LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotehe was a competent if not spectacular general, but it is his role as a statesman where he was unparalleled.
Seeing as how we Americans just celebrated the 4th of July I think this is somewhat appropriate.
I want to get some of the posters' perspective on George Washington. My understanding is that he had his moments of blunders, such as being flanked (Brooklyn and Brandywine), but that he also had moments of brilliance Boston, Trenton, Princeton. In the end I think Washington was one of those guys in history who is destined to be in a specific role, and I'm not sure that any other man could have kept that army in existence like he did. However I am not as knowledgeable of the American Revolution as other periods of history and would like to know what the guys here with a better grasp of history, including the Brits and Canadians here, think of Washington as general of the Continental Army.
One final point while this is mostly military related I think you have to consider his actions afterword. How many times do you see a popular general totally destroy a revolution of this sort? Washington had the chance to become a king like figure but he didn't. I mention this because I think that plays into him being the man for the job.
Thanks for any and all replies.
he was a competent if not spectacular general, but it is his role as a statesman where he was unparalleled.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
+1Originally Posted by astralis
Post war during the constitutional convention and later as the first president he remained supremely aware that his actions would dictate the actions of future American leaders so it was up to him to impart the dignity to the office others would occupy over time.
I remember a story where he was accused of having killed in cold blood a French officer sent as an emissary or something along that.
But for the man itself, always the same, difficult to differentiate from the myth built afterwards and the real man.
The Jumonville incident, the officer was killed later and not by Washington but probably by an Indian. The French should not have been in Virginia. The French later claimed the group was an embassy not a military group but the French had built a fort on Virginia land so embassy or not (it was not under a flag of truce) it was a detachment from an invading force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_..._de_Jumonville
Last edited by zraver; 08 Jul 09, at 21:02.
France and Great Britain were not in a state of war at the time. And the territory was contested.
If your building forts on land claimed by someone else your committing an act of war.
The same could be said from the other side, but thats endless. The fact that he was in a gray zone and he did something that appeared as a war crime for one of the party involved.
He had a chance of taking over with the millitary over the U.S. but stood still by freedom, great man indeed.
The French- it was an ambush of an embassy
the English- the French opened fire first
The Indians- the French were planning an ambush of their own
What we do know
There is no record of a white flag
The French had moved large numbers of men and arms into the area
The only word that it was an embassy came after the fact
There is confusion if it was a scouting party or an embassy
No one in the historical record accuses Washington of actually shooting the officer or ordering the killing of the POWs.
Washington also had control problems within the Continental Army. There was a good show on the History channel that two other Generals were deliberately disregarding Washington's orders (or not supplying reinforcements) as they wanted to be top dog.
One of them was captured by the British while he was having a liesurely breakfast in some fancy house. The scene, as shown on TV, was almost hilarious. Here is a fancy dressed officer alone at his table (most people didn't want to be around him anyway because he rarely bathed). Outside the window you see British running in out of the woods to surround the house. The next thing he saw was British soldiers in the room pointing their muskets at him.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Ahh yes Charles Lee, I guess he was the most respected/feared officer of the Continental Army by the British military at the time. One book that really increased my appreciation of Washington was 1776 by David McCullough. He portrayed the capture of Lee in a very interesting light. I guess some in Britain thought this would be a decisive blow that would begin the end of this rebellion. Rather the troops under Lee's command finally reinforced Washington, as he had been requesting for some time, thereby helping Washington, not to mention it removed a general that was acting more like an obstructionist than subordinate. You see some of that statesman that astralis mentions in how Washington treated and communicated with Lee.
I am no Washington expert, but I greatly admire his ability to hold the army together, by pure force of will and personality, in the early, dark days of the revolution. His later actions as President, rather than King George I of the USA, were striking.
Who was that German dude he hired to teach the Contonental army European drills?
Truly a great man.
I remeber as a kid in school we had a chapter on George Washington in our Moral Science subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: