Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 15th, 2006, 10:36 AM   #1

Commander's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,348
George Washington vs. Charles Cornwallis


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?
Commander is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 15th, 2006, 11:44 AM   #2
Citizen
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9

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.
SwampFox is offline  
Old June 16th, 2006, 06:31 AM   #3
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Montana Mountains
Posts: 254

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.
tedkaw is offline  
Old June 20th, 2006, 09:25 AM   #4

Belisarius's Avatar
Dominus Historiae
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: U.K.
Posts: 9,689

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!
Belisarius is offline  
Old June 22nd, 2006, 12:50 PM   #5

old_abe's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Kentucky
Posts: 340

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
old_abe is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2006, 02:28 PM   #6

Ritocal's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Earthquake Central
Posts: 368

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
Ritocal is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2006, 03:59 PM   #7

old_abe's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Kentucky
Posts: 340

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.
old_abe is offline  
Old June 26th, 2006, 11:38 AM   #8
Citizen
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: classified
Posts: 34
Re: George Washington vs. Charles Cornwallis


Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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!
jameson189 is offline  
Old June 30th, 2006, 07:58 AM   #9

Belisarius's Avatar
Dominus Historiae
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: U.K.
Posts: 9,689

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
And yet he did. And every time he did, he lost.
Belisarius is offline  
Old June 30th, 2006, 09:00 AM   #10

Ritocal's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: Earthquake Central
Posts: 368

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

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
charles, cornwallis, george, washington


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.