Loved by one's enemies or feared by one's friends?

[Poor Yorek]

Or, of course, there is Master Guy de Lombard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

who famously taunted those English pig-dogs.

[armyduck95]

I would think a criteria would be that the commander would actually have to prove to be an existential foe to Britain too. In that regard, Washington is not so high on the totem pole. Though I agree he's a good pick from the aspect of someone who could eventually evade defeat, achieve a decisive military victory, and tie it together for a greater political win... however, George never threatened the overall power of England.
I am surprised that likes of Herman Goering (Battle of Britain) or Rundstedt/Kleist (Dunkirk) or Donitz (Battle of the Atlantic) weren't considered given they actually came within reach of giving the homeland a throttling.
I agree Yamashito needs to be on the list... and ultimately Napoleon was the quintessential foe that put Britain on the horns of a Dilemma over and over.

[plloyd1010]

Firstly this conversation has become far more serious than the "isn't that cute?" sort of thought that had inspired the original post. That said:

None of the finalists, including Napoleon, ever posed an existential threat to England. The threat attributed to Napoleon has more to do with the French Revolution. The fundamental problem was that a population, of a country with real power and close enough to be dangerous, had risen up and overthrown the monarchy. England, and almost every other country, was a monarchy and most of those populations were none too happy with their governments. So the success of the French Revolution is more the threat than Napoleon. How often did Napoleon actually fight the British? I only recall 1 direct military confrontation which led, and he lost. Otherwise all the fights, which are of Britain's making, are with his underlings. Now Napoleon may be considered Austria's, Prussia, or Russia's greatest military enemy, but not Britain's.

Washington does lead an army in direct confrontation with British forces on several occasions. Honestly, he doesn't do very well, something like a 35-40% overall success rate. What he is good at is keeping the revolution alive. On 2 or 3 occasions he is personally responsible for keeping the revolution going. It is true that Washington's opponents didn't understand the situation. Apart from Cornwallis, & possibly Bourgoyne, British generals treated the American Revolution much like a European war.

I don't know if that makes Washington the greatest enemy or not. The turmoil and later loss of the colonies was severe blow to the realm, both financially & in military readiness.

One more thing: Ataturk came in first in the online vote.

[vince hughes]

Firstly this conversation has become far more serious than the "isn't that cute?" sort of thought that had inspired the original post.

Damn, and I always thought threads were about 'chat'.

Personally, I don't see any seriousness in it than people politely responding to the initial post ???

[plloyd1010]

I wasn't suggesting impoliteness. Mostly just 'chat'. My initial amusement was that, with USA-UK relations being as tight as they are, a conference of British museum would name "the Father of the US" the greatest enemy commander. Quite ironic in that context. The thread seems to have morphed in to a who was discussion. Ok, I put in my view along those lines.

[stear]

There seems to be a mix-up in the poll (with its 60 voters) between military and political leaders. Perhaps a more accurate PG-HQ poll is called for? Military victories vs. political success. Aye, can be touchy.

-Jim

[stear]

Which is to say, in the US, many of us don't think of General / President Washington as a Great Commander. ;-)

[Michael Murphy]

Which is to say, in the US, many of us don't think of General / President Washington as a Great Commander. ;-)

Listen up people, George Washington appears on an insane number of green pieces of paper. Those little pieces of paper, in the aggregate, control or influence a large chunk of the global economy. If that isn't clout then I don't know what is. It all comes back to the victor at Yorktown.

[plloyd1010]

Which is to say, in the US, many of us don't think of General / President Washington as a Great Commander. ;-)

I'm not part of that particular crowd. If I were I would also have problems with Nimitz & Eisenhower, and several others. As Michael points out (a little emotionally I think), we do have a country due to Washington's capabilities in leadership. Not something to be dismissed lightly.