|
|
The Worst Battlefield Blunders: Five Battles That Ended BadlyBy Stephan Wilkinson | Military History | 13 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post Baratieri did score some initial successes against his opponents. Returning briefly to Rome, he boasted that next time he would bring back Menelik “in a cage.” Subscribe Today
The remote settlement of Adwa sat amid a lunar landscape—precipitous, rocky, pimpled with bare peaks, confusing and featureless. The Italians had poor maps, scant communication equipment and thin-soled boots ill suited to the terrain. Worse still, Baratieri, trying to save a few lira, gave his troops slow-firing Remington rifles that were less accurate than the Ethiopians’ weapons: He wanted to use up the stocks of obsolete cartridges that fit them. The two armies faced off and waited. Baratieri had 25,000 dispirited troops, most of whom were native Eritreans and either homesick or green, while Menelik fielded more than 100,000 fanatical soldiers, more than half packing high-powered rifles. Both sides were on short rations in this barren land, each trying to outlast the other. Menelik blinked first. He planned to pull out on March 1, 1896. To Menelik’s astonishment, however, a mounted scout tore into camp on the eve of the retreat and announced that Baratieri was marching toward them. Menelik welcomed the confrontation. Baratieri had been stung by a telegram from Italian Prime Minister Francesco Crispi, demanding that he take action or consider his status downgraded from hero to coward. The general had little taste for the fight—he knew he was outnumbered, though he had no idea how thoroughly he was outgunned—but his brigadiers urged him on. Baratieri’s surprise nighttime assault proved far too complex for the terrain and the mapless Italians. His four brigades stumbled into each other and left miles-wide gaps in the line of advance. Some got thoroughly lost. The actual battle began at first light on March 1 and was over by early afternoon. The Ethiopians were enraged, pitiless and gave no quarter. More than 10,000 of Baratieri’s troops were killed, wounded or missing, while the Ethiopians lost 17,000 dead and wounded. But in a single morning, Ethiopia had risen from medieval obscurity to claim membership among the modern nations. Custer at the Little Bighorn  Perhaps no battle in history has been as studied, dissected, analyzed, theorized over and wildly guessed about as the Battle of the Little Bighorn in Montana, where Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and 200-plus U.S. officers and cavalrymen were slaughtered to the last man (save one Crow scout who ducked out early). Nobody but the attacking Sioux and their allies actually knew what happened, and the Indians weren’t rushing to admit how brutally they had treated the supposedly crack 7th Cavalry. Only since the mid-1980s have archaeologists methodically cataloged artifacts in a way that allows a picture of the short but intense battle to emerge. Until that time, what registered on the national consciousness were lurid panoramas commissioned by beer companies for display in saloons, showing the golden-haired, long-locked Custer fighting for the glory of his regiment in the midst of a neat defensive perimeter. That Custer was crew-cut at the time of the battle is the least of the mistakes depicted, for the location of bodies, bullets and cartridges suggests it was more a confused, leaderless rout than a battle. The spin continues. Custer graduated dead last in his West Point class, by some accounts an arrogant goof-off who learned little more than how to infuriate his superiors. Yet one 7th Cavalry Web site today proudly notes that Custer “graduated 34th in one of the brightest classes that had graduated to date,” neglecting to mention there were only 34 men in the class. What is known is that with five companies of about 210 men, including packhorse drivers and mercenary Indian scouts, Custer mounted a frontal attack on some 2,000 infuriated Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne warriors. Their reaction has been likened to what might happen if you jab a stick into an anthill and stir hard. It was the biggest battlefield blunder Custer ever made—and, of course, the last. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 19th Century, 20th - 21st Century, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
13 Comments to “The Worst Battlefield Blunders: Five Battles That Ended Badly”
The Little Bighorn section of this article is simply riddled with idiotic statements & completely shows the author has no idea whatsoever about what he is actually writing about. Perhaps, he should at least study the campaign & battle itself prior to simply writing what he has heard about the battle. His total ignorance to what took place in Montana simply discredits his abilities as a “writer” as well as historynet.com for posting this ridiculously uninformed article! It seems his only study of the battle came from watching Little Big Man! PLEASE!
By Jeff on Jun 22, 2008 at 12:21 am
Custer was an idiot and a p***y. It doesn’t warrant any closer study than that.
By JRS on Jul 10, 2008 at 11:59 am
Lets not forget Naumo not launching the third strike wave at Pearl Harbor. He would have destroyed the fuel farm, starving the Pacific fleet for fuel, and possibly gotten the returning carriers. There would have thus been no Battles of the Coral Sea, or Midway. But the greatest blunder of all would be politicians overruling GENERALS TACTICAL DECISIONS FOR POLITICAL GAIN. For example, the President of France ordering Verdun to be held at all costs, over the GENERALS DESIRE TO PULL BACK AND SHORTEN THEIR LINES. Result 500,000 unneccesary French dead.
By Stanley Peek on Jul 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm
To JRS: perhaps you should research George Custer and his service during the Civil War. Specifically at Gettysburg and his actions against JEB Stuart’s attack that most likely won the battle for the Union. You can start your research with Lost Triumph written by Tom Carhart.”idiot and a P***y” thats strong words from someone who prob. couldent even water Custers horse.
By joe on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The comment that the British soldiers in WWI were “lions led by donkeys” was never said by any German general or one of any other nation. In recent years Cornelli Barnett (one of the masterminds behind the BBC’s wonderful history of WWI) has admitted that he made up the quote, which reflected his own views.
By James D Graham on Sep 3, 2008 at 6:52 am
Naming Custer’s defeat as a worst battlefield blunder is lame. He only lost 262 men! It wasn’t even the worst defeat to native forces in that decade. Chelmsford didn’t do as well in the Zulu war losing 1,200 in a single action two and a half years later.
Custer’s defeat is also paled by St. Claire’s losing one half of the U.S.Army 800 men in Nov 1792 to Miami Indians.
By Barney Cooney on Sep 7, 2008 at 11:34 am
the battle of the little big horn was basicly a draw. Custer blundered badly, but Benteen fought well and managed to save the day.
I do agree with James Graham and suggest that if you want to read about exciting Indian warfare checkout the woodland Indians.
By hew byrd on Sep 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm
It’s a pity that The battle for Malaya (8th December 1941 – 10th
February 1042) was not included in this research of worst
battlefield blunders.
One would see how the British Lt.General Percival was defeated
by Lt. Gen Yamashita (The Tiger of Malaya) with a combat force
one third that of Percival’s.
Yamashita out thought and out maneuvred the GOC of the
Commonwealth forces in February 1942 into surrender despite
Percival having more ammo and provisions than Yamashita’s
forces.
By Derek on Oct 29, 2008 at 4:17 am
There was no Civil War general who is more misrepresented than Ambrose Burnside. The attack at Marye’s Heights was planned as a diversion. The real attack was to be several miles away at the portion of the defense line held by Stonewall Jackson. General Meade then a division commander, pierced Jackson’s line as planned. The plan then called for Edwin Sumner’s Corp to expand the breach and force the confederates to retreat, inflict as many casaulties,etc . However, Sumner a McClellan groupie, said his orders weren’t “Clear”. So instead of expanding the breach, he did nothing. Meade could not hold the area where the line was breached with a single division. He was forced to retreat. It is true , Burnside did not possess the required “coolness” when things went wrong. He foolishly , after his good plan which would have won the battle was sabotaged, tried to win by repeatedly attacking Marye’s Heights. So McClellan’s sycophants helped the rebels win another battle as occurred at Second Manasses. Another factor overlooked by those who love to kick a man when he’s down was the fact that Burnside, had stolen a march on Lee and easily would have taken Fredericksburg, but for the minor detai of having to wait ELEVEN DAYS for pontoons to cross the Rappahanock. Of Course, by then, Lee’s army was totally concentrated on the other side of the river.
By Joe Hamilton on Nov 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I agree somewhat…. Custer may have had better performances before little big horn…but before you attack an opposing force of 2000 with 250 you run like hell the other way. his scouts had to inform him of the size of the American Indian camp… stupid move… cost him his life… every last man killed including him shows you how dumb the decision was…runaway!
By Histogramics on Nov 22, 2008 at 12:34 am
Speaking as a Native-American I am only sorry that there was not more “Indian Unity” and cooperation, like at the little big horn, because Custer was NOT the only foolish arrogant white butcher in the U S Army/Cavalry at that time. We were probably more responsible for losing the west as they were for winning it. I firmly believe that almost any of Custer contemporaries on the field at that time would have been seduced into making the same fatal he did. Custer by no means held a monopoly on race based arrogance. And after all, how far could the U S Army gotten without their “Indian Scouts” help? And we saw how they were rewarded for their service to the U S. Talk about just deserts, and a bunch of idiots . . . .
By John on Jan 27, 2009 at 12:54 am
Let everyone in this site know, a critic is a critic! A military blunder for one side is a victory for the other. After serving in the US Army for 19 years and 3 combat tours in Iraq, it is easy to say who is a moronic leader and who is not. especially when some have not experienced war firsthand. Military history is there for us today to learn from past mistakes and not make them again. But, born leaders are not taught in war college or bred from 4 year colleges. Sadaam Hussein could be considered “the worst military leader”, but at the time he had the second largest army in the world and top of the line equipment from Russia. No one really knew what the outcome of Desert Storm would be: But it pitted technology against numbers, and technology won! Now, in fighting insurgents that blend in with the civilians, us as soldiers has no idea who the enemy is. We are not fighting uniforms. The problem with war nowadays, is not the leader, soldier or units that fight wars, it is our politicians and public opinion. “We have to be nice and civilized, we cannot tortue, even though it may save a soldier, who could be our husband, wife, daughter or son. To win a war, it takes whatever means necessary to win! Period! Vietnam was lost due to politicians and public opinion, we took ground and gave it back to the Viet Cong, today we are doing the same thing! We take a village, a town, a city and then give it right back to the insurgents. Us as soldiers goes back to our FOB, Foward Operating Base and start the process all over again. I feel the biggest blunder of all wars to end all wars, is our moronic politicians who make the decisions in the first place! As a professional soldier, who is my commander in chief? A civilian, (president of the united states) Who has no clue what it is like to get shot at, get blown up, or hold his best friend in his arms while they are dying! Blunders happen due to stupid decisions, arrogance and underestimating an enemy. No one can take away the bravery of the soldiers of all of history, it takes pure guts and being half way scared out of your mind to fight against someone who is trying to kill you. When a critic of military history can say which is a blunder or not, first experience war first hand and then, only then, can you comment on which is a blunder or not. Until, you have experienced death, smelled it, tasted it, have nightmares about it, then you can be an expert of military history. Politicans get us in wars throughout time, but once in, they dont have the heart of stomach to continue to victory, we have to back out and be nice and rebuild the country that started the war in the first place. Why? What about president Bush pulling out of Desert Storm after 100 hours? Their was nothing left of Sadaam’s Army, they were retreating and surrendering by the thousands, I was there! Due to politicians ignorance and it is running rampant today, over 4,000 soldiers have given the utmost sacrifice today in Iraq. If the politicans had the balls to finish the task the first place, those 4,000 would not of died for nothing! My point in this whole thing, Politicians is the biggest blunder of all military history/wars. Look at every war, within the US History, who started all our wars????? Politicians! I for one, want to run for politics, but I would be the one, that would take another politician outside and Beat the living hell out of them! Start kicking their ass once in awhile, and they might for a change start making the right decisions for our country for a change, and that is not just pertaining to military decisions. I live in Mississippi and have trained soldiers, sailors, airmen. ,marines combat operations for Iraq/Afghanistan for three years, I have also for 5 years been with a special operations unit doing worldwide missions. Start making our politicians accountable for their stupidity and future blunders of our millitary won’t happen as much. I am sorry for ranting, I would love to put a politican beside me with a m-4 in their hand and try to fight along side of me to take a room, building or whatever, they would cower in their hole.
By Russ L. Lightfoot on May 5, 2009 at 2:10 am
To quote Mr Russ L. Lightfoot – “,,,,,I would love to put a politican beside me with a m-4 in their hand and try to fight along side of me to take a room, building or whatever, they would cower in their hole…” I think any one of the following guys would love to join you – they all served their Country with distinction:
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Jackson
Barack Obama
Bill Clinton
Dwight D Eisenhower
Franklin D Roosevelt
George H W Bush
George W Bush
George Washington
Gerald Ford
Grover Cleveland
Harry Truman
James Monroe
Jimmy Carter
John Adams
John F Kennedy
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Theodore Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
William H Taft
Woodrow Wilson
By S. Craig on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm