• George Washington voted Britain's greatest enemy commander
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE]LONDON (Reuters) - American revolutionary leader George Washington has been voted the greatest enemy commander to face Britain, lauded for his spirit of endurance against the odds and the enormous impact of his victory. In a contest organised by the National Army Museum, Washington triumphed over Irish independence hero Michael Collins, France's Napoleon Bonaparte, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Making the case for Washington, historian Stephen Brumwell said the American War of Independence (1775-83) was "the worst defeat for the British Empire ever." "His personal leadership was crucial," he said. Washington was a courageous and inspirational battlefield commander who led from the front but also had the skills to deal with his political counterparts in Congress and with his French allies, Brumwell said. Above all, he never gave up even when the war was going against him. "His army was always under strength, hungry, badly supplied. He shared the dangers of his men. Anyone other than Washington would have given up the fight. He came to personify the cause, and the scale of his victory was immense." Almost 8,000 people voted in an online poll which produced a shortlist of five men, whose merits were debated by guest speakers at a weekend event at the museum before a final ballot of attendees. The main criterion was that each commander must have led an army against British forces in battle - which ruled out foes such as Adolf Hitler - and that they must fall within the National Army Museum's time frame of the 17th century onwards. Michael Collins was hailed as a great guerrilla tactician who took on and defeated British forces within the state itself. Bonaparte challenged Britain for nearly a quarter of a century across the globe before his defeat at Waterloo. The legend of Rommel inspired fear and awe among British troops in the North African desert in World War Two, even though his battlefield successes were limited. Ataturk was involved in one of Britain's greatest military humiliations at Gallipoli and later thwarted British designs in the region and created modern Turkey. Matthew Hughes of London's Brunel University said that Rommel and Napoleon were both great operational commanders but they ultimately achieved nothing on the political level. "The other three are more interesting because they all achieved a political objective, something concrete that is still with us." None of the five is particularly pleasant ideologically," Hughes added, saying that even Washington was a slave owner whose newly forged country then went on to try to destroy its native population[/QUOTE] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/george-washington-voted-britains-greatest-enemy-commander-153037718.html[/url]
Well I would guess so since that was Britain's greatest loss of land and wealth in history.
You know We may have split from you Brits But you ain't half bad, you know? Brotha to brotha, pimp to pimp, America's got yo back when you need us, yo.
i personally thought he was a bit shite. (the joke here guys is that i'm pretending to be an armchair general who could make a distinction between war commanders.)
He was not that great a military leader, so I dunno about that.
Surprised it wasn't Napoleon. Washington was a shit general, really.
santorum for best enemy commander 2012
Washington was a shit general and a brutal person. Treated his troops like shit. Would not vote for him, I tell you hwat.
What he lacked in military tactics he made up for in charisma and attitude. Honestly I probably would have voted Rommel. He caused hell for the British in Africa.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35589469']Washington was a shit general and a brutal person. Treated his troops like shit. Would not vote for him, I tell you hwat.[/QUOTE] if he was shit then why did we win :downs:
Only reason he succeded was because the british were busy in europe with other wars like with the french which gave the americans a navy and cut off the british shipping lanes.
USA NUMBAH ONE!!!
[QUOTE=Clovernoodle;35589433]You know We may have split from you Brits But you ain't half bad, you know? Brotha to brotha, pimp to pimp, America's got yo back when you need us, yo.[/QUOTE] We will have our vengance. Just you wait... Just. You. Wait. Soldiers, To the dirigible!
[QUOTE=Dr.C;35589534]USA NUMBAH ONE!!![/QUOTE] problem? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of permabanned user" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;35589585]We will have our vengance. Just you wait... Just. You. Wait.[/QUOTE] You already tried and failed. [URL="http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/230791/the-rebel-americans"]http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/230791/the-rebel-americans[/URL]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35589507]if he was shit then why did we win :downs:[/QUOTE] Well you see, we lived here. They didn't. As long as we could prolong the war, we could win. The longer it were to go on, the more the fight would be shifted in our favour. Had this war had happened in the modern age, Britain probably would have successfully kept us under their control because the homefield advantage isn't nearly as great when you can traverse the atlantic in a matter of days.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;35589534]USA NUMBAH ONE!!![/QUOTE] The name of the first person who rated you dumb. :v:
[QUOTE=usaokay;35589696]USA is a-okay.[/QUOTE] Username fits well
Didn't Washington lose 6 out of 9 battles? Seriously, why is Napoleon not number 1. This is idiotic.
I think they mistook Washington for Napoleon.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35589507]if he was shit then why did we win :downs:[/QUOTE] You're any idiot if you think he had any effect. Without the rebellions from other british occupied parts of the world and the help of France, America would of been fucked. Spanish and Dutch influence even helped.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;35589481]What he lacked in military tactics he made up for in charisma and attitude. Honestly I probably would have voted Rommel. He caused hell for the British in Africa.[/QUOTE] Washington's strongest point had nothing to do with leadership skills, really. It was the fact that he refused to become corrupt despite being given many opportunities to amass huge amounts of power over the federal government and the country itself. Aside from that it all has a lot to do with the fact that Washington is part of a sort of Cult of Personality built around the Founding Fathers to make America's government look more powerful than it actually was before the Age of Imperialism started. To be honest I think Washington would be shocked at how people think of him today.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;35589952]Washington's strongest point had nothing to do with leadership skills, really. It was the fact that he refused to become corrupt despite being given many opportunities to amass huge amounts of power over the federal government and the country itself. Aside from that it all has a lot to do with the fact that Washington is part of a sort of Cult of Personality built around the Founding Fathers to make America's government look more powerful than it actually was before the Age of Imperialism started. To be honest I think Washington would be shocked at how people think of him today.[/QUOTE] ...and also at how we started political parties against his best wishes.
He beat Hitler?
He also defeated a bengal tiger during a hurricane. [IMG]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/069/1/c/Washington_Vs__Tiger_by_SharpWriter.jpg[/IMG]
Why are people saying Napoleon? As far as I remember he didn't even Bother with the British and failed horribly against Russia when he made a very large army that froze to death, his last days was on a British prison island where he died. I don't even know why they say he was good in military in general considering he lost badly sometimes and he used cheap dirty tactics all the time, the only really cool thing about him was how he turned the country around and made it liveable for people who wasn't wealthy and his new system on how the country runs is hardly changed from how good it was.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;35589534]USA NUMBAH ONE!!![/QUOTE] ROFL PEST COUNTRY IN THE WURLD!!!! PROBLEM?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35589800]Didn't Washington lose 6 out of 9 battles? Seriously, why is Napoleon not number 1. This is idiotic.[/QUOTE] Washington fought more than just nine battles in his military career's course. The only battle he "lost" during his time in the French and Indian War was the Battle of Monongahela. I say he "lost" because he was serving under General Braddock at the time as a Lieutenant-Colonel. Otherwise, he won by himself the Battle of Jumonville and the Battle of Fort Duquesne. As far as the American Revolutionary War is concerned, it was still in his favor. Highlights: -Brooklyn, defeat -Harlem Heights, victory -White Plains, defeat -Fort Washington, defeat (pyrrhic victory for the British though) -Trenton, victory -Assunpink Creek, victory -Princeton, victory -Brandywine, defeat -Whitehorse Tavern, victory -Germantown, defeat -White Marsh, victory -Monmouth, inconclusive -Yorktown, victory He wasn't the best general, but he was more than capable for the job.
We'll get you yet America!
Fuck Washington, Rommel could kick his ass ten times over.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.