# Was Washington a good general? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 16, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272 "2009-09-16T03:41:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/21 "2009-09-17T00:24:50Z")
^ On the issue of Murray a good general understands political reality. What Murray was suggesting was politically impossible. Now Washington understood political reality perfectly, as illustrated in the Yorktown campaign. He knew that the British were tired of a war which had always been very unpopular and the French were tired of a war where they had been whipped pretty much everywhere outside N America. If he had failed at Yorktown the peace talks (which were already underway) may well have resulted in a different outcome. He was lucky as well, the success of Yorktown hinged on the failure of the RN to evacuate Corniwallis’s garrison. If history has shown one thing, depending on the RN’s failure is usually a fatal flaw in a plan. Yet the RN lost, the only major engagement it lost between 1692 and Singapore 1942. Manifest destiny indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/22 "2009-09-17T02:30:07Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > ^ > Yet the RN lost, the only major engagement it lost between 1692 and Singapore 1942. Manifest destiny indeed. How are you defining major :D? Would [Toulon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Toulon_%281744%29) or [Minorca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca) count? Howabout [Lagos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lagos_%281693%29)? If not, I pretty much agree. We should just note that Britain did on occasion suffer smaller naval reverses, but their dominance ( particularly after the Seven Years’ War ) was generally acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/23 "2009-09-17T12:49:30Z")
I’ve heard it said he was a good Intelligence Chief, running a large & quite effective spy ring. True or false? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/24 "2009-09-17T13:07:44Z")
True, from all I’ve read. There’ve been two relatively recent books on the subject, _Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring_ by Alexander Rose, and _George Washington, Spymaster: How the Americans Outspied the British and Won the Revolutionary War_ by Thomas B. Allen (the latter for kids). ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/25 "2009-09-17T13:15:08Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > I’ve heard it said he was a good Intelligence Chief, running a large & quite effective spy ring. > > True or false? > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > True, from all I’ve read. There’ve been two relatively recent books on the subject, _Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring_ by Alexander Rose, and _George Washington, Spymaster: How the Americans Outspied the British and Won the Revolutionary War_ by Thomas B. Allen (the latter for kids). Logistics & Intelligence, done correctly, _before the battle_, are more important than grand tactics. Since Logistics are always a nightmare for **any** revolutionary, & since Washington did as well as could be expected, given that limit, Logistics were _also_ done well, Valley Forge & the shortage of shoes notwithstanding. Therefore, Washington was a good General. ---
**Author:** ![johnspartan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a183cd/32.png) [@johnspartan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnspartan)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/26 "2009-09-17T13:45:20Z")
Well I think you have to look at his resources. The rebellion was practically bangin’ rocks together to make fire at some points. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/27 "2009-09-17T19:36:05Z")
Was he saddled, like Lincoln, with useless political generals like Benjamin F Butler, who were unshiftable thanks to their political connections? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/28 "2009-09-17T20:07:29Z")
By and large, no, although Congress gave generalships to several titled foreigners without his input before he asked them to stop, because it was becoming hard to find appropriate assignments for them. One of the many things he liked about Lafayette was that the young French aristocrat asked for no particular rank, saying he just wanted to help the American cause. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/29 "2009-09-17T20:20:02Z")
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA) Washington was a bad dude as this utube says. There is some bad language so don’t play it too loudly. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/30 "2009-09-18T03:57:22Z")
Um… wow. I clearly have been reading the wrong books! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/31 "2009-09-18T05:31:28Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > By and large, no,. . . I’d say both Horatio Gates and Charles Lee fit those criteria. Gates stayed in power for as long as he did because the New England congressmen liked him, even though he was a pretty bad general and took credit for other people’s accomplishments. As for Lee, I don’t even know what to say about Lee. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/32 "2009-09-18T15:51:15Z")
I’d agree with your criticism of both men, but don’t consider them “useless political generals” analogous to Lincoln’s, as both had prior military experience and showed at least some skill in the field. Neither got a commission from the Continental Congress solely because of political juice or ethnic appeal; the same could not be said of Lincoln’s more notorious political generals. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/33 "2009-09-22T14:47:11Z")
_From my non-Doper friend Michael, who wrote:_ Interesting thread. I’m kind of critical of his skills as a battlefield commander, myself. Long Island was a disaster–and came close to ending the war. If things had just broken slightly more favorably for the British, the whole of the Continental Army would have been destroyed. He made almost the same errors again in the Philadelphia campaign the next year–Brandywine was won in almost an identical fashion as Long Island–Howe “amused” the colonists with a frontal attack while Cornwallis went around the right with the elite forces and completely unhinged the line. That said, he was without a doubt one of the best strategists that the Republic has ever seen–Grant, Marshall, and Nimitz are the only ones who I think were better. Plus having the magic combination of charisma and force of personality to almost single handedly keep the Continental Army in the field for eight long years… Fort Necessity is one of the worst sited military positions I’ve ever seen; actually, I can’t think of anything worse that I’ve actually seen in person. I’ll cut him slack on that one, though. He was only 20! I’d mostly agree with the fellow who said that Bonaparte and Frederick were his peers, but Washington succeeded better than either. The one 18th Century general who probably was his superior wasn’t mentioned by anyone–the Duke of Marlborough; not too surprising, he is amazingly underrated today and not well known at all. His achievements in containing the “hyperpower” of the early 18th Century are amazing; his deft touch in conducting coalition warfare–with a large and amazingly fractious grouping of bickering states–was on par, if not better, than Eisenhower’s. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/34 "2013-09-10T14:34:18Z")
Bumped. > [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > I’ve heard it said he was a good Intelligence Chief, running a large & quite effective spy ring. > > True or false? Here’s Mount Vernon’s webpage on George Washington’s relatively little-known role as a spymaster: [http://www.mountvernon.org/operationgeorgewashington/spymaster?utm\_source=SepeNews&utm\_medium=email&utm\_campaign=Spymaster](http://www.mountvernon.org/operationgeorgewashington/spymaster?utm_source=SepeNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Spymaster) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/35 "2014-01-08T16:31:26Z")
And here’s David McCullough on the genius of Washington’s leadership (it’s all worth watching, but he starts talking about Washington’s military school of hard knocks at 7:16): [http://www.mountvernon.org/mccullough](http://www.mountvernon.org/mccullough) ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/36 "2014-01-10T06:43:33Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Nathaniel Greene won that war. Washington just mopped up. And the French weren’t too shabby. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/37 "2014-01-10T06:46:13Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The best general of the 20th Century was General Giap. He beat the French and the US when he should not have. He did the same thing Washington did after Long Island. Washington lost almost every major battle and still won the war against the superpower of the time. The only 18th century generals with a claim to being in the same league are Fredrick and Napoleon. And only Fredrick can join Washington in having achieved his life’s work by military means throughout his own life, Napoleon failed in that. Washington fought and won a Republic in such a way that we have kept it against great odds, and set precedents and took political actions after his battles that have helped keep the Republic. And Washington knew politics even better than war. And he did all of this without setting up a personality cult or claiming some kind of odd genius. If I had to pick one of the three to lead my cause in dire straits, it would be Washington, despite the extreme high qualifications of Napoleon and Fredrick. I don’t think that Giap was any great shakes. I think that the US just stumbled around and lost it, fought the wrong kind of war, and the US public opinion is what ended the war, not Giap. Not losing the war doesn’t make you a great general. Same thing for Washington. He saw that he was a screwup as a general, so, we can’t call him a great general. But, he was wonderful at not trying his hand at being a general-too much. Wars are lost/won by politics, at least the Independence and Vietnam wars. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/38 "2014-01-10T07:15:48Z")
Well, both Giap and Washington beat the superpower of their time to found their own country. They might not have won battlefield set piece victories, and certainly didn’t, but they won a war fighting superior numbers with superior training and discipline with superior weapons despite losing most battles over a period of years. That is called a strategic victory. The point of warfare, and something not often accomplished. There really aren’t any better generals than the ones that win their wars and political aims. Idiots like Napoleon who are tactical geniuses and I suppose strategic geniuses who keep rolling the dice until they lose are ultimately bad generals. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4bbf92/32.png) [@Charlie\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/39 "2014-01-10T13:25:17Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > He generally learned from his mistakes, which were many. And that set him apart from those officers who never learned. Very nice post. I think you may have summarized more than was asked for. But that was probably worth doing. I always loved the notion of how the British would march into an open clearing in a forest wearing bright red uniforms and engage in a shooting match with the rag-tag Colonials who couldn’t afford nice uniforms and therefore were hard to distinguish from the forest background. Bill Cosby did a great job of lampooning the British army who would get routinely clobbered in those encounters. It is just so funny to think about, I can’t help but LOLing as I write this. In addition, the movie Patriot (2000) starring Mel Gibson also seemed to do a good job making fun of the Brits for never learning anything about fighting in forests. I conducted a debate with myself before posting anything attributed to Bill Cosby and/or Mel Gibson, I felt a strong need to explain all the problems I have with those two assholes … no need to continue … ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/40 "2014-05-16T15:43:46Z")
Bumped. Those interested in a fictionalized view of Washington’s spy network during the Revolution may like the new AMC series _Turn_. Haven’t seen it myself yet, but I hear it’s pretty good: [AMC | Watch TV Shows & Movies Online | Stream Current Episodes](http://www.amctv.com/shows/turn) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272.md?page=3)