tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post9033284004183213240..comments2024-03-23T01:33:00.319-04:00Comments on American Revolution and Founding Era: Was George Washington a Great General?Brian Tubbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-3014153894937665212018-07-27T22:32:11.034-04:002018-07-27T22:32:11.034-04:00I like to get spanked by girls in wetsuits!I like to get spanked by girls in wetsuits!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-67530467943276698062017-07-08T23:50:17.831-04:002017-07-08T23:50:17.831-04:00An attempt at rating generals from different perio...An attempt at rating generals from different periods in history is pointless. And if you don't have George Patton on your list you don't know what your talking about. A meaningful analysis of military leadership and combat acumen cannot be achieved without an in-depth knowledge of resources, logistics, training, military infrastructure, chain of command, national apparatus history, battlefield location/conditions and many others. A decent but simplistic analogy is to say whichever football QB won the most games in their career is necessarily the best QB, with no regard to coaching, recruiting, defense rating, level of competition, etc. Maybe one QB had a much better team to play on? In George Washington's case he had very little to work with and it is truly amazing he was able to keep things together and ultimately win the war. Yes there was help from France, but only at the end. The truth is, many so called "great" generals would not have won any battles had they had to field armies that were as deficient in equipment/supplies, training, experience, support and troop strength as what Washington had to work with. Yet he pulled it off. There may not be another general in history that could have pulled it off- that's how great of a feat it was. So when someone says that George Washington wasn't that good of a general because he lost more battles than he won, just remember, they don't know what they're talking about. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-9436163189403359972016-05-04T11:25:08.577-04:002016-05-04T11:25:08.577-04:0018th century logistics and French intervention won...18th century logistics and French intervention won the American revolution. These were only aided by men like Washington, who via the cult of personality, managed to keep the revolution unified. <br /><br />God or gods had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I think it patently ridiculous that one would name a biblical figure, for whom no historical evidence exists other than the bible, as one of the greatest generals of all time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-84413563292242526582016-04-18T03:16:56.375-04:002016-04-18T03:16:56.375-04:00'Burning all the bridges behind you will motiv...'Burning all the bridges behind you will motivate the hell out of you.'Great line Chris.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-83143176707309566672013-03-29T00:16:53.885-04:002013-03-29T00:16:53.885-04:00Don't underestimate the absolute imperative fo...Don't underestimate the absolute imperative for personal victory faced by all the men who signed the Declaration of Indpendence and Washington. If they didn't see it through it meant death, imprisonment and ruin for their families.<br /><br />Burning all the bridges behind you will motivate the hell out of you.Chris Cumminshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17215896309748041919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-38671852455457104202008-04-09T21:57:00.000-04:002008-04-09T21:57:00.000-04:00IMHO, Washington, though not the most brilliant, t...IMHO, Washington, though not the most brilliant, the most "successfull," the most victorious, general the world has known, was yet the greatest general. His virtue, his character, his perseverance, and his God-fearing humility through it all is why he was greater than Alexander, or Napoleon, or anyone else. <BR/><BR/>Good post, and good question.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-92003140005668226222008-04-05T23:20:00.000-04:002008-04-05T23:20:00.000-04:00Brad, you should put your ranking in the form of a...Brad, you should put your ranking in the form of an article and try to get it published somewhere. It would be very interesting to read.<BR/><BR/>I think Lanning's ranking of Washington is based on the premise that the United States is the most influential NATION in world history. That's my take on it, having read the book. <BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I agree with your comment that Washington was blessed from on high. Washington HIMSELF said this on a few occasions, citing "Providence" as having cared for him and protected him. I think he was right. How else can you explain how he literally cheated death so often in his life?Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31636482.post-74446581202385317552008-04-05T15:36:00.000-04:002008-04-05T15:36:00.000-04:00I first have to say that I completely disagree wit...I first have to say that I completely disagree with Michael Lee Lanning's ranking of Washington as, "the most influential military leader in all of world history." There are simply too many great MILITARY leaders in the history of this world that surpass Washington's ability as a general. Whit that said, however, I agree with you when you state that Washington is often underrated. My honest feeling (putting all objectivity aside) is that Washington was blessed from on high to win the war. I just can't see any other explanation for America's victory over Britain. It should not have happened. I realize this is unpopular in the historical community, so take it for what it's worth. Washington's brilliance was not in killing or fighting, but in LEADERSHIP! He had what we today call PRESENCE. If we could stand next to him today, I believe we would get that vibe very strong. <BR/><BR/>As far as the greatest MILITARY leaders, I have to say that Washington should not even be in the top 10. Again, this is strictly from the perspective of WARFARE. Here are my Top 10military minds of all-time:<BR/><BR/>10.)William the Conqueror<BR/>09.)Gehngas Kahn<BR/>08.)Nebuchanezzer<BR/>07.)Spartacus<BR/>06.)Julius Caesar<BR/>05.)Joshua (from the Bible)<BR/>04.)Saladin<BR/>03.)Napoleon<BR/>02.)Hannibal<BR/>01.)Alexander the Great<BR/><BR/>*I know some people might be upset that I have not put an American leader on this list, howeve, I believe it is because great MILITARY minds are often evil tyrants (not in all cases). Great American generals (like Washington, Eisenhower, Grant, etc.) never fought to conquer. America's greatness has NEVER been because of war.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com