I thought this was interesting. He came ahead of the likes of Ireland's Michael Collins, France's Napoleon Bonaparte, Germany's Erwin Rommel and Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. http://news.yahoo.com/george-washington-voted-britains-greatest-enemy-commander-153037718.html There were some kind words for Washington: And some not so kind: The time frame is from the 17th century onwards, and it has to be a field general, not a political leader like for example Hitler. I don't know about Washington being Britain's greatest enemy. Obviously he was instrumental in defeating them in North America, but he never threatened Britain itself, nor meant to as far as I know, unlike for example Napoleon and Rommel.
Calling Washington a "slave owner" is some pretty selective remembering since it was the European colonial powers that instituted slavery in the Americas and were by far the first to use allied native forces against their enemies which drove US/Indian policy for the next 150 years.
Joseph Ellis in American Creatiopn describes how Washington tried to reduce slavery and protect the Indian population of current-day Mississippi in the early days of his presidency, but realized it would tear apart the new country if he pushed those causes too far. OTOH, he really wasn't the greatest general. Surprised Boney didn't win.
Yamashita should have won. Though Maurice de Saxe is the greatest that nobody has heard of, the rare French marshal that didn't emotionally collapse against Britain. The list: Akbar Khan Andrew Jackson Eduard Totleben Erwin Rommel George Washington James Fitzjames Louis Botha Maurice de Saxe Michael Collins Kemal Ataturk Napoleon Ntshingwayo kaMahole Osman Digna Paul von Hindenburg Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck Rani of Jhansi Riwha Titokowaru Santiago de Liniers Tipu Sultan Tomoyuki Yamashita
The older I get the more I come to the conclusion that, for large parts of the USA, slavery was essentially driving the rhetoric of independence. If Washington indeed wanted to better the conditions of Africans in Mississippi but didn't - he didn't want to tear apart the newly formed nation - well, maybe it would have been better if we didn't have that nation at all. In other words, the Founding Fathers routinely valued the rhetoric of independence above the realities of race-based slavery. I have a hard time with that. I recall that the English offered freedom to every African who could make it across enemy lines. The camps were thoroughly overwhelmed, disease decimated the refugees, yet the number of runaways stayed high. That tells me that Africans viewed the Revolution with something far less than joy.
And wasn't the driving force behind Texas independence that the Mexican government wanted to outlaw slavery?
Speaking of Frenchmen who didn't emotionally collapse against the British, it's nice that the list included Santiago de Liniers, the Frenchman who led the resistance during the two British invasions of Buenos Aires. If it wasn't for Liniers, today we'd probably all be speaking English and playing long-ball football. I wonder how many votes he got.
That's a terrible argument. First, slavery couldn't have been driving the rhetoric of independence, because in 1776 each state was a slave state. If anything, the rhetoric of freedom in the Declaration of Independence and other documents prompted more discussion regarding the status of slaves and contributed to the elimination of slavery in the North soon after the revolution. An elimination which, by the way, predates its elimination in England. Second, speaking of the English, another reason why slavery couldn't have been the driving rhetoric is that the British didn't outlaw slavery until 1833. After the revolution they continued to use it in highly profitable colonies like Barbados (which had massive slave revolts in the early 19th century) and Jamaica. The notion that the American Revolution was a "bad thing" because the British freed their slaves 30 years earlier is a non sequitur, because by 1833 the South would have resisted giving up its slaves no matter who was trying to take them away, and any such action in Parliament would have faced the opposition the South would have mustered against it. As for the English offering freedom to escaped slaves - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Duh. Did you never wonder why Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was limited to states not under Union control?
Napoleon should have won, as he inflicted more defeats on English led coalitions than anyone else. de Saxe basically fought the British in one battle, which was a minor victory (Cumberland retreated in good order). The rest of de Saxe's campaign in the Austrian Netherlands was against Dutch and Austrian soldiers, because Cumberland's forces had to return to England to deal with the Jacobite rebellion. I can understand the argument for Yamashita though.
QFT. The only thing I'd add is that even the British abolition of their slave trade didn't occur until 1807.....about the same time the slave trade became illegal in the U.S. Heck, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery in those territories. So, as you noted, it wasn't until the 1830s that Britain could really boast about having a better "record" on slavery than the U.S.
Good point, I had forgotten about the Northwest Ordinance (which, given where I grew up is a bit sad). And, of course, by 1833 slavery wasn't really all that crucial to England's economy since the Barbados slave revolts proved expensive and India, whose importance was increasing, didn't need any slaves to be exploited.
Of course, from 1796 onward Napoleon only campaigned against significant British armies twice, in 1808 and 1815. And I don't believe Napoleon was personally involved in the 1808 campaign against Moore and instead focused on the Spanish armies. From this perspective, actually, Washington may deserve the award as he commanded an army in the field against Britain longer than any other candidate on the list. But Yamashita still gets my vote.
Would not the guy that conquered Britain get the vote for greatest enemy? I guess having the current royalty related to him would make it hard to call him the greatest enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_England
Mullah Omar FTW On a serious note, I think Napoleon would be hard to overlook, although Gandhi was a good candidate too.
When the British invaded Buenos Aires in 1806 and occupied it for 46 days (before being defeated by Liniers), they tried to gain the allegiance of the citizens by promising two things. One was that they would respect the Catholic religion. The other one -which seems to support your point and Nice's over Q*bert's- was that they would not permit the slaves to emancipate.
I'm not surprised. The Brits' emanicipation of slaves during the Revolution and the War of 1812 was a war tactic...nothing more...nothing less. And just so no one misunderstands me.....yes, I agree that the FFs screwed up the slavery issue. I think DoctorD earlier in this thread mentioned Joseph Ellis' book American Creation. I'd highly recommend reading that and his earlier book Founding Brothers. In both, Ellis gives several examples of where the FFs missed opportunities to possibly tackle slavery.
the whole contest says a lot more about the present than the past. first, the very idea of trying to decide on a greatest enemy commander makes no more sense than electing a greatest footballer and contributes no more to our understanding of history than knowing precisely many men were killed in the civil war. but hey, that's how we roll nowadays. both list and winner make statements which have nothing to do with history and everthing to do with a PC present. the list? carefully selected for cultural and ethnic variety: even the search for greatest enemy commander must be equal opportunity. and the winner? obviously napoleon would never do. george washington provides the perfect opportunity to further cement transatlantic unity. that said, i can highly recommend the pages of chateaubriand's memoires d'outre tombe where he compares washington (whom he venerated) and napoleon (for whom he worked and whom he long admired but eventually execrated). aside from the marquis de lafayette he was perhaps the only man to have met both face to face.
Well a poll today will obviously have a lot more to say about today than actual history. But, of course, much of history is written explicitly through today's paradigms, and has been since Tacitus praised the Germans for their virtuous living habits (as opposed to the already decadent Romans). Also, this is a poll, so it's not intended to contribute anything to history, just to our dialogue about it. Which it has - it has prompted (of all things) a debate about US slavery. As for Chateaubriand (whom I haven't read) - I'm quite certain there were a large number of people who met both Napoleon and Washington face to face. Many diplomats, certainly.
i was thinking of jefferson, (who also had very pronounced opinions on both men) but he never met napoleon. the US was still quite remote in those days and it wasn't a great posting. above all, napoleon was just an artillery officer when washington was president and a general in egypt when washington died, so they weren't precisely contemporary. as for chateaubriand, his life was amazing and his writing was superb. well worth a look.
Well, yes. And we could even bring up Julius Caesar. Going back in time, the poor Brits had to deal with the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normands... But the poll was limited to the 17th century onwards.