re: #78 Scout

It’s a funny thing about generals. Sometimes you have to measure their success in ways that don’t necessarily add up in simple facts and figures.

Just one anecdotal example: A Canadian friend once told me that his grandfather was a foot soldier in WWII who served under Montgomery. He said his grandfather “absolutely loved Monty” and he told my friend (his grandson) he would have been willing to do anything for Montgomery — storm a machine gun nest single-handed, take on a German tank with his bare hands … you get the idea.

The ability of a general to inspire his troops shouldn’t be overlooked.

Napoleon’s presence on a battlefield was remarked to have been worth, what, 10 000 men. He certainly didn’t lack for confidence, which meant something at a time when a general’s presence was literal.
At Waterloo, however, he lost to a man whose inner reserve and dedication to maintaining composure in the face of terrifying odds, counted too.
Generalship, to this civvy, has always been about more than tactics. Men like Patton, might raise our ire, but would the 1st Army been as convincing without him?

Edited.