Washington killed early on

What if George Washington were killed early on during the American Revolution? Who would be the sucessor? Bendict Arnold? Charles Lee? How does the war progress without him?
 
Hasn't this already been done ?

I recall that there was a similar thread on no Washington during the ARW on the previous board and who'd be his likely replacements such as Lee, Arnold, or as I suggested Israel Putnam, although there was a slight difference in speculating WI he'd been killed during the French & Indian War.

Just a bit of a spinoff- what sorta supreme American military commander could Putnam had made during the ARW if Washington hadn't been around ?
 
Probably couldn't have been worse than Washington.

More interesting (in my view, at least), is how the political scene would develop in the United States (assuming everything else goes off as OTL) without Washington. Could an anti-Federalist have become the first president, and what sort of changes would the absense of the universally-loved Federalist Washington have entailed for America's political development?
 
uh, worse than Washington?! He's generally considered to have had the best strategy of all the commanders, although his tactical skill was pretty bad (he lost nearly every battle he was in). Arnold, Greene, and Morgan could probably have done as well tactically as Washington... it's unclear if their strategy would have been as well, as they were never in charge of the whole army. Gates or Charles Lee in command would have been a disaster, leading to the US staying in the Empire (don't smirk, Grey.. :) )
 
David Howery said:
uh, worse than Washington?! He's generally considered to have had the best strategy of all the commanders, although his tactical skill was pretty bad (he lost nearly every battle he was in). Arnold, Greene, and Morgan could probably have done as well tactically as Washington... it's unclear if their strategy would have been as well, as they were never in charge of the whole army. Gates or Charles Lee in command would have been a disaster, leading to the US staying in the Empire (don't smirk, Grey.. :) )

Actually Washington wasn't too bad tactically, either. The defeats he suffered prior to 1778 were due more to the very poor quality of the troops under his command than to anything Washington himself did tactically. Prior to von Steuben's training of the Continental army, Washington's troops usually ran away rather than stand and face British bayonets (White Plains, Harlem Heights, Brandywine), and the same lack of training made trying to carry off any kind of tactics requiring maneuver and coordination (Germantown) just about impossible. And after 1778, Washington rarely had the opportunity to display his tactical abilities...the Battle of Monmouth was about it, and of course that was screwed up by Charles Lee. And we should remember that even before 1778, Washington managed to pull off some tactical victories...Trenton and Princeton, for example...despite all the handicaps he faced.

I agree that his great strength was strategic, and I think the colonists would have been hard pressed to find anyone better. Nathaniel Greene would have been good...he was an excellent strategic general, and seems to have thought very much like Washington with regard to strategy, so he might have been the best choice. But it is unlikely that Greene would have ended up in that role. In all likelihood it would have been Horatio Gates or Charles Lee who ended up in command, for political reasons. And in that case, I agree with you, we would all be singing "God Save the Queen" today at baseball games instead of "The Star Spangled Banner."
 
Lets add to our assessment of Washington that he was a man of great decency, and sincerely embraced the ideals of the revolution. Consider his response to the Newburgh thugs...what a brilliantly worded and utterly devastating response he delivered to that gang...
 
Top