Tango01 | 08 Jul 2016 12:28 p.m. PST |
"Washington's whole approach to the defense of New York was one of history's great debacles: lack of imagination about the British landing, failure to supervise subordinates in preparing the Brooklyn defenses, boxing himself into Brooklyn Heights with no way to escape (until fog and John Glover interceded), the loss of Fort Washington, the obsession with engaging the British using European tactics… the list goes on…" From here link Amicalement Armand |
Frederick | 08 Jul 2016 2:27 p.m. PST |
He did get out of it, but his escape from Long Island was due to a combination of excellent planning and a lot of luck |
JasonAfrika | 08 Jul 2016 4:18 p.m. PST |
Listening to the Boston Bookworm, Henry Knox, at Germantown and stopping to attack the Chew House while he had the British on the run. That handed the British the momentum on a silver platter and they counterattacked and won. Washington truly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at Germantown. |
Der Alte Fritz | 08 Jul 2016 6:49 p.m. PST |
Long Island was probably Howe's biggest blunder. |
Winston Smith | 09 Jul 2016 3:20 a.m. PST |
How many of his blunders were made because deferred to the advice of "experts"? He stayed on Long Island and defended New York because the Continental Congress insisted on it. He attacked Chew House at Germantown, see above. He held Fort Washington on advice of Greene. He let Lee usurp command of the advance troops at Monmouth. In most cases his initial instincts were sound, but his uncertainty led to listening to others and disaster. He would have been better off to follow his own instincts, as at Trenton. Of course, it was by following French advice that he abandoned an attack on New York and went to Yorktown instead. |
Vespasian28 | 09 Jul 2016 3:48 a.m. PST |
Washington proved himself tactically unsound on many occasions so the blunder list is quite long. But who cares as he kept going and got it right exactly when it counted. Howe's problem was trying to beat the Americans, but not by too much as he and his brother were simultaneously trying to bring the Americans back into the fold. What I would like to know is if Howe had annhilated Washington and the Coninentals would the Americans have succumbed? Or would the British have faced an early version of the Vietnam War with a similar outcome? |
Ironwolf | 09 Jul 2016 5:19 a.m. PST |
Read this on the link posted above but I'm having a hard time finding out what the details are on this??? "Washington's largest blunder was surely his signing a surrender document with the French at Ft. Necessity that acknowledged the assassination of French officers by Washington and his Indian Allies. That was the justification for the French to start a world-wide war." Acknowledged the assassination of French Officers?? |
Winston Smith | 09 Jul 2016 7:41 a.m. PST |
It was the "Jumonville Affair". link Backwoods skirmishes had been going on for years since the end of the last war. Washington, then in his early 20s, led an expedition to "persuade" the French to leave the Ohio Valley. They politely refused. What happened next is confusing. Jumonville was killed in a skirmish. His relative forced Washington to surrender at Fort Necessity. (One may consider that a major blunder also.) Among the papers Washington signed was admitting the "assassination" of Jumonville. Washington could not read French. This affair ignited the Seven Years War in America. I am unclear how that ignited Frederick the Great's minor skirmishes, but more knowledgeable heads can fill me in. |
tberry7403 | 09 Jul 2016 7:47 a.m. PST |
In the middle of May 1754, while building a road for Va. Governor Dinwiddie, Washington led an ambush of a French scouting party in what became known as "The Battle of Jumonville Glen." Several French soldier were killed or captured. Their commander, Ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville, was also captured. While being question by Washington he was killed when Washington's Indian ally Half King walked up to the French officer and struck him in the head. In anticipation of a French counter-attack Washington ordered the building of Fort Necessity at Great Meadow. After the Battle of Fort Necessity in July one of the clauses in the document of surrender Washington signed was an admission he "assassinated" the French officer. Washington later claimed the translation he was given was he was responsible for "killing" or causing the "death of" the officer. (The translator was one of Washington's men who spoke a little French.) Evidently Winston types faster than me. |
Winston Smith | 09 Jul 2016 8:00 a.m. PST |
Hah! Beat you by 6 minutes! |
42flanker | 09 Jul 2016 10:56 a.m. PST |
Tricky: 'Assassiner' in French means kill, murder, or assassinate- the last word probably not being quite as current as it is today, with its connotations of political, and frequently covert and long distance murder- (Although one of the earliest appearances, in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth,' is most definitely covert and political, but unquestionably close up and personal: "if the assassination could trammel up the consequence, and catch with his surcease success.") Equally close up and personal, poor de Jumonville was in fact brained with a tomahawk. Half King had evidently missed the pre-action briefing. |
Tango01 | 09 Jul 2016 11:43 a.m. PST |
Well… Washington was at command or not?… if the answer is yes, he was responsible for the french officer life!… Amicalement Armand |
Supercilius Maximus | 09 Jul 2016 12:14 p.m. PST |
He let Lee usurp command of the advance troops at Monmouth. Actually, I think he gave Lee command of the advance guard; GW was a big fan of Lee (up until lunchtime on Jue 28th, 1778), riding 20 miles to greet him when he was released from captivity by the British and allowing him to sleep in GW and Mrs GW's bed that night (presumably before he knew Lee was going to share it with a sergeant's wife). |
vtsaogames | 09 Jul 2016 1:02 p.m. PST |
Note that in the New World, the Seven Years War lasts 9 years, if you include combat in the Caribbean. It started in 1754 (see above). French Canada went under in 1760, so that makes seven years. But New World fighting went on in the Caribbean until 1760, counting Havana. Sure makes the French and Indian War more sensible as a label. In Europe, the Seven Years War went from 1756 to 1763, which is indeed seven years but a different seven years than those between Britain and France in the New World. As for Half King, I think he whacked Jumonville because he was afraid Washington was going to make peace with the Frenchman. Washington made a lot of tactical mistakes but few strategic ones. And he was the last man standing when the smoke cleared. |
Winston Smith | 09 Jul 2016 1:56 p.m. PST |
Supermax, I meant "usurp" as in he pouted and sulked until Washington took it away from Lafayette who at least was familiar with his command and trusted them. Lee had neither. It might be debateable whether the 22 year old would have handled them better, but…. That's why we play wargames. Who has a scenario for Monmouth that does not assume prima facie that Lee skedaddled? |
42flanker | 10 Jul 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
"Well… Washington was at command or not?…" Command… first campaign…Indian allies… 1754 Responsible? Arguably. Culpable..h'm. It's not as if his accusers were neutral observers. Clearly it was not GW's intention that his prisoner should be assassinated. Mealy mouthed posturing on the part of said accusers., perhaps? (Fort William Henry….) |
Virginia Tory | 13 Jul 2016 7:47 a.m. PST |
"He let Lee usurp command of the advance troops at Monmouth." Actually, it was his bungled and unclear command arrangements that resulted in the morning cluster at Monmouth. So in that sense, yes. Lee wasn't usurping anything. He was trying to follow unclear orders with uncooperative subordinates (even to the point of hostile disobedience). |
Supercilius Maximus | 13 Jul 2016 9:28 a.m. PST |
Who has a scenario for Monmouth that does not assume prima facie that Lee skedaddled? The British Grenadier Scenario Books have both the morning (vol. 2) and afternoon (vol. 1) actions. The morning scenario starts with Lee advancing against a small British rearguard – the players get to take it from there. |
Virginia Tory | 13 Jul 2016 11:44 a.m. PST |
"The British Grenadier Scenario Books have both the morning (vol. 2) and afternoon (vol. 1) actions. The morning scenario starts with Lee advancing against a small British rearguard – the players get to take it from there." Having played it twice with HG and others, there usually comes a time for the Rebels when discretion is the better part of valor. A controlled withdrawal is better than a rout. |
historygamer | 13 Jul 2016 7:15 p.m. PST |
Which is what Lee executed quite well after he took command of the troops at the Hedgerow. In regards to Jumonville, the Indians were almost impossible to control. The French found out the same at Fort William Henry. Half King had his own political agenda and I would say he executed it (no pun intended0 on behalf of his masters the Iroquois Confederacy. Half King was an ally, not a subordinate. Off the top of my head I'd say Washington's greatest blunder was the defense of NYC, but he (and Lee) knew it was indefensible. Washington was still new to command and working with Congress, so I suspect he didn't feel comfortable standing up to Congress' idiotic order to defend the indefensible. Lee had already told him it could not be defended. He was lucky to get away, but then again, Washington was always lucky, going back to 1753/1754 when an Indian shot at him at point blank range and missed. |