Posted on 04/14/2012 10:16:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent.
He was one of a shortlist of five leaders who topped a public poll and on Saturday was selected as the ultimate winner by an audience of around 70 guests at a special event at the museum, in Chelsea, west London.
In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader, ahead of Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
At the event, each contender had their case made by a historian giving a 40 minute presentation. The audience, who had paid to attend the day, then voted in a secret ballot after all five presentations had been made.
Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, said: "As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent."
The shortlist of five were selected from an initial list of 20 candidates, drawn up by the museum's curators. To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
The contest was designed to not only identify Britain's most outstanding opponent, but also to draw attention to some lesser-known adversaries.
Most of the 20 fought in various colonial wars, such as Ntshingwayo kaMahole, the Zulu leader and victor of Isandlwana, one of the British army's greatest military defeats, and Tipu Sultan, known as the "Tiger of Mysore", who resisted British expansion in India.
Alongside Rommel, the only Second World War leader was Tomoyuki Yamashita, the Japanese commander who oversaw the fall of Singapore. The one woman on the list was Rani of Jhansi, who fought British forces in nineteenth centuryIndia.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What about Canute and William the Conqueror who actually conquered them?
Michael Collins?
Hysterical.....shows how weak Britannia has become
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78
Revolution - The Beatles
surprised Hilter wasn’t on the list.
From the article: The shortlist of five were selected from an initial list of 20 candidates, drawn up by the museum's curators. To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
Here is a little description of one of his battles. Excerpted from link.
The first clash of the battle was 500 English cavalry engaging the Scottish schiltrons. The Scots held their lines. The English cavalry kept retreating and charging into the schiltrons to try to break the lines, but to no avail. The cavalry force was decimated with very little loss to the Scottish troops. Robert the Bruce was actually concerned about the English cavalry charge, and thought that his men were losing, so he sent reinforcements. To his surprise, his reinforcements found that the English cavalry had been beaten. The English army was advancing across the Bannockburn, and one English knight, Henry De Bohun, saw Robert the Bruce going back to the Scottish ranks and tried to kill him. However, Robert the Bruce heard him coming, and killed him with his axe. If Henry would have killed Robert the Bruce, the whole history of the British Isles could have been changed. The Scottish army would have been demoralized, and they may have not fought the Battle of Bannockburn after their leader's death. The English were camped between the Gillies Hill and the Bannockburn gorge. Robert the Bruce had come up with a plan. Between the battleground and the English camp, was a small gorge. This would slow the English progress. Robert planned to attack the English there.
The English cavalry had crossed the gorge and the Scots had formed up along the plain. The Scots formed in their schiltrons, and they held their lines against the 2,500 English knights. The remaining retreating cavalry caused much panic in the English army. The longbowmen, whom were still crossing the gorge, fired, and hit some of their retreating cavalry while killing few of their intended targets. The longbowmen were soon scattered by 500 light Scottish cavalry commanded by Keith the Marischal of Scotland whom came out from the woods. It has been speculated by some historians that some of these cavalry were exiled Templar Knights, but there is no real source for this. The Scots then charged on the English infantry still remaining near the gorge, and pushed them all of the way back onto the edge of the Bannockburn. The English army was decisively defeated because of the great use of terrain by Robert the Bruce. The two decisive victories that the Scottish won in their first war of independence were due to the strategic use of terrain. Later, in 1328, King Robert I would sign the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton with King Edward III(King Edward II had been deposed and killed in 1327), which would officially end the war. The war had been won by the underdogs. The Scottish did not have the weapons or the manpower to beat the English, yet with the use of superior tactics, they won their independence from England.
Sounds just a little familiar. At any rate, from this link.
Kind of surprized Mohandas Gandhi is not on that list.
(American spelling of surprized)
Some people around here are a little slow on the sarcasm thing.
However, sarcasm is a 2nd language for me. Well played.
They purposely crafted the rules to exclude foreign bastards.
Yeah I thought of William the conqueror when I read the article but they specifically mentioned it had to be after the 17th century. If it hadn’t had that condition, I think he would have won it since he conquered them and eviscerated the english nobility, installed the norman dynasty and the nobility of england was almost completely replaced and had french as their language, essentially creating an upper class language and lower class english. It also contributed to the large amount of french words in the english language, and it deviating from its german roots. Or somehting like that :P
Thanks.
In the article, it is stated that they must come from the 17th century onward, as that is the time period covered by the museum.
lol
If I have to include a sarcasm tag, it’s no longer sarcasm. ;-)
Maybe that’s why they limited it to after the 17th Century... they didn’t want to go there.
I almost said Louis Botha but the others were tougher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.