1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

World's worst general

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Matt Black, Jun 4, 2004.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,163
    Ratings:
    +14
    To balance things out, here's my votes for the other end of the spectrum:-

    Helmuth von Moltke the Younger
    Field Marshal Sir John French
    Robert Nivelle
    Westmoreland
    McClellan
    Tsar Nicholas II
    Lord Cardigan
    Luigi Cadorna

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. Jude

    Jude <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Ratings:
    +0
    McClellan certainly would get Abe's vote...and mine too.
     
  3. Jude

    Jude <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Ratings:
    +0
    Would LBJ qualify???
     
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,163
    Ratings:
    +14
    Although CIC, not really, because not a military general

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,533
    Ratings:
    +123
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sam (U.S.) Grant would get my vote. In a long line of incompetent Federal generals during the Second War for Independence, he proved himself the lowest and least capable.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    General Foods. Most of their products are second rate.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,533
    Ratings:
    +123
    Faith:
    Baptist
    B-A-D. Before lunch and I'm spewing tea . .

    General Mills was also among the worst.

    (I remember the three Russian Generals that stopped Hitler - General Mud, General Winter and General Distance. Actually on a test I gave my students once)

    And in the Navy, it had to be Captain Crunch.
     
  8. Dan Stiles

    Dan Stiles New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    632
    Ratings:
    +0
    (sorry, I changed my mind)
     
  9. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Ratings:
    +0
    No offense to Matt, but it is an impossible question. A general in one situation might perform compentently and in another quite poorly. It is true enough that some men aren't cut out to lead.

    If I put myself in their shoes, with their men, equipment, weather, information, etc., and ask myself if I could do any better. Occasionally I would say yes, but most of the time, have to answer no. The same question can be asked about the best generals. Most of the time one can find some thing to quibble about. These men have to have good troops, information, materiel, etc to succeed. It is a team effort.

    Now if you want to discuss over rated generals, as opposed to simply bad, then my candidate is George Armstrong Custer.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's true. George Washington was such a general.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    U.S. Grant
     
  12. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Ratings:
    +0
    Seymon Budenny [spelling?], the "politically reliable" general and crony of Stalin. Budenny, managed to get a couple of army groups surrounded at Kiev during Barbarossa, and was described by a younger general as a man with "a very large mustache and a very small brain..."
     
  13. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,317
    Ratings:
    +440
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are so many bad — or unfortunate — generals to choose from, but I think Ben Butler (North) and Braxton Bragg (South) rate inclusion, with Bragg pulling ahead by a nose.
     
  14. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ken&Bob
    Grant was one of the reasons his side won the war, so clearly he was far from the worst.
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,533
    Ratings:
    +123
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sheer numbers and attrition won the war. Grant could have been replaced by a chimpanzee and the results would have been inevitable.

    From when he took command in the East, Grant sacrificed 100,000 men (dead) in more than 18 months to force a weak, defeated army to surrender.

    Thankfully Grant had some competent subordinants that WERE good generals! George Meade, though a doughty old codger, could have commanded the Federales (as he had at Gettysburg) better.
     
  16. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,317
    Ratings:
    +440
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dr. Bob, I don't agree with you about Grant, but you know that and there is no point in fighting about it.

    But if any of Grant's subordinates is overlooked, it's George Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga, who saved the Union's bacon in the West, whose men captured Lookout Mountain when Sherman was wandering in the wilderness, who annihilated the Army of the Tennessee at Nashville (well, he faced Hood, but nonetheless, he did it, a feat unequalled in the Civil War) despite his lack of support from Grant.

    Thomas was a Virginian who was disowned by his family after he chose to fight for the Union and declined supreme command of Union forces.

    I consider it one of the major flaws in Grant's memoirs that he did not give Thomas the credit he deserves. In fact, Grant considered removing Thomas from command, in my opinion, because he was fearful that his decision to place all his eggs in Sherman's basket left him vulnerable to what was left of the Army of the Tennessee.

    Thomas, in fact, would have made a better choice than Grant. But it didn't happen.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,533
    Ratings:
    +123
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Think that's the same conclusion Lee reached! :rolleyes:
     
  18. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, General Grant seems to be a sore point. [​IMG]

    I certainly wouldn't rate him as the best general, nor the worst either. How about mediocre? ;)

    Grant performed well enough in the western campaigns of 1862-1863. He got some good press in the North. He did some interesting maneuvers, so on the grand scheme of things, the worst general in the world -- no, don't think he will make it there. His performace in the east, was however, more as Dr. B. describes -- sheer brute force. I know some believe the Confederate General John Pemberton was a complete waste of space, however, I don't share that opinion. He had a mission, to hold Vicksburg at any cost, and did the best he could with what he had -- he just didn;t have enough of about everything, men, food, material, support. Lsser men would have gone home to pout after the berating he took from the politicans and the press -- but no, he took a reduction in rank (to Lt. Col.), and stayed in the army. That shows some character. ]

    There was some sense of Panic at Fort Donelson in 1862, and the two lead generals Pillow and Floyd were political generals, but Buckner was there, and he was a decent commander.

    Stephens comment on Bragg and Butler has merit. Both were universally despised, both had serious character flaws. John Bell Hood wasn't much better. Franklin and Nashville weren't the first time he did very foolish things with his troops. (Mt. Zion Church in Georgia, aka Kolbs Farm comes to mind).

    Henry Halleck, U.S. Army during the Civil War, was one who was pretty much useless, but far from the worst general that ever lived at any where.
     
  19. Jude

    Jude <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Ratings:
    +0
    So, that makes McClellan what?
     
  20. WallyGator

    WallyGator New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm surprised that no one mentioned George Armstrong Custer! If we can believe The History Channel ;) , he was a real klutz at Battle(?) of Little Big Horn. :confused: :rolleyes:
     
Loading...