Talk:U.S. Department of Defense/Catalogs/Military leaders

How to interpret "military", and what about other periods?

I did not take "Military" in the sense of land forces only, so put in a number of naval officers.

Also, what about interwar or less-than-major-war periods? The commanders in Grenada and Panama, for example, still played important roles.

Howard C. Berkowitz 14:08, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Right on navy. we should have the top 50? people, many of them in peacetime. The goal is to show what articles are needed. Richard Jensen 14:14, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

I gave into a bit of temptation and put in some distinctly bad general officers, such as Fredendall, although one could spend a week on bad Civil War generals. Including Fredendall is like raising warthogs so you can appreciate your roses better. Jesus Christ Himself Lee comes to mind, with an ego worthy of MacArthur but without the talent.

Flag officers only? I put in, for example, John Warden as a specific contributor to the Gulf War, and can think of several other influential colonels/captains. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:23, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

ny view is that theorists (like Mahan) should be handled separately. Some were civilians (Schelling, Kahn). Richard Jensen 15:50, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

In general, yes. OTOH, there were some people that were pretty decent theorists, but also variously combat leaders, or at least someone like "Forty-second Boyd", who never lost a bet that he could start out disadvantaged and be on the other fighter's six within forty seconds.

There are also the excellent leaders who might as well have been civilians for their actual combat experience: Eisenhower, Arnold, etc.

Trying to remember...was it Nimitz that came up with the now standard concentric picket-AAW-ASW rings for high-value escorts? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:34, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

I would say Boyd = theorist (he had very little combat experience---was a wingman in Korea for a while, no kills). Ike was good at complexity and committees. That wins wars. Richard Jensen 16:52, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Other catalogs

Thinking about whether British or Commonwealth is most appropriate for WWII and before -- I'd have to put Currie, Monash, and McNaughton very high for WWI. At the other end of the spectrum, compared to Hamilton and Stopford, Samsonov had the self-respect to shoot himself.

Somehow, there has to be an entry for Budyenny; how can CZ not have an article on "a man with a very large mustache and a very small brain"?

Howard C. Berkowitz 17:29, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

I'm glad you put people under multiple wars...

That makes it much more readable. Ignoring theorists, what do you think is the best way to list people that are not associated with major wars? A few examples (*WWII, but a stretch):

• Smedley Butler
• Adna Chaffee
• Archibald Henderson
• William Moffett
• Ben Lear*
• Bill Lee*

There's a category of eccentrics and visionaries -- Earl Ellis for the U.S., perhaps Billy Mitchell more than in a leader category.

To look elsewhere in the world, where does one categorize T.E. Lawrence, and, while much lesser, Richard Meinertzhagen and Orde Wingate?

I am keeping mental notes of the qualifiers for the really bad leader category. Don't know if you've read any of Larry Niven's science fiction, in which the most prestigious member of a race, cautious by nature, is styled The Hindmost.

Howard C. Berkowitz 20:07, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

it depends on the goal. If the goal is to tell people who's important and needs articles, then these folks don't make it to the top 200 (except Lawrence). I had raging wild debates on Smedley over on Wikipedia with folks who believed in him! Mitchell and Ellis count as theorists. Richard Jensen 22:10, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Goals include shaping tradition. While I could dismiss Lear in the same breath as McNair (which might mean neither), Henderson set traditions for the Marine Corps. Three are technical visionaries; Airborne troopers went out the door yelling "Bill Lee" more often than "Geronimo". Moffett and Chafee, as well, are critical, respectively, to Naval Aviation and Armor.

Bits are cheap; I suppose it depends on who would take on writing about what. I'm unlikely, for example, to take on much about the Revolution, and would tend to defer about the ACW. I am interested in the history of services (e.g., Henderson) and branches, as well as more recent wars and guerilla history beforehand. So, much as Mad Anthony Wayne might be important, I'd be less likely to do an article on him, or Longstreet or Jackson.

Also, importance can be negative as well. I would not dismiss doing an article on Fredendall, and, should we ever get into Gallipoli, there were truly awful and truly good Commonwealth leaders, and then there was Mustafa Kemal.

Wild debates? With Marines? I am as shocked as if you found gambling in Rick's Cafe. I understand that when the first Marine went through the first pay call at Tun Tavern, he waited for the second and said "let me tell you how it was in the Old Corps." I am not, incidentally, a rabid Smedley Butler fan, although I think some of his attitudes are more at the core of many senior officers than Dick Cheney would like. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:14, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Smedley ranks #1 as kook. We of course can have as many articles as we can write. Maybe some cadet at USMA will take our list and tell the plebes to memorize it. But "military leader" has a strong connotation of combat, rather than ideas or technology. Gattling and Christie and Holland are important too.Richard Jensen 23:26, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Then let's establish a broader context

Let's assume your definition of "leader" implying combat, with the caveats that a senior leader of combat organizations (e.g., Eisenhower, Marshall) might not have any personal combat experience, and that leaders that primarily prepared combat organizations (e.g., while not in the first rank of leadership, think Thomas Power at SAC, or the aforementioned Bill Lee.)

What are the other categoies? I understand what you suggest as "theorist" or "thinker"; I'd just like to get some input from people less familiar with the topic -- what word is best for various sorts of people, some who did have combat experience but are more known for other work (e.g., Mahan, Clausewitz, Ellis).

A category for branch or technology could be somewhat different than theorist (e.g., John Ericsson).

I'd suggest planning for other nations and I'll do some articles (e.g., Currie, McNaughton, Guderian)

Controversial as it might be, I still have an assortment of "military failure" books on my shelf, and, without being too derogatory, there are things to be learned from the antithesis of great. Hey, if Fredendall had had courage, aggressiveness, leadership, and wisdom, he'd have been a h*ll of a leader -- he had the chance.

Howard C. Berkowitz 10:31, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

Ok we have "Combat Leaders", "Theorists", "Technology innovators", ... how about key civilian leaders (Lincoln and Davis in Civil War, Churchill and FDR in WW1, FDR/Stalin/Hitler/Churchill/deGaulle in WW2, also Stimson and Forrestal in WW2, McNamara in Vietnam) Richard Jensen 13:17, 2 July 2008 (CDT)