Was Washington a "great" general?

[adam floyd]

From a previous book that we have read, Washington did not prove himself a very talented leader in the French and Indian War. The Revolution would turn out to be a new kind of war that would at to the challenges faced by any military leader. So the question remains, was he a great general. Not bad, but not the immortal figure we paint him as. Woods points out the difficulty he had with moving large masses of people and attacking fortifications. These are key maneuvers for military leaders. Ones of which he should be able to excel in. But on the other hand, he was dealing with inexperienced fighters and the greatest military in the world. I believe that most of the credit should go to the support staff (Jefferson and company). Without their convincing of the American people and gaining allies, things would have turned out much more differently.

[nicolesmith]

In some ways Washington was a great general, and in other ways he was just mediocre. He was very smart, and had a lot of support. He was considered an icon by Americans, as they celebrated his birthday along with the Fourth of July. He never lost the support of Congress, even when rumors were spread about him. His character, political talent, and judgment is what mattered the most. He was not a traditional military hero, and his success never stemmed from his military abilities. His perseverance in the face of impossible odds would later symbolize the entire Revolution. “What he lacked in military skill he made up with prudence and wisdom,” (pg. 84).