What is your opinion about the most overrated generals.

In mine :-

1. Alexander the great
2. Octavious
3. Arminious
4. Saladin
5. William the conquerer
6. Duke of Wilington
7. Montegomery

Nor is Saladin.

I have no recallings at this moment but not Alexander the Great nor Saladin nor Arthur Wellesly, Duke of Wellington

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.

Yi sun sin

Zhuge Liang

Alexander the great

Best ever eh - are you being sarcastic?  

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?

 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.

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

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.

Montgomery

Zhukov

 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.

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

i will agree with most of US grant being overrated -----------he was good in the west but just had more men to lose in the East -------Sherman and Sheridan --------much better than he

Montgomery -------well maybe ------------f0r sure he wouldnt make my choice as a top general

Rommel -------very good -------field leader -if i had a division or Corps to lead -he is my man ---------------but beyond that Germany had many other generals/ field marshalls --------who proved to me more competent

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.

I too think Montgomery was overated but think some of the comments about him are a bit unfair.

He was not "lucky" in North Africa!! he refused to attack until he and his army was ready and he felt it had it's best chance of Victory. That is not bad generalship,  I would say that is "good" generalship.

El Alamein was the first British victory over the germans (on land) during World War II and so of course it and it's victorious general were elevated to the  heights of "immortality" by the British people.

He was a cautious general who wanted to keep casualties to a minimum, when he did throw caution to the wind and devised Operation "Market Garden" the airborne assualt in Holland, he was criticised because it failed. "sometimes you can't win whatever you do".

In Northwest Europe after D day the policy of a broad advance rather than a single thrust was Eisenhowers decision (for diplomatic reasons) not Montgomerys.  Montgomery was overated but he was not a bad general, Bad generals lose battles, Montgomery was a winner.

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.

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.

armenian: my point was not that the Persian army was bad, just that it was so infinately outclassed by the Macedonian forces that you me or anyone on this forum could have reproduced Alexanders sucess given the disparity of power.  People overestimate the importants of numbers...So many times an inferior force will win against large numbers that I hardly call that something that makes a general great.  The persian army of that day was like the Chinese army of today, vastly more powerful than its neighbors but would be slaughtered by the US army regardless of numbers.  That disparity of power is equivalent to Macedonia and Persia of Alexander's day.  The army that Philip built conquered persia, not some ovverated JFK like (young handome untimely death leading to heightened repuation) type person.

 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.

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!

Actually I thought I was being quite fair saying Montgomery wasn't a great commander or even a good one just a competant one. Churchill left him in command of the army for three years, could anybody with half a brain suggest Churchill would leave a poor general commanding the troops, especially when he sacked his predecessors.

Now what I've noticed on this forum is a passion for attacking people who are not really so bad. This post is a fine example, as I said earlier I don't consider any of the stated generals are bad.

But if you like in this spirit in future I will refrain from defending those who don't deserve to be attacked, abandon my usual jibes about Bush and cronies and instead restrict my activities from now on to vicious character assassinations of the child molester Samuel Adams, the Soviet spy Martin Luther-King and that employer of ghost writers Mark Twain in the sure knowledge you won't defend them.

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.

Monte wasn't a great general he gained his victory at Al-alamin by superior troops in number and quality and the germans were  without fuel even so he couldn't crush Rommel army.

After D day he became very careful and lost many chances to smash the Germans army if he corporated with American may be the could end the war earlier.

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.

Now I understand you mistake racism for nationalism.

 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

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.

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? 

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.

Overated general?

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

"total wanker"

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.

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.

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.

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...

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. 

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".

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[/QUOTE]

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]

There was one problem with Pattons plan and that was logistics. They were still basically landing and moving supplies from the D-Day area. There were delays in the fighting while supplies caught up. Antwerp eventually solved the problem. The hardest fighting took place along the heavily fortified Channel coast. Some of the coast should have been bypassed since the ports there were demolished and therefore useless. There will be a lot second guessing about the war in the west after D-Day. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alright, agreed.