Most underrated military leader

Great Debates
1

Who’s the most underrated military leader of the Second World War? Who’s the most underrated military leader of all time?

I got this inspiration from the “Most Overrated General of WWII” thread, but I decided to broaden it a bit. Include, if you wish, admirals, partisan leaders, air marshalls, whoever you feel has been given the short shrift by history.

Offhand, here are some nominees:

Leon Trotsky. He is too often remembered as they guy who got a pickaxe in the skull in Mexico City, or else as the Original Trotskyite (coincidence? I think not). His whipping of the Whites is too often forgotten. I mean, the Allied Powers could beat Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, but they couldn’t beat Trotsky! Okay, not a fair comparison, since the Allies put a teensy weensy bit more men and equipment into beating the Kaiser and Company, and since they were pretty exhausted after 1918 anyway. But still interesting.

Mannerheim. It wasn’t just bad weather that crushed the first waves of Soviet invaders, and it wasn’t just Finnish courage and submachineguns. Mannerheim knew when to hold a line and when to fall back. The defeat the Finns eventually suffered was far smaller than it could have been, and they were never completely conquered by the Soviets.

That’s all I can think of off hand. Future thoughts: a Boer leader; individuals involved in the Napoleonic wars; whoever commanded the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu…

2

I don’t advance him as “most underrated of all time”, but I think two “most underrated of the Civil War” would go to:

Union:William S. Rosecrans. He picked up command of the Army of the Cumberland after Buell had loused things up; Rosecrans went on to win a brilliant victory against Bragg at Murfreesboro (in theory, he lost the battle, but Rosecrans refused to retreat, so Bragg assumed that he had lost the battle and made a hasty retreat) and chased the Rebs valiantly and quickly.

Unfortunately, at Chickamauga, Rosecrans made the mistake of trusting the judgement of Ambrose Burnside and his own fears, and so beat a hasty retreat in a battle he was actually winning. Rosecrans was removed shortly thereafter, and Sherman given command. And Rosecrans faded from public memory.

Confederacy: Joseph E. Johnston. Won the First Battle of Bull Run (although Beauregard got the credit as the ranking officer, it was Johnston’s leadership on the field- and his brilliant manuevering in getting his troops to Bull Run while leaving a Union army twice his size off in Harper’s Ferry waiting for his attack) and was given command of the new Army of Northern Virginia. He subsequently lost this command by having the dual misfortunes of being wounded at the battle of Seven Pines and being replaced by somebody by the name of Robert E. Lee.

Johnston was eventually given command of the Western Theatre, but not until Pemberton had been blocked up in Vicksburg and it was too late to make an attempt to save him. Johnston eventually took direct command of the Army of Tennessee, and fought a brilliant campaign of delay against Sherman. Johnston realized his army was too weak to defeat Sherman in battle, and so Johnston waged a campaign of manuever and retreat which bogged Sherman down tremendously. Unfortunately, President Davis decided that what the South really needed was a decisive victory, and so replaced Johnston with John Bell Hood, saying, “This man will fight.” And Hood lived up to that by leading his troops into a direct attack upon Sherman- an attack they lost heavily and took massive casualties in, basically breaking the Army of Tennessee as a fighting force and allowing Sherman to walk into Atlanta (which, quite possibly was the event which assured Lincoln’s re-election).

Eventually Johnston was given command of a new army in an attempt to delay Sherman’s march through the Carolinas; Johnston again tried to use delay and retreat tactics, but Sherman outnumbered him so much that it was pointless, and Johnston surrended around the time that Lee did.

Joe Johnston is mostly forgotten when talking about great Confederate generals; but he was the one who came closest to actually winning the war for the South.

JMCJ

“Y’know, I would invite y’all to go feltch a dead goat, but that would be abuse of a perfectly good dead goat and an insult to all those who engage in that practice for fun.” -weirddave, set to maximum flame

3

WWII: Bradley, his quiet brilliance & concern for the ordinary GI’s life. He saved thousands of unnessesary troop deaths in WWII by being actually CONCERNEB for his mens lives.

All time: Shaka Zulu: gave the overconfident brits a bad bloody nose at Islandwana. Brilliant tactician, only so-so on strategy.

4

General Slim who took command of the British Commonwealth forces in the jungles of the far east during WWII.

The Japanese had made one of the longest overland advances in modern times, the British forces which included Indian ,Chinese ,Dutch ,and many others were demoralised and defeated.
General Slim succesfully defended the Brma road and prevented invasion into India proper, he marshalled his command and kept the India independance movement from gaining support(this was vital as they were prepared to aid the Japanese)
He turned the Japanese around and injected self-belief into his forces who up to then had known nothing but defeat at the hands of the Japs.
He was able to coordinate soldiers of many cultures effectively something that few military commanders succeed in doing.

Not for nothing is the Far East Army(12th) known as the forgotten army yet they beat the Japs in the Jjungle and on what they had made their own turf.

On top of all this he was a man who analysed his own failings and systematically put the lessons learned to good use, he could identify the abilities of his junior staff and knew where to put them to be at their most effective.
Try this link http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/irc/amsc/amsc1/040.html

I had an uncle who fought during the retreat and the advance who had nothing but admiration for him.

5

I would have to say Ho Chi Minh in response to all time. I mean he fought off the Americans, and gave America the “vietnam syndrome” up until this day. OF course he had guns, Shaka only had spears.

6

Actually, Oldscratch, it was General Giap who was the military commander of the communist Vietnamese forces who defeated both the Americans and the French, so he might claim that mantle. Besides, Uncle Ho died in 1968, I think.

Other underrated commanders include:
Zhukov of the Red Army
Guderian of the Wermacht
Chennault of the AVG

7

How about Benedict Arnold. The guy was brilliant. If he hadn’t disobeyed orders and led the charge at the Battle of Saratoga, the war might have been lost.

All people remenber him for is his treachery.

Peace

8

I’ll bite. Hannibal is my pick. He gets a bad rep for relying on unreliable elephants and losing most of them crossing the Alps at that. And he was eventually defeated and committed suicide while Carthage was stomped into dust. But he did invade the Roman Empire and occupied Italy for a full fifteen years, beating up Roman forces regularly.

9

Um, do you mean the same Shaka Zulu from the TV-movie from the 80’s with the great abs? He was killed in 1828. Wasn’t the battle of Isandhlwanda was in 1879?

10

Ok, time for my input.
See, you’ve got some interesting factors at work here, speed of movement, general standard of the time, et cetra. So, I’m gonna have to put down General Leonovus, who commanded the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. The bees are in the what now? When Sparta refused to give into the Persians, Darius mobilized his massize 500,000 man plus army and declared war on Sparta. We all know the Spartans have this fierce military background, and should have had a huge standing army, so why was this such a brilliantly fought battle. Let’s just say Sparta was unlucky. It was the equivalent of Ramadon, and the monks wouldnot allow the warriors to fight. So this Leonovus took the king’s 300 man body guard and set off to destroy the combined armies of Asia. And he did. Using that whole shield and spear tactics (hey, Zulu had those , and he couldn’t take down 20,000 or fewer British? Bah!), he ruthlessly cut his way through the Persian army. They went in, and simply could not hit anything.
Big deal, you say, any general could have commanded those crack troops, they’d do all the work themselves. Not so simple, actually. You’re outnumberd at least 1500 to one. You try keeping your nerve. He was rational in his strategy. He used his reserves correctly, and knew that he could not rationally expect to destroy his enemy. Instead, he scared the bejezus into them, and killed a disgusting amount.
But enouh about him, I’ve got some others to name:
Shaka Zulu: This guy was clever than you give him credit- he disigned a military system, more or less from Scratch. He set up the whole basis of organization that allowed the Zulu’s to mass the numbers of warriors that they did.
Arnold: I’d forget about Saratoga, look back to '75 and the seige of Boston. It was those guns he grabbed at Ticonderoga that really saved the colonists.
Hmm…Guderian…interesting fellow, brilliant armor tactician, stratagician, and designer, but all together to well known to deserve the title “most underrated” So I’d rule him out… but there’ve got to be others, right? Hmm…Gimme a minute to check the spelling…Turrenne! That guy was totally the mac of generalship. I have no idea, by the way, who he is or what he did. All I know is that Napolean had enormous respect for him, and so I assume he was skilled. I don’t know who he is- that’s how underrated the guy is!

~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”

11

LBJay:

Hannibal? Underrated?

I haven’t ever read or heard of him being disparaged.

IMO- Hannibal Barca is the best of the best.

Although he placed himself behind Alexander and King Pyrrhus.
Pax

12

How about Michael Collins? He defeated the black and tans and every turn. Not only was he a great strategist, but a great politician. And he came up with most of the terrorist tactics used today.

13

This may be confusing underrated with little know but,

The most undeservedly forgotten general of all time was probably Belesarius. Along with Narses the Eunuch, he led the Byzantine armies on an astonishing campaign through africa and Italy, preserving the Byzantine Empire for centuries. He was almost always outnumbered and cut off from any supply routes yet he never lost a battle, IIRC.

For WW2, I’ve gotta agree with Boris B. Mannerheim just doesn’t get the credit he deserves, although this to is probably more because he( and the winter war) is forgotten than underrated. I wonder if the Finns will be putting up any monuments to him now that the U.S.S.R. doesn’t have to be appeased.

Also Daniel’s got a point in bringing up Bradley, who was constantly in Patton’s shadow, yet played the voice of moderation to Patton’s excesses. (Not that Patton wasn’t a superb commander.)

Also Slithy Tove is correct. Shaka Zulu died before the Zulu wars against the British Commenced. However he developed the tactics which the Zulu’s used against the British. There is an excellent Book called The Washing of the Spears on the Zulu wars. I forget the author.

To fly! The dream of man and flightless bird alike! -Some general on the Simpsons

14

If it is underrated we’re talking here, I’m surprised Saddam Hussein hasn’t been mentioned. Seems he is a strategist after all.

15

How about Admiral Halsey in WWII?

16

I don’t have anything to say, guys. I just quoted this to be a self-congratulatory ass.

Your deep sea diving suit is ready, me brave lad.

17

I don’t see how Hannibal, Guderian or Zhukov can be considered underrated, though they were all brilliant. There seems to be some confusion between underrated and underappreciated here. Several of the names mentioned are little known, but I would not say they are underrated by those familiar with their campaigns. To that list of general s I would add Subotai, who is often forgotten in the shadow of Temujin.

As for underrated, I would venture two names: Scipio, who is rarely given enough creit despite his conclusive victory over Hannibal; and Burnsides, who is often actively castigated for comin to an early realization that the union manufacturing base would inevitably outstrip the confederacy’s ability to support multiple armies in the field. He reasoned that all the north needed to do to win the war was to maintain the ability to threaten the southern position (i.e. – do not suffer a spectacular defeat or allow industrial centers to be lost). In its own way, this was a dramatic extension of the Napoleonic emphasis military potential over territory as the key strategic value. Of course, there is no indication that Burnsides approached Napoleon’s brilliance as a tactician or leader of men. And both men suffered from failing to appreciate the importance of their respective political situations.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

18

Actually, it was not Arnold who brought the guns through all that wilderness from Ticonderoga, it was Knox, the 300 lb bookseller who learned everything he knew about warfare from his books. I agree that Arnold was and is overlooked. I also think that had he not turned traitor, he would be known today as one of the biggest heroes of the Revolution.

Arnold felt that he was underappreciated at the time, too. Here he was, a war hero who had all but lost the lost the use of his leg from the battles of Quebec and Saratoga (a battle that he won, and Gates got the credit for, in Arnold’s belief.) But there were other, more personable and wealthier men who were being promoted ahead of him. So he married a young, pretty, and wealthy wife. Who was also a Tory, and a good friend of one Maj. John Andre… So the yanks almost lost West Point and Gen. Washington, only saved because of 2 Patriot militia.