George Washington voted Britain's greatest enemy commander

[Dick Cheney.]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83E0BL20120415

George Washington voted Britain's greatest enemy commander

11:30am EDT
By Angus MacSwan

LONDON (Reuters) - American revolutionary leader George Washington has been voted the greatest enemy commander to face Britain, lauded for his spirit of endurance against the odds and the enormous impact of his victory. In a contest organised by the National Army Museum, Washington triumphed over Irish independence hero Michael Collins, France's Napoleon Bonaparte, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.

Making the case for Washington, historian Stephen Brumwell said the American War of Independence (1775-83) was "the worst defeat for the British Empire ever."

"His personal leadership was crucial," he said.

Washington was a courageous and inspirational battlefield commander who led from the front but also had the skills to deal with his political counterparts in Congress and with his French allies, Brumwell said. Above all, he never gave up even when the war was going against him.

"His army was always under strength, hungry, badly supplied. He shared the dangers of his men. Anyone other than Washington would have given up the fight. He came to personify the cause, and the scale of his victory was immense."

Almost 8,000 people voted in an online poll which produced a shortlist of five men, whose merits were debated by guest speakers at a weekend event at the museum before a final ballot of attendees. The main criterion was that each commander must have led an army against British forces in battle - which ruled out foes such as Adolf Hitler - and that they must fall within the National Army Museum's time frame of the 17th century onwards.

Michael Collins was hailed as a great guerrilla tactician who took on and defeated British forces within the state itself. Bonaparte challenged Britain for nearly a quarter of a century across the globe before his defeat at Waterloo.

The legend of Rommel inspired fear and awe among British troops in the North African desert in World War Two, even though his battlefield successes were limited. Ataturk was involved in one of Britain's greatest military humiliations at Gallipoli and later thwarted British designs in the region and created modern Turkey.

Matthew Hughes of London's Brunel University said that Rommel and Napoleon were both great operational commanders but they ultimately achieved nothing on the political level.
"The other three are more interesting because they all achieved a political objective, something concrete that is still with us."

None of the five is particularly pleasant ideologically," Hughes added, saying that even Washington was a slave owner whose newly forged country then went on to try to destroy its native population.

Personally I would have voted Rommel or Joan of Arc if this was middle ages too.. someone else mentioned Tomoyuki Yamashita because of what Churchill said about him. But I do think Washington to be the most underrated general in history.

[Border Patrol]

His greatest accomplishment was a retreat. Certainly not greatest enemy material.
I would have voted Napoleon myself.

[The_Fan]

When you are manned, out gunned and short of supplies you don't tend to go on the offensive

Washington was only an average general but he was smart enough to face facts and not let pride get in the way.

[Farnan]

His greatest accomplishment was a retreat. Certainly not greatest enemy material.
I would have voted Napoleon myself.

Retreating is one of the most difficult maneuvers to do effectively.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I would have expected Napoleon. Kind of ironic, though, because Washington was born a British subject, so the greatest enemy of Britain was a Briton

[visser300]

Now I understand why Americans let Germany to kick France & Germany butts before joining the two world wars. They wanted to look like the saviors of the world and they also wanted their biggest enemys falling apart.

[Border Patrol]

But how does that make him their greatest enemy commander?

[Farnan]

But how does that make him their greatest enemy commander?

Cause he won.

All the other choices lost (but Michael Collins and Ataturk, and the Brits aren't going to vote for an IRA guy and most probably don't know Ataturk as well as Washington).

[The Vitiated Mind]

Well he did most of the damage to UK .

[Caelius]

I'm going to have a great time drinking up the British tears and butthurt in this thread.

Suck it hard!

[Pielstick]

I'm going to have a great time drinking up the British tears and butthurt in this thread.

Matched only perhaps by the hubris of one or two Americans stroking their nationalistic pen... er I mean egoes and trying to turn it into a pissing match. Still, whatever floats your boat mate


Back on topic - I would have thought that Karl Dönitz should have been in pretty strong contention for the title.

[Kitsunegari]

What a joke, Washington was mediocre at best.

Well he did most of the damage to UK .

No he did not, even among American commanders that would go to Andrew Jackson.

None of the five is particularly pleasant ideologically," Hughes added, saying that even Washington was a slave owner whose newly forged country then went on to try to destroy its native population.

That makes as much sense as blaming Britain for these developments since GW was a loyal servant of the King for most of his life.

[Erebus Pasha]

What a joke, Washington was mediocre at best.

He was adequate in a tactical sense but he was good strategist. He was careful to pick and choose when to fight and never allowed his army to be destroyed. You have to give Washington credit for the survival and reinvigoration of the Continental Army during 1776-78, when the the position of the American Revolutionaries was rather precarious.

So no tears or rear end pain from me Caelius

No he did not, even among American commanders that would go to Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson comes nowhere near to be honest. Jackson won a terrific victory at New Orleans but it was one that had little relevance, as peace between the US and Britain had already been signed at Ghent to end a war which is commonly view as not having a truly decisive outcome for either side.

[Kitsunegari]

He was adequate in a tactical sense but he was good strategist. He was careful to pick and choose when to fight and never allowed his army to be destroyed. You have to give Washington credit for the survival and reinvigoration of the Continental Army during 1776-78, when the the position of the American Revolutionaries was rather precarious.

To me that's one of his biggest failings, he insisted on trying to mold a conventional fighting force when the colonists' greatest strength was in asymetrical warfare, as shown in the southern theatre. However it is true that as a strategist he outclassed the British as the war progressed.

Andrew Jackson comes nowhere near to be honest. Jackson won a terrific victory at New Orleans but it was one that had little relevance, as peace between the US and Britain had already been signed at Ghent to end a war which is commonly view as not having a truly decisive outcome for either side.

I have to disagree here, New Orleans was the key to controlling the newly acquired Louisiana territories and ensured continued expansion westward. A British victory might have allowed them to dominate the western half of what is now the US.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

George Washington was essentially Fabius Maximus. He won by continuously living to fight another day until the odds finally came down in his favor.

Out of the available choices, I probably would have voted Napoleon even though he lost. He still was the greatest threat the British have faced on the battlefield.

Yamashita is tempting, as the OP mentions.

A poll like this for the US would be very interesting. In the 20th century alone you would have Sandino, Yamamoto, Rommel, Giap, many others (I would vote for Giap).

Given the NAM's criterion, Britain faced some other great commanders during this timeframe who had direct success against British forces. Those that spring to mind would be Maurice de Saxe, Louis de Montcalm and Paul Von Lettow Vorbeck.

Good thoughts.

[hellheaven1987]

Although British did not want to admit it, we all know the its greatest enemy is no one but William the Conqueror himself (you can also add Papacy and William III the England here).

[Markas]

Washington's greatest ability was that (as Wellington after India said about himself) he knew what not to do. His formative years in the French and Indian Wars taught him that. Keeping his army on the move and his men from deserting when their enlistments expired and the money ran out (until French money rolled in) was quite an achievement when the revolutionary cause seemed utterly moribund.

That said, I'd go Napoleon as well. He was a constant threat to Britain itself and his plan to lure the RN away to the west could have given him time to invade had Villeneuve not been... Villeneuve.

[money]

Washington is one of the most overrated generals in history, that being said the best would be Napoleon or Yamashita. Rommel just lost against Britian unless you count Gazala (which was his only major victory against Britain). I also wouldn't vote Ataturk since he beat Britain at Gallipoli but lost to them at Megiddo, his other accomplishments were against Russia in the Caucasus and Greece in the independence war. Michael Collins was not as well known around the world in his day or this day. Although I would definitely choose Napoleon, politically he unified the whole continent and the majority of Muslim countries against Britain, in other words people do not realize how screwed Britain was. Had Rossily or almost any other of his Admirals which actually followed orders then Napoleon would have a decisive victory and according to himself he would either make Britain a puppet Republic or annexed it and crowned himself at Westminster. Had Manstein been able to go through with Operation Sea Lion then perhaps he would be the greatest enemy of Britain.

[Markas]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...-ever-foe.html

Oh. Online polls ain't worth .

[Erebus Pasha]

Given the NAM's criterion, Britain faced some other great commanders during this timeframe who had direct success against British forces. Those that spring to mind would be Maurice de Saxe, Louis de Montcalm and Paul Von Lettow Vorbeck.

To me that's one of his biggest failings, he insisted on trying to mold a conventional fighting force when the colonists' greatest strength was in asymetrical warfare, as shown in the southern theatre. However it is true that as a strategist he outclassed the British as the war progressed.

The American Revolution was won by the use of conventional forces. Guerilla forces could be a nuisance and could suppress loyalist support but they were never a war winner alone. The key American victories of war - Saratoga, Trenton, Princeton and Yorktown - were all conventional battlefield encounters(Yorktown was a siege but involved encounters between regular infantry on both sides). Continental line infantry was definitely inferior to its British enemy earlier on in the conflict but by 1781 it would be at least its equal.

I have to disagree here, New Orleans was the key to controlling the newly acquired Louisiana territories and ensured continued expansion westward. A British victory might have allowed them to dominate the western half of what is now the US.

You can disagree but the battle had no relevance as the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed.