# Worst Military Leader (game thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 15, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783 "2010-11-15T21:20:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/441 "2011-02-07T19:20:31Z")
\*\*Luigi Cadorna \*\* (this is not a vote!) Beginning in 1915, he conducted a series of offensives along the Isonzo river, against firmly entrenched Austro-Hungarians. The terrain was mountainous and broken, and the frontier was not large enough for major maneuver – terrible ground for offensive battle. The first four such battles gained him nothing at all, and cost his country 250,000 casualties. Over the next two years, he would mount _eleven_ such battles, all ending in thorough defeat, at great cost in money and lives. A WWI-era offensive was a huge affair – these were not little skirmishes. Artillery ammunition would be painstakingly stockpiled, elaborate fire plans worked out, infantry drilled in the all-important timing of the attacks, reserves brought up, wire cut, and then the whole fiasco would go forward – in Cadorna’s case, invariably to death and defeat. Over and over. Talk about inability to learn or adjust. On the _other_ front he commanded, the Trentino, he launched _other_ unsuccessful attacks. More notably, he failed to anticipate the Austro-Hungarian counterattack, declaring it impossible, and his defenses were inadequate. In particular, the trench lines were not sufficiently duplicated (reserve and emergency trench lines behind the first were SOP in the war, by that point). Eventually, the Austro-Hungarians and their German allies attacked at Caporetto on the Isonzo front. Cadorna’s forces were in a brittle position; his line had little depth and his troops were too exposed, with little reserve. This despite the lessons of the Trentino front years earlier. Cadorna’s men were also suffering massive morale issues. Not only had they learned that Cadorna was a military idiot who would throw away their lives if they obeyed him, they’d also learned he was a cruel martinet who would kill them outright if they refused. Cadorna has the distinction of executing more of his own men than any other army did in that brutal war. He also dismissed huge numbers of subordinate officers; they were the lucky ones, as he resorted to executing officers of units that retreated. Cadorna even reintroduced the hideously inhumane Roman practice of decimation, killing every tenth man of units that failed to perform up to his expectations. He also expressed contempt for the country’s civilian political leadership. He was widely (and justly) hated throughout the country when people realized he was killing their children, losing their territory, and mocking their leaders. When the Caporetto attack opened against them, the exhausted and demoralized survivors of Cadorna’s 11 Isonzo attacks, poorly positioned and badly entrenched, collapsed immediately. Hundreds of thousands of them surrendered, and many were killed and wounded. Italian military reputation has _still_ not recovered from this shellacking, which was mostly Cadorna’s doing. He was finally sacked, and the Italians were able to stabilize their front at last, after losing considerable territory by WWI standards. I’ve never seen him credited with winning any battles, or even getting in a good move on the enemy (even Burnsides, Hooker, and McClellan managed to steal a march on old Bobby Lee, and two of them were on this list). After the war, Cadorna wrote an “everyone else was wrong, not me” memoir, and came back into the public spotlight to accept a promotion to Field Marshal – from none other than Benito Mussolini, who shared Cadorna’s opinion of legitimate civilian political leadership. . ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/442 "2011-02-07T19:59:26Z")
My actual vote is going to be very difficult. Elphinstone and Percival don’t have the long laundry list of defeats the other three do, but Elphinstone managed to suffer annihilation, and Percival was defeated by numerically weaker, poorly-equipped forces. It’s also worth noting that Percival mind-bogglingly drew his final defensive perimeter in such a way that it excluded all the water resources, prompting his immediate surrender, a moment of almost unparalleled incompetence. Although Lopez and Charles had some initial successes, they also both perpetrated multiple massacres during their long, mismanaged campaigns. Massacres are not _necessarily_ a sign of military incompetence, but lend ordinary failure that special shiver of anti-panache. Cadorna’s career I detailed above. It may be a function of my sources not going into sufficiently horrible detail, but I’m going to vote against Lopez this time. He cost his country more than any of the others, but he was as much megalomaniac as he was a bad strategist, and the main thing he did to cause damage seems to have been to recklessly declare war on as many militaries as he could, all at the same time. That’s bad, and if I had a more detailed account of his failings, I might keep him on for this round, but it lacks the breathtaking list of errors some of these other guys have piled up. I’ll throw one little vote against Charles too. His military failures are more varied (at least as pertains what I’ve read), including getting bogged down in a ten-month siege he then gave up, getting surprised more than once, and maintaining the field despite losing so many men to illness and exposure that he was a sitting duck for the attack that followed; but he did have several successes early on. **Charles le Temeraire - 1 Francisco Solano López - 2** ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/443 "2011-02-07T20:01:36Z")
Percival - 2 votes Elphinstone - 2 votes ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/444 "2011-02-07T20:14:49Z")
One last comment to which I am compelled to reply: > [@Kyguy](#): > > **Hood attacked Schofield at Franklin because Cheatham had allowed Schofield’s escape at Spring Hill. Hood must hit Schofield at Franklin because he was in the process of escaping again, this time to Nashville. After Franklin Hood invested Nashville and Beuaregard, Seddon, Bragg and Davis approved. It was a final grasp at victory to liberate Tennessee, but more importantly, to force a retrograde by Sherman** I understand _why_ Hood felt Schofield needed to be attacked. However, Hood had _already_ let Schofield slip past him in the night, strung out on the road and vulnerable to defeat in detail. By the time of the Franklin assault, the situation was different – the Federals were dug into a position of **enormous** strength. Hood’s men had to go over a mile uphill toward trenches and breastworks, densely manned by confident, well-led, supremely heavily-armed men. The attack faced a longer exposed approach than Pickett’s charge, and was in fact made with more men (and lost more men). Better soldiers than Hood\* knew it was outright suicide – even complete success would have been prohibitively bloody. \*“If we are to die, let us die like _men_.” – Patrick Cleburne It doesn’t matter _why_ the Franklin attack was ordered – it _could not succeed_ under the prevailing military conditions, and everyone but Hood knew it. Too bad he of all people had the final authority to make it. ---
**Author:** ![Sternvogel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Sternvogel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sternvogel)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/445 "2011-02-07T21:30:37Z")
Sticking with: Arthur Percival – 2 Adding: Charles le Temeraire – 2 William George Keith Elphinstone – 1 (although I won’t be too disappointed if he’s paradoxically the last man standing on this field of battle. I think he, Cadorna, and Solano López are just about equally “unworthy”, and which to pick comes down to a matter of just which form of military disaster you find most unforgivable.) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/446 "2011-02-08T04:31:09Z")
Great discussion so far. Luigi Cadorna - 2 William George Keith Elphinstone - 2 Charles le Temeraire - 1 ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/447 "2011-02-08T14:37:42Z")
I don’t think people realize the absolute stink of Luigi…well maybe they do from Sailboats post and the fact that not to many people are giving him votes even at this late date. Percival…oh gawd as I said before, I think he should have a real shot at winning here. Elph - I also think he should have a shot…but, while absolutely terrible he doesn’t hold up to Luigi nor Percival. Lopez - I think his time has come. Charles - Hood on steroids indeed. However, not a top 3 guy I think…well maybe #3😃 So… with great, great regret… Lopez - 2 Elphinstone - 2 Charles - 1 ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/448 "2011-02-08T14:50:03Z")
> [@Sternvogel](#): > > which to pick comes down to a matter of just which form of military disaster you find most unforgivable.) That’s exactly what is happening here. The last 5-7 are probably equally bad in their own way and it is now just personal preference (abhorance) as to which is ‘worse’. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/449 "2011-02-09T01:14:06Z")
Hmmmm…tough decisions, as the surviving entrants, as noted, really are quite different in their incompetences. Even though I nominated him, my gut feeling is that Charles le Temeraire no longer belongs in such august company. Charles was a shitty general, but history is littered with such and as unattractive a character as he was ( apparently pretty insufferably arrogant in person, with few of the social graces of his very proper father ), he had some minor redeeming features. He’s kind of a McClellan type in a sense - fascinated with the military he helped build a fairly modern and balanced army by the standards of the time ( he was the opposite of him in others, not having an ounce of caution ). So I think I have to toss him. **Charles le Temeraire** - 2. The rest are tougher. I “like” Luigi Cadorna not least because he was not on my radar prior to this list and he seems the very archetype of the pissy, incompetent martinet. But was he more _ineffectual_ than awful as a general? He was hardly the only one to keep throwing men into meat-grinders during WW I, though I guess he must rank tops for stubborn idiocy on a single small front. And of course any general who can’t inspire ( and he did the opposite of inspire ) has to get extra points. Elphinstone is another of mine, but his superiors need to get a share of the blame for putting him, as with Stopford at Gallipoli, into a situation for which he was obviously unqualified. Though there is something compelling about that lone, wounded rider announcing himself as the “Army of the Indus.” In an awful way it is probably the most poetic ending of any of these horrible careers. Lopez would probably lag behind Hitler and Pol Pot in a _worst national leader_ competition, but not by a whole lot I’d think. For one thing he has the commendable recommendation of probably being actually insane ( megalomania of Alexandrian proportions, if nothing else ). I think the argument that he wasn’t the worst _field general_, has to lag somewhat to his undeniable role as a “grand strategist.” Anyone who causes his _country_ to suffer between 60 and 90% casualties has to be regarded with a certain amount of sickening awe. Percival has always just screamed incompetence to me. I think I like him ( complete and composite failure ) or Lopez ( sheer devastation to his own ) for the win, but I won’t be disappointed with any of the above. Well… **William George Keith Elphinstone** - 1. Just one point to notch him below Charles. **Luigi Cadorna** - 1. Ditto. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/450 "2011-02-09T04:42:50Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > …Cadorna … seems the very archetype of the pissy, incompetent martinet… LOL. I just had a Gilbert & Sullivan flashback there. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/451 "2011-02-09T07:04:23Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > LOL. I just had a Gilbert & Sullivan flashback there. I’m the very model of a major pissy martinet? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/452 "2011-02-09T11:37:41Z")
If I may butt into this (fascinating) thread… I have a tangential question about Percival and the fall of Singapore: Percival lost to an inferior attacking enemy force largely due to his own incompetence. The question that comes to mind is, would the British have still lost if they had been ably led? If not, what does this say about the Japanese strategy? Were they \*counting \*on Percival’s stupidity, or did they just get lucky? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/453 "2011-02-09T12:16:54Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > what does this say about the Japanese strategy? Were they \*counting \*on Percival’s stupidity, or did they just get lucky? I’m not sure. I do think they felt a sense of national superiority, and expected their men to be better than the British; and they were riding a high tide at the moment. At the time, much Allied complaint was made of the experienced Japanese jungle fighter besting the British. We now know that almost all the Japanese troops involved were recent conscripts from farms and cities, who had as little idea of what they were doing as anyone else. They were outnumbered and indifferently equipped – a portion of the advance was made by individuals on captured bicycles – but they kept pressing forward to see what it would get them. Apparently that was “everything.” My own personal thought has been that a significant portion of the Japanese conquests, Singapore being the foremost example, was made possible by Allied defeatism. A new war with Japan, for which they were ill-prepared, must have seemed daunting; the Japanese tide of victory must have seemed unstoppable; and certainly Japanese airpower in the region must have seemed impressive. And yet the rest of the war is filled with examples of outnumbered forces refusing to yield and inflicting shattering checks on well-prepared offenses. Wake Island’s sharp defense showed what was possible against even the early Japanese tide…it’s significant, in my mind, that Wake fell only _after_ a senior Allied commander decided not to risk fighting the Japanese. But in other times and places, people would hold out against much greater force disparity, attacked by much more heavily equipped forces. Even the airpower advantage seems like a weak excuse. Sure, the Japanese could put fragile, lightly-armed Zeroes almost anywhere in the theater, running a few sorties a day. Later in the war, Germans would resist much greater numbers of much more heavily-armed, well-protected Allied fighter-bombers, coordinated excellently with ground forces and observation aircraft, delivered with industrial efficiency by a well-oiled system that maximized the combat time of each aircraft – and they (the Germans) resisted this much longer. The feeble Allied response to the early tide of Japanese conquest has always seemed to contain an element of panic, of surrendering the initiative and letting themselves be buffaloed into submission, often by shoestring forces relying on boldness and fearsome reputation. IMHO Percival let himself be persuaded that the Japanese were all kinds of invincible, and he pretty much panicked and expected to be beaten. I’m not sure the Japanese command expected that, but they were pushing everywhere and prepared to snap up everything that fell their way. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/454 "2011-02-09T13:22:13Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > If I may butt into this (fascinating) thread… > > I have a tangential question about Percival and the fall of Singapore: Percival lost to an inferior attacking enemy force largely due to his own incompetence. The question that comes to mind is, would the British have still lost if they had been ably led? If not, what does this say about the Japanese strategy? Were they \*counting \*on Percival’s stupidity, or did they just get lucky? In my opinion…no…Britain would not have lost Singapore. Even if they had it would have taken Japan a long time and many resources. IMO, the Japanese strategy was all sorts of gambling and not being very smart. Against an even ok British commander the Japanese would have failed in their initial attack. I think this is the crux of whether you think Percival is #1 in this thread. If you think Singapore would have fallen easily anyway in short time then Percival wasn’t so bad (bad but not the worst). If you think Singapore would have held then Percival’s command was HUGELY inept and disgusting. If Percival came back after the war after captivity…I would have had him shot. I know, not democratic but the man deserved to be shot. Not entirely sure but I think Singapore was the worst British military defeat in their history…and that is SAYING something! The fact that it happened against a weak foe is…well…deserving of a good shot at the #1 spot. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/455 "2011-02-09T14:33:05Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > …And yet the rest of the war is filled with examples of outnumbered forces refusing to yield and inflicting shattering checks on well-prepared offenses… I agree. The Union surrender at Harper’s Ferry in Sept. 1862 is a good counterexample. If the commander, Col. Miles, had been more proactive in holding the surrounding heights and defending the town, showed more gumption and been more determined to hang on, he could’ve slowed Stonewall Jackson significantly. Instead, Jackson captured the town relatively easily, bagging more U.S. Army troops at one go than at any time until the surrender in the Philippines in WWII, and still had time to get to Antietam and help Lee there. > **[Battle of Harpers Ferry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harper%27s_Ferry)** > > .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct,.mw-parser-output .geo-inline-hidden{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap}39°19′22″N 77°43′49″W / 39.3228°N 77.7302°W / 39.3228; -77.7302 > The Battle of Harpers Ferry was fought September 12–15, 1862, as part of the Maryland Campaign of the American Civil War. As Confederate A... ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/456 "2011-02-09T15:15:55Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > I’m the very model of a major pissy martinet? 😛 “prancing” works in place of “major”. 🙂 (and you could rhyme “martinet” and “part in it”, but I refuse to follow this particular train of thought any further). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/457 "2011-02-09T17:17:01Z")
The results from Round 33 of voting: **William George Keith Elphinstone - 12** Charles le Temeraire - 9 Francisco Solano López, Arthur Percival - 6 each (both unchanged from last round) Luigi Cadorna - 5 The boldfaced leader(s) above are eliminated. That leaves: Luigi Cadorna: Lost twelve consecutively; hated, cruel Charles le Temeraire: Rash rather than “Bold” Francisco Solano López: Almost unmade Paraguay Arthur Percival: Surrendered Singapore to Japan _Eliminated:_ Ulysses S. Grant William T. Sherman Pyrrhus of Epirus Benedict Arnold James II of England Earl of Cardigan Cloudesley Shovell Douglas MacArthur William Halsey George A. Custer Curtis LeMay Lord Chelmsford George Tryon Geoffrey Spicer-Simson Benjamin F. Butler Xerxes I of Persia Ernest J. King Gaius Terentius Varro John A. McClernand Daniel Sickles Christian de Castries Maximilian von Prittwitz Rodolfo Graziani William Westmoreland Crassus William Calley Carlo di Persano Heinrich Himmler William H. Winder Ratko Mladić Paul D. Harkins Oreste Baratieri Romanus IV of Byzantium Varus Hermann Goering Zinovy Rozhestvensky William Hull George B. McClellan Judson Kilpatrick Thom Karremans Ambrose Burnside Gaius Claudius Glaber Douglas Haig Braxton Bragg Duke of Buckingham Maurice Gamelin Horatio Gates Manuel Fernandez Silvestre Nicias Tiberius Sempronius Longus Frederick William Stopford Napoleon III Philip VI James Ledlie John Bell Hood Charles Alexander of Lorraine Zhao Kuo Abdel Hakim Amer Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna William George Keith Elphinstone New rule: Since we’re down to the Final Four, each player gets just two votes, to be used on a single nominee or split between two. The next round will end at noon EST on Fri. Feb. 11. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/458 "2011-02-09T17:23:12Z")
I’m convinced enough by Sailboat’s missive to pass on Luigi for this round: Charles le Temeraire - 2 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/459 "2011-02-09T17:30:58Z")
Elphy Bey is gone! ☹ Well, I think I’d like to bump Charles le Temeraire - 1 and Francisco Solano López -1. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783/460 "2011-02-09T17:47:52Z")
Reviewing my own list of criteria, **Malthus** ’s corollary, and my original five nominees, I think I’ve noticed something interesting about myself. > [@Sailboat](#): > > **Proposed criteria for “Worst Military Leader”** in _rough_ order of most important to least important: > > [ul] > [li]repeated failure - number of defeats (e.g., Cadorna)[/li][li]learning the wrong military lesson from failure _or_ success (e. g., Hood)[/li][li]losing despite advantages (especially numerical) (e.g., Xerxes)[/li][li]arrogance and failure to recognize own foibles (e.g., _not_ Burnsides)[/li][li]losing a battle of annihilation (e.g., Crassus, Varro)[/li][li]logistical blunders (e.g., Burnsides’ inability to cross at Fredericksburg, and Mud March)[/li][li]cowardice/personal flight (e.g., Ledlie)[/li][li]high casualties, esp. repeatedly, esp. for no gain (lots of them)[/li][/ul] > > [/COLOR] > [@Malthus](#): > > That’s a great list of military anti-virtues, **Sailboat**. The only thing I’d add is rather subjective, and builds on all the others - that a truly formidable loser should posess a certain panache, or rather, anti-panache - to lose in a manner particularly memorable and humiliating. My nominees were: Luigi Cadorna Ernest J. King Hugh Judson Kilpatrick John Bell Hood Hermann Goering Of those, _four of the five_ sent their men (or in King’s case, their countrymen not under their own immediate command) to their deaths in bad plans _while questioning the courage and/or skill of the men they sent to die._ Only Goering lacks (as far as I know) this example of **Malthus** ’s Corollary. Conversely, I feel forgiving toward notorious blunderer Burnsides, who famously cried “Oh, my poor brave fellows,” and sought to join them in death at Fredericksburg. I guess I’m pretty cheesed off at the injustice of ordering people to their deaths while remaining safe yourself and questioning their courage. Kilpatrick, who did perhaps the least damage of my four nominees, was a particularly glaring example of this, when he infamously taunted Elton Farnsworth to his death outside Gettysburg. It’s also a reason I spoke so consistently against “Dugout Doug” MacArthur. 🙂 This may be affecting my voting even in these final rounds. To my knowledge, Cadorna and Percival are the remaining leaders who insulted their [del]victims[/del] the worst. I’m going to vote against Charles. **Charles le Temeraire** - 2 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-military-leader-game-thread/560783.md?page=24)