"Washington ranked as Britain's greatest foe" Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Action Log
15 Apr 2012 5:46 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Crossposted to Historical Wargaming board
Areas of InterestGeneral 18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
|
doc mcb | 15 Apr 2012 10:36 a.m. PST |
link beating out Napoleon and Rommel Criteria seems to be who did Britain the worst damage, and on that I would certainly agree. |
MajorB | 15 Apr 2012 10:42 a.m. PST |
|
Herkybird | 15 Apr 2012 11:10 a.m. PST |
I think George Washington would be embarrassed to be considered so. He did what he needed to do to achieve his clear aim, independance for the 13 colonies. I have great admiration for him, but he was definitely not our 'Greatest enemy'. |
doc mcb | 15 Apr 2012 11:18 a.m. PST |
Well, I didn't see that, silly me, since it was on the Napoleonic board. GW's talents were not mainly as a battlefield commander, though it is hard to find better than the Trenton to Princeton campaign. He was masterful in collecting and assessing intelligence, for example, and of course simply in maintaining an army in the field in the face of shortages and also of sometimes incompetent political leadership. |
nevinsrip | 15 Apr 2012 11:44 a.m. PST |
I wonder what ol' Andy Jackson would say about that. Especially if you consider the War of 1812 to be part of the Nap Wars. |
Martin Rapier | 15 Apr 2012 11:46 a.m. PST |
A rather selective list they had to choose from
|
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Apr 2012 12:36 p.m. PST |
Great Britain did surprisingly well economically out of losing the AWI; trade with the US soon exceeded the pre-independence levels (with the added benefit to British merchants that they were being paid in gold rather than barter/paper) and tax revenue from this trade more than made up for any pre-war income. More important, though, were the lessons in imperial governance that served Great Britain well in running what was effectively the "second British Empire" after the mid-19th Century. IIRC, the British also did well out of a deal for the Royal Navy to act as guarantors of free passage for US merchant ships on the high seas. So the idea that GW did any great material damage to the nation, even in the short run, is highly debatable (not to take anything from his achievements). WW1 arguably ruined the nation far more by losing it a good number of its best men from all classes of society, and giving rise to nationalist movements in many parts of the Empire. WW2 took this still further and added financial penury that cost the country not only its status as a major industrial power, but started the rot within manufacturing industry that caused their collapse through failure to modernise/invest in new production methods (aided and abetted by poor industrial relations/inferior working practices and productivity) in the 1945-1975 period – for example, Britain's share of the global merchant ship-building market fell from 15% to just 3% from 1965-75, and by 1979 I think just one shipyard in the entire UK had an overseas vessel being built or on order. |
doc mcb | 15 Apr 2012 1:16 p.m. PST |
I agree with Max that the 2nd British empire was better in many ways than the 1st. But it would have been better still had it retained most of North America and the vibrant society and economy of what instead became the USA. |
sillypoint | 15 Apr 2012 3:55 p.m. PST |
GW vs Boney, vs Adolph, vs Claudie, vs Willie who actually ramroded the place? Just goes to show how data can be manipulated to produce a result ;). |
Sancho Panzer | 16 Apr 2012 6:03 a.m. PST |
Having recently become interested in FIW, I've come to think that Washington's action in starting that war, and thus the ruinously expensive Seven Years War, couldn't have been better calculated to make the US and harm Britain. Given the French stranglehold on westward expansion the FIW was probably going to happen anyway, but much else might have changed in the interim. It was the taxes resulting from having financed Frederick's meatgrinder and the lack of British appreciation for the efforts of the colonies in the war which led to the revolution not long after. |
Supercilius Maximus | 16 Apr 2012 8:31 a.m. PST |
<<But it would have been better still had it retained most of North America and the vibrant society and economy of what instead became the USA.>> We'll never know for sure, but I think some sort of schism with Great Britain was inevitable – too many political and social differences had arisen between the two societies for Americans to think of themselves as "British" much beyond the early 1800s, I would have thought. |
John D Salt | 16 Apr 2012 1:51 p.m. PST |
IMHO it depends on what you mean by "greatest foe". If it means the foe whose achievements were the greatest, then I think it is hard to argue with the choice of Washington. The whole US of A thing has, I think everyone will be compelled to agree, turned out to be quite a big thing. If, on the other hand, it means the foe who was the greatest menace to British national survival, then it is hard to see who has ever done better than Doenitz. Napoleon would I think score high on either criterion, and also scores Extra Menace Points for having (at least in song) sworn that he would come and drink old England dry (dry, boys, dry-y-y-y, has sworn that he would come and drink old England dry). What such a minor player as Michael Collins would be doing in such high-powered company I can't imagine. All the best, John. |
historygamer | 17 Apr 2012 4:49 a.m. PST |
Well, look at it this way – he tied up the British empire from 1775 till 1783 – almost eight consecutive years. What other opponent achieved that? England deployed its largest army and fleet up to that time, but still could not bring Washington to final defeat. Washington out-generaled Howe and Clinton on strategic and operational levels. I kind of get this selection and why. |
Virginia Tory | 17 Apr 2012 11:35 a.m. PST |
>Well, look at it this way – he tied up the British empire >from 1775 till 1783 – almost eight consecutive years. What >other opponent achieved that? The French did a pretty good job from 1792-1815 (with a few short breaks in between). Napoleon was running the show as Emperor for 11 of those years (1804-1815) and a few before. |
historygamer | 17 Apr 2012 1:30 p.m. PST |
Yes, but Nappy was not solely concentrating against the Brits, and
. Washington won. How did Boney do? Oh, stuck on an Island eating poisoned food. :-) |
spontoon | 17 Apr 2012 2:44 p.m. PST |
Don't forget Washington had assistance from France, Spain, The Netherlands,
. |
Supercilius Maximus | 18 Apr 2012 4:19 a.m. PST |
<<Well, look at it this way – he tied up the British empire from 1775 till 1783 – almost eight consecutive years. What other opponent achieved that?>> I'm not sure that's the right way of looking at it. There were other factors limiting Great Britain's capacity to fight in North America which owed nothing to Washington. 1) Great Britain's empire in 1775 was miniscule compared to what it was in, say, 1875. Most of India was still up for grabs, there was virtually nothing in Africa and the Far East, and the Caribbean was vulnerable to both France and Spain (both of whom were more extensive powers colonially). 2) From 1778, the British ceased to regard North America as the focal point of the war anyway – viz. the removal of most of the infantry to the West Indies. The main war effort was against the French and, later, Spanish, with Clinton really doing nothing more than keeping an eye of Washington. 3) Washington's overt allies included the two colonial superpowers of the day, and his covert allies included all of those European states in the League of Armed Neutrality. The last is greatly underestimated in terms of the damage it did to Great Britain's trade and military efforts during the AWI. 4) The British began the war with one hand tied behind their back due to the political situation in Europe – not only the Whig opposition at home limiting the availability of senior commanders, but also the view that the French would inevitably take part in the AWI at some point, either directly or vicariously, requiring substantial forces to be committed to the British Isles and the Mediterranean. The strategy of the Royal Navy was that home waters were the first priority, followed by the Caribbean (with North America a very poor third in ships, men and leaders), to prevent any French invasion. If half the ships committed in Europe could have crossed the Atlantic, they could have strangled the US at birth with an all-out coastal blockade – particularly the interception of vessels from the Caribbean – and the denial of the rich pickings enjoyed by privateers in the first 2-3 years of the war. <<Washington out-generaled Howe and Clinton on strategic and operational levels.>> I think a less "laid back" commander than Howe (and a bit more respect for the enemy among his subordinates) would have prevented Trenton/Princeton. Yorktown was impressive but relied heavily on French numbers on land, and temporary naval supremacy along the coast. Washington's contribution to American independence was really just to keep the Continental Army in being until something else turned up. The reason Washington held the British empire at bay for eight years was mainly because most of that period was "fallow" in terms of active campaigning due to the contemporary limits on logistics and communication. WW2, whilst it only ran for six years (well, for some of us :^))
), was "active" 24/7/52 for almost all of those years. |
historygamer | 18 Apr 2012 9:41 a.m. PST |
But you have to give Washington credit for sending part of his army north to Gates, which defeated the ill-defined Burgoyne expedition, and led directly to France (and her fleet) entering the war. A less secure commander would not have allowed the men (nor Gates, for that matter, who was highly regarded at the time) to march north away from the main army. Washington also has to be viewed in a tactical and strategic sense – as he moved the men from theater to theater, and did not allow his army to be destroyed. While Howe seemed reluctant – Washington was also able. He also was a master (after Brandywine) at gathering intelligence and misleading his enemies with false information. For a man reputed to be so honest – he excelled at that craft. I agree that after Monmouth, and up until Yorktown – it was kind of a reserved war. But again, he had the audacity to march south (misleading Clinton to his true intentions), and scoop up the sulking Cornwallis at Yorktown. By the way, big fan of Corny, but he really went turtle after Green Spring. I'm not saying I agree with the choice, but I understand it. :-) |
Supercilius Maximus | 18 Apr 2012 10:12 a.m. PST |
Fair enough. All good points. |
Virginia Tory | 19 Apr 2012 5:49 a.m. PST |
>But you have to give Washington credit for sending part of >his army north to Gates, which defeated the ill-defined >Burgoyne expedition, and led directly to France (and her >fleet) entering the war. A less secure commander would not >have allowed the men (nor Gates, for that matter, who was >highly regarded at the time) to march north away from the >main army. Question: Was sending troops to Gates a GW initiative? Or did Congress badger him? I simply don't recall off the top of my head. That's a factor we haven't considered to this point--much of what GW did (or didn't do) was a reflection of Congressional priorities. |
historygamer | 19 Apr 2012 8:14 a.m. PST |
Not sure either, but ultimately he had to make those decisions – what troops, what generals, how long, etc. While Congress might pressure him – they could not force him. |
epturner | 19 Apr 2012 8:17 a.m. PST |
And for all our friends on both sides of the Big Blue Anti-Tank Ditch, I wish you all a Happy Patriot's Day. Eric |
|