Not to mess up the game thread too much, but his handling of the defense of the Phillipines against Japan was an utter disaster and entirely his fault. Any leader without his pre-war press would have been cashiered.
Hey, comments like that are what the game thread is for! 
Well, OK then.
George Tryon, a naval martinet who had only himself to blame for sinking his own ship, but wasn’t nearly as bad as many on this list, many of whom fucked up really, really badly, losing entire wars or countries - 2
Ulysses S. Grant, for the reasons stated by other players - 2
William T. Sherman, ditto - 1
So apparently the name of this game is everybody take cheapshots at me. :rolleyes:
2 for Hull - didn’t get much support from his superiors… got out witted by a highly skilled general
1 for Pyrrhus for reasons stated above
1 for Varus, he was more of a governor than a general and ended up in an no win situation
1 for the Earl of Cardigan… if the heavy brigade would have followed the light brigade like they were supposed things might have been different
I probably shouldn’t have nominated Pyrrhus - it’s just that I thought that a general whose name has become a byword for poor strategy belonged on the list.
Anyway, my nominations:
2 for MacArthur - in honor of my grandfather, who served under him in the Pacific and worshipped the ground he walked on.
2 for Sherman - the only thing anyone has agaisnt him is that he killed civilians and destroyed property; Genghis Khan did the same (at a much larger scale), and people here sem to think he was a pretty good general.
1 for Grant - see above.
You nominated competent generals based purely on your prejudices. What do you expect?
The Civil War roundtable of which I’m a member had a Southern-born University of Georgia historian speak to us a few years back. He actually defended Sherman, and said the March to the Sea was largely directed against property and war materiel. Sherman court-martialed and shot those who harmed civilians. Tales of Sherman’s Visigoths “have grown in the telling over the years,” he said.
No, we just disagree with two of your nominees. I believe you had others that haven’t drawn many (or any) votes so far. Who knows, they might “win”!
William T. Sherman - 2
Ulysses S. Grant - 2
Cloudesley Shovell -1
Shovell’s disaster isn’t so much military as navigational, and before the development of the marine chronomter, having an iffy notion of where you were longitudinally was pretty much endemic. (Shovell’s disaster is the event that prompted the British to offer a reward for the development of a method of accurately determining longitude at sea that led to Harrison’s invention of the marine chronomter.)
The other two have been covered plenty already
I’ll allow that the Earl is not solely responsible for the Charge, which is what brought him initially to my attention. However, based on the Wikipedia article, whose author does not seem to be a fan:
-
he was dismissed from his first command for bringing a frivolous court martial against a subordinate, but bought his way back into a command through his political connections.
-
his valuing of aristocratic flash over actual military virtues put him into conflict with the more skilled soldiers under his command
-
he shot a former subordinate and fellow soldier in a duel
-
he failed to secure sufficient supplies for the Light Brigade during the Crimean war.
He may not be the worst of the worst; he certainly wasn’t in the position to do as much damage to his own cause as many of the generals and other supreme commanders listed here. But he was, to all appearances, a thorough-going incompetent and should certainly not be lifted out of ignominy ahead of the actual skilled commanders on this list.
Plus, Flashman didn’t like him.
Though that may be a bonus, of course. 
I hadn’t actually connected him with Lord Haw Haw until I just read the talk page for that wikipedia article, believe it or not.
Not meaning to take a personal shot at anyone, but putting Grant and Sherman on the list is pretty silly. Grant, in particular, was probably the individual most directly responsible for saving the Union (aside from Lincoln), and even if he made some errors in Virginia he got that job done, using what was probably the only correct strategy (again, in general, and excepting a strategy of just holding down Lee and waiting for Sherman et al. to win the war elsewhere, the wisdom of which is at best debatable).
An aside, to explore any possible bias in the matter from the nominating party: Oakminster, what are your feelings about the justice of the Confederate cause?
I would request that this particular can of worms be opened elsewhere.
Really? Must have been head-slapper.
Though I think he’s not a “winner” here. There’s no doubt he was a conceited, aristocratic ass - and a poor soldier - but the disaster he’s best remembered for wasn’t, apparently, his sole fault.
Its is a bad litany, but honestly this makes him no better or worse than 90% of the British snob-balls in their officer corp at the time.
Indeed. It is mostly a fiction of the Southern ‘boo-hoo’ pity-parade.
As the OP may I say, strongly seconded. Please start another thread for that, or dip into any of the half-dozen or so that are already out there.