# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/41 "2014-05-16T21:07:22Z")
> [@Charlie\_Wayne](#): > > 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. This is a gross oversimplification. Loyalist American Rangers who fought for the British were quite skilled in frontier warfare. > **[Queen's Rangers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Rangers#American_Revolutionary_War)** > > Rebellions of 1837–1838 > The Queen's Rangers, also known as the Queen's American Rangers, and later Simcoe's Rangers, were a Loyalist military unit of the American Revolutionary War that specialized in cavalry tactics, close combat, irregular warfare, maneuver warfare, raiding, reconnaissance, screening, and tracking. Formed in 1776, they were named for Queen Charlotte. The Queen's Rangers was a light corps in the tradition of British rangers during the Seven Years' War, operating on the flanks a... > **[Butler's Rangers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler's_Rangers)** > > Butler's Rangers (1777–1784) was a Loyalist provincial military unit of the American Revolutionary War, raised by American loyalist John Butler. Most members of the regiment were Loyalists from upstate New York and northeastern Pennsylvania. Their winter quarters were constructed on the west bank of the Niagara River, in what is now Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. The Rangers fought principally in New York and Pennsylvania, but ranged as far west as Ohio and Michigan, and as far south as Virginia a... In addition, large numbers of Amerindians also fought for the British against the American Rebels. The British employment of Amerindian allies ended up being another example of “good short term battle strategy, poor long term political strategy.” Amerindian raids alienated American Loyalists and caused a swell of volunteers for Rebel militias. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/42 "2014-05-16T22:00:02Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > 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) No, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/43 "2014-05-16T22:41:40Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > This is a gross oversimplification. Loyalist American Rangers who fought for the British were quite skilled in frontier warfare. > > [Queen's Rangers - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Rangers#American_Revolutionary_War) > > [Butler's Rangers - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler's_Rangers) > > In addition, large numbers of Amerindians also fought for the British against the American Rebels. The British employment of Amerindian allies ended up being another example of “good short term battle strategy, poor long term political strategy.” Amerindian raids alienated American Loyalists and caused a swell of volunteers for Rebel militias. It’s not as if there was a shortage of forests in Europe, either. “Egads! Trees! We’ve never seen such devilry before!”. Gimme a break. Fact of the matter is, both sides of the conflict preferred to fight in open terrain. Without modern communications, it was simply impossible to control a force of more than a few dozen people in forested terrain. Your troops had to be able to see your flags. ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/44 "2014-05-17T04:31:56Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > No, it’s not. Because…? ---
**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 19, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/45 "2014-05-19T14:14:12Z")
More on Washington’s espionage network: [Spying and Espionage · George Washington's Mount Vernon](http://mountvernon.org/spy) ---
**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:** [June 3, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/46 "2015-06-03T15:35:53Z")
An interesting Mount Vernon short film on Washington’s 1776-77 New Jersey campaign, including the battles of Trenton and Princeton: [http://www.mountvernon.org/site/animated-washington/winter-patriots/](http://www.mountvernon.org/site/animated-washington/winter-patriots/). The film quotes Frederick the Great as saying that the campaign was “the most brilliant of any recorded in the annals of military achievements.” ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/47 "2015-06-03T15:39:21Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > It’s not as if there was a shortage of forests in Europe, either. “Egads! Trees! We’ve never seen such devilry before!”. Gimme a break. > … Tell that to Macbeth. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/48 "2015-06-03T16:31:24Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I’ve read a lot about Washington over the years, and would be glad to suggest some other books, if you like. > > He was certainly a good general; by the end of the Revolution I would even say he had learned to be a very good general. But he was never in the very top rank with, say, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon and Rommel. > > Washington certainly learned from his mistakes, on Long Island and elsewhere. He fought hard when he could, withdrew when he had to and always saved his army to fight another day. By skilled siegecraft he forced the British to withdraw from Boston. He won when no one thought he could, and showed both good judgment and audacity at Trenton and Princeton, winning notable victories there. Finally, he very effectively coordinated his efforts with the French at Yorktown in 1781 and won a smashing victory over Cornwallis that all but ended the war. > > George Washington held his army together for eight years almost by sheer force of will, despite recurring supply problems and short enlistments. He also showed great courage on the battlefield. He rode between the opposing lines at Princeton in 1777, waving his sword and encouraging his troops. An aide covered his eyes with his hat because he was sure that Washington would be shot. Miraculously, despite volleys from each side, he wasn’t, and the Americans swept the field. Remarkable. > > Finally, he deeply respected civilian control of the military, even when the Continental Congress kept giving him more and more power. That’s a quality that not all great generals share (_coughMacArthurcough_). > > Washington was, as one biographer wrote, “the indispensable man” of American independence. We were damned lucky to have had him. I have read only one bio; there is only one difference with your account above, and that is of emphasis rather than fact: Washington’s conduct of the Yorktown campaign was skillful, but I was disappointed to learn that the idea for the campaign originated with the French, who were at pains to convince Washington to accept it. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/49 "2015-06-03T17:00:55Z")
Americans naturally have a different perspective on the War of Independance to the British, but you should remember that in part, it was being fought as a sideline from the main task of defeating Napoleon’s ambition to rule the whole of Europe - in effect he wanted a United States of Europe (with him as head, naturally). Britain and its allies were pretty stretched - the loss of The Americas was not considered to be a huge loss, especially when compared to the goings on across the channel. ---
**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:** [June 3, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/50 "2015-06-03T17:07:08Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > …Washington’s conduct of the Yorktown campaign was skillful, but I was disappointed to learn that the idea for the campaign originated with the French, who were at pains to convince Washington to accept it. True. Washington initally would rather have smashed the British stronghold in NYC. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/51 "2015-06-03T17:14:33Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Americans naturally have a different perspective on the War of Independance to the British, but you should remember that in part, it was being fought as a sideline from the main task of defeating Napoleon’s ambition to rule the whole of Europe That would be the War of 1812. The American War of Independence took place before the French Revolution. It’s true, however, that the American rebellion was in many ways a sideline to its very own war, since the British did indeed have to contend with the French, Dutch, and Spanish, and maintain their hold not only on mainland America but also their Caribbean holdings. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/52 "2015-06-03T17:35:19Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Americans naturally have a different perspective on the War of Independance to the British, but you should remember that in part, it was being fought as a sideline from the main task of defeating Napoleon’s ambition to rule the whole of Europe - in effect he wanted a United States of Europe (with him as head, naturally). > > Britain and its allies were pretty stretched - the loss of The Americas was not considered to be a huge loss, especially when compared to the goings on across the channel. Umm, bob, you do know that the Revolution ended in 1783 (Treaty of Paris) and Napoleon didn’t come to power until 1799 (as 1st Consul; Emperor in 1804). Methinks you are thinking about the War of 1812, where the US tried to use Britain’s distraction with the French to get concessions (and maybe grab chunks of Canada in the process) from the British. Didn’t go according to plan, and talk about poor generalship… But back to Washington, just to add to the consensus, he was a good but not great field general, but he kept his army intact and in the field as a constant threat to the British and managed (with massive French aid) to win the decisive action (Yorktown) that finally got the Brits to decide not to throw good money after bad and negotiate peace. And that was more than good enough. ETA: ninja’ed by Ludovic–who filled in a few things I should have mentioned ---
**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:** [June 3, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/53 "2015-06-03T17:48:53Z")
If we can go back to pillorying Washington for a second ;)… > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > He generally learned from his mistakes, which were many. And that set him apart from those officers who never learned. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Washington certainly learned from his mistakes, on Long Island and elsewhere. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > _From my non-Doper friend Michael, who wrote:_ > 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. The disconnect between the first two comments and the third always comes to mind when I think about Washington. Because he _didn’t always_ learn from his mistakes and those two disasters are the prime cases in point. As noted by **Elendil’s Heir** ’s buddy he lost both battles in essentially identical fashion and in a really, really pedestrian manner. In both cases he bit at a small frontal feint while the majority of the enemy army ( in both cases commanded by Howe ) waltzed around and rolled up his unguarded flank. Protecting your flank ( or at least keeping an eye on it ) is generalship 101 and Washington failed egregiously, falling to the same trick to the same commander twice in a row. He retreated very nicely - something he was sincerely very good at. But a more aggressive commander than Howe ( who was partially constrained by his own false hope that a settlement could be reached ) would have probably ended him in those encounters. Actually if you were going strictly in terms of Howe and Washington’s _battlefield record against one another_ you’d have to call Howe the better general :D. It’s why while he was a great leader, I’m just never going to be able to see him as a _great_ general. He was a decent one who had some good qualities and was smart enough to learn to act against his own worse impulses and adapt to necessity. But as a tactician he just wasn’t the bee’s knees. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/54 "2015-06-03T21:09:25Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Americans naturally have a different perspective on the War of Independance to the British, but you should remember that in part, it was being fought as a sideline from the main task of defeating Napoleon’s ambition to rule the whole of Europe - in effect he wanted a United States of Europe (with him as head, naturally). > > Britain and its allies were pretty stretched - the loss of The Americas was not considered to be a huge loss, especially when compared to the goings on across the channel. You’re confusing the War of Independence with what we Americans call the War of 1812. Napoleon was 14 years old at the end of the former. ETA sorry to pile on. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/55 "2015-06-03T21:54:25Z")
In his “Revolutions” podcast Mike Duncan (who did the outstanding “History of Ancient Rome” podcast) says one of Washington’s failings as a general was he made things too complicated. Several different units attacking different places at different times is great on paper. But when you are marching at night in fog during winter things things go wrong. But his skill in building an army that could fight well at Germantown convinced Europeans that America could win. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/56 "2015-06-03T23:54:42Z")
Is it fair to say Washington was more of a political general like Eisenhower than a strategic/tactical general? ---
**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:** [June 4, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/57 "2015-06-04T01:21:49Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Is it fair to say Washington was more of a political general like Eisenhower than a strategic/tactical general? I wouldn’t say so. Washington often exercised battlefield command and came under enemy fire (most notably at Princeton); Eisenhower did not. Washington was a political general, I suppose, in the sense that he was personally chosen by his fellow members of the Continental Congress, had to be mindful of occasional scheming to replace him and, as with any top general in a democracy, was subject to civil authority. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/58 "2015-06-04T13:18:33Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > As a colonial officer he didn’t cover himself with glory during the French and Indian War ( in fact he directly precipitated it ) Really? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > As for Lee, I don’t even know what to say about Lee. He liked dogs. ---
**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:** [June 4, 2015, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/59 "2015-06-04T17:46:54Z")
> [@Love\_Rhombus](#): > > Really? Can’t really holds him responsible for _causing_ the war ( which would have happened eventually anyway ) and he was under belligerent, though more defensive orders. But he was the individual that ended up lighting the [spark](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Necessity) and arguably ( the actual action is muddled ) he overstepped himself by initiating offensive actions. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272/60 "2015-06-04T18:02:51Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Is it fair to say Washington was more of a political general like Eisenhower than a strategic/tactical general? Partly, but he could do certain tactical things really, really well - retreats, and surprise attacks. He wasn’t a \*great \*battlefield general, but he was not an empty uniform. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-washington-a-good-general/510272.md?page=4)