Resolved: Napoleon Bonaparte would win in a War Against George Washington.

"[tactics are] a small part of generalship. For a general must also be furnishing military equipment and providing supplies for the men; he must be resourceful, active, careful, hardy and quick-witted; he must be both gentle and brutal, at once straightforward and designing, capable of both caution and surprise, lavish and rapacious, generous and mean, skilful in defense and attack; and there are many other qualifications, some natural, some acquired, that are necessary to one who would succeed as a general." Introduction My opponent and I seem to agree on many points. I will argue that Napoleon was one of the great revolutionaries of military tactics. My opponent will not dispute this. My opponent will not dispute with me that the Grande Armée was a formidable army on land, and will not dispute that Napoleon at the helm made it even more powerful. It's population combined with the military tactic of levée en masse gave it (quite literally) masses of strength. However, strength in war does not come from military genius alone, otherwise we'd all be very much united under one nation. Power comes from three forces: the military, the political, and finally the geographic. In a pitched army battle, Napoleon has a very good chance to win. But the phrase "You may have won the battle, but you have not won the war" rings most true when observing George Washington. I shall firstly propose what would happen if hypothetical war broke out between France and the US in 1812, followed by analysis and explanation for each event. The Hypothetical War France, led by Napoleon, declares war on America on May 1st, 1812, to reclaim territory in a reconquest casus belli. The news firstly reaches Great Britain, who are still at war with France. In May 11th, The assassination of Rt. Hon. Lord Perceval Leads the Rt. Hon. Earl of Liverpool Robert Jenkinson to power. A tory known for pro-American politics[1], he sent emissaries to the US, and damaged relations quickly were fixed[2], such as realisation of the forgery of Henry's letters[2] and lifting of embargoes[3]. Meanwhile, Washington, while preparing a navy to "present a threat to British maritime supremacy"[2], learns of the French declaration of war, and changes targets. His well-known resourcefulness[4] would allow for the observation that France's supply lines could only be maintained by trade with the US and the Spanish Colonies' raw resources[5], and combined with the lack of naval presence in Spain, privateers easily blockaded the regions and cripple French supplies. With no separation of armies and massive supply lines for the British, the naval force can be used to utterly dominate and outmatch the French. The French Navy's inability to be created and defeat the British blockade, yet alone the ability to cross the entire Atlantic. Moreover, France's supply lines would be shot from having to hold an army so far away from the homeland in uncontrolled territory that is quite frankly completely without troops. Finally, it would be impossible for the entire French army to be pushed over to America all at once. The French navy was quite frankly small and pathetic by 1812, with a stereotypical French history of surrender and routing[6]. Between 1793 and 1812, the French Navy lost 377 ships to the British, while the British lost 10 ships. In fourteen major engagements between 1794 and 1806, the French Navy suffered 23,000 casualties while the Royal Navy suffered 7,000 casualties. In short, a coalition against France would form, similar to all the coalitions of the time. France, by attempting an invasion of the US, would lose all its ships and troops on board in any attempt to reach the US shores. The French supply lines, if they landed, would be instantly cut and the soldiers would die from attrition rather than decisive military victories. The strength of Washington was that he loses many battles yet still wins wars. Napoleon's tactics was to capture a country's capital and force capitulation: a tactic that does not work on federal (at least in practice) nations like Russia or the US[7]. Washington rallies any army and simply would not be routed or capitulated like others[4]. At best, France would end up with no way to even reach American land, thus the war would be a draw - or Napoleon having lost due to the fact he initiated the war. At worst, the French Navy would be unable to move out of port without being reduced to shreds by the British blockades, just like the war normally, but with less supplies, and thus much more rapid attrition. The possibility of France landing in the US is not just incredibly small, but the landing would be with a minor amount of troops with no supply line, no quick aid, no reinforcements without the battlefield advantage of Napoleon (seeing as he's Head of State, I doubt he would go to such a perilous position so far away from other theatres of war) against Washington in home territory with supply lines as short as a few feet at times of battles near cities. Observations The general hypothetical war I present require but a few underlying events, each of which are excessively likely. 1) America and GB would unite in a coalition against France, if the French declared war. Evidence: The pro-US relations of the PM, masses of casus bellis being resolved, and precedence of all the coalitions being formed against France out of pragmatism. 2) America would not send troops to France Evidence: The navy based on privateers which, though successful in raiding, is not useful at all in regards to transport, which anyone can recognise. 3) The French Grande Armée, levée en masse, and Napoleon's tactics (points 1,2, 3 and 5 of my opponent) are moot. Evidence: The navy is where battle would commence. France could not invade England even with half a million soldiers, because of a few miles of water. The entire Atlantic separates France and the US. The army would not even be able to get out of the Med, yet alone invade US soil. Further, Washington is hardened in fighting battles outnumbered and in guerilla warfare. The consequences are equally likely: 1) The local French supplies would be shot Evidence: French supplies rest on American trade and whatever the Royal Navy did not sink. America joining the British side would result in no American trade and a more powerful Royal Navy. 2) The French supply lines in US would be inexistent Evidence: That massive body of water called the Atlantic, and the French having a navy the size of a pea compared to the half-million soldiers. Barbarossa's army couldn't cross the Med, which was many times smaller: how can a much larger army cross a much larger body of water with such ease? 3) The French Navy wouldn't even be able to move! Evidence: French Navies were stuck in port almost all of the war[1], and when they were not, they were being crushed by the British Royal Navy. Result France's army would be stuck on the continent, or drowning in the Med/Atlantic, while the American troops are sitting at home playing Blackjack (if it existed back then). Unless Napoleon constructs a raft from his soldiers, he'll need a navy bigger than the british (which was bigger than all the world's combined[1]) to do anything of value. In the war, either nothing would happen, or France would just be culled by the British blockades. Casualties to Napoleon: His entire navy repeatedly. Casualties to Washington: A guy sprains his ankle and dies from the cure of cutting off the left testes. I shall state rebuttals next round. Thank you for reading. 1 - http://www.oxforddnb.com... 2 - http://tinyurl.com... 3 - Rule of 1756 and the non-intercourse act of 1809 would no longer apply. 4 - http://www.ushistory.org... 5 - http://www.worldology.com... 6 - Battle of Ushant, Diamond Rock, Basque Roads, Trafalgar, Pulo Aura, etc. 7 - http://www.historum.com...