Washington vs Napoleon

Give me one battle George Washington won where he had a smaller force

>against all odds

Americans actually believe this

>Netherlands
>relevant

Are you retarded?

>Washington
>6'3

>Napoleon
>lol manlet

so yeah Washington

>Napoleon
>personally killed redcoats with his saber while storming a British fort
>got wounded to the thigh by a bayonet

>Washington
>stuck up British aristocrat
>closest he ever came from combat was when he sniped some lost outnumbered soldiers from afar in the ambush that started the Seven Years War

I always see this, but how exactly did Mysore help? Curious cuz it sounds interesting that Pajeets helped us to become a nation.

>implying being a good general isn't being good at selecting an advantageous playing field
There's more to being a good general than the battlefield. It's also logistics and grand strategy. Tsu Tsu said to always fight the weakest opponent. Washington used spies and deceptive tactics to know ahead of time where the British would be and what their plans were which allowed him to more effectively allocate resources and men. In a single battle, Napoleon would win, but in a grander war, Washington would use his mastery of grand strategy to beat him in a similar fashion that Napoleon was beat in Russia.

>but how exactly did Mysore help

They fought their own war in India against Brits at the same moment
It's not really allies, but more like "the enemy of my enemy"
Kinda like how the US fought the French Republic during the French Revolutionary Wars despite not being allied with Britain or the European Monarchies

>In a single battle, Napoleon would win, but in a grander war, Washington would use his mastery of grand strategy to beat him in a similar fashion that Napoleon was beat in Russia.

kek

Its just a shitty American delusion and I'm an American myself. George Washington's army is tiny, even by pre-Napoleon's time period. The average Napoleon warfare would dwarf the largest of Washington's armies. The scale is just too different. Washington fought tiny battles composed of few thousands. Napoleon led battles with >500K.

If anyone is doing GSG, its Napoleon and him alone in a battle against Washington.

he's American

you know they weren't our allies until the latter half of the war right?

>Washington would use his mastery of grand strategy to beat him in a similar fashion that Napoleon was beat in Russia.

Washington won solely because of massive foreign aid and lukewarm british support for the war, as a general he was unremarkable

napoleon easily.

now napoleon versus john churchill would be interesting

>the latter half of the war
>half

War started in 1776 and ended in 1783
France and Spain started intervening militarily in 1778

Washington in napoleons place might have tried to solve the whole revolution business WITHOUT fighting all of europe. Or fashioning a republic into an imperial dictatorship for that matter. It might even have worked out in the end, unlike the adventures of nappy.

>Or fashioning a republic into an imperial dictatorship for that matter. It might even have worked out in the end, unlike the adventures of nappy.

Except Napoleon being "too progressive" and "not feudal enough" is exactly why European Monarchs were so butthurt about him

It's okay to forsake the Old Order when you're on backwater continent overseas, but when you do it while ruling over a great power at the heart of Europe, neighbouring feudal monarchs are going to get angry

My reasoning here is that the other powers might have tolerated a non-expansionist republic more so than an openly imperialist one. It might even have gotten support from other peoples, many of which were starting to have republican ideas but didn't really like being french.

Look, I fucking love Washington but his biggest flaw by far was explicitly as a commander. He did well to boost troop morale, but his actual tactics and strategy were baby-tier, and he himself even admitted it. That's part of why I love him, he didn't have the hubris to try and brag about his shortcomings. In terms of military strategy he worked better as a propaganda piece than as an actual general.
Napoleon, meanwhile, is one of the greatest military commanders in the history of the Earth. He ranks right up there with Subutai and Alexander, easily. I really don't see how it could even be close.

Napoleon was one of the greatest commanders in history Washington was nothing exceptional and certainly isnt comparable to Napoleon