re: OT history and military gurus: George Washington v. Oliver Cromwell

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.

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.

R E Lee FTMFW. TIA

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.

I don't know much about the military acumen of either Washington or Cromwell, but Cromwell had the religious fanatacism thing going for him.

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.

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.

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?

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!