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)