Worst Military Leader (game thread)

[BlinkingDuck]

@Tom_Scud

James Ledlie 2

I honestly don’t think anyone else deserves to be voted out at this point.

ooooooohhhh no you don’t! This is where it gets fun! I think it would be great for people to make pitches/debates at this very hard point.

I’m thinking Santa Anna’s time may be at hand…but I am not very knowledgeable about Charles le Temeraire…how would he compare?

[Tom_Scud]

I’d like to have a breather to savor the Magnificent Ten before pulling a few more of them off of the island, thankyouverymuch.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

If at all possible, and the votes permit it, I will give just one the hook in the next turn, leaving us with our Absolutely Worst Rock-Bottom Stinkeroo Gawdawful Ten before we proceed from there.

Arthur Percival - 2
Abdel Hakim Amer - 2
Charles Alexander of Lorraine - 1

[BlinkingDuck]

Thinking of going with Ledlie, Santa Anna and Hood…but not sure yet.

[BlinkingDuck]

Ok ok…I will vote after thinking about this again…

I agree only one should be voted off so we can savor the top 10.

Ledlie - 2

Hood - 2 This one is tough but the South was in bad shape already. They may have been able to hold out until elections in the North and pulled something out…but that is not certain. So, reluctantly, I choose Hood.

Charles Alexander of Lorraine - 1 While bad, doesn’t seem to have had the huge implications of others.

I’ve changed my mind about Santa Anna…the map of the Western hemisphere could be hugely different if not for his blundering. I don’t think he deserves the award but I can’t put him above Charles Alexander at this time.

As for Amer…how the hell do you go to war with an extremely tough opponent with only half your army??? WTH? And then set up your forces stupidly…and then when Israel premptively attacks you screw up bad. Not #1…but my God…

I can’t go with Percival because I think he has a real shot at #1.

[Malthus]

Ledlie -2

Let’s get rid of him - he doesn’t belong in the “top ten”.

[Tamerlane]

@BlinkingDuck

I’m thinking Santa Anna’s time may be at hand…but I am not very knowledgeable about Charles le Temeraire…how would he compare?

Here’s what I posted about him in the Greatest Military Leader game thread ( where he had inexplicably been nominated ), very slightly modified:

*If we’re going to talk about “Greatest Military Leader” we should eliminate the antithesis of this title first and I’m afraid Charles the Bold actually counts as a genuinely bad general. His nickname le Temeraire more accurately translates to the the Reckless or the Rash and describes both his impulsive nature and his huge metaphorical cojones. While he was certainly aggressive and he can be credited in taking a keen interest in military affairs, creating as modern and balanced as army as existed in mid-15th century Europe, his command of it was pretty uniformly inept.

While still just Comte de Charolais he performed somewhat ineffectively at Montleheury, but convinced himself he had done magnificently on the strength of successful counter-charge against the balky right wing of the royalist army. Of course he lit out after retreating troops willy-nilly in a perfect example of cavalryman’s disease, leaving it to his more level-headed captains to wheel some of the Bugundian troops around against the royal center. In the end the battle was functionally a draw.

That was his peak as it were. At Grandson he abandoned a strong defensive position on an open plateau where his cavalry superiority could have been used effectively and where his position was anchored by the strong bastion of Grandson castle. Instead, overruling his own officers who advised otherwise, he marched his disorganized army in ragged masses streaming around both narrow ends of lake Neuchatel, straight into the maw of the Swiss heavy infantry where they were chopped to pieces. At Morat he decided for no discernible reason that the Swiss weren’t prepared to give battle and effectively ignored the threat of their larger army until he was under full assault, at which point he panicked and began issuing confused and contradictory orders while his army collapsed around him. At Nancy instead of withdrawing to rebuild or sue for peace, he for all intents and purposes committed military suicide, throwing the shattered remnants of his heavily outnumbered army into battle for no good reason other than pride and died on the field.*

He fancied himself a great commander, but he was really thoroughly mediocre. His overall battlefield record is pretty poor with the added little bonus of basically destroying a wealthy and somewhat viable emerging pre-state state in Burgundy.

Also his final battle at Nancy is perhaps the most idiotic engagement one could imagine - he really did have next to no chance to win and fighting it was mostly his choice. The Light Brigade probably had better odds. As a final gesture it was perhaps the perfect kiss-off to the Age of Chivalry as a doomed act of “bravery” that ended in a whimper.

As for votes…

James Ledlie - 2. Going to have to cogitate on the others.

[Tom_Scud]

Fine, I’ll go ahead and throw a couple more votes on the fire:

Zhao Kuo - 2 - all the info I have to go on is a couple Wikipedia pages, one reasonably well written and the other not so much; still, based on that, it looks like his major blunder (overaggression leading into a trap) was based on a direction chosen by his political leadership.

Hood - 1 - Seems to have been moderately successful at a lower level before being over-promoted.

[BlinkingDuck]

Thanks Tamerlane. That is close to what my memory was about him.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

OK, here we go:

Ledlie - 2 votes. Someone needs to be voted out of the crater
Zhao Kuo - 2 votes. If only because of a lack of information

new one for me:

Francisco Solano López -1 votes. OK, he started the war and the end of it was a total, utter disaster beyond the pale for Paraguay. But one of the turning points was a naval battle he had no control over (beyond arming them pretty well for the era). Eventually Lopez just kept coming up against stronger and stronger resistance and had to retreat. I cannot see any huge, utterly inept mistakes he made beyond starting the war (which was a doozy and why he is in the game so late) and some poor discipline choices when things fell apart. He just ended up biting off more than he could chew. I have to wonder what S.A. would be like had he succeeded, because his failure never seemed utterly certain.

[Saint_Cad]

Doesn’t matter since Crater James is going but
Percival - 2
Stopford - 2
Crater James - 1 just so I can feel like I belong

[Sternvogel]

@Saint_Cad

Doesn’t matter since Crater James is going but

Stopford - 2

He’s already been eliminated, so you can use those two votes on someone else.

As for my selections this round, I’m sticking (albeit as the lone voice in the wilderness for now) with:

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna – 2

and adding:

John Bell Hood – 2
Charles Alexander of Lorraine – 1

[Elendil_s_Heir]

The results from Round 28 of voting:

James Ledlie - 11

John Bell Hood - 5
Arthur Percival, Zhao Kuo - 4 each
Charles Alexander of Lorraine - 3
Abdel Hakim Amer - 2
Francisco Solano López - 1

The boldfaced leader(s) above are eliminated. Ledlie was my last nominee remaining! That leaves our Top Ten Crapfest o’ Military Leaders:

Abdel Hakim Amer: Panicked, lost Sinai in 1967
Luigi Cadorna: Lost twelve consecutively; hated, cruel
Charles Alexander of Lorraine: Sustained career of incompetence
Charles le Temeraire: Rash rather than “Bold”
William George Keith Elphinstone: Lost an army in Afghanistan
John Bell Hood: Recklessly stupid, lost Atlanta, West
Francisco Solano López: Almost unmade Paraguay
Arthur Percival: Surrendered Singapore to Japan
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna: “Napoleon of the West”? Ha!
Zhao Kuo: Became idiom for “bad general”

Eliminated:

Ulysses S. Grant
William T. Sherman
Pyrrhus of Epirus
Benedict Arnold
James II of England
Earl of Cardigan
Cloudesley Shovell
Douglas MacArthur
William Halsey
George A. Custer
Curtis LeMay
Lord Chelmsford
George Tryon
Geoffrey Spicer-Simson
Benjamin F. Butler
Xerxes I of Persia
Ernest J. King
Gaius Terentius Varro
John A. McClernand
Daniel Sickles
Christian de Castries
Maximilian von Prittwitz
Rodolfo Graziani
William Westmoreland
Crassus
William Calley
Carlo di Persano
Heinrich Himmler
William H. Winder
Ratko Mladić
Paul D. Harkins
Oreste Baratieri
Romanus IV of Byzantium
Varus
Hermann Goering
Zinovy Rozhestvensky
William Hull
George B. McClellan
Judson Kilpatrick
Thom Karremans
Ambrose Burnside
Gaius Claudius Glaber
Douglas Haig
Braxton Bragg
Duke of Buckingham
Maurice Gamelin
Horatio Gates
Manuel Fernandez Silvestre
Nicias
Tiberius Sempronius Longus
Frederick William Stopford
Napoleon III
Philip VI
James Ledlie

Same rules for the next round, which will end at noon EST on Mon. Jan. 31.

[Malthus]

I thought it might be a good idea to have biographical snippets on our top 10 contenders. These are just bits gleaned from wikipedia, to get a bit of a handle on who these guys were and why they sucked - add details where appropriate.
Abdel Hakim Amer

In 1964, Amer was made first vice-president to Nasser and deputy supreme commander, with the power to rule for 60 days if the president was incapacitated. Amer’s distinguished career came to a sudden end after Egypt’s crushing defeat by Israel in the Six-Day War of June 1967. Many historians[who?] have stated that much the Egyptian military’s failures in the 1967 war can be laid at the feet of Amer.[citation needed] This is because Amer’s control of the Egyptian military establishment followed in line with leader Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s general policy of presenting different government institutions as fiefdoms to those most loyal to him. In addition, the proxy war Egypt (with Soviet backing) fought against the Saudis, West, and Israelis in the North Yemen Civil War (1962-1970), Nasser supporting the Yemen Arab Republic against the Western and Saudi Arabian backed Royalists, is also viewed as being key to Egypt’s defeat in the 1967 Middle East war; as nearly half of the Egyptian military was in Yemen at the time of the initial Israeli attack on Egypt.[citation needed]

When Amer heard of the fall of Abu Ageila to Israel, he panicked and ordered all units in the Sinai to retreat. This order effectively meant the defeat of Egypt. He was relieved of all his duties and forced into early retirement.

Luigi Cadorna

Cadorna launched four offensives in 1915, all along the Isonzo River. The goal of these offensives was the fortress of Gorizia, the capture of which would permit the Italian armies to pivot south and march on Trieste, or continue on to the Ljubljana Pass. All four offensives failed, resulting in some 250,000 Italian casaulties for little material gain. Cadorna would ultimately fight eleven battles on the Isonzo between 1915 and 1917. Additional forces were arrayed along the Trentino salient, attacking towards Rovereto, Trento, and Bolzano. These attacks also failed. The terrain along the Isonzo and in the Trentino province was completely unsuited for offensive warfare–mountainous and broken, with no room for maneuver.[2]

Historians describe Cadorna as a “martinet,” ruthless with his troops and dismissive of his country’s political authorities. During the course of war he fired 217 officers; during the Battle of Caporetto he would order the summary execution of officers whose units retreated.

Charles Alexander of Lorraine

During the War of the Austrian Succession, he was one of the principal Austrian military commanders, and was most notable for his defeat by Frederick the Great at the Battle of Chotusitz, fought in 1742, and the Battle of Hohenfriedberg in 1745. He was also defeated by Maurice de Saxe at the Battle of Rocoux in 1746.

Charles le Temeraire

Charles suffered a first rebuff in endeavouring to protect his kinsman, Rupprecht of the Palatinate, Archbishop of Cologne, against his rebel subjects. He spent ten months (July 1474 – June 1475) besieging the little town of Neuss on the Rhine (the Siege of Neuss), but was compelled by the approach of a powerful imperial army to raise the siege. Moreover, the expedition he had persuaded his brother-in-law, Edward IV of England, to undertake against Louis was stopped by the Treaty of Picquigny (29 August 1475). He was more successful in Lorraine, where he seized Nancy (30 November 1475).

From Nancy he marched against the Swiss, hanging or drowning the garrison of Grandson, a possession of the Savoyard Jacques de Romont, a close ally of Charles, which the Confederates had invested shortly before, and in spite of their capitulation. Some days later, however, he was attacked before Grandson by the confederate army in the Battle of Grandson and suffered a shameful defeat, being compelled to flee with a handful of attendants, and leaving his artillery and an immense booty (including his silver bath) in the hands of the allies (2 March 1476).

He succeeded in raising a fresh army of 30,000 men, with which he attacked Morat, but he was again defeated by the Swiss army, assisted by the cavalry of René II, Duke of Lorraine (22 June 1476). On this occasion, and unlike the debacle at Grandson, little booty was lost, but Charles certainly lost about one third of his entire army, the unfortunate losers being pushed into the nearby lake where they were drowned or shot at while trying to swim to safety on the opposite shore. On 6 October Charles lost Nancy, which René re-entered.

Making a last effort, Charles formed a new army and arrived in the depth of winter before the walls of Nancy. Having lost many of his troops through the severe cold, it was with only a few thousand men that he met the joint forces of the Lorrainers and the Swiss, who had come to the relief of the town, at the Battle of Nancy (5 January 1477). He himself perished in the fight, his naked and disfigured body being discovered some days afterward frozen into the nearby river. Charles’ head had been cleft in two by a halberd, multiple lances were lodged in his stomach and loins, and his face had been so badly mutilated by wild animals that only his physician was able to identify him by his long fingernails and the old battle scars on his body

William George Keith Elphinstone

On 2 November 1841, Akbar Khan proclaimed a general revolt and the citizens of Kabul followed suit. Elphinstone and Macnaghten were caught by surprise. The East India Company troops in and around Kabul numbered only 4,500 men, of which 690 were Europeans. The Afghans stormed the house of Sir Alexander Burnes, one of the senior British political officers, and murdered him and his staff. Elphinstone took no action in response to the incident, which encouraged further revolt. The British situation soon deteriorated when Afghans stormed the poorly defended supply fort inside Kabul on 9 November. The British forces had refrained from occupying the citadel and instead occupied cantonments 1.5 miles (2.4 km) outside Kabul, a badly chosen place.

On 23 November, Afghans occupied a hill overlooking the British camp and began bombarding the camp with two guns. A British force sallied out to drive them away, but the Afghans inflicted heavy casualties firing jezails at long range, and the British force fled, leaving 300 wounded to be killed. It was evident that morale was low in the British force.[4] Elphinstone called for reinforcements from Major General Nott in Kandahar, but they found the passes blocked by snow and turned back.

Macnaghten realized their desperate situation and tried to negotiate a free retreat for the troops and the 12,000 British and Indian civilians still at Kabul. The Afghan diplomats invited Macnaghten for tea on 23 December, but at the moment the British delegation dismounted from their horses, they were seized and slain by Akbar Khan. Macnaghten’s body was dragged through the streets of Kabul. The guard which was supposed to protect him had not shown up. Elphinstone had already partly lost command of his troops and his authority was badly damaged.

To the utter horror of all his officers Elphinstone again ignored the murder and instead signed a capitulation on 1 January 1842, which had some unfavourable conditions. For example, his troops had to hand over their gunpowder reserves, their newest muskets and most of their cannon. However, they were promised a safe retreat, and the troops and civilians, amongst them children, women and the elderly, began to move out on 6 January. They planned to retire to Jalalabad, 90 miles (140 km) away, through snowy mountains.

At the start of the retreat, Elphinstone’s army consisted of one British infantry battalion (the 44th Regiment of Foot), three regiments of regular Bengal Native Infantry (the 5th, 37th and 54th BNI), one regiment of Shah Shujah’s Levy (a British-subsidised force of Indian troops recruited for Afghan service)[5], Anderson’s Irregular Horse, the 5th Bengal Light Cavalry and six guns of the Bengal Horse Artillery, with some sappers. In total, there were 700 British and 3,800 Indian troops.[6] The camp followers, including Indian and British families, numbered approximately 12,000.

The sick and wounded people were left behind, as Akbar Khan had guaranteed their safety, but when the last of Elphinstone’s soldiers had left the contonments, their tents were set on fire and all were massacred.

The first dangerous passage Elphinstone’s troops had to face was the Khord-Kabul pass, 15 miles (24 km) from Kabul. Instead of hurrying and securing the pass, Elphinstone ordered a rest after covering just 6 miles (9.7 km). Any effort to maintain military organization on the retreat failed. It was so slow that it was two o’clock in the morning before the last reached the resting place. This gave the Afghans the opportunity to seize the pass themselves.

When the British laboured up the narrow pass the next day, they were shot at from all sides by Ghilzais armed with the captured British muskets and their traditional jezails. By the evening of 9 January, around 3,000 of Elphinstone’s column had died; frozen to death or been shot, and in some cases they had committed suicide. The column had moved only 10 miles (16 km). A few hundred soldiers deserted and tried to return to Kabul, but none were spared by the Afghans. Elphinstone had ceased giving any orders and sat silently on his horse. On the evening of 11 January, Lady Sale and other officers’ wives gave themselves up and accepted being taken hostage by Akbar Khan, whom they mistrusted deeply. All the Indian servants and wives of sepoys were massacred, as they promised no ransom.

On the same day Akbar Khan persuaded Elphinstone and his second in command, Brigadier Shelton, to also become hostages. It was a uniquely degrading act in British military history, that senior officers surrendered to save their lives, while their soldiers had to struggle on and face almost certain death. Elphinstone died on 23 April as a captive.

John Bell Hood

Hood returned to field service during the Atlanta Campaign of 1864, and at the age of 33 promoted to temporary full general and command of the Army of Tennessee at the outskirts of Atlanta. There, he dissipated his army in a series of bold, but fruitless assaults, and was compelled to evacuate the besieged city. Leading his men through Alabama and into Tennessee, he severely damaged his army by ordering a massive frontal assault at the Battle of Franklin and was decisively defeated at the Battle of Nashville, after which he was relieved of command.

Francisco Solano López

The war which ensued, lasting until 1 March 1870, was carried on with great stubbornness and with alternating fortunes, though López’s disasters steadily increased. On September 12, 1866, López invited Mitre to a conference in Yatayty Corá. López had realized that the war was lost and was ready to sign a peace treaty with the Allies[9]. No agreement was reached though since Mitre’s conditions for rendition were that every article of the Secret Treaty of the Triple Alliance was still to be carried out, a condition to which López refused[8]. Regardless of López’s refusal, a peace treaty was not something Mitre could guarantee since article 6 in the secret treaty stated that “The allies solemnly commit themselves no to abandon arms unless commonly agreed, and as long as they haven’t overthrown the current government of Paraguay, as well as not to try separately, nor sign any peace treaty, truce, armistice which would put an end to or suspend the war, unless agreed by all parties”[10]. This not only rendered any possibility of truce or peace nearly impossible but also stipulated that the war was to continue until the current government ceased to be, which meant the death of López.

In 1868, when the allies were pressing him hard, he convinced himself that his Paraguayan supporters had actually formed a conspiracy against his life. Thereupon several hundred prominent Paraguayan citizens were seized and executed by his order, including his brothers and brothers-in-law, cabinet ministers, judges, prefects, military officers, bishops and priests, and nine-tenths of the civil officers, together with more than two hundred foreigners, among them several members of the diplomatic legations (the San Fernando massacres). During this time he also had his 70-year old mother flogged and ordered her execution, because she revealed to him that he was born out of wedlock.[11] López also attempted to have himself canonized by the local bishops. In 1870 he proclaimed himself a saint. 23 Paraguayan bishops did not agree with the canonization and were executed on López’s orders.

Arthur Percival

On 8 December 1941 the Japanese 25th Army under the command of Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita launched an amphibious assault on the Malay Peninsula (one hour before the attack on Pearl Harbor; the difference in date was because the two places lie on opposite sides of the international date line). That night the first Japanese invasion force arrived at Kota Bahru on Malaya’s east coast. This was just a diversionary force, and the main landings took place the next day at Singora and Pattani on the south-eastern coast of Thailand, with troops rapidly deploying over the border into northern Malaya.

On 10 December Percival issued a stirring, if ultimately ineffective, Special Order of the Day:

In this hour of trial the General Officer Commanding calls upon all ranks Malaya Command for a determined and sustained effort to safeguard Malaya and the adjoining British territories. The eyes of the Empire are upon us. Our whole position in the Far East is at stake. The struggle may be long and grim but let us all resolve to stand fast come what may and to prove ourselves worthy of the great trust which has been placed in us.[50]

The Japanese advanced rapidly, and on 27 January 1942 Percival ordered a general retreat across the Johore Strait to the island of Singapore and organised a defence along the length of the island’s 70-mile (110 km) coast line. But the Japanese did not dawdle, and on 8 February Japanese troops landed on the northwest corner of Singapore island. After a week of fighting on the island, Percival held his final command conference at 9 a.m. on 15 February in the Battle Box of Fort Canning. The Japanese had already occupied approximately half of Singapore and it was clear that the island would soon fall. Having been told that ammunition and water would both run out by the following day, Percival agreed to surrender. The Japanese at this point were running low on artillery shells, but Percival did not know this.

The Japanese insisted that Percival himself march under a white flag to the Old Ford Motor Factory in Bukit Timah to negotiate the surrender. A Japanese officer present noted that he looked “pale, thin and tired”.[51] After a brief disagreement, when Percival insisted that the British keep 1,000 men under arms in Singapore to preserve order, which Yamashita finally conceded, it was agreed at 6.10 p.m. that the British Empire troops would lay down their arms and cease resistance at 8.30 p.m. This was in spite of instructions from Prime Minister Winston Churchill for prolonged resistance.[2] The Pacific War was just ten weeks old.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna

Like other states discontented with the central Mexican authorities, the Texas department of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas rebelled in late 1835 and declared itself independent on March 2, 1836. Santa Anna marched north to bring Texas back under Mexican control. On March 6, 1836, at the Battle of the Alamo, Santa Anna’s forces killed 187-250 Texan defenders and later executed more than 350 Texan prisoners at the Goliad Massacre (March 27, 1836).

The defeat at the Alamo however served its purpose buying time for Houston and Texas. Houston and his soldiers defeated Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836, with the Texan army shouting “Remember Goliad, Remember the Alamo!” The day after the battle on April 22, a small band of Texan forces led by James Sylvester captured Santa Anna, dressed in a dragoon private’s uniform and hiding in a marsh.

Acting Texas president David G. Burnet and Santa Anna signed the Treaties of Velasco: “in his official character as chief of the Mexican nation, he acknowledged the full, entire, and perfect Independence of the Republic of Texas.” In exchange, Burnet and the Texas government guaranteed Santa Anna’s life and transport to Veracruz. Back in Mexico City, however, a new government declared that Santa Anna was no longer president and that the treaty with Texas was null and void.

Zhao Kuo

With Zhao Kuo now in control of the largest force Zhao had ever mustered, numbering about 400,000 men, he decided to attack the Qin forts, confident of his strength in numbers. At first the offensive went extremely well; many Qin forts fell and for a moment it seemed as if Bai Qi was going to admit defeat. Seeing this Zhao Kuo became haughty and complacent.

Unknown to the Zhao troops, Bai Qi had purposely feigned retreat in order to encircle and annihilate the entire Zhao force. Bai Qi had decided that, in order to defeat the large Zhao army, the best method would be to trap them, and slowly starve them to death. With the Zhao army in the command of the over aggressive Zhao Kuo, who only sees victory and not defeat, the timing was perfect. Now with the enemy deep inside the trap planned by Bai Qi, Bai Qi sent elite cavalry brigades to take the lightly defended Zhao fortresses back in Changping. Zhao Kuo was trapped, with most of his force, in a tiny area.

With food and water supplies being cut off by the Qin army, Zhao Kuo’s force slowly began to thirst and starve. After holding out for nearly a month, a desperate Zhao Kuo finally ordered a general breakout. It was already too late. Qin forces had by this point totally outnumbered their Zhao foes, and a general massacre ensued as the weakened Zhao soldiers were cut down by the fresh Qin troops. Zhao Kuo himself was shot down by Qin archers.

After the defeat of Zhao Kuo’s army, Bai Qi ordered the execution of some 400,000 Zhao soldiers, presumably by burying them alive.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Thanks, Malthus! Losers to a man.

[Sternvogel]

I’ll repeat my picks from the last round:

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna – 2
John Bell Hood – 2
Charles Alexander of Lorraine – 1

[Tom_Scud]

Zhao Kuo 2
John Bell Hood 2
Charles Alexander of Lorraine 1

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna - 2
Charles Alexander of Lorraine - 2
John Bell Hood - 1

[Mr.Miskatonic]

Zhao Kuo - 2 votes
Francisco Solano López - 2 votes
John Bell Hood - 1 vote

[Tamerlane]

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna - 2. Had at least some success earlier in his career. Not that great, but not a complete disaster.

John Bell Hood - 2. Decent junior officer.

Zhao Kuo - 1.

I’ll note that the ineptitude of poor Charles Alexander of Lorraine gets glossed over by wikipedia, which doesn’t have a very complete entry. He’s not #1 in my eyes, but he accomplished less than Santa Anna and never had the success Hood did as a junior commander. Zhao Kuo is getting a nod for semi-legendary status and being beaten ( if the stories can be believed ) by superior generalship.