Who was better general: Bolivar or Washington?

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 2:19:57 AM4/7/13

to

"The traditional comparison between Bolivar and Washington strikes me
as misguided, and as a biographer of Washington, I can claim
competence in a way I can’t on the Latin American sources. They were
totally different personalities facing fundamentally different
challenges. But as a military leader, Bolivar wins the competition
hands down."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-bolivar-american-liberator-by-marie-arana/2013/04/05/f9e4d790-9634-11e2-894a-b984cbdff2e6_story.html?hpid=z3

http://goo.gl/Vw5cZ

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 2:23:17 AM4/7/13

to

Number of Countries Freed:

George Washington: 1

Simón Bolívar: 6

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 2:26:35 AM4/7/13

to

"[Bolivar] remained on horseback in combat against the Spanish army
three times longer than Washington against the British. (His troops
called Bolivar “Iron Ass.”) His theater of operations was seven times
the size of Washington’s and infinitely more lethal, filled with
malaria-infested jungles, rivers loaded with snakes and crocodiles,
and the highest mountain range in the hemisphere. If Washington can
justifiably be remembered for staying the course against the British
leviathan, Bolivar’s perseverance defies rational calculation. And his
battlefield decisions often displayed the kind of intuitive genius
more associated with Napoleon than with Washington."

-RFH

Warren Penn

unread,

Apr 7, 2013, 7:51:55 AM4/7/13

to

A deeper look at Bolivar will reveal a trail of atrocities.

Harry

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 1:40:03 PM4/8/13

to

On Apr 7, 2:19 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> "The traditional comparison between Bolivar and Washington strikes me
> as misguided, and as a biographer of Washington, I can claim
> competence in a way I can’t on the Latin American sources. They were
> totally different personalities facing fundamentally different
> challenges. But as a military leader, Bolivar wins the competition
> hands down."
>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-bolivar-american-l...
>
> http://goo.gl/Vw5cZ
>
> -Ramon

are you kidding? Bolivar faced the remnants of a failed empire who
couldn't control its basic finances. Washington faced an empire that
had not lost a single war in 1000 years.

Ramon F Herrera

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 1:46:51 PM4/8/13

to

On Apr 8, 12:40 pm, Harry <hgar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Washington faced an empire that
> had not lost a single war in 1000 years.

The US Independence war was actually a World War of sorts: Everybody
against England. The French almost went bankrupt financing it, the
last Washington battle was won by the French.

Then there is the issue of currency: there were more than 2,000 banks
and each issued its own dollars. Counterfeit was rampant paper money
was worthless. The colonies were broke. Mexico contributed the Silver
Peso, without which we would be speaking... well, err, uh, English,
BUT with a pretentious accent.

-Ramon

Harry

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 2:56:40 PM4/8/13

to

I agree somewhat, but Spain was way past its prime, and it had already
seen better days.

Harry

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 3:02:01 PM4/8/13

to

French.
>
> Then there is the issue of currency: there were more than 2,000 banks
> and each issued its own dollars. Counterfeit was rampant paper money
> was worthless. The colonies were broke. Mexico contributed the Silver
> Peso, without which we would be speaking... well, err, uh, English,
> BUT with a pretentious accent.
>

also, these facts made it even more monumental.

> -Ramon

David Johnston

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 3:37:31 PM4/8/13

to

On 4/8/2013 11:40 AM, Harry wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2:19 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> "The traditional comparison between Bolivar and Washington strikes me
>> as misguided, and as a biographer of Washington, I can claim

>> competence in a way I canï¿½t on the Latin American sources. They were

>> totally different personalities facing fundamentally different
>> challenges. But as a military leader, Bolivar wins the competition
>> hands down."
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-bolivar-american-l...
>>
>> http://goo.gl/Vw5cZ
>>
>> -Ramon
>
> are you kidding? Bolivar faced the remnants of a failed empire who
> couldn't control its basic finances. Washington faced an empire that
> had not lost a single war in 1000 years.
>

One hundred years. The last war they'd lost was the Second Anglo-Dutch
War. Of course in that century, apart from the Third Anglo-Dutch War,
which was won at sea, all the remaining conflicts had been rebellions,
which wouldn't have counted either way, or these huge horrible wars of
European alliance versus alliance, in which the British had a good track
record of picking an alliance which wasn't going to lose, and thoroughly
established their naval dominance, but didn't exactly sweep the field
with their infantry.

Still, Britain was a stronger opponent than Spain which does help
explain how Bolivar could score more victories against them than
Washington could against his opponents.