PDA

View Full Version : was Washington a bad general?



Radman500
08-09-2012, 02:19 AM
i hear he was not that good of a military leader...

was he a below-average general......?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57525/assassinscreed/images/3/36/ACIII-GWashington_V.png

Assassin_M
08-09-2012, 02:21 AM
Yes, I`ll let someone else answer in more detail, but yes he was..

rileypoole1234
08-09-2012, 02:42 AM
Well I'm not sure about going into more detail, but I'm pretty sure he was always unsure of himself. I don't think he even ever wanted to be a general. The few battles he won seem to have been guided by luck, or by an idea posed by somebody else. Example: Henry Knox retrieved the artillery from the siege of Boston after remembering how useful it was. Until then, Washington was content to sit for weeks ad weeks.

There were many battles lost due to extremely poor planning on Washington's part. Washington even sidelined snipers who had picked off British soldiers from great distances, just because he thought that style of fighting wasn't proper. A series of defeat came quickly after Boston. Washington even had at least two thousand men captured after a decision to retreat and beef up Fort Washington. The surrounding areas were British-controlled.

He did manage to hold the Army together, and he won the battle that counted, Yorktown. The arrival of the French can be thanked for that though. If he were a truly bad general though, he likely would've been removed.

Read up on Fort Necessity if you want to see truly awful planning.

Here's also a good read from Yahoo Answers: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080926140515AAB8xOp

LoyalACFan
08-09-2012, 05:17 AM
He was not a military genius, but to be honest, I think modern evaluation of his generalship is too severe. Let's cut the guy some slack- for the majority of the war, he was going up against the finest, most highly-trained military in the world with a bunch of weekend-warrior farmers. The French saved his ***, ultimately, but he did a pretty fair job with the limited resources he had.

E-Zekiel
08-09-2012, 06:53 AM
He was a good "leader", just not really a superb military mind. Not a tactical genius, but certainly above your average farmer.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-09-2012, 06:59 AM
Must of been. We're American after all....

But that said... and I do mean that last part in a joking way, the guy was mediocre. I suspect he simply picked his battles. As for losing 2k men via capture in a retreat, you have to ask yourself, what would he have lost had he stayed? That's really important. I imagine he left with something. At that, it implies he had over 2k men. This being true, per the previous statemnts, then you have to wonder how sever the losses may have been had he not made the decision he did. At that, if memory serves, the towns he lost weren't that important. But it's been a long time since I had a history class, and I was never that good at it.

MasterAssasin84
08-09-2012, 01:58 PM
His Leadership skills out shined his millitary poweress but what you have to remember is that George Washington was one of the first Freemasons.

Radman500
08-09-2012, 02:55 PM
His Leadership skills out shined his millitary poweress but what you have to remember is that George Washington was one of the first Freemasons.

he was a great leader and knew how to motivate his troops...he was also a fairly well strategist...but a pretty bad tactician...

kriegerdesgottes
08-09-2012, 03:10 PM
Not really. A lot of people, especially foreigners have this misconception that he was a bad general but that's not necessarily true. Think about it, He was chosen to lead the ENTIRETY of the colonial forces. John Adams said he was the first person he had in mind for the position. Yes Washington made mistakes like anyone else, but he was willing to listen to everyone's opinion about strategy and he was above all a great survivor. Keep in mind this man had to take undisciplined, barely trained, forces and beat the mighty British empire at the time AND HE DID by surviving to fight another day. He snuck up on the Hessians after sending in a spy at the Trenton attack. That was genius. He had canons brought in overnight from Ticonderoga to force the Brits out of Boston and he attacked from a hill where British cannons could not reach him. That was a great strategy. If he was outnumbered and he knew he would get killed, he would take all his forces and start a fire overnight and sneak out and make it look like he was still camping but he had fled with all his men. The next morning the Brits would come to finish him off and he'd be gone,ready to fight another day. Yea he messed up during the French and Indian War when he got a bunch of guys killed trying to protect Fort Necessity but he was still young and inexperienced.

Radman500
08-09-2012, 03:14 PM
Not really. A lot of people, especially foreigners have this misconception that he was a bad general but that's not necessarily true. Think about it, He was chosen to lead the ENTIRETY of the colonial forces. John Adams said he was the first person he had in mind for the position. Yes Washington made mistakes like anyone else, but he was willing to listen to everyone's opinion about strategy and he was above all a great survivor. Keep in mind this man had to take undisciplined, barely trained, forces and beat the mighty British empire at the time AND HE DID by surviving to fight another day. He snuck up on the Hessians after sending in a spy at the Trenton attack. That was genius. He had canons brought in overnight from Ticonderoga to force the Brits out of Boston and he attacked from a hill where British cannons could not reach him. That was a great strategy. If he was outnumbered and he knew he would get killed, he would take all his forces and start a fire overnight and sneak out and make it look like he was still camping but he had fled with all his men. The next morning the Brits would come to finish him off and he'd be gone,ready to fight another day. Yea he messed up during the French and Indian War when he got a bunch of guys killed trying to protect Fort Necessity but he was still young and inexperienced.

true...when one has to valuate washington... you got to take in mind his limited resources at his disposal facing off against the mightiest military force at that time, the British,..


but it was his leadership skills which was his strongest asset.....

rileypoole1234
08-09-2012, 04:59 PM
Not really. A lot of people, especially foreigners have this misconception that he was a bad general but that's not necessarily true. Think about it, He was chosen to lead the ENTIRETY of the colonial forces. John Adams said he was the first person he had in mind for the position. Yes Washington made mistakes like anyone else, but he was willing to listen to everyone's opinion about strategy and he was above all a great survivor. Keep in mind this man had to take undisciplined, barely trained, forces and beat the mighty British empire at the time AND HE DID by surviving to fight another day. He snuck up on the Hessians after sending in a spy at the Trenton attack. That was genius. He had canons brought in overnight from Ticonderoga to force the Brits out of Boston and he attacked from a hill where British cannons could not reach him. That was a great strategy. If he was outnumbered and he knew he would get killed, he would take all his forces and start a fire overnight and sneak out and make it look like he was still camping but he had fled with all his men. The next morning the Brits would come to finish him off and he'd be gone,ready to fight another day. Yea he messed up during the French and Indian War when he got a bunch of guys killed trying to protect Fort Necessity but he was still young and inexperienced.

This is why I made my post. He wasn't a good "textbook" general at all. He was a great leader in non conventional ways though.

But honestly, he wouldn't have won the war if the French didn't arrive and help.

Assassin_M
08-09-2012, 08:49 PM
he was a great leader and knew how to motivate his troops...he was also a fairly well strategist...but a pretty bad tactician...
Oh ? Then why on earth did you make this thread ? You seem to know the answer pretty well..

kriegerdesgottes
08-09-2012, 09:07 PM
This is why I made my post. He wasn't a good "textbook" general at all. He was a great leader in non conventional ways though.

But honestly, he wouldn't have won the war if the French didn't arrive and help.

That's debatable although I tend to agree. I think the French helped more financially than militarily but both were certainly a godsend. Especially towards the end in the south they really helped out.

tarrero
08-10-2012, 03:22 AM
He wasnt "Hannibal Barca" good, but he was good.....

Funbun777
08-10-2012, 04:09 AM
Yes, I`ll let someone else answer in more detail, but yes he was..

Wasent terrible but he wasn't a great general EITHIER

His strength lied with morale and assigning others to positions

Quatermasters, officers ECT