“Armies Are Led by Incompetent Generals.” How Far Do You Agree with This Statement in the Time Period of 1792-1945?

1332 Words6 Pages
“Armies are led by incompetent generals.” How far do you agree with this statement in the time period of 1792-1945? Incompetence can be defined as a lack of physical or intellectual ability or qualifications, therefore incompetence in relation to generals could refer to the way they use their skills and abilities. There are many skills attributable to a general, however, at the forethought of this is their use of tactics, an adaptability to change and mould to the situation and the use of resources they deem necessary or happen upon during war. Therefore, it should be these skills we assess when looking at the competence of generals, all the way from the Napoleonic Wars to the World Wars in the 20th century. Looking at the period between 1792 and 1945, it is easy to evaluate generals looking at their tactics as this is a prominent feature in their occupation and can be used to assess their competence in relation to their approach to war. Perhaps a plain example of the incompetence of generals is that of Mack who in the Battle of Ulm was seen to disregard a full attack and did not wait for the Russians, instead raging into battle with only half the force he needed to stop Napoleon. This therefore concluded with a massive loss of men and the ultimate surrender of Mack who was stunned by Napoleon’s ambush in which he used half of his men to circle the Austrians- ergo suggesting an ingenious use of tactics by Napoleon. This illustrates that while Mack was incompetent in his position; Napoleon was not, showing both sides of the argument. Another way in which tactics were used problematically is through Raglan in the Crimean War as he made several errors at Balaklava for which he received criticism, sending small British units against larger Russian contingents; which occasioned the complete destruction of the British units. This suggests a foolish use of tactics as
Open Document