Read my comment on Alexander (terrible at the politics, won a few battles succeeding to an Empire, messing up India and Macedonian inheritance), Patton is over glorified in the USA (he did some good stuff but nothing compared to Rommel, Montgomery, and Khrushchev), Washington too (unconventional is not good generalship, if so then General Giap should be here), Wellington and Bluscher were good generals but far from the greatest, especially with Napoleon at the time. Considering the French lost Waterloo because, firstly the stalemate at quatre bras, secondly letting Bluscher go after Ligny, thirdly superior British infantry on Mt St. Jean, fourthly Neys cavalry charge, and finally being outnumbered and attacked by two armies. Caeser over glorified himself, outmatched by both Marcellus and Hannibal if you compare Roman/opposing generals (read previous comments; De Bello Galico) Rommel was good, but just as good as Montgomery who beat him in Africa. It is just those above I disagree with (with the possible exception of Rommel). GG. And if we mention Frederick then why not Wolfe?
They were all indisputably good but we are talking THE greatest.
The America thing was about Patton and Lt Dan, perhaps I should have spaced that a bit more from the part about over glorified names.
