- Mar 2016
Napolean. First class tactician, poor strategist. He is no match for likes of Genghis Khan or Timur. He is several tiers below, but still better than overwhelming majority of generals in history, imo.
Yeah given when he crossed the Rubicon, Rome had a collective bowel motion.......something a lot more than luck is in play here.Caesar doesn't just have his story. It's corrobarated in a lot of ways by other authors. Plus, we need to realise that people who are constantly successful in warfare over many years and in different situations are a bit mor than "lucky".
I agree that Frederick is overrated to a certain extent due to certain critical errors of judgment that crop up about half the time, errors that he often failed to make good upon. However, I find your rationale here unsound, as you are gravely selling the Austrians short. With the exception of lacking iron ram rods, the Austrians of the SYW were very nearly as good as the Prussians. That is an important advantage for the Prussians but that hardly means the Austrians were sub-standard. They weren’t in decline during the time of Maria Theresa either. Austrian decline wouldn’t set in until at least the time of Francis I and Napoleon or perhaps beyond, though the genesis of decline might have happened as early as the ideal yet misguided reforms of Joseph I.I feel that skilled generals of renown tend to be more overrated than poor or mediocre ones. Napoleon did numerous mistakes that some lesser-known commanders might not have done in his shoes, as did Julius Caesar, and even Alexander the Great. Of course, they were all highly competent and extraordinarily successful, but they were far from the flawless gods of war that certain pseudo-historians make them out to be. I believe we make a grave error in associating fame and success with competence. For instance, I personally consider Frederick the Great of Prussia - often referred to as one of the great military minds of European history - a capable but unexceptional commander. He led arguably the most efficient military machine in Europe at the time against an empire in decline with a substandard army, yet managed to lose multiple battles where a truly gifted general would have won with ease.
Well I odn;t think he was a good strategist he improvised, and when under pressure he ditehred rather than acting decisiviely. He wasn;t all bad Ibut I would not call it a strength.Sick of Napoleon being lablled as a bad strategist. It's the same sort of argument as Hannibal being a bad strategist.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|All Generals are Overrated, Rankings are Meaningless and Feelz-Based||Military History|
|William T Sherman- the Most Overrated General of the Civil war||North American History|
|Has Alexander's Generalship been overrated||Ancient History|
|Who's the most overrated General of WW2?||Military History|