Overrated Generals
>>78734
>Caesar
>overrated
Granted, his failure to conquer Southeast Britain was embarrassing but his conquest of Gaul was impressive.
>>78843
Wasn't to embarrassing, Caesar lead the first successful invasion of Britain, and they installed a friendly king, I'm guessing if his hands weren't tied with Gaul he would have made more of an effort
Frederick the Great
>hipster history thread
>>78843
He was a better statesman than he was a general though.
>>78996
Totally agree. Literally lucked out after getting btfo by Austria.
>>78767
This is the correct response. Patton was good at giving rousing speeches and inspiring troops, but really his victories against Germany in Africa were because the krauts were already btfo by Monty, and in France he was fighting against the shit tier volksgrenadiers because all the vets were fighting the soviets
>>79461
Italy?
>>78734
Didn't we just have this thread?
But I guess Rommel. Some anons made some good points in that other thread.
>>81466
he was fighting Italians
>>78734
Good idea OP, I'll start
>>81539
/thread
>>81466
The German defence of Italy was half-hearted at best, and the Italian partisans were rising up all over the place and strung Mussolini up from his toes. The Germans actually made a good effort, all things considered, Monte cassino for example, but practically any general could have won the Italian campaign on the American side
>>82249
Kesselring did an amazing job given what he had
>>78734
>Overrated Generals
Will be the downfall of /his/
>>82126
Why?
Him having a good army handed to him I don't think is a reason to say he was over-rated. He was in a lot of tight spots and came out ahead. A lesser man most likely would of failed
>>83096
this, also compare the tactics of the Diadochi wars, where the generals were fighting with armies of similar composition and doctrine.
Philip and Alexander were in a league of their own in the hellenic world
