@ Lee was not a brevet general. Brevet rank is a serving commissioned officer of a lesser rank serving in a higher temporary rank during the war, but upon the end of conflict they would go back to their official rank. Lee was given a general’s commission by the illegitimate traitorous government of the mutinous slave state of Virginia. Yes, okay he had a colonel’s rank in the United States government before he because a treasonous traitor, but his serving as a general in a terrorist army does not count as a brevet rank.
@@SammyandbobsdadGeneral Lee is commonly regarded as Americas best and greatest tactical general. He made some mistakes but out maneuvered the union forces in spite of overwhelming odds. Your emotions are quite evident in your posted comment. Therefore your opinions are just that opinions and are not based on facts.
These are not at all the four worst US generals, they're just the someone's most personally disliked CIVIL WAR era generals. No actual bad generals such as Lloyd Fredendall of World War 2, Charles Lee from the Revolution, Leonidas Polk, or Mark Milley (which is still up for debate). Just some popular names everyone hates from the US Civil War only, whom are only hated due to certain "failures" in their career. Or in Custer's case, losing their last battle.
I would even add MacArthur to this list. While he was right about Inchon, his continued arrogance, underestimation of the Japanese in Papua New Guinea (to say nothing of his botching of the defense of the Philippines AND Taiwan), and ignoring the intelligence of Chinese entrance into the Korean War, led to many needless casualties.
@@ex-navyspook MacArthur ended up having too many successes to balance any shortcomings. I'd rate him with Lee or Longstreet to be honest. Lee probably had more blunders than MacArthur. Lee used to frontal assault and got dropped by McClellan, lost Gettysburg and lost Antietam which eventually cost him the war. MacArthur's blunder was argued that he took the Pacific theater much longer than it had to be instead of just going for the Japanese's jugular. He's pretty celebrated in the Korean war as he was a terror to the Norks and eventually the Chinese. The one who is lauded the more over is actually Truman.
Yes completely agree, none of these four would be in bottom four for the Civil War let alone US history. I think I would pick commander from different eras(Lee for me in the Revolutionary War, Butler in the Civil War(only picking US Generals and it is still a long list), Fredendall in WW2, fourth would either be Hull(1812 though Winder would not be far behind), or Westmoreland in Vietnam
Milley? Milley? You just shot your credibility right there. He barely even had a combat command, let alone a battlefield defeat. I'm guessing you just don't like him for crossing Trump.
@@galatian5Burnside was not on a par with Hood. At no level of generalship was Burnside as good as Hood, except possibly field army command, at which both sucked. Hood was a brilliant brigade and division CO. He showed corps command capability, but was hopeless at the next echelon up, ie army.
@@blastulae Actually Burnside was pretty decent commanding anything lower than a Corps. Just like John Bell Hood was. It's when they were given command of Armies, they failed terribly. Hood gave repeated disasters at Franklin and Nashville. Burnside at least learned his lesson at Fredricksburg. Hood gets good rep because he was usually out in front risking his head in high fire. With the right sized force, Burnside actually could be rather competent as displayed in Knoxville when he beat Longstreet of all people. That's not the mention the weapons he invented for the Union.
@@galatian5Nor his contribution to tonsorial fashion. Burnside did OK as an amphibious operation CO. Hood wasn’t just brave and inspiring. He gave Longstreet good tactical advice at Gettysburg, ignored by the corps CO.
In Nov. 1791, in Ohio, Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Claire's command was wiped out by the Shawnee, Miami, Lenape etc. Of the 1,000 officers and men that St. Clair led into battle, only 24 escaped unharmed.
Custer was brevated to the rank of Major General during the Civil War. After the war he reverted to the rank of Lt. Colonel, the rank he held until his death at Little Bighorn.
Custer moved his attack up by one day because his force was discovered by some Indians who were out scavenging. He was afraid the Indians would escape.
Once again, Sickles is brought up as an example of bad leadership on the field of battle, and once again, the Minnesota First, who were sacrificed to stem the Confederate advance so that the retreat could be a success, is not mentioned. The men of the Minnesota First are always ignored. The unit was nearly annihilated in this battle, and still, there is no mention of it. They deserve better than this constant hand-waving of their contribution. And, after everything that happened in the corn field, they were still present the next day to help defeat Pickett's Charge.
I would put MacArthur and Westmoreland ahead of all but McClellan for not only their strategic failures, but, like McClellan, try to turn their failures into the fault of the administration - rifts that lasted decades.
It should be noted that it was only the battalion being led by Custer that got massacred to the last man at the Little Big Horn. The other two battalions were able to reconsolidate and held out until reinforcements arrived. In all, the 7th cavalry had around 50% casualties.
and Clarke ? instead of circling the Germans after the fall of the Gustav line, he let them escape to the Gothic line just to be the first General to enter a capital city, Rome and being photographed on his jeep
The problem with Little Bighorn was that Custer was ordered to contain retreating Natives, NOT attack them. But the plan required General Crook's column to drive the Natives towards Custer, but Crook's was ambushed and forced to retire, so the plan had already begun to unravel. Still, if Custer had followed orders and simply maintained his station, would he and most of his unit have survived? Also, splitting his force certainly didn't help.
Wrong. No George B. McClean served as a general in the U.S. Army during the 1800s. I am assuming you meant George B. McClellan of U.S. Army in the Civil War.
There is a story about Braxton Bragg that may well be apocryphal but is still humorous. After Chickamauga the Union forces retreated to Chattanooga with General George Thomas making his famous "Rock of Chickamauga" stand. As they marched away a Southern general sent a corporal as a messenger to General Bragg to inform him of the retreat. The corporal reported to Bragg, "General, the Yankees are retreatin'!". In his customary brusque manner Bragg replied, "Corporal, how do you know the Yankees are retreating?" The corporal answered, "General, I've been with you for two years."
During the middle part of the 19th century private minting of coinage was still allowed. I have an example of a McClellan copper cent in my collection that was minted for the political campaign against Lincoln.
Custer was recklas as a Cav General he held at Gettysburg, Delayed Stuart lost alot of his brig.s all because he would not flank or manu. Grant disliked him because he could not adapt even Grant could adapt, Grant learned.
Bragg was, by definition, not a US general and would have objected to being called such. Custer, when he was a general, had an excellent record. After the war though, he was reduced in rank and, as commander of the 7th Cavalry, held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
I have never been a fan of McClellan as a “combat “commander but he is an example of what Clausewitz called “synchronicity.” Basically, being in the right place at the right time with the right resources to have effect. McClellan was an organizer. He came to the Army of the Potomac at a time when it was no better than an armed mob. He organized it, drilled, organized its logistics chain and provided it those basic things an Army needs to function. He was incapable of employing it. But then so where some of those promoted to do the same. I have always ascribed to the synchronicity: Lincoln led to McClellan that in the end lead to Grant that led to victory at Appomattox. Remove any of those men and the outcome is very different.
I always felt that Hood was a terrific combat leader at the division level. At a higher level his aggressiveness overtook his skill level. Of course, by then there weren't too many officers left for higher command anyway.
@@montarakid1943 war does tend to apply the most ruthless application of the peter principle, and Hood is an example of that. that does not sully his prior record but...
The worst U.S. generals? This list doesn't include James Wilkinson, who was the overall commander of the U.S. Army from 1796-1812, and during all that time was also a paid agent of Spain -- our nation's greatest enemy at the time. Wilkinson also conspired with Aaron Burr to seperate the western states from the U.S., and was responsible for the worst peacetime disaster in U.S. military history when he encamped the army in a disease-ridden swamp along the Mississippi River where a third of his men died. The list DOES include Custer, who was actually a very good general until he made one very bad decision.
sickles cherry orchard wasn't ambition. it was from an earlier battle where an officer failed to secure an orchard at the end of the lines. sickles failed to recognize that the situation was different as it wasn't at the end of the line in this instance. still a bone headed move though
I don't think Custer belongs on this list. Don't misunderstand me, he was an idiot who needlessly sacrificed his command for nothing. But he was a Colonel at that time. He was a General only during the War of Northern Agression.
Little Mac was good at training soldiers not a great battlefield General. He was overly cautious thinking he was outnumbered all the time. Custer was made the scapegoat for the inconfidence of the army and the government. Sickles was a political General not a career soldier.
McClellan was almost President, Lincoln second term was almost lost and possibly would have been if Grant hadn't delayed casuality reports and Wilderness and Cold Harbor .
He you asked the people in New Orleans they would strongly disagree with you list and add Benjamin (the beast) Butler to the list. It’s all subjective, there were numerous worst 5 generals
McClellan was good at training an army so just had the wrong job. Custer actually did well as a General. He was a lousy Lt. Colonel. Dan Sickles did good work obtaining benefits for veterans, also in the wrong job. Bragg belongs in a different rebel list even with a fort named after him. Worse Generals off the top of my head: Horatio Gates who ran at Camden Lloyd Fredendall at the Kasserine Pass Walter Short at Pearl Harbor
Custer's plan was to draw out the fighters while he snuck around the rear, and captured the women and children in the camp. He had done something similar in Yellowstone earlier. There he was surrounded, but used the women and children as human shields to escape. He was foiled because he could not get across the river, and was overwhelmed. Sorry for the over simplification. There are a lot of details from this fight that do not make it into the history books.
are you civil or military office to begin with? if you consider these 4 Commission Officers the Worse and still want to teach about them? Failure will produce Failure and in War: Failure can get a lot Troops killed and 1 them could be you; there is Failure or Success as there is civil or military to begin with;
Actually, Custer probably does NOT belong here. But Burnside belongs here, why did you not put him here. Also, those two flakes Floyd and Pillow should be on this list.
George A Custer was a complicated figure, as all people are. However, this assessment of him is very unfair and has some inaccuracies that make it sound like he was an idiot. First off, he rose in rake rapidly because he was a brilliant stratigist during the civil war and led over 60 charges and never lost a battle. At the little big horn, he attacked early because he believed the Indians had been alerted to his forces coming and he would lose the element of surprise. Historians believe that if he had not attacked when he did, he would have be court martialed for dereliction of duty. The Indian tribes were usually killing and fighting each other, thus Custer would never believe that all these tribes would be fighting together in mass. The Indians had never done that before, or after the Little Big Horn. People who say he should not have split his forces. After the fact, yes. But it made sense at the time to split his troops. Why? Because the Army manual stated that what you did to fight Indians. It was common for the Indians to scatter when an attack was imminent. The common strategy was to use a pincer movement and attact from two or more directions to contain the enemy. Custer's tactics that day were right out of the Army manual. I suspect that if he had known what he was really up against, he would have done something different. The way I see it, it was murphy's law that day. Anything that could go wrong, went wrong. The lack of intelligence was one reason for the defeat. I just wish that when these videos and "historical" profiles were done, that who ever is doing them, would do their research and learn the TRUE facts and the TRUE reasons for decisions that were made.
Custer is continuously maligned, beginning with the Grant Administration before and after his death. He was, indeed, a complicated and capable figure that this video glosses over. He may have saved the day at Gettysburg and there’s no doubt he was as courageous as it gets.
Custer wasn't that bad - there was a comon problem with geting right information about natives in US army and the size of indian forces at Big Horn was a surprise.
George McClellan was good at organizing. Not-so-good at commanding. Other that, this is an genuinely appalling video. Probably useful as a bad example.
McClellan was an “organizer”, a Staff Officer; not, a Commander! Custer was simply a joke, a “social climber” who graduated LAST in his Class. Sickles was an idiot who almost single-handedly LOST the Battle of Gettysburg! A total idiot, he moved recklessly forward, achieving 1/3 casualties of his own men! Bragg was not the worst of the Confederates! There were many with “issues”; however, he did make some serious mistakes … But, there were many idiots in that war! On both sides! When a “drunk”, a “Slave Trader”, and a “Slave Owner” … were the BEST … you know stuff was messed up (Grant, Forrest, and Sherman)!
Actually, Sickles' advance into the Peach Orchid was key to the Union victory in the battle of Gettysburg. Originally, the union forces were outnumbered and had the Confederates advanced on Cemetary Ridge on the first day of battle (July 1, 1863), they might have taken it. But Sickles' advance managed to delay the Confederates until the following day. During the night of July 1, Union reinforcements arrived. This led to successful defenses of the ridge on July 2 and 3.
Maybe the worst generals of the civil war era. But no list of the worst US generals is complete without Douglas MacArthur. I would also add Billy Mitchell.
History Always Goes To Show That, No Matter Where Your From, It Is The Arrogance And Bad Ego Based Personal Decisions, That Get Most Good People Eliminated! The Best Decisions, Or Problems Solving, Are Not By High Ranking Chain Of Command! It's The Officer's That Listen, Allowing Input Via, A Team Mentality That Have The Most Success! Thus, It Is Usually By The Ingenuity Of Open Minded, Low Rank, Fuzz Butts! That Contributed Thoughts, Outside The Stern Minded Conformity Box, Of This Is How We Have Always Done, This, That, Or Another Thing, Etc! GOD Bless, Pa-Pow, Amen! 😎 🙉🙈🙊 🇺🇸
You are SOOOO WRONG- Yes GenCuster was a Drunk later in his career, but he was the BEST CAVALRY Officer DURING The CIVIL WAR, Period! He kicked Jeb Stuarts ASS at Gettysburg, FACT! You know Nothing about my Ancestor, Gen Custer! Try reading for Comprehension
As a means of supporting our efforts please hit the LIKE & SUBSCRIBE button.🤍🙏
Custer was a Lt. Colonel. He only held the brevet rank of general temporarily during the Civil War.
So was Lee, but ya know.
@ Lee was not a brevet general. Brevet rank is a serving commissioned officer of a lesser rank serving in a higher temporary rank during the war, but upon the end of conflict they would go back to their official rank. Lee was given a general’s commission by the illegitimate traitorous government of the mutinous slave state of Virginia. Yes, okay he had a colonel’s rank in the United States government before he because a treasonous traitor, but his serving as a general in a terrorist army does not count as a brevet rank.
@@Sammyandbobsdad You know very little about Lee. You have zero clue about Lee, though you are correct about Custer.
@@SammyandbobsdadGeneral Lee is commonly regarded as Americas best and greatest tactical general. He made some mistakes but out maneuvered the union forces in spite of overwhelming odds. Your emotions are quite evident in your posted comment. Therefore your opinions are just that opinions and are not based on facts.
@ he had great merits as a general, but was a treasonous traitor who betrayed his oath to perpetuate the enslavement of his fellow man, so overall👎.
These are not at all the four worst US generals, they're just the someone's most personally disliked CIVIL WAR era generals. No actual bad generals such as Lloyd Fredendall of World War 2, Charles Lee from the Revolution, Leonidas Polk, or Mark Milley (which is still up for debate). Just some popular names everyone hates from the US Civil War only, whom are only hated due to certain "failures" in their career. Or in Custer's case, losing their last battle.
I would even add MacArthur to this list. While he was right about Inchon, his continued arrogance, underestimation of the Japanese in Papua New Guinea (to say nothing of his botching of the defense of the Philippines AND Taiwan), and ignoring the intelligence of Chinese entrance into the Korean War, led to many needless casualties.
@@ex-navyspook MacArthur ended up having too many successes to balance any shortcomings. I'd rate him with Lee or Longstreet to be honest. Lee probably had more blunders than MacArthur. Lee used to frontal assault and got dropped by McClellan, lost Gettysburg and lost Antietam which eventually cost him the war. MacArthur's blunder was argued that he took the Pacific theater much longer than it had to be instead of just going for the Japanese's jugular.
He's pretty celebrated in the Korean war as he was a terror to the Norks and eventually the Chinese. The one who is lauded the more over is actually Truman.
Yes completely agree, none of these four would be in bottom four for the Civil War let alone US history. I think I would pick commander from different eras(Lee for me in the Revolutionary War, Butler in the Civil War(only picking US Generals and it is still a long list), Fredendall in WW2, fourth would either be Hull(1812 though Winder would not be far behind), or Westmoreland in Vietnam
Milley? Milley? You just shot your credibility right there. He barely even had a combat command, let alone a battlefield defeat. I'm guessing you just don't like him for crossing Trump.
Milley huh? Got that orange goo on ya don't ya?
Where is Ambrose Burnside?
Not even he's the worst. He's on par with John Bell Hood.
@@galatian5Burnside was not on a par with Hood. At no level of generalship was Burnside as good as Hood, except possibly field army command, at which both sucked.
Hood was a brilliant brigade and division CO. He showed corps command capability, but was hopeless at the next echelon up, ie army.
@@blastulae Actually Burnside was pretty decent commanding anything lower than a Corps. Just like John Bell Hood was. It's when they were given command of Armies, they failed terribly. Hood gave repeated disasters at Franklin and Nashville. Burnside at least learned his lesson at Fredricksburg.
Hood gets good rep because he was usually out in front risking his head in high fire. With the right sized force, Burnside actually could be rather competent as displayed in Knoxville when he beat Longstreet of all people. That's not the mention the weapons he invented for the Union.
@@galatian5Nor his contribution to tonsorial fashion.
Burnside did OK as an amphibious operation CO.
Hood wasn’t just brave and inspiring. He gave Longstreet good tactical advice at Gettysburg, ignored by the corps CO.
Yes. Also, Nathaniel P. Banks. Benjamin Butler. This is a very weak video, methinks.
In Nov. 1791, in Ohio, Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Claire's command was wiped out by the Shawnee, Miami, Lenape etc. Of the 1,000 officers and men that St. Clair led into battle, only 24 escaped unharmed.
Custer was brevated to the rank of Major General during the Civil War. After the war he reverted to the rank of Lt. Colonel, the rank he held until his death at Little Bighorn.
Custer moved his attack up by one day because his force was discovered by some Indians who were out scavenging. He was afraid the Indians would escape.
Once again, Sickles is brought up as an example of bad leadership on the field of battle, and once again, the Minnesota First, who were sacrificed to stem the Confederate advance so that the retreat could be a success, is not mentioned. The men of the Minnesota First are always ignored. The unit was nearly annihilated in this battle, and still, there is no mention of it. They deserve better than this constant hand-waving of their contribution. And, after everything that happened in the corn field, they were still present the next day to help defeat Pickett's Charge.
No particular regiment or unit was named in this video. Calm it down.
Misspelled Mclellan on the first slide??
I would put MacArthur and Westmoreland ahead of all but McClellan for not only their strategic failures, but, like McClellan, try to turn their failures into the fault of the administration - rifts that lasted decades.
It should be noted that it was only the battalion being led by Custer that got massacred to the last man at the Little Big Horn. The other two battalions were able to reconsolidate and held out until reinforcements arrived. In all, the 7th cavalry had around 50% casualties.
Some generals just don't see the big picture
and Clarke ? instead of circling the Germans after the fall of the Gustav line, he let them escape to the Gothic line just to be the first General to enter a capital city, Rome and being photographed on his jeep
The problem with Little Bighorn was that Custer was ordered to contain retreating Natives, NOT attack them. But the plan required General Crook's column to drive the Natives towards Custer, but Crook's was ambushed and forced to retire, so the plan had already begun to unravel. Still, if Custer had followed orders and simply maintained his station, would he and most of his unit have survived?
Also, splitting his force certainly didn't help.
Not to mention leaving his Gatlin guns behind because they would "slow him down"... 😉
Wrong. No George B. McClean served as a general in the U.S. Army during the 1800s. I am assuming you meant George B. McClellan of U.S. Army in the Civil War.
There is a story about Braxton Bragg that may well be apocryphal but is still humorous. After Chickamauga the Union forces retreated to Chattanooga with General George Thomas making his famous "Rock of Chickamauga" stand. As they marched away a Southern general sent a corporal as a messenger to General Bragg to inform him of the retreat. The corporal reported to Bragg, "General, the Yankees are retreatin'!". In his customary brusque manner Bragg replied, "Corporal, how do you know the Yankees are retreating?" The corporal answered, "General, I've been with you for two years."
Still waiting for the punchline ...
And then what happened
During the middle part of the 19th century private minting of coinage was still allowed. I have an example of a McClellan copper cent in my collection that was minted for the political campaign against Lincoln.
Custer was recklas as a Cav General he held at Gettysburg, Delayed Stuart lost alot of his brig.s all because he would not flank or manu. Grant disliked him because he could not adapt even Grant could adapt, Grant learned.
On to Richmond. The peninsula campaign could have ended it much earlier.
What about Lloyd Austin?
Custer was a good general. On the plains he was not a general!
Bragg was, by definition, not a US general and would have objected to being called such. Custer, when he was a general, had an excellent record. After the war though, he was reduced in rank and, as commander of the 7th Cavalry, held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Custer was brave and fearless. A great young civil war general! Made an arrogant foolish decision in 1876 and lost!
You know it's kind of hard to believe anything anyone says when they can't spell a man's name properly to begin with
I have never been a fan of McClellan as a “combat “commander but he is an example of what Clausewitz called “synchronicity.” Basically, being in the right place at the right time with the right resources to have effect. McClellan was an organizer. He came to the Army of the Potomac at a time when it was no better than an armed mob. He organized it, drilled, organized its logistics chain and provided it those basic things an Army needs to function. He was incapable of employing it. But then so where some of those promoted to do the same. I have always ascribed to the synchronicity: Lincoln led to McClellan that in the end lead to Grant that led to victory at Appomattox. Remove any of those men and the outcome is very different.
A parallel to Herbert Sobel of Easy Company infamy.
"MCCLEAN," you say?! :)
McClellan was a capable strategist, he should never have taken the field. John Bell Hood was arguabky worse than Bragg.
I always felt that Hood was a terrific combat leader at the division level. At a higher level his aggressiveness overtook his skill level. Of course, by then there weren't too many officers left for higher command anyway.
@@montarakid1943 war does tend to apply the most ruthless application of the peter principle, and Hood is an example of that. that does not sully his prior record but...
The worst U.S. generals? This list doesn't include James Wilkinson, who was the overall commander of the U.S. Army from 1796-1812, and during all that time was also a paid agent of Spain -- our nation's greatest enemy at the time. Wilkinson also conspired with Aaron Burr to seperate the western states from the U.S., and was responsible for the worst peacetime disaster in U.S. military history when he encamped the army in a disease-ridden swamp along the Mississippi River where a third of his men died. The list DOES include Custer, who was actually a very good general until he made one very bad decision.
sickles cherry orchard wasn't ambition. it was from an earlier battle where an officer failed to secure an orchard at the end of the lines. sickles failed to recognize that the situation was different as it wasn't at the end of the line in this instance. still a bone headed move though
Some of the Generals did some great things. Then a misjudgment lead them to their downfall.
Braxton Bragg.
BEING BRAVE DOES NOT EXCUSE BEING A FOOL CUSTER NOT BELIEVING HIS SCOUTS IS STUPID.
Not unlike your lack of knowledge about Custer.
What about William Hull?
What about St. Clair??? His defeat makes Custer's look like nothing
What about Fetterman.
I always give Custer some slack. It can be argued that the Union won the Battle of Gettysburg because of him.
I don't think Custer belongs on this list. Don't misunderstand me, he was an idiot who needlessly sacrificed his command for nothing. But he was a Colonel at that time. He was a General only during the War of Northern Agression.
Little Mac was good at training soldiers not a great battlefield General. He was overly cautious thinking he was outnumbered all the time. Custer was made the scapegoat for the inconfidence of the army and the government. Sickles was a political General not a career soldier.
Gen Lee saved the Union with his stupidity at Gettysburg
McClellan was almost President, Lincoln second term was almost lost and possibly would have been if Grant hadn't delayed casuality reports and Wilderness and Cold Harbor .
He you asked the people in New Orleans they would strongly disagree with you list and add Benjamin (the beast) Butler to the list.
It’s all subjective, there were numerous worst 5 generals
John B. Hood
McClellan was good at training an army so just had the wrong job.
Custer actually did well as a General. He was a lousy Lt. Colonel.
Dan Sickles did good work obtaining benefits for veterans, also in the wrong job.
Bragg belongs in a different rebel list even with a fort named after him.
Worse Generals off the top of my head:
Horatio Gates who ran at Camden
Lloyd Fredendall at the Kasserine Pass
Walter Short at Pearl Harbor
Custer's plan was to draw out the fighters while he snuck around the rear, and captured the women and children in the camp. He had done something similar in Yellowstone earlier. There he was surrounded, but used the women and children as human shields to escape. He was foiled because he could not get across the river, and was overwhelmed. Sorry for the over simplification. There are a lot of details from this fight that do not make it into the history books.
are you civil or military office to begin with? if you consider these 4 Commission Officers the Worse and still want to teach about them? Failure will produce Failure and in War: Failure can get a lot Troops killed and 1 them could be you; there is Failure or Success as there is civil or military to begin with;
What are you talking about!
General Milley is the #1
Actually, Custer probably does NOT belong here. But Burnside belongs here, why did you not put him here. Also, those two flakes Floyd and Pillow should be on this list.
George A Custer was a complicated figure, as all people are. However, this assessment of him is very unfair and has some inaccuracies that make it sound like he was an idiot. First off, he rose in rake rapidly because he was a brilliant stratigist during the civil war and led over 60 charges and never lost a battle. At the little big horn, he attacked early because he believed the Indians had been alerted to his forces coming and he would lose the element of surprise. Historians believe that if he had not attacked when he did, he would have be court martialed for dereliction of duty. The Indian tribes were usually killing and fighting each other, thus Custer would never believe that all these tribes would be fighting together in mass. The Indians had never done that before, or after the Little Big Horn. People who say he should not have split his forces. After the fact, yes. But it made sense at the time to split his troops. Why? Because the Army manual stated that what you did to fight Indians. It was common for the Indians to scatter when an attack was imminent. The common strategy was to use a pincer movement and attact from two or more directions to contain the enemy. Custer's tactics that day were right out of the Army manual. I suspect that if he had known what he was really up against, he would have done something different. The way I see it, it was murphy's law that day. Anything that could go wrong, went wrong. The lack of intelligence was one reason for the defeat. I just wish that when these videos and "historical" profiles were done, that who ever is doing them, would do their research and learn the TRUE facts and the TRUE reasons for decisions that were made.
Custer is continuously maligned, beginning with the Grant Administration before and after his death. He was, indeed, a complicated and capable figure that this video glosses over. He may have saved the day at Gettysburg and there’s no doubt he was as courageous as it gets.
Thank God Custer has some defenders and told the truth in stead of their own oppions.😮
Would Custer have been in the West if he hadn't stolen that famous racehorse from its Southern owner at the end of the Civil War?
The War would have Ended in 1862 if Grant was in charge instead of McClean!
Maybe. However, even Grant had some bad days in 1862. After Missionary Ridge in 1863 he became a god.
Bragg wasn't US general.
Looking at this from the UK the video is controversial.
Custer wasn't that bad - there was a comon problem with geting right information about natives in US army and the size of indian forces at Big Horn was a surprise.
Viet Nam?
Braxton Bragg won 2 major battles, he can't be on the worse General list, actually won Murfreesboro too, but called a draw because he withdrew
George McClellan was good at organizing. Not-so-good at commanding. Other that, this is an genuinely appalling video. Probably useful as a bad example.
Plenty of historical information on General MacClellan, Colonel Custer, General Sickles, and General Braggs.
Bragg has an army base named after him - Fort Bragg
I am not sure but it was renamed to some woke crap, anyway Trump may be trying to restore its name.
@phann860 just checked. The army installation was renamed Fort Liberty in June 2023.
@@phann860 Sure Trump's a Traitor so he Loves Traitor Generals from Dirt-Eating Red States!
McClellan was an “organizer”, a Staff Officer; not, a Commander!
Custer was simply a joke, a “social climber” who graduated LAST in his Class.
Sickles was an idiot who almost single-handedly LOST the Battle of Gettysburg! A total idiot, he moved recklessly forward, achieving 1/3 casualties of his own men!
Bragg was not the worst of the Confederates! There were many with “issues”; however, he did make some serious mistakes …
But, there were many idiots in that war! On both sides! When a “drunk”, a “Slave Trader”, and a “Slave Owner” … were the BEST … you know stuff was messed up (Grant, Forrest, and Sherman)!
McClellan was always outnumbered. 🙄
Only in his mind
@@alanaadams7440 I think that is what he was getting at.
You misspelt Never!
Actually, Sickles' advance into the Peach Orchid was key to the Union victory in the battle of Gettysburg. Originally, the union forces were outnumbered and had the Confederates advanced on Cemetary Ridge on the first day of battle (July 1, 1863), they might have taken it. But Sickles' advance managed to delay the Confederates until the following day. During the night of July 1, Union reinforcements arrived. This led to successful defenses of the ridge on July 2 and 3.
Maybe the worst generals of the civil war era. But no list of the worst US generals is complete without Douglas MacArthur. I would also add Billy Mitchell.
The only war Mitchell fought in was WWI ...
.
Mitchell? Please explain?
Most people don't know about the mango affair or the overshadowing Pearl harbor prediction. But to be ranked so low please explain
History Always Goes To Show That, No Matter Where Your From, It Is The Arrogance And Bad Ego Based Personal Decisions, That Get Most Good People Eliminated! The Best Decisions, Or Problems Solving, Are Not By High Ranking Chain Of Command! It's The Officer's That Listen, Allowing Input Via, A Team Mentality That Have The Most Success! Thus, It Is Usually By The Ingenuity Of Open Minded, Low Rank, Fuzz Butts! That Contributed Thoughts, Outside The Stern Minded Conformity Box, Of This Is How We Have Always Done, This, That, Or Another Thing, Etc!
GOD Bless,
Pa-Pow, Amen!
😎 🙉🙈🙊 🇺🇸
It is what it is.
The war was not meant to be one. It was meant to be continus
Sorry but Washington wasn't that great either and blame others for his blunders or took credit for others
I'm not sure, but I don't think the facts would be supportive of your opinions in this instance.
you read well......but....you werent there....get it??....you lead your troops then come read to us all about it...
William T Sherman?
How is he the worst general?
you mean one of the greatest. Uncle Billy was the same kind of General as Patton.
Must be from Georgia!
@@theflyingfinn6057 That would explain it alright.
You are SOOOO WRONG-
Yes GenCuster was a Drunk later in his career, but he was the BEST CAVALRY Officer DURING The CIVIL WAR, Period! He kicked Jeb Stuarts ASS at Gettysburg, FACT!
You know Nothing about my Ancestor, Gen Custer! Try reading for Comprehension