I will admit, I've been on a World War II tear personally (I recently watched "The Pacific" and am reading accounts of two of the Marines profiled in that series about their experiences in that firestorm), but I didn't want this to be a purely WWII blog. So I'm shifting gears and asking for input on America's first true military hero: George Washington.
What made Washington so great? Let's explore his experiences in war. As a young twentysomething, he started the French and Indian War and accompanied Braddock on his infamous march of destiny into the Pennsylvania wilderness. Unlike many of the contemporary British officers, he tasted defeat often early in his career and I believe this helped to forge the officer he would become. To often, success surprisingly leads to an inability to be a great officer. So to learn via failure is a great indicator of future success. He also learned how failure can be a good thing. If you look at Washington's record on the battlefield, he has really only two complete successes on the open battlefield: Trenton and Princeton. Monmouth can be considered a tactical and strategic victory, but he sustained higher losses than the British so that's a push in my mind. Yorktown, while an important victory, was a siege, not an open field fight. Look how many times Washington lost: Brooklyn Heights, Kip's Bay, Brandywine Creek, Germantown. He really doesn't have a good battlefield record, but realized something later generals (I'm singling out Napoleon and Lee here...trust me, I'm doing a post on Lee later about this) should have realized. From a strategic perspective instead of fighting to win, Washington often fought not to lose. How is that different? Washington realized he would never be able to win America's independence outright...he didn't have the troops or resources. But he could outlast the British government in England to the point where he could make the war to costly in blood and treasury for them to continue. Ultimately, this would happen. Yorktown led not to the end of the war because of the surrender of a British field army, rather, it ended due to the collapse of the wartime government (Americans call it an administration) at that time. The new government simply sued for peace to end the fighting.
Another thing I think Washington learned was to care for his troops. This is seen several times throughout the conflict. First is the cleaning up of the camps in 1775. He separated ill soldiers, tried to get them better rations and equipment. While this was not always possible, his troops recognized this. He appealed to them to continue the war after their victory at Trenton when many of them were due to go home at the end of the week. Many people point to Saratoga as the turning point of the revolution. If you ask me, there wouldn't be a Saratoga without a Trenton and a week later, Princeton. These twin victories sustained the Revolution through its darkest hour. Upon being forced out of Philadelphia and his failure to recapture the city, Washington set up the army at Valley Forge. Furloughs were given to officers to go home for part of the winter and many did to escape the difficult conditions. It would have been very easy for Washington to go home to Mount Vernon, where he had not seen in over three years. But he stayed with his men, fought with Congress for clothing, pay, and food. He improved sanitation and medical conditions as best he could.
Washington also recognized good subordinates, a must for any commander. Granted, he made a huge collapse of faith in Benedict Arnold, but otherwise he chose solid second tier commanders such as Greene, Harry Lee, Wayne and Knox. He also knew how to us the personnel sent to him by Congress. Most were former European officers who exaggerated their own opinion of themselves, but a few stood out above the rest. Officers like Steuben (Inspector General), Kościuszko (engineer), and in highest regard, the Marquis de La Fayette. These officers served Washington with distinction.
Another area that I believe made Washington a good general was his pre-war experience in charge of Mount Vernon. He had to run the plantation efficiently and effectively in order for it to succeed financially. It helped with logistics and planning when it comes to operating an army. Supply sometimes is harder to achieve than the actual combat tactics, so directing Mount Vernon's veritable army of slaves certainly helped make Washington a better army commander.
All these things came together in Washington to help him succeed where I believe other top ranked commanders in the Continental Army would not have.
No comments:
Post a Comment