Overrated Generals

Originally posted by Conan the destroyer Yi sun sin Zhuge Liang Alexander the great

Originally posted by Drusus Originally posted by Hannibal Barca In the desert though you have to accept that Monty's victory is quite overglorified. It is very easy to say that Rommel was a better commander, actually he was a better commander. I think he was smart in that he knew that that was the case. Instead of trying something daring and dashing in trying to deafeat Romell who was a master of unpredictabe tactics and taking the enemy by surprise, Montgomery waited until everything as prepared before going on the offensive. Thats why all of the other british commanders in North Africa lost to Rommel, becasue they tried to beat him at his own game, wheras monty won through logistics. He may not have been a better commander in Rommel's sense, but he won through planning and preperation which amounted to the same thing as winning through pure tactics alone

 

Alright, agreed. 

Originally posted by burkicapraz Originally posted by Genghis Why the Duke of Wellington? Because Napoleon made lots of wars and success but duke of wellington stole his fame by one war and in the Waterloo war,Napoleon was in difficult conditions,soldiers had lost their belief to their commanders and lots of army joined against Napoleon in the war and if we look the statistics of war we can see that allied armies had lost more soldiers compared to French army but there were a big advantage in soldiers which joined the war for allied force.In brief,Waterloo was a big mistake for Napoleon but it wasn't enough to accept Duke of Wellington a legendary general.

 

What? I really don't think that Wellington stole Napleon's fame at all. He defeated Napoleon fair and square. Napoleon had more troops and better quality troops and lost. Wellington deserves great recognition for that. Now I think most people accept that Napoleon was the greater commander even though he lost to Wellington, so your point that he stoled Napoleon's fame is meaningless. Napoleon has probably more fame than even Alexander. What are you talking about man?

Oh yeah there is no such thing as the Waterloo war. It was a battle apart of the Napoleonic Wars or the Great French War.

Edited by Hannibal Barca

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by DukeC [QUOTE=Genghis] I meant his military aggressiveness.� But yes, it is sad that Patton's volatile personality kept him from being the Supreme Allied Commander, the war would have been over much sooner and with fewer allied casualities. Or extended for months with more lives lost. Eisenhower did a difficult balancing act with forces under his command�and the enemy he opposed. I don't think anyone else could have done it better.�

It was Eisenhower who extended the war with his broad front strategy
for occupying Germany and his terrible decision in allowing Operation
Market Garden.� Patton's deep drive for Berlin would have ended the war
earlier, as well as his call during the Battle of the Bulge for letting the
Germans move deeper into Belgium and then cuttingthem off, not like
Eisenhower who let them escape and form new the nuclei of new German
units.� Patton's troops also suffered far lower casualty rates than other
troops, why would that have reversed itself with Patton's promotion.

[/
QUOTE]

Ummm, wasnt it Mongomery's deep drive strategy? I think youre getting a
few of the facts a little wrong there.

And also, i think this cutting into monty is undeserved, especially about
D-day. I wouldn't count him as one of the best in history but give him
some credit! the reason he was slower than the americans on D-Day was
becasue he was fighting the majority of the German Armour single-
handedly, letting the Americans hav an easier drive into France. Market
garden could have, as said before been a boon for the allies, adn whoever
said that he threw his mens lives away in crackpot schemes should be
shot. Read a history book!! Monty tried in every way possible to save as
many men as he could.

Originally posted by Genghis Why the Duke of Wellington?

Because Napoleon made lots of wars and success but duke of wellington stole his fame by one war and in the Waterloo war,Napoleon was in difficult conditions,soldiers had lost their belief to their commanders and lots of army joined against Napoleon in the war and if we look the statistics of war we can see that allied armies had lost more soldiers compared to French army but there were a big advantage in soldiers which joined the war for allied force.In brief,Waterloo was a big mistake for Napoleon but it wasn't enough to accept Duke of Wellington a legendary general.

Duke of Wellington,Washington.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by DukeC Originally posted by Genghis I meant his military aggressiveness.  But yes, it is sad that Patton's volatile personality kept him from being the Supreme Allied Commander, the war would have been over much sooner and with fewer allied casualities. Or extended for months with more lives lost. Eisenhower did a difficult balancing act with forces under his command and the enemy he opposed. I don't think anyone else could have done it better.  It was Eisenhower who extended the war with his broad front strategy for occupying Germany and his terrible decision in allowing Operation Market Garden.  Patton's deep drive for Berlin would have ended the war earlier, as well as his call during the Battle of the Bulge for letting the Germans move deeper into Belgium and then cuttingthem off, not like Eisenhower who let them escape and form new the nuclei of new German units.  Patton's troops also suffered far lower casualty rates than other troops, why would that have reversed itself with Patton's promotion.

I agree with you fully about Market-Garden, it had more to do with politics than sound military objectives. There's no doubt in my mind either that had Patton been given the resources including the Airborne Divsions, he would have crossed the Rhine in 1944. He had the shorter route compared to Montgomery. 

Were taking about a real world situation here though and Eisenhower had pressure being put on him from both above and below. He had the intense rivalry between Patton and Mongomery to deal with as well as the political agendas of Churchill and Roosevelt. Politics played almost as an important role on the European battlefield in 1944-45 as military objectives. IMO Patton would not have been able to deal with complexities of commanding the Alliance.

If it had been the 19th century not the 20th Patton would have been the man to lead.

Originally posted by DukeC Originally posted by Genghis I meant his military aggressiveness.  But yes, it is sad that Patton's volatile personality kept him from being the Supreme Allied Commander, the war would have been over much sooner and with fewer allied casualities. Or extended for months with more lives lost. Eisenhower did a difficult balancing act with forces under his command and the enemy he opposed. I don't think anyone else could have done it better.

It was Eisenhower who extended the war with his broad front strategy for occupying Germany and his terrible decision in allowing Operation Market Garden.  Patton's deep drive for Berlin would have ended the war earlier, as well as his call during the Battle of the Bulge for letting the Germans move deeper into Belgium and then cuttingthem off, not like Eisenhower who let them escape and form new the nuclei of new German units.  Patton's troops also suffered far lower casualty rates than other troops, why would that have reversed itself with Patton's promotion.

Originally posted by DukeC Originally posted by Genghis  Eisenhower and Bradley were overrated as generals, they weren't aggressive enough, Patton should have been Supreme Allied Commander.  Pattons' aggressive attitude kept him from being the Supreme Commander. He lacked the diplomatic skills to hold together an Alliance that included British, Polish, French, Canadian and other forces. His hatred of Montgomery caused problems between the U.S. and British high commands as it was. Ike did a great job as Supreme Commander but most of it was behind the scenes.

I meant his military aggressiveness.  But yes, it is sad that Patton's volatile personality kept him from being the Supreme Allied Commander, the war would have been over much sooner and with fewer allied casualities.

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

Pattons' aggressive attitude kept him from being the Supreme Commander. He lacked the diplomatic skills to hold together an Alliance that included British, Polish, French, Canadian and other forces. His hatred of Montgomery caused problems between the U.S. and British high commands as it was.

Ike did a great job as Supreme Commander but most of it was behind the scenes.