Sir Arthur Wellesly vs. George Washington

Nelson,

thanks a lot for the article.. I really apreciate it, and I enjoyed the article... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/gc-toff.gif

I have to say, for some reason I do like Meade more then I do like Grant http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif. The US Civil War has been one of my interests for the past few years, and I still have a lot of reading to do.

For some reason I also do have a tendency to be sceptical of the praised...

And now, I'll go http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/gc-zzz.gif , and then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/gc-book2.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ June 10 2004,17:46)]Ok,
Washington wasn't bad, he's just not what he's hyped up to be, IMHO.
If he fought Napoleon or Lee, he'd have lost, badley.
Lee's underrated, IMHO.
Look at Cold Harbour or Chancellorsville.
-Capo

---

I doubt against Lee. What Washington realized, (and Lee didn't) is that battle victories did not mean war victory. Washington's main concern was to keep his army together; if he did that, the British would not be able to sustain themselves over an ocean and Washington would win. Lee, although a better tactician that Washington (IMHO) did not recognize the fact and got pummelled at Gettysburg. However, I should point out that the ideology was different: Washington was going to fight a guerilla war and try to win at any cost. Lee believed in honorable defeat and an honest show of force and tactics between two armies.