Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe
The Telegraph ^ | 14 Apr 2012 | Jasper Copping

Posted on 04/15/2012 11:48:38 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; godsgravesglyphs; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
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.
1 posted on 04/15/2012 11:48:49 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

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


2 posted on 04/15/2012 11:50:48 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

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


3 posted on 04/15/2012 11:51:16 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

What about Islam?


4 posted on 04/15/2012 11:53:15 AM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Postes: George Washington named Britain’s greatest ever foe
5 posted on 04/15/2012 11:53:22 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

William the Conqueror.

6 posted on 04/15/2012 11:56:49 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

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.


7 posted on 04/15/2012 11:57:57 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Ping!
8 posted on 04/15/2012 12:03:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snickering Hound

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


9 posted on 04/15/2012 12:03:30 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

10 posted on 04/15/2012 12:05:54 PM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

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


11 posted on 04/15/2012 12:11:01 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts?page=48#48
12 posted on 04/15/2012 12:12:51 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
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.

13 posted on 04/15/2012 12:20:43 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
>"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.

14 posted on 04/15/2012 12:23:19 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al baby

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


15 posted on 04/15/2012 12:25:57 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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...


16 posted on 04/15/2012 12:32:38 PM PDT by sthguard (The DNC theme song: "All You Need is Guv")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

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


17 posted on 04/15/2012 12:38:57 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
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.

18 posted on 04/15/2012 12:45:06 PM PDT by Maceman (Liberals' only problem with American slavery is that the slaves were privately owned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

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.


19 posted on 04/15/2012 1:34:10 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

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


20 posted on 04/15/2012 1:35:45 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Presumably this is only land opponents, otherwise I’d root for this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Ruyter


21 posted on 04/15/2012 1:37:44 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; AnotherUnixGeek; nickcarraway; indcons; Chani; thefactor; blam; aculeus; ELS; ...
Thanks for the ping, wagglebee, and the posts, AnotherUnixGeek and nickcarraway.

And, he's number one on their list because (among the list of possibilities), HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO BEAT THEM! Ha!

And yes, without the French muskets, men (esp. the military engineers) and ships (esp. the blockade which gave us Yorktown), we would NOT have beaten the Brits. BUT, without the General's leadership, innovation (think Trenton and Princeton), courage, wisdom and perseverance, we would not have won even with all the Frenchmen in the world under arms.

And, his game-day coaching abilities on the battlefield improved much after '77.

The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list...

22 posted on 04/15/2012 2:12:31 PM PDT by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

I’d say Napoleon gave them a run for their money. As did Joan of Arc, and any number of German generals from either World War.


23 posted on 04/15/2012 2:20:08 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Even over Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Dr. Evil? I dunno...BTT
24 posted on 04/15/2012 2:21:41 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

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


Divine Providence was the greatest factor.

The War of 1812 is more proof of that.

The Continental Army used new and effective tactics against the British.

The military cannot be denied it’s role.


25 posted on 04/15/2012 2:37:10 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru

I forget which Frenchman it was who said, that if Washington stepped down after finishing his term as President, he would be the greatest man in the world. He did, and he was.


26 posted on 04/15/2012 3:58:55 PM PDT by joe.fralick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: joe.fralick

That was what King George III told the painter Benjamin West.


27 posted on 04/15/2012 4:06:24 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Washington was not the only one who beat them.

Andrew Jackson beat the heck out of them. Although the war was technically over, the Battle of New Orleans had to have given them an attitude adjustment.


28 posted on 04/15/2012 4:27:58 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

It’s interesting that this same group voted Michael Collins #2 after GW. It makes me proud to be an Irish American!!


29 posted on 04/15/2012 4:28:24 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe.fralick

According to my father, the source of the quote was actually King George III.


30 posted on 04/15/2012 5:09:41 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Pharmboy.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


31 posted on 04/15/2012 5:55:22 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
Jackson was a terrific fighter to be sure, but his accomplishments cannot approach the General's.

But, to augment your point, Jackson--as a 13 y/o--showed incredible bravery during the RevWar as a runner between the lines with messages. He was tough and courageous even as a lad...

32 posted on 04/15/2012 6:40:46 PM PDT by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek; Pharmboy

additional:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2872289/posts


33 posted on 04/15/2012 6:45:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
Washington may have lost more battles than he won, yet he won his war.

Washington's great accomplishment was seeing the big picture, and holding everybody together: the politicians and the soldiers. And he had a great skill for living to fight another day.

I wonder if the British ever regretted not making him a royal officer.

34 posted on 04/15/2012 7:01:47 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: unkus

A small residual force from the Continental Army remained at West Point and some frontier outposts until Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1784.


35 posted on 04/15/2012 7:22:51 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

He was tough and courageous even as a lad...


Didn’t a British Officer beat Andrew Jackson when he was a young boy running messages? I know he was hurt somehow.


36 posted on 04/15/2012 7:41:09 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

That’s right.


37 posted on 04/15/2012 7:42:33 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

You are right. Washington was truly the “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen”, but don’t underestimate what Jackson did either.

He was a terrific general, defeating the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend in a brilliant action. He also captured Pensacola, hanged the British heads of the territory and took Florida from Spain. He also was Florida’s first governor.

I have read that his defeat of the British at New Orleans was the worst defeat the British Army ever suffered and the troops there were supposed to be among their best.


38 posted on 04/15/2012 7:46:38 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: unkus

A British officer cut him on the hand and face after Jackson refused to clean his boots. Jackson also blamed the British for the death of his Brother and Mother, rightly so too.

Jackson really knew how to hate. His hatred of the British is probably one reason he hanged the British agents in Pensacola. He also hated the ones he blamed for the death of his wife.

The Indians claim his hatred was responsible for the trail of tears but I wonder. He adopted an Indian baby who was found among all the slain after Horseshoe Bend.


39 posted on 04/15/2012 8:02:59 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

He was one tough man. The Trail of Tears was tragic.


40 posted on 04/15/2012 8:15:08 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: unkus

I have my own idea of why Jackson adopted the Indian baby.

Remember Jackson was orphaned at age 13 and was left completely alone to fend for him self. I think when he saw the baby his heart went out to him because he remembered his own suffering.


41 posted on 04/15/2012 8:21:11 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Remember Jackson was orphaned at age 13 and was left completely alone to fend for him self. I think when he saw the baby his heart went out to him because he remembered his own suffering.


Do you know what happened to the boy?


42 posted on 04/15/2012 8:25:02 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: unkus

I can’t remember for certain but it sticks in my mind that he lived to maybe 18 or so and died of one of the many fevers that were prevalent at the time.

He was buried at the Hermitage.


43 posted on 04/15/2012 8:29:19 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Long Live George Washington!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydFJS-O2FwQ


44 posted on 04/15/2012 10:04:52 PM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Long Live George Washington!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydFJS-O2FwQ


45 posted on 04/15/2012 10:05:45 PM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Really?.

Try visiting Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland.


46 posted on 04/16/2012 2:39:54 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Proud of an IRA terrorist?.

At least Washington was an honourable soldier, who fought in the field as an honourable enemy does.


47 posted on 04/16/2012 2:41:49 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Actually the war of 1812 was a sideshow to the British.

The Peninsular War against France took priority.


48 posted on 04/16/2012 2:43:36 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

“the General who simply whipped the British was Andrew Jackson.”

1 instance does not count. Not against an entire war.


49 posted on 04/16/2012 4:07:24 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

People underestimate Washington. Unlike virtually all the others, he had almost no cards in his hands.

This was a seat-of-your-pants operation. The war started with almost no organization - that includes the obvious, as well as training or materiel. Washington had basically nothing to work with.

Add to that he wanted to temper himself and the whole movement so nothing might turn into a nightmare like the highly overrated French Revolution would be, the proletariat simply mobbing the the nobility system.

Washington basically tried to confer with Congress and defer to them, never wanting to overstep. While begging for help in money, provisions, and training.

Once Washington had had enough seeing the Cabal, he took greater initiative on his own without worrying so much about Congress.

He managed all this brilliantly. And ultimately, he got what he wanted - defeat of the King without total breakdown and chaos and counter-tyranny at home.


50 posted on 04/16/2012 4:14:43 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson