George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

[gilliam]

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."

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

[ATeutonicKnight]

He was most certainly a worthy opponent. He beat the most powerful military empire in the world with a lack of resources. Many of his men didn't have proper uniforms, they didn't have blankets, and they were often on short supply of guns and ammo. He had to use anything he possibly could for cannon ammunition, as cannon balls were hard to come by. Even after the British sent thirty thousand troops to invade America, he still defeated them. He was truly a tactical genius.

[didymus]

I'd like to see a poll of real military men on the subject. I suspect those voting favored fellow Anglophones from countries England is now friends with (mostly).

I would vote for Bonaparte who posed the greatest threat to England, or Ataturk who inflicted the most humiliating defeat of WW I.

Much as I admire Collins, he doesn't belong on the list at all.

[7 Sorrows]

i think that being defeated by Washington and the consequences of losing what is now the United States of America proves that Washington was indeed Britain's greatest foe.
if England had been the victor, the mightier its empire.
i can see how Napolean was indeed a threat and i would have included on the list Hitler as well in WWII with the bombing raids.
but George Washington gave Britain a surprisingly and humiliating defeat. they even returned in 1812 to try to rectify the defeat and lost again.

[Nine_Two]

Clearly it should be William III of Orange.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

Clearly it should be William III of Orange.

This

[Calgar]

Originally Posted by 7 Sorrows

i would have included on the list Hitler as well.

Hitler was a political leader. Not a military leader.

They did include Rommel.

[stevegravy]

Acknowledging the do credit to be given Washington and his soldiers do not forget that there were two little empires that were also fighting the British at this time… France, Dutch, Spain. Had the revolutionary war not been tacked onto a larger geo-political war ranging from India through the Caribbean the colonist would have been squashed. It was the cost of continuing the exertions in the colonies and possibly losing ground around the globe that forced negotiations. If Britain wanted to it could have easily replaced Cornwallace’s loses at Yorktown with another army and kept fighting. But the rest of the world got in the way.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by stevegravy

Acknowledging the do credit to be given Washington and his soldiers do not forget that there were two little empires that were also fighting the British at this time… France, Dutch, Spain. Had the revolutionary war not been tacked onto a larger geo-political war ranging from India through the Caribbean the colonist would have been squashed. It was the cost of continuing the exertions in the colonies and possibly losing ground around the globe that forced negotiations. If Britain wanted to it could have easily replaced Cornwallace’s loses at Yorktown with another army and kept fighting. But the rest of the world got in the way.

The problem was England had been fighting for years and the only parts of the thirteen colonies they controlled was the ground beneath their soldier’s feet. England was the only nation on earth that could project its power over vast distances, but even that ability was limited. The US is one of the few nations on earth today that can send an army nearly anywhere on earth and keep it equipped and supplied. Then as today the power to project that power costs enormous amounts of money.

The British could have sent another army to the colonies but to what end? The British had already replaced armies that had been destroyed by Washington and had to rebuild armies that had defeated him. Maintaining an army in a war of attrition at the end of a three thousand mile supply line is very difficult and expensive today – to have done so in the 1770s is nearly an act of folly. The war ended due to lack of support from the English people and recognition by the government that keeping the colonies was a greater expense than they could ever recoup even if they eventually won – something no one was predicting to happen in the near future.

[stevegravy]

Not to discount anything you have said regarding the difficulties facing supply and logistics the British army faced. However, one salient fact is that almost as many colonists were supportive of the government in London as were against it. London could have played off the civil war aspects. My less than professional reading has London cozying up to the Indian Nations putting them behind the eight ball with the other part of the domestic population that was neutral. And yes everything else you say is true as to why they settled with the rebels. But boy did they lose out on the economic calculations. I think they got some lands in India and were happy to claim victory and go home.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by stevegravy

But boy did they lose out on the economic calculations. I think they got some lands in India and were happy to claim victory and go home.

While they may have miscalculated, I think they still got it right. Had Washington suffered a major defeat and his army scattered and he hung as a traitor England would have won the war, only to fight it again 10 years later, then fight it again 20 years later. The colonies would have become a what they faced in Ireland - only 3000 miles away instead of less than 100 miles.

Constant fighting for control would have prevented England from enjoying the benefits of the colonies (and possibly even Canada).

[7 Sorrows]

Originally Posted by Calgar

Hitler was a political leader. Not a military leader.

They did include Rommel.

i see hitler as both a political and military leader.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by 7 Sorrows

i see hitler as both a political and military leader.

As a military leader he was the Allies' greatest asset in the European Theatre. Without him Dunkirk would have never happened, there would have been no massive loss at Stalingrad, the North African campaign may never had involved Germany and the Luftwaffe would have had jets in 1943 instead of 1945.

[Calgar]

Originally Posted by SamH

As a military leader he was the Allies' greatest asset in the European Theatre. Without him Dunkirk would have never happened, there would have been no massive loss at Stalingrad, the North African campaign may never had involved Germany and the Luftwaffe would have had jets in 1943 instead of 1945.

Yes, many people would think that he deserved consideration, but we know that he was no military leader of any great intellect.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by Calgar

Yes, many people would think that he deserved consideration, but we know that he was no military leader of any great intellect.

Indeed:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...stgeneral.aspx