Napoleon Bonaparte would beat George Washington if they fought a war.

He did not address the fact that between 1793 and 1797 that Washington was President of the United States and would have access to the best generals and admirals in America's military. I would also like to point out that Napoleon was a brigadier general during those years and still had much to learn. Resources I thank my opponent for conceding that the British had a superior navy. However he states that they did not openly attach French ships. This is incorrect. The British were involved in open war with the French during the War of the First Coalition which ran from (coincidentally) 1793-1797. In fact, Britain remained at war with France after that which led them to try and conscript american sailors. .. which increased US/British tensions helping cause the War of 1812. The Quasi-War was a war of privateers, however, the fact that British privateers were able to take Spanish treasure ships in the past points to their effectiveness. Also, the French would have to blockade nearly ALL of American ports in order to be effective. Considering France was at war with nearly ALL of Europe at the time, I doubt they could spare ships of the line to engage in a blockade of America. Foreign Aid Britain was neutral to America during 1793-1797. My opponent points to the War of 1812 as proof of aggression, but he overlooks the fact that Britain attacked US vessels at that time because 1 they were worried that the US would aid France with supplies and 2 they needed sailors to help fight France. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a cliche because it is so often true. If France engaged in war with America, England would take advantage of France spreading its resources even thinner and attack them mercilessly. I would further like to point out that in America's Quasi-War with France (shortly after our proposed dates), the US and Britain allowed ships to join each other's convoys to protect one another from french privateers. Troop Training I will concede that Napoleon's troops were better trained and that Napoleon won battles when outnumbered. However, in this case, we are talking about him having to take a war to another continent, with French resources spread out against numerous European fronts rather than against America. Artillery Napoleon might have been a master of artillery, but he would not be in charge while on board ship. A brigadier general would hold command on land, while a commodore would be in charge on water. Before Napoleon could land his troops and artillery, he would have to undergo a barrage from artillery on high ground placed in defensive forts. i. e. he would suffer HUGE losses before even landing. I would also like to point out that any artillery France would have, would be used in their European theaters. .. not in a futile attack on America. Cavalry Napoleon lost Russia because of Russia's scorched earth campaign. There were no local food sources and his supply lines were too long. Something similar could easily happen in America to invading troops needing to rely on hostile locals. Cavalry is susceptible to attack by massed infantry (and as my opponent pointed out, Washington also used massed infantry tactics in addition to guerilla tactics). Usually massed infantry is an easy target for artillery, but as stated earlier, Napoleon wouldn't have much access to artillery. I would also like to point out that any cavalry Napoleon had would have to be brought over the Atlantic. Seasick horses kept confined for weeks would not be in the best of shape for several days after landing. .. days in which Washington could take advantage. Conclusion During the years of our proposed skirmish, France was involved in numerous wars with the other European powers. Napoleon, a brigadier general at that time would still lack some of his later experience and be hamstrung by lack of supplies, men and artillery (things needed in France's fight for survival against traditional monarchies). Britain was one of the countries at war with France and as my opponent has acknowledged, they had a superior navy to France. France would not be able to mount or maintain a blockade of America and Napoleon would be hard-pressed to keep his ocean-spanning supply lines intact. Napoleon might be a better tactician, but without decent numbers of troops, artillery, and having to deal with harried supply lines means that no matter how good. .. he would be unable to beat George Washington in a war.