"How many generals knew they were not very good?" Topic

I posted this under "Wargaming in General" because it had "general" in the title, and frankly I did not know where else to park it.
Let the Editor sort out where he wants it to be crossposted to.

So…
…as the title asks, how many generals knew they were out of their weight class? That they were really not all that good.
Yet, like test pilot, quarterback and Senator, the job description does not generally include "humble". You have to at least THINK you are pretty darn good at what you do, or you fail miserably.

I think that in his more lucid moments Burnside in the ACW was aware that his talents were not all that impressive. Yet the ego factor kept him in the game. He even tried to decline command of the Army of the Potomac (unsuccessfully) because he felt he was not up to the job. Fredericksburg proved he was right. That was a battle that a wargamer would come up with. Brilliant plan, sadly lacking in execution, and too stubborn to quit before things got too bad. "All I need is to roll a few 6s…"

Can you think of others?

Since I mentioned Burnsides, I decided to crosspost to ACW.

Burnside was the first one I thought of too.

Longstreet maybe? I read one biography years ago that suggested he was campaigning for army command – finally got one and didn't do all that well. Thereafter reverted to corps command (where he was good) without complaint.

Please note that I am NOT asking for generals who were not very good. I only want those who were well aware of the fact!

The list of generals who were worse than they thought they were is far too long.
As Churchill said of a poiltician who was described as "humble", "He has a lot to be humble about."

I don't think Beauregard would meet your qualifications.

I don't think Beauregard would meet your qualifications.

My thoughts exactly.

I think the relevant term here is Peter Principle, where someone is promoted one slot above their level of competence. In the political arena, Lord Halifax had the good sense to step aside to make way for Churchill.

If generals were as good as they thought they were a war or battle would never be lost.

Yours is a difficult question John. As you stated the fact you are going that high in rank defines a certain feeling of confidence, ego, and motivation. As guineapigfury stated I think the more appropriate question is those that were victim of the Peter Principle. In which case I vote for General Clark in WW II. Clearly a man that never understood that he was at fault for anything. He allowed the German 10th Army to escape while he pushed to take Rome, which while of importance in regards propaganda had little military significance at the time. No doubt a brave man having many closed calls during the war but a mediocre and unimaginative commander who sacrificed men and material for dubious gain as was the case in the Rapido River crossing which cost the US Army over 2000 men. Clark was mum on that particular action in his memoirs "Calculated Risk." Perhaps it was because he realized he was out of his depth. Clark post WW II is the one responsible for creation of the United State's "Intelligence" community. Comment what you will in regards to that.

All of them? None of them? Who in the modern world knows they're really not a very good lawyer or doctor? You don't find out until you encounter one who's better than you, and you're proven to be a chump. Problem is, we don't go to war as often as doctors or lawyers practice their trades, so you don't know how truly good or bad you are until it's too late. There's no substitute for experience.

Washington lost more battles than he won, but won the war. Was he a bad general or a great one?

Very well said, Terrement. I agree with everything he said. I'd only add that modesty and a reflective temperament are unlikely to be found in a man who makes it to become a general. The same can be said of politicians. In reading history it sometimes seems to me that most generals come across as relatively insufferable (though possibly very good at winning battles), and would likely make pretty bad dinner companions.

It's not the same thing--and he was actually a very good general--but the most self-effacing and modest general I've come across has to be "Bill" Slim, the British general in the Burma theatre during WWII. His book is a great read for many reasons, but what's really exceptional is how often he blames himself for mistakes and praises his subordinates for success. Remarkable, really!

Up until Grant took command in the east, several of the Union commanders admitted that they felt inferior to Robert E. Lee. Not that Hooker, Meade, Hancock felt they were themselves bad generals…but that Lee was better.

The critical difference with Grant was that he refused to *care* whether Lee was a better general. Grant knew that he had the resources to take Lee. So he stuck to the job to the end.

Clearly a man that never understood that he was at fault for anything.

Clearly that DISQUALIFIES Mark Clark.
He was mediocre and refused to admit it.
That is not at all what I am asking for.

I think the more appropriate question is those that were victim of the Peter Principle

Again, that is not what I am asking for.

Bad and mediocre generals are a dime a dozen. How many were aware of the fact?

Don't tell me the question you think I SHOULD be asking. Answer what I DID ask.

The only one that comes to mind is Burnside and you already mentioned him.

With your conditions, I doubt very few if any officers who know their limitations stay with a military career long enough to make general. In the modern era (19th century and forward) there are career options in politics or industry that a competent but not gifted commander can take advantage of.

John, I think your question is not possible to answer or at the very least difficult. How many Generals or commanders will admit that they were not up to the task? It is not in the make up of someone who makes it to that level to be humble or self reflective. How about you clarify your query.

There is no need to clarify my query.
I and at least two others came up with Burnside.
It is really quite simple. Are there generals who felt they were not up to the task? Is that clear?
Burnside clearly felt so, yet soldiered on. I will leave it up to the audience to decide if that was admirable or not.

Pericles … Afraid to take on the Spartans and smart enough to know it.

Socrates

During the SYW era, the Austrian commander Hildburghausen and the French commander Soubise were both aware of their limitations, IIRC. Unfortunately for the French and allies, both commanders were present at the battle of Rossbach in 1757.

My understanding of Rossbach is that Soubise wanted to head for the hills and wait for Frederick to leave. Hildburghausen thought it was inglorious to flee from a smaller force and insisted on an attack. But they ended up fleeing anyway.

I wonder if political generals and/or nobility would be more or less likely to recognize their limitations than "professionals".

I agree with Alte Fritz, both Soubise and Hildberghausen knew they weren't up to it.

But I also have to throw into the mix one of my favorite
Generals, again American Civil War-- Ben Butler.

Butler knew he wasn't a great general, probably knew he wasn't even a good one. But he was a good civilian administrator (though perhaps a little crooked) and he tamed the women of New Orleans. But Butler also had flashes of military competency, like when the two regular Army generals held him back when he wanted to dash into Richmond when campaigning on the Bermuda Hundred, and especially in the very opening days of the war when there was only one green regiment in Washington, and the railroad was cut, Butler put all the troops he could find on boats and floated them down the Delaware from Philadelphia and around and through the Chesapeke to Washington.

I have a candidate: Marshal Edouard Mortier. Raised to the Marshalate of Napoleon he often avoided the petty infighting of his fellow Marshals and didn't mind acting as a subordinate to some of them. In fact, he was described as the perfect subordinate and refused a the rank of general when first offered to him. One disparaging quote about him was "The Mortar/Mortier has a short range" but he was fine with being a second banana marshal.

It recently dawned on me that I'm pretty crap, although I held my own during the Battle Of Arras 1940!

Any others? Don't even compare.

Lots I can think of that were not very good but thought they were the better than the competition.

Archduke Charles ?

Fabius Cunctator

Refused to face Hannibal in open battle.

Also, one of the all-time great Latin names.

Knowing of your admiration for all things Roman, John – Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator.

Although his refusal to give Hannibal battle may be attributed to risk avoidance in general rather an explicit acknowledgement that he wasn't in Hannibal's league. Although he had proved his basic competence in prior campaigning.

He also had the ego to hold to his course against strong popular disapproval – it helps to be dictator.

Biggest mistake was opposing Scipio's plan to take the war to Carthage.

P.S. Well that took to Zippy beat me to it…Never stop to read the history…

The Austrian commander of the army of the north in 1866. Von Benedek. Good corps commander, knewhe was not up for army command.

One Japanese chap in the mediaeval period realised he wasn't that good at being a general and let his brother do it, while a mediocre general he did excel at politics and built a vast powerbase.

I'd have to go and check sources to find the names and more info.

Regards

David F Brown

John, I think you misunderstood my Longstreet.
At first he thought he was up to army command, then after a bad experience realized he wasn't as good as he initially thought he was.
According to that book I read once (great source I know)

The Austrian commander of the army of the north in 1866. Von Benedek. Good corps commander, knewhe was not up for army command.

Beat me to it. Excellent nomination. IIRC, he put some effort into NOT getting the job.

Washington repeatedly wrote or said that he was not up to the task, historians still argue if that was false modesty or not (I'm inclined toward it being false modesty myself).

Gen. Gideon Pillow at Fort Donelson? Although abandoning the command and fleeing the fort was probably more an exercise in vanity and self-preservation than a sense of inferiority.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Grand Old Duke of York. He had an army command in Flanders early on in the Napoleonic wars which was generally considered to be disastrous. He then turned his attention to modernizing the British Army – his administrative work at Horse Guards was widely praised, but he generally (and wisely) kept away from subsequent field commands.

Burnside realized he was not up to Army command, admitted it but felt he had to take the job

Von Moltke the Younger (aka "gloomy Julius") realized he was not up to the job of Chief of Staff – unfortunately too late for the Germans

von Benedek also reckoned he was in over his head

My beatnik answer, not enough, as many a man has been layed low by incompetent Generals, one could rather ask for the often bloodless battles of the Italian wars by the Conditorei. (Although the people did still suffer real deprivation so not all cool then) but wishful that it was more of a choreographed outing of reenactors than the real thing throughout the worlds history, we would be better for that way of thinking IMO.
Cheers and wishful thoughts to more peaceful pursuits.

1960Boot has suggested Archduke Charles. I doubt that he though that he was "not very good", it was more a case of him being aware of his limitations, particularly when taking on Napoleon.

I don't think Pillow thought he was bad, though Grant knew it.

John, I think you misunderstood my Longstreet.

No. I was not responding to your post. I was adding random thoughts.
I agree with you, BTW.

Who in the modern world knows they're really not a very good lawyer or doctor?

They open abortion "clinics" in Philadelphia and get sent to prison.
link

One Japanese chap in the mediaeval period realised he wasn't that good at being a general and let his brother do it, while a mediocre general he did excel at politics and built a vast powerbase.

I'd have to go and check sources to find the names and more info.

Minamoto no Yoritomo?

General Buller (Boer War) seems to have had some doubt about his abilities and admitted in a letter to his wife that he was more suited as a second-in-command.
If anything, he was probably a little hard on himself – though by no means a great general, overall did not do too badly.

Tsar Alexander I. He tried at Austerlitz and after being handed his ass back to him by Napoleon, he recognized his limitations -although only in private letters- as field officer and never again exercized a field command… although he was instrumental in defining the strategy of the Coalition in 1813-1814. Eisenhower also recognized his limitations as field officer.

Redvers Buller actually asked to NOT be made C-in-C in South Africa, stated that he was a good 2iC, but was jollied into taking the position anyway and was subsequently pilloried for his failings.

Nicias of Athens was another victim of politics. He actually opposed the Sicillian expedition, but was seen as so knowledgeable on the subject he was elected co-commander with Alcibiades over his own objections, who managed to run off just as the expedition was sailing, leaving Nicias well out of his depth. Nicias is also in the running for 'unluckiest' too – bad omens, eclipses on top of being a very by-the-book commander.

I think it was probably pretty common – I remember seeing Lance Corporals who were very nervous to step up to be section commanders, and Corporals who doubted they could be a Sergeant… so while I never approached the rarified air of high command, I can't see that it would be much different up there for some.
Of course, they had to bluff their way through and brazen it out rather than admit they were in over their head, else morale would have collapsed in an instant.

I'd say Buckner. He actually asked his opposing General (Grant) if he should surrender to Grant since his situation was so bad.

Grant walked with Buckner to evaluate his situation. The two had known each other before the war and Buckner felt Grant was an honest fellow. The two of them looked over Buckner's positions, his forces and their placement. Grant felt honor bound to not lie or mislead him so he spent some time doing this. Is all honesty Grant felt his situation was hopeless and advised him to surrender.

Frederick's younger brother August William. How about Samsonov in WWI?

I know I'm not very good. I couldn't lead a corporals guard over a ditch.

Yes, "Spoons Butler" and "Commissary Banks". Both had their moments and both were able to recognize when they were out matched. Early on Sherman had moments of great doubt and later he felt that army command was too much for his abilities. Fortunately he was wrong.