Worst General of All Time (before 1900)

Personally, I'd place that more on Reynauld de Chatillion, for actually starting the war and, more preciently, was one the main figures who informed Guy de Lusignan that the Templars and Hospitaliers would leave the army if he didn't march on Hattin.

Reynauld was certainly a terrible strategist. Arrogant, insubordinate, etc... And he did so much to bring down the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But still, there is something so ridiculously audacious about the Red Sea expedition, that I wonder if it was so crazy that it is brilliant. And he basically commanded the Army at Montgisard that defeated Saladin in detail. No, Reynaud had his plentiful faults, but he is nowhere near the worst general of all time.

Charles the Bold, anyone?
 
Reynauld was certainly a terrible strategist. Arrogant, insubordinate, etc... And he did so much to bring down the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But still, there is something so ridiculously audacious about the Red Sea expedition, that I wonder if it was so crazy that it is brilliant. And he basically commanded the Army at Montgisard that defeated Saladin in detail. No, Reynaud had his plentiful faults, but he is nowhere near the worst general of all time.

Charles the Bold, anyone?

How about
Publius Quinctillius Varus

he was an idiot. What happened was that he easily fell for a deception by Arminius A Germanic prince. Enraged Varus led three roman legions into a totally compromised position resulting in the shamefully annighlation of all three legions to Germanic barbarians. Rofl he was an idiot should deserve a title up thei with the top military idiots.:)
 
Of the ACW bunch...

What about William Loring? CSA, Division commander, Army of Mississippi. Pretty much single-handedly prevented Pemberton from making any kind of effective defense of Vicksburg by early in the campaign repeatedly disobeying orders and refusing to attack where he locally outnumbered the enemy 2 to 1, then marching his division off of the field without informing Pemberton - in multiple battles! Which of course caused Pemberton to delay retreating to wait for Loring to catch up - which he wasn't - and so ensured he had no escape route.

Or James Ledlie? USA, Division commander, IX corps. Habitually drunk and during the Overland Campaign had his men charge repeatedly against strong fieldworks, more so than Grant ordered. But primarily, his was the lead division in the Battle of the Crater, which should be enough of a justification right there. And he was drunk. Again.

Of some of the other people mentioned: John Pope shone at New Madrid. Burnside performed competently at Knoxville and he knew his own limitations. Hooker was a good division commander plus his success at Lookout Mountain. Sigel - eh, others are worse. Banks similarly. Bragg could come up with good ideas, and at least won 1 battle in his career. Hood, we've had the argument before - he was a superb division commander, thus however poorly he performed with the AoT he cannot be the "worst". Leonidas Polk......actually, you'll get no arguments from me - he very well could be the worst.
 
I would have to go with Benjamin Butler from the Civil War, a pure political appointee with zero skill as a military officer.
 
Top