Just got to thinking about this from another thread.
My pick is Don Juan of Austria, and I think he's hard to beat for top place.
Bastard son of an emperor who was raised without knowing his heritage, he becomes a member of the royal household of his half-brother Philip II of Spain. While barely an adult he leads the Holy League fleet to one of the most stunning and important victories in history at Lepanto. Basically says to the Turks, "Hey! Nice fleet! I'll be taking that now." He doubles the power of the Spanish Fleet, and starts the Ottomans on their long, slow march out of Europe.
He wins some battles in Flanders, but dies soon, still at a young age. Its an interesting question what would have happened to the rest of the 16th Century had he lived.
Also a very interesting character on a personal level. Yes, he is the Don Juan all the love stories refer to. At the same time, he is an ardent Catholic.
A great general and admiral, and a man of two worlds.https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/7539811
Among other things, he was probably Philip's top pick for commander of the Armada Catholica, and was a very different man than the Duke of Medina Sidonia. That England would have survived him is probably not a good bet.
James Gavin, initially of the 82nd Airborne in WW2 and then brought in to clear up the mess left by that megalomaniac lunatic MacArthur in Korea.
I know he didn't give the UN a glorious victory or anything like that, but given the situation he was put in he did all that could be expected and kept most of his troops alive
Skinflint Games wrote: James Gavin, initially of the 82nd Airborne in WW2 and then brought in to clear up the mess left by that megalomaniac lunatic MacArthur in Korea.
I know he didn't give the UN a glorious victory or anything like that, but given the situation he was put in he did all that could be expected and kept most of his troops alive
Interesting take on an awkward situation.
A lot of "great" generals are really mostly personality, and IMHO, that describes MacArthur. His greatness, and I will grant him some, was largely in keeping the casualties in the Pacific relatively low, and as a publicity figure for the American public.
In Italy, the war was a meat grinder, and the Wehrmacht was slugging it out punch for punch. Despite the success of D-Day, France wasn't much better, and even while their armies were being devoured in Russia, the Nazi's managed some coups in France and the low countries, especially with the Battle of the Bulge (not a victory, but it threw Eisenhower and Montgomery back for a moment) and the scare that Skorzeny put into the public, the press, and, accordingly, Washington and London. They did not want to see Eisenhower assassinated, and, while there were no indications after the war that this was actually the plan, their fear of Skorzeny and he political and press nightmare that would follow if it did happen was keeping everybody in Washington up at night.
The point is that, for all the publicity Hollywood could churn out, the war was close to the point of becoming unpopular. Thus Washington wanted to keep casualties relatively low in t he Pacific (and they were, relatively) and MacArthur seemed to be accomplishing just that.
But the Red Chinese were a totally different enemy than Japan. The USA had finally run into the enemy that could throw more bodies at the enemy's bullets than it could, and four times over.
Interesting, I'll have to think about that one. IMHO, Mac was the man for the job in the Philippines, etc., but when i came to North Korea, not so much.
Gotta throw Charles Martel's name into the hopper, right? Won the battle of Tours, largely due to his leadership, turned back the Umayyads, and expanded the frankish Territories.
Polonius wrote: Gotta throw Charles Martel's name into the hopper, right? Won the battle of Tours, largely due to his leadership, turned back the Umayyads, and expanded the frankish Territories.
Hmm. Great general, certainly, but underrated? I always thought historians agreed that ole' Charles the Hammer wuz wun bad mo fo. Have you run into somebody saying otherwise?
Skinflint Games wrote: James Gavin, initially of the 82nd Airborne in WW2 and then brought in to clear up the mess left by that megalomaniac lunatic MacArthur in Korea.
I know he didn't give the UN a glorious victory or anything like that, but given the situation he was put in he did all that could be expected and kept most of his troops alive
Interesting take on an awkward situation.
A lot of "great" generals are really mostly personality, and IMHO, that describes MacArthur. His greatness, and I will grant him some, was largely in keeping the casualties in the Pacific relatively low, and as a publicity figure for the American public.
In Italy, the war was a meat grinder, and the Wehrmacht was slugging it out punch for punch. Despite the success of D-Day, France wasn't much better, and even while their armies were being devoured in Russia, the Nazi's managed some coups in France and the low countries, especially with the Battle of the Bulge (not a victory, but it threw Eisenhower and Montgomery back for a moment) and the scare that Skorzeny put into the public, the press, and, accordingly, Washington and London. They did not want to see Eisenhower assassinated, and, while there were no indications after the war that this was actually the plan, their fear of Skorzeny and he political and press nightmare that would follow if it did happen was keeping everybody in Washington up at night.
The point is that, for all the publicity Hollywood could churn out, the war was close to the point of becoming unpopular. Thus Washington wanted to keep casualties relatively low in t he Pacific (and they were, relatively) and MacArthur seemed to be accomplishing just that.
But the Red Chinese were a totally different enemy than Japan. The USA had finally run into the enemy that could throw more bodies at the enemy's bullets than it could, and four times over.
Interesting, I'll have to think about that one. IMHO, Mac was the man for the job in the Philippines, etc., but when i came to North Korea, not so much.
I dunno, he certainly had the guts to suggest actually using nuclear weapons to stop the ChiComs from flooding into North Korea. Was that a good idea? Perhaps not, but he wanted to actually WIN the war, not end it in a stalemate leaving the North under the thumb of a brutal dicatorship. I read an interesting trilogy by Harry Turtledove called The Hot War that basically suggests that MacArthur's plan was tried and led to a global nuclear war, and it was pretty scary to think that that might have actually happened.
Polonius wrote:Gotta throw Charles Martel's name into the hopper, right? Won the battle of Tours, largely due to his leadership, turned back the Umayyads, and expanded the frankish Territories.
Definitely not an underrated figure; isn't Charles Martel better known as Charlemagne?
MacArthur: Not saying he was a bad general, I don't think he was, and, as I said, in the Pacific, he was the man for the job.
As to throwing around nukes? Tough call. In my opinion, cooler heads should have and did prevail. Does that mean we don't have problems now as a result? No. I think we do, but given that situation, I'd probably have sided with Harry Truman. One world war was just over. Did we want another so soon?
Long and short, he was a gunnery expert on every level from the rifle to the big guns of battleships. And he was one of the first U.S. Admirals to really understand the enormous advantage radar, and radar-guided gunnery, could bring the U.S. Navy.
And he used that advantage in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, allowing the U.S.S Washington to absolutely paste the IJN Kirashima with 16" gunfire and sink it.
I throw in Admiral Alexander Kolchak, barely known at all, who was de-facto and de-jure ruler of Russia for a couple of years,and had an all-around insane (and short) life, and whose memory was immediately distorted and slandered by the nascent Soviet Union which explains the 'underrated' part. Absolutely a character that would have been hailed as a national hero or even founding father if events turned out differently, relegated to the heap of historic figures nobody likes to talk about much because it's embarrassing in your day-to-day dealings (several western powers supported Kolchak, a fact they very much downplayed once they had to deal with his enemies regularly).
pelicaniforce wrote: Blücher, but not the Prussian one. Vassili Blücher the Soviet general who founded Whampoa military academy where guomindang and pla officers trained
Speaking of Whampoa, Chiang Kai-shek gets a raw deal as a general. His encirclement campaigns utterly destroyed the Chinese Red Army and the Long March would have accomplished nothing if the Japanese hadn't invaded and forced a Second United Front.
Two other candidates: Francisco Franco, who overcame considerable odds to win the Spanish Civil War (read my book about it) and George Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga and the only commander - North or South - who actually annihilated an enemy field army during the American Civil War. He died in 1870 and was a loyal Virginian, which meant no one was there to build a legend around him.
Somehow from an oligarchical family, a degeneration of local Landsgemeinde democracy and shouldn't have been liked, yet manages to actually do good including massive reforms in education and economy and engratiate himself by the local populus got elected multiple times.
Not only that, singlehandedly carries more or less reforms through to turn subjects into fully fledged citizens, managing to make them join your resistance to the french puppet regime during the invasion of directory france against the old confederacy.
Casually beeing outnumbered 2:1 and still putting up a better fight than the far mightier Bern. To the point that you are not forced to completly capitulate, aka you are not getting forcefully disarmed. Allowing central switzerland to resist the Helvetic Republic fiercly on multiple occaisions and the locals to help out the austrians and russians.
Consequently after being shortly imprisoned carrying the federalist party in the helvetic republic on your back and in opposition to the centralist regime, launching a coup d etat to prevent Napoleon to cut off valais form switzerland, getting couped and then casually launching another revolt (stecklikrieg, or basically wooden club war) against the puppet regime unifying literally every single swiss party and canton (which considering how hillariously fragmented swiss politics were is nuts ) doing so not only as a "reactionary" conservative but also as a catholic which is a minority. Forcing Napoleon to declare the act of mediation and by extention win/liberate switzerland, kinda sorta.
Maybee not the best in the field, even though considering what he could call upon were either former swiss mercenaries in the service of the french royal army which ranged from guard type regiments in a minority to ehh lineinfantry in quality or Landsturmtype / cantonal militiaforces is impressive.
In the north, yes. Longstreet is still largely hated in the South and considered a traitor to the Confederate cause and a major contributor to their ultimate loss. It'll probably remain that way until the lionization of Bobby Lee ends and people finally recognize that he was mostly average.
chaos0xomega wrote: In the north, yes. Longstreet is still largely hated in the South and considered a traitor to the Confederate cause and a major contributor to their ultimate loss. It'll probably remain that way until the lionization of Bobby Lee ends and people finally recognize that he was mostly average.
That makes him unpopular, but not underrated.
Another factor is that he was always a subordinate commander. That limited the scope of either what he could do, for good or ill.
pelicaniforce wrote: Blücher, but not the Prussian one. Vassili Blücher the Soviet general who founded Whampoa military academy where guomindang and pla officers trained
Speaking of Whampoa, Chiang Kai-shek gets a raw deal as a general. His encirclement campaigns utterly destroyed the Chinese Red Army and the Long March would have accomplished nothing if the Japanese hadn't invaded and forced a Second United Front.
Two other candidates: Francisco Franco, who overcame considerable odds to win the Spanish Civil War (read my book about it) and George Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga and the only commander - North or South - who actually annihilated an enemy field army during the American Civil War. He died in 1870 and was a loyal Virginian, which meant no one was there to build a legend around him.
Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.
Charles Martel definitely isn't underrated but he is probably not as famous as you'd think he would be given the monumental effect he had on human history.
I think it's also fair to note that Longstreet was one of the Confederacy's best generals, but his shift after the war largely led future generations of rampant Southern Apologists to dismiss and diminish his talents and efforts.It's especially heartbreaking when you look into it and get the strong impression Picket's Charge, and being forced to give that order, seemed to completely break the man. He never fully forgave Lee for making him do it. He became embittered to the entire Confederate enterprise in the aftermath.
And donkey-cave apologists love trying to shift the blame for Gettysburg onto his shoulders when the entire loss really rests squarely on Lee's shoulders. Longstreet is right up there with Grant as a brilliant general Southerners and apologists would bend over backwards and do cartwheels to sully as much as possible. Grant has seen a massive rehabilitation of his image that has only grown since the 1980s. Longstreet is still lagging. He's famous, but you'd be surprised how often he only gets credit or reference before Gettysburg and then is conveniently forgotten about.
Another commonly unrecognized figure;
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the primary military mind behind the battlefield success of future emperor Augustus Ceasar and one of the greatest generals Rome ever produced. Generally overlooked in the popular mind in favor of Augustus, who probably never wouild have become Emperor if not for Agrippa.
Alcibiades of Athens is also a pretty wacky and hilarious entertaining guy. Usually successful when given military command and the freedom to act on his own initiative. Politically, he was too eccentric a personality even for Athens.
On the other side of the world, Fa Zheng, a brilliant military strategist who was the main architect of Liu Bei's most successful military campaign during his war with Cao Cao. Chinese History and popular memory would do him a massive disservice in centuries to follow by reassigning the credit for his brilliance to Zhuge Liang rendering Fa Zheng a largely overlooked and unknown historical figure.
And now for the most controversial name I can think of;
Xerxes of Persia.
Often given a very bum rap by the Greeks and Classical history, discard a lot of post-Persian War Greek nostalgia goggles, and Xerxes is arguably one of the greatest leaders of the Classical World if not the greatest before Alexander the Great. It's amazing he could mount an expedition as far as Greece and he fought multiple rebellions in his lifetime that mostly kept the Persian Empire whole. From his own perspective, he probably never saw the defeat at Platae and Salamis as significant because 1) he wasn't there, 2) his foremost goal was to pull off a big show and get his realm to do what he said, and 3) burn Athens to the ground in retribution for the burning of Sardis and secure Persian control of the Ionian Greek cities. He achieved all those goals, then turned right around and reconquered Eygpt on the other side of his Empire.
It's really only in the aftermath plus a few hundred years history would twist itself around and massively inflate the Greek victory in the Persian Wars to a significance far beyond anything Xerxes himself probably assigned to the conflict.
You don't hear much about Russian generals here in the west.
Alexander Suvorov (undefeated in battle) was a very interesting character, as was Bagration (excellent defensive general). Suvorov v napoleon is one of the great historical 'what ifs'.
Back in the day, the check.general Jan zizka did some extraordinary things too, more notable since his armies were often untrained peasants.
I'd also add the vandal/roman stilicho as an interesting but relatively unknown general, though he was more politician than general.
Deadnight wrote: You don't hear much about Russian generals here in the west.
Alexander Suvorov (undefeated in battle) was a very interesting character, as was Bagration (excellent defensive general). Suvorov v napoleon is one of the great historical 'what ifs'.
Back in the day, the check.general Jan zizka did some extraordinary things too, more notable since his armies were often untrained peasants.
But Suvorov was defeated? Not only that but his Alpine campaign was a disaster in regards to losses even though he had massive local support atleast in the innerswiss regions.
Deadnight wrote: You don't hear much about Russian generals here in the west.
Alexander Suvorov (undefeated in battle) was a very interesting character, as was Bagration (excellent defensive general). Suvorov v napoleon is one of the great historical 'what ifs'.
Back in the day, the check.general Jan zizka did some extraordinary things too, more notable since his armies were often untrained peasants.
But Suvorov was defeated? Not only that but his Alpine campaign was a disaster in regards to losses even though he had massive local support atleast in the innerswiss regions.
Not defeated in battle. :p (though it gets a bit greyer if you dig into it- couple of battles in the seven years war were defeats, apparently but im not sure qbout his rank?)
Appalling situation, isolated, surrounded by French, other russian forces had been defeated he retreated(though he never called it that, hehe). Then he died a few short months after.
Still an interesting character, if for no other reason than fairly unknown here in the west.
Not defeated in battle. :p (though it gets a bit greyer if you dig into it)
Appalling situation, isolated, surrounded by French, other russian forces had been defeated he retreated(though he never called it that, hehe). Then he died a few short months after.
Still an interesting character, if for no other reason than fairly unknown here in the west.
He got defeated by all but name at the Teufelsbrücke in the Schöllenenschlucht. The frenchies needed to buy time and that they did successfully. So succesfully they completely denied him shipping at the Vierwaldstädtersee and casually curbstomped the coalition at the second battle of Zürich. Then later on as you stated he had to hightail it and only got away because of the blunders of his two opponents.
Also i wouldn't say that he isn't remembered in the west unless you apply that moniker to solely an english speaking sphere. Between museums locally and a 12m Granite cross in memory of his that is more than Reding got for his efforts. Granted Reding in typical innerswiss and especially Schwyzer attitude didn't want to do anything with the proto-federal nation after the act of mediation so decided to not take them up on their multiple offers to join that confederational government but then again he was a man of principle and his principle more or less was: Landsgemeinde sovereignity and faith.
Granted part of why Reding didn't get anything at all in regards to memory is because he was from a Häupter family. Innerswiss Häupter ( = heads, familial heads, actually more aptly described as something between a patrician, aristocrat but mostly oligarchical in nature) have an somewhat ambivalent historical conscioussness and trackrecord associated to them. Basically their social strata is a failure / oligarchisation of the Landsgemeinde and partially responsible for the quick collapse of the old confederacy during the french invasion. For one they firmly fall into the category of "your betters" and the usual mechanics of innerswiss political and historical conscioussness isn't particulary nice to "your betters" be they people that want to create a nation or just merely want to govern you. Hence why most of them were broadly disliked if tolerated because you require educated people and there weren't other people to fill that category otoh, you get people like him which basically represented everything the Häupter should've been from a common citizens perspective and in regards to moral standards the Häupter claimed to fullfill.
Also i wouldn't say that he isn't remembered in the west unless you apply that moniker to solely an english speaking sphere.
You raise an interesting point. Bear in mind what follows is partly in jest.
In my defense, the anglosphere tends to be rather dismissive (or oblivious) of anything that isn't done in english or using english as a first language. I mean, it's understandable with all these uppity forinners on the continent that it's obviously not proper.
Obviously I'm.guilty in assuming this perspective (ie suvorov being 'unknown' etc) was common across the west as as a whole - clearly not. I'd genuinely never heard of suvorov until a couple of years ago falling down a wiki hole into napoleons march into russia.
I get the impression folks on the continent would fill the history books with very different things given the chance*. Except said books are not in English so we'll just ignore them. :p
*for example I've felt for years there was a massive emphasis on the 'western' campaigns in ww2 or the 'big' events and 'bullet points'. Battle of Britain, Dunkirk, d-day, stalingrad, kursk, Rommel and North Africa. You very rarely see anything from outside the anglosphere eg operation bagration which bled army group centre white in a couple of weeks.
Obviously I use ww2 as an 'obvious' example but I feel the same about others. I'm rather fascinated by the eastern front in ww1 buy since so little is written in english or its rather niche, folks are oblivious to.it.
Also i wouldn't say that he isn't remembered in the west unless you apply that moniker to solely an english speaking sphere.
You raise an interesting point. Bear in mind what follows is partly in jest.
In my defense, the anglosphere tends to be rather dismissive (or oblivious) of anything that isn't done in english or using english as a first language. I mean, it's understandable with all these uppity forinners on the continent that it's obviously not proper.
Obviously I'm.guilty in assuming this perspective (ie suvorov being 'unknown' etc) was common across the west as as a whole - clearly not. I'd genuinely never heard of suvorov until a couple of years ago falling down a wiki hole into napoleons march into russia.
I get the impression folks on the continent would fill the history books with very different things given the chance*. Except said books are not in English so we'll just ignore them. :p
*for example I've felt for years there was a massive emphasis on the 'western' campaigns in ww2 or the 'big' events and 'bullet points'. Battle of Britain, Dunkirk, d-day, stalingrad, kursk, Rommel and North Africa. You very rarely see anything from outside the anglosphere eg operation bagration which bled army group centre white in a couple of weeks.
Obviously I use ww2 as an 'obvious' example but I feel the same about others. I'm rather fascinated by the eastern front in ww1 buy since so little is written in english or its rather niche, folks are oblivious to.it.
I think it's less the "foreigners" and more the fact that the average person doesn't need to or even CAN understand other peoples history or concepts. Especially when language starts to become an hinderance in actually understanding the matter at hand. An exemple: "Mehren" has a swiss german meaning and one in "normal" german, fundamentally the word means to increase something even according to the oxford dictionary which coppies the german Duden which dubs it also as out of fashion and points it out as a form of the verb "vermehren" which also means increasing. In a swiss german context, it's a word used to name the voting and election acts since the early modern period and is still in use. And that is "the same language".
F.e another far more complex academic exemple is the frankfurt school and Adorno and his negative universalism being used to justify the disavowal of universalist theories and reinforcement or supremacy of particularist structures in morals and academic history despite not actually making that point but rather that NEITHER enforcement leads to an accurate assessment. Granted his exemple is complex and written in the typical overcomplex german academic language which has a history of its own as to why it developped such a "high-language".
For WW1 and the eastern front further problematic is the fact that with Austira-hungary and russia you got two massivly multi-cultural and ethnical entities fighting it out and by extention source work especially for the K you K empire is basically requires an multilingual language study beforehand, f.e. if you isolate galicia-lodomoria you are confronted with: Polish, ukrainian, jiddish, german, slowak, czeck and romanian. And both entities basically collapsed rather explosivly and had inheritors that were sometimes very short existences, or were in violent confrontations with their neighbours meaning that sources may well got destroyed, looted, lost, etc.
I think it's less the "foreigners" and more the fact that the average person doesn't need to or even CAN understand other peoples history or concepts. Especially when language starts to become an hinderance in actually understanding the matter at hand.
You'd be surprised. The 'islander' mentality is strong here; there is a not-insignificant strain of suspicion towards the continent and beyond, and at-worst outright xenophobia for forinners and not-english over here.
There is a certain entitlement, for want of a better word, in the English speaking world where its expected you'll speak our language for us, but to demand we speak yours is being cheeky, frankly. Its the reason english abroad are 'expats' but any forinners over here are 'immigrants' with the associated suspicion.
You might dismiss ot as just a handful of bigots but sadly its more than a handful. Anyways I digress...
For WW1 and the eastern front further problematic is the fact that with Austira-hungary and russia you got two massivly multi-cultural and ethnical entities fighting it out and by extention source work especially for the K you K empire is basically requires an multilingual language study beforehand, f.e. if you isolate galicia-lodomoria you are confronted with: Polish, ukrainian, jiddish, german, slowak, czeck and romanian. And both entities basically collapsed rather explosivly and had inheritors that were sometimes very short existences, or were in violent confrontations with their neighbours meaning that sources may well got destroyed, looted, lost, etc.
That's why I find it so.fascinating. I'd love to read/know more, you know? Like ww1 officially ended in 1918 - truth be told conflicts raged for another, what?.five? Six years? Especially across Poland/ukraine/Russia. Greece too
NapoleonInSpace wrote: Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.
Formidable, to say the least.
Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.
That's why I find it so.fascinating. I'd love to read/know more, you know? Like ww1 officially ended in 1918 - truth be told conflicts raged for another, what?.five? Six years? Especially across Poland/ukraine/Russia. Greece too
There are a lot of excellent autobiographic works from that period of time, that do a lot to allow for some sort of 'cracked caleidoscope' look at things, which is about the only thing you can realistically manage if you don't want to invest significant amounts of time into seriously studying the era and area. Galicia features prominently in Albert Lorenz's Schattenreiter(memoirs of an austrian upper-middleclass youth that does his military service in KuK cavalry in Galicia just before WW1), Isaac Babel's Odessa Stories delivers slice-of-life stories between jewish, ukrainian and other ethnic underclasses in zarist and early-USSR Odessa on the eve of the pogroms, Salica Landmann did a delightful little book about Jewish Jokes that is about 300 pages, 60 of which constitue the best introduction to the jewish mentalitly ca. 1750-1940 in eastern europe, as well as their general mode of life and specific problems they were confronted with, that i've ever read. Joseph Roth's Job is another dramatic tale that concerns jews that were forced to emmigrate from Galicia; Stefan Zweigs The world of Yesterday is an autobiographic report about interwar Austria, mostly Vienna, with both the highlights of culture and ceremony and the low-lights of rising antisemitism and nazism. A text that got something of a reputation and is constantly in print because it's very much a core text in right-wing revolutionary circles until today is Ernst von Salomon's The Outlaws which presents his own (fictionalized) accounts of his time as a Freikorps fighter in the Balticum and Poland after the 'official' end of WW1.
NapoleonInSpace wrote: Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.
Formidable, to say the least.
Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.
Don't forget Franco had Nazi Germany's support in the form of the Condor Legion, and was quite willing to commit atrocities in order to win (Guernica comes to mind). Frankly, the fact that Franco took three years to win the civil war when he had control of the majority of the Spanish military at the onset does not speak kindly to his abilities as a general, and his fascist regime surviving WW2 isn't surprising in the slightest, as he was never involved in the war. The civil war ended months before Germany invaded Poland, and Franco spent the entire time consolidating his hold on Spain and rebuilding everything he'd destroyed in the process of taking over.
He was a piece of gak, not very good at what he did (like most fascists), and the Spanish Space Program is to be commended for ending his regime.
Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
I'd like to refer you to my book on the topic to address this in full, but a few brief points:
The Republic had a commanding advantage at the start of the war in terms of troops, weapons, money and international recognition and threw it all away. The majority of all arms, Army, Civil Guard, Border Guards, and Assault Police remained loyal, as did almost all of the Air Force and Navy.
If you total up all arms and weapons, the balance was heavily in the Republic's favor. They received more foreign aircraft than the Nationalists (some French, some American, mostly Soviet), and enjoyed a crushing superiority in armor. The Nationalists got useless Italian tankettes and Panzer Is, none of which could do more than scratch the paint on the armor of the Republic's T-26s and BT-5s.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.
One of Franco's great political achievements was bringing disparate groups like the Falange and the Requetes into a workable alliance without alienating the middle class.
The Republic was a hot mess, and Franco capitalized on that, as every good commander should do. Unlike the Republic, he could trust his subordinates to do their jobs and didn't have to have the NKVD sending commissars out to shoot people. After the initial frenzy of shooting prisoners for "treason," Franco also realized that treating prisoners well meant that many would switch sides rather than sit in a camp. He understood that both sides used conscription, and conscripts didn't really choose their side. When he conquered northern Spain in 1937, not only did he gain the iron and steel industries, he added 70,000 troops to his ranks.
Another factor in his success was his superior logistics, which allowed sustained offensive operations. The Republic could never manage to do this.
It's really interesting if you dig into it. The side that used the total conformist, cookie-cutter unit organization was the Republic. The Nationalists used a much more flexible organization of mixed battalions. Nationalist divisions were often tailored for special tasks, and were an eclectic mix of conscript regulars, Spanish Foreign Legionnaires, Moroccan regulares and some Falange militia. In fact, piecing together Nationalist unit organization was a really hard tasks since so few historians actually bothered to look into it.
Two other points about Franco. The guy understood the importance of leadership, and created accelerated training programs for officer candidates as well as NCOs, giving his forces a qualitative edge down to the company level.
The other was that he never took a step back. (Okay Belchite, but it was a tiny loss.) The unyielding, inexorable Nationalist advance is one reason why people assume the war was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't, but Franco was able to make it look like it was.
NapoleonInSpace wrote: Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.
Formidable, to say the least.
Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.
With all due respect, I think that shows a woeful misunderstanding of how the Communists actually work. Who did the Bolsheviks in Russia have to turn to except each other? All the same problems existed for them there, The Orthodox church was a power far more deeply entrenched than Catholicism even in Spain. Other nations couldn't effectively invade Russia. The borders were much farther away from the action. The Russo-Japanese War was a problem, but Moscow was in no danger of being overrun by Tokyo.
The Reds did what they have always done, and continue to do: Work on the minds of the youth, and Spain of that era was no picnic for the Spanish.
NapoleonInSpace wrote: Franco was an amazing figure in a lot of ways. He ousted the communists in Spain when that really should have been impossible. He drove Hitler to fret that he never again wanted to face Franco at the negotiating table again, and he survived the war as an independent power without ever joining the allies.
Formidable, to say the least.
Not sure where the notion that outsitting the communists was a challenge when the governments of Spain had been unstable and unpopular, which is exactly why the Civil War kicked off in the first place. The Nationalist forces were primarily made of up either experienced soldiers or gendarmes while the Republicans largely consisted of volunteer militias. The international support the Nationalists received was far superior, especially from the Italians, and had the benefit of being explicit rather than with the Soviets who attempted to hide much of their involvement in the war.
The Republicans were also far less unified than the Nationalists, as the latter's composite parties all had at least one idea in common, the preservation and continuance of Catholicism in Spain, while the Republicans were made up of parties with often radically different ideologies such as communism and anarchism. This division was furthered by the NKVD who would assassinate those deemed a threat to Stalin's regime in Spain. The acts of the Stalinist Spanish were what soured George Orwell towards communism and Stalin.
Don't forget Franco had Nazi Germany's support in the form of the Condor Legion, and was quite willing to commit atrocities in order to win (Guernica comes to mind). Frankly, the fact that Franco took three years to win the civil war when he had control of the majority of the Spanish military at the onset does not speak kindly to his abilities as a general, and his fascist regime surviving WW2 isn't surprising in the slightest, as he was never involved in the war. The civil war ended months before Germany invaded Poland, and Franco spent the entire time consolidating his hold on Spain and rebuilding everything he'd destroyed in the process of taking over.
He was a piece of gak, not very good at what he did (like most fascists), and the Spanish Space Program is to be commended for ending his regime.
A civil war like the Spanish one is all about hearts and minds, my friend. I suggest you read my post just above this one. I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree, but in the end, Franco was the boss, and nobody ever threw him out. The winner is the winner.
Its lot like the people who call George Washington a joke of a general. Who ended up with the capital of the US named after him? Not Burgoyne or Cornwallis, if memory serves ;-)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptekon wrote: Martel is definitely underrated now. I mean ask the average person on the street who he was.
In fairness, how many of them know who Publius Cornelius Scipio was?
Charles the Hammer and Scipio Africanus are probably (this is me guessing) more commonly known names among English speakers.
Hannibal is definitely more famous than Scipio, though and the general understanding of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages among Americans is pretty shoddy. We don't really teach either in K-12 education so any knowledge of those names comes about by the nebulous flow of cultural osmosis.
Charles the Hammer and Scipio Africanus are probably (this is me guessing) more commonly known names among English speakers.
Hannibal is definitely more famous than Scipio, though and the general understanding of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages among Americans is pretty shoddy. We don't really teach either in K-12 education so any knowledge of those names comes about by the nebulous flow of cultural osmosis.
I learned both in the library of Burbank Elementary School, but I get what you mean.
I first learnt about Charles Martel in AoE2 (Conqueror's Expansion).
I doubt many people on the street could name many successful early medieval leaders though. In the UK, you would probably struggle to get more than Alfred the Great and maybe Charlemagne or Cnut. The whole era is underrated and still commonly referred to as the Dark Ages.
Don't forget Franco had Nazi Germany's support in the form of the Condor Legion, and was quite willing to commit atrocities in order to win (Guernica comes to mind). Frankly, the fact that Franco took three years to win the civil war when he had control of the majority of the Spanish military at the onset does not speak kindly to his abilities as a general, and his fascist regime surviving WW2 isn't surprising in the slightest, as he was never involved in the war. The civil war ended months before Germany invaded Poland, and Franco spent the entire time consolidating his hold on Spain and rebuilding everything he'd destroyed in the process of taking over.
He was a piece of gak, not very good at what he did (like most fascists), and the Spanish Space Program is to be commended for ending his regime.
he wasn't initially the one to lead the effort.
Spain is Pain to fight a war in. Always was and has been, topographically.
The numbers in the initial coup were actually spread fairly evenly in regards to the army. Neither the Navy nor mainland spain though were in the nationalists favour.
It's only in 38 when the numbers are deciscivly in the nationalist camp.
Just because you don't like the man or the ideology, which is perfectly justifyable, doesn't mean that he didn't do something impressive which far greater men with far better armies for their time failed massivly at.
Not Online!!! wrote: Just because you don't like the man or the ideology, which is perfectly justifyable, doesn't mean that he didn't do something impressive which far greater men with far better armies for their time failed massivly at.
Yep. The correlation of forces didn't swing to the Nationalist side until after the conquest of northern Spain - a disaster for the Republic in terms of arms, supplies and men which swelled the Nationalist ranks.
People forget things like the French border being opened in the spring of 1938, allowing the Republic to build entirely new army to launch the Ebro campaign. A lesser commander might have provoked France into outright intervention (which the Republic desperately wanted).
Oh, and I forgot Guernica. It wasn't a terror bombing. The story about Guernica being an atrocity is propaganda well past its expiration date. Guernica was a legitimate target with a garrison, lay in the route of the Nationalist advance, was home to significant arms plants and commanded a key river crossing. Even the painting is a bit of a lie - Picasso started it before the town was bombed and renamed it to capitalize on the publicity.
Not Online!!! wrote: Just because you don't like the man or the ideology, which is perfectly justifyable, doesn't mean that he didn't do something impressive which far greater men with far better armies for their time failed massivly at.
Yep. The correlation of forces didn't swing to the Nationalist side until after the conquest of northern Spain - a disaster for the Republic in terms of arms, supplies and men which swelled the Nationalist ranks.
People forget things like the French border being opened in the spring of 1938, allowing the Republic to build entirely new army to launch the Ebro campaign. A lesser commander might have provoked France into outright intervention (which the Republic desperately wanted).
Oh, and I forgot Guernica. It wasn't a terror bombing. The story about Guernica being an atrocity is propaganda well past its expiration date. Guernica was a legitimate target with a garrison, lay in the route of the Nationalist advance, was home to significant arms plants and commanded a key river crossing. Even the painting is a bit of a lie - Picasso started it before the town was bombed and renamed it to capitalize on the publicity.
All this has been out there for a while, btw.
Agreed completely. Whatever anyone thinks of the communists, they are masters of propaganda, and always have been.
Adeptekon wrote: My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.
For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?
Anquity was was over, this was late antiquity. For saving the Empire or what was left of it. And facilitation is a matter of perspective, ultimately the ERE was a buffer for the West and a preserver of it's heritage, despite what Edward Gibbon might have to say about it.
Adeptekon wrote: My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.
For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?
Anquity was was over, this was late antiquity. For saving the Empire or what was left of it. And facilitation is a matter of perspective, ultimately the ERE was a buffer for the West and a preserver of it's heritage, despite what Edward Gibbon might have to say about it.
What about basil ii (the great, the 'Bulgar-slayer)
Not Online!!! wrote: he wasn't initially the one to lead the effort.
Spain is Pain to fight a war in. Always was and has been, topographically.
The numbers in the initial coup were actually spread fairly evenly in regards to the army. Neither the Navy nor mainland spain though were in the nationalists favour.
It's only in 38 when the numbers are deciscivly in the nationalist camp.
Franco was the leader of the Nationalists from October 1936, only four months after the war began, and was a core member of the uprising planned by the Nationalists from the very beginning. Any idea that he wasn't an important figurehead for the Nationalists is utter bunk. Even with the Nationalist movement being made up of monarchist restorationists, fascists, and right-wing parties, they were far more unified in their goals of restoring Catholicism in Spain and removing the communists from power. The Republicans were made up of hardcore Stalinists, more moderate socialists, communists, and anarchists with their only uniting goal being the prevention of a Nationalist victory. When the Soviets started sending aid (which ended almost a year into the conflict unlike with the Nationalists supporters) they also sent political agents and the NKVD to suppress or destroy the enemies of Stalin, who were supposed to be allies in the Republican cause.
The army was also heavily on the side of the Nationalists as with most nations, that was where the most conservative and traditionalist members of Spanish society ended up. They also had huge support from the police who were not soldiers but still had discipline and weapons compared to the largely volunteer militias of the Republicans that were only armed after the Nationalists launched their coup. The Navy largely supported the Republican cause but lost its two most modern ships to the Nationalists. The Republicans also held onto all of Spain's airforce, however, it was very outdated and no match for the aircraft supplied by Germany and Italy.
Yes, the Republicans held onto all the major cities of Spain but as I said before the Nationalists received far superior aid from foreign powers with Italy providing the most troops, supplies, and equipment while Germany supplied a smaller but more advanced group, while Portugal supported the Nationalists by allowing the continued flow of arms and supplies from the other fascist powers to the Nationalists.
The opening stages of the conflict were extremely precarious and had the Nationalists organised their coup better or the Republicans armed the citizens as requested then the whole thing might have been over in under a year. But that didn't happen and focussing only on the opening stages of the war is a poor attempt to support the idea that Franco was some kind of underrated general. A united front, superior foreign aid, and a strong core of military or disciplined troops meant the Nationalists had a strong hand during the course of the Spanish Civil War.
Gert wrote: The army was also heavily on the side of the Nationalists as with most nations, that was where the most conservative and traditionalist members of Spanish society ended up. They also had huge support from the police who were not soldiers but still had discipline and weapons compared to the largely volunteer militias of the Republicans that were only armed after the Nationalists launched their coup.
A slim majority of the Army remained loyal, as did two-thirds of the Assault Guards. The Border Police and Civil Guard were evenly split.
The Navy largely supported the Republican cause but lost its two most modern ships to the Nationalists. The Republicans also held onto all of Spain's airforce, however, it was very outdated and no match for the aircraft supplied by Germany and Italy.
The Soviets provided aircraft in approximately equal numbers to those of Italy and Germany combined. The I-15 and I-16 were equal to or superior to anything in the Nationalist air force other than the BF 109 and the dozen or so HE-112s. The BF-109 deployment was capped at three squadrons, so hardly enough to swing an air campaign involving more than 700 aircraft on each side.
Yes, the Republicans held onto all the major cities of Spain but as I said before the Nationalists received far superior aid from foreign powers with Italy providing the most troops, supplies, and equipment while Germany supplied a smaller but more advanced group, while Portugal supported the Nationalists by allowing the continued flow of arms and supplies from the other fascist powers to the Nationalists.
Again, superior in what sense? Russia's 240 tanks surpassed anything the Nationalists could field. Franco adapted to this with close integration of artillery fires, anti-tank guns and airstrikes - as a good general would do.
The opening stages of the conflict were extremely precarious and had the Nationalists organised their coup better or the Republicans armed the citizens as requested then the whole thing might have been over in under a year. But that didn't happen and focussing only on the opening stages of the war is a poor attempt to support the idea that Franco was some kind of underrated general. A united front, superior foreign aid, and a strong core of military or disciplined troops meant the Nationalists had a strong hand during the course of the Spanish Civil War.
The united Nationalist front didn't happen by itself. It did not spontaneously materialize. Franco was instrumental in convincing his fellow generals to name him surpreme leader. He then balanced their contending egos to ensure unity of command.
There is also no readily apparent reason for Carlist loyalists to want to restore an Alphonsist to the throne (the factions had fought a series of civil wars, in fact). It took skill to pull the various disparate elements on the Nationalist side together.
Skill that the Popular Front simply lacked.
More importantly, each side raised 500,000 troops during the course of the war, which was fundamentally transformed from a botched coup and terror raids to conventional warfare on a massive scale. As I wrote above, Franco knew that that the 30,000 Legionnaires were insignificant to win the war (especially after heavy losses on the road to Madrid). He therefore planned for the long haul, creating schools for officers and NCOs, to obtain a tactical edge.
He also created a very effective repair/rework system, so that captured rifles could be refurbished and put into service. He eventually built a functional tank force out off of captured Soviet vehicles.
Put simply, Franco did everything right while the Republic made many mistakes. Part of being a good commander is the ability to capitalize enemy on mistakes, and this he did again and again.
And yes, that made it look like his victory was a foregone conclusion. It absolutely was not.
Adeptekon wrote: My other personal favorite is Heraclius who may not be the greatest, but definitely deserves some credit.
For ending the antiquity and facilitating the Caliphate? That heraclius?
Anquity was was over, this was late antiquity. For saving the Empire or what was left of it. And facilitation is a matter of perspective, ultimately the ERE was a buffer for the West and a preserver of it's heritage, despite what Edward Gibbon might have to say about it.
What about basil ii (the great, the 'Bulgar-slayer)
Not Online!!! wrote: he wasn't initially the one to lead the effort.
Spain is Pain to fight a war in. Always was and has been, topographically.
The numbers in the initial coup were actually spread fairly evenly in regards to the army. Neither the Navy nor mainland spain though were in the nationalists favour.
It's only in 38 when the numbers are deciscivly in the nationalist camp.
Franco was the leader of the Nationalists from October 1936, only four months after the war began, and was a core member of the uprising planned by the Nationalists from the very beginning. Any idea that he wasn't an important figurehead for the Nationalists is utter bunk. Even with the Nationalist movement being made up of monarchist restorationists, fascists, and right-wing parties, they were far more unified in their goals of restoring Catholicism in Spain and removing the communists from power. The Republicans were made up of hardcore Stalinists, more moderate socialists, communists, and anarchists with their only uniting goal being the prevention of a Nationalist victory. When the Soviets started sending aid (which ended almost a year into the conflict unlike with the Nationalists supporters) they also sent political agents and the NKVD to suppress or destroy the enemies of Stalin, who were supposed to be allies in the Republican cause.
The army was also heavily on the side of the Nationalists as with most nations, that was where the most conservative and traditionalist members of Spanish society ended up. They also had huge support from the police who were not soldiers but still had discipline and weapons compared to the largely volunteer militias of the Republicans that were only armed after the Nationalists launched their coup. The Navy largely supported the Republican cause but lost its two most modern ships to the Nationalists. The Republicans also held onto all of Spain's airforce, however, it was very outdated and no match for the aircraft supplied by Germany and Italy.
Yes, the Republicans held onto all the major cities of Spain but as I said before the Nationalists received far superior aid from foreign powers with Italy providing the most troops, supplies, and equipment while Germany supplied a smaller but more advanced group, while Portugal supported the Nationalists by allowing the continued flow of arms and supplies from the other fascist powers to the Nationalists.
The opening stages of the conflict were extremely precarious and had the Nationalists organised their coup better or the Republicans armed the citizens as requested then the whole thing might have been over in under a year. But that didn't happen and focussing only on the opening stages of the war is a poor attempt to support the idea that Franco was some kind of underrated general. A united front, superior foreign aid, and a strong core of military or disciplined troops meant the Nationalists had a strong hand during the course of the Spanish Civil War.
I once again refer to toussaint which has written a book according to himself. And especially the foreign aid bit is laughable considering the soviet aid.
I once again refer to toussaint which has written a book according to himself. And especially the foreign aid bit is laughable considering the soviet aid.
The book is Long Live Death: The Keys to Victory in the Spanish Civil War.
I'm just going to have to disagree with you then. I've read sources that differ from your book and you're obviously going to take that over anything I say.
Gert wrote: I'm just going to have to disagree with you then. I've read sources that differ from your book and you're obviously going to take that over anything I say.
In fairness, Gert, when the assertion seems to center around "Franco was a piece of ..." it seems that the argument is emotionally centered, and it colors everything stated further.
I simply am going to stick with Don Juan of Austria as my favorite Spaniard in this thread. You have a great day.
Truly an amazing commander, and always loyal to the ungrateful emperor that he served so magnificently. I wonder what would have happened if General Plague hadn't beaten the Byzantines. A restored Roman Empire? Not impossible.
Gert wrote: I'm just going to have to disagree with you then. I've read sources that differ from your book and you're obviously going to take that over anything I say.
Well, yes. I've sifted the sources and used the numbers I find reliable. Like most people, I assumed Franco was dragged across the finish line by the Italians and Germans. However, that was not the case. The facts simply don't back it up, and to make that narrative stick, people have to hand-wave a lot of things out of the way. Regrettably, contemporary historians are still pushing these tired tropes, which have long since been debunked.
But let's set that aside, and move onto my second, totally non-controversial choice: Chiang Kai-shek.
Laughing Man wrote: You'll understand if I'm skeptical of the supposed expert who's doing his damnedest to deny literal Nazi warcrimes.
First time dealing with mil-hist authors, i guess Sadly, it's very much par of the course still (for many) to do 'fair evaluations, purely from a military angle, in the interest of open discussion'.
Tsagualsa wrote: I don't know, i liked this thread better when it was about generals that were relatively unknown and nobody tried to play 'spot the fascist'.
Indeed. Lets stick to the topic of most underrated military commanders.
A lot of these feel more like simply unknown rather than underrated. Jan Zizka, for example, is probably a lot less "underrated" in the Czech Republic where he is an important cultural figure, but his impact on the areas that became the Anglosphere is much smaller. However, a passing read of his exploits would immediately reveal his skill in command and I doubt anyone would underrate him who had actually heard of him.
I think we can also look at commanders who were underrated in their own time vs today. Take Admiral Jellicoe- his performance at the Battle of Jutland was lambasted following WWI thanks to the political skill of Beatty. However, nowadays Jellicoe has been largely rehabilitated as an effective-if-cautious admiral and Beatty is now recognised as the actual disaster that probably prevented the Royal Navy devastating the German Navy. Jellicoe was definitely underrated in the 1920's, but is not in the 2020's.
Tsagualsa wrote: First time dealing with mil-hist authors, i guess Sadly, it's very much par of the course still (for many) to do 'fair evaluations, purely from a military angle, in the interest of open discussion'.
We are evaluating people on the primary point of distinction of orchestrating the killing of other people.
We're not evaluating their moral qualities, personal hygiene or taste in music.
If it makes everyone feel better, we can just take the last 100 years off the table, in which case I'm very much in the Belisarius camp.
Tsagualsa wrote: First time dealing with mil-hist authors, i guess Sadly, it's very much par of the course still (for many) to do 'fair evaluations, purely from a military angle, in the interest of open discussion'.
We are evaluating people on the primary point of distinction of orchestrating the killing of other people.
We're not evaluating their moral qualities, personal hygiene or taste in music.
If it makes everyone feel better, we can just take the last 100 years off the table, in which case I'm very much in the Belisarius camp.
Absolutely! All the more so considering the ungrateful emperor and empress on who's behalf he campaigned so magnificently.
Haighus wrote: A lot of these feel more like simply unknown rather than underrated. Jan Zizka, for example, is probably a lot less "underrated" in the Czech Republic where he is an important cultural figure, but his impact on the areas that became the Anglosphere is much smaller. However, a passing read of his exploits would immediately reveal his skill in command and I doubt anyone would underrate him who had actually heard of him.
I think we can also look at commanders who were underrated in their own time vs today. Take Admiral Jellicoe- his performance at the Battle of Jutland was lambasted following WWI thanks to the political skill of Beatty. However, nowadays Jellicoe has been largely rehabilitated as an effective-if-cautious admiral and Beatty is now recognised as the actual disaster that probably prevented the Royal Navy devastating the German Navy. Jellicoe was definitely underrated in the 1920's, but is not in the 2020's.
True. Some of it is how well the play was written and performed, but an awful lot of it might just reflect how well known the theater was where it opened.
I confess I never heard of him. Give us a couple or three lines on what he did? Thx.
If you ever played Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors, you might know him from one of the historical scenarios: he was a korean General and Admiral that was instrumental to beating back the japanese invasion of Korea (He's the dude with the Turtle Ships).
He won several naval battles against the invading Japanese during the Imjin War, where his flotilla was severely outmatched to ridiculous degrees (like 300 ships to 10). It can be argued that his admiralship was one of the larger contributing factors of the eventual Japanese defeat.
Haighus wrote: A lot of these feel more like simply unknown rather than underrated. Jan Zizka, for example, is probably a lot less "underrated" in the Czech Republic where he is an important cultural figure, but his impact on the areas that became the Anglosphere is much smaller. However, a passing read of his exploits would immediately reveal his skill in command and I doubt anyone would underrate him who had actually heard of him.
The "underrated" part is also sort of a misnomer. For example, I could rattle off some Chinese generals and emperors who most Westerners have never heard of, but in absolute terms of *people* who have heard of them, they are very well known in a country with lots and lots of people.
Haighus wrote: A lot of these feel more like simply unknown rather than underrated. Jan Zizka, for example, is probably a lot less "underrated" in the Czech Republic where he is an important cultural figure, but his impact on the areas that became the Anglosphere is much smaller. However, a passing read of his exploits would immediately reveal his skill in command and I doubt anyone would underrate him who had actually heard of him.
The "underrated" part is also sort of a misnomer. For example, I could rattle off some Chinese generals and emperors who most Westerners have never heard of, but in absolute terms of *people* who have heard of them, they are very well known in a country with lots and lots of people.
BertBert wrote: He won several naval battles against the invading Japanese during the Imjin War, where his flotilla was severely outmatched to ridiculous degrees (like 300 ships to 10). It can be argued that his admiralship was one of the larger contributing factors of the eventual Japanese defeat.
Won several battles is a bit of an understatement. He won every battle he ever fought, frequently against superior numbers, and the vast majority of the time without losing a single ship in the process. He also had no naval experience prior to the war.
BertBert wrote: He won several naval battles against the invading Japanese during the Imjin War, where his flotilla was severely outmatched to ridiculous degrees (like 300 ships to 10). It can be argued that his admiralship was one of the larger contributing factors of the eventual Japanese defeat.
Won several battles is a bit of an understatement. He won every battle he ever fought, frequently against superior numbers, and the vast majority of the time without losing a single ship in the process. He also had no naval experience prior to the war.
BertBert wrote: He won several naval battles against the invading Japanese during the Imjin War, where his flotilla was severely outmatched to ridiculous degrees (like 300 ships to 10). It can be argued that his admiralship was one of the larger contributing factors of the eventual Japanese defeat.
Won several battles is a bit of an understatement. He won every battle he ever fought, frequently against superior numbers, and the vast majority of the time without losing a single ship in the process. He also had no naval experience prior to the war.
Don't spoil all the excitement!
It's fine, I left out the political backstabbing and plotting in the Korean court which repeatedly hampered his career, so people will still have the rollercoaster ride of all that!
For anyone interested, the folks at Extra Credits did a series of videos on Yi as part of their Extra History stuff. First one is linked.
One thing I really liked, and they mention it in their Lies video where they go over what they got wrong and what they left out etc. is that when they were looking for sources, it was Yi's own journals which were the most critical of Yi.
Probably doesn’t count, but whichever Absolute Master Of Malicious Compliance that gave the Mongol’s exactly and no more than they demanded for their ill-fated invasion of Japan circa 1274 (I googled the date, don’t haul me over the coals)
Mongols demanded a fleet. And a fleet was constructed. A flat bottomed fleet of ships suited to canals and rivers, and not at all suited to crossing seas or oceans.
Mongols demanded a fleet. And a fleet was constructed. A flat bottomed fleet of ships suited to canals and rivers, and not at all suited to crossing seas or oceans.
That was because China had no interest in crossing seas or oceans but did a huge trade along the canals and rivers. There was some coastal shipping, but even there the Grand Canal was favored because it was secure from piracy.
Fun fact: when Japanese pirates got totally out of hand in a couple of coastal provinces, the Imperial government banned all boats.
Mongols demanded a fleet. And a fleet was constructed. A flat bottomed fleet of ships suited to canals and rivers, and not at all suited to crossing seas or oceans.
That was because China had no interest in crossing seas or oceans but did a huge trade along the canals and rivers. There was some coastal shipping, but even there the Grand Canal was favored because it was secure from piracy.
Fun fact: when Japanese pirates got totally out of hand in a couple of coastal provinces, the Imperial government banned all boats.
And then deported the coastal population inland.
So, not real big on seagoing trade.
In before the inevitable Zheng He side discussion, i guess Probably also a underrated admiral, and one of the bigger 'what if' diversion points for alternative histories.
Tsagualsa wrote: In before the inevitable Zheng He side discussion, i guess Probably also a underrated admiral, and one of the bigger 'what if' diversion points for alternative histories.
The immense wealth of the Empire made overseas exploration a luxury rather than necessity. China's primary threat was internal, with northern nomads coming in second place. Facing both, the Ming court called the fleet home.
From the Chinese perspective, there just wasn't any "there" there.
Europeans, by contrast were "blessed" with a harsher climate, worse soil, less crop production and a geography that made political unity really difficult.
So difficult, that sailing over the western or southern horizons was preferable to leaving things as they were.
You know the blindly fast and successful early Islamic conquests, where those backwater nomads and traders from the Arabian Penninsula came out of nowhere, swallowed the Persian Empire whole and gave the Byzantines a couple centuries of emotional damage?
That was him. And everyone knows it happened, but I'll bet most people couldn't name the man who made a lot it happen.
His role in history has been almost completely swallowed by the religious significance of Mohammed. He's not widely known outside the Arab world where men like Saladin, Abu Bakr, and Baibars are more famous.
But Khalid was the principal ground layer for what would become the Rashidun Caliphate and was one of the men whose personal talent can be truly said to have changed the course of history.
In before the inevitable Zheng He side discussion, i guess Probably also a underrated admiral, and one of the bigger 'what if' diversion points for alternative histories.
In before the inevitable Zheng He side discussion, i guess Probably also a underrated admiral, and one of the bigger 'what if' diversion points for alternative histories.
Spoiler:
*takes angry rambles because I knew someone was going to mention this guy and throws it into a box because it's not worth it*
One of Cao Wei's most significant and important military leaders for almost the entire era of the Three Kingdoms. Killed because cultural bad ass military strategist Sima Yi fethed up and ordered him to do something obviously foolish that He told him was a foolish thing to do.
TLDR: Zhuge Liang gets a lot of the credit for other men. Sima Yi was good, but not nearly as good as the inflated reputation of Zhuge Liang has inflated him too.
Honestly we could probably have a whole thread discussing just the Three Kingdoms and how cultural memory has shaped the popular conception of many of the men and women involved. I mentioned Fa Zheng earlier as having largely been forgotten into Zhuge Liang's shadow, but there's a lot of them. Sun Jian might have been one of the best generals of his age (and he is famous) but in the eagerness to hype Lu Bu as a man's bad ass among men, that Sun Jian faced and beat him in battle twice is largely overlooked. It's never even appeared in a Dynasty Warriors game in favor of the fictional battle of Hu Lao Gate that diminished Sun Jian's role in favor of Liu Bei, Zhang Fei, and Guan Yu.
My take on it was someone who was reasonably well known but whose attributes as a commander were not fully appreciated.
Another take on it is someone who is known within one cultural sphere, but not outside of it. I think that's a less interesting discussion because the champions of a given culture/nation have an inherent advantage over everyone else.
To put it another way, arguing that Douglas Haig was a military supra-genius will get a much more spirited debate on this site than a discussion over Three Kingdoms China.
And - as has been shown - politically controversial generals can get all manner of slander directed at you. Better to stick with Byzantine commanders with a cool Robert Graves novel written about them.
Not Online!!! wrote: Another partially unknown one from the Napoleonic era: Andreas Hofer.
Sadly nowadays mostly an identification figure for weird nationalists and irredentists in Austria and parts of southern Germany. There are at least two German-language right-wing publications that are explicitly named after him (or his monikers) for example. There is a lot of interesting stuff about the 'New Right' movement in Germany, Austria and Tirolea in the early after-war period, especially the links to academic fraternities and terrorism which often gets a bit overshadowed by the rise of left-wing radicals in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Not Online!!! wrote: Another partially unknown one from the Napoleonic era: Andreas Hofer.
Sadly nowadays mostly an identification figure for weird nationalists and irredentists in Austria and parts of southern Germany. There are at least two German-language right-wing publications that are explicitly named after him (or his monikers) for example. There is a lot of interesting stuff about the 'New Right' movement in Germany, Austria and Tirolea in the early after-war period, especially the links to academic fraternities and terrorism which often gets a bit overshadowed by the rise of left-wing radicals in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Happily this forum explicitly bans political discussions so we don't even have to care about this.
Well, since I'm the guy who started the topic, I, of course, get the final say
Anyway...
I guess I kinda had two thoughts going on in my head.
1. Someone like Don Juan of Austria, who literally changed the course of history, by, in his case, putting the Ottoman Empire completely on the defensive in the Mediterranean from that point forward (there are a few naval battles that might make this claim debatable, but I don't think they bear close scrutiny, again anyway...) and yet simply never hit the papers outside of his own century for whatever reason. Possibly the destruction of the Armada had a lot to do with it, and the fact that the Protestants had the printing press before the Catholics, but who knows?
2. Or, maybe someone like Custer, who performed brilliantly at Gettysburg, but who's reputation was so damaged by Little Big Hornthat it had a kind of backwards effect.
Byzantine generals and warrior-emperors do tend to get crapped on by history, and no mistake, maybe because, after a big kaboom with Justinian, they are almost permanently on the defensive, and even their great victories often look like just shoring up the losses that they take again and again.
In some ways, being on the end of the spice road was a good thing, but, militarily, not so much.
1. Someone like Don Juan of Austria, who literally changed the course of history, by, in his case, putting the Ottoman Empire completely on the defensive in the Mediterranean from that point forward (there are a few naval battles that might make this claim debatable, but I don't think they bear close scrutiny, again anyway...) and yet simply never hit the papers outside of his own century for whatever reason. Possibly the destruction of the Armada had a lot to do with it, and the fact that the Protestants had the printing press before the Catholics, but who knows?
2. Or, maybe someone like Custer, who performed brilliantly at Gettysburg, but who's reputation was so damaged by Little Big Hornthat it had a kind of backwards effect.
The way I interpreted it was to look for a reasonably well-known general with a poor reputation and argue that the historians got it wrong. That way we remove the inevitable information bias caused by different period of history, level of information about historical figures and the scope of their operations.
It also avoids the "changes the whole course of history" bias because the farther back one goes, the more history can be changed. I don't think that's a good measure because it weights older commanders (of whom we often know little) against more modern ones (of whom we know much more).
The problem with that (as we have seen) is that more contemporary figures also have some political baggage associated with them.
This is one reason why Grant for a long time got little respect as a commander. His presidential administration was something of a mess, and this tainted his military career. It is only in the last few decades that historians have sifted that out and looked at the man as he was in 1861 rather than 1868 or 1872.
The same problem confronts Petain's military career, and Hindenburg's, etc. Does studying a commander (or military system) automatically taint a scholar? I think that's nonsense on stilts, particularly if it's a comparative analysis. I mean, if one is comparing Manstein and Zhukov, or Rommel and Patton to Montgomery, where does the taint of political affiliation fall? Does a detailed study of the Imperial Japanese Navy necessarily require one to be radical Bushido advocate?
Regarding Don Juan, he's an interesting figure both militarily and also from a biographical perspective, and I think that level of detail is necessary to give the full appraisal.
As we know (or should know), the day of battle is often the least important part of the campaign. Too much emphasis is placed on battlefield tactics at the expense of logistics. The feat of Lepanto was the creating of the Christian fleet itself, and managing to hold it together for as long as it did. Anyone who could do that, would likely also understand how to handle it in battle.
Yes, there are counterexamples like McClellan, who proved an able administrator but terrible battle manager. However, I would argue that his administrative abilities weren't all that. He created too many subordinate commands, which was why he never engaged his full force. It is interesting to note that Grant, Sherman and Lee all divided their armies into three main maneuver elements (corps for Grant and Lee, armies for Sherman) because that was what allowed the best operational and tactical control.
1. Someone like Don Juan of Austria, who literally changed the course of history, by, in his case, putting the Ottoman Empire completely on the defensive in the Mediterranean from that point forward (there are a few naval battles that might make this claim debatable, but I don't think they bear close scrutiny, again anyway...) and yet simply never hit the papers outside of his own century for whatever reason. Possibly the destruction of the Armada had a lot to do with it, and the fact that the Protestants had the printing press before the Catholics, but who knows?
2. Or, maybe someone like Custer, who performed brilliantly at Gettysburg, but who's reputation was so damaged by Little Big Hornthat it had a kind of backwards effect.
The way I interpreted it was to look for a reasonably well-known general with a poor reputation and argue that the historians got it wrong. That way we remove the inevitable information bias caused by different period of history, level of information about historical figures and the scope of their operations.
It also avoids the "changes the whole course of history" bias because the farther back one goes, the more history can be changed. I don't think that's a good measure because it weights older commanders (of whom we often know little) against more modern ones (of whom we know much more).
The problem with that (as we have seen) is that more contemporary figures also have some political baggage associated with them.
This is one reason why Grant for a long time got little respect as a commander. His presidential administration was something of a mess, and this tainted his military career. It is only in the last few decades that historians have sifted that out and looked at the man as he was in 1861 rather than 1868 or 1872.
The same problem confronts Petain's military career, and Hindenburg's, etc. Does studying a commander (or military system) automatically taint a scholar? I think that's nonsense on stilts, particularly if it's a comparative analysis. I mean, if one is comparing Manstein and Zhukov, or Rommel and Patton to Montgomery, where does the taint of political affiliation fall? Does a detailed study of the Imperial Japanese Navy necessarily require one to be radical Bushido advocate?
Regarding Don Juan, he's an interesting figure both militarily and also from a biographical perspective, and I think that level of detail is necessary to give the full appraisal.
As we know (or should know), the day of battle is often the least important part of the campaign. Too much emphasis is placed on battlefield tactics at the expense of logistics. The feat of Lepanto was the creating of the Christian fleet itself, and managing to hold it together for as long as it did. Anyone who could do that, would likely also understand how to handle it in battle.
Yes, there are counterexamples like McClellan, who proved an able administrator but terrible battle manager. However, I would argue that his administrative abilities weren't all that. He created too many subordinate commands, which was why he never engaged his full force. It is interesting to note that Grant, Sherman and Lee all divided their armies into three main maneuver elements (corps for Grant and Lee, armies for Sherman) because that was what allowed the best operational and tactical control.
I think we're more in agreement than not, certainly about Don Juan, who managed to keep a bunch of quarreling old Dons together long enough to win the battle. That Pius V agreed to appoint him overall commander -let alone the old pontiff's ability to make it stick- is one of the neck-snapping twists of history. Juan was known for the pacification of the rebellion of the Moriscos in Spain, but nothing else above a personal level.
In fairness, it largely was a result of Juan's boldness in the use of his gun ships, and the fact that the Christian galley slaves aboard the Turkish ships were more than happy to help put their captors to the sword when the opportunity arose, but it was the exploitation of these things -and just pure guts- for which he is mostly remembered.
Not Online!!! wrote: Another partially unknown one from the Napoleonic era: Andreas Hofer.
Sadly nowadays mostly an identification figure for weird nationalists and irredentists in Austria and parts of southern Germany. There are at least two German-language right-wing publications that are explicitly named after him (or his monikers) for example. There is a lot of interesting stuff about the 'New Right' movement in Germany, Austria and Tirolea in the early after-war period, especially the links to academic fraternities and terrorism which often gets a bit overshadowed by the rise of left-wing radicals in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Two issues with that are made easily apparent:
1. Hofers career is the type of success into tragedy into martyrdom that will resonate with cultures and political structures easy and he has had a controversial enough political agenda from a future perspective, that he can also be easily smeared as whatever "ist" is en vogue at the day. He is an easy rallying point against tyranny from above. Understandably so considering his career was built upon a mass insurrection against napoleonic france and bavaria due to forced conscription and implementation of religious laws superimposing the state over the church which to catholics or legally technically in all of the HRE at the time was questionable or in the case of proto-switzerland outright illegtimiate since the Landsgmeinde is basically absolutist democracy aka divineright participatory democracy and representative centralistic democracy is to that system of belief merely aristocracy with extra steps.
His governance being percievable as highly devout or overly devout bordering Gessinungsterror of course makes him and people regarding him as an "ideal" of sorts as easily slanderable when he is brought up as a symbol of resistance. At the time of himself being denounced an anti-enlightenment Papist which is bad-evil-reactionairy to revolutionary france and napoleonic france, which ironically started the whole Gessinungsterror tradition in the modern sense just the same over here and in their own country whilest for the locals he was merely a devout paragon of morals and the righteous order fighting back against foreign tyrants, successfully so considering 2/3 Berg Isel battles he won.
2. And that is were we get closer to now. The use of him as a symbol to resist especialy in south tyrol italianisation efforts which ebbs off only after the italian state in the 1970s finally got around to start or atleast attempt to start decentralisation and having escalated issues in the 50-60s into the 70s including torture galvanised groups understandably so, that even outside groups intervened.
Byzantine generals and warrior-emperors do tend to get crapped on by history, and no mistake, maybe because, after a big kaboom with Justinian, they are almost permanently on the defensive, and even their great victories often look like just shoring up the losses that they take again and again.
In some ways, being on the end of the spice road was a good thing, but, militarily, not so much.
That's true, I just think in the case of Maurice, well does anyone know of another Western Art of War at of that time?
NapoleonInSpace wrote: I think we're more in agreement than not, certainly about Don Juan, who managed to keep a bunch of quarreling old Dons together long enough to win the battle. That Pius V agreed to appoint him overall commander -let alone the old pontiff's ability to make it stick- is one of the neck-snapping twists of history. Juan was known for the pacification of the rebellion of the Moriscos in Spain, but nothing else above a personal level.
In fairness, it largely was a result of Juan's boldness in the use of his gun ships, and the fact that the Christian galley slaves aboard the Turkish ships were more than happy to help put their captors to the sword when the opportunity arose, but it was the exploitation of these things -and just pure guts- for which he is mostly remembered.
He had some serious juice through his connection to the throne, which Pius appreciated. In terms of the campaign, he knew he needed to seek a decisive engagement, and so he focused on how to do that. He did have some decent advisors as well, and often that's more important that personal skill.
NapoleonInSpace wrote: I think we're more in agreement than not, certainly about Don Juan, who managed to keep a bunch of quarreling old Dons together long enough to win the battle. That Pius V agreed to appoint him overall commander -let alone the old pontiff's ability to make it stick- is one of the neck-snapping twists of history. Juan was known for the pacification of the rebellion of the Moriscos in Spain, but nothing else above a personal level.
In fairness, it largely was a result of Juan's boldness in the use of his gun ships, and the fact that the Christian galley slaves aboard the Turkish ships were more than happy to help put their captors to the sword when the opportunity arose, but it was the exploitation of these things -and just pure guts- for which he is mostly remembered.
He had some serious juice through his connection to the throne, which Pius appreciated. In terms of the campaign, he knew he needed to seek a decisive engagement, and so he focused on how to do that. He did have some decent advisors as well, and often that's more important that personal skill.
How the heck did I miss this? Sigh. Gettin' old.
Yeah. Somehow, just about everything in that battle seemed to "click" from the political to the strategic to the tactical level, right down to the romantic level.
People tend to forget that Cervantes was present at Lepanto, and served alongside Don Juan on the flagship. He lost part of a hand in doing it.
It was only many years later that he would go on toe write Don Quixote.
It also tends to be forgotten that it could easily have gone the other way, and might well have but for Don Juan's novel use of putting the heavy gunships front and center, rather than using them for support. The Turks had never experienced anything like that meatgrinder, and for all their prime minister's talk about "in taking our fleet, you have cut off our beard, but in taking Cyprus we have cut off your head..." Uh. So much baloney, and he knew it. The Turks won some naval battles thereafter, including Tunis, which was impressive, but they were simply never again the naval terror that they had been.
From that point on, the Spaniards, Venetians and Genoese could combine and strike the Turks where they wanted in the Mediterranean, and the Ottoman response was generally painfully slow.
They didn't do this perfectly, of course, and Catholic infighting remained what it had been One of the miracles of the thing was that they had managed to maintain a functioning OFFENSIVE alliance as long as they did.
NapoleonInSpace wrote: They didn't do this perfectly, of course, and Catholic infighting remained what it had been One of the miracles of the thing was that they had managed to maintain a functioning OFFENSIVE alliance as long as they did.
Yes, offensive operations are far more challenging. The victory at Vienna in 1683 was impressive, but exploitation was almost non-existent because the allies wanted to go their separate ways.
