Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

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.

Narses was no slouch either.

Yi Sun-sin

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BertBert wrote:
Yi Sun-sin

I confess I never heard of him. Give us a couple or three lines on what he did? Thx.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Yi Sun-sin

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.

Thanks Tsagualsa and BertBert! New knowledge to stuff in my noggin! I will look him up.

 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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 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.

Very true

 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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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!

 BertBert wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


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.

Here's one;

Khalid ibn al-Walid.

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.

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.

 Adeptekon wrote:

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.

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*

Let's talk about the Zhang He instead.



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.

Again, what do we mean by "underrated"?

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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly we could probably have a whole thread discussing just the Three Kingdoms

I enjoyed Dragon Throne: Battle of Red Cliffs

Another partially unknown one from the Napoleonic era: Andreas Hofer.

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.

Tsagualsa wrote:

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Again, what do we mean by "underrated"?

Good question.

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.

My ideas, anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Maurice (539 - 602)

Dunno how I missed this one.

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.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
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.

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
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.

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.

Tsagualsa wrote:

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.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Maurice (539 - 602)

Dunno how I missed this one.

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?