who were the most imcompetent rulers ever?

[VAE VICTUS]

who were the most imcompetent rulers ever?(and why)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So many candidates, so little time....

King John of Magna Carta fame comes to mind. Managed to screw up Ireland and then lose much of the power of the English monarchy. Not that older brother Richie was much in the way of an effective king.

Monteczuma wasn't exactly at the top of his game against Cortes and allies either.

[VAE VICTUS]

yes,but montezuma also probly thought cortes was a god,quetzacotl the feathered serpent.

[VAE VICTUS]

i would say maybe the king of the incas,name was like anauac or sometthing.supposedly he had 30,000 troops in some highlands above pizarro,was failed to use them.i mean 30,000 guys with maces vs. 150 guys with one shot guns........but the phychological factor made a difference i guess.

[Petrus]

Adolf Hitler.

"you will not recognize germany in ten years!"

Well, ten years after, Germany was reduced to ashes, it's population slaughtered by millions, it was under complete domination of foreign countries, every single german soldier was a prisoner and the german nation did not have anymore a political or legal existence without the mercy of it's victorious ennemies. Not many examples of such a disaster in history.

[caesar44]

Caligula , Nero , Louis 16th , Montezuma , darius IV (?) ...the list is to long gah!!!

[lancelot]

Tony Blair??

[King Henry V]

Tony Blair, King Charles I, Henry III, Edward II, King John, Lord North (he used to fall asleep in Parliament, no wonder we lost the Americas).

[Advo-san]

Our fatboy must take the cake!! Prime Minister Karamanlis! Please give him this cake, or any cake! He is just a hungry little bugger, but with a heavy name indeed...
Do you want Greece to go your way? Throw a BIG dinner before the talks and promise him an even BIGGER after the talks are over...

[Steppe Merc]

Caligula , Nero , Louis 16th , Montezuma , darius IV (?) ...the list is to long gah!!!
Darius shouldn't be up there...

[yesdachi]

Everything is relative, even a rulers incompetence.

[Rodion Romanovich]

If you want a list that wouldn't take more than a lifetime to write, and read, instead ask the question: which were the rulers that weren't incompetent? And here's the list:

[emptiness]

...the problem is that most leaders seem to think it's prestige to recieve help from others in understanding a complex system of millions of factors. Their actions against any rebel who tries to suggest anything different from the leader's view, of fear of looking weak, reinforces the effect of making it look like any leader who actually listens to the people is weak. However, when a leader scares his people of expressing their opinion, no matter what it is, he'll not prevent them from having that opinion, but make those who have that opinion grow in numbers and influence secretly, until they protest. That is the first common mistake made.

The second one is when a leader conquers. A leader may be a brilliant general, pulling off the greatest conquest in history, but if it requires a man more brilliant at generalship than the average man to hold that conquest, then HE and not his follower, is the most incompetent stratege.

Simply put, I think the most incompetent leaders would be those who made their states dependent on a large quantity of pure genius in order simply to survive, as well as those leaders who by intrigue carried out unethical actions of different kinds - those two are btw nearly the same cathegories.

[Riedquat]

Caligula , Nero , Louis 16th , Montezuma , darius IV (?) ...the list is to long gah!!!

As for Caligula, I believe that he was not a bad leader, remember to have read that was an excellent leader, Rome had the best economy during his management, of which he was crazy there is no doubt, but to put that thing about to his horse as senator has not anything in common with an act of madness, rather of absolute sarcasm. (and possibly his horse was a better senator than his predecessor).

As for my election, all the presidents of my country from the day in which it became independent of Spain.

[Catiline]

There's a difference between unsuccesful and incompetent leaders that's not being recognised here. At the risk risk of doing a "You can say a lot of bad thigns about the Nazis but... " routine, I think it's hard to call Hitler incompetent, certainly up until 1941.

One clear volunteer however, has to be Henry VI, who erally was a complete waste of space.

[The Stranger]

caligula
nero
bush
balkenende

[Rodion Romanovich]

There's a difference between unsuccesful and incompetent leaders that's not being recognised here. At the risk risk of doing a "You can say a lot of bad thigns about the Nazis but... " routine, I think it's hard to call Hitler incompetent, certainly up until 1941.


I'm not sure, that might also be questioned. The Germans had some of the best military equipment at the time, and it's unclear whether it was he, or Guderian and other famous/infamous/whatever you like to call 'em generals that were responsible for the successes.

The Wehrmacht were so superior in equipment in Poland that the slowness of the final offensive there could perhaps even be counted as a screw-up on the German part.

The Germans had strong air superiority during the early parts of Fall Gelb, as well as strong tanks in large numbers, and the lack of better resistance from France and BEF was partly caused by the shock of finding Belgium and the Netherlands unprepared for defense, contrary to what they thought when they were allowed to marched in.

The rush for the Channel and the attempt to surround BEF and France in the Dunquerque area wasn't an act of genius, it was the obvious thing to do.

The Germans also didn't perform as well as they could have done in the Norwegian campaign, where they lost important parts of their fleet. As the German fleet was weaker than the allied one, these losses were more critical than the British naval losses in the campaign. A more clever way of invading Norway would have been to go only for the southern parts of the country first. This would have been safer for the navy, and could also perhaps have drawn allied troops from the western front, making Fall Gelb easier. That would have meant a possibility of the German navy to win the battle of the Atlantic, as it was after the battle of Norway that wasn't possible.

The Battle of Britain with the orders to ceace bombing RAF air fields and bomb London and other cities instead, was what made it possible for RAF to repair air fields and factories and gain air superiority. The Germans lost so many bombers and fighters over Britain during 1940, that it made an invasion of Britain impossible. The choice not to invade Britain meant Britain would, as they had recieved a small air superiority on their island again, slowly but steadily, grow in power and during every day that went pass increase in strength as a military threat. The only choice that would prevent Germany from a future defeat would have been to invade Britain, no matter what costs in infantry and other land equipment.

So, as I see it, the Germans didn't perform as well in WW2 as is widely believed. However, I might sound a little too critical above. It's true that they made some clever moves and knew how to use their equipment to maximum effect by using things such as timing, extreme training of the individual soldiers, and had made the right choices in which equipment to buy. On the other hand, they had a chance to practise warfare with their new equipment in Spain a while earlier.

The only thing that he excelled at was the improvements of the German economy, and he was a good rhetoric too. But militarily, politically and diplomatically, I'd say his competence is questionable.

[The Stranger]

and not forgetting THAT THE FREAK INVADED RUSSIA
and even the bigges F***UP could win with that army and such generals as Rommel.

[Byzantine Prince]

Pyrrhus of Epirus (the man was a good general, but as far as long-term strategy or nation-building was concerned, he was incompetant)

He had a short attention span and wanted to do random things to amuse himself. He wasn't incometent by any means. And saying he was simply a 'good' general is a huge understatement. Hannibal himself noted him as one of the two generals that were better then him, and the other is Alexander, the very god of generals.

_________________________________________________________________

As for who I think is the most incompetent, it would have to be Bush. Bush or Montezuma, I'm not sure.

[caesar44]

Darius shouldn't be up there...

Steppe , I meant the Darius who lost the 230 years old , mighty , enormous , gigantic , tolerant , advanced and huge Persian empire to a little boy from Macedon who had 30,000 soldiers... well ????????

[King Henry V]

One clear volunteer however, has to be Henry VI, who erally was a complete waste of space.
That's my son you're talking about! ~;)

[yesdachi]

As for Caligula, I believe that he was not a bad leader, remember to have read that was an excellent leader, Rome had the best economy during his management, of which he was crazy there is no doubt, but to put that thing about to his horse as senator has not anything in common with an act of madness, rather of absolute sarcasm. (and possibly his horse was a better senator than his predecessor).
From what I have seen and read Caligula was pretty much what you say. I just wanted to add that he seemed to be pretty ruthless and had little regard for life. In one account I heard about he removed his unborn son from his sisters belly. :stunned:

[caesar44]

Caligula - took the Roman army to the Northern sea , did not found any enemy there , ordered his soldiers to attack Poseidon and returned to Rome in a triumph , presenting the sea shelfs as his prisoners...yes he was a great ruler...

[VAE VICTUS]

If you want a list that wouldn't take more than a lifetime to write, and read, instead ask the question: which were the rulers that weren't incompetent? And here's the list:

[emptiness]

...the problem is that most leaders seem to think it's prestige to recieve help from others in understanding a complex system of millions of factors. Their actions against any rebel who tries to suggest anything different from the leader's view, of fear of looking weak, reinforces the effect of making it look like any leader who actually listens to the people is weak. However, when a leader scares his people of expressing their opinion, no matter what it is, he'll not prevent them from having that opinion, but make those who have that opinion grow in numbers and influence secretly, until they protest. That is the first common mistake made.

The second one is when a leader conquers. A leader may be a brilliant general, pulling off the greatest conquest in history, but if it requires a man more brilliant at generalship than the average man to hold that conquest, then HE and not his follower, is the most incompetent stratege.

Simply put, I think the most incompetent leaders would be those who made their states dependent on a large quantity of pure genius in order simply to survive, as well as those leaders who by intrigue carried out unethical actions of different kinds - those two are btw nearly the same cathegories.


very thought provoking indeed.i would have to agree.but it would help to have a leader who is a genius.

[Soulforged]

WOW non of those compare to the rulers in Latin America, specially because most of them didn't dispose of the years of science that we've now. But like i'm only allowed to speak of my leaders (because of an Honor Code ~;) ), so i'll say that: -Maria Stella Martinez de Perón, she was actually a puppet of her assistent (Lopez Rega) right before the military took over.
-De La Rua: without character at all just entered power to do some rethoric speaking and gain some profit. Not prepared to the necessities of this country.
-I would like to say to Menem (though it's not clear if he was incompetent, or just corrupt): to make his story of incompetence/corruption as short as possible i'll mention some events (things that probably never happened in any of your countries). First of all he used emergency decree (i mean another way to pass over the Parlament) almost all of his ruling period, he even launched one to buy him self a Ferrari!!! :furious3: . Also he privatazed all public companies of the state in a single mandate and created the most corrupted system ever to my knowledge. Of course he saved all the profit made in his 10 year mandate in a bank on Switzerland and other countries, and left the country to live a very good life, that's what makes you doubt if he was incompetent or just corrupt.

[conon394]

Steppe , I meant the Darius who lost the 230 years old , mighty , enormous , gigantic , tolerant , advanced and huge Persian empire to a little boy from Macedon who had 30,000 soldiers... well ????????

I don’t know that you can pin the loss on Darius III so easily. The erosion of the Persian feudal system that provided the core Persian/Median military of the Empire had been under way for at least a century. Same goes for the overall structure of the empire, every emperor after maybe Xerxes was lucky just to hold the whole thing together, let alone deal with a substantial invasion. Had either Athens or Sparta achieved the kind of undisputed hegemony that Philip had I suspect Persia would have been substantially reduced or broken up a century or so earlier. Finally, Alexander had more like 50,000 – 60,000 thousand troops.

[Krusader]

Idi Amin. Aside from his ruthlessnes, he ordered all Asian immigrants who controlled the backbone of Ugandas economy out of the country and gave their shops and factories to his closest friends, who had no idea how to manage a trade. And also his foreign policy and Hitler-loving. And totally ruining the military.

Maybe Gray Warren of California if things I've read are true.

[Red Harvest]

1. The Spartans did pretty poorly with their empire after defeating Athens...they had zero sense of diplomacy and succeeded in ticking everyone off, leading to their own downfall. It is an example of a system producing the worst type of folks to become governors.

Of course, this is tempered with their ability to control the helots prior to that, so one needs to make a distinction in era.

2. The Russian coup leaders come to mind...they couldn't even keep Gorby off the air while they were holding him. They didn't have the backing of much of anyone it appears.

3. Louis XVI of France certainly deserves to be in contention. His people were starving as a result of war expenditures, and his inability to handle the crisis resulted in a massive revolution.

[caesar44]

I don’t know that you can pin the loss on Darius III so easily. The erosion of the Persian feudal system that provided the core Persian/Median military of the Empire had been under way for at least a century. Same goes for the overall structure of the empire, every emperor after maybe Xerxes was lucky just to hold the whole thing together, let alone deal with a substantial invasion. Had either Athens or Sparta achieved the kind of undisputed hegemony that Philip had I suspect Persia would have been substantially reduced or broken up a century or so earlier. Finally, Alexander had more like 50,000 – 60,000 thousand troops.


If so , Alexander was no great ! he just took what was there to take...

30,000 foot soldiers and 5,000 cavalry http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Alexander.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/alexanderthegreat.html
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/alexander.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564408/Alexander_the_Great.html
And many more !

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Gerhard Schroeder, Chirac, Montezuma, George III, Wilhelm II, Bill Clinton.

[conon394]

30,000 foot soldiers and 5,000 cavalry

That is roughly the size of the army that crossed with Alexander in Asia
in 334 BC. What is left out by just citing that number is the 10,000 or so troops already deployed into Asia and the 12,000 - 14,000 reinforcements Alexander received at various times before Gaugamela. I'll dig up some links for the numbers but I don't have time right now.

[AlokaParyetra]

Nehru Gandhi

[Riedquat]

Caligula - took the Roman army to the Northern sea , did not found any enemy there , ordered his soldiers to attack Poseidon and returned to Rome in a triumph , presenting the sea shelfs as his prisoners...yes he was a great ruler...

Yes, the guy was crazy, nothing new here, but the majority of the geniuses are :dizzy2: . Seriously, I do not believe that it was a genius but for the standards of that epoch he was not very crazy either, the majority of the Roman emperors had his rare things. We cannot also extrapolate all the customs of this epoch and compare them with our own
ones of nowadays, if the people of Rome wanted conquest and victory he obtained it and also with the minimum of casualities. ~D




WOW non of those compare to the rulers in Latin America, specially because most of them didn't dispose of the years of science that we've now. But like i'm only allowed to speak of my leaders (because of an Honor Code ~;) ), so i'll say that: -Maria Stella Martinez de Perón, she was actually a puppet of her assistent (Lopez Rega) right before the military took over.
-De La Rua: without character at all just entered power to do some rethoric speaking and gain some profit. Not prepared to the necessities of this country.
-I would like to say to Menem (though it's not clear if he was incompetent, or just corrupt): to make his story of incompetence/corruption as short as possible i'll mention some events (things that probably never happened in any of your countries). First of all he used emergency decree (i mean another way to pass over the Parlament) almost all of his ruling period, he even launched one to buy him self a Ferrari!!! :furious3: . Also he privatazed all public companies of the state in a single mandate and created the most corrupted system ever to my knowledge. Of course he saved all the profit made in his 10 year mandate in a bank on Switzerland and other countries, and left the country to live a very good life, that's what makes you doubt if he was incompetent or just corrupt.


If I have to choose one, only to one of worst ours, I have to decide in favour of Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, he imported the sparrows (gorriones) :furious3: ... what more can I say. :embarassed:

[Soulforged]

Esta bien pa. Pero no me vas a decir que uno de los padres fundadores de la educación en este país y motivador de varias reformas es peor que Menem o De La Rua. Es bueno ver a un pibe del barrio por aca. ~:cheers:

[Kraxis]

Good old Darius does not deserve to be up there.

His every step was quite clever.
He managed to hire far more Greek mercenaries than the Macedonians (Philip and Alexander), that shows rather competent thinking since it was common knowledge that the Persian infantry was about worth... Well not much. There were the Immotals and the Kardakes and that was it. He obviously didn't trust the grey mass of spearmen, and rightly put them where they belonged, in the rear, to be a sort of human wall.
He is thought to have helped Olympias with the murder of Philip, that in itself is a very clever move. By helping her he would have stirred up things more in Macedon than just outright killing Philip (and causing international outrage).
In his tactical dispositions he did everything that he should.
First he let the very capable Memnon wage a very succesful war of attrition and counterattacks in Asia Minor (why do you think it took so long to get through Asia Minor?), but he was unlucky that Memnon died. Then he launched an offensive in the north that managed to do rather well. But it was called back as Alexander was about to cut it off at the Cilician Gates.

At Issus he massed his cavalry for an overwhelming attack. Right choice!
Had Alexander done the 'right' thing and deployed to meet the threat he would have been rolled over by sheer numbers. Instead the insolent Macedonian dares to a trick and a flanking attack on the cavalry. Unfair to judge him on that.

At Gaugamela he clearly showed that he had learned his lesson.
He made great use of flat terrain to either side, making certain he would outflank his enemy. This usually meant a sure victory. He also employed the usual dense formation breakers, elephants and heavy chariots.
Again Alexander digs deep in his genius and deploys in two lines to deny any rear attacks and has the light infantry deal with the chariots and elephants. While he lures the enemy cavalry on a chase so that he can strike at them when broken.
What could he ever have done against this? Nothing.

Further, and this might not be taken as much of a positive note, but he did try to get a peace going with Alexander, knowing that he couldn't win in battle. It takes a great man to see his own limitations, one of the vitues Alexander for one lacked.

So while Darius was no great leader, and not a superb commander, hewas more than capable, and he was bright. He does not deserve to be on this list.

[AntiochusIII]

Yeah, I always pitied old Darius for inheriting a falling, corrupted empire and tried his best (and quite good, A for the effort ~D ) to slow down the advance of greatest military genius the world had ever seen.

This thread seems to show that many are very prejudiced in judging who should be the most incompetent ruler ever. Some rulers face the pattern of being notorious that while there are a lot of worse rulers out there, they were chosen; Pyrrhus, Napolean III, and Darius are examples. Others are chosen because of being local ones, and their details are well-known to the poster.

A few were chosen despite the fact that they're not incompetent; rather as a result of the poster's political position and a reaction to the demonization of the "opponents." That Clinton and Bush are being put up shows such cases.

While in some cases the rulers are just plain mad; retarded. Caligula, Henry VI, etc. Should that count as a case of incompetence? Probably it should.

Me? I'd say many of you guys makes horrible rulers. Seriously, try to rule a country, and watch the result!

Bite me, O incompetent ones. ~D

[caesar44]

Good old Darius does not deserve to be up there.

His every step was quite clever.
He managed to hire far more Greek mercenaries than the Macedonians (Philip and Alexander), that shows rather competent thinking since it was common knowledge that the Persian infantry was about worth... Well not much. There were the Immotals and the Kardakes and that was it. He obviously didn't trust the grey mass of spearmen, and rightly put them where they belonged, in the rear, to be a sort of human wall.
He is thought to have helped Olympias with the murder of Philip, that in itself is a very clever move. By helping her he would have stirred up things more in Macedon than just outright killing Philip (and causing international outrage).
In his tactical dispositions he did everything that he should.
First he let the very capable Memnon wage a very succesful war of attrition and counterattacks in Asia Minor (why do you think it took so long to get through Asia Minor?), but he was unlucky that Memnon died. Then he launched an offensive in the north that managed to do rather well. But it was called back as Alexander was about to cut it off at the Cilician Gates.

At Issus he massed his cavalry for an overwhelming attack. Right choice!
Had Alexander done the 'right' thing and deployed to meet the threat he would have been rolled over by sheer numbers. Instead the insolent Macedonian dares to a trick and a flanking attack on the cavalry. Unfair to judge him on that.

At Gaugamela he clearly showed that he had learned his lesson.
He made great use of flat terrain to either side, making certain he would outflank his enemy. This usually meant a sure victory. He also employed the usual dense formation breakers, elephants and heavy chariots.
Again Alexander digs deep in his genius and deploys in two lines to deny any rear attacks and has the light infantry deal with the chariots and elephants. While he lures the enemy cavalry on a chase so that he can strike at them when broken.
What could he ever have done against this? Nothing.

Further, and this might not be taken as much of a positive note, but he did try to get a peace going with Alexander, knowing that he couldn't win in battle. It takes a great man to see his own limitations, one of the vitues Alexander for one lacked.

So while Darius was no great leader, and not a superb commander, hewas more than capable, and he was bright. He does not deserve to be on this list.

But just look at the facts...
I think that Coresh the great (Cyrus?) would have crushed the tiny Macedonian army , Alexander or not ! he was genius , Alexander was also (some say...) so the Persian would have won because he was at home and had the better numbers .
So yes , Darius should be in the list .

[Soulforged]

No i really think that non of them should be in the list. We're judging them by today's standars, they lived in harsh periods without the science and rationality that exists today in our governors. I really can't think in any ruler of that time that bad to be included on this list. ~:confused:

[Steppe Merc]

Persians didn't have nearly as many soldiers as commonly thought. Most of those numbers are just impossible exagerations. Darius was not a horrible ruler.

caesar44, you're wrong. Just because someone lost to Alexander, doesn't make them idiots. The fact that he put up a fight for a pretty long time talks pretty well of him in my opinon. And we are looking at the facts. Persian warfare was just incompatable with Alexander's style. Kraxis has explained it perfectly.

Cyrus and probably Darius the First would have done better. However, they had a far more stable empire to work with in their time, while Darius the 3rd was suffering from instability.

[caesar44]

No i really think that non of them should be in the list. We're judging them by today's standars, they lived in harsh periods without the science and rationality that exists today in our governors. I really can't think in any ruler of that time that bad to be included on this list. ~:confused:

???
Harsh periods , what is the connection here ? WW2 was not a harsh period ?

[Steppe Merc]

A politician today that did what even Alexander did would be dubbed an idiot and reviled, is what I think Soulforged is trying to say.

[caesar44]

Persians didn't have nearly as many soldiers as commonly thought. Most of those numbers are just impossible exagerations. Darius was not a horrible ruler.

caesar44, you're wrong. Just because someone lost to Alexander, doesn't make them idiots. The fact that he put up a fight for a pretty long time talks pretty well of him in my opinon. And we are looking at the facts. Persian warfare was just incompatable with Alexander's style. Kraxis has explained it perfectly.

1. He had a better numbers
2. He was no good , not because he lost to Alexander but because he lost the empire in less then 10 years !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it took the Romans 250 years to loose their Empire...
3. "Persian warfare was just incompatable with Alexander's style" , well ? he and his ancestors had some 150 years to learn.....................

[Kagemusha]

The one of the most incompetent ruler´s ever would be Nikolai II of Russia.The last Czar took over one of the greatest Empires of Europe and lost everything including his and his familys lives.

[Shambles]

id give sir loyed george the vote,

Pm Uk

Is mostly his fault that we are at war now,
and why israilies are being mooved out of there houses.

He was the guy who just split the place up and gave the "freindlies" The land there now beeing mooved out of,

Couple that with americas refusal for years to Let the Real land owners to take back there land.
This Caused a rift between cultures which is More apparant toda than ever before.

If you read Old translations of the keran "pardon me if i spelled it wrong"
And i know the next quote wont be very precice So please bear with me"

any way the old translations Read.

"any one who beleves in alah or lives a reightious life can go to paradice"

These days they read.

"only true belevers of alah may enter paradice"

Undoubtedly A by product of loyed georges initial intervention,
And americas refusal to play nice,

This to me is What a incompitent leader is.

Of course You can add Hitler,All the Bush's,And tony blair to your incompitent leaders board.
But Prehaps if it wasnt for loyed george Tony blair and the bushe's Wouldnt need be such idiots,

So i say loyed george was most incompitent.

I may come back and edit this message with more details,
But at the moment im not about to give tomany details As i am A little unshure about details.

ShambleS

[Soulforged]

A politician today that did what even Alexander did would be dubbed an idiot and reviled, is what I think Soulforged is trying to say.

Yes something like that. But i really don't think that you can compare the harsh political situation of ancient times to what is comtemporary or modern. In those times the head of a government could easily change with the wind. Besides i give one more reason, science, to me this is more important than anything.

[AggonyDuck]

Well IMO most of the guys listed were not the most incompetent rulers ever, because usually the most incompetent rulers are those who get replaced rather quickly. (and thus are not that known at all)

[Steppe Merc]

1. He had a better numbers
2. He was no good , not because he lost to Alexander but because he lost the empire in less then 10 years !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it took the Romans 250 years to loose their Empire...
3. "Persian warfare was just incompatable with Alexander's style" , well ? he and his ancestors had some 150 years to learn.....................
1. So? He may have had better numbers in all, but rember, he lost over multiple battles.
2. So? How long would any other person have lasted? Many other rulers would have done far worse when given Persia's situation.
3. Greek warfare is totally different from Alexander's style. They could compete with hoplites, but probably not the combined arms aproach of Alex.

[AntiochusIII]

1. He had a better numbers
2. He was no good , not because he lost to Alexander but because he lost the empire in less then 10 years !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it took the Romans 250 years to loose their Empire...
3. "Persian warfare was just incompatable with Alexander's style" , well ? he and his ancestors had some 150 years to learn.....................
1. Of weaker troops, and disloyal ones. The Achaemenid empire at the time had few elite forces to bear.
2. He was, in fact, quite capable. He inherited not the empire of Darius the Great but a corrupted, weakened, rebellious empire after many decades of decline and civil war since Xerxes himself was murdered.
3. Alex's key to victory was not the wall of pikes (in which the Persians would probably just run around shooting them down then.) but a combined arms with several different styles of forces working together. Pikemen, cavalry, archers, hoplites...

[Kraxis]

ceasar, as I said, Darius had the foresight to first try to halt the invasion by eliminating Philip (he knew he couldn't have bested that man, perhaps it will break up when he is gone?).
When that obviously failed he took the steps to get the best troops on the market, Greek mercenaries in massive numbers (far more than ever joned Alexander mind you). He even got a hugely experienced and bright commander, Memnon, to fight his battles. It is believed that Grannicus was only lost because the nobles didn't listen to his advises prior to the battle.

He did everything to keep his enemy at arms length. But events conspired against him. Alexander was a genius, even better than his father. Hoplites were no match for the pikes, and Memnon died at the important point.
There is hardly anything that Darius could have done to halt Alexander. Damn, he even sanctioned an offensive into the Dodecanese islands to cut Alexander's routes of supply. That failed because Alexander refused to fight the war at sea and disbanded his fleet, then proceeded to take the fleet's bases.

Just because one is overmatched does not equate to incompetent, it equates to unlucky. Yes Darius was perhaps not a superb commander, but he was by all standards good enough. He was not an inspired leader, but he was certainly a strong ruler since he managed to keep an Empire on the brink of civil war together during a most effective invasion. By all means the Persian Empire should have broken up into many smaller kingdoms by the time Halicanassus fell. Even after Gaugamela it didn't fall apart, though it began to weaken. Bu there is little doubt that those areas where Alexander had yet to come by were still loyal to the king of kings.


By this standard any losers are incompetent, which isn't true.
Was Friedrich the Great incompetent? No...

[Riedquat]

Esta bien pa. Pero no me vas a decir que uno de los padres fundadores de la educación en este país y motivador de varias reformas es peor que Menem o De La Rua. Es bueno ver a un pibe del barrio por aca. ~:cheers:

Perhaps not, but I should answer you in approximately 100 years, the point is that our opinion of Menem or of The Rua is too subjective.


Well IMO most of the guys listed were not the most incompetent rulers ever, because usually the most incompetent rulers are those who get replaced rather quickly. (and thus are not that known at all)

I might not have said it better.

In hundred years I doubt that someone remembers who was Fernando de La Rua.


Es bueno ver a un pibe del barrio por aca. ~:cheers:

~:cheers:

[conon394]

Hoplites were no match for the pikes

Inexperienced hoplites maybe, but quality hoplites could match the sarissa phalanx.

[caesar44]

From Columbia Uni' press


Darius III [kodumăn'us]
Pronunciation Key

Darius III (Darius Codomannus), d. 330 B.C., king of ancient Persia (336–330 B.C.). A cousin of Artaxerxes III, he was raised to the throne by the eunuch Bagoas, who had murdered both Artaxerxes and his son, Arses; Darius in turn murdered Bagoas. His rule was not stable, however. When Alexander the Great invaded Persia, Darius was defeated in the battle of Issus (333 B.C.) and again in the battle of Gaugamela near Arbela (331 B.C.). For the first time Persia was confronted by a united Greece, and Darius' greatest error was in underestimating Alexander's strength. Darius used the wrong tactics in battle and was forced to flee to Ecbatana and then eastward to Bactria. It was there that the satrap of Bactria, Bessus, had Darius murdered on Alexander's approach and took command himself in the unsuccessful opposition to the Macedonian conqueror. These events brought the Persian Empire to an end and marked the beginning of the Hellenistic period in the E Mediterranean. Darius III is probably the Darius the Persian mentioned in the Bible (Neh. 12.22).

[caesar44]

From "Anabasis"

Darius, on the other hand, up to this time was delaying with his army, having chosen a plain in the land of Assyria which stretched out in every direction, suitable for the immense size of his army and convenient for the evolutions of cavalry. Amyntas, son of Antiochus, the deserter from Alexander, advised him not to abandon this position, because the open country was favourable to the great multitude of the Persians and the vast quantity of their baggage. So Darius remained. But as Alexander made a long stay at Tarsus on account of his illness, and not a short one at Soli, where he offered sacrifice and conducted his army in procession, and moreover spent some time in marching against the Cilician mountaineers, Darius was induced to swerve from his resolution. He was also not unwilling to be led to form whatever decision was most agreeable to his own wishes; and being urged on by those who for the gratification of pleasure associated with him, and will associate for their injury with those who for the time are reigning, he came to the conclusion that Alexander was no longer desirous of advancing further, but was shrinking from an encounter on learning that Darius himself was marching against him. On all sides they were urging him on, asserting that he would trample down the army of the Macedonians with his cavalry. Nevertheless, Amyntas, at any rate, confidently afffirmed that Alexander would certainly come to any place where he heard Darius might be; and he exhorted him by all means to stay where he was. But the worse advice, because at the immediate time it was more pleasant to hear, prevailed; moreover perhaps he was led by some divine influence into that locality where he derived little advantage from his cavalry and from the very number of his men, javelins and bows, and where he could not even exhibit the mere magnificence of his army, but surrendered to Alexander and his troops an easy victory. For it was already decreed by fate that the Persians should be deprived of the rule of Asia by the Macedonians, just as the Medes had been deprived of it by the Persians, and still earlier the Assyrians by the Medes.



And more and more

Again , when Judging one's rule , one must look at its results , it is the only , that is , the only objective material that we have . Darius did this , darius did that , no matter , he lost a 250 years old empire in a few years . the "blame" is on him and only on him .

It Caesar would have failed in Galia , people would say "yes , because of the civil wars , because of the genius of Vercingetorics , because of the politics of Pompey , because of the bad weather , because of his small army , because of his stupidity , because of..." but he won , "he is a genius , he is great , his is..." I am looking on the bottom line - Caesar won = he was great . Darius lost = ha was no good . Churchill won= he was great . Hitler lost = he was an idiot .

The outcome , that is what matters . Pompey was considered in his times as a great man - "Magnus" , in our times he is not more than a bad Roman general , why ? because we know he lost it , simple as that .

[Kraxis]

I think you should go into depth of this some more.

Yes, Darius made mistakes, Alexander made mistakes as well. Ceasar made mistakes. All commanders make mistakes at some point.
But losing does not mean incompetent, incompetent means that the leader hasn't got a clue of what is going on and tries to impose his will anyway. That leads to several bad decisions.

I can tell you that while Darius used the wrong tactics against Alexander they would have worked against almost all other attackers. Any normal attacker would have been defeated. But Alexander was not normal, and Darius was woefully overpowered in that matchup. That was too bad for him.
But as I said, unless he had known Alexander's tactics he couldn't have done anything else that would have made sense.
And remember, Gaugemela was certainly not a walkover for the Macedonians. Their left flank was on the brink of collapse and Alexander and his companions had to run all the way from the right flank to save their asses. He could not perform his ruthless pursuit of his enemy after Gaugamela because of that.
So to some point Darius' tactics worked.

Besides that Uni press you presented. It is obviously not very good as Greece was only united at the point of a sword. The Greek cities were not for this adventure and they even rebelled, not only against Alexander when he as home but against Antipater the regent when Alexander was out campaigning.

An easy over scan of Darius does lead to the conclusion that he was incompetent, but after years of compiling the info, reading historians layouts and going deep into the tactics used it will dawn on you that he wasn't all that bad, he was just no Alexander, and he didn't have an army to match Alexander's.

Btw, was Porus in India incompetent?

[caesar44]

So , we don't agree about the definition , and you know what ? incompetency is not an objective thing , so our debate is a little problematic , don't you think ?

[AntiochusIII]

Remember though, caesar, that Darius is NOT inheriting a stable empire at any rate. The Persian empire has already been attacked before, by the Spartans, and their king almost conquered all of Asia Minor. The Spartan king only retreated because of troubles with Thebes and Athens at home. Civil war often rages in the Persian empire since Xerxes' death; and rebellions, especially in Egypt, are frequent. Darius should at least be credited with holding his empire together while Alexander swept across it. Normally an unstable empire, rebellious as the Achaemenid one, would've fallen quickly and broke into smaller "satrap" states under the pressure of such an unstoppable invasion; but Darius held on to the lands that Alexander had not conquered. No, I'm not trying to revise history and make Darius a great leader; he was just good - competent, I say, but very unlucky.

The Persians did pull a very good fight againts Alexander. Their fleet took over the Aegean sea and cutted off Alexander's supply route. Any other commanders would've been either discouraged to push on or starved of supplies; but Darius was facing Alexander. More like bad luck than incompetence.

Pompey Magnus - is he incompetent in your eyes? Strange, many would disagree, save the people ignorant of history apart of Hollywood "historical" movies, where the good guy Caesar beat the bad guy Pompey. Pompey was certainly a great Roman general; one of the reasons he was defeated was because he had no veterans of the like of Caesar's men from the Gallic Wars. Pompey did make many mistakes, but he was far from incompetent.

I'll give an easier example: is Constantine XI, who had lost Constantinople at last to the Ottomans, an incompetent man, because he was defeated?

If you recognize incompetence simply by the measure of defeats and victory, without taking into account the situation and conditions of the time, you will probably recognize the Spartans at Thermopylae as incompetents.

You seem to understand that Alexander was facing a mighty empire fully-armed and ready for war and because Darius was an idiot he lost it all; which is not the case. You said Rome fell in 250 years, the Persian empire didn't declined and fell in less than 10 years; it did not went through that long a decline, true, but it's many decades by any measure. Considering how the Roman beaurecracy and military organization was far superior than the Persians, the time took for it to decline was more-or-less proportional.

[Steppe Merc]

Not at all. Darius was competent. It's not an opinon question, it's a fact.

Was Hannibal incompetent? Or Alexander for not conquering all of India? Everyone fails sometimes.

[The Stranger]

failing in one or 2 thing is not incompetent failing almost everything is incompetent

[Steppe Merc]

And he did not fail in everything.

[Kralizec]

Adolf Hitler
Often "credited" with improving the German economy, introduction of the Autobahn, etc. While any significant economical reform was the work of his finance minister, Schaft. Infrastructural projects like the Autobahn were put on paper during the Weimar republic, only put into practice by Hitler.
Plus the economical improvement was hot air- made possible by the huge military expenditures, eventually forcing Hitler to go to war. Otherwise, there had to be an end sometime to the military spending, forcing factories to close etc, collapsing the German economy. This whole myth of "economical improvement" actually made WW II an inevitable conclusion- Schaft warned him and advised him to slow down, he would not listen.
His dumbass mistakes during the war have been mentioned already.

Josef Stalin
Like Hitler, he's considered a murderous tyrant but also credited with industrialising the whole country and making the Soviet Union a superpower.
His agricultrual reforms (collectivisation and whatnot) was no less then a personal vendetta against all farmers, killing millions and ruining Russias agriculture, wich had previously been the heart and soul of the country.
The cleansing of the Red Army ranks made it so ineffective that the Wehrmacht could literally steamroll into Russia like a hot knife through butter. Contrary to popular belief, Russia had at the time better tanks too- the T-34 and KV-2 were superior to any tanks Germany had, as Guderian himself noted. I daresay that the only thing that saved the SU from totally collapsing under the German advance was the fact that Hitler made catastrophical mistakes also. Regarding the war, he said "We'll win because we have more people then they have bullets". Soviet tactics during the push towards Berlin could be well described as wearing the enemy down by engulfing them with human bodies. No wonder that more then 30 million Russians died in the whole war.
So in the end, even if his methods paid off, they were inhuman, crude beyond imagination and I'd say the SU got where they got DESPITE Stalin.

[caesar44]

Antiochus III , Steppe - why do rulers get's the name "great" ?
How you consider one's incompetency ?

[caesar44]

From -
À paraître dans : Ann Gunter et Stefan Hauser (éd.), HerzfeldSymposium, (Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., mai2001)
Milestones in the Development of Achaemenid Historiographyin the Times of Ernst Herzfeld (1879-1948)Pierre BriantCollège de France

"I do not think it would be useful to multiply citations that repeat
one another. I will simply add two comments. The only differences
among these authors have to do with the state of the empire at the
arrival of Alexander and the personality of Darius III. For some (the
great majority), Darius III was a remarkable prince, but he ruled an
empire that was severely weakened and he had to battle an enemy
who was his superior. For the others (like Nöldeke), Darius III was
an incompetent on the order of a Xerxes, but events proved what
power of resistance remained in so immense an empire (p. 81). My
second comment has to do with the extraordinary persistence of this
historiography. All the elements of “Persian decadence” are already
expounded in great detail by Rollin in 17308. But in fact, Rollin
himself borrowed this judgment from the Discours sur l’histoire
universelle of Bossuet (1681). Both of them are still cited in the
bibliography of influential Rawlinson’s manual in 1900 (p. 6-7) Since exactly the same prejudices and exactly the same formulas can
be found in recent books, —indeed, even in very recent ones,
—one is forced to admit that despite the progress accomplished in
other areas, and despite some very early lucid openings, in
Achaemenid historiography “orientalism” has remained the keystone
for more than three centuries! Is this not a disturbing observation?"

Well ? some scholars think he was incom' , ha ? ~:)
We should open our minds , don't you think ?

[Mr Frost]

Antiochus III , Steppe - why do rulers get's the name "great" ?
How you consider one's incompetency ?

Pompey actually did recieve the title of "the Great" , in his own lifetime , and Ceasar admitted he was outgeneralled by Pompey and only beat him because of the fighting prowess of his veterans . Ceasar would have called Pompey competant .

You clearly do not know the actual meaning of the word in question .

Competant people can and do fail , yet still remain competant .
Past achievements do not magically cease to have happened when others forget . Reality doesn't work like that .
If the world forgot Alexander the Great , he would still be one of the greatest {perhaps the greatest} General whom ever lived .
It doesn't take someone else to maintain your own existance !


When Muhamad Ali lost his last professional fight and it was clear he would never be world champion again , he was still a very capable boxer whom could only be defeated by a small number of younger champions whom were ranked as being the best boxers in the world . He would have still wiped the floor with nearly any other opponents , only a small fraction of boxers could handle him in even his clearly weakened {by age} state .
He retired on a note of failure {to be champion again} , but it did not make him incompetant .

How many seconds do you think you would last against Mike Tyson in a boxing match ? Mike is now a failure by your reasoning , but there are still only a small number of elite boxers whom could realistically be expected to defeat him in the ring . He is still a competant boxer {but an incompetant intellect ~;) } .

[Marquis of Roland]

Liu Chan, Liu Bei's son in China's Three Kingdoms period was pretty incompetent. He mistrusted Zhuge Kunming, arguably the greatest Chinese general of all time (in my opinion he was definitely better than Alexander the Great), calling him back to the capital when he was on the verge of victory over their nemesis Wei. He trusted some small minded eunuch more. Actually even Liu Bei was pretty incompetent (too nice). But Liu Chan was definitely far more incompetent than Darius or Hitler or even Caligula (Caligula and Hitler weren't incompetent, they were insane, there is a difference. Darius is not incompetent at all).

Bush is pretty incompetent. Remember "mission accomplished"? LOL. How high is the death toll in the American south right now? Why did we go to Iraq??? We still don't know after how many years. Hey, you think Bush would have done better than Hitler or Darius???

Oh, Taiwan's current president Chen Shui Bian is pretty damn incompetent. Definitely more incompetent than Darius.

There's plenty more incompetent leaders out there in history, we just don't choose to honor their memory as much in history as we do the competent ones.

[Geoffrey S]

As has been stated, Darius was perfectly competent and could probably have bested most other leaders of the time. Unfortunately for him he was confronted with Alexander the Great, commonly acknowledged as one of the most brilliant ancient generals. Darius was confronted with new tactics, a well trained and motivated army, a troublesome home front, and Alexander the Great. Considering the formidable skill of Alexander and the state of the Persian empire of the time I'd say Darius did rather well.

As an aside, I think Pompeius is one of the most underrated ancient generals. Easily on the level of Caesar, he was unfortunate in the skill of his own troops relative to the enemy, and even then came very close to winning.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Mr Frost]

You clearly do not know the actual meaning of the word in question .

Oh , give me a break , ha ? and please save your scientific opinion about my knowledge to yourself...

[Rosacrux redux]

G.W. Bush... or has someone already pointed that out? ~;)

[AntiochusIII]

Liu Chan, Liu Bei's son in China's Three Kingdoms period was pretty incompetent. He mistrusted Zhuge Kunming, arguably the greatest Chinese general of all time (in my opinion he was definitely better than Alexander the Great), calling him back to the capital when he was on the verge of victory over their nemesis Wei. He trusted some small minded eunuch more. Actually even Liu Bei was pretty incompetent (too nice).I'd warn you that you cannot take the Romance of the Three Kingdoms literally, at least in a smaller scope. It records a real history, true, but in a very fictional level. But I presume you already know that?

And I'd agree that Liu Chan was a weakling, incompetent and useless. Liu Bei may left him a kingdom without troops, but it's a prosperous kingdom (Sichuan province was among the richest - both in terms of resource and manpower - in China) One of the best Chinese general/minister ever was ruling and nurturing it. Kong Ming (Zhuge's nickname)'s legend of wisdom and cleverness is not baseless, even if exaggerated in the famous book. He certainly was on the verge of establishing Shu's control of Chang'an when Liu Chan recalled him. Chang'an was the key city that allowed for control of the Western part of the central Yellow river valleys - and the gateway to the rest of it: Wei's heartland.

Liu Bei, however, seems to be more competent than what the centuries-old novel portrays; he certainly made a lot of stupid mistakes but his "kindness" is more-or-less a propaganda, or may be Liu Bei's own diplomatic shrewdness. ~;) The man, after stripping him off the cover of a benevolent hero, seems to be, in fact, quite politically shifty and clever.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Oh, Taiwan's current president Chen Shui Bian is pretty damn incompetent. Definitely more incompetent than Darius.
I'll drink to that, the man has no brain. ~:cheers:

[Mr Frost]

[QUOTE=Mr Frost]

You clearly do not know the actual meaning of the word in question .

Oh , give me a break , ha ? and please save your scientific opinion about my knowledge to yourself...
No .

If you understood the meaning of the word , you would not believe that competant people are infallable or invincable , which is precisely what you are clearly implying .
You are stating that only those whom finished victorious can be competant , but to allways finish victorious , one would have to be more than merely competant , one would have to be infallible and invincable .

Scientific oppinion , lol .

[Vykke]

Michael VII! (... joking, mostly...)

Not to gang up on you, Caesar, but of the two definitions of incompetence that're being tossed around, I like yours less.

By your definition, anyone who loses is incompetent, is that correct? And the more you lose, the more incompetent you are? This would imply that only the people with the most to lose could potentially qualify to be the greatest incompetents - leaders of major empires, in other words. More importantly, it doesn't take into account the circumstances. If you look at all the leaders in world history prior to Alexander's conquest of Persia, can you find any that could have stopped Alexander? There might be two or three at most. Possibly none at all. If you'd switched a random, average world leader for Darius, this poor sap would have gone down in history as one of the greatest incompetents, while Darius, ruling the other guy's kingdom, wouldn't be considered incompetent at all (not great, maybe, but not incompetent either).

Did Darius' ability change? No, all that changed was his circumstances. It doesn't seem fair to me to judge someone so harshly for failure in a situation where 99% of other people would have failed, too. I'd rather judge them on their actual ability rather than circumstances they have no control over.

Getting back to the topic... I think Pope John XII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII) deserves an honorable mention.

[AntiochusIII]

Michael VII!Does that means our careless decisions have led the Byzantine empire to doom in another thread? Oh no!

:help: ~D

[GoreBag]

(... joking, mostly...)

Before I began to post, I hope...

[Incongruous]

Charles I oh man, he really lost his head!

Richard III (although I really like him, and he was the last true king of England) He was quite nieve at times. He simply did not have the powere needed to usurp the throne.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=caesar44]
No .

If you understood the meaning of the word , you would not believe that competant people are infallable or invincable , which is precisely what you are clearly implying .
You are stating that only those whom finished victorious can be competant , but to [b]allways finish victorious , one would have to be more than merely competant , one would have to be infallible and invincable .

Scientific oppinion , lol .




Sorry , but I don't understand you . never mind .

Ye , lol ~D ~DA ~DA

[Del Arroyo]

Stalin was pretty incompetent. Came damned near to losing WW2 through his purges and sheer ego-maniacal pig-headedness.

DA

[Marquis of Roland]

I'd warn you that you cannot take the Romance of the Three Kingdoms literally, at least in a smaller scope. It records a real history, true, but in a very fictional level. But I presume you already know that?

And I'd agree that Liu Chan was a weakling, incompetent and useless. Liu Bei may left him a kingdom without troops, but it's a prosperous kingdom (Sichuan province was among the richest - both in terms of resource and manpower - in China) One of the best Chinese general/minister ever was ruling and nurturing it. Kong Ming (Zhuge's nickname)'s legend of wisdom and cleverness is not baseless, even if exaggerated in the famous book. He certainly was on the verge of establishing Shu's control of Chang'an when Liu Chan recalled him. Chang'an was the key city that allowed for control of the Western part of the central Yellow river valleys - and the gateway to the rest of it: Wei's heartland.

Liu Bei, however, seems to be more competent than what the centuries-old novel portrays; he certainly made a lot of stupid mistakes but his "kindness" is more-or-less a propaganda, or may be Liu Bei's own diplomatic shrewdness. ~;) The man, after stripping him off the cover of a benevolent hero, seems to be, in fact, quite politically shifty and clever.

Yup, I agree the story is exaggerated. Yeah, you're right, I looked thru the book again and I guess Liu Bei wasn't too bad. Just made some big mistakes which still doesn't qualify him as incompetent.

I know a lot of Zhuge Kongming's stuff is exagerrated as well (probably couldn't have shifted the wind for one thing) but I'm just basing it on more of a historical battle accounts level. So yeah, Liu Chan was dumb for recalling him. Strategically. Everything else you said I agree.