1) Long Island. Lost. Biggest battle (corps scale) & worst loss. No sniping from woods.
2) White Plains. Lost. No sniping from woods.
3) Fort Washington. Lost. No sniping from woods.
4) Fort Lee. Lost. No sniping from woods.
5) Trenton. Won. A small affair (regimental scale). No sniping from woods.
6) Princeton. Won. Slightly larger affair (brigade scale). No sniping from woods.
7) Brandywine. Lost. No sniping from woods.
8) Germantown. Lost. No sniping from woods.
9) Monmouth. Tied. Might have won but for possible treachery by Charles Lee. No sniping from woods.
10) Yorktown. Won, thanks to French army & fleet. No sniping from woods.
Where else do you get education & information like this, ladies & gentlemen?
Too bad that ignorant, lying loser loon Alan can't benefit from the instruction, being too lazy to read it, too stupid to comprehend it & too brain damaged to remember even if read & understood.
If you had ever studied WWII history, you'd know that de Gaulle made himself leader of the Free French via radio broadcasts from London.
His delaying battle won him some renown, but support from the Brits & Americans made him.
This is a complete & total lie. Every single one of Washington's battles was conventional, including Trenton, as you've been shown over & over again, repeatedly.
Name Washington's battles that you imagine involved skulking Americans sniping at Redcoats from the woods, & list the men & units that did this alleged sniping.
You won't because you can't, so STFU, liar.
Yahoo censored my word for the human posterior, despite my inserting $ in it for one of the esses.
So I'll rephrase.
A record of 3-6-1 is not very impressive, but as president, he was able to whip the whiskey rebels in western PA.
ow long do you suppose before Ruffnuts deletes this string of messages, as happens to all threads exposing Alan's insanity, idiocy, ignorance & incompetence, ie every thread about the loon or on which the liar posts?
Napoleon had more victorious campaigns than Washington had battles, winning & losing together. He defeated all the best armies in the world then, of Prussia & other German & Italian states, the Ottoman, British, Russian, Austrian & Spanish Empires. If he could have fought China & India, he'd have whipped those empires, too, or the USA.
There is simply no comparison. Washington may compare in importance as a world historical figure, but not as a general & certainly not as a battlefield commander.
Only a blithering idiot, asinine ignoramus, raving lunatic & pathological liar would even try to argue otherwise.
You obviously haven't bothered to read any of the on topic posts on this board since Alan started haunting it, Ruffnuts.
I have been right about PFE all the while Alan has been disastrously wrong.
You, OTOH, not only have not contributed anything of substantive value, but are incapable of doing so.
No. GW took command of the Continental forces with the siege already underway & outcome a foregone conclusion.
I should add that Morgan's sharpshooters did play a role in the key victory at Saratoga, but Washington wasn't there. He always wanted to train his army to wage conventional, open field, European style battles & to fight that way.
This has been proven to Alan incontrovertibly for years, but still the loon clings to childhood lies, or pretends to so that someone, anyone will respond to the lonely, lifeless, lying lunatic lame loser.