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 Incompatible language 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.

[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!!! . 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_...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.