The Student Room Group

Was George Washington that bad a general?

It seems to be the popular opinion that while George Washington was an exceptional leader of men, his military skills were lacking. However, one book I have read has gone against this opinion and said that Washington was actually one of the great military generals of the period. What are people's thoughts on this?

Scroll to see replies

I don't know a lot about him but I imagine Americans have romantisised him to a degree at least. Him being the first president and all.
Reply 2
Original post by The Angry Stoic
I don't know a lot about him but I imagine Americans have romantisised him to a degree at least. Him being the first president and all.


He is sometimes referred to as the 'father of the nation' so he is probably romanticized a bit. However, if even half the stories about him are true, then he still deserves a lot of respect.
Reply 3
From a personal point of view, George Washington was a complete disaster. He rebelled against the British, (who arguably could've been a significant benefit to the colonies) lost every major battle he participated in, and to top it all off, kept slaves in his household. While he did great things as president, Washington is ingrained on my memory as a colossal cock-up.
Reply 4
Original post by Clayton2k14
From a personal point of view, George Washington was a complete disaster. He rebelled against the British, (who arguably could've been a significant benefit to the colonies) lost every major battle he participated in, and to top it all off, kept slaves in his household. While he did great things as president, Washington is ingrained on my memory as a colossal cock-up.


Because a 'complete disaster' would definitely have been able to lead a successful rebellion against the most powerful empire in the world with an army with little prior experience. He personally didn't rebel against the British, (the Revolution began in Massachusetts and was instigated by men like Samuel Adams) he was given the generalship of the Continental Army because he was the man most suited to the job. Lost every major battle? Clearly you've never heard of the Battles of Trenton and Princeton, or of the Siege of Yorktown. Yes he was defeated in the New York campaign, but could he have won it? New York was thought to be vital to the American war effort, and Congress gave Washington no choice but to attempt to hold it. However, Washington was up against a far superior British force which could (and did) easily outmanoeuvre him with the help of its accompanying fleet, which had complete control of the sea. Despite all this, Washington managed to keep the Continental Army intact, which was the main priority, as the British would have been victorious if the Continentals were destroyed.
Reply 5
Original post by Fezzick123
Because a 'complete disaster' would definitely have been able to lead a successful rebellion against the most powerful empire in the world with an army with little prior experience. He personally didn't rebel against the British, (the Revolution began in Massachusetts and was instigated by men like Samuel Adams) he was given the generalship of the Continental Army because he was the man most suited to the job. Lost every major battle? Clearly you've never heard of the Battles of Trenton and Princeton, or of the Siege of Yorktown. Yes he was defeated in the New York campaign, but could he have won it? New York was thought to be vital to the American war effort, and Congress gave Washington no choice but to attempt to hold it. However, Washington was up against a far superior British force which could (and did) easily outmanoeuvre him with the help of its accompanying fleet, which had complete control of the sea. Despite all this, Washington managed to keep the Continental Army intact, which was the main priority, as the British would have been victorious if the Continentals were destroyed.


i never said I doubted his leadership or his suitability prior to being proclaimed chief commander, and yes, I have heard of the battles of Trenton and Princeton and the siege of Yorktown, my point being that Washington didn't do all of this on his own, he was heavily assisted by allies throughout the revolution and my comment was based on my personal opinion of Washington. Besides all that I didn't see a defence of his slavekeeping, would you condone the slave trade? Hmm, see, washington wasn't a perfect role model.
Assassins Creed says he was terrible - so I go with that.
Reply 7
George Washington was an excellent general. Read about the battles of Trenton and Princeton. Master of surprise and guerilla warfare.
Reply 8
I heard a figure that he lost Two Thirds of the engagements in which he was in command, although I can't remember the source.
Reply 9
Original post by Clayton2k14
i never said I doubted his leadership or his suitability prior to being proclaimed chief commander, and yes, I have heard of the battles of Trenton and Princeton and the siege of Yorktown, my point being that Washington didn't do all of this on his own, he was heavily assisted by allies throughout the revolution and my comment was based on my personal opinion of Washington. Besides all that I didn't see a defence of his slavekeeping, would you condone the slave trade? Hmm, see, washington wasn't a perfect role model.


For starters, this thread isn't about the moral standing of George Washington, which is why I ignored your point about slavery. Yes it is true that Washington was a slave-holder, but it doesn't have any relevance to this thread. Is every general not heavily assisted by allies? After all, the generals do not fight the battles, they simply come up with the strategy for the soldiers to follow, which is what Washington did at the aforementioned battles.
Original post by Fezzick123
For starters, this thread isn't about the moral standing of George Washington, which is why I ignored your point about slavery. Yes it is true that Washington was a slave-holder, but it doesn't have any relevance to this thread. Is every general not heavily assisted by allies? After all, the generals do not fight the battles, they simply come up with the strategy for the soldiers to follow, which is what Washington did at the aforementioned battles.


Id like to counter that with, looking back on the greatest generals like Horatio Nelson, Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington), Napoleon, and other military geniuses, they managed their forces with minimal, if not, none at all assistance. Look at Washington to find multitudes of allies and throngs of commanders helping him like the incompetent fool he was. To top it all off, he ended up in debt to his comrades in the aftermath of the revolution
Reply 11
Original post by Clayton2k14
Id like to counter that with, looking back on the greatest generals like Horatio Nelson, Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington), Napoleon, and other military geniuses, they managed their forces with minimal, if not, none at all assistance. Look at Washington to find multitudes of allies and throngs of commanders helping him like the incompetent fool he was. To top it all off, he ended up in debt to his comrades in the aftermath of the revolution


You do realise that them men you listed were all assisted by allies? Nelson had to rely heavily on the initiative of the captains of individual vessels, as ship-to-ship communication was so difficult in the Napoleonic era. At Waterloo, Wellesley commanded more allied troops than he did British troops. Napoleon also relied heavily on allied contingents: in his invasion of Russia, only half of his army was French. In addition, Napoleon relied a lot on the skills and initiative of his corps commanders. As for your last point, I have never heard this before, so if you could provide a source that would be interesting.
Original post by Fezzick123
You do realise that them men you listed were all assisted by allies? Nelson had to rely heavily on the initiative of the captains of individual vessels, as ship-to-ship communication was so difficult in the Napoleonic era. At Waterloo, Wellesley commanded more allied troops than he did British troops. Napoleon also relied heavily on allied contingents: in his invasion of Russia, only half of his army was French. In addition, Napoleon relied a lot on the skills and initiative of his corps commanders. As for your last point, I have never heard this before, so if you could provide a source that would be interesting.


In reply to that, I mean Washington relied on MILLIONS of allies throughout the world and the names I listed had only a fraction of assistance of the names I listed and I mentioned nothing of nationality, obviously you will have a mix of backgrounds commanding ANY army, but the nationality observation you made was irrelevant.

Regarding the debt, you only have to search the Internet and sources of the $12,000,000 debt will come flying at you from all angles, left right and centre.
Reply 13
He was crap, played AC3 and he was a right tosser.
Reply 14
Original post by Clayton2k14
In reply to that, I mean Washington relied on MILLIONS of allies throughout the world and the names I listed had only a fraction of assistance of the names I listed and I mentioned nothing of nationality, obviously you will have a mix of backgrounds commanding ANY army, but the nationality observation you made was irrelevant.

Regarding the debt, you only have to search the Internet and sources of the $12,000,000 debt will come flying at you from all angles, left right and centre.


Yes and why did Washington have millions of allies? Because he managed to keep the Patriot cause alive long enough for the French and Spanish to realise that it was a cause worth investing in.
As for the debt, you made it sound like a personal debt, but the $12,000,000 debt you referred to was the federal debt, which is nothing remarkable. Maintaining an army does cost money, ya know, and it was common for 18th Century nations to run up debts during wars. Britain faced the same problem after the Seven Years War, and trying to deal with the debt helped cause the Revolution in the first place.
Original post by Fezzick123
Yes and why did Washington have millions of allies? Because he managed to keep the Patriot cause alive long enough for the French and Spanish to realise that it was a cause worth investing in.
As for the debt, you made it sound like a personal debt, but the $12,000,000 debt you referred to was the federal debt, which is nothing remarkable. Maintaining an army does cost money, ya know, and it was common for 18th Century nations to run up debts during wars. Britain faced the same problem after the Seven Years War, and trying to deal with the debt helped cause the Revolution in the first place.


Id like this post to be the bullet that kills this endless discussion.

Yes, the patriot rebellion WAS borne of debt, but lets go back to his faults as a commander-in-chief, Valley Forge also, He lost New York, Kip's Bay, White Plains, Fort Washington, Brandywine and Germantown. That's a great number of losses for a great general.

Britain had the same debt problem because they spent money on quality goods for their soldiers while Washington neglected his soldiers and failed to treat his infected and diseased troops.

to summarise, Washington was a military cataclysm waiting to happen. And yet again you list the French and Spanish ONLY. The Brits had the support of various multitudes of nation. Ergo, George Washington was 'that' bad a general.
Reply 16
Original post by Clayton2k14
Id like this post to be the bullet that kills this endless discussion.

Yes, the patriot rebellion WAS borne of debt, but lets go back to his faults as a commander-in-chief, Valley Forge also, He lost New York, Kip's Bay, White Plains, Fort Washington, Brandywine and Germantown. That's a great number of losses for a great general.

Britain had the same debt problem because they spent money on quality goods for their soldiers while Washington neglected his soldiers and failed to treat his infected and diseased troops.

to summarise, Washington was a military cataclysm waiting to happen. And yet again you list the French and Spanish ONLY. The Brits had the support of various multitudes of nation. Ergo, George Washington was 'that' bad a general.


While I was quite happy to end the discussion, I can't let some of these points slide.
I'm not sure how Valley Forge links into your argument, surely the fact that Washington managed to keep his army together during the winter whilst training them up to be a formidable fighting force is to his credit? The only reason that Washington tried to hold New York is because Congress told him that he had to. He knew that New York was indefensible against British land and naval power. Kips Bay wasn't his fault, his men simply broke and ran when confronted by British troops. White Plains was hardly a major defeat: both armies suffered roughly the same number of casualties and Washington managed to keep his army together, which was the main strategic objective. The only reason why Fort Washington wasn't abandoned is because Nathanael Greene insisted that it could be held, but yes, Washington should have overruled him, as he knew that the fort could not be held. Besides, the Revolutionary War wasn't about winning battles, but keeping the Continental Army alive.

Washington neglected his troops? Nothing could be further from the truth. Washington knew that his soldiers were the most important asset he had, and he took the best care of them that he could. Anyway, the task of securing supplies for the Continental Army was the job of Congress, not of Washington.

Ok I forgot to mention the Dutch Republic, Mysore and Russia, who also supported the Americans. The reason why I only mentioned the French and Spanish is because they were the main allies of the Americans, particularly the French.
The British did not have the support of a 'multitude' of nations, rather, they had the support of none. The German auxiliaries in their army were just mercenaries, there was no political link. Britain had no allies in the Revolutionary War, as even Prussia had abandoned her.
Look, This arguments been going for two hundred years and a bit, this is my final post on this thread. You asked if Washington was 'that' bad a general I said he was and we are both in the wrong because you failed to specify a definition of what 'that' meant in this context
Original post by Fezzick123
It seems to be the popular opinion that while George Washington was an exceptional leader of men, his military skills were lacking. However, one book I have read has gone against this opinion and said that Washington was actually one of the great military generals of the period. What are people's thoughts on this?


Hello Fezzick,

I'm a pacifist. I hate war. So, I'm not thrilled that George Washington was a general and killed people, including Native Americans.

However, as an American, I realize that George Washington is the "Father" of my nation. Many of the Founding Fathers annoy me personally because of how they treated people of other ethnic groups. George Washington is no exception. So, while I respect him as a founding father of my country, I am ashamed of his treatment of people of other ethnic groups. :frown: I really wish the history of my country was a LOT different and excluded slavery, inequality, murders, and theft! :frown:

Peace and Blessings.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by That Bearded Man
Assassins Creed says he was terrible - so I go with that.


Best answer ever. Will definitely be using this as a reference in my history discussion. Bahahahaha!

Quick Reply

Latest