Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Fahad I:
Khalid ibn Al Walid and Baldwin IV are definately one of the most underrated.
Khalid is never underrated! Maybe unknown to some, but everybody who has heard of him knows his importance. In my opinion, if it wasn't for him, Islam wouldn't be nearly as dominant in West Asia as it is.Khalid ibn Al Walid and Baldwin IV are definately one of the most underrated.
Underrated:
Andranik Ozanian
Ashot Yerkat (Ashot the Iron)
Smbat
Everyone else I can think of has already been named.
Underrated: Roger de Hauteville(Robert Guiscards nephew), who almost conquered Siciliy on his own while still managing to help his uncle with numerous insurrections.
Under-rated: St. Stanislaus, Jan III Sobieski, Patton
Over-rated: Louis XIV, Napoleon, Eisenhower
Over-rated: Louis XIV, Napoleon, Eisenhower
Originally Posted by King Jan III Sobieski:
Under-rated: St. Stanislaus, Jan III Sobieski, Patton
Over-rated: Louis XIV, Napoleon, Eisenhower
Hmm, not sure I agree that Patton's underrated. Of course that's maybe because I'm an American so I already know who he is, but I still think he's received nearly exactly as much credit & acknowledgement of his accomplishments as he deserves -- no more, no less. Under-rated: St. Stanislaus, Jan III Sobieski, Patton
Over-rated: Louis XIV, Napoleon, Eisenhower
I agree with your list of overrateds, however (although I still gotta respect what they accomplished).
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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: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...
- "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.
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.
Originally Posted by KrooK:
Overrated
Zhukov- all his victories he made with big advantage or defending with similar forces into heavy winter. Battle of Berlin could be example of wasting troops in the name of ambition.
Caesar- legionares did most of his job, especially into Galia
...
Underrated
...
Julian the Apostate - into 2 years of being emperor he overcomed 30 years of civil war
Yes, I couldn't agree more, but with this to say: Zhukov, for me wasn't a more exceptional general than the other good Soviet generals; he simply was a bit more talented in being able to grasp the advantage of heavy winter to ensure his upper hand.Overrated
Zhukov- all his victories he made with big advantage or defending with similar forces into heavy winter. Battle of Berlin could be example of wasting troops in the name of ambition.
Caesar- legionares did most of his job, especially into Galia
...
Underrated
...
Julian the Apostate - into 2 years of being emperor he overcomed 30 years of civil war
Julius Caesar, I consider to be a good politician and diplomat, that's why he won about half of his victories, not because of great generalship but because he was able to convince some Gallic towns to surrender without a fight, or to convince some Gallic tribes to ally themselves with him and thus scaring the other tribes to docility, etc.
And Julian the Apostate...yes, indeed, he was unfortunately underrated in history, perhaps (IMO, I'm not sure) because he was apostate, and at that time people who appeared "kosher" to orthodox religion were only the ones who were blessed by recognition.
Moltke the elder--now there's another great man who didn't get as much recognition as he ought to deserve.
But I'm sorry about the two Poles--I don't know much about them to form any opinion. Truly sorry--maybe I should read up more to know them better.
Hawooh.
Originally Posted by Quirinus:
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:
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.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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Conradus:
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.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.
True as that maybe. Octavian was Caesar's successor in every sense of the word. I do believe that without a Caesar, there might have been an Octavian to become the first emperor, but it would've taken quite a while. Then considering that Octavian became an important player in Roman politics only because of his name and heritage, and he only later was able to prove himself as a politician/military commander, I consider Caesar to be the greatest of the two.
I don't disagree there. I was replying to Sarmatian's post to justify my stance that Gaius Julius Caesar was not the greatest individual in the history of mankind.
Ok
I've just been replying to you because I don't consider Caesar overrated, though he certainly isn't the most important human ever.
I've just been replying to you because I don't consider Caesar overrated, though he certainly isn't the most important human ever.
Originally Posted by Quirinus:
I don't disagree there. I was replying to Sarmatian's post to justify my stance that Gaius Julius Caesar was not the greatest individual in the history of mankind.
I've never really said that, did I? I was replying to a post/posts thet claimed that Caesar was overrated. In my opinion, he wasn't overrated and he deserved every bit of fame he got. That doesn't mean I consider him to be the greatest individual in the history of mankind. I consider myself to be the greatest individual in the history of mankind I don't disagree there. I was replying to Sarmatian's post to justify my stance that Gaius Julius Caesar was not the greatest individual in the history of mankind.
I will reply to your post later, when I have more time...
Oh.... hee. I've read a few biographies of Caesar that argues for his being the greatest person who ever lived, which in my opinion is overrated. Though I suppose not all people rate Caesar so high.
Originally Posted by 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.
I'd call Harris more overrated than underrated. Sir Hugh Dowding coordinated fighter resistance - Arthur Harris bombed a horde of relatively defenseless cities.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.
I second that. His primary achievement was to understand that the horrific bombings forced the Germans to divert great ressources into flak and other defensive measurements. Of course the bombing campaign also soaked up a very high amount of the British ressources, witch could have been also of use elsewhere.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO