Great generals or admirals remembered for their failures.

Which generals would have been considered great in today's history books but are remembered for the 1 loss.

Bonus points for generals who won all but their last battles. And for generals who created a new style of warfare only for some else to counter their achievements in their lifetime.
 
Pyrrhus, with a quite undeserved reputation that stick on his memory.
His tactics were sound, and more so IMO than Hannibal's : would it be only because he managed to get out of the campaign before it could be really troublesome.
But even before that, the "Pyrrihc Victories" weren't so...well, pyrrhic. While he suffered losses, he was able to get trough this and could have made the better of it if his opponents weren't equally good (or rather learned to be equally good trough defeat).

Vercingetorix could be this thread personnified : he's known mostly trough two battles whom the last is his final defeat. Most of historiographical concern about him up to the mid XXth century was about the Battle of Alesia, without too much concern for anything else.
 

Yuelang

Banned
Robert E Lee

The man that cause a highly disadvantaged South manage to survive for that long... :p

If only he choose to stay loyal with the Union, there will be no American civil war, that would be some fucknuts trying to create independent slave states which will be totally crushed in 2 to 3 months...
 
I don't know if Custer can be considered GREAT, but his achievements on the battlefield will always be overshadowed by his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
 

Driftless

Donor
Wavell or Auchinlek? Bad timing on their assignments to "no-win" situations in the early stages of WW2? Or weren't they as good as advertised?
 

Driftless

Donor
I don't know if Custer can be considered GREAT, but his achievements on the battlefield will always be overshadowed by his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

I was thinking the same, he was actually rather effective during the Civil War

Maybe too aggressive/reckless for his own good? Against the Confederates, more equalized numbers and skill levels. Against the Sioux & Cheyenne, he grossly underestimated both their numbers and their skill level
 
Robert E Lee

The man that cause a highly disadvantaged South manage to survive for that long... :p

If only he choose to stay loyal with the Union, there will be no American civil war, that would be some fucknuts trying to create independent slave states which will be totally crushed in 2 to 3 months...

There was a civil war going on before Lee made his decision.
 

FrozenMix

Banned
I don't know if Custer can be considered GREAT, but his achievements on the battlefield will always be overshadowed by his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

He was certainly a brave dude and a quality cavalry commander in the Civil War, and he won numerous victories against the Indians before Little Bighorn, but I wouldn't call him a Great.
 

Stolengood

Banned
You mean Sir George Tryon.
Is it bad that every time I think of that, I picture this? :D

kind_hearts_allstar-4799.jpg
 
In Sweden Lorentz Creutz is most known for managing to blow up the warship kronan because of a idiotic manouver. Other than that he sat as head of a commission against witches
 
Phillipe Petain
What battles did he lose?He collaborated with the German and established a dictatorial fascist regime.Otherwise,he isn't remembered for losing any battles,not directly anyway.Publicly,he managed to shift all the blame for France's defeat to Gamelin and the guy who preceded and then succeeded him.Only those who studied what happened in depth realize that the decline of France's military capabilities actually began during his time as the commander in chief.
 
Last edited:
Top