Admiral or General?

[The Lurker Below]

went with neither. todays theater commanders come from the ranks of any of the eligible services, including the coast guard (speaking for U.S.)
the logistic, personnel, and political considerations for any of the branches is so considerable that (for the most part) only extremely compitent leaders emerge at the top.

historically without doubt the most difficult was ADMIRAL - for evidence let's look back at the discussion on empires. It took a great deal of determination to make an overseas occupation succeed in the past, few countries made it happen for an extended period of time. We can look at most any country and find "great" generals, only in a select few are their admirals successful enough to get equivelant press.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While both are challenging, I think that the difficulty of naval construction as compared to mustering troops makes the admiral's task one involving higher risk.

I remember Churchill writing about Jellicoe that Jellicoe was "the only person on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon."

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the devil is in the details.

What period one is talking about
Which army one is commanding / fleet is leading
What are the prevailing conditions
What threats are about

I think that this variance means that the difficulty is likely to be statistically similar.

[Karl08]

went with neither. todays theater commanders come from the ranks of any of the eligible services, including the coast guard (speaking for U.S.)
the logistic, personnel, and political considerations for any of the branches is so considerable that (for the most part) only extremely compitent leaders emerge at the top.

historically without doubt the most difficult was ADMIRAL - for evidence let's look back at the discussion on empires. It took a great deal of determination to make an overseas occupation succeed in the past, few countries made it happen for an extended period of time. We can look at most any country and find "great" generals, only in a select few are their admirals successful enough to get equivelant press.

The reason overseas occupations are difficult is because the logistics on LAND is difficult. The sea-bit's the easy bit.

[Fisherking]

By far, the army is the more complex organization. Only in the pre-gunpowder era would the fleet be more complex, due to maintenance but not supply.

Also, at sea you have the advantage of all of your units being able to see each other.

Ships are self contained and the needs mostly overseen by the skipper of the vessel. When supplies run short it is easier to move to resupply.

An army doesn’t have that option, for the most part. It has to be supplied and equipped over land and typically has more people , animals, and weapons systems to be cared for.

Generals may be more popular due in part to the fact that they are in closer contact with their men than the admiral. An Admiral is a more distant figure to the men on the ships than his land based counter part.