anyone in 1914 thought WWI would last as long as it did.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old June 6th, 2013, 09:35 PM   #100

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 3,982

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
Fremont, Banks, Kilpatrick, and Howard for the Union. For the Confederates AS Johnston, Floyd, Pillow, Polk, Hood, and Van Dorn. Northrop escapes the list only by not being a general.
The only one I question is AS Johnston. Sure, he was nothing special (defying the expectations of both sides at the beginning of the war), but really, his plan at Shiloh probably would have worked had the "Hornet's Nest" not delayed him and had he faced an opponent less able and cool-headed than Grant. To me, his main flaws were that he underestimated both the importance and vulnerability of Forts Henry and Donelson, and that (at Shiloh in particular) he acted too much the part of a brigade commander rather than as the theater commander that he was, which has something probably to do with his death and his failure at Shiloh. Really, the problem was that he was probably fit for a lesser command than as a theater commander.

He wasn't anything real spectacular certainly, but he was also far from one of the worst generals of the Civil War. This is my view at least.

Last edited by nuclearguy165; June 6th, 2013 at 09:48 PM.
nuclearguy165 is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
general, worst



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the worst battle of your favorite General? DS1967 War and Military History 45 July 7th, 2013 02:59 AM
Best and worst Queen's in history henry7 Speculative History 28 July 2nd, 2012 05:20 PM
Best and/or Worst Last Words in History Tuatha De Danann General History 25 June 20th, 2011 08:54 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.