# George Washington was Englands greatest military foe. I don't get it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 15, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899 "2012-04-15T23:36:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/21 "2012-04-16T11:54:11Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Huh. I would have thought it would be Robert the Bruce/Wallace or maybe some of the earlier Welsh princes. I know the Scots in particular scared the hell out of the English…hell, even in the failed '45 revolt the English were crapping their pants there for a while. Perhaps they don’t reflexively think of them as enemies since they all live under the same Queen now. We don’'t think of Sitting Bull as an enemy of America because not only do we recognize the injustice, we have also used Native Americans as symbols of our own freedom and fighting spirit. So perhaps they think of Wallace and the Bruce as one of their own. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/22 "2012-04-16T12:10:27Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Perhaps they don’t reflexively think of them as enemies since they all live under the same Queen now. We don’'t think of Sitting Bull as an enemy of America because not only do we recognize the injustice, we have also used Native Americans as symbols of our own freedom and fighting spirit. So perhaps they think of Wallace and the Bruce as one of their own. Well you get into all sorts of murky areas of self identification. As it stands right now they are all British yet some prefer to identify with one of the component nations, whereas some prefer to identify as British. So some see something “Scottish” as a part of their makeup as they see “Scottish” as part of “British”. And some don’t. We’re a very messy culture when it comes to this. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/23 "2012-04-16T12:18:49Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The British Empire actually reached its height at the end of the 19th century, and did not really start declining until after WWI. Be that as it may… hindsight and all, folks now can look back at America and say “Damn, if we’d held onto that, we’d be the single most powerful country in the world!” That doesn’t get into all the alternate history which would be required for a unified America-and-the-UK during WWI and WWII, but still. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/24 "2012-04-16T12:33:38Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Be that as it may… hindsight and all, folks now can look back at America and say “Damn, if we’d held onto that, we’d be the single most powerful country in the world!” > > That doesn’t get into all the alternate history which would be required for a unified America-and-the-UK during WWI and WWII, but still. It doesn’t really work that way though. There’s no guarantee that the territories in North America would have become the same in terms of population, output, science, culture etc etc as they managed as a separate nation. For example, would the British have eventually taken all of what is now the US? A lot of it wasn’t theirs in 1776. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/25 "2012-04-16T12:54:38Z")
A lot of the post 1783 conquests were in part to compensate for the loss of America. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/26 "2012-04-16T14:27:55Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > For example, would the British have eventually taken all of what is now the US? A lot of it wasn’t theirs in 1776. Yeah, it’s a pretty good bet Napoleon is completely uninterested in selling the British Louisiana, significantly increasing the size of British holdings in America in order to help fund his impending war against the British. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/27 "2012-04-16T14:47:35Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Yeah, it’s a pretty good bet Napoleon is completely uninterested in selling the British Louisiana, significantly increasing the size of British holdings in America in order to help fund his impending war against the British. And that has what exactly to do with my post or FinnAgain’s, both of which dealt with the question of whether you could look back to the past and assume that the colonies of 1776, which were but a part of what is today the United States, would grow up to be as powerful under British rule as they have under self rule? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/28 "2012-04-16T15:29:26Z")
I think the key here is that Washington won and everyone else didn’t. Not only that, he won despite being vastly outgunned. > [@amanset](#): > > For example, would the British have eventually taken all of what is now the US? A lot of it wasn’t theirs in 1776. Most likely, though Napoleon would probably have been less sanguine about selling the Louisiana Territory to England. In any event, most of what is now the US was pretty worthless up until the turn of the century. San Francisco’s population was comfortably under 100,000 until the Civil War. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/29 "2012-04-16T15:32:43Z")
If there had been no Revolution/Independence, then there would not have been any Louisiana Purchase, there would have been a _Louisiana seizure_ ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/30 "2012-04-16T17:09:44Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Yeah, it’s a pretty good bet Napoleon is completely uninterested in selling the British Louisiana, significantly increasing the size of British holdings in America in order to help fund his impending war against the British. On the other hand I bet that as part of the Napoleonic wars, the British would have seized them so the end would be the same. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/31 "2012-04-16T17:22:15Z")
The greatest military foe that damaged Britain was the class system that would not allow competent commanders to rise to positions of highest responsibility. The Royal Navy was the exception, but when it came to the army, there were some real idiots in charge. You only need to look at the persistent use of failing tactics in WW1 and in WW2. When you look at how the Germans tried, tested and discarded tactics, and analysed their methods, and then examine British insistence on using methods that didnt work, led by chinless aristocratic officers who never set foot on a battlefield, Washington was never Britains greatest enemy,. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/32 "2012-04-16T17:40:00Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > When you look at how the Germans tried, tested and discarded tactics, and analysed their methods, and then examine British **insistence on using methods that didnt work** , l **ed by chinless aristocratic officers who never set foot on a battlefield,** Washington was never Britains greatest enemy,. The bolded and underlined bit my dear sir, is utter _bullshit_. British officers of all ranks were expected to lead their men and many did, and paid the ultimate price. You can accuse the generals of 1914-1918 of many things but “not having set foot on a battlefield” is not one of them. Furthermore, German analysis must have sucked because they failed to get the breakthrough, the British did get that breakthrough and _won the war_. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/33 "2012-04-16T18:47:33Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > The question was for someone 17th century or later. Ignoring the more or less non-military conquest during the Glorious Revolution, no ones successfully invaded Britain in that window. Well, _hell,_ that’s a small window of British history! Why not “only since last Thursday” if we’re going to narrow it down like that? Certainly if you picked, say, [fall 1781](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown#British_surrender), George is your man, no question. Overall, either William the Bastard or perhaps Julius Caesar. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/34 "2012-04-16T19:04:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > There is no one I would more want to command my army if I was facing certain defeat than Washington, who had a nearly miraculous ability to save his army in all manner of catastrophes, but he really only beat the British on a couple of rare occasions and he finally got the victory at Yorktown only after the French managed to pull out one of their rare naval upsets over the Royal Navy. Thing I remember from my American History course is how brilliant Washington was at losing battles. He lost a shitload of battles, in the sense that he withdrew from the field, but he caused the enemies to lose more troops. Rather than encourage his soldiers to stand and fight–something he knew his farmers-with-guns (exaggerating, I know) couldn’t do in the same way that British professional soldiers could do–he told them to get off one shot, maybe two, and then melt into the woods. He refused to play by British rules, and so by their standards they won all the battles, but they ended up losing the war. I have no opinion on whether he’s in the top hundred good strategists of all time; I just wanted to address the idea that his loss of so many battles is necessarily a sign of weakness. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/35 "2012-04-16T19:09:29Z")
Call me crazy but I think Hitler was a far greater foe than Napolean and Washington put together. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/36 "2012-04-16T20:02:59Z")
Washington WAS eight storeys tall and made of radiation, so there’s that. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/37 "2012-04-16T20:05:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Call me crazy but I think Hitler was a far greater foe than Napolean and Washington put together. Except again, he’s disqualified by the actual question asked. He never led troops into a battle. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/38 "2012-04-17T18:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > . British officers of all ranks were expected to lead their men and many did, and paid the ultimate price. You can accuse the generals of 1914-1918 of many things but “not having set foot on a battlefield” is not one of them. Furthermore, German analysis must have sucked because they failed to get the breakthrough, the British did get that breakthrough and won the war. The British class system ensured that those from the ranks would not rise to high levels of military leadership - competence was not the main requirement. The Generals were not great, they did send their army out to die stupidly, they did not heed the early lessons of indirect artillery fire for at least a year, and longer. They did not have the field pieces, and the faulty fuzes in the shells was not remedied until late 1917.British shells were not at all reliable and this was noted at Jutland where hits were scored by the Grand fleet but many shells did not explode. Sure, the ones in the front line went out and died bravely, but also pointlessly, at the Somme, British soldiers were ordered to walk across no-mans land and were under threat of punishment if they ran - perhaps on the first day this might be excused because it was thought the artillery bombardment must surely have killed all the German frontliners, but after the first day, the tactics still and orders still remained the same. How was it that Australian and New Zealand military units did not need the death penalty to retain military discipline, yet the British army did - because the British army leadership had no trust or respect for the lives of the lower order squaddies, that’s why. As for the Germans, well they fought both France and Britain pretty much to a standstill, and knocked Russia out of it completely and for the majority of that war, it was on their terms and their initiative. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/39 "2012-04-17T19:57:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Thing I remember from my American History course is how brilliant Washington was at losing battles. He lost a shitload of battles, in the sense that he withdrew from the field, but he caused the enemies to lose more troops. Rather than encourage his soldiers to stand and fight–something he knew his farmers-with-guns (exaggerating, I know) couldn’t do in the same way that British professional soldiers could do–he told them to get off one shot, maybe two, and then melt into the woods. He refused to play by British rules, and so by their standards they won all the battles, but they ended up losing the war. > > I have no opinion on whether he’s in the top hundred good strategists of all time; I just wanted to address the idea that his loss of so many battles is necessarily a sign of weakness. Actually, while the “_Yanks weren’t staitjacketed by European rules_” is a major portion of American mythology, the reality is that the vast majority of battles during the War for Indepence were fought in the traditional manner. There were guerilla actions during the war, but they never made up the majority of the battles and they rarely resulted in significant victories. Washington’s retreat from New York was brilliant, but did not involve any particularly unorthodox tactics. His victories in southern New Jersey made very effective use of surprise, but they were fought on the European model. The important victories at Saratoga and Bennington, (Washington not present), were fought using the European order of battle. The one battle in which soldiers were told to get off a few rounds and retreat was the later battle at the Cowpens, (again, not involving Washington), where the militia were lined up ahead of regular troops and were told that they would be shot by those troops if they did not stick arounds long enough to fire two volleys. (After retiring through the regular lines, the milita troops recognized that victory was possible and returned to the battle, but that battle, too, was fought using European order of battle.) ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899/40 "2012-04-17T21:54:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Call me crazy but I think Hitler was a far greater foe than Napolean and Washington put together. Hitler was a political leader, not a military leader (as opposed to Napoleon who was both). If anything, Hitler may have been a British asset because he overruled his generals and ended up engaging in counterproductive and poorly planned battlefield maneuvers. I have heard (not sure if it is true) that the British cancelled efforts to assassinate Hitler when they realized he was more useful to them alive since he was screwing up Germany’s ability to fight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-washington-was-englands-greatest-military-foe-i-dont-get-it/618899.md?page=3)