Who was the worst military leader in history?

>Be 1840ish.
>Great Game going on.
>Worries about Russians making inroads in Afghanistan, owing to the Brits siding with the Sikhs in previous territorial disputes.
>The Russians have a particularly important Emir, Dost Mohammad Khan, in their pocket.
>Raise a big army to throw him out of Kabul and install your own guy on the throne.
>The guy you have has been out of power for 30+ years and is pretty universally hated in Afghanistan.
>March in with about 21,000 troops, enormously more than what the Afghans can muster up even if they had modern weapons, which they don't.
>March on Kabul, enthrone your puppet.
>Most of your army goes home, 8,000 or so troops stay, with mr moron Elphingstone in command.
>About as soon as the main force leaves, what would be called an insurgency in modern language erupts. Brits get out reeeeee!
>Trying to be nice to the Afghans, leave the best fortress in the vicinity in the city and build your own fort northeast of the city; worries about British Christians provoking tensions with the locals.
>Build it in a swampy valley, because you're an idiot.
>Keep your supplies in a separate fort, inside the city, away from your troops, because you're an idiot.
>Get besieged by Afghani tribesmen, who storm your supply fort with almost no resistance.
>Afghanis are adamant in wanting you out.
>If Elphingstone hadn't lost most of his supplies, he almost certainly could have held out indefinitely, or at least until relief arrived, but that's not an option anymore.
>Makes agreement with the Afghans to get safe passage for the army and British civilians out of the area.
>March in a long, strung out column over high mountain passes in Afghanistan in the middle of the winter
>Get shot at every 20 feet or so.
>Get ambushed in a pass called Gandamak
>Of your total column of about 16,000 people, you have about 5 people who manage to get clear, and another 100 or so who were taken prisoner and much later returned. Everyone else died.

random centurion: "Sir, I think Arminius plans to betray us, he's even rallied nearby tribes!"
Varus: "Arminius, are you trying to rally a rebellion against Rome?"
Arminius: "No........"
Varus: "See? 30 lashes for you, random centurion, for attempting to tarnish my good friend's name."

How the fuck did British commanders become so incompetent in the years between Napoleon and Crimea? Was it just war euphoria?

Could almost pass for white.

It was how their army was set up, they were still clinging to a quasi-feudal model long after it had ceased to be of any value whatsoever. You wanted to lead troops into battle? You didn't pass up through the ranks by hard work or enrolling in a military college or displaying leadership potential, you just bought a commission.

The crown liked it, because it kept costs down, a lot of their troops were So and So's men, and So and So paid for their equipment and training, if not usually their upkeep. So guys like Elphingstone get in command because they have the means and are willing to shell out enough dosh to raise a force.

whoever the fuck ordered pic related

Between the seven years war and from then on you mean. Brits only won to uncivilized darkskin brutes or colonials or aided by others.

What was that one battle where the Africans charged across a river at the British? Probably whoever initiated that

It looks like Elphingstone was at least present at a lot of battles. Are you sure that was the case for him?

Wikipedia says "He was elderly, indecisive, weak, and unwell, and proved himself utterly incompetent for the post." so its hard to tell if he just got older and sick or he was always that terrible.

I admit, I'm only really read on his conduct in the Anglo-Afghan war. Maybe he had a decent career outside of it, but he was hardly the only "how the fuck could you be that dumb" British commander of the period; and a large portion of the reason they got so many dunces was their near complete absence of any sort of meritocracy requirement for command.

Helmuth von Moltke the Younger

Debate this.

Well the only battles von hotzendorf managed to perform well in where the battles where his opponent was Luigi Cadorna. Which speaks volumes of just how bad Cadorna was. The Italians should easily have had the upper hand on the Italian front, especially before the Germans arrived. I would there put Hotzendorf above Cadorna. Also Hotzendorf's writings on warfare aren't completely useless.

Very well. The only major criticism you ever see against Moltke is how he modified the Schlieffen plan. The Schlieffen plan, as envisioned by Schlieffen, was an unworkable mess that required a force with horse drawn logistics to move impossibly quickly to get into striking distance of Paris before the French could fully mobilize. His modifications didn't ruin an otherwise brilliant plan, they turned an unworkable pile of shit into something that at least had the potential of working.

Then why do so many people praise him as a genuis?

The only people who praise him as a genius are interwar Soviet military figures. Considering their track record, that might not be the best source of praise.

...

You can't really blame Hötzendorf for his failiures. Austro-Hungary was just a shitty empire with unmotivated troops and disfunctional railways.

Fucking classic.

>You can't really blame Hötzendorf for his failiures

t. Franz

You mean different rail gauges in each province and cardboard shoes are not victory conducive?

Well I never.