Worst military commanders in history

We've all probably discussed the greatest but what about the worst?

For somewhat recent history I'd go with Wavell. Guy seems to have been in career saving mode for a bit of his career in North Africa. "Yes Churchill. Right away Churchill. Yep, I'll strip my defences bare, without argument, to send them to a doomed campaign in Greece. Not a problem!"

That and commanders under him noted that it was hard to get time to talk to him (commanders from the front would go to Cairo and sit all day outside his office without him letting them in to speak to him and then they'd leave) and when he did let you speak to him he'd hardly ever speak about the war. It was like it almost didn't interest him.

Sometimes he'd invite the officers to dinner and then sit them on his blind side and would ignore them for the entire dinner. Apparently he did this to the Australian Prime Minister who kept insisting on speaking about that little war thing going on.

 

John Byng.

You are really saying Churchill was the worst military commander, something I can't disagree with.

 

Marcus Licinius Crassus Parthian shot was a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Zhang Shijie You outnumber enemy ships 10:1 , just ram them !
Artaphernes walking thousands of kilometres to fail epically

 

"Bonnie Prince Charlie" Stuart at Culloden.

 

Adolph Hitler

 

You must be joking, he was a good military commander, it was he clan chiefs that stopped him from take London.

 

You ever studied the Culloden campaign?

Charlie got as far as he did simply because the English had few troops in England at the time. Charlie's Highlanders were an ill-organized mob, herded along more than maneuvered. when parliament scraped together a small army, Charlie was done for.

Cumberland - a complete rookie (Cumberland never even saw a battle before or after Culloden) - totally outmaneuvered him.

Charlie accepted the battle of Cumberland's choosing. Charlie deployed his men poorly, allowing sparse British artillery to mangle them, then committed them piecemeal. "Defeat in detail" is the proper military term. Charlie abandoned his army and Scotland entirely. Cumberland hunted down Charlie's army like rabbits and so thoroughly sacked the Highlands that there was never any further resistance. Scots became more British than the English within a generation or became settlers in the New World.

The Young Pretender stooged around Europe until nearly the time of the French Revolution.

 

Churchill was a d-bag, and Galipoli was his baby, but it's hard to top General Douglas Haig, also a Brit.

 

I second Haig but I will raise you Joseph Joffre.

 

So many to chose from- what would be the criteria- losing a battle in the worst way- or winning a meaningless battle in the worst way?

I think we have quite a few Civil War commanders who would be contendahs

 

—B. H. Liddell Hart

 

Sorry I have watch many documentaries on Culloden and they sent out a night party to attack the British camp, but they couldn't find it, and had to walk back. In the end they ground did for them, they couldn't use the highland charge to it's best effect and they came up against British troops drilled for months to stop the charge. It's wasn't Charlie's fault.

 

There needs to be someone from France on the list!

 

I already said Joseph Joffre.

 

They both came from an era where the number of men you LOSE in battle earned you more rank. If you could get thousands of men to walk directly into machine gun fire, you must have great leadership ability.

 

The events of 1777 are notorious. General Johnny Burgoyne and St. Leger were supposed to head south through New york and meet with General Howe going north from New York city. Howe went to Philadelphia instead and both Burgoyne and St. Leger were routed.
The Three Stooges should have played those parts in a movie.
George McLellan has to be the worst American general.

 

McLellan was bad. So was Hancock. I think two of our best generals were WT Sherman and George Henry Thomas (the Rock of Chickamauga). I don't know how he lived with himself after the war, but LeMay certainly did what needed doin'.

 

How about Robert E. Lee on July 3, 1863 when he ordered Pickett's charge?

How about Lord Raglan at the Battle of Balaclava?

How about George Washington at the Battle of New York?

How about George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

How about Admiral Kurita at the Battle of Leyte Gulf?

 

A prerequisite for any leader...whether it's a General/Flag officer or an NCO...is to care about the men and women you lead. Care about their lives...
limit casualites when possible...

To regard the men and women under you...as mere cannon fodder, as pawns in a chess game easily sacrificed. This is not indicative of good leadership in my opinion.

Many commanders we regard in esteem today didn't always follow this creed, victory at any cost wasn't just a pejorative statement...it was literal.

Zhukov comes to mind...he's regarded by many as an elite military commander, historically...but he did so at the expense of 10 million casualties. Given such disregard for the lives
of your own men and women, frankly I fail to see any brilliance in this sort of strategy.

If 10 million lives is considered an acceptable casualty number, frankly I think even a marginal General could have accomplished what Zhukov did.

No other military leader, before or after, has had as much blood spilled under his command than Zhukov.

 

MacArthur sent a message to Ralph Honner (Australian commander along the Kokoda Track) that he (Honner) wasn't fighting enough because Honner's forces weren't taking the acceptable number of casualties. Honner was of course in the process of kicking the crap out of the Japanese and taking very limited casualties doing so and was quite happy for that to continue.

 

I would never regard MacArthur as anything but a marginal battlefield commander, but his post-war restructuring of Japan was brilliant.

 

The Italian in charge at Cape Matapan.

2300 Italian dead sailors to 3 dead British crewmen from a shot down plane.

 

Napoleon and Hitler both made the same mistake in invading Russia.

 

LOL probably he lost his way , there is a similar story with a Turkish "admiral" ( i don't remember his name , probably Evren) leading a fleet against Malta , when he return back to the sultan he said "Malta yok" (there is no Malta) , he couldn't find it.

 

There are two very different reasons I'd label a commander bad. A commander who can't recognize opportunity and one who cannot recognize disadvantage. It's really hard to compare commanders who sit in different camps in this regard.