Article

2012-04-15 -Short Attention Span Theater-

George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2012-04-15 02:39|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Guess you never saw the likes of a General Lee?

Posted by newc 2012-04-15 03:30|| 2012-04-15 03:30|| Front Page Top

#2 A bit of a self inflicted wound. During the period of the French and Indian War and shortly thereafter, Washington sought a colonelcy in the Royal Army, only to be turned down by His Majesty's agent in the American colonies.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-04-15 08:49|| 2012-04-15 08:49|| Front Page Top

#3 I would have thought AdmiralChuichi Nagumo would have been a bigger enemy for the severe ass kicking he delivered to the British Navy in the Indian Ocean in 1942

Posted by badanov 2012-04-15 08:58|| http://www.freefirezone.org 2012-04-15 08:58|| Front Page Top

#4 Somewhat slow thinking, about 250 Years in fact.
Not enough Beer?

Posted by Redneck Jim 2012-04-15 12:00|| 2012-04-15 12:00|| Front Page Top

#5 Guess you never saw the likes of a General Lee?

R.E. Lee was 7 years old the last time the US fought the British on US soil.

Posted by badanov 2012-04-15 12:07|| http://www.freefirezone.org 2012-04-15 12:07|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm just saying they missed out. GW was not really the best General we had.

Posted by newc 2012-04-15 12:22|| 2012-04-15 12:22|| Front Page Top

#7 They missed out with the Germans as well. The Brits never got the pleasure of dealing with von Manstein.

Posted by badanov 2012-04-15 12:31|| http://www.freefirezone.org 2012-04-15 12:31|| Front Page Top

#8 OK, I'll take the bait.

It clearly depends what exactly is meant by 'greatest ever foe' but from the possible foes mentioned it is inconceivable that the top foe could not be judged to have been Napoleon. The scope and cost of Britain's war with Napoleon was enormous - - I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but it must rival the costs of either the first or second world wars in constant dollars. And this war, like its final battle, was a "damned near-run thing" for Britain. If Britain had lost, the consequences for the country - - and for the people of many other countries besides - - would have been very bad indeed.

Moreover, had Britain not been engaged in a running conflict with France at the time of the American secession, it's entirely possible that General Washington would have met with more decisive British opposition and lost.

No, George Washington was clearly a good general and subsequently a great leader (less in the sense that his policy prescriptions were brilliant but that he set the first and lasting example of the peaceful transfer of power in the young United States). But 'greatest ever foe'? I don't think so.

Posted by Peter Carroll 2012-04-15 12:33|| 2012-04-15 12:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Yes, it's based upon factors other than just battlefield. As for cost, another way of looking at it is as lost potential. When you throw in what America developed into, it's all off the Empire's subsequent balance sheet.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-04-15 12:51|| 2012-04-15 12:51|| Front Page Top

#10 My initial take was no way, but on second reading, it doesn't say the "greatest general". As the man who played the major part in removing the colonies from British control, the political and economic impact are staggering.

Posted by Chunky Omineling3935 2012-04-15 13:02|| 2012-04-15 13:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Sure it wasn't Neville Chamberlain.

If is is the American Colonies, then perhaps Ben Franklin; not to take away from any of the many others who were responsible for creating the situation for Washington to be the successful commander he was.

I hate ranking American commanders, as so many were so successful in so many different situations. I do suggest Washington's Crossing which not only highlights Washington and his stuggles but also does well to note the British and their particulars.

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-04-15 15:23|| 2012-04-15 15:23|| Front Page Top

#12 The foe was determined after a debate so each of the four leading "foes" could have lost by having a bad supporter talking up their cause.

I'd go with Napoleon as well since he fought on for two decades while Rommel was eventually defeated in North Africa and Michael Collins didn't really belong in the same league.

Personally I'd probably put forth Joan of Arc who reversed decades worth of English victories in France fairly rapidly, without military training or even any military skill to speak of and pretty much knocked the British off the continent (okay the changing loyalties of the Burgundians had a lot to do with it, but still).

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-04-15 21:03|| 2012-04-15 21:03|| Front Page Top

#13 There was no "US" at the time, only 13 separate Colonies wid an organized but "rocky" Congress.

Besides his own Commanders + other, Ole' George had to deal wid Colonial Politicians at all levels whom had their own ideas on how to fight the war agz the Brits + how, whom to pay for it.

IIRC the in-fighting + disagreements were such that he George wrote how missed the days of when he was a young Surveyor on the frontier at risk from Highwaymen andor French-Indian ambush.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-04-15 22:31|| 2012-04-15 22:31|| Front Page Top

23:37 Water Modem
23:32 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:24 trailing wife
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:09 trailing wife
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:55 RandomJD
22:52 JosephMendiola
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:27 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:26 Silentbrick - Halliburton Lost Drill Bit Division
22:14 Angie Schultz
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:03 lord garth
21:59 JosephMendiola
21:40 Richard Aubrey
21:05 rjschwarz
21:03 rjschwarz
21:00 Nimble Spemble
20:31 KBK
20:29 Hellfish
20:00 JosephMendiola
20:00 Pappy
Merry-Go-Blog