Smith definitely helped defeat Napoleon at the siege of Acre, but he was not the only person responsible. The French émigré engineer, a classmate of Napoleon, La Picard de Phelippeaux, 'was a major reason why Napoleon did not take Acre' and he unfortunately died there of sunstroke, which might be the reason he did not get the credit that Smith did. Without the engineering skill and expertise of Phelippeaux, it is doubtful that Smith could have filled the void. One of the major subjects of French engineer officers was the attack and defense of fortified places, and they were considered the best in the world during the period and before.

Of course. While some English history books gloss over the efforts of Phelippeaux, the Turks, and the mercenaries of Jeezer (sp?) Sir Sidney Smith certainly didn't. Phelippeaux was only there because he was a close friend of Smith's and Smith completely appreciated what he could do which is why he brought him along. There was nobody equivalent in the English army to compare with what Phelippeaux could do.

The key attribute that Smith brought to Acre was that he had confidence in working with foreign troops like the Turks. He had long experience working with the Turks. He knew what they could do and made it possible for them to succeed. Smith brought his extreme skill in literal combat. Smith brought his highly trained and motivated sailors who provided the essential gunnery support.

Probably most important, Smith was without national prejudice. He appreciated the French, the Turks, the Arabs for who they were and had confidence in working with them or at least he was sharp enough to understand who he could trust and who he couldn't. Remember, Smith had been given the full command of all Turkish naval and land forces by the Porte. To then go on and try to diminish Smith's role at Acre is just being silly.