Undeserved credit

[Rodion Romanovich]

There are numerous generals in history who according to some have gotten undeserved credit for what their assistants did for them. Some examples I've heard mentioned are Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Jean d'Arc etc. So how valid are these points? Who were the real tactical geniuses and how many percent of the most famous generals are really getting undeserved credits for the work of others?

[Franconicus]

I think Napoleon was a genius, not only in tactical issues but also in creating and leading an army. He knew how to find and promote talents. But you see that he was an extraordinary general by the way his enemies tried to avoid combat with him. They attacked where Napoleon was not!

An excellent example is Hindenburg in WW1. The German concept for the war was to beat the French in the West and then turn to the East before the Russians could mobilize their armies. After the Marne Battle this planned failed and the esatern front was only weak defended against the advancing Russians. High Command sent Hindenburg to lead the coming battle. When he arrived two Russian armies were already crossing the border. But the intermediate leader had already an excellent plan to beat the Russians while they were still seperated. Hindenburg agreed, executed the plan, defeated one Russian army, forced the other to retreat, made the first big victory in this war for Germany and saved the nation - at least for the moment. After the battle of Tannenberg he was a national hero. Later he became President of the German Republic. Hitler tried to arrange with him and Hindenburg nominated him for Reichskanzler. So it was also the reputation Hindenburg gained in the battle of Tannenberg that made Hitler accepted by many people, esp. concervatives.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That seems like a two topic post, I didn't quite follow you.

Alexander was a fine tacticion but I would argue that Philip had made the neccessay reforms to the Army and that Philip's conquests were better exicuted because they were desined to last. Alexander's Blitzkrieg campaign was a great way to win an Empire but not to hold it. A great general needs to be a tactical, logistical and strategic genius. Napoleon was these, Axelander was great in the first and a bit so-so in the other two.

Caesar was very similar. Prior to Pharsallas Caesar sieged Pompey, but very badly. Pmpey had supplies from the see and fortified the hills around his camp, then staged a breakout and routed Caesar. For some reason he did not pursue, had he done so the war would have been over.

[Rodion Romanovich]

That seems like a two topic post, I didn't quite follow you.

I meant that were the co-generals of Alexander and other famous men the real geniuses? I mainly wondered about for example a co-general of Alexander whose name I have forgotten, and how important was Berthier to Napoleon. I didn't ask for strategical things such as reforms, but that's also a very interesting point - many leaders have been praised for expanding a lot even though their predecessors economcially made it possible and the expansion was stupid, overambitious and overextended the forces so it was lost shortly afterwards. But my main question when starting the topic was mostly about the credit for actual campaigns and battles. Still the examples mentioned are very interesting!

[Geoffrey S]

The point has been raised before that Hephaistion was probably a far more able leader than history has made him out to be; he performed numerous military and diplomatic missions with succes, yet very little is actually known in detail about his achievements. Parmenion was also an important contributor to Alexander's success, but the main thing is that Alexander relied heavily on the army reforms introduced by his father. These people may not have conquered the Persians, but they did facilitate the process tremendously.

Another thing to bear in mind on this subject is the lack of credit most generals got for their achievements in Imperial Rome, perhaps most notably under Claudius.

[Leodegar]

Maybe finding, recognizing and keeping capable assistants was part of their genius?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Maybe finding, recognizing and keeping capable assistants was part of their genius?

Sure, that's a very good point. A good leader is only he who finds a worthy successor, as they say. At least they must deserve credit for not overestimating their abilities and asking for help when needed. So the question should probably be rephrased a little...

Anyway, it seems Alexander has been a little overrated. The phalanx reforms of course were crucial. Still IMO Gaugamela was very well fought, but someone told me his co-generals did most of the important tactical decisions while Alexander himself was tied up in a cavalry to cavalry fight for most of the battle. I might have to reconsider my view on Megas Alexandros and give more credit to his father and co-generals? In any case the achievement by all these men cooperating was an impressive military action.

[Kralizec]

Pompey is overrated.

One of the last supporters of Marius (an enemy of Sulla), called Sertorius, held out in Spain and managed to hold out there a long time. Pompey at first wasn't able to do much about him, till Sertorius was eventually assasinated and the Marians were no longer able to stand up to Pompey, but that didn't stop him from taking full credit.
In the third Servile war, it was Crassus that actually broke the resistance under Spartacus. Again Pompey took credit.

I fail to see where he ever ran into significant resistance and won. Mithradates comes to mind, but he was a mediocre commander who had lost to the Romans several times before. Pompey conquered Armenia and Syria, but didn't meet any resistance there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pompey isn't that overated. at the age of twenty he raised a Legionary Army from his father's veterans and went to fight Sulla. In Spain he was in a stalemate against Sertorius and that alone is worthy praise. Sertorius was a very able general himself and even his enemies praise him.

During the Civil War Pompey proved himself an able general as well, as did Crassus. Yes Crassus broke Spartacus.

Pompey was a great leader and stratagist, he was also a superb logistician and administrator. Pompey's great feat in the East was his administrative reforms and reoganisation.

As a tactician he was good but not extraordinary.

Caesar was a great tactician and leader but he lacked the other skills Pompey had. Ultimately had Pompey faced anyone other than Caesar at Pharsallus I believe he would have won.

[Spino]

I meant that were the co-generals of Alexander and other famous men the real geniuses? I mainly wondered about for example a co-general of Alexander whose name I have forgotten, and how important was Berthier to Napoleon. I didn't ask for strategical things such as reforms, but that's also a very interesting point - many leaders have been praised for expanding a lot even though their predecessors economcially made it possible and the expansion was stupid, overambitious and overextended the forces so it was lost shortly afterwards. But my main question when starting the topic was mostly about the credit for actual campaigns and battles. Still the examples mentioned are very interesting!

Geniuses or not Alexander's generals were certainly a capable lot, who knows how far the young king would have gone had his subordinates been made of mediocre stuff? I believe Parmenio is the general whose name you were trying to remember.

Berthier was an extraordinary administrator but a mediocre strategist & tactician. There's a good reason why Napoleon used Berthier the way he did; he was one of the few men who could keep up with the emperor and effectively deal with the ridiculous amount of information being filtered through Napoleon's headquarters. Berthier's shortcomings as a general became painfully apparent when he was granted independent command of the French forces bordering Austria in 1809. His lack of strategic vision and ability nearly cost France the campaign until Napoleon intervened in time. Berthier's contribution as the head of the general staff cannot be overlooked but were they the decisive element in many of Napoleon's successes? I honestly don't know. I think too much has been made of his absence during the 100 days campaign in 1815 and Soult's appointment to the head of the general staff. There were far more variables working against Napoleon in that campaign than Soult's relative effectiveness.

As to Napoleon's other marshals a few of them were truly extraordinary generals, some even exceeded their emporer's talents and/or skills in one or more areas. Marshal Davout was arguably Napoleon's best general, his talents & skills were exceptional in most fields. Davout was absolutely instrumental in the victories of Austerlitz, Jena/Auerstadt, Eckmuhl and the seizure and defense of Hamburg in 1813/14. One of the biggest 'what ifs' of the Napoleonic era is what would have happened had Davout been given command of the Grand Army's left wing during the battles of Quatre Bras & Waterloo instead of Ney.

Alexander inherited a military primed and ready for the conquest of Asia, Napoleon inherited a military built on a solid foundation but in need of much improvement and additional reforms.

[Reenk Roink]

I'm sorry but Joan of Arc has got to be the most overrated military figure in history.

*avoids flying fries from French feminists*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Spino, yes, thats a very good point about Alexander, Philip had the Macedonians and the Greeks revved up and ready to go when he died.

[AntiochusIII]

Spino, yes, thats a very good point about Alexander, Philip had the Macedonians and the Greeks revved up and ready to go when he died.

Well, wasn't he planning to go to Persia himself when he died?

I also second your notion that Pompey's true genius is administrative. Look at what he did with the pirates: it's much more a management feat than a tactical one, anyway, even with the "unlimited resources" given to him.

[ShadesPanther]

Yeah, Philip was planning to carry it out himself. Whether he could of achieved as much as his son is debateable (He really was as great a general as his son, but I don't think he had Alexander's personality)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Wellington. Took Blücher's credit for Waterloo. Bloody shoemaker.

[ajaxfetish]

Wellington. Took Blücher's credit for Waterloo. Bloody shoemaker.

Wellington fought a lot more battles than Waterloo.

Ajax

[Ianofsmeg16]

Wellington. Took Blücher's credit for Waterloo. Bloody shoemaker.

Thems Fighting words boy!

Bloody Prussians, late for every battle, COWARDS!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, Philip was planning to carry it out himself. Whether he could of achieved as much as his son is debateable (He really was as great a general as his son, but I don't think he had Alexander's personality)

I think he wouldn't have got as far but the Empire would have lasted longer and he's wouldn't have written his will while chewing Lotus leaves.

Back to Pompey, he was also very charismatic and his men would fight for him as hard as Caesar's fought for him.

[Kraxis]

If we include foresight of social structures and reformation then of course Alexander can never apply to the top. Why? Because those things were already done.

I mean, even if Alexander would have done everything his father did, and then his own achievements, we would never know as Phillip did it and Alexander didn't. I'm not certain that the person of Alexander couldn't have revolutionized the military world with a new army. It is unfair to judge him like that.

We have to talk about logistics, strategy and tactics. And in all three Alexander seems to have excelled. He took his time in Asia Minor when faced with an enemy who was willing to avoid combat directly but strike at logistic bases and lines, he did so again in Bactria when the situation was similar.
He laid out the plans prior to battle, as did all generals of the day. That he lead from the front of cavalry charging ahead should not be used against him, for what more could he have achieved standing behind the phalanx? It wasn't as if he would have had some kind of TW styled speed of orders. He would have been equally troubled in both cases, so why not use his own ferocity and image to spur the men on? It seems he knew how to play on his own advantages if we are to talk about his position in battle.
Also in small scale tactics he seems to have been superior, routing an enemy and then holding back has as much to do with the commander as the troops. And he was able to almost TW style control the Companions in battle, few commanders have been able to copy that since.

Tactically I think he might have his weakest hand. While it is obviously here we see the most clear causes for the victories we cannot be sure how much of it was Alexander's work. But the sheer diversity of setups preceeding and postceeding (does that word even exist?) the death of Parminion indicates that at least it was not Parminion who called the shots of tactics. And we all have to agree that he was the best candidate for that as the others were simply too unitoriented, rather than armyoriented.
I'm very much willing to say that Alexander didn't per se 'invent' each tactic (though his battles against the Illyrians, Thracians, at Grannicus and against the Schythians seems to have been his own), but rather listened to his unitcommanders talk about their strengths in the coming battle, as well as their weaknesses (Gaugamela was very much about weakness rather than strength), then adding them together and coming up with a plan that fitted each arm perfectly. With good unitcommanders he would not need to be a genius of everything.

[TinCow]

All pardons to the Brits, but I would most certainly classify Monty in here.

[Kraxis]

All pardons to the Brits, but I would most certainly classify Monty in here.

Let me add Patton for good measure...

[Kraxis]

Reputation has little to do with actual skills.
Now like Monty he was certainly a good commander, I don't think anybody will doubt that, but we are talking about people who are overrated.
Yes, I have a lot ot thank Patton for, but I'm pretty sure a more generic commander could have carried it through as well, not as flamboyant of course but that is of little value.
But Patton was mainly just ferocious, a slavedriver if you want. He made his men give that little more that was needed. But tactically and strategically he was too hotheaded, tending to hold a strong belief in his own forces superior strength. Thus he did not avoid going head on with the enemy, even when flanking could be done.
This stemmed from the belief that if you can beat the enemy where he is strongest he will not have enything to respond with, and it will break his morale. That is true, but it is also not very refined nor very effective.
Also he was notoriously hard on his men, and not very considerate of logistics.

I would like to Rommel to the list of commanders who are overrated.
Brilliant tactician, but he never seemed to know when to stop and consolidate. He also considered himself to be better than all else. In other word he was arrogant with a huge hubris, thus managed to get himself enemies he did not need to get, and he could easily have avoided.
Also his perpetual riding at the front caused certain confusion at his HQ where his staff milled about not knowing what was going on. Adding to that Rommel often didn't know what was going on elsewhere, and that was the cause for his near miss concerning being surrounded.
And logistics... Well, that was for quartermasters.

[Kraxis]

But that *was* Patton's key to success. Reputation. He instilled courage and vigor into his troops, and fear into his enemies. He was essential at both D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge.

As for Monty? His successes are merely the results of Rommel's failings.

Reputation makes for undeserved credit if you can't fulfill that void. Did Patton deserve the reputation? I say no. I say he deserves the reputation that he was the best Allied commander, but not the almost illogical reputation he got both at home and abroard (Germany).
I think that at some point Rommel actually tried to tell people right, and compared Monty and Patton, ending up considering the Brit better. I think he had some personal agenda there, but in essence he seems to have understood the situation well enough.

Monty didn't win because Rommel failed. He won, like Patton, because he had superior amounts of equipment and men, because Rommel had refused to cut his losses, because he managed to kill the cult of Rommel and because he actuall had a number of quite well thoughtout tactics at 2nd El-Alamein. That he lured the German armour where it could be destroyed by AT-guns and dugin tanks on a ridge was impressive. The Germans tended not to fall for such, especially not Rommel. That was just one thing he did.
Market Garden failed not so much because it was flawed, but because of faulty intelligence. How can a general make up for faulty intelligence on that magnitude?
I think the operation was quite good, but events conspired against it. And at that point not even von Manstein could have salvaged it. Of course Monty's own arrogance didn't help, and his overly cautious behaviour cost a lot of paras their lives, as well as let Rommel escape to Tunisia (though in Monty's defence, Rommel was an expert of catching an advancing enemy on he wrong foot in the desert).

[SwordsMaster]

Let me add G.K.Zhukhov in the battle of Khalhkin Gol to the list. I'll dig up the data for the guys who actually masterminded the operation and come back to you.

[Kagemusha]

I think in classical thinking of tactics both Patton and Rommel would go in the category of "cavalry commanders".Reckles and fiery.If i would find some one from history who i think had same kind of abilities.That would be Napoleons Marshall Ney.A reckless commander that acted very intuitevely.These men were all geniouses on their category but their reckless and intuitive conduct could be more hazardous to their army then their glorious victories.Altough i respect Rommel from this bunch the most,becouse i think he had less thirst of Blood.

[edyzmedieval]

Justinian.

He has too much credit for the work he's done...Narses and Belisarius did all teh work for him. He was a coward. Even his wife was more courageous than him....

[Kraxis]

I hate to rain this Monty love-fest, but was he not asleep for 2nd El Alamein, while his subbordinates did all the commanding?

I don't know to be honest, and I wouldn't be surprised. But that doesn't matter though. There were few surprises that would have needed his attention.
Monty wasn't good at splitdecisions as you can see by his battles, but he was good at avoiding such situations. Wether it was contious or not I don't know. But he normally planned his 'adventures' into minute detail, an in the case of 2nd El-Alamein it fit snugly into to his expectations.

Some would argue that the best generals are the ones that can lay down the plan and then go have drink while others fight. Not very nice I must say, but it is true to an extent.

Btw, it most certainly wasn't a Monty love-fest. I'm no fan of the guy, but that does not mean I can't see where his strengths were, and why he got a reputation as a great general (and I don't consider him great, but I understand why he got the label). Do not blind yourself to the truth because of prejudice.

Just like I really didn't like Prince Nazeem (a boxer), in fact I hoped he would get his face smashed in every time he stepped into the ring. But I had no trouble recognizing he was simply superb in there.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think one key to the success in North Africa was the change of commander at a very crucial time. Often the change of commander brings a new fighting style which can take the opponent, who is used to how his enemy fights, by surprise. The things Monty did well that can be attributed to him was the bringing of better morale and that he finally bothered to lay mines and prepare proper defenses unlike his predecessor.

As for Market Garden, with today's knowledge it seems like a very foolish operation but the intelligence was very bad, and the knowledge about how effective paratroopers could be wasn't really that well known by then after they had only been used a few times previously. Obviously also a lot of other commanders around him thought it was a good idea at the time. I'd say the guy is overrated, yes, but he wasn't totally useless either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Overrated? Yes. Vastly? No.

Market Garden was a very good idea but the intell was off, the supplies were dropped in the wrong place, the radios didn't work and a million other things went wrong.

It might have worked but it didn't, much of a commander's success lies in luck and more than anything Monty was unlucky.

[Kraxis]

There was a heck of a lot more wrong with Market Garden than that. Not the least of which was sending tanks up in a very narrow almost straight-line fashion, thinking they'd get to the Paratroopers' aid unmolested.

If you hadn't noticed they pretty well in that department.
They could have reached Arnhem if it hadn't been for bungle up further down the commandchain. They let the infantry get bogged down in Nijmegen, where reach echelons could have cleared it up instead. Had they arrived at Arnhem, they wouldn't have gotten the bridge, but they could have saved the paras.

Sure the schedule was severely overabitious, but again it was based on faulty intelligence. Had Monty known that two, granted tired, SS Panzer divisions were lying at Arnhem I'm pretty sure he would have scrapped the operation, at least for the moment.
Besides intelligence wasn't only wrong about the two SS division, they were wrong about the regulars holding the front.

So seen in the light that they had to punch through regulars, and did, I would say that it wasn't a halfbad operation. Of course I won't say it was great either, because it most certainly wasn't. But it did mangle the two SS divisions down further, and they were out for the count for a lengthy while. And these were two of the better SS divisions, imagine them at full strength going up against a few US/British armoured divisions. It would have been outright nasty.

An one shouldn't forget that if Monty had chosen that famous bridge shorter, the Germans could have brought up their reinforcements, including these two SS divisons, and then you would have seen spectacular displays of explodings tanks on the road.