Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Overrated Generals Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 05:08 |
What is your opinion about the most overrated generals.
In mine :-
- Alexander the great
- Octavious
- Arminious
- Saladin
- William the conquerer
- Duke of Wilington
- Montegomery
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 05:58 |
Alexander is not an overrated general. Definately.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 06:00 |
Nor is Saladin.
I have no recallings at this moment but not Alexander the Great nor Saladin nor Arthur Wellesly, Duke of Wellington
|
|
Mangudai
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 06:12 |
General Ullysses S. Grant
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 09:07 |
I don't think any of the generals you mention are overated, unless you have rated them in you mind unrealitically. They all human and had trong and weak points.
Grant was the best ever US general, a lousy president, and this clouds people's view, but head and shouders above the rest.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 09:51 |
As a general, Alexander the Great was not overrated, of course. But as a ruler of a country, I think he was.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 11:31 |
I think it'd be handy to know your reasons for that list Ahmed, I have to say i'm lost why the majority of those names are on there So please explain.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Conan the destroyer
Samurai
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 12:18 |
Yi sun sin
Zhuge Liang
Alexander the great
|
|
Mangudai
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 13:22 |
Originally posted by Paul
Grant was the best ever US general, a lousy president, and this clouds people's view, but head and shouders above the rest.
|
Best ever eh - are you being sarcastic?
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 13:33 |
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter
What is your opinion about the most overrated generals.
In mine :-
- Alexander the great
- Octavious
- Arminious
- Saladin
- William the conquerer
- Duke of Wilington
- Montegomery
|
Okay, let's do this from the beginning.
Alexander? Come on, you would do well to find a respectable military historian who doesn't at least rank him among the top 10.
Octavian was never a general, and has never been regarded as such by military historians, Agrippa won his battles.
Arminius...well, our sources on the Teutoborgerwald slaughter aren't good enough to make any real assessment of his generalship, but at least he knew how to go about beating the Romans, which was quite a feat at the high point of Roman power.
Saladin was a good general, nothing truly exceptional but good, as he did make a few "unnecessary" mistakes. As the political leader of Islam however, he was IMO one of the greatest ever.
And good old William, he was a warrior through and through, a good general no doubt, but by no means residing in the hall of fame. I think if he hadn't won that battle at Hastings, his name wouldn't be any more famous today than the names of the other Dukes of Normandy. No Conqueror, just the Bastard.
Redarding the last two I think I have insufficient knowledge to judge them.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 13:49 |
Well, Wellington, was for an example the only British General to escape Iberian peninsula with honour and dignity. Waterloo was no easy battle as well. You can't really say that Waterloo was simple. Napoleon's men were highly skilled (the Imperial Guard) and it was a close one that British had better positions.
I am no person to judge Montogomery (even if I spelled it right) as I don't know much of him.
But tell us if those are overrated then who are the best ten from your point of view?
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 14:01 |
The fame of Hastings has obviously helped William the Conquerors name survive through the centuries and rightfully so I think. However I dont know anybody who has overhyped the Conqueror, ive never seen his name spoken in the same sentence as Caeser, Alexander etc so I dont see how he has been overrated, hes just famous is all. Nobodys tried to make him out to be the best general ever.
Arminius I'd say the same, nobody to my knowledge has hyped him up so much that he can be considered overrated.
Everybody knows Octavian was not a great general so again nobody has tried to make him out to be a great general so he cant be considered overrated since nobody rates him.
I think Saladin to an extent is overrated, but he makes up for his flaws in the field in others ways, how he united the people against the Crusaders and as a politician.
Wellington was an exceptional general, he didnt win Waterloo by himself obviously but he did his job, held Napoleon for long enough for the Prussians to arrive, besides Wellington's generalship in the Peninsular war is impossible to question as Wellington scored victory after victory after victory against the seemingly invincable French army.
Then theres Montgomery who despite being hugely unpopular with other Allied generals was still considered a man with excellent abilities, he achieved great success in North Africa for which he is chiefly remembered, the man may not be the most likeable but generally his record deserves his reputation I think. Still though ive seen him put up alongside truly great generals so again dont see how he can be overrated since he is hardly ever in anybody top 10 list.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Mangudai
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 14:22 |
Don't forget Wellington's successes in India
|
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 14:41 |
The following is MY list of overrated generals!
George Washington - admirable man but ok general, not exceptional and never commanded enough men to get my respect as a true general
Douglas MacArthur - Ridgeway was better!
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Patton was better!
Zhuge Liang - hardcore RTK fans plz ask Conan the Destroyer for an explanation
Tamerlane - more bloodsucker than a true field genius like Chinggis Khan or Subutai
Hernan Cortes/Fernando Pizzaro - how experts ranked them top 20 is absurd
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
Andrew Jackson - I never liked the man, neither as general nor as a politican
Hideoyoshi - I cannot give him credit because the Imjin War did not result in the defeat of Korea
William the Conquerer/Bastard - Hastings = overrated battle, therefore William = overrated general
Edited by poirot
|
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 15:07 |
Please let us discuss it one by one first Alexander:-
His achievments was accomplished against one overextended empire (persian) , we know the persian cannot defeated Greek from the battle of Marathone cause of the soldier quality, the Greek soldier used long sowrd and had a mobility more than persian as well as the great Phallanx these advantages was better and more significant than number then Alexander didn't invent anything .then the defeated of persian wasnot a big deal.
secondly his troops refused to go forward when they reached to India I think if he was great general that would never be happend.
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 16:04 |
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 16:41 |
Montgommery i can agree with, he was just hyped up for the sake of the
home audience to think all was not lost, kind of like how the British
media made Rommel out to be bigger than he was, so that when
Montgommery finaly got the better of him (though not really his own
doing), it was a huge morale boast for the British public.
Rommel was certainly talented, but was hugely over shadowed by von
Manstein and Guderian, but from all teh hype you'd think it was the
other way around.
I never saw William the bastard as a general for some reason, more of a cunning and greedy statesman.
Hmmm, for some of those people, you need to seperate the general from the statesman.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
El Cid
Knight
Joined: 07-Oct-2005
Location: Nicaragua
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 19:57 |
Come on , in what were you thinking? The only one thet could be overrated is Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington. If Blucher wouldn't get to Waterloo at the right time, Wllington would have lost the battle of Waterloo. What do you think?
|
The spanish are coming!
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 20:22 |
Waterloo is just one battle, look back before Waterloo, Wellington didnt just turn up for that one battle he scored many a victory before that, Waterloo is what Wellington is famous for but that doesnt mean its all he ever did.
I've already pointed out that Wellington didnt win Waterloo alone, but he did his job he held the French giving the Prussians time to arrive.
The Prussians couldnt win without the Allied mixed national army of Wellington and vice versa, the Prussian had recieved abit of a mauling only 2 days before Waterloo by Napoleon. They needed each other and both sides did their job.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Janissary
Baron
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 446
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 20:23 |
Oh, very very sorry, Erich Von MAnstain-The most Brilliant Strategist of WWII, sorry, But i do not know much about Montgomery and Manstain, I can learn from u, and I can tell u some thinks about Zhukov, if u wanna learn but i am also not so good about him, i usually like Ancient History more than Modern, sorry
|
|