Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Anthologie]

I began to read about history about 2-3 years ago, fascinated about battles, wars and many generals. However, I sometime found the hype about a commander just too much for what it is really. So, i'm asking the following question: Who you think in history (ancient, medieval, renaissance, modern...) is the most overrated general.

Personnally I think that Gaius Julius Caesar is the most overrated general in ancient time. I don't deny his exploit, and the guy is pretty sharp: by many time, he betrayed his agreement with celtics tribes, playing hypocrite game and he knew that writing his "exploit" (while just exaggerating a little bit..) and selling the book might be the best way to gain Rome's people trust and acclaim.

But, Caesar led an army of professional soldiers against Avernai confederation who were out of ressource and exhausted from many civil wars. By many times, he made bad decision who almost cost his campaign. The thing that saved him was very well trained legions that against all odd, could completly turn the tide of battle even if they were completly outnumbered and in tactical disadvantage.

Plus, Caesar was considered as a very cruel general ("Resistance is Futile") during the gallic campaign and he caused 2 civil wars that raged across all the roman empire. His reign as an emperor lasted 4 years only...

Conclusion:
I think that the hype about Caesar is mostly because he's been the first emperor to rules Rome. I'm not saying that he was a bad general but, he took many time bad decision. With a little opportunism and an army of mighty well trained and faithful in his general legions, he succeded as gaining the most powerful job in ancient time: emperor of Rome.


So, what's your?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Definitely Pyrrhus. Scipio Africanvs was not as great as the Romans revered him either, although he was one of the best. Just not as high as the Romans and we place him.

[Arabishte]

Definitely Napoleon.

People say the reason the French invasion of Russia failed was that on the morning of the battle of Borodino, he had a head cold. In reality, the generals had no real control over the course of events that led to the result of a battle. Napoleon even less so, because he thought he had absolute control, and so issued orders that were completely contradicting the shift in circumstances that occurred in the time it took a messenger to reach him.

[Africanvs]

I began to read about history about 2-3 years ago, fascinated about battles, wars and many generals. However, I sometime found the hype about a commander just too much for what it is really. So, I'm asking the following question: Who you think in history (ancient, medieval, renaissance, modern...) is the most overrated general.

Personally I think that Gaius Julius Caesar is the most overrated general in ancient time. I don't deny his exploit, and the guy is pretty sharp: by many time, he betrayed his agreement with celtics tribes, playing hypocrite game and he knew that writing his "exploit" (while just exaggerating a little bit..) and selling the book might be the best way to gain Rome's people trust and acclaim.

But, Caesar led an army of professional soldiers against Avernai confederation who were out of ressource and exhausted from many civil wars. By many times, he made bad decision who almost cost his campaign. The thing that saved him was very well trained legions that against all odd, could completly turn the tide of battle even if they were completly outnumbered and in tactical disadvantage.

Plus, Caesar was considered as a very cruel general ("Resistance is Futile") during the gallic campaign and he caused 2 civil wars that raged across all the roman empire. His reign as an emperor lasted 4 years only...

Conclusion:
I think that the hype about Caesar is mostly because he's been the first emperor to rules Rome. I'm not saying that he was a bad general but, he took many time bad decision. With a little opportunism and an army of mighty well trained and faithful in his general legions, he succeded as gaining the most powerful job in ancient time: emperor of Rome.


So, what's your?

That is the general argument against Caesar not being a good general. I don't think he is over-rated at all. No one claims that he was the greatest general ever to grace the battlefield, but he was a man who knew how to get the job done with the reformed army that he had inherited. Caesar's conquest of Gaul was more than just winning battles. It was evidence of his political ability to divide the Gauls, pitting them against each other in order to accomplish his objective. Caesar managed to pacify Gaul in eight years, and after he was done, it would be 400 years before they would rebel. Let's not forget that Caesar didn't have any military experience going into the Gallic wars, so for a green general he did very well. He knew how to win the respect of his legions as well. Was he brutal? Absolutely, but that was a different time and we can't judge him by today's standards. The Romans really didn't have a lot of sympathy for the Gauls anyway. They had been a thorn in Rome's side for a long time. Alesia was a work of genius, and there is no evidence of anything like that ever being done before that battle. Caesar didn't only defeat barbarian Gauls, he also defeated Roman legions in Spain, Macedonia, and Africa. People looking for a reason to doubt Caesar have plenty of excuses, but the fact remains that he was very successful. He wasn't an innovator, but he did know how to get the job done with what he had to work with. That and he was damned lucky too. His ultimate downfall was that he underestimated the senatorial class. If he had found a way to please them, he probably wouldn't have been assassinated. By the way, he was never technically an emperor, and you can't really blame him for the civil wars. The deck had been stacked against the republic long before Caesar by men like Marius and Sulla. Caesar was a product of the times he lived in, and disgusted and disillusioned by what the republic had become, a corrupt aristocracy.


I think the most over-rated general is, and I know I am going to get flamed for this one, but Hannibal. Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of men, but that was about as far as it went. He simply wasn't the complete package. He entered the second Punic war with a flawed objective, and completely underestimated the Romans. He could definitely win battles, but he couldn't win the war. If you take his Roman counterpart Scipio, and I admit I am a Scipio fan, but you see a general with a greater understanding of war in general. Scipio proved in Spain that he could out-maneuver and destroy armies, forge alliances, relieve Carthage of key sources of recruits, enact innovative army reforms and tactics, raise an army even without the support of the senate, and finally defeat Hannibal in battle.

[A Very Super Market]

Gonna be bold, and go for Rommel. No, forget it, there's already an entire thread on him.

I think it would be... Montgomery. Much too cautious, and a Wellington wannabe. Hell, I could put Wellington on the chopping block as well. Both were famous for a single victory, and in Spain, resistance was extremely heavy and probably brought down more French than the British. For Montgomery, after a somewhat admirable defense against Rommel, who had one victories when outnumbered before, it turned into to mediocrity and almost incompetence at times. The whole, Patton vs. Montgomery thing going on in Sicily was absolutely absurd. Incidentally, Patton never made it past a corps commander after that (Eisenhower was smart) but Monty was somehow selected for the British side of things in France.

Were they really that desperate? The man turned up consistent results, but why do the British glorify him as if he conquered Berlin? Market Garden was a bust, and Caen, although a success, saw quite some embarrasment.

[Ardri]

Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of menWhat are we using as the criteria to define what constitutes a general? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Hannibal as the most overrated, or even Caesar in the original post, however, it seems that the largest arguments against those two are in the political realm and not so much those associated with military prowess. Granted, in antiquity, political and military roles are often blurred and carried on by one person, but to say a general is overrated because of their lack of political prowess seems to be broadening the discussion to a very wide degree. For instance, most people would tend to agree Eisenhower was a superior general (at least that is how I perceive the perception of him to be), but do we discount his ability as a general because he did not shine as a president? Simply food for thought.

On Montgomery, I agree that he is overrated and think Patton summed him up well when he said, "He is more interested in not losing a war than he is in winning one." (I will disclaim the quote as probably not being verbatim)

[seienchin]

Montgomery is maybe glorified as a hero, because he won the first landbattle victory against germany in WWII or am I wrong? But of course he is overrated... Just imagine what rommel would have done with a 2 to 1 superiority in numbers.
Cesar is without a doubt a brilliant general. If the gallic war doesnt convince you, then the civil war should... :book:

[penguinking]

Montgomery is maybe glorified as a hero, because he won the first landbattle victory against germany in WWII or am I wrong? But of course he is overrated... Just imagine what rommel would have done with a 2 to 1 superiority in numbers.


Well, both Poland and France managed to win some temporary, minor successes against Germany. But the first decisive victory over the Germans was probably the successful soviet defence of Moscow in 1941. El Alamein was fought in 1942; and here Montgomery was definitely helped by the fact the Rommel had lost entirely his air superiority and supplies, as Hitler decided to focus on the Eastern Front instead of North Africa. Montgomery's tactics, while effective, were quite simple and likely would not have succeeded if Rommel had been given decent support.

My most overrated general is George Washington. He was an inspiring leader and a good statesmen, but not a good tactician, as shown in his defeats at Germantown and Brandywine.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Most victorious generals end up being overrated. Even if their victory wasn't due to them personally, generals usually get the credit. There are many I would say are overrated. Here's a few from around a century ago: Charles Gordon, U.S. Grant, Monty, or Patton.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Washington? Do not even mention his name! I consider putting him on the most renowned loser and some people actually get the idea that he is almost a good general, whereas most other people believe he was a great general. Bullcrap. The bloke got captured/surrendered to the French more than the French surrendered in their national history (not much, but I had to make that ignorant crack :grin:). He lost more battles than he won, and some of his losses were spectacularly imbecilic. Fort Necessity was among his worst blunders. Building a fort in the low ground, where the enemy would have the height advantage and where you would get flooded was purely brilliant I have to say. Any more of that brilliance would have resulted in Americans signing "God Save the King/Queen" for who knows how many more years. I do not even call him a general. Perhaps his only truly useful ability was his charisma and morale-boosting effect.

Oh, and AVSM, read more WWII history ;) You will find out that the supposed "race" to Messina in Sicily was jsut a myth. Montgomery even suggested Patton should take it, as Patton was in a much better position to do so. Otheerwise, the two hated each other's guts. I also put Monty along with Washington, as Montgomery was overly cautious and slow to seize the intiative to be of any good. Perhaps he would not do as badlly in defense, but then again, counterattacks were the main way of defending. Monty was not entirely bad of course, but he does not deserve his fame.

[Africanvs]

What are we using as the criteria to define what constitutes a general? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Hannibal as the most overrated, or even Caesar in the original post, however, it seems that the largest arguments against those two are in the political realm and not so much those associated with military prowess. Granted, in antiquity, political and military roles are often blurred and carried on by one person, but to say a general is overrated because of their lack of political prowess seems to be broadening the discussion to a very wide degree. For instance, most people would tend to agree Eisenhower was a superior general (at least that is how I perceive the perception of him to be), but do we discount his ability as a general because he did not shine as a president? Simply food for thought.

On Montgomery, I agree that he is overrated and think Patton summed him up well when he said, "He is more interested in not losing a war than he is in winning one." (I will disclaim the quote as probably not being verbatim)


I think the problem here is that there are no clear guide-lines to limit this conversation. I assumed that because we're in the EB forum, we are discussing commanders within the EB timeframe. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to discuss leaders such as Patton here. While some things have not changed much from antiquity to modern times, many things have.


If I had to assign a list of traits that I feel creates a complete general in antiquity, I would propose the following:

Leadership: The ability to inspire and lead men with charisma and both physical and morale courage.

Tactics: The ability to perform sound and intelligent tactical maneuvers on the field of battle.

Strategy: The ability to use terrain and complicated field maneuvers in the persuit of a given strategem, outside of battle, to present ones forces on the battlefield in a state of readiness and in a proper, and preferably superior position.

Planning The ability to develope a clear, attainable, and realistic objective and plan of attack for meeting that objective. This includes overcoming the issues of supply, and logistics as well as the ability to gain allies and remove allies from the enemy, in order to divide and conquer.




For example if we measure Alexander the Great with the previous list of traits we get the following:

Leadership: YES. Alexander posessed excellent charisma and excelled in motivating his men to fight. He had both morale and physical courage expecting no more from his men than he did from himself, oftentimes sharing every hardship with them and leading by example.

Tactics: YES. Alexander demonstrated a profound knowledge of tactics, using his army to full effect and never suffering a defeat. His knowledge of tactics can be seen clearly when he maneuvered his army off of the prepared field, removing Darius' advantage and opening gaps in his line.

Strategy: NO. Alexander was often outmaneuvered in the field by Darius, who managed to fight Alexander on his terms. Alexander's ability to overcome Darius anyway can be attributed more to his superior army and battlefield tactics, than to his field strategy.

Planning YES. Alexander had a clear plan to defeat the Persian empire. He first denied Darius the ability to receive Greek mercenary heavy infantry by siezing all of his port cities. This forced Darius to beat him in the field with inferior persian light troops, where the previous Persian wars in Greece had shown them to be inneffective against the hoplite phalanx, let alone the makedonian sarrissa phalanx. Furthermore, Alexander knew that if he could kill Darius in battle, he could claim his empire. This was a clear, attainable, and correct objective. Alexander also understood the necessity of winning the hearts and minds of the Persians he meant to rule, and the intricacies of gaining new soldiers and allies. The only problem was that due to the fact that he died with no heir, his generals fell to squabbling over the scraps of his empire, and it didn't survive his death.


Better than Yes and No, would probably be 1-10 because all Generals posess each skill to a degree but if they don't excel at it, they get a No. There are surely other traits that could be added to the list like Innovation, such as Marius's army reforms, and Scipio's anti-elephant tactics. I think a general can still do well without 1 or 2 of those traits, but they will not be what I consider a complete general. It's really sort of a pointless discussion if you think about it because all generals have to overcome unique challenges. Hannibal had to manage a diverse force that spoke many different languages and had many different fighting styles, Alexander had the benefit of being a King with absolute authority giving him an advantage, Scipio had to obey the Roman Senate and wasn't as free to make his own decisions as say Alexander and then was given permission to invade Africa, but no money. It's really an impossible question to answer. I think ultimately it comes down to who was successful and who wasn't? They all do some things very well and other things not so well, but the question of who was the most complete general will most likely never be answered.

[Cullhwch]

AP, Washington was almost unsurpassed in one area: the ability to keep a consistently defeated army together long enough to outlast a superior opponent. I'd say he's like Sam Houston: a total loser until he won everything. In that way he was a reverse Antiochus.

Oh, and Africanvs, how can you discuss Alexander's flair for planning without mentioning that he besieged and captured a fortified island? That's one of the most amazing feats of military engineering in history.

[Africanvs]

Oh, and Africanvs, how can you discuss Alexander's flair for planning without mentioning that he besieged and captured a fortified island? That's one of the most amazing feats of military engineering in history.

Yeah I know, I didn't mention Tyre. There is just so much to say about Alexander. Would have been interesting to see what he could have done had he lived a full life.

[Anthologie]

Alesia was a work of genius, and there is no evidence of anything like that ever being done before that battle.

Alesia showed that Caesar could do great planning and he showed great leadership aswell (gutsy move with the cavalry), but it especially proved that Caesar's legion were very resilient and as a matter of fact, outstanding.

However, Caesar was outmatched in field strategy. First, Marc Anthony and Trebonius saved the day on the first night attack by Vercingetorix. And the next day, the almost lost the battle when they gallic troops attacked the weaken part of the wall. It was on the brink of disaster for Caesar when the roman army got outnumbered 5 for 1. Caesar gutsy move (kind of bluff..) with his cavalry saved him.

Sure, his inital planning was perfect. But "what if" Caesar's outstanding legions wouldnt have won this battle?

"Adversity reveals the genius of a general; good fortune conceals it" - Horace
"To a good general luck is important. " - Livy

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yeah I know, I didn't mention Tyre. There is just so much to say about Alexander. Would have been interesting to see what he could have done had he lived a full life.
He was planning to get North Africa and Italy. For a start at least... I suppose it would have been wise to stop there.

[delablake]

This is a list of WWI army commanders who deemed themselves great tactitians but "crowned" their carreers with crushing defeats and/or the senseless slaughter of their men:
Luigi Cadorna: responsible for Caporetto 1917
Alexander Wassiljewitsch Samsonow: Battle of Tannenberg 1914
Douglas Haig: Battle of the Somme 1916
Robert Nivelle: Second Battle of the Aisne (Chemin des Dames) 1917
Erich von Falkenhayn: Battle of Verdun 1916
Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf: responsible for the Austrian defeat against Brussilow in 1916

[mini]

Caesar is certainly not overrated. Though he was not a top tactician, we was certainly a master strategist.
And the 'luck' that Caesar mostly had, was imo the result of actual hard work and planning more often than naught.

Hannibal was the opposite: a great tactician, one of the very best. But he seriously lacked on strategy.

@ Africanus:
The circumvallae of Alesia was nothing new. Though the scale, enormity, completeness and terrain it occured upon, are vastly different, there were atleast 2 other occassions the romans performed this trick.

One by Scipio Africanus in Africa, and I think someone did it to Capua aswel.

Anyway, this is not a discussion about who was the best, so enough of that.


I'd say Pompey was the most overrated classical general.
A great planner/organizer, but mediocre at best at the other categories.

He got trounced by Sertorius in Spain (another great tactician) and face it: got pwnd by Caesar who was outnumbered.
His campaign against the pirates was excellent, but concerned mostly planning and not actual generalship.
His campaign in the East against Mithradates and Tigraine was not more than a mop up of Lucullus' work.

[Apázlinemjó]

Caesar is certainly not overrated. Though he was not a top tactician, we was certainly a master strategist.
And the 'luck' that Caesar mostly had, was imo the result of actual hard work and planning more often than naught.

Hannibal was the opposite: a great tactician, one of the very best. But he seriously lacked on strategy.

@ Africanus:
The circumvallae of Alesia was nothing new. Though the scale, enormity, completeness and terrain it occured upon, are vastly different, there were atleast 2 other occassions the romans performed this trick.

One by Scipio Africanus in Africa, and I think someone did it to Capua aswel.

Anyway, this is not a discussion about who was the best, so enough of that.


I'd say Pompey was the most overrated classical general.
A great planner/organizer, but mediocre at best at the other categories.

He got trounced by Sertorius in Spain (another great tactician) and face it: got pwnd by Caesar who was outnumbered.
His campaign against the pirates was excellent, but concerned mostly planning and not actual generalship.
His campaign in the East against Mithradates and Tigraine was not more than a mop up of Lucullus' work.

I totally agree with you, plus one more thing. Let's not forget about the Gladiator War, when Pompey "stole" Crassus' triumph.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I began to read about history about 2-3 years ago, fascinated about battles, wars and many generals. However, I sometime found the hype about a commander just too much for what it is really. So, i'm asking the following question: Who you think in history (ancient, medieval, renaissance, modern...) is the most overrated general.

Personnally I think that Gaius Julius Caesar is the most overrated general in ancient time. I don't deny his exploit, and the guy is pretty sharp: by many time, he betrayed his agreement with celtics tribes, playing hypocrite game and he knew that writing his "exploit" (while just exaggerating a little bit..) and selling the book might be the best way to gain Rome's people trust and acclaim.

But, Caesar led an army of professional soldiers against Avernai confederation who were out of ressource and exhausted from many civil wars. By many times, he made bad decision who almost cost his campaign. The thing that saved him was very well trained legions that against all odd, could completly turn the tide of battle even if they were completly outnumbered and in tactical disadvantage.

Plus, Caesar was considered as a very cruel general ("Resistance is Futile") during the gallic campaign and he caused 2 civil wars that raged across all the roman empire. His reign as an emperor lasted 4 years only...


thanks your idea is worthy respectable.:yes:
but perhaps you did not read correctly the history of Caesar:

He won not only against the Gaul, but also against the Britanni, the same Roman of Pompeo Magno (equipped and trained like his men) also led by ruthless General Tito Labieno, against the Lusitani (where he was elected by imperator by his men), the Evezi , the Germani of Ariovisto, the Belgians, Farnace II of Pontos , defended itself by Ptolemaioi in revolt, fought in Cilicia, fought in Illiria.
He won everywhere against everyone...

He also has shown great technical and logistical qualities: examples are the bridge over the Rhine and the numerous defensive fortifications.:smash:

Caesar was loved and respected by his soldiers who were the first witnesses of his actions.

If Caesar is overrated, no one else can be underestimated.

Or maybe you believe that some nations were subject to Rome voluntarily.:rtwyes:

[Dutchhoplite]

I'd say Pompey was the most overrated classical general.
A great planner/organizer, but mediocre at best at the other categories.

Well, the mediocre Pompey gave Caesar a beating :)

Unfortunately he didn't follow Caesar after his victory.

[Ludens]

Caesar's conquest of Gaul was more than just winning battles. It was evidence of his political ability to divide the Gauls, pitting them against each other in order to accomplish his objective. Caesar managed to pacify Gaul in eight years, and after he was done, it would be 400 years before they would rebel. Let's not forget that Caesar didn't have any military experience going into the Gallic wars, so for a green general he did very well. He knew how to win the respect of his legions as well.

I think the problem with overrated/underrated discussions is that there often differences in perception of how a general is rated in the first place. Caesar is a perfect example: for many people he is the man who conquered Gaul in a couple of years, and then went on to conquer the Roman empire in order to become emperor (I know he wasn't emperor, technically, but you get the idea). Others, who know his campaign better, often accuse him of carelessness and relying on luck. So, which perception are you arguing against?

Personally, I do not believe you could be such a successful general without having serious military skills. He must have been a formidable organizer and tactician. He was prone to gambling on his luck, but what successful leader doesn't? That said, he was occasionally careless. He lost an entire legion to marauding Germans because he'd scattered his troops along the border. His first invasion of Britain was poorly planned as well.

You are wrong on two counts, though: Gaul was involved in several uprisings in the third and fourth century, although the revolts often started in Britain. Caesar also wasn't a greenhorn, as you say. He fought as a tribune in the Mithradatic wars, and commanded a legion as praetor in Iberia prior to becoming consul.


I think the most over-rated general is, and I know I am going to get flamed for this one, but Hannibal. Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of men, but that was about as far as it went. He simply wasn't the complete package. He entered the second Punic war with a flawed objective, and completely underestimated the Romans. He could definitely win battles, but he couldn't win the war.

I am not sure if I agree here. Hannibal failed in his objective, yes, but I think his assessment of the situation was correct. Trying to defeat Rome on her own borders was futile. If Carthage was to have any chance of surviving, than the war had to be brought the Rome's homeland. This would distract Rome from her borders and destabilize her alliances with the Italians. In turn, this would allow other Carthaginian generals to roll back the Roman borders. Even this turned out to be insufficient, but how was he supposed to have known that? No other state at the time could have survived this.

[mini]

Well, the mediocre Pompey gave Caesar a beating :)

Unfortunately he didn't follow Caesar after his victory.


More a mistake on Caesar's part than a credit to Pompey's ability.
Caesar had been in hot pursuit for a while, and he was too eager to close the deal.

When parties both met at Pharsalus, Caesar was outnumbered and had the lower ground and stil lrouted Pompey in 1 hour.

Not saying that Caesar was the best tactician ever however. Though on strategy he ranks with the best if you ask me.
As about recklessness and relying on luck... Sometimes you have to roll the dice ;)

[geala]

The problem is that you don't only have to know good generals but also how they were classified by others. I would never have named f.e. Washington, Grant, Montgomery or Patton because I didn't know they were so highly esteemed somewhere, or better said more than they deserved.

I cannot find the most overrated general in the antiquity. I don't like Caesar as a politician but he managed to win many battles against different foes. Hannibal succeeded in deeds in which most would not. They are only second to Alexandros III. in my opinion. All were highly esteemed also by their soldiers.

Maybe my choice would be Rommel. He was a kind of military popstar. A good general more or less but if you look at his terrible mistakes my thought is that he was overstrained as an army commander. That was also the opinion of the German army high command.

Perhaps also Frederic the Great is a possible candidate. A very good general indeed but not nearly the military half-god many people see in him. You should read what his brother Henric, a very able general himself, who won the last deciding battles of the Seven Years War, thought about Frederic, it's not so nice.

BTW if I have to name a military leader (wether good or not) who overrated himself the most I would clearly say Hitler is the best candidate.

[artaxerxes]

I would DEFINENTLY say Attila The Hun - that is, because he was cruel, frightening and had a kinda cool name, he has entered popular culture as one of the great military geniuses, despite it being his ancestors, who carved out the massive realm, he inherited, and despite himself not even managing any Heroic Victories:laugh4:. I mean, he lost the Catalaunian Fields and before that, well, he won a battle in the Balkans, but even then suffered greater casulties than necessary due to some miscalculation that I've forgotten (I'm sorry I don't remember, but I read it in a book about the Huns and there it was obvious that Attila was a competent, but not brilliant commander). Except for this, all he did was raid...

Of course, I'm not implying any of you in here or anybody well-read in military strategy would have chosen Attila as a great commander, but in popular culture, he REALLY has that image... And I DO think he's cool (after Pydna and the Third Punic, the Romans deserve all they get:furious3:), but, as you probably all already agree, he's not up there with the greats

[Ibrahim]

Perhaps also Frederic the Great is a possible candidate. A very good general indeed but not nearly the military half-god many people see in him. You should read what his brother Henric, a very able general himself, who won the last deciding battles of the Seven Years War, thought about Frederic, it's not so nice.

BTW if I have to name a military leader (wether good or not) who overrated himself the most I would clearly say Hitler is the best candidate.

I can agree on the first part myself, having read his campaign history. he tended to push for too much too quick IMHO-I guess this was because of the aggressive nature of the prussian army, and their arrogant belief in their superiority, Fredrich included (yes, it really did border on arrogance).

and I though it was prince Heinrich..I'm confused now:shame:

speaking of which, the latter (Heirich) was awesome. his victory at Freiberg saved prussia, and he never lost a battle. perhaps he is the most underrated general?

the second part: did you even have to mention him? we all know Hitler sucked more than a black hole, even though he did occasionally have a good idea (read occasionally..really rare..rarer than a green moon). the one example was Eban emal (I misspelled it I know)-the glider landing was his idea actually: he saw the fort and said: "hey it looks like a flat meadow-we could land planes on it".

but as I said, it was his one good idea.

[artaxerxes]

Planning YES. Alexander had a clear plan to defeat the Persian empire.

I guess this is the one category where Pyrrhus fails MISERABLY:wall:, isn't it... I mean, "oh I'm in war with Rome... but it's getting boring... I might just invade Sicily... good idea, eh?":smash: (I love Pyrrhus, it's characters like him that makes history entertaining:clown:. But what went on in his mind, I can't explain)

[SwissBarbar]

Maybe because Carthage, Ally of Rome, would've fallen in his back, if he had not stopped them in Sicily. Had they captured Syrakousai, there would've been no way to throw them out of there ever again.

[A Very Super Market]

AP, how can you say that the race for Messina was a myth? Are you saying that the Allies did not split their forces from a mutually supportive position, and instead have the Americans swing through strategically barren Western Sicily, and the British slog through a series of fortified locations?

[Zaknafien]

Petraeus.

[SwissBarbar]

I would DEFINENTLY say Attila The Hun - that is, because he was cruel, frightening and had a kinda cool name, he has entered popular culture as one of the great military geniuses, despite it being his ancestors, who carved out the massive realm, he inherited, and despite himself not even managing any Heroic Victories:laugh4:. I mean, he lost the Catalaunian Fields and before that, well, he won a battle in the Balkans, but even then suffered greater casulties than necessary due to some miscalculation that I've forgotten (I'm sorry I don't remember, but I read it in a book about the Huns and there it was obvious that Attila was a competent, but not brilliant commander). Except for this, all he did was raid...

Of course, I'm not implying any of you in here or anybody well-read in military strategy would have chosen Attila as a great commander, but in popular culture, he REALLY has that image... And I DO think he's cool (after Pydna and the Third Punic, the Romans deserve all they get:furious3:), but, as you probably all already agree, he's not up there with the greats

Well, the Catalaunian Fields were no crushing defeat, actually closer to a draw.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Petraeus.

Ouch.

though I don't think it's true over here, we just see him as a pleasingly competent general able to carry through a sensible plan.

[athanaric]

Petraeus.

You fought under him, I understand? I haven't heard he is very much rated at all, but then I don't live in America.
U know, his name always makes me think he is one of those Romaioi...


Regarding Washington, one has to admit at least he was kinda bulletproof. Unlike some better generals who fell in battle, causing their side to lose.

[Anthologie]

to affirm the overrated thing, i would say that we must compare hype vs action

That why I say that I think that Caesar is overrated: he's a good general, but not as much as the history and fans decribe him (Re: careless, gambling...). He had good staff support too : Marc Anthony, Titus Labienus, Publius Crassus... tho Caesar is really smart guy and very well applied the proverb : divide to conquer through the gallic campaign.

Very clever + average general ability + luck + great staff support + outstanding legions = Caesar

In modern history: Montgomery is surely one of them (hellllo Market Garden..)

[Fluvius Camillus]

If People do rate Sir Douglas Haig a competent commander I totally disagree.

Haig was a drunken conservative incompetent commander, sending men to needless deaths while he sat in the sun enjoying a fine glass of scotch....

[roadrunner]

It's hard to completely blame Pompey for his defeat at Pharsalus. Though he had more numbers, he had mostly new recruits (except for his 1st Legion) countering Caesar's highly experienced Gallic/Spanish legions. His strategy of starving Caesar out was slowly working (just like Fabius Maximus Cunctator had done to Hannibal) but was forced to give battle by the various senators in his camp (was essentially a hired gun... not truly in command). If I had to think of an overrated general, Mark Anthony comes to mind... his campaign against the Parthians (I believe it was them) was an inept disaster!

[Anthologie]

It's hard to completely blame Pompey for his defeat at Pharsalus. Though he had more numbers, he had mostly new recruits (except for his 1st Legion) countering Caesar's highly experienced Gallic/Spanish legions. His strategy of starving Caesar out was slowly working (just like Fabius Maximus Cunctator had done to Hannibal) but was forced to give battle by the various senators in his camp (was essentially a hired gun... not truly in command). If I had to think of an overrated general, Mark Anthony comes to mind... his campaign against the Parthians (I believe it was them) was an inept disaster!

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.

[penguinking]

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.

Antony also fought an unsuccessful campaign against the Parthians, but he did manage to survive.

[Africanvs]

I think the problem with overrated/underrated discussions is that there often differences in perception of how a general is rated in the first place. Caesar is a perfect example: for many people he is the man who conquered Gaul in a couple of years, and then went on to conquer the Roman empire in order to become emperor (I know he wasn't emperor, technically, but you get the idea). Others, who know his campaign better, often accuse him of carelessness and relying on luck. So, which perception are you arguing against?


Thanks for the reply! I think either opinion would be biased. I believe one has to look at all sides of a Geneal. Yes, Caesar had his moments of carelessness, and yes, he often gambled, but as you say, all generals will do both of these things from time to time. For one thing, no one is perfect and mistakes will inevitably be made, and for two, there must always be an element of gambling when you have no idea what your enemy is going to do.



You are wrong on two counts, though: Gaul was involved in several uprisings in the third and fourth century, although the revolts often started in Britain. Caesar also wasn't a greenhorn, as you say. He fought as a tribune in the Mithradatic wars, and commanded a legion as praetor in Iberia prior to becoming consul.


Thanks for pointing these things out. It's a period I still have a lot to learn about. When I said Caesar had no experience, I meant more that he had never commanded multiple legions in his own campaign before, but the points you make are rellevant. He was an experienced soldier, and he did have staff and officer experience.



I am not sure if I agree here. Hannibal failed in his objective, yes, but I think his assessment of the situation was correct. Trying to defeat Rome on her own borders was futile. If Carthage was to have any chance of surviving, than the war had to be brought to Rome's homeland. This would distract Rome from her borders and destabilize her alliances with the Italians. In turn, this would allow other Carthaginian generals to roll back the Roman borders. Even this turned out to be insufficient, but how was he supposed to have known that? No other state at the time could have survived this.


I believe Hannibals assessment was correct as well, but I think he ultimately failed in his objective because of poor planning. First of all he had a poor plan for getting Roman allies to detatch. He wanted them to view him as a friend rather than an enemy, so he often promised no harm would come to them if they did not join him. This meant that if they stayed loyal to Rome, it was better than if they went over to Hannibal, and then Rome won, because Rome would come back and punish them. Another example of Hannibal's poor planning is his enourmous blunder of failing to properly use the battle of Cannae. He had just crushed the Roman army, leaving them practically defenseless; many of Rome's allies detatched, feeling that Rome was doomed; all Hannibal had to do was march on the city. He may not have thought he could take it, but just the presence of his army outside the city could have forced the Romans to terms. I don't want to take anything away from Hannibal though. His tactics were amazing. In fact, much of what made Scipio Africanus so good, was that he learned from Hannibal from the wrong side! Hannibal's leadership was extraordinary. He knew how to lead men from any culture, he had charisma, courage, and I believe he was an honorable human being, not the barbarian monster he is always shown to be. His strategy was good, but had flaws. Oftentimes he was forced to rely on his leadership skills and his tactical ability to get his men out of a bad situation. This can be seen in his alpine pass, the march through the swamps where he lost an eye, Lake Trasimene, and the time that "The old Cunctator" had him cornered and blew it. I do agree with you when you say, "no other state at the time could have survived this."

[Apázlinemjó]

Hannibal didn't have siege equipment to attack Rome itself and Rome was one of the largest city in the mediterranean. So I think he was right not laying siege to it.

[Chris1959]

How easy we show our national stereotypes, us armchair generals and basking in the glorious sunlight of hindsight pass such easy judgements with scant regard for the "boring" difficulties real commanders faced like troop quality, supplies, political interference etc.

[Zaknafien]

I just mean that Petraeus gets loads of hype and publicity, as if he was the 'savior of iraq'. in reality he is just an adequately intelligent and well-read man who remembers previous counter-insurgencies conducted by the brits and others.

[Africanvs]

Hannibal didn't have siege equipment to attack Rome itself and Rome was one of the largest city in the mediterranean. So I think he was right not laying siege to it.

The mere mention of Hannibal at the gates, even when he wasn't, scared the hell out of the entire city. We'll never know what kind of success he could have had, because he never tried. You don't necessarily have to take a city by assault to have a successful siege.


I just mean that Petraeus gets loads of hype and publicity, as if he was the 'savior of iraq'. in reality he is just an adequately intelligent and well-read man who remembers previous counter-insurgencies conducted by the brits and others.

Isn't a bit difficult to examine the career of a General who is A) not finished with his career, and B) never really fought any actual battles? Sure he's commanded in operations but we're talking about insurgency type stuff, not serious campaigning. Maybe if the U.S. were to face another major world power and he had to go up against an actual adversary, we might see what he's capable of. Let us hope that doesn't happen but is he really over-rated? All I have heard is that he is a charismatic leader, and one of the top 100 intellectuals around, and he left Iraq in better shape than he found it. I don't hear anyone running around saying, "that Petaeus, he's greater than Napoleon!"

[artaxerxes]

Well, the Catalaunian Fields were no crushing defeat, actually closer to a draw.

Oh I agree, definently. Attila was competent enought. But since I've actually seen him in lists that go like: "Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Attila, Napoleon", I think his abilities are hugely overrated by a lot of people, at least outside actual experts in the field. Attila wasn't a bad general. But he did nothing that could earn him a place among the greatest military commanders of all time.

[Nirvanish]

I am not sure if I agree here. Hannibal failed in his objective, yes, but I think his assessment of the situation was correct. Trying to defeat Rome on her own borders was futile. If Carthage was to have any chance of surviving, than the war had to be brought the Rome's homeland. This would distract Rome from her borders and destabilize her alliances with the Italians. In turn, this would allow other Carthaginian generals to roll back the Roman borders. Even this turned out to be insufficient, but how was he supposed to have known that? No other state at the time could have survived this.

I completely agree with Lundens; Hannibal may have failed to achieve his ultimate objective of turning most of Rome's allies against them and gaining support from Carthage itself but it is hard to find moments where he failed to shine as a tactician/general(aside from Zama). After such outstanding victories as Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae would anyone be able to guess that support would not sway in Hannibal's favor? Even after 15 years in Italy, Hannibal's army may have withered but he was still as much of a threat as when he had first entered. It seems to me that from what I know of Scipio Africanus he should be considered an overrated general but I do not feel that I know enough about him at this moment to properly give a strong argument against him.

[Barry Soteiro]

Wellington.

Without Spaniards and later Prussians the man would have achevied nothing.

[kekailoa]

Well, I'm going to say King Kamehameha. I doubt anyone has heard of him, but in Hawaii, he's known as the national hero who united all the island through military strategy, excellent diplomacy, and his great intellect.

In reality, he had like twenty cannons and his enemies had spears. And clubs.

Plus he had modern military tactics, and was advised by four or five European military leaders in every battle. He had musket and rifle armed troops versus contingents of (albiet brave and ferocious) spearmen. He wasn't even outnumbered.

[machinor]

Well, I'm going to say King Kamehameha. I doubt anyone has heard of him, but in Hawaii, he's known as the national hero who united all the island through military strategy, excellent diplomacy, and his great intellect.

In reality, he had like twenty cannons and his enemies had spears. And clubs.

Plus he had modern military tactics, and was advised by four or five European military leaders in every battle. He had musket and rifle armed troops versus contingents of (albiet brave and ferocious) spearmen. He wasn't even outnumbered.
Now THAT'S a good definition of overrated. :laugh4:

[Apázlinemjó]

The mere mention of Hannibal at the gates, even when he wasn't, scared the hell out of the entire city. We'll never know what kind of success he could have had, because he never tried. You don't necessarily have to take a city by assault to have a successful siege.

I don't think so, I know there were senators who wanted to surrender to him, but not all of them, and the Romans were stubborn. :dizzy2:

[Tollheit]

I think the nutrition value of stubbornness is rather low.

[Ibrahim]

Well, I'm going to say King Kamehameha. I doubt anyone has heard of him, but in Hawaii, he's known as the national hero who united all the island through military strategy, excellent diplomacy, and his great intellect.

In reality, he had like twenty cannons and his enemies had spears. And clubs.

Plus he had modern military tactics, and was advised by four or five European military leaders in every battle. He had musket and rifle armed troops versus contingents of (albiet brave and ferocious) spearmen. He wasn't even outnumbered.

:laugh4::laugh4:

true that, but think of it this way: he was at least wise enough not to get himself outnumbered, he was wise enough to get european tech, and he was able to unify a bunch of islands into one kingdom.:clown:

its like Oda Nabunaga: he was brilliant because he figured out that European tech was a good thing in battle (hence Nagashino):clown:

EDIT: did this king perform the traditional Hawaiian prebattle customs anyways (even with european weapons)?

[Xtiaan72]

On this discussion of Caesar, I'm no expert but I've done a fair bit of reading on his life and campaigns. How on earth could anyone say that his accomplishments are under-rated? This guy is fascinating.

I don't care how well trained your army is, conquering a nation of millions with 50,000 men seems like an impossibility by any standard and yet he did it. It's easy to argue that the Gauls were an unorganized, politically divided people but until Caesar came along they had done a pretty good job of giving as good as they got as far as the Romans were concerned...Sacking Rome, slaughtering legions ( Check!, Check!) Until Hannibal came along, it was the Gauls not Carthage that were the stuff of Roman children's nightmares!

There is a strong argument to be made that Caesar invented the whole modern military concept of divide and conquer with his campaign in Gaul! Figuring out how to exploit the weaknesses of your enemies is the hallmark of any great general.

But put Gaul aside and look at all his military accomplishments. This is a guy that didn't win all his battles.... Yet he also never got himself in a situation he couldn't get out of. His core army was never destroyed and lived to fight another day. This guy was on the edge of defeat in Gaul, Spain, Africa, Greece and even Egypt! Facing every type of tactical situation one can imagine and almost always outnumbered. And yet who came out on top in the end? He has brilliant victories but how he faced and overcame adversity over and over is perhaps more impressive...And let's face it, he did it too many times for it to be 'coincidence'.

Even if you put all that aside. Military accomplishments mean nothing if they don't tie into a bigger or over-reaching goals that are successful. He reached those in spades. He's not just a great general but the master politician of his age... Everything he did on the battlefield was merely a means to an end to fulfill his political aims. This guy turned Rome on it's head and re-made it in his own image.

What else was he the first or the best at?

He was one of the best engineers of his age.
He was one the post popular writers and effective propagandist of his age.
Personal bravery? Unquestioned.
Ladies man? You bet.
A month on the modern calender named after him? Well who else can say that....Only his grand-nephew!

This guy is not under-rated. If anything he is not fully appreciated...

[gammager2]

and B) never really fought any actual battles? Sure he's commanded in operations but we're talking about insurgency type stuff, not serious campaigning.

running an effective counter-insurgency is not the same thing as bearing tanks down on your enemies, but it takes as much skill if not more since irregulars can be debilitating to the war effort of a nation with superior resources, like france and USA in vietnam and rome in iberia. guerillas are effective in no small part b/c they are almost always underestimated.
granted, his career is far from over so i would submit that he cant be the most overrated general ever. that honor should go to US Grant.

[Mulceber]

Very clever + average general ability + luck + great staff support + outstanding legions = Caesar

Ok, I could maybe buy the notion that Caesar wasn't an Alexander or a Hannibal when it came to battlefield tactics, but AVERAGE GENERAL ABILITY??? Bullshit. He had some battles that didn't go particularly well, yes, but this guy is definitely above average. And I think you're forgetting the fact that, strategically (as opposed to tactically), Caesar was probably the equal of any general who ever lived - certainly better than Hannibal, who wasn't able to string his amazing battlefield victories together into a successful campaign.

Also, you argue that part of it was his outstanding legions, but how do you think those legions got to be so extraordinary? Caesar didn't inherit them in that condition, they BECAME that way over the course of his campaigns in Gaul. So during Caesar's early campaigns at least, he didn't have the quality of his legions to rely on.

I wouldn't write off Caesar's luck either - it wasn't just that he rolled the dice and won; Caesar gambled on himself, but the reason he always ended up winning (the exception being 3/15) was because he usually stacked the deck in his favor so to speak - he'd put forth every effort to gain every advantage so that when he did roll the dice, the odds were in his favor. -M

[Xtiaan72]

Ok, I could maybe buy the notion that Caesar wasn't an Alexander or a Hannibal when it came to battlefield tactics, but AVERAGE GENERAL ABILITY??? Bullshit. He had some battles that didn't go particularly well, yes, but this guy is definitely above average. And I think you're forgetting the fact that, strategically (as opposed to tactically), Caesar was probably the equal of any general who ever lived - certainly better than Hannibal, who wasn't able to string his amazing battlefield victories together into a successful campaign.

Also, you argue that part of it was his outstanding legions, but how do you think those legions got to be so extraordinary? Caesar didn't inherit them in that condition, they BECAME that way over the course of his campaigns in Gaul. So during Caesar's early campaigns at least, he didn't have the quality of his legions to rely on.

I wouldn't write off Caesar's luck either - it wasn't just that he rolled the dice and won; Caesar gambled on himself, but the reason he always ended up winning (the exception being 3/15) was because he usually stacked the deck in his favor so to speak - he'd put forth every effort to gain every advantage so that when he did roll the dice, the odds were in his favor. -M

Agreed. He put half of those legions together himself when he ascended to the governorship and cleverly filled the ranks with recently Romanized Northern Italians that had no allegiance to Rome, only to him.

Good generals win some battles. Great generals win wars.

By that standard you would have to rate him higher than Hannibal, Napoleon and most of the other contenders... Alexander stands alone and is one of the few that holds up very well against his accomplishments.

There is that saying on the football field, "Don't give up the big one."....Caesar just didn't do that. In the end, very few can say that.

[roadrunner]

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.

No it was around 38-9 BC (long after the death of Crassus in 53 BC and well before his defeat by Octavian at Actium in 31 BC) that Marc Anthony attempted the invasion of Parthia that Caesar had originally envisioned. His army had gained a few initial victories (subbordinates had led Parthian troops in to hand-to-hand situations which greatly favored Roman legionaries) but extremely poor planning, impatience (especially dangerous considering Parthian tactics) eventually forced Anthony to retreat with heavy losses (about a quarter of their force... 25000 troops if you believe the estimates).

[Africanvs]

Agreed. He put half of those legions together himself when he ascended to the governorship and cleverly filled the ranks with recently Romanized Northern Italians that had no allegiance to Rome, only to him.

Good generals win some battles. Great generals win wars.

By that standard you would have to rate him higher than Hannibal, Napoleon and most of the other contenders... Alexander stands alone and is one of the few that holds up very well against his accomplishments.

There is that saying on the football field, "Don't give up the big one."....Caesar just didn't do that. In the end, very few can say that.

I respect Caesar as much as his biggest fan, but let's not get carried away here. Caesar knew how to get the most out of his men, but an innovator, he was not. When people say he inherited the army they mean that Caesar had access to the Marian reformed Roman legion. This was no conscripted army of levies; we're talking about a professional fighting force of men, many of them already veterans of several campaigns before Caesar took command. The fact is, he was very successful, and that in and of itself speaks volumes.

[Xtiaan72]

Well said... I certainly wasn't trying to come off as one of his biggest fans ( Although perhaps I did!).
I was just trying to make a reasonable argument that he is not over-rated!

Let's face it some of the things he did were.....not so nice to say the least ( genocide and political thuggery topping the list!). That is what tarnishes his legacy more than anything else inmo. I wouldn't take issue with anyone questioning his character but his success (as you said) is pretty hard to argue with.

Although, there is probably a case to made that a 'nice' guy could not have won a battle like Alesia. I'm not a fan of Caesar but as a figure he is very compelling and certainly complicated.

[Macilrille]

Two things:

1. Caesar was a man of his time, I have said it before; do not judge the past by today's standards.
2. Notice that I, a military historian, have not commented on this subject, it is a moot and redundant debate I am sorry to say. It would never pop up on for example H-War or a University.

If you push me for my opinion I would say Zhukov or Monty, or possibly even Rommel, Hannibal for ancients- for the same reason as Rommel, tactical genius, strategical blunderer.

That said, the discussion is still moot.

[Ludens]

First of all he had a poor plan for getting Roman allies to detatch. He wanted them to view him as a friend rather than an enemy, so he often promised no harm would come to them if they did not join him. This meant that if they stayed loyal to Rome, it was better than if they went over to Hannibal, and then Rome won, because Rome would come back and punish them.

That's a pretty bold statement to make. Slaughtering thousands of countryman, friends, family, colleagues tends to make people emotional, so it's not sure that it would have convinced the Italians to defect. Possibly, Hannibal's strategy was to show the Italians that he was not like Rome and would offer them better terms than the total submission required by the Senate. It didn't work as well as he hoped, but that doesn't mean the opposite would have worked better.


Another example of Hannibal's poor planning is his enourmous blunder of failing to properly use the battle of Cannae. He had just crushed the Roman army, leaving them practically defenseless; many of Rome's allies detatched, feeling that Rome was doomed; all Hannibal had to do was march on the city. He may not have thought he could take it, but just the presence of his army outside the city could have forced the Romans to terms.

I've argued against this idea before: Rome was slap-bang in the middle of enemy territory, Hannibal didn't have siege equipment and not enough men to invest the city. Leading his battered army (legendary victory or not, they would have taken a beating at Cannae) would have stretched his supply lines. With 20.000 survivors from Cannae, whom had refused to surrender, reforming in his rear, another 20.000 Romans coming from the north (they would be destroyed by Gauls pretty soon after, but Hannibal couldn't know that) and 10.000 new troops levied in Rome herself, it would be Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome. Yes, the Romans panicked. But they wouldn't have given up.

Also, remember that the Italian theatre was not the only part of Hannibal's strategy. Carthaginian armies were busy kicking the Romans out of Spain and Sicily as well. Hannibal's Italian campaign was at least partially intended to allow other Carthaginian commanders to strip away Rome's provinces. However, maybe because of Hannibal's success in Italy, the senate decided to send reinforcements to Spain. After all, they couldn't go on the offensive in Italy, so those troops would be more useful elsewhere.

[artaxerxes]

I've argued against this idea before: Rome was slap-bang in the middle of enemy territory, Hannibal didn't have siege equipment and not enough men to invest the city. Leading his battered army (legendary victory or not, they would have taken a beating at Cannae) would have stretched his supply lines. With 20.000 survivors from Cannae, whom had refused to surrender, reforming in his rear, another 20.000 Romans coming from the north (they would be destroyed by Gauls pretty soon after, but Hannibal couldn't know that) and 10.000 new troops levied in Rome herself, it would be Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome. Yes, the Romans panicked. But they wouldn't have given up.

Also, remember that the Italian theatre was not the only part of Hannibal's strategy. Carthaginian armies were busy kicking the Romans out of Spain and Sicily as well. Hannibal's Italian campaign was at least partially intended to allow other Carthaginian commanders to strip away Rome's provinces. However, maybe because of Hannibal's success in Italy, the senate decided to send reinforcements to Spain. After all, they couldn't go on the offensive in Italy, so those troops would be more useful elsewhere.

Hey, I've wondered about those things a lot of times. Very nice to get an explanation. Thank you! :D

[Krusader]

If People do rate Sir Douglas Haig a competent commander I totally disagree.

Haig was a druken conservative incompetent commander, sending men to needless deaths while he sat in the sun enjoying a fine glass of scotch....

From what I gather wasn't that something almost every general at WW1 did? :book:

[Rilder]

Would it be wrong to say: "The Average EB player" ? :idea2:

[Mulceber]

but an innovator, he was not.

I wouldn't go that far - to my knowledge, his double-wall from Alesia had never been done before, and the tactic he used for routing Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus (having his legionaries retreat and replacing them with auxilaries using their pila as spears) was pretty innovative. I agree that he didn't revolutionize battlefield tactics, but he had a couple of interesting innovations that helped him gain his victories. -M

[Ardri]

From what I gather wasn't that something almost every general at WW1 did? Although I am not very familiar with specific WWI commanders/generals, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say there were good generals on both sides. General Pershing on the American side did more than "sit in the sun and enjoy a nice glass of scotch." Also, whichever general first implemented the use of tanks (not sure who or what army) revolutionized warfare, however, as has been pointed out with Caesar, creating revolutionary tactics neither makes or breaks a general, but the implementation of tactics (new or old) plays a larger part in their success or demise IMO.

[saxonbattlemask]

it was haig that first used the tank at passiondale i think could be wrong also for what its worth i reckon nepolen was the most overrated

[Krusader]

Although I am not very familiar with specific WWI commanders/generals, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say there were good generals on both sides. General Pershing on the American side did more than "sit in the sun and enjoy a nice glass of scotch." Also, whichever general first implemented the use of tanks (not sure who or what army) revolutionized warfare, however, as has been pointed out with Caesar, creating revolutionary tactics neither makes or breaks a general, but the implementation of tactics (new or old) plays a larger part in their success or demise IMO.

What we learned in history class in Norway at least was that generals squandered their men, because they weren't up to speed on how modern warfare was conducted. Sending massive formations of men against enemy lines could be good earlier, but with gatling guns it was waste of men.
Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series. There were good generals yes, but the majority it seems (to my eyes) were still employing tactics from the previous century.
And for new tactics, there is the battle of Amiens where combined arms tactics were employed.

[Mulceber]

Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series.

Loved that show! :2thumbsup: -M

[Ardri]

What we learned in history class in Norway at least was that generals squandered their men, because they weren't up to speed on how modern warfare was conducted. Sending massive formations of men against enemy lines could be good earlier, but with gatling guns it was waste of men.
Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series. There were good generals yes, but the majority it seems (to my eyes) were still employing tactics from the previous century.
And for new tactics, there is the battle of Amiens where combined arms tactics were employed.It is obvious that the tactics in WWI lagged far behind the technology, but I was merely pointing out that every general in WWI cannot be stereotyped into a category of being a bad general. With regard to the gap between technology and tactics, I would gather to say that in no point in history has the gap been as wide as it was in WWI. However, even during the American Civil War the tactics lagged behind the technology, but people still recognize there were some superior generals in that war. We should also remember that the last cavalry charge in history was in WWII so even from nation to nation the beginning of the 20th century saw some huge disparities in technology and tactics. It seems to be an oversimplification to say that generals in WWI were old and out of touch and none of them had any idea what they were doing.

[Africanvs]

I wouldn't go that far - to my knowledge, his double-wall from Alesia had never been done before, and the tactic he used for routing Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus (having his legionaries retreat and replacing them with auxilaries using their pila as spears) was pretty innovative. I agree that he didn't revolutionize battlefield tactics, but he had a couple of interesting innovations that helped him gain his victories. -M

Circumvalation had been done before, but probably not to the extent Caesar did it. As I've said, he knew how to get the most out of what he had and I believe he was damn good. When I say he wasn't innovative, I mean he didn't make any changes to the army to imrpove their efectiveness, he didn't come up with any revolutionary new tactics, but then again, he really didn't need to. His army was top notch. Innovation is usually a product of necesessity.

[Mulceber]

Circumvalation had been done before, but probably not to the extent Caesar did it. As I've said, he knew how to get the most out of what he had and I believe he was damn good. When I say he wasn't innovative, I mean he didn't make any changes to the army to imrpove their efectiveness, he didn't come up with any revolutionary new tactics, but then again, he really didn't need to. His army was top notch. Innovation is usually a product of necesessity.

Okay, I think we've basically been saying the same thing but in different ways - I can definitely agree with that assessment.:thumbsup: -M

[Africanvs]

That's a pretty bold statement to make. Slaughtering thousands of countryman, friends, family, colleagues tends to make people emotional, so it's not sure that it would have convinced the Italians to defect. Possibly, Hannibal's strategy was to show the Italians that he was not like Rome and would offer them better terms than the total submission required by the Senate. It didn't work as well as he hoped, but that doesn't mean the opposite would have worked better.

You make a great point here, and it is my opinion as well that that is what Hannibal was trying to do. Unfortunately, in war, a general doesn't get points for trying, and being a nice guy. The fact that it didn't work as well as he hoped, doesn't excuse the fact that it was an improper assessment and a failed plan.




I've argued against this idea before: Rome was slap-bang in the middle of enemy territory, Hannibal didn't have siege equipment and not enough men to invest the city. Leading his battered army (legendary victory or not, they would have taken a beating at Cannae) would have stretched his supply lines. With 20.000 survivors from Cannae, whom had refused to surrender, reforming in his rear, another 20.000 Romans coming from the north (they would be destroyed by Gauls pretty soon after, but Hannibal couldn't know that) and 10.000 new troops levied in Rome herself, it would be Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome. Yes, the Romans panicked. But they wouldn't have given up.

Also, remember that the Italian theatre was not the only part of Hannibal's strategy. Carthaginian armies were busy kicking the Romans out of Spain and Sicily as well. Hannibal's Italian campaign was at least partially intended to allow other Carthaginian commanders to strip away Rome's provinces. However, maybe because of Hannibal's success in Italy, the senate decided to send reinforcements to Spain. After all, they couldn't go on the offensive in Italy, so those troops would be more useful elsewhere.

I don't know. You make a good case but it's a little hard for me to believe that Hannibal was simply a decoy to help other generals take Rome's provinces. Also when talking about numbers, just because Rome has 20,000 here and 10,000 there doesn't mean much. You're talking about levies, many of them probably fresh recruits, or dishonered and disunited men in the case of the veterans of Cannae. Hannibal had a battle hardened army and had completely won the war of psychology. In any case, if it were me in Hannibals shoes, two things are for sure. 1) I would have felt like I just destroyed all the men in Rome after Cannae. If I'm not mistaken, Cannae was the biggest battle to have ever happened at that time, and the biggest loss of life in a single day on any ancient or modern battlefield. 2) I wouldn't have imagined that any nation could be that tenacious and resourceful.

Ultimately we cannot know why Hannibal did what he did. He may not have had a successful plan, but the kindness he showed to the Italian allies is at least proof that Carthagians weren't necessarily the barbarians they are often made out to be. His victories have stood the test of time and continue to be taught as tactics today, and many people regard him as one of the greatest generals in history. In any case, we have the value of examining him and his campaign from a safe distance. Who's to say what it looked like on the ground. A coward, he definitely wasn't.

[Ludens]

What we learned in history class in Norway at least was that generals squandered their men, because they weren't up to speed on how modern warfare was conducted. Sending massive formations of men against enemy lines could be good earlier, but with gatling guns it was waste of men.
Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series. There were good generals yes, but the majority it seems (to my eyes) were still employing tactics from the previous century.
And for new tactics, there is the battle of Amiens where combined arms tactics were employed.

It's not true that the generals of the WWI didn't change their tactics, the changes just didn't work. They tried mass bombardments, they tried aerial attacks, they tried gas warfare: nothing was able to break the stalemate until the British introduced the tanks in 1917 and the Germans developed infiltration tactics in 1918. Yes, the military academies still taught 19th century tactics, but then no one had seen a war like this before.

That's not to say WWI leaders were good, but I doubt they were particularly more stupid than generals of other times. In the end, however, they were held collectively responsible for the failure of WWI, and that is probably the cause for their bad reputation nowadays.


You make a great point here, and it is my opinion as well that that is what Hannibal was trying to do. Unfortunately, in war, a general doesn't get points for trying, and being a nice guy. The fact that it didn't work as well as he hoped, doesn't excuse the fact that it was an improper assessment and a failed plan.

It certainly failed, but that is hindsight talking. Hannibal wanted to woo away the Italian cities from Rome, and decided that slaughtering Italian captives was not the way to do it. I can't find anything wrong with his assessment here.


You make a good case but it's a little hard for me to believe that Hannibal was simply a decoy to help other generals take Rome's provinces. Also when talking about numbers, just because Rome has 20,000 here and 10,000 there doesn't mean much. You're talking about levies, many of them probably fresh recruits, or dishonered and disunited men in the case of the veterans of Cannae. Hannibal had a battle hardened army and had completely won the war of psychology.

Fair points. However, I still think that Hannibal's campaign in Italy should be seen in the context of the greater war. Hannibal didn't win in Italy, but he didn't exactly lose either. It was the failure of Carthaginian armies in other theatres that allowed Rome to win the war.

As for attacking Rome, it's not a question of numbers but of supplies. Hannibal didn't have siege equipment, so a direct assault was out of the question. Without siege equipment, storming fortifications is a dicey proposition. The 10.000 Roman defenders also maybe levies, but there's nothing like defending your home to raise men's morale, so they would have given him quite a fight. Neither could Hannibal have invested Rome. It was in the middle of hostile territory, and those 20.000 survivors of Cannae plus the consular army from cisalpine Gaul would be more than enough to cut his supply lines. Like I wrote: it would Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome.

[Fluvius Camillus]

The tank mission may be led by Haig, the tanks shocked the germans and created a gap in the line, this gap was not exploited very well and the terrain won was largely lost soon.

Germany had quite good generals for their time, France had very bad leaders, worst example was Nivelle, he sent their men to their deaths and on top of it fired his artillery in the back of his own troops.

At the start of the war the Allies approached the war like the century before, a noble gentlemans engagement. The Germans relied on speed and effectiveness. Like at the Somme, the british took a "leasure walk", how that ended is something you all know.

There are reports that in the first days of the war even spear cavalry was used against the german machine gun batteries.

(Sorry for the OT)

[Maeran]

In the first days of WW1 horses were the fastest reliable way to cross a field. And a cavalry lance is no more archaic an idea than a bayonet. A carbine would lack accuracy in a charge, so you'd have to stop if you wanted to hit anyone in that small bunch of men around the gun. Not a good idea.

Not that the machine gun was likely to lose this encounter, but a better solution didn't exist.

The final successes of 1918 built on years of trial and error. In any case, I would say that generally the generals of that war have a worse reputation than they deserve rather than a better one. So you can't say that any of them are overrated.

There are probably a great many overrated generals. I think that Henry V of England was one of them. The siege of Harfleur -the very first action in his war against France- was such a Pyrrhic victory that he had to change the entire campaign into a symbolic march to Calais. He could not do anything more.

He may have shown great skill in choosing his ground at Agincourt, but so much luck came into the circumstances of that battle that surely only Shakespeare could make him the heroic warrior king he is remembered as.

[Owen Glyndwr]

About WWI, it's really important that you take into account what was going on back then. In the lead up to that era, most generals were still studying for the most part Napoleon, and most still believed that his tactics could be applied to war, as evident by the gradiose of the Schlieffen Plan, which is very Napoleonic. Also, the main French theory revolved around something called le cran (sp?) which basically stated that if the soldiers had the will to win, then they were going to win (mixed perfectly with machine guns, didn't it?)

In many ways that war turned out just like the US Civil War. Most generals were still fighting like Napoleon, only a few (Jackson, for example) realized that times had changed, the name of the game was no longer offense, but defense, and the leader's unwillingness to accept a breach in strategy made the battles exceedingly bloody and exceedingly indecisive.

In regards to Washington, I really think you guys are wrongly downplaying his abilities. He was more than just a charasmatic guy. He may not have been a genius, but he certainly was pragmatic. He knew he couldn't beat the regulars on the open field, and so often avoided that all together. When you point out his failed battles, you have to remember that he was fighting with what was essentially a militia, and he was fighting the most well trained army in the world at that time. I doubt Cornwallis or any of the other British generals could have done even half of the things Washington did with his troops, I mean crossing a frozen river barefoot in Christmas, that's pretty crazy if you ask me. The fact that he held his army together that long alone should be a testament to his ability.

As for Rommel, once again, you have to remember that he was pretty much abandoned by Hitler, he didn't recieve much help from the Italians he was supposed to be aiding, and almost never recieved support from Berlin. I can't remember, I but I think that his utilization of the 88s as anti-tank was pretty out of the ordinary.

What Rommel did was simply realized that he could not go toe to toe with the unending British supply of Armor, so instead played to his advantages; his 88s and his faster tanks. Is that not the markings of a great general? The ability to assess your army, and manipulate your opponent into playing into your strengths, and steering them away from your weaknesses?

Just my 2 cents

[seienchin]

Dont judge the WWI generals to hard. I would agree, that it is hard to find outstanding generals at the british and french side (They had superior numbers from 1915 till 1918 without getting any succes...), but in the eastern theatre they were great generlas.
The russian brussilow did break through the german and austrian lines causing more than 1.3 million losses while having 1. Million on russian side, which is incredible giving the bade shape the russian army was 1916. Also the german use of storm troops in 1918 was so much ahead of the time that it was not even fully copied by many armies in WWII.

[McAds]

It is obvious that the tactics in WWI lagged far behind the technology

Its obvious that the technology and terrain on the Western Front favoured the defender.

[Hooahguy]

i say Monty. his incompetence is horrific in operations Goodwood and Market-Garden. that victory in north africa should not have merited him command of the UK forces in Europe.
i do not think that patton was over-rated. the man was a brilliant general. had he been commanding the tanks in Market-Garden, i think the results would be much different.

[Macilrille]

About WWI, it's really important that you take into account what was going on back then. In the lead up to that era, most generals were still studying for the most part Napoleon, and most still believed that his tactics could be applied to war, as evident by the gradiose of the Schlieffen Plan, which is very Napoleonic. Also, the main French theory revolved around something called le cran (sp?) which basically stated that if the soldiers had the will to win, then they were going to win (mixed perfectly with machine guns, didn't it?)


As for Rommel, once again, you have to remember that he was pretty much abandoned by Hitler, he didn't recieve much help from the Italians he was supposed to be aiding, and almost never recieved support from Berlin. I can't remember, I but I think that his utilization of the 88s as anti-tank was pretty out of the ordinary.

What Rommel did was simply realized that he could not go toe to toe with the unending British supply of Armor, so instead played to his advantages; his 88s and his faster tanks. Is that not the markings of a great general? The ability to assess your army, and manipulate your opponent into playing into your strengths, and steering them away from your weaknesses?

Just my 2 cents

Rommel is overrated cause of his self-publicism (much like Monty) and because he fought and sometimes defeated the Western allies (those who wrote history). Rommel, like Hannibal, was a tactical genius, but his sense of strategy left some to be desired. His supply lines were never secured and that is by and large where he lost in North Africa. He was a product of the German "Win the battles and the war will win itself"-doctrine. If you want a German general of overall brilliance, I think Guderian or Manstein will fit the bill better.

Monty was bad and overrated, but Zhukov was worse, he sacrificed men to achieve victories, WWI mentality or what we in the West think is "Soviet/Russian" mentality. It is not so, Koniev and Rokossovsky tried to spare their men and win battles by tactics, not overwhelming the enemy. Zhukov sacrificed men in the millions I would estimate, not even Monty did that.

Edited to add what I forgot: There is nothing wrong with Napoleonic tactics, Fall gelb was basically identical to Napoleon's tactic at Austerlitz, lure the enemy reserves to one flank, punch through between that and the centre, then annihilate them in a Kesselslacht. The nature of war have not changed since Stone Age, just the tools used to wage it.

[jsadighi]

There are probably a great many overrated generals. I think that Henry V of England was one of them. The siege of Harfleur -the very first action in his war against France- was such a Pyrrhic victory that he had to change the entire campaign into a symbolic march to Calais. He could not do anything more.

He may have shown great skill in choosing his ground at Agincourt, but so much luck came into the circumstances of that battle that surely only Shakespeare could make him the heroic warrior king he is remembered as.

I agree with the first part of this. Henry's aim was to march to Paris, the fact that the siege of Harfleur was so costly for him shows that he wasn't the greatest of generals. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say that he was overrated.

Agincourt was proof that he did have some skill at being a competent general. He didn't just defeat a superior enemy, he decimated them. Sure, Shakespeare did add to the Henry's mystique, but the fact that Henry stood side by side with his men to the very end (not just run off to Calais while his soldiers did all the fighting), against an enemy who, on paper, seemed invincible has earned him the right to be called the "Warrior King."

Was Henry's campaign a failure? When you look at what he was trying to achieve, of course it was a failure. But I don't think I can label him "overrated."

[jsadighi]

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.


Antony also fought an unsuccessful campaign against the Parthians, but he did manage to survive.

I don't think I've met anyone who rated Marc Anthony as a general. Let's face it, the only reason why anyone remembers the guy is because he managed to bag Cleopatra behind Caesar's back!

[desert]

Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?

[Ardri]

Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?
If Grant was to have fought against the Army of Northern Virginia in the first half of the war he would have been defeated most likely. He was mainly successful later in the war because he realized that a war of attrition would destroy the south because they could not match the economic power or manpower of the north. So I guess you could say he was a sound strategist, but a poor tactician.

With regards to Longstreet, his inaction on the second day of Gettysburg was probably the second biggest reason the south lost that battle other than the failure to push on and take Culp's hill(have to check to make sure I have the name of the hill correct) at the end of the first day when the union army was on its heels. On the second day Longstreet delayed some 8 hours before launching his attack because he didn't agree with the orders. As a result the Army of the Potomac was able to shuffle reinforcements from one end of the line to another. Longstreet was a very cautious general, but given the tactical/technological disparity this normally worked out well as the defensive force had a very distinct advantage.

[geala]

Sometimes generals had an easier job to get "hyped". If the defense is much stronger than the attack it is difficult to achieve spectacular successes. During great parts of WW I just the means to beat the enemy did not exist. Even Napoleon would have had problems in this war.

Rommel (my favorite for being overrated) was a good general. But he was not the super hero as whom he sometimes appeared. You don't have to be bad to be overrated, just not so good as many thought. Rommels ruthless first attack on Tobruk f.e. was a shameful desaster. More than once the other generals had to save the situation, f.e. in the battles in late 1941 when Rommel sometimes lost even contact with his divisions because of imprudent trips. The high command thought of him more as an adventurer und would have preferred to get rid of him but he was Hitlers darling and too well known in the public already.

Macilrille, it's interesting that you speak of Fall Gelb, a candidate for the most overrated victory imho. :beam: The success of Fall Gelb was a matter of coincidence, luck, disobedience of some energetic excellent lower generals combined with some (but only a little bit) incompetence of the allied command. The Germans never used blitzkrieg strategy deliberately with success, instead they stumbled into it. If Fall Gelb would have been conducted as planned the forces of France, GB, Belgium and the Netherlands would have performed much better than they did. The blitzkrieg was however a comfortable concept for both sides, the Germans could dupe themselves that they were the best fighters with a superiour tactic (which led to the desaster in the east a year later), the allies could excuse themselves why they were beaten although they had had far stronger forces.

[Cimon]

Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?

Grant is actually underrated as a general, which is to say that people think he is a very bad general even though he won the civil war, while in actuality he was a decent general (but not great). Convoluted logic I suppose, since I am saying that he is underrated because he is so poorly rated, but the fact remains that he is given short shrift from time to time.

Longstreet and Stuart were, as you point out, other major Confederates (although Stuart is a cavalry commander, and so not quite on par with Lee, Longstreet, etc.). However, there are a significant number of other commanders for both sides that don't get mentioned too often due to their being out of the limelight in the most western theaters. Offhand for the confederates, PGT Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and Jubal Early come to mind. For the Union, there is Phillip Sheridan, Don Carlos Buell and, of course, William Tecumseh Sherman. The Civil War can mostly be boiled down as follows: the Union has above-average armies/resources (technology, manpower, etc.) and below-average commanders while the Confederacy has below-average armies/resources and above-average commanders. (In this way, it's actually quite similar to the Second Punic War: Carthage has low-quality armies with good commanders, while Rome has good-quality armies with bad commanders (until Scipio, or possible Cunctator)).

For anyone interested in the US Civil War, I highly recommend Ken Burns documentary. Yes, it is long, but it is spectacularly engrossing and all-encompassing.

[Ibrahim]

Grant is actually underrated as a general, which is to say that people think he is a very bad general even though he won the civil war, while in actuality he was a decent general (but not great). Convoluted logic I suppose, since I am saying that he is underrated because he is so poorly rated, but the fact remains that he is given short shrift from time to time.

Longstreet and Stuart were, as you point out, other major Confederates (although Stuart is a cavalry commander, and so not quite on par with Lee, Longstreet, etc.). However, there are a significant number of other commanders for both sides that don't get mentioned too often due to their being out of the limelight in the most western theaters. Offhand for the confederates, PGT Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and Jubal Early come to mind. For the Union, there is Phillip Sheridan, Don Carlos Buell and, of course, William Tecumseh Sherman. The Civil War can mostly be boiled down as follows: the Union has above-average armies/resources (technology, manpower, etc.) and below-average commanders while the Confederacy has below-average armies/resources and above-average commanders. (In this way, it's actually quite similar to the Second Punic War: Carthage has low-quality armies with good commanders, while Rome has good-quality armies with bad commanders (until Scipio, or possible Cunctator)).

For anyone interested in the US Civil War, I highly recommend Ken Burns documentary. Yes, it is long, but it is spectacularly engrossing and all-encompassing.

you also left out confederate gen. Nathan beford forrest.(yeah I know he was politically contraversial, but his cavalry tactics were innovative for their time)

and the union you left out general George Thomas. he is often forgotten actually.:shame:

[Cimon]

you also left out confederate gen. Nathan beford forrest.(yeah I know he was politically contraversial, but his cavalry tactics were innovative for their time)

and the union you left out general George Thomas. he is often forgotten actually.:shame:

Excellent additions Ibrahim, and thank you for helping to round out my list. I don't know how I forgot the "Rock of Chickamauga." Guess we could add John Bell Hood for the Confederates also, but he is certainly a lesser commander than the others, as witnessed in the Atlanta campaign once he replaced Johnston.

[Ardri]

Hood was an outstanding division commander (corps as well I believe), but my civil war history is not nearly as sharp as it use to be.

I will say that when you have the Texas Brigade in your division it is easy for a division commander to look good! Haha, maybe a little bias to my state.

[Cimon]

Hood was an outstanding division commander (corps as well I believe), but my civil war history is not nearly as sharp as it use to be.

I will say that when you have the Texas Brigade in your division it is easy for a division commander to look good! Haha, maybe a little bias to my state.

Hood is a classic example of the Peter Principle: "In any given hierarchical structure, a person will rise to his/her highest level of incompetence and stay there." In other words, a person who does well at a job will be promoted, until they get to a job that he/she doesn't do well, and then he/she will cease being promoted, but will not be demoted, and will just continue to do his/her new job incompetently. That's Hood in a nutshell. He was outstanding with smaller detachments, but as he rose through his promotional ranks, he became less and less effective. He still did well enough to be promoted to replace a cautious Johnston in the Atlanta campaign, and proceeded to agressively play into Sherman's numerical advantage by directly attacking the Union forces, thereby destroying his own. (Shades of Varro and Paulus, anyone?)

[Ardri]

I do believe that by the time he took over in the Atlanta campaign he had already lost both an arm and a leg. Not sure if that played a role in hindering his ability to command, but I highly doubt that those kinds of injuries have any benefit.

[Macilrille]

Macilrille, it's interesting that you speak of Fall Gelb, a candidate for the most overrated victory imho. :beam: The success of Fall Gelb was a matter of coincidence, luck, disobedience of some energetic excellent lower generals combined with some (but only a little bit) incompetence of the allied command. The Germans never used blitzkrieg strategy deliberately with success, instead they stumbled into it. If Fall Gelb would have been conducted as planned the forces of France, GB, Belgium and the Netherlands would have performed much better than they did. The blitzkrieg was however a comfortable concept for both sides, the Germans could dupe themselves that they were the best fighters with a superiour tactic (which led to the desaster in the east a year later), the allies could excuse themselves why they were beaten although they had had far stronger forces.

You misinterpret me. I said there is nothing wrong with Napoleonic tactics, I then pointed out that fall Gelb and Austerlitz were the same tactic (both brilliant) and said that in fact the nature of war never change it is just the tools we use to wage it.

In fact I definately beg to differ, Blitzkrieg was brilliant and it did decisively defeat an antequated doctrine that the Allies used. 7-8 years back I wrote extensively on the subject of French vs German doctrine and argued that even had Fall Gelb been carried out according to Halder's plan German tactical superiority because of Blitzkrieg and the general German doctrine the Germans would have won. The French were antequated in their doctrine and discouraged initiative, the Germans were innovative and encouraged initiative, they called it "Auftragstaktik".

The same thing happened in 1941 and 1942 on the Eastern front, the Red Army was stifled and killed initiative and innovation, while the German Blitzkrieg slized it to pieces, so we differ in opinion there as well. I encourage you to read some of Glantz' books, especially "The Initial period of War on The Eastern front" and "Stumbling Colosseus" as they deal with this matter in some detail and with access to Russian archival sources.

Sorry for the OT.

History is full of overrated Generals, but even more preponderant is armschair generals like us evaluating their results. I doubt many people could live up to the demands they measurem others with- including myself.

[desert]

What about Tukhachevsky? Did he actually do anything before his execution?

He seems to have been the first to come up with the theory of blitzkrieg though.

[Gaivs]

Caesar is certainly not overrated. Though he was not a top tactician, we was certainly a master strategist.
And the 'luck' that Caesar mostly had, was imo the result of actual hard work and planning more often than naught.

Hannibal was the opposite: a great tactician, one of the very best. But he seriously lacked on strategy.

@ Africanus:
The circumvallae of Alesia was nothing new. Though the scale, enormity, completeness and terrain it occured upon, are vastly different, there were atleast 2 other occassions the romans performed this trick.

One by Scipio Africanus in Africa, and I think someone did it to Capua aswel.

Anyway, this is not a discussion about who was the best, so enough of that.


I'd say Pompey was the most overrated classical general.
A great planner/organizer, but mediocre at best at the other categories.

He got trounced by Sertorius in Spain (another great tactician) and face it: got pwnd by Caesar who was outnumbered.
His campaign against the pirates was excellent, but concerned mostly planning and not actual generalship.
His campaign in the East against Mithradates and Tigraine was not more than a mop up of Lucullus' work.

I agree with...well everything you said about Pompey.

[Macilrille]

What about Tukhachevsky? Did he actually do anything before his execution?

He seems to have been the first to come up with the theory of blitzkrieg though.

Tukhachevsky and a clique of other innovative officers were in fact theorising about something very akin to Blitzkrieg, so did Liddel-Hart, Guderian implemented it and added the very important touch of Radio use for communication and integration of all arms.

Innovation and initiative = potential danger/subversive activity in Stalin's eyes = R.I.P., the Red Army was headless on the Eve of Barbarossa and those few intelligent officers who had not been killed or sent to Siberia kept a very low profile and tried not to think too much for themselves, for the purges did not end in 1937, they continues till the outbreak of war, and strictly speaking a bit into war as well.
Thus initiative and innovation was dead in the Red Army as well.

Needless to say I am no supporter of Viktor Rezun's nonsense.

Whether or not Tukhachevsky is overrated is hard to say, is he rated at all? Most Russians hail "Comrade Zhukov", and though not a bad general he was not the genius he is made out to be, and he probably caused more dead Soviet soldiers than most German Generals did.

[Cullhwch]

I don't know that anyone in the West really regards Marshal Zhukov that highly. I see him in the same vein as General Grant from the US Civil War. Not a military genius like Guderian or Lee, but good enough to win decisively when things went his way. I also don't buy the whole "butcher" argument regarding him either. Sure, his armies suffered heavy casualties, but that was a systemic problem of the Soviet Union. From the wiki...

"Zhukov's actual career is as diverse as those opinions. Brutal disregard for the lives of his soldiers often changes to the complete opposite. Zhukov spent more time than most Soviet commanders training his troops for battle, and preparing the battle plans, which often led to significantly lower casualty numbers compared to other Soviet commanders; for example at the Soviet counteroffensive during the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941 Zhukov lost 139,586 men[23], or 13.6% of his total strength - while a comparable operation under General Kozlov lost about 40% of his men (estimates ranging between 150,000 and 175,000 killed) near Kerch[24]. As the war went on, Zhukov's casualties became even lower. At the Battle of Berlin Zhukov lost only 4.1% of his men, while Konev's forces, who faced weaker German opposition, lost 5%[25] and at the same time Rodion Malinovsky lost almost 8% at the Battle of Budapest.[26]"

Sure, he was perhaps the prime examplar of the "victory at any cost" mentality, but none of his victories were truly Pyrrhic, as he had a knack for utterly destroying the enemy.

[Macilrille]

I don't know that anyone in the West really regards Marshal Zhukov that highly. I see him in the same vein as General Grant from the US Civil War. Not a military genius like Guderian or Lee, but good enough to win decisively when things went his way. I also don't buy the whole "butcher" argument regarding him either. Sure, his armies suffered heavy casualties, but that was a systemic problem of the Soviet Union. From the wiki...

"Zhukov's actual career is as diverse as those opinions. Brutal disregard for the lives of his soldiers often changes to the complete opposite. Zhukov spent more time than most Soviet commanders training his troops for battle, and preparing the battle plans, which often led to significantly lower casualty numbers compared to other Soviet commanders; for example at the Soviet counteroffensive during the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941 Zhukov lost 139,586 men[23], or 13.6% of his total strength - while a comparable operation under General Kozlov lost about 40% of his men (estimates ranging between 150,000 and 175,000 killed) near Kerch[24]. As the war went on, Zhukov's casualties became even lower. At the Battle of Berlin Zhukov lost only 4.1% of his men, while Konev's forces, who faced weaker German opposition, lost 5%[25] and at the same time Rodion Malinovsky lost almost 8% at the Battle of Budapest.[26]"

Sure, he was perhaps the prime examplar of the "victory at any cost" mentality, but none of his victories were truly Pyrrhic, as he had a knack for utterly destroying the enemy.

Have a look at the counteroffensives after Kursk, or his operations at Khalkhin Gol, Operation Mars or indeed the Moscow counteroffensive. Zhukov's tactic was as Monty's mass enough resources and keep hammering the enemy with them till he breaks or you run out. Yes he did achieve victory often, but how he did it... vatutin was about as brutal, but much more tactically sophisticated and the best of the Soviets were IMO Rokossovski.

[Cimon]

...the best of the Soviets were IMO Rokossovski.

Agreed. Rokossovski was the best Soviet general during WWII. It takes some kind of gall to stand up to superior officers, and even Stalin, multiple times in the middle of a war, especially after having been interrogated/tortured/purged-save-the-execution once already.

Your point about us armchair generals is also well-taken, but modern evaluation by non-military types is still a legitimate exercise in my view, as long as it's not taken too seriously. It's equivalent to sports fans: there's no way most of us could run that fast, catch that ball, score that goal, etc., but that doesn't stop us from praising the made shot or criticizing the missed one.

[Revoltie]

I would go for Pyrrhus, Barca, and Napoleon.

Their greatness is self explanative

[Beefy187]

Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius

[commander bitchslap]

completely unknow for most :Robert II of artois of france...

let me indtroduce a little story
1302 the county of flanders (nothern part of belgium) was a subject to the french powerfull kingdom, but they didn't like that because they were impressivly economical develloped and the frensh king ruled like an complete asshole.

on a night in june the flemmish people killed savagely several thousand of frensh noblemen who lived in the city of bruges to send the frensh king a clear message ( wich is a holiday in flanders , no joke)

the mighty king of course was outraged ike hell! how dare those peasant of the north provoce a mighty kingdom!!?
king philipII assembled a wickedly strong army to take revenge on the flammish.
around 10.000 strong professionals (a large number in that time) with no less then 6000 knights(!!!) in that time in warfare ,a knight was worth more then 10 footsoldiers! also the frensh heavy armoured cavalery was probably the best and most feared in whole of europe!

because it was serious bussiness for the french king he; assigned the campain to the best commander of that time of the whole mighty french kingdom:
sir(count) robertII of artois;
an super expierienced veteran. on his record: joined the 8th cruisade to tunis and gained a glorious victory against france arch nemesis: the english!! in the battle of aquitania. and many others

and so the frensh well trained, expirienced army marched north .pretty comfident and determent to punish ,wipe out and erradicate the flemish uprising pesant army.
who consisted of olso around 10.000 men BUT!!!!! they had only 400(!!!) knights the rest were untrained unexpierienced peasants.

battle results?
the frensh army fled back to france like a whipped dog complety battered and defeated ,...
if you want to know how the heck that peasant army dealt a crushing defeat to their much much stronger opponent, just let me know I will be happy to tell you :-)

[Berg-i-dum]

I know I will be crucified lol, but I always say Alexander The Great.

It is not so dificult to destroy a so ruined and decadent empire like the Persian one, then you have that big skeleton to create a new empire above the previous one, you only cut a head and then have all the body. And If prevoiously your father managed to create a exceptional army and discipline, it is even easier. I would like to imagine the macedonian fighting a stronger and united Persian Empire like the one in the old good days of Darius and Cyrus The Great (this one really was the great).

[A Very Super Market]

Well, I knew about Robert II

He isn't really overrated. Yes, he did not perform well, but it isn't as if people thought he was a good general.

Its a bit like putting Spartans as "Surprisingly Good".

[Mulceber]

I actually agree, Berg. Alexander was a really great general, I won't deny him that, but I think that people kind of don't (and didn't) realize how weak the persian empire really was. Thermopylae had proven that, as had Xenophon's march from Mesopotamia through Turkey. Light infantry wouldn't stand up to the Greek phalanx, and Alexander's true brilliance was in seeing through the facade of invincibility that the Persians had.

The one area in which I disagree with you is in your assessment that he wouldn't have faired so well against Darius or Cyrus. I disagree. It wasn't that the Persians were any weaker than they had always been, it was that their army was composed almost entirely of light troops which couldn't really stand up to Greek heavy infantry, particularly phalangitai. As stated above, there were numerous land battles against the persians where the Greeks demonstrated their superiority, partly due to their tactics, but also to a large degree due to their equipment. Marathon, Thermopylae, etc. -M

[Berg-i-dum]

I actually agree, Berg. Alexander was a really great general, I won't deny him that, but I think that people kind of don't (and didn't) realize how weak the persian empire really was. Thermopylae had proven that, as had Xenophon's march from Mesopotamia through Turkey. Light infantry wouldn't stand up to the Greek phalanx, and Alexander's true brilliance was in seeing through the facade of invincibility that the Persians had.

The one area in which I disagree with you is in your assessment that he wouldn't have faired so well against Darius or Cyrus. I disagree. It wasn't that the Persians were any weaker than they had always been, it was that their army was composed almost entirely of light troops which couldn't really stand up to Greek heavy infantry, particularly phalangitai. As stated above, there were numerous land battles against the persians where the Greeks demonstrated their superiority, partly due to their tactics, but also to a large degree due to their equipment. Marathon, Thermopylae, etc. -M
Yeah that is also true, but well at least with Darius the persian Empire was a powerful empire in the top of his development with a probably stronger army, treasury and administration. That was what I really mean. And of course phalanx -even hoplitai- were better than persian army with Darius or in the decadent time of the Alexanders come.

[Macilrille]

Welcome to the EB Forum Commander, now prepare for a dose of academic arrogance ;-)

This is the EB Forum- a forum for nerds (or we would play vanilla), people here have a fairly good grasp of military history, especially pre-modern military history. Some have degress in history or archeology, others are getting them. Thus most people here already know about Courtrai/Kortrijk and while The Battle of The Golden Spurs is interesting and symbolic enough, specialists will know that it was not the first time Heavy Cavalry was defeated by organised Heavy Infantry, and certainly not the last. The most significant thing about it is that it was the first time in the West that Commoners defeated Nobles after the fall of the Roman Empire.

And the Godendag is a particularly nasty weapon.

That, however, has not made anyone afterwards believe that Robert was a great general, quite the contrary, and if you look at people who were overestimated at their time, history is full of them. Loads of nobles from Res Publica Romana till modern times have been overrated by their time till they lost...

The question is about generals overrated by people after their career, as you will notice if you read through the long and longwinded posts in the thread. I can think of no Fleming commanders out of hand and thus no overrated ones. Perhaps William "The Silent" would qualify, but he was never lauded as a great commander. His son Wilhelm was more of one, but even he is not hailed as such anywhere AFAIK.

[Mulceber]

Yeah that is also true, but well at least with Darius the persian Empire was a powerful empire in the top of his development with a probably stronger army, treasury and administration. That was what I really mean. And of course phalanx -even hoplitai- were better than persian army with Darius or in the decadent time of the Alexanders come.

Very true. I think it's probably a little of both. I think Alexander would have still won even if he was fighting the Persians at their height though - The Athenians defeated the Persians at their height at Marathon, and they only had 1 city state. Alexander had the united Greek city states at his back. -M

[Dutchhoplite]

Hmm, that's not entirely true...

[Ravenfeeder]

The characteristics of a good general
1) Tactical competancy
2) Strategic competancy
3) Logistical competancy
4) Man motivation

All are equally important. Most of the people mentioned here have some or all of these qualities. Montgomery has 2,3 and 4 which is why Alan Brooke (the man who put the British army back together afer Dunkirk and kept it going afterwards with limited resources) rated him so highly. Monty got his men to fight and keep fighting.
Alexander had 1 and 4. 4 in spades, which allowed him to do great things.

What we need to find is a general who is rated highly who had none of these qualities.

Zhukov comes quite close (read the Glantz book on Operation Mars - although some of his points are questioned by Russian historians).

Charles the Bold (Rash) of Burgundy seems to be rated and has no redeeming qualities.

Charles XII of Sweden is rated very highly indeed but ultimately lost so badly that he condemned his nation to life on the fringes for centuries.

any more?

[Cimon]

That, however, has not made anyone afterwards believe that Robert was a great general, quite the contrary, and if you look at people who were overestimated at their time, history is full of them. Loads of nobles from Res Publica Romana till modern times have been overrated by their time till they lost...

Not only do people not consider Robert II a good general, but his father, Robert I, was a bad commander as well, leading a vanguard cavalry contingent to almost total annihilation, including his own death, at Al Mansourah in the Seventh Crusade (led by Louis IX of France). After an initially successful surprise charge/attack on the Egyptian camp, he pursued the defenders into the city of Mansourah, where his knights becamse separated, and their tactical advantage (i.e. the renowned Frankish cavalry charge) was rendered utterly useless. Further, he led this pursuit in contradiction of previously given direct orders to wait and reform from Louis IX. While Robert I is probably overly-blamed for the overall failure of the entire Crusade, the strategic result of his recklessness was an increasingly untenable situation for the Crusaders, leading to eventual retreat back towards Damietta.

Like father, like son.

[Haxamanis]

Interesting question, the most overrated general ever…

I like to add something different to the discussion.

I think the question has nothing to do with the strategical, motivational or tactical abilities of the general. It’s more about the perception (or misperception) of the acts of a historical general in our times. Only when today’s public opinion about a general differs from the historical acts of that general, than we can speak of overrated-ness.

So to answer the question about who is an overrated general you should first ask why public opinion about generals would be different from what history tells us.

There are several reasons for this that I can (quickly) think of.

1. Collective memory. This is what groups of people want to remember about their collective past. This taditionally and culturally inclined view of the past is a major reason for ahistorical views of the past. An example of this is the Dutch father of the fatherland, William of Orange, who was a terrible general, but nobody in the Netherlands wants to know that. Also Ambiorix of the Belgians or Washington for the Americans would qualify for this reason.

2. Fictional histories. Many books are written and movies are produced about the past. The goal of these artists is not to show actual history but to make a nice story about history. These ahistorical views of the past have great influence, I think, on public opinion. For example Edward Saïd argues that western (part-fictional) literature have even influenced the whole western view of oriental people. It’s easy to see why generals could be overrated for this reason. A few examples of overrated generals from movies are Spartacus or Balian of Ibelin.

3. Scientific errors. You might think that professional historians never make mistakes or are always unbiased, but that is not true. Sometimes bad (or just old) historical research has such a great influence that, although it is proven wrong, the influence remains. A good example for this is the book “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon. Written in the 18th century it is still a major pillar of the history of the later Roman Empire. Its influence is still visible in every new book that’s written about this period of time. When analysed, it seems that Gibbon had not even read half of the sources that were available (even in his time) and that his book is full of mistakes. But his conclusions (based on bad research and identification with the British Empire) are still predominant today.

The beginning of historical scientific research was in the 19th century. Many research from these times have had a lasting influence on historians even until today. It is therefore good to remember that the origin of historical science was in a world of nationalism, romanticism and English supremacy. Therefore generals who are national hero’s, medieval generals like Charlemagne and El Cid and English generals in general tend to be a bit overrated, even by historians.

Sorry, got a bit carried away…

[commander bitchslap]

@ A Very Super Market
@ Macilrille
@ Cimon

well dudes i must say I'm pretty impressed.you folks actually know about it, this is definetly a nerdside and I do belong here :-) i don't hav a degree in history, but since the day i could read ,I read about historical battles and now 20 years later, nothing has ever changed:-)

last thing I have to say about sir robert is he realy was considdered a good commander. and france anno 1300 that ment something as they were almost in constant war.

at courtray however he realy realy messed up as a commander. very shamefull because he had an aunt living in courtray where he spend much time there in his childhood so he knew about the muddy and swampy terrain. with his expireince and majority of heavy cavalery he should hav outflanked the flemmish footsoldiers and crushed them in sted of charging blindly and over selfconfident head on, were they got stuck in the muddy terrain and maid the pride strong cavalery a sitting duck to the amateurish peasants!

further my haert bleeds if I see the names of barca , alexander an caesar in this topic as overrated,... yes they gambled and yes sometimes they had luck on their side, but sweet jezus, to say they're overrated after all what they'd accomplished and more HOW !!!???they definatly deserve grait praise in historical warfare!
napoleon,now that man is a little overrated, i will tell later why!

hav a nice weekend folks!

very nice forum you nerdies:-)

[The Persian Cataphract]

I actually agree, Berg. Alexander was a really great general, I won't deny him that, but I think that people kind of don't (and didn't) realize how weak the persian empire really was. Thermopylae had proven that, as had Xenophon's march from Mesopotamia through Turkey. Light infantry wouldn't stand up to the Greek phalanx, and Alexander's true brilliance was in seeing through the facade of invincibility that the Persians had.

The one area in which I disagree with you is in your assessment that he wouldn't have faired so well against Darius or Cyrus. I disagree. It wasn't that the Persians were any weaker than they had always been, it was that their army was composed almost entirely of light troops which couldn't really stand up to Greek heavy infantry, particularly phalangitai. As stated above, there were numerous land battles against the persians where the Greeks demonstrated their superiority, partly due to their tactics, but also to a large degree due to their equipment. Marathon, Thermopylae, etc. -M

This.

Is complete and utter rubbish, derived from wishy-washy reasoning, trivialization of historical fact, and shows complete ignorance on the structure, doctrine and historical merits of the Achaemenid military machine. Totally dismissive of several archaeological discoveries, this without a doubt a hotbed of fallacies focused on cherry-picking a few battles, isolating them from past and later Persian successes.

Let me put it this way: Even if I had the time and even if I had all the enthusiasm in the world to thoroughly pick this apart, one topic by the other, I wouldn't even know from where to start. This is so fundamentally flawed, I'd sincerely urge you to read up on the matter.

[Raygereio]

The characteristics of a good general
1) Tactical competancy
2) Strategic competancy
3) Logistical competancy
4) Man motivation

[snip]
Alexander had 1 and 4. 4 in spades, which allowed him to do great things.
[snip]
And I'll say one of the more impressive things about Alexander the Great was his logistical achievements.


Light infantry wouldn't stand up to the Greek phalanx, and Alexander's true brilliance was in seeing through the facade of invincibility that the Persians had.
I though the Greeks allready reckoned they could beat the Persians after Xenophon wrote his Anabasis. Also; a phalanx unsupported by other troops can and probably will be defeated by light infantry. One of the reasons the Macedonian army won was because it used combined armes tactics, both heavy and light infantry and cavalry working together.

[Aelius Maximus]

Well, the Catalaunian Fields were no crushing defeat, actually closer to a draw.

The Catalaunian Fields was a battle imposed to the retreating Huns, not very important to say the truth. Nevertheless, Aecius allowed the huns to escape cause he intended to use them aganist the goths (In his mind they were the real enemy of rome).

[Phalanx300]

I also think its Alexander, he was a great general but seeing him as the greatest general ever goes beyond me :dizzy2:.

[Cullhwch]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Saladin yet. He is always held up as the pinnacle of Muslim medieval generals, but he could only win battles when he had an overwhelming numerical advantage. Even then, his success was far from guaranteed. He was absolutely embarrassed at Montgisard, and his subsequent defeats in the Third Crusade showed him to be a terrible tactician. If he were an EB general, he would probably combine the "understanding of strategy/logistics" traits with "terrible tactician" and "doubtful courage."

[Ludens]

Very true. I think it's probably a little of both. I think Alexander would have still won even if he was fighting the Persians at their height though - The Athenians defeated the Persians at their height at Marathon, and they only had 1 city state. Alexander had the united Greek city states at his back.

Your are really underestimating Alexander here. Firstly, Alexander didn't just fight the Persians. During his campaigns he encountered and defeated Thracians and Bactrian hill tribes, Greek hoplite armies, Persians, Scythian horse archers (I think Alexander is one of the few generals that successfully countered horse-archers while not employing them himself) and Indians. In other words, he faced every fighting-style of his day, bar the Chinese, and won.

Secondly, the "Persians can't fight" argument is just nonsense. You don't maintain, let alone conquer, a major empire without serious military skills. Yes, Persians fared badly while fighting the Greeks in the latter's home-territory, but equally the Greeks weren't very successful in Persian-held ground. The Athenian reinforcements sent to support the Ionian revolt were annihilated, and the invasion of Egypt, although it got of to a good start, eventually ended in defeat. Ionia remained a contested area until Alexander the Great, which hardly suggests a lack of confidence on the Persian's side.

The Persian weren't just light infantry either: their strike force was their cavalry, and they had some good infantry corpses. That said, they did realise the power of the hoplite phalanx, or else they wouldn't have hired large numbers of Greek mercenaries and formed their own elite hoplite corps.

[Ishmael]

Come on The Persian Cataphract, don't be nasty :clown:

Personally I feel that Douglas MacArthur, whilst probably not the most overrated, was still a pretty dodgy commander. From what i've read, he was incredibly arrogant and overconfident (not in the good sense), made decisions from HQ that were obviously counter-productive to those on the ground, and often made promises that were impractical eg: by promising the media he would retake Seoul by a certain date, he launched a criminally stupid naval assault that only suceeded because the defenders weredisorganised and couldn't counterattack. I will admit though, he did have a bit of intel there that the North Koreans were not heavily concentrated there. Finally, he relegated the ANZAC's after New Guinea to retaking obscure islands nobody cared about, and claimed all the glory in the main campaign for the US.

Anyway, i'm ranting a bit, but from what i've seen MacArthur only succeeded through a great deal of luck and a way with the media.

Of course, if i'm incorrect on one or more points, please feel free to correct me.

EDIT: I just realised that technically his rank was Supreme Commander in the Pacific campaign. Are we still counting this as a general?

[Cullhwch]

Well, if we're counting Kings of Kings in our discussion, then I'm sure that there's room for a mere Supreme Commander.

[Hax]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Saladin yet. He is always held up as the pinnacle of Muslim medieval generals, but he could only win battles when he had an overwhelming numerical advantage. Even then, his success was far from guaranteed. He was absolutely embarrassed at Montgisard, and his subsequent defeats in the Third Crusade showed him to be a terrible tactician. If he were an EB general, he would probably combine the "understanding of strategy/logistics" traits with "terrible tactician" and "doubtful courage."

Be that as it may, he was still an enlightened individual in a dark time. And that is where he got his admiration from.

[Cullhwch]

Oh I fully agree on that, Hax. He was a great leader, but an unusually shitty general. I'm amazed that he held onto power after Montgisard.

[Mulceber]

Your are really underestimating Alexander here. Firstly, Alexander didn't just fight the Persians. During his campaigns he encountered and defeated Thracians and Bactrian hill tribes, Greek hoplite armies, Persians, Scythian horse archers (I think Alexander is one of the few generals that successfully countered horse-archers while not employing them himself) and Indians. In other words, he faced every fighting-style of his day, bar the Chinese, and won.

I'm not selling Alexander short as a general - I think that he was a brilliant tactician. I'm just saying that nowadays (and in antiquity) he is portrayed as some sort of tactical god, a superman when the defeat of the Persian Empire was well within the realm of human achievement. What he achieved was remarkable, but not quite as much as people like to believe.


Secondly, the "Persians can't fight" argument is just nonsense. You don't maintain, let alone conquer, a major empire without serious military skills. Yes, Persians fared badly while fighting the Greeks in the latter's home-territory, but equally the Greeks weren't very successful in Persian-held ground. The Athenian reinforcements sent to support the Ionian revolt were annihilated, and the invasion of Egypt, although it got of to a good start, eventually ended in defeat. Ionia remained a contested area until Alexander the Great, which hardly suggests a lack of confidence on the Persian's side.

I didn't say they can't fight. I said that their force was primarily comprised of light infantry, which are fine when you're fighting lightly armored foes, but don't hold up very well when you're up against heavier infantry. As a (slightly exaggerated) example, think of the Incas - they built an Empire which spanned nearly half of South America. Clearly, these people knew how to fight. Yet when the Spanish arrived with guns, horses and steel armor (not to mention disease) they folded like a house of cards. I'm not saying the Persians couldn't fight, just that they had devised a type of infantry and a style of fighting that was adapted for the hills and steppes of their homeland but wasn't particularly effective against the Greek style.

As for the claim that the Greeks tended to fair just as badly on Persian soil as the Persians did on Greek soil, that's not always true: Xenophon managed to march through close to a thousand miles of Persian held territory on his return to Greece without being destroyed. The fact that the Persians didn't mount a more serious attempt to destroy this enemy force within their own borders heavily suggests that for whatever reason, they didn't think it would be to their benefit. Likely they knew that they would sustain ridiculous casualties and might even be defeated by a force which was leaving anyway.


The Persian weren't just light infantry either: their strike force was their cavalry, and they had some good infantry corps. That said, they did realise the power of the hoplite phalanx, or else they wouldn't have hired large numbers of Greek mercenaries and formed their own elite hoplite corps.

I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't surprise me. I wasn't trying to claim that the Persians *only* had light infantry, just that it was the majority of their force. If they had good cavalry and some heavier infantry, that helped them, but they clearly didn't use it to the same effect as Alexander did. -M

[Ludens]

I'm not selling Alexander short as a general - I think that he was a brilliant tactician. I'm just saying that nowadays (and in antiquity) he is portrayed as some sort of tactical god, a superman when the defeat of the Persian Empire was well within the realm of human achievement. What he achieved was remarkable, but not quite as much as people like to believe.

It's within the realm of human achievement, but to do it in such short time, taking the empire completely, then to march on to campaign in Bactria (just as the British/Soviets/Americans on just how difficult that is) and India. Oh, and holding together Greece and defeat the Scythians on the way. And all that in dozen or so years. That is special.


As for the claim that the Greeks tended to fair just as badly on Persian soil as the Persians did on Greek soil, that's not always true: Xenophon managed to march through close to a thousand miles of Persian held territory on his return to Greece without being destroyed. The fact that the Persians didn't mount a more serious attempt to destroy this enemy force within their own borders heavily suggests that for whatever reason, they didn't think it would be to their benefit. Likely they knew that they would sustain ridiculous casualties and might even be defeated by a force which was leaving anyway.

You've just countered your own argument. Xenophon's army was leaving. There is little point in risking battle if the enemy is already withdrawing, and the Persian king may have had more pressing concerns. Civil wars do tend to encourage all sorts of rebellion on the borders. I still maintain that the inability of the Greeks to permanently expel the Persians from Greek Ionia indicates that the Persian military was quite capable of dealing with hoplites when fighting on home-ground.

[Mulceber]

It's within the realm of human achievement, but to do it in such short time, taking the empire completely, then to march on to campaign in Bactria (just as the British/Soviets/Americans on just how difficult that is) and India.

Have you ever tried blitzing in EB? It's actually more easy to defeat them in a short amount of time because doing so prevents them from gathering their resources and rebuilding their forces.


There is little point in risking battle if the enemy is already withdrawing

Normally, you'd be correct, but when the enemy is withdrawing through your own territory, refusing to attack them makes you look weak (as it did the persians). The fact that they chose not to press the retreating Greek mercenaries indicates that they thought the loss of face was the lesser of two evils - meaning that most likely, they thought there was a pretty good chance they'd lose. -M

[Ludens]

Have you ever tried blitzing in EB? It's actually more easy to defeat them in a short amount of time because doing so prevents them from gathering their resources and rebuilding their forces.

Indeed it is, but EB is not reality. Logistics and loyalty are simplified, for one.


Normally, you'd be correct, but when the enemy is withdrawing through your own territory, refusing to attack them makes you look weak (as it did the persians). The fact that they chose not to press the retreating Greek mercenaries indicates that they thought the loss of face was the lesser of two evils - meaning that most likely, they thought there was a pretty good chance they'd lose.

Not necessarily. Like I said: a civil war would have stirred up other rebellions on the Persian border, so Artaxerxes could not waste strength. Even a successful battle will come at significant costs. Furthermore, wouldn't the Greeks retreat through Cyrus' former territory? The damage done by the retreating Greeks would be mostly to Cyrus' supporters, and that would have served Artaxerxes just fine.

Yes, I agree, it wasn't a sign of strength, but it need not necessarily mean the Persians would have lost. They may have decided it was too much risk for too little benefit: the Greeks were no serious threat anymore, Artaxerxes needed his army intact and loss of face would be small.

[Apázlinemjó]

The Greek mercenaries withdrew through Lesser Armenia and North Turkey, while Cyrus' satrapias were Lydia and Phrygia. Also, Egypt revolted against Artaxerxes, so he needed his army to try to reconquer it.

[kekailoa]

I didn't say they can't fight. I said that their force was primarily comprised of light infantry, which are fine when you're fighting lightly armored foes, but don't hold up very well when you're up against heavier infantry. As a (slightly exaggerated) example, think of the Incas - they built an Empire which spanned nearly half of South America. Clearly, these people knew how to fight. Yet when the Spanish arrived with guns, horses and steel armor (not to mention disease) they folded like a house of cards.
-M

In actuality, much of the Incas defeat to the Spanish was due more to the fact that four-fifth of their population was decimated by disease and that the Spanish, like every other successful conqueror in history, used a majority of native allies to do the fighting and only used his armored conquistadors as an elite force. And they didn't fold like a house of cards. Much of the empire, even after disease and assault, was intact and merely accepted the Spanish as their overlords.

[Vilkku92]

Spanish also betrayed most of the treaties signed with the Incas, but still the last Incas managed to survive until 18th century, and actually caused some defeats to the Spanish.

[Celtic_Punk]

Monty. His market garden fiasco butchered the red devils. He tooted his own horn constantly. Rommel was the greatest general of WW2