Worst Military Leader of all Time

Manach · 06-06-2003 10:24pm #1

We've had the best and now the rest.
Which General/Leader is truely the worst ever to lead men into battle.

Éomer of Rohan · 06-06-2003 10:56pm

Out of the ones listed, Sir Douglas Haig without shadow of a doubt. The disaster of the Somme was brought on by himself - and as a favourite literary character of mine puts it, he was "possessed of a thousand years of inbreeding for leadership qualities which proved to be those of a decade before his time."

I don't think that Xerxes can be cited for the defeat at Salamis; he was outmatched by more clever generals - ie Themistocles and Eurybiades not to mention that the conditions of the invasion of Greater Hellas were never going to be in his favour.

Mark · 07-06-2003 2:35pm

Haig gets my vote for simply atrocious play during WWI, the Somme as Eomer mentioned was the cataclysmic boil of his incompetency.

Daft Figger should have stuck to Whiskey...

orangerooster · 07-06-2003 10:43pm

The list aint bad but surley hitler should have been on it,so many bad bad mistakes,helping Italy thus delaying barbarossa,twice screwing rommel-once in North africa by saying stand and fight instead oif the tactically sound peg it and then again in France 1944 by denieng the undoubtedley superior commander he had in Rommel control of the panzers until it was to late.Squandering the nth degree of aerial technology at the time by refitting the ME262 for roles it was poorly or not suited to at all,and surely many more mistakes ive neglected to mention,so I'd say Adolf Hitler.

DapperGent · 07-06-2003 11:57pm

As has been mentioned Haig was an absolute disaster and threw away so many lives with his blunders.

Though a collective award should really go to all the senior japanese army generals during WWII. Who existed in a state of almost zealot-like stupidity after their intial victories.

Éomer of Rohan · 08-06-2003 1:12am

The list aint bad but surley hitler should have been on it,so many bad bad mistakes,helping Italy thus delaying barbarossa,twice screwing rommel-once in North africa by saying stand and fight instead oif the tactically sound peg it and then again in France 1944 by denieng the undoubtedley superior commander he had in Rommel control of the panzers until it was to late.Squandering the nth degree of aerial technology at the time by refitting the ME262 for roles it was poorly or not suited to at all,and surely many more mistakes ive neglected to mention,so I'd say Adolf Hitler.

Hitler was a politician not a military leader. His blunders were only allowed to succeed because the German military officers corp refused to stand up to him whenever he began to interfere and furthermore refused to give him unwelcome information; it took Winrich Behr, the fifth attempt by General Von Manstein to tell Hitler of the real situation on the ostfront to actually get through to high command how the situation was.

Let's not forget that some of the blame definitely goes to fat boy Goring for his incompetent management of the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, during the air bridge into the Stalingrad Kessel - which practically destroyed the 8th Air Army under the red barons nephew and finally the last ditch attempt to drive the allies out of France on the western front which broke the back of the luftwaffe altogether - destroying something like 102 fighters.

If Hitler is to blame for the German loss of WWII (despite the fact that everything was pitted against Germany - the economic strength of her enemies, their industrial production rate, their population size and their land mass) then that blame is shared by the Offices Corp - certainly by OKW/OKH and when you divide it across, there is not that much blame for each

Hairy Homer · 19-06-2003 4:29pm

Fair comments about the distinction between political and military leaders, but even so I'm nominating Mussolini as the worst military leader of all time.

The Italian Army did more to help the Allies win the war when it was fighting against them than any other single army fighting with them and it was all fat-boy Benito's fault.

I've just finished reading 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' and there's a passage in it describing how Mussolini withdrew many of his most seasoned regular troops back to Italy just before the invasion of Greece and kept his military chiefs in the dark about the attack until the last possible minute. 'Typical stereotyping of lovable bumbling Italians,' I thought 'Can't possibly be true' Then on visiting the site www.comandosupremo.com—by no means unsympathetic to the Italian military— I find that it actually might be true.

What a gob****e!!!

Mussolini's adventures in North Africa led to humiliation of the numerically superior but hopelessly under equipped Italian army, causing Hitler to send his best general over to bale them out.

His failure to capture Greece because his best soldiers were back harvesting grapes in Italy meant that the Germans again had to come to their aid, thereby delaying the invasion of the Soviet Union by six weeks which meant the Germans just failed to take Moscow before the depths of winter set in. The rest is history.

His fecking around in Yugoslavia stoked the flames of ethnic strife in that country (those countries) which we're still living with today.

His only successful conquest was against the Abyssinians, whose tribesmen he attacked with mustard gas and aircraft. Brings to mind the old rebel song:
'Come tell us how you slew
Them aul Arabs two by two.
Like the Zulus they had spears and bows and arrows.
How bravely you faced one
With your sixteen pounder gun
And ye frightened them damn natives to the marrow.'

No question. Mussolini by a street.

Mark: Just changed the lyrics to the correct version. Yes I'm pedantic. Interesting points on Mussolini btw.

Victor · 21-06-2003 1:32pm

I think Singapore was a bit of a debacle. While the Somme was atrocious, was Haig necessarily worse than his peers?

Originally posted by DapperGent
Though a collective award should really go to all the senior japanese army generals during WWII. Who existed in a state of almost zealot-like stupidity after their intial victories.

What is often missed when commenting on the Japanese was there were two separate traditions and factions - the army and the navy. Each was more interested in their own magnificence with regard to the other than doing what was in the best interest of Japan.

DapperGent · 21-06-2003 2:03pm

Yes the internicine fighting over resources was actually amusing to read about. They're in the middle of a war and are fighting over steel and oil not on the basis of strategic importance but simply to get more stuff than the other guy.

Utterly utterly nuts.

stira64 · 23-06-2003 9:06pm

why hasnt anyone mentioned general custer?

The Corinthian · 29-06-2003 7:05pm

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Fair comments about the distinction between political and military leaders, but even so I'm nominating Mussolini as the worst military leader of all time.

Mussolini was a poor strategist, although by your own admission a political rather than military leader. Additionally, also by your own admission, Italian troops were grossly ill equipped and unprepared for a war in 1940 - in fact, Mussolini and Hitler had previously agreed to postpone the war until 1943, to allow Italy to properly militarise. So when Italy did enter prematurely, she was wholly unprepared to do so.

Of course, this is not to say that Mussolini was not a military demagogue and incompetent - he was. But no more than many his political contemporaries - of the examples that you give, similar ones may be levied at Hitler. However, Hitler had the advantage of a military machine that had been rebuilt (from scratch) from even before his rise to power, while Italy was still using armaments from the First World War.

So, I just don’t see how you would see him as the worst military leader “by a street”, given objective comparisons. He was poor, but as Éomer noted, he was a political and not military leader. And there have been quite a few of those playing the role of armchair general over the years.

His only successful conquest was against the Abyssinians, whose tribesmen he attacked with mustard gas and aircraft.

Abyssinia had in fact already fought Italy to a stalemate, conceding only Eritrea, in the previous century. The main reason for this is that Italy’s colonial ambitions were hampered by the fact that the British in the Sudan were supplying the Abyssinians with arms. This was a contemporary Anglo-French policy to hamper the colonial expansion of the new nations (Germany and Italy) and ultimately was one of the numerous differences that lead to the First World War.

The natives having guns was a handicap that the British, ironically, did not have to endure themselves in their colonial adventures as the casualty figures of the battle of Omdurman would indicate: The Dervish army, approximately 52,000 men, suffered losses of 20,000 dead, 22,000 wounded, and some 5,000 taken prisoner, while the Anglo-Egyptian army, of some 23,000 men, suffered losses of 48 dead, and 382 wounded.

Although largely obsolete, the Abyssinian military in 1934 was still far better equipped than any African army that had ever faced by any of the European colonial powers. This is not an apology for the use of Mustard Gas - Churchill already did that when he said “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” in 1919 (and Britain actually used it in Iraq during the 1930’s) – however, it does pull the moral carpet from many of the criticisms made of this campaign.

Clintons Cat · 29-06-2003 11:35pm

The Italians werent the only ones Underprepared for ww2

The Poles were still using cavalry lancers that were made obselete before ww1

the british mattilda was under armed for it armour early models carried only machine guns,mark 2 s had a underpowered 2 pounder at gun,its lend lease replacement the sherman was known by the germans tankcrews as the "tommy cooker" for its extreme likelyhood to ignite if hit.The Raf and navy still had large numbers of bi planes in service

French tanks were huge behemoths that were extreemly slow allowing them to be outmanouvered on the battlefield.Equally virtually every spare part was unique to each model of tank meaning a logistical nightmare for replacements.
Battlefield communications were equally archaic.

as for the soviets,well the less said about their preparations the better.Officer class decimated,chronic shortages of weapons,protective clothing and suplies.

The Itallians with their close co operation with the Germans during the Spanish Civil war where many of the tactics of BlitzKrieg were developed,meant they should have had more forewarrning than most of the nature of the coming conflict.

BoobeR · 29-06-2003 11:37pm

I think it has to be Haig in my books.
He has to be one of the stupidest leaders of all time.

Hairy Homer · 08-07-2003 3:26pm

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Mussolini was a poor strategist, although by your own admission a political rather than military leader.

A fair point and one that I acknowledged at the start of my post.

If I may quote from one of my favourite movies, and this speech is based on a real one that the true-life character gave many times:

'An army is a team. It eats, sleeps, breathes and fights as a team. All this individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff ... in the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real battles than they do about fornicating'
From Patton: Lust for Glory a biopic of the famous US general

Or as I would paraphrase it: military success comes down to bringing superior force to bear on the enemy at the point where he is most vulnerable, and the means to achieve that comes down basically to the management and proper use of resources at your disposal. If you get that wrong, all the heroism, skill with weapons, tactical nous and fighting spirit of your troops count for nothing.

So, I just don’t see how you would see him as the worst military leader “by a street”, given objective comparisons. He was poor, but as Éomer noted, he was a political and not military leader. And there have been quite a few of those playing the role of armchair general over the years.

OK a central part of this debate is where you draw the dividing line between the merits of the military man at point of contact and the miltary/industrial strategy and organisation that sets the initial conditions under which they must operate.

It is the latter that hampered Italy's efforts so badly, it would seem to me, and given the nature of the Fascist state, with is emphasis on the cult of the leader, given that it was Mussolini who instigated so much of Italy's expansionist foreign policy, that it was he who raised the expectations of a Second Roman Empire, and that it was he who was the driving force behind the Corporate State which failed so badly to convert the talents of those well able to design Ferarris and Lamborghinis into a plentiful supply of modern equipment, I would still nominate him for the title.

Some may think that logistics managment is far too prosaic a discipline for military geniuses to bother with. I would fundamentally disagree. Indeed I would venture that it is the most important role in any army. Napoleon suggested as much when he said 'An army marches on its stomach'

Take Britain's most succesful general of the war, Montgomery. He was much derided by the Americans for his caution and lack of daring. But that went along with a meticulous attention to detail, elaborate planning and ruthless execution. The one time he went against his better instincts and gambled on a quick victory during Operation Market Garden (the attack on Arnhem) it ended in disaster.

The rest of the time he was victorious.

The natives having guns was a handicap that the British, ironically, did not have to endure themselves in their colonial adventures as the casualty figures of the battle of Omdurman would indicate: The Dervish army, approximately 52,000 men, suffered losses of 20,000 dead, 22,000 wounded, and some 5,000 taken prisoner, while the Anglo-Egyptian army, of some 23,000 men, suffered losses of 48 dead, and 382 wounded.

Hilaire Belloc put it most succintly:
Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun and they have not

Speaking as the great grandson of a cavalry man who actually fought in that war in the Sudan (and who used to brag to my father as a child that 'We were coming back up the Nile while Kitchener was going down') this only reinforces my point.

Schoolboy histories of the battle of Omdurman emphasise the last ever cavalry charge made by the British Army when the 21st Lancers (I think) went in to finish off the 'Fuzzy Wuzzies'.

It has also been immortalised by such jingoistic films as 'The Four Feathers' endlessly remade and a version of which was shown on telly last week, which contrasts the dashing heroism of the British Army 'Good old Surreys!' with the cruelty and venality of the natives.

In reality, by the time the Lancers got on their horses the Sudanese had already been cut to pieces by superior European technology. It was the Maxim gun that won it for them. And the credit should go in the first place to the logistics guys who got those weapons into the middle of the desert in the first place. I mean. How hard is it to fire one of those things from a safe distance?

Churchill already did that when he said “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” in 1919 (and Britain actually used it in Iraq during the 1930’s) – however, it does pull the moral carpet from many of the criticisms made of this campaign.

No arguments from me there. Churchill was muck. If he hadn't been fighting an even bigger bastard his reputation would be nothing today.

klong · 15-07-2003 12:28pm

My "other" vote goes to Sir Redvers Buller, a british army commander in the Boer War (see Guinness Book of Military Blunders for this)

loismustdie · 23-07-2003 1:42pm

i'd vote for haig from the list and other than that i'd nearly have to say de valera because of his behaviour during the independence movement but i suppose he's not really a military leader

PeterODonnell · 08-08-2003 2:56am

Another, and more unknown candidate, would be the Swedish general Cronstedt, who surrendered the extremely well garrisoned and provisioned fortress of Sveaborg to the invading Russians in 1809, causing Sweden to lose Finland to Russia.

Turnip · 20-08-2003 9:43am

Robert Emmet.

Lord Chelmsford for losing to the Zulus at Isandhlwana.

Turnip · 20-08-2003 10:02am

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
the british mattilda was under armed for it armour early models carried only machine guns,mark 2 s had a underpowered 2 pounder at gun,

I read somewhere that Rommel was impressed by the Matildas. His division was in serious danger at Arras when they attacked and he had to order his 88mm AA guns to fire on them.

French tanks were huge behemoths that were extreemly slow allowing them to be outmanouvered on the battlefield.Equally virtually every spare part was unique to each model of tank meaning a logistical nightmare for replacements.
Battlefield communications were equally archaic.

I thought the main problem with the french tanks was that they were spread out between units while the germans concentrated theirs in whole divisions.

as for the soviets,well the less said about their preparations the better.Officer class decimated,chronic shortages of weapons,protective clothing and suplies.

Who was in charge of the Russians during the disastrous invasion of Finland?

bloggs · 02-09-2003 3:37pm

Why isn't GW Bush in this list? Oh it's Worst not Dumbest

shock · 03-09-2003 6:21pm

Definitly Haig. Some of the others on the list were not so much stupid as had extremely bad circumstances. But Haig was definitly just a bad leader.

The Corinthian · 03-09-2003 6:37pm

Claudius Glaber. Spartican revolt. Over confident and inexperienced.

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 06-09-2003 7:50pm

Haig was a tit true but Foch was much worse...he still got promoted to Field Marshal..."such are the quirks of war"....

Vader · 08-09-2003 8:06pm

I dont see why cornwallis is there, he was one of the all time greats

Éomer of Rohan · 08-09-2003 9:56pm

You mean one of the all-time greats despite losing the 13 colonies of the USA?

shock · 10-09-2003 2:28pm

Cornwallis just didnt know how to fight the Americans, he was used to straight forward, two armies lining up and charging fights. but the americans used ambushes and gurrilla tactics he just couldnt handle.

The Corinthian · 10-09-2003 2:37pm

Originally posted by shock
Cornwallis just didnt know how to fight the Americans, he was used to straight forward, two armies lining up and charging fights. but the americans used ambushes and gurrilla tactics he just couldnt handle.

Pretty ironic, given current events :rolleyes:

Vader · 12-09-2003 8:45pm

its more than that, Cornwallis was in a foreign land and had to fight a war on three fronts. 1) The pitch battles 2) Naval Battles
3) and of course gurrilla warfare.
But most of the defeats werent his fault they were often the results of bizzare coincidence and the incompedance of his sobordinates- a common problem in classical armies where officers are always aristocrats
Gurrilla warfare wasnt as a big a thing as The Patriot makes it out to be! The militias were sh1te.
If you look at Cornwallis' record in europe, India, Ireland and the french and indian war you'll see he was a very successful and compident general

Capt'n Midnight · 12-09-2003 9:21pm

Submarine Vs. Cavalry

I thought the incident involving a Turkish cavalary charge against a British submarins would show up a commander as being foolish but now IMHO I'd say the Cavalry won considering the circumstances.

...Nasmith's ensuing patrol, ... so successful that it earned him the Victoria Cross. .... and he was only prevented from destroying a paddle steamer he drove onto the beach by the timely arrival of a troop of Turkish cavalry, with whom the submarine's crew exchanged small-arms fire before withdrawing.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html

shock · 15-09-2003 5:13pm

Speaking of cornwallis' subordinates who was the guy in charge of his northern army who decided to march it throung a swamp cause he was out for glory?

16-09-2003 1:33pm

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
The Italians werent the only ones Underprepared for ww2

The Poles were still using cavalry lancers that were made obselete before ww1

the british mattilda was under armed for it armour early models carried only machine guns,mark 2 s had a underpowered 2 pounder at gun,its lend lease replacement the sherman was known by the germans tankcrews as the "tommy cooker" for its extreme likelyhood to ignite if hit.The Raf and navy still had large numbers of bi planes in service

French tanks were huge behemoths that were extreemly slow allowing them to be outmanouvered on the battlefield.Equally virtually every spare part was unique to each model of tank meaning a logistical nightmare for replacements.
Battlefield communications were equally archaic.

as for the soviets,well the less said about their preparations the better.Officer class decimated,chronic shortages of weapons,protective clothing and suplies.

The Itallians with their close co operation with the Germans during the Spanish Civil war where many of the tactics of BlitzKrieg were developed,meant they should have had more forewarrning than most of the nature of the coming conflict.

Just to note that the Germans were also unprepared for the war. Their plans cautiously estimated 1943 as the time at which the military would be ready for war.

The navy needed time to build up a force to compete with Britains' Home naval force, which was considered the best in the world. German naval commanders wanted to build up a destroyer,& submarine force capable of commanding the north seas above denmark to prevent a blockade of Iron Ore. (the German submarine production lines were never capable of keeping up with losses during the war)

The luftwaffe while increased dramatically in numbers & pilots, was lacking long & medium range bombers. their tactics were based around the support of the wehrmacht in general operations rather than tactical bombing.

The wehrmacht were missing required equipment such as uniforms, water canisters, and even baking equipment (for logistic units). Only roughly 40% of the wehrmacht was motorised. The rest using horse drawn carts, and such.

The Panzer divisions were comprised of mostly light tanks. Germany only started investing research on heavy and medium tanks, after the fall of France. When you think of Blitzkrieg with unstoppable tanks, you're not imagining the actual tanks they used in 1939, you're thinking of 1944.

While the majority of german troops were better trained than their allied counterparts, most german commanders wanted further training before war could be started. they considered German troops to be the best, however, due to the numbers recruited prior to the outbrak of war, troops weren't up to normal standards, nevermind a war footing.

The german industry while so much better than france was still in the process of being updated. Also Hitler hadn't spent enough time converting the occupied lands of austria and czech, to military production, completely in time for the war.

I call Hitler as the worst. Not for the decisions during the war, which we all know of (the declaration of war on the US being the one of the worst, with Russia being the worst), but rather for starting the war before the German military and industry was ready.

Worst Military Leader of all Time

Worst Military Leader of all Time 45 votes

Comments