Did you ever consider whether King George or George Washington would be better suited to lead? King George was not a bad leader as everyone claimed he was. King George and George Washington were both good leaders, but when you look deeper, you will realize who really was the better leader; King George. Thus, I believe King George would be better suited to lead, because King George was taught to be a leader since he was little, King George took care of his men well, and King George did what was best for the people. First of all, King George was raised being taught how to be a good leader since he was little, and he was born into a long history of kings and queens that all were experienced leaders. Hence, if he was taught by experienced leaders …show more content…
Although, the way of treatment that the two leaders had differs greatly. King George dressed his men in equal uniforms, to neatly present them. Not to mention, he had money to train them, and they were well fed and treated. On the other hand, George Washington had his men in ragged clothing that didn’t match, and most had no shoes to protect their feet from the ground. George didn’t train the soldiers, and they were starved and cold in the harsh weather. This shows how George Washington treated his men terribly, while King George kept his men well-fed, clothed, and sheltered. If King George was the leader, then he would treat soldiers much better than George Washington would. Also, when George Washington was near the British soldiers during the war, instead of telling himself that his soldiers were too weak, cold, hungry, and tired to fight, he pushes them to the extreme to try and defeat the British soldiers. Although, George Washington’s side did win, he pushed his men too much, resulting in many deaths from starvation, freezing, or even from just being too weak and tired. King George wouldn’t, and didn’t, push his soldiers to fight unless they were strong enough to do