Why Washington Wasn't a Warrior

OK I think that is a sufficiently inflammatory title. :P

I really should have written this post yesterday but, if i recall correctly, the United States is 18 hours behind Australia so  think I'm in the clear here. As many of you know, the 4th of July is a big date in America. It is Independence day. The day the second continental congress supposedly signed the declaration of Independence (apparently the majority of American historians don't believe the founding fathers when they said they signed it on the 4th of July 1776).

Great Britain did not approve and promptly responded by attempting to suppress the rebellion. Britain did not have an easy time for the simple reason that supplying troops and equipment over the Atlantic ocean was not only expensive but took a very long time (ie by the time they shipped an army over there, the war would already be lost). The colonists were also being supplied with arms and equipment by the Spanish, French and the Dutch.

But of course that's nothing compared to the United State's secret weapon: George Washington. The thirteen colonies would never lose with Washington leading their militia armies! Most Americans will agree that George Washington was a brilliant general and the war hero who we can all attribute the existence of the USA to.



And if you ask said Americans where and when his military brilliance truly showed and paid off, they will say it was when he crossed the Delaware River and then proceeded to kick British butt. And you Americans are absolutely right. It was one of the most risky strategies seen in war but it was genius. The genius of it was that the British commanders knew that crossing the Delaware in the middle of winter is a ridiculously bad military decision because not only does it expose your men to the elements but it also leaves you vulnerable to getting absolutely ripped to shreds by musket fire as you disembark. As such, the British did not think Washington would be stupid enough to do it and hence did not move their armies to engage the continental army.

So perhaps Washington was just that brilliant?

Let's have a look at his battles.

One of the major opening battles to the war was the siege of Boston. The continental army (that's the army who fought for American Independence) under the command of George Washington laid siege to Boston which was under British control. Which was a very good strategic decision because it severely limited the resupply of the British navy in the American region (and the powerful British navy was one huge trump card that the Brits held over the colonies). So here George Washington shows his true military brilliance. Or does he?

I did a little digging (which is incredibly easy with wikipedia and its references) and apparently it was the militia forces who of their won accord laid siege to Boston. It was only after the British forces were trapped in Boston and slowly being starved out that the continental congress decided to adopt the militia in their army and put Washington in charge.

From then on all Georgey had to do was starve them out and prevent them from breaking the siege. Which he managed to do. So Washington clearly was a competent general in this circumstance but I wouldn't say he was brilliant.

So what other evidence is there of his leadership in battle?

There is the New York Campaign. After the crushing defeat at Boston, British General William Howe decided to mobilise his forces against New York. Here is where I think Washington's military incompetence really shows. Howe decided to launch and amphibious assault (a bad move in my opinion) and freely sailed up the narrows between Staten and Long Island and landed troops on Staten Island. It was only after the British troops disembarked that Washington mobilised his troops, and he promptly spread them out and fortified them in different strategic locations. Long (Island) story short, the British forces destroyed each contentental army position piecemeal and Washington was forced to retreat.

As can be seen by the Diagram, Washington's blue forces were consistently outmanoevred by the Brits again, and again, and again.

So what did Washington do wong? (pun intended)

The glaringly obvious mistake is that he split up his forces. Splitting one's army is just something you never do in war (unless your last name is "LEE" and you are fighting for the confederacy), if you have multiple targets to defend then prioritize and stick your army where it is needed most and manoeuvre as necessary. As Frederick the Great once said "He who defends everything, defends nothing".

However there is another crucial mistake Washington made: he let the British forces land. Howe sailed his forces right through New York Harbor so it should have been obvious that he needed to mobilise his army. In other words, if his scouts were doing a good job, he should have known before hand that the British were coming and he would have had the time to fortify Staten and Long Island before they Brits disembarked. And if the Brits did disembark then they would have been relentlessly ripped to shreds by musket fire. Sound familiar? It seems both the Washington and Howe had to learn the had way, that you should engage armies BEFORE they all disembark off their boats. Killing them while they land troops works best.

I'm guessing by now that all of you non-Americans are applauding me right now for saying nasty stuff about one of America's patriotic idols... And that all you American readers who actually care about your history are fuming and foaming at the mouth.

In Washington's defense he was a good politician and he was a good leader and he did a marvellous job as the United State's first President. I just think that Washignton was a wuver, not a warrior (sorry, couldn't help myself there). And besides, although I do think Washington was a terrible general, America has had it's share of brilliant generals. I am talking about Robert E. Lee of course. Best modern general of ALL TIME. I <3 you LEE...

Anyway if you still haven't already... Have a good 4th of July! :)