[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.

[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.

[Moonman62]

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.