Winfield Scott's place in history

Winfield Scott's place in history

  • One of the Great Generals of history

    Votes: 7 7.1%
  • The Greatest American General

    Votes: 9 9.1%
  • One of the Great American Generals

    Votes: 67 67.7%
  • A good General

    Votes: 13 13.1%
  • Average but overrated

    Votes: 3 3.0%

  • Total voters
    99
Scott is great for all the above reasons, and for the fact that on multiple occasions he actually mediated to prevent war. To succeed in combat is one thing, to succeed in peace-making is another.

So, how many people are going to vote for Scott for President in next week's retrospective US election? :D

Also, not entirely related to Scott himself, but in my university I had the honor to take a US History course ("War and Violence in America") offered by a descendant of Winfield Scott himself. The man has since retired from teaching, but it was nonetheless a pretty cool experience.
 
He created the culture of the US Army, and entrenched and enforced the idea that it was apolitical. While his reasons were not really altruistic, Scott and his ideas about what an Army is and what it does are the reasons Robert E. Lee and the rest of that lot weren't hanged for treason. I'd say he's the reason we didn't have a military coup at some point in the 30s. He's the reason we've had few generals in high office, and the only one of them who did well was Eisenhower.

It's true that his battlefield successes seem unimpressive next to Bonaparte or Alexander. But in terms of what he accomplished and built for his countrymen, he has very, very few peers indeed.
 
For those who underrate his achievements in Mexico, against not armed forces but geography, disease, vast distances and heat, I will let the Duke of Wellington speak - "His campaign was unsurpassed in military annals."
 
For those who underrate his achievements in Mexico, against not armed forces but geography, disease, vast distances and heat, I will let the Duke of Wellington speak - "His campaign was unsurpassed in military annals."

Duke of Wellington aside, he's still facing Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna. That's like beating up Iraq.
 
Duke of Wellington aside, he's still facing Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna. That's like beating up Iraq.

My point, and I suspect Wellington's, was not that Scott over came the Napoleon of the Americas, but that he overcame the natural obstacles an invasion of Mexico throws up. A lot of the problems Wellington faced in the Peninsula were logistical.

A General's achievements should not be measured solely in terms of his opponents, but should also account for what he achieves, where he achieves it and with what material. Scott led a force made of borderline professionals and volunteers deep into the interior of an underdeveloped and in many senses "unknown" nation (to Europeans and a lot of Americans anyway), won battles, occupied its capital and withdrew intact. When you account for the variable quality of his subordinates, I begin to see Wellington's point.
 
My point, and I suspect Wellington's, was not that Scott over came the Napoleon of the Americas, but that he overcame the natural obstacles an invasion of Mexico throws up. A lot of the problems Wellington faced in the Peninsula were logistical.

A General's achievements should not be measured solely in terms of his opponents, but should also account for what he achieves, where he achieves it and with what material. Scott led a force made of borderline professionals and volunteers deep into the interior of an underdeveloped and in many senses "unknown" nation (to Europeans and a lot of Americans anyway), won battles, occupied its capital and withdrew intact. When you account for the variable quality of his subordinates, I begin to see Wellington's point.

Which is quite an credible feat, to be sure. If Scott's ability to fight was on this level, I'd have voted for one of the greats of history.

Without that, we don't know if he'd go the full ten or only nine yards, as it were.

Although I would love to know how much the logistics were Scott personally and how much was someone else. This is not to slight Scott - a talent for picking and empowering good subordinates is an important talent - just to see who actually thought it out.
 
A General's achievements should not be measured solely in terms of his opponents, but should also account for what he achieves, where he achieves it and with what material. Scott led a force made of borderline professionals and volunteers deep into the interior of an underdeveloped and in many senses "unknown" nation (to Europeans and a lot of Americans anyway), won battles, occupied its capital and withdrew intact. When you account for the variable quality of his subordinates, I begin to see Wellington's point.

During this entire time, Scott was outnumbered, sometimes heavily. The Mexicans were fighting on home ground, typically in excellent defensive positions. Scott's four division commanders often lacked tactical sikills and included a political general and the backstabbing, glory-hunting incompetent, Gideon Pillow.
 
Top