Sticking with:
Ratko Mladic – 2
Adding:
William H. Winder – 2
Publius Quinctilius Varus – 1
Y’know, thinking about it, this is most of what you can hang Philip VI for at Crecy as well. Philip knew better than to make a frontal attack against a prepared defender and had refused to do so a few times before. In fact by refusing to be drawn into a battle on Edward III’s terms ( and to give him all due credit, Edward was usually nimble at not being caught in a badly compromised position ), he’d effectively wrecked Edward’s first campaign in the Low Countries, all but bankrupting England in the process. France was beginning an economic downturn ( as was Europe generally ), but it still had a lot more resources to spend than England. Hell, 14th century Castille was more populous and wealthy than England.
The problem at Crecy is that Philip VI was in a propaganda bind. The Age of Chivalry was in full flower and repeatedly refusing battle had badly damaged his cred. In an age when personal standing counted for a lot more in securing the loyalty of semi-autonomous subjects with their own military followings, Philip was understandably reluctant to get labeled a coward by refusing to fight yet again. So he let himself be talked into trying to use weight of numbers to prevail under suboptimal circumstances and failed.
Philip also didn’t wait for his full army to gather, but given Edward’s position they likely wouldn’t have added much. After it was decided to join battle the only real tactical flub on the French side was the Count of Alencon’s, but it was probably immaterial as well. And as it was Crecy was not really cripplingly decisive. In 1346 France still had the resources to recover - it was Poitiers in 1356 that really triggered a French collapse.
Charles V ‘le Sage’ was probably the ablest of the French kings during the Hundred Years War and the man who orchestrated the reconquest of virtually everything England had won in 30 years in 10 ( in the period 1369-1379 ). He did so in large part by strict orders to his commanders to never engage in open battle with English forces unless the had overwhelming superiority in every sense. His Fabian tactics were even then, after all France had suffered and when the English military reputation was near its peak, the source of much grousing and grumbling amongst the nobility. But Charles was able, under the conditions, to keep a strong lid on them. Philip understandably would have had a harder time doing so.
William H. Winder - 2.
Thom Karremans - 2. Horrible dereliction of duty and comes off as a total pussy, but ultimately pretty small potatoes. I dunno that I can rank him as worse than Mladic.
James Ledlie - 2 - Basically hid in a bottle to avoid crushing responsibility
William H. Winder - 1 - Only part of the problem at Bladensburg
Paul D. Harkins - 2 - I personally dislike Westmoreland more, and he’s gone already; I doubt Harkins is orders-of-magnitude worse, he should follow Westmoreland off the list soon.
Sure, but you can’t deny that in getting caught on camera sharing a glass of wine with the genocidal war criminal he’d enabled, he meets Malthus’ supplemental criterion for worst military leader.
Actually, I think it’s totally appropriate to rank Karremans as a worse leader than Mladic. Mladic achieved a lot of his objectives before ultimate defeat, after all - Karremans accomplished nothing. But Mladic is still on the list in any event, and Karremans certainly deserves a seat here as well.
Karremans’ entire military objective was to protect civilians. He failed, completely, and without even a token effort to inflict loss upon the Serbs. That’s an important point, because Mladic’s forces were utter, gutless scum - thugs and bullies who spent most of their time drunk, attracted to the cause by the promise of rapine and pillage. Even modest losses may well have dissuaded them - plus, there would have been dead genocidal bastards, which is an intrinsically good thing.
But Karremans’ lacked the nerve to fight for helpless civilians, and abandoned Srebenica. Mladic (and Milosevic) drew an entirely reasonable conclusion from this: NATO forces wouldn’t fight to protect the Bosniacs.
Karremans enabled genocide. And he didn’t just do it by being a bad guy - he did it by being an utterly incompetent one. Courage is a military virtue in which Karremans was entirely lacking - he belongs on this list.
Braxton Bragg - 2
William H. Winder - 2
Sorry, Tom Scud - your votes were past the deadline.
The results of our 15th round of voting:
William H. Winder - 9
Ratko Mladić - 4
Varus - 3
Oreste Baratieri, Paul D. Harkins, Thom Karremans, James Ledlie - 2 each
The boldfaced leader(s) above are eliminated. That leaves:
Abdel Hakim Amer: Panicked, lost Sinai in 1967
Oreste Baratieri: Routed by Ethiopians at Adowa
Braxton Bragg: Bungling, irritating Confederate general
Duke of Buckingham: Useless sycophant, incompetent military leader
Ambrose E. Burnside: Defeat from jaws of victory
Luigi Cadorna: Lost twelve consecutively; hated, cruel
Charles Alexander of Lorraine: Sustained career of incompetence
Charles le Temeraire: Rash rather than “Bold”
William George Keith Elphinstone: Lost an army in Afghanistan
Maurice Gamelin: Relied on the Maginot Line
Horatio Gates: Fled headlong from Camden, S.C.
Gaius Claudius Glaber: Why fortify against slaves?
Hermann Goering: Prancing figurehead misused Luftwaffe
Douglas Haig: Incompetent British WWI general
Paul D. Harkins: Ignorant, overoptimistic in Vietnam
John Bell Hood: Recklessly stupid, lost Atlanta, West
William Hull: Surrendered peacefully to inferior forces
Thom Karremans: Toasted Mladić, allowed Srebenica massacre
Hugh Judson Kilpatrick: Nicknamed “Kill Cavalry” for reason
James Ledlie: Drunk during Battle of Crater
Tiberius Sempronius Longus: Lost to Carthage at Trebia
Francisco Solano López: Almost unmade Paraguay
George B. McClellan: Timid, bungling, arrogant Union commander
Ratko Mladić: Ordered Srebenica massacre; since indicted
Napoleon III: Clobbered, captured at Sedan
Nicias: Commanded ill-fated Syracuse expedition
Arthur Percival: Surrendered Singapore to Japan
Philip VI of France: Crushed own army at Crécy
Romanus IV of Byzantium: Lost Battle of Manzikert
Zinovy Rozhestvensky: Led Russian Navy to annihilation
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna: “Napoleon of the West”? Ha!
Manuel Fernandez Silvestre: Lost badly in Spanish Morocco
Frederick William Stopford: Blunderer at Suvla Bay, Gallipoli
Publius Quinctilius Varus: Army totally annihilated in Germany
Zhao Kuo: Became idiom for “bad general”
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
Same rules for the next round, which will end (due to the Christmas season) at noon EST on Mon. Dec. 27.
Sticking with:
Ratko Mladic – 2
Varus – 2
Adding:
Oreste Baratieri – 1
Merry Christmas!
Oreste Baratieri - 2 Votes Same as before.
Ratko Mladić - 2 votes Evil fuck but not an incompetent one
for my new one:
Paul D. Harkins - 1 vote. This guy seemed to be more out of touch than anything else. He had a small command in Vietnam and seemed to underestimate the enemy resolve. But he was not in command of any major battles per se (there were a few where his ‘advisors’ were in place). His leadership seems uninspired but not utterly disastrous compared to others on this list. Had he been more effective in his role Vietnam might have not gone the route it did, but I have my doubts about that given the resolve of the enemy. In any case it seems he served well in other capacities in his lifetime. I have a hard time having him in the list this late in the game.
For the reasons already stated:
Ratko Mladić - 2
Varus - 2
Paul D. Harkins - 1
Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays, everyone!
The results of our 16th round of voting:
Ratko Mladić - 6
Varus - 4
Oreste Baratieri - 3
Paul D. Harkins - 2
The boldfaced leader(s) above are eliminated. That leaves:
Abdel Hakim Amer: Panicked, lost Sinai in 1967
Oreste Baratieri: Routed by Ethiopians at Adowa
Braxton Bragg: Bungling, irritating Confederate general
Duke of Buckingham: Useless sycophant, incompetent military leader
Ambrose E. Burnside: Defeat from jaws of victory
Luigi Cadorna: Lost twelve consecutively; hated, cruel
Charles Alexander of Lorraine: Sustained career of incompetence
Charles le Temeraire: Rash rather than “Bold”
William George Keith Elphinstone: Lost an army in Afghanistan
Maurice Gamelin: Relied on the Maginot Line
Horatio Gates: Fled headlong from Camden, S.C.
Gaius Claudius Glaber: Why fortify against slaves?
Hermann Goering: Prancing figurehead misused Luftwaffe
Douglas Haig: Incompetent British WWI general
Paul D. Harkins: Ignorant, overoptimistic in Vietnam
John Bell Hood: Recklessly stupid, lost Atlanta, West
William Hull: Surrendered peacefully to inferior forces
Thom Karremans: Toasted Mladić, allowed Srebenica massacre
Hugh Judson Kilpatrick: Nicknamed “Kill Cavalry” for reason
James Ledlie: Drunk during Battle of Crater
Tiberius Sempronius Longus: Lost to Carthage at Trebia
Francisco Solano López: Almost unmade Paraguay
George B. McClellan: Timid, bungling, arrogant Union commander
Napoleon III: Clobbered, captured at Sedan
Nicias: Commanded ill-fated Syracuse expedition
Arthur Percival: Surrendered Singapore to Japan
Philip VI of France: Crushed own army at Crécy
Romanus IV of Byzantium: Lost Battle of Manzikert
Zinovy Rozhestvensky: Led Russian Navy to annihilation
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna: “Napoleon of the West”? Ha!
Manuel Fernandez Silvestre: Lost badly in Spanish Morocco
Frederick William Stopford: Blunderer at Suvla Bay, Gallipoli
Publius Quinctilius Varus: Army totally annihilated in Germany
Zhao Kuo: Became idiom for “bad general”
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
Same rules for the next round, which will end (due to the holiday season) at noon EST on Mon. Jan. 3.
**Oreste Baratieri ** -2 Votes
**Paul D. Harkins **- 2 Votes
New target:
Romanus IV of Byzantium OK, this is another ‘justify him as the worst’. Romanus lost Manzikert, certainly, and he did force the battle, and his tactics were uninspired against the hit and run Turks, but the loss turned into a rout when he was betrayed by his reserve leader (and he was foolish to trust the man). But outside Manzikert Romanus seems to have run campaigns adequately but not brilliantly. He just doesn’t not deserve to really be on this list so late in the game IMO.
Romanus is nominated solely on account of Manzikert and the surrounding campaign; in addition to uninspired tactics, he also suffered a major failure of intelligence in that he had no idea where Alp Arslan’s army was for much of the campaign. In addition, Manzikert was almost a civlization-killing battle; the Byzantine Empire would never control Anatolia again. There are others on the list whose failure was as deadly to their own country, but not many.
I don’t know that Romanus is top-10 (for one thing, his major failure came against a quality opponent), but I think he should stay around for a while longer.
I presume the “not” is inadvertent? And are you casting a single vote for him?
Varus - 2
Paul D. Harkins - 2
Hermann Goering - 1
Hugh Judson Kilpatrick - 2 - recklessly aggressive, which isn’t always a bad thing
“I know that Kilpatrick is a hell of a damned fool, but I want just that sort of man to command my cavalry on this expedition.” - Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
Braxton Bragg - 2 - just doesn’t seem bad enough
Paul Harkins - 1 - Westmoreland is more to blame
Sticking with:
Varus – 2
Oreste Baratieri – 2
Adding:
Paul D. Harkins – 1
Happy New Year!
Yup.
That may be true, but from what I know of Byzantium they were well on their way to losing that area already. Previous Emperors had let conditions get poor and Romanus actually rebooted the Byzantium military and went out to meet the enemy. If he had not failed with a bang, I suspect Byzantium would have lost the area with a whimper.
Manuel Fernandez Silvestre, 1: Had some ability and it seems it was his troops more than he that lost the battle.
Ambrose E. Burnside, 1: In all fairness, he knew he was incompetent and tries his best to stay out of command.
Arthur Percival, 3: Thought the jungle would hinder the Japanese more. Had little to no air or sea support.
Perhaps, but the evidence is equivocal. Stiffened by Romanus IV it seemed the border garrisons were holding their own in the two years prior to Manzikert, if not exactly performing with enthusiasm and alacrity. More importantly there is no indication that Alp Arslan was interested in a major war or was seriously trying to penetrate the border. Indeed it is hard to say if he was even sanctioning the border raids which were more likely the work of local emirs and beys continuing in the time-honored traditions of there forefathers and predecessors. Arslan had much bigger fish to fry in the Fatimids in Syria and Egypt, who combined a potent ideological threat with the more standard territorial dispute. Getting in a possibly messy two front war was the last thing he wanted to do. Manzikert was forced on him.
The rotten core of the Byzantine military system was badly exposed in its aftermath, with the resulting dramatic demographic transformation of Anatolia. But if Romanus hadn’t forced the issue, it is not certain the Seljuqs would have been informed enough to try to do so themselves. The border may have remained stabilized until the Komnenoi had returned to the scene to institute reform. The history of that part of the world might have been profoundly different.
He had little ability. Silvestre was an uber-aggressive commander and a charismatic character, but that and the friendship of King Alfonso ( who earlier in his career he had served as an aide ) was pretty much all he had going for him. And really it was his aggression that undid him.
His headstrong attitudes and impetuosity had led to him being repeatedly recalled from Morocco for embarrassing the Spanish government - his undeniable aggression kept getting him sent back, as it was admired. But he was the perfectly Custer-like in his disregard for the capabilities of his potential opponents and badly overextended his lines, dispersing his troops in hundreds of scattered, unsupported outposts in an unpacified land where they would prove easy prey to a coordinated offensive. And while his troops were of poor quality he amplified that by being a lax disciplinarian. While he was liked by his troops for his familiarity and easy-going ways, other officers were appalled by the lack of discipline he allowed. If his troops failed him, it was in part because Silvestre set them up in a miserable position and then encouraged them to do so.
He was apparently brave - MY description ( “Run! The bogeyman is coming!” ) that Elendil’s Heir saw fit to edit because he hates me ( 
), may have even been sarcastic as he yelled out to his fleeing troops, while staying behind to be butchered ( either that or he broke ). But he was undeniably stupid. Even staying behind at Anual was stupid.He should have been retreating with his troops and trying to stiffen morale and contract and strengthen his lines where he could, possible or not. Like Varus at Teutoburger Wald there was no point in committing de facto suicide other than to further unnerve and unhinge his troops.
Nope, Silvestre was up against a very wily and capable opponent in Abd el-Krim. But he sucked. Big time.