Commander

George Washington vs. Charles Cornwallis.

Who was the better General in the American Revolution? Washington did get the best of him at the Battle of Princeton, but Cornwallis was able to march through America all the way to the Carolinas. Until he was cornered in Yorktown by the French navy.

What do you say? Who would you rather have had running your army?

SwampFox

I think ultimately I'd rather have Washington and I don't just say that because I am an American. Cornwallis was no doubt a good general as evidenced by the battles around where I live here in Camden.

However, as history witnesses to us, Washington was able to pull the battlefields wins when they were needed most and recognized, at least I think, more of what he needed to accomplish than Cornwallis.

tedkaw

Washington was an excellent motivator, while Cornwallis was not... this can be seen in his stand at Valley Forge. Washington held his troops together and kept them alive for the most part. The men looked up to Washington because he was one of them.

Cornwallis was a stuck up Englishmen and his troops only followed his orders, they didn't fight for him, the man.

I would take Washington.. his sheer size on the battle field would intimidate anyone.

Belisarius

Washington lost every battle he fought except those against his closest American military rivals. Yorktown?...sorry to disappoint, the French won that one!

As a General, he himself was very bad, as a war leader he did indeed have excellent qualities; willpower, chosing competent supporters, and political ability.

So if I wanted to win a battle I'd pick Cornwallis, to win a war and seize power during the peace, Washington every time!

old_abe

It was not in Washington's best interest to fight the British directly. He would be outmanned and outmatched.

"we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn."
-George Washington to Congress

Ritocal

Exactly. Washington didn't have to win. He just had to not lose.

I would have to say Washington was the better commander just because he was willing to adapt. Washington also believed in his side abosolutely.. often putting himself at risk for the cause. Cornwallis would never do such a thing.

old_abe

You're right. I can see Cornwallis sitting in the rear of the army on some hill watching the fight unfold. While Washington on the other hand I can picture leading the charge on his horse with his sword drawn.

jameson189

Washington, he had good troop morale, he knew how to command a buch of ragged milita (not real military) and he was lucky as hell!

Belisarius

And yet he did. And every time he did, he lost.

Ritocal

Washington had good troop morale? I dont' know about that. One of Washingtons greatest problems was desertion among the ranks.