What do you think?
Rate this book
General George Washington: A Military Life
Much has been written in the past two centuries about George Washington the statesman and “father of his country.” Less often discussed is Washington’s military career, including his exploits as a young officer and his performance as the Revolutionary War commander in chief. Now, in a revealing work of historical biography, Edward Lengel has written the definitive account of George Washington the soldier.
Based largely on Washington’s personal papers, this engrossing book paints a vivid, factual portrait of a man to whom lore and legend so tenaciously cling. To Lengel, Washington was the imperfect commander. Washington possessed no great tactical ingenuity, and his acknowledged “brilliance in retreat” only demonstrates the role luck plays in the fortunes of all great men. He was not an enlisted man’s leader; he made a point of never mingling with his troops. He was not an especially creative military thinker; he fought largely by the book.
He was not a professional, but a citizen soldier, who, at a time when warfare demanded that armies maneuver efficiently in precise formation, had little practical training handling men in combat. Yet despite his flaws, Washington was a remarkable figure, a true man of the moment, a leader who possessed a clear strategic, national, and continental vision, and who inspired complete loyalty from his fellow revolutionaries, officers, and enlisted men. America could never have won freedom without him.
A trained surveyor, Washington mastered topography and used his superior knowledge of battlegrounds to maximum effect. He appreciated the importance of good allies in times of crisis, and understood well the benefits of coordination of ground and naval forces. Like the American nation itself, he was a whole that was greater than the sum of its parts–a remarkable everyman whose acts determined the course of history. Lengel argues that Washington’s excellence was in his completeness, in how he united the military, political, and personal skills necessary to lead a nation in war and peace.
At once informative and engaging, and filled with some eye-opening revelations about Washington, the war for American independence, and the very nature of military command, General George Washington is a book that reintroduces readers to a figure many think they already know.
From the Hardcover edition.
Based largely on Washington’s personal papers, this engrossing book paints a vivid, factual portrait of a man to whom lore and legend so tenaciously cling. To Lengel, Washington was the imperfect commander. Washington possessed no great tactical ingenuity, and his acknowledged “brilliance in retreat” only demonstrates the role luck plays in the fortunes of all great men. He was not an enlisted man’s leader; he made a point of never mingling with his troops. He was not an especially creative military thinker; he fought largely by the book.
He was not a professional, but a citizen soldier, who, at a time when warfare demanded that armies maneuver efficiently in precise formation, had little practical training handling men in combat. Yet despite his flaws, Washington was a remarkable figure, a true man of the moment, a leader who possessed a clear strategic, national, and continental vision, and who inspired complete loyalty from his fellow revolutionaries, officers, and enlisted men. America could never have won freedom without him.
A trained surveyor, Washington mastered topography and used his superior knowledge of battlegrounds to maximum effect. He appreciated the importance of good allies in times of crisis, and understood well the benefits of coordination of ground and naval forces. Like the American nation itself, he was a whole that was greater than the sum of its parts–a remarkable everyman whose acts determined the course of history. Lengel argues that Washington’s excellence was in his completeness, in how he united the military, political, and personal skills necessary to lead a nation in war and peace.
At once informative and engaging, and filled with some eye-opening revelations about Washington, the war for American independence, and the very nature of military command, General George Washington is a book that reintroduces readers to a figure many think they already know.
From the Hardcover edition.
450 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
38 people are currently reading
733 people want to read
About the author
Edward G. Lengel
29 books126 followersIndependent historian, hiker, and voracious reader. As an author, I'm delighted to have reached the stage where I can write purely for personal enjoyment and interest, as my forthcoming works will attest!
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
October 9, 2015
A dry but informative history of George Washington's military career. I got tired by the third DVD so obviously it didn't work for me.
OVERALL GRADE: C minus.
OVERALL GRADE: C minus.
November 13, 2017
More than any other book I've read on George Washington this one gave me a greater appreciation for many of the struggles Washington faced in recruiting, training and keeping the army together. Leading troops in the colonies with their divided loyalties and a congress that seemed to expect them to sacrifice and fight without proper clothing, food and financial support was very different from the experience of a British commander. Somehow Washington managed to not only to maintain hope and project an air of confidence and competency that motivated and inspired his men.
I listen to books while I'm driving and sometimes had to repeat sections when I found myself tuning out due to the level of military detail, but overall found this a worthwhile and fascinating book.
I listen to books while I'm driving and sometimes had to repeat sections when I found myself tuning out due to the level of military detail, but overall found this a worthwhile and fascinating book.
February 7, 2009
Very good book. Extremely detailed and fair to the subject and the time period. This is the man most responsible for our independence and our way of life. Democracy would never have spread around the globe without this "experiment" in the USA and the USA would never had remained a country if not for the bravery, wisdom, and hard work of this man.
December 11, 2015
A great biography of his military life. You always think of George being flawless and successful. Not true in his military career. As he learned his craft, he made mistakes along the way and they are all documented here. The descriptive battle scenes are disturbing but realistic.
October 29, 2013
George Washington has become such an iconic and mythic figure that Americans are loath to say anything negative about him, and react curiously whenever scholars look critically at him. Because of his heroic status in our popular imagination (and because of the American victory in the Revolution), Americans simply assume that Washington was a “great general.” Lengel shows how this is not the case.
Lengel begins with Washington’s service during the the French and Indian War which he pretty much started, and where his record was less than exemplary. Despite an extraordinary rise in rank, Washington suffered mostly defeats, overreacted to his failures, blamed his men for his own mistakes and frequently lashed out at his critics. Still, he displayed a remarkable coolness under fire, could adapt and inspire in battle, and gained some valuable lessons.
When colonial resentment over British policies flared up, Washington was outraged but had no idea how to resist. Independence for the colonies was far from his thoughts. His attitude was principled, and he refrained from any emotional rhetoric or grandstanding. Then, of course, came war, and George Washington’s generalship, and victory, and, in our popular imagination, the idea that Washington’s generalship was the main cause of our victory.
In this well-written and readable work, Lengel thoroughly deconstructs this myth as he examines Washington’s mixed leadership of an army plagued with desertion, poor discipline, and misfortune. Washington was not a leader on par with Napoleon or any of the other “great generals.” He wasn’t even a professional soldier. His military career was mixed, and his failings are often glaringly obvious. Washington doubted his own ability to lead the army to victory. While well read in military history and theory, Washington had no practical training in field command. Washington definitely wasn't a skilled tactician. His reconnaissance was usually non-existent, his defensive tactics were amateurish, and his attacks were rash. He often put his troops at risk merely for the sake of redeeming his personal honor. Washington was often vulnerable in the face of the most simple tactic: a demonstration in the front and a turning of the flank. It is surprising how often Washington fell for such a basic trick.
He usually acted by instinct, with mixed results. Washington was not a creative military thinker, and fought largely by the book. Washington was not a “soldier’s general.” He nor his officers interacted personally with soldiers, and his soldiers did not trust him as a leader until much later and never really had any affection for him. He was not a skilled orator. He could be shockingly temperamental and vindictive. Much of his behavior, such as his preference for the title “His Excellency” would be called vain today, although it was accepted socially at the time.
Despite this, Washington had tremendous dedication and almost superhuman stamina. He was very much a micromanager. And while his tactical ability was suspect, he had a good grasp of strategy. He had a great understanding of politics and its relation, and necessity, to warfare. Still, he was never able to create a genuine professional army, even by the time the war ended. While his generalship was not especially great, it was enough to keep the army going.
An excellent book, though a few errors puzzled me. Lengel places Fort Ticonderoga on the Hudson River. It is actually on Lake Champlain. He also writes that after retrieving the cannons from Ticonderoga, Henry Knox took them down the Hudson. Knox took them across Lake George to Albany and then to Boston.
Lengel begins with Washington’s service during the the French and Indian War which he pretty much started, and where his record was less than exemplary. Despite an extraordinary rise in rank, Washington suffered mostly defeats, overreacted to his failures, blamed his men for his own mistakes and frequently lashed out at his critics. Still, he displayed a remarkable coolness under fire, could adapt and inspire in battle, and gained some valuable lessons.
When colonial resentment over British policies flared up, Washington was outraged but had no idea how to resist. Independence for the colonies was far from his thoughts. His attitude was principled, and he refrained from any emotional rhetoric or grandstanding. Then, of course, came war, and George Washington’s generalship, and victory, and, in our popular imagination, the idea that Washington’s generalship was the main cause of our victory.
In this well-written and readable work, Lengel thoroughly deconstructs this myth as he examines Washington’s mixed leadership of an army plagued with desertion, poor discipline, and misfortune. Washington was not a leader on par with Napoleon or any of the other “great generals.” He wasn’t even a professional soldier. His military career was mixed, and his failings are often glaringly obvious. Washington doubted his own ability to lead the army to victory. While well read in military history and theory, Washington had no practical training in field command. Washington definitely wasn't a skilled tactician. His reconnaissance was usually non-existent, his defensive tactics were amateurish, and his attacks were rash. He often put his troops at risk merely for the sake of redeeming his personal honor. Washington was often vulnerable in the face of the most simple tactic: a demonstration in the front and a turning of the flank. It is surprising how often Washington fell for such a basic trick.
He usually acted by instinct, with mixed results. Washington was not a creative military thinker, and fought largely by the book. Washington was not a “soldier’s general.” He nor his officers interacted personally with soldiers, and his soldiers did not trust him as a leader until much later and never really had any affection for him. He was not a skilled orator. He could be shockingly temperamental and vindictive. Much of his behavior, such as his preference for the title “His Excellency” would be called vain today, although it was accepted socially at the time.
Despite this, Washington had tremendous dedication and almost superhuman stamina. He was very much a micromanager. And while his tactical ability was suspect, he had a good grasp of strategy. He had a great understanding of politics and its relation, and necessity, to warfare. Still, he was never able to create a genuine professional army, even by the time the war ended. While his generalship was not especially great, it was enough to keep the army going.
An excellent book, though a few errors puzzled me. Lengel places Fort Ticonderoga on the Hudson River. It is actually on Lake Champlain. He also writes that after retrieving the cannons from Ticonderoga, Henry Knox took them down the Hudson. Knox took them across Lake George to Albany and then to Boston.
February 15, 2016
I've always been fascinated with Revolutionary War-era history and military history, in general. By focusing on Washington's history through the glass of his military life, the author's able to color and explain all of his decisions in his ultimate roles throughout the revolution and his presidency. It's an illuminating and well-written look at a man who is the most deserving of any historical American figure to be studied.
November 15, 2019
good primer on washington's military career. but found myself still curious about many things barely touched on, like his relationship with junior officer hamilton, more details on the famous crossing of the delaware, etc.
January 5, 2020
The best, most concise book I have ever read on General George Washington. The book is packed with facts and has been very well researched. Edward Lengel is a brilliant author. Wow!!!! Amazing read!
December 10, 2024
An extraordinary review of a complex character, stripping away all the myth and leaving only a detailed and balanced analysis of Washington’s flaws and strengths as a military figure.
March 26, 2009
Since biographies of George Washington seem to suffer from his infamous inscrutability, instead of focusing on the person we may never know, Lengel writes a biography of Washington the military man, whose exploits are well recorded. Readers will not require a working knowledge of strategy and tactics to be able to follow the author's narrative or his assessment of Washington as a military commander. At the risk of spoiling the book, the conclusion is that he made some astonishing blunders and appears to have been unhealthily interested in matters of rank and protocol, but that he was one of history's great military administrators and an inspiration to his men (especially his officers). These latter two qualities were absolutely crucial to the success of the American Revolution, a fact that he had to learn the hard way. Some of his subordinates, notably Nathanael Green and Anthony Wayne, come across as abler field commanders, but no other man could have kept the army together and alive while the fledgling republic's wan government struggled to fund and supply it. Not the most illuminating work about a man who may always remain obscure anyway, and a little dry, but worth a read for those interested in Washington and the Revolution.
May 1, 2017
An enjoyable and refreshing look at Washington as a military leader. Surprisingly, many will find Washington lacked the tactical acumen of what we would consider a battlefield general--even by 18th century standards. So many close calls during the battles for American Independence gave rise for the fledgling army and militias under Washington's command to become decimated, yet by sheer luck or the quitting of the British Army to pursue Washington when they could have ended the independence effort eventually led to the birth of a Nation! Washington's strength instead lay in his strategic and political outlook of the developing national picture, and thankfully so read!! A great read!
March 30, 2019
"Washington's gift of courage coincided with remarkable luck... No better example exists of the old maxim that to be good, a commander only has to be better than his opponent."
Even that may be overstating Washington's military abilities: he fought Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis to something less than a stalemate in New Jersey, Howe having complacently both failed to round up the Americans on Manhattan and left Burgoyne to his fate in upstate New York instead of combining their forces to cut the US in two. He kept the Continental Army in being while seeking to proactively attack, and through harsh winter camps, long enough for French supplies, troops and ships to come through. With a little luck for de Grasse's fleet off the Chesapeake, that was enough to win the victory at Yorktown which ruined Parliament's confidence in the war. Washington's early experiences of war only really schooled him in what not to do, he learnt on the job and from books instead of in a smoothly functional army, and Trenton was his own success in spite of the failure of several elements of his plans. His reputation survived attack while others' heads rolled, not entirely fairly, but in the end his best was just about good enough.
Even that may be overstating Washington's military abilities: he fought Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis to something less than a stalemate in New Jersey, Howe having complacently both failed to round up the Americans on Manhattan and left Burgoyne to his fate in upstate New York instead of combining their forces to cut the US in two. He kept the Continental Army in being while seeking to proactively attack, and through harsh winter camps, long enough for French supplies, troops and ships to come through. With a little luck for de Grasse's fleet off the Chesapeake, that was enough to win the victory at Yorktown which ruined Parliament's confidence in the war. Washington's early experiences of war only really schooled him in what not to do, he learnt on the job and from books instead of in a smoothly functional army, and Trenton was his own success in spite of the failure of several elements of his plans. His reputation survived attack while others' heads rolled, not entirely fairly, but in the end his best was just about good enough.
March 31, 2018
Exceptionally well done. If you are looking for a fangirl perspective of Washington's Military life this is not the book for you. Lengel gives an honest, detailed and unbiased account of Washington's military career. He does a great job of pointing out strengths, weaknesses as well as his positive and not so positive personality traits. Ultimately the conclusion is that America most likely would have lost the war without Washington at the helm but that was more for his Leadership than his tactical skills. Without a lot of support from some unsung heroes as well as a ton of luck, the war would have been much different. Many times Washington's vanity and paranoia almost cost the continentals the war. A gust of wind in a different direction or the lack of a storm here and there could have had major consequences but that was part of warfare in the 18th century. Overall an amazing volume completely focused on the military side of Washington's life and there is some amazing battlefield detail.
February 8, 2025
Superb and honest examination of Washington's military life.
Washington was no Manstein or Guderian. Most of his battles were either losses or draws. But, he never gave up. And unlike today's mollycoddlers, he sent General Sullivan to do a "William Tecumseh Sherman" in Upstate New York in 1779, something General Sullivan did very efficiently and conclusively, much to the chagrin of Andrew Bacevich, Douglas Porch, Gian Gentile and Robert Citnion of the Clausewitz-über-alles school.
Reading this book allows one to appreciate how unpopular the Revolution was (hence the Continentals' being forced to resort to plunder), which makes the "divisiveness" of Vietnam and Iraq look like minor peccadillos, and which puts into perspective all of Don Lemon's and CNN's whinging that America in 2025 is a "divided country."
Washington was no Manstein or Guderian. Most of his battles were either losses or draws. But, he never gave up. And unlike today's mollycoddlers, he sent General Sullivan to do a "William Tecumseh Sherman" in Upstate New York in 1779, something General Sullivan did very efficiently and conclusively, much to the chagrin of Andrew Bacevich, Douglas Porch, Gian Gentile and Robert Citnion of the Clausewitz-über-alles school.
Reading this book allows one to appreciate how unpopular the Revolution was (hence the Continentals' being forced to resort to plunder), which makes the "divisiveness" of Vietnam and Iraq look like minor peccadillos, and which puts into perspective all of Don Lemon's and CNN's whinging that America in 2025 is a "divided country."
July 4, 2023
An in-depth and balanced look at Washington’s military career. The author overs a great survey of Washington’s failures and his triumphs. It delves heavily into military tactics and strategy and I’ll admit it can get very tedious. The author was not afraid to highlight Washington’s faults and he praised the qualities the set Washington apart from his peers.
If you want to know more about his life I would recommend the biography by Ron Chernow, but this book offers a great look into Washington’s defining characteristics. I think he author makes a great point by pointing out that “..the country’s future did not rest on him alone… But without George Washington there could have been no victory in the Revolutionary War.”
If you want to know more about his life I would recommend the biography by Ron Chernow, but this book offers a great look into Washington’s defining characteristics. I think he author makes a great point by pointing out that “..the country’s future did not rest on him alone… But without George Washington there could have been no victory in the Revolutionary War.”
November 8, 2021
Much less interesting than Washington's Crossing, which was the other book I used to write my counterfactual essay on the Battle of Trenton. The language is almost too simplified, leaving room for holes of information that need to be filled. Despite the girth of this book, it could be read and understood by a young audience, which I suppose that's good for individuals looking for a simplified version of Washinton's military career.
October 13, 2022
Showed a different side to Washington. Even though I've read a few biographies on him, none were specific to the military. I wish it was a bit longer, as the early parts of the war were quite detailed but the ending was more summarized.
June 9, 2024
I was ok with this until the author ranked Robert Lee as obviously a better general. They actually were remarkably similarin their abilities, but Washington was a vastly better man. And of course, he won.
August 25, 2024
Analysis of Washington’s generaling was sharp and fair. I wanted more—this could easily have been thousands of pages long, and I would have eaten it all up!
Read
August 15, 20182008-06 - General George Washington: A Military Life by Edward G. Lengel. 2005. 450 pages.
This book covers the military career of George Washington from his days as a youth watching the adventures of his brother through the Seven Years War/French and Indian War, the Revolution, The whisky Rebellion and ends with the former President of the United States (POTUS) Washington still on duty at the end of his life.
This book is primarily concerned with Washington the military man. It provides a good history of his military career and some historical evaluation. The author is not a military man or military scholar; rather he is involved with the George Washington Papers Project. The author’s lack of military experience however does not impact his selection of material or his evaluation of Washington the soldier.
While Washington’s exploits during the Seven Years War and the Revolution are fairly well known some of the details and the scope of these exploits are often not understood. This lack of understanding is partly the result of our distance from the way things were in the 18th century and partly because Washington was a unique and extraordinary leader and man. In many ways he was much more akin to our modern sensibilities than he was to those of the military establishments of his time. Though he himself operated firmly in an 18th century frame of reference.
Washington was a one man staff system who directed his logistics both on the practical side and on the political side, always wary to avoid burdening the populace and maintaining civilian control and a sense of proper order in the army. Washington was heavily involved in conducting his own intelligence and agitory propaganda work to a degree which modern commanders do not do because much of these functions are delegated to dedicated and specially trained staff.
Peeling back the aspects of Washington’s organization and activities which today are handled by a staff we come to the issue of Washington in the traditional sense of a military man as we commonly think of them. Washington was by all accounts of friend and foe a very physically brave man on par even with Hernando Cortez. Washington’s ability to lead men was remarkable for a man with little education. He was, compared to his 18th century peers, a very modern leader reinforcing the positive and challenging his men to meet his expectation rather then the blunt bully who used the vine stave.
At a tactical level Washington’s forces failed more often than they succeeded. Too often the failure was a result of an overly complicated plan. Though Washington was seemingly always itching for a fight he tended towards plans of such intricate timing and advance that they were often doomed. On the operational and strategic level Washington’s talents were much more evident. Though he maintained a fixed obsession with New York City he quickly understood the tie between the revolution and its promise to the country and world and the need to keep his army in the field defying the British.
The notion that Washington was a Fabian in his tactics does not strictly hold water. Washington though recognizing the need to maintain the army as a whole in the field in order to preserve the revolution routinely risked the entire main army in battle. The campaigns in New York City, Brandywine, Germantown, even Monmouth showed a desire for that one decisive action which would decide the issue. The author does understand this.
Washington is so far the only sitting POTUS to, as Commander in Chief, command troops in the field, in uniform as President. This occurred during the Whiskey Rebellion though the mere presence of Washington contributed to the end of the rebellion with out a full scale national conflagration. Washington, in a little known tidbit, also returned to military service after his final term as POTUS. He, at the behest of POTUS John Adams, accepted a commission to ready the American military for potential conflict with France. When Washington died he did so under commission and therefore still technically as a serving military officer in the armed forces of the United States.
This book reads quickly, the prose not being a millstone to the material, and does a fine job of presenting this aspect of Washington to the reader.
This book covers the military career of George Washington from his days as a youth watching the adventures of his brother through the Seven Years War/French and Indian War, the Revolution, The whisky Rebellion and ends with the former President of the United States (POTUS) Washington still on duty at the end of his life.
This book is primarily concerned with Washington the military man. It provides a good history of his military career and some historical evaluation. The author is not a military man or military scholar; rather he is involved with the George Washington Papers Project. The author’s lack of military experience however does not impact his selection of material or his evaluation of Washington the soldier.
While Washington’s exploits during the Seven Years War and the Revolution are fairly well known some of the details and the scope of these exploits are often not understood. This lack of understanding is partly the result of our distance from the way things were in the 18th century and partly because Washington was a unique and extraordinary leader and man. In many ways he was much more akin to our modern sensibilities than he was to those of the military establishments of his time. Though he himself operated firmly in an 18th century frame of reference.
Washington was a one man staff system who directed his logistics both on the practical side and on the political side, always wary to avoid burdening the populace and maintaining civilian control and a sense of proper order in the army. Washington was heavily involved in conducting his own intelligence and agitory propaganda work to a degree which modern commanders do not do because much of these functions are delegated to dedicated and specially trained staff.
Peeling back the aspects of Washington’s organization and activities which today are handled by a staff we come to the issue of Washington in the traditional sense of a military man as we commonly think of them. Washington was by all accounts of friend and foe a very physically brave man on par even with Hernando Cortez. Washington’s ability to lead men was remarkable for a man with little education. He was, compared to his 18th century peers, a very modern leader reinforcing the positive and challenging his men to meet his expectation rather then the blunt bully who used the vine stave.
At a tactical level Washington’s forces failed more often than they succeeded. Too often the failure was a result of an overly complicated plan. Though Washington was seemingly always itching for a fight he tended towards plans of such intricate timing and advance that they were often doomed. On the operational and strategic level Washington’s talents were much more evident. Though he maintained a fixed obsession with New York City he quickly understood the tie between the revolution and its promise to the country and world and the need to keep his army in the field defying the British.
The notion that Washington was a Fabian in his tactics does not strictly hold water. Washington though recognizing the need to maintain the army as a whole in the field in order to preserve the revolution routinely risked the entire main army in battle. The campaigns in New York City, Brandywine, Germantown, even Monmouth showed a desire for that one decisive action which would decide the issue. The author does understand this.
Washington is so far the only sitting POTUS to, as Commander in Chief, command troops in the field, in uniform as President. This occurred during the Whiskey Rebellion though the mere presence of Washington contributed to the end of the rebellion with out a full scale national conflagration. Washington, in a little known tidbit, also returned to military service after his final term as POTUS. He, at the behest of POTUS John Adams, accepted a commission to ready the American military for potential conflict with France. When Washington died he did so under commission and therefore still technically as a serving military officer in the armed forces of the United States.
This book reads quickly, the prose not being a millstone to the material, and does a fine job of presenting this aspect of Washington to the reader.
February 26, 2014
I just completed Edward Lengel’s history, “General Washington: A Military Life” (2005). Previously, I had listened to this audio book. With my never ending fascination of the life of Washington, I decided to read the book as well.
For much of the book I found myself becoming frustrated with the negative conclusions drawn from the outcomes of battles. It seemed that Lengel was as interested in “myth busting” as history. I had long ago realized that Washington was not the greatest military strategist. I realized that often he was hampered by incompetent soldiers, political intrigue and lack of resolve of the Congress and by the sabotage of loyalists. But Lengel frequently points out that Washington was woefully unprepared in specific battles. A lack of awareness of local topography was near fatal in the Battle of Brandywine is one example.
I nearly set this book down about half way through. I am glad that I pushed on to the end.
Ultimately, the character of George Washington is what brought about the victorious end. Certainly, fighting against the most incompetent British Generals helped as well.
On a side note, the conduct of the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse was of interest to me.
Years ago I read The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara. I think that the depiction of this battle so influenced my thinking that my disgust of General Charles Lee was complete. Later, I read Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence by John Ferling. His conclusions about this battle were so at odds with my preconceived ideas that I found it almost laughable. Lengel trends a middle ground about the conduct of Charles Lee in this battle. Washington does share some blame in Lee’s shameful performance in the field of battle. (I mention this because I find it necessary to get more than one perspective on “history”, even when the subject is my favorite American historical character.)
My favorite part of Lengel’s biography was his recounting of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Washington now faced a very hostile group of even officers as they considered marching on Philadelphia and in effect, staging a military coup. The goodness of Washington inspires me to tears every time I read about this event. Lengel did inspire me with his wonderful recounting of this critical event. (By contrast, Joseph Ellis tells this story with a degree of cynicism that is shocking in His Excellency: George Washington. That is one of the reasons I don’t care for Joseph Ellis. He seems to represent the extreme of modern scholars who want to de-mythologize the American founding. His book on Jefferson left me feeling such cold feelings about another of the figures of Mount Rushmore.)
Finally, if you want to read a book that is purely adoring and apologetic on Washington, you can do no better than The Real George Washington. Every story is told with the greatest respect and devotion. It is slanted to a degree that makes it more devotional than historical.
And if you want to read the best modern biography of Washington, authored by my favorite biographer, read Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow. I go back to this book to re-read events of Washington’s life. Chernow is a wordsmith. He is objective and yet highly respectful of America’s greatest man. His account is captivating and inspiring.
I am sorry for this wordy review. I just re-read it and realize I am perhaps boasting about all that I have read about Washington. Lengel’s book (the supposed subject of this review…) is worth reading if you are interested in the life of Washington, but in my opinion, should not be the final word on Washington.
For much of the book I found myself becoming frustrated with the negative conclusions drawn from the outcomes of battles. It seemed that Lengel was as interested in “myth busting” as history. I had long ago realized that Washington was not the greatest military strategist. I realized that often he was hampered by incompetent soldiers, political intrigue and lack of resolve of the Congress and by the sabotage of loyalists. But Lengel frequently points out that Washington was woefully unprepared in specific battles. A lack of awareness of local topography was near fatal in the Battle of Brandywine is one example.
I nearly set this book down about half way through. I am glad that I pushed on to the end.
Ultimately, the character of George Washington is what brought about the victorious end. Certainly, fighting against the most incompetent British Generals helped as well.
On a side note, the conduct of the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse was of interest to me.
Years ago I read The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara. I think that the depiction of this battle so influenced my thinking that my disgust of General Charles Lee was complete. Later, I read Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence by John Ferling. His conclusions about this battle were so at odds with my preconceived ideas that I found it almost laughable. Lengel trends a middle ground about the conduct of Charles Lee in this battle. Washington does share some blame in Lee’s shameful performance in the field of battle. (I mention this because I find it necessary to get more than one perspective on “history”, even when the subject is my favorite American historical character.)
My favorite part of Lengel’s biography was his recounting of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Washington now faced a very hostile group of even officers as they considered marching on Philadelphia and in effect, staging a military coup. The goodness of Washington inspires me to tears every time I read about this event. Lengel did inspire me with his wonderful recounting of this critical event. (By contrast, Joseph Ellis tells this story with a degree of cynicism that is shocking in His Excellency: George Washington. That is one of the reasons I don’t care for Joseph Ellis. He seems to represent the extreme of modern scholars who want to de-mythologize the American founding. His book on Jefferson left me feeling such cold feelings about another of the figures of Mount Rushmore.)
Finally, if you want to read a book that is purely adoring and apologetic on Washington, you can do no better than The Real George Washington. Every story is told with the greatest respect and devotion. It is slanted to a degree that makes it more devotional than historical.
And if you want to read the best modern biography of Washington, authored by my favorite biographer, read Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow. I go back to this book to re-read events of Washington’s life. Chernow is a wordsmith. He is objective and yet highly respectful of America’s greatest man. His account is captivating and inspiring.
I am sorry for this wordy review. I just re-read it and realize I am perhaps boasting about all that I have read about Washington. Lengel’s book (the supposed subject of this review…) is worth reading if you are interested in the life of Washington, but in my opinion, should not be the final word on Washington.
January 21, 2009
I really enjoyed this book. It was a portrait of George Washington’s life as a military commander and especially focusing on his role as the commander in chief of the continental army during the revolutionary war. This book was insightful and thoughtful. I am not an expert in military history so I wondered about some of the analysis of the battles and actions of the army during the war. The one word that kept coming to my mind while I was reading this book was vision. George Washington had vision for the army, the country, everything. He was determined, dedicated, a host of other things but mostly he had vision. This book definitely made me grateful for the leaders of our country during the revolution and especially for this remarkable man. The book wasn’t all praise and was willing to criticize Washington when he deserved it. However, his faults made Washington seem all the more real and understandable. I also think that the thing we have to thank Washington the most for was his commitment to liberty and an elected government, even a flawed and imperfect one. For me his willingness to lay down power that was given to him was his most important accomplishment (and he had many).
July 27, 2016
Lengel documents Washington's military career in a captivating way. He humanizes Washington and, through his personal papers, he tells the story of an ambitious Virginian who was able to capture American independence. While Washington may not have been a brilliant military strategist such as Napoleon or Lee, Washington was brilliant in his personal connections. Can you imagine commanding a military of a republic which was nervous of standing militaries and dictatorships? Where you had to answer to 13 governors who were the respective heads of a united confederation of states as well as a Continental Congress? Without ample resources? Without trained soldiers and officers? Washington carefully cultivated the loyalty of his men and the civilian population. His brilliance in administration and personal relationships, as well as his belief in the cause of American independence made him the best leader for the time. I also really enjoyed learning about Washington's military life prior to and after the American Revolution.
April 3, 2008
This isn't really a biography, it's more of an assessment of how good or bad a general Washington was, based mostly on analyses of individual battles with lots of evidence thrown in from personal correspondence and the like. Near as I can make out, the conclusion is that he wasn't the best general in the world by a long chalk, but he happened to be really good at doing a few things that really needed to get done at that time and place. The arguments are solid enough, the guy makes sense, I guess my quarrel is that it's just not that interesting a read. It doesn't work very well either as military history (too focused on one person with not much overall strategic picture) or as biography (you don't get much of a sense of personality) nor yet as an academic argument about a specific question (analyses not detailed enough). Still, I finished it and enjoyed it...
January 12, 2011
A very readable analysis of George Washington's military career, this book is not for the casual reader but for those more interested and appreciative of 18th century warfare tactics. I found the detailed descriptions of the battles interesting but it got confusing when the author gave detailed troop manuevers regarding terrain and topography. If I was already more familiar with the battlefields I might appreciate and understand the descriptions of the battles. Overall it was pretty good and very readable, I just got bogged down in the detailed battle tactics at times. Also this book covers in detail the engagements that Washington himself participated in and narrowly glosses over other battles and events of the American Revolution.
June 10, 2012
I was inspired to read this book after visiting Mount Vernon. Growing up I don't remember learning much about this great man. I was a little embarrassed to be standing on the stairs of his beloved home and not know much about him. This book was a great choice to begin my journey. The time line of the book and the detail in the events is helpful to anyone who has never read in depth about the American Revolutionary War. This book is easy to read but most importantly it is easy to follow. I hope you enjoy this book as much as
I did.
November 7, 2009
This is the fifth Washington biography I have read in the last ten years of so. I found new material here that I had not run into before. It is an excellent work if you have an interest in Washington the man and Washington the general. There is also some interesting material about the generals who served under him. I recommend it for people interested in the Revolutionary War period in particular.
June 10, 2014
For those who admire George Washington, this is a must read. It is a comprehensive and even-handed account of the military career of perhaps the single most important American soldier ever. The author delivers a compelling and honest assessment of Washington's strengths and weaknesses. This gives the reader a full and balanced look at his career that other books rarely provide. Well-written and enjoyable.
July 7, 2009
Much like "Washington’s Crossing" (see my reivew). No truly new information, but a more detailed look at Washington’s major battles and a frank assessment of the man, both militarily and in general (no pun intended).
February 28, 2008
Not my favorite Founding Father, but a fascinating life!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews