Both were exceptionally athletic and fearless. Both were willing to sacrifice for the greater good - though motives may have differed.
I am delighted at the general awareness of the complexity in the historical figure that is Benedict Arnold.
He was a documented skilled ice skater and many tales of his dexterity at sea (Quebec campaign before disembarking) and in battle (Saratoga - leaping over hay bails (?)). A truly fascinating figure. It could be argued we owe our independence to him - his near suicidal heroics turned the batte of Saratoga which brought the French to our side. Many accounts of this day, but at minimum he played a very significant part. He was an emotional highly ambitious man trying to get stuff done in the face of an incompetent Congress that was gun shy of such men. Getting passed up for recognition and promotion year after year - it's possible he believed the rebellion was too incompetent to exist on its own. I mean, if they couldn't recognize his greatness, how could they ever effectively govern? IMO, or at least it could be argued, he just couldn't/ wouldn't read the room, got pissed and tried to end it for the sake of peace. Or he was just a delta bravo.
Hard to call the first Congress "incompetent" when they ultimately won the war despite shortages of everything. They had put their very lives on the line for the cause of Independence. They were dealing with limited power and little funding, and naturally could not provide and deliver everything the officers in the field needed. Arnold was a leader, no doubt, but also an egomaniac and a climber. He didn't turn traitor for the "sake of peace," but for his obsession with recognition, reward, and revenge for all the perceived slights against him. But he was a good athlete. Ran a 4.4 40, and averaged 18.3 points, 9 rebounds, and 4 assists on the hardwood.