- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Worst US General of all time?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 9:56 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/29/19 at 9:56 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Custer wasn't a general at Little Big Horn. He was a colonel. And his performance in the Civil War was actually fairly solid. There's a reason why he was mustered out of the volunteer army as a major general in 1866. He didn't achieve that rank through incompetence. He clearly impressed his superior officers - those officers being Sheridan and Grant. Custer's downfall was his arrogance and belief that the enemy he was fighting out west was inferior to him.
I stand corrected on the colonel. Just my general association with his early career in the civil war.
Dividing his forces, dog tired troops, inadequate recon and leaving the Gatling guns behind Surely didn’t help him at the Little Bighorn.
Custer was bold and daring in the civil war to the point of having the highest casualty rate among the Union Generals. I realize this rate is skewed being a Calvary officer. From my reading he was bold to point of being callous with the lives of his men. This callous disregard for life was his ultimate undoing.
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 9:57 am
0
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:07 am to fr33manator
quote:
Disagree. The US was still in its infancy so there was still a rebel spirit and less allegiance to Union. He had been snubbed by the United States quite a bit. Britain made him a better offer. Maybe the government should have treated him better
Because he wasn't being promoted enough it's okay for a man to betray his country (He was born and grew up in Connecticut along with his family being in the colonies for a few generations already. The States was his home.) He even fought against men he used to command. Burned a town to the ground only a few miles where he grew up.
This would be the same if Robert E. Lee first joined the south but switched to the North to burn Fredricksburg to the ground. Takes a fricked up individual to do that. Arnold fought for wealth and status in a war that wasn't about that.
I won't call him the worst US general because he was good in combat and commanding men. Ethically he was awful.
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 10:09 am
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:09 am to Obtuse1
quote:
I know this was mainly directed at one person but that statement really gets under my skin. I am a liberal and earned a CIB.
"liberal" navy vet here.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:26 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
McClellan
My vote
Because he wouldn't waste his Army on Lincoln's political agenda?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:29 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Yeah, I was being a dick. My bad.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:29 am to TigerFanInSouthland
We've had lots of really bad generals you probably just don't get to hear of them often. Politics and bureaucracy breed crap.
My vote is for LTG Stephan Fogarty.
My vote is for LTG Stephan Fogarty.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:36 am to tigeraddict
quote:
General Custer...
Arguably should have been in the OPs post, certainly before page 5.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:46 am to RollTide1987
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 11:11 am
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:51 am to Philzilla2k
Ricardo Sanchez, bad general and a coward too.
I was surprised his name hadn't been mentioned yet. Casey was no great shakes, either.
I was surprised his name hadn't been mentioned yet. Casey was no great shakes, either.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:56 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:58 am to AbuTheMonkey
I’m surprised more of you aren’t going at Westmoreland. I know he was perceived as hamstrung by politics but that doesn’t explain his lack of flexible tactics.
Dude literally sent GIs into the jungle for “patrols” asking to be ambushed. He’d also have them charge up hills just to say they won a “battle” without mentioning those poor bastards died on a hill that was immediately abandoned
He was the commander of the only war the US definitively lost
Dude literally sent GIs into the jungle for “patrols” asking to be ambushed. He’d also have them charge up hills just to say they won a “battle” without mentioning those poor bastards died on a hill that was immediately abandoned
He was the commander of the only war the US definitively lost
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 10:59 am
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:03 am to shutterspeed
quote:
Worst US General of all time? by shutterspeed
General Mills
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:34 am to Tigeralum2008
Agree with your points. That war was an absolute cluster frick on most every level.
Tragic waste of lives.
Tragic waste of lives.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:37 am to Tigris
quote:
And maybe most importantly he was responsible for transforming Japan into the society there are today and largely wrote their constitution.
Has nothing to do with his abilities as a general.
quote:
He performed very well, maybe brilliantly in WWI.
We weren’t in the war that long and were fighting an already beaten foe.
quote:
The Philippines weren't properly prepared for the Japanese attack even though that was anticipated as possible
Not possible, probable.
quote:
his insistence on returning to the Philippines is questionable
Because of his ego. Chester Nimitz in charge of the central pacific forces did a whole helluva lot more to win the war in the Pacific than MacArthur, who languished in the Philippines until the end of the war.
quote:
as was the drive to the Yalu and ignoring Chinese warnings.
That wasn’t just questionable, that was criminal. Especially when all the signs pointed to the Chinese entering.
quote:
Dan Carlin comments at one point that all generals have huge egos and the more I read the more I realize that this is true. They pretty much have to.
No they don’t. Eisenhower didn’t have a massive ego, Bradley didn’t have a massive ego. Loads of generals do not have massive egos.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:39 am to AustinTigr
quote:This.
Mark Clark (WW2)
Glad my old man didn't have to serve in his command.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:42 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
quote:quote:
as was the drive to the Yalu and ignoring Chinese warnings.
That wasn’t just questionable, that was criminal. Especially when all the signs pointed to the Chinese entering.
People don't reference MacArthur's conduct in Korea enough. He was horrible, and his actions turned what could have been a quick and impressive save of South Korea into a multi-year stalemate.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:46 am to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Because he wouldn't waste his Army on Lincoln's political agenda?
I’ve read that McCellan and a group of other union officers had thoughts of staging a coup to end the war. It would be interesting to see how this would have changed history.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:59 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Wesley Clark.
Tried to start World War 3 in Bosnia, then was fired for lying to Bill Clinton of all people.
Tried to start World War 3 in Bosnia, then was fired for lying to Bill Clinton of all people.
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 2:04 pm
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News