Water-who? George Washington Defeats Napoleon To Be Named Britain's Greatest Ever Military Opponent

Posted: 16/04/2012 11:32 Updated: 16/04/2012 11:53

A poll conducted by the National Army Museum has voted George Washington the most formidable military opponent ever faced by Britain.

The American fought off four other leaders to victory. A long list was put to an online poll in February and the matter was then settled by a closed vote among 70 guests at museum over the weekend.

Michael Collins surrendered a commanding lead after St Patrick's Day in March saw a dramatic increase in votes for the Irish revolutionary, who eventually finished second.

He did, however, outfox the great military commander Napoleon Bonaparte, who despite conquering much of Europe was battered into third - possibly the Frenchman's most painful defeat since the Battle of Waterloo.

Erwin Rommel, the German who resisted the Allied invasion in Normandy during World War II, and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the mastermind behind the Allied forces withdrawal in Gallipoli in 1915, came fourth and fifth respectively.

The conditions for the candidates were that they were from the 17th century onwards and that they led an army in the field against British forces.

As reported by the Telegraph, Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, commented: "As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent."

Washington, the 'Father of America' was the first President and defeated Britain in the American Revolutionary War between 1775 and 1783, before going on to oversee the writing of the Constitution in 1787.

Although Washington only came fourth in the online poll, Brumwell and his other supporters won over those with the final vote, describing the leader as "courageous and inspirational".

What do you think? Is George Washington the right choice?

FOLLOW UK CULTURE

A poll conducted by the National Army Museum has voted George Washington the most formidable military opponent ever faced by Britain. The American fought off four other leaders to victory. A long l...
A poll conducted by the National Army Museum has voted George Washington the most formidable military opponent ever faced by Britain. The American fought off four other leaders to victory. A long l...
Filed by Sam Parker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 92
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
12:53 PM on 04/17/2012
It's true that Washington beat the British during the war of independance but....at the same time as that war was going on, there was a little skirmish taking place between Britain and France. Now, I'm not a military commander but I would have thought that an enemy that was just twenty or so miles away and across just a small strip of water was more of a threat and deserved maximum priotity than one that was three thousand miles away and across an ocean. Who has been Britain's greatest ever military opponents?........I would say Tony Blair and his partner Gordon Brown. A couple of classics.
12:51 PM on 04/17/2012
At the time of the US independence War, Britain had far bigger concerns with Napoleon which potentialy affected the seccurity of Britain itself. King George decided that the saftey and seccurity of Britain was more important that hanging onto a British outpost which had become a drain on the nations finacial resources. Thus the Militrary forces committed to the campaign for retaining America was limited, but in no way reflected the limitation of Britain's Military might at that time !.

Napoleon was by far the more significant adversary !... Although King George may have made an error in his judgment that America was of little value as an outpost of the United Kingdom.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cynic123
11:35 AM on 04/17/2012
I understood that the Afganistans were the best leaders in any war. They have never been defeated, so I should have thought their leaders would have won.
photo
george martini
I wasn't always this introverted.
01:54 PM on 04/17/2012
No, the Korean Marines would wipe them out. They have quite a reputation in Asia.
11:28 AM on 04/17/2012
Dare I suggest that Washington was not entirely "loyal" to the mother country before the war of independence; he, later, led the colonialist army against the Crown but I read somewhere he still held a reserve commission in the British forces at the time, which, if true, was dishonourable to say the least. Had the result of the war gone the other way, he would have been court martialled. Perhaps not diplomatic to use stronger language against the hero of our greatest ally.
photo
george martini
I wasn't always this introverted.
01:53 PM on 04/17/2012
Yeah and he liked them French people too! The horror...
09:26 AM on 04/17/2012
What a ridiculous article. Still it has given the Yanks an opportunity to voice the small amount of history they have, and also a chance to mess with the correct spelling of English words. In the present state of the American economy, and its politics, they (the Yanks) need something like this to take their minds off things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
05:00 AM on 04/17/2012
Washington was a great leader, not a great general. The surrender at Yorktown, impossible without the assistance of the French navy, did more damage to the British Empire than Napoleon ever did. If Parliament had returned French colonies, Napoleon would have discussed peace, though of course, the Brits could not countenance a French presence in the Low countries.

The impossible is possible.

http://napoleonlive.info/see-the-evidence/see-the-evidence-photographs/
08:55 AM on 04/17/2012
The French involvement certainly did cement the American victory.
However, the British strategy was to protract the conflict and wear down the rebellion and draw Loyalist support to aid in doing so.
Instead, the Americans, under Washington, continued to suffer defeat after defeat after defeat and still came back swinging. (a tribute to his leadership as you alluded to)
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." General Nathan Greene
Further, the Loyalist found no momentum. Both by American aggressive counter measurements and British counter-productive operations.
My only arguments are that the American perseverance is being sold short as is Washington's ability to incorporate and coordinate the French assets.
And his relentless ability to escape annihilation may very well have worn the Brits down without French involvement.
By the way way, all this talk of the French being the only reason for American success.....guess it's easily forgotten how much Hessian and Native American forces contributed to the English cause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
10:12 AM on 04/17/2012
Yeah, the Hessians gave George his seminal victory at Trenton. The Loyalists got theirs at Kings Mountain. Like Napoleon at Waterloo, who underestimated Wellington, the Brits underestimated their cousins.
09:17 PM on 04/16/2012
Is this a UK forum by the way?

If so, why is favourite spelt favorite?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
05:02 AM on 04/17/2012
It's a a global forum, mate. And it it is favorite.
09:03 AM on 04/17/2012
Yet again, a 'super user' shows the level needed to attain this status. Your wrong on both counts. Sort out your sad little insular life.
08:45 PM on 04/18/2012
Ok, you say it's global, but odd all the news being discussed in this specific forum is always UK news not US news.

You admant that it should be favorite. Why is that? You sound like this other ignorant American I came across on a different forum the one day. He said he couldn't understand why the British kept adding letters to their word. LOL. I tried to explain it was Americans that kept taking them out!
08:59 PM on 04/16/2012
I wouldn't be surprised if many Americans voted and unsurprisingly voted for Washington.
11:03 PM on 04/16/2012
I think he was awesome one of the great founding fathers enlightenment... Of the written constitution..Maybe it was because he was Scottish not English...Just saying..lol
08:37 PM on 04/18/2012
I always read he his family came from the North of England orginally so where you got Scottish from I don't know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
05:03 AM on 04/17/2012
I voted, The Telegraph, facts are facts, AtaturK? LOL, however:

http://napoleonlive.info/see-the-evidence/see-the-evidence-photographs/
08:26 PM on 04/16/2012
What a bunch of sour grapes.
You're letting your modern day jealousies and prejudices cloud your judgment.
Washington had nothing to do with beating the greatest Empire on earth? It was all the French?
So he had NOTHING to do with enlisting French involvement? He had NOTHING to do with French tactical and strategic engagements? He had NOTHING to do with where and how French, Spanish and Dutch supplies and munitions were allocated and distributed?
Yeah, he was just kinda there hanging out. Never mind that it took decisive victories in the first place to convince the French he was worth helping.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
05:18 AM on 04/17/2012
The Battle of Saratoga, no Washington involvement, the French persuaded him to corner Cornwallis instead of trying to retake New York City
09:24 AM on 04/17/2012
NO Washington involvement? False.
The FRENCH persuaded him? He consulted his War Council with French input.

Lack of decent records make both our statements debatable. You shouldn't state conjecture as fact.

Further, your reply had nothing to do with the original post.
photo
george martini
I wasn't always this introverted.
01:58 PM on 04/17/2012
Washington was a horrible President compared to Gerald Ford and George W Bush. He wasn't born in this country! I want to see his birth certificate!
05:32 PM on 04/16/2012
Only because he led the rebellion against England whilst it was at war with France and there being the handicap of a mentally ill King George III who insisted on British soldiers not having powder in their muskets on the first confrontation. He though it better that redcoats be killed and not Americans.
06:53 PM on 04/16/2012
How the hell did your comment get posted, and mine was not allowed ? I never posted anything abusive, only a debate question...They preach a freepress, there is no freepress, when they are allowed to do this..
07:40 PM on 04/16/2012
Sorry didn't realise he was only rebelling against England and not the rest of Britain.
11:07 PM on 04/16/2012
He was Scottish...Just saying. lol
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
03:36 PM on 04/16/2012
Thought Tony Blair would have got it - he has caused more damage to the UK than the rest of them combined!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mfa11e
Tell the truth ,regardless
03:13 PM on 04/16/2012
Without doubt the greatest leader Britain has had was Churchill.He had to deal with (two faced) Stalin,Hitler, Mussolini and to a lesser degree De Gaulle Roosevelt,the US President during the war allowed "lease lend",that Britain only finished paying for in 2006 but as the name implies it cost us dear.In Irish history possibly De Valera was the shrewdish adversary against us but possibly the greatest enemy against the British was in fact Blair who has cost more lives,civilians and allies ,more financial cost, that runs into billions ,and has cost us our reputation more than any other episode in British history
05:27 PM on 04/16/2012
Read the question before you write next time: who was Britain's greatest military opponent?

Incidentally those moaning about the arbitrary cut off point - look it up if you have to but when did Great Britain start to become Great Britain?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mfa11e
Tell the truth ,regardless
07:25 PM on 04/16/2012
I was stating Churchill didnt have one opponent but four,each devious treacherous and deadly,and he dealt with them .Since the question was "who was Britains greatest ever military opponent ," it seems obvious to state the period in question and against whom defended Britain
08:44 PM on 04/16/2012
The great in great britain refers to the island of great britain, as opposed to britain minor,which is northern ireland and eire.
photo
philhellene
Far Left and Proud of It!
02:52 PM on 04/16/2012
First place has to be William the Conqueror. Aulus Plautius should come in second. He defeated a force of Britons under Caratacus (43 AD) in Kent and began the Roman conquest - second only because that conquest was not permanent.
03:07 PM on 04/16/2012
The conditions for the candidates were that they were from the 17th century onwards and that they led an army in the field against British forces.
photo
philhellene
Far Left and Proud of It!
03:16 PM on 04/16/2012
A rather arbitrary cutoff.
02:50 PM on 04/16/2012
Hmm - back to school with you and always read the question before you answer! Military leaders would not include Gandhi, and the spelling and grammar seen here betrays more than a lack of historical education.

It is good that Washington gets this attention - in that many outside the US forget he was a field commander against us. But - consider the size of the forces he deployed versus the forces ably controlled by Napoleon...

Anyway - what about Doenitz then? He scared Churchill and could also have changed history...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
05:25 AM on 04/17/2012
Doenitz did not have enough U-boats at the beginning of the war, but he did scare Churchill.
02:40 PM on 04/16/2012
i think we are doing a good job of ruining this country by ourselves.