Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Anthologie]

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

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

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

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

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


So, what's your?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

[Arabishte]

Definitely Napoleon.

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

[Africanvs]

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

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

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

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

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


So, what's your?

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


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

[A Very Super Market]

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

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

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

[Ardri]

Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of 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)

[seienchin]

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

[penguinking]

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

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

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

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

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

[Africanvs]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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


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

[Cullhwch]

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

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

[Africanvs]

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

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

[Anthologie]

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

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

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

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

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

He was planning to get North Africa and Italy. For a start at least... I suppose it would have been wise to stop there.

[delablake]

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

[mini]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Apázlinemjó]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

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

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

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

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

thanks your idea is worthy respectable.
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.

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.

[Dutchhoplite]

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

Well, the mediocre Pompey gave Caesar a beating :)

Unfortunately he didn't follow Caesar after his victory.

[Ludens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mini]

Well, the mediocre Pompey gave Caesar a beating :)

Unfortunately he didn't follow Caesar after his victory.

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

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

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

[geala]

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

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

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

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

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

[artaxerxes]

I would DEFINENTLY say Attila The Hun - that is, because he was cruel, frightening and had a kinda cool name, he has entered popular culture as one of the great military geniuses, despite it being his ancestors, who carved out the massive realm, he inherited, and despite himself not even managing any Heroic Victories. 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), but, as you probably all already agree, he's not up there with the greats

[Ibrahim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[artaxerxes]

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

I guess this is the one category where Pyrrhus fails MISERABLY, 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?" (I love Pyrrhus, it's characters like him that makes history entertaining. But what went on in his mind, I can't explain)

[SwissBarbar]

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

[A Very Super Market]

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

[Zaknafien]

Petraeus.

[SwissBarbar]

I would DEFINENTLY say Attila The Hun - that is, because he was cruel, frightening and had a kinda cool name, he has entered popular culture as one of the great military geniuses, despite it being his ancestors, who carved out the massive realm, he inherited, and despite himself not even managing any Heroic Victories. 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), 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.