Worst General in History???
- Thread starter rightwinger
- Start date
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
I love that scene. "Is she right?..............."
dilloduck
Diamond Member
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
It sounded to me like there was a general consensus that He's number one and everyone is just talking about who comes next after him.
- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,571
- 185
He was one of the more brilliant commanders of the war. The reason he had so much trust from Washington was because he was one of the best.
He was instrumental in the victories at Ticonderoga and Saratoga.
He was instrumental in the victories at Ticonderoga and Saratoga.
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Not the worst, but I'd have to put Westmoreland up there. Has anyone read the book "We Were Soldiers" when Westmoreland screwed up the 7th Cavalry's Thanksgiving Dinner right after Ia Drang.
He's the poster boy for Hackworth's "Perfumed Prince" perjorative (and I am not a Hackworth fan).
He's the poster boy for Hackworth's "Perfumed Prince" perjorative (and I am not a Hackworth fan).
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Custer was a good General.
He was a lousy Frontier Regimental Commander (He was a LTC at Little Bighorn).
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
In the Army there's a saying that one "Aw shit!" equals ten "Attaboy!!s"
He was a great general until he sold out his country and accepted a commission in the enemy's army. WTF???? Now that is one big "Aw SHIT!!"
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #49
considering the emnity between mac and marshall, it's no surprise he didn't tell him what was going on. he never liked marshall anyway (he wrote that he was unfit to command a regiment when marshall was at CG&S, IIRC), he felt that marshall had betrayed him in the phillipines by bypassing him after he left corregidor.
inchon was a brilliant piece of strategy, but he was also very lucky that the islands in the flyng fish channel had not been reinforced or invested with artillery.
Againsheila
Gold Member
Yeah, Custer was bad, but he fired on the Indians, not the American people, oh wait a minute....nevermind.
Toome
Active Member
- Feb 19, 2009
- 906
- 260
- 28
I think it's difficult to carry on a discussion about best or worst without taking into account the context of certain battlefield decisions. A frontal attack on today's battlefield, for instance, is nothing less than suicidal and stupid. But during the Civil War or Revolutionary War, this was a sound tactic.
My nomination goes to General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Talk about ******* up a wet dream. His forces had momentum after the slaughters at the Alamo and Goliad, and he had Sam Houston on the run. At San Jacinto, Santa Anna had every tactical advantage; he outnumbered the Texans 2:1; he had better artillery; he had professionally-trained troops; he had everything in his favor. Santa Anna's problem was his arrogance, and that arrogance led to a fundamentally stupid decision: he never posted pickets at San Jacinto. He had no idea that the Texans were sneaking up on him until it was too late. He lost the Battle of San Jacinto in 18 minutes with catastrophic losses.
While anyone can have a bad day, I consider Santa Anna pretty stupid because he again had superior numbers during the Mexican War when Winfield Scott went to Mexico City. Santa Anna had 16,000 troops under his command compared to Scott's 7,000. Santa Anna lost approximately 3,000 troops after a series of battles.
My argument for Santa Anna being the worst is that his slaughter of the Alamo defenders and what would be considered war crimes by today's standards emboldened the Texans. They began their charge at San Jacinto with "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" His miscalculation of American military capabilities during the Mexican War cost Mexico all of its land north of the Rio Grande (although Texas had already won its independence) resulting in what is today California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and most of New Mexico and Colorado being annexed by the United States. So Santa Anna's defeat was costly for the Mexican government.
That's why I pin the tag on him: stupid tactics, dropping the ball when he had the tactical advantage, inciting resistance rather than winning support from the local population, and losing big when the stakes were high.
My nomination goes to General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Talk about ******* up a wet dream. His forces had momentum after the slaughters at the Alamo and Goliad, and he had Sam Houston on the run. At San Jacinto, Santa Anna had every tactical advantage; he outnumbered the Texans 2:1; he had better artillery; he had professionally-trained troops; he had everything in his favor. Santa Anna's problem was his arrogance, and that arrogance led to a fundamentally stupid decision: he never posted pickets at San Jacinto. He had no idea that the Texans were sneaking up on him until it was too late. He lost the Battle of San Jacinto in 18 minutes with catastrophic losses.
While anyone can have a bad day, I consider Santa Anna pretty stupid because he again had superior numbers during the Mexican War when Winfield Scott went to Mexico City. Santa Anna had 16,000 troops under his command compared to Scott's 7,000. Santa Anna lost approximately 3,000 troops after a series of battles.
My argument for Santa Anna being the worst is that his slaughter of the Alamo defenders and what would be considered war crimes by today's standards emboldened the Texans. They began their charge at San Jacinto with "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" His miscalculation of American military capabilities during the Mexican War cost Mexico all of its land north of the Rio Grande (although Texas had already won its independence) resulting in what is today California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and most of New Mexico and Colorado being annexed by the United States. So Santa Anna's defeat was costly for the Mexican government.
That's why I pin the tag on him: stupid tactics, dropping the ball when he had the tactical advantage, inciting resistance rather than winning support from the local population, and losing big when the stakes were high.
Last edited:
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
Okay.......if we're gonna talk foreign generals, how's Napoleon for ya?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,049
- 86,476
- 2,645
Richard the Lion-Hearted.
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Napoleon won too much to claim the title of "worst"
I would put forward every Italian general in World War II. They couldn't beat anyone. They couldn't beat the Ethiopians for God's sake and they weren't even in the same century. The impotence of their Army was only surpassed by the impotence of their navy.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
In modern history, I'd have to go with the grossly overrated Hap Arnold, for continuing to waste valuable bombers and crew after it became more than obvious that B-17s couldn't defend themselves without escort.
ConHog
Rookie
- Jun 4, 2010
- 14,538
- 952
- 0
- Banned
- #59
Now we're talking world wide? Woo hoo then I present to you
Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig
This thread is OVER
want a quick synopsis of this fool's "achievements"?
Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig: World War I's Worst General HistoryNet
Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig
This thread is OVER
want a quick synopsis of this fool's "achievements"?
Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig: World War I's Worst General HistoryNet
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,049
- 86,476
- 2,645
This bothered me for a long time until I realized the thing about us Italians is that we ruled the world once already and had no real interest in reconquering it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Not in 1/4 mile, but in 1,000 feet. New record drag racer- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 1
-
Democrat Congresswoman: What Goes on in your Bedroom is MY business!- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 1
-
Nancy Mace Humiliates Tim Walz During Hearing Over Somali Fraud- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 2
-
Jasmine Crockett STORMS OUT of her own event after crying “they cheated!”
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 8
