**DONOTDELETE**
07-19-2002, 09:01 AM
I know my statement will seem like patriotic bluster to most, but I am being perfectly serious and I believe very much objective here. I have read more about military history than most and I have a method by which I came to this conclusion. Quite objectively, George Washington was the greatest captain of men in the history of humanity, and he deserves, especially today, our deepest respect and admiration. It is dishonest, and even shameful for us to denigrate his standing in order to appear as more objective to a shallow and simplistic inspection, so lets not shrink away from claiming his rightful place at the top of the heap of history's greatest leaders.
When I compare captains of history, I am doing so by the following criteria;
1) How successful was the general? Here I am not looking at a won-loss record as much as I am at how much did the captain accomplish considering his advantages and disadvantages.
2) What were the long term effects of the general's passing on humanity in general? Do we still see the effects to this time, or has his passing already been erased from the shores of time?
3) What kind of diplomat and statesman was the general? Did he raise the condition of his nation and its people, or did he squander his advantages for purely personal gain?
I rate George Washington tops in all three categories, and here is why:
1) Washington was in an almost impossible situation.
a. He had to pry the richest and most promising colonies away from the world's greatest military power.
b. He had no existing army meaning no officer cadre, no logistical system, and no established bases of operation.
c. He was expected to defend a long and exposed coastline against a numerically superior foe who had superior mobility via naval transportation.
d. He had a decisive strategic weakness with the Hudson River, which might have easily been captured and controled by the British to sever the rest of the new nation from its richest, most industrialized, and populous colonies in New England. Preventing the loss of the Hudson was Washington's most immediate concern.
e. Washington was answering to an inexperienced legislature only formed a few years before the war. It consequently gave him weak and inconsistent logistical support and finance. In fact, it was so bad, that his officers wanted to stage a coup and force Congress into paying them the back wages that they were owed.
f. The importance of the American colonies to Britain meant that a protracted war of defense hoping for negotiation for peace was not an option. Washington had to crush his opponent's will to win completely in such a way that could only come from winning a decisive battle. Yet Washington had rarely more than a few thousand men, while his opponents had 32,000 in New York alone. Yet he was able to grasp the importance of other arenas and sent someof his forces to other critical engagements as he did in assisting Arnold prior to the victory at Saratoga.
g. The British were also the finest trained and equipped veteran troops in the world, while Washingtons army was composed of green volunteers with short enlistments. So Washington had inferior quality to his army as well as inferior quantity and inferior mobility.
Despite these incredible weaknesses that would have ruined any lesser of a captain, Washington not only won, but won in such a way that the British did not attempt to regain their former colonies for decades; precious time for America to consolidate their government and prepare for the attempted reconquest which failed miserably.
Washington was successful because he realized that his weakness along the Hudson could not be stopped directly, but only by threatening the British base of supply should the British army ever try to leave New York and move up river. He positioned himself along the northern hills of New Jersey through which ran the road between New york and Philadelphia. He baited the British to abandon a Hudson strategy and go for Philadelphia (the only American city larger than New York) instead, which they eventually did. He kept attacking the British to convince them of the seriousness of his threat to them, even though it meant risking the total destruction of his smaller force each time he did so. He even managed to win many of these battles, all of which were engaged with Washington at severe disadvantage in men and supply.
But Washington was also incredibly successful, especially for his time, in inspiring a group of *volunteers* to continue what must have seemed like a hopeless war against the world's super power of the time. The Valley Forge experience is not merely a metaphor of challenge and despair, it was a time in which his army could easily have melted away were it not for his incredible leadership, willingness to suffer with his men, and courageous example in meeting the enemy on the feild of battle. No one doubted Washington's courage and determination to engage the enemy, and no one ever acused him of leading from the rear.
Washington's legacy is unrivaled today, as he founded the greatest super-power the world has ever seen. We have done things that no other prior nation has done, and we have not done this by establishing some oppressive emperial system to enforce our power, but we have slowly built a network of voluntary business partners over decades of effort and leadership. We would not be the successful and prosperous leader of the Free World that we are today were it not for George Washington and his successful leadership and statesmanship. He not only led us to freedom, but also led us in peace, being the first and most successful president of our republic. He picked able men to conduct our foreign policy, establish a firm currency and economic foundation, and a military structure that became the finest in the world. This military establishment has never physically challenged the authority of its civilian leaders even once in the darkest of times.
But who else might also be compared to this greatest and yet humblest of men?
Napoleon? He had absolute control of the most populous nation of the world at the time, and through conscription built the largest army the world had ever seen. Despite such power, he was so aggressive and arrogant (he was French convert) that he managed to unite the entire continent of Europe against him, even the Spanish. His institutions managed to survive, somewhat, but despite his callous disregard and his betrayal of the democratic movement when he made himself Emporer.
Ghenghis Khan? Temujin started from nothing and rose to the top, but the men he used to conquor most of the known world was built around some of the hardiest warriors the world has ever seen, the Mongols, Turks and other steppe nomads who have engaged in ceaselss warfare for millenia and whose descendants still fight in internicene conflicts throughout central Asia. And what of Temujin's empire is left today? It is gone and hardly more than a legend of the Mongolian people.
Alexander the Great? Autocratic narcicist whose accomplishments for Macedonia did not survive much after his death. The majority of what he accomplished can be best described as destructive, not constructive,except for his grafting oriental Emporer worship onto the egalitarian Macedonian culture.
Julius Ceasar? Another egomaniac whose military feats were used to destroy the freedoms of millions and fatally undermine a venerable republic that he had sworn loyalty to at one time.
There has never been nor will there ever be again another man of the stature, capability, courage, character, and nobility of George Washington, and even more so, there will never be again another nation so great so indebted to one man.
When I compare captains of history, I am doing so by the following criteria;
1) How successful was the general? Here I am not looking at a won-loss record as much as I am at how much did the captain accomplish considering his advantages and disadvantages.
2) What were the long term effects of the general's passing on humanity in general? Do we still see the effects to this time, or has his passing already been erased from the shores of time?
3) What kind of diplomat and statesman was the general? Did he raise the condition of his nation and its people, or did he squander his advantages for purely personal gain?
I rate George Washington tops in all three categories, and here is why:
1) Washington was in an almost impossible situation.
a. He had to pry the richest and most promising colonies away from the world's greatest military power.
b. He had no existing army meaning no officer cadre, no logistical system, and no established bases of operation.
c. He was expected to defend a long and exposed coastline against a numerically superior foe who had superior mobility via naval transportation.
d. He had a decisive strategic weakness with the Hudson River, which might have easily been captured and controled by the British to sever the rest of the new nation from its richest, most industrialized, and populous colonies in New England. Preventing the loss of the Hudson was Washington's most immediate concern.
e. Washington was answering to an inexperienced legislature only formed a few years before the war. It consequently gave him weak and inconsistent logistical support and finance. In fact, it was so bad, that his officers wanted to stage a coup and force Congress into paying them the back wages that they were owed.
f. The importance of the American colonies to Britain meant that a protracted war of defense hoping for negotiation for peace was not an option. Washington had to crush his opponent's will to win completely in such a way that could only come from winning a decisive battle. Yet Washington had rarely more than a few thousand men, while his opponents had 32,000 in New York alone. Yet he was able to grasp the importance of other arenas and sent someof his forces to other critical engagements as he did in assisting Arnold prior to the victory at Saratoga.
g. The British were also the finest trained and equipped veteran troops in the world, while Washingtons army was composed of green volunteers with short enlistments. So Washington had inferior quality to his army as well as inferior quantity and inferior mobility.
Despite these incredible weaknesses that would have ruined any lesser of a captain, Washington not only won, but won in such a way that the British did not attempt to regain their former colonies for decades; precious time for America to consolidate their government and prepare for the attempted reconquest which failed miserably.
Washington was successful because he realized that his weakness along the Hudson could not be stopped directly, but only by threatening the British base of supply should the British army ever try to leave New York and move up river. He positioned himself along the northern hills of New Jersey through which ran the road between New york and Philadelphia. He baited the British to abandon a Hudson strategy and go for Philadelphia (the only American city larger than New York) instead, which they eventually did. He kept attacking the British to convince them of the seriousness of his threat to them, even though it meant risking the total destruction of his smaller force each time he did so. He even managed to win many of these battles, all of which were engaged with Washington at severe disadvantage in men and supply.
But Washington was also incredibly successful, especially for his time, in inspiring a group of *volunteers* to continue what must have seemed like a hopeless war against the world's super power of the time. The Valley Forge experience is not merely a metaphor of challenge and despair, it was a time in which his army could easily have melted away were it not for his incredible leadership, willingness to suffer with his men, and courageous example in meeting the enemy on the feild of battle. No one doubted Washington's courage and determination to engage the enemy, and no one ever acused him of leading from the rear.
Washington's legacy is unrivaled today, as he founded the greatest super-power the world has ever seen. We have done things that no other prior nation has done, and we have not done this by establishing some oppressive emperial system to enforce our power, but we have slowly built a network of voluntary business partners over decades of effort and leadership. We would not be the successful and prosperous leader of the Free World that we are today were it not for George Washington and his successful leadership and statesmanship. He not only led us to freedom, but also led us in peace, being the first and most successful president of our republic. He picked able men to conduct our foreign policy, establish a firm currency and economic foundation, and a military structure that became the finest in the world. This military establishment has never physically challenged the authority of its civilian leaders even once in the darkest of times.
But who else might also be compared to this greatest and yet humblest of men?
Napoleon? He had absolute control of the most populous nation of the world at the time, and through conscription built the largest army the world had ever seen. Despite such power, he was so aggressive and arrogant (he was French convert) that he managed to unite the entire continent of Europe against him, even the Spanish. His institutions managed to survive, somewhat, but despite his callous disregard and his betrayal of the democratic movement when he made himself Emporer.
Ghenghis Khan? Temujin started from nothing and rose to the top, but the men he used to conquor most of the known world was built around some of the hardiest warriors the world has ever seen, the Mongols, Turks and other steppe nomads who have engaged in ceaselss warfare for millenia and whose descendants still fight in internicene conflicts throughout central Asia. And what of Temujin's empire is left today? It is gone and hardly more than a legend of the Mongolian people.
Alexander the Great? Autocratic narcicist whose accomplishments for Macedonia did not survive much after his death. The majority of what he accomplished can be best described as destructive, not constructive,except for his grafting oriental Emporer worship onto the egalitarian Macedonian culture.
Julius Ceasar? Another egomaniac whose military feats were used to destroy the freedoms of millions and fatally undermine a venerable republic that he had sworn loyalty to at one time.
There has never been nor will there ever be again another man of the stature, capability, courage, character, and nobility of George Washington, and even more so, there will never be again another nation so great so indebted to one man.