Matrix Games Forums

What general has been unfairly passed by in the history books and the public mind?

Eric Maietta

"What general has been unfairly passed by in the history books and the public mind?"

If they've been passed by in the history books how would we be aware of them at all? Did you have someone specific in mind when you posed the question?

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: ratster ]</p>

Good point. Perhaps I should have said what general's accomplishments haven't received the credit they are due, or have had their accomplishments given short shrift?

Eric Maietta

In WWII I might make an arguement for Von Balck.
He was brought up like a really really good baseball pitcher coming up through the minor leagues until he's ready for the majors. By the end of about a 2 year span he had grown to be as good an opperational commander as any in the german army but his is not a name that gets bandied about like Rommel or Manstein et al.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck was never defeated by the allies in Africa and only finally surrendered when WWI was over. He has had books written about him but his name is never mentioned among the greats.

A good case could perhaps be made for General Slim,the British commander in Burma.Not withstanding that his theatre of operations was well down the list in terms of men and material in the overall British war effort;or,that his logistical problems were severe in the extreme;He still managed to stall the Japanese drive through Burma,and,at Kohima certainly saved the Indian sub-continent from being overrun by Japanese forces.He was later made a field-marshall for his efforts.I have only seen one book about him and was able to find only one about Kohima.A sadly overlooked theatre of operations(relatively speaking)in terms of WW2 history.If anyone out there can recommend anyother books on this subject,I will endeavour to find them.Thank you.
Regards,fontenoy.

I'd like to suggest Davout. I have a suspicion that if he'd gone to Spain in 1809 or 1810 that old Nosey may have had a really bad time. My other is Fontenoy's favorite Saxe no other 18th century French general came close to having his success.

German general Heinrici??...American general Gerhardt?(Or even Omar Bradley??)

Yeremenko, the Soviet general who engineered the defense of theStingrad front, sure he had an excellent subordinate in Chuikov, but he defended with the least force possible, and was partly responsible for OP Uranus with Zukov, but didn't even get a chance to finish the German 6th Army off, he was reassigned just before the end.

For the Americans, I'd have to nominate Ulysses Simpson Grant. While some military historians have given Grant his due -- J.F.C. Fuller considered Grant the greatest American military commander -- his popular image is still that of a "butcher" who wore out the Confederates simply because he outnumbered them. But Grant:

1.Captured 12,000 Confederates at Ft. Donelson.
2. Captured 23,000 Confederates at Vicksburg, after orchestrating one of the two most brilliant campaigns of maneuver (Jackson in the Valley in 1862 was the other)in the war.
3. Captured R.E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia where other worthies and not-so-worthies (McClellan, Pope, McClellan again, Burnside, Hooker, Meade) had failed.
4. Broke the Confederate siege of Chattanooga.
5. Designed the Grand Strategy the Union used to win the war in 1864-65.

Montgomery,

In many books he is written down as unimaginative, dull, only defensive etc etc. His actual performance in difficult position is the best evidence against this <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Fredde:
Montgomery,

In many books he is written down as unimaginative, dull, only defensive etc etc. His actual performance in difficult position is the best evidence against this <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

---

Ahem... I think he is overrated if anything. When did he fight in a difficult position anyway?

Hear, hear. Another possibility from long ago is Pyrrhus, who else consistently fought the Romans to a standstill using a phalanx army?

One who might deserve mention is Marshall Ney.If only for his determined rearguard actions in covering Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.
Regards,
fontenoy

I would like to add Sir John Monash of the 1st Australian Imperial Force, 3rd Division Western front 1916-1918.

He was a master of organization and also held a strong view heavy casualties among his own men were due to failures in planning and leadership.
His attention to detail was forward thinking for the time. In a major attack planned for June 7 1917 at Messines Ridge, he had a large map built, covering several acres of land, and insisted on every soldier being cycled through to study it and know his place in the offensive.
Officers and other ranks were expected to memorise every feature, stream and landmark.
Although he did not go onto lead armies, his concern for is troops and the thought that he put into planning attacks shows a compassion and concern for his command, that was seriously lacking and at times not present at all in other commanders of the time.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Raverdave ]</p>

i would perhaps mention gen. heinrici who was no facist,but as far as i know a master on defending his positions to overhelming soviet forces.

in the case of the defense of berlin he had (as much german officers) big differences with hitler who was gone completly mad at this point of war..

What about the japanese general Yama****a whose army went where the british said he could'nt and then bluffed the british at Singapore into surrendering even though he was outnumbered and would have had to withdraw the next day from lack of supplies?

Hehehe... You can't say Yama****a on this forum. Anyone know of his cousins, Yama****a and Yamadicka?

Creighton Abrams, if for no other reason than his motto,"The further up the flag pole you climb, the more people are looking at your *** ." He was also probably the best armored force commander the USA has produced.

I would nominate General 'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell.

Eric Maietta