Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Africanvs]

I began to read about history about 2-3 years ago, fascinated about battles, wars and many generals. However, I sometime found the hype about a commander just too much for what it is really. So, I'm asking the following question: Who you think in history (ancient, medieval, renaissance, modern...) is the most overrated general.

Personally I think that Gaius Julius Caesar is the most overrated general in ancient time. I don't deny his exploit, and the guy is pretty sharp: by many time, he betrayed his agreement with celtics tribes, playing hypocrite game and he knew that writing his "exploit" (while just exaggerating a little bit..) and selling the book might be the best way to gain Rome's people trust and acclaim.

But, Caesar led an army of professional soldiers against Avernai confederation who were out of ressource and exhausted from many civil wars. By many times, he made bad decision who almost cost his campaign. The thing that saved him was very well trained legions that against all odd, could completly turn the tide of battle even if they were completly outnumbered and in tactical disadvantage.

Plus, Caesar was considered as a very cruel general ("Resistance is Futile") during the gallic campaign and he caused 2 civil wars that raged across all the roman empire. His reign as an emperor lasted 4 years only...

Conclusion:
I think that the hype about Caesar is mostly because he's been the first emperor to rules Rome. I'm not saying that he was a bad general but, he took many time bad decision. With a little opportunism and an army of mighty well trained and faithful in his general legions, he succeded as gaining the most powerful job in ancient time: emperor of Rome.


So, what's your?

That is the general argument against Caesar not being a good general. I don't think he is over-rated at all. No one claims that he was the greatest general ever to grace the battlefield, but he was a man who knew how to get the job done with the reformed army that he had inherited. Caesar's conquest of Gaul was more than just winning battles. It was evidence of his political ability to divide the Gauls, pitting them against each other in order to accomplish his objective. Caesar managed to pacify Gaul in eight years, and after he was done, it would be 400 years before they would rebel. Let's not forget that Caesar didn't have any military experience going into the Gallic wars, so for a green general he did very well. He knew how to win the respect of his legions as well. Was he brutal? Absolutely, but that was a different time and we can't judge him by today's standards. The Romans really didn't have a lot of sympathy for the Gauls anyway. They had been a thorn in Rome's side for a long time. Alesia was a work of genius, and there is no evidence of anything like that ever being done before that battle. Caesar didn't only defeat barbarian Gauls, he also defeated Roman legions in Spain, Macedonia, and Africa. People looking for a reason to doubt Caesar have plenty of excuses, but the fact remains that he was very successful. He wasn't an innovator, but he did know how to get the job done with what he had to work with. That and he was damned lucky too. His ultimate downfall was that he underestimated the senatorial class. If he had found a way to please them, he probably wouldn't have been assassinated. By the way, he was never technically an emperor, and you can't really blame him for the civil wars. The deck had been stacked against the republic long before Caesar by men like Marius and Sulla. Caesar was a product of the times he lived in, and disgusted and disillusioned by what the republic had become, a corrupt aristocracy.


I think the most over-rated general is, and I know I am going to get flamed for this one, but Hannibal. Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of men, but that was about as far as it went. He simply wasn't the complete package. He entered the second Punic war with a flawed objective, and completely underestimated the Romans. He could definitely win battles, but he couldn't win the war. If you take his Roman counterpart Scipio, and I admit I am a Scipio fan, but you see a general with a greater understanding of war in general. Scipio proved in Spain that he could out-maneuver and destroy armies, forge alliances, relieve Carthage of key sources of recruits, enact innovative army reforms and tactics, raise an army even without the support of the senate, and finally defeat Hannibal in battle.

[A Very Super Market]

Gonna be bold, and go for Rommel. No, forget it, there's already an entire thread on him.

I think it would be... Montgomery. Much too cautious, and a Wellington wannabe. Hell, I could put Wellington on the chopping block as well. Both were famous for a single victory, and in Spain, resistance was extremely heavy and probably brought down more French than the British. For Montgomery, after a somewhat admirable defense against Rommel, who had one victories when outnumbered before, it turned into to mediocrity and almost incompetence at times. The whole, Patton vs. Montgomery thing going on in Sicily was absolutely absurd. Incidentally, Patton never made it past a corps commander after that (Eisenhower was smart) but Monty was somehow selected for the British side of things in France.

Were they really that desperate? The man turned up consistent results, but why do the British glorify him as if he conquered Berlin? Market Garden was a bust, and Caen, although a success, saw quite some embarrasment.

[Ardri]

Hannibal was an unprecedented tactician and leader of men

What are we using as the criteria to define what constitutes a general? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Hannibal as the most overrated, or even Caesar in the original post, however, it seems that the largest arguments against those two are in the political realm and not so much those associated with military prowess. Granted, in antiquity, political and military roles are often blurred and carried on by one person, but to say a general is overrated because of their lack of political prowess seems to be broadening the discussion to a very wide degree. For instance, most people would tend to agree Eisenhower was a superior general (at least that is how I perceive the perception of him to be), but do we discount his ability as a general because he did not shine as a president? Simply food for thought.

On Montgomery, I agree that he is overrated and think Patton summed him up well when he said, "He is more interested in not losing a war than he is in winning one." (I will disclaim the quote as probably not being verbatim)

[Africanvs]

What are we using as the criteria to define what constitutes a general? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Hannibal as the most overrated, or even Caesar in the original post, however, it seems that the largest arguments against those two are in the political realm and not so much those associated with military prowess. Granted, in antiquity, political and military roles are often blurred and carried on by one person, but to say a general is overrated because of their lack of political prowess seems to be broadening the discussion to a very wide degree. For instance, most people would tend to agree Eisenhower was a superior general (at least that is how I perceive the perception of him to be), but do we discount his ability as a general because he did not shine as a president? Simply food for thought.

On Montgomery, I agree that he is overrated and think Patton summed him up well when he said, "He is more interested in not losing a war than he is in winning one." (I will disclaim the quote as probably not being verbatim)

I think the problem here is that there are no clear guide-lines to limit this conversation. I assumed that because we're in the EB forum, we are discussing commanders within the EB timeframe. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to discuss leaders such as Patton here. While some things have not changed much from antiquity to modern times, many things have.


If I had to assign a list of traits that I feel creates a complete general in antiquity, I would propose the following:

Leadership: The ability to inspire and lead men with charisma and both physical and morale courage.

Tactics: The ability to perform sound and intelligent tactical maneuvers on the field of battle.

Strategy: The ability to use terrain and complicated field maneuvers in the persuit of a given strategem, outside of battle, to present ones forces on the battlefield in a state of readiness and in a proper, and preferably superior position.

Planning The ability to develope a clear, attainable, and realistic objective and plan of attack for meeting that objective. This includes overcoming the issues of supply, and logistics as well as the ability to gain allies and remove allies from the enemy, in order to divide and conquer.




For example if we measure Alexander the Great with the previous list of traits we get the following:

Leadership: YES. Alexander posessed excellent charisma and excelled in motivating his men to fight. He had both morale and physical courage expecting no more from his men than he did from himself, oftentimes sharing every hardship with them and leading by example.

Tactics: YES. Alexander demonstrated a profound knowledge of tactics, using his army to full effect and never suffering a defeat. His knowledge of tactics can be seen clearly when he maneuvered his army off of the prepared field, removing Darius' advantage and opening gaps in his line.

Strategy: NO. Alexander was often outmaneuvered in the field by Darius, who managed to fight Alexander on his terms. Alexander's ability to overcome Darius anyway can be attributed more to his superior army and battlefield tactics, than to his field strategy.

Planning YES. Alexander had a clear plan to defeat the Persian empire. He first denied Darius the ability to receive Greek mercenary heavy infantry by siezing all of his port cities. This forced Darius to beat him in the field with inferior persian light troops, where the previous Persian wars in Greece had shown them to be inneffective against the hoplite phalanx, let alone the makedonian sarrissa phalanx. Furthermore, Alexander knew that if he could kill Darius in battle, he could claim his empire. This was a clear, attainable, and correct objective. Alexander also understood the necessity of winning the hearts and minds of the Persians he meant to rule, and the intricacies of gaining new soldiers and allies. The only problem was that due to the fact that he died with no heir, his generals fell to squabbling over the scraps of his empire, and it didn't survive his death.


Better than Yes and No, would probably be 1-10 because all Generals posess each skill to a degree but if they don't excel at it, they get a No. There are surely other traits that could be added to the list like Innovation, such as Marius's army reforms, and Scipio's anti-elephant tactics. I think a general can still do well without 1 or 2 of those traits, but they will not be what I consider a complete general. It's really sort of a pointless discussion if you think about it because all generals have to overcome unique challenges. Hannibal had to manage a diverse force that spoke many different languages and had many different fighting styles, Alexander had the benefit of being a King with absolute authority giving him an advantage, Scipio had to obey the Roman Senate and wasn't as free to make his own decisions as say Alexander and then was given permission to invade Africa, but no money. It's really an impossible question to answer. I think ultimately it comes down to who was successful and who wasn't? They all do some things very well and other things not so well, but the question of who was the most complete general will most likely never be answered.

[artaxerxes]

Planning YES. Alexander had a clear plan to defeat the Persian empire.

I guess this is the one category where Pyrrhus fails MISERABLY, isn't it... I mean, "oh I'm in war with Rome... but it's getting boring... I might just invade Sicily... good idea, eh?" (I love Pyrrhus, it's characters like him that makes history entertaining. But what went on in his mind, I can't explain)

[SwissBarbar]

Maybe because Carthage, Ally of Rome, would've fallen in his back, if he had not stopped them in Sicily. Had they captured Syrakousai, there would've been no way to throw them out of there ever again.

[A Very Super Market]

AP, how can you say that the race for Messina was a myth? Are you saying that the Allies did not split their forces from a mutually supportive position, and instead have the Americans swing through strategically barren Western Sicily, and the British slog through a series of fortified locations?

[Zaknafien]

Petraeus.

[seienchin]

Montgomery is maybe glorified as a hero, because he won the first landbattle victory against germany in WWII or am I wrong? But of course he is overrated... Just imagine what rommel would have done with a 2 to 1 superiority in numbers.
Cesar is without a doubt a brilliant general. If the gallic war doesnt convince you, then the civil war should...

[penguinking]

Montgomery is maybe glorified as a hero, because he won the first landbattle victory against germany in WWII or am I wrong? But of course he is overrated... Just imagine what rommel would have done with a 2 to 1 superiority in numbers.

Well, both Poland and France managed to win some temporary, minor successes against Germany. But the first decisive victory over the Germans was probably the successful soviet defence of Moscow in 1941. El Alamein was fought in 1942; and here Montgomery was definitely helped by the fact the Rommel had lost entirely his air superiority and supplies, as Hitler decided to focus on the Eastern Front instead of North Africa. Montgomery's tactics, while effective, were quite simple and likely would not have succeeded if Rommel had been given decent support.

My most overrated general is George Washington. He was an inspiring leader and a good statesmen, but not a good tactician, as shown in his defeats at Germantown and Brandywine.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Most victorious generals end up being overrated. Even if their victory wasn't due to them personally, generals usually get the credit. There are many I would say are overrated. Here's a few from around a century ago: Charles Gordon, U.S. Grant, Monty, or Patton.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Washington? Do not even mention his name! I consider putting him on the most renowned loser and some people actually get the idea that he is almost a good general, whereas most other people believe he was a great general. Bullcrap. The bloke got captured/surrendered to the French more than the French surrendered in their national history (not much, but I had to make that ignorant crack ). He lost more battles than he won, and some of his losses were spectacularly imbecilic. Fort Necessity was among his worst blunders. Building a fort in the low ground, where the enemy would have the height advantage and where you would get flooded was purely brilliant I have to say. Any more of that brilliance would have resulted in Americans signing "God Save the King/Queen" for who knows how many more years. I do not even call him a general. Perhaps his only truly useful ability was his charisma and morale-boosting effect.

Oh, and AVSM, read more WWII history ;) You will find out that the supposed "race" to Messina in Sicily was jsut a myth. Montgomery even suggested Patton should take it, as Patton was in a much better position to do so. Otheerwise, the two hated each other's guts. I also put Monty along with Washington, as Montgomery was overly cautious and slow to seize the intiative to be of any good. Perhaps he would not do as badlly in defense, but then again, counterattacks were the main way of defending. Monty was not entirely bad of course, but he does not deserve his fame.

[Cullhwch]

AP, Washington was almost unsurpassed in one area: the ability to keep a consistently defeated army together long enough to outlast a superior opponent. I'd say he's like Sam Houston: a total loser until he won everything. In that way he was a reverse Antiochus.

Oh, and Africanvs, how can you discuss Alexander's flair for planning without mentioning that he besieged and captured a fortified island? That's one of the most amazing feats of military engineering in history.

[Anthologie]

Alesia was a work of genius, and there is no evidence of anything like that ever being done before that battle.

Alesia showed that Caesar could do great planning and he showed great leadership aswell (gutsy move with the cavalry), but it especially proved that Caesar's legion were very resilient and as a matter of fact, outstanding.

However, Caesar was outmatched in field strategy. First, Marc Anthony and Trebonius saved the day on the first night attack by Vercingetorix. And the next day, the almost lost the battle when they gallic troops attacked the weaken part of the wall. It was on the brink of disaster for Caesar when the roman army got outnumbered 5 for 1. Caesar gutsy move (kind of bluff..) with his cavalry saved him.

Sure, his inital planning was perfect. But "what if" Caesar's outstanding legions wouldnt have won this battle?

"Adversity reveals the genius of a general; good fortune conceals it" - Horace
"To a good general luck is important. " - Livy