Worst military leader?

[Mr. Christopher]

We have a thread about best military leaders, now, who is the worst? As I posted before, it's Wes Clark. Hands down.

Now, what does everyone else think? :lol:

[NJon]

My vote goes to Fidel Castro, along with his good friend Che Guevara.

Because Castro has corrupted the true story of what happened, people think that the Cuban Revolution was a great military victory. Basically, the Batista government was not well-liked at all. It faced heavy opposition from all sorts of rebel groups, as well as political and economic pressure from leftist organizations. It was essentially attacked on all sides. Castro, a recent law school graduate, formed a poorly-organized raid on the Moncada Barracks (Cuba's second-largest military outpost) and moved in. Most of Castro's men were killed in this fiasco, but he somehow survived and was arrested.

Batista eventually granted some blanket amnesty and Castro was released. He went to Mexico and formed another army of about 80 or so men, who sailed back to Cuba for the big attack. Then a storm hit and their flotilla took a shellacking. Most of them survived, but the ships were thrown off course. As they tried to meet up, they were greeted by Batista's men. Of the original force, about 12 to 15 survived and escaped to the mountains to commence guerrilla warfare. Batista thought that Castro was mostly a joke, so he never even bothered with him for a long time after that.

In time, Castro was able to secure more and more mountain area and slowly build up a secure perimeter. This was not due to his skill, but more due to Batista's apathy. The time came that Batista decided that Castro really was a threat, but by then he was too late. Batista had killed off / suppressed most of the other opposition groups, but was too weak to defeat the last big threat: Castro. Castro was pretty much the last man standing because Batista had defeated all of the other rebels, so Castro's men just sort of swept in and took over, making it seem like it was their skill and excellent tactics all that time.

Then Che Guevara wrote a book called Guerrilla Warfare, publicizing the very popular (and very fake) story about this small guerrilla army of 12 or so men growing to defeat Batista's 40,000-strong army. So many people believed Guevara's garbage that they started their own revolutions all throughout Latin America; not one truly succeeded. Most of the rebels who followed Guevara's made-up advice were killed. Consequently, the Latin American governments grew excessively nervous from all of these revolutions and thus began the era of state terrorism in that region.
Not to mention, Che Guevara lost almost every battle he ever fought. His power came mostly from all of the innocent people he terrorized and killed.

So here's to Fidel and Che (almost 39 years dead and lovin' it): my vote for worst military commander(s).



"Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead."
-Che surrendering to Bolivian troops after being shot in the leg

"I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."
-Che before he was executed the following day

"..."
-Che, after the execution

[Amazing Rando]

Still, for being the "worst" military commander in history, Castro's been the sole ruler of an entire island nation for almost half a century. I don't exactly know what criteria you're using. By worldly standards, overthrowing a government and then maintaining an iron grip on political power for half a century is a pretty darn impressive accomplishment, regardless of how it was accomplished.

[Mr. Christopher]

Still, for being the "worst" military commander in history, Castro's been the sole ruler of an entire island nation for almost half a century. I don't exactly know what criteria you're using. By worldly standards, overthrowing a government and then maintaining an iron grip on political power for half a century is a pretty darn impressive accomplishment, regardless of how it was accomplished.

Yeah, so lets just throw out how many people's he's oppressed and killed and supressed under his rule, and he's actually an ok guy. Only, no.

:flaming:

[Amazing Rando]

Yeah, so lets just throw out how many people's he's oppressed and killed and supressed under his rule, and he's actually an ok guy. Only, no.

:flaming:

No, Castro's a terrible person whose done some horrible things in his time. But as a ruthless military dictator, he's been pretty darn effective.

When I think "worst military leader," I think "Most inept military leader," not necessarily worst person who happened to be a military leader. Castro is a wretched excuse for a human being, but as an autocrat, he's pretty effective.

[Mr. Christopher]

No, Castro's a terrible person whose done some horrible things in his time. But as a ruthless military dictator, he's been pretty darn effective.

When I think "worst military leader," I think "Most inept military leader," not necessarily worst person who happened to be a military leader. Castro is a wretched excuse for a human being, but as an autocrat, he's pretty effective.


Hehe, ok then. I'd have to agree that he has kept his power pretty well, but, he's a commie, therefore, still one of the worst military leaders hehe :lol:

[NJon]

Still, for being the "worst" military commander in history, Castro's been the sole ruler of an entire island nation for almost half a century. I don't exactly know what criteria you're using. By worldly standards, overthrowing a government and then maintaining an iron grip on political power for half a century is a pretty darn impressive accomplishment, regardless of how it was accomplished.

He's an effective politician.

He made for a terrible solider.

[Amazing Rando]

He's an effective politician.

He made for a terrible solider.

Certainly no worse a soldier than the government he overthrew. Otherwise... get this- he wouldn't have overthrown them.

[Abelard]

Gen. George Armstrong Custer for one. McClellan would be another good choice.

[Teallaura]

Actually, the guy's name was Bob. He commanded a small band of Celtic warriors in the early 10th Century and managed to lose to four washer women armed with brooms. It was his one and only command for some reason :noid:. Bob wasn't lost to history because he's better remembered for having developed haggis after his retirement from the military. :eww:

Come to think of it, he wasn't much of a cook, either. :vomit:




























































________________________________________
Sorry, couldn't resist! :hehe: Besides, the truly worst probably isn't going to be remembered - the poor shmuck ended up dead somewhere, possibly from his own men! :teeth:

[Berean Todd]

As pointed out, the worst would not be remembered for his incompetance, but the worst of those we do know of is an interesting story. Personally I was a medieval history major my first time through college, so I would have to go with Phillip VI of France just on the strength of his embarrasing and terrible defeat at the Battle of Crecy.

The idiot sent out outmanned and outgunned mercenary crossbowmen as his front line, who were torn up by the English longbowmen. When the crossbowmen broke and started to retreat Phillip ordered his own men to cut them down. Then 16 strait times he sent his men at the English, in the end the 10-12,000 English dealing the 40,000+ Frenchmen an embarrasing and complete defeat while breaking little sweat.

Of course Agincourt was an even bigger embarrasment for the French when 36,000+ Frenchmen lost to less than 6,000 English ... but at Agincourt there was no real French leader/general present, and it showed by their complete lack of any idea of tactics.

[Teallaura]

That's something I've wondered about. I know very little of French history but I've noticed in what little I've read a tendency toward tactical and strategic blunders (the Margineo (sp) Line being possibly the stupidest). I wouldn't draw conclusions based on my own knowledge, which is rather limited, but is it true that the French have had serious tactical problems like that repeatedly?


(There wasn't a general at Agincourt? :huh: Who was in command then?)

[themuzicman]

I think you have to consider General Cornwallis in this group. He was on land owned by his own country, with an army that was better trained, better equipped, and more experienced than the US Continental army, but was unable to defeat them, ultimately having to surrender when the French navy arrived to assist us.

[Cyrus Johnson]

That's something I've wondered about. I know very little of French history but I've noticed in what little I've read a tendency toward tactical and strategic blunders (the Margineo (sp) Line being possibly the stupidest). I wouldn't draw conclusions based on my own knowledge, which is rather limited, but is it true that the French have had serious tactical problems like that repeatedly?

Well Napoleon did O.K. with the Grand Armee for a while, but a couple big losses (Waterloo and Russia) put a crimp in his style. The Maginot Line might have been better had it not effectively ended at Belgium, but it did the job it was designed to do (the Germans after all had a similar system in the Westwall {a.k.a the Siegfried Line}, so the plan itself probably wasn't all bad). But the French failed to realized at the critical moment that the Line was only part of their defence, that the point was to contain the Germans long enough to mobilize the army to hit back at any point of penetration. The French simply didn't have the mobility to do that in the crunch. Lack of effective communication (for instance decent radios in all tanks), timid leadership, false sense of security caused by the line...take your pick. They were done like toast and the BEF escaped by the skin of their teeth.


(There wasn't a general at Agincourt? :huh: Who was in command then?)

Yes, a general of sorts, but not an effective leader. The military leaders on the French side were Charles d'Albret (who as Constable would be the highest ranking military officer) and Jean Le Maingre, who commanded the front line troops. But they were hampered by a contingent of Nobles, and although militarily outranked in theory, the Nobles excercised their own authority on the battlefield as they had always done, causing mass confusion and ultimate debacle.

Although it seems pretty clear the English were outnumbered, it's a little cloudy as to what exactly the division of forces were on that day. Some modern scholars put the numbers 2:1 in favor of France, not 6:1. The numbers were apparently a tad inflated by Henry V and his supporters to make the battle look even more heroic than it was. Not at all uncommon even in modern times.

[Nicholas]

Some Italian commander during World War Two. But honestly, I doubt that the worst commander would ever have been remembered.

[NJon]

Certainly no worse a soldier than the government he overthrew. Otherwise... get this- he wouldn't have overthrown them.

Sir, he didn't overthrow them in some grand rebellion; that was the point of my post. He was just sort of left standing there after everyone else did all of the work (most of whom were killed in the process), came in and changed the history of what happened.

Castro couldn't command his way out of a paper bag. He's not stupid by any means. As I said, he's a very shrewd politician. A commander? Not at all.

[Berean Todd]

Although it seems pretty clear the English were outnumbered, it's a little cloudy as to what exactly the division of forces were on that day. Some modern scholars put the numbers 2:1 in favor of France, not 6:1. The numbers were apparently a tad inflated by Henry V and his supporters to make the battle look even more heroic than it was. Not at all uncommon even in modern times.

I know there is debate as to the exact numbers there ... and I may be mixing up my battles, because you have the three huge losses for the French in the 100 years war ... but I think it was Agincourt where some of the English records tried to postulate a French army of over 100,000. Clearly that would be a gross inflation, but I think (personally) that if you look at all you can, that it's fairly certain that the English were around 6,000 and the French around 30,000-40,000. At least in my personal opinion.

[Berean Todd]

That's something I've wondered about. I know very little of French history but I've noticed in what little I've read a tendency toward tactical and strategic blunders (the Margineo (sp) Line being possibly the stupidest). I wouldn't draw conclusions based on my own knowledge, which is rather limited, but is it true that the French have had serious tactical problems like that repeatedly?


(There wasn't a general at Agincourt? :huh: Who was in command then?)

If you really want to laugh at French incompetance you need go no further than a study of the 100 years war. I'm sure you can google/wikipedia look up, three particular battles especially:

Batle of Crecy (1346)
Battle of Poiters (1356)
Battle of Agincourt (1415)

[Teallaura]

Actually, I was just curious. And yeah, I knew about Napoleon, but I meant in a general sense.

However, I'm pefectly willing to laugh at the French! :teeth: thanks! :flowers:


More seriously, thanks for the comments gentlemen.

[Mr. Christopher]

He's an effective politician.

He made for a terrible solider.


What I don't like is when he found out about this "black market" and people were using capitalism to the fullest without gov't knowledge, he shut it down, and then he bought everyone in the country a toaster. Lamest politician on earth. He should be killed by a U.S. Air raid. If he wasn't so old, we probably would send in a special forces team or something, but now I think we're just waiting for him to die.

And, as you recall, we have sent bombers, and killed family members, but just not Castro. I wouldn't be surprised if he is dead, his country just is afraid to admit it. They'll probably put his dead body up in front of a podium, play old recordings, and people will think "well, geez, he is still alive." :lol:

[Mr. Christopher]

Actually, I was just curious. And yeah, I knew about Napoleon, but I meant in a general sense.

However, I'm pefectly willing to laugh at the French! :teeth: thanks! :flowers:


More seriously, thanks for the comments gentlemen.

Actually, Napoleon would probably be on both sides, good an bad leader. Who is dumb is Hitler for marching into Russia and thinking he can live through that same winter that stopped Napoleon over a hundred years earlier. And Hitler STILL wasn't prepared for it. But, when proper winter clothing finally arrived, it was all too late for the germs. And, in Germany, if Axis soldiers wore full winter clothing? The only way to kill one with the old M1A1 Carbine was a shot to the head - their thick coats could stop a bullet from the weapon, because the gun was underpowered :lol: At least Napoleon could say he didn't know about the coldness....

BTW, I'm willing to laugh at the French AFTER Napoleon hehe. He was their last great military leader. After him, they just surrender a whole lot.

[Anthem]

my vote would go to some American Civil War general. I've been slowly reading through Army of the Patomac and there are some really, really bad generals.

[Teallaura]

That would be almost all the Union generals until Grant. I have a soft spot for McClellan though - lousy general, but a great saddle designer! Seriously! :yes:

[Mr. Christopher]

That would be almost all the Union generals until Grant. I have a soft spot for McClellan though - lousy general, but a great saddle designer! Seriously! :yes:

I don't think Grant was great, but he wasn't bad, either. His philosophy to win the Civil War was "We have more men than you, see if you can take them out before we beat you down." I don't like that. That's the way Britan lost the American Revolution. Lee had people who were willing to do whatever to win the war, and the same thing holds true today - the south has more people who are willing to do whatever to protect America.

[Teallaura]

No, I meant the generals preceding Grant, not Grant himself. He certainly wasn't incompetent.

[Ben Franklin]

Chiang Kai Shek...!!! How can you lose a whole freakin' country, with German advisers and European support to a meager peasant army under Mao...? :no:

[Mr. Christopher]

My second vote is any French military leader after Napoleon. Hmm.... but that would belong on the other French thread.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Some more recommendations for the General-Reject pile:

James VII & II -- running off before the battle was won at the Boyne River, and thereby ensuring that the battle was lost, thereby ensuring that his throne & crown were lost;
Somebody already beat me to McClellan and Custer;
Mark Clark, US General in Italy in WWII;
Douglas Haig and John French, British Army WWI Flanders;
Braddock, British Army, French & Indian War.

The (most of them are self-evident) Curtmudgeon

[Bill the Cat]

We have a thread about best military leaders, now, who is the worst? As I posted before, it's Wes Clark. Hands down.

Now, what does everyone else think? :lol:

France... hands down. Which one you ask? Yes.

[Bill the Cat]

My second vote is any French military leader after Napoleon. Hmm.... but that would belong on the other French thread.

How dare you beat me to it!! :rant:

[Mr. Christopher]

How dare you beat me to it!! :rant:

Haha, fastest hands in the West I guess...

[djconklin]

Gen. George Armstrong Custer for one.

I stopped by the battlefield once and bought a book that explained a lot that I didn't know before (some I knew it just hadn't sunk in!). I always wondered why he curled to the "north" or top of the page) when he got stopped at the creek. The author explained that Custer was a calvary officer and so he was looking for manuvering room--so he was thinking till the end. To me, it showed you can make good decisions and it still hit the fan!


my vote would go to some American Civil War general. I've been slowly reading through Army of the Patomac and there are some really, really bad generals.

Mind you, most of 'em had to learn on the job. Very few went to West Point and that wouldn't have helped because the tactics they would have learned had been made obsolete by the new cannons and later repeating rifles. How do you think we'd do?

[Mr. Christopher]

To me, it showed you can make good decisions and it still hit the fan!


My friend, excellent point. My dad always told me "you can do everything right, just like you're supposed to, and still die in war. Everything can fall your way, you can duck at the right time, shoot, whatever, but then you run next to car and boom. You've done everything you're supposed to have done right, but you're dead."

Basically, just the first sentence is what really sticks in my head.

[ShadowLands]

Hitler.

The Battle of Britain was a disaster, and the invasion of Russia effectively crippled his army.

Not that I would have wanted him to win, but looking at things from a strictly military perspective, he really messed things up.

[Ironweed]

If you really want to laugh at French incompetance you need go no further than a study of the 100 years war. I'm sure you can google/wikipedia look up, three particular battles especially:

Batle of Crecy (1346)
Battle of Poiters (1356)
Battle of Agincourt (1415)

Hey, they ultimately chased the English out of France anyways. Losing battles but winning campaigns seems like an okay thing to me. All the British won in those battles was tactical victories, not strategic ones. And if the truism "He who laughs last, laughs best" holds, the French were laughing in the long run. In fact, I kind of wonder what the hell the British were trying to accomplish in each of these cases, espeically Agincourt. They won. And they went home, since they were in no position to hold anything. Seems pointless.

[Ironweed]

Oops: My nominee.

Whoever was in charge of the military of Austria-Hungary in July 1914. They had an empire of disparate groups who literally hated each other almost as much as they hated the dominant Austrians, and that was barely held together by force. And on top of that they decide to pick a fight with Serbia that they knew was going to drawn in Russia and probably give Italy an excuse to hop in.

Result: Watch Austria-Hungary dissolve like a sugar cube in rain. Though I guess it was probably going to happen at some point or other its almost like they decided to chuck it in dramatically rather than gradually.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Hey, they ultimately chased the English out of France anyways. Losing battles but winning campaigns seems like an okay thing to me.

But the 100 Years War was not a single conflict but a series of Wars, which the English dominated for the most part. I don`t think the French were laughing too much when their cavalry was completely destroyed at Agincourt.


All the British won in those battles was tactical victories, not strategic ones. And if the truism "He who laughs last, laughs best" holds, the French were laughing in the long run.

Yeah, the English were crying all the way to the bank. Do you know how much they plundered from the soppy French in those 100 years? Ultimately France had the upper hand, and was bound to win.


In fact, I kind of wonder what the hell the British were trying to accomplish in each of these cases, espeically Agincourt. They won. And they went home, since they were in no position to hold anything. Seems pointless.

The English kings had claims to the French throne and to areas of France in particular. They were fighting the rival French kings for these claims. In fact up until 1801 English (then British) kings would also title themselves King of France.

[Stabbytheclown]

James IV of Scotland.
Although he was a pretty good king, he sucked at war. When France tooke on all of Europe, he decided to honour the Auld Alliance and invade England. His army was trashed by an English force far smaller than his and he, like his father before him, was killed in battle. I think he was the last king of the British Isles to do so.

Christian leaders of the crusades must also get a mention. Stephen of Cloyes led around 30000 in the Children's Crusade. Some dropped out, some died of exhaustion, many drowned and the rest were sold into slavery or sent to the brothels. None reached the Holy Lands. Still, Stephen was only twelve and his crusade was as succesful as any other, bar the first.

[Ironweed]

But the 100 Years War was not a single conflict but a series of Wars, which the English dominated for the most part. I don`t think the French were laughing too much when their cavalry was completely destroyed at Agincourt.

Name one thing the British gained from fighting at Agincourt, or even for being in France at the time. Like I said, it was a tactical victory, but one that was absolutely meaningless in a strategic sense, even in the short term.




Yeah, the English were crying all the way to the bank. Do you know how much they plundered from the soppy French in those 100 years?

I'm going on memory here, but my understanding is that they only very rarely were able to carry a siege to completion. About the only "plunder" they took was via ransoms of captured knights and maybe by despoiling some churches. They certainly did a lot of damage via things like burning crops, but that's not putting any gold in anyone's bodkin.


Ultimately France had the upper hand, and was bound to win.

So you do agree the hundred years war was pointless? As in, if Britain and France had been able to come to some sort of agreement where the British were paid for their French territory, both sides likely would've come out ahead.
And if Britain had won an Agincourt ten or twenty times over they were still on their way off the continent. (I realize that internal French politics more than British may have made the payment idea impossible, given how various areas like Burgundy were almost independent countries up until Louis XIV's time. Not sure how the French could've paid for it, so perhaps I'm overstating the case here.)


The English kings had claims to the French throne and to areas of France in particular.

Which I view as utter stupidity on their part. They could've gained goodwill and lost nothing of substance from about Elizabeth I time's on by renouncing these claims. Whether or not it would have been enough to keep the French from trying to interfere later on in Scotland and Ireland I honestly don't know.