Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JasonC
But by the standards of straight military history, he was a mediocre corps level commander. We won because of our natural advantages in the war (distance, popular support, etc) and because of French help - not because of any brilliance in Washington's generalship. He was a good man, but not a gifted general.

Distance only became a factor because of the length of the war, which only occured because of the strategic vision of George Washington. Also, distance did not play as vital a role in the British defeat as did the will of that country's government to continue the fight.

Popular support? There was no overwhelming majority in favor of the Revolution amongst the Americans. A plurality yes, but not overwhelmingly larger than the Tories or those who simply didn't care one way or the other.

Also, don't overestimate the support of the French. The only battle they played a truly decisive role in was Yorktown, but Cornwallis wouldn't have retreated to an earlier-than-usual winter encampment if not for the weariness inflicted by the prolonged war.

Hannibal, Napoleon, etc. fought with regular armies that were equipped and trained by regular means. The American army had to make do by any means possible, and much of that came through the leadership of Washington.

As far as being a "mediocre corps level commander," he wasn't. A mediocre commander could not have survived and persevered for six years with an army that was constantly outnumbered, outgunned, and encumbered by the Continental Congress' constant bickering amongst themselves. Washington was betrayed by his ablest general (Benedict Arnold) and played the role of an Eisenhower in balancing the personalities of numerous generals both foreign and domestic. He devised tactics to give his army a chance to survive battle and even win some, often defying the standards of the day for what constituted battle. He conceived of movements to minimize the long odds against his troops (think of the crossing of the Delaware).

Washington was a brilliant man, a great student of any subject he put his mind to, and through his sterling character became an inspiration to all Americans. Think of it this way: If Grant had failed, the Civil War would have lasted a few years longer but the Confederate army was already mortally wounded at Gettysburg; if D-Day had failed, we would have licked our wounds and tried again in a few years, but we already had a toe-hold in Italy and the Russians had the tide turned in the East. If Washington had failed, there would be no United States as we know them, and we'd still be speaking...English, I guess. ;>)

542 posted on 01/04/2005 2:49:50 PM PST by HenryLeeII (Democrats have helped kill more Americans than the Soviets and Nazis combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]


To: HenryLeeII
Washington was a brilliant man, a great student of any subject he put his mind to, and through his sterling character became an inspiration to all Americans. Think of it this way: If Grant had failed, the Civil War would have lasted a few years longer but the Confederate army was already mortally wounded at Gettysburg; if D-Day had failed, we would have licked our wounds and tried again in a few years, but we already had a toe-hold in Italy and the Russians had the tide turned in the East. If Washington had failed, there would be no United States as we know them, and we'd still be speaking...English, I guess. ;>)

That one paragraph alone places Washington in his proper place. I've always had a lot of respect for him, when you put him in his place in time - namely outnumbered/outgunned, constantly on the movie, constantly having to deal with the worst aspects of politics and human nature, it's amazing he was able to do anything.

Something to think about with Grant..had he failed, would Lee have been put in charge of all Confederate forces? If not, wouldn't the chances of Confederate defeat have gone up? I've always felt, and I maybe wrong, interprations change all the time, but that without the urgency that Confederate losses created in 1863 through the end of 1864, Lee might have remained where he was at. We might have ended up with Sherman replacing Grant, or something along those lines, and Sherman's March to the Sea might have been a whole lot bigger and longer. Most Confederate Generals were not thinking at the level that Lee was.
545 posted on 01/04/2005 3:06:02 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson