An Intellectual Discussion About Leaders

[w00tm0ng3r]

It was like Vietnam? The side that won the key battles in BOTH wars were the Americans. Saratoga. Yorktown. Trenton/Princeton. These are the three most important battles of the War, all won by the Americans. The British weren't upset because they kept winning battles but losing soldiers, they bloody well lost a quarter of the British Army at the surrender at Yorktown. They, kept, losing. Now the information vis a vie Vietnam is a little closer at least to your description,

None of this even begins to weigh on the importance of Washington as the first leader of the United States. Smother Washington in his crib, and it's unlikely the United States exists in it's present form.

First off, every one of these battles has the Americans outnumbering the British at least 2:1, except for Trenton where they only had about 50% more people but 3 times the artilery.

Saratoga was a major battle, but Washington had nothing to do with it. In fact, the decisive commander at Saratoga was Benedict Arnold, a fact which few today remember. The Americans outnumbered the British 2:1 at the start of the second part and 2.5:1 by the time it ended (they kept getting reinforcements).

Yorktown is not an example of astonishing military genius. First off, half the land forces there were French and they had support from 29 warships off the coast. When you outnumber the enemy 2.5:1 and have him boxed in between your army on one side and the French navy on the other, it would be pretty hard NOT to win. Furthermore, they even had the assistance of the Spanish who took over escort duties for the French which is what let the French Navy participate at all.

The Battle of Trenton (at Princeton he outnumbered them 4:1 in both men and guns, hardly a feat) is the only one of the three battles that even remotely counts as a military feat for Washington. It was a great plan and he pulled it off well, but it was still only one small battle in a war where he lost twice as many times as he won.