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

My opponent added some points in his last round that I feel must be addressed. It is true that the US and Great Britain were involved Panic of 1796-1797. However, he provides no sources for his followup statements. The economies of those countries DID NOT FALL. There was an economic downturn - true, but their economies continued. In fact, it was Great Britain's warfare with France which caused their involvement in the Panic. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, "The fact that the United States had already declared neutrality in the conflict between Great Britain and (now revolutionary) France, and that American legislation was being passed for a trade deal with their British enemy, led to French outrage. The French government was also furious over the U.S. refusal to continue repaying its debt to France on the grounds that the debt had been owed to the French Crown, not to Republican France" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If GB was having an economic downturn due to their war with France, wouldn't they seek allies with France's enemies, especially ones with abundant natural resources? Again, I'd like to remind my opponent that GB and the US did ally their merchant forces during Quasi-War years of France vs US and that the Quasi-War came about because France was worried about US providing too much aid to GB. In other words, my opponent is wrong about the Panic and about Great Britain. I think there is clear evidence that GB would support the US as an ally against France. I have also responded to my opponent's argument about the war records of the two leaders. Napoleon started with well-trained men & equipment. Washington had to build up his own. It is unfair to expect Washington to win all of his battles during his Revolutionary War under those conditions. To conclude. I am NOT arguing that Washington was a better General/military leader than Napoleon. I am arguing that Napoleon would not be able to beat Washington in a war. This is a very important distinction. Furthermore, our hypothetical war would occur between 1793-1797. During those years, Napoleon was a Brigadier General while Washington was President of the United States. France was involved in open warfare with most of Europe and Great Britain at that time and their supplies, navies, soldiers, cavalry, artillery, etc... would all have been needed to fight the more imminent threat of Europe invading their country. Napoleon would not have had access to equipment, troops, and materiel needed to mount an invasion force over the Atlantic. His supply lines would have been enormous, and as my opponent already agreed, Great Britain (who France was already at war with) had a superior navy. Basically, Napoleon could not make lemonaid if he lacked lemons, water, and sugar. Furthermore, Napoleon would not have been in charge of the French navies due to his rank during those years. His expertise at artillery would be moot if he could not land his forces in America. America meanwhile had fortified positions with cannon in the major ports they had won/built since their Revoutionary War. Also, Napoleon would have to ship his cavalry overseas and this would severely hamper their effectiveness for several days after landing. So, lacking rank, needed equipment, supplies and men... with supply lines that involved crossing the Atlantic while fighting off a superior British Navy, Napoleon would not have the things he would need to fight a successful campaign.