History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWorst 50 Generals

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 20:27
at Eylau, he destroyed the French center. everyone knows, if a general allows the loss of his center, he is doomed, however Napoleon, like Wellington at Waterloo, survived this setback. at Friedland, Bennigsen had a good start again and almost turned the French right wing under Ney which would have costed Napoleon the battle. again, Napoleon overcame this and bennigsens russian Army only got such a bad beating because of his positioning with a river against his back. bennigsen also commanded the (Reserve) Army of Poland int eh 1813-14 campaign and had a command in 1812 where he won a victory against the French, can't exactly remmeber at the moment which battle it was.
 to me, he is in the top 3 of Russian generals of the Napoleonic Wars (Barclay de Tolly, Bagrationi and Bennigsen). if you look for bad Russian generals, search no further than Wittgenstein, Admiral Chichagov and ultimately Kutuzov hismelf.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 23:10
Originally posted by Samara Samara wrote:

Yes, he is brillous in Eylau and Friedland. Two big victories against Napoleon.Confused
WHy Temujin sayed that Bennigsen is a great general?
His mistakes cost the Poland Campaign to the Russia. His defeat in Friedland is a desaster.


Bennigsen wasn't the best, nor was he the worst.  Eylau was nearly a serious loss for the French, and desperate measures, such as Murat's cavalry charge in the centre just barely managed to save the day and allowed Napoleon to 'eke out' a nominal 'victory'.  But that was definitely one battle in which Napoleon had nothing to brag about. 

The positioning at Friedland was definitely a serious error which cost the Russians the battle.  However, look where Friedland is - Konigsberg was likely going to fall regardless, which would have finished Prussia (there was no more of 'Prussia' to retreat to).  That, plus Bennigsen was up against the French at their peak.  He was probably going to get 'caught' sooner or later.  Who do you suggest could have done better, with the army Bennigsen had at his disposal and the position which he was in?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Samara View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2007
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Samara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 21:45
Eylau is a defeat, the destruction of augereau corp is only due to an defensive attitud and the power of russian guns. No to a good tactics of Bennigsen. Worse, he left the battle while he could resist to french cavalery and defeat Napoleon.
His position front of a river in Friedland his a very big mistakes,especially against the best marshal, lannes.
Furthermore , he was arrogant and do not accept the defeat.


Kutusov a worst marshal? You forget his tactics during invasion of russia and especially his battle of Borodino who resist to the army of invasion.
The worst russian generals during napoleonic wars are foreigner.


Edited by Samara - 28-Mar-2008 at 21:46
"All is loose, just the honour"

Francis in the battle of Pavia
Back to Top
ganman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 29-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ganman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 15:05
Whats with napolean on there? any one that can invade most of europe is pretty good, in the end he failled but i wont put him on the worst 50
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 15:49
It's Napoleon III that is on the list, the one that was defeated in the Franco-Prussian war 1870-1.  It's not the Napoleon who dominated Europe during the early 1800's.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Samara View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2007
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Samara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 18:04
But it was the napoleon who conquered Mexico, Indochina, Algeria and breack free to italia. WHy is in the worst general?
"All is loose, just the honour"

Francis in the battle of Pavia
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 20:12
Originally posted by Samara Samara wrote:

Eylau is a defeat, the destruction of augereau corp is only due to an defensive attitud and the power of russian guns. No to a good tactics of Bennigsen. Worse, he left the battle while he could resist to french cavalery and defeat Napoleon.
His position front of a river in Friedland his a very big mistakes,especially against the best marshal, lannes.
Furthermore , he was arrogant and do not accept the defeat.


Kutusov a worst marshal? You forget his tactics during invasion of russia and especially his battle of Borodino who resist to the army of invasion.
The worst russian generals during napoleonic wars are foreigner.


thats the typical Soviet nationalist attitude developed over the year, if you know Russian get some recent publications by Mikaberidze and Popov. the defensive strategy that saved Russia in 1812 was developed by FOREIGNERS and it was Kutuzov who quit this and got his ass served at Borodino. about Borodino itself, the actual defense was led by Barclay de Tolly and Bagrationi until his mortal wounding. Mikaberizde made this quite clear in his new book. actually the BEST generals of Russia were foreigners (with the notable exception of Wittgenstein). even kutuzov was of tatar descendance. thinkign about it, i cannot even recall a single Russian commander of the Nap Wars who was actually good.
Back to Top
gothic knight14 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 19-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gothic knight14 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 09:23
sorry rider but Adolf Hitler is not the worst general. He is a cruel great comander . there two mistake made him lose the battle, the first is he had betrayed his ally Russia. second is he had shot the america ship and make the american join the war. so i hope you check your list
its'very easy to be brave behind the city wall
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 13:46
Quote It's Napoleon III that is on the list, the one that was defeated in the Franco-Prussian war 1870-1.  It's not the Napoleon who dominated Europe during the early 1800's.
 
Yes I would second that - a unified and modenrised republic under him failed to defeat one small state which, although ruled by the combined brilliance of Otto Von Bismark and Von Moltke, still should not have been theoratically able to do what it did to France. It was an amazing risk of Bismark to do this - although it aided in the unification of Germany with the earlier Austro-Prussian war, if one thing had gone wrong, Prussia might not have been able to recover.
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
Saber View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 19:13
There is no basis for dubbing Konrad III or Louis VII as bad generals. If Second Crusade is the reason, then it is a particularly bad reason. The Second Crusade was an extremely ill-prepared expedition, which resembled vacation-crusade(which was common in later ages with Teutonic Knights) then an armed expedition aimed at retaking lost lands.
 
Also didn't Custer do pretty well in the Civil War? He was a quite solid and aggressive cavalry leader. I think the loss at Little Big Horn can be attributed to his equestrian rashness.
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 19:18
has rider updated this? where is Darius III 
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 589
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 20:03
Darius III was not one of the worst 50 generals, in fact he was a rather good general in some respects.

Edited by Darius of Parsa - 02-May-2008 at 02:57
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Klaus Fleming View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2008
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Klaus Fleming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 21:02
Matthias Gallas, the Count of Campo and the Duke of Lucera (1584-1647), was in his time called 'a destroyer of armies'.
 
His own armies.
Quae ante pedes
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 00:08
Originally posted by Samara Samara wrote:

But it was the napoleon who conquered Mexico, Indochina, Algeria and breack free to italia. WHy is in the worst general?
 
Napoleon III was a politician, not a general.  Mexico was a failure due to (1) the Mexicans, and (2) to the presence of 1,000,000 plus veteran troops of the US army in 1865.
 
Algeria was controlled in the 1830s before Napoleon III had influence after the revolutionary year of 1848.  Indochina, AKAIK, was not brought under French control until the 1880s.
 
Italy and its Risorgimento was a strategic disaster for France.  The "revolutionary" spirit, that N. III fed on, led to a unified state at France's rear just when Prussia began to consolidate her influence across the Rhine.  Bad policy.
 
The scrambling French policy of supporting the Pope to try to prevent the unification of Italy was an admission that Napoleon's foreign policy was a failure.
 
As far as a general, look at the result of his taking command of all French corps in 1870, and the disaster of Sedan.
 
Napoleon III was a stain in his uncle's underwear.  (Sorry for the image!  Smile )
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 28-Apr-2008 at 00:10
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2008 at 03:42
Basiliscus. It is somewhat unfair to charge a man with being in the worst 50 generals for his conduct in one campaign, but the stunning incompetence of that campaign and the decisive effect it would have on the history of the world does justify this.
 
The man was the brother-in-law of Emperor Leo I and charged with the reconquest of Roman Africa from the Vandals. The East Roman Empire made preparations on a most expensive and enormous scale, with manpower for the campaign apparently amounting to some 100,000 men. It was easily enough to smash the Vandal Kingdom, and probably enough to have surplus military manpower available for a reconquest of other areas. Yet Basiliscus allowed himself to be tricked into thinking the Vandals were going to surrender, and that night they snuck into the harbour where his fleet was station and burned the lot. It bankrupted the ERE and left her militarily prostrate for decades as she rebuilt.
 
The next time the ERE decided to conquer Africa was nearly a hundred years later. But by this time the Sassanids had grown much more powerful, the Germanic Kingdoms in the West had become more powerful with consolidation, and a catastrophic plague interrupted Justinian's reconquest and left the ERE scrambling for its life - ultimately withdrawing behind the Taurus mountains as the tidal wave of Islam arrived. Had Basiliscus shown more vigilance and clout as a commander, world history may have been very different indeed.
 
As a side not, he fared little better as Emperor. After a few brief months in which he managed to alienate nearly everyone who supported him, he was deposed and sent off with his family to starve to death in Cappadocia.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
C.C.Benjamin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote C.C.Benjamin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2008 at 20:15
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator Aster Thrax Eupator wrote:

Quote What was so brilliant about his [Pyrrhus] generalship?
 
Not much, I have to agree - Phyrus couldn't utilize a victory and any ones that he did make cost so many men and funds that they were awful. Hence the term "Phyric victory". He did, however, manage to aid the Tarentines quite a lot and crush the Roman army on numerous occasions. He had brilliant political foresight, which is also a neccesity in a General (look at Wellington!) - when leaving Italy, he said "I leave this land for a battlefield between two new powers", with interesting foresight to the Carthaginian wars that were to come. He was always muttering such clever and incisive quotes like these, and was an intelligent man. He wasn't a brilliant general, granted, but he was so desperate to crush Rome and free the Greek cities in Italy from her yoke that he would try anything - even if it cost him far too much. He's not one of the worst generals, but he's certainly not one of the best. I would take him off the list and leave him to a medium position, which he deserves.


I disagree with much of this assessment.

Pyrrhus was considered one of the greatest generals of his time by his peers.  Hannibal ranked him below Alexander only.  He fought a wide range of opponents successfully, and was rarely defeated. 

Pyrrhus' problem was his whimsical nature.  He could not seem to fully commit to any one cause for long enough to see it through till the end, because a more juicy offer would come his way.  He was considered talented enough to be offered kingship of Macedon and Sicily at the same time.  I doubt many men in history have had to choose between two offers of kingship.

Being a great general does not necessarily make a great king.  Pyrrhus' did not manage his money well, and did not ever entirely finish the job at hand.  This meant he could not drum up the resources to match that of any major enemies (aka the Romans.  He beat the Carthaginians into submission), so he was not able to call upon the manpower that they were able to.

Remember, just because a general does not build a massive empire or topple the mightest foe, does not mean that, on the battlefield, he is not a master. 

His name is, after all, synonymous with victory, despite the bittersweet aftertaste.  A victory is a victory after all, and under all conditions, better than a defeat, to my mind.

Wink

Know thyself
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2008 at 07:18
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

Darius III was not one of the worst 50 generals, in fact he was a rather good general in some respects.


in some respects but fact to the matter, he is impatient, cost the defeats of his armies by fleeing, could not use the terrain to his advantage even though logistics pointed out better battlefields to use and this was home court advantage, did not use his greatest advantage in in archery, didnt listen to advices and etc. the man was bad commander.
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2008 at 07:20
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin C.C.Benjamin wrote:

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator Aster Thrax Eupator wrote:

Quote What was so brilliant about his [Pyrrhus] generalship?
 
Not much, I have to agree - Phyrus couldn't utilize a victory and any ones that he did make cost so many men and funds that they were awful. Hence the term "Phyric victory". He did, however, manage to aid the Tarentines quite a lot and crush the Roman army on numerous occasions. He had brilliant political foresight, which is also a neccesity in a General (look at Wellington!) - when leaving Italy, he said "I leave this land for a battlefield between two new powers", with interesting foresight to the Carthaginian wars that were to come. He was always muttering such clever and incisive quotes like these, and was an intelligent man. He wasn't a brilliant general, granted, but he was so desperate to crush Rome and free the Greek cities in Italy from her yoke that he would try anything - even if it cost him far too much. He's not one of the worst generals, but he's certainly not one of the best. I would take him off the list and leave him to a medium position, which he deserves.


I disagree with much of this assessment.

Pyrrhus was considered one of the greatest generals of his time by his peers.  Hannibal ranked him below Alexander only.  He fought a wide range of opponents successfully, and was rarely defeated. 

Pyrrhus' problem was his whimsical nature.  He could not seem to fully commit to any one cause for long enough to see it through till the end, because a more juicy offer would come his way.  He was considered talented enough to be offered kingship of Macedon and Sicily at the same time.  I doubt many men in history have had to choose between two offers of kingship.

Being a great general does not necessarily make a great king.  Pyrrhus' did not manage his money well, and did not ever entirely finish the job at hand.  This meant he could not drum up the resources to match that of any major enemies (aka the Romans.  He beat the Carthaginians into submission), so he was not able to call upon the manpower that they were able to.

Remember, just because a general does not build a massive empire or topple the mightest foe, does not mean that, on the battlefield, he is not a master. 

His name is, after all, synonymous with victory, despite the bittersweet aftertaste.  A victory is a victory after all, and under all conditions, better than a defeat, to my mind.

Wink



the ranking seems dubious to me, there are tales that Pryhus was number 1, others saying it was Alex. I have a hard time believing good old Hannibal ranked it as such though he did add in the end if he conquered rome he would be numero uno.
Back to Top
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:17
In deciding worst genrals i think the primary criterion must by the damage they did and as a result i propose the following top 4
 
1. heigh - presisted with tactics during word war 1 which had ben outgrown by technology initiative on his part could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives
2. Hitler - just gets the nod over Stalin for 2nd due to the holocaust ect botched several chances to win the war and faught on far to longer costing more lives, verious other blunders such as D Day and battle of the bulge (piontless) show a complete lack of tactical skill and madness which cost millions of lives
3. Stalin allowed a poorly equiped and lead army into the field with no idea of tactics it is sumed up by a quote from a histrical (sorry i dont no whitch one) "the russians won WW2 not because of Stalins leadership but inspite of it.
4. Napoloen my views on this are well documented it is not so much his miltary skill (many ackolegde him as a genius) but his reasoning in starting a war (self glourification) which make him a bad genral same could be said of hitler.
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.064 seconds.