George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

The Telegraph ^ | 14 Apr 2012 | Jasper Copping

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Another tribute to the military prowess of George Washington, who ranked ahead of Michael Collins, Erwin Rommel, Napoleon Bonaparte and Kemal Ataturk on the list of the greatest military opponents to ever take the field against the British.

[yarddog]

Washington was a good leader who learned as he went but the General who simply whipped the British was Andrew Jackson.

[yarddog]

Washington was a good leader who learned as he went but the General who simply whipped the British was Andrew Jackson.

[al baby]

What about Islam?

[nickcarraway]

Postes: George Washington named Britain’s greatest ever foe

[Snickering Hound]

William the Conqueror.

[JerseyanExile]

Washington was a fairly good general, but putting him above the like of Napoleon or Paul Lettow Vorbeck seems to be blowing his accomplishments out of proportion.

[wagglebee]

Ping!

[JerseyanExile]

Poor William of Orange. You successfully invaded Britain in 1688 and took the throne, but no one remembers you.

[Fiji Hill]

Washington was a fairly good general, but putting him above the like of Napoleon or Paul Lettow Vorbeck seems to be blowing his accomplishments out of proportion.

Washington may have lost more battles than he won, yet he won his war. For all his accomplishments, Napoleon met his Waterloo, and Paul von Lettow Vorbeck fought for a losing cause.

[yarddog]

We would never have won without French help both on the sea and land.

[A.A. Cunningham]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts?page=48#48

[Lysandru]

I recommend to all a book called The Military 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Leaders of All Time.

Some of the picks reek of political correctness, but the overall theme is great.

George Washingtn gets the #1 slot because he went on to be the indespensible leader for founding the greatest nation-state on earth. Napoleon was a better general, but his work was not as decisive historically in the long run.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"the military prowess of George Washington,"

Our Nations victory had nothing to do with military prowess. It was Divine Provenience! GW humbly admitted it as such.

We are at the point of revolution against the Communists at this moment.

I have faith in G_d, to be just, as he has never been anything else.

[GeronL]

Islam is taking them down for the count and they are too PC to even mention it.

[sthguard]

Yes, but for this list they’d have to count all the immigrants and then award them collective “general” status. Maybe soon they’ll do a “most successful parasitic invaders” list...

[onedoug]

I don’t recall Washington ever attacking Britain. Adolph Hitler on the other hand....

[Maceman]

I don’t recall Washington ever attacking Britain.

Firing on the King's soldiers was an attack on Britain. You have to remember that Washington was actually fighting on British soil under the laws of the day.

It wasn't until after he won that it became American soil.

[Vanders9]

True enough, but you have to look at the criteria they are using. They are not ranking on the ability of generals, but on their success against the British army. Napoleon only personally led an army against the British once, and he lost that one. Washington led many times and won more than he lost.

[Vanders9]

But he didnt have to fight to get it...