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 04/16/2012 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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; duplicate
Interesting choice, given all of Washington's faults and the French fleet at Yorktown. I wonder if the loss of the great power that became the United States overshadows this choice. We started their colonial decline but wasn't that all inevitable anyway?

Had we stayed a colony of Britain, what would have been the chances of a Louisiana Purchase and the immigration from Europe?

1 posted on 04/16/2012 1:54:13 PM PDT by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

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...


2 posted on 04/16/2012 1:58:53 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
Except a visit from the Posting Police at any minute!

3 posted on 04/16/2012 1:59:09 PM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
Hey! We won something!

Icing on the cake? We beat a Frenchman too.

4 posted on 04/16/2012 2:00:19 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2872424/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2872783/posts


5 posted on 04/16/2012 2:00:52 PM PDT by Netizen (Path to citizenship = Scamnesty. If you give it away, more will come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb; Secret Agent Man

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?


6 posted on 04/16/2012 2:01:23 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

George Washington Named Obama’s Greatest Ever Foe

There I changed it to match what we all read it as at first glance.


7 posted on 04/16/2012 2:02:31 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

LOL Looks like the original poster rapped your knuckles the other day!


8 posted on 04/16/2012 2:06:23 PM PDT by Netizen (Path to citizenship = Scamnesty. If you give it away, more will come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

That’s the funny thing the guy rapping my knuckles over my repost turned out to be the SECOND person to post the story!!!! ;-)


9 posted on 04/16/2012 2:26:17 PM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
Correct me if I am wrong I thought their decline was after the Victorian age. The reign of Queen Victoria which was reported to be the zenith of their british empire.

Remember they had India, Australia(A whole continent), New Zealand and Etc......... during this era. Decline came much later after this Victorian age.

10 posted on 04/16/2012 2:28:17 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

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.


11 posted on 04/16/2012 3:04:01 PM PDT by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

“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.


12 posted on 04/16/2012 3:05:53 PM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Funny Hitler didn’t make the top one.

That's because Hitler lost and Washington won.

13 posted on 04/16/2012 3:09:27 PM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

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.


14 posted on 04/16/2012 3:10:06 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

You mean “expect”?


15 posted on 04/16/2012 3:17:04 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (I take Olive Oyl on me spinach. She said she didn't go in for that kinky stuff but she does now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

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?


16 posted on 04/16/2012 3:36:06 PM PDT by gandalftb (The art of diplomacy says "nice doggie", until you find a bigger rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
Had we stayed a colony of Britain, what would have been the chances of a Louisiana Purchase and the immigration from Europe?

Unlike the Americans the British wouldn't have needed to buy Louisiana from the French, they would have conquered it and included it as an add-on to their empire at the Congress of Vienna.

As for immigration from Europe, that was how the colonials got there, why wouldn't it have continued?

17 posted on 04/16/2012 4:25:23 PM PDT by Cheburashka (It's legal to be out at night in spacesuits, even carrying a rag dolly. Cops hauled us in anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka; gandalftb
Had we stayed a colony of Britain, what would have been the chances of a Louisiana Purchase and the immigration from Europe?
Unlike the Americans the British wouldn't have needed to buy Louisiana from the French, they would have conquered it and included it as an add-on to their empire at the Congress of Vienna.

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.

18 posted on 04/16/2012 5:59:38 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel - Horace Walpole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
No successful American Revolution, no French Revolution,...

That does not follow right there. The French Monarchy and French society had their problems, which culminated in the French Revolution. How the French people would have attempted to solve those problems in the absence of a successful American Revolution is unknown, of course. I mention the Butterfly Effect. But revolution was not something invented by the American colonials and completely unknown before them.

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.

19 posted on 04/16/2012 6:40:45 PM PDT by Cheburashka (It's legal to be out at night in spacesuits, even carrying a rag dolly. Cops hauled us in anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill; Secret Agent Man
Funny Hitler didn’t make the top one.

That's because Hitler lost and Washington won.

No, it's because he didn't meet the criteria. Only field commanders were considered.

20 posted on 04/17/2012 1:22:18 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

Yeah, technically Wallace & Bruce ARE British...


21 posted on 04/17/2012 4:03:57 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
Had we stayed a colony of Britain, what would have been the chances of a Louisiana Purchase and the iammigration from Europe?

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.

22 posted on 04/17/2012 6:27:16 AM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

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.


23 posted on 04/17/2012 6:47:43 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget

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.


24 posted on 04/17/2012 6:51:12 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Owl558; kearnyirish2

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.


25 posted on 04/17/2012 6:53:55 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

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?


26 posted on 04/17/2012 8:23:47 AM PDT by gandalftb (The art of diplomacy says "nice doggie", until you find a bigger rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

“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.


27 posted on 04/17/2012 10:09:46 AM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

“Yeah, technically...”

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.


28 posted on 04/17/2012 10:18:41 AM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy

Leave it to the Brits to be THAT myopic when considering who their greatest foe was.


29 posted on 04/17/2012 12:00:41 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

“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).


30 posted on 04/17/2012 4:50:17 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

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”.

: )


31 posted on 04/17/2012 4:59:04 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
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.

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.

32 posted on 04/17/2012 6:42:49 PM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2; the scotsman

“..the Union Jack is the combined flag of England, Scotland, and the old St. Patrick’s cross...”

And notice who’s flag is on the bottom.

Scotsman - Do you see full independence for Scotland soon?


33 posted on 04/19/2012 12:30:37 PM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

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...


34 posted on 04/19/2012 1:56:29 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Owl558

No.

The majority of Scots wish to remain within the Union. At best most Scots may want more devolved powers.


35 posted on 04/19/2012 3:05:30 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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.


36 posted on 04/19/2012 3:10:20 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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.


37 posted on 04/19/2012 4:23:41 PM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

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)


38 posted on 04/19/2012 6:16:42 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Other way round, lol.

The four are countries, and the UK is a state.


39 posted on 04/20/2012 3:09:25 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

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.


40 posted on 04/20/2012 3:19:18 AM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Where else do 4 countries share a head of state?


41 posted on 04/20/2012 3:42:21 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957

I thought it came automatically because I post from the UK. LOL. How can I change it?.


42 posted on 04/20/2012 7:24:18 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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