Napoleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a War #3

On a side note, I rather enjoyed researching this so thank you for the debate :D Introduction: Between the years 1789 and 1797, George Washington was President of the United States. Between 1804 and 1815, Napoleon was the Emperor of France and King of Italy. The question posed is, if these two men met in the field of battle (with Napoleon facing his own domestic and foreign issues and Washington facing his own issues), who would win? Most people would instinctively say, Napoleon, he is the better tactician, etc. etc. I am here to tell you the opposite is true, Napoleon would lose for the following reasons: Fact 1. Napoleon's failure—Guerilla Warfare I am not even going to attempt to deny Napoleon's military genius, because he was a military genius. But, he did fail spectacularly on a few occasions. While Napoleon was a great tactician when it came to guerilla warfare, he was clueless. Napoleon's failed Spanish and Russian campaigns speak volumes. Both of these campaigns has a few common features that Napoleon was not prepared for, 1) hit and run tactics, 2) smaller ill-equipped armies opposing him and 3) an inability to defend against these guerilla tactics. Highlighted by the fact Napoleon lost both of these campaigns. The major difference between the Spanish and the Russians is the Russians utilized scorched earth tactics desolating Napoleon's army when the winter time came. The Russian Campaign of 1812 was the biggest reason Napoleon eventual fell from power and the Russian's utilized guerilla warfare. Napoleon also lost in his Spanish campaign, and the Spanish utilized…guerilla warfare. For all his genius, Napoleon was clueless when it came to guerilla war. Fact 2. Napoleon would not be able to use his entire military against George Washington whereas the reverse was true At Napoleon's height, he controlled almost all of Europe. All of these countries resented Napoleon's armies being stationed there and if they had the option to, would rebel against him or Britain would invade France. The only reason countries were not breaking away was because sizeable French forces kept them in check. Even then they ran into problems just look at Spain. On the other hand, the USA could use their entire military (or most of it) simply because they did not have to worry about states breaking away. (Or at least it was not as big of a problem). Contention 1. US guerilla tactics would decimate Napoleon The United States was skilled in the art of guerilla warfare. You see, that was the biggest reason the USA won the revolutionary war, they did not attack Britain head on instead attacking supply lines or smaller scouting groups, slowly wearing down the British's supplies and morale. It would be the exact same here, just the United States would have a larger army, a smaller army which is not as well equipped would be attacking a better equipped larger army. Napoleon, as highlighted above, could not succeed against guerilla tactics. The United States army's skill in guerilla warfare would absolutely destroy Napoleon turning what Napoleon thought would be an easy campaign into one which was the exact opposite; a defeat. (2, 3) Contention 2. Everyone hated France Let's face it. In this time period, really the only country which liked France was…France. If the United States was to engage in a guerilla war with France other countries would "forget" their original hatred for the USA and help them defeat France. We all know the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend. " Just look at Spain, other countries helped the Spanish out, mainly the UK, Portugal, Germany, Naples, and Switzerland. (1, 2) Many of these countries despised each other yet, still worked together. The same would happen if the US went against France. Contention 3. France would be fighting a multi-front war. You see, Napoleon was emperor between 1804 and 1815. During this time he invaded almost all of Europe. This would just be one more campaign Napoleon would have to devote considerable resources to. Actually, this would be one more GUERILLA campaign Napoleon would be involved in as he was already involved in Russia, where he lost most of his army, and Spain, where he spent considerable amounts of resources to eventually fail to ill-equipped guerilla fighters. This would just be one more campaign against Napoleon utilizing tactics which Napoleon frankly sucked against. Rebuttals: 1. Tactics When it came solely to classical tactics, Napoleon was a genius. I will not even deny that. But, when it came to guerilla tactics, Napoleon was clueless, highlighted by his failures in Russia and Spain. 2. Win loss success rate First of all, this is irrelevant. The fact is George Washington losing against the British does not mean he will fail against the French. Second, the fact of the matter is, Washington won in the end. Napoleon lost. Napoleon won tons of battles yet lost the war. Washington lost battles yet, won the war. That speaks volumes. In other words, Washington would be the New York Giants against the undefeated Patriots, lost tons of battles but, won the superbowl. Napoleon would be the New England Patriots. Furthermore, my opponent forgets two of Napoleons major defeats, Russia and Spain, these completely destroyed any chance Napoleon had and plus they used unorthodox tactics. 3. Troops The Spanish troops arrayed against Napoleon were ill trained they were in fact, partisan troops (an irregular force, look at the French Resistance for a good example) (1). These soldiers were ill-trained and not very well equipped. Yet, still "The many years of fighting in Spain gradually wore down France's famous Grande Armï¿½e" (1). The training is irrelevant. Guerilla tactics would defeat Napoleon. 4. Navy One word privateers. During the American Revolution, George Washington utilized thousands of armed private vessels. They disrupted British shipping hurting the British economy, they also attacked British war vessels hurting their war effort as well (4). And guess what? The British have always had a stronger navy than the French which was one major reason Napoleon failed in his attempt to control the English Chanel (5). In fact, Admiral John Jervis once said "I do not say they [the French] cannot come - I only say they cannot come by sea. " He was right. The French could not break the English blockade. The English Navy was much more powerful than the French Navy yet, privateers still succeeding in hurting the British. American privateers will 1) hurt France's economy making a war with the United States impossible to keep up and 2) privateers would attack French war vessels damaging their navy. Here are the major things we know: 1) Napoleon sucked against guerrilla tactics 2) The United States was adept at guerilla tactics 3) The United States would receive outside assistance to defeat France 4) France would have to fight a multi-front war 5) George Washington WON whereas Napoleon LOST Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...