Who was the worst American general or battlefield tactician?

If you have a brain, you like the generals on the Confederate side best, that's only natural. As far as wishing the Confederate side had won? Definitely not, but there are some great books out there that work with that concept. The one I'm more familiar with has the South winning Gettysburg and the UK intervenes. United States (the North) takes vengence on the Brits by invading Canada and taking a substantial portion of it. Later in WW1, you have the North Amercan front with the United States on the German side and the Confederate States on the French/English side. Makes for interesting reading. I believe that the German side won because of the change in history.

But yeah, Burnsides is one of what I like to call the "do nothing" squad. You had so many useless generals commanding the main Union army, many of them did absolutely nothing at all after losing a single major battle to Lee.
 
Godofthunder, you are correct in your assessment. The South definitely had the superior leadership by far. As an interesting side note, following the civil war to about 1910, there was a popular saying among Southerner soldiers as to the reason for their defeat. “The South could not see the Forrest for the Lees.” This statement implied that if Nathan Bedford Forrest had been in charge the war would have had a different outcome. Although this is doubtful, I will also like to make mention that Shelby Foote, one of the world-renown experts on the American Civil War, claims that this period in American history only produced two American geniuses – Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
 
Despite General Sherman’s tenacity (and damn big Army), I think he definitely makes the list of one of America’s worst generals. Although he was one of several commanders to briefly lead their corps across the Tennessee state line into Georgia in pursuit of the Confederates, his more noted accomplishment came when he marched his army of close to 100,000 men into Georgia. With a force roughly half that size, Confederate General Johnston did what he could to slow Sherman's advance. For three months the Confederate army tactfully engaged and retreated on General Sherman's forces until General Hood replaced Johnston. Within six weeks, Confederate casualties had doubled and General Sherman occupied Atlanta. While many of you might consider General Sherman’s military strategy as brilliant – it was all about manpower not brilliance. Although this point is arguable, the reason I consider his generalship to be poor is what followed. He allowed his army to lose control. He allowed his army to set fires that raged out of control and destroyed much of the cities and their histories. Rapes, looting, stealing, and havoc were all characteristics that General Sherman fostered on the battlefield. And if that were not enough, General Sherman then launched his March to the Sea, with 60,000 of his most seasoned soldiers foraging off the land and cutting a swath of destruction through the heart of Georgia. Then, he moved on to Savannah. After giving his army a rest, Sherman then proceeded on a path of destruction through South and North Carolina. The only city that was saved was Charleston [due to the brilliance of Southern General whose name escapes me at the moment]. Although I do not know if this story is factual, what I do find interesting is the story that General Johnson [the very general that tried to slow Sherman’s advance into Georgia] would later serve at Sherman's funeral as one of his pallbearers.
 
Let us be Blunt: the Folks in Georgia celebrated Shermans Burial Day for years as a state holiday... :D

Its said that a man is pre-forgiven for all the sins he'll commit during a war...some take advantage of this, like General Sherman. :D
 
Perhaps, but as a lover of historical architecture and a believer in battlefield honor, I am one of those individuals who is much less forgiving.
 
The best was Ridgeway he was a brillant tactician tough and commanded from the front. Saved the arse US army in Korea and his WW 2 record was also first class.

Worst Tie between Douglas Macarthur and Eisenhower. Both were enept tactically although Mac wasn't a yes man like Eisenhower his policy duinr the Korean war was to nuke China into submission. Quetionable at best
 
I dont know about McArthur being a bad Genearal. He surely was full of himself...But so was Patton. And so was is Sharon. (ill be crusified for mentioning them togather... : :) ) And so were a bunch of Generals all through history. McArthur lost the Phillipins with overwhelming odds against him, after he alerted the US gov that he lacks the means to defend the Island. He also came back and beat the living heck out of the Japanese.
 
SHERMAN said:
I dont know about McArthur being a bad Genearal. He surely was full of himself...But so was Patton. And so was is Sharon. (ill be crusified for mentioning them togather... : :) ) And so were a bunch of Generals all through history. McArthur lost the Phillipins with overwhelming odds against him, after he alerted the US gov that he lacks the means to defend the Island. He also came back and beat the living heck out of the Japanese.
Click to expand...
The best, most brilliant move that MacArthur ever did (IMO) was in the Korean War when he made the amphibious landing of of enormous proportions. In a single stroke he reverses the entire momentum of the War. Too bad his encour was crap: ignoring China's warnings and dragging China into the mess, then his brilliant "lets nuke China" strategy that could have put us into a full blown nightmare of a WW3 scenario.
 
I don't see why some people her care calling MacArthur one of the worst generals. Some of the stuff he did was no less than brilliant, Inchon for and the island hoping strategy in the pacific. We had alot worst generals, MacArthur was one of our best, I don't think he was the best but hes up there.

I agree with other here just because he was pompous doesn't mean he's bad.
 
I did read all the post even your long diatribe against him. You only listed his bad qualities and none of his good qualities. Totally one sided, not a fair acessment at all. It's kinda like asking an extreme ultra liberal hippie peacenick if they think George W. Bush is a good President, your going to get a totally one sided answer.

By the way how come you hate him so much, the stuff you were writting about him it seems almost personal. Was one of your relative affected by his descisions? If this is the case then I can see why you do hate him. But as far as Him being the worst General in US history, c'mon. Any unbiased person wiling to examing how well he did some brilliant as well as bad stuff, but certainly not all bad.
 
Ok, I am with you on McDowell being bad. But what is your reasoning for him being the worst? Yes, he lost control at 1 Manassas (Bull Run) and had his amateur army routed by another one (being led by Johnston - not a bad leader), and he got embarrassed by Jackson in the valley, but what else really qualifies him as the WORST?I mean let's face it A LOT of Union Generals got embarrassed by Jackson - when they had better intel too. I am not saying you are wrong, I am only asking for your logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top