Most overrated military commanders

File: rommel.jpg (23KB, 242x306px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 242x306px

He was alright and a decent enough guy, but the "le ebin Dessert fox" gets kinda old.

File: Patton.jpg (396KB, 1240x800px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1240x800px

Since we have those two, may as well finish off the trifecta

>>3169240
>>3169247
>>3169251

I think we've covered all the bases here.

>>3169247
I think his exploits in WW1 were pretty funny

>>3169240

File: hannibal.jpg (20KB, 220x345px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 220x345px

>>3169266
shit forgot pic

>>3169251
The meme trilogy

Best bong commander: Slim
Best kraut: von Manstein
Best burger: Lloyd Fredendall

>>3169251
>>3169247
>>3169240
Tell me in short why people consider them so amazing and why they're actually not so great

File: Napoleon's surrender.jpg (71KB, 460x310px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 460x310px

>>3169240
...thinly veiled brit hate thread #5436
>>3169274
Ney begs Napoleon not to underestimate Wellington, even without Blucher he is formidable.
Napoleon in a profoundly french combination of arrogance and autism completely dismisses this.

>Le nation of shopkeepers
>H-he commands Indians!
>Nothing without their ships!

Napoleon finally meets Wellington in battle, manlet hailed as the greatest general since antiquity almost immediately starts dropping spaghetti.

>send in the Imperial guard!
>La Garde meurt mais ne se rend pas!
Wellington sends Napoleon's elite troops, fleeing for their lives for first time in their history. Those who don't surrender are annihilated

>"Well I guess i'll just surrender to England again." - Napoleon

How is wellington overrated?

>>3169335
Monty is just the most famous Brit commander in WW2. Known for defeating the Desert Fox more because of the cult that has grown up around Rommel than because he was particularly brilliant.

He wasn't bad, he just wasn't "great". He beat Rommel by doing the sensible thing of letting Rommel overextend and building up a huge superiority in men, equipment, and aircraft before going on the offensive.

>>3169352
NEw to the thread, but if you actually look at the cut and parry of El Alamein, he outmaneuvers Rommel pretty badly there too. He turns Rommel's trademark trick of arranging the anti-tank guns right where the enemy's armored thrust is going to be right back at him, instead of the usual British attempt prior to that of meeting German armor with their own armor.

File: wellingfail65.png (491KB, 968x736px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 968x736px

>>3169350
>Ney begs Napoleon not to underestimate Wellington

Well, Ney must have been a very wise man then
Because if I had Ney's record against Wellington, I sure as hell would underestimate him

File: Anyone has seen Britain They said they would help.png (199KB, 322x1082px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 322x1082px

>>3169350
>"Well I guess i'll just surrender to England again." - Napoleon

Pretty sure Brits werent present the first time Napoleon surrendered
They were being irrelevant in Spain or something

File: 220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-732-0118-03,_Hermann_Balck.jpg (9KB, 220x151px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x151px

>>3169247
Rommel just wasn't suited for a large Command. He lacked the strategic capacities. He was a Great tactician but not suited for commanding a whole theatre/front.

An Afrikakorps led by Kesselring would be really interesting.


Btw an even better tactician than Rommel that nobody Talks about : Balck

>>3169362
>An Afrikakorps led by Kesselring would be really interesting.
Wouldn't they just be sitting around instead of overextending supply lines, since getting supplies there reliably was basically impossible?

>>3169350
Funny enough, Napoleon lost because Ney failed at his task. He didn't underestimate Wellington, he overestimated Ney

>>3169477
Not him, but it's a virtual certainty the British would be trying to attack Kesselring's Afrika Korps, and you'd probably have a lot of action around Cyrenica.

>>3169266
>>3169268
Came to post this.

>>3169274
But specially this.

>>3169358
>Ney must be a wise man because he respected Wellington whereas I would not
I agree anon, you're not wise. Looking at these numbers and think it means Wellington is incompetent is literally repeating the mistakes of history.
Remind me, who won the Peninsular war and Waterloo campaign?

>>3169361
>Shows battle of Paris
>Napoleon isn't present

Maybe he was being irrelevant in Spain or something?
Why call Britain irrelevant? If you like Napoleon, you're just embarrassing him even more when he writes those bitch letters to their prince regent and dies of arsenic hair on some shit-hole they left him on as Wellington literally cucks him.

>>3169485
He overestimated his imperial guard too then I suppose?
He underestimated Wellington anon.

>>3169361
to be fair, Britain was Napoleons rival, he only invaded Russia to isolate britain.

File: attachment.png (93KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 400x300px

I think you idiots are confusing popular with overrated. Just like everyone else on this shitty site

File: Chesty Puller in his command post during Battle of Peleliu.jpg (107KB, 736x600px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 736x600px

Being a Marine it hurts to admit this but Ol' Chesty wasn't the best strategic commander

>>3169536
>Wellington literally cucks him.
?

Monty I would say is underrated
British troops and armour lacked big time in firepower and numbers in comparison to American forces yet instead of simply staying back and letting America do the heavy lifting the guy wanted to do something and something he did
"Arrmens tonight"
Rommel was a coward using fake surrenders to beat the french forces I can not say anything about him
Patton was also a dick head

>>3169240
>>3169247
>>3169251
Literally every general of ww2 was overrated af

The only reason we remember them as good is because they're in our modern memory.

>>3170815
Wellington got the sloppy second of some prostitute Napoleon once fucked, so British shitposters on this website consider he "cucked" him

>>3170836
Source?

Any general that didn't command on EF. EF was a true clash of titans. Everything else in WW2 was a sideshow.

>>3170928
>EF
Literally for contrarians who want to look cool for liking a relatively obscure part of the most normie-tier conflict in the most normie-tier field of history.

>>3170815
>>3170847
Josephina Grassini, an opera singer and Josephine Weimer, an actress.
>'Monsieur le Duc etait de beaucoup plus fort' ('The duke was much the stronger').
Wellington fucked two of napoleon's mistresses, was widely regarded as handomse, wasn't a manlet, was presented with a lewd picture of Napoleon's sister Pauline.
He was very popular with women and most men too desu (not counting autistic nappyboos)
>>3170836
...Napoleon cuckolding was biblical he even wrote about being concerned about being made a "cuckold".
The Empress Josephine died because some one eyed officer (Austrian or Russian I don't remember) fucked her in the snow, historians politely say it was pneumonia though.

File: Pauline_Bonaparte_2.jpg (195KB, 951x1118px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 951x1118px

>>3171137
>was presented with a lewd picture of Napoleon's sister Pauline.

Weird way to say he had looted it in her former home
Here's the pic btw
It's also very probable Napoleon banged this one sister several times

>>3169274
This and Ney

>>3170816
>fake surrenders
???

>>3171137
Based

>>3169268
>be autistic enough to bring elephants over the alps
>cut yourself off from supply lines and reinforcements
>get BTFO trying to take Rome as the Romans march on your capital
how was he ever considered good?

>>3169335
Monty got most of the press. Amazing planner though. Most of his postwar hate is from the fact he was known for just saying exactly what he thought. It's quite easy to see since he didn't last long post-war in the military.

Rommel owes most of his career to Hitler, almost fucking up in France and then again when he went to North Africa. Not to mention the wehraboo wanking over him.

I don't know much about Patton but his nickname probably speaks for himself.

>>3171137
But Wellesley was 5'9. I'm 5'10, can I not be considered a manlet anymore?

File: Joseph_Joffre.jpg (19KB, 231x307px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 231x307px

let's back this thread up a war

File: 9940-004-5F9FBFF1.jpg (21KB, 318x450px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 318x450px

>>3172857

File: 34969-004-7BEDFE6E.jpg (19KB, 305x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 305x450px

>>3172860

>>3171137
>wasn't a manlet
He was 5'9, the same height as Napoleon

>>3171137
Wait what is it with Napoleon and chicks named Josephine?

>>3169240
Not exactly a commander, but the Schliefen plan. I've lost count of how many people I've run into who take it as an article of faith that if Germany had stuck to the plan, it was an inevitability of knocking out France early in 1914; they might disagree as to what deviation was fatal, but it's always a fault of Von Moltke the younger somehow for deviating from it, not that the plan itself was bad. They never seem to have an answer as to how to make up the lost time on unexpected Belgian resistance, or how the fuck you're supposed to march that far that fast to hit Paris from the northwest. But the plan was perfect.

You get somewhat similar sentiments among fanboys of WPO-3 (or rather, people who shit on MacArthur for deviating from it), but that one is less well known.

>>3172887
Napoleon was 5'7

>>3172914
>lost time on unexpected Belgian resistance
2 days, it didn't really put a kink in their plan

>how the fuck you're supposed to march that far that fast to hit Paris from the northwest.
this was a mistake, i agree. the problem was the Schliefen plan had a hard end date of M+40, and so all deployments of the first and second german armies was made with that in mind

given that, von Kluck and von Bulow actually did remarkably well in their respective areas of belgium and france. von moltke should have never allowed prince ruprecht to keep his divisions engaged on the left wing, and should have never sent two corps to the eastern front. those two mistakes are responsible for the gap between the first and second German armies that was exploited at the Marne

>>3169240
Zhuge Liang and Guan Yu

>>3169268
this

I know this isnt exactly on topic but there are some "military history rules of thumb" that are absolutely retarded but people who claim to be history buffs always spout this shit anyway.
>never march on Moscow
Napoleon wasnt beaten by Russian Winter or the size of Russia. He was beaten because he could never get the tactical battlefield victory he needed, and when he finally got a battle, it was the inconclusive Borodino. People forget this a lot but Napoleon actually took Moscow. Hitler, the other oft cited example, failed to take Moscow because of autism when he wasted his army in Stalingrad. Even then, Germany crushed Russia in WW1 and was on the doorstep of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Poland did it with fucking ease in the time of troubles. its really not that daunting of a task.
>never start a land war in China
Of the three foreign powers who have meaningfully tried all three succeeded so i have no idea why this one is ever considered wise. During the Opium wars China was effectively steamrolled. The Mongols certainly had their difficulties maintaining control and effectively dominating the Chinese people but the actual fighting part was not difficult at all. Even Japan had a considerable degree of success despite the fact that Japan was contending with the British in Burma and India, as well as the United States in the pacific.

Other bad military history memes: Generals who win a lot of battles are good generals. This is something that is fucking jr. high tier understanding of the history of warfare and its infuriating when people who claim to love military history say that Hannibal or Genghis Khan is their favorite general. Both were great at winning battles and both were unfathomably awful at using those victories to set up their respective people for future success. Hannibal left Carthage defenseless against the logistally far more capable Romans, and Genghis Khan was incompetent at setting up a lasting dynasty that could control all the land he conquered.

>>3171447
>dude just dont fight lmao
he was effective in the way he needed to be.
Everyones a hero in their own not that heroic way

>>3173046
.t retard

> He was beaten because he could never get the tactical battlefield victory he needed, and when he finally got a battle, it was the inconclusive Borodino
And then, when he didn't, he lost over 70% of his army due to attrition of operating in the Russian winter.

>. Hitler, the other oft cited example, failed to take Moscow because of autism when he wasted his army in Stalingrad.
Read this. http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf

In the likely event that this is too hard, Germany had no chance whatsoever of seizing Moscow in 1942, as the area was heavily reinforced such that the Germans were constantly on the defensive in the north, no longer able to take the offensive.


>Even then, Germany crushed Russia in WW1 and was on the doorstep of St. Petersburg and Moscow
Since when is 85 miles away from one, and over 300 away from the other "on the doorstep"?

>Poland did it with fucking ease in the time of troubles. its really not that daunting of a task.
If you count backing a localized coup an invasion.

>During the Opium wars China was effectively steamrolled.
They were effectively beaten in a coastal battle and then signed a treaty rather than going to an all out war footing. It's not a land invasion of China the way the Mongols did in the 12th century.

> but the actual fighting part was not difficult at all
What's a seventy years or so of constant campaigning to take it all between friends?
1/2

>>3173046

>Even Japan had a considerable degree of success despite the fact that Japan was contending with the British in Burma and India, as well as the United States in the pacific.
You do realize they had stopped advancing by 1939? Before entering those other wars? And that they hadn't advanced for nearly 2 years when they did, right?

>Hannibal left Carthage defenseless against the logistally far more capable Romans,
No he dindn't. He made other errors, but where the fuck do you think those reinforcement attempts the Carthaginains tried to send his way came from? Where the fuck do you think the troops that fought at Zama came from?

>Genghis Khan was incompetent at setting up a lasting dynasty that could control all the land he conquered.
Which has fuck all to do with military abilities and a lot to do with Mongolian dynastic politics; and in any event, Mongolian rulers held sway over most of Asia for the next few hundred years. That's massively impressive. You may as well say Alexander was a shit general since his empire disintigrated upon his death, or that Napoleon was a shit general, since his empire didn't even last past losing Leipzig.

>>3173046
Russian winter meme is a thing because the two major invasions never planned to fight in the winter on any large scale. Pretty sure Napoleon was in a relative safe spot in Smolensk if memory serves me right.

>>3173050
he just stole De Tolli tactics

>>3171402
In fact, Rommel got through the French defences in 1940 by using exactly that trick. All the Germens sat on the outside of the tanks with white flags like they were surrendering. Once the Germans had passed the French lines, they popped back inside and started fighting. The line was quickly broken and the race across France started.

File: 1456160740075 (2016_04_05 17_55_07 UTC).gif (157KB, 1276x996px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1276x996px

>>3173004
Writing your own history goes a long way.

File: Robert E. Lee.jpg (18KB, 380x370px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 380x370px

He's a good commander, but he made a lot of mistakes and was too aggressive for the limited resources he had.

>>3173092
85 miles from Petrograd is pretty fucking close given the size of the eastern front and the poor state of the Russian army.

85 miles from Petrograd is not the same as 85 miles from Paris.

>>3170816
>>3171402
>>3176492
>rommel used fake surrenders!
source: your ass

>>3169254
You need Macarthur too

>>3169335
Because the African campaign was small scale, relatively clean and was the only remotely important campaign that the Americans and British fought in for almost thee years, so there was a huge propaganda machine behind all of them.

Rommel had the good luck to get killed by Hitler which made it acceptable for wehraboos to masturbate to him for decades.

Patton had a movie, Bongs were short on accomplishments.

All generals are overrated. Except the ones that we put blame on.

>>3169350
>Montgomery Rommel and Patton all posted
>Only two brits
>More Americans and Germans being posted
>REEEEEEEE BRITISH HATE THREAD!

Fuck off and post some overrated generals instead of getting all defensive and trying to prove why Wellington is the greatest.

File: jackson.jpg (63KB, 528x552px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 528x552px

Knew how to terrorize men into obeying orders and not deserting.

What else?

>>3176528

How's that overrated? If he joined the north instead of Virginia, that war would have ended quite a bit faster. If anything, Ulysses S. Grant was overrated as a general and as The President.

>>3169240

I don't think he's overrated so much as he's mischaracterized. He's always grouped with 'daring' commanders like Rommel and Patton, when he really wasn't like that as a commander. He had a personal flair similar to them, but Market Garden was out of character for him in comparison to his previous conduct. He was more meticulous drillmaster than offensive ace, which was why he managed to turn the tide against Rommel so effectively, but fell flat when pushed into the role of le dashing Brit.

t. Burger

>>3178925

Getting the men he terrorised to adore him and inspire suicidal levels of loyalty while being a solid tactician?

>>3178939
Grant is generally agreed upon to be one of the worst Presidents, which leaks over into estimation of his generalship, which was much better.

He knen how to beat Lee, and did, unlike all previous Union generals. Cold Harbor was a mistake, but other generals made similar mistakes. Nobody's perfect.

Lee, on the other hand, made strategic mistakes for his circumstances: trying an aggressive war when he would have done better to conserve his resources and wear the enemy down, or so many think. It might have been forced on him by a political need to defend Richmond at all costs.

File: AGAIN.jpg (39KB, 400x417px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x417px

>inb4 some wehraboo fedora tipping autist posts /ourguy/

>>3178976
Jackson's men hated him. They executed forced marches because he flogged and shot those who didn't.

>>3178986

That'd fair anon and I agree. I was mixing his political career with being a officer.