Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Ludens]

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.

I think the problem with overrated/underrated discussions is that there often differences in perception of how a general is rated in the first place. Caesar is a perfect example: for many people he is the man who conquered Gaul in a couple of years, and then went on to conquer the Roman empire in order to become emperor (I know he wasn't emperor, technically, but you get the idea). Others, who know his campaign better, often accuse him of carelessness and relying on luck. So, which perception are you arguing against?

Personally, I do not believe you could be such a successful general without having serious military skills. He must have been a formidable organizer and tactician. He was prone to gambling on his luck, but what successful leader doesn't? That said, he was occasionally careless. He lost an entire legion to marauding Germans because he'd scattered his troops along the border. His first invasion of Britain was poorly planned as well.

You are wrong on two counts, though: Gaul was involved in several uprisings in the third and fourth century, although the revolts often started in Britain. Caesar also wasn't a greenhorn, as you say. He fought as a tribune in the Mithradatic wars, and commanded a legion as praetor in Iberia prior to becoming consul.

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.

I am not sure if I agree here. Hannibal failed in his objective, yes, but I think his assessment of the situation was correct. Trying to defeat Rome on her own borders was futile. If Carthage was to have any chance of surviving, than the war had to be brought the Rome's homeland. This would distract Rome from her borders and destabilize her alliances with the Italians. In turn, this would allow other Carthaginian generals to roll back the Roman borders. Even this turned out to be insufficient, but how was he supposed to have known that? No other state at the time could have survived this.