An interesting read, the author makes a good case for each man on his list:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-military-leaders-in-history.php (http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-military-leaders-in-history.php)
Monty should be a lot further up that list than #10. I'm not entirely convinced that Second Alamein's plan was entirely his - I'm thinking a lot of the pieces were put in place by Alexander. Monty took over two months before the battle but took a month and a half to build up his forces. Also, Lieutenant-General William Gott was actually appointed 8th Army commander, but his transport plane was shot down while on his way to take command, so Monty got it...by proxy.
I could be totally wrong about the preparations for Second Alamein. It's been a while since I've read anything about the North African campaign. But still, Monty was a prima donna arsehole.
Hard to believe Mark Clark couldn't make that list.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 28, 2016, 06:27:48 AM
Hard to believe Mark Clark couldn't make that list.
Clark should definitely be on the list. I'm not sure why he would include Rommel, unless he's making the case that Rommel wouldn't be so highly viewed if there had been a better commander than Monty opposing him, which could well be. Monty should definitely be higher than 10th place.
I would have left Saddam Hussein off the list of ten, he's more a top 20 kind of guy I think.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 28, 2016, 06:17:42 AM
Monty should be a lot further up that list
That's what I was thinking about McClellan.
Clark should definitely be on the list. I'm not sure why he would include Rommel, unless he's making the case that Rommel wouldn't be so highly viewed if there had been a better commander than Monty opposing him, which could well be. Monty should definitely be higher than 10th place. One of the most overrated field commanders ever. Imagine Monty vs. MacArthur....what a snoozefest that would be :uglystupid2:
I would have left Saddam Hussein off the list of ten, he's more a top 20 kind of guy I think.
I have a number of issues with this list but just one is Mc Arthur. He made mistakes but never the same one twice. His campaign up the coast of New Guinea was brilliant and completely thwarted all attempts by the Japanese to counter him. His Command Style was to pick the most able subordinates and then let them do their job without interference. And he was the tail-end of the Allied War Effort but used what he had to great effect. Twice he hit the Japs where they were the strongest, Biak & Peleliu, but otherwise by-passed their strongpoints to avoid heavy losses. And he was constantly pressing his opponent, aggressive and always thinking and planning one step ahead. He also took advice from subordinates and whenever possible, came to the front lines to judge for himself success or lack of and encourage his troops. No sloucher in my opinion.
This is a staggering bad article by someone that has a very tenuous grip on military history and then isn't even logical. For instance:
QuoteWhile Monty is credited—and rightfully so—for his victory at El Alamein, Egypt in October of 1942, it must be remembe1red he was fighting an exhausted and over-extended German Afrika Korps that lacked significant air support and was running on fumes. The British and their allies, in contrast, massively outnumbered Rommel in almost every category, making victory—pending some remarkable chain of events—eventually inevitable.
and then:
QuoteWhile an aggressive and capable commander, he tended to be abrasive, intolerant, unteachable and rash to the point of foolhardiness, which might be one of the reasons he was defeated by the British in North Africa not once, but twice (the first time at the hands of British General Auchinleck, the second time by Montgomery) and finally pushed off the continent.
So, Montgomery sucks because he only won because he outnumbered Rommel and couldn't help but win, while Rommel sucks because he lost to Montgomery due to being too rash. Which one was it?
Honestly, I stopped reading at that point and just looked over who the author picked.
Here's my guess as to why Mark Clark isn't on the list - the author has never heard of Mark Clark. Just like he's never heard of really any general prior to 1800.
MacArthur the third worst military leader in all of history? Really?
But then we see the author's bio:
QuoteJeff Danelek is a Denver, Colorado author who writes on many subjects having to do with history, politics, the paranormal, spirituality and religion.
Also known as "any click-bait article that'll make me a buck."
Funny, but I was going to post his list on the worst paranormal, spirituality and religion leaders of all time 8)
Meh, it's not a heavy historical piece, it's discussion. I agree with about half the names on the list and it's never shocking to see Monty and MacArthur listed in that context. MacArthur especially is a "love him or hate him" type of general and there are lots of arguments to both sides of the ledger. Personally, I think he should never have commanded as much as a latrine cleanup detail after his disgraceful handling of the 1932 Bonus Army situation, in which George Patton played a part as well. Having his Air Force caught on the ground in the Philippines well after the news of Pearl Harbor is another disgraceful mark against him, an incident that would have resulted in the firing of most generals without his pull.
Quote from: panzerde on July 28, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
Here's my guess as to why Mark Clark isn't on the list - the author has never heard of Mark Clark. Just like he's never heard of really any general prior to 1800.
:2funny:
Mac's handling of the advance North after Inchon is a black mark against him as well. It was a serious error in judgement to have given Almond command of X Corps, but he was one of MacArthur's men.
MacArthur was a supreme egoist and surrounded himself with sycophants. He had moments of brilliance to be sure, but his failings were many.
MacArthur isn't really high on my list of great commanders, and there's nothing in your criticism of him I'd disagree with. He, and Patton for that matter, were definitely political generals that had a lot less military talent than far less famous but poorly connected leaders.
I just don't think that in a top ten list of worst leaders in history he comes anywhere close to number three, and probably isn't even in the top ten when considering all of history. If you want to talk WWII, or even 20th Century, well maybe he's on the list. But given that there's not a single Russian leader on the list,and only Rommel for the Germans, even if we're limiting it to leaders since 1800...if it's a discussion piece, it kinda falls short on that front.
If we're talking about all of history though? Without much trouble I can come up with 10 military leaders (ok, 9, because he's right about Hitler...maybe 8, Santa Anna was pretty bad too) who are worse than what he has on the list and who's failure led to far worse consequences for their nations than anything MacArthur, Montgomery, or even Custer did.
I agree about Mac not being top 10 for worst all-time (I would put him Top 10 Worst of American Generals). Monty and Rommel don't belong there either. Though Monty is one history's top 10 pricks.
What we need is a Grogheads Bottom 100 list 8)
I never had much use for MacArthur after an uncle of mine (WWII vet) told me that MacArthur had been landed high and dry on his return to the Philippines but ordered the landing craft to back away and drop him off in water that was knee deep. MacArthur's showmanship demonstrated to me even at my young age what a phony he was.
Quote from: Steelgrave on July 28, 2016, 06:21:45 PM
What we need is a Grogheads Bottom 100 list 8)
Now that would be an interesting discussion! Probably tougher to do than coming up with a Top Ten best list, since there are so many, many bad military leaders!
As for MacArthur being an egoist, and Monty as well, it's amazing to me just how many generals fit that description. I understand that a general has to have a high degree of self-confidence both to attain the rank and to do what a field commander does. A lot of these guys seem to go well beyond that into full-blown narcissistic personality disorder.
How about a Grogheads Bottom-Out List? I'd be at the top of that bottom.
A Grogheads list of 100 best bottoms?
Quote from: panzerde on July 28, 2016, 06:49:39 PM
A Grogheads list of 100 best bottoms?
I think Gus carries that very list in his wallet 8)
Gus probably put his own bottom at the top.
And re-wrote the Carly Simon song, "You're So Vain," just for good measure.
Gus is the chuck Norris of ass
Funny. I posted this on a very, extremely long dead military blog in 2001. I'm just going to copy and paste and not read the previous entries. This is how I put it, my first year as a teacher, listed on Jan 28, 2001....
10. Bernard Montgomery - In Operation Market Garden Monty stripped resources to drop a bunch of paratroopers on an SS division. Nice one you limey.
9. Henri Nevelle - 300,000 casualties and a mutiny for about 2 kilometers of land taken in April 1917. What do you expect from the French?
8. Jean Michel Ney - BIG CAVALRY CHARGE! Forget the infantry. Napoleon loved you for losing Waterloo for him. Again, the French blow it. (AHA! Napoleon was Italian, so he doesn't count as being good)
7. Joseph Hooker - He uttered the famous words "May God have mercy on General Lee, for I shall have none." A few days later Lee demolished Hooker's 100,000 strong army with about 40,000 Confederates.
6. Joeseph B. McClellan - At Antetiam he had a fresh Corps looking at a wide open Confederate line. He refused to attack tacking three years onto the Civil War.
5. Marcus Lucius Crassus - When he lost an entire legion to the Parthians, they poured molten gold down his throat. Ow. He was probably a Gaul.
4. Ernst von Rundsted - The man argued with Rommel, and won. That's why there weren't German tanks blowing our boys up on the beach in Saving Private Ryan.
3. Napoleon III - Let's entrench the entire French Army in Sedan and let the Prussians surrouned it! Again, what do you expect from the French.
2. Henri Navarre - Let's paradrop an several divisions into a valley surrounded by the Vietnamese and see if we can win! Nice job Frenchie.
1. Adolph Hitler - Ok, he really wasn't a general, but he pushed the German armies around on a map. His mistakes were so frequent and moronic that it's impossible to list them all here. Suffice to say that the reason we won World War 2 was because we had a lot of help from this idiot. The only point in his favor, he at least beat the French, and baby, that ain't saying much.
And for even more funsies, same day 2001 I posted this. Top ten best. Forgive me for I was very, very young...
10. Tokugawa Ieyasu - He managed to unify all of Japan under a Shogunate that lasted till the Meji. Nobunaga helped out, but since Tokugawa sealed the deal, he's # 10
9. Helmut von Moltke - This guy crushed Denmark, Austria and then France in three lightening campagins. Granted, Napoleon III helped him with France, but he still rocked.
8. George S. Patton - So feared he tied down an entire German Army without firing a shot. If it wasn't for Monty he'd have been having dinner in Berlin Christmas 1944.
7. Robert E. Lee - Took an army that never broke 65,000 men and held off the might of the United States for four years. He lost only one defensive battle in the entire war.
6. Erich von Manstien - Took a defeated army at Stalingrad, rallied it, counterattacked, performed on of the greatest feats of military history by breaking the Russians at Kharkov and almost pocketing them at Kursk. Only our buddy Adoolph could put the breaks on this juggernaut.
5. Hienz Guderian - The father of modern mobile warfare. Thank this man for the Blitzkrieg.
4. Julius Ceasar - Crushed the Gauls, crushed Pompey the Great, almost subdued Rome. Pretty good I'd say.
3. Horatio Nelson - The greatest master of naval tactics ever to breathe oxygen. He won the Napoleonic Wars at Trafalgar.
2. Napoleon Bonaparte - He's Italian! Corsica just happened to be under French control. Thefore, the Frenchies happened to get the greatest military mind of the 19th century. Austerlitz, Marengo, Ligny, Borodino.. This man was worth 10,000 soldiers on a battlefield. He's only not #1 because of the whole invading Russia thing.
1. Alexander the Great - Kind of a no brainer here. Napoleon comes close, but ole Alex takes the cake. This guy never lost a battle, and the only reason he didn't take over even more territory was because his army refused to go any further. It's said that when he saw the mountians of India he wept, for he had no more worlds to conquer.
And, as an older and more learned person.
I way underestimate Ney, and von Rundsted.
I am spot on in neglecting Rommel in either list.
von Manstien should probably be a touch higher.
Moltke should be a lot higher.
Tokugawa shouldn't be on the list at all. I'd probably pop on von Lettow-Vorbeck and put him much higher. Also big neglect to Slim.
QuoteNapoleon III - Let's entrench the entire French Army in Sedan and let the Prussians surrouned it! Again, what do you expect from the French.
:2funny:
QuoteNapoleon Bonaparte - He's Italian! Corsica just happened to be under French control. Thefore, the Frenchies happened to get the greatest military mind of the 19th century.
It's always amused me that France's greatest military mind had to be imported from Italy. But what do you expect from the French? ;D
To be fair, even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he wouldn't have lasted long and I highly doubt he'd repeat the successes he had previously across Europe. But yeah, Ney did something kinda dumb, there.
Plenty of blame to go around in the Hundred Days campaign. D'Erlon screwed the pooch at Ligny. Ney was slow to attack at Quatre Bras. And Grouchy dicked around instead of marching to the sound of guns at Waterloo.
Quote from: mirth on July 29, 2016, 06:17:38 AM
Plenty of blame to go around in the Hundred Days campaign. D'Erlon screwed the pooch at Ligny. Ney was slow to attack at Quatre Bras. And Grouchy dicked around instead of marching to the sound of guns at Waterloo.
Neither Napoleon nor his generals were the same men by the Hundred Days. 20 years of constant warfare takes a toll on anyone, and the fatigue of yet another war against impossible odds and a persistent enemy really was too much for them, and it showed.
That's why I was especially hard on Ney, and he really shouldn't be on the list at all. If Napoleon hadn't been napping, Ney wouldn't have had the authority to launch that moronic charge, and I doubt the Ney of a decade earlier would've been anywhere nearly so sloppy.
Davout was sorely missed.
Quote from: mirth on July 29, 2016, 04:06:56 PM
Davout was sorely missed.
Man, ain't that the truth. I suppose he had to stay behind in the Minister role, but I imagine his presence would have made a difference. Davout goes pretty high on my list of great generals.
Right. Imagine Davout and Soult in the role played by Grouchy and Ney.
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 29, 2016, 06:27:13 PM
Right. Imagine Davout and Soult in the role played by Grouchy and Ney.
Would've gone very poorly for the Anglo-Allies. But, as others have pointed out, there were more armies from the Russians and Austrians on their way.
Napoleon had a pretty good army with him in Belgium in the hundred days, but it wasn't going to be enough to stave off the other invasions. He pretty much had used up his veteran manpower pool.