Worst American General?

[TC Pilot]

But for me, the main reason why he would appear lower on my list of bad generals than others is because he acknowledged that he's not a good commander. I have more sympathy for a screw-up who knows he's a screw-up (since they'd be more likely to look for help from non-screw-ups), than a medicore leader who thinks his shit smells like flowers.

More on that, apparently he refused the offer to command the Army of the Potomac several times, before he finally accepted if only to prevent Hooker from getting the job. So in a way he was doing the Army a favor

[Thanas]

I think Arnold does belong on the list. The Confederate complaint is a bit misleading for the point that as far as the Civil War is concerned these never fought for the Union side. Arnold did fights for the Colonists before turning traitor. This is a big difference.

But was he among the worst American generals? I doubt that, his handling of actual troops was not worse than many of his contemporaries.

[Captain Seafort]

But was he among the worst American generals? I doubt that, his handling of actual troops was not worse than many of his contemporaries.

Not just "not worse than contemporaries", but my understanding was that Saratoga would probably have been a British victory if it hadn't been for Arnold.

There's also the matter that the term "traitor" is very much dependent on your point of view - Arnold is called a traitor here for returning his allegiance to the Crown, and Lee for putting his allegiance to Virginia above his allegiance to the US. In the latter case I can see strong similarities with George Washington.

[thejester]

- Franks belongs not just for Iraq part deux and Afghanistan but also for his conduct in Iraq the first time around, he was slow off the mark and constantly bitching about flank security while in the midst of outflanking his opponents. Its only the fact that the rest of the forces present managed to slice through the prepared defenses in Kuwait that the war was over as quickly as it was.

Different Franks, dude. Fred Franks commanded VII Corps in Desert Storm, Tommy Franks commanded CENTCOM in 2003.

[Patrick Degan]

Do you make an attempt to separate John Bell Hood's record as a division commander from his army command record? If you look at his army command record, he was pretty bad.

That's an understatement. He wrecked the Army of Tennessee at Franklin, a wholly needless battle in which he got six of his division commanders killed along with 6,000 men for possession of a field the Union had no intention of holding onto since they were conducting a strategic withdrawal, simply because he felt his troops needed to be disciplined. So that when they got to Nashville, the only thing the remnant of that army was good for was target practise for George Thomas. And that's on top of his idiotic move to attack northward to draw Sherman out of Atlanta with a force which wasn't equal either to Sherman's army or George Thomas' in the first place.

"Hood is a bold fighter. I am doubtful as to other qualities."
—Robert E. Lee

[Patrick Degan]

I think Arnold does belong on the list. The Confederate complaint is a bit misleading for the point that as far as the Civil War is concerned these never fought for the Union side. Arnold did fights for the Colonists before turning traitor. This is a big difference.

But was he among the worst American generals? I doubt that, his handling of actual troops was not worse than many of his contemporaries.

It should also be remembered that Benedict Arnold's little naval campaign on Lake Champlain delayed Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne until winter began to set in at the end of 1776, which prevented a British invasion that would have succeeded in capturing Saratoga, splitting New York, and cutting the New England colonies off from the rest of America, which would have doomed the revolution to eventual defeat. It is one of the ironies of history that the man who is counted as the most infamous traitor in American memory is also one of the men who had saved the American Revolution from failure a scant year after its inception.

[CmdrWilkens]

- Franks belongs not just for Iraq part deux and Afghanistan but also for his conduct in Iraq the first time around, he was slow off the mark and constantly bitching about flank security while in the midst of outflanking his opponents. Its only the fact that the rest of the forces present managed to slice through the prepared defenses in Kuwait that the war was over as quickly as it was.

Different Franks, dude. Fred Franks commanded VII Corps in Desert Storm, Tommy Franks commanded CENTCOM in 2003.

Yeah that was my bad, I conflated the two forgetting that Tommy Franks was only an ADC the first time around.

[TC Pilot]

That's an understatement. He wrecked the Army of Tennessee at Franklin, a wholly needless battle in which he got six of his division commanders killed along with 6,000 men for possession of a field the Union had no intention of holding onto since they were conducting a strategic withdrawal, simply because he felt his troops needed to be disciplined. So that when they got to Nashville, the only thing the remnant of that army was good for was target practise for George Thomas. And that's on top of his idiotic move to attack northward to draw Sherman out of Atlanta with a force which wasn't equal either to Sherman's army or George Thomas' in the first place.

The entire campaign was completely pointless. Hood had absolutely no chance of convincing Sherman to pursue him north. If anything, he was only put in charge because Richmond was sick of Johnston constantly retreating (Davis and Johnston hated each other, whereas Davis got along well with the equally awful Bragg), nevermind Johnston only retreated because Sherman outnumbered him 2 to 1 and could simply bypass his army with impunity. I mean, clearly if Sherman just ignored the AoT the last half dozen times, certainly he'll rush to chase after it this time!

Of course, that begs the question of what he actually expected to do if Sherman did chase him. Intentionally marching straight into enemy-held territory with a numerically-superior army in front and in back of you? At least when Forrest did those kinds of things, he was using freaking cavalry.

[Sea Skimmer]

Of course, that begs the question of what he actually expected to do if Sherman did chase him. Intentionally marching straight into enemy-held territory with a numerically-superior army in front and in back of you? At least when Forrest did those kinds of things, he was using freaking cavalry.

It would buy time I would think, and nothing more, this was late 1864 and any Confederate general could see the writing on the wall. The Confederacy was starved and divided, Mobile had fallen just before the campaign was launched, leaving the whole Confederate position in the south nearly cut off. I can't help bu think that was a major factor on its own.

Only The Cape Fear river was still open to blockade runners, and anything coming in that port was going to head north. Defending had little chance of working, an aggressive attack had the slim hope of disrupting union plans and buying some real time. An army on the attack could also loot union supplies it didn't destroy, a vital consideration by this time. Not that I think the campaign was a very good idea, but defending wasn't going to work much better. The Confederates only real hope was that somehow the Army of Northern Virginia could win enough of a victory or bleed the Yankees enough to take the pressure off that front, so that it could divert troops back west.

[SVPD]

After reading "The Coldest Winter" I think it's pretty clear why an obscure name like Ned Almond makes the list. I strongly reccommend the book if you're interested in the Korean War.

To sum it up briefly, Almond considerably exceeded his contemporaries in terms of racism, abused his subordinate officers tot he point of considerable detriment to their units, failed to grasp such basic concepts as local security, and in fact, was retained by Ridgeway only because his peer commanders were even more incompetant.. and more obscure, hence their absence from the list.

[CmdrWilkens]

After reading "The Coldest Winter" I think it's pretty clear why an obscure name like Ned Almond makes the list. I strongly reccommend the book if you're interested in the Korean War.

To sum it up briefly, Almond considerably exceeded his contemporaries in terms of racism, abused his subordinate officers tot he point of considerable detriment to their units, failed to grasp such basic concepts as local security, and in fact, was retained by Ridgeway only because his peer commanders were even more incompetant.. and more obscure, hence their absence from the list.

Coulter and Milburn over in 8th Army (I and IX Corps) could hardly be called incompetent, the former had a much better track record in Italy than Almond so I don't it was a lack of capable peers that Ridgeway kept Almond nor would such a reason explain why he gave Almond a second Distinguished Service Cross.

[Tolya]

Can someone explain to me why MacArthur is on the list? From the top of my head, he was responsible for the total decay of US forces in Japan prior to war in Korea and I've heard somewhere that he ignored (or his staff ignored) early reports of Chinese forces entering Korean theater.

Can he be held personally accountable for other suffered defeats? Like losing Philippines during WW2?

[CaiusWickersham]

As elaborated above, he was insubordinate to his commanders (i.e. three different Presidents), the Bonus Army, the way he handled Japan post-surrender, and how he handled Korea.

[Darth Fanboy]

Judging by the way Detroit Command has performed in the War on Auto Sales I'd say General Motors.

[SVPD]

After reading "The Coldest Winter" I think it's pretty clear why an obscure name like Ned Almond makes the list. I strongly reccommend the book if you're interested in the Korean War.

To sum it up briefly, Almond considerably exceeded his contemporaries in terms of racism, abused his subordinate officers tot he point of considerable detriment to their units, failed to grasp such basic concepts as local security, and in fact, was retained by Ridgeway only because his peer commanders were even more incompetant.. and more obscure, hence their absence from the list.

Coulter and Milburn over in 8th Army (I and IX Corps) could hardly be called incompetent, the former had a much better track record in Italy than Almond so I don't it was a lack of capable peers that Ridgeway kept Almond nor would such a reason explain why he gave Almond a second Distinguished Service Cross.

The author seems to have a different opinion of both of them than that. He also doesn't seem to be cutting them, or Almond, any slack on their performance in Korea based on their performance in Europe. In fact he points out that a great deal of Almond's planning would have been great for WWII or the War College, but simply didn't work against the Chinese because they didn't fight the same way, and Almond couldn't adapt because he saw them as a bunch of "Laundrymen".

As for a second DFC, I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't a way to smooth over lingering political issues from MacArthur. Ridgeway had a lot to do and rocking the boat probably wouldn't have been wise.

[CmdrWilkens]

After reading "The Coldest Winter" I think it's pretty clear why an obscure name like Ned Almond makes the list. I strongly reccommend the book if you're interested in the Korean War.

To sum it up briefly, Almond considerably exceeded his contemporaries in terms of racism, abused his subordinate officers tot he point of considerable detriment to their units, failed to grasp such basic concepts as local security, and in fact, was retained by Ridgeway only because his peer commanders were even more incompetant.. and more obscure, hence their absence from the list.

Coulter and Milburn over in 8th Army (I and IX Corps) could hardly be called incompetent, the former had a much better track record in Italy than Almond so I don't it was a lack of capable peers that Ridgeway kept Almond nor would such a reason explain why he gave Almond a second Distinguished Service Cross.

The author seems to have a different opinion of both of them than that. He also doesn't seem to be cutting them, or Almond, any slack on their performance in Korea based on their performance in Europe. In fact he points out that a great deal of Almond's planning would have been great for WWII or the War College, but simply didn't work against the Chinese because they didn't fight the same way, and Almond couldn't adapt because he saw them as a bunch of "Laundrymen".

As for a second DFC, I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't a way to smooth over lingering political issues from MacArthur. Ridgeway had a lot to do and rocking the boat probably wouldn't have been wise.

Except a DSC being second only to the Medal of Honor is more than just a consolation prize. While I'd credit Ridgeway with having the political sense to keep from ruffling the pro-MacArthur team's feathers I can't see him putting Almond up for that much of an award. Legion of Merit, Silver Star, or even a DSM would be a justifiable but a DSC is saying that one step further rates THE Medal. I think highly enough of Rdigeway that he wouldn't place such emphasis on politics over the lineage of the DSC. Likewise it makes no sense for Ridgeway to have retained Almond as BOTH chief of staff and X Corps commander if he didn't have faith in him, relief of either position to the exclusion of the other would have been both understandable and unlikely to ruffle any feathers...but Ridgeway didn't do so.

Likewise, as before, I place a lot of value on Puller's statement to Almond that he was "the finest combatant commander I had the privileged to serve under." While far from definitive I woudl again say that Fleet, Ridgeway and Puller, all of whom were excellent combat commanders themselves, seem to have been by the records I know of either impressed or content with Almond's performance.

[SVPD]

Except a DSC being second only to the Medal of Honor is more than just a consolation prize. While I'd credit Ridgeway with having the political sense to keep from ruffling the pro-MacArthur team's feathers I can't see him putting Almond up for that much of an award. Legion of Merit, Silver Star, or even a DSM would be a justifiable but a DSC is saying that one step further rates THE Medal. I think highly enough of Rdigeway that he wouldn't place such emphasis on politics over the lineage of the DSC. Likewise it makes no sense for Ridgeway to have retained Almond as BOTH chief of staff and X Corps commander if he didn't have faith in him, relief of either position to the exclusion of the other would have been both understandable and unlikely to ruffle any feathers...but Ridgeway didn't do so.

Yeah, I realize all that. Maybe the author just has a much lower opinion of Almond that Ridgeway did, or maybe there was more going on between them than we can realize from the available records and surviving people.

Ridgeway, it should be pointed out, did at least find Almond far more aggressive than his other Corps commanders, but he didn't retain him as chief of staff. That was one of the first things he did, was have a hert-to-heart with Almond and let him know the game-playing days with the dual hats were over. Halberstam discusses this on pages 497-498.

Likewise, as before, I place a lot of value on Puller's statement to Almond that he was "the finest combatant commander I had the privileged to serve under." While far from definitive I woudl again say that Fleet, Ridgeway and Puller, all of whom were excellent combat commanders themselves, seem to have been by the records I know of either impressed or content with Almond's performance.

I have kind of a hard time relying on Almond's subordinates' opinions mainly because of his habit of relieving people simply to get "his own man" in charge. I'm thinking of one particular regimental commander especially, but the name escapes me and I don't have time right now to look through the book for that.. only had time for one reference this morning. I'kll get it later if you'd like. In any case, Ridgeway's opinion has far more credibility to me.

[Anguirus]

There is a difference between Benedict Arnold and Robert E. Lee. Arnold FOUGHT on both sides of a war, or at least switched sides while the war was in progress and the outcome was in doubt. For money.

Lee briefly served as part of the Union forces after Sumter, but he up and left as soon as his state did, without firing a shot for the Union or actively deceiving anyone as to his true loyalties.

That is a difference in conduct, no matter how low a regard I hold the Confederate states in.

[Gaidin]

There is a difference between Benedict Arnold and Robert E. Lee. Arnold FOUGHT on both sides of a war, or at least switched sides while the war was in progress and the outcome was in doubt. For money.

And yet he's still considered good enough and pivotal enough that in spite of his betrayal, he gets a memorial at Saratoga. It's one thing to say he's a betraying bastard. It's totally another to say that he's among the worst. Is this thread really about loyalty or is it about skill?

[Isolder74]

There is a difference between Benedict Arnold and Robert E. Lee. Arnold FOUGHT on both sides of a war, or at least switched sides while the war was in progress and the outcome was in doubt. For money.

And yet he's still considered good enough and pivotal enough that in spite of his betrayal, he gets a memorial at Saratoga. It's one thing to say he's a betraying bastard. It's totally another to say that he's among the worst. Is this thread really about loyalty or is it about skill?

Arnold was a field commander at Saratoga and not in overall command. He gets a monument for routing a retreat into a charge that became a decisive part of the battle. His actions in the battle were decisive, He then proceeded to whine about not getting promoted because of it and not getting praised enough for it.

His only real command was while he was in charge of West Point which he was planning on turning over lock stock and barrel over to the British. Before that he continually pushed an demanded a general's rank but when he didn't get it when he wanted to get it he got angry and switch sides.

If Arnold had managed to pull off his plot, then there would have been major problems with America winning the Revolution.

[Gaidin]

I'm aware of that, and was aware of that when I made my post. It doesn't really address my point, that I'm aware of, of whether that act lands him a ranking among America's Worst Generals given the decisive actions he did while fighting for the Revolution. With people like MacArthur I'm seeing plenty of reasons in this thread why he'd be among that list, but the only thing I'm really seeing for Arnold is his betrayal of the Revolution, which is in no way a statement on his skills as a general, only on his loyalty to the cause and whatever problems he had with the politics.

[CmdrWilkens]

And yet he's still considered good enough and pivotal enough that in spite of his betrayal, he gets a memorial at Saratoga. It's one thing to say he's a betraying bastard. It's totally another to say that he's among the worst. Is this thread really about loyalty or is it about skill?

Arnold was a field commander at Saratoga and not in overall command. He gets a monument for routing a retreat into a charge that became a decisive part of the battle. His actions in the battle were decisive, He then proceeded to whine about not getting promoted because of it and not getting praised enough for it.

His only real command was while he was in charge of West Point which he was planning on turning over lock stock and barrel over to the British. Before that he continually pushed an demanded a general's rank but when he didn't get it when he wanted to get it he got angry and switch sides.

If Arnold had managed to pull off his plot, then there would have been major problems with America winning the Revolution.

There is of course Arnold's command at Ticonderoga in 76 where he literally built a galley fleet from scrap, crewed it with impressed troops, sailed off to face a second rate Man O War, managed to actually bring the British fleet to battle and survive...and in doing so scared Burgoyne from advancing upon Ticonderoga and the Hudson valley until 1777. Without his actions New England WOULD have been split from the rest of the colonies by a march down the Hudson and the revolution placed in dire straits before ever getting off the ground.

As to his whining about not being given his just due its fair to say he was justified as Gates spent the rest of the war basically building up the myth that he was the victor of Saratoga to the exclusion of all others. Change the wound Arnold receives from the leg to the chest and he would be memorialized today as one of the greatest generals in US history.

[Anguirus]

There is a difference between Benedict Arnold and Robert E. Lee. Arnold FOUGHT on both sides of a war, or at least switched sides while the war was in progress and the outcome was in doubt. For money.

And yet he's still considered good enough and pivotal enough that in spite of his betrayal, he gets a memorial at Saratoga. It's one thing to say he's a betraying bastard. It's totally another to say that he's among the worst. Is this thread really about loyalty or is it about skill?

No dispute there. The criteria do have to be decided. I'm just pointing out why they aren't quite the same sort of traitor.

[Death from the Sea]

Should Custer be on the list?

[Elfdart]

Should Custer be on the list?

His record as a general was pretty good; it was his record as a colonel that sucked.