More and more people are coming to realize that history can often be conflicting. It's difficult to find a single answer. Recently, the outlook on the competence of George Washington has been under speculation. We always hear about what a marvelous leader he was, holding the army (band?) together until Trenton (which wasn't really a huge victory, especially compared to battles like Saratoga. It just ended his losing streak since Long Island) when it was stabilized. Well he wasn't exactly all that he's cut out to be.
Out of the nine battles he fought, he only won three. Many times the army was only held together due to British stupidity. They didn't correct their mistakes and kept losing to guerilla tactics. He almost didn't turn around to attack Yorktown, and the French had to basically drag him into it. And it doesn't exactly sound to complementary to say that he was a master at running away.
On the other hand, his ability to escape and knowledge of when to call it quits is many times considered one of his greatest assets. Often people will make the excuse for him that he was just dealt a poor hand of cards between having to bicker with Congress for money and maintain an army with bare minimum (and sometimes less than minimum) supplies and equipment. He may not have been a tactical genius on the level of Napolean, but he can still be a great leader. A combination of his brutal discipline (that wasn't widely enforced) and his physical stature made him standard that his men would rally to.
I can see either side when it comes down to Washington's military ability. It comes down to personal opinion whether or not there may have been more capable leaders who were put under Washington and if you consider his charisma part of his ability.
Today is the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary! Yay!
An awesome picture from Mount Pilatus in Switzerland -
1 comment:
also its amy's bday!!
haha good times in language.
if you want to hear the whole story ask me another time. =P
Post a Comment