I read in an essay that during the interwar period a cult was built around him, as a great leader of the army, they looked favorably his figure. After WWII the communist historiography dusted off the accusation. Their reason to do so was that they needed to present Kossuth as a socialist forerunner who ofc was infallible in his wisdom and his work had to be undermined by the inner enemy, the traitors, which against the communist regime in the early 50's also considered as the greates threat. So basically they created a historical analogy from their story, and justification for their own actions.
Contemporary authors - at least those whose works used for Wikipee and newspaper articles - seem to accept Görgey's side more, even might without criticism. The everyday people... they don't give a fuck about the whole thing ofc, they are uninterested in the topic, those who dabble in history are usually nationalistic and frequently against Görgey - tho his character offers nationalists something to be proud of.
I think he was a talented commander but he didn't have the time to mature into the role of a general. It is hard to judge his real quality due to all the factors outside the influence of his person, and he only had a year to shine. As being a traitor, I do not believe that, even if he made a deal with the Russians, a capitulation for an amnesty, and he certainly wasn't a methodological saboteur, an agent of the Habsburg Court. Against the overwhelming odds which the Russian intervention presented, the chance of victory was minimal. And the little what we had was threw away by the blunders of other leaders (such as Dembinski). Laying down the weapons was the only thing to do.


I think the topic of '48-49 would deserve some posts, since it's one of the most important event in the modern history of Hungary, an arch and catalyst which led from the Reform Era to the Compromise and Dualism. Checking out the war in a bit more detail not concentrating on Görgey but follow other fellows a little. Examining the army maybe.