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

I will address some of my opponent's arguments while also including points regarding my own. The Date My opponent would like us to set the date after the French Revolution and when Napoleon is Emperor of France. Unfortunately for him, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in 1804, five years after Washington died. Yes, I'm sure Napoleon could easily defeat a corpse, but I feel that such a battle is not worth debating. If we are going to choose an arbitrary date and say our proposed leaders would miraculously be alive, then I would want us to choose shortly after World War 2 with France rebuilding and the United States in possession of nuclear weapons. My point here is that the only way to fairly debate a topic such as this one is to choose a date where both entities were "alive and kicking". Unfortunately for my opponent, the only time period that suits this is one where Napoleon was not Emperor, but a Brigadier General, and Washington was the Commander of Chief of the United States military with advisors from among the best of America's armed forces. 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." Of course, this is mere conjecture on my opponent's part. A guerilla war in early America would have been extremely costly to the French. The colonies still possessed large amounts of cover along roads, providing concealment for hit & run attacks. Having recently won freedom, I doubt that the new Citizens would willingly embrace French occupiers. Due to their long supply lines, the French would have to rely on locals for food and sustenance... food and water that could be easily poisoned by the citizens. What could the French offer in return for occupation? Not much. I would also like to further underline one of my points made above. From 1793-1797, Washington was President of the United States. This means that not only was he commander of the military, but that he could also rely on his best admirals and generals for their tactics. So, saying that Napoleon was the superior tactician between the two of them only yields so much ground. Resources "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." Britain, not France, had the premiere navy in the world at that time. In fact, in 1798, British Admiral Nelson captured or destroyed all but two french naval vessels located at the Battle of the Nile. Any french naval supply line crossing the Atlantic would have to have braved the British Navy. Upon arriving here, they'd still have to deal with any American Vessels. I would also like to point out that the United States fought an undeclared war with France from 1798 to 1800. While this is outside the dates I established for our debate, it's closeness in time is important. The "Quasi-War" http://en.wikipedia.org... had the result of being a tactical American naval victory (Wells, Tom Henderson; Nash, Howard P. (1969). "Review: The Forgotten Wars: The Role of the U. S. Navy in the Quasi War With France and the Barbary Wars, 1798-1805 by Howard P. Nash, Jr". The Journal of Southern History 35 (1): 87). While many merchant ships were lost, only one American naval vessel was lost. Foreign Aid My opponent says that Britain would not help us, yet in the Quasi-war, American ships were allowed to join British conveys (and vice-versa). Also, Britain sold us stores and ammunition. Considering the tensions/battles between France and England, I think England would take advantage of any distraction that the US caused France. For example, any supply lines from France to America would be quickly attacked by the British hoping to capture their goods or sink them. My opponent wishes to contain the scope of this war between just France and the United States, but this is an unrealistic expectation. Things like diplomacy, allies, safety of supply lines thru neutral or enemy territory are very important in war and would have to be figured into by the leaders of the opposing forces. To say we must exclude these things is to say, "let's have a war, but only arm wrestling is allowed" Battles. "Napoleon had more experience and was a better general than Washington." Unfortunately, the victories my opponent lists takes some things for granted. Did Napoleon personally train his armies? No. France had a system/organization in place well before Napoleon joined the military. They had resources, supplies, and technology. Washington had men with their hunting rifles with no formal military training. It is unfair to expect Washington, starting with little resources and few trained men to always triumph over the British who fielded an army similar to what the French would have had. So of course, his track record would appear to less than stellar than Napoleon. I think what should be looked at is how Washington managed to eventually triumph given his initial disadvantages. In other words, giving a simple listing of victories and defeats is misleading. You need to look at what each military was working with and how they managed to utilize it. 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." As I mentioned above, America managed a tactical victory a few years later in their quasi-naval war with France. France was also involved with hostilities with England, who would eagerly pounce on any French supply ships. Artillery "Napoleon had many powerful cannons and artillery, while Washington had very little." America had any cannon/artillery forfeited by the British after the Revolution. Also, Napoleon would have to bring such armament to America then transport it to where it was needed. In contrast, the United States already had forts built in strategic locations with their cannon on the high ground. Any french vessel wishing to disembark artillery would have to deal with America already possessing a greater range and strategic location. When moved to other towns, their artillery would also be vulnerable during transport by hit and run raids. Don't forget that much of early America was still heavily covered in vegetation. This wouldn't be Europe with clear lines of sight everywhere. Cavalry "Napoleon had a strong cavalry, Washington had a small cavalry." Again, the terrain and geography would be a more limiting factor here. Napoleon would have to fight an entirely different kind of war than what he had fought in Europe. So in conclusion... the French Navy would still be engaging the superior British Navy and America's navy held it's own a handful of years later in their Quasi-naval war with the French. In order words, the French supply lines would still be a huge weak point for Napoleon, something he would later learn in his Russian campaign. His artillery and troops would suffer from lack of materiel. There is no reason for any local to support him, his armies would be in hostile territory at all times. At the same time, Americans would be producing more cannon/materiel and only have to transport it a mere fraction of the distance. Washington, being Commander in Chief at that time, would have the best military advisors in the United States and could more closely coordinate both Navy and Army. It would also be far easier for him to arrange military funding than when he served in the Revolutionary Army. Napoleon was only a Brigadier General during this time period and would have to deal with superior officers, the aristocracy, etc.