One of the great time-wasters of military historians is ranking various commanders. Was Grant better than Lee? How does Patton stack up against Rommel? I’ve written an entire book defending Franco’s generalship, and Walls of Men also offers a spirited defense of Chiang Kai-shek as a military commander.
Napoleon Bonaparte of course gets a lot of attention, and rightly so. He’s a fascinating historical figure, consequential for both his battlefield exploits and also his cultural and political impact.
On the face of it, any comparison between him and George Washington is absurd. Napoleon rarely lost a battle, while Washington lost most of his. Napoleon dominated Europe, taking France to a level of power and influence not seen since Charlemagne. Washington presided over a peripheral state that was mostly wilderness.
Washington’s large army would have been barely a vanguard for Napoleon and most “battles” in the Revolutionary War would have been considered skirmishes on the Continent.
And yet I think that one cannot dismiss the comparison out of hand. While it has been common for modern historians to disparage the Founding Fathers, a new generation is taking a fresh look at his accomplishments in light of the nation’s 250th Birthday. Young Washington is doing brisk business and by all accounts is a decent film. It’s success is likely to spawn two sequels, one on Washington as a general, the other as president and father of the nation.
I think that’s where Washington has the edge. He lost many battles, but ultimately won the war. I think there is a strong case to be made that winning with an army that is totally outmatched, tactically inferior and often hanging on by its fingernails show far greater leadership than gaining command of one of Europe’s most formidable militaries and romping around with it.
To be sure, Napoleon’s organizational skill was impressive and his method of warfare made a profound and lasting impact on the military art, but Washington left an arguably more consequential legacy, and was the greater innovator.
It was Washington who turned the von Steuben for assistance in training, thereby breaking the American adherence to the British system of drill and organization. To this day, the American use of drill and ceremony is closer to that of Germany than Britain and the Commonwealth.
Napoleon left a legal code, but Washington left an entire mode of political thought – not one he originated, but one he cemented in place. Leadership is about more than individual effort, it is also about identifying talent and empowering it to succeed. Napoleon’s inner circle was by and large inconsequential while Washington’s was packed with deep thinkers. Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson and company are far more relevant than Napoleon’s marshals.
I think one also cannot overlook the difference in character. Napoleon was fighting for power and personal glory; Washington wanted neither. Napoleon famously saw the crown of France lying in a ditch and picked it up with his sword; Washington refused the crown he was offered, and preferred to retire into private life rather than remain in office until his death.
Washington waged war out of necessity, while Napoleon did so out of vainglory and ambition, and thousands upon thousands died as a result. Napoleon was ultimately more deadly for Frenchmen than any of his opponents.
All of this tilts the scale in my mind to Washington. It is fine to admire battlefield prowess and strategic acumen, but leadership is also about achieving a stable peace and a lasting legacy of prosperity, leaving the world in better than than you found it. After decades of war, Napoleon’s empire came to naught, and the conflicts he created continued to burn long after his death – indeed some are still with us today.
On that score, the contest isn’t even close.
Chateau Lloyd 
Leave a comment