StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How long did Gen. Washingon serve, in a front-line capacity? I was told that he only served for a few months, during the campaign in which he led his men into Trenton. I know he was the commander in chief for the duration of the Revolutionary War, but how much time did he spend in a fighting, and not merely commanding, role?

I was told that because he only served for a few months, he is less of a commander than Moroni in the Book of Mormon, who served as a general from the front lines. He supposedly held this position for nearly sixtey years, from age 16 to age 74, when he died.

A general serving on the front line does not necessarily make them great. You have captains, majors, and colonels for that. A general's job is to be in a location in which he can oversee and direct on a strategic level. Decisions on the tactical level are usually best left up to the officers in the field. You didn't see Schwarzkopf riding a tank onto Medina Ridge in 91 did you?

That's great, and I will use it tommorow, but I need to know how much time Washington spent at the front, leading, not "being a leader".

Comando293 wrote:That's great, and I will use it tommorow, but I need to know how much time Washington spent at the front, leading, not "being a leader".

IIRC, he was in nine battles durring the RW.

(edit)Looks like from 1776 in NJ to 1781 in Yorktown.

He also served during the French and Indian War.

Wicked Pilot wrote:A general serving on the front line does not necessarily make them great. You have captains, majors, and colonels for that. A general's job is to be in a location in which he can oversee and direct on a strategic level. Decisions on the tactical level are usually best left up to the officers in the field. You didn't see Schwarzkopf riding a tank onto Medina Ridge in 91 did you?

I don't think General Eisenhower ever saw combat and he was a great general.

Wicked Pilot wrote:A general serving on the front line does not necessarily make them great. You have captains, majors, and colonels for that. A general's job is to be in a location in which he can oversee and direct on a strategic level. Decisions on the tactical level are usually best left up to the officers in the field. You didn't see Schwarzkopf riding a tank onto Medina Ridge in 91 did you?

There is also a slight difference in the battlefields of the last 100 years and that of the revolutionary war. In those times Washington WAS close enough to each of his battles to be personally subject to rifle fire (as were the Generals of the American Civil War, the Crimean War, the Napoleonic Wars, and any of a dozen other major conflicts in the century after Washington's service). In Washington's time a General could see the entirety of the battlefield on which an Army was fighting (or near enough of it to make informed decisions). Thus being close to the battle was a help as better and more immediately employed decisions could be made. The move to more reward command came as lethality, spread, and speed of armies increased to the point that a general could no longer see the entire battlefield without a headquarters setup nor could he issue commands without a communications nexus.

Basically in the case of Washington the number of battles where he got up close matters in a way that is vastly different from any general in the last 100 years.

CmdrWilkens wrote:There is also a slight difference in the battlefields of the last 100 years and that of the revolutionary war...
Thus being close to the battle was a help as better and more immediately employed decisions could be made. The move to more reward command came as lethality, spread, and speed of armies increased to the point that a general could no longer see the entire battlefield without a headquarters setup nor could he issue commands without a communications nexus.

Basically in the case of Washington the number of battles where he got up close matters in a way that is vastly different from any general in the last 100 years.

While this is true, it doesn't change his ability as overall commander in chief. If anything, the comparatively information-rich environment of today's wars makes it easier for generals to make good strategic-level decisions in wartime (indeed, that's the point), whereas in Washington's time the genius or lack thereof of a general could really shine because their decisions need to take into account the potentially enormous lag in the information cycle. (There's some formal name for this cycle in military terms, but it escapes me at the moment.)

Master of Ossus wrote:He also served during the French and Indian War.

He was also the only sitting American president to personally command American troops in the field.

LongVin wrote:
I don't think General Eisenhower ever saw combat and he was a great general.

IIRC Eisenhower did see combat in WWI.

And what's this thread doing in SLAM?

Comando293 wrote:How long did Gen. Washingon serve, in a front-line capacity? I was told that he only served for a few months, during the campaign in which he led his men into Trenton. I know he was the commander in chief for the duration of the Revolutionary War, but how much time did he spend in a fighting, and not merely commanding, role?

I was told that because he only served for a few months, he is less of a commander than Moroni in the Book of Mormon, who served as a general from the front lines. He supposedly held this position for nearly sixtey years, from age 16 to age 74, when he died.

I don't think that any valid arguments can be made for Moroni (gods, what an awful name) being a better general than Washington.

George Washington was a mortal man, while Moroni was - and I mean this in the most disrespectful possible way - was INCREDIBLY fictional.

kheegan wrote:

LongVin wrote:
I don't think General Eisenhower ever saw combat and he was a great general.

IIRC Eisenhower did see combat in WWI.

And what's this thread doing in SLAM?

I believe the idea here is seeing combat while at the rank of general, which didn't happen with Eisenhower. George S. Patton is probably the only general in recent memory, aside from possibly James Gavin (Airborne in WWII), who saw front-line combat.

Topic moved to a more appropriate locale.

Elheru Aran wrote:

kheegan wrote:

LongVin wrote:
I don't think General Eisenhower ever saw combat and he was a great general.

IIRC Eisenhower did see combat in WWI.

And what's this thread doing in SLAM?

I believe the idea here is seeing combat while at the rank of general, which didn't happen with Eisenhower. George S. Patton is probably the only general in recent memory, aside from possibly James Gavin (Airborne in WWII), who saw front-line combat.

if thats the case. Patton fits the bill.
Rommel also.
Curtis Lemay led missions over Europe. But I don't think he was a general during those missions.

All of the generals of Airborne divisions "saw combat" under these definitions, as did many US Marine Corps generals, and a plethora of Admirals. A number of Brigadier Generals and Major Generals also saw combat, as did Field Marshals in the Wehrmacht (Friedrich von Paulus comes immediately to mind). That doesn't mean, however, they there were personally leading platoons against pillboxes and machine gun nests...

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:He also served during the French and Indian War.

He was also the only sitting American president to personally command American troops in the field.

Lincoln witnessed some combat (though he was not directly commanding this particular action):

Attempts to clear out the Shenandoah Valley by Major General Franz Sigel in May and Major General David Hunter during the summer of 1864 ended in failure. Major General Jubal Early, who defeated Hunter, was sent north with 14,000 men in an attempt to draw off troops from Grant's army. Major General Lew Wallace encountered Early by the Monacacy River and although defeated was able to slow his advance to Washington. His attempts to breakthrough the ring forts around the city ended in failure. Abraham Lincoln, who witnessed the attack from Fort Stevens, became the first president in American history to see action while in office.

That bolding at the end seems to conflict with what you noted above, because commanding American forces is certainly seeing action. Perhaps the distinction is that the Whiskey Rebellion was not a war as such, though the U.S. Civil War was indeed a "war." So Lincoln is indeed the only sitting U.S. president to attend a battle during wartime?

How many other presidents actually witnessed combat while in office? There cannot be very many.

The first time Washington is mentioned in history at a Battle is that he was a British officer during the French and Indian war. In fact, he was at Braddock's Defeat. Very lucky to survive it too, since he had several very near misses there and managed to lead the surviving British and American soldiers who weren't captured in retreat. Alot of our history hinged on that battle, because if he would have been a hair less lucky, he'd have been shot (according to records, the soles of one of his boots was shot off and he had several bullet holes in his uniform where it was baggy) or worse, had been captured by the Indian groups. The prisoners who were captured were taken back to Fort Duquense and tortured to death in a truly brutal manner. So brutal in fact that the French manning the walls of the fort abandoned them so they wouldn't have to watch or here it, plus forever after that people who believe in ghosts consider the area strongly haunted by it. American history would have been very different if that had been George Washington's fate.

Turin wrote:While this is true, it doesn't change his ability as overall commander in chief. If anything, the comparatively information-rich environment of today's wars makes it easier for generals to make good strategic-level decisions in wartime (indeed, that's the point), whereas in Washington's time the genius or lack thereof of a general could really shine because their decisions need to take into account the potentially enormous lag in the information cycle. (There's some formal name for this cycle in military terms, but it escapes me at the moment.)

You're thinking of the Boyd cycle (Observe Orient Decide Act). There's two sides to the informaiton story here (again) between generals today and generals in Washington's time. While today's generals have a great deal of tools to gain (Observe) process (Orient) and disseminate (Decide and Act) information they still can react slower than Generals in Washington's time. Why you might ask? Because the VOLUME of information is so much staggeringly greater today. This goes back to the breadth of the battlefield argument. In say 1775 and 1776 around Boston Washington could, from a good position, physically see the entire battlefield and thus would be able to observe and orient in almost perfect real time (the deciding being a matter of any individual General's speed of thought) while his ability to Act was slowed by the speed of communications. Conversely modern commanders despite HUGE investments in data processing of all types are flooded with so much information that sorting through it to actually Orient is hampered though the ability to Act has been greatly enhanced (though in turn high tempo means even MORE information which begins to show as a lag in the Orient or even Observe portions of the cycle).

The interrelated concept is span of control. Washington by virtue of being physically close to the troops was within the span of control of a larger number while modern commanders rely on the huge network of subordinates because they cannot get ahold of as many men as Washington did at any given time (a density of the battlefield problem that modern qeapons have required dispersion).

Anyway the point is experience is the greatest teacher and the number of battle at which Washington was personally present would have a definite (though hardly quantifiable) bearing on his development into the general he became by virtue of seeing how a battle unfolded from the proper distance. Modern commanders have to experience war from afar to become proficient and Washington had to experience it up close and personal.

Comando293 wrote: I was told that because he only served for a few months, he is less of a commander than Moroni in the Book of Mormon, who served as a general from the front lines. He supposedly held this position for nearly sixtey years, from age 16 to age 74, when he died.

Approaching from a different side, the Book of Mormon states Captain Moroni didn't take charge of the Nephite army until he was 25 (Alma 43:17). Additionally, this occured in the eighteenth year of the reign of the judges (Alma 43:3). Moroni died in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of the judges (Alma 63:3), meaning he only ran the army from age 25 to age 43. The claims that Moroni ran the Nephite army for 58 years directly contradicts the Book of Mormon.

I'd be willing to pit Washington and the Continental Army against Moroni and the Nephites (assuming existence, of course, as we must for any figure claimed to exist without objective referencing). After all, 1800 years of technological development would give Washington a few advantages.

And as an aside, I originally thought this was about Giovanni Battista Moroni, and was wondering when the hell he'd commanded an army.

Washington served a little earlier than at Braddock's defeat. He also served during the battle of Fort Necessity, in which he attempted to try and seize French Forts, as ordered by the then governor of Virginia. He drove off a French detachment, found Fort Duquesne too strong to take, and hunkered down in a makeshift Fort, Fort Necessity. The French overwhelmed him, and he was sent back to Virginia.

CarsonPalmer wrote:Washington served a little earlier than at Braddock's defeat. He also served during the battle of Fort Necessity, in which he attempted to try and seize French Forts, as ordered by the then governor of Virginia. He drove off a French detachment, found Fort Duquesne too strong to take, and hunkered down in a makeshift Fort, Fort Necessity. The French overwhelmed him, and he was sent back to Virginia.

OK, Fort Necessity was earlier than Braddock's Defeat. I mixed up the dates on the two.

Actually re-reading some information on it, he wasn't even technically an officer during Braddock's Expedition. While he was in charge of the Virginia Militia before and after Braddock's Expidition, he was an unranked aide during that particular expedition. Technically, he didn't have that much official authority, just he had the respect and ears of those who did.