It is said that an NVA officer referenced Gen. Greene when a visiting American officer made the comment that the "NVA never defeated the US Army in battle." The reply was something like, "Do you not recall your own Gen. Greene?"
Yes, Nathanael Greene was a splendid commander. He pricked the hide of Cornwallis, causing the good lord to lose his cool and take a very rash decision. Washington saw the opportunity provided and exploited it. The Yorktown campaign was Washington's finest hour.
Interestingly, I have a different take on the Saratoga campaign than is the norm. Gates historically got credit for the victory. Tacticians credit General Benedict Arnold. But I think the real victor of Saratoga was neither of those, but was General Philip Schulyer, who was relieved of command by Gates.
Talk about an impossible job! Schuyler was facing a descending British professional Army and he had nothing but ragtag militia and no supply line. Schuyler addressed that last, crucial element. Schuyler gave Gates not an unsupplied and disordered militia rabble, but an organized army (albeit composed of militia). He created a command and control structure and established a functioning supply train. And in those desolate woods of the Adirondacks, in the end I think it was THAT, more than anything that happened in the field, that gave the Americans the victory. The Americans were not strong, but they were able to keep a larger body of men in the field, under command, and most importantly SUPPLIED in an empty forest that otherwise would yield nothing at all. The British were in the same forest, but couldn't keep themselves supplied. And the result was the capture of Burgoyne's army, and the victory of the Americans. Now, Gates got the credit because he was in overall command when the battle happened. And Benedict Arnold deserves credit for starting the battle that Gates was as likely as not to shy away from (which may have allowed the British an opportunity to escape). But that the Americans were able to command and to supply a large army in the woods: that was what Philip Schuyler put his mind to in command. That was what he built. Of course logisitics are not sexy. But no other general of the American War actually put together such a large logistical and command and control structure from scratch so quickly, and so decisively.
Had Gates NOT taken command, would General Schuyler have beaten the British at Saratoga?
Yes.
Because he had put them in an impossible situation: he had a bigger army than they did, and he could FEED it. They couldn't.
I don't expect many people are going to give credit to Schuyler as the architect of the victory at Saratoga, because his own contemporaries - notably those not eager to share the glory or have another major general in command around them - didn't have good things to say for him (he took command of a chaos, and in true blunt Dutch fashion didn't conceal his concerns for the fatal weakness of his army.
As it happened, if I recall correctly, he was quite ill by the time the battle was joined anyway, so I wouldn't say that Saratoga was a victory STOLEN from Schuyler. Gates (and Arnold) are properly credited for the victory, but I don't think there would have been a victory had Schuyler not given them an army in the wilderness, scratched together out of nothing and (barely) adequately supplied.
He won't be listed as one of the greats, but Philip Schuyler deserves a lot more credit than it occurs to anyone to give him for the decisive victory at Saratoga.