This should stir the pot :stir:
George Washington
Robert E. Lee
George C. Patton (yes movie big reason he's overrated)
Bernard Montgomery
Erzherzog Karl (Napoleonic wars)
Erwin Rommel
Gregori Zhukov
Hindenberg/Ludendorf
and probably two from the last twenty years, but I won't go THERE.
Nothing wrong with that list.. I sort of agree they are Overated.
FM WarB Wrote:George Washington
Robert E. Lee
George C. Patton (yes movie big reason he's overrated)
Bernard Montgomery
Erzherzog Karl (Napoleonic wars)
Erwin Rommel
Gregori Zhukov
Hindenberg/Ludendorf
Could you explain your choices a bit, please? I'm not too good in XIX century warfare, but what about those from XX century?
Zhukov is clear for me. Just look how he messed the operation Mars...
Rommel, hmm... :chin: as for me he was very excellent commander of the division but couldn't handle anything bigger than corps...
What do you have against Patton?
Regards
Slawek
Overrated is as subjective a term as "best commander" or "are the Germans that good". It's completely open to opinion unless it's narrowed down to something specific and then backed with fact.
For example, I think Robert E Lee is over rated as a tactician because he placed his army in extreme jeopardy at Shaprsburg in 1862, and was only saved by McCellan's hesitation. Or you think he's over rated as a strategist because he allowed Stuart to be out of contact for so long in the 1863 Gettysburg Campaign.
It starts to get really dicey when you say that George Washington is over rated. Over rated as what? A general? It can be argued that a General's role is to lead and in that category he is probably under rated. Few men alive then could have held the Continentals together through Valley Forge. Over rated as a tactician? If anyone rates him very highly at all as a battlefield commander (and not many do) they would be right, he is not a great field general. Over rated as a strategist? Probably not. He knew exactly what was required of him, keep his Army in existence and prevent it's complete destruction by the British, and in that he excelled.
So, my picks for over rated generals:
1) Montgomery. I find him over rated because he was ponderous in action, and extremely inflexible. But he certainly led well, his men loved him.
2) Rommel. I find him over rated because he was for ever out of touch with his staff, thought nothing of logistics, and was unproven as a commander of large forces. But he was a brilliant field commander (division level) and his men loved him and his enenmy feared him.
3) Grant. I find him over rated because his tactics amounted to drowning the enemy in Union blood and material. But the Union Army respected him, and maybe loved him, because he refused to fear the Confederates, and refused to disengage.
4) Wellington. I find him over rated because people say he is great because he won against Boney at Waterloo. But Boney at Waterloo was not the Boney from Austerlitz, and more importantly, the Grande Armee at Waterloo was not the Grande Armee of Austerlitz. Welington never faced Boney at his best, and for most of the decade of the Napoleonic period fought in a small little side show. But he did beat Boney and few get to make that claim.
5) MacArthur. I find him over rated because he was an insufferable pompous ass about whom I can find nothing redeeming to say other than he wanted to surrender in Battaan and the US Army ordered him to evacuate, so he had some sense of honor.
Wellington. I find him over rated because people say he is great because he won against Boney at Waterloo. But Boney at Waterloo was not the Boney from Austerlitz, and more importantly, the Grande Armee at Waterloo was not the Grande Armee of Austerlitz. Welington never faced Boney at his best, and for most of the decade of the Napoleonic period fought in a small little side show. But he did beat Boney and few get to make that claim.
Paul, I have to take issue with this dismissal of Wellington, there was so much more to him than just Waterloo, did you know he was undefeated as a commander throughout India and the Peninsular war? He united British, Portuguese and Spanish forces in Iberia and forged them into a force which could take on and defeat the might of France with very few resources and not a lot of support from London. He was a great man, and excellent commander and is one of my personal hero's and favourites, so I have to stick up for him....found this very brief appraisal of his Military achievements.. feel free to discover more :)
Military Achievements
Wellesley entered the army in 1787 and, aided by his brother Richard (later Marquess Wellesley), rose rapidly in rank. He held a command in Flanders (1794–95) and in 1796 went with his regiment to India. After his brother's appointment (1797) as governor-general of India, he received command of a division in the invasion of Mysore and became (1799) governor of Seringapatam. In 1800 he defeated the robber chieftain, Dhundia Wagh, and in 1802 he was made major general. In 1803 he moved against the Marathas, breaking their force of about 40,000 with an army of about 10,000 in a surprise attack. A valuable civil and military adviser to his brother, he returned with him to England in 1805 and was knighted. His election (1806) to Parliament and appointment (1807) as Irish secretary did not prevent him from leading (1807) an expedition against the Danes.
In 1808 he led an expedition to assist Portugal in its revolt against the French. He defeated the French at Roliça and Vimeiro, but was superseded in command. In 1809 he returned to the Iberian Peninsula, where he ultimately assumed command of the British, Portuguese, and Spanish forces in the Peninsular War. Taking advantage of the irregular terrain, Portuguese and Spanish nationalism, and Napoleon's preoccupation with other campaigns and projects, he drove the French beyond the Pyrenees by 1813, though his campaigns were rendered difficult by poor support from the British government. Late in 1813 he invaded S France, and he was at Toulouse when news of Napoleon's abdication (Apr., 1814) arrived.
Returning to England, he received many honors and was created duke of Wellington. He served for a short time as ambassador to Paris, then succeeded Viscount Castlereagh at the peace conference in Vienna; but when Napoleon returned from Elba, he took command of the allied armies. There followed his most famous victory, that in the Waterloo campaign, won in conjunction with the Prussian general, Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. Wellington, again lavishly honored, took charge of the army of occupation in France, exerting his influence to restrain harsh treatment of the defeated French.
Paul;
You will notice I did have something nice to say about all 5 of the gentlemen on my list (even old Doug). I guess my reservations about Wellington are more along the lines of, he wasn't as great/good as Napoleon. I know of, and acknowledge, that he did great things in Spain, I just don't think it stacks up to what Boney did across a continent for almost 15 years. So I say over rated because so many think him great BECAUSE he won at Waterloo, when there is so much more to Boney than Waterloo.
Kind of 180 degrees out from you perspective on this one ;)
I get your point(s), Boney was exceptional, but it doesn't make Wellesley any less of a great commander. I think everyone would agree that Waterloo wasn't Napoleons finest hour, some strange tactical choices - perhaps he was over-confident after handing Blucher his arse a few days earlier and thought he'd seen the last of him? but Wellington still had to win it... and you know what's it's like with heroes and rose-tinted glasses :) - any French defeat at the hands of the British is always "great" in my view :P
good discussion points
The British won Waterloo? Seems to me the Prussians lent a hand. Barely half of Wellington's army at Waterloo were British, and thats counting Scots and Irish troops.
A College term paper of mine, claiming Wellington was the best commander of his era got me an A+. The prof was NO military historian and I've since revised my view on the question.
For bookshelf karma, I keep the volumes of Weller and Hofschroer well separated! :whis:
A valid point Warran, although that can be said of British Armies throughout history. They command, so they get the credit. Whether fair or not, it's a time honored tradition, no?
Now as for Blucher...did he help, or just seal the deal? For certain the Prussians fought for a long while upon their arrival on the field, but had decision been reached before then and the rest was going through the motions? Said another way, if Ney breaks the English center and the English retreat, does Blucher's arrival mean anything to the outcome of the battle?