- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OT history and military gurus: George Washington v. Oliver Cromwell
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:17 pm to Collegedropout
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:17 pm to Collegedropout
Not the one I took, but it's been a while. I know I have a bunch of Anglo Cavalier ancestors, but they all mixed up with the pioneer Scots in Appalachia and Alabama after the Revolutionary War.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:22 pm to HempHead
If you can find it, get a DVD of "The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh". Disney piece from mid 60s. Though not set in lower cape fear, it is an accurate depiction albeit fictional recreation, of life in the colonies during this exact window.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:23 pm to Methuselah
Washington was by no means considered a brilliant military commander or genius tactician/strategist. He won when he had to, however, and made the right decision at crucial junctures that kept us in the game.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:28 pm to RollTide1987
Washington knew he just keep the army together. Considering the circumstances, there are few leaders that could have done much better.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:33 pm to RollTide1987
This is meant as a compliment: Washington is considered a world class retreater. There was many times where he kept the army togeather after a tactical retreat or defeat which are considered genius.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:38 pm to ScottFowler
If you only knew how dead on you are. We have journals from ancestors. It was only by God's hand our country emerged.i think by individual faith in God each participant held the rope in spite of family and friends remaining loyal to the Crown. Duplicitousness was the order of the day. Anyone could be bought by the Crown with a lie/promise because they had value for once in their pitiful existence, to London.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:42 pm to athenslife101
Von Steuben's Prussian influence. Informed by Sun Tzu--"Retreat is attack in a different direction"
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:56 pm to Methuselah
Washington was a mediocre general and a great leader.
Cromwell was a great general and a (being generous here, considering some of what he did) mediocre leader.
Cromwell was, strategically, right there with Suvarov and Frederick the Great as far as greatest modern European generals until Napoleon came along.
Cromwell was a great general and a (being generous here, considering some of what he did) mediocre leader.
Cromwell was, strategically, right there with Suvarov and Frederick the Great as far as greatest modern European generals until Napoleon came along.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:02 pm to Fatal Conceit
Agh yes Frederick baron Von Steuben and the blue book
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:08 pm to lsucoonass
They don't call it "prussianized" for nothing!
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:56 pm to Methuselah
I don't know much about the military acumen of either Washington or Cromwell, but Cromwell had the religious fanatacism thing going for him.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 7:09 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Cromwell was a great general and a (being generous here, considering some of what he did) mediocre leader.
I'd say he was a very good leader of soldiers in a military setting. And he was a passable politician in parliament. But, yeah, he was way out of step with the moods and desires of vast majority of the people of the country he came to rule.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 7:25 am to Methuselah
quote:
Who would prevail?
Washington still prevails. As it was, the Brits' tactics and operational art were generally sound. What they didn't have (and your hypothetical time-travelling Oliver Cromwell wouldn't have solved) was priority of effort.
The English authorities did not take the American rebellion seriously at first. By the time they did, they were locked in a war (related to the U.S.-French treaty of friendship) with France (again) beginning in 1778 and with Spain in 1779. So, obviously, ragtag colonists with relatively sparse heavy guns, military training, etc., didn't concern them as much as the professional armies and navies of France and Spain.
If the colonial rebellion had been England's #1 priority during the 1770s and, particularly, the 1780s, and they hadn't been distracted by France and Spain, I have little doubt they could have prevailed.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 7:35 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Cromwell was, strategically, right there with Suvarov and Frederick the Great as far as greatest modern European generals until Napoleon came along.
To a degree, we're comparing apples and oranges here. A better analogue to Cromwell is Nathan Bedford Forrest. A brilliant, yet instinctive leader who excelled with cavalry.
However, I do not see the flashes of outright genius in Cromwell as I do with Frederick and Napoleon (or even Gustavus Adolphus), particularly at the operational and strategic level.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 8:40 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
However, I do not see the flashes of outright genius in Cromwell as I do with Frederick and Napoleon (or even Gustavus Adolphus), particularly at the operational and strategic level.
I think he did adapt some of his stuff from Gustavus Adolphus or at least he was influenced by him. I think Cromwell's main asset, at least early on, was his ability to make a cavalry charge and keep his men in tight enough formation that he could regroup and recharge or lend aid to another part of the battlefield in short order. Which I think was a significant benefit as the art of cavalry warfare was not highly developed in England at that time.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 9:46 am to Methuselah
I love most hypothetical history questions. Heck throw in some time travel, and I'm still happy. But this is a bad one.
BTW they used matchlocks and pikes mixed together in their lines.
BTW they used matchlocks and pikes mixed together in their lines.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 9:48 am to Jackalope
quote:
I love most hypothetical history questions. Heck throw in some time travel, and I'm still happy. But this is a bad one. BTW they used matchlocks and pikes mixed together in their lines.
Damn, I'm crushed, brah. Any suggestions for improving future efforts?
Posted on 7/5/17 at 9:58 am to Methuselah
In a single battle Cromwell. In a long war Washington wins again.
Cromwell was a better tactician especially in the use of cavalry. Washington was the better strategist.
Head to head I give the edge to Washington. He would have avoided the all major out battles that Cromwell would have sought and in the end frustrated him causing him to make tactical mistakes by employing the same things he used in the Revolution.
Cromwell was a better tactician especially in the use of cavalry. Washington was the better strategist.
Head to head I give the edge to Washington. He would have avoided the all major out battles that Cromwell would have sought and in the end frustrated him causing him to make tactical mistakes by employing the same things he used in the Revolution.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:31 am to Methuselah
What ifs inherently have infinite inputs and therefore infinite outcomes. But, they are fun; so here's mine.
Washington. He was a poor tactician, and outclassed by most of his British opponents. His under appreciation of amphibious warfare almost killed the Revolution. But like his army he grew in competence over time. He was strategically sound. His number one goal was to keep his army in the field. His Delaware River campaign was strategically brilliant and not bad tactically.
Cromwell's only hope would have been ruthlessly crushing Washington in New York, and Cromwell could certainly be ruthless!
Slightly different what if. What if Cromwell switched places with Washington. Without Washington gift of democracy at Newburgh and his presidency we would have started as a monarchy. Cromwell the first king of America!
Washington. He was a poor tactician, and outclassed by most of his British opponents. His under appreciation of amphibious warfare almost killed the Revolution. But like his army he grew in competence over time. He was strategically sound. His number one goal was to keep his army in the field. His Delaware River campaign was strategically brilliant and not bad tactically.
Cromwell's only hope would have been ruthlessly crushing Washington in New York, and Cromwell could certainly be ruthless!
Slightly different what if. What if Cromwell switched places with Washington. Without Washington gift of democracy at Newburgh and his presidency we would have started as a monarchy. Cromwell the first king of America!
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News