Well, How about Washington losing nearly every single battle against a military with supply routes based thousands of miles away. His best strength was (oddly enough) the french and his endurance.
"How about Washington losing nearly every single battle against a military with supply routes based thousands of miles away. His best strength was (oddly enough) the french and his endurance."
And how about comparing the tools that Washington and his British opponents had? Whatever the shortcomings of British leadership, the British infantry battalion was one of the best tactical units of its time. Whereas Washington's army had to be put together on the fly, lacking the backbone of experienced NCOs that European armies had.
Washington's military decisions were always sound, and he hung in there until the Continental Army could match the British volley for volley -- and win. (That might have *something* to do with his losing nearly of his battles. Once his army was good enough to win battles he won the war.)
And let's compare the *strategic* results of General Washington's string of battlefield defeats to Marshall Bonaparte's string of victories. Wars are intended to achieve goals -- if you fail to achieve your goal, especially when the strategic goal is achievable (and they were for both France and the United States) -- I don't care how many battlefield victories a general wins, he isn't much of a general.
Washington's greatest military accomplishment is rarely recognized as one. It was his successful campaign -- after the end of the American Revolution -- to get his officers to go home, and fight thier battles politically, instead of setting up a military dictatorship in the United States. Look at how many other generals failed that test -- including Cromwell, Bolivar, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. If you want to see what would have happened had Washington made himself Lord Protector or King George, just look at the history of Mexico.