Generals who don't deserve their reputations; my five:
1) Obviously, Alexander (the other one). He was a very charismatic leader of undeniable talent, but the claim to genius is shaky. As has been pointed out often enough, it was his father who designed and built the army he played with. The enemies he defeated were Greeks (no sigificant cavalry, heavy infantry armed with yesterday's weapons), Scythians (no decent foot), Persians (divided interests in the commanders, outclassed horse, and Greeks again), and Indians ("Armour, Mr Patel? No, I am thinking that will push the price up too much, and as you know that we are already looking at higher taxes next year...."). Add the disastrous strategy of the return from India, and he's Alexander the Idiotic.
2) Hannibal next. Very creative at beating a superior army in the field as long as they were led by over-confident half-wits with a command style resembling that of WWI donkeys and no idea of scouting. Once the Romans got a decent leader, he never won another battle; he should not be blamed for this, but it requires a reevaluation of the alleged genius behind the big three victories. When we further add his neglect of support arms (where was their naval effort?) and variant strategic aims ("They've got no army; we could be in the Capitol by Saturday, Sir!" "Oh, let's sit here and hope the rest of Italy joins us now, before they recover as they always do."), he should have been crucified when he got home.
3) Žižka. Another one who won time and time and time again against enemies who couldn't work out how to butter a slice of toast, and using a extremely high-tech army.
4) Gustavus. Recipe for getting rated the Great Captain: get prodded into fighting Cardinal Richlieu's wars for him, and put yourself at the front of an impetuous cavalry force against an enemy with modern firepower. No, I don't think so either.
5) Patton. Advance on a broad front, costing countless lives and massive damage to the heritage of civilisation, in the interests of allowing a hostile ideology to grab the spoils and sell half Europe into another two generations of slavery. What, spearhead an attack to take out the enemy capital? What are you, some kinda Limey fruitcake, Monty?
Alexander - Patton didn't want a broad front. That was Esienhower (sp) trying to keep his two prima donnas happy. I'd agree Patton was over-rated though, although not as much as Monty.
As for the rest, well yes I'd agree with your comments.
Alexander took on and beat the previous top dog army (Greeks), caught and clobbered an army that traditionally used the battlecruiser strategy of running away from anyone stronger and crushing anyone weaker (Skythians), crushed several armies that were both experienced and larger (Persians) and then took on and beat an army with novel troop types, chariotry and Elephants, which was defending a river bank (Indian). If we exclude everyone who used an army they didn't design and train the ranks of the military Great and Good will be gey thin!
To be fair to Hannibal he had no control over the Carthaginian fleet which had, in any case, ultimately proved no match for the Roman navy in the 1st Punic War. A direct assault on Rome might have ended the war ... or it might have ended as a siege that tied Hannibal to one position where the next Roman army could use the walls of Rome as the anvil on which to crush his forces. Peeling Allied support from Rome looked a likelier and safer option at the time. "his neglect of support arms " - say wut??? He was the master of the ancient all-arms army!
Žižka I know next to nothing about so can't agree or disagree.
Gustavus - fine tactician, cr*p strategist IMHO.
On Patton, though, I must agree. Even more egotistical and given to unwarranted self-promotion than Monty ... and that's saying something!
Gustavus revolutionised modern warfare and was responsible for the dramatic shift to mixed arms tactics and maneuver that would come to dominate European battlefields for centuries. He recognised the effectiveness of concentration of force and using impetuous cavalry charges at the right moment to break the enemy. So I'd say a tactical genius is correct and he's much more Phillip than Alexander in that regard. Just a pity he had a penchant for glory and leading from the front which is not the greatest strategy for an effective General by and large...
It might be more interesting to hear about the top 5 underrated generals
Hi
I do not think many of those actually under Monty's command 'over-rated' him which personally I think says a lot. And despite a lot of revisionist history he was also 'rated' well by many Americans. More casualties were suffered by Patton's 3rd Army than any other allied army in NW Europe in 1944-45.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: T13A on 03 December 2020, 09:51:06 AM
Hi
I do not think many of those actually under Monty's command 'over-rated' him which personally I think says a lot. And despite a lot of revisionist history he was also 'rated' well by many Americans. More casualties were suffered by Patton's 3rd Army than any other allied army in NW Europe in 1944-45.
Cheers Paul
I agree. My father served in North Africa under all the 'Desert Generals' from early 1940. He spoke highly of Monty. He told me that they had be consistently beaten by Rommel who'd acquired a reputation of invincibility. Morale was at rock bottom. Then this slight, unimpressive, figure with a Charlie Chaplin moustache arrived and started going round as many units as possible, talking to the troops. By the time he was finished, according to my father, they actually believed they were unbeatable. Leadership is part of the art of generalship, I'd say.
As an aside, I also remember being 'corrected' when I made a disparaging remark about Italians. He told me, to the effect, that he'd seen a lot of dead Italians in North Africa, and there was nothing more you could ask of any soldier.
All generals have egos. Some have larger egos than others. Without highly developed self-esteem, by and large, they don't become generals in the first place.
My wife's godfather, an intelligence officer in North Africa, described the Italians as Ill-served by their country, ill-lead by their senior officers and ill-treated by their German allies.
I'd agree with that. The mass surrender in 40-41 was due to the Brits et al seizing all water sources, and it's not a climate to be thirsty in.
The whole concept of "over-rated" does seem to ignore circumstances. Were Hannibal given a well fed, well supplied, cohesive army I'd put him against any Roman. Montgomery in 1944 was facing a massive manpower shortage which fed his innate caution. Patton, given the same manpower and material would have been completely useless.
Quote from: fsn on 03 December 2020, 12:14:26 PM
The whole concept of "over-rated" does seem to ignore circumstances. Were Hannibal given a well fed, well supplied, cohesive army I'd put him against any Roman. Montgomery in 1944 was facing a massive manpower shortage which fed his innate caution. Patton, given the same manpower and material would have been completely useless.
I am not a massive Monty fan but I think there does seem to be general agreement that he genuinely cared for those under his command and tried to avoid unnecessary casualties.
The step-grandfather had no time for Mountbaton.
Took a flotilla through a minefield outside Scarva Flow when explicitly told not to by the pilots and minesweeper, because he was in charge.
It was completely hushed up and he was quickly reassigned.
This is in danger of being a retread of past threads. It rather begs the question of over-rated by whom? What measure should be used?
Julius Caesar. What do you mean my invasion of Britain is not worth a triumph? Write me down a victory. Even better, I will write myself down a victory so the facts are correct. As I am a politician there is no chance then of fake news. :-$
Ramses: how dare those dastardly Hittites suggest I managed anything other than a complete victory, trouncing my enemies once more.
Frederick the Great: if I call myself GREAT often enough perhaps it will stick.
And so on.
The problem with Monty, Patton and MacArthur is that they get too much coverage of all sorts. What is to be taken as their rating? TIME magazine concluded that MacArthur was the most over-rated.
The Italians were conscripted for a war they did not believe in by men they did not support against an enemy they did not hate with inadequate supplies and equipment. The Germans in Normandy who acted in similar ways do not seem to have attracted the same comments.
The Italians
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 03 December 2020, 07:56:19 PM
The problem with Monty, Patton and MacArthur is that they get too much coverage of all sorts. What is to be taken as their rating? TIME magazine concluded that MacArthur was the most over-rated.
I once read a short potted biography of MacArthur, and could not believe the stuff he did and kept getting away with.
Personally I loathe Pershing, but that's because he was against the armistice, and forced the US forces to keep attacking on 11/11/1918, causing an awful lot of completely unnecessary casualties.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 03 December 2020, 11:54:26 AM
My wife's godfather, an intelligence officer in North Africa, described the Italians as Ill-served by their country, ill-lead by their senior officers and ill-treated by their German allies.
I think that about sums it up.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 03 December 2020, 08:47:34 AM
It might be more interesting to hear about the top 5 underrated generals
I'll get you started with:
Slim: Highly rated now, but always the man in the unfashionable theatre.
Admiral Yi (Korea): Did a lot of ship fighting, and almost as much land fighting, constantly disadvantaged by court intrigues, but always victorious.
Suvorov is not as well known in the west as he deserves.
Yi and Suvarov are hardly underrated, I'd say. I've never read a disparaging word about either.
Perhappes they are under-publicised
Remembered for one disastrous loss, Rosecrans is much underrated I think. He suffered from a cantankerous personality and superiors who had better publicity departments (he totally made McClellan's early reputation, for example). His use of maneuver and misdirection on several occasions is worth a rating higher than he generally receives.
Speaking of publicity departments, Montrose is overrated and benefited from his erstwhile subordinate, Alasdair MacColla. As a general MacColla is usually underrated, being portrayed as a brave, but bumbling hulk. He had far better strategic sense than Montrose (as to what was possible) and could read the tactical situation better than most.
Hammurabi makes a good point about ratings. Mine are highly personal using my own yardstick which is rather elastic and driven by current mood. :)
Napoleon in 1798 was not the Napoleon of 1805 ... nor was he the Napoleon of 1813 and definitely not the Napoleon of 1815.
Similarly Napoleon's army of 1798 was not the one of 1805 etc.
Which was the best Napoleon?
Rommel in 1940 had a different mission from Rommel in 1944. His relationship with the upper echelons was different. His forces in 1940 were not the same as those in 1944.
Which was the best Rommel?
Would Patton have been anything but panzer fodder if he had command of a Polish army in 1939? Would Harold Godwinson have beaten William the B if he hadn't had the sojourn in the North? Would Moore have continued to lead the British in the Peninsula if he hadn't had a poem written about him? What then of Wellesley? Would Lee have been a shining light wearing blue?
Context, dear boy, context.
Just found this on Patton
warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-the-myth-of-germanys-obsession-with-patton/ (http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/warchives-the-myth-of-germanys-obsession-with-patton/)
Interesting
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 04 December 2020, 11:45:37 AM
Suvorov is not as well known in the west as he deserves.
I agree, Suvorov was an amazing character, beloved by his troops. One characteristic episode: when his men were repulsed at the St Gotthard Pass, he lay in a ditch wailing 'you are no longer my children!' and motivating them to give it another (successful) go.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 December 2020, 11:49:47 AM
Yi and Suvarov are hardly underrated, I'd say. I've never read a disparaging word about either.
While Clausewitz gives Suvorov due praise for his leadership - who else could have led an army on that mad march over the Alps and made it out the other side? - he also points out some limitations. E.g., Suvorov was a difficult man to get on with: he managed to insult and offend the Austrians under his command by the way he made them practise bayonet assaults, implying he didn't think they knew how to attack.
As for another over-rated general: how about Archduke Charles? Frequently praised (with justification) as Austria's best general of the Napoleonic Wars, but people seem to forget how badly he performed in 1799. I particularly cherish his comically incompetent failed attempt at a river crossing near Zurich, which reads like a badly designed wargame scenario in which 200 Swiss riflemen exploit a rules loophole to prevent Charles's 30,000 allied troops from getting across.
Anyway, Clausewitz's histories of 1799 are a great read.
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-3025-7.html
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2020/09/exceptional-elegant-and-accessible.html
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
Just imagine how Ramesses ii would make use of social media
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 07 December 2020, 11:43:47 AM
Just imagine how Ramesses ii would have made use of social media.
I thought he did!
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 07 December 2020, 11:43:47 AM
Just imagine how Ramesses ii would make use of social media
Quote from: FierceKitty on 07 December 2020, 11:56:04 AM
I thought he did!
Ramesses wrote on walls, was desperate for followers, had odd ideas on how the world worked and venerated cats. Social media on the other hand ... Oh! ... wait! .... I see what you mean :) :) :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 07 December 2020, 12:55:22 PM
Ramesses wrote on walls, was desperate for followers, had odd ideas on how the world worked and venerated cats. Social media on the other hand ... Oh! ... wait! .... I see what you mean :) :) :)
;D
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 07 December 2020, 08:24:32 AM
As for another over-rated general: how about Archduke Charles? Frequently praised (with justification) as Austria's best general of the Napoleonic Wars, but people seem to forget how badly he performed in 1799. I particularly cherish his comically incompetent failed attempt at a river crossing near Zurich, which reads like a badly designed wargame scenario in which 200 Swiss riflemen exploit a rules loophole to prevent Charles's 30,000 allied troops from getting across.
Kinda disappointed nobody leapt to defend Archduke Charles against the accusation of being over-rated ... did I do too good a job of making the case against him? :)
Chris
We're mostly British, and either think you went to small as he's a European and not Wellington or Nelson, or have done mild reading and assume you're trolling, Chris ;)
Monty. I used to think he was appalling then I read his memoirs and somehow formed an even lower opinion of him. Such a load of self aggrandising pap have I never seen (outside of MacArthur & Patton). Then I mellowed as I aged and realised whilst he was almost always wrong on detail, his broad scope was often correct, and he wasn't paralysed with fear of failure but rather was mostly meticulous in the the dotting of T's and crossing of I's that win strategic victory ;)
Mountbatten on the other hand I have a deep and abiding loathing for as every operation he touched spent lives like water for his personal attempt to worm in and place himself inside the Royals (although he had to settle for Phil the Greek, but that was enough).
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 10 December 2020, 12:36:56 PM
Kinda disappointed nobody leapt to defend Archduke Charles against the accusation of being over-rated ... did I do too good a job of making the case against him? :)
Chris
Hard to know why, but it might be because these kinds of discussions often lead to the deeply unpleasant, appallingly rude, partisan rubbish that is seen on other forums, such as TMP, The Napoleonic Wars Forum and the, now defunct, Napoleon Series.
Quote from: John Cook on 13 December 2020, 12:07:17 PM
Hard to know why, but it might be because these kinds of discussions often lead to the deeply unpleasant, appallingly rude, partisan rubbish that is seen on other forums, such as TMP, The Napoleonic Wars Forum and the, now defunct, Napoleon Series.
Proper Historians have long moved to the idea that history is driven by systems and events, as opposed to the "great man" theory.
"Great man" thinking persists on television, because the narrative fits a 30 or 60 minute program format better than the deeper storytelling necessary for a complete view.
It lives on in the school classroom for similar reasons.
One pleasant result of the "new history" is the decline of marauding packs of fanboys, getting angry and abusive about poorly documented events that occurred centuries ago.
The fanboys appear to be living out their dotage on internet forums, where they end up sounding like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_rufmxYbA
(The Producers - Churchill Rotten Painter)
And at the same time butterflies flap their wings and cause storms. The fight's not over, just changing the arena.
Quote from: John Cook on 13 December 2020, 12:07:17 PM
Hard to know why, but it might be because these kinds of discussions often lead to the deeply unpleasant, appallingly rude, partisan rubbish that is seen on other forums, such as TMP, The Napoleonic Wars Forum and the, now defunct, Napoleon Series.
Well I agree we don't want to get into anything like that, but the point of FK's post was surely to invite opinions and generate discussion. Anyway: certainly not looking to wind people up or start a fight. We have the Forum Barfight for that!
Amen to that, Steve!
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 13 December 2020, 02:15:07 PM
We have the Forum Barfight for that!
But the pub is closed so need to export it somewhere else Tier 3 don't you know ?
I think I trust the vast majority of the forum to try and NOT to start a really nasty argument......It's just not worth it.
That's why we keep going on about......Keep politics and religion OFF the forum.....Which is why I believe we do so well.
(If only =)) A 'really good' debate.....Where people actually bother to listen, and take in, and try and comprehend a view that's not their own.....Is absolutely great !
If folk just go....."My view is 'A'....and if you don't agree with me, you're a complete wonker......And then vice versa....So the folk that think 'B' is the only answer...and 'A' is talking absolute 'poop'...doesn't help at all.
Personally, I think folk on both extremes are people I would never want to give the time of day to.
Remember.....I've got 'buttons'......and I don't wait to ask Sir ;) :d :d
The World is far too polarised already. :-*
Cheers - Phil
Whilst I agree that Mountbatten had a great appetite for self-promotion, I wonder how much was driven by the treatment meted out to his father; forced by public opinion from his role as First Sea Lord in WWI because of his German heritage.
Quote from: Techno II on 13 December 2020, 04:30:45 PM
I think I trust the vast majority of the forum to try and NOT to start a really nasty argument......It's just not worth it.
Phil - You obviously don't know me very well :}
You Muppet ! ;)
Cheers - Phil :)
Quote from: DHautpol on 18 December 2020, 01:01:56 PM
Whilst I agree that Mountbatten had a great appetite for self-promotion, I wonder how much was driven by the treatment meted out to his father; forced by public opinion from his role as First Sea Lord in WWI because of his German heritage.
Most people who rise to the top of military rank tend to have enormous egos, otherwise they'd remain in relative obscurity, but give Mountbatten his due. Although under his leadership as Head of Combined Operations, the Dieppe Raid was an disaster, the Bruneval Raid and the St Nazaire Raid were, on the other hand, successful.
Quote from: John Cook on 18 December 2020, 07:03:11 PM
Most people who rise to the top of military rank tend to have enormous egos, otherwise they'd remain in relative obscurity, but give Mountbatten his due. Although under his leadership as Head of Combined Operations, the Dieppe Raid was an disaster, the Bruneval Raid and the St Nazaire Raid were, on the other hand, successful.
Some people blame him for the ongoing Kashmir dispute https://www.matrixmag.com/lord-mountbatten-responsible-for-kashmir-dispute/ (https://www.matrixmag.com/lord-mountbatten-responsible-for-kashmir-dispute/)
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 18 December 2020, 08:17:54 PM
Some people blame him for the ongoing Kashmir dispute https://www.matrixmag.com/lord-mountbatten-responsible-for-kashmir-dispute/ (https://www.matrixmag.com/lord-mountbatten-responsible-for-kashmir-dispute/)
Nothing to do with generalship though, which is what the thread is about.
Quote from: John Cook on 18 December 2020, 10:40:22 PM
Nothing to do with generalship though, which is what the thread is about.
I take your point but it is interesting that apparently the FBI were raising concerns about him in 1944 after he was named supreme allied commander of southeast Asia.
https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/lord-mountbatten-pedophile-allegations
Of course that begs the question that if the FBI knew does that mean the British Intelligence services were also aware? One would have thought that he should have been seen as a massive liability
I thought that was an open secret (like Ed VIII & Wallis's Nazi sympathies), but as it didn't really affect the war effort or his political work it wasn't deemed significant?
With similar surfacing about Nehru it does make me wonder about his favouritism during partition - did Nehru have enough grim evidence to actually sink him?
Can I add mushy peas to the list? :P
Could be worse, could be Gray Pays!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 19 December 2020, 06:06:04 PM
I thought that was an open secret (like Ed VIII & Wallis's Nazi sympathies), but as it didn't really affect the war effort or his political work it wasn't deemed significant?
With similar surfacing about Nehru it does make me wonder about his favouritism during partition - did Nehru have enough grim evidence to actually sink him?
There is some evidence that Nehru was having an affair with Mountbatten's Wife
Strictly Come Dancing :o
But actually most TV - especially at this time of year
Love Strictly
Saw a little Strictly this evening. Must be good for something, Bill Bailey looks ten years younger than he did a year ago!
Mountbatten, his wife and Nehru - I gather that was a very open secret, much like his marriage!
Patton was a glory hunter, and a dangerous one. His push to Metz left his units with no supplies - he was actually raiding the 'land trains' of other commanders to supply the III army, and he was so short of POL because he over-extended that had the Germans been able to counter-attack on the right days, his tanks would have been literally stationary.
If you look at Napoleon, people point to his illnesses, and the fact he was relying on boys to fight in 1813-14, but I never see pointed out the fact that he was now fighting armies he had converted to his new system ("French" v "Prussian", "Impulse" v "Linear" or however your rules refer to it.) All of a sudden he was fighting modern armies of manoeuvre, not static, linear ones.
A lot of it comes down to preparation, and availability. The idea of WWI butchers is misplaced; infantry tactics did evolve, but until the tank appeared, the machine gun was just too powerful in defence. The idea they were all Blackadder's Gen Melchetts is wrong. Battles are less about the manoeuvre on the field, and more about did you get enough of the right units in the right place in the days before.
Quite right, the amatur studies tactics, the professional logistics.
Patton did what Rommel did - neither ever faced an opposition that could capitalise on their arrogance/initiative* - luckily for both their reputations, and both had larger command structures that saved them when needed.
Absolutely agree Napoleon changed warfare - and once his enemies changed in response he no longer had an automatic superiority. A lack of a strategic "stop point" and boundless arrogance meant he could never quit whilst ahead, there always had to be just one more thing...
*delete as appropriate
Quote from: mad lemmey on 19 December 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Love Strictly
Each to their own :D
Heinz Sandwich Spread (if they still make it) reminded me of cold sick in a jar as a kid - :'( yuk!