George Washington voted Britain's greatest enemy commander

[Londinium]

Eh it's really not that important it was an online poll of 8,000 people. Hardly the most scientific or intelligent of things. There was even an online campaign to get Attaturk to win because 95% of people in the UK have no clue who he is, that's why he ended up relatively so high.

Washington was good at holding together his army after defeat after defeat but you really need to look no further than Napoleon.

[Invictus XII]

Pfft, It doesn't matter what the end result was, that has dilldly-squat to do with how you measure the greatness of a man, particularly as ones enemy. Was Washington faced with several superpowers all against him? Did Washington command battles with over half a million combatants? Did Washington have such a charisma that he could sway a continent of citizens? Did Washington defeat the British in every battle except one? Did Washington threaten the British homeland, causing them to panic and need the assistance of the other European superpowers? Did Washington repeatedly defeat numerous enemies when victory seemed the impossible?

Hmm, who did all these, oh wait. Napoleon did.

Sorry for being quite scathing, but like I said before, a man isn't measured for anything by his ending, but the content that consisted his life. Do you remember the Beatles during the 60s, or how they are now? Do you think of Rome during its glory years or during the commencement of the Dark Ages.

[Domen123]

Personally I would have voted Rommel or Joan of Arc if this was middle ages too..

But Joan of Arc was enemy of England - not Britain. Britain didn't exist at that time.

[Azog 150]

Did Washington defeat the British in every battle except one?

Did Napoleon?

Did Washington threaten the British homeland, causing them to panic and need the assistance of the other European superpowers?

Did Napoleon?

[TWWolfe]

Did Napoleon?



Did Napoleon?

Yes and Yes

[Gatsby]

I would have voted Yamashita, I don't think the Empire was ever so humiliated like it was at Singapore, I mean Britain wasn't in an exactly advantageous position in the American Revolution, but Singapore was an utterly pathetic effort.

And I know, "he didn't win in the end", but the poll was the greatest commander, not the most successful, which Washington was. Washington was not a brilliant military mind, he did well, but I sincerely doubt that he can be considered equivalent to the likes of Yamashita or Napoleon.

And the reason I didn't pick Napoleon was because he didn't fight Britain very much.

Washington didn't win American independence any more than the Atlantic Ocean.

[Erebus Pasha]

@TWWolfe - I don't think Napoleon actually faced the British directly on the battlefield apart from Waterloo, although he faced British forces at the Sieges of Toulon and the Siege of Acre earlier in his career.

Napoleon did plan an invasion of England for 1805 and reportedly massed a large number of troops for crossing the Channel. That and an earlier incursion into Ireland (although limited) does show that Revolutionary and Napoleonic France was a threat to the British Isles.

[Ishoss]

Napoleon cut Britain off from the continent for a decade. It wouldn't surprise me if that did more damage to their economy than losing 13 very peripher and small colonies.

In the article they say Napoleon did not actually make any permanent political changes. What? His restructuring of the European map was very important in the development of nationalism in the 19th century. Surely a lot of heartbreak would have been saved for Britain if Germany was never unified?

The consequences of Napoleon's conquests have been much more dramatic for Great Britain than the consequences of losing a group of colonies who were less important than a handful Caribbean islands. Indeed, losing America has payed off in the end since it enabled an Anglo-Saxon empire to pull their asses out of the in modern time.

Ghandi > George Washington in terms of consequences .

[Markas]

The War of independence saw Britain lose about 50,000 men. The Napoleonic Wars saw Britain lose 300,000 men. Britain had native support but the Rebels had France, Spain and toward the end the Netherlands on their side. Against Napoleon Britain was part of a large coalition- that's how serious the situation was.

Washington was more damaging to Britain than Napoleon? Pfft. The only real damage they did to Britain was Jones Paul Jones raiding a Scottish brewery. As for the British Empire, the colonies were certainly a loss but come on, it ushered in the 'second empire'.

If you were being clever you could say that the AWI bankrupted the French and that helped the French Revolution and thereby brought about Napoleon. In that respect it certainly was more damaging to Britain!

[Ishoss]

The War of independence saw Britain lose about 50,000 men. The Napoleonic Wars saw Britain lose 300,000 men. Britain had native support but the Rebels had France, Spain and toward the end the Netherlands on their side. Against Napoleon Britain was part of a large coalition- that's how serious the situation was.

Washington was more damaging to Britain than Napoleon? Pfft. The only real damage they did to Britain was Jones Paul Jones raiding a Scottish brewery. As for the British Empire, the colonies were certainly a loss but come on, it ushered in the 'second empire'.

If you were being clever you could say that the AWI bankrupted the French and that helped the French Revolution and thereby brought about Napoleon. In that respect it certainly was more damaging to Britain!

Pssshh, we all know the French Revolution was due to Laki erupting. Blame the Icelandics!

[Caelius]

As I predicted when this thread first got posted.....lots of British butthurt (and non-British sympathy too) coming out over this.

Which isn't too surprising given how British revisionism would rather prefer to write off the loss of the American Colonies as a "footnote" in British history. And trump up Napoleon because he was a more "worthy opponent"....even though he ended up losing....or the fact that he never really directly fought the British a whole lot during his career...and that the one time he did (at Waterloo)...the British only comprised 1/3 of the total allied force even if holding overall command.

Austria, Russia, Prussia, and even Spain were all more threatening opponents to Napoleon then Britain ever was.

Let's also not count out the fact that the effort to retain the Colonies was unprecedented in British history at the time (largest deployment of British troops and ships up till that point), or that the downfall of Lord North's government was the first time a Prime Minister had ever been forced out of office via a vote of no confidence.

Or that the support the French gave the Americans in the war effort is what directly led to their financial insolvency only a few years later. Thus leading to the Revolution.

Or that the French Rights of Man is directly inspired by the American Declaration of Independence. With Thomas Jefferson (who was in France at the time) helping them to right it.

Or that the outcome of the American Revolution was the first of it's kind in history where a colony was able to successfully overthrow it's mother country. And likewise inspired a whole wave of similar uprisings across the Western Hemisphere 20 years down the road as other colonies in the Americas rebelled against Spain and France.

But in the end, it comes down to people wanting to focus on the "big leagues" of the Napoleonic Era rather than admit to the only person on the list who quantifiably bested them with fewer men, material, and organization....and then went on to become the Father of a nation that would surpass them in scope and power a century and a half down the road.

[Londinium]

Let's also not count out the fact that the effort to retain the Colonies was unprecedented in British history at the time (largest deployment of British troops and ships up till that point), or that the downfall of Lord North's government was the first time a Prime Minister had ever been forced out of office via a vote of no confidence.

Lets not forget that the largest army that the British ever put into the field during the Revolutionary War was 20,000 troops (Long Island/Brooklyn) and most battles involved far less, especially after Monmouth. That's peanuts compared to what was being put forth even for British land campaigns in the Napoleonic Wars. Yes at the time the effort made to retain the colonies was unprecedented but it was far exceeded by the effort made in the Napoleonic Wars and ultimately the American War had little long term impact on the British. Indeed trade between Britain and the colonies actually rose after the war and also became more one sided as the colonies could no longer trade with the West Indies. If Napoleon had won, Britain would have gained no benefit whatsoever and massive long term effects would have taken place.

Your argument is pointless and almost trolling. The fact that you thought Prussia of all countries was a greater threat to Britain than Napoleonic France is verging on ridiculous.

[Gatsby]

As I predicted when this thread first got posted.....lots of British butthurt (and non-British sympathy too) coming out over this.

Which isn't too surprising given how British revisionism would rather prefer to write off the loss of the American Colonies as a "footnote" in British history. And trump up Napoleon because he was a more "worthy opponent"....even though he ended up losing....or the fact that he never really directly fought the British a whole lot during his career...and that the one time he did (at Waterloo)...the British only comprised 1/3 of the total allied force even if holding overall command.

Austria, Russia, Prussia, and even Spain were all more threatening opponents to Napoleon then Britain ever was.

Let's also not count out the fact that the effort to retain the Colonies was unprecedented in British history at the time (largest deployment of British troops and ships up till that point), or that the downfall of Lord North's government was the first time a Prime Minister had ever been forced out of office via a vote of no confidence.

Or that the support the French gave the Americans in the war effort is what directly led to their financial insolvency only a few years later. Thus leading to the Revolution.

Or that the French Rights of Man is directly inspired by the American Declaration of Independence. With Thomas Jefferson (who was in France at the time) helping them to right it.

Or that the outcome of the American Revolution was the first of it's kind in history where a colony was able to successfully overthrow it's mother country. And likewise inspired a whole wave of similar uprisings across the Western Hemisphere 20 years down the road as other colonies in the Americas rebelled against Spain and France.

But in the end, it comes down to people wanting to focus on the "big leagues" of the Napoleonic Era rather than admit to the only person on the list who quantifiably bested them with fewer men, material, and organization....and then went on to become the Father of a nation that would surpass them in scope and power a century and a half down the road.

Well, Washington himself didn't best the British, he simply commanded an army which had the advantage of massive popular support, fighting on home terrain, and not having to cross thousands of miles of ocean to reach the warzone in the age of sail. Not to mention the fact that the other colonial powers were practically tripping over each other to help him.

I doesn't matter how massive a defeat the War of Independence was, the matter is that Washington was not an excellent commander. If we wish to make a list of largest military defeats for the UK, let's throw the WOI right up there, but to say that Washington was the best commander the British ever faced is ridiculous.

I think there's a desire for a more romantic way to look at the WOI. People would rather imagine a military genius leading a rag-tag band of farmers armed with nothing but strength of will to victory over the Empire, but it wasn't so.

[saxdude]

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

Lol, what are you kidding?

[TheSutekh]

Could someone list the direct of involvement of George Washington in victories against the British?

[Blau&Gruen]

Could someone list the direct of involvement of George Washington in victories against the British?

His major victory was being able to keep an army in the field all the years of the War of Independence. He may owe winning the vote more than some commanders on the Continent who won major battles during the Seven Years War for this reason.

[Erebus Pasha]

The most notable were Trenton, Princeton and Yorktown. You could possibly mention Haarlem Heights too but Washington withdrew from the field when British reserves came up. There are probably others but these are the most famous...

@Caelius - I don't think you're being entirely fair. There is no British 'butthurt' over this and I think this thread has generated some interesting debate about the requirements for the greatest enemy commander that Britain has ever faced. I have actually defended Washington, but in terms of military skill the prevailing argument is that Napoleon was his superior. The counter-argument to this has been mostly along the lines of "well Napoleon lost in the end, but Washington won.

Now Napoleon might've have only fought the British directly on one notable occasion, but he was more of a direct threat to British interests than Washington was and even threatened the British Isles directly. On a further note, I don't see your point with this line of argument "Austria, Russia, Prussia, and even Spain were all more threatening opponents to Napoleon then Britain ever was", as we are debating the opposite - who was the greatest threat to Britain?

[Blau&Gruen]

Washington has never been on a military school, has he? And even if he was a short time, the fact remains noteworthy that a former non commissioned militia officer of a lower rank achieved to hold through that long against the professionals of the royal army.

[TheSutekh]

Washington has never been on a military school, has he? And even if he was a short time, the fact remains noteworthy that a former non commissioned militia officer of a lower rank achieved to hold through that long against the professionals of the royal army.

Didn't he serve under British army first though?

[Shneckie]

I'm struggling to understand how exactly Washington is Britain's greatest enemy commander on the basis that Britain lost the War of Independence. There were far more critical factors which contributed to Britain losing the war than Washington. First of all, Britain was completely isolated. The French, Spanish and Dutch were all allied alongside the Americans against Britain. You also had Prussian officers who drilled and trained to Continental army so they could actually be a match for British regulars. Not to mention that logistically, fighting this war was a nightmare for the British who had 3000 miles of sea to transport supplies and reinforcements. If you took all of that away, what exactly is Washington to the British?

Compared to Napoleon, defeating Napoleon required much greater military and political strain on part of the British despite the fact that the British were part of a coalition involving every other major European power bar France + the wars being fought were all on the European continent compared to 3000 miles across the sea thus making it easier to deploy troops and supplies.

When you consider the much greater number of advantages available to the British (compared to the revolutionary war) against Napoleon and check that against the insurmountable effort required to defeat Napoleon, and then consider the number of factors that also contributed to Britain's loss in the Revolutionary War (Washington's presence aside), was Washington that great an enemy to the British?