Originally posted by Laelius
We're discussing his record as a general, not a politician, aren't we? Why would it be any different? All of the significant battles of the war were won by other people, with of course the key battle being the defeat of the Royal Navy by the French in Chesapeake Bay. |
The topic of the thread is most influential, not most capable... |
It seems to have got away from that. I thought the list that Washington was put top off was supposed to be of the greatest generals. I'd agree that if influential replaces capable it changes the assessment considerably. I still wouldn't put him at the top of influential military leaders. Not nearly as influential as say Augustus (another one not particularly distinguished as a military commander).
If you're going to focus on the influence they had on history, then minor military figures like Monk (the Duke of Albemarle) come into play: the restoration of the English monarchy was a pretty significant event. Or John Churchill, who could have stuck with James II but didn't.
Churchill (Marlborough) was of course himself a pretty capable military leader as well as an influential one. If we were picking teams of generals I'd certainly pick Marlborough ahead of Washington (though I'm not saying first pick).
I grant he has a place in history as a politician, more during the revolution than as first President. If he hadn't become President, who would have? Adams, Jefferson? Both of them had more impact on the development of the constitution than Washington did anyway (Adams more through the appointment of Marshall than directly). |
First theoffice of the Presidency was created with George in mind second he was a prominent unifying figure during the constitutional convention and finally he created the standard against which other presidents are measured. Besides how many great leaders became great without their trusted subordinates and allies? History always focuses on the front man.
|
That Washington is a good candidate for history's most vaunted front man is something I'll unreservedly grant you.
Despite the legends, Washington had no more chance of being made king than getting away with chopping down the cherry tree. There were too many brighter and more manipulative politicians around for that. |
The army was completely behind him, who would have stopped him?
|
By then, what army? How about a "well-regulated militia"?
Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries. |
In the sense that they "rented" from Hesse-Calless.
|
Apart from the fact that most of the 'Hessians' were in fact Hanoverians', the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassell like the Duke of Brunswick was a close ally of Hanover through most of the 18th century. 'Mercenary' as a kind of derogatory term means not someone fighting for money, but someone fighting for some other country/ruler than his own, for money.
If you're a Hessian, and the Landgrave decides to support his friend from Hanover in North America, so you go and fight there, why does that make you a mercenary, but not the Frenchman who goes because his King tells him to? Both are being paid.
By any standard that classes the 'Hessians' as mercenaries the French fighting at Yorktown were also mercenaries.
(And wasn't von Steuben a mercenary?)