Which may explained his last missive towards the end of the Battle of Little Bighorn “Reno: bring up the balloon!”
Imagine the scene if he had gotten that balloon.
“Okay, men, hold our perimeter. The balloon will be fully inflated and ready to fly in a few minutes.”
“Thank god that balloon arrived in time, Colonel Custer, our situation was looking pretty desperate.”
“Thank god indeed, Sergeant.”
“I have to admit I’ve never seen one of these balloons before. Really amazing vehicles. It’s hard to believe something that small is going to hold all of us that are still left.”
“Uhhhh…that’s right, Sergeant…it’s going to hold all of us…so just keep working now…”
As an aside, I’d like to start a similar thread about British/ Empire Generals but I’d probably need to start it in the Pit given the tensions that surround the topic.
Not the worst, but maybe the most overrated, would be Patton in my view.
At the rank of General, to have no concept at all of logistics, no concept of what was possible to ask of men and what was not is pretty indefensible. This was proven in the Bulge. He was an excellent Divisional commander, a reasonable Corp commander (but only in pursuit mode), but promoted above his ability.
Tactically excellent, in everything else hopeless.
Patton was certainly divisive- even within his command many men were “apprehensive” about him. Certainly he wasn’t a disaster but I don’t think he ever fought a battle when he wasn’t better supplied than his opponent.
BTW as a balance, I think I’ll start a thread about “Best American generals” as well. I will not be surprised if some of the names we see here are repeated. Well , I don’t expect Fredenall to get a run.
Checking my sources, it seems it was Benteen, not Reno who was the adressee of Custer’s note, and it was “bring packs,” not “balloon.”
But that’s one of history’s great misreadings: the note actualy read “Benteen, big village. Bring facts.” You see, Custer didn’t come to fight the Indians. No, he came to stage an intervention. “This living out in the open, chasing after bison and sleeping rough is terrible. Your lives are no better than a homeless person panhandling (yes, I know it’s the Commanches who are on the panhandle, but I won’t let you divert this discussion. Not this time. You’re hurting yourselves and it’s killing those of us who love you. Yes, you’re killing us. And scalping us.”
Logistics are part of the job, and he was (with few exceptions) better equipped because he knew that.
As well as a brave and highly successful commander, personally slighted by much lesser figures.
Excellent general, ultimately a poor human being.
Well, you are correct that Westmoreland was an intelligent man-he was a West Point graduate, had served with distinction in WWII. But his strategy at Khe Sanh puzzles me-he seems to have copied the French (Dien Bien Phu)-except that massive airpower meant that Khe Sanh could never had fallen. But exactly what did it accomplish? Westmoreland’s plans had been vetted and approved by Lyndon Johnson-who fancied himself as something of a grand strategist.
Both he and Westmoreland seemed baffled that the NVA didn’t come out to get slaughtered.
We did an overall “worst military leader in history” thread. Much fun was had by all.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=585694&highlight=worst
For reference, “top ten” (or “bottom ten”) were:
Luigi Cadorna - the “winner” - voted worst military leader of all time
Arthur Percival
Francisco Solano López
Charles le Temeraire
William George Keith Elphinstone
Abdel Hakim Amer
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
Zhao Kuo
Charles Alexander of Lorraine
John Bell Hood
Two Brits made the list, and one American. 
Indeed. being butthurt at the relatively light damage the South suffered for outright rebellion is silliness. Sherman got the job done and did it well.
Oh, and I’d suggest General Horatio Gates as worst American General. a poor commander, sleaze and credit stealer all in one!
I go with McClellan. Given the largest American army ever assembled up until that time, kept overestimating the strength of his enemy to lose at Seven Days. Then he even discovers the CSA’s plans at Antietam, has a 2 to 1 advantage and blunders his way into a bloody draw and allows Lee to retreat. Also arrogant and pompous; thought he was better than Lincoln.
I think it pretty much inevitable that the “winner” of this will end up being a Civil War general just because you had so many generals, with Americans on both sides, who became generals in a short period of time and who had so much opportunity to engage in discrete battles against reasonably equivalent opponents. There was never in American history so much opportunity to really, really screw up.
McLellan is an outstanding example, a man who looked and sounded every bit the new Napoleon and beleived it himself, but who turned out to be a rather gigantic coward. But that said, McLellan at least did some things okay. There were other generals who were stunningly, fantastically inept, like Gideon Pillow, who was so inept that Grant, upon hearing Pillow was the opposing commander, assumed (Grant knew Pillow from the Mexican War) that he could just go charging up to Fort Donelson and Pillow would find a way to screw it up. As it turned out, Grant was absolutely correct. Ambrose Burnside was horrifically incompetent, Butler was a psychopathic idiot, and J.B. Hood, who made the bottom 10 of the SDMB list for a reason, was a man of tremendous bravery balanced by exactly the sort of characteristics one would expect of a guy nicknamed “Ol’ Wooden Head.”
Shouldn’t there be some sliding scale? For example, Pillow was inept, but that’s why he was put in command of a small, western army. McClellan was the main guy commanding the largest army in the world to that time.
If we are talking about the best/worst business manager of all time, do we compare Bill Gates’ abilities with the manager of the Nome, Alaska McDonalds?
But could he legitimately be called American?
Does Ollie North deserve a mention in this thread?
Depends on whether you want him promoted to general or not.
If we’re talking about generals in command in the field, we are by definition talking about people with a very substantial level of command. The military equivalent to the manager of the Nome McDonald’s isn’t Pillow, it’s a lieutenant you’ve never heard of. The fact that we’re discussing generals is itself the cutoff to avoid drastic errors in scale.
True. But you still can’t compare Pillow and Lee. Or Butler and Grant.
They were generals, but I would still contend that you get drastic errors in scale by putting minor generals in with major generals.
I agree that Pillow wasn’t very good at war,
A prick, a fop, a prude and frankly something of a boor.
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He was the very model of a modern Minor-General!