The Acceptable General: George Washington on the Battlefield

Unlock the truth behind George Washington's military acumen: Was he a master of strategy or just lucky? Dr. Adriane Harrison of Battlefield Leadership lends her expertise as we assess the first President's leadership and battlefield tactics. It's a captivating examination of Washington's grand vision, resilience, and the surprising truth that his tactical skills often led to more defeats than victories. Yet, his strategic ingenuity and unyielding spirit were undeniably central to America's quest for independence.

Brief Companion episode that attempts to dive deeper into the question. Was George Washington a good or bad general? Where does the notion even come from? Tune in to get some more insights. 

Have feedback? Send us a Text and Interact with us!

Support the show

Twitter: ⁠@HistoryHelix⁠
BlueSky: @historyhelix.bsky.social
Facebook:⁠https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
⁠Instagram: ⁠History_Helix⁠
Email: [e-mail]

Have feedback? Send us a Text and Interact with us!

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to Double Helix.
Footprint of nations, companion1A, washington, the acceptable
channel.
Greetings Podcasted Tuzias,you're ready for a bite-sized

(00:24):
adventure with our firstsupplemental episode?
Call up because, unlike myusual 30-minute ramblings, we're
just diving straight right intothe topic which was sparked by
your feedback.
Today we're unraveling theenigma that is George
Washington's leadership on thebattlefield.
Was he a strategic genius orjust winging it?

(00:44):
Let's find out in this quickand engaging exploration.
As the title suggests, this oneis about George Washington the
general, and it should belistened to after you listen to
Season 1, episode 1.
I also changed the jingle andthe artwork just a little bit,
just so that you don't getconfused.
Okay, now that we have that outof the way, let's go forward.

(01:08):
So was Washington really a badgeneral, or was he decent or
acceptable, as I said in theepisode?
What's up with that?
Am I crazy?
He did win the AmericanRevolutionary War
single-handedly, right?
Well, as you can expect, it'snot that simple.

(01:28):
So before I lose half of you,let me just explain what I mean.
Washington was a greatstrategic leader.
He was great at not overlyreacting to setbacks, playing
the long game and thinking aboutthe PR aspects and politics of
war.
He also had a marked advantageover his British opponents in

(01:52):
the area of spy networks andintelligence, and that was
really apparent throughout thewar.
However, on a tactical levelwhich is what determines what
you do during individualengagements, the positioning of
troops and orders of battleWashington was actually pretty
terrible and according to DrAdrian Harrison, who is a senior

(02:14):
historian at BattlefieldLeadership and a former
assistant professor of Americanhistory at the US Military
Academy, he never really gotbetter as the war went on.
In fact, during the war,washington loves more battles
than he would win.
There were also a lot oftactical defeats or draws, which
he would then upsell asvictories, all in an effort to

(02:36):
keep the Patriot spirits up andbuoyant.
For instance, early in the warin 1776, he tried and failed to
win the Big Set Peace battlethat he wanted and, to be fair
to him, that's what he had beentrained to prepare for.
That battle did not go well.
He ended up having to escape inthe middle of the night and it

(02:58):
was pretty much a disaster.
As a tactician, washington likedoverly complicated plans.
To pull them off, extremeprecision would have been needed
.
Extreme precision was in reallyshort supply during the
Revolutionary War.
This obsession with complicatedtactics cost him many battles
during the war.

(03:19):
A famous incident which Ireferenced in the episode was
the crossing of the Delaware.
It worked out, but it almostdidn't.
The plan called for amulti-pronged assault across the
river in the middle of winter,at night, from different
distances, and then convergingon Trenton at the same time.

(03:42):
Even with modern technology,that kind of assault would be
difficult to pull off preciselyFortunately for Washington and
the Americans, when the twoother prongs didn't make the
crossing because of bad weatherthat blew in, the Hessians
remained non-deweycer andalthough they knew of an
impending American attack, theynever took the warning seriously

(04:03):
and were caught off guard.
What Washington did know how todo, and did fantastically well,
was to force the British tochase him all over the Northeast
, to the point that he made itextremely expensive for them to
continue to wage the war, andthat was ultimately one of the
reasons the war was won.
He also focused on the strategyof concentrating in smaller

(04:27):
battles.
This was not common at the timeand everyone wanted big set
pieces, like he did earlier inthe war, and this also proved an
important factor in wearing theBritish out.
Another great feature ofWashington the general was his
ability to surround himself withcompetent leaders.
He gave them a lot of leeway toargue, debate and get their

(04:48):
grievances out.
However, once he made adecision, it was expected to be
carried out without hesitation.
Today's military leaders,business leaders and really any
good leader is taught to followa similar pattern.
Allow healthy debate, but oncea decision is made, gain
alignment and move forward.
So again, from a win-loss ratio, general Washington was not

(05:14):
great.
However, his overall vision,leadership and strategic eye did
carry the day and allow him todrive American forces to
ultimate victory.
I hope you enjoyed this speedysupplement.
Drop your feedback and tell uswhat historical rabbit holes you

(05:36):
want to tumble into next.
We'll be right here steeringthe conversation where you want
it to go.
Thanks for tuning in.
Stay curious, Keep exploringand catch you on the next
adventure.