Underrated (and overrated) figures from history

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Thought that this could provoke some interesting discussion. Who your opinion is the most underrated historical figure. And for the that matter the most overrated!

For example Lucius Licinius Lucullus was a fine general who had fought Mithradates the Great and Tigranes of Armenia out of Roman Asia Minor. However Pompey the Great managed to take his command when the real work was already done and take the credit for it.

By that same token Pompey the great, for all the hype, wasn't overly successful. Many of the battles he won, he outnumbered the opposition, or had a much better force. When he fought at Phillipi against Caesar, (a truly gifted general admittedly), and outnumbered him hugely, he lost in less than an hour!

Anyway, your thoughts gentlemen!

[Geoffrey S]

For example Lucius Licinius Lucullus was a fine general who had fought Mithradates the Great and Tigranes of Armenia out of Roman Asia Minor. However Pompey the Great managed to take his command when the real work was already done and take the credit for it.

Kudos. What a great character that was.

[Furious Mental]

I always say Edward IV of England because he won far more field battles than any other English King yet gets far less credit for military skill than kings like Richard I, Edward I, Edward III, Edward of Woodstock, Henry V, etc. On that note, I would also say that those last three are significantly overrated because the fact is they all lacked strategic vision. Edward III and Edward of Woodstock because they were only dimly aware of how their own soldiers, ex-soldiers, and allies were undoing all the hard won territorial gains of the first two decades of the Hundred Years War (short-sightedness which resulted in all of those gains being taken back by Charles V in the space of a few years). Henry V because even though he won stunning military victories and gained formal recognition as King of France, he thereby committed his kingdom to conquering the whole of France (of which the remaining southern portion was the most hostile and best fortified), an essentially impossible task for any but a truly exceptional king (which Henry VI certainly was not)- in other words he set his country up to ultimately lose the Hundred Years War.

[CrazyGuy]

I think you've got a valid point there Furious, but I would question whether it can be applied to Henry V. He died at 34(?) from dysentry at the height of powers.

It seems a bit unfair to criticise him for lack of foresight. If the south did have to be conquered then presumbably he reckoned he was the man to do it?

How about this for over-rated: Robert Bruce. We've all heard the spider's web story, so Bruce's legend is built around one victory against a dispirited ill-led army. Hardly a massive achievement, especially when one considers the defeats and tactical errors he made (invasion of Ireland being one).

[Furious Mental]

Presumably he did but I would still consider him short-sighted. Even though he died in 1422, bt that time it was quite clear both that the conquered French, unlike the Gascons, were not going to pay or die to defend English territory, and also that the English were more interested in internal factional disputes (which ultimately led to the Wars of the Roses) than in moving to France as colonists. I am not saying Henry V wasn't exceptionally skilled (although I still doubt that he could have taken over the whole of France anyway). But he is often lauded without any note being made of his flaws. He was still alot more on the ball than Edward III and Edward of Woodstock, who obstinately refused acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

[Geoffrey S]

Oh, and a personal favourite underrated person is Sergei Witte. Did a far better job restructuring his country than anyone could have expected and is one of those individuals I can't help thinking about 'what if they had listened to him?'.

[Quirinus]

For example Lucius Licinius Lucullus was a fine general who had fought Mithradates the Great and Tigranes of Armenia out of Roman Asia Minor. However Pompey the Great managed to take his command when the real work was already done and take the credit for it

Haha, yeah...... Lucullus is the quintessential underrated historical figure.

For overrated figures, I would have to say Gaius Julius Caesar. While there is no doubt that he was a great general and astute politician, calling him 'the greatest human being who ever lived' is a little excessive. He didn't even change the course of history as leaders like, say, Genghis Khan, Alexander or Hitler did. If he did not cross the Rubicon, some other ambitious general would eventually have. Certainly, there was no lack for candidates. The Republic was already decaying anyway.

[Sarmatian]

For overrated figures, I would have to say Gaius Julius Caesar. While there is no doubt that he was a great general and astute politician, calling him 'the greatest human being who ever lived' is a little excessive. He didn't even change the course of history as leaders like, say, Genghis Khan, Alexander or Hitler did. If he did not cross the Rubicon, some other ambitious general would eventually have. Certainly, there was no lack for candidates. The Republic was already decaying anyway.

What do you mean Caesar didn't change the course of history? Finally and completely subduing Gaul which remained romanized/latinized to this day. Setting Rome on a course of a strong, unified world power for centuries after. Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire. Don't forget that the reason why Octavian had commanded so much respect is because he had the word "Caesar" in his name. Legions Mark Anthony commanded weren't were enthusiastic about fighting Caesars heir, most of them having served under Caesar.

It could be said that the other persons you named didn't change the course of history, with the exception of Alexander of course.

There is a reason why two millennias after Caesar people still used his name as one of the highest titles...

[Quirinus]

What do you mean Caesar didn't change the course of history? Finally and completely subduing Gaul which remained romanized/latinized to this day. Setting Rome on a course of a strong, unified world power for centuries after. Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire. Don't forget that the reason why Octavian had commanded so much respect is because he had the word "Caesar" in his name. Legions Mark Anthony commanded weren't were enthusiastic about fighting Caesars heir, most of them having served under Caesar.

It could be said that the other persons you named didn't change the course of history, with the exception of Alexander of course.

There is a reason why two millennias after Caesar people still used his name as one of the highest titles...

As I said, there is no denying that he was a gifted general, an astute politician and a good administrator. Still, I disagree with your stand because:

• "Finally and completely subduing Gaul which remained romanized/latinized to this day"
  I believe that, given Rome's history in Spain, Gaul would have been conquered sooner or later anyway, though, I admit, maybe not as completely or quickly.

• "Setting Rome on a course of a strong, unified world power for centuries after"
  Rome was already well on its way to becoming a world power long before Caesar came along. One could argue that it already was a world power by Caesar's time -- its word was heeded, and its legions feared, even in faraway Syria.

• "Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire"
  Come now, surely you're not going to give him sole credit? Sulla was a reformer too, as was, more importantly, Octavian.

• "Don't forget that the reason why Octavian had commanded so much respect is because he had the word "Caesar" in his name. Legions Mark Anthony commanded weren't were enthusiastic about fighting Caesars heir, most of them having served under Caesar."
  That's like saying that the father of Qin Shihuang of China changed the course of history because Ying Zheng couldn't have commanded so much respected without his descent.

• "It could be said that the other persons you named didn't change the course of history, with the exception of Alexander of course."
  I can't speak with any authority about Genghis Khan, though maybe this thread might change your mind? Without Hitler, yes, there might still have been another German war, but Germany would not have fought to the bitter end which shaped European borders for the next half a century. Also, the Holocaust would probably never have been even conceived. So it can also be argued that Hitler and his policies were a major factor in the creation of Israel.

[Furious Mental]

If anything I would say Patton is overrated, at least in relative terms; in my experience far more people have heard of him and his part in WWII (and I am not saying it was insignificant) than Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, Nimitz, etc.

[Conradus]

As I said, there is no denying that he was a gifted general, an astute politician and a good administrator. Still, I disagree with your stand because:

• "Reforming the corrupt oligarchy into an efficiant empire"
  Come now, surely you're not going to give him sole credit? Sulla was a reformer too, as was, more importantly, Octavian.

But Octavian would never have been able to seize power if Caesar hadn't done so first. Without Caesar, Octavian was a minor player in Roman politics. He inherited a name and the loyalty of veterans from Caesar. Caesar may not have reformed that much, but he made sure Octavian could.

[rotorgun]

I feel that Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris has often been underrated. Without his excellent administration and leadership (taking into account the blunders of Herr Goering) during the Battle of Britain, there is a very good possibility that England would have been knocked out of the war. I do disagree with his notion that night bombing lead to less casualties. The casualty rates for the RAF bomber command and 8th Airforce were comparable throughout the war; the RAF actually suffered a higher percentage of casualties in fact, but not by much. They also were in the fight for a longer period as well.

Another underrated firgure from US history is General Halleck of Civil War fame. His overall strategy for the conquest of the South was virtually flawless, and was largely followed throughout the war. It was only the operational execution that was often flawed. This had many causes, of which chief was finding a competent General to carry out his plans.

[Quirinus]

But Octavian would never have been able to seize power if Caesar hadn't done so first. Without Caesar, Octavian was a minor player in Roman politics. He inherited a name and the loyalty of veterans from Caesar. Caesar may not have reformed that much, but he made sure Octavian could.

But this kind of chain can go on forever. Without Marius' precedent in using the power of the Plebs to bypass the Senate, Caesar would have been a minor player in Roman politics. Etc, etc. Every great figure in history stands on the shoulders of his predeccessors.