Overrated Generals

Originally posted by Constantine XI Haig and Hindenberg

There was not a good general among the WWI crowd.  Not one.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by Constantine XI Haig and Hindenberg There was not a good general among the WWI crowd.  Not one.

 

What about Petain? He was a great leader whos reputation is clouded by by the next war.

 

I would have to actually agree with alot on this list.  Alexander is my favorite to pick on.  Not only a terrible ruler but as a general overrate.  Still good but certainly way overrated.  His father built his state and his armies and used them against more worthy foes.  Alexander used his fathers army against an antiquated human mass army with bad leadership and poor just about everything.  A monkey could have conquered the Persians of tat time with Alexanders army.

Montgomery, theres another one I dislike, except instead of just saying hes overrated Id just say he was plain old BAD.  Monty got lucky once in North Africa but then his "contributions" to allied victory probably prolonged the war by lives and months and his pompous adherence to crap strategies doomed many of hs own soldiers.

You're underestimating the Persian army, they were not a group of useless slaves, they were very capable, and Alexander defeated them while being severely outnumbered. You think the Persians built an empire off of an army of useless soldiers? Please think about that for one minute.

And Alexander's army didnt cross into India because they had been on campaign for 10 years, and Alexander still wanted to go on. His conviction to go on as well as his sheer bravery to fight on the front lines makes him great in my opinion. Just because some people call him "God", doesnt mean you should say that he's overrated. He is a great general.

 

 

1. Wellington : lied about the battle of Toulouse (a battle that he lost miserably but he claimed to be a victory, entered as a victory by Soult. facts are clearly against wellignton), lied about Waterloo to put down Prussian's contributions. Wellington was mostly a liar, a better politician and propagandist than a General. His campaign in Spain is way overrated, most casualties on the french army were inflicted by the guerilla, disease and inhospitable environment. Wellignton the opportunist that was once more here to claim victory. He was fighting a bleeding army.

2. Patton : pompous ass general, truely overrated.

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

Tobodai, good points. I agree that the Macedonian army, pound for pound, was much superior to the Persian army at the time, one key factor being the training they recieved. However, I dont see how that makes Alexander overrated. He won over 50 battles, and never once tasted defeat. One can argue that if he lived out an average lifespan he would have likely been defeated eventually, but that was not the case, and he remains undefeated. He wasnt a god, but he was not overrated. He also fought on the front lines, setting an example to his men with not only his strategic brilliance but also his bravery.

1. Battle of Gaugamela---Alexander spreads the Persian line out, and cuts through to charge straight for Darius, making the entire army rout.

2. Battle against General Porus (India)--- Alexander's army was besieging the walls of the city, and Alexander, along with a handful of his men, are the first to jump the walls.  Once they jumped over, the rest  of the army was being cut off by the Indian defenses, and the handful of Macedonians were forced to defend themselves until backup was able to climb the walls. This is where Alexander was shot with an arrow (not on his horse...friggin Oliver Stone) that pierced his lung, and his soldiers protected his body until the rest of the army climbed over, eventually winning the battle.

Also, his persistance is worth taking into account, one of the most noteworthy examples being the 7-month seige of Tyre.

As you said, he didnt build the army, and Philip should get all the credit for that. The army that Philip built was an important reason for Alexander's success, but in terms of putting that army to use, he stretched Macedonian borders/influence further than anyone imagined, and he did it in only a decade.

Originally posted by Tobodai Yes but these are hardly unique or unprecidented actions by any number of conquerors.  The Duke of Marlborough never lost a battle, neither did Timur Lenk or Winfield Scott.  They dont get all the glory of Alexander and thats directly related to JFK syndrome.

 

 That never lost a battle is mostly a myth, how do you determine victory? Can Malborough really claimed he won the battle of Malplaquet, when his army suffered twice more casualties and was literally forced to retreat the day after. Victories are all about propaganda. St-Cyr also claimed to have never lost a battle, but I don't  believe that one second.

Originally posted by Tobodai aquart: you bring up good points about Monty, I would agree that Eisenhower too is overrated, but Monty is still the brainchild of Operation Market Garden which was of course a giant military fluke.  Plus his refusal to cut off advancing Germans in the bulge and his slow times taking objectives in France was infinitately more detrimental to allied war aims than any help they got from el alamein a few years before.

I've always thought the question of whether Montgomery was overated lies in how unrealistically are people rating him so they can shoot him down.

He was a competant commander, pretty good at his best and sometimes plodding at his worst.  He had a town in the US named after him after the war. Then he wrote his autobiography criticising then president Eisenhower and had virtually every word about him in US history books changed from positive to negative overnight.

Now he's somewhat of a straw target for American historians who set him up as a great commander then write evidence showing he wasn't that he wasn't. Similarly I could write a book called "Washington, better than Alexander" then write a huge book about all his flaws proving he's not"

In the Desert he proved competant, El Alemain is overated, he did much better (and worse). But most importantly he had the ability to build up a huge morale effect with his men by visiting the front lines and minimising casualties amongst his own men.

In Europe he was somewhat more patchy. D Day is his finest hour, without him it would have been a disaster. Market Garden failed but at least he tried, no-one. I always laugh when the same historian in the same book talk in praise of the German attempts in The Bulge then criticise Montgomery for trying Market Garden. 

The Bulge was Montgomery worst moment where nobody claims he made the right decision. However it is possible to know what motivated his wrong decision. We could image it was Rommel in Montgomery's shoes facing the Bulge with German troops, what would he have done? The answer is simple, he would cut of the Bulge with his Panzers surrounded and destroyed the Bulge. Now imagine it's Rommel facing the Bulge with entirely Italian troops. What would he have done? The same as with German troops or what Montgomery did? Historically at The Bulge when Montgomery took over the US army, in his own mind he had taken over the Italian army.

 

 You dare criticize a Brit!  you should be flogged!

 

of course you think so, but I have a feeling everyone but you realizes what a British nationalist you are.  This thread is not by far the only example.  We all know for all the leftist rhetoric you spout that then you go wrap yourself in an Union Jack and pleasure yourself in front of the mirror. 

To be totally honest with you Im all for criticizing "those who dont seserve criticism" because thats how we open our minds.  Most Americans would be offended that I think George Washington was a crappy general but its borne out in his lack of tactical judgement.  We must as historians drag down even the mighty so that we can avoid the same mistakes of worshipping leaders and heroes as infallible gods as we once did.

 

I think the duke of Malrborough whoe deserve admiration at Blanhaym.

Wilington gained his victory by Prussian assistance if not Blucher not arrived in the exact time Napoleon may be defeat Wilington.

we can't forget the allied outnumbered over Napoleon the allied troops 150,000 and Napoleonic troops 100,00.