You have to take into account that while Bragg’s men hated him, they too were incompetent - at least at trying to get rid of him.
“It is alleged that some of his troops attempted to assassinate him on two occasions in August and September 1847, but he was not injured either time. In the more serious of the two incidents, one of his soldiers exploded a 12-pound artillery shell underneath his cot. Although the cot was destroyed, somehow Bragg himself emerged without a scratch.”
You could not possibly be more wrong. I am not a fan of Montgomery, but he hardly got all his men killed in Italy, and he was never ‘fired’.
Considering that the heaviest casualties the English Army ever took in a day was 50,000 in the horror that was the Somme, I suspect your account of events is a bit warped.
You guys are not giving Roger the credit he deserves for relating one of the lesser-known incidents of World War II. In point of fact, Roger’s post is quite correct. Lt Montgomry (“general” was his nickname) ordered his platoon into a foolish attack on the village of Itali where they were all killed. As a result, the Battalion Commander, Captain Isinhower, had him relieved and sent back to England.
Typo, I’m sure. 1864, not 1964.
No love for Ambrose E. Burnside?
At Antietam he attempted to force his army to cross a narrow bridge under fire, leading to a costly failure (the bridge crossed a stream one could wade through in several places);
At Fredricksburg, he repeatedly attempted frontal assaults against an entenched enemy, resulting in a massacre of his troops;
At Petersburg, his chosen subordinate was a drunk and his men marched directly into a huge crater blown in the Confederate lines - and were shot down like fish in a barrel.
Ah, well - unlike most truly bad generals, at least he didn’t himself think he was a military genius. 
And he did have some of the 19th centuries’ most impressive facial hair.
You are going to have to do better than that regarding a cite. The first day of the Battle of the Somme is the costliest day in the history of the British army. Circa 19 thousand dead out of 58 thousand casualties. I would think 100,000 men wiped out in 4 hours would be a little more famous.
Damn it - just saw someone already said this…
Exactly what tactics other than attrition were possible and likely to be successful at the time?
A discussion of bad Civil War Generals would be incomplete without mention of Union Gen. Dan Sickles.
Sickles, a former Tammany Hall lawyer and politician, notorious for having shot his wife’s lover to death (and getting acquitted on the grounds of temporary insanity) had no professional experience as a soldier, but was given a brigadier general’s commission as a reward for having raised a body of New York troops. His best-remembered contributions to the Civil War effort were positioning of troops against orders, helping to lose one battle (Chancellorsville) and seriously jeopardizing another (Gettysburg).
*"At a crucial point during each of those pivotal battles, Sickles advanced his army corps away from the main body of the Army of the Potomac to form a salient. Sickles’ salients played key roles in the courses of the two battles and significantly influenced their outcomes. They also provide revealing insight into the character and leadership style of a unique and exasperating man.
While most public figures seek to avoid controversy and scandal, ‘Devil Dan Sickles seemed to embrace them. As both a political and military figure, he openly drank, defied authority and womanized, making a name for himself as one of history’s most colorful characters. From his mid-30s until his death at age 94, he was continually embroiled in some sort of financial, legislative, sexual or homicidal crisis."*
What an inspiring guy.
It should be noted that Sicklesreceived the Medal of Honor many years later for his actions at Gettysburg (he lost a leg during the battle, donated it to a military museum and used to go visit it for years thereafter). What role his own lobbying and his political connections played in the awarding of the medal can be conjectured.
“Of the principal senior generals who fought at Gettysburg, virtually all have been memorialized with statues at Gettysburg. Sickles is a conspicuous exception. But when asked why there was no memorial to him, Sickles supposedly said, “The entire battlefield is a memorial to Dan Sickles.” However, there was, in fact, a memorial commissioned to include a bust of Sickles, the monument to the New York Excelsior Brigade. It was rumored that the money appropriated for the bust was stolen by Sickles himself; the monument is displayed in the Peach Orchard with a figure of an eagle replacing Sickles’s likeness.”
To his credit I believe Burnside was well aware of his shortcomings but as one of the highest ranking at the time was asked by the president to command anyway. If your country needs you what you going to do? I suck at golf but if Obama said I was his choice to represent America at the Masters I’d give it the old college try.
I meant Ryder Cup…that’s how much I don’t know about golf.
In any case, Burnside was mentioned earlier.
Hmm… I’ll discuss Joe Johnson and Hood.
Johnson wasn’t really one of the greater commanders in the Civil War, although he wasn’t actually half bad. He tended to be quite conservative in tactics, and partly I don’t think he could possibly believe the incredibly swings of fortune the tides of battle might bring. By that, I mean he simply couldn’t do the kinds of insane things Lee did - but to be fair, Lee should have been horribly destroyed by his own tactics. It was mostly the grotesque and ongoing incompetence of Union commanders in the east which allowed him to succeed.*
*To wit, Lee repeatedly divided his troops in the face of overwhelming enemy firepower. Had McClellan, Burnside, or Hood been ready and willing, Lee would have been obliterated and Riuchmond taken. All three men passed, and when Grant finally arrived, Lee stopped taking such chances. Recognizing Grant was no fool (Lee had commended Grant in the Mexican-American War), he switched over to mostly defensive tactics and forced everything into attrition mode.
He had previously failed to relieve Vicksburg, which put him back in Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s bad graces. However, at the time Johnson had been faced with trying to outmanuever Sherman, in boggy country, on the offensive, with Grant behind. And Sherman alone had more men than Johnson.
Once Johnson was mostly free of Richmond with a command in Georgia, he did a credible job holding back Sherman. He built impressive field fortifications and hammered Sherman hard once or twice. The best he could do was to hold back the tide and keepo SHerman from finally breaking into Atlanta. However, Davis grew afraid that Johnson meant to abandon Atlanta (Johnson apparently intended to shorten its lines and manuver around Sherman to keep the man from advancing or besieging). He removed Johnson and appointed Hood.
Well, this was not an inspired choice, but Davis wanted a fighter, and Hood was that. Unfortunately, his previous battles had left Hood crippled (but no less full of fight), and possibly addicted to opiates. Lee even warned Davis that Hood was not a wise choice.
Although Sherman was a little surprised that Hood came out fighting so hard, and there were some sharp fights, Hood came out the worst in all of them. His plans weren’t exactly bad, but he wanted his soldiers sent straight at the enemy. In fact, he got pissed, because his soldiers weren’t aggressive enough in attacking field fortifications. Y’know, the same “strategy” which failed almost every time it was tried without ample support and preparations.
So, Sherman basically backed off, marched around, and cut Hood off totally. Hood was so full of himself he just assumed he had won that Sherman’s move totally surprised him, and he ignomiously fled. Later, as Sherman began his march to the sea and then into South and North Carolina, Hood repsonded by moving north to Nashville.
This was, politely, a bad move. General Thomas, on the Union side, intitally worried everyone by retreating. In reality, he was just drawing Hood on. Finally, as Hood neared Nashville, Thomas hammered him like a frog on an anvil, and Hood’s command evaporated. Neither Hood not his army ever presented a threat again. Hood has worn his command out totally with futile attacks, and Thmas just smashed him on the Right.
Heh, the Civil War is over-represented. How about some of those War of 1812 generals?
I’d nominate William Hull. Surrenders at Detroit to Issac Brock who basically psyches him out … even though Hull’s army was unbeaten in battle and facing a less powerful foe.
Or we could go even further back to the Revolution, and mention Generals Lee or Gates. Gates was fond of retreating and “leading” from his tent, while others (like Benedict Arnold) went out and actually fought the battles. Of course Gates was never afraid to claim the credit…
Even worse, Charles Lee, had he been successful, would have had George Washington removed from his position and had himself placed there instead - a man who decided to stay in a tavern with minimal protection instead of with his army, and had himself captured by the British as a result, and who authored a plan for British conquest while being held. This guy was a walking disaster.
Actually, come to think of it, there was a lot of incompetence on both sides of the Revolution…
[
Got a cite on that?
It’s not true that he only fought badlyarmed and badly-trained Amerindians. He fought first for, then against the Spanish, cutting his death battling rebels or anti-rebels on whichever side was opposite him. So he was fighting Spanish-trained and experienced officers. Afterwards he fought against the “Texicans” as well, and defeated them in the battle before San Jacinto.
It’s true that he was an opportunbist who would try to come in at the last minute and get credit for someone else’s success, but that’s not to say that he didn’t also produce vistories on his own. And his own officer corps (ayt least before San jacinto) did idolize him – we have plenty of written material to back that up.
I’d read that once Hood was appointed to replace Johnston, Sherman knew he was going to be attacked and welcomed it - having been continually frustrated in his attempts to pin down and defeat Johnston (whose evasive moves and retreating equally annoyed Confederate leaders).
Dammit, someone beat me to Fredendall.
I have to defend Joe Johnston; he was actually a pretty good commander. Most of the reasons he had for his decisions were, in many ways, ultimately right. His “refusal to attack” would have prolonged the war in a defensive struggle – exactly the strategy Lee settled on after Gettysburg.
Wikipedia is poor but sufficient.
I see, you misunderstood me. That was directed at his J.O. experience.
Didn’t say he did, and people did idolize him. But that was also apparently because of a great deal of charisma on his part. He was not a particularly skilled general. I did not say he was particularly bad, either.
Yes, he did.
sigh This is complicated. Sherman was warned that Hood would attack him and thought that pretty good. Despite this, he was still a little surprised (or perhaps his subordinates were) that Hood made his attacks. The Union army was hardly unaware the rebels were aroud, but got caught a little slow. Hood attacked and did some damage before the Union soldiers solidified their lines. And of course, it helped that Hood’s planned flanking went awry and wound up hitting prepared defenses as a Union general had extended his line earlier.
The net result is that Hood lost badly every time he attacked, even when almost everything went his way initially.
He surrendered his entire force to a Japanese force about 1/3 his size. This despite being better armed and with athe fortress of Singapore behind him. Percival was outfought at every point, and retreated even though his forces were not threatened. Of course, he had poor air cover, ut he failed in all aspectes of his retreat-he should have set up strong points to tie down the Japanese forces.
Well, after you have lost 100,000 men in fruitless frontal attackes (against machine gun nests), one would thing a change of tactics would be in order…like maybe, ceasing those attacks?