"The Worst Military Leaders in History - Book" Topic

A new book by two Airforce Academy history professors that is quite an enjoyable read. While I doubt everyone would agree with the choices it is well written and a fun yet thoughtful read.

It is a University of Chicago Press publication and available on Kindle.

link

Interesting – I am mixed views on Sir Douglas Haig, who after all had primarily commanded training units or regimental-brigade level cavalry formations pre-war; one wonders how much Forrester's "The General" was modeled on someone like Haig

link

…and the bungling Garnet Wolseley.

Wait, what? I'm curious as to how they rate Wolsely as a bungler.

I haven't gotten to the chapter on Wolseley but there are 15 leaders addressed by 15 different historians and the concepts are interesting. Great commanders have substantial amounts written about them but bad ones and what made them bad, not so much. I'm finding it pretty fascinating.

I always thought Wolseley was pretty good in an "All Sir Garnet" way but am looking forward to a contradictory view.

I wonder if they cover any of Spains' generals during the Napoleonic era.

I'd be a hard sell even on Custer. Losing one battle--even spectacularly--doesn't make someone who went from West Point to two stars in three years one of the worst military leaders in history.

Which is a problem for this genre. Barring family and political connections, the really bad ones don't make general. But no one seems to want to write a book on why Colonel Locke wasn't the right man for this assignment, General Stock had a bad day, or Marshal Barrel was given an impossible mission. The books at least say the man was overpromoted, and usually suggest he shouldn't have been commissioned. I'd like to introduce the historians to a few who officers who weren't invited to run entire campaigns. They might learn a few things about bad leadership.

There's been speculation about real British officers and "The General," Frederick. If you dig a bit, you can probably find some of the discussion--though you might have to resort to paper. As I recall, it usually centered on someone lower down the totem pole. I believe Gough of British Fifth Army has been mentioned--a cavalryman, relatively modest background, Boer War cavalry service, and involved in many of the more costly British offensives until it all came crashing down in the Spring of 1918.

But at least two other army-level commanders had Boer War cavalry experience, and one had a wife with repeated miscarriages. Absent a letter from Forester, I'm inclined to think he nailed a type rather than an individual.

I haven't seen, let alone looked at, but Nathan Forrest? Really?
Custer but not Chelmsford?
How about a Russian general or two from the Winter War?

These sorts of lists are rather like "The ten greatest movies of all time" or whatever. Rather subjective and with an element of click ait about them.

No way Custer is among the worst generals of all time. He won everyone of his battles except for his last one. Even here he made some wrong assumptions that ending going badly for him but that has happened to many a good general.

I haven't seen, let alone looked at, but Nathan Forrest? Really?

McKinstry can probably shed more light but the premise of the book is to examine failure of leadership tied to a certain characteristic. For example, Forrest, Chivington, and Ungern-Starnberg are under the section "Criminals", while Custer, Brererton, and von Hötzendorf are "Clueless". The are also "Frauds", "Politicians", and "Bunglers". This last group includes Wolseley, along with Nogi Maresuke and Romanus IV Diogenes.

Taking into account the sensationalism of the title and the desire for a revisionist look at some of these men, I would still think that "bungler" is the last criticism you could level at Wolseley.

Nope. Sorry. Being a criminal may make you a bad person, but it doesn't make you a bad military leader, let alone the worst. Neither does being a politician (assuming this is a distinct category from criminal.) If you were talking bad military leadership, you'd have categories like "Ditherer" "Theorist" and "Slow Learner."

That said, even by whatever passes for a standard in academia these days--Ungern-Starnberg, but not Budyonny? I suppose it's not criminal if the perpetrator is a Communist?