Hey Marc,

I would suggest that we should base our criteria for "greatness" solely at he strategic and grand strategic levels, and leave out the tactical and grand tactical (operational) levels - basically something that Norfolk does with his list. Within those constraints, I would argue that we need to further differentiate between functional areas: organization, operations and innovation. Admittedly, they are all inextricably linked, but I think that it is important to analytically separate them since it is quite possible for an individual to be "brilliant" in only one functional area.
Good food for thought - but with us asking the question about what makes a good general - we may wind up having to qualify that by rank, position and responsibility if we only only consider the strategic level of war. Would we wind up excluding DIV and Corps CDRs if we did that? Would we be ignoring anyone below the 4 star flag? I don't know - if we say general, do we distinguish between a 1 and a 4 star. I don't have a good answer - but I am intensely interested in leadership in terms of how and where it manifests itself, where there are leadership failures and how we can best identify & cultivate it. Leaving the list open beginning when an officer becomes a generalist gives us a broader bunch to consider - some who for various reasons never rose above 1 or 2 stars.

I do like the idea of qualifying in terms of function for about the same reasons. If somebody can articulate what qualities may have made that general great, we might be able to consider the context of the action and learn something like- is the attribute or skill set applicable, or on a personal level - where do I stand?

There is something to Gian's comment:

Why don't we have these sorts now? Please don't attack me for saying this but we don't have big battles to fight anymore or major coalition warfare that allows generals to succeed brilliantly or fail.
I'm not sure we don't have these incredible folks, but the actions which will define them currently are different. I think them still capable of succeeding (or failing) in a marked and distinctive fashion if the occasion arises (and it probably one day will, God forbid). One cannot help but marvel at the manner in which incredible leaders stood against towering odds to deliver a victory where there often should not have been one without searching for an answer to how such a victory could come to pass.

When the time spans are shorter, and seemingly more violent, when lady luck shows her harshest or sweetest favor and all seems to be gained or lost with one throw of the dice, we are agape at the temerity of leaders who stand fast or push forward. Its hard to tell how much can be attributed to the force of personality and how much to circumstances which surround it - in history we often find those things for which we look hardest. This may not be all bad though - it is often from the past where we find an example to do the hard things we know ought to be done, examples of courage and excellence are of great value, and you often have to know where you have been before you can chart an appropriate course forward.

I recently went to SWC member ZenPundit's website (you can get there from the SWJ blogrole). He has a book review on Roman generals that I decided to order - I simply can't help it - when I read about war time leaders overcoming fantastic odds to accomplish the incredible I stand in awe. It may be why so many have a hard time imagining themselves in any other profession.

Best Regards, Rob