Undeserved credit

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....