- 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
OT history and military gurus: George Washington v. Oliver Cromwell
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:47 pm
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:47 pm
A little Independence Day hypothetical:
I know there was about 130 or so years difference between these two and thus weapons, organization and such changed. I think armed forces in Cromwell's time were mostly pikes and (probably primitive) muskets. Along with cavalry of course.
But lets say somehow Cromwell gets sent forward to the American Revolution era and is given say 6-12 months to get himself up to speed and to organize the British forces that fought in the Revolution. And lets say he desires a British victory in the war.
I think the strength of both men were their ability to lead, manage and inspire soldiers. And to somehow get assets from their respective legislative bodies. I'm not sure either is among the upper echelon purely in terms of strategy and tactics in battle.
Who would prevail?
I know there was about 130 or so years difference between these two and thus weapons, organization and such changed. I think armed forces in Cromwell's time were mostly pikes and (probably primitive) muskets. Along with cavalry of course.
But lets say somehow Cromwell gets sent forward to the American Revolution era and is given say 6-12 months to get himself up to speed and to organize the British forces that fought in the Revolution. And lets say he desires a British victory in the war.
I think the strength of both men were their ability to lead, manage and inspire soldiers. And to somehow get assets from their respective legislative bodies. I'm not sure either is among the upper echelon purely in terms of strategy and tactics in battle.
Who would prevail?
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 8:49 pm
15
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:49 pm to Methuselah
Washington is not generally regard as an especially brilliant military commander
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:50 pm to Methuselah
quote:
Who would prevail?
America. Because no one was going to beat this:
quote:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:50 pm to Methuselah
Prolly George Orwell.
In extra innings.
Passed ball.
ETA: Could you repeat the question?
In extra innings.
Passed ball.
ETA: Could you repeat the question?
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:56 pm to Methuselah
Simply based on the circumstances that surrounded the war, it would be Washington.
Lack of effective military leadership didn't lose the war for Britain. They basically had a lot of other shite going on that they had to deal with and eventually realized the American colonies were a lost cause.
Lack of effective military leadership didn't lose the war for Britain. They basically had a lot of other shite going on that they had to deal with and eventually realized the American colonies were a lost cause.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 9:02 pm to Methuselah
Washington
Posted on 7/4/17 at 9:10 pm to Methuselah
Posted on 7/4/17 at 9:20 pm to Methuselah
daily reminder:
Oliver Cromwell is scum.
Rest in peace King Charles I, you will never be forgotten in my household.
Oliver Cromwell is scum.
Rest in peace King Charles I, you will never be forgotten in my household.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:17 pm to Methuselah
If Washington had Jonathan Swift to ridicule and demean Cromwell, Ollie would be too humiliated to fight.
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 10:56 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 11:56 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 7:25 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 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 9:58 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! 
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News