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

I will address my opponent's arguments. Loyalty Although it is true that forcing someone to fight for you versus having fight for you via your own freewill does make a difference, it will not make too much of a difference. But again, Napoleon's troops were highly trained, thus giving the advantage of troops to Napoleon. The Date Let's just say that Napoleon Bonaparte is the Emperor of France and it is after the French Revolution. Tactics: Size of forces It is true that Washington did learn some tactics, but Napoleon was much better. As for the guerrilla tactics, Napoleon's army would still have defeated them. During Napoleon's battles in Egypt, the enemy used many guerrilla tactics, but Napoleon still won. Resources America was not attacking Canada, they did try to attack Canada in the war of 1812, but failed. Also, you say that a naval blockade would stop Napoleon's ships. But where would America get the navy? America had a small navy, and it would be easy for France's navy to defeat the US navy at that time. Foreign Aid It is true that France had many enemies, but was the US any better? Britain would definitely not help the US, and the other European nations thought the US was just a tiny country that would not last long, they would not help the US either. Also remember that this is supposed to be a war between the US and France only. My arguments: Battles. Lets look at some of the most important battles Napoleon Bonaparte and George Washington fought. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came Napoleon had more experience and was a better general than Washington. Troops Napoleon's men were highly trained, compared to George Washington's inexperienced men. Navy Napoleon had a large navy. All Washington had were a few frigates and many privateers. Tactics Most historians agree that Napoleon was an expert at tactics. This is undeniable. For example, at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon used his many tactics to win the battle. When he faked a retreat and his enemy chased him, he cleverly used his cavalry to charge. He then surrounded his enemy and won. My opponent has not addressed any of my arguments. I will add some more. Supplies Napoleon would indeed have to transfer supplies overseas, but that would be easy with his powerful navy. The US would not be able to stop his supply transfer because the US had a weak navy. France had many resources like ships, troops, gunpowder, artillery, etc. Artillery Napoleon had many powerful cannons and artillery, while Washington had very little. Cavalry Napoleon had a strong cavalry, Washington had a small cavalry. So in conclusion, Napoleon's tactics, navy, troops, artillery, experience, etc. would be superior to Washington's advantages, leading to Napoleon's victory. He would have no problem with the supply transfer because of his navy.