History's 5 Most Useless Generals 

Can we get a chapter marker to skip Ridge?

General-ly everyone who worked at unit 731?, 713? You know that one video they did, absolutely shocking stuff.

​@madmick3794 wooow! Username checks out, you mad lad. They might hear you 🤫🤭

You forgot haig and foch...

Great video as always! For me the background music seems a little too loud, it's distracting me from Simon's audio

Bragg claimed the story was false, but I believe Grant.

I've heard this one before. I can hardly tell the story without breaking into uncontrollable laughter. Thanks for sharing!

@@MegaFortinbras Sounds exactly like Bragg if you ask me, so I believe it too and Grant was a basically honest and decent man and likely wouldn't make this claim without evidence. Bragg quarreled with just about everybody, dithered in the face of one of the great victories of the South, Chickamauga, and wasted the chance to change the course of the war.

The question is, was that the actions of an intensely rule obsessed man or just the actions of a very bored and frustrated officer trying to kill some time?

Sounds pretty spot on for Bragg.

ww1 in general .... Haig

@@JohnSmith-rw8uhSamsonov says hold my vodka.

Hötzendorf was gloriously incompetent, and Haig hardly covered himself with glory, but Cadorna was criminally negligent. Haig at least tried to attack different locations, and not too often. Cadorna attacked *the same place* with the *same results* not twice, not thrice, but *eleven times*, and then - after all of that - was effortlessly smashed at Caporetto.

​@@gurk_the_magnificent9008the definition of insanity

@@JohnSmith-rw8uh Douglas Haigh was popular with his troops, especially the colonials, thats not the sign of a bad leader. His funeral was attended by tens of thousands of veterans. Its onlywhen he was safely dead and unable to complain that David LLoyd George was able to star smashing his reputation.

Except Cadorna, like McClellan, at least implemented a fairly robust logistical network. Not to mention he was responsible for the defenses prepared at Monte Grappa where the Central Powers advance was stopped. I can't think of a single redeemable thing that Kathleen Kennedy has accomplished.

Never heard of him. He must have just gotten lucky.

He got the poure le merite for that

I was about to say the same thing. Didn't he get extremely lucky though, he had had a problem of over extending himself which made him very vulnerable, he was just quite lucky with it.

@@bethanbaker7066 Perhaps one may call it luck that the collapse of the Italian army was so complete that Rommel got away with taking big risks that, otherwise, may have bit him in the ass. The Italians were finally able halt their rout at the Piave river, where it became a static campaign for another year. The Italian victory in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto a year after the disaster at Caporetto knocked the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of the war, which made it impossible for Germany to continue the war. The war ended days later.

​@@DavidKutzler That's definitely true. I'm no good strategist with regards to history. I'm more so people and personalities. I'm in my first year of History and Ancient History at Uni. This is more just my own sort of reading though, the book i read about this in was Rommel and Montgomery Parallel Lives but i do have other books I've not read yet including his own Infantry Attacks. I have autism and get hyperfixations, i just went from WW1 airforces to the Afrika Korps a year or two ago.

God, imagine if Bragg was a Union soldier the entire time, he was just really, REALLY deep undercover and was intentionally sabotaging the Confederates?

So funny 😂

Ft. Hood was so named for the same reason.

@@johnmiwa6256 yep.

Ft. liberty now....

Very true, but unfortunately this is catered to a US audience.

The British did learn from his mistakes when the Americans tried to siege the area in winter.

Old-school gallantry as opposed to new-school strategy. I'd like to see a re-enactment there. Quebecois would hate it !

General Wolfe practised the assault for months prior to the battle by practicing the assault on a hill in Dorset prior to departure.

Before that general Montcalm had some great victories like in battle of Ticonderoga or battle of Fort Henry so he wasn't incompetent, he just made bad decisions in one battle.

That quote is wonderfully pat and totally wrong. Sweden was a tiny power of 1-3 million people trying to hold Russia’s massive manpower back from something it wanted; doable when Russia was a medieval shambles, but a bit of a questionable proposition when Russia was helmed by a modernizer with so much control over his country that he was capable of ordering everything that an invading army could eat to be destroyed, and be obeyed. Charles XII in 1707 may have landed some whacks on the Russians and have achieved favorable results with his other enemies, but he was well aware that Peter’s military situation was improving and that Russia was on the rise, and perceived that he had a narrow window in which to regain an advantage. (Something that many of those who deride his actions as unreasonably stupid also acknowledge, tossing it on the heap of reasons why his action was doomed, without it ever seeming to occur to them that this might have been a major motive. Or indeed that if he had done what many opining from abroad thought he should have and made peace, he would have been criticized later for a lack of geopolitical foresight.) The Swedish military policy towards Russia going back numerous generations was in line with Gustavus Adolphus’s maxim of ‘making the ditch too wide for the bear to jump’ - ie aggression, something which, combined with the messy results of an earlier attempt to recover Ingria and the particular problems that campaign had suffered, influenced the Swedes towards a full on invasion. And I say ‘the Swedes’ rather than Charles XII, because, while Charles was in command, he had the opinion of the Swedish military establishment behind him, even if parts of the civilian government may have believed that the invasion of Russia was unnecessary. I would also add that contrary to what is frequently said on the basis of remarks aimed at psyching out the Russians and psyching up the Swedes, Charles XII was aware of the difficulty and danger of the situation he was entering into, even if he could not, for instance, have foreseen that the winter of 1708-09 would turn out to be the coldest in living memory. He was not free from error in conducting his campaign, but neither did he make his decisions for silly reasons. The campaign itself was undeniably ill-fated, but the assertion that it was an example of his getting his men killed for absolutely no reason is in fact unreasonable. Also, Charles XII is not generally considered to have been a bad commander.

Elphinstone's incompetence was far more about getting himself into the desperate position he was in prior to this. The negotiations in reality were about the terms of surrender; he really had no choice but to hope the Afghans would keep their word.

The Afghans didn’t keep their word. Why didn’t this information get to Biden?

@@jimarcher5255 Or Trump. Or Obama. Or Shrub...the guy who started it all.

@@mkvv5687 All four President's should have known the lessons of history. The world is NOT a safer place after all that sacrifice.

@@jimarcher5255 Probably because trump had the files in his shower. You do know that Trump negotiated the withdrawal with the Taliban and excluded the Afghan government? or that Trump's timeline for a complete withdrawal was months earlier than Biden's, or do you get all your facts from Fox opinion, or Newsmin??

Attacking forces usually always suffer more losses than defending. Also Bragg intended to starve the army of the Cumberland in Chattanooga. Which was going according to plan until Grant came in. Who with reinforcement reopened the supply lines and attacked Bragg in two major engagements. But the failure of destroying the army of the Cumberland wasn't as much Bragg's fault. As it was general George Thomas's stubborn resistance allowing an orderly retreat.

We have a military fort named after that guy...

@@sunkings5972 is it so still? Surprised they didn't get to that one yet

@@bman6065 Fort Bragg has been renamed Fort Liberty. I'm kind of meh on the new name but anything is an improvement after it being named after an incompetent traitor. I'm curious if the decisions to name military bases in the South wasn't spiked by Army officers naming some of them after the more incompetent Confederate generals. If so, then that was a nice bit of trolling.

Man, the guy had subordinates that took their dislike for him on the job! Being slow to follow orders is just plain insubordination.

I expect Cardona never, ever got so close to the front that the people actually doing the fighting had a chance at him.

@@jkausti6737 the truly awful people at least seem to have an inkling that they are hated ... and ofc their lives are so much more important than all the peasants and must be preserved for the greater goodblabla ... by hiding as far from the front as possible ^^

I've begun to wonder about what I must do if Trump is made the US President again.Wartime I went to Canada before my number came up. When it came up I was safe and could return to the US where milkshakes were superior. Now to go to Canada I'd need big money I do not have. 100 thousand dollars in the bank. And I must consider those of us who will be trapped under the rule of fascists and fools. All that cheating citizens have been accused of are the crimes Trump will employ, (if at all possible). It is past time for Trump to have been jailed. 'Oh sure they say the wheels of justice turn slowly but they are sure." Sure, right

Cardona was the Italian Army's Chief of Staff, he was not a field commander. He wouldn't have been that exposed.

​@@jkausti6737why would the Army Chief of Staff be near that front? There wouldn't be much of a purpose for him to be there. He ran an army with nearly a million men , so he needed to be at a communications hub.

Ba-dum tsh!

Me too

They are nowhere close to the buffons that were Cadorna and Hotzendorff. And just saying (only to be called a Russian Propagandist) don't believe every pro -Ukrainian propaganda at CNN and BBC says..They are as true as they claim how untrue Russian propaganda is , for example in RT

Nah we're still giving them time to really screw up their resumes.

Educate yourselves friends! What you hear on Facebook and CNN isn't the whole story!

With more sarcasm than Drach?

Do you see torpedo boats?

@@gurk_the_magnificent9008 yes, Japanese torpedo boats, near the English coast! Open fire! Oh wait, those are fishermen 😂

@@lajoyalobos2009 evil and dangerous fishermen !

Sounds like Bragg was the kind of general that even the timid McClellan could actually defeat.

⁠@@GeorgieB1965probably not. McClellan just didn’t want to fight. He chose numbers over tactics.

That's why cronyism is a bad idea in the military.

@@fukkitfulamen!

@@rixxroxxk1620 In defense of McClellan, while his obvious flaws are true, he was also often going on faulty intelligence reports that overestimated the strength of his enemy. Those reports were provided by Allan Pinkerton who somehow never has had that stain his own reputation.

And then, CadoRna...

Beyazid was a Sultan not an Emperor.

Great men theory, no good guys.

He would be unacceptably progressive for both modern political parties.

think of the Austrian General Schwarzenberg in the end of the Napoleonic wars ( Battle of Leipzig) - he was chosen for command because of his diplomatic skills so he might hold the alliance together and not the so-so military ones. He succedded by arriving to move the Austrian, Prussian and Russian Army from different directions onto the field of battle for an actually synchronized attack.

I don't think any President since Ike can match him for the positive effect he has had. LBJ maybe.

@@andywomack3414 Wasn't Theodore Roosevelt quite well liked? I don't know if that's the same thing, though?

Marlborough, even if he had to sneak the march to the Danube past the Dutch.

As lousy as he was, he cannot hold a candle against the selected ones. CadoRna was totally out of his mind. And if you read about von Hötzendorf you will be astonished.

@@ramonribascasasayas7877 I have to admit while I have read a good deal of military history I have not read widely at all on this particular subject, meaning bad generals. Just read Scramble and learned a good deal about AirPower strategy. And then read about the North African Campaign. FDR comes off as a Great War president: Desperate Venture, Norman Gelb. I use a Kindle Fire. As ebooks and unlimited these books are free to read and inexpensive to purchase. Reading Paul Fussell's "War Time" now. I've read most of FuSSell"s books since "The First World War and Modern Memory". I know of the Civil war mostly from Shelby Foote. Paulette Jiles Books are great centered in Western campaigns and she shares environments with Larry McMurtry. Amazing they named Fort Bragg Fort Bragg. Really thanks. I had never heard of these guys.

At least he was sacked by Ike after the disaster at Kasserine, and replaced by Patton, on the contrary Cadorna was sacked only after Caporetto, after 2+ war 's years!

My grandfather had a nephew that might have worked on Fredenhall's bunker. He was a M4 driver that got bored during the delay after landing so started building camp furniture out of the shipping crates since he was a carpenter. He was assisted by other tankers that were tradesmen. Some Army brass noticed their work so figured they would be handy to keep around to repair damaged structures for use as headquarters. His nephew was given a battlefield commission to be a lieutenant so he could command a platoon of tradesmen. He was well in the rear when his M4 was destroyed during its first combat engagement when it took a direct hit from a large artillery shell. Said he spent the war repairing buildings and building crates to the officers war booty that they could have shipped back to the States for free.

Good story. An M4 is what? Is it a Tank Destroyer? I was poor and have often been poor. The last thing I knew how to do was carpentry and I built most of my furniture from pallets and scraps. I had some 4 by 4 Birch ply and I painted on it. Seriously. The terrible thing about Army shipping container builds was they were never given the Flyleafs required to moderate interior temperatures. I am impressed that flame throwers were used to fire the clay walls of the Fredenhall headquarters. It seems to me that this ought be done more often & protocols developed. @@billwilson-es5yn

American Exceptionalism, and WW2 and the Vietnam War are too recent and the real stories of these two incompetent Generals contradict present American hagiography.

No argument, MacArthur should be on this list.

MacArthur had his moments (WWI, Inchon), but by all rights he should have been sacked after losing the Philippines. Kimmel and Short were relieved after Pearl, Fredendall was fired after the Kasserine Pass debacle, and other general officers were relieved of command throughout the war for less serious lapses.

@@johndetlie7853 Family connections, what can I say? They eventually got him in Korea though.

Enver Pasher was WORSE than Cardona

17:33 - Chapter 5 (and a bit) - Harry Kane

To be fair, it rarely helps to send an incompetent general against crack well-led enemy forces who have home ground advantage and the weather on their side. o.O

@@simonmagid4205to be fair it doesn’t help as an authoritarian ruler to kill all your best generals and a fits of paranoia at a a time when a crazy man with a silly mustache said that your country must die in the 1920s… and attacking another nation also wasn’t a great idea

💯

I suspect the bleak reality was that Singapore would have fallen eventually anyway. The royal navy didn't have the resources to defend and supply it, Prince of Wales and Repulse had been sunk and no aircraft carrier was available. The US pacific fleet was out of action except for a small number of carriers and smaller ships and overstretch was everywhere. It was going to be at least a year before the situation substantially improved.

All that being true, he still ignores intel about where Japanese staging areas were, there were things he could have done to make the Japanese work for the win. And most unforgivable in my eyes, he refused to allow his troops to dig in because “it was bad for morale”. You k ow what else is bad for morale? Getting overrun because you didn’t dig in.

On the other hand, the US Army did make a stand in the Philippines under MacArthur. They fought on bravely until retreating to Corregidor Island. There they held out for months until running out of food and ammo, then having to surrender.

@@Mondo762MacArthur showed up on the Bataan peninsula exactly once during that whole debacle. They didn't call him "Dugout Doug" for nothing. A behavior that continued during the New Guinea campaign. He had exactly no idea of what the Australians were facing on the Kokoda Track. But he had he best public relations department of any general in history.

McClellan was a bad field general (Antietam is inexcusable), but he could *build* a good army. He's not in the same league as these losers, some of whom destroyed perfectly good armies... Ambrose Burnside would deserve mention before McClellan.

I would say Custer is more suited than either Burnside or McClellan. Burnside knew he was bad and only took the job because they threatened to give it to someone worse.

McClellan is an example of great soldier places in wrong position. He would be best used if he got overall command over training and unit build up in the armies of the Union. He was absolutely fucking brilliant at that. As to his abilities as a frontline commander, I would say uninspired competence.

@@m0nkEz: "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." (from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".)

or Gen. Lloyd Fredendall - he was spectacularly incompetent in North Africa

And I'd nominate Union General Burnside (after whom sideburns were named, possibly his only positive accomplishment) as a flip side to General Bragg. The other Union officers were sometimes known to suggest that the best thing he could do for the Union Army was to defect and command troops for the Confederacy.

who the fuck names a kid Mark Clark? My enlgish teacher Mrs Farkas has a son named Marcus. WTF is wrong with people?!?!?!?

@@arisnothelesI'm aware

@@mikep3226 McClellan was pretty bad too in many ways

You were there?

@@jeffdroog i was. sigismund and his generals who had been fighting the ottomans for years had a better idea of what to do. the french cavalry thought they were better than everyone and criticized it. they also insisted on engaging the ottomans first so they could claim glory. sigismund told them not to do it cuz they would get their asses kicked. after hearing this warning, the french cavalry proceeded to charge the enemy and got all of their asses kicked.

@@cedriclee7110 Pictures,or it didn't happen lol

@@jeffdroog no cameras back then. also, at the battlefield, even the older french knights had advised to wait for the main army to arrive before engaging the ottomans. the younger knights called them cowards and proceeded to charge. they got completely annihilated. sigismund and the germans fought to prevent a total envelopment and were last to leave the field.

@@jeffdroogthe French kept making the same damn mistake. Their impetuousness and desire fore glory caused their own crushing defeats from the 100 Years War to Nicopolis to Varna.

I dunno, I'd say John Bell Hood ranks below Burnside. At least Burnside's mistakes weren't as catastrophic as Hood's.

@@MrGksarathy Hood lost several battles in the last year of the war trying to defend Atlanta and then during his campaign in Tennessee. But the war was a lost cause by then. I know the Battle of Franklin was a disaster. Burnside lost the Battle of Fredericksburg, performed badly at Antietam, and was blamed, perhaps unfairly, for the debacle of the Battle of the Crater during the Siege of Petersburg. It seems Burnside has the worse historical reputation today.

But those sideburns...

This is why us Brits used to spend all our defence budget cash on the Royal Navy!

@@stephendavies6949 Ahhh, but the book gives the Royal Navy its fair share...

I feel quite hungry.

I especially like how, had he been even remotely active or decisive in the early stages of the crisis, the retreat might not have even been necessary.

Hood was a very good division commander but was promoted above his abilities

The gallant Hood of Texas played Hell in Tennessee! They even wrote a song about him.

Hood had lost an arm and a leg in previous battles. He was taking opiates and whatever else for pain which probably affected his decision making abilities. That said, it would have been better for the CSA troops under his command if Hood had lost his head to a cannonball or minie ball instead.

70 to 80 000 killed by the romans in a day

If, IG IF.....she ever existed anyway. There isn't consensus for a reason....

Boudicca was likely not a trained soldier and only became one as a result of circumstances. Why don't we stick to factual and proven incompetents? Brits have their fair share and some even went to Sandhurst and Eton - the bastions of British Society, and even have pretentious and pompous titles. Let's see ... names like Elphinstone, Percival, Hamilton, Chelmsford, Brudenell, Cornwallis, Gordon, Beresford and the victim of his time, Douglas Haig - all in a span of 200 years. At least Boudicca had the decency to die for her cause. These "gentlemen" (except Elphinstone) subsequently lived a life of luxury and some even had fawning apologia written about them.

I think it was a case of the technology of War was beyond the comprehension of the old school generals, on all sides. The Generals were fighting a Napoleonic War with machine guns and quick firing cannons. The description of Lions led by Donkeys is very appropriate, my apologies to Donkeys.

@@Tiglath-PileserXIX and fighting the previous war

He didn't fail to send out scouts. His scouts, however, were traitors (or not depending on how you see it, as they were Germanics) and willfully brought him and his army into the trap.

What about Germanicus counter attack who went all the way to that damn forest and beyond? The only reason he failed was because emperor Tiberius was jealous of his Victorias and recalled him back to Rome

''But...muh K/D ratio!'' -some vain French knight

That's a pretty name change. At least pick another general. Surely there are a few worth of a fort. How about Fort Schwarzkopf?

Yeah that is the only name change that I agree with. They should have looked at the men as a whole and not focused on the fact that they had fought for the Confederacy during the civil war.

​@@russelljohnson6267They were traitors, full stop.

@@jamesfitzpatrick8853 Oh shut up. They were fighting for their home states. That is how it was back then. Loyalty to your state was foremost.

Fort Bragg, California is a town on the northern coast. It was established by a former Confederate Soldier and named after his commander.

Even though they’ve captured territory that will never be retaken?

@@americandissident9062Yes

@@americandissident9062 really how about Izyum, Kiev, Kherson LOL

@@johnwalsh4857 Russians never took Kiev. They also withdrew from Kherson and Ukrainians took their time moving back in. But if you’ll pay attention to the where the trench lines are now, they haven’t budged in months. And now that the Israelis have asserted themselves as much more important than Ukraine, Zelenskyy will be told to make nice with the Russians and accept the loss of territory. I’m what works can a country lose major portions of their territory and call it a victory? The territory Russia holds now, like I stated, will not revert to Ukraine.

@@americandissident9062 hey pay attention , the Russians took almost surrounded Kiev took large areas in the Kiev and Kharkov areas, ahd yah withdrawng from Kherson means the RUsskies lost it and yah where are the Russians now , just holding 20 percent of Ukraine down from 40 percent last year, this is a good sign that Russia is losing this war when the trolls gang up on me hahahhaha, very amusing. Hey I suggest you tell your boss to pay you in USD or how about Pepe coin, since the Russian ruble will be worth less than even refund coin.

As an Austrian, I sadly agree.

I thought it would be him, if any Soviet generals were to be included in the video.

There would have not been a battle at Chickamauga Creek were it not for Bragg's army being outflanked repeatedly during the Tullahoma campaign. Of course, Rosecrans made the error of pushing out of Chattanooga (at the insistence of Edward Stanton) and assumed that Bragg was going to act the same at Chickamauga, leading to that loss.

Sounds like Hannibal at Cannae.

Should have included Westmoreland. He got distracted at the Battle of Khe San and was completely taken of guard with the subsequent Tet offensive, which lead to America losing support for the war. The rest is history.

What’s your point?

Nice bonus facts

He may lose battles, but at least he'd still have an intact army afterward.

Indeed. He enjoyed every possible advantage, yet repeatedly managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

British Generals you say; there are plenty to choose from. Here is a short list: 1. Lieutenant General Arthur Percival - WW2 - Singapore 2. Lieutenant General Sir Ian Hamilton - WW1 - Gallipoli 3. Field Marshal Haig - WW1 - Western Front 4. Major General Chelmsford - Anglo-Zulu War - Isandlwana 5. Major General Charles Gordon - Khartoum 6. Lieutenant General Brudenell, Lord Cardigan - Charge of the Light Brigade 7. Lord Cornwallis, we know what he did 8. General Beresford, Viscount Beresford - Lost the British Invasion of River Plate. There you go, a list that only covers about 200 odd years.

Amazed to not have the usual nonsense about Haig repeated here (he was an average and often bad general such as with passchendaele but there are hundreds worse, even in the first world war.

​​​​@@Tiglath-PileserXIXoh i see i spoke to soon. And charles Gordon? You know nothing. Im guessing you just read about his death and mad period in africa and decided on that rather than his unbelievable victories and war engineering in places like china Lord cardigan wasnt even the commanding officer at balaclava. Cornwallis is basically unknown of in britain. Among military historians hes very highly thought of for his actions in india and ireland against the french. The whole revolutionary war thing isnt even in the top 5 priorities of the period compared to india, ireland, the French, spanish and gibralter

@@Ukraineaissance2014 Charles Gordon may have had "unbelievable victories and war engineering ...: but all it takes is one cock up and he not only lost his command but his life. Lord Cardigan ... confusion all around. The end result - a disaster. Cornwallis - of course he was "unknown" in Brtiain. He should be, he lost a continental colony. Lucky for him he was "unknown in Britain" or he would be the worst of the dreadful bunch.

I was wanting to say that myself. His pronunciation improved, but, sadly, the general did not, even after being relieved of his command. His career was salvaged by Jefferson Davis, who provided him a civilian post that he mismanaged for much of the remainder of the war.

Was looking for this comment! All i can see in front of me is a golden droid leading the forces. Probably same result either who so it checks out

Nah, C3P0 is an encyclopedia. He probably knows over 60 000 forms of tactics and strategies. :) @@Makabert.Abylon

Don’t think anyone cares lol. Everyone pronounces Caesar’s name with a c and not k “kaizer”

@@nkohu But who says "Nas" or "Sepeo"?

English speaking people are not known for their proper pronunciations. They seem to struggle with the C and the U and AE sounds. Or avoid them alltogether (Homer, Ovid)

Also the deserter who left his men on the Philippines with the good bye message I shall return

And the best general the Confederate army had was McClellan

How the West Was Lost: C.S.A. For: Gen. John Bell Hood The Village Elliott: 5/'06 Leading "West Rebs" to Tennessee, Hood Led "All Shot-Up" not like when "All-Good;" Unlike ex, Braxton Bragg, Whom all troops rather frag, "One-Eyed" * let Hood destroy them; John would! Maimed commanders on opiates creak, Don’t think straight, tend to nod, wake then freak, Like all men, despite rank; Blitzkrieg works best on crank! Men at war wage war best while they tweak! Time Bell's rung by "Rock" jn Tennessee, "Uncle Billy's" Blues just reached the Sea, "Cump"s March" led Yank drummers, "Blue Bellies" and bummers; "Georgia's burn" still howls "Hood’s Legacy." * "Massa Jeff" A nickname given by Confederate soldiers to President Jefferson Davis. It was affectionate but had the bitter recognition that soldiers were little better than slaves. This was vividly brought home when they cried "Give us something to eat, Massa Jeff," as he passed by hungry troops of Braxton Bragg's camped on Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga, Tennessee on November, 1863.... The work of "General Thomas" alluded to by Lincoln was the defeat and destruction of the Hood's army the previous week. Gen George Thomas , a native Virginia who stayed loyal to the Union, was "The Rock of Chickamauga" who had saved the army by rallying the retreating Yanks to prevent pursuit by the Rebs, becoming a rout. After Atlanta, Thomas was given the duty to pursue Hood. Hood, taking massive doses os opium for his constant pain, was erratic, missing their main chance, nodding away advantages. To compensate, he crippled the army by recklessly assaulting fortifications at Franklin (11/20/64), then destroyed two weeks later at Nashville. Five weeks after crossing their namesake river into the like named state, the tattered remnants of the once proud Army of the Tennessee crossed back over their namesake. Like Savannah, the Army of the Tennessee was also Lincoln's Christmas present, this one from Thomas. "One-eyed Jeff" a rude nickname for Jefferson Davis, who had a chronic eye infection causing virtual blindness. The following Christmas, one Confederate soldier in General John B. Hood's army, when retreating , after the disastrous battle of Nashville, moaned. "Ain't we in a hell of a fix: a one-eyed President, a one-legged general, and a one-horse Confederacy!"

@@arisnotheles What, no love for the Hero of Fredericksburg, Ambrose E. Burnside?

Hood was at least brave, and was respected by his peers. Bragg singlehandedly lost the West for the Confederates.

@@EwanCumia Hood was brave. I'm not sure how respected he was after Spring Hill and Franklin. Bragg had help losing the Wesr, lest we forget Floyd and Pillow.

Sweatheart, kingdom come deliverance is not a real historical source😂

Polk, Bragg, and Davis were all bafflingly inept leaders. It's a testament to the skill of other Confederate leaders (Lee, Jackson, Johnston, etc.) that the CSA survived as long as it did.

I miss him in biographics

@@howtoitall76 me too.

Well he could have gotten Braxton Bragg’s name right.

pronunciation blows tho. Seems like brits intentionally Anglicize foreign words, Simon certainly seems to

The mistake is to think he actually sought a breakthrough. Cadorna was one of the Italian elite (including a prominent newspaper editor called Beniito Mussolini) who believed the only way to properly unite Italy was a long hard war with lots of sacrifice - so heavy casualties were a feature, not a bug. That is evil, not incompetence.

In his younger years, he was actually more progressive and willing to try new things. By the time WWI came along, he had become more "conservative" in that he wanted to rely more on traditional strategies and tactics that date back to before every army had a machine gun.

Custer was actually a decent officer in the civil war, he earned his rank, and didn't come about it like the rich as*holes mentioned here. Plus he had bad intel. He just got annihilatd, i don't think it was 100% ineptitude, although he obviously dun Faqt up sum SHEEIT

Well, he was, at that time, only a regimental CO, just a LtCol, not a general. During the War of Southern Insurrection, is record as a cavalry commander is quite decent...

I couldn't agree more 👍👍He was awful awful awful

MacArthur at the Dai Ichi? Legend, masterstroke, no notes. MacArthur in the Philippines in 1940-1941.... yeeeeeeeeeeeah. Get the bucket. I'm gonna be sick.

MacArthur was a glory hound.

Douglas MacArthur: Incompetent in the field (Philippines 1941-42), abandoned his men (1942), then almost started WW3 when he lost face to the Chinese Army (Korean War). One of the few things Truman did right was to fire his a$$. Some say he won the Pacific War. That is wrong. By 1944-45 the US Armed Forces was generously well equipped compared to their opponents, and better led. By then America had better generals and admirals, with the exception of MacArthur. If the fight was even, like it was in 1941-42, the outcome may have been different.

Didn't he try to nuke North Korea?

He actually held the line against the Germans and eventually broke through their line and won the war.

I dont agree. Haig was essentially in an impossible position, he had an army whose ability to defend exceeded its ability to attack, and was facing another army with the same capacity, and then he was required to attack, as the Germans were on French soild. If he hadnt, he'd have been replaced and someone else would do it. Over years of war all the armies learnt newer and better ways to overcome this deficit and eventually the Allies, including Haig, overcame the Germans.

Saw an excellent vid on Haig, and WWI generals a couple of months ago. He, and the General staff cared deeply for their men. Did their best to protect them. They were always open to new technologies and methods, e.g. tanks. He was well respected by his men. His funeral procession a few years after WWI, many veterans lined up to pay their respects.

Haig had no good options. If he didn't attack, the war would get longer and he'd lose a lot of men to disease, snipers, enemy artillery, and German offensives. If he did attack, his men would be mowed down. In the end, his best option was to find a way to break through German defenses and turn the war into a mobile one. Cordona was far worse in that he was a bigger threat to his men's morale than the enemy was. Haig understood his situation and knew heavy casualties were inevitable. Cordona believed his men would win easily if they just loved their country enough. He took his army's heavy casualties and lack of victories as a sign that his men were all traitors and cowards. It says a lot that Italy's success in the war greatly improved after he was fired.

@@foxymetroid I agree with your assessment of Haig. He was a man of his times and a victim of circumstances. He eventually succeeded due to technological advances and the fact that Germany was on its way to a full blown revolution. The fact that the Americans joined his side was a great benefit - manpower. Once these crucial advantages were secured it took him about a year to win the war. Of course if you are on the losing side of that conflict you can blame "stab in the back" and whatever is convenient.

He never said No copious was Sigismund's fault. He even talked about the premature charge of the Burgundians. His critique was of Sigismund's overall lack of command ability.