Who is the most overrated general ever?

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of men

---

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)

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardri

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cullhwch

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mini

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite

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 ;)

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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)

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.

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?

Petraeus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

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..)

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....

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthologie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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."

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Wellington.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Now THAT'S a good definition of overrated. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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:

I think the nutrition value of stubbornness is rather low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

: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)?

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthologie

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

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:

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardri

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Loved that show! :2thumbsup: -M

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardri

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?)


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

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."