George Washington vs. Napoleon Bonaparte

youtube.com/watch?v=bn-7UtKNuwE
>All these ouiaboos triggered as fuck
Anyway, what's Veeky Forums's take on this?

>deadliest warrior
>anything approaching realism
>napoleon and washington only using like 5 guys

nah man

I meant more of George Washington winning.

In the idiotic small skirmish in the scenario or a one on one, Washington would win. Neither had a reputation for being particularly skilled in close combat, so Washington's physical advantage would be the deciding factor.

In a battle or campaign where both led reasonably evenly matched forces, Napoleon would wrap up Washington like a carpet around a dead hooker.

thank you, that was the most autistic thing I saw today

>like a carpet around a dead hooker
a hearty kek, also agreed

Nappy had ~30 years of technological development and ~1,000,000 times the quality of troops (trained Frenchmen vs British "people")

>Trained Frenchmen
BattleofPuebla.jpg

Pretty small battle and even then the Mexican outnumbered them, and if we talk Franco-Mexican war, i counter you with this one.

One on one Washington was 6'4", and while I know that "Napoleon is short" is like a historical meme he wasn't especially tall. Given that they're not especially well known for their personal martial abilities, I think Washington would probably kick Napoleon's ass.

implying that Napoleon wasn't the average height.

not gonna lie

rule 63 napoleon is cute! CUTE!

Washington gets crushed in every single possible AU, of course.

>British "People"

Literal racial autism.

Why are French people so bad at banter?

In singular combat, Washington would win. On a battlefield, Washington would get crushed.

>generals used mini squads to fight each other solo
I don't understand what this program was trying to convey apart from 'MURICA

ouch

>In singular combat, Washington would win

Why?

People are just assuming that to give Washington some slack. Napoleon had lots of first hand battle experience.

Napoleon began his career as an artillery officers. If your artillery officers are experienced and competent in combat at sabre range, there's a problem.

Washington, before his military career, was a surveyor in a very undermapped north america. His early military service was as an officer for a state militia, which involved a lot of his previous experience as a surveyor but instead with soldiers.

Y'know, as a matter of background, Washington has the upper hand. But again, it really doesn't matter, Napoleon was still superior as a chief of staff.

This. Also Washington had 8 inches on Napoleon.

At the siege of Toulon, Napoleon charged the British fort, killed enemies with his sabre and received a bayonet wound to the thigh

One battle, after which he was made an artillery officer, compared to Washington spending most of his early career, military and non-military, at sabre range.