Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually at the time of Custer's death in the Battle of the Little Bighorn he was a lieutenant-colonel. He had acheived the temporary (brevet) rank of major-general during the Civil War, but the U.S. Army was massively down-sized afterward and he had to revert back to his permanent rank. However, as a courtesy, people continued to call him "general".
Several people nominated Bernard Montgomery. Although he was vain, conceited, egotistical, and difficult to deal with, that doesn't make him a candidate for one of the worst military leaders ever. Yes, he screwed up in Operation Market Garden, and if that were typical of him then his nomination would make sense. But he commanded many operations and has to be judged on the whole of his battle field commands. In general, he was a competent field commander.
I don't know about worst ever but the British Commander at New Oreleans deserves special credit for starting Blackwatch across the soggy field and then remembering the ladders they needed to scale the American positions when they got there.
Actually at the time of Custer's death in the Battle of the Little Bighorn he was a lieutenant-colonel. He had acheived the temporary (brevet) rank of major-general during the Civil War, but the U.S. Army was massively down-sized afterward and he had to revert back to his permanent rank. However, as a courtesy, people continued to call him "general".
Easy to forget that Custer defeated a lot of Confederates during the Civil War, had he not kept the Confederate Cavalry tied up for days at Hanover PA. Lee might have won at Gettysburg
Pretty much any Allied general on the Western Front during World War I, with the shining exception of Pershing.
Yes, there were far too many men jammed along far too little front. But the disinclination to even consider alternative tactics to the slaughter was simply criminal. I believe the British lost 60,000 men in ONE HOUR in the First Battle of the Somme. You would have thought that Haig and the other ninnies would have said, "Okay, there's got to be a better way than this."
As far as American generals go, I would say George McClellan has to be the most incompetent major general of any American war. He not one, but two chances to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. In the Peninsular Campaign, his originally brilliant masterstroke bogged down due to excessive planning and buildup. Even then, a greatly outnumbered Confederate force bluffed McClellan from retreating--even when he had Richmond in sight.
Then, of course, there was McClellan's fumble at Antietam. Not only did the Union outnumber the Confederates by 2:1, not only had Lee split his forces into three separate groups, but McClellan had Lee's battle plans! Yet the best McClellan could do was fight Lee to a stalemate. A competent general would have utterly annihilated Lee's army, ending the Civil War three years earlier.
The Americans lost 150,000 men in 3 months, how was Pershing much better? His campaign against Pancho Villa was a fiasco, had he not married the daughter of the Secretary of the Army he would have retired a Captain
What we regard as "worst" tend to be situations where attacks occur with no thru poor intelligence of the adversaries or unexpected risk-rewards calculations.
It depends on who is writing the history. I recall reading two books on the 2nd Boer War regarding the Natal campaign to relieve Ladysmith and one author severely criticized Buller leading the relief force and the other White who was besieged.
Ironic thing about Custer as the "Indian Fighter" is that he actually had less combat experience vs. Indians than a number of other officers of similar grade. He also spent less time on the frontier than did other officers. Marketing is everything.
Easy to forget that Custer defeated a lot of Confederates during the Civil War, had he not kept the Confederate Cavalry tied up for days at Hanover PA. Lee might have won at Gettysburg
So why does Custer get the credit?
Why not Farnsworth (Custer's equal at the battle)? Or Kilpatrick (Custer's superior at the battle)? Or Pleasanton (The overall cavalry commander who put them in that position in the first place)?
Custer just seems to get undue credit for just being at the location of significance.
Custer just seems to get undue credit for just being at the location of significance.
Custer's brigade did some first rate fighting at Gettysburg and he led from the front. That's certainly worthy of some credit. And the accidents of history made Custer more famous than the other Federal commanders of horse so naturally people think of his being there.
If Operation Olympic had taken place, than MacArthur would be hands down considered the worst general in US history. His rep would've been like Haig's but worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
