I played a warlord from 4E release to level 16. I liked the class. But it wasn't what I envision a warlord to be. With multiclassing and hybrid rules I tried to recast him, but never stuck with it (DM allowed a retcon when new rules came along, and you could play for 3 sessions max with a full refund...I always took the refund)
The problem, IMO, with the 4E warlord is that "tactical" is a player function...its the strength of 4E in general, but to push the tactical into a class feature means the player tactical "genius" is diminished. It rewards certain tactics and either ignores or in some (albeit corner) cases punishes others. Commanders strike is almost always better when used on an ally with high basic attack damage output, not necessarily the ally with the best tactical position, e.g.
Mechanically, 4E warlords are a numbers multiplier....a buff bot by other means.
While I know 4E reactions are a love/hate thing for most, If they were dialed back on most classes BUT the warlord, I think the warlord would do better. IMO, warlords should be the ultimate Immediate Reaction class: reacting to the round by round situation of the battlefield. In other words, commanders strike shouldn't be what a warlord does on his turn, but rather an extra attack he grants a PC on THEIR turn (Barbarian almost kills the orc...no free charge to BBEG. But Wait! Warlord uses Commanders Strike, Barbarian hits and easily kills the wounded orc. Free Charge! Thanks Warlord!)
That's a hard sell for 5E, but If we keep reactions a unique warlord schtick, warlord might fit better into the fighter archetype. Reactive Maneuvers might "cost" an extra ED (or more) but with the warlord build that is removed. Thus fighters/rogues could pick up those maneuvers, but the cost is heavy. Warlords would use them liberally.
To bring this ramble back to the OP. Good start, but I think warlords need their class of maneuvers to make it work.