Most Underrated Military Commanders

In the spirit of lists that other people have started, I would like to ask who some of the most underrated military commanders in history are. I am using a pretty broad definition of "underrated" - it can be someone who is usually portrayed as incompetent but who you think was at least decent, or someone who is generally acknowledged as a good commander but who you think was great, or someone who was overshadowed by a contemporary who was roughly equal in skill but got more attention, or someone who you think was really skilled but is overlooked because they lived in a relatively little-known place or period of history.

A few of my suggestions, not in any particular order -

Subedei (Mongols, 13th century) - Everyone has heard of Genghis Khan, but relatively few people know about Subedei, a common warrior from a tribe defeated by Genghis Khan who rose to become the most powerful general in the Mongol forces who was not actually related to Genghis Khan. He was active in campaigns against that conquered northern China, the Khitai of what is now western China, and the Islamic Khwarizm empire. He was the mastermind behind an extraordinary "reconnaissance in force" in the 1220s where a detachment of Mongols moved from the recently conquered provinces of central Asia through much of modern day Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Russia. Along the way they defeated Georgian, Alan, Kipchak, and Russian armies that were equal in size or larger than their own, while moving across a parts of Asia that the Mongols had not traveled through before.

Publius Cornelius Scipio "Africanus" (Roman Republic, 3rd century BC) - Served as an officer in several of the terrible Roman defeats by Hannibal's army in the first years of the second Punic War. Was later put in charge of the Roman forces in Hispania, where he brilliantly outmaneuvered and defeated the Carthaginian forces while convincing many of the native peoples to switch their loyalty from Carthage to Rome. Later he commanded the Roman force that invaded Carthage's home territory in North Africa. He showed his diplomatic skills again by convincing Massinissa, the most influential leader among the native Numidian peoples, to join the side of Rome. At the battle of Zama, his army met Hannibal's head on and achieved the first and only Roman victory over the brilliant Carthaginian commander.

Heraclius (Roman/Byzantine Empire, 7th century) - When the eastern Roman Empire was crumbling away under attacks by the Persians and Avars, he led a force to Constantinople and overthrew the incompetent and cruel Emperor Phocas. After taking the throne himself, he decided slowly rebuilt the strength of the Roman armies even while much of Roman territory was occupied by enemies. Then, he left an adequate force to defend Constantinople itself and took his main army on a series of campaigns in Asia Minor, Armenia, Syria, and Mesopotamia that reversed the tide of the war and defeated the Persians again and again. Along the way he negotiated a successful alliance with the turkish Khazars, who distracted the Persians with an attack of their own. The army and naval forces that he left behind in Constantinople were able to defend the capital against Avar and Persian attack while Heraclius boldly invaded Persian territory. After suffering a number of setbacks, Persian noblemen overthrew and killed their own King who wanted to continue the war, and agreed to a peace that withdrew all remaining Persian forces from Roman territory. Sadly for the Roman Empire, Heraclius failed in attempts to reconcile the divisions between Orthodox and Monophysite Christians, and within a few years after his great victory over the Persians Arab Muslim forces were invading Roman territory. Heraclius was, in contrast to his earlier years, now worn out and demoralized, and his subordinates were defeated again and again by their new Islamic foes. When Heraclius died, the Empire was crumbling again, and this time there was no great leader to step forward and lead a counterattack.
 
Momo Aideed, commander of a faction in the Somali conflict. He performed a classic operation: put your strength on enemy weakness; minimise enemy strength.

US strength: airpower, such as heli-borne troops.

US weakness:
#1reliance on airpower. Because they honour their airmen, when one goes down, they cluster around him. Clustered troops are a wonderful target.
#2 reliance on locals for intel. Because of this, the US could be misdirected.
#3 reluctance to take casualties. Hit them with some casualties, they might go home, and stop interfering in Somali affairs, such as whether Momo Aideed can take over all of Mogadishu.

Thus, his orders: get 1,000 guys together. Direct the troops to one place for a raid. When a chopper shows up, everybody blaze away at it. Someone will hit something and take it down. All the US troops will congregate around the downed craft and pilot. Now, turn your fire down on them. Wipe 'em out. US troops then get withdrawn by nervous politicians.

Or, if US troops don't get withdrawn, they become more aggressive towards the locals to protect themselves, thus earning Momo Aideed more recruits for his private army.

He did it. By causing 17 dead to the USA, he made the world's greatest power withdraw from his shitty little country.

Remember, the mark of a good general is not that he wins a lot of battles. As Clausewitz said, the point of war is to make the enemy do your will. Aideed's war aim: get USA out. One battle, 17 US dead, aim achieved.

Brilliant.

Doubt they'll be studying his tactics at West Point and Duntroon, though.
 
Bertrand du Guesclin, Marshal of France in the 1380s. Figured out guerilla warfare and got medieval, French knights to do it. That's a simplification, but he was easily the most effective French commander of the Hundred Years' War before Joan of Arc because he was willing to get down and dirty.

George Thomas, Union general 1861-65. First to use repeating rifles and cavalry (Nashville, 1864), with which he was the first general on either side to annihilate an enemy army in battle (Hood was left with some 2000 men to surrender, out of an army of 40,000). Fought Nashville with the dregs of the Union Army. Conquered East Tennessee in 1862 (that territory was given up by Rosecrans).
 

Redbeard

Banned
Schwarzenberg: Austrian commander of the allied main army from autumn 1813-1814. Kept together the alliance and three monarchs at distance, and successfully lead the main section of Leipzig. Contributed more to Napoleons fall than any other single person.

Radetzky: Chief of Staff to Schwarzenberg, main responsible for the strategy of avoiding Napoleon while thrashing his subordinates - until strong enough for the big battle. Meant co-ordinating armies to a degree not seen before. Schwarzenberg/Radetzky had before Leipzig laid a battle plan that had good chance of trapping Napoleon, but this was ruined by the Zar's interferrence.

Klenau: Austrian Armycorps commander, IV AC at Leipzig. Fought splendidly at the right flank of the allied main army at Leipzig.

Prinz Eugen: Is much put in the shadow of Marlborough, but is a splendid commander of his own.

Alanbrooke: Without him the allies had jumped into stupid adventure after stupid adventure - until finally giving up.

Eisenhower: Did a job not unlike Schwarzenbergs.

Jellicoe: OK he's naval, but I can't resist mentioning him. A few years before Jutland it was considered impossible to lead fleets of more than a few handfuls of BB's. Jellicoe superbly handled many times that number, and was only limited by the failings of his subordinates and a very skilled opponent (Gefechtskertvendung). I not at least admire him resisting the temptation of risking everything to gain some glory. He also was the last great naval commander of a time when the Admiral stood on the bridge actually seeing his fleet.


Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Special award

I think I would like to introduce a special category, survival capacity

Winner: General Vincenz Müller, (1894-1961)

Junior officer in the First World War,

during Weimar officer in the staff of Gen. (later Chancellor and Nazi victim) Kurt v. Schleicher,
Cheif of Staff of 17th army 1940-43, roup in ww2,
later Ltn. General in the (GDR´s) NVA;
Deputy Secretary of Defense of the GDR.
 
Ivan Chernyakovsky of the Soviet army.He played a considerable part in the final conquest of Berlin,but he's not nearly as famous as,say,Zhukov or Koniev.
 
Hermann Balck. Started WW2 as commander of infantry regiment, ended it as army commander.

Abbas Dowran. Probably best air strategist IRIAF had. And hell of a pilot as well.
 
aktarian said:
Hermann Balck. Started WW2 as commander of infantry regiment, ended it as army commander.

Abbas Dowran. Probably best air strategist IRIAF had. And hell of a pilot as well.

They really ARE underrated--this is the first I've heard of either one of them.
 
From the ACW, I would pick two: Buford and Longstreet. Buford pretty much guaranteed a Union win at Gettysburg by holding out against great odds on the first day. Longstreet was probably a better tactician than Lee, realizing full well just how deadly firearms had become and preferring to fight from a defensive position, making the enemy come to you at a disadvantage. It's odd that on the Union side (until Grant came along), the subordinates were so good (Buford, Hancock, Reynolds, Chamberlain, Sherman) while the top leadership was so bad....
 
My choices

I like Du Guesclin and Subedei.

I would start with Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, El Grand Capitan. Only lost one battle in his campaigns in Spain and Italy against the Moors and the French. Largely responsible for the Spanish infantry being the finest in Europe in the 15th and early 16th centuries.

The 17th century French marshals Turenne, Conde and Luxembourg. Responsible for French military dominance between the Thirty Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession. Not well known because most of their work was between these two better known wars.

Garnet Wolseley, the "very model of a modern Major-General". Responsible, along with Cardwell, for the modernization of the British Army. So attentive to logistics that a well-organized operation was referred to as "all Sir Garnet". Successfully commanded expeditions in Canada, against the Ashanti and the Egyptians.
 
Basil II Bulgaroktonos
Heraclius
Subedei
Rokossovsky
Longstreet
Narses
Prince Eugen
Benedict Arnold (more unappreciated than under-rated)
 
Chef Kyle said:
Momo Aideed, commander of a faction in the Somali conflict. He performed a classic operation: put your strength on enemy weakness; minimise enemy strength.

US strength: airpower, such as heli-borne troops.

Doubt they'll be studying his tactics at West Point and Duntroon, though.


The US had more strengths than that! I'd add these also

-Firepower
-Super disciplined soldiers that couldnt be dislodged from a position short of running out of ammunition.

But in the end it didnt matter much as you pointed out. Dont know about West Pointers studying the Battle of the Mog. I do know the US special ops community takes it real seriously though.
 
John Tzimisces - defeated Russians, and Caliphs of both Baghdad and Cairo within a short reign of only six years. Had he lived for a few more years, the Middle East could have been very different.

Fabius - A great example of the general who used the enemy's weakness for his own advantage, exhausting Hannibal's troops and causing the latter's support to slowly fall away while the Roman army was continuously supplied and reinforced.

Alexander Suvorov - the only general Napoleon was genuinely afraid of.
 
Mike Collins said:
The US had more strengths than that! I'd add these also
[snip]
But in the end it didnt matter much as you pointed out.

And that's the point. A good commander maximises his strengths, minimises his weaknesses, and minimises enemy strengths, and maximiseses their weaknesses. A good way of minimising enemy strength is to render it irrelevant. Having superior firepower - from the air - becomes irrelevant in an urban combat, as the Germans experienced at Stalingrad, and the Russians at Grozny, etc. Let's be glad the USA didn't take those kinds of casualties.

Inflicted 17 casualties, and the USA went home. After one battle. The only better he could have done is to make the USA go home without fighting a battle at all.

Dont know about West Pointers studying the Battle of the Mog. I do know the US special ops community takes it real seriously though.

Well, so long as someone takes it seriously. How many times do we have to be taught the same lesson in blood? Well, I suppose between Agincourt and WWI it was six hundred years of cavalry charging across open ground with people firing ranged weapons at them... sigh.
 
Bulgaroktonos said:
Basil II Bulgaroktonos
Heraclius
Subedei
Rokossovsky
Longstreet
Narses
Prince Eugen
Benedict Arnold (more unappreciated than under-rated)

On your Byzantine list, I would agree with Narses, don't think Heraklios is particularly underrated (unknown, perhaps, but he is generally regarded as one of the greatest Byzantine commanders), and Basil II is horrendously OVERrated. A plodding general, it took him a generation to subdue the Bulgars, unlike John, who did it in a single campaign. If he hadn't drained the empire with his endless wars and made the unforgivable catastrophic error of failing to produce an heir, I'd wager there would still be a Byzantine Empire today.
 
Top