Napoleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a War #3

My opponent has made several key concessions. 1. Napoleon failed versus guerilla tactics 2. Napoleon and Washington both will face their own domestic and foreign issues 3. Napoleon could not use his entire military due to his multi-front war Contention 1. Guerilla War My opponent makes the claim that "the Spanish soldiers were better trained than Washington's men" this is completely wrong. I provided a source last round showing that the Spanish soldiers who resisted the French invasion, eventually triumphing were nothing more than an ill-equipped, badly trained Parisian force. This, in fact, makes them less trained than the American soldiers as Washington was president over a country and had an actual army. My opponent then claims that guerilla warfare being used in the Revolution was a myth. This is completely wrong, just look at Battles such as Saratoga in the north which utilized guerilla tactics. Furthermore, my opponent completely ignores the Southern theatre of the American Revolution where British loyalists and soldiers outnumbered the patriots. According to the National Park Service, in the southern theatre, "guerilla warfare replaced orthodox fighting. " This is highlighted by two extremely important battles, King Mountain—British defeat, and Cowpens—British defeat. In both of these battles, irregular patriot soldiers, who were not well equipped, defeated the best trained soldiers in the world. Both of these battles were decisive victories stopping British advances. France played no part in either of these battles. Furthermore, most guerilla fighters were not attacking soldiers; many attacked supply caravans and disrupted supply lines. This meant where the British needed supplied, they did not have supplies. Finally, my opponent claims Napoleon lost the Russian campaign because of the winter. This is a complete myth. Napoleon lost because of Russian unorthodox tactics such as scorched earth and guerilla war. These tactics caused the massive Grand Armeï¿½ to have no supplies and, in fact, the cavalry resorted to eating their horses. Russian guerilla tactics were aimed mostly at Napoleon's supply lines so the Grand Armeï¿½ slowly starved to death. The winter played little part in Napoleon's demise, first, Napoleon's retreat began on October 17th, weeks before the brunt of the Russian winter. In fact, Napoleons General of the Cavalry, Denis Davidor wrote "the winters of 1795 and 1807 were colder but failed to prevent French victories" (1). Napoleon lost 380,000 men not because of the Russian winter but, because of unorthodox tactics the Russian's utilized. 2. Hate of French By making this claim my opponent is limiting himself only to French soldiers, he cannot utilize the men that are from a different country. Thus, he weakens himself greatly. Furthermore, my opponent completely dropped the fact that Napoleon has to face foreign and domestic issues, a foreign issue includes an outside ally of the United States. My opponent goes on saying, the British would no help the USA against France. But, why not? The British helped Spain, they hated the Spanish as well. The British hated the French more then they hated the United States. The French hated the British more then they hated the United States. 3. Multi-front war My opponent asks if the US was better off, my answer, yes they were better off. They were not actually directly involved in the Napoleonic Wars as 1) there was the Atlantic Ocean and 2) Washington was not invading every surrounding country. I cross-apply my logic under "Hate of the French" here. Napoleon had his own foreign issues. 4. Win-loss ration The simple fact is, overall, Washington won against a larger, more superior force, he managed through leadership to inspire fighters through the worst times, for example, Valley Forge. Washington had a smaller, not as well trained, less equipped army then the British, even with French assistance. (2) Napoleon had a larger army (the Grand Armeï¿½) and yet, he still lost. My opponent goes on to cite several battles Washington lost, but, then he completely ignores several facts 1) the British were better trained, 2) Washington won, 3) Washington had an overall smaller force and 4) the Southern campaign. The South was crucial to the Revolutionary War, the South was a major Loyalist (loyal to England) center. They outnumbered the Revolutionaries many times over. Yet, the British still lost. Look at battles such as Cowpens, major tactical victories. Even in the North there were major tactical victories, the Battle of Saratoga, it was a major United States win as it accomplished a few things: 1) Completely decimated the British plan to split the United States, 2) Captured over 6,000 British soldiers, 3) destroyed British General John Burgoyne's army, and 4) is considered the turning point in the American Revolution. (3) Even look at one of the first battles, the Battle of Bunker Hill, it is considered a British Pyrrhic Victory, meaning the large number of causalities the British had outweighed the benefit. Another battle like this would have destroyed the British Army. The British had over 1,000 casualties and 226 deaths. Most were ranking British officers, something unheard of in warfare (another example of unorthodox warfare, aiming at officers) (4). My opponent then asks about Egypt, what about it? The Egyptian Army utilized cavalry charges and open field tactics. There is nothing unorthodox about the Egyptian maneuvers. Furthermore, Napoleon actually lost this Campaign having to retreat. (5) 5. Soldiers The Spanish Parisian army was not well trained or well equipped yet they defeated France. My opponent cites Quebec (when it was still under French control) for some reason, yet fails to realize Montcalm lost because he tactically put himself in that situation in two ways: 1) The British convinced him they would be attacking from somewhere else and 2) Montcalm did not utilize Quebec's walls fighting open field on the Plain of Abraham. Cross-apply my guerilla point here. The American soldiers would be guerilla warriors like the Spanish. 6. Navy My opponent says 1 warship could defeat 1 privateer but, what about 100 privateers against one warship? I say the privateers win simply because of the sheer number. Furthermore, privateers do not have to attack warships they can attack French shipping lanes accomplishing two major things: 1) diverting French warships to protect their merchant ships and 2) hurting the French economically. Furthermore, the French would still have to deal with the British navy (which was more powerful than the French Navy) even if the British did not directly aid the United States. You cannot simply ignore a country. 7. Artillery What use is artillery if you do not know where your enemy is? It is useless. Smaller groups of hidden artillery are more useful than large groups of artillery that do not know where to aim. If you cannot see your enemy you cannot kill them. 8. Cavalry Cavalry does not do well against guerilla tactics. Look what happened to Cavalry units in Russia and Spain. They lost. In Russia, especially, Cavalry men were reduced to eating their horses. (1) To sum up, I have shown that any advantage Napoleon may have is completely mitigated by the tactics utilized by George Washington. Napoleon would lose against George Washington. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...