Undeserved credit

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.