The role that has been diminished is La Picard de Phelippeaux. He died at Acre
while Smith didn't. This in no way diminishes Smith's role, but I would argue
it might have been the more vital role because of Phelippeaux's expertise in
engineering operations. Unless, of course, that you can show that Smith was
also a qualified and educated military engineer which has not been mentioned.

First, who the heck has ever diminished Phelippeaux's role? Sir Sidney certainly didn't in his reports.

And, again, who brought the brave and talented Phelippeaux to Acre and put him to work against the much hated and feared general Buonaparte?
Who, other than Smith, in the English army or navy is known to have employed the skills of a French engineer in the field?
Who was the supreme commander of all British and Turkish forces at the Siege of Acre?
Who arranged the capture of the French Siege artillery?
Who personally negotiated the Turkish/English coalition with the supreme Porte?

Phelippeaux was important, maybe even a decisive player, but that in no way means he overshadows what Sir Sidney accomplished: the first English commander, army or navy, to successfully command a decisive defeat against an elite French army personally commanded by N.

By the way, haven't we already reviewed Smith on the forum in some detail? If
so, why are we repeating the procedure?

Please feel free to ignore all Sir Sidney Smith topics. As far as I can recall, you have yet to add anything positive to the discussion. Again, please.