Overrated events/persons in history?

[Dowly]

Thought this might spark some interesting discussion.

List event or person(s) you think are overrated and why!

I'll start with Boudica/Boudicca/Boadicea's revolt of 60/61 AD.

Why?
It was just another failed revolt against Rome that did not achieve
anything. Boudicca destroyed three cities and killed the populace, two of
which would have very likely have had a large Briton populace (Londium and Verulamium).

Come first real battle against a roughly 10,000 men Roman army led by
Suetonius in favorable positions and Boudicca decides to attack and get her army slaughtered.

Either she was a bad military leader, or she had the numbers.

Either way, she lost and as I said before, the revolt achieved nothing.

Discuss!

[Oberon]

I'm a big fan of Rommel as a general, but his dash through France has been somewhat overblown, if anything it was only the collapse of the French communications ability and disorganisation that prevented him from being isolated and destroyed.
Likewise the tanks he used, only a handful of them were a match for the French and British armour they faced. At the Battle of Arras it was only the Flak 88 which managed to blunt the British attack of Matilda II tanks.

That being said, one of the great successes of the invasion, aside from the surprise of the Ardennes, was the one day when the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were actually organised enough to work together. I believe the Wehrmacht called it 'The day when everything went right', I think it was on the Breakout at Sedan and the crossing of the Meuse. At this point the French government itself believed it was beaten, and things broke down pretty badly. That, really, was the best success of 'Blitzkrieg', the speed and shock, the morale side of it. If the British and French had managed to retreat out of Belgium in time and organise a better defence then they could well have halted the German advance.

In Africa, Rommel was better, but I'm not so sure he deserves the almost mythic status he has attained in modern history, although as generals of the Wehrmacht go, he wasn't a bad one, but I wouldn't have put him as the best.

[ikalugin]

Patton?

[ExFishermanBob]

Magna Carta.

Imagine if there were a document that expressed that the people, town and country, had the right to choose and dismiss their monarch (president) at some time of their choosing (say, every 4 years) and that that was approved by the international ruler of the time (the pope).

Guess what...not the Magna Carta, but the Declaration of Arbroath.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Patton?

I'm sure that charge could be leveled against Patton in many ways, but in the pantheon of US WW2 generals, Douglas MacArthur is far more richly deserving. The man presides over a disaster in the Philippines much of it his own making, is plucked from the middle of it as his command crumbles and made a national hero over night. Go figure. General Dmitry Pavlov of the Soviet Western Front should have been so lucky.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

I'm sure that charge could be leveled against Patton in many ways, but in the pantheon of US WW2 generals, Douglas MacArthur is far more richly deserving. The man presides over a disaster in the Philippines much of it his own making, is plucked from the middle of it as his command crumbles and made a national hero over night. Go figure. General Dmitry Pavlov of the Soviet Western Front should have been so lucky.

Fully agree.

As to Patton he was overrated even during the war as the Germans feared him. Had the whole fake army prior to D-Day as a ruse. What I do like about Patton which can not be be said of his peers is he lead from the front this is why most men under him respected him and his enemies feared him. Rommel was similar in this respect.

When comes to history often it is hard to judge where truth ends and myth begins.

[August]

Montgomery.

His greatest claim to fame is that he just happened to be the latest in a long line of British Commanders when the tide of men and material finally overwhelmed a weakened and stretched out Afrika Corps. During the Sicily campaign his decision to land at Syracuse allowed the Germans to escape from Messina. His tardiness in clearing the Schelde Estuary very nearly ran the Allies out of gas and ammo just as they hit the German border and his Holland campaign was far more than A Bridge Too Far, it got an entire Airborne division wiped out and they were lucky it wasn't three and an Armored Corps to boot.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm a big fan of Rommel as a general, but his dash through France has been somewhat overblown, if anything it was only the collapse of the French communications ability and disorganisation that prevented him from being isolated and destroyed.
Likewise the tanks he used, only a handful of them were a match for the French and British armour they faced. At the Battle of Arras it was only the Flak 88 which managed to blunt the British attack of Matilda II tanks.

That being said, one of the great successes of the invasion, aside from the surprise of the Ardennes, was the one day when the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were actually organised enough to work together. I believe the Wehrmacht called it 'The day when everything went right', I think it was on the Breakout at Sedan and the crossing of the Meuse. At this point the French government itself believed it was beaten, and things broke down pretty badly. That, really, was the best success of 'Blitzkrieg', the speed and shock, the morale side of it. If the British and French had managed to retreat out of Belgium in time and organise a better defence then they could well have halted the German advance.

In Africa, Rommel was better, but I'm not so sure he deserves the almost mythic status he has attained in modern history, although as generals of the Wehrmacht go, he wasn't a bad one, but I wouldn't have put him as the best.

In many ways the Allies lost the Battle of France far more than the Germans won it. Rommel's dash was successful in the end but it was a small part in a large amount of failures on the part of the Allies to deal with the Germans offensive.

In my opinion there's a fair reason Rommel is considered one of the best German generals of the war. I think he was one of the few generals on both sides to really managed to adapt to the conditions of the Western Desert campaign, especially because of his ability to launch full-scale offensives with little warning or preparation to exploit the enemy's weakness. There's a tendency to blame him for the Axis' logistical shortcomings in the North African theater these days but I think that's usually unfair considering the situation he was in.

As for overrated people, in my opinion Attila the Hun often gets an undue amount of attention. He pursued a couple of successful campaigns against the Eastern Roman Empire, which was in a hardly impressive state at the time, but failed to take any significant part of the already collapsing Western Empire until his death, which was followed in short order by that of his empire. Ultimately, I think his reputation is much greater than his actual achievements.

[Betonov]

Alexander the great.
He was an excellent commander but a lousy king.
I don't know if he was trying to make an empire or just building a highway to India.

[Torplexed]

I've always thought Hannibal is over rated. He won a few battles on Italian soil but ultimately lost the war and his home nation of Carthage was wiped out as a result. I'm pretty sure Scipio Africanus thought he was over rated. Get a few elephants over Alps and the accolades go on forever.

Oh..and Yoko Ono. A tedious wannabe artist who only deserves fame for her on-off marriage to someone of far greater talent.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Oh..and Yoko Ono. A tedious wannabe artist who only deserves fame for her on-off marriage to someone of far greater talent.

Speaking of which.
John Lennon and the whole Beatles.