Do you think George Washington was a great comander?

Question

during American Revolution? Why?

Answer 1

Glenn's answer is excellent, and I agree. Remember what Washington was working with - a bunch of individualists, not trained soldiers - often part time militia. By the end of the war he did have a core of regulars and some discipline, but at the time he lost New York, he was leading total amateurs hastily gathered against disciplined British troops.
Congress was not much help. Washington's soldiers were not well supplied and rarely paid. They were promised land after the war - - if they survived. Considering an inefficient, financially destitute, and argumentative Congress behind him and the troops with him, Washington did a very good job of simply holding the army together. The colonies lost New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. These were the only significant cities in America other than Boston. The only thing holding the revolution together was the fact that Washington's army could not be tracked down and defeated.
It really depends how you measure commanders. Alexander the Great and Rommel had superb trained armed forces at their command - so did Julius Caesar and Napoleon. Eisenhower had every luxury of immense logistical support. The best manager in baseball will lose games if he has few talented professional hitters and pitchers.

Answer 2

Washington was only a so-so tactitican. However, that is a very small part of being a general, particularly for the Americans during the Revolution. Washington shined because he had the character and work ethic to stay and do the work of organizing, supplying, etc, while doing the wishes of Congress, yet maintaining his honor and prestige.
He stuck to it when most people in his position would have quit, or blamed others, or both.

Answer 3

It is fairly well documented that Washington was a terrible battle tactician.
He truly was much luckier than good.
Had the winds been blowing the other way when he had the army in Brooklyn, the British would have annihilated him. However, due to a wind shift, they could go up the East River, and he escaped.
Likewise the Battle of Yorktown was won only because reinforcements couldnt get to Cornwallis due to weather.

Answer 4

yes i think he was many well tell u he was a so so. but lets look at him as a general. U have to remember he took back Boston with out even firring a shot. his encounter at Trenton was brilliant he moved his forces in the dead of winter across the Delaware in one night. then marched 50 miles to take one of the worlds best army's the Hessians by surprise. in that battle he didn't lose a single man by the way. that battle caused the Hessians to pull out and it made it a one on one fight. he also trapped one of the greatest British generals Charles Cornwallis at York Town causing them to surrender.

now i know allot of people will tell well he lost more than he won! but that to proves he was a great commander he knew that if his forces were in a Major battle where they could be trapped the war was over for the new USA. so he never let that happen