Underrated (and overrated) figures from history

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Thought that this could provoke some interesting discussion. Who your opinion is the most underrated historical figure. And for the that matter the most overrated!

For example Lucius Licinius Lucullus was a fine general who had fought Mithradates the Great and Tigranes of Armenia out of Roman Asia Minor. However Pompey the Great managed to take his command when the real work was already done and take the credit for it.

By that same token Pompey the great, for all the hype, wasn't overly successful. Many of the battles he won, he outnumbered the opposition, or had a much better force. When he fought at Phillipi against Caesar, (a truly gifted general admittedly), and outnumbered him hugely, he lost in less than an hour!

Anyway, your thoughts gentlemen!

[Geoffrey S]

For example Lucius Licinius Lucullus was a fine general who had fought Mithradates the Great and Tigranes of Armenia out of Roman Asia Minor. However Pompey the Great managed to take his command when the real work was already done and take the credit for it.
Kudos. What a great character that was.

[Furious Mental]

I always say Edward IV of England because he won far more field battles than any other English King yet gets far less credit for military skill than kings like Richard I, Edward I, Edward III, Edward of Woodstock, Henry V, etc. On that note, I would also say that those last three are significantly overrated because the fact is they all lacked strategic vision. Edward III and Edward of Woodstock because they were only dimly aware of how their own soldiers, ex-soldiers, and allies were undoing all the hard won territorial gains of the first two decades of the Hundred Years War (short-sightedness which resulted in all of those gains being taken back by Charles V in the space of a few years). Henry V because even though he won stunning military victories and gained formal recognition as King of France, he thereby committed his kingdom to conquering the whole of France (of which the remaining southern portion was the most hostile and best fortified), an essentially impossible task for any but a truly exceptional king (which Henry VI certainly was not)- in other words he set his country up to ultimately lose the Hundred Years War.

[CrazyGuy]

I think you've got a valid point there Furious, but I would question whether it can be applied to Henry V. He died at 34(?) from dysentry at the height of powers.

It seems a bit unfair to criticise him for lack of foresight. If the south did have to be conquered then presumbably he reckoned he was the man to do it?

How about this for over-rated: Robert Bruce. We've all heard the spider's web story, so Bruce's legend is built around one victory against a dispirited ill-led army. Hardly a massive achievement, especially when one considers the defeats and tactical errors he made (invasion of Ireland being one).

[Furious Mental]

Presumably he did but I would still consider him short-sighted. Even though he died in 1422, bt that time it was quite clear both that the conquered French, unlike the Gascons, were not going to pay or die to defend English territory, and also that the English were more interested in internal factional disputes (which ultimately led to the Wars of the Roses) than in moving to France as colonists. I am not saying Henry V wasn't exceptionally skilled (although I still doubt that he could have taken over the whole of France anyway). But he is often lauded without any note being made of his flaws. He was still alot more on the ball than Edward III and Edward of Woodstock, who obstinately refused acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

[Geoffrey S]

Oh, and a personal favourite underrated person is Sergei Witte. Did a far better job restructuring his country than anyone could have expected and is one of those individuals I can't help thinking about 'what if they had listened to him?'.

[Paradox]

Khalid ibn Al Walid and Baldwin IV are definately one of the most underrated.

[Innocentius]

It's tough to define the word "underrated", but just assuming that it's people who gets to little attention according to their achievments, I'd say Peter the Great. He more or less founded the Russian empire, but is hardly mentioned as a prominent historical figure. I'd also say Gustav Vasa, although his "underratedness" probably has more to do with him being from the ****hole of Europe at the time, rather than him not being an important person.

Although the historical people I think are really underrated can be divided into two groups:

1. Interesting characters who were not (very) important political people.
2. Everyday people - how often do we compare and rank farmers on history forums?

Both these groups certainly deserve more attention than they get.

It is, for obvious reasons, difficult to drop any names in category #2, but a few people I think would fit in category #1 would be (in no particular order): Götz von Berlichingen, Josquin Desprez, Hans Holbein (the younger), Urs Graf, Paul Dolnstein, Thomas Becket, Walter von der Vogelweide and a lot of others that I can't think of right now. I should probably add some Arabic mathematicians and poets to the list... and some Romans as well, but you get the point.

[seireikhaan]

Underrated:

Epimondas of Thebes- Helped turn Thebes into the dominant greek city-state of his period. Thebes, upon his death, almost floundered in comparison to when he was leading.

Subedei Bahadur- Extremely good general, helped in utterly annihialing the Russian principalities defenses in what was practically a cavalry raid.

Jebe Noyan- Subedei's co-orlock, and yet, gets almost no attention, even compared to Subedei.

Shaka of the Zulu- I consider him to much like Chinggis Khaan, but rather unfortunately, set in an age of european colonization and dominance, and a set of rather jealous brothers. Certainly a fine general and did much with less, though some rather idiotic domestic decisions, along with strict regime, led to his downfall.

Ehmm, I guess that's all for now.

[Tiberius of the Drake]

Aemilius Paullus-a great Roman General who defeated Perseus of Macedonia, at the battle of Pydna, and finally sealed the fate of the old kingdom. Macedonia did rise in rebellion again yet they were never able to recover from the defeat completely. also he proved, yet again, that the Roman Legionary system was better than Macedonian Phalanx.

for a fun way to remember him

Paulus defeats Perseus at Pydna

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I have to agree that Epaminondas of Thebes's acheivements are hardly recognised, but the fact that Thebes did flounder means that he hadn't elevated the city quite enough.

Aemilius Paullus though is a good example. He effectively brought Macedonia under Rome's control, and yet is unheard of compared to Scipio Africanus, and Scipio Aemilianus.

Would now be a good time to drop the name Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa? Immensely talented general and right-hand man to the first Emperor of Rome, and yet very few people (in the wider community) have heard of him!

[Marshal Murat]

Charlemagne? He unified France, Belgium, Western Germany, etc. into a unified nation before his death, but I only hear about him in passing.

[Peasant Phill]

That's strange, I would've thought he was amidtst the more known hystorical leaders. Perhaps it has something to do with nationalistic feelings. Every country highlights there heroes and leaders more there neighbours. Anglo-Sachsen countries have a lot of other hystorical figures to focus on.

[Quirinus]

For example Lucius Licinius Lucullus was a fine general who had fought Mithradates the Great and Tigranes of Armenia out of Roman Asia Minor. However Pompey the Great managed to take his command when the real work was already done and take the credit for it
Haha, yeah...... Lucullus is the quintessential underrated historical figure.

For overrated figures, I would have to say Gaius Julius Caesar. While there is no doubt that he was a great general and astute politician, calling him 'the greatest human being who ever lived' is a little excessive. He didn't even change the course of history as leaders like, say, Genghis Khan, Alexander or Hitler did. If he did not cross the Rubicon, some other ambitious general would eventually have. Certainly, there was no lack for candidates. The Republic was already decaying anyway.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The most famous overrated ones (in terms of their skills - their impact is however undisputable since they held positions of power):
- Justinian
- Jeanne d'Arc
- Gaius Julius Caesar
- Alexander the Great
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Underrated (in terms of their skills, again I don't bother discussing their impact, which is probably not a matter of much dispute):
- Philip II of Macedon
- Gaius Marius
- Arminius
- Saladin
- Philip II of France
- Gustav I of Sweden
- Peter the Great
- Philip IV of France
- Maurice of Nassau
- Albrecht von Wallenstein
- Cardinal Richelieu
- Peter the Great
- Jean Baptiste Grimbeauval
- Michail Kutuzov
- Barclay de Tolly

[KrooK]

Overrated
Zhukov- all his victories he made with big advantage or defending with similar forces into heavy winter. Battle of Berlin could be example of wasting troops in the name of ambition.
Caesar- legionares did most of his job, especially into Galia
Sisigmunt III the Old - polish king, who could turn Poland into greatest empire of the Europe - failed because he was fanatical catholic

Underrated
Casimir Jagiellonczyk - he turned Poland into empire into XV century.
Julian the Apostate - into 2 years of being emperor he overcomed 30 years of civil war

[Conradus]

Overrated

Caesar- legionares did most of his job, especially into Galia


Hmm, couldn't you say the same about any general? Ultimately it were the soldiers who had to do the fighting and the winning of the battle. Caesar was tremendous in gaining and holding his soldiers spirits high and keeping their loyalty in the civil war. And thouhg Gaul may not have been the hardest of all Roman conquests, it wasn't a walk in the park either and I believe that lesser men than Caesar would have failed utterly.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hmm, couldn't you say the same about any general? Ultimately it were the soldiers who had to do the fighting and the winning of the battle. Caesar was tremendous in gaining and holding his soldiers spirits high and keeping their loyalty in the civil war. And thouhg Gaul may not have been the hardest of all Roman conquests, it wasn't a walk in the park either and I believe that lesser men than Caesar would have failed utterly.

Nonetheless, Caesar has to be one of the most overrated in the fact he always overshadows more skilled generals from both Ancient Rome and other eras.

[Oleander Ardens]

Moltke the Elder. A brilliant chief of staff he was an amazing general as well as an amazing manager by further enhancing of one of the finest military institutions ever, the Great general staff.

One can argue that he combined rational planning done with scientifical rigour while trying to promote talent through training and flexible command structure. A most interesting and intelligent men who's descriptions (with his own drawings) of the Osman Empire around 1840 are a great read too

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Moltke the Elder. A brilliant chief of staff he was an amazing general as well as an amazing manager by further enhancing of one of the finest military institutions ever, the Great general staff.


Also spoke German, French, English, Turkish, Russian, and Polish fluently, painted, wrote books...

Really an amazing character, though not underrated by anyone who knows his German history. Underrated by most people? Probably.

[Charge]

Nonetheless, Caesar has to be one of the most overrated in the fact he always overshadows more skilled generals from both Ancient Rome and other eras.
Well without touching other eras, who was better than he in ancient Rome?

Also 'figure in history' not only means how well somebody was able to maneuver his troops. It means much more..

[Heinrich VI]

Heinrich VI. largely overshadowed by his father Friedrich Barbarossa.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well without touching other eras, who was better than he in ancient Rome?


More as in "other", not more as in "more talented". My apologies for the phrasing.


Heinrich VI. largely overshadowed by his father Friedrich Barbarossa.

He was also overshadowed by his son, a certain Frederick II.

[Quintus.JC]

I think Philip II of Macedon is underrated. while Constantine the great is rather overrated.

[Sarmatian]

For overrated figures, I would have to say Gaius Julius Caesar. While there is no doubt that he was a great general and astute politician, calling him 'the greatest human being who ever lived' is a little excessive. He didn't even change the course of history as leaders like, say, Genghis Khan, Alexander or Hitler did. If he did not cross the Rubicon, some other ambitious general would eventually have. Certainly, there was no lack for candidates. The Republic was already decaying anyway.

What do you mean Caesar didn't change the course of history? Finally and completely subduing Gaul which remained romanized/latinized to this day. Setting Rome on a course of a strong, unified world power for centuries after. Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire. Don't forget that the reason why Octavian had commanded so much respect is because he had the word "Caesar" in his name. Legions Mark Anthony commanded weren't were enthusiastic about fighting Caesars heir, most of them having served under Caesar.

It could be said that the other persons you named didn't change the course of history, with the exception of Alexander of course.

There is a reason why two millennias after Caesar people still used his name as one of the highest titles...

[Spino]

Aemilius Paullus-a great Roman General who defeated Perseus of Macedonia, at the battle of Pydna, and finally sealed the fate of the old kingdom. Macedonia did rise in rebellion again yet they were never able to recover from the defeat completely. also he proved, yet again, that the Roman Legionary system was better than Macedonian Phalanx.

for a fun way to remember him

Paulus defeats Perseus at Pydna

I disagree with your selection of Paulus for the simple fact that his victory over the Macedonians at Pydna was due in no small part to the incompetent generalship and cowardice of Perseus. Perseus did about everything wrong at Pydna; 1) he allowed his forces to commit to battle before they were properly deployed; 2) he failed to take into account the broken ground near the Roman encampment before attacking; 3) he left his flanks poorly protected; and 4) he failed to effectively commit his decisive arm, the cavalry, which he himself commanded. The sad truth of the matter is that Perseus tucked tail and ran before he even had a chance to use his cavalry which, given the time period, was no doubt markedly superior to that of the Romans.

Furthermore you might find it interesting to know that only two Roman legions were present at the battle of Pydna, the bulk of Paulus' forces being comprised of a mixture of allied infantry contingents, none of which fought in the Roman legion style. So hailing Pydna as a triumph of the Roman legion over the Macedonian phalanx is a bit much. After considering all the variables Based on the variables involved I firmly believe that the battle of Pydna was Paulus' to lose.

Paulus may have been a brilliant general but his military career was far too short and bereft of a sufficient number of battles and/or campaigns for history to make an accurate judgment.

The battle of Cynoscephalae makes for a far more persuasive argument in favor of the Roman Legion over the Macedonian phalanx. However the battle of Cynoscephalae saw Philip V make virtually the same mistakes at Perseus at Pydna but it was at Cynoscephalae that the greater tactical flexibility of the Roman Legion demonstrated its value on the battlefield, with 20 odd maniples maneuvering into position behind the unprotected Macedonian flank and turning the battle into a decisive victory for Rome.

In any event both battles were lost due to extremely poor leadership demonstrated by the losing commanders, moreso than the talents and skills exhibited by the victors.

[Geoffrey S]

Moltke the Elder. A brilliant chief of staff he was an amazing general as well as an amazing manager by further enhancing of one of the finest military institutions ever, the Great general staff.

One can argue that he combined rational planning done with scientifical rigour while trying to promote talent through training and flexible command structure. A most interesting and intelligent men who's descriptions (with his own drawings) of the Osman Empire around 1840 are a great read too
Arguably a great man, overshadowed in historical works due to the overwhelming credit given to the other early German giant, Bismarck, whose works remain far more frequently read and quoted and whose enmity has greatly influenced later writers. Not to the discredit of Bismarck, more so to the historians.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Arguably a great man, overshadowed in historical works due to the overwhelming credit given to the other early German giant, Bismarck, whose works remain far more frequently read and quoted and whose enmity has greatly influenced later writers. Not to the discredit of Bismarck, more so to the historians.

Bismarck was a politician, Moltke was a soldier. Both were brilliant in their own right.

[Geoffrey S]

Bismarck was a politician, Moltke was a soldier. Both were brilliant in their own right.
I claim no different.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I claim no different.

I know, just thought I'd add a little. ~:)

[IrishArmenian]

Khalid ibn Al Walid and Baldwin IV are definately one of the most underrated.
Khalid is never underrated! Maybe unknown to some, but everybody who has heard of him knows his importance. In my opinion, if it wasn't for him, Islam wouldn't be nearly as dominant in West Asia as it is.
Underrated:
Andranik Ozanian
Ashot Yerkat (Ashot the Iron)
Smbat
Everyone else I can think of has already been named.

[Zajuts149]

Underrated: Roger de Hauteville(Robert Guiscards nephew), who almost conquered Siciliy on his own while still managing to help his uncle with numerous insurrections.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Under-rated: St. Stanislaus, Jan III Sobieski, Patton

Over-rated: Louis XIV, Napoleon, Eisenhower

[Martok]

Under-rated: St. Stanislaus, Jan III Sobieski, Patton

Over-rated: Louis XIV, Napoleon, Eisenhower
Hmm, not sure I agree that Patton's underrated. Of course that's maybe because I'm an American so I already know who he is, but I still think he's received nearly exactly as much credit & acknowledgement of his accomplishments as he deserves -- no more, no less.

I agree with your list of overrateds, however (although I still gotta respect what they accomplished).

[Quirinus]

What do you mean Caesar didn't change the course of history? Finally and completely subduing Gaul which remained romanized/latinized to this day. Setting Rome on a course of a strong, unified world power for centuries after. Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire. Don't forget that the reason why Octavian had commanded so much respect is because he had the word "Caesar" in his name. Legions Mark Anthony commanded weren't were enthusiastic about fighting Caesars heir, most of them having served under Caesar.

It could be said that the other persons you named didn't change the course of history, with the exception of Alexander of course.

There is a reason why two millennias after Caesar people still used his name as one of the highest titles...
As I said, there is no denying that he was a gifted general, an astute politician and a good administrator. Still, I disagree with your stand because:
"Finally and completely subduing Gaul which remained romanized/latinized to this day"
I believe that, given Rome's history in Spain, Gaul would have been conquered sooner or later anyway, though, I admit, maybe not as completely or quickly.
"Setting Rome on a course of a strong, unified world power for centuries after"
Rome was already well on its way to becoming a world power long before Caesar came along. One could argue that it already was a world power by Caesar's time -- its word was heeded, and its legions feared, even in faraway Syria.
"Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire"
Come now, surely you're not going to give him sole credit? Sulla was a reformer too, as was, more importantly, Octavian.
"Don't forget that the reason why Octavian had commanded so much respect is because he had the word "Caesar" in his name. Legions Mark Anthony commanded weren't were enthusiastic about fighting Caesars heir, most of them having served under Caesar."
That's like saying that the father of Qin Shihuang of China changed the course of history because Ying Zheng couldn't have commanded so much respected without his descent.
"It could be said that the other persons you named didn't change the course of history, with the exception of Alexander of course."
I can't speak with any authority about Genghis Khan, though maybe this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97461) thread might change your mind? Without Hitler, yes, there might still have been another German war, but Germany would not have fought to the bitter end which shaped European borders for the next half a century. Also, the Holocaust would probably never have been even conceived. So it can also be argued that Hitler and his policies were a major factor in the creation of Israel.

:bow:

[Furious Mental]

If anything I would say Patton is overrated, at least in relative terms; in my experience far more people have heard of him and his part in WWII (and I am not saying it was insignificant) than Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, Nimitz, etc.

[wumpus]

Overrated
Zhukov- all his victories he made with big advantage or defending with similar forces into heavy winter. Battle of Berlin could be example of wasting troops in the name of ambition.
Caesar- legionares did most of his job, especially into Galia
...
Underrated
...
Julian the Apostate - into 2 years of being emperor he overcomed 30 years of civil war
Yes, I couldn't agree more, but with this to say: Zhukov, for me wasn't a more exceptional general than the other good Soviet generals; he simply was a bit more talented in being able to grasp the advantage of heavy winter to ensure his upper hand.
Julius Caesar, I consider to be a good politician and diplomat, that's why he won about half of his victories, not because of great generalship but because he was able to convince some Gallic towns to surrender without a fight, or to convince some Gallic tribes to ally themselves with him and thus scaring the other tribes to docility, etc.
And Julian the Apostate...yes, indeed, he was unfortunately underrated in history, perhaps (IMO, I'm not sure) because he was apostate, and at that time people who appeared "kosher" to orthodox religion were only the ones who were blessed by recognition.
Moltke the elder--now there's another great man who didn't get as much recognition as he ought to deserve.
But I'm sorry about the two Poles--I don't know much about them to form any opinion. Truly sorry--maybe I should read up more to know them better. :wall:
Hawooh.

[Conradus]

As I said, there is no denying that he was a gifted general, an astute politician and a good administrator. Still, I disagree with your stand because:

"Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire"
Come now, surely you're not going to give him sole credit? Sulla was a reformer too, as was, more importantly, Octavian.



But Octavian would never have been able to seize power if Caesar hadn't done so first. Without Caesar, Octavian was a minor player in Roman politics. He inherited a name and the loyalty of veterans from Caesar. Caesar may not have reformed that much, but he made sure Octavian could.

[rotorgun]

I feel that Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris has often been underrated. Without his excellent administration and leadership (taking into account the blunders of Herr Goering) during the Battle of Britain, there is a very good possibility that England would have been knocked out of the war. I do disagree with his notion that night bombing lead to less casualties. The casualty rates for the RAF bomber command and 8th Airforce were comparable throughout the war; the RAF actually suffered a higher percentage of casualties in fact, but not by much. They also were in the fight for a longer period as well.

Another underrated firgure from US history is General Halleck of Civil War fame. His overall strategy for the conquest of the South was virtually flawless, and was largely followed throughout the war. It was only the operational execution that was often flawed. This had many causes, of which chief was finding a competent General to carry out his plans.

[Quirinus]

But Octavian would never have been able to seize power if Caesar hadn't done so first. Without Caesar, Octavian was a minor player in Roman politics. He inherited a name and the loyalty of veterans from Caesar. Caesar may not have reformed that much, but he made sure Octavian could.
But this kind of chain can go on forever. Without Marius' precedent in using the power of the Plebs to bypass the Senate, Caesar would have been a minor player in Roman politics. Etc, etc. Every great figure in history stands on the shoulders of his predeccessors.

[Conradus]

True as that maybe. Octavian was Caesar's successor in every sense of the word. I do believe that without a Caesar, there might have been an Octavian to become the first emperor, but it would've taken quite a while. Then considering that Octavian became an important player in Roman politics only because of his name and heritage, and he only later was able to prove himself as a politician/military commander, I consider Caesar to be the greatest of the two.

[Quirinus]

I don't disagree there. I was replying to Sarmatian's post to justify my stance that Gaius Julius Caesar was not the greatest individual in the history of mankind.

[Conradus]

Ok:2thumbsup:
I've just been replying to you because I don't consider Caesar overrated, though he certainly isn't the most important human ever.

[Sarmatian]

I don't disagree there. I was replying to Sarmatian's post to justify my stance that Gaius Julius Caesar was not the greatest individual in the history of mankind.

I've never really said that, did I? I was replying to a post/posts thet claimed that Caesar was overrated. In my opinion, he wasn't overrated and he deserved every bit of fame he got. That doesn't mean I consider him to be the greatest individual in the history of mankind. I consider myself to be the greatest individual in the history of mankind :laugh4:

I will reply to your post later, when I have more time...

[Quirinus]

Oh.... hee. I've read a few biographies of Caesar that argues for his being the greatest person who ever lived, which in my opinion is overrated. Though I suppose not all people rate Caesar so high.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I feel that Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris has often been underrated. Without his excellent administration and leadership (taking into account the blunders of Herr Goering) during the Battle of Britain, there is a very good possibility that England would have been knocked out of the war. I do disagree with his notion that night bombing lead to less casualties. The casualty rates for the RAF bomber command and 8th Airforce were comparable throughout the war; the RAF actually suffered a higher percentage of casualties in fact, but not by much. They also were in the fight for a longer period as well.

I'd call Harris more overrated than underrated. Sir Hugh Dowding coordinated fighter resistance - Arthur Harris bombed a horde of relatively defenseless cities.

[Oleander Ardens]

I second that. His primary achievement was to understand that the horrific bombings forced the Germans to divert great ressources into flak and other defensive measurements. Of course the bombing campaign also soaked up a very high amount of the British ressources, witch could have been also of use elsewhere.