Overrated Generals, who makes this list?

[Okuto]

The other day we had a discussion in ROTC(reserve officer training corps) about generals and we were discussing Washington and how "great" a general he was.

Then I spoke and basically said "he's a terrible tactician but his leadership skills kept the army alive"

Then I got smoked by everyone in the class, this is normal as I also said Yi was a better admiral than Nelson.

In the end I won out but it got me thinking.....

What generals do you consider got too much credit?

To me personally....a few
-Washington: Great leader, crappy general, yet is considered one of the best american generals
-MacArther: PErsonally Nimitiz should of got more credit, yet everyone remembers "I shall return"
-Grant: Sherman was way better, Grant basically threw men into the meat grinder and won like that, also had one of the most corrupt administration

So....which generals got too much credit

[hellheaven1987]

-Grant: Sherman was way better, Grant basically threw men into the meat grinder and won like that, also had one of the most corrupt administration

Not true; Grant's intention against Lee was to pin down Lee's army so that force would not, like Confederacy loved to do in past, concentrated rapidly in one theatre. Grant realized that, in order to support Sherman not facing such situation, he had to personally lead the Army of Potomac and pinned down Lee, even in great cost of life lost and his own reputation lost (fortunately Lincoln supported him towards throughout the war).

[Okuto]

Yes he got the job done but I greatly disapprove of the waste of life which did bear fruit but like a famous saying "win with skill not numbers" I find Grant falls short of this. To me personally a good general tries to achieve his objectives with minimum expense, as officers, it's your duty to sell your men's lives sparingly, to simply keep throwing men to keep any enemy down either means your desperate or you lack finesse. Personally I think Winfield Scott Hancock could of done a better job had his Gettysburg wound not affected him.

I admire Grants can do spirit but his waste of lives leaves him with a dubious record. A shame cause he rather good career prior to his promotion

[Wegen7 die Große]

Napoleon:The French seem to think of him as a GOD(Although I think that is because he was the only good general that they have ever had) and the French seem to forget his careless massacres.
Caesar:Why? Because I believe that he was a better gambler then a better General(and also that he has some luck(and Inept enemies).
Churchill: I can see him as more evil then good.
Well that is my opinion, hope you enjoyed.

[CiviC]

Napoleon:The French seem to think of him as a GOD(Although I think that is because he was the only good general that they have ever had)

Or maybe your knowledge of history is very very limited : Turenne, The Great Conde, Luxembourg, Maurice de Saxe, Massena, Moreau, Ney, Lannes, Davout, and many more others. To upset you, the French had more great generals then the British. The best British/English generals in modern times for me are : Cromwell, Marlborourgh, Wellington, Montgomery.

Speaking of overrated, I think Wellington is overrated compared with Marlborough. Marlborough is in the category of Napoleon : he conducted swift decisive campaigns, taking the enemies by surprise. His campaigns are very "clean", while the Peninsular War of Wellington is a mess, with many setbacks, not straightforward like in the case of Napoleon and Marlborough.

[hellheaven1987]

The best British/English generals in modern times for me are : Cromwell, Marlborourgh, Wellington, Montgomery.

You have Monty but not Siam??

[Azog 150]

Churchill wasn't a General.


also, people keep on mentioning Monty, but as others have stated its not very often I hear good words about Monty. In the past he may have been overrated, but nowadays I would says its the opposite.

Or maybe your knowledge of history is very very limited : Turenne, The Great Conde, Luxembourg, Maurice de Saxe, Massena, Moreau, Ney, Lannes, Davout, and many more others. To upset you, the French had more great generals then the British. The best British/English generals in modern times for me are : Cromwell, Marlborourgh, Wellington, Montgomery.

What about Slim?

As an officer in the First World War he served with distinction and was wounded twice over the four years (Including at Gallipoli alongside the Anzacs).

During the Second World War, he led the 10th Indian Brigade in the very successful East African Campaign- throwing the Italians out of Ethiopia and Somalia.

In the Middle East as a Major-General in charge of the 10th Indian Divisions he again served with distinction in Anglo-Iraq War, the invasion of Persia and the relatively unknown and surprisingly brutal Syrian campaign throwing the French out of Syria and Lebanon.

But it was in Burma while leading the 14th Army that he really made a name for himself. He was responsible for turning that campaign around and was greatly respected by his troops. He was also responsible for decreasing the 70% malaria rates affecting British forces there to just 5%.

And, unlike most Generals, he wasn't an arrogant cocky . Probably the best British Commander of the war, and by extension one of the best commanders overall.

[hellheaven1987]

Monty was quite a famous general during 50s and 60s, but got beat down by Patton fans these two decades largely because his Market Garden.

[Last Roman]

Napoleon:The French seem to think of him as a GOD(Although I think that is because he was the only good general that they have ever had) and the French seem to forget his careless massacres.
Caesar:Why? Because I believe that he was a better gambler then a better General(and also that he has some luck(and Inept enemies).

1. You don't conquer nearly of Europe on sheer luck alone.
2. While he did fight some unprepared enemies, Alesia alone shows Caesar's military genius.

As per overrated generals, I'll agree with the OP about Washington. Though an overall skilled leader, as a military mind, he was sub-par.

[MrDogbert]

Napoleon in my books is 2nd or 1st best General of all time just been reading about his Six Days Campaign its great stuff.

I will get alot of hate for this one but i top him in my top 3 of best Generals of all time. Alexander the great i just feel too much myth has got into his story and the dubious quality of his Persian opposition.

[DarkArk]

Robert E Lee. He failed to use tactics that suited his army, instead relying on grand battle tactics that it was ultimately incapable of conducting. His invasions of the North were stupid and ultimately both brought about the end of the South much faster than it would have been otherwise.

Also, he failed to learn lessons that were blatantly obvious, like having infantry charge up a hill against other infantry behind a stone wall. He saw that it would fail at Fredricksburg, and yet he still ordered a similar charge at Gettysburg.

[Sphere]

Monty and MacArthur.

[motiv-8]

Monty and MacArthur.

MacArthur should win hands-down. His concern for personal glory and the the reclamation of his own jilted pride over the operational needs of his country, as well as his luddite disdain for intelligence gathering and the use of that information cost the lives of many of his men and certainly prolonged the prosecution of the war against Japan.

[Knize.Vladivoj]

Keitel, Jodl, Guderian, Rommel...well, almost all the German generals who were simultaneously NSDAP members. Only few German generals were really good, like Henrici, Steiner, maybe Burgdorff. On the Axis side, only Finland showed really badass generals (Mannerheim, Ehrnrooth,...). On the Allies side, definitely Monty, Patton, Malinovskiy were definitely overrated

[skag]

Keitel, Jodl, Guderian, Rommel...well, almost all the German generals who were simultaneously NSDAP members. Only few German generals were really good, like Henrici, Steiner, maybe Burgdorff. On the Axis side, only Finland showed really badass generals (Mannerheim, Ehrnrooth,...). On the Allies side, definitely Monty, Patton, Malinovskiy were definitely overrated

Guderian and Rommel overrated ??

but for Patton I agree
it's not hard to win a war with a blatant firepower superiority ...
it's like if ... making a straight line race with a ferrari, versus a fiat 500 .... obviously the ferrari driver will win, exept if he's retard obviously

[Hakkapeliitta]

Guderian and Rommel overrated ??

but for Patton I agree
it's not hard to win a war with a blatant firepower superiority ...
it's like if ... making a straight line race with a ferrari, versus a fiat 500 .... obviously the ferrari driver will win, exept if he's retard obviously

Rommel damn sure is overrated; his lack of grasp of logistics made him unfit to lead anything bigger than a division. But he was also a self publicist, which seems to have paid off.

[MaximiIian]

Just about any general during the Civil War, on both sides. Goddamn amateurs compared to some of their overseas contemporaries. If Moltke the Elder led he Union army, he would have won the war by Christmas 1861.

[Lysimachus]

Patton. Completely overhyped.

[Orko]

Washingaton, definately, as you metnioned. He is only remembered as a great general because America is the world's leading superpower.

[Stavroforos]

Montgomery, Wellington, Zhukov, Lee, and Hannibal.