Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Overrated Generals

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Overrated Generals
    Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 05:23
sorry, Napoleonic 106,000 men.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 09:02
Originally posted by Tobodai

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.

Now I understand you mistake racism for nationalism.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 16:25
oh so your a racist leftist too?
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
  Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 17:50
Washington is overrated in tactical terms.  but he was truly the indispensable man, and he kept morale up his staffing and oranizational decisions led to the Americans winning. Especially when he decided to relieve Gates and put in Nathaniel Greene. I think a critique of him has to not only be based on how he does in combat situation, but how he effects the overall war.

Montgomery is also overrated. I do give him credit for holding off agisnt Rommel. Definitely was not an easy thing to do. Though, I think he garters too much credit for El Alamein. Montgomery also falls under the shadow of Patton. Patton was always in a race to beat the British to the objective. So, there were many points in the war when Patton outdid Montgomery, and thus made him look imcompetent in ways. And, last but not least....Operation market Garden. I place blame on Eisenhower also, because it was him who ultimately approved this plan, but it was Montgomery's idea, and it was a major blunder.

 Cornwallis is also overrated. He really wasn't the massive genius that everyone plays him off to be. Nathaniel Greene lost to him in the one major battle they had, but Cornwallis was unprepared and unable to deal with Greens's guerrila warfare campaign.  I won't criticize Cornwallis for seeking refuge in Yorktow, where he became trapped by the americans and French because he was ordered to go there by Clinton, whom was his commander.

I've got more on the way, but I need to verify my facts first




Edited by Illuminati
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 18:03

 Had Market Garden been pulled off we'd all be saying what a great guy Monty was, there's a very fine line between success and failure and Market Garden could of brought an earlier end to the war, saving many people from much suffering.

 In the end the war was already won, Market Garden had as good a chance of suceeding as it did failing, with hindsight especially from a British perspective because of Arnhem things should of been done alot better, but I suppose at the time it must have seemed it was worth the risk.

 Lets not forget D-Day could have failed, had things been just a bit different, the most famous invasion ever may well have turned into the most famous catastophe ever, Market Garden could to have been a great success.

 Classic "What if?" material there



Edited by Heraclius
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 19:28

Originally posted by Illuminati

Washington is overrated in tactical terms.  but he was truly the indispensable man, and he kept morale up his staffing and oranizational decisions led to the Americans winning. Especially when he decided to relieve Gates and put in Nathaniel Greene. I think a critique of him has to not only be based on how he does in combat situation, but how he effects the overall war.

Montgomery is also overrated. I do give him credit for holding off agisnt Rommel. Definitely was not an easy thing to do. Though, I think he garters too much credit for El Alamein. Montgomery also falls under the shadow of Patton. Patton was always in a race to beat the British to the objective. So, there were many points in the war when Patton outdid Montgomery, and thus made him look imcompetent in ways. And, last but not least....Operation market Garden. I place blame on Eisenhower also, because it was him who ultimately approved this plan, but it was Montgomery's idea, and it was a major blunder.

 Cornwallis is also overrated. He really wasn't the massive genius that everyone plays him off to be. Nathaniel Greene lost to him in the one major battle they had, but Cornwallis was unprepared and unable to deal with Greens's guerrila warfare campaign.  I won't criticize Cornwallis for seeking refuge in Yorktow, where he became trapped by the americans and French because he was ordered to go there by Clinton, whom was his commander.

I've got more on the way, but I need to verify my facts first

I quite like Washington, not a great battlefield commander, a decent army commander but a manipulative self serving politician.

Patton truly was a world class traffic policeman.

Cornwallis, genius, got to admit that's a new one on me. I've only ever seen him on lists of the worst commanders in history.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
  Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 21:12
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by Illuminati

Washington is overrated in tactical terms.  but he was truly the indispensable man, and he kept morale up his staffing and oranizational decisions led to the Americans winning. Especially when he decided to relieve Gates and put in Nathaniel Greene. I think a critique of him has to not only be based on how he does in combat situation, but how he effects the overall war.

Montgomery is also overrated. I do give him credit for holding off agisnt Rommel. Definitely was not an easy thing to do. Though, I think he garters too much credit for El Alamein. Montgomery also falls under the shadow of Patton. Patton was always in a race to beat the British to the objective. So, there were many points in the war when Patton outdid Montgomery, and thus made him look imcompetent in ways. And, last but not least....Operation market Garden. I place blame on Eisenhower also, because it was him who ultimately approved this plan, but it was Montgomery's idea, and it was a major blunder.

 Cornwallis is also overrated. He really wasn't the massive genius that everyone plays him off to be. Nathaniel Greene lost to him in the one major battle they had, but Cornwallis was unprepared and unable to deal with Greens's guerrila warfare campaign.  I won't criticize Cornwallis for seeking refuge in Yorktow, where he became trapped by the americans and French because he was ordered to go there by Clinton, whom was his commander.

I've got more on the way, but I need to verify my facts first

I quite like Washington, not a great battlefield commander, a decent army commander but a manipulative self serving politician.

Patton truly was a world class traffic policeman.

Cornwallis, genius, got to admit that's a new one on me. I've only ever seen him on lists of the worst commanders in history.



In no way am I saying Cornwallis is terrible. He was talented. I am syaing that he is overrated for what he actually accomplished (or failed to accomplish).

 And if you look at the Sicilian campaign and the Italian campaigns especially you'll notice that Patton outdoes Montogmery numerous times.  Patton beats Montogmery to many objectives and jsut overall outdoes him in tactics and victories. One of Patton's goals was to make Montgomery look foolish, and he did just that.  They had never gotten along with each other.
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 00:29

U.S. Grant - yes, I believe Grant is a bit overrated, especially when he had better equipment, more men, and excellent field commanders like Sherman and Sheridan

 

I disagree, if anything Grant is underrated.  Its true that Lee inflicted greater losses on Grant's army but lets consider Grant's circumstances in the East.  He's close to Washington's influence meaning that he has plenty of novice political generals.  The terrain of Virginia is incredibly dense and confining thus inhibiting effective use of his superior numbers.  He had just just taken command of a massive army at the start of his Overland campaign and had little to no experience working with the majority of his officers;  lets not forget Lee's mishaps when he first took command of the ANV.  Furthermore could anyone have reasonably expected the tenacity of Confederat troops in the Wilderness and Spotsylvania? 



Edited by Laelius
Back to Top
Evilbob View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 19-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Evilbob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 13:52
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

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.

Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 232
  Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 19:03

QUOTE

 And if you look at the Sicilian campaign and the Italian campaigns especially you'll notice that Patton outdoes Montogmery numerous times.  Patton beats Montogmery to many objectives and jsut overall outdoes him in tactics and victories. One of Patton's goals was to make Montgomery look foolish, and he did just that.  They had never gotten along with each other. QUOTE 

 

Patton is such a problem with me!!.  His record is second to none, BUT!!

his victories were always from a position of strength!!

 

He never had to fight a defensive battle, he always had superiority, he never had his back to the wall!! the odds were never against him!!was he just plain lucky or was he just the best, I honestly don't know.

 

or maybe he was just the right general in the right place at the right time.

Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 232
  Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 19:11

Overated general?

General Stilwell, the US General commanding Chinese forces against the Japanese.

 

"total wanker"

 

 



Edited by aghart
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 13:47

good discussion i must say...yes, most discussed out of the original list are alexander, wellesley and montgomery and those are probably really the most overrated.

also, remember this thread is about overrated generals, not whether they were good or bad. overrated means, wheather history has created a better picture of them as they really were, irregardless of them being great or bad.

2 other points were brought up in the thread i want to comment:

1. Arminius wasn't even a real general. he was leader of a germanic tribe and previously served as auxiliary in the roman army, this he used to create an ambush and destroy a complete Roman army. this caused a great shock to Romans. but later, Germanicus lead a sucessfull punishment campaign against Arminius and his tribe and defeated them in two pitched battles, eventually whiping out him and his tribe. this was a usual Roman victory and since Arminius tribe vanquished from history and the Germanic front was realtively stabilized for the next hundred years, there's not much knowledge about Germanicus' campaign. so, I think Arminius is a VERY overrated general.

2. I agree, ww1 hasn't produced any good generals but there were still a few, i'm thinking of von Lettow-Vorbeck and Allenby.

Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 14:45

Good Timujin, completly agree with you.

But in WWI I think col.T.E.Lowrence deserve admiration he was a good officor as well general. Stanley mod .

Mustafa pasha Ataturk too he was victory maker at Galipoli.

"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 16:50

Patton is such a problem with me!!.  His record is second to none, BUT!!

his victories were always from a position of strength!!

 

He never had to fight a defensive battle, he always had superiority, he never had his back to the wall!! the odds were never against him!!was he just plain lucky or was he just the best, I honestly don't know.

 

I don't believe Patton deserves credit with regards to the scope of his achievements.  Where Patton excelled was the manner in which he executed his victories.  This holds especially true during fluid situations.  I would go so far as to say that his ability to organize and command troops on the move is virtually unmatched throughout history.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 16:57

Had Market Garden been pulled off we'd all be saying what a great guy Monty was, there's a very fine line between success and failure and Market Garden could of brought an earlier end to the war, saving many people from much suffering.

 

Eh what I think is downright tragic is that this mediocre puff Montgomery has completely overshadowed the greatest British general of the 20th century in British hearts.  Is Bill Slim buried in Westminister Abby?  If he is I'll breathe a sigh of relief, if not...

Back to Top
Turkic10 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01-Jul-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote Turkic10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 19:32
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Haig and Hindenberg

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

Wrong! There was one. Arthur Curry of the Canadian Army. He was about the only one who was a tactician and thoroughly prepared his attacks. He wasn't a genius but he was the best of the lot and most successful by far.  

Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 22:40

Originally posted by Turkic10

Wrong! There was one. Arthur Curry of the Canadian Army. He was about the only one who was a tactician and thoroughly prepared his attacks. He wasn't a genius but he was the best of the lot and most successful by far.  

also the Australian John Monash (who happened to be Jewish).  He first made a name for himself at Gallipoli and ended up commanding the Australian Corps on the Western Front in 1918.  The fact that Monash wasn't a professionally trained officer helped him to think outside the box, hence e.g. his support for combined arms tactics. 



Edited by Bowlingforillidan
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 02:36
Originally posted by Turkic10

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Haig and Hindenberg

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

Wrong! There was one. Arthur Curry of the Canadian Army. He was about the only one who was a tactician and thoroughly prepared his attacks. He wasn't a genius but he was the best of the lot and most successful by far.  

The capture of Vimy Ridge showed just how capable Curry was.

I agree with Laelius about Patton. Eisenhower refered to unsound military operations as "Pattonesque".

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 00:09

Definitely Napoleon.  One brilliant battle (Austerlitz) and a lot of shallow victories, draws and near-losses (Marengo, Eylau, Aspen-Essling, Wagram, Borodino).  To be counted at the top, you should win consistently against larger numbers and a variety of opponents.  Napoleon didn't score on any of these points, unlike Alexander, Hannibal and Subotai.  Napoleon also never had to face above-mediocre generals till Waterloo.  Finally, he inherited Europe's premier war machine from the revolution, complete with tactical doctrine and technology (Gribeauval guns etc); his only addition was to formalise the corps system.

Runners up -

Stonewall Jackson.  Classic uneven performer - brilliant in the Valley Campaign, sluggard in the Seven Days.  

Erwin Rommel.  From what I've read, German historians consider von Manstein the best WW2 German general. 

Montgomery.  Won El Alamein by waiting till he was up by a ratio between 2:1 and 5:1 in every department.  Competence isn't the same thing as brilliance. 

 

 

 



Edited by Bowlingforillidan
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 09:57

I think Grant was overrated.  It was hard not to win when the Army of Northern Virginia was so depleted and you had such a material advantage.  He also looks really good by comparison with all those other crappy Union Generals like McLellan and Burnside.

Eisenhower and Bradley were overrated as generals, they weren't aggressive enough, Patton should have been Supreme Allied Commander. 

Montgomery was also just terrible, the only reason he could beat Rommel was because of his insane logistical advantage.  Rommel himself didn't think Monty was that good and missed opportunities because he was too methodical and focused only on the battle and not the campaign, unlike other generals like Patton who thoroughly mastered mechanized, mobile warfare like the Germans had.

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.