Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/15/george-washington-named-britain-greatest-ever-military-opponent/

Interesting. What's the concensus among you folks? The criteria was for the candidates to have led an army in the field against Britain and to have been in a time period covered by the museam.

It's only recently that I found out that he may have been responsible for starting the Seven Years War!! Who knows how history may have turned out if the British Army had given him a regular commision.

Made a few mistakes and got his ass kicked a few times, but won the battles that mattered and thats what counts.
So yeah, number 1 spot is appropriate. It's a strange thing, but Britian hasn't lost that many wars. Maybe we are a nation of warriors

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It's only recently that I found out that he may have been responsible for starting the Seven Years War!! Who knows how history may have turned out if the British Army had given him a regular commision.

Made a few mistakes and got his ass kicked a few times, but won the battles that mattered and thats what counts.
So yeah, number 1 spot is appropriate. It's a strange thing, but Britian hasn't lost that many wars. Maybe we are a nation of warriors

you don't need a war to defeat the British, you just need a guy to go on a hunger strike and the brits run for the hills

Erm, Bobby Sands died. Northern Ireland is still British.


Looks like we won.

Would have thought Napoleon ranked higher than Washington but I suppose he only fought one battle against the British, and lost.

I don't know how many battles Washington fought and his win/lose record. Presumably that's the key criterion.

The interesting thing is that British generals were often hugely successful. (I mean, considering that Britain is traditionally a naval power, rather than military.) Marlborough, Clive and Wellington never lost a major battle between them. That limits the chance of their opponents to be considered good.

"George Washington called Britain's greatest military opponent." What? On the telephone or something? What did George Washington say to Britain's greatest military opponent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Erm, Bobby Sands died. Northern Ireland is still British.


Looks like we won.

I assumed he was talking about Ghandi.

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:Erm, Bobby Sands died. Northern Ireland is still British.


Looks like we won.

I assumed he was talking about Ghandi.

Meh, I'm all about Nehru, yo.

Quiet, you!

@George Spiggott. Very pedantic, but quite a funny point

Washingston's win ratio was around the 50% mark.

From the top of my head he won: Trenton 1 and 2, Boston, Princeton, Whitemarsh and Yorktown.

He lost White Plains, New York, Germantown, Brandywine and Pearl Harbour

But like I said, he won the battles that mattered.

From the reading I've been doing, I still can't fathom how Britain lost that war...Maybe not the right thing to say on this site

I don't think the average Brit supportedthat war, did they?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@George Spiggott. Very pedantic, but quite a funny point

Washingston's win ratio was around the 50% mark.

From the top of my head he won: Trenton 1 and 2, Boston, Princeton, Whitemarsh and Yorktown.

He lost White Plains, New York, Germantown, Brandywine and Pearl Harbour

But like I said, he won the battles that mattered.

From the reading I've been doing, I still can't fathom how Britain lost that war...Maybe not the right thing to say on this site

The French and Spanish joined in on the American side.

This led to Britain losing naval control of the Atlantic which made the support of armies in North America strategically impossible. Even so, the British held on to Canada.

Considering the Yanks got trashed in the war of 1812 war I think that's pretty far-fetched.
Would go with Napoleon. That guy looked like he'd conquer Europe at one point. Shame he didn't, really.

I honestly wouldn't have picked Washington. But the criteria they used that picked him is understandable. They eliminated Rommel and Napoleon because while they were both very capable (and even extraordinary) they never managed to achieve any lasting political (aka strategic) ends. Washington is imo not a particularly exemplary military leader but he did manage to work with Congress, his French and Indian allies, and his men and hold the Revolution together long enough to win. That is a military talent he is probably near unrivaled in. Even Hannibal Barca, who'd I'd argue to be one of the greatest military leaders in history, was unable to keep the peace between his military objectives and his government's political ends.

But we had some Germans and we still lost. The dream team combination of Britain and Germany (don't mention 1871) beaten by the French...the shame

Back OT. Didn't Napoleon fight the British in Spain before Waterloo? The Retreat to Corunna in 1809 when Sir John Moore was killed. Yeah, I've been reading the Sharpe series

Napoleon only fought one battle against Britain, Waterloo.

It was the arrival of the Prussians that turned the tide against him, of course, so it's arguable that it should be called a loss to Britain.

That's what is interesting about this kind of survey. It makes you look again at the normal assumptions and you often find out something new.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:But we had some Germans and we still lost. The dream team combination of Britain and Germany (don't mention 1871) beaten by the French...the shame

Back OT. Didn't Napoleon fight the British in Spain before Waterloo? The Retreat to Corunna in 1809 when Sir John Moore was killed. Yeah, I've been reading the Sharpe series

Though he didn't lead the French army in those battles...
Through Portugal, Spain then into France...
Though every army had soldiers of basically every nationality you could think of...

But credit where it is due, Washington was a worthy opponent. Yes, there is the moral argument because of the slaves he owned, but he won the battles, helped to create a new nation and led it through difficult times. He is one of history's giants.

Pre Britain I would choose Robert the Bruce for doing something similar, but on a smaller scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I take back what I said about George Washington, because I've just flicked through the TV channels and...The Patriot is on!!! Damn you Mel Gibson!!!

I think this is a joke, Washington was an abysmal General, and most of the successes attributed to him are really the results of actions taken by his subordinates on their own initiative.

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is a joke, Washington was an abysmal General, and most of the successes attributed to him are really the results of actions taken by his subordinates on their own initiative.

You mean like Octavian?

Washington was a tremendous leader of men.

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is a joke, Washington was an abysmal General, and most of the successes attributed to him are really the results of actions taken by his subordinates on their own initiative.

That's true of many famous military commanders.

Alexander had a ton of them
Hannibal -> His brother Mago, the sole reason he won at Cannae
Octavian/Agustus -> Agrippa
Napoleon had many capable commanders under him who were influencial in his victories
Rommel had some of the best staff officers in the Heer and it shows and he had Von Ravenstein, one of the best division commanders in Germany at the time
Eisenhower himself was not a spectacular man himself, but he had under him some of the best in the world and he knew how to put them to use effectively.

Part of being a military leader is having people around who can do what you need them to do. It's pointless to be a operational and tactical master mind when there's no one in your army who can carry out your orders effectively. While Washington isn't the best military leader in history he had capable officers, and the ability to execute effective planning and organization as well as achieve strategic ends, something many 'great' military leaders of history including some I've listed were not able to do.

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is a joke, Washington was an abysmal General, and most of the successes attributed to him are really the results of actions taken by his subordinates on their own initiative.

Right... I'm sure I read somewhere that he lost every major military engagement he was in command of?

This whole thing just seems to be like chummy back-slapping between UK and US, and it doesn't surprise me at all that the Telegraph, followed by Fox News, reported it.

Washington was a good moral leader. He united the US and gave lots of good speeches and stuff. That said, he wasn't the best tactician. Ah well, the US still won.

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is a joke, Washington was an abysmal General, and most of the successes attributed to him are really the results of actions taken by his subordinates on their own initiative.

A huge part of being a good leader is holding an army together during the dark times in a war. Washington did this to a T.

chaos0xomega wrote:I think this is a joke, Washington was an abysmal General, and most of the successes attributed to him are really the results of actions taken by his subordinates on their own initiative.

Also helps that us Brits were broke at the time...

George Spiggott wrote:"George Washington called Britain's greatest military opponent." What? On the telephone or something? What did George Washington say to Britain's greatest military opponent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Erm, Bobby Sands died. Northern Ireland is still British.


Looks like we won.

I assumed he was talking about Ghandi.

yep, I was going for Ghandi.

Washington needed an army to drive off the British, Ghandi threatened "I'll put down this spoon"

You sure this is not Britains greatest military opponent?





*Sorry but really the old bad teeth just still gets a chuckle from me every now and then

sirlynchmob wrote:Washington needed an army to drive off the British, Ghandi threatened "I'll put down this spoon"

You do know he did more than that though, right?

I believe the greatest opponent of Britian is: Britain.

Or as Maximillian Arturo put it: "the sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust the British in the dark."

Ahtman wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Washington needed an army to drive off the British, Ghandi threatened "I'll put down this spoon"

You do know he did more than that though, right?

.

yep, Ghandi is one of my hero's. But sometimes you just can't let facts get in the way of a good quip

LordofHats wrote:
While Washington isn't the best military leader in history he had capable officers, and the ability to execute effective planning and organization as well as achieve strategic ends, something many 'great' military leaders of history including some I've listed were not able to do.

A huge part of being a good leader is holding an army together during the dark times in a war. Washington did this to a T.

I disagree. The Continental Army hardly functioned as a coherent whole. The colonial victory over the British was as much a result of individually organized insurgent guerilla campaigns and local militias as it was the result of an effort overseen by George Washington. As for "holding an army together", please see "New Jersey Line" and "Pennsylvania Line", let alone Benedict Arnold.