Major Jonathan Bratton

And Howe goes, I don't have enough troops for this.

So he pulls all of his outposts back in.

This is, again, an example of how Washington sees the war not as a series of wins and losses, but as a who can do this the longest.

Because he knows if Congress is screaming at each other about how long this is going on, parliaments know better.

And parliament is, as the war expands and as France gets involved in Spain and this turns into a global conflict,

Now, Parliament has a lot larger things on its mind.

And then as public opinion turns against the war.

So this is what Washington is doing, the strategic thinking and doing it in a very adept way when literally everyone around him, not literally, but most of his subordinates all believe that they can do a better job than he.

And some of them are sort of plotting to try to take him down.

So highly, highly stressful situation all around.

That's a great question.

So, you know, we talked about how Eisenhower had no prior real wartime experience.

George Marshall.

Never commanded troops beyond the platoon level.

Didn't command troops in combat in World War I, was a staff officer throughout.

My voting out of sequence for greatest would probably be George Marshall.

He shaped half the world as we know it today.

The Marshall Plan reinvigorated Western Europe and huge chunks of Asia following World War II.

let alone everything that he did in uniform, creating an army for war, prepared for World War II, and then everything he did, anyway, for World War I. But I would hazard to say, Don, I would go back, I would go one step further back in the question and say, is there such a thing as a great general, or do you have a...

can you have a great general with bad subordinates and bad troops?