George Washington is also correctly exposed as a
>mediocre general who lost two-thirds of the battles he
>fought against the British. And of those he won, he
>had a large numerical advantage over the enemy in
>each. Washington certainly wasn't the great military
>genius his admirers would have us all believe today.
Washington was a man learning on the job and though he made mistakes he was smart enough to go ahead and fight and win when he ahd a numerical advantage, and to try to avoid a battle where he had no numerical or other advantage. I think this is good generalship, not bad. Also, he managed to keep the job when there was a lot of political moves to try and remove him. he showed a good ability to relate to Politicians.
About this next snip:
>The reality was that the British won most of the
>battles and captured most of the biggest settlements.
True, but consider Vietnam and Iraq - this does not necessarily mean you win the war.
>The Rebels spent most of the war on the defensive,
>usually retreating instead of risking pitched battles
>where possible.
Again, this is the right strategy in an insurgency kind of situation (Iraq, Vietnam)
>The French came in and saved the
>Rebels by giving them money and military aid!
I think this is why GB made peace, but I wouldn't go quite as far as saying that the French 'saved' the rebels. I think its quite likely that even without French Spanish and Dutch assistance the war would have dragged on for a long time, and GB would have eventually have had to grant independence. In terms of cost the key priority for UK Govt may have increasingly been the trade they were losing out on. This is a factor whether or not GB is at war with France, Spain, Netherlands.
