1) No matter how much I post, no matter how many footnotes, SOMEBODY tries for a chink in the armor to launch a tit-for-tat. I had almost posted a swipe against the American Exceptionalists myself. I suppose I should have expected such a response as this without that swipe.
I would say the title Jack-of-all-trades is probably too much a complement to George, (2) as his knowledge in most military matters was limited, especially regarding cavalry, artillery, and siegecraft. His skills at logistics were so-so, infantry was better, while his leadership skills were anything BUT routine. In that field, he was the superior of any of his subordinates OR enemies.
I would describe GW the officer as a man of great strengths, mediocrities, and weaknesses.
2) I take jack-of-all-trades to mean average abilities in all things, rather than stellar skills in some areas and poor in others. Like Patton. Jack-of-all-trades MIGHT be applied to Mark Clark (or Wavell), but I think he has too many critics here for that to be accepted generally.