His plans were mostly flops often succeeding dispite himself and only through lower officers with actual competency. Re: the whiskey rebellion to see how badly Washington can fuck things up when left to his own devices.
Von stuben is a hero and largely responsible for Washingtons success and American victory generally.
You really need to read more about him. His “genius” was not in battlefield command but in intelligence, recruiting, long game provisioning and politics. You say successes by lower officers, I and many historians and even Washington’s notes say “working as intended”. The whole thing was a slow burn with which he knew he was trading cash and political capital for time. He just had to keep the team together, continue to bring in stud officers who actually were battlefield geniuses and so on.
He rope a doped Britain, even using his own reputation as collateral in the game.
That’s just not supported by the historical academic community. Very educated folks have cut his career apart nearly day by day.
He had some big failures and faults but the final accounting is that on the balance, he was a great general, just not exactly in some of the ways we imagine generals of his era.
It is, perhaps not by your preferred academic but it certainly is and you know that, why be disingenuous.
That accounting is dispite him weighing successful actions he was involved in vs loses, they’re not weighing him personally but when they do they all say he was dogshit militarily. He at times picked the right people and moved them forward and yet you also have people he outright fucked to secure his political influence at the cost of the nation and human life. Think old Benny boy.
His plans were mostly flops often succeeding dispite himself and only through lower officers with actual competency. Re: the whiskey rebellion to see how badly Washington can fuck things up when left to his own devices.
Von stuben is a hero and largely responsible for Washingtons success and American victory generally.
You really need to read more about him. His “genius” was not in battlefield command but in intelligence, recruiting, long game provisioning and politics. You say successes by lower officers, I and many historians and even Washington’s notes say “working as intended”. The whole thing was a slow burn with which he knew he was trading cash and political capital for time. He just had to keep the team together, continue to bring in stud officers who actually were battlefield geniuses and so on.
He rope a doped Britain, even using his own reputation as collateral in the game.
Simply because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I am uneducated on the matter sir, that’s a fanciful argument to make in itself.
Good president, very charismatic and indeed a good political strategist. However a dogshit military leader which is my sole point.
That’s just not supported by the historical academic community. Very educated folks have cut his career apart nearly day by day.
He had some big failures and faults but the final accounting is that on the balance, he was a great general, just not exactly in some of the ways we imagine generals of his era.
It is, perhaps not by your preferred academic but it certainly is and you know that, why be disingenuous.
That accounting is dispite him weighing successful actions he was involved in vs loses, they’re not weighing him personally but when they do they all say he was dogshit militarily. He at times picked the right people and moved them forward and yet you also have people he outright fucked to secure his political influence at the cost of the nation and human life. Think old Benny boy.