Richard Howe could be considered the most successful general, when compared to William Howe and George Washington. The bases of this argument are mainly; the military experience of each general and the number of recorded mistakes made by each general during their military expeditions. One of the main reasons, Richard Howe was the most successful general was because of his vast experience in military leadership or command. In hindsight Richard Howe had far more experience of being a military leader than William and Washington as he was enlisted in the Royal Navy in 1739 and then became Admiral, the rank of the highest naval officers, in 1775. He was also serving as commander in chief, “the officer holding supreme command of the forces in an area or operation”, of a Mediterranean fleet. This is a great portfolio of military leadership when compared to William Howe, who was only a Major general, “which is the lowest ranking general officer” by the year 1775 which was the same year his brother became an Admiral. He was also a Commander in Chief during the American Revolution and so equal to his brother, but his brother had more leadership experience as he had also served as an Admiral. When compared to George Washington who was a Major in the Virginian militia, “which is a field grade military officer rank above the rank of captain and below the rank of lieutenant colonel” in 1752. He was then appointed Commander in Chief of the Continental army, which was a wrong choice on the part of the Americans as “George had never been responsible for …show more content…
The reasons being; the military experience of each general and the number of recorded mistakes made by each general during their military expeditions. But as to whether the lack of recorded mistakes by him was as a result of little participation during the war is another