The George Washington this is a bit bunk. Sure he had his fair share of rocky moments, but a lot of that was due to the unreliability of his men then his ability to lead.
Had he oversaw a force as professional as the British, history would have been much differant.
he also took a ragtag bunch of losers an turned them into a Army, a REAL army. No small feet for anyone at the time. He was a brilliant Tactician, Strategy just wasn't his strong suit. there have been many brilliant Millitary men that were the same way and to opposite. Patton is one example, Eisenhower was the opposite
That's true, my history teachers/professors didn't cover those things. They covered national events, political strategy, and historical impact and consequences rather than personal foibles.
I'm with Linda. The unimportant drivel on that link was not taught, and is not relevant to the understanding of history.
It appeals to some of the pseudo intellectual history buffs I run into in history forums, though.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|