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

I will address my opponent's arguments. The Date The date will be between 1793 and 1797. Tactics My opponent argues that guerrilla tactics will be extremely costly to the French. The idea that the American colonists used guerrilla tactics and acted as snipers from the forest, while hapless British soldiers lined up in the open and followed the rules of European warfare is part of the myth of the American Revolution, and is often dismissed by modern historians. However, it is based on reality to a certain extent. There were certainly instances of the Americans using guerrilla tactics, particularly following Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. However, most of the time, Washington used guerrilla tactics to weaken the British before actually fighting using the traditional Continental Army. The real battles would actually be the traditional European warfare, in which Napoleon was a master at. Resources The British did indeed have a superior navy, but they would not openly attack French ships. The British would not want to openly cause war with the French. Also, the Quasi War you stated, was a pirate war, or a war with privateers. French ships of the line did not get involved, while the US used their strongest warships. Foreign Aid Britain was hostile with the US, and because they kept attacking US ships, the War of 1812 occurred. Even if Britain did aid the US, they would not put much aid. "Unfortunately, the victories my opponent lists takes some things for granted. Did Napoleon personally train his armies? No. France had a system/organization in place well before Napoleon joined the military. They had resources, supplies, and technology. Washington had men with their hunting rifles with no formal military training." Exactly. That gives the advantage of troops to Napoleon. "It is unfair to expect Washington, starting with little resources and few trained men to always triumph over the British who fielded an army similar to what the French would have had." The majority of the battles Washington fought with the British were lost. France's army is similar if not better than the British army. Therefore, the majority of the battles Washington fights with Napoleon would be lost. The main reason Washington won battles was because of number, and Napoleon won many battles while outnumbered. "I think what should be looked at is how Washington managed to eventually triumph given his initial disadvantages. In other words, giving a simple listing of victories and defeats is misleading. You need to look at what each military was working with and how they managed to utilize it." Very well, lets look at some of the battles Washington did win. Yorktown- The British were outnumbered 3 to 1. Washington also got French support. Battle of Eutaw Springs- British were outnumbered and the US lost way more men. Saratoga- Victory Trenton- Outnumbered the British. There were 2,400 American troops with 18 guns. 1,400 Hessians with 6 light guns. As you see, most of the battles Washington won was purely because of number, while Napoleon won many battles while outnumbered. Supplies Quoting my opponent, "As I mentioned above, America managed a tactical victory a few years later in their quasi-naval war with France. France was also involved with hostilities with England, who would eagerly pounce on any French supply ships." The French used pirates, or privateers in the Quasi War. No French ship of the line was directly involved in it, while the US used their strongest ships. If the French really wanted to win that war, they could have. And the US was also involved with hostilities with Britain, because of these hostilities, the war of 1812 was fought. Artillery "America had any cannon/artillery forfeited by the British after the Revolution. Also, Napoleon would have to bring such armament to America then transport it to where it was needed. In contrast, the United States already had forts built in strategic locations with their cannon on the high ground. Any French vessel wishing to disembark artillery would have to deal with America already possessing a greater range and strategic location." That is true, but Napoleon was a master of artillery. One of the things he was the most famous for is his skills at artillery. Most historians would agree. Cavalry "Again, the terrain and geography would be a more limiting factor here. Napoleon would have to fight an entirely different kind of war than what he had fought in Europe." One of the main reasons why the British won the Battle of Camden was because of their cavalry, which proves cavalry to be useful. "In order words, the French supply lines would still be a huge weak point for Napoleon, something he would later learn in his Russian campaign.' Napoleon lost the Russian campaign because of the cold, his men were freezing. Conclusion Napoleon's superior tactics, artillery skills and troops would defeat Washington. Sources: http://www.theamericanrevolution.org... http://www.wtj.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...