World's worst general

McClellan certainly would get Abe's vote...and mine too.

 

Would LBJ qualify???

 

General Foods. Most of their products are second rate.

 

(sorry, I changed my mind)

 

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.

 

That's true. George Washington was such a general.

 

U.S. Grant

 

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..."

 

Ken&Bob
Grant was one of the reasons his side won the war, so clearly he was far from the worst.

 

Well, General Grant seems to be a sore point.

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.

 

So, that makes McClellan what?

 

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.