Since biographies of George Washington seem to suffer from his infamous inscrutability, instead of focusing on the person we may never know, Lengel writes a biography of Washington the military man, whose exploits are well recorded. Readers will not require a working knowledge of strategy and tactics to be able to follow the author's narrative or his assessment of Washington as a military commander. At the risk of spoiling the book, the conclusion is that he made some astonishing blunders and appears to have been unhealthily interested in matters of rank and protocol, but that he was one of history's great military administrators and an inspiration to his men (especially his officers). These latter two qualities were absolutely crucial to the success of the American Revolution, a fact that he had to learn the hard way. Some of his subordinates, notably Nathanael Green and Anthony Wayne, come across as abler field commanders, but no other man could have kept the army together and alive while the fledgling republic's wan government struggled to fund and supply it. Not the most illuminating work about a man who may always remain obscure anyway, and a little dry, but worth a read for those interested in Washington and the Revolution.

This is the fifth Washington biography I have read in the last ten years of so. I found new material here that I had not run into before. It is an excellent work if you have an interest in Washington the man and Washington the general. There is also some interesting material about the generals who served under him. I recommend it for people interested in the Revolutionary War period in particular.

Superb and honest examination of Washington's military life.

Washington was no Manstein or Guderian. Most of his battles were either losses or draws. But, he never gave up. And unlike today's mollycoddlers, he sent General Sullivan to do a "William Tecumseh Sherman" in Upstate New York in 1779, something General Sullivan did very efficiently and conclusively, much to the chagrin of Andrew Bacevich, Douglas Porch, Gian Gentile and Robert Citnion of the Clausewitz-über-alles school.

Reading this book allows one to appreciate how unpopular the Revolution was (hence the Continentals' being forced to resort to plunder), which makes the "divisiveness" of Vietnam and Iraq look like minor peccadillos, and which puts into perspective all of Don Lemon's and CNN's whinging that America in 2025 is a "divided country."

An enjoyable and refreshing look at Washington as a military leader. Surprisingly, many will find Washington lacked the tactical acumen of what we would consider a battlefield general--even by 18th century standards. So many close calls during the battles for American Independence gave rise for the fledgling army and militias under Washington's command to become decimated, yet by sheer luck or the quitting of the British Army to pursue Washington when they could have ended the independence effort eventually led to the birth of a Nation! Washington's strength instead lay in his strategic and political outlook of the developing national picture, and thankfully so read!! A great read!

Showed a different side to Washington. Even though I've read a few biographies on him, none were specific to the military. I wish it was a bit longer, as the early parts of the war were quite detailed but the ending was more summarized.

An in-depth and balanced look at Washington’s military career. The author overs a great survey of Washington’s failures and his triumphs. It delves heavily into military tactics and strategy and I’ll admit it can get very tedious. The author was not afraid to highlight Washington’s faults and he praised the qualities the set Washington apart from his peers.

If you want to know more about his life I would recommend the biography by Ron Chernow, but this book offers a great look into Washington’s defining characteristics. I think he author makes a great point by pointing out that “..the country’s future did not rest on him alone… But without George Washington there could have been no victory in the Revolutionary War.”

"Washington's gift of courage coincided with remarkable luck... No better example exists of the old maxim that to be good, a commander only has to be better than his opponent."

Even that may be overstating Washington's military abilities: he fought Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis to something less than a stalemate in New Jersey, Howe having complacently both failed to round up the Americans on Manhattan and left Burgoyne to his fate in upstate New York instead of combining their forces to cut the US in two. He kept the Continental Army in being while seeking to proactively attack, and through harsh winter camps, long enough for French supplies, troops and ships to come through. With a little luck for de Grasse's fleet off the Chesapeake, that was enough to win the victory at Yorktown which ruined Parliament's confidence in the war. Washington's early experiences of war only really schooled him in what not to do, he learnt on the job and from books instead of in a smoothly functional army, and Trenton was his own success in spite of the failure of several elements of his plans. His reputation survived attack while others' heads rolled, not entirely fairly, but in the end his best was just about good enough.

More than any other book I've read on George Washington this one gave me a greater appreciation for many of the struggles Washington faced in recruiting, training and keeping the army together. Leading troops in the colonies with their divided loyalties and a congress that seemed to expect them to sacrifice and fight without proper clothing, food and financial support was very different from the experience of a British commander. Somehow Washington managed to not only to maintain hope and project an air of confidence and competency that motivated and inspired his men.

I listen to books while I'm driving and sometimes had to repeat sections when I found myself tuning out due to the level of military detail, but overall found this a worthwhile and fascinating book.

This isn't really a biography, it's more of an assessment of how good or bad a general Washington was, based mostly on analyses of individual battles with lots of evidence thrown in from personal correspondence and the like. Near as I can make out, the conclusion is that he wasn't the best general in the world by a long chalk, but he happened to be really good at doing a few things that really needed to get done at that time and place. The arguments are solid enough, the guy makes sense, I guess my quarrel is that it's just not that interesting a read. It doesn't work very well either as military history (too focused on one person with not much overall strategic picture) or as biography (you don't get much of a sense of personality) nor yet as an academic argument about a specific question (analyses not detailed enough). Still, I finished it and enjoyed it...

I just completed Edward Lengel’s history, “General Washington: A Military Life” (2005). Previously, I had listened to this audio book. With my never ending fascination of the life of Washington, I decided to read the book as well.
For much of the book I found myself becoming frustrated with the negative conclusions drawn from the outcomes of battles. It seemed that Lengel was as interested in “myth busting” as history. I had long ago realized that Washington was not the greatest military strategist. I realized that often he was hampered by incompetent soldiers, political intrigue and lack of resolve of the Congress and by the sabotage of loyalists. But Lengel frequently points out that Washington was woefully unprepared in specific battles. A lack of awareness of local topography was near fatal in the Battle of Brandywine is one example.
I nearly set this book down about half way through. I am glad that I pushed on to the end.
Ultimately, the character of George Washington is what brought about the victorious end. Certainly, fighting against the most incompetent British Generals helped as well.
On a side note, the conduct of the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse was of interest to me.
Years ago I read The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara. I think that the depiction of this battle so influenced my thinking that my disgust of General Charles Lee was complete. Later, I read Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence by John Ferling. His conclusions about this battle were so at odds with my preconceived ideas that I found it almost laughable. Lengel trends a middle ground about the conduct of Charles Lee in this battle. Washington does share some blame in Lee’s shameful performance in the field of battle. (I mention this because I find it necessary to get more than one perspective on “history”, even when the subject is my favorite American historical character.)
My favorite part of Lengel’s biography was his recounting of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Washington now faced a very hostile group of even officers as they considered marching on Philadelphia and in effect, staging a military coup. The goodness of Washington inspires me to tears every time I read about this event. Lengel did inspire me with his wonderful recounting of this critical event. (By contrast, Joseph Ellis tells this story with a degree of cynicism that is shocking in His Excellency: George Washington. That is one of the reasons I don’t care for Joseph Ellis. He seems to represent the extreme of modern scholars who want to de-mythologize the American founding. His book on Jefferson left me feeling such cold feelings about another of the figures of Mount Rushmore.)
Finally, if you want to read a book that is purely adoring and apologetic on Washington, you can do no better than The Real George Washington. Every story is told with the greatest respect and devotion. It is slanted to a degree that makes it more devotional than historical.
And if you want to read the best modern biography of Washington, authored by my favorite biographer, read Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow. I go back to this book to re-read events of Washington’s life. Chernow is a wordsmith. He is objective and yet highly respectful of America’s greatest man. His account is captivating and inspiring.
I am sorry for this wordy review. I just re-read it and realize I am perhaps boasting about all that I have read about Washington. Lengel’s book (the supposed subject of this review…) is worth reading if you are interested in the life of Washington, but in my opinion, should not be the final word on Washington.