With Patton in mind...

[Culpeper]

Patton believed with fervor that he fought great battles in previous lives. Which leader given would he had believed was the best for small wars tactics as well as singular battles. Please don't cite any sources so as not to give it away.

[UrsaMaior]

I voted for Alexander, cuz IMHO they were same kind of extroverted people.

[wm]

I suspect the "past lives" point is a red herring here.

[Stan]

I voted for Rob

[Steve Blair]

I'd vote for Ranald Mackenzie if he was on the list. He and Pershing had the same general disposition, and Pershing had a major impact on Patton as a young officer. That and the record of Mackenzie's proteges in the Philippines was quite good.

But barring that choice...I'd vote for Rob's cigar. It gives him the whole Che/Fidel effect...and we know how important symbols are in small wars....

[Rob Thornton]

Stan

I voted for Rob

I don't know who that guy in the photo is - but he is the ugliest SOB I've ever seen - good thing his wife met him in a dark room

[Culpeper]

I suspect the "past lives" point is a red herring here.

That' correct and appears most people caught it as well. This was just for fun for a change. Apparently Patton used to listen to stories by Mosby himself, as wm points out above. The singular battle part was also tricky.

During George's childhood, one of the best friends of the Patton family was none-other-than Colonel John S. Mosby, the fabled "Grey Ghost" of J.E.B. Stuart's legendary cavalry...These firsthand stories, and horseback re-enactments, directed by one of the greatest Guerilla fighters of all time no doubt had a huge influence on Patton. (author's opinion)

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...oge_Patton.htm

I got the idea for the poll from Steve Blair on the greatest generals thread...

I tend to look more at the "great leader" question, and that at any level of command. From that standpoint I do believe there are some common traits that can be found in great leaders at all levels of command, but for some reason or another (vision, personal inclination, ability to "grasp" war...I don't know) not every officer rises to higher command levels...or even should. The Union Army in the Civil War was rife with men who were excellent regimental or corps commanders, but floundered when promoted to higher levels of authority. There were also others who were not stellar at lower levels (Sherman was one) but excelled when placed in charge of larger formations.

I think Patton, who could be considered one of the greatest generals, would agree with you. Also, the Confederacy is a good example of great leadership forced to promote beyond their own level of personal leadership traits due to high casualty rates at the highest levels. Lincoln could hire and fire any general as he saw fit. Jefferson didn't have that luxury, which could be a whole other topic.

Okay, now start with the, "Stop brown-nosing, Culpeper!"

[Rifleman]

Since this is really just for fun there's nothing wrong with me being contrary just for the sake of contrariness.

I'll say that Patton would have thought of small wars in terms of "punitive expeditions against the hostiles." Given that, he would have ignored the list.

Instead, Patton would have picked George Rogers Clark or Robert Rogers. Daniel Morgan is another possibility.

[slapout9]

Or would Patton have chosen Francis Marion aka "The Swamp Fox".