Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Anthologie]

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

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

[penguinking]

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

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

[roadrunner]

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

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

[jsadighi]

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

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

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

[desert]

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

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

[Ardri]

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

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

If Grant was to have fought against the Army of Northern Virginia in the first half of the war he would have been defeated most likely. He was mainly successful later in the war because he realized that a war of attrition would destroy the south because they could not match the economic power or manpower of the north. So I guess you could say he was a sound strategist, but a poor tactician.

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

[geala]

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

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

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

[Macilrille]

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the OT.

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

[desert]

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

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

[Cimon]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ibrahim]

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

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

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

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

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

[Cimon]

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

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

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

[Ardri]

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

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