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

Loyalty Both leaders received immense loyalty from their troops, Washington's men were strictly volunteers while many in Napolean's ranks were conscripted. Forcing someone to fight for you versus having fight for you via your own freewill does make a difference. Also, Napolean ordered the poisoning of his troops who had contracted plague (McLynn, Frank (1998). Napoleon. Pimlico. ISBN 0712662472. page 193). While possibly a humane order, it is still not exactly the most endearing order leadership has even given. Washington, however, served in the field with his men under dire circumstances like Valley Forge. The Date We have to look at when such a war could be fought. The date effects things like resources and technology available, as well as the age and experience of our leaders. For example, George Washington was fighting against the French in the French & Indian War, but Napolean hadn't been born yet. So literally, Washington had been fighting the French military since before Napolean was even born! I would suggest that the most realistic date would be between 1793 and 1797. Napolean had reached the rank of Brigadier General by this point and Washington was still alive (leaving the Presidency in 1797 and dying in 1799). During this time period, France was still heavily in debt from helping finance the American Revolution and likely wouldn't have the funding necessary for another large scale conflict. Also, France was dealing with the French Revolution, as well as conflicts with the British during this period which would have made an overseas conflict nearly impossible. Basically, Napolean would not have been to field enough forces during the time alloted to mount an overseas assault against the United States. Tactics: Size of forces While Napolean is recognized for his tactical wizardry, Washington was far from inept. Washington had fought in both large scale battles as well as utilizing guerilla style warfare during the fight for independence. He had fought the French during the French & Indian War, learning their tactics, as well as receiving British military training. It is true that Napolean fought against guerilla style tactics during the Peninsular War and won. However, he also learned that attempting to takeover and occupy a foreign land with an armed populace is not an easy thing. Although he won that war, he noted "That unfortunate war destroyed me... All... my disasters are bound up in that fatal knot." I would argue that should a war have occurred between Bonaparte and Washington, many of the battles would have had the American forces using guerilla-style tactics on their home turf which would have led to a long and costly battle, one that Napolean would not have been able to afford. Resources Napolean would have to have supply lines that crossed oceans. While Canada could have theoretically aided him, America was already out-producing Canada and a naval blockage could have stopped supply ships from landing there. Washington, however, would be fighting on home-ground and had intimate knowledge of forming and maintaining supply lines thru America's geography as well as the support of locals. Foreign Aid America was quickly shaping up to be a valuable trade partner with its abundant natural resouces. i.e. their credit was good. In contract, France was engaged in hostilities with Britain, Austria, etc. and was in huge debt. I would propose that foreign aid would be more easily granted to the United States rather than France at that time period. This is important for funding as well as military assistance. So, in conclusion, unable to mount a sufficient attack force due to lack of funding from France, difficulty of maintaining ocean-spanning supply lines, the overwhelming numbers already present in America of people having shown the willingness to fight for their freedom/liberty & their experience in fighting with guerilla style tactics, Napolean would not have had a chance.