Who Do you Think Is The Most Overrated General of All Time?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 02, 2021, 08:03:38 PM
News: EV Calculator updated with new apportionment numbers, custom labels, orange party color and more. Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자))
  Who Do you Think Is The Most Overrated General of All Time?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Who Do you Think Is The Most Overrated General of All Time?  (Read 428 times)
Pink Panther
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 503


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 20, 2021, 10:17:59 PM »

There are many choices, but if you narrowed it down to one, who would it be?
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2021, 11:05:39 PM »

Rommel
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,424
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2021, 10:57:09 PM »

Guan Yu.
Logged
c r a b c a k e
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,792
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2021, 10:55:56 AM »
« Edited: July 22, 2021, 11:56:05 AM by c r a b c a k e »

Well, the politicians for one (Caesar, Napoleon, edit because I forgot Washington) but one can recognise their skill at propaganda was a pro in its own way.

Here's take: brusilov is often seen as the only smart guy in the Tsarist machine and, yeah, he was a very good tactician, but the long-term impact of his offensive was absolutely disastrous for Russian morale.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,901
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2021, 11:51:41 AM »
« Edited: July 22, 2021, 12:17:49 PM by Filuwaúrdjan »

Well, the politicians for one (Caesar, Napoleon) but one can recognise their skill at propaganda was a skill in its own way.

C.f. Caesar managing to palm off his failed expeditions to Britain as successes of a sort.

Quote
Here's take: brusilov is often seen as the only smart guy in the Tsarist machine and, yeah, he was a very good tactician, but the long-term impact of his offensive was absolutely disastrous for Russian morale.

It's always very telling when he gets rated highly. One of the most objectively disastrous generals in a war full of them: there will probably never be a better (or more horrifying) example of a Pyrrhic Victory than the Brusilov Offensive. A million of his own men dead on the not even unreasonable higher estimates!
Logged
c r a b c a k e
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,792
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2021, 12:03:18 PM »

Here's another good example: Santa Anna in Mexico. I know he is seen as a mixed bag in the country but i struggle to see anything remotely competent about him aside from his ability to return from the dead. It's like if some useless Civil War general like McClellan kept on winning presidential elections, failing, being driven out in disgrace and then coming back again.
Logged
It's a cruel, cruel, cruel summer
Nathan
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2021, 05:38:50 PM »


Rommel wasn't a bad general but is still a great answer here just because of how absurdly overinflated the Golden Legend of St. Rommel is.

On a similar note, Lee.
Logged
Marilyn Monson
themiddleman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 341


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2021, 09:39:20 PM »

All of them, because there is no honor and pride in being a high-level, professional mass murderer.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2021, 09:51:26 PM »

All of them, because there is no honor and pride in being a high-level, professional mass murderer.

Iím trying to be morally superior for $500, Alex.
Logged
LVScreenssuck
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,776


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2021, 10:16:28 PM »

Came here to say this

Also Lee and Jackson

They arenít total incompetents, but they are vastly overrated
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2021, 10:30:44 PM »

Came here to say this

Also Lee and Jackson

They arenít total incompetents, but they are vastly overrated

Yea, their victories are totally overblown, but none of them were awful or great generals just the definition of mediocrity.
Logged
Reapsow
Rafe
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,814
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2021, 10:50:33 PM »

MacArthur. Never understood him. He obeyed FDR's orders to flee the country he was charged with protecting, then balked at Truman's orders and showed outright arrogance in his command of the Korean War. It's a good thing we got President Eisenhower and not President MacArthur.
Logged
Pan Africanist Gangster Rapper
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,782


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2021, 12:37:48 AM »

The issue with Lee is that he was pretty damn good at tactical victories and short term strategy for a campaign or so but if you look at multiple battles his casualty percentage was always higher than the Union's. This is just awful from most strategical perspectives.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_Battles
110k vs 92k
15k vs 20k casualties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam
85k vs 38k
12k vs 12k casualties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg
122k vs 80k
12k vs 5k casualties. Finally a better ratio for Lee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chancellorsville
130k vs 60k
17k vs 12k casualties
Gettysburg was just flat out awful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Wilderness
100k vs 60k
17k vs 11k or about equal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor
110k vs 60k
12k vs 5k.

Probably one of the worst errors by Grant though who truly was a general at least ahead of his time and able to learn from this.

Overall Lee was a good general and did the best with his resources but he wasn't a god tier general.
Logged
It's a cruel, cruel, cruel summer
Nathan
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2021, 01:57:43 AM »
« Edited: July 24, 2021, 08:31:49 PM by MR. NAPHTHALI BENNETT »

Gettysburg was just flat out awful.

I actually wasn't familiar with the Gettysburg casualty numbers so I looked it up. Sustaining more losses than the Union while outnumbered by about 3:2 is terrible, yes, although it looks like the Seven Days Battles were about as bad only with somewhat fewer losses on both sides.
Logged
The Fastest Man in the World speaks Tricolore
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2021, 03:54:03 AM »

Rommel wasn't a bad general but is still a great answer here just because of how absurdly overinflated the Golden Legend of St. Rommel is.

I entirely agree with this, which is why Erwin Rommel is my pick, although there is merit to CrabCake's point about politicians.
Logged
Pan Africanist Gangster Rapper
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,782


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2021, 10:12:34 AM »

Gettysburg was just flat out awful.

I actually wasn't familiar with the Gettysburg casualty numbers so I looked it up. Sustaining more losses than the Union while outnumbered by about 3:2 is terrible, yes, although it looks like the Seen Days Battles were about as bad only with somewhat fewer losses on both sides.

I mean yes its true that Lee did win the 7 day battles with a pretty hard task but in the long run it was just bad for the Confederacy.  Even when Lee went on the offensive his goals were to capture/raid some northern cities. The clear goal of the Civil war was to capture an army which Lee failed to do in any meaningful amount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chickamauga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattanooga_campaign

In this case Bragg suffered more casualties in his "victory" and then tried to besiege a city but the Union managed to send reinforcements.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,424
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2021, 01:45:40 PM »
« Edited: July 23, 2021, 01:56:07 PM by Statilius the Epicurean »

Lee's strategic acumen is an interesting topic. I tend agree with his strategy in that the decisive battle on Union soil, as unlikely as it was, is the only way the Confederacy could have won the war. The alternative of a defensive strategy would have played into Union strengths and allowed the Confederacy to be slowly strangled.

Either way, it wasn't Lee who decided the war but what happened in the West.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,906


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2021, 03:16:52 PM »

It's weird to me to see Julius Caesar listed here, Crabcake. Did Caesar lose a fair amount? Sure. Dyrrhachium was a disaster for him. But Caesar was really good at minimizing the results of battles he lost and maximizing the results of battles he won. Caesar could've lost with incredible consequences at Alesia basically eliminating all Roman forces north of the Alps in the face of a Gallic confederation under Vercingetorix who would've reversed half a decade of Roman advances in Gaul overnight if he'd won. Pompey could've finished Caesar off at Dyrrhachium and preserved the corrupt Optimate dominated late Republic for another few decades. But he didn't and was always slippery and able to keep himself in play when he was down.


HERE'S a good answer for overrated, though it's a case where his personal prowess as a warrior ends up outweighing the fact that he was a total bonehead strategically and is basically directly responsible for Liu Bei's eventual losing the war.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,052
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2021, 03:56:16 PM »

Entirely agreed on Rommel and Lee, both highly overrated as individuals (especially Rommel) and as commanders.

Lee was very good at winning largely meaningless tactical victories, Grant was very good at winning strategic victories that change the course of the war.

I'll add in Zhukov, very interesting guy with endless charisma, but I prefer Vasilevsky as a commander.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,463
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2021, 01:41:36 AM »

Robert E. Lee by far. While he was correct he had to win a bttle on the North to shift the balance of the war, he went about it in completely the wrong way. It's worth mentioning that whilema skilped tactician, he proved to an inept strategist. To stake absolutely everything on defending Richmond as opposed to withdrawing southwards and eluding Grant was insanity.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,424
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2021, 09:29:52 AM »
« Edited: July 25, 2021, 09:37:51 AM by Statilius the Epicurean »

Robert E. Lee by far. While he was correct he had to win a bttle on the North to shift the balance of the war, he went about it in completely the wrong way. It's worth mentioning that whilema skilped tactician, he proved to an inept strategist. To stake absolutely everything on defending Richmond as opposed to withdrawing southwards and eluding Grant was insanity.

Richmond had the Tredegar Iron Works that were the only way the Confederacy could make munitions. If Richmond fell the war was over.

This is why I find criticism of Lee strange, because without him it's easily imaginable that McClellan captures Richmond in 1862 and the Confederacy disintegrates. The Army of Northern Virginia did its job really, the Confederacy lost because of the collapse of the Western theatre in 1864. It's somewhat unfair in my view to blame Lee for not singlehandedly winning the war (which is what he would have had to have done), and not saving the Confederate army in a different theatre. I think it's important to remember that Lee was a theatre commander, not in charge of Confederate grand strategy, and the blame for the Confederacy's strategic failure has to be laid at the feet of the incompetent CinC Jefferson Davis.  

I do accept that Lee is obviously overrated in American mythology, though.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,424
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2021, 10:47:43 AM »

I'll add in Zhukov, very interesting guy with endless charisma, but I prefer Vasilevsky as a commander.

Vasilevsky was a fine staff officer (whose major successes were joint operations with Zhukov), but Zhukov had victories all the way from corps commander to Stavka which no other WW2 general can claim. I also donít think heís overrated because people are well aware of his stereotype as a We Have Reserves Soviet general. Even in Russia he was politically out of favour and slighted in official histories until the fall of the USSR.

IDK Zhukov obviously had blunders, but there was more responsibility on his shoulders than any other general in military history. The scale of the battles he fought is staggering. And he got the job done.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,052
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2021, 04:42:44 PM »

I'll add in Zhukov, very interesting guy with endless charisma, but I prefer Vasilevsky as a commander.

Vasilevsky was a fine staff officer (whose major successes were joint operations with Zhukov), but Zhukov had victories all the way from corps commander to Stavka which no other WW2 general can claim. I also donít think heís overrated because people are well aware of his stereotype as a We Have Reserves Soviet general. Even in Russia he was politically out of favour and slighted in official histories until the fall of the USSR.

IDK Zhukov obviously had blunders, but there was more responsibility on his shoulders than any other general in military history. The scale of the battles he fought is staggering. And he got the job done.

While it's true that Zhukov fell out of favor after the war (immediately so really), I feel as if he seems to personify the Soviet war effort in many modern tellings. Hence I said why he is overrated.

As for the scale of Zhukov's battles, he was absolutely a great General and of the highest importance, but you know there are those who say Vasilevsky was the real mastermind behind Stalingrad...

Not just Viktor Suvorov anyways.
Logged
BG-NY (retired)
BG-NY
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 755


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2021, 05:02:17 PM »

MacArthur. Never understood him. He obeyed FDR's orders to flee the country he was charged with protecting, then balked at Truman's orders and showed outright arrogance in his command of the Korean War. It's a good thing we got President Eisenhower and not President MacArthur.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,578
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2021, 10:26:56 PM »

Eisenhower is a pretty obvious example imo.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.