华盛顿是一个比拿破仑更好的将军吗？
Was Washington a better general than Napoleon?
译文简介
很抱歉，美国人。这个对比很有趣，乔治-华盛顿是个好将军，但跟拿破仑相比还是差远了。
正文翻译
Was Washington a better general than Napoleon?
华盛顿是一个比拿破仑更好的将军吗？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
, knows Turkish
Sorry for the Americans but this is funny George Washington was a good general but not close to Napoleon.
Napoleon compares only with people like Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great.
很抱歉，美国人。这个对比很有趣，乔治-华盛顿是个好将军，但跟拿破仑相比还是差远了。
能跟拿破仑比的是凯撒大帝、汉尼拔、成吉思汗和亚历山大大帝等人。
George biggest victory is arguably a mere tactical withdrawal. General Washington was rarely victorious in battle. In fact, he lost many more battles than he won!
Comparing him to a seasoned military genius is downright ridiculous!
Subutai, Jebe, Alexander the Great of Macedonia, Gaius Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Khalid bin Waleed, Salahuddin, Alexander Suvorov, Civil war general George Thomas of the unx who never lost a battle are on the same level or comparable to,
Le Petit Caporal.
乔治最大的胜利可以说只是一次战术性的撤退。华盛顿将军很少在战斗中取得胜利。事实上，他输掉的战役比赢得的多得多!
将他与一个经验丰富的军事天才相提并论，简直是荒唐至极。
速不台、哲别、马其顿的亚历山大大帝、盖乌斯-尤利乌斯-凯撒、汉尼拔、哈立德-本-瓦利德、萨拉丁、亚历山大-苏沃洛夫、美国内战中联邦的将军乔治-托马斯，这些人从未打过败仗，都在同一水平内，或可与之相比。
Le Petit Caporal（法语，不懂）。
Although Washington would never have compared himself to any of the notable commanders you’ve mentioned, Washington did accomplish one overarching and paramount goal;
He Won His War.
Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon Bonaparte along with so many others may have won many battles, but they ALL eventually fell either to disease (Alexander) or were defeated. And please remember that Salahuddin was fought to a standstill by Balian of Ibelin at Jerusalem. Salahuddin was forced to grant absolutely safe passage to every man, woman and child who wanted to leave the Holy City.
But never forget that a general does not need to win battles; they need to wear down their enemies and win their war.
虽然华盛顿不会把自己与你提到的任何一位著名的指挥官相提并论，但华盛顿确实完成了一个总体的、最重要的目标：
他赢得了他的战争。
凯撒、亚历山大、拿破仑-波拿巴以及其他许多人可能赢得了许多战役，但他们最终都被疾病（亚历山大）或被打败了。请记住，萨拉丁在耶路撒冷被伊贝林的贝里昂打得落花流水。萨拉丁被迫给每一个想离开圣城的男人、女人和孩子提供绝对安全的通道。
永远不要忘记，一个将军不需要赢得战斗；他们需要消耗他们的敌人并赢得战争。
Not entirely true.
Napoleon didnt fight 1 war, he fought 7. The Wars of the coalition.
He won the first 4
Was forced to retreat (Russia) on the fifth but did not actually surrender (a Draw).
Lost 6 and 7.
So that makes his record 4–2–1
不完全正确。
拿破仑不止打过一场战争，他打了7场。面对联盟的战争。
他赢得了前4次
在第五次战争中被迫撤退（俄罗斯），但没有真正投降（平局）。
输掉了第6次和第7次。
因此，他的记录是4-2-1
Winning a war depends on many things including your respective force compared to the enemy force, your technology advantage, other external elements that impact the war like political considerations etc. But you can judge a general on the tactics and strategies he used against his enemy independently from the outcome of the war. Romel was a great general, although his country ended losing. Using whether someone loses or wins a war to judge a general is a poor criteria.
想要赢得一场战争取决于很多东西，包括你与敌方部队的对比，你的技术优势，其他影响战争的外部因素，如政治顾虑等。但你可以根据一名将领对敌人使用的战术和战略来判断一个将军的水平，而不用考虑战争的结果。隆美尔是一位伟大的将军，尽管他的国家最后输了。用一个人所处的战争是输是赢来判断一个将军的水平是一个糟糕的标准。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Washington won on the backs of the French without whom he would of been hung as a traitor to the crown who he initially pledged his alleigence to. Also his enemy (who used to be his brothers in arms) was fielding a massively underequiped army because their main concern was the huge threat from the European wars which were actually global wars. As was seen in the war of 1812 once Britain sorted out the threats from Europe they had no problem backslapping the irksome rascals over the pond. Perhaps if this was also the case during the revolution then the full attention and might of the British could of shown the colonists exactly who they were against and ultimately been totally squashed.
华盛顿是在法国人的支持下获胜的，如果没有法国人，他就会作为当初他宣誓效忠的王室的叛徒被吊死。此外，他的敌人（曾经是他的兄弟）派出了一支装备严重不足的军队，因为他们主要关注的是来自欧洲战争的巨大威胁，而欧洲战争实际上是全球性的战争。正如在1812年战争中所看到的那样，一旦英国解决了来自欧洲的威胁，他们就会毫不犹豫地敲打池塘对面那些令人讨厌的流氓。如果在美国革命期间欧洲无事，那么英国人的全部注意力和力量就会向殖民地证明他们的对手的真实水平，并最终将其完全压制。
Washington was not a tactical general or military genius. He probably was not even average in these areas (Arnold was probably the best the colonies had to offer). Washington was a great leader who trusted and listened to his more tactical subordinates (especially Greene, Knox, and Lafeyette), understood the value of spies, and somehow got an underequipped and undertrained army to hang on long enough for the greatest fighting force at the time to realize their efforts were better spent elsewhere (with a ton of help from the French, Spanish, and Dutch).
He was the right guy for the job.
华盛顿不是一个战术性的将军或军事天才。他在这些方面可能连普通人都不如（阿诺德可能是殖民地最好的将军）。华盛顿是一个伟大的领导者，他信任并听取了他下属的各种战术（尤其是格林、诺克斯和拉斐特），了解间谍的价值，并以某种方式让一支装备不足、训练有素的军队坚持了足够长的时间，让当时最强大的战斗力意识到他们最好把的努力花在其他地方（有法国人、西班牙人和荷兰人的大量帮助）。
他是这项工作的合适人选。
Yes. Apparently Washington knew he couldn’t win against England outright so he fought a war of attrition, hoping (and praying) for the intervention of foreign powers. It came when France got involved. Yet, I think, without Washington’s stalwart leadership and tenacity the colonies would have folded.
是的。显然，华盛顿知道他不可能直接赢过英国，所以他打了一场消耗战，希望（并祈祷）外国势力的介入。当法国介入时，他等的东西就来了。然而，我认为，如果没有华盛顿的顽强领导和坚韧不拔的精神，殖民地早就垮了。
I would rate Khalid Bin waleed clearly over Saladdin though. I would rate Saladdin together with people like Frederick the Great, as even though he accomplished a lot, he really lost some battles as well. Khalid Bin Waleed however defeated the second and third most powerful states in the world at the time, without a numerical or tactical advantage, and truly belong among the all time greatest generals, and propably the most underrated of them all.
不过，我认为哈立德-本-瓦利德显然比萨拉丁要好。我会把萨拉丁和腓特烈大帝放在一起评价，因为尽管他取得了很多成就，但他也确实输了一些战役。然而，哈立德-本-瓦利德在没有数量或战术优势的情况下，击败了当时世界上第二（拜占庭）和第三大（萨珊波斯）强国，真正属于历史上最伟大的将军，而且可能是他们中最被低估的一个。
He only won against the Byzantine and Persian Empires because they were weak after fighting each other for so long. Had he fight them at their strongest, I don’t think it would have been that easy. He came at the right moment
他之所以能战胜拜占庭和波斯帝国，是因为他们在相互争斗了许久之后变得很虚弱。如果他是在他们最强大的时候与之作战，我想就不会那么容易了。他只是出现得正是时候。
True but none of them formed a nation that still stand to this day
说的都没错，但他们之中没有一个人建立起一个至今仍然存在的国家。
France still exists! Both of them are different than each other. George Washington was a skilled politician and administrator more than he was a general. That’s why his nation still stands today and the French empire doesn’t. But George had little opposition after the USA was formed other than Native Americans and USA’s geography helps it to be isolated.
Moreover, Napoleon after forming his empire had to contend and battle with all of Europe’s major powers forming alliances against his empire. The most opposition George had after the USA was formed is Native Americans that had bows and spears which could be subdued rather quickly. But the UK? Russia? Nope, those were major powers in their own right not a tribe with bows and arrows.
However, It’s not as if France has totally died out they’re still a major power in Europe. Probably the strongest after Russia and UK.
As Genghis Khan eloquently put it, “You can ride a horse and conquer the whole world on horseback, it is dismounting and governing that is difficult”.
As a politician George’s much more skillful than Napoleon but as a general, Le petit Caporal takes the cake. George formed a nation in a sparsely populated, isolated with inhabitants that weren’t as advanced In warfare. Napoleon formed an empire fighting off the world’s most advanced countries and actually winning arguably the first coalition of Europe’s established powers.
To each his own.
法国仍然存在! 这两个国家是彼此不同的。乔治-华盛顿是一个熟练的政治家和管理者，而不是一个将军。这就是为什么他的国家今天仍然存在，而法兰西帝国却不复存在。但是，在美国成立后，除了美国原住民之外，乔治几乎没有反对者的存在，而且美国的地理环境有助于它的孤立。
另一边，拿破仑在建立他的帝国后，不得不与欧洲所有形成反对他的帝国的联盟大国进行抗争和战斗。美国成立后，乔治遇到最多的对手是拥有弓箭和长矛的美洲原住民，他们可以很快被制服。但是英国？俄罗斯呢？不，这些都是有自己霸权的大国，而不是只有弓箭的部落。
即便如此，法国也没有完全消亡，他们仍然是欧洲的一个大国。可能是继俄罗斯和英国之后最强大的国家。
正如成吉思汗雄辩地指出的那样，"你可以骑着马，在马背上征服整个世界，难的是下马执政"。
作为一个政治家，乔治比拿破仑更有技巧，但作为一个将军，Le petit Caporal更胜一筹。乔治在一个人口稀少、与世隔绝的地方建立了一个国家，那里的居民在战争这方面没有那么先进。拿破仑建立了一个帝国，与世界上最先进的国家作战，并且实际上赢得了可以说是欧洲所有大国的第一个联盟。
只能说每个人都有自己的看法。
I would also include in this list of illustrious generals — Bajirao Peshwa, who played the most significant role is establishing the great Maratha Empire that ruled most of India. He fought forty battles and won every one of them and died undefeated. By comparison, Alexander the Greek won 20 out of 20 battles, and may well have lost the last one to Maharaja Porus. The British called Bajirao the greatest cavalry general of all time.
我认为也得把巴吉拉-佩什瓦列入这份杰出的将军名单，他在建立统治了印度大部分地区的大马拉塔帝国中发挥了最重要的作用。他打了40场战役，每场都取得了胜利，并且以不败之身死去。相比之下，希腊人亚历山大在20场战役中赢了20场，最后一场很可能输给了大君波鲁斯。英国人称巴吉拉是有史以来最伟大的骑兵将军。
I agree Man, George Washington ovarated
Napoleon>x15 George Washington
我同意伙计，乔治-华盛顿被高估了
拿破仑>x15乔治-华盛顿
George Washington isn’t really overrated, since most people focus on his leadership and personal virtue, not on his prowess for war.
It does take a special sort of person to have his followers clamoring for a monarchy, including some of the elite, and all of the military, and for him to turn it down.
There has only been a few people throughout history that have displayed that level of virtue.
乔治-华盛顿并没有被高估，因为大多数人关注的是他的领导力和个人美德，而不是他的战争能力。
这确实是一个很特殊的人，才能让他的追随者吵着要建立君主制，包括一些精英，以及所有的军队，而他却拒绝了。
历史上只有少数人表现出这种程度的美德。
Very true - as a man of virtue Washington wins but as a general he wasnt in the same league as Napoleon who was a literal military genius.
Not that Napoleon wasnt virtuous but he is famous for his military talents not anything else.
非常正确--作为一个有美德的人，华盛顿赢了，但作为一个将军，他和拿破仑不在一个级别上，拿破仑是一个字面上的军事天才。
并不是说拿破仑没有美德，但他是因其军事才能而闻名，而不是其他。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Even more impressive than his milatary skills were his administeative skills. The Napoleonic code unified France under one system of laws freed from past practices. It was based on common sense vs customs and superstitions. All men were treated equally under the law, regardless of their lot in life. Class privilege was eliminated. It was also implemented in areas he conquered. Napoleon was much more than a military genius.
比他的军事能力更令人印象深刻的是他的管理能力。拿破仑法典将法国统一在一个摆脱了过去的惯例的法律体系之下。之前的体系是基于常识与习俗和迷信的结合。现在所有的人在法律面前都是平等的，无论他们在生活中的命运如何。阶级特权被消除了。这些也在他征服的地区得到了实施。拿破仑不仅仅是一个军事天才。
Napoleon nearest comparison, purely by his ability as a general, would undoubtedly be the Duke of Wellington.
与拿破仑相比，最接近的是威灵顿公爵，单纯从他作为一个将军的能力来看，无疑是他。
What about the great Prussian Erich von Manstein?
伟大的普鲁士人埃里希-冯-曼施坦因呢？
von Manstein is great, certainly up there, but maybe just below Naps and Welly for me.
Manstein best general of modern era? Somewhere Bill Slim is throwing a tantrum.
冯-曼施坦因是伟大的，当然在列，但对我来说可能低于拿破仑和威灵顿。
曼施坦因是现代最好的将军？在某个地方，比尔-斯利姆可在发脾气。
von Manstein wasn’t the greatest general looking into it. Look up “Miracle of Kharkiv” that cost Germany the entire southern theatre during the war against the Soviets
冯-曼施坦因并不是最伟大的将军。查一下"哈尔科夫奇迹"，它使德国在与苏联的战争中失去了整个南部战区。
Really? Napoleon led his army to disaster in Palestine and left them to their fate when he buggered off home to France. He led his army to disaster in Russia and left them to freeze and starve to death while he buggered off home to France. His navy was trounced repeatedly by Nelson. His army was whipped by by Wellesley in Spain, and smashed during the 100 days. Not exactly a record of unbroken success…
你们是认真的吗？拿破仑率领他的军队在巴勒斯坦遭遇灾难，并在他偷偷溜回法国时让他的士兵留下听天由命。他带领他的军队在俄罗斯遭遇灾难，并让他们在逃回法国时被冻死、饿死。他的海军多次被纳尔逊打败。他的军队在西班牙被威灵顿抽打，并在100天内被粉碎。这可不是一个连续成功的记录……
Agreed, his career wasn’t entirely successful but those few defeats are interspersed among victories at Toulon (Retaking a port from the British), his Italian Campaign (Napoleon’s 37,000 vs 60,000 Austrian and Piedmontese), Ulm (60,000 prisoners taken), Austerlitz (Defeating Austria and Russia simultaneously), the Napoleonic blitzkrieg that was the War of the 4th Coalition (Prussia all but crushed in weeks and Bennigsen’s Russians defeated at Friedland), Wagram (where he defeated the Austrians again), Dresden (Winning while outnumbered), the Six Days Campaign in Northern France (4 victories in 6 days) and finally Ligny (A victory against Blucher although not a decisive one).
In addition, it is kind of hard to attribute Wellesley’s victories in Spain and Portugal as Napoleon’s tactical failures as the two of them never faced off against each other there. In Iberia, Wellesley defeated many of Napoleon’s subordinates (e.g. General Junot, Marshals Soult, Jourdan, Massena and Marmont), but not Napoleon himself as at the time, he was busy further east with the Austrians, Russians, Prussians and marrying Archduchess Marie Louise (She could count as him being busy with an Austrian though). Waterloo in 1815 was the only time they fought each other directly in modern day Belgium.
同意，他的职业生涯并不完全是成功的，但那几次失败是穿插在土伦之战（从英国人手中夺回一个港口）、意大利战役（拿破仑的37000人对阵60000名奥地利和皮埃蒙特人）、乌尔姆战役（俘虏了60000人）、奥斯特利茨之战（同时击败了奥地利和俄罗斯），拿破仑的闪电战，即第四次反包围网战争（普鲁士在数周内被击溃，本尼格森的俄国人在弗里德兰被击败），瓦格拉姆之战（他在那里再次击败了奥地利人），德累斯顿战役（在寡不敌众的情况下获胜），法国北部的六日战役（6天内取得4场胜利）以及最后的利尼战役（对布吕歇尔的胜利，尽管不是决定性的）的胜利中的。
此外，很难将威灵顿在西班牙和葡萄牙的胜利归结为拿破仑的战术失误，因为他们两人在那里从未对垒过。在伊比利亚，威灵顿击败了拿破仑的许多下属（如朱诺将军、苏尔特元帅、茹尔丹元帅、马塞纳和马尔蒙），但没有击败拿破仑本人，因为当时他正忙于与奥地利人、俄国人、普鲁士人进一步东征，并与玛丽-路易丝大公夫人结婚（不过她可以算作他与奥地利人的一场生意）。1815年的滑铁卢是他们在现代比利时那里唯一一次直接交手。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The overall result of Napoleon’s adventures was to kill millions and lead his country to catastrophe. His conduct in Palestine was so brutal his own generals were appalled - his abandoning of his starving troops was shameful. He was directing affairs in Spain with an army he had formed and trained and which was carrying out his policies. He never managed to build a viable navy. He lost the largest army in history during his disastrous Russian adventure. His overall strategy was a total failure, despite his tactical successes. And the 100 days was an exercise of pure ego which again killed many thousands. Not someone I greatly admire.
Was he a better general than Washington? For sure - Washington was hardly a military genius. The Revolution was a sideshow for Britain at the time and wasn’t particularly popular at home - in the same way that Vietnam wasn’t popular in the US. Britain was occupied with more important conflicts elsewhere, to put it mildly, and the supply lines were extremely problematic. Even so, without the help of France and Spain Washington would have been crushed.
拿破仑军事冒险的总体结果是杀害了数百万人，将他的国家引向灾难。他在巴勒斯坦的行为非常野蛮，连他自己的将军们都感到震惊--他抛弃了饥饿的部队，这是很可耻的。他在西班牙指挥的是一支由他组建和训练的军队，这支军队正在执行他的政策。他从未设法建立一支有实力的海军。他在灾难性的俄国冒险中失去了历史上最大的军队。尽管他在战术上取得了成功，但他的总体战略完全是失败的。而100天的复辟是一次纯粹的自我演习，又一次杀死了成千上万的人。这不是我非常钦佩的那种人。
他是一个比华盛顿更好的将军吗？当然--华盛顿很难说是一个军事天才。美国革命在当时对英国来说是一件次要的事情，在国内并不特别受欢迎--就像越南战争在美国不受欢迎一样。温和地说，英国被其他地方更重要的冲突所占据，而且补给线也非常有问题。即便如此，如果没有法国和西班牙的帮助，华盛顿早就被击垮了。
“The overall result of Napoleon’s adventures was to kill millions”. Never put things in perspective do you? Funnily enough, apart from Russia in 1812, Napoleon was never responsible for any single Napoleonic war. He always defended the French Revolution against monarchies. But British propaganda tells you he was a warmonger…At least he wasn’t the cynical one funding wars for others to fight. Remember British troops counted only for 37% of the coalition force at Waterloo…
"拿破仑的军事冒险的总体结果是杀死了数百万人"。你从来没有把事情看清楚，对吗？有趣的是，除了1812年的对俄战争，拿破仑从不对任何一场拿破仑战争负责。他只是一直在捍卫法国革命，反对君主制。但是英国的宣传告诉你他是一个战争贩子......至少他不是那种见利忘义资助战争让别人去打的人。请记住在滑铁卢战役中，英国军队只占联军的37%......
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Most serious American military historians or history buffs are not going to rate Washington in the same league as Napoleon Bonaparte. Our best general in the 18th/19th Century would have been Scott or Grant. Napoleon was still better than them, but they had a chance.
Washington was a better statesman. He was more in the line of the great Roman Cincinnaticus who took up the mantle of power and voluntarily gave it up at his peak. This was a trait that even Bonaparte remarked was remarkable.
If we needed a man to lead armies in a great campaign, no one beat Napoleon. If we needed a man to lead a fledgling Republic, no one beats Washington. (Yes, I am an American).
大多数严肃的美国军事历史学家或历史爱好者都不会把华盛顿与拿破仑-波拿巴放在同一个级别上。我们在18/19世纪最好的将军应该是斯科特或格兰特。拿破仑仍然比他们强，但他们有比一比的机会。
华盛顿是一个更好的政治家。他更像伟大的罗马人辛辛那提斯，他接过权力的衣钵，在巅峰时期主动放弃了权力。这是连波拿巴都提及过的一个特点，很了不起。
如果我们需要一个人带领军队进行一场伟大的战役，没有人能够打败拿破仑。如果我们需要一个人领导一个刚刚起步的共和国，没有人比得上华盛顿。(是的，我是一个美国人）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I don’t see a point in coloring generals from different time period when they aren’t facing similar enemies. Personally, I don’t know much about Grant’s military tactics other than he was very aggressive(statistically, he was very aggressive. He led battle after battle in short notice, however, he had the means to replenish his men, so it’s ok), however, I believe he could have demolished Napoleon for the simple reason of advancement of technology. Musket may have stayed the same with tweaks to percussion cap but cavalry improved with the repeating rifle, their cannons shot farther and more accurately(12lb field artillery), and knowledge of rails would make the ability to outflank or reposition would be decisive.
Hell, Patton, Rommel, Pershing, Zhukov, Eisenhower, McArthor, and Montgomery to bake a few led hundreds of thousands of men and would be able to defeat Alexander in an hour at max. Technology makes generals less “great”, and I really don’t understand how to compare two generals
当他们面对的根本不是类似的敌人时，我不认为对不同时期的将军进行比较有什么意义。就我个人而言，我对格兰特的军事战术了解不多，只知道他很有侵略性（从统计学上讲，他非常有侵略性。他在短时间内领导了一场又一场的战斗，然而，他有办法补充他的人，所以这也是可以的），然而，我相信他可以摧毁拿破仑，原因很简单，技术的进步。火枪可能保持不变，只是对击发枪帽进行了调整，但骑兵因连发步枪而得到改进，他们的大炮射得更远、更准确（12磅野战大炮），对铁轨的了解将使包抄或重新定位的能力具有决定性。
淦，巴顿、隆美尔、潘兴、朱可夫、艾森豪威尔、麦克阿瑟和蒙哥马利带领数十万人，最多一个小时就能打败亚历山大。技术使将军们不那么"伟大"，我真的不明白为什么要比较两个将军。
Washington wasn't on Napoleon's level, but he did have a good strategic mind. He knew full well that he couldn't beat the British in the field, so he did the right thing, just making sure his army existed. There was only one way that he could succeed, make the British decide it wasn't worth the money and time to subdue the colonies.
华盛顿没有达到拿破仑的水平，但他确实有一个良好的战略头脑。他清楚地知道，他无法在战场上击败英国人，所以他做了正确的事情，就是确保他的军队的存在。他只有一个办法可以成功，那就是让英国人觉得不值得花钱和时间来征服殖民地。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
While you can't compare Napoleon's military genius with Washington's ’above average' military career; there is one area where Washington truly outshines Napoleon. At the height of his power Napoleon made himself an Emperor while at the height of his, Washington reluctantly accepted the position of President and then after 8 years retired to his farm.
虽然你无法将拿破仑的军事天才与华盛顿只是"高于平均水平"的军事生涯拿来相比较；但有一个领域，华盛顿确实胜过拿破仑。拿破仑在其权力的巅峰时期自立为皇帝，而在其权力的巅峰时期，华盛顿不情愿地接受了总统的职位，然后在8年后退居农场。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处