Jump to content

Talk:George Washington/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

West Ford - alleged illegitimate son of Washington with his brother's slave

Perhaps some mention of these allegations of an illegitimate son with his brother's slave should be included:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/07/us/descendants-of-slave-s-son-contend-that-his-father-was-george-washington.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/report1.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/report1t.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/tofords.html

http://www.westfordlegacy.com/fordbio.html

Heavenlyblue (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

'Oral history', which often morphs into one version after another over the years, can't be considered anything more than age old rumor -- esp when there are no viable facts to back it up, unlike the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings theory which has a number of facts, (however inconclusive) to support it, including DNA evidence that links male members of the Jefferson family to Hemings' children. There are no such facts to support this apparent attack on Washington. Media orgs like PBS typically run this sort of sensational thing to promote sales and to keep themselves prominent in the public eye, realizing that all they have to do is mention 'racism' or 'slave' and they will automatically have many viewers (esp the young and/or naive) eating out of their hand. Unless there are reliable sources than can give us something more than 'Simon sez' it's best not to take this very seriously. We should let PBS, the Enquirer, and the 'Friends of America' crowd entertain themselves with this sort of stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Two problems with brushing the idea off so quickly. First, it's not really correct to cite an absence of DNA evidence as a point against the idea when the family and estate have, according to these accounts, blocked access to family DNA for testing. To me that suggests an attempt to hide something. Second, this is exactly how the Jefferson/Hemings saga started - with mockery, blanket denials, blocked access to possible evidence, and the marshalling of a loud chorus of 'official' opinion. And as for the idea put forward by some that absence of records of trips to his brother's home in the period in question demonstrates the impossibility of paternity I would say: However scrupulous he was in his record-keeping, is it really plausable that he would record details of visits that would potentially implicate him in an illicit affair with his brother's slave? On the contrary, I would assume he would be extremely discrete. Who knows? But I wouldn't discount the idea too quickly. The more DNA testing that is done on African Americans, the more it becomes clear that these types of liaisons were extremely common. (African Americans have, on average, one quarter European DNA. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans) Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The "estate" (otherwise known as The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association) says that the FBI tested various hair samples of George Washington's hair that they have and that DNA samples cannot be gotten from that hair - the DNA is too degraded. The Frontline report about Mount Vernon's response to the Ford family's queries also refutes the idea that the estate blocked DNA testing: "The Association is committed to providing samples of Washington's hair for DNA analysis, when science concludes that these hair samples can resolve the issue of West Ford's paternity. The Association is committed to historical accuracy." Also, I am unaware of any assertion, either in the 1999 NY Times article or elsewhere, stating that Washington relatives blocked access to family DNA. To test the DNA experts would need a male lineal descendant of West Ford's with the last name of Ford and a male lineal descendant of Washington's with the last name of Washington. Since George Washington had no known Washington descendants, the only test that could be done would be to test a Washington family-member who had a straight line of paternity to a known GW relative. That type of testing could only prove or disprove that the Fords are somehow related to George Washington but it could possibly distinctly prove that the Fords are a direct descendant of another Washington family-line. The general consensus of historians at this time is that it is possible West Ford could be a son of one of Washington's nephews. I am personally unsure where this particular claim would be placed within the article, it was never publicly made during Washington's lifetime and has only come to light since the 1990s (unlike the rumors about Sally Hemmings which Jefferson's political enemies published during Jefferson's lifetime). It is possible that West Ford is notable enough in Virginia history and African-American history to have a Wikipedia article written about him - sourced statements about his parentage would belong there first and elsewhere second. Shearonink (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Heavenlyblue: Anyone could claim they were related to Washington, and if they didn't get cooperation they could also cry "unfair" and claim someone was trying to "hide something". Should we list this in the article every time this occurs?? As for the Jefferson and Hemings case, several lawyers have examined this advent and said that if this was a modern day paternity suit there would not even be enough evidence to make it to court, let alone winning any such case. If they held up 'oral history' in the attempt to sell their case they would be laughed out of court, again, if they even made it to court. Again, this is all socially and politically motivated, and the sad thing is, the attack comes off as successful simply because people are discussing it and because there are so many politically and racially motivated people ready to lap this sort of thing up without question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't agree that the West Ford descendants' claims are politically and socially motivated. It is their history, their oral history. My family tells stories about ancestors and family-members - doesn't make these stories necessarily verifiable but it doesn't mean that we are socially & politically motivated in the telling of our stories either. The long-standing oral traditions in two distinct West Ford family-lines (told independently of any knowledge of the stories in the other family-lines) points to the idea that there is something of substance in this family's assertions. So far, the collateral documents (diaries, newspaper accounts, weather during the time Ford was probably conceived etc, etc) point to the idea that George Washington was not the father and point more to a Washington relative being the father, most probably one of Hannah Bushrod Washington's sons (because of the way she treated Ford, etc.) Like I said upthread, it would appear to me that West Ford is notable enough for a stand-alone article of his own. Any sourced statements about his background or parentage would belong in that article first and elsewhere second.
The Ford family would have to find a Washington son of Washington that descends from Hannah Bushrod Washington and John Augustine Washington and have that DNA compared to a Ford son of Ford that is descended from West Ford. If that DNA matches then that match would prove descendancy from that family-line. Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If the two distant Ford familes were sharing the same story there would of had to of been a 'common denominator' way back when somewhere when the families were not so distant. Two separate families spreading the same rumor doesn't amount to anything by itself. In any case I should have been more specific. The people who usually try to promote these stories, esp in the media, regardless of the absence of any viable facts, are whom I was generally referring to. This is and was esp so with the Jefferson-Hemings theory, beginning with James Callender's attack on Jefferson just before and during Jefferson's presidency. In any case, we can't be entertaining anyone who comes along with a story, or 'oral history', in a public and presidential biography unless there are some concrete facts to support it. From what I've seen thus far there are none. Only stories, speculations and the usual conjecture that follows. e.g. 'They must be hiding something -- therefore he is guilty'. There are just too many people ever-ready to gobble this stuff up without question. Does anyone know if the Ford family was approached by the media, or did they come forward on their own accord? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Ford descendants approached Mount Vernon on their own. According to the 1999 NYTImes article their oral histories were traditional in separate family-lines that did not know of each other (Wiencek says it was 1985). Henry Wiencek's "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America" has a fairly-complete background on the development of this asserted history, especially pages 294-310.
And I don't see anyone gobbling up anything without question - this is a discussion between various editors about whether or not to include this particular material in the George Washington article. And while it is interesting, I think at this time the content does not belong in the article. I appreciate your skepticism regarding this matter but at the same time...just because you believe something not to be so doesn't make that something not so, just because there is no documentary proof of an asserted fact doesn't make that assertion necessarily what I would call a rumor. West Ford's complete parentage remains at this time a mystery and certain descendants hold a deeply-cherished belief about his parentage. I don't think it is necessary to characterize that belief as a "rumor ready to be gobbled up". Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Rumor, story, oral "history", call it what you will. 'Gobbling' wasn't in reference to any editor here. Yes, I am skeptical, obviously, but with valid reasons, given the way the DNA connection to the Jefferson family was reported by Nature magazine in 1998, which singled out Thomas Jefferson and had 'concluded' that he had fathered 'all' of Hemings' six children, and in spite of the fact that there was only a DNA link to one child. My skepticism is also based on the way the idea of Jefferson paternity was automatically accepted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation investigation committee. Dr. W. M. Wallenborn of the T.J.F, while serving on the committee to evaluate DNA and other evidence, noted that most of the committee members had been coached by outside interests and had already came in with an opinion before the evaluation had even begun, while they routinely ignored much of the evidence that tended to exonerate Jefferson. Further, the T.J.F. did not seek outside independent opinion/investigation but included only members of the T.J.F. We discussed this 'process' at length back in 2011, 2013, (and at other times) on the Jefferson talk page. There is obviously a 'school of thought' out there that just lies in wait for this sort of stuff. i.e.'The truth be damned -- let's just make our statement'. Yes, we can at least agree that the Ford story doesn't belong in the Washington biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the parentage of West Ford and his asserted relatedness to George Washington does not belong at this time in this particular article. But I am always open to being convinced otherwise by reliably-sourced information. Shearonink (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Fine, if that's the consensus. Gwillhickers, I find your tone and language very insulting. You may want to consider toning that down. And I fail to see how families sharing their long-held stories constitutes an 'attack'. Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Heavenlyblue, as I've explained, there are valid reasons to be skeptical here. My tone was that of skepticism and was not directed at you personally, so I don't quite understand why you feel insulted. My objections are well founded and not unreasonable. This advent can easily be seen as an attack on Washington's character as it more than suggests he was fooling around on his wife Martha. Not necessarily by the Ford family, but by media and activist types who often exploit this sort of thing for their own sordid reasons. (i.e.PBS ran, not just one, but three articles on this -- no doubt there will be more.) Also, the possibility of Washington having any children at all comes into question as it is quite likely he was sterile from contracting small pox at age 19, and because he had no children with Martha. In any case, if you can present us with something more than oral history, something based in viable facts, not just incidental and fuzzy facts, there will be no objections to entertaining any such material. I've never been one to suppress facts, and if you care to look into matters further, I've always insisted, sometimes at the objections of those trying to advance opinion in place of facts, that as many facts be included as possible, esp where controversial issues are involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

1. Martha Parke Custis is not listed with her nickname, "Patsy," when first introduced. Later when her death is described, it's not clear that Patsy and Martha Parke Custis are the same person. "Together the two raised her two children from her previous marriage, John Parke Custis and Martha Parke Custis;" Should be: Together the two raised her two children from her previous marriage, John Parke Custis and Martha Parke (Patsy) Custis;  Done

2. Also, the word "moral" in the below sentence (located in the "Valley Forge" section) should be "morale," and a comma after the word "desertion" would strengthen the sentence.

"As conditions worsened Washington was faced with the task of maintaining moral and discouraging desertion which by February had become common.[111]" Should be: "As conditions worsened, Washington was faced with the task of maintaining morale and discouraging desertion, which by February had become common.[111]"  Done


Linabella (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest, and btw, Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Washington's involvement in Espionage

George Washington was involved with the Culper ring, being the commander and chief, ordering Benjamin Tallmadge to establish the espionage circle. he was known as agent 711, and was also involved with the production of invisible ink used by the Culper ring. i can confirm this with multiple sources, credibility is not the issue, I am just wondering if this is deemed important enough to be added to his page. Personally i find it very interesting as it is not a well known fact that Washington relied on spies heavily for information and also sending misinformation to the british. i would like some input on if it is worth editing on my sandbox or if i should just not attempt the edits. DMysz (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that I find it odd - now that you have pointed the issue out - that there is no mention of the Culper spy ring or of Washington's involvement in spy/counterspy matters during the American Revolution. That being said, this article is already pretty darn huge (clocking in at 81kB of readable prose size), I would hesitate to add additional content to this article before first improving associated articles like Abraham Woodhull, Robert Townsend (spy), Benjamin Tallmadge, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence operations in the American Revolutionary War, and so on. (The Woodhull article is especially in need of referencing from reliable sources.) For the moment, in lieu of adding additional content to this article, I am adding an entry under "See also" to Culper Ring. If espionage by George Washington & the Americans during the Revolutionary War is an area you're interested in, there are many other WP articles that could do with some improving . Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
You make some good points about improving the other articles, i will start looking into the ones you listed in your response. I know one should be cautious editing this article but, one, two or maybe even three sentences, as a maximum, about his involvement with the Culper Ring would still be appropriate and a little bit more useful to readers than one reference in the "See also" section. Considering there are four pictures in the current article pertaining to Washington on stamps, i do not believe it would effect the article's broadness in coverage considering it directly relates to Washington and is still a focused article. a couple sentences, in my opinion, wouldn't be an unnecessary amount of detail.DMysz (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)DMysz
I've been puzzling over this since your initial post and can't quite figure out myself where in the article a sentence or two about Washington's intelligence activities could be placed or should be placed...at the beginning of the Arnold section? Indicating when/where/why the Ring started within the timeline of the war? If this is something you want to do, I suggest you craft a short section about Washington's espionage activities during the American Revolution in your user sandbox (maybe including a link to the main article about the Culper Ring at the beginning of that section). I'd be glad to lend a hand. I'll post further on your user talk. Shearonink (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Washington a British Officer?

I am currently reading a bio on Washington ("Washington's Revolution" by Middlekauf) and it states that Washington was never commissioned by the King or the British army despite several personal requests during his time with the Virginia militia. Other short bios indicate the same. Is it incorrectly stated in this article that Washington became a "senior British officer" during the French and Indian war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magpi3 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that. Shearonink (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Defeat at New York

"The Continental Army under Washington engaged the enemy"

It would probably be more accurate to say, in the parlance of the day, that "the Continental Army was engaged by the enemy" at Long Island, given that it was the British who attacked Washington, and he believed this was a feint until too late.


"With the Americans in retreat Howe was then able to take the offensive and on November 16, landed his troops on the island"

In actual fact, Howe landed his troops on York Island ( Manhattan) at Kips Bay on the 15th September 1776 and within 24 hours had occupied the lower portion of the island, driving Washington's forces back to Harlem Heights where he established strong defences. Unwilling to risk a costly frontal attack, General Howe kept his troops in the same positions for the next two months, while hoping to manouevre Washington out of New York. The landings on November 16 were to envelop Fort Washington from the north and east as well as from the established positions on the south.

JF42 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Under the section titled 'Demobilization' the following statement appears: Historian John Shy says that by 1783 Washington was "a mediocre military strategist but had become a master political tactician with an almost perfect sense of timing and a developed capacity to exploit his charismatic reputation, using people who thought they were using him." This is the opinion of a historian, not a fact about George Washington. It is rather derogatory of George Washington's character and is stated as if it were a fact. My personal opinion disagrees with such a statement- George Washington's 'mediocre... strateg(ies)' won the American Revolutionary War and he had great reservations about entering the political world- review the following article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/george-washington-the-reluctant-president-49492/?no-ist. I think the statement should be removed for clarity and factual evidence. Dinomaniac12 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I want to explain this because my research has led me to this "not done" conclusion, and because nobody likes it when aspersions are cast upon favorite historic figures. The first fact to consider is that the text is referenced to a cited American journal entry by the historian John W. Shy. And you have not provided a reference citation to oppose his view, only your "personal opinion", which on Wikipedia is considered "original research" and is not allowed in encyclopedic articles. The second fact is that Shy is not the only historian who has concluded the same about George Washington. The great general's genius seems to have been his surrounding himself with excellent strategists and having the wisdom to listen to their counsel. It is also important to note that Washington's noted hesitancy to become president has nothing to do with his growing political acumen. Abe Lincoln was another with the same hesitancy, the same acumen, and there were many others like them. Even the greatest among us have their shortcomings, and even the least among us have their strong suits.  Paine  u/c 06:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Much of Washington's mediocre strategy was politically thrust on him by Congress, such as defending New York City when about to be surrounded by a British fleet. But he had a huge lobbying correspondence with Congressional and state officials to persuade the civilians who by his principles, must have authority over the military in a democratic republic, even in wartime. Even Napoleon conceded that he was not as great a man as Washington in "moderation, disinterestedness, and wisdom" due to circumstances in France, "Had I been in America, I would willingly have been a Washington." At Washington's death, all French army standards throughout the Empire were draped in black crepe for ten days. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Response: It seems that the only reason you have rejected my request that the page be edited is that I have not cited another source giving the opposite opinion. I would agree with much that you have said; the fact that many of his biggest strategic failures were forced upon him by Congress and other officers; that he listened to his military councils and then chose the best suggestions; and that he had a growing political reputation. The thing I would disagree with is Shy's idea that he exploited that reputation to use people. This statement is not backed up by any factual evidence or examples. I have done some research and found the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, who was rather critical of Washington's policies see http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/thomas-jefferson/. This was a man who actually knew Washington, not just the opinion of a historian two centuries later. Please at least quote one who knew him well, flaws and all. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Washington 15 years after he died: "His mind was great and powerful, without being of the very first order; his penetration strong, though, not so acute as that of a Newton, Bacon, or Locke; and as far as he saw, no judgment was ever sounder. It was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion. Hence the common remark of his officers, of the advantage he derived from councils of war, where hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever was best; and certainly no General ever planned his battles more judiciously. But if deranged during the course of the action, if any member of his plan was dislocated by sudden circumstance, he was slow in re-adjustment. The consequence was, that he often failed in the field, and rarely against an enemy in station, as at Boston and York. He was incapable of fear, meeting personal dangers with the calmest unconcern. Perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration, was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose, whatever obstacles opposed. His integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. He was, indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, and a great man. His temper was naturally high toned; but reflection and resolution had obtained a firm and habitual ascendancy over it. If ever, however, it broke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath. In his expenses he was honorable, but exact; liberal in contributions to whatever promised utility; but frowning and unyielding on all visionary projects and all unworthy calls on his charity. His heart was not warm in its affections; but he exactly calculated every man's value, and gave him a solid esteem proportioned to it. His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback. Although, in the circle of his friends, where he might be unreserved with safety, he took a free share in conversation, his colloquial talents were not above mediocrity, possessing neither copiousness of Ideas, nor fluency of words. In public, when called on for a sudden opinion, he was unready, short, and embarassed. Yet he wrote readily, rather diffusely, in an easy and correct style. This he had acquired by conversation with the world, for his education was merely reading, writing, and common arithmetic, to which he added surveying at a later day. His time was employed in action chiefly, reading little, and that only In agriculture and English history. His correspondence became necessarily extensive, and, with journalizing his agricultural proceedings, occupied most of his leisure hours within doors. On the whole, his character was, in its mass, perfect, in nothing bad, in few points indifferent; and it may truly be said, that never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have merited from man an everlasting remembrance. For his was the singular destiny and merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down Into a quiet and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example." - Letter to Dr. Walter Jones, describing George Washington, January 2, 1814. This quote can be found online at http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/thomas-jefferson-quotations-1.html. Dinomaniac12 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016

George Washington was the first president under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Henryduross (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

may i please edit this Exzavier k (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

he was great a very good friend to me and my family back in the day 96.5.147.240 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What?? I doubt it! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: This is not the place for general posts about George Washington. An article's talk page's sole purpose is for discussion about improving the article - nothing more, nothing less. Shearonink (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Article semi-protection

The article doesn't have a padlock of Semi-protection, but only registered members can edit it, could you please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.153.193 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The semi-protection icon has been placed on the article. Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

his siblings were lawrence,betty,john,samuel,charles,augustine jr,butler,jane,mildred,all washingtons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.241.34 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

50.58.2.66 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

dgcdyhgdbycdhgydhcgdbcudhbuhcgbyhcgycgbujehcgujhcbujehb

 Not done Request parsing error. Mcewan (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding that Washington was a politician?

Administrator's view that all US Presidents should have "politician" in the lead

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=754263393&oldid=754262833

RFC discussing this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Presidents#All_Presidents_are_politicians.3F

Should we say that George Washington was an American politician, soldier, and statesman? Should I make the change to see how it looks like? Usernamen1 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I just noticed this. This is a POINTy spillover from the Donald Trump article. Nobody there has said that Washington should be identified as a politician and I think this comment can be safely ignored. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Continental Army Flag

On the page a flag is shown for the Continental Army, but the flag shown is the Gadsden flag. The Gadsden Flag was not the flag for any Continental Army activity, it was used by the continental marines, see the Gadsden flag page. Because there has been a political enthusiasm for this flag, it is necessary to review why a flag not directly associated with George Washington is displayed on the George Washington page.

Note, on the Wikipedia page for Continental Army, the word flag does not appear, the word Gadsden does not appear, the image of the Gadsden flag does not appear, and no image on that page contains a representation of the Gadsden flag.

I would like consensus that the flag is out of place and should be removed from the George Washington page. If possible, I suggest to replace the Gadsden flag with the Ross flag or similar, as described by the second continental congress, "Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapuanoMS (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the inaccurate Gadsden Flag (which is by no means the sole property of teabaggers; it was used by the Counter-Bicentennial movement in 1976) with the 1777-1795 thirteen-star U.S. flag. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. In the first paragraph, it would be better if there would be a link to the Constitution Convention that happened in Philadelphia. It's not that very well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.73.134 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done · 94.116.73.134, I have added a link to Constitutional Convention (United States) in the article's opening paragraph. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017pikachu

98.170.217.223 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There was no request made. Please indicate what you want in the form "Change <X> to <Y>, where "X" is the text you want changed and "Y" is what you want instead. Thank you. YBG (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

185.49.42.243 (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

George washingon is a boy who lives in Poland and ha 5 brothers and 69 mons because he likes to have America all to him self and I know that I cannot spell to save my life but yeh I am a savage and I like coco nuts.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Cherry tree ambiguity.

For clarity's sake the Cherry tree section should be slightly rewritten, as it refers to the tree being cut down, and then later says that in the original story the tree was 'barked' instead of cut down.

One should probably consult the original sources, since in general the section seems very disorganized and a mixture of unrelated edits / additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElricMelvar (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Spelling error

Very unfortunate, in last para of first section before CONTENTS, it reads "Virgina" instead of "Virginia" Fleurs1989 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it - thanks for pointing that out. AlexiusHoratius 01:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Pennsylvania troops mutiny line in 4.9 "Arnold's treason"

The line " (resulting in a considerable mutiny by some Pennsylvania troops)" was removed, I restored it, my change was reverted so I am posting the information and sources here so it can be discussed. Perhaps Dilidor is correct about this information possibly needed a subsection (re the various mutinies in 1781, by the Pennsylvania Line and the New Jersey Line).
The following are some general references I have gathered up for the mutiny (perhaps I'll add some more to this list as I find them). Washington was in the New Windsor NY winter quarters but the Continental Army was also in winter quarters in various locations in New Jersey, the mutiny the original editor seems to be referring to is the Pennsylvania Line's January 1781 mutiny, but there was also a serious mutiny of New Jersey troops which took place that same month:

It seems to me that the two mutinies should be at least be mentioned as being part of Washington's career during the Revolution but let's discuss etc. Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I certainly was not doubting the veracity of the statement. My reasons in deleting it were: A) it is a considerable statement to make in passing without expanding on it; B) it offered no supporting citation where an interested reader could seek further information. I do think that the topic deserves at least a separate paragraph of explication, if not its own sub-section. The mutiny does have its own article, but I do think it deserves some mention in this article—something more than a parenthetical mention in passing, however. —Dilidor (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Since I don't have access to the cited source at the end of that paragraph I wasn't sure if the PA Line mutiny was mentioned there or not. Frankly, I didn't even know that there were multiple mutinies (both the PA Line and the NJ Line in 1781) during the Rev War until I did that little bit of research earlier today. The mutinies don't belong as subject-matter in the "Arnold's treason" section since he had nothing to do with them. I think the treason section muddies the 1780-1781 timeline a bit (especially in conjunction with the subsequent section "Victory at Yorktown") by jumping around from 1778 to winter 1780 back to July 1780 and then to the surrender... As a matter of fact, the "Washington's army went into winter quarters at New Windsor in 1780" paragraph doesn't seem to belong in with Arnold at all...so I've just now put in a subsection for it (then the 1781 mutinies and their fallout can be added later). When I have time (probably not until next week or whenever) I can write up something more and hopefully it will meet with editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A very nice solution. —Dilidor (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Goerge Washington's hair naturally flowed in the way it does. He only needed to add white powder to it. 2601:247:4102:4FCA:8DEA:1A9A:F681:DDA0 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wut

I don't know how, I don't know WHY, but the title of George Washington was Francesco Ferrara for some reason. When I hit reset, it changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.128.18 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

There was some vandalism that has since been cleaned up. Shearonink (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to associated George Washington "Lists"

Not sure where else I could post this but I would like to get other opinions on recent changes to List of memorials to George Washington (see its editing history). This new list is a redirect/rename of List of monuments dedicated to George Washington and List of places named for George Washington. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on the List, please weigh in at Talk:List of memorials to George Washington. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Please change "Augustine was a tobacco planter who also tried his hand in iron-mining ventures." to "Augustine was a tobacco planter who also tried his hand in iron-manufacturing ventures." because upon investigation of the biography cited in the article [1] the text says nothing of iron-mining but specifies the manufacture of iron as in a foundry. Surfacelevelinvestigator (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Alden, John R. (1993). George Washington, a Biography. Norwalk: Easton Press.

Benedict Arnold

There is a book Valiant Ambition George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick (2016) that discusses Washington and Arnold. It may offer new insight on the relationship between Arnold and Washington. It discusses why Arnold defected or committed treason. If this makes any difference. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of flags and insignias from multiple info boxes

User Huberthof has been getting around these past couple of days with his newly created account, and seems to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles, mostly those of American military people. This users cites a guideline about flags in infoboxes (which btw says nothing about insignia), but ignores the fact that every guideline stipulates "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Famous military people are such exceptions. Other editors have taken exception to this apparent mission to remove flags and insignia, mostly from the articles of prominent Americans, as evidenced on Huberthoff's Talk page. Imo, we should return these items to the infoboxes. Some of these articles, like George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant have had these items when they were approved for GA and FA status, with no issues all of this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017

Please add new histories of Washington concerning his key role in land speculation west of the Appalachian Mountains into what Virginians considered their western expansion areas pre-Revolutionary War. The newly published work by William Hogeland, "Autumn of the Black Snake," 201, documents the young Washington's early land survey work at age 21 for then lieutenant governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie. This was the founding of the Ohio Company for land acquisition in what was then Indian territory. ScottKC (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, exactly what do you want added, and where? Is it a reference or an external link or what? Please provide the verbatim wording you want to see. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

George's Marriage

Shouldn't that have it's own section and stuff? Ramesty (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Audio file

I'm of the opinion that the audio reading of this article should be removed. It's almost 10 years old and the text of the article has changed significantly since it was recorded. Cheef117 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow....I had no idea it was that old. I think you're right - not sure how to go about doing that though. I do hate to remove the file from the article without replacing it with something else... Shearonink (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

George loved Jesus

http://www.allabouthistory.org/george-washington-and-his-family-faq.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Hello? Ramesty (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. If you're proposing to add that link to the article, please don't. It doesn't meet the guidelines for either reliable sources or external links. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Mgray186 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

change UNAMBIGUOUSLY to specifically because UNAMBIGUOUSLY is hard to understand Nicole.theodoras.1 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nicole.theodoras.1:  Not done. The words "unambiguously" and "specifically" have different meanings. And neither word is used in this article anyway. CityOfSilver 02:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

George's Relationship with Martha

Digby Bizzoco (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

i want to add his age of now since you didn't add it which is 286 Ok just listen to me please23 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done if anyone is interested, they can work it out for themselves - furthermore, a number will go out of date - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia style

"In the process, he demonstrated bravery and stamina"
"He had the prestige, military experience, charisma, and military bearing of a military leader and was known as a strong patriot."

Isn't stuff like this without phrases like "he was seen as" a little non-Wikipedia like? E.g. in the second case, couldn't the "known as" be moved to the beginning instead? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Billy Lee and Jackie

I was surprised to notice this page does not mention Washington's most high regarded personal valet (slave) William Lee and Washington's only son "Jacky" who died after serving alongside his father in Yorktown... Two personal details that are absolutely worth some mention when giving an account of his personal life. JericVgilbert (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The article does mention Jacky by his proper name, John Parke Custis. The section on slavery has another article that goes into more detail which is George Washington and slavery and William Lee is discussed there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Uniqueness of tactics at Battle of Cowpens

The article describes Cowpens as "resulting in one of the very few double envelopments in military history" and links to the article on double envelopment / pincer movement. However, the article itself cites 28 notable examples (including Cowpens) and states "Even in the horse-and-musket era, the manoeuvre was used across many military cultures". I would suggest that the battle is better described as "resulting in one of the most notable victories by double envelopment in military history". Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Meddlingmonk (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)meddlingmonk

Probably a good idea, but do sources support "one of the most notable"? Several others are better known and have had more of an impact. Other battles with pincer movements include:

  • The Battle of Marathon (490 BC). The armies of Classical Athens and Plataea manage to defeat a numerically superior army of the Achaemenid Empire. The plan is attributed to Miltiades. "The Battle of Marathon was a watershed in the Greco-Persian wars, showing the Greeks that the Persians could be beaten; the eventual Greek triumph in these wars can be seen to begin at Marathon. The battle also showed the Greeks that they were able to win battles without the Spartans, as they had heavily relied on Sparta previously. This victory was largely due to the Athenians, and Marathon raised Greek esteem of them. Since the following two hundred years saw the rise of the Classical Greek civilization, which has been enduringly influential in western society, the Battle of Marathon is often seen as a pivotal moment in Mediterranean and European history."
  • Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BC). The armies of the League of Corinth and its allies manage to defeat a numerically superior army of the Pauravas. The plan is attributed to Alexander the Great. "Alexander's decision to cross the monsoon-swollen river despite close Indian surveillance, in order to catch Porus' army in the flank, has been referred as one of his "masterpieces". Although victorious, it was also the most costly battle fought by the Macedonians. The resistance put up by King Porus and his men won the respect of Alexander, who asked Porus to become one of his satraps. The Battle of the Hydaspes was the last battle of Alexander's conquering expedition. It is historically significant for opening up the Indian subcontinent to Greek political (Seleucid, Greco-Bactrian, Indo-Greek) and cultural influences (Greco-Buddhist art), which continued to have an impact for many centuries."
  • Battle of Cannae (216 BC). The armies of Ancient Carthage and its allies manage to defeat a numerically superior army of the Roman Republic and its own allies. The plan is attributed to Hannibal. " It is regarded both as one of the greatest tactical feats in military history and as one of the worst defeats in Roman history. Having recovered from their losses at Trebia (218 BC) and Lake Trasimene (217 BC), the Romans decided to engage Hannibal at Cannae, with roughly 86,000 Roman and allied troops. They massed their heavy infantry in a deeper formation than usual, while Hannibal used the double-envelopment tactic. This was so successful that the Roman army was effectively destroyed as a fighting force. Following the defeat, Capua and several other Italian city-states defected from the Roman Republic to Carthage."
  • Battle of Walaja (633). The army of the Rashidun Caliphate manages to defeat a numerically superior army of the Sasanian Empire and its allies. The plan is attributed to Khalid ibn al-Walid. Beginning of the end for the Sasanians. "After annihilating another army of the Sassanid Persians and their Christian Arab allies at the final Battle of Ullais, the Muslims conquered Hira, the capital city of Mesopotamia in late May 633. Later followed the conquest of Al-Anbar and the successful siege of Ein-al-Tamr. With the fall of the main cities the whole of Southern and Central Iraq, with the exception of Ctesiphon, came under Muslim control. In 634, Abu Bakr ordered Khalid ibn Walid to proceed to Syria with half of his army to command the invasion of the Byzantine Empire. Al-Muthanna bin Harith Al-Shaibani was left as the successor of Khalid. The Sassanids, under their new emperor Yazdgerd III, raised new armies and defeated the Muslims in the Battle of the Bridge, regaining some lost ground in Iraq. The second invasion of Iraq was undertaken under Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās who, after defeating the Sassanid army at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah in 636, captured Ctesiphon. After the Battle of Nihawand in 641 a whole scale invasion of the Persian Empire was carried out by Caliph Umar."
  • Battle of Manzikert (1071). The armies of the Seljuk Empire and its mercenaries defeat a numerically equivalent army of the Byzantine Empire and its own mercenaries. The plan is attributed to Alp Arslan. "The brunt of the battle was borne by the professional soldiers from the eastern and western tagmata, as large numbers of mercenaries and Anatolian levies fled early and survived the battle. The fallout from Manzikert was disastrous for the Byzantines, resulting in civil conflicts and an economic crisis that severely weakened the Byzantine Empire's ability to adequately defend its borders. This led to the mass movement of Turks into central Anatolia—by 1080, an area of 78,000 square kilometres (30,000 sq mi) had been gained by the Seljuk Turks. It took three decades of internal strife before Alexius I (1081 to 1118) restored stability to Byzantium. Historian Thomas Asbridge says: "In 1071, the Seljuqs crushed an imperial army at the Battle of Manzikert (in eastern Asia Minor), and though historians no longer consider this to have been an utterly cataclysmic reversal for the Greeks, it still was a stinging setback." It was the first time in history a Byzantine Emperor had become the prisoner of a Muslim commander."
  • Battle of Mohács (1526). The armies of the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate manage to defeat a numerically inferior allied army from the Kingdom of Hungary, Croatia in union with Hungary, the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, the Holy Roman Empire, the Duchy of Bavaria, the Papal States, and the Kingdom of Poland. The plan is attributed to Suleiman the Magnificent. "Mohács is seen by many Hungarians as the decisive downward turning point in the country's history, a national trauma that persists in the nation's folk memory. For moments of bad luck, Hungarians still say: "more was lost at Mohács" (Több is veszett Mohácsnál). Hungarians view Mohács as marking the end of an independent and powerful European nation. Whilst Mohács was a decisive loss, it was the aftermath that truly put an end to independent Hungary. The ensuing two hundred years of near constant warfare between the two empires, Habsburg and Ottoman, turned Hungary into a perpetual battlefield. The countryside was regularly ravaged by armies moving back and forth, in turn devastating the population. Only in the 19th century would Hungary regain some degree of autonomy, with full independence coming only after the First World War; however, the Treaty of Trianon awarded much of its former land to other states (such as Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia), and Hungary has never regained its former political power. In the 464 years from 1525 to 1989, Hungary spent the vast majority of the time under the direct or indirect domination of a foreign power. These foreign powers were, successively, the Ottoman Empire (1525-1686), the Holy Roman Empire (1686-1804), the Austrian Empire (1804-1867), and the Soviet Union (1945–1989); furthermore, between 1867 and 1918 Hungary was widely considered the "junior" partner in the Austro-Hungarian Empire: autonomy was granted, but stopped well short of independence."
  • Battle of Fraustadt (1706). The army of the Swedish Empire manages to defeat a numerically superior army of the Electorate of Saxony and the Tsardom of Russia. The plan is attributed to Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld. "The Swedish success in the battle was mainly due to Rehnskiöld effectively neutralising the Saxon infantry, who were superior in number at the start of the battle, combined with the pincer movement performed by the Swedish cavalry under Hummerhielm and von Krassow. Schulenburg also made two grave mistakes: first by being lured into terrain not to his advantage and then underestimating the mobility of the Swedish cavalry, especially on the flanks. It is known from Rehnskiöld's personal journals that he had intended a double envelopment from the beginning. The Battle of Fraustadt is one of the most classic double envelopments in military history. It is probable that Rehnskiöld had studied the Battle of Cannae 216 BC although it is uncertain if he intended to copy it. The captured Russians (some 500) were, according to some historians, executed by an order from Rehnskiöld, although involvement of the latter has been disputed. The authors further quotes Lieutenant Colonel Nils Gyllenstierna of the Norra Skånska cavalry regiment about the fate of the Russian infantry, (in Swedish) “på några 100 när massakrerat, emedan vi inte i begynnelsen kunde giva kvarter, eftersom vår vänstra flygel ännu stod i full eld” roughly translated as “all but a few hundred were massacred, as initially quarters could not be given, since our left flank was still in full assault”. The road to Saxony was open for King Charles XII of Sweden. King August II of Poland gave up his claim on the Polish crown, although he remained Elector Frederick Augustus I of Saxony. He would later regain the Polish throne in 1709. The prisoners taken by the Swedes during the battle that were of German, French and Swiss nationality were immediately reorganized into the ranks of the Swedish army. The Saxon prisoners were shipped to Sweden, where they formed a regiment and three battalions. This regiment made a good effort at the Battle of Helsingborg 1710." Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_13&oldid=1255840495"