Worst General of All Time

by **Titus Flavius** » Mon May 30, 2011 5:49 am

Bit of a fun bit of speculation for the Bank Holiday...who was the worst general of all time?

by **Biggus Dickus** » Mon May 30, 2011 5:59 am

We'll start with a someone who just popped straight into my mind without any thought!!!! General G A. Custer……………..a virtual comedian compared to this man………….……………….. Field Marshal Douglas Haig……yeah walk don't run Cry

….and they put a statue up of him, it's enough to make you weep. It will be tough for anyone to come up with a rival to top this level of incompetance.......Some might say a controversial choice............i think the countless dead and maimed speak for themselves!

by **Centurio Marcus T** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:15 am

My thoughts also on Custer

by **paulsmodellingworkshop** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:31 am

Great minds think alike, I would have chosen Custer or Haig, instead I'll go for.....General Ignorance!

by **zedeyejoe** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:34 am

My favourite, Charles the Bold (or Rash)http://warandgame.com/2009/02/.....80%931477/ I have a lot of respect for Custerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....ong_Custer and Haighttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D....._Earl_Haig

by **Titus Flavius** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:49 am

Given the situation, I think that we can't really name Haig as the worst general of all time. It's not like the Germans did any better to break the stalemate - quite the opposite actually.Also I think Custer did quite well in the Civil War, it's just that he cocked up very badly at one battle with the Indians and that's all he's remembered for!I'd probably go for Marcus Lincinius Crassus for his 'conquering' exploits in Parthia.It just occurred to me, if anyone has on their shelves the excellent book 'Book of Heroic Failures' by Stephen Pile, there's probably an entry for Worst General. Anyone?

by **Biggus Dickus** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:10 am

zedeyejoe said:

I have a lot of respect for Custer and Haighttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D....._Earl_Haig

Purely hypothetical, but given what we know and what his men must have known then, would you stand up and be counted in the ranks with him in command? standing up to your neck in mud, looking at your nco with a whistle in his mouth….i think it's fair to say you'd soil yourself.If it was down to me I'd charge him with crimes against humanity. it's one thing to kill the enemy, to kill either deliberately or by accident enemy civilians, and quite another to carry out genocide.But his battle plan amounts to mass murder of his own troops, not once but over and over again.To say he had no idea what he was doing is a gross understatement, he should have been dragged out of the line…sorry did i say line, i meant cushy chateau 60 miles+ behind the line and shot.I feel a lot better for that, thanks Zed, better out than in, Wink

I'll get back to my Roman Marines now.

by **Biggus Dickus** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:19 am

Titus Flavius said:

Given the situation, I think that we can't really name Haig as the worst general of all time. It's not like the Germans did any better to break the stalemate – quite the opposite actually.

It doesn't actually matter what the germans did or didn't do,1. they didn't need to break the stale mate they were sitting on captured territory and were prepared to defend it…..2. Storm troopers were quite successful and…3.i remember seeing pictures of them running…likely their generals had told them to 4. lie down when under fire and to run, rather than stand up and walk. Haig is responsible for what he did. he told his men to go, he gave the orders, the result is down to him, hence likely worst general in history….is it 2 million casualties? that's quite impressive for one man.Attrition…great strategy providing you aren't the fodder!

by **Titus Flavius** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:38 am

So the German's just sat in their trenches and defended all war eh? Don't believe it. The Germans were determined to conquer all of Europe and they damn well nearly succeeded - as late as 1918 the Kaiser was declaring national holidays and victory seemed certain. Looking at the casualty rates for either side, the Allies were considerably higher - but then, both are monstrous. The problem was not Haig's incompetence, but rather that the received tactical doctrines of the day had not kept pace with advances in technology. Everyone knew that when you had taken ground you dug in and defended it. Pure common sense. You can't say that Haig is the worst general of all time just because he didn't invent Blitzkrieg two decades before it was actually invented.

by **zedeyejoe** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:41 am

My views on Haig, product of his nation. French had similar problems. Germans tried various systems and indeed came up with Storm Troops which were highly effective.But the plus point for Haig is that he commanded the British army on to victory, which I suggest is a sign of success. Stalin, another who achieved victory with awful losses.

Who is online