Generals who eventually lost - Historum

**pixi666** · August 17th, 2011, 04:46 PM

Just looking for some thoughts here. Why do you think that great generals who eventually lost are regarded so highly? I'm not saying that because they lost, they're not good, but there seems to be something special about the way some people think of these sorts of generals. Generals like Hannibal, Napoleon and Robert E. Lee.

Thoughts?

**Nemowork** · August 17th, 2011, 04:58 PM

Why are musicians rated more highly if they died young?

All that doomed talent adds to a good story for the people who like their history romantic, thats why bonnie prince charlie is always going to be more popular than sweet william.

**pixi666** · August 17th, 2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemowork

All that doomed talent adds to a good story for the people who like their history romantic

Good point.

**Belgarion** · August 17th, 2011, 05:14 PM

I think it's human nature to identify with a supposedly gallant loser rather than with a winner. We consider all the might-have-beens and if-onlys and as has been said above, romanticise the story without considering the real nature of the general or the real ramifications had they actually won.

If Lee had won for the Confederacy, or if Charles Stuart had won for the Jacobites, or if Napoleon had won for the French Empire the world would not have been a better place, and of those three, only Lee could perhaps be said to have been a decent man.

Rakkasan · August 17th, 2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Why do you think that great generals who eventually lost are regarded so highly

Strategic vs Tactical ...there is a big difference.

**Viperlord** · August 17th, 2011, 05:30 PM

People like an underdog.

**botully** · August 17th, 2011, 05:37 PM

From the examples in the OP, both Hannibal and Napoleon had considerable success for years before final defeat. They are both considered "Great Captains".
Lee had a certain sad dignity in defeat, and is associated with a romantic notion of a "lost cause".

**clement** · August 17th, 2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixi666

Just looking for some thoughts here. Why do you think that great generals who eventually lost are regarded so highly? I'm not saying that because they lost, they're not good, but there seems to be something special about the way some people think of these sorts of generals. Generals like Hannibal, Napoleon and Robert E. Lee.

Thoughts?

Because Hannibal's adventure was extraordinary and even his defeat makes his life more fascinating because of its tragic end. Napoleon and Robert Lee both enjoyed victories against great odds before their defeat. And they were very inspirational leaders. Moreover, Napoleon has a godlike status, and none of his enemy can rival him, because he was beaten by many generals, Wellington only being the most famous (but he was not at Leipzig, arguably the most decisive battle). His victories are his own, the glory of his defeat is shared by a great number of generals of rulers. And Lee faced a war machine led by Grant. So he inspires sympathy for many people.