Top Ten Worst Military Leaders of All Time

[Steelgrave]

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

[BanzaiCat]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

Hard to believe Mark Clark couldn't make that list.

[Steelgrave]

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.

[mirth]

Monty should be a lot further up that list

That's what I was thinking about McClellan.

[Steelgrave]

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   

I would have left Saddam Hussein off the list of ten, he's more a top 20 kind of guy I think.

[Sir Slash]

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.

[panzerde]

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:

While 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:

While 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:

Jeff 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."

[Steelgrave]

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.

[BanzaiCat]

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.

[mirth]

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.

[panzerde]

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.

[mirth]

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.

[Steelgrave]

What we need is a Grogheads Bottom 100 list   8)

[Greybriar]

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.