Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Top 10 Worst Military Leaders in History

The Aik, well thought of as a military commander.
Indian Army bred, brought over to command the Norway fiasco, not his fault it went wrong.
GOC Middle East, not just N Africa, but all the odds and sods,Syria, Iraq, Iran and the old Italian colonies.
He made a mistake by appointing Ritchie to Command 8th Army but took Command in the Field to save the day.
As has been pointed out 1st Alamain was his victory.
He upset Churchill by refuseing to attack on C's timetable and for that was replaced by Monty as CiC 8th Army and Alexander as GOC Eygpt.
Auk then returned to Far East as that went Tits Up where he was GOC Indian Army to the end.

john
 
Add Friedrich Paulus to the list.
 
That is very revisionist and if you take that line who would have done a better job in the circumstances?

At times Churchill interfered too much with military decisions. In that respect one could make a comparison with the way that the Fuherer made bad decisions and countermanded the General out in the field, such as Rommel and Paulus.
 
At times Churchill interfered too much with military decisions. In that respect one could make a comparison with the way that the Fuherer made bad decisions and countermanded the General out in the field, such as Rommel and Paulus.
But unlike Hitler and the German General staff, Churchill had Alan Brooke who stood up to him.
 
He struggled a bit with the big picture and was an utter bastard as a human being, but surely he was an outstanding tactical commander?

Possibly, but his adventure in Russia was a total failure that cost a lot of men, and of course he was royally defeated and sent into exile by us Brits.....so he wasn't that great.
 
I have also noticed that this Pathfinder Jack chap (or chapess) just starts a thread like this and doesn't contribute further, which is a bit rude. So I shall poo poo this article.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
The List makes me wonder how Generals were chosen. I could name a dozen US generals who could fit the bill easily

Lloyd Fredendall II Corps commander
John Lucas VI Corps Cdr
Eugene Landrum 90th Div Cdr
Holland M. Smith USMC
Edwin Walker
And Lastly, not a fan of Omar Bradley

McClellan as previously noted
Meagher
Burnside
Bragg CSA
David E. Twiggs USA who surrendered all his men to the CSA for political reasons, then joining the CSA
Horatio Gates

You missed off:

John Sedgwick, a general in the Union Army in the American Civil War.

The last words of John Sedgwick

Worth a mention just for this.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
By the ancestors of Brian Brown, Jack Thompson and Edwood WoodWood! ( and Andrew Denton's dad)!

Who would've thought that?

I wouldn't but Edward Woodward would.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Re. Montgomery

Can't find a link at the moment, but I believe that despite the taking of Caen being so much later than the plan, the actual situaation by D+50 was amlost exactly as had been predicted for that date by Monty.

I thought it was D+90, but point agreed.
 
R

renamed_user

Guest
Percival? I thought it was no longer fashionable to play the Singapore blame game with him? He was prevented from launching Operation Matador by his superior, he had no Armour, he had poor air support, his naval support went tits up in one afternoon, he lacked acclimatized British regular troops. The only thing he did have plenty of was poorly trained colonial troops with questionable commitment and stroppy commanders. Would anyone else of managed any better under the circumstances? Percival had a pretty impressive service record prior to Malaya

Agree with all the above, however if the troops knew what the Jap had in store for them I'm certain they would have fought like lions. Even inexperienced troops can load and fire repeatedly. Yes hindsight is a great asset.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
At times Churchill interfered too much with military decisions. In that respect one could make a comparison with the way that the Fuherer made bad decisions and countermanded the General out in the field, such as Rommel and Paulus.

One could except we won!
 

likelylad

Swinger
I would add Hannibal. Very overrated IMHO. He was a tactical magician to be sure, who won four brilliant battlefield triumphs against the Romans, and he was a charismatic commander who inspired and held together a very multicultural army operating in largely hostile country for the guts of two decades. But he is very overrated:
1) Great tactician, but pathetic strategist - he could not translate tactical victories into strategic gain, much less strategic triumph;
2) As part of this, he totally neglected naval power, and was indifferent to the Punic War outside Italy;
3) The Roman generals he faced in the early years of the war, 218-216 BC, were nincompoops, which partly explains his early battlefield triumphs.
4) Over-relied on the same tactics - Scipio countered them at Zama and won.

His victories ultimately only led to his country's destruction. Like Charles XII of Sweden, his life as they say was the death of his country.
 
Top