Who is the most overrated general ever?

[Krusader]

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

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

From what I gather wasn't that something almost every general at WW1 did?

[Rilder]

Would it be wrong to say: "The Average EB player" ?

[Mulceber]

but an innovator, he was not.

I wouldn't go that far - to my knowledge, his double-wall from Alesia had never been done before, and the tactic he used for routing Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus (having his legionaries retreat and replacing them with auxilaries using their pila as spears) was pretty innovative. I agree that he didn't revolutionize battlefield tactics, but he had a couple of interesting innovations that helped him gain his victories. -M

[Ardri]

From what I gather wasn't that something almost every general at WW1 did?

Although I am not very familiar with specific WWI commanders/generals, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say there were good generals on both sides. General Pershing on the American side did more than "sit in the sun and enjoy a nice glass of scotch." Also, whichever general first implemented the use of tanks (not sure who or what army) revolutionized warfare, however, as has been pointed out with Caesar, creating revolutionary tactics neither makes or breaks a general, but the implementation of tactics (new or old) plays a larger part in their success or demise IMO.

[saxonbattlemask]

it was haig that first used the tank at passiondale i think could be wrong also for what its worth i reckon nepolen was the most overrated

[Krusader]

Although I am not very familiar with specific WWI commanders/generals, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say there were good generals on both sides. General Pershing on the American side did more than "sit in the sun and enjoy a nice glass of scotch." Also, whichever general first implemented the use of tanks (not sure who or what army) revolutionized warfare, however, as has been pointed out with Caesar, creating revolutionary tactics neither makes or breaks a general, but the implementation of tactics (new or old) plays a larger part in their success or demise IMO.

What we learned in history class in Norway at least was that generals squandered their men, because they weren't up to speed on how modern warfare was conducted. Sending massive formations of men against enemy lines could be good earlier, but with gatling guns it was waste of men.
Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series. There were good generals yes, but the majority it seems (to my eyes) were still employing tactics from the previous century.
And for new tactics, there is the battle of Amiens where combined arms tactics were employed.

[Mulceber]

Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series.

Loved that show! -M

[Ardri]

What we learned in history class in Norway at least was that generals squandered their men, because they weren't up to speed on how modern warfare was conducted. Sending massive formations of men against enemy lines could be good earlier, but with gatling guns it was waste of men.
Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series. There were good generals yes, but the majority it seems (to my eyes) were still employing tactics from the previous century.
And for new tactics, there is the battle of Amiens where combined arms tactics were employed.

It is obvious that the tactics in WWI lagged far behind the technology, but I was merely pointing out that every general in WWI cannot be stereotyped into a category of being a bad general. With regard to the gap between technology and tactics, I would gather to say that in no point in history has the gap been as wide as it was in WWI. However, even during the American Civil War the tactics lagged behind the technology, but people still recognize there were some superior generals in that war. We should also remember that the last cavalry charge in history was in WWII so even from nation to nation the beginning of the 20th century saw some huge disparities in technology and tactics. It seems to be an oversimplification to say that generals in WWI were old and out of touch and none of them had any idea what they were doing.

[Africanvs]

I wouldn't go that far - to my knowledge, his double-wall from Alesia had never been done before, and the tactic he used for routing Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus (having his legionaries retreat and replacing them with auxilaries using their pila as spears) was pretty innovative. I agree that he didn't revolutionize battlefield tactics, but he had a couple of interesting innovations that helped him gain his victories. -M

Circumvalation had been done before, but probably not to the extent Caesar did it. As I've said, he knew how to get the most out of what he had and I believe he was damn good. When I say he wasn't innovative, I mean he didn't make any changes to the army to imrpove their efectiveness, he didn't come up with any revolutionary new tactics, but then again, he really didn't need to. His army was top notch. Innovation is usually a product of necesessity.

[Mulceber]

Circumvalation had been done before, but probably not to the extent Caesar did it. As I've said, he knew how to get the most out of what he had and I believe he was damn good. When I say he wasn't innovative, I mean he didn't make any changes to the army to imrpove their efectiveness, he didn't come up with any revolutionary new tactics, but then again, he really didn't need to. His army was top notch. Innovation is usually a product of necesessity.

Okay, I think we've basically been saying the same thing but in different ways - I can definitely agree with that assessment. -M

[Africanvs]

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.

You make a great point here, and it is my opinion as well that that is what Hannibal was trying to do. Unfortunately, in war, a general doesn't get points for trying, and being a nice guy. The fact that it didn't work as well as he hoped, doesn't excuse the fact that it was an improper assessment and a failed plan.

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.

I don't know. You make a good case but it's a little hard for me to believe that Hannibal was simply a decoy to help other generals take Rome's provinces. Also when talking about numbers, just because Rome has 20,000 here and 10,000 there doesn't mean much. You're talking about levies, many of them probably fresh recruits, or dishonered and disunited men in the case of the veterans of Cannae. Hannibal had a battle hardened army and had completely won the war of psychology. In any case, if it were me in Hannibals shoes, two things are for sure. 1) I would have felt like I just destroyed all the men in Rome after Cannae. If I'm not mistaken, Cannae was the biggest battle to have ever happened at that time, and the biggest loss of life in a single day on any ancient or modern battlefield. 2) I wouldn't have imagined that any nation could be that tenacious and resourceful.

Ultimately we cannot know why Hannibal did what he did. He may not have had a successful plan, but the kindness he showed to the Italian allies is at least proof that Carthagians weren't necessarily the barbarians they are often made out to be. His victories have stood the test of time and continue to be taught as tactics today, and many people regard him as one of the greatest generals in history. In any case, we have the value of examining him and his campaign from a safe distance. Who's to say what it looked like on the ground. A coward, he definitely wasn't.

[Ludens]

What we learned in history class in Norway at least was that generals squandered their men, because they weren't up to speed on how modern warfare was conducted. Sending massive formations of men against enemy lines could be good earlier, but with gatling guns it was waste of men.
Also add in documentaries, movies and perhaps the best "documentary" IMO, Black Adder Fourth Series. There were good generals yes, but the majority it seems (to my eyes) were still employing tactics from the previous century.
And for new tactics, there is the battle of Amiens where combined arms tactics were employed.

It's not true that the generals of the WWI didn't change their tactics, the changes just didn't work. They tried mass bombardments, they tried aerial attacks, they tried gas warfare: nothing was able to break the stalemate until the British introduced the tanks in 1917 and the Germans developed infiltration tactics in 1918. Yes, the military academies still taught 19th century tactics, but then no one had seen a war like this before.

That's not to say WWI leaders were good, but I doubt they were particularly more stupid than generals of other times. In the end, however, they were held collectively responsible for the failure of WWI, and that is probably the cause for their bad reputation nowadays.

You make a great point here, and it is my opinion as well that that is what Hannibal was trying to do. Unfortunately, in war, a general doesn't get points for trying, and being a nice guy. The fact that it didn't work as well as he hoped, doesn't excuse the fact that it was an improper assessment and a failed plan.

It certainly failed, but that is hindsight talking. Hannibal wanted to woo away the Italian cities from Rome, and decided that slaughtering Italian captives was not the way to do it. I can't find anything wrong with his assessment here.

You make a good case but it's a little hard for me to believe that Hannibal was simply a decoy to help other generals take Rome's provinces. Also when talking about numbers, just because Rome has 20,000 here and 10,000 there doesn't mean much. You're talking about levies, many of them probably fresh recruits, or dishonered and disunited men in the case of the veterans of Cannae. Hannibal had a battle hardened army and had completely won the war of psychology.

Fair points. However, I still think that Hannibal's campaign in Italy should be seen in the context of the greater war. Hannibal didn't win in Italy, but he didn't exactly lose either. It was the failure of Carthaginian armies in other theatres that allowed Rome to win the war.

As for attacking Rome, it's not a question of numbers but of supplies. Hannibal didn't have siege equipment, so a direct assault was out of the question. Without siege equipment, storming fortifications is a dicey proposition. The 10.000 Roman defenders also maybe levies, but there's nothing like defending your home to raise men's morale, so they would have given him quite a fight. Neither could Hannibal have invested Rome. It was in the middle of hostile territory, and those 20.000 survivors of Cannae plus the consular army from cisalpine Gaul would be more than enough to cut his supply lines. Like I wrote: it would Hannibal's army that went hungry, not Rome.

[Fluvius Camillus]

The tank mission may be led by Haig, the tanks shocked the germans and created a gap in the line, this gap was not exploited very well and the terrain won was largely lost soon.

Germany had quite good generals for their time, France had very bad leaders, worst example was Nivelle, he sent their men to their deaths and on top of it fired his artillery in the back of his own troops.

At the start of the war the Allies approached the war like the century before, a noble gentlemans engagement. The Germans relied on speed and effectiveness. Like at the Somme, the british took a "leasure walk", how that ended is something you all know.

There are reports that in the first days of the war even spear cavalry was used against the german machine gun batteries.

(Sorry for the OT)

[Maeran]

In the first days of WW1 horses were the fastest reliable way to cross a field. And a cavalry lance is no more archaic an idea than a bayonet. A carbine would lack accuracy in a charge, so you'd have to stop if you wanted to hit anyone in that small bunch of men around the gun. Not a good idea.

Not that the machine gun was likely to lose this encounter, but a better solution didn't exist.

The final successes of 1918 built on years of trial and error. In any case, I would say that generally the generals of that war have a worse reputation than they deserve rather than a better one. So you can't say that any of them are overrated.

There are probably a great many overrated generals. I think that Henry V of England was one of them. The siege of Harfleur -the very first action in his war against France- was such a Pyrrhic victory that he had to change the entire campaign into a symbolic march to Calais. He could not do anything more.

He may have shown great skill in choosing his ground at Agincourt, but so much luck came into the circumstances of that battle that surely only Shakespeare could make him the heroic warrior king he is remembered as.

[Owen Glyndwr]

About WWI, it's really important that you take into account what was going on back then. In the lead up to that era, most generals were still studying for the most part Napoleon, and most still believed that his tactics could be applied to war, as evident by the gradiose of the Schlieffen Plan, which is very Napoleonic. Also, the main French theory revolved around something called le cran (sp?) which basically stated that if the soldiers had the will to win, then they were going to win (mixed perfectly with machine guns, didn't it?)

In many ways that war turned out just like the US Civil War. Most generals were still fighting like Napoleon, only a few (Jackson, for example) realized that times had changed, the name of the game was no longer offense, but defense, and the leader's unwillingness to accept a breach in strategy made the battles exceedingly bloody and exceedingly indecisive.

In regards to Washington, I really think you guys are wrongly downplaying his abilities. He was more than just a charasmatic guy. He may not have been a genius, but he certainly was pragmatic. He knew he couldn't beat the regulars on the open field, and so often avoided that all together. When you point out his failed battles, you have to remember that he was fighting with what was essentially a militia, and he was fighting the most well trained army in the world at that time. I doubt Cornwallis or any of the other British generals could have done even half of the things Washington did with his troops, I mean crossing a frozen river barefoot in Christmas, that's pretty crazy if you ask me. The fact that he held his army together that long alone should be a testament to his ability.

As for Rommel, once again, you have to remember that he was pretty much abandoned by Hitler, he didn't recieve much help from the Italians he was supposed to be aiding, and almost never recieved support from Berlin. I can't remember, I but I think that his utilization of the 88s as anti-tank was pretty out of the ordinary.

What Rommel did was simply realized that he could not go toe to toe with the unending British supply of Armor, so instead played to his advantages; his 88s and his faster tanks. Is that not the markings of a great general? The ability to assess your army, and manipulate your opponent into playing into your strengths, and steering them away from your weaknesses?

Just my 2 cents

[seienchin]

Dont judge the WWI generals to hard. I would agree, that it is hard to find outstanding generals at the british and french side (They had superior numbers from 1915 till 1918 without getting any succes...), but in the eastern theatre they were great generlas.
The russian brussilow did break through the german and austrian lines causing more than 1.3 million losses while having 1. Million on russian side, which is incredible giving the bade shape the russian army was 1916. Also the german use of storm troops in 1918 was so much ahead of the time that it was not even fully copied by many armies in WWII.

[McAds]

It is obvious that the tactics in WWI lagged far behind the technology

Its obvious that the technology and terrain on the Western Front favoured the defender.

[Hooahguy]

i say Monty. his incompetence is horrific in operations Goodwood and Market-Garden. that victory in north africa should not have merited him command of the UK forces in Europe.
i do not think that patton was over-rated. the man was a brilliant general. had he been commanding the tanks in Market-Garden, i think the results would be much different.

[Macilrille]

About WWI, it's really important that you take into account what was going on back then. In the lead up to that era, most generals were still studying for the most part Napoleon, and most still believed that his tactics could be applied to war, as evident by the gradiose of the Schlieffen Plan, which is very Napoleonic. Also, the main French theory revolved around something called le cran (sp?) which basically stated that if the soldiers had the will to win, then they were going to win (mixed perfectly with machine guns, didn't it?)


As for Rommel, once again, you have to remember that he was pretty much abandoned by Hitler, he didn't recieve much help from the Italians he was supposed to be aiding, and almost never recieved support from Berlin. I can't remember, I but I think that his utilization of the 88s as anti-tank was pretty out of the ordinary.

What Rommel did was simply realized that he could not go toe to toe with the unending British supply of Armor, so instead played to his advantages; his 88s and his faster tanks. Is that not the markings of a great general? The ability to assess your army, and manipulate your opponent into playing into your strengths, and steering them away from your weaknesses?

Just my 2 cents

Rommel is overrated cause of his self-publicism (much like Monty) and because he fought and sometimes defeated the Western allies (those who wrote history). Rommel, like Hannibal, was a tactical genius, but his sense of strategy left some to be desired. His supply lines were never secured and that is by and large where he lost in North Africa. He was a product of the German "Win the battles and the war will win itself"-doctrine. If you want a German general of overall brilliance, I think Guderian or Manstein will fit the bill better.

Monty was bad and overrated, but Zhukov was worse, he sacrificed men to achieve victories, WWI mentality or what we in the West think is "Soviet/Russian" mentality. It is not so, Koniev and Rokossovsky tried to spare their men and win battles by tactics, not overwhelming the enemy. Zhukov sacrificed men in the millions I would estimate, not even Monty did that.

Edited to add what I forgot: There is nothing wrong with Napoleonic tactics, Fall gelb was basically identical to Napoleon's tactic at Austerlitz, lure the enemy reserves to one flank, punch through between that and the centre, then annihilate them in a Kesselslacht. The nature of war have not changed since Stone Age, just the tools used to wage it.

[jsadighi]

There are probably a great many overrated generals. I think that Henry V of England was one of them. The siege of Harfleur -the very first action in his war against France- was such a Pyrrhic victory that he had to change the entire campaign into a symbolic march to Calais. He could not do anything more.

He may have shown great skill in choosing his ground at Agincourt, but so much luck came into the circumstances of that battle that surely only Shakespeare could make him the heroic warrior king he is remembered as.

I agree with the first part of this. Henry's aim was to march to Paris, the fact that the siege of Harfleur was so costly for him shows that he wasn't the greatest of generals. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say that he was overrated.

Agincourt was proof that he did have some skill at being a competent general. He didn't just defeat a superior enemy, he decimated them. Sure, Shakespeare did add to the Henry's mystique, but the fact that Henry stood side by side with his men to the very end (not just run off to Calais while his soldiers did all the fighting), against an enemy who, on paper, seemed invincible has earned him the right to be called the "Warrior King."

Was Henry's campaign a failure? When you look at what he was trying to achieve, of course it was a failure. But I don't think I can label him "overrated."

[jsadighi]

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.

I don't think I've met anyone who rated Marc Anthony as a general. Let's face it, the only reason why anyone remembers the guy is because he managed to bag Cleopatra behind Caesar's back!

[desert]

Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?

[Ardri]

Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?

If Grant was to have fought against the Army of Northern Virginia in the first half of the war he would have been defeated most likely. He was mainly successful later in the war because he realized that a war of attrition would destroy the south because they could not match the economic power or manpower of the north. So I guess you could say he was a sound strategist, but a poor tactician.

With regards to Longstreet, his inaction on the second day of Gettysburg was probably the second biggest reason the south lost that battle other than the failure to push on and take Culp's hill(have to check to make sure I have the name of the hill correct) at the end of the first day when the union army was on its heels. On the second day Longstreet delayed some 8 hours before launching his attack because he didn't agree with the orders. As a result the Army of the Potomac was able to shuffle reinforcements from one end of the line to another. Longstreet was a very cautious general, but given the tactical/technological disparity this normally worked out well as the defensive force had a very distinct advantage.

[geala]

Sometimes generals had an easier job to get "hyped". If the defense is much stronger than the attack it is difficult to achieve spectacular successes. During great parts of WW I just the means to beat the enemy did not exist. Even Napoleon would have had problems in this war.

Rommel (my favorite for being overrated) was a good general. But he was not the super hero as whom he sometimes appeared. You don't have to be bad to be overrated, just not so good as many thought. Rommels ruthless first attack on Tobruk f.e. was a shameful desaster. More than once the other generals had to save the situation, f.e. in the battles in late 1941 when Rommel sometimes lost even contact with his divisions because of imprudent trips. The high command thought of him more as an adventurer und would have preferred to get rid of him but he was Hitlers darling and too well known in the public already.

Macilrille, it's interesting that you speak of Fall Gelb, a candidate for the most overrated victory imho. The success of Fall Gelb was a matter of coincidence, luck, disobedience of some energetic excellent lower generals combined with some (but only a little bit) incompetence of the allied command. The Germans never used blitzkrieg strategy deliberately with success, instead they stumbled into it. If Fall Gelb would have been conducted as planned the forces of France, GB, Belgium and the Netherlands would have performed much better than they did. The blitzkrieg was however a comfortable concept for both sides, the Germans could dupe themselves that they were the best fighters with a superiour tactic (which led to the desaster in the east a year later), the allies could excuse themselves why they were beaten although they had had far stronger forces.

[Cimon]

Alright then, a list of generals I've seen people call overrated and would like more POV's on are Grant and Rommel.

And about the US Civil War, who were those big Southern commanders (excepting Lee and Stonewall), Longstreet and Stuart, right?

Grant is actually underrated as a general, which is to say that people think he is a very bad general even though he won the civil war, while in actuality he was a decent general (but not great). Convoluted logic I suppose, since I am saying that he is underrated because he is so poorly rated, but the fact remains that he is given short shrift from time to time.

Longstreet and Stuart were, as you point out, other major Confederates (although Stuart is a cavalry commander, and so not quite on par with Lee, Longstreet, etc.). However, there are a significant number of other commanders for both sides that don't get mentioned too often due to their being out of the limelight in the most western theaters. Offhand for the confederates, PGT Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and Jubal Early come to mind. For the Union, there is Phillip Sheridan, Don Carlos Buell and, of course, William Tecumseh Sherman. The Civil War can mostly be boiled down as follows: the Union has above-average armies/resources (technology, manpower, etc.) and below-average commanders while the Confederacy has below-average armies/resources and above-average commanders. (In this way, it's actually quite similar to the Second Punic War: Carthage has low-quality armies with good commanders, while Rome has good-quality armies with bad commanders (until Scipio, or possible Cunctator)).

For anyone interested in the US Civil War, I highly recommend Ken Burns documentary. Yes, it is long, but it is spectacularly engrossing and all-encompassing.

[Ibrahim]

Grant is actually underrated as a general, which is to say that people think he is a very bad general even though he won the civil war, while in actuality he was a decent general (but not great). Convoluted logic I suppose, since I am saying that he is underrated because he is so poorly rated, but the fact remains that he is given short shrift from time to time.

Longstreet and Stuart were, as you point out, other major Confederates (although Stuart is a cavalry commander, and so not quite on par with Lee, Longstreet, etc.). However, there are a significant number of other commanders for both sides that don't get mentioned too often due to their being out of the limelight in the most western theaters. Offhand for the confederates, PGT Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and Jubal Early come to mind. For the Union, there is Phillip Sheridan, Don Carlos Buell and, of course, William Tecumseh Sherman. The Civil War can mostly be boiled down as follows: the Union has above-average armies/resources (technology, manpower, etc.) and below-average commanders while the Confederacy has below-average armies/resources and above-average commanders. (In this way, it's actually quite similar to the Second Punic War: Carthage has low-quality armies with good commanders, while Rome has good-quality armies with bad commanders (until Scipio, or possible Cunctator)).

For anyone interested in the US Civil War, I highly recommend Ken Burns documentary. Yes, it is long, but it is spectacularly engrossing and all-encompassing.

you also left out confederate gen. Nathan beford forrest.(yeah I know he was politically contraversial, but his cavalry tactics were innovative for their time)

and the union you left out general George Thomas. he is often forgotten actually.

[Cimon]

you also left out confederate gen. Nathan beford forrest.(yeah I know he was politically contraversial, but his cavalry tactics were innovative for their time)

and the union you left out general George Thomas. he is often forgotten actually.

Excellent additions Ibrahim, and thank you for helping to round out my list. I don't know how I forgot the "Rock of Chickamauga." Guess we could add John Bell Hood for the Confederates also, but he is certainly a lesser commander than the others, as witnessed in the Atlanta campaign once he replaced Johnston.

[Ardri]

Hood was an outstanding division commander (corps as well I believe), but my civil war history is not nearly as sharp as it use to be.

I will say that when you have the Texas Brigade in your division it is easy for a division commander to look good! Haha, maybe a little bias to my state.

[Cimon]

Hood was an outstanding division commander (corps as well I believe), but my civil war history is not nearly as sharp as it use to be.

I will say that when you have the Texas Brigade in your division it is easy for a division commander to look good! Haha, maybe a little bias to my state.

Hood is a classic example of the Peter Principle: "In any given hierarchical structure, a person will rise to his/her highest level of incompetence and stay there." In other words, a person who does well at a job will be promoted, until they get to a job that he/she doesn't do well, and then he/she will cease being promoted, but will not be demoted, and will just continue to do his/her new job incompetently. That's Hood in a nutshell. He was outstanding with smaller detachments, but as he rose through his promotional ranks, he became less and less effective. He still did well enough to be promoted to replace a cautious Johnston in the Atlanta campaign, and proceeded to agressively play into Sherman's numerical advantage by directly attacking the Union forces, thereby destroying his own. (Shades of Varro and Paulus, anyone?)

[Ardri]

I do believe that by the time he took over in the Atlanta campaign he had already lost both an arm and a leg. Not sure if that played a role in hindering his ability to command, but I highly doubt that those kinds of injuries have any benefit.