Just For Fun - Why would you make a terrible battle commander?

I would be a terrible battle commander because I would definitely do something like this...
Just For Fun - Why would you make a terrible battle commander?
Why would the competent and valiant warriors under your care and leadership fail so miserably and cause them to mutiny against you?

Why, rather than Washington, Patton, Napoleon, or Alexander the Great would you look more like this guy...



0|0
5|19

Most Helpful Girl

  • I would make a terrible commander because, as an ancient history student slightly in love with Alexander, I'd just copy everything that he did. My tactics would be outdated and would get my men slaughtered and I would drink myself stupid to avoid the responsibility.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

What Girls Said 4

  • I'm an amazing strategist but I also have an amazing ability to read people and to convince them of something and make them happier because of it. Being a general isn't just about strategy, it's also about inspiration and management. In theory, a general doesn't have to be a great strategist if he can attract people who are better at it than he is and have them work for him.

    0|0
    0|0
    • True but those people who work under you would have to get your ok before they did something as that is how the chain of command works. So if your not a competent strategist then you won't know what the good or bad strategies are and that gets people killed.

      So you do have to know what your doing in the strategy department.

    • Show All
    • It's not a form of strategy it' an actual necessary trait for a commanding officer that's why they send you to officer school and train you in how to command men and understanding of strategy. And I can guarantee you that every commander/general in a major military organization or nations military will be a competent strategist.

      If you can't understand or comprehend strategy then you will not be able to give out orders to 10, 100 or thousands of men, and direct them in a effective strategic method, or be able to understand the strategies offered to you by those under you even specialists.

      After all you wouldn't want someone who didn't understand business running a business and taking advice from business people when they themselves don't understand what they're talking about.

    • And in the military a general is expected to know and understand strategy and not to listen to those under him for each and every little decision.

  • Because I'm willing to cross certain lines that should not be crossed, and because I'm prone to disobey orders.

    I'm telling it, because I've already done it.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Bitch please, I would be the greatest. :P

    0|0
    0|0
  • Because I might do some shit that may cause my troops to desert.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 18

  • I've been studying military history and strategy for like the last 10 years both ancient and modern. Everything from physiological warfare to using an enemies religion against them to deter groups of the same religion from rising up, large scale warfare, small squad based warfare, guerilla, sabotage, and of course torture for information, using the native population as soldiers to spare my own men, so on and so forth. And I love to play strategy/war games from all era's, pretty good at it to.

    Coming from a military family to I always talk with the soldiers I know about the capabilities of other nations militarizes, strengths, weakness and resources etc.

    I'm not going to say I'd be a horrible commander or the next coming of Alexander the Great but I'd say I'd be a content commander neither good or bad, but a good commander stems from experience and knowing the battlefield from being on it, not just knowing what to do from a school.

    Being a good commander though means for then strategy you have to be able to inspire your men and use whatever resources you have, as well as being good at management and also accepting the fact that no matter how good you are, people will die under you and for you.

    0|0
    0|0
  • There's this game called Defcon. I once led America to total nuclear victory. Wiped out the Chinese navy in 24 hours , and then proceed to level the entire continent lol
    http://i.imgur.com/2ttKmUA.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/JobWjQI.jpg

    *maniacal laughing in the background*

    The EU and India became my bullet shield and ate most of Russia and China's nukes , sparing most of America mainland.
    http://i.imgur.com/d5BpAFQ.jpg

    0|1
    0|0
  • I would like to think that I would be competent.
    The Australian Army spent a lot of money teaching me how to do the job.
    There is a lot more to being successful than being a competent tactician.
    Of equal importance is logistics, quality of equipment, the quality of the troops and the ability to repair/replace equipment and personnel as required.
    Not many of the celebrated military leaders of history have impressed me, once their decisions were subjected to critical thinking.
    Celebrity generals tend to be risk takers, which means that they can win big. . . or lose big.
    No matter how many times their risk taking pays off, the day will come when it does not.
    Napoleon is a classic example of this.
    Alexander the Great succeeded only because the Persian Empire was in disarray at the time that he attacked it.
    Twentieth Century generals who did impress me were Patton and Rommel.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm division 2 for commander score in Battlefield 4.
    www.guyandtheblog.com/.../Getting-serious.jpg

    Also I fail to see how that commander made the wrong call, good air support is necessary. How else will you succeed without prop planes and inspirational signs?

    0|0
    0|0
  • i play civilization V i would not be that bad as a commander. but i would refuse to be a commander because i would not be able to live with myself if my soldiers under my authority die. i already hate it if one of my units in civ V dies and i avenge their deaths by nuking the country that killed them.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Id be terrible since i keep loosing a game of rise of nations to my brother.. Or maybe he's just better than me.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Because I'd tell them all to go home so they're not in my way.
    www.gameinformer.com/.../2234.bubblegum.jpg

    0|0
    0|0
  • Have resources ready - Can Do

    Predict where the most resources will be needed - y'all are screwed...

    XD

    0|0
    0|0
  • Because I'd be too much of a pussy to fight. I'm a great tactician, though

    0|0
    0|0
  • At times I can be considered too bloodthirsty for today's military to handle. My methods would be considered by many to be barbaric and my views on the existence of War Laws wouldn't be correct.

    0|0
    0|0
  • i'd just say "fuck it i wanted to be a tree cutter!!" moving to Canada and singin about strange habits (quote____ lets see if you find it___ :D )

    0|0
    0|0
  • Legit battle commander I would be amazing at.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I won't be a bad battle commander AT ALL you learn some shit when your father is a staff of war 😛

    0|0
    0|0
  • All those generals you mentioned were actually hated by their troops and lost a lot of battles.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'd actually be pretty damn good...

    0|0
    0|0
  • I try to convince them into fighting against their own government! Smash the state!

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't think I would be.
    I'd be terrible in the sense that I'd be really scary to go up against.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Ha well I am joining the Royal Navy so I'd like to hope I'd follow in the footsteps of Admiral Lord Nelson as one of the great battle commanders. But if I was to be terrible, it would be because I would completely forget what the objectives are or something.
    "Men, are we clear on what we are to do to change the outcome of this war?"
    "Yes, sir!"
    "Good. Because I can't bloody-well remember."

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...