Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Petraeus.

Ouch.

though I don't think it's true over here, we just see him as a pleasingly competent general able to carry through a sensible plan.

[athanaric]

Petraeus.

You fought under him, I understand? I haven't heard he is very much rated at all, but then I don't live in America.
U know, his name always makes me think he is one of those Romaioi...


Regarding Washington, one has to admit at least he was kinda bulletproof. Unlike some better generals who fell in battle, causing their side to lose.

[Anthologie]

to affirm the overrated thing, i would say that we must compare hype vs action

That why I say that I think that Caesar is overrated: he's a good general, but not as much as the history and fans decribe him (Re: careless, gambling...). He had good staff support too : Marc Anthony, Titus Labienus, Publius Crassus... tho Caesar is really smart guy and very well applied the proverb : divide to conquer through the gallic campaign.

Very clever + average general ability + luck + great staff support + outstanding legions = Caesar

In modern history: Montgomery is surely one of them (hellllo Market Garden..)

[Fluvius Camillus]

If People do rate Sir Douglas Haig a competent commander I totally disagree.

Haig was a drunken conservative incompetent commander, sending men to needless deaths while he sat in the sun enjoying a fine glass of scotch....

[roadrunner]

It's hard to completely blame Pompey for his defeat at Pharsalus. Though he had more numbers, he had mostly new recruits (except for his 1st Legion) countering Caesar's highly experienced Gallic/Spanish legions. His strategy of starving Caesar out was slowly working (just like Fabius Maximus Cunctator had done to Hannibal) but was forced to give battle by the various senators in his camp (was essentially a hired gun... not truly in command). If I had to think of an overrated general, Mark Anthony comes to mind... his campaign against the Parthians (I believe it was them) was an inept disaster!

[Anthologie]

It's hard to completely blame Pompey for his defeat at Pharsalus. Though he had more numbers, he had mostly new recruits (except for his 1st Legion) countering Caesar's highly experienced Gallic/Spanish legions. His strategy of starving Caesar out was slowly working (just like Fabius Maximus Cunctator had done to Hannibal) but was forced to give battle by the various senators in his camp (was essentially a hired gun... not truly in command). If I had to think of an overrated general, Mark Anthony comes to mind... his campaign against the Parthians (I believe it was them) was an inept disaster!

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.

[penguinking]

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.

Antony also fought an unsuccessful campaign against the Parthians, but he did manage to survive.

[Africanvs]

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?

Thanks for the reply! I think either opinion would be biased. I believe one has to look at all sides of a Geneal. Yes, Caesar had his moments of carelessness, and yes, he often gambled, but as you say, all generals will do both of these things from time to time. For one thing, no one is perfect and mistakes will inevitably be made, and for two, there must always be an element of gambling when you have no idea what your enemy is going to do.

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.

Thanks for pointing these things out. It's a period I still have a lot to learn about. When I said Caesar had no experience, I meant more that he had never commanded multiple legions in his own campaign before, but the points you make are rellevant. He was an experienced soldier, and he did have staff and officer experience.

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 to 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.

I believe Hannibals assessment was correct as well, but I think he ultimately failed in his objective because of poor planning. First of all he had a poor plan for getting Roman allies to detatch. He wanted them to view him as a friend rather than an enemy, so he often promised no harm would come to them if they did not join him. This meant that if they stayed loyal to Rome, it was better than if they went over to Hannibal, and then Rome won, because Rome would come back and punish them. Another example of Hannibal's poor planning is his enourmous blunder of failing to properly use the battle of Cannae. He had just crushed the Roman army, leaving them practically defenseless; many of Rome's allies detatched, feeling that Rome was doomed; all Hannibal had to do was march on the city. He may not have thought he could take it, but just the presence of his army outside the city could have forced the Romans to terms. I don't want to take anything away from Hannibal though. His tactics were amazing. In fact, much of what made Scipio Africanus so good, was that he learned from Hannibal from the wrong side! Hannibal's leadership was extraordinary. He knew how to lead men from any culture, he had charisma, courage, and I believe he was an honorable human being, not the barbarian monster he is always shown to be. His strategy was good, but had flaws. Oftentimes he was forced to rely on his leadership skills and his tactical ability to get his men out of a bad situation. This can be seen in his alpine pass, the march through the swamps where he lost an eye, Lake Trasimene, and the time that "The old Cunctator" had him cornered and blew it. I do agree with you when you say, "no other state at the time could have survived this."

[Apázlinemjó]

Hannibal didn't have siege equipment to attack Rome itself and Rome was one of the largest city in the mediterranean. So I think he was right not laying siege to it.

[Chris1959]

How easy we show our national stereotypes, us armchair generals and basking in the glorious sunlight of hindsight pass such easy judgements with scant regard for the "boring" difficulties real commanders faced like troop quality, supplies, political interference etc.

[Zaknafien]

I just mean that Petraeus gets loads of hype and publicity, as if he was the 'savior of iraq'. in reality he is just an adequately intelligent and well-read man who remembers previous counter-insurgencies conducted by the brits and others.

[Africanvs]

Hannibal didn't have siege equipment to attack Rome itself and Rome was one of the largest city in the mediterranean. So I think he was right not laying siege to it.

The mere mention of Hannibal at the gates, even when he wasn't, scared the hell out of the entire city. We'll never know what kind of success he could have had, because he never tried. You don't necessarily have to take a city by assault to have a successful siege.

I just mean that Petraeus gets loads of hype and publicity, as if he was the 'savior of iraq'. in reality he is just an adequately intelligent and well-read man who remembers previous counter-insurgencies conducted by the brits and others.

Isn't a bit difficult to examine the career of a General who is A) not finished with his career, and B) never really fought any actual battles? Sure he's commanded in operations but we're talking about insurgency type stuff, not serious campaigning. Maybe if the U.S. were to face another major world power and he had to go up against an actual adversary, we might see what he's capable of. Let us hope that doesn't happen but is he really over-rated? All I have heard is that he is a charismatic leader, and one of the top 100 intellectuals around, and he left Iraq in better shape than he found it. I don't hear anyone running around saying, "that Petaeus, he's greater than Napoleon!"

[artaxerxes]

Well, the Catalaunian Fields were no crushing defeat, actually closer to a draw.

Oh I agree, definently. Attila was competent enought. But since I've actually seen him in lists that go like: "Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Attila, Napoleon", I think his abilities are hugely overrated by a lot of people, at least outside actual experts in the field. Attila wasn't a bad general. But he did nothing that could earn him a place among the greatest military commanders of all time.

[Nirvanish]

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.

I completely agree with Lundens; Hannibal may have failed to achieve his ultimate objective of turning most of Rome's allies against them and gaining support from Carthage itself but it is hard to find moments where he failed to shine as a tactician/general(aside from Zama). After such outstanding victories as Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae would anyone be able to guess that support would not sway in Hannibal's favor? Even after 15 years in Italy, Hannibal's army may have withered but he was still as much of a threat as when he had first entered. It seems to me that from what I know of Scipio Africanus he should be considered an overrated general but I do not feel that I know enough about him at this moment to properly give a strong argument against him.

[Barry Soteiro]

Wellington.

Without Spaniards and later Prussians the man would have achevied nothing.

[kekailoa]

Well, I'm going to say King Kamehameha. I doubt anyone has heard of him, but in Hawaii, he's known as the national hero who united all the island through military strategy, excellent diplomacy, and his great intellect.

In reality, he had like twenty cannons and his enemies had spears. And clubs.

Plus he had modern military tactics, and was advised by four or five European military leaders in every battle. He had musket and rifle armed troops versus contingents of (albiet brave and ferocious) spearmen. He wasn't even outnumbered.

[machinor]

Well, I'm going to say King Kamehameha. I doubt anyone has heard of him, but in Hawaii, he's known as the national hero who united all the island through military strategy, excellent diplomacy, and his great intellect.

In reality, he had like twenty cannons and his enemies had spears. And clubs.

Plus he had modern military tactics, and was advised by four or five European military leaders in every battle. He had musket and rifle armed troops versus contingents of (albiet brave and ferocious) spearmen. He wasn't even outnumbered.

Now THAT'S a good definition of overrated.

[Apázlinemjó]

The mere mention of Hannibal at the gates, even when he wasn't, scared the hell out of the entire city. We'll never know what kind of success he could have had, because he never tried. You don't necessarily have to take a city by assault to have a successful siege.

I don't think so, I know there were senators who wanted to surrender to him, but not all of them, and the Romans were stubborn.

[Tollheit]

I think the nutrition value of stubbornness is rather low.

[Ibrahim]

Well, I'm going to say King Kamehameha. I doubt anyone has heard of him, but in Hawaii, he's known as the national hero who united all the island through military strategy, excellent diplomacy, and his great intellect.

In reality, he had like twenty cannons and his enemies had spears. And clubs.

Plus he had modern military tactics, and was advised by four or five European military leaders in every battle. He had musket and rifle armed troops versus contingents of (albiet brave and ferocious) spearmen. He wasn't even outnumbered.

true that, but think of it this way: he was at least wise enough not to get himself outnumbered, he was wise enough to get european tech, and he was able to unify a bunch of islands into one kingdom.

its like Oda Nabunaga: he was brilliant because he figured out that European tech was a good thing in battle (hence Nagashino)

EDIT: did this king perform the traditional Hawaiian prebattle customs anyways (even with european weapons)?

[Xtiaan72]

On this discussion of Caesar, I'm no expert but I've done a fair bit of reading on his life and campaigns. How on earth could anyone say that his accomplishments are under-rated? This guy is fascinating.

I don't care how well trained your army is, conquering a nation of millions with 50,000 men seems like an impossibility by any standard and yet he did it. It's easy to argue that the Gauls were an unorganized, politically divided people but until Caesar came along they had done a pretty good job of giving as good as they got as far as the Romans were concerned...Sacking Rome, slaughtering legions ( Check!, Check!) Until Hannibal came along, it was the Gauls not Carthage that were the stuff of Roman children's nightmares!

There is a strong argument to be made that Caesar invented the whole modern military concept of divide and conquer with his campaign in Gaul! Figuring out how to exploit the weaknesses of your enemies is the hallmark of any great general.

But put Gaul aside and look at all his military accomplishments. This is a guy that didn't win all his battles.... Yet he also never got himself in a situation he couldn't get out of. His core army was never destroyed and lived to fight another day. This guy was on the edge of defeat in Gaul, Spain, Africa, Greece and even Egypt! Facing every type of tactical situation one can imagine and almost always outnumbered. And yet who came out on top in the end? He has brilliant victories but how he faced and overcame adversity over and over is perhaps more impressive...And let's face it, he did it too many times for it to be 'coincidence'.

Even if you put all that aside. Military accomplishments mean nothing if they don't tie into a bigger or over-reaching goals that are successful. He reached those in spades. He's not just a great general but the master politician of his age... Everything he did on the battlefield was merely a means to an end to fulfill his political aims. This guy turned Rome on it's head and re-made it in his own image.

What else was he the first or the best at?

He was one of the best engineers of his age.
He was one the post popular writers and effective propagandist of his age.
Personal bravery? Unquestioned.
Ladies man? You bet.
A month on the modern calender named after him? Well who else can say that....Only his grand-nephew!

This guy is not under-rated. If anything he is not fully appreciated...

[gammager2]

and B) never really fought any actual battles? Sure he's commanded in operations but we're talking about insurgency type stuff, not serious campaigning.

running an effective counter-insurgency is not the same thing as bearing tanks down on your enemies, but it takes as much skill if not more since irregulars can be debilitating to the war effort of a nation with superior resources, like france and USA in vietnam and rome in iberia. guerillas are effective in no small part b/c they are almost always underestimated.
granted, his career is far from over so i would submit that he cant be the most overrated general ever. that honor should go to US Grant.

[Mulceber]

Very clever + average general ability + luck + great staff support + outstanding legions = Caesar

Ok, I could maybe buy the notion that Caesar wasn't an Alexander or a Hannibal when it came to battlefield tactics, but AVERAGE GENERAL ABILITY??? Bullshit. He had some battles that didn't go particularly well, yes, but this guy is definitely above average. And I think you're forgetting the fact that, strategically (as opposed to tactically), Caesar was probably the equal of any general who ever lived - certainly better than Hannibal, who wasn't able to string his amazing battlefield victories together into a successful campaign.

Also, you argue that part of it was his outstanding legions, but how do you think those legions got to be so extraordinary? Caesar didn't inherit them in that condition, they BECAME that way over the course of his campaigns in Gaul. So during Caesar's early campaigns at least, he didn't have the quality of his legions to rely on.

I wouldn't write off Caesar's luck either - it wasn't just that he rolled the dice and won; Caesar gambled on himself, but the reason he always ended up winning (the exception being 3/15) was because he usually stacked the deck in his favor so to speak - he'd put forth every effort to gain every advantage so that when he did roll the dice, the odds were in his favor. -M

[Xtiaan72]

Ok, I could maybe buy the notion that Caesar wasn't an Alexander or a Hannibal when it came to battlefield tactics, but AVERAGE GENERAL ABILITY??? Bullshit. He had some battles that didn't go particularly well, yes, but this guy is definitely above average. And I think you're forgetting the fact that, strategically (as opposed to tactically), Caesar was probably the equal of any general who ever lived - certainly better than Hannibal, who wasn't able to string his amazing battlefield victories together into a successful campaign.

Also, you argue that part of it was his outstanding legions, but how do you think those legions got to be so extraordinary? Caesar didn't inherit them in that condition, they BECAME that way over the course of his campaigns in Gaul. So during Caesar's early campaigns at least, he didn't have the quality of his legions to rely on.

I wouldn't write off Caesar's luck either - it wasn't just that he rolled the dice and won; Caesar gambled on himself, but the reason he always ended up winning (the exception being 3/15) was because he usually stacked the deck in his favor so to speak - he'd put forth every effort to gain every advantage so that when he did roll the dice, the odds were in his favor. -M

Agreed. He put half of those legions together himself when he ascended to the governorship and cleverly filled the ranks with recently Romanized Northern Italians that had no allegiance to Rome, only to him.

Good generals win some battles. Great generals win wars.

By that standard you would have to rate him higher than Hannibal, Napoleon and most of the other contenders... Alexander stands alone and is one of the few that holds up very well against his accomplishments.

There is that saying on the football field, "Don't give up the big one."....Caesar just didn't do that. In the end, very few can say that.

[roadrunner]

Marc Anthony got defeated by Augustus in the 2nd civil war (following Caesar's death). You must mean Crassus (father and son) who got crushed by the Parthians.

No it was around 38-9 BC (long after the death of Crassus in 53 BC and well before his defeat by Octavian at Actium in 31 BC) that Marc Anthony attempted the invasion of Parthia that Caesar had originally envisioned. His army had gained a few initial victories (subbordinates had led Parthian troops in to hand-to-hand situations which greatly favored Roman legionaries) but extremely poor planning, impatience (especially dangerous considering Parthian tactics) eventually forced Anthony to retreat with heavy losses (about a quarter of their force... 25000 troops if you believe the estimates).

[Africanvs]

Agreed. He put half of those legions together himself when he ascended to the governorship and cleverly filled the ranks with recently Romanized Northern Italians that had no allegiance to Rome, only to him.

Good generals win some battles. Great generals win wars.

By that standard you would have to rate him higher than Hannibal, Napoleon and most of the other contenders... Alexander stands alone and is one of the few that holds up very well against his accomplishments.

There is that saying on the football field, "Don't give up the big one."....Caesar just didn't do that. In the end, very few can say that.

I respect Caesar as much as his biggest fan, but let's not get carried away here. Caesar knew how to get the most out of his men, but an innovator, he was not. When people say he inherited the army they mean that Caesar had access to the Marian reformed Roman legion. This was no conscripted army of levies; we're talking about a professional fighting force of men, many of them already veterans of several campaigns before Caesar took command. The fact is, he was very successful, and that in and of itself speaks volumes.

[Xtiaan72]

Well said... I certainly wasn't trying to come off as one of his biggest fans ( Although perhaps I did!).
I was just trying to make a reasonable argument that he is not over-rated!

Let's face it some of the things he did were.....not so nice to say the least ( genocide and political thuggery topping the list!). That is what tarnishes his legacy more than anything else inmo. I wouldn't take issue with anyone questioning his character but his success (as you said) is pretty hard to argue with.

Although, there is probably a case to made that a 'nice' guy could not have won a battle like Alesia. I'm not a fan of Caesar but as a figure he is very compelling and certainly complicated.

[Macilrille]

Two things:

1. Caesar was a man of his time, I have said it before; do not judge the past by today's standards.
2. Notice that I, a military historian, have not commented on this subject, it is a moot and redundant debate I am sorry to say. It would never pop up on for example H-War or a University.

If you push me for my opinion I would say Zhukov or Monty, or possibly even Rommel, Hannibal for ancients- for the same reason as Rommel, tactical genius, strategical blunderer.

That said, the discussion is still moot.

[Ludens]

First of all he had a poor plan for getting Roman allies to detatch. He wanted them to view him as a friend rather than an enemy, so he often promised no harm would come to them if they did not join him. This meant that if they stayed loyal to Rome, it was better than if they went over to Hannibal, and then Rome won, because Rome would come back and punish them.

That's a pretty bold statement to make. Slaughtering thousands of countryman, friends, family, colleagues tends to make people emotional, so it's not sure that it would have convinced the Italians to defect. Possibly, Hannibal's strategy was to show the Italians that he was not like Rome and would offer them better terms than the total submission required by the Senate. It didn't work as well as he hoped, but that doesn't mean the opposite would have worked better.

Another example of Hannibal's poor planning is his enourmous blunder of failing to properly use the battle of Cannae. He had just crushed the Roman army, leaving them practically defenseless; many of Rome's allies detatched, feeling that Rome was doomed; all Hannibal had to do was march on the city. He may not have thought he could take it, but just the presence of his army outside the city could have forced the Romans to terms.

I've argued against this idea before: Rome was slap-bang in the middle of enemy territory, Hannibal didn't have siege equipment and not enough men to invest the city. Leading his battered army (legendary victory or not, they would have taken a beating at Cannae) would have stretched his supply lines. With 20.000 survivors from Cannae, whom had refused to surrender, reforming in his rear, another 20.000 Romans coming from the north (they would be destroyed by Gauls pretty soon after, but Hannibal couldn't know that) and 10.000 new troops levied in Rome herself, it would be Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome. Yes, the Romans panicked. But they wouldn't have given up.

Also, remember that the Italian theatre was not the only part of Hannibal's strategy. Carthaginian armies were busy kicking the Romans out of Spain and Sicily as well. Hannibal's Italian campaign was at least partially intended to allow other Carthaginian commanders to strip away Rome's provinces. However, maybe because of Hannibal's success in Italy, the senate decided to send reinforcements to Spain. After all, they couldn't go on the offensive in Italy, so those troops would be more useful elsewhere.

[artaxerxes]

I've argued against this idea before: Rome was slap-bang in the middle of enemy territory, Hannibal didn't have siege equipment and not enough men to invest the city. Leading his battered army (legendary victory or not, they would have taken a beating at Cannae) would have stretched his supply lines. With 20.000 survivors from Cannae, whom had refused to surrender, reforming in his rear, another 20.000 Romans coming from the north (they would be destroyed by Gauls pretty soon after, but Hannibal couldn't know that) and 10.000 new troops levied in Rome herself, it would be Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome. Yes, the Romans panicked. But they wouldn't have given up.

Also, remember that the Italian theatre was not the only part of Hannibal's strategy. Carthaginian armies were busy kicking the Romans out of Spain and Sicily as well. Hannibal's Italian campaign was at least partially intended to allow other Carthaginian commanders to strip away Rome's provinces. However, maybe because of Hannibal's success in Italy, the senate decided to send reinforcements to Spain. After all, they couldn't go on the offensive in Italy, so those troops would be more useful elsewhere.

Hey, I've wondered about those things a lot of times. Very nice to get an explanation. Thank you! :D