Skip to comments.George Washington Named Britain's Greatest Ever Foe
Posted on 04/16/2012 1:54:03 PM PDT by gandalftb
The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent.
He was one of a shortlist of five leaders who topped a public poll and on Saturday was selected as the ultimate winner by an audience of around 70 guests at a special event at the museum, in Chelsea, west London.
In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader, ahead of Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. At the event, each contender had their case made by a historian giving a 40 minute presentation.
The audience, who had paid to attend the day, then voted in a secret ballot after all five presentations had been made.
Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, said: "As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent."
To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards the period covered by the museum's collection and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Had we stayed a colony of Britain, what would have been the chances of a Louisiana Purchase and the immigration from Europe?
Funny Hitler didn’t make the top one.
I suppose its sour grapes that one of their own - who they loved when he fought the Indian Wars for them - led the troops against them in the First American Revolution.
I say First nowadays...
Icing on the cake? We beat a Frenchman too.
I’d think Montcalm would have qualified as well; he made quite an impression, and for longer then Ataturk or Rommel.
How about William Wallace, or Robert Bruce?
George Washington Named Obama’s Greatest Ever Foe
There I changed it to match what we all read it as at first glance.
LOL Looks like the original poster rapped your knuckles the other day!
That’s the funny thing the guy rapping my knuckles over my repost turned out to be the SECOND person to post the story!!!! ;-)
Remember they had India, Australia(A whole continent), New Zealand and Etc......... during this era. Decline came much later after this Victorian age.
The “sun never set” on the British Empire after England gained India and other colonies in the Far East, events subsequent to and believed to more than make up for Britain’s loss of its North American “possessions.” The most significant and abrupt decline occurred after WWII with the loss of India, Canada, New Zealand and Malaysia. Australia won its sovereignty in 1931 if memory serves. Definitely prior to WWII. The Empire apexed after the Revolutionary War concluded.
Unless the poll were in the context of off-battlefield accomplishments, Washington wasn’t Britain’s “greatest foe” by any objective measure. That would be Hitler.
“How about William Wallace, or Robert Bruce?”
Sounds like the British don’t see them as particularly great foes!
Actually, if you read the article, they fell outside the criteria used. Much too early.
That's because Hitler lost and Washington won.
an Indian friend of mine was particularly impressed to learn that Washington had defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown.
Cornwallis was infamous for his ruthless cunning in India.
You mean “expect”?
There were four posts of this article before mine. I did a search on “George Washington” before I posted and nothing popped up, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted. How to explain the other three?
As for immigration from Europe, that was how the colonials got there, why wouldn't it have continued?
No successful American Revolution, no French Revolution, no Napoleon, No Congress of Vienna, no European power vacumm, Purssia remains another small Germanic kingdom, No German Empire, No Triple Alliance to counter it, No First World War, No Bolshevik Revolution, No Hitler, No Second World War. Basically it's the situation in the Turtledove/Dreyfuss The Two Georges
It's a world of Empires, the heresy of republicanism never gets a look in. Withour that troublemaker James Monroe spreading dissention south, Spain retains South America.
The British Empire acquires the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese Empire as Protectorates to contain the Russian Empire
The Industrial Revoluition takes place in England on schedule in the 19th Century, but blends into the 20th one in the North American Union dominion, making the British Empire the world's industrial superpower.
My comment about the British conquering Louisiana was facetious, of course. Again the Butterfly Effect. No one can predict with any certainty the events that would have followed a successful British suppression of the colonials' revolt.
That's because Hitler lost and Washington won.
No, it's because he didn't meet the criteria. Only field commanders were considered.
Yeah, technically Wallace & Bruce ARE British...
The heavy flow of immigrants from Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries would likely continued had the 13 colonies remained under the control of London. The fate of the Louisiana territory is more problematical. For one thing, the Quebec Act of 1774 awarded to Quebec the region north of the Ohio River comprising modern-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Had this arrangement continued, this region would soon become French-speaking and would likely hinder westward expansion from the English colonies.
The Louisiana territory might also have remained Spanish, and it, as well as much of what is now the western US might have eventually filled up with Spanish-speakers.
Started a decline?.
The British Empire existed for nearly 200 years after the loss of America!. And the zenith of the British Empire came AFTER 1776-1783.
We never ‘lost’ Canada, Australia, NZ, S Africa, as these were dominions, white British/Irish settler states, as opposed to much of the Empire where British settlers were in lower numbers. Australia was made a dominion in 1901.
Britain is NOT England.
Britain is England, Scotland, NI and Wales. Ireland and Wales, unlike Scotland, were conquered into the UK by England. Scotland joined in 1707.
Wallace and Bruce therefore for the purposes of this study, ARE British. As they are Scots, and Scotland is part of Great Britain.
Its a common mistake to think England means Britain and vice versa.
Speaking of immigrants, had we stayed a colony of England, would slavery have been outlawed and N American slaves freed in 1807 as it was in England?
How would that have affected our present society? No Civil War?
“Britain is NOT England.”
Thank you for that burst of nationalistic definition-ism. Speaking for myself, I am fully aware of the constituent parts that make up the United Kingdom. However, you are correct that many Americans use “England” and “Britian” interchangably. It used to drive my friend from Edinburgh insane. The poor Scot went on a Quixotic quest to educate EVERY American he ran across using “England” incorrectly. Luckily, he returned to Edinburgh with his sanity intact, having completely failed in his quest to educate us savage Americans.
Wallace and Bruce are fine examples of foes (British or not). Cromwell also comes to mind as a possibility (not sure if he was a ‘foe’). However, all were too early for purposes of the contest.
What a facinating historical exercise this is. Hopefully, people become curious and want to learn more.
I was just trying to poke fun at your Irish pride. But let me ask you this; if the Emerald Isle is geographically part of the British Isles, does this make the Irish British?
Luckily, I am not in an irish pub right now.
Leave it to the Brits to be THAT myopic when considering who their greatest foe was.
“Britain is NOT England.”
I understand the difference; the Union Jack is the combined flag of England, Scotland, and the old St. Patrick’s cross (which wasn’t included in the original Union Jack).
Ireland is now part of “IONA” (Islands Of the North Atlantic); they’d prefer to be associated with the Azores and Iceland, I guess.
My Irish pride swells every time I see another news story from “Britain”.
It seems that the people of the UK didn't refer to themselves as British until after 1707. The word "British" only appears in two of Shakespeare's plays, Cymbeline and King Lear, and it apparently refers to Britonic Gauls, since the plays are set in the period before the Roman conquest.
“..the Union Jack is the combined flag of England, Scotland, and the old St. Patricks cross...”
And notice who’s flag is on the bottom.
Scotsman - Do you see full independence for Scotland soon?
I could never understand why England was allowed to field a separate team from the UK for the World Cup; it would be like California having it’s own team. Never understood that...
The majority of Scots wish to remain within the Union. At best most Scots may want more devolved powers.
Scotland, Wales and NI all do so as well.
Scotland esp have appeared in several World Cups (1954, 1958, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1998). Wales in 1958, NI in 1958, 1982 and 1986.
And every WC, all four nations are part of the qualifying rounds.
Dude, i’m still trying to figure out the english muffin. But I suppose it lies in the fact that the UK is a nation of precidents without the burdens of a written constitution (wry smile included). So how come the Scots get their own parliment along with representation in the British Parliment? That’s how it shakes out, i guess.
I understand that they all do; I’m just puzzled by it. Unlike the Republic of Ireland, they are not countries, but states within a larger country.
(Irish people are proud of their republic, and waiting for the demographic bomb that unites them)
Other way round, lol.
The four are countries, and the UK is a state.
Thought it was interesting you chose the Union Jack over the St. Andrews Cross in your profile page. As an American of Scottish ancestry, I think I would have been a little more militant against the crown.
Where else do 4 countries share a head of state?
I thought it came automatically because I post from the UK. LOL. How can I change it?.