History's Most Overrated Generals/Admirals

[Paulo the Limey]

Dude, get a sense of irony

You started off by saying

The one thing I have to say about Monty is…

Then go on to list five things. Anyway…

are you kidding me. Ultra locates where the enemy is, and thus serves at the eyes and ears of the British. If I know your weakest points are or where you supplies are located, then I will attack there.

Really? Oh wow, thanks for letting me know about that. I hadn't realised, many thanks. Now how does having good intelligence information make Monty a good general? Just because they have the information they need, doesn't mean that he'll be able to do something productive with it.
Oh and by the way, it woulld be incorrect to assume at this point that it was just the British who had access to ULTRA- by the time of El-Alamein, the US forces were in the loop as well.

It's called reconnaisance, a good general amkes use of it, and that's how modern battles are won.

Just like that huh? Well, if thats all there is to it, I'm off to become a field marshall!

 

[Street_Disciple]

Really? Oh wow, thanks for letting me know about that. I hadn't realised, many thanks. Now how does having good intelligence information make Monty a good general? Just because they have the information they need, doesn't mean that he'll be able to do something productive with it.
Oh and by the way, it woulld be incorrect to assume at this point that it was just the British who had access to ULTRA- by the time of El-Alamein, the US forces were in the loop as well.

*sigh*

When Washington was fighting the British, he didnt really have a great deal of Logistics to work with. His Intelligence assets ( by all accounts i have read) we fantastic. he had great spies because they looked just like the british!). his men were used to the weather and climate which wasnt too different from England. his tactics werent too different from the British armies and his startegies were right on cue due to Intelligence.

so what does all this say? it says that intelligence is probably the most deciding factor in a war. provided it is:
A. timely
B. accurate.

if the intel is all of these things, you will either be able to move away from the enemy to bide your time and strike at a moment of your choosing, gather your resources for a massed assault( scraping up the logistics), watching the enemy and what they do( strategy) looking at the training their soldiers do( tactics). in all of these things intelligence can and does help. it was Sun Tzu who said:" the enemys situation cannot be divined by the stars or by estimations or numbers. it can only be given by men who know the enemies situation." but intelligence is a puzzle picture and no picture can be assembled with out pieces. these "pieces" are called confirmations. you use satellites to take pictures and ground people to ascertain if the satellites are correct. among other assets.

but intelligence is the key to success. if i know what your doing or going to do at the earliest possible moment, then i will be one step ahead of you. If anyone doubts this, just take a close look at what Rommenl did, or Washington, or Britain and America during WW2. if you lose a secure way to pass info, you lose a lot of ability to operate freely (that is if you know you your line of secure communication has been tapped) if not you lose your life.

 

[Paulo the Limey]

You're arguing that good intelligence is key to success. I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is that you still need someone who is able to make best use of it. Look into the use of ULTRA in the battle for Crete for an example of having extremely good intel yet still losing the battle.
I'll some up my argument in one sentence for you, to make it less open to misinterpretation:
Its not the possession of good intelligence that is the mark of a good commander, it is the ability to use it.

 

[Street_Disciple]

it is the ability to use it.

at that's exactly what montgomery did. In fact, you've inspired me to do a thread about him "WI he didn't have commnade of the British North Africa"......

 

[Street_Disciple]

I'm sory, I had to say this, but I feel Jackson he is one of the most overrated generals out there. The Valley camapaign was Lee's idea not Jackson.
He also lost 2 battles at Kernstown and Mcdowell. The rest were against some of the most second rate Union generals of the time (Fremont/Banks !) while he had some first rate divisional commanders like Ewell and Taylor.

During the 7 days it showed a number of things despite his negligence in which he foiled Lee's plans. (1)He was unable to handle large bodies of troops. (2) He could not handle sustained fighting through a long period. Then at Ceder Moutain despite out numebering Banks 3-1 he almost lost and had to be saved by A.P Hill. At second Bull Run he failed to move foward in concert with Longstreet to complete the great victory. He gained the credit for the capture of Harpers Ferry when McLaws and Anderson did the hard work. At Fredricksburg his line was broken by Meade's corps (smallest of the Union army). At Chacellorsivile Howard left his flank unguarded allowing it to happen. And by the time he was shot the attack had largelly pettered out anyway. Stuart drove foward but the Union army had already gone to another line. Yes Jackson was a great marcher but his death nicely hid his rather many failures.

 

[Street_Disciple]

By the way, someone mentioned how Scipio was underrated. I disagree. He was a great general no doubt but you have to remember that the tactics he used had been invented by Hannibal.

 

[Street_Disciple]

And for that we applaud him? *scoff.* The South would have surrendered when Lee told it to, and Lee would have surrendered when he was beaten. Sherman's march just made the war ugly, and if he faced no opopsition, then why the hell did he need 60,000 troops?

One last note, Sherman killed far fewer soldiers than Lee, Grant, Jackson, Longstreet, McClelland, or any of the other big names of the war. He out-manueverednhe enemy, confused them and when they did attack he beat them. I have always found it ironic that the Union General that caused the fewest Confederate soldiers to loose their life is the man most hated.

 

[robertp6165]

He was also a god tactician. A fellow officer once said "that if sherman gose to hell he will out flank the devil and go to heaven".

the only reason he was able to manage this is because he outnumbered his opponent by about 3 to 1. It did not take a tactical genius to move some of your troops around the flank of a position when your flank extends far beyond that of the enemy.

 

[Street_Disciple]

the only reason he was able to manage this is because he outnumbered his opponent by about 3 to 1. It did not take a tactical genius to move some of your troops around the flank of a position when your flank extends far beyond that of the enemy.

Enough with outnumbering his opponents. Alexander the Great outnumbered his opponents on the battlefield most of the time. So have many other great generals. My point is, he used the ideas of manuever to keep the opponent of balance instead of direct frontal attacks. So effective where these maneuvers that they were studied by Patton for an entire Summer while he was in the south as well as a number of the younger German commanders in WWII. I believe Guderian (spelling?) was one of those commanders. A comparison between Shermans march and Guderains drive in France could be considered.

 

[Chrispi]

One can draft the whole male population of France for military service and win wars, but does that make Napoleon a genius? How would he have fared as a Central American general, or in Louisiana, as with my BNA TL?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

A few generals and points thereof:

Montgomery: At best a marginal talent, and doing more harm than good in the latter years. When Eisenhower had a prospect of finishing Germany in 1944, the choice would have gone to the British commander, who would have been responsible for a daring and rapid campaign of manuever with little time to plan. In other words, the sort of campaign Montgomery spent the war proving himself incompetent at handling, so the war went on into 1945. As for appearing calm and in control, so did the French Cinc in June of 1940, when the panzers first blew through the lines, and he appeared to be delighted, that some theoretical trap was working.

Lee: Yes, he took many desperate/insane risks. When outnumbered two or three to one, and outgunned even more badly, what alternatives exist? Strategically he had tunnel vision in the sense that he could never take his eyes off Virginia for the rest of the CSA.

Sherman: He didn't outnumber his opponents until Jefferson Davis and John B Hood so graciously decided to smash their own forces, then march north! Incidentally, God of Belac, the reason that Sherman didn't bother pursuing Hood is that he didn't need to. General Thomas in Tennessee outnumbered Hood's entire force substantially and dealt with it. And it was Sherman's manuevers that prevented the smaller southern forces from being effective, as any strike on one part of Sherman's army inevitably found itself threatened with envelopment.

Arguably, having done so well against such an opponent with superior numbers, supplies, etc, JOE JOHNSON may be the unsung hero of the CSA. Too bad Davis hated him so much.

As a side note, PLANTING the explosives in the road was widely seen as being immoral, and the use of POWs as the inevitable response. And it worked, the mining was stopped. As for what was done in Georgia, I wonder if Andersonville being found in the middle of one of the richest farmlands of the nation had something to do with this bitterness?

Grant: Given Lee's advantages, that Grant won barely a year after he showed up in DC is astounding. Lee had able officers(not to mention himself), tens of thousands of proven veterans used to winning, the clear advantages of the defender, and the technological shifts that dramatically favored the defense, plus the North's election of 1864 deadline, and he had managed to smash larger forces than Grant's, yet Grant won.

Shiloh? Grant won the battle, and the Confederate forces were shattered, not to mention suffering pretty hefty losses also(proportionately WORSE).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I WANTED your opinion I would read it in your entrails

 

[Street_Disciple]

My favorite military author, B.H.Liddell Hart, a Brit by the way, was able to talk with Patton several months before the landings in Normandy in 44. Patton had spent a long vacation studying Shermans campaigns actually walking the ground in Georgia and the Carolinas with Hart's book "Sherman, Soldier, Realist, American". The actual conversation I have not found, but the readers digest version is in the forward of the book previously mentioned. The forward is by Jay Luvaas (don't know who he is) from the Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvanis in Nov 1992. I also found some info concerning Liddell Hart and his writings on Sherman and the German Armies study of Shermans strategies.

Basil H. Liddell Hart (1895-1970) was a military historian and is considered among the great military strategists of the 20th century. He published his theories during the 1920s. They were well received by many of the younger officers who would emerge as leaders in World War II. Paradoxically, Liddell Hart saw his theories successfully adopted by Germany and used against Britain and its allies. His theories were a central part of the German blitzkrieg tactics which were designed to hit the enemy so fast and so hard that he would not be able to establish or maintain an equilibrium. They were also openly endorsed by the German's most successful general, Erwin Rommel.

He was retired from the British Army as a Captain in 1927 and spent the rest of his career as a writer. He was initially a military analyst for various British newspapers. Later he began publishing military histories and biographies of great commanders who, he thought, were great because they illustrated the principles of good strategy. Among these were Scipio Africanus, William T. Sherman, and T.E. Lawrence.

 

[Street_Disciple]

At this moment I can't locate any DIRECT source for Rommels study of Sherman. I apologize. The only source I have is "The German Generals Talk" again by Liddell Hart. Interviews with many of Germanys surviving great generals Manteuffel, Thoma, Kleist, Student, etc. I believe the book mentioned Rommels studies however that source could be wrong.

 

[jenna]

oh wow. i can't believe Alexander TG's name was even mentioned in this thread! i was actually speechless for a while.. but i'm not anymore! overrated?! hardly!

Alexander was a military genius. His defeat of the Persians had little to do with superior weaponry, it was all about his strategy. his ability to look down on a battle field and know exactly where his troops needed to be positioned and what they needed to do to take the victory.

Look at the battle of Gaugamela.
Macedonian army: approximately 47,000 (Warry)
Persian army: some 91,000 (Warry) up to 1 million (Arrian)

Really, the Persian army should have won. they had more men whichever way you look at it. and their weaponry was not so inferior as to give them a disadvantage.
What turned the tides? the organisation of Alexander. Where he placed his troops, the attack formation, the whole battle plan was perfect. Above all, Alexander kept a cool head throughout, while the Coward King Darius abandoned his men and ran away.
As lieutenant colonel Theodore Dodge said: "Never were dispositions better taken to resist the attacks of the enemy at all points; never on the field were openings more quickly seized; never threatening disaster more skillfully retrieved than here."

I'm going to assume that whoever here thinks Alexander is not one of, if not THE, most talented generals in human history, simply hasn't researched the man enough. Because i just can't accept that after reading the accounts of all of his major battles you wouldn't be as impressed as i was!!!

lol, sorry, end rant!

 

[Street_Disciple]

oh wow. i can't believe Alexander TG's name was even mentioned in this thread! i was actually speechless for a while.. but i'm not anymore! overrated?! hardly!

Alexander was a military genius. His defeat of the Persians had little to do with superior weaponry, it was all about his strategy. his ability to look down on a battle field and know exactly where his troops needed to be positioned and what they needed to do to take the victory.

Look at the battle of Gaugamela.
Macedonian army: approximately 47,000 (Warry)
Persian army: some 91,000 (Warry) up to 1 million (Arrian)

Really, the Persian army should have won. they had more men whichever way you look at it. and their weaponry was not so inferior as to give them a disadvantage.
What turned the tides? the organisation of Alexander. Where he placed his troops, the attack formation, the whole battle plan was perfect. Above all, Alexander kept a cool head throughout, while the Coward King Darius abandoned his men and ran away.
As lieutenant colonel Theodore Dodge said: "Never were dispositions better taken to resist the attacks of the enemy at all points; never on the field were openings more quickly seized; never threatening disaster more skillfully retrieved than here."

I'm going to assume that whoever here thinks Alexander is not one of, if not THE, most talented generals in human history, simply hasn't researched the man enough. Because i just can't accept that after reading the accounts of all of his major battles you wouldn't be as impressed as i was!!!

lol, sorry, end rant!

Well, Alexander had Great tactics, but mediocre strategies. Your post does illustrate Alexander's ability as a tactician (something I've already admitted). But, what was his strategy for this campaign? Do you honestly believe what you described is the work of a military genius? The only way I would find this impressive is if Alexander knew nothing of the Persians plan before the engagement began. If this were the case, only a commander with tremendous ability could quickly analyze the situation and react successfully. Alexander faced a series of incompetent Persian leaders. I have read a few respectible historians who feel that Alexander is a bit over rated because of the opponents he fought. The majority of the Persians he fought against were pretty much ill trained and under equiped. Some of the toughest fighters Alexander faced were the Greek mercs.

 

[jenna]

Do you honestly believe what you described is the work of a military genius?.

lol, i think it's obvious that i do! what is your definition of a military genius then, if ATG doesn't make the grade?

 

[aktarian]

Basil H. Liddell Hart (1895-1970) was a military historian and is considered among the great military strategists of the 20th century. He published his theories during the 1920s. They were well received by many of the younger officers who would emerge as leaders in World War II. Paradoxically, Liddell Hart saw his theories successfully adopted by Germany and used against Britain and its allies. His theories were a central part of the German blitzkrieg tactics which were designed to hit the enemy so fast and so hard that he would not be able to establish or maintain an equilibrium. They were also openly endorsed by the German's most successful general, Erwin Rommel.

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. If you look at "Achtung Panzer" you'll see Hart mentioned only briefly and even when he is mentioned Guderian is overgenerous to him and is mentioned in context of other proponents of mechanised warfare (Fuller, Martel). And even that is only 1 sentence.

OTOH after the war Hart befriended several German generals in captivity and interrogated them (several interviews were alter published in Other Side of the Hill/German Generals Speak). He ensured they got fed properly etc. So they repaid him when writing memoirs and credited him with things that just weren't his making. Hence Guderian gives him credit in "Panzer Leader" but not in "Acthung Panzer".

 

[MK5]

I'm sory, I had to say this, but I feel Jackson he is one of the most overrated generals out there. The Valley camapaign was Lee's idea not Jackson.
He also lost 2 battles at Kernstown and Mcdowell. The rest were against some of the most second rate Union generals of the time (Fremont/Banks !) while he had some first rate divisional commanders like Ewell and Taylor.

Granted, the idea for the Valley campaign was Lee's, but he could hardly give Jackson specific instructions, since he was only an informal 'military adviser' to Davis at the time. Anyway, it all depended on reacting to events as they happened, which Jackson did very well.
Kernstown and the winter march to Romney were Jackson's greatest failings. He WAS overly aggressive at times, drove his men (and himself) relentlessly, and always argued (off the battlefield) with his subordinates.
As for Mcdowell, the battle was clumsily executed..and executed 'on the fly'. Jackson was in a hurry, and in any case the point wasn't to defeat Fremont but to delay him, and prevent his juncture with Banks. Mission accomplished; he didn't have to win EVERY battle.

During the 7 days it showed a number of things despite his negligence in which he foiled Lee's plans. (1)He was unable to handle large bodies of troops. (2) He could not handle sustained fighting through a long period.

In the Seven Days Jackson was coming off a period of frantic activity during which he hardly had any rest. He drove himself as hard as he drove his men, and it wore him down. If I remember right he hadn't slept in three days at the start of the campaign. He WAS clumsy and lethargic during the Seven Days..but he was also on the point of collapse. Sleep deprivation isn't exactly a performance inhancer.

I'm not saying the man was a tactical demigod, just that he wasn't incompetent either. His greatest failing was his refusal to recognize theat men (including himself) have limitations.

 

[Peter Cowan]

I'll be controversial and add Patton to the list of over-rated generals. He wasn't bad - all of those mentioned here in previous posts were good, that's how they are major historical figures - but he seems to have been elevated above his colleagues.

He knew the value of PR, albeit being subject to some awful howlers, the face-slapping incident being most famous, thus kept his name prominent. Using the media seems to be a skill necessary to generals which is often neglected in studies. My own favourite example is the way that Ramses portrayed Kadesh and the Hittite War as a glorious victory in all his monuments.

Back to Patton, this meant his name was always in the headlines.
He was lucky. 3rd Army reaped the benefit of other American armies grinding down the Germans. Once it was able to pass through them into the rear there was little organised opposition. Again, this made Patton seem like a dashing commander when in actuality any competent commander could have achieved the same. For what it is worth, the British 2nd Army in its advance to the Dutch border actually made daily gains in excess of those made by 3rd Army in central France - to be fair, the going across North West France and Flanders is easier than through the routes 3rd US Army took.

Once Patton hit organised resistance (Toul, Metz Westwall) he displayed little more imagination than his contemporaries to the North.

As I said, Patton was good, on occasion very good, as a general, but I do think he has been over promoted due to his flamboyant nature.

 

[Street_Disciple]

I'll be controversial and add Patton to the list of over-rated generals. He wasn't bad - all of those mentioned here in previous posts were good, that's how they are major historical figures - but he seems to have been elevated above his colleagues.

He knew the value of PR, albeit being subject to some awful howlers, the face-slapping incident being most famous, thus kept his name prominent. Using the media seems to be a skill necessary to generals which is often neglected in studies. My own favourite example is the way that Ramses portrayed Kadesh and the Hittite War as a glorious victory in all his monuments.

Back to Patton, this meant his name was always in the headlines.
He was lucky. 3rd Army reaped the benefit of other American armies grinding down the Germans. Once it was able to pass through them into the rear there was little organised opposition. Again, this made Patton seem like a dashing commander when in actuality any competent commander could have achieved the same. For what it is worth, the British 2nd Army in its advance to the Dutch border actually made daily gains in excess of those made by 3rd Army in central France - to be fair, the going across North West France and Flanders is easier than through the routes 3rd US Army took.

Once Patton hit organised resistance (Toul, Metz Westwall) he displayed little more imagination than his contemporaries to the North.

As I said, Patton was good, on occasion very good, as a general, but I do think he has been over promoted due to his flamboyant nature.

Patton hated being called Blood n' Guts. You act as if he threw men in front of machine guns in blind rage? Patton's temper was not more than a facade most of the time; as will be learned by a biography or two. Patton, IMHO, is the best commander to come out of World War II. I've argued this for the umpteenth time on this board. Patton's record stands for itself in this regard. Patton was a hot-headed personality sometimes, yes. He knew this, and he did/would not have allowed it to let his men die needlessly in battle. Also, the Industrial Juggernaut that was the United States supplied more thant he Third Army, and the Third also had it's own better-than fair share of supply shortages. Patton as a commander, on the whole, does NOT get enough credit that he should deserve precisely because of the movie - many people see it and think that Hollywood made this man great, not his own leadership and it has a reverse effect.

In Sicily, most people don't realize that the terrain Patton was facing was a little rougher than open land..most of you couldn't drive a truck through, and had to rely on local donkeys, horses, basically anything that could carry ammo and fuel. Patton covered twice the ground in half the time while taking fewer casualties, as well inflicting more upon the enemy. While it can be said he did not have to face Mt.Etna, he also did not have any major supply line, and had to cover more ground that was by no means an easy task.

In France, Patton's drive was a military accomplishment that is/will still be studied for years to come. It was one of the few times any Army has successfully attacked in each direction simultaneously. He was also the target of one of the largest German counter-attacks at Mortain, as well as tackling problems like Metz. During the Bulge, Patton's front faced a majority of the German force. His movements at this time are still recounted more as legend than myth. Patton's record on the field stands alone for his abilities as a leader - not his records in the box office.