who were the most imcompetent rulers ever?

[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 . 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.

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!!! . 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) ... what more can I say.

[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.

[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 ) 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.

[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.

[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.

???
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.

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.

[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 ?