"Worst Continental Army Generals" Topic

"Recently, I offered my choices for the ten most important Continental Army generals. Not the best or the worst, but the most important. But attempting to suggest the ten least important would likely be an exercise in futility, as well as somewhat disparaging of those patriotic men who had an actual, but minimal, impact on the war…"

Journal of the American Revolution

link

Armand

Gates

Lee

Arnold was good, for whichever side that treacherous scum played for.

Hard to be worse than Charles Lee.

Why a special category for Arnold, just because you disapprove of his actions but can't find reason to call him a bad general?
The consideration of the others seems pretty superficial, it only looks at their actions and outcomes, nothing on the context, the authority, resources, opportunities and support or opposition from others. It's fairly clear from how often some comment appears that rivalry, if not outright jealousy, was rife amongst the Continental Commanders. That and the tendency for the winners to write the history calls for in depth research before judgement.

Rick Atkinson's recent volumes on the AWI portray Arnold as one of the best tactical commanders on either side. The fact that his temperment was mercurial and impulsive and led him to switch sides doesn't negate his skill set to me.

Never a fan of the General who surrendered Charleston SC. Iirc Lincoln.

Okay. If you insist.
Charles Lee openly despised the Continental army, and wasn't afraid to say so. He did some decent training and engineering.
He somehow managed to get himself captured by Lt Tarleton at an Inn (🙄) several miles from his army. While in captivity, he regaled his captors with ideas on how he, a former British officer, would beat these rebels.
He was exchanged. I can't help thinking that the British thought he would be more useful back with the Americans. That proved correct.
Upon release, just before Monmouth, he demanded that his seniority entitled him to command of Lafayette's vanguard. He was totally unfamiliar with these troops, and dismissed how improved their training had become after Valley Forge under Steuben.
He handled them poorly, allowing them to rout until being relieved angrily by Washington.
It's interesting to speculate how well they would have performed under a general who understood them and acted aggressively.
Many of his colleagues speculated thusly.

Gates took over an army gathered by the sickly Schuyler, and just sat there. Arnold acted brilliantly under him, defying orders. Arnold wasn't afraid to tell Gates, another former British officer who despised his troops, how he should have acted. Placed under arrest, Arnold repeated his heroics, getting wounded.
It's interesting to think how Gates would have acted had thousands of both Continentals and militia not been streaming over the mountains to reinforce and also cut off Burgoyne from Canada.
Let's not forget Gates at Camden, shall we?
Or Gates at Newburg.

Washington himself had his bad moments commanding. One can't even say that he never made the same mistake twice. Because he did.
Yet, even Frederick the Great admired Washington's Trenton Princeton campaign. Freddie knew a thing or two about war.
Tactically, Washington made mistakes. But he did win the war, didn't he? That should count for something. 😄

My "in depth research" consists of having several feet of books on the American Revolution. Sorry I don't have any degrees in history. I'm such an amateur!
But I think I came by my "opinions" honestly.

Adam Stephen – drunk leading his division at Germantown and involved in the friendly fire incident there. Although that was mainly down to the fog.

I go with Lee due to higher rank.

Some horrible brigade level, especially from overseas.

I'd add St Clair due to his post war disaster at the "Battle of the Wabash". Hard not to, when he nearly single handedly destroyed the U.S. standing army of that time to the Shawnee, Miami's and allies

I'm not so sure about counting post war stuff.
But if so, how about James Wilkinson? "He never won a battle; never lost a court martial".
He achieved brevet brigadier rank in the AWI. He was involved in the "Arnold cabal".
He never held a general's command in the AWI, though.
His real notoriety came later.

Thanks

Armand

Wilkinson never got the standing U.S. army destroyed. But TR summarized Wilkinson well:

"In all our history, there is no more despicable character."

I've always found him more despicable than Arnold. Arnold when he fought for the Continental Army, fought well.

Glup!…

Armand

A good Flashman-esque novel about, or starring James Wilkinson is
Scoundrel, by Keith Thompson
Too bad the "series" stops at Trenton. I'd love to get a few more. 🤷

Hmm interesting. Never heard of it.

In fairness to Lee, the command at Monmouth was decidedly at a disadvantage--nobody knew his staff (some didn't have uniforms) and the main body of the Army was far out of supporting distance. Not clear why GW did this as it had serious consequences when Clinton turned to counter-attack. The whole plan was flawed and not well thought out, and also seemed based on a misunderstanding of how strong the Crown forces force was.

Added to that, Lee's brigadiers decided to withdraw on their own initiative--like a "loose cannon" result in some other game systems.

Lee's problem was what he did and said afterward--that's how he ended up facing a court martial. Challenging GW for command was not a healthy thing to do during this period as he still had the full backing of Congress.

I highly recommend this book on the topic: link

O tempora, o mores!
So now we have to find nice things to say about Charles Lee! I think not! 😄

Thanks for the book info…

Armand

Not saying he was great, but I think Gates is somewhat unfairly maligned, especially in the south, by sources such as Williams and Lee.

1. When Gates took command the intelligence he was provided was that the garrison of Camden consisted of a few hundred Loyalist regulars, and that it was largely cut off by partisans operating to his rear under Sumter. Unknown to Sumter and Gates was that Cornwallis was planning on using Camden as his base to push into western NC. The 71st, already being pulled from the Cheraws area was ordered to go there, as were the 23rd and 63rd regiments, the light corps and the British Legion. The 63rd didn't make it, but by coincidence both armies ended up heading to the same point.

2. The route Gates took in advancing on Camden was in part based on his desire to incorporate a large body of NC militia operating in that area. Taking the more westerly route that others have since suggested would have meant moving away from these reinforcements.

3. Once Gates approached Camden and became aware of what he was facing his plan was to find a good defensive position and stay there while Sumter operated against Cornwallis's supply lines. Gates advance troops ran into Cornwallis's advance troops before Gates could do this.

4. Gates did not send Marion away because he didn't appreciate him. Gates just felt Marion would be better used operating against Cornwallis's lines of communication.

5. No excuse for the conduct of the battle itself. Gates wasn't the only one to disappear though. Smallwood's whereabouts in the latter part of the action were unknown. IIRC the last American generals on the field were DeKalb and Gist.

6. It was Gates who was responsible for bringing Morgan out of retirement and for lobbying for his promotion. Gates also put together the light corps which formed the backbone of Morgan's force at Cowpens.

7. The cooperation between the American regular army and the S.C. partisans didn't begin with Greene's arrival. Greene largely continued what Gates was already doing. They don't make the history books, but Kings Mountain wasn't the only partisan success in the period between Camden and Cowpens. Plus Gates tamped down loyalist activity in NC during that same time.

Oh my.
Now we're rehabilitating both Lee and Gates. 🙄

Not trying to rehab Gates John. Just trying to make sure he is only hung for what he is guilty of. The actual conduct of the Battle of Camden was a monumental CF. No matter how much luck worked against Gates in the leadup to the battle it was still his choice to deploy the Virginia and North Carolina militias unsupported, and the army paid the price. Isn't that enough?

Lincoln, Lee, Gates

All British Generals not named Cornwallis.

How about some disrespect for foreign generals, allegedly "serving" in the Continental Army?
Matthias Alexis Roche de Fermoy abandoned posts along Assunpink Creek, allegedly while drunk.
Then he panicked at Ticonderoga.
Stealing jobs from incompetent American generals!

With so many useless people on that list… one wonders how you managed to win… were the other side even worse?

Armand

We wore the Lobster Backs out! 😄👍