Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Mulceber]

but an innovator, he was not.

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

[Ardri]

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

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

[saxonbattlemask]

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

[Krusader]

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

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

[Mulceber]

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

Loved that show! -M

[Ardri]

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

It is obvious that the tactics in WWI lagged far behind the technology, but I was merely pointing out that every general in WWI cannot be stereotyped into a category of being a bad general. With regard to the gap between technology and tactics, I would gather to say that in no point in history has the gap been as wide as it was in WWI. However, even during the American Civil War the tactics lagged behind the technology, but people still recognize there were some superior generals in that war. We should also remember that the last cavalry charge in history was in WWII so even from nation to nation the beginning of the 20th century saw some huge disparities in technology and tactics. It seems to be an oversimplification to say that generals in WWI were old and out of touch and none of them had any idea what they were doing.

[McAds]

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

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

[Africanvs]

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

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

[Mulceber]

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

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