As much as this sub dislikes Cracked, I enjoy their comedy, but there is one article that I find rather interesting and wish to check it's accuracy. This article suggests that George Washington was lucky or a wizard. While I'm not asking if he was a wizard, I do as if he was lucky?
Was he lucky or is he just lucky in retrospect?
Lucky? Sure, to a degree, all "great" military commanders had some luck, and more than a few had what Cracked refers to as weather control. Wellington and Henry V both managed to fight their signature battles defending against opponents known for speed, mobility, and aggressive attacks the day after one of the heaviest rainstorms in living memory. That kind of luck certainly helps. I happen to be in the camp that thinks Washington was one of the most underrated military commanders in history though.
There are lot's of reasons to criticize Washington on the surface. He lost most of his major engagements against the British. He was inexperienced and needed a lot of help just to train his men in basic infantry tactics. He had difficulty managing his chain of command in both directions. And he took a very long time to win a war against the British, many of whom had written America off as a lost cause fairly early in the conflict and who had pressing concerns in Europe and Asia at the time of the Revolution.
Most of those criticisms ignore the incredible deficit Washington was working with against the British. He was outnumbered, and outnumbered fighting with amateurs against trained veterans. His men were poorly armed and equipped. The British soldiers were there for the duration, Washington was constantly losing his men as their enlistments ran up. As inexperienced as Washington was most of his officers were even less experienced than he. His political leadership was generally fractured, bankrupt, and running scared (often literally). His opponent had near absolute command of sea lanes and a massive population wealth and industrial base at home to draw from.
In spite of this Washington managed to fight a Fabian strategy for an extremely long time, and remember unlike Fabian he had no walls to retire behind. He managed to keep his army together in spite of frequent bouts with hunger, lack of pay, enlistments running out, and regular defeats at the hands of an enemy who looked nearly invincible in open battle for most of the war. He handed to British a number of Pyrrhic victories, extricating his troops after each of them, while the war grew steadily more unpopular in London (and steadily more popular in France). He kept the Revolution alive by force of personality alone through years of hardship and after all that when he finally had the advantage he brought the British to ground by doggedly chasing them into a corner and bagging their whole army. It was a near miraculous feat of generalship, and yes, he had plenty of luck along the way.