What do you think?
Rate this book
The Worst Military Leaders in History
Spanning countries and centuries, a “how-not-to” guide to leadership that reveals the most maladroit military commanders in history.
For this book, fifteen distinguished historians were given a deceptively simple task: identify their choice for the worst military leader in history and then explain why theirs is the worst.
From the clueless Conrad von Hötzendorf and George A. Custer to the criminal Baron Roman F. von Ungern-Sternberg and the bungling Garnet Wolseley, this book presents a rogues’ gallery of military incompetents. Rather than merely rehashing biographical details, the contributors take an original and unconventional look at military leadership in a way that appeals to both specialists and general readers alike.
While there are plenty of books that analyze the keys to success, The Worst Military Leaders in History offers lessons of failure to avoid. In other words, this book is a “how-not-to” guide to leadership.
For this book, fifteen distinguished historians were given a deceptively simple task: identify their choice for the worst military leader in history and then explain why theirs is the worst.
From the clueless Conrad von Hötzendorf and George A. Custer to the criminal Baron Roman F. von Ungern-Sternberg and the bungling Garnet Wolseley, this book presents a rogues’ gallery of military incompetents. Rather than merely rehashing biographical details, the contributors take an original and unconventional look at military leadership in a way that appeals to both specialists and general readers alike.
While there are plenty of books that analyze the keys to success, The Worst Military Leaders in History offers lessons of failure to avoid. In other words, this book is a “how-not-to” guide to leadership.
336 pages, Hardcover
Published March 22, 2022
17 people are currently reading
127 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
November 11, 2022
This book was an impulse purchase. I was in Barnes and Noble and my TBR shelf had been exceptionally light for some time so hoping for some juicy military gossip I bought it. I have now been justifiably disappointed in my hopes as the book turned out to be something meant for another purpose. According to a rather lengthy introduction by the editors the book is meant primarily as a tool to prompt discussions by students of military leadership. The goals and organization of the book are laid out and what the reader is given is a collection of essays by a variety of military historians. Each essay depicts a specific past military figure and their failings in that role.
The book will certainly promote discussion among militarists and those that enjoy military history and the first point of discussion will probably be the title. The men selected for inclusion on this list of "Worst" military leaders is hardly the worst by a long shot. A couple of these figures will be recognizable, Custer is deservedly listed but then so is John Chivington who was responsible for the Native American massacre at Sand Creek. Was he bad? Yes, of course, but hardly deserving of such distinction. One would expect a rather long list of generals from WWI considering the number of disasters produced in that war. Surprisingly, the only WWI figure to make the list was the British admiral in command of the battle cruiser fleet at the Battle of Jutland. Only one WWII general is on the list and after reading the essay about him his inclusion seemed rather unfair. While this general, Lewis Brereton, was involved in a string of military failures it is clear that he was never in full command of all aspects of these operations. The failures cited were shared failures and to pin the responsibility on one man was wrong. So to call these named figures the worst military leaders in history is ridiculous.
I believe what was done in this book was to develop a discussion outline on the various elements of military leadership. After that military historians were given a point on this leadership outline and asked to find a general in history whose exploits would illustrate a failure of that leadership element. These essays were then collected and combined in this book. Again, the book can certainly promote discussion but I think half or more of the discussion will be about how the essayists failed to select proper illustrations. While the generals discussed had their deficiencies it's hard to fault a man for failing to carry-out an operation he had little no involvement in planning, or in acquiring intelligence for, or planning the logistics etc. Even when the leaderships points are being discussed in the essay the history of the described event makes clear that the general's failure was due to circumstances not in his control. After that the discussion would probably turn to better examples known to the assembled discussion group. How is Gen. Haig of WWI not listed and discussed? What about Lee at Gettysburg or the entire idea of a Civil War from the Confederacy's perspective. The book's list is really very thin.
Is the book worth reading? Maybe. There are some historical tidbits to be discovered. For instance it was interesting for me to learn about some of Custer's previous performance reviews and opinions of his commanding officers. Apparently Custer's character flaws, the kind that should have prevented him from ever being given command of anything, were all very well known and disregarded. My guess is that such flaws were not recognized as such in the military culture of his time and scores of men died for that failure. But the history in the other essays only concerns the event that is being used to illustrate the leadership failure being highlighted. For this book to be worth reading would require a reader to be singularly interested in military leadership or management. As an instruction tool the book would probably be suitable for a leadership 101 course but no higher.
The book will certainly promote discussion among militarists and those that enjoy military history and the first point of discussion will probably be the title. The men selected for inclusion on this list of "Worst" military leaders is hardly the worst by a long shot. A couple of these figures will be recognizable, Custer is deservedly listed but then so is John Chivington who was responsible for the Native American massacre at Sand Creek. Was he bad? Yes, of course, but hardly deserving of such distinction. One would expect a rather long list of generals from WWI considering the number of disasters produced in that war. Surprisingly, the only WWI figure to make the list was the British admiral in command of the battle cruiser fleet at the Battle of Jutland. Only one WWII general is on the list and after reading the essay about him his inclusion seemed rather unfair. While this general, Lewis Brereton, was involved in a string of military failures it is clear that he was never in full command of all aspects of these operations. The failures cited were shared failures and to pin the responsibility on one man was wrong. So to call these named figures the worst military leaders in history is ridiculous.
I believe what was done in this book was to develop a discussion outline on the various elements of military leadership. After that military historians were given a point on this leadership outline and asked to find a general in history whose exploits would illustrate a failure of that leadership element. These essays were then collected and combined in this book. Again, the book can certainly promote discussion but I think half or more of the discussion will be about how the essayists failed to select proper illustrations. While the generals discussed had their deficiencies it's hard to fault a man for failing to carry-out an operation he had little no involvement in planning, or in acquiring intelligence for, or planning the logistics etc. Even when the leaderships points are being discussed in the essay the history of the described event makes clear that the general's failure was due to circumstances not in his control. After that the discussion would probably turn to better examples known to the assembled discussion group. How is Gen. Haig of WWI not listed and discussed? What about Lee at Gettysburg or the entire idea of a Civil War from the Confederacy's perspective. The book's list is really very thin.
Is the book worth reading? Maybe. There are some historical tidbits to be discovered. For instance it was interesting for me to learn about some of Custer's previous performance reviews and opinions of his commanding officers. Apparently Custer's character flaws, the kind that should have prevented him from ever being given command of anything, were all very well known and disregarded. My guess is that such flaws were not recognized as such in the military culture of his time and scores of men died for that failure. But the history in the other essays only concerns the event that is being used to illustrate the leadership failure being highlighted. For this book to be worth reading would require a reader to be singularly interested in military leadership or management. As an instruction tool the book would probably be suitable for a leadership 101 course but no higher.
May 30, 2022
This book will have something of a Marmite effect. Over the course of 15 chapters, the various contributors - almost exclusively historians working within the US military, with the expected mix of gender/race/background, etc - defend their choice of history's worst military leader. Most of their subjects fit within the range of their specialisms, which is reasonable but leaves one with something of a narrow range - there are a lot from North America, a handful from Europe, and one from Asia. Likewise, the subjects are heavily accented towards modern history. Aside from the odd few, many - at least outside of West Point - are not well known.
Herein lies one of the potential issues with this volume: it is somewhat blinkered. Out of the whole of history, one might have expected the Indian subcontinent, Africa, or South America to have turned up at least one terrible war leader. Nor would it be wholly out of the realms of plausibility to find a poor female warrior, at least from the ancient world (one could, for example, have argued for the inclusion of Boudica). However, as the editors make clear from the very start, balance is not an objective of this book. Rather, it has emerged from a number of 'informal discussions' (one suspects gathered around a table in the pub), and it has the feel of a group of interesting people defending their ideas based on their own experience. If taken in this light, it becomes harder to object to the scope.
The other potential problem is that it falls very much within the 'great' - or in this case the 'not-so-great' - men version of history. Some contributors do add nuance by looking at the cultural backgrounds of their subjects, but there is a tendency toward the idea that the whole course of history is affected by a few prominent people. This is out of step with much historical writing, and certainly with academic culture, and will, I'm sure, lead many to rate this book badly. But, given the title of the book, anyone picking it up expecting anything else has probably not engaged brain.
Ultimately, this book does what it says on the tin: it offers 15 biographies of men who often made monumental mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes had only a minor impact on the wider world; at other times those mistakes changed the course of empires. Some choices might seem bizarre and some are argued better than others. Overall, it is lacking on the analytical side - apparently by design - although some contributors have brought in potential lessons and traced the impact of the deeds of these men through to current military practices. However, I did learn something when reading the book, and it did encourage me to question my own version of what constitutes a bad - or good - war leader. In this, at the very least, it has fulfilled its objectives. What is more, in making me feel like a fly on the wall at an Oxford Union debate - or at the bar thereafter - it has kept me entertained.
Herein lies one of the potential issues with this volume: it is somewhat blinkered. Out of the whole of history, one might have expected the Indian subcontinent, Africa, or South America to have turned up at least one terrible war leader. Nor would it be wholly out of the realms of plausibility to find a poor female warrior, at least from the ancient world (one could, for example, have argued for the inclusion of Boudica). However, as the editors make clear from the very start, balance is not an objective of this book. Rather, it has emerged from a number of 'informal discussions' (one suspects gathered around a table in the pub), and it has the feel of a group of interesting people defending their ideas based on their own experience. If taken in this light, it becomes harder to object to the scope.
The other potential problem is that it falls very much within the 'great' - or in this case the 'not-so-great' - men version of history. Some contributors do add nuance by looking at the cultural backgrounds of their subjects, but there is a tendency toward the idea that the whole course of history is affected by a few prominent people. This is out of step with much historical writing, and certainly with academic culture, and will, I'm sure, lead many to rate this book badly. But, given the title of the book, anyone picking it up expecting anything else has probably not engaged brain.
Ultimately, this book does what it says on the tin: it offers 15 biographies of men who often made monumental mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes had only a minor impact on the wider world; at other times those mistakes changed the course of empires. Some choices might seem bizarre and some are argued better than others. Overall, it is lacking on the analytical side - apparently by design - although some contributors have brought in potential lessons and traced the impact of the deeds of these men through to current military practices. However, I did learn something when reading the book, and it did encourage me to question my own version of what constitutes a bad - or good - war leader. In this, at the very least, it has fulfilled its objectives. What is more, in making me feel like a fly on the wall at an Oxford Union debate - or at the bar thereafter - it has kept me entertained.
March 17, 2022
The title belies the contents.
This book book purports to describe the worst military leadersin history. While opinions on this subject varies, I don't think that the nonentities in this volume really qualify. I can think of at least a dozen who were far worse. How ever Brereton made the list is beyond me. He is blamed here for the failure of Operation Market Garden whereas the real culprits were Montgomery and "Boy" Browning. Where are Buller, Percival, Stillwell or the military geniuses of the Austro-Prussian war.
The book appears to me like a collection of poorly written essays from first year military history students who substitute the obscurity of their subjects for their lack of knowledge in the hope of a better grade than they deserve
This book book purports to describe the worst military leadersin history. While opinions on this subject varies, I don't think that the nonentities in this volume really qualify. I can think of at least a dozen who were far worse. How ever Brereton made the list is beyond me. He is blamed here for the failure of Operation Market Garden whereas the real culprits were Montgomery and "Boy" Browning. Where are Buller, Percival, Stillwell or the military geniuses of the Austro-Prussian war.
The book appears to me like a collection of poorly written essays from first year military history students who substitute the obscurity of their subjects for their lack of knowledge in the hope of a better grade than they deserve
May 21, 2022
This book started from a very interesting thought - military literature is full of hagiographic studies of successful military leaders, but might it in fact be easier to learn lessons from the exploits of those leaders who were unsuccessful and incompetent? Unfortunately, the book fails to deliver. This is for three reasons.
First, the selection of leaders is curious to say the least. Of the 15 chosen, 2 are from ancient times, 2 from the medieval period, but the other 11 are all from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. Of those 11, 5 are from the United States. The sample is still more puzzling, as the reasons for chosing them for inclusion seem weak, to say the least. Beatty and Wolseley appear chosen on the basis that they were less than successful in a single campaign, though they were hugely effective otherwise. Brereton is included because his forces were involved in a number of failues, yet it is made clear that all of these were due to the instructions of others, often over his clear protests. A number of the leaders chosen will be new names to almost all readers. The absence of any German commanders, or any since the Second World War, appears perplexing.
Second, almost none of the authors of the various chapters attempt any analysis of what it was that caused their chosen subject to be an ineffective leader. In most cases, the chapters are simple narratives of the exploits of their chosen subject. Only a few make any attempt to analyse the reasons that justify why this particular leader is considered to be one of the worst in history. The chapter on Crassus is one of the few to do so, and presents the fascinating conclusion that he was in fact simply applying the standard approach to warfare of the Roman Army of his time, in a competent though unimaginative manner, and that his defeat was due to that approach being ineffective against the approach adopted by his Parthian opponent.
Third, the editors explicitly make no effort to develop any model or analysis of these case studies, in order to bring out lessons or types. The 15 leaders chosen are assigned to 5 categories, but these are somewhat superficial and add little. As such, the reader is left with little sense of whether there are common characteristics that unite incompetent leaders, nor of why such incompetents may yet reach senior command positions within armies.
Overall, a disappointing work, even though the individual chapters are generally quite engaging as narratives. The idea behind the book remains a good one. Hopefully, it might be picked up by other writers who do it better justice.
First, the selection of leaders is curious to say the least. Of the 15 chosen, 2 are from ancient times, 2 from the medieval period, but the other 11 are all from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. Of those 11, 5 are from the United States. The sample is still more puzzling, as the reasons for chosing them for inclusion seem weak, to say the least. Beatty and Wolseley appear chosen on the basis that they were less than successful in a single campaign, though they were hugely effective otherwise. Brereton is included because his forces were involved in a number of failues, yet it is made clear that all of these were due to the instructions of others, often over his clear protests. A number of the leaders chosen will be new names to almost all readers. The absence of any German commanders, or any since the Second World War, appears perplexing.
Second, almost none of the authors of the various chapters attempt any analysis of what it was that caused their chosen subject to be an ineffective leader. In most cases, the chapters are simple narratives of the exploits of their chosen subject. Only a few make any attempt to analyse the reasons that justify why this particular leader is considered to be one of the worst in history. The chapter on Crassus is one of the few to do so, and presents the fascinating conclusion that he was in fact simply applying the standard approach to warfare of the Roman Army of his time, in a competent though unimaginative manner, and that his defeat was due to that approach being ineffective against the approach adopted by his Parthian opponent.
Third, the editors explicitly make no effort to develop any model or analysis of these case studies, in order to bring out lessons or types. The 15 leaders chosen are assigned to 5 categories, but these are somewhat superficial and add little. As such, the reader is left with little sense of whether there are common characteristics that unite incompetent leaders, nor of why such incompetents may yet reach senior command positions within armies.
Overall, a disappointing work, even though the individual chapters are generally quite engaging as narratives. The idea behind the book remains a good one. Hopefully, it might be picked up by other writers who do it better justice.
November 6, 2022
This is a weird book. It's title is pure clickbait, but it's put together by some academics. So you get some dry reading you'd expect from professors, but it still doesn't seem to be as rigorous as you'd expect. Many of the picks here seem to be random, as it's really a list of various generals and admirals that the authors don't think much of. Sure, many area really bad - but it's hard to believe that they're really the 15 worst ever. For instance, a chapter on Nathan Bedford Forrest makes a compelling argument that he's overrated, but there's a lot of handwaiving away of his tactical abilities to claim he's among the worst generals of all-time. On the other hand, there's a really nice chapter on Japan's Nogi Maresuke arguing that a lot of facets that cause us to consider a general good or bad really rely on factor's entirely outside the guy's control, such as the era he's in or structural factors beyond his control.
There are some themes here: 1) People tend to overrate tactical abilities above all else. When in reality the ability to get along with others, taking responsiblity for one's own actions, and most of all a clear strategic approach to what you're doing matter greatly. 2) It's not just what one does but also how one does it. The opening section, for instance, focuses on criminals, those who let their soldiers commit crimes during their conduct. (It isn't just that the soldiers engage in bad behavior - though that' s alot of it - it's also that such conduct is often self-defeating by creating more problems and lowering overall standards of discipline that a force needs). 3) A leader should care more about his men than his reputation - as many people here did the opposite.
The book has its moments but overall it isn't really as coherent as it ought to be.
There are some themes here: 1) People tend to overrate tactical abilities above all else. When in reality the ability to get along with others, taking responsiblity for one's own actions, and most of all a clear strategic approach to what you're doing matter greatly. 2) It's not just what one does but also how one does it. The opening section, for instance, focuses on criminals, those who let their soldiers commit crimes during their conduct. (It isn't just that the soldiers engage in bad behavior - though that' s alot of it - it's also that such conduct is often self-defeating by creating more problems and lowering overall standards of discipline that a force needs). 3) A leader should care more about his men than his reputation - as many people here did the opposite.
The book has its moments but overall it isn't really as coherent as it ought to be.
Read
August 25, 2023This book with different writers for each military leader - is written with lots of hindsight.
While the failures are evident and one could debate if the leader was truly and directly responsible , some traits of bad leadership are repeated mentioned ;
- pride and over confidence ; ignoring the enemy's strength and determination
- politics especially using war to boost one's own political standing and future
- poor communications before and during battle.
These leaders should have read Sun Tze's "Art of War"
For nations and regions (applies to business companies too) who have a good and long lasting strategy ... " confidence in the Roman system ... the Roman military system relied on standardised organisation and tactics ... the very strength of the system could breed over confidence.. such was the excellence of the system that this was often good enough" ... til they meet a smart or smarter general eg Hannibal.
While the failures are evident and one could debate if the leader was truly and directly responsible , some traits of bad leadership are repeated mentioned ;
- pride and over confidence ; ignoring the enemy's strength and determination
- politics especially using war to boost one's own political standing and future
- poor communications before and during battle.
These leaders should have read Sun Tze's "Art of War"
For nations and regions (applies to business companies too) who have a good and long lasting strategy ... " confidence in the Roman system ... the Roman military system relied on standardised organisation and tactics ... the very strength of the system could breed over confidence.. such was the excellence of the system that this was often good enough" ... til they meet a smart or smarter general eg Hannibal.
March 28, 2023
Not the fifteen worst military leaders in history. How can such blunderers as Varus (Cannae), Darius III (vs. Alex T. Great), Villeneuve (Trafalgar), Bragg (US Civil War), just about anybody who opposed the Mongols, Caepio (Arausio), and scads others be left out? Still, there are some interesting dudes offered up. I had never heard of Roman Fedorovich von Ungern-Sterberg, Raymond VI, and Nogi Maresuke, and had thought better of Beatty and Lord Wolseley. Forrest's and Custer's names on the list may raise some folks' hackles, but the narratives provide food for thought. The book is fifteen scholars' opinions but, still, readers are likely to learn things. The book really could use maps. There's only Port Arthur and that is poorly rendered.
August 21, 2023
Interesting book discussing 15 military leaders classified along 5 categories (bunglers, the clueless, frauds, criminals, and politicians) that can be argued to be among the worst in history. Many of them may not be so well-known but their incompetence was influential on important historical events. The leaders come from a wide variety of times and places (though not e.g. China). The interesting point is made how sometimes leaders lose sight of their strategic objectives and that there may have been alternative ways of achieving them. I enjoyed learning about these leaders and the context in which they operated. All vignettes are well written and engaging.
April 2, 2023
I enjoyed it. Some very interesting characters from history, some of my favourites were the roman general, cluster and lord worsley
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews