Britain's Greatest Ever Foe?

[Flopper]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.

Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.

 

[Swagger]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.

Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.

No he wasn't. Ireland was under the yoke of Empire long before we set our sights on the New World. Granted, losing the Thirteen Colonies was a blow, but we soon recovered. And then set about conquering roughly a quarter of the world's land surface.

 

[Flopper]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.

Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.

Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.

My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.

 

[Peach]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

All true. The Blitz almost destroyed London, their bravery cannot be over stated. And their brains; lighting deserted fields as a decoy was brilliant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.

Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.

Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.

My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.

Flopper, I know it was a simple error; I do that all the time. Washington lost more battles than he won, but he won at Boston, he won at Trenton and Princeton, and he won at Yorktown. Why he was important and the others weren't was that he never gave up, never gave in, kept an army in being, was indefatigable in the cause, indomitable in spirit. No other American general could have held the army together, no other American could have succeeded as our first president.

 

[JWBooth]

The House of Lancaster

 

[Ragnar]

What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.

Not completely unsound reasoning but still gets an "F" for Failure to read the article and understand why Hitler was excluded from this particular list.

Also agree that the colonies would have attained their freedom without Washington. However, they would have been called South Canada and we would still be bowing to the Queen.

 

[Flopper]

Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.

Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.

Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.

My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.

Flopper, I know it was a simple error; I do that all the time. Washington lost more battles than he won, but he won at Boston, he won at Trenton and Princeton, and he won at Yorktown. Why he was important and the others weren't was that he never gave up, never gave in, kept an army in being, was indefatigable in the cause, indomitable in spirit. No other American general could have held the army together, no other American could have succeeded as our first president.

Washington was a great president, but not necessarily a great military leader. He certainly had the tenacity and the respect of his troops, but so did other generals such as Gates and Greene.

I don't want to take any glory away from the colonist who fought and died to establish the nation, but there were many external events that made the victory of the colonist possible. The stupidity of George III in not understanding how strongly British citizens in both the Americas and in England felt about rule by Parliament instead of by the arbitrary whims of a monarch was a major factor. Many soldiers refused to fight the colonist and as a result the King had to call on the Germans to supplement the British troops. Also George didn't have strong support in Parliament. Parliament was far more concerned about the war with France than they were about the colonies. The roll of the French was crucial. The French declared war on the British in 1778. They sunk British supply ships and actively engage the British in several crucial battles. Probably the greatest benefits of having the French involved was it distracted the British and reduced the resources available to be sent to America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.

My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.

Flopper, I know it was a simple error; I do that all the time. Washington lost more battles than he won, but he won at Boston, he won at Trenton and Princeton, and he won at Yorktown. Why he was important and the others weren't was that he never gave up, never gave in, kept an army in being, was indefatigable in the cause, indomitable in spirit. No other American general could have held the army together, no other American could have succeeded as our first president.

Washington was a great president, but not necessarily a great military leader. He certainly had the tenacity and the respect of his troops, but so did other generals such as Gates and Greene.

I don't want to take any glory away from the colonist who fought and died to establish the nation, but there were many external events that made the victory of the colonist possible. The stupidity of George III in not understanding how strongly British citizens in both the Americas and in England felt about rule by Parliament instead of by the arbitrary whims of a monarch was a major factor. Many soldiers refused to fight the colonist and as a result the King had to call on the Germans to supplement the British troops. Also George didn't have strong support in Parliament. Parliament was far more concerned about the war with France than they were about the colonies. The roll of the French was crucial. The French declared war on the British in 1778. They sunk British supply ships and actively engage the British in several crucial battles. Probably the greatest benefits of having the French involved was it distracted the British and reduced the resources available to be sent to America.

Gates got whomped at Camden and his army disappeared. Greene kept his army together while losing four battles; in that, he imitated Washington.

Absolutely agree with you that France was essential to American victory and independence. Washington's ability to keep the revolution going brought France into the war.

 

[Unkotare]

Things got bad for the British around 1066 (or good, depending on how you look at it).

 

[Douger]

HINT : She sits on a throne and wears a crown.

 

[Unkotare]

HINT : She sits on a throne and wears a crown.

Elton John after all you can eat night at the local curry joint?

 

[ginscpy]

I would have thought Andrew Jackson.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now that's outside box but very interesting, ginscpy.

If the British had taken New Orleans, would they have used it to give us something they wanted very badly, or would they have kept it, and began a new war to create a British Mississippi River valley and take everything west from Texas to the Rocky Mountains.

Good thought.

 

[ginscpy]

Now that's outside box but very interesting, ginscpy.

If the British had taken New Orleans, would they have used it to give us something they wanted very badly, or would they have kept it, and began a new war to create a British Mississippi River valley and take everything west from Texas to the Rocky Mountains.

Good thought.

Nobody ever punked a British military force that like. (before or since)

Plus it gave the fledgling United States a lot of swagger.

 

[ginscpy]

Next was Elvis - dissed the Fab Four BIG TIME the one time that they met.

lots of jeously and egos involved I gues

 

[regent]

France.

 

[Unkotare]

Now that's outside box but very interesting, ginscpy.

If the British had taken New Orleans, would they have used it to give us something they wanted very badly, or would they have kept it, and began a new war to create a British Mississippi River valley and take everything west from Texas to the Rocky Mountains.

Good thought.

Since the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed by then they would have had to pull a big "we had our fingers crossed!" to reneg that shamelessly. Of course the war would have been back on and they were pretty busy in Europe, what with that little French dude still running around and all.

 

[Peach]

The Third Reich, see London Blitz.