Who was the better general, Napoleon (yes) or Washington (no)?

Asked by: 1dustpelt
  • Washington isn't even in Napoleon's league

    Napoleon was a brilliant tactician who reigned over Europe for a quarter of a century. He created masterpieces such as Austerlitz, The Pyramids, and Jena- Auerstadt for modern generals to learn from. His troops loved him, and so did the whole of France. He conquered most of the European Powers at the time easily. Washington, on the other hand was a terrible tactician and a mediocre strategist. He lost many more battles than he won, and wasn't even present at important American victories such as Saratoga. Did any of the American troops go into battle saying "Long Live George Washington?"

  • Napoleonic Wars ring any bells?

    Its easily Napoleon, it took the combined might of Britain, Russian(with the help of their winter), Prussian(Germany) Austria, the Dutch and numerous minor nations to defeat him in the end. The Napoleonic Wars had a Dramatic impact on warfare armies greatly increased in size during this period, it was one of the Last Wars fought with Massive armies in the field slogging it out. See:http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

  • There's no color in the question.

    Napoleon almost conquered a continent. Washington took years to get freed from an Empire an ocean away with financial problems. While Washington fought at home and France backed him, Napoleon CONQUERED most of the powers of his time. Again, there's no point of comparison.

    However Napoleon was a jerk. He betrayed the Revolution.

  • Washington is overrated

    1. Tactics

    Most historians agree that Napoleon was an expert at tactics. However Washington, on the other hand, was known for being a mediocre tactician, losing several battles in the Seven Years War, then losing most of his battles in the Revolutionary War. Even Cornwallis is considered the best general of the Revolutionary War by historians, not Washington.

    2. Battles.
    Napoleon Bonaparte
    Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered 3 to 1
    Jena - Victory
    Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated and Prussians didn't come
    Logan - Victory and outnumbered
    Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered
    Wag ram - Victory

    George Washington
    Fort Washington - Defeat
    Brandywine - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost
    Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost
    Monmouth - Draw
    Yorktown - Victory, but was outnumbering the British 3 to 1 and had the French bombarding them at sea

    The statistics are on Napoleon's side. Napoleon won most of his battles while Washington lost most.

    3. Troops
    Napoleon's men were highly trained, experienced and professional. Washington's army suffered from a lack of training.

    Napoleon > Washington

  • Washington no doubt.

    This may be showing a bit of my American bias, but still just look at what the two did under their specific situations. Napoleon had a whole country that was already established and powerful, in France which allowed him to win a lot of his battles, now this isn't denying his capabilities as a leader but his situation was no where near Washington's.

    Washington, had to make an army out farmers and normal citizens, and with just this alone he (along with others no doubt) was able to beat the dominant country at the time, and I think that speaks volumes for his leadership capabilities. In terms humility Washington is also probably better because he didn't declare himself to be king even though he could've easily done so.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.