'Deadliest Warrior': Richard 'Mack' Machowicz looks at George Washington vs. Napoleon Bonaparte
While they wouldn't be in the same boxing weight class, George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte square off in the third-season premiere of Spike's "Deadliest Warrior" on Wednesday, July 20.
"I find it fascinating to see great warriors who go on to become great generals," says new show host Richard "Mack" Machowicz, a former Navy SEAL.
"Deadliest Warrior" tests the weapons available to the two larger-than-life (figuratively, in Napoleon's case) military leaders -- from cannons to muskets to swords -- looks at their different leadership styles and tactics and then examines their most famous battles.
All of those factors are assigned a numerical value and fed into a specialized computer program to see which general has the combat advantage.
Machowicz has his own idea of what gives a warrior his edge.
"Discipline is what makes the difference on the battlefield," he tells Zap2it. "Discipline over your fear; discipline in the moment, not over-committing, not putting yourself or your troops in a bad position. Washington is incredibly disciplined.
"This is going to be a fantastic first match-up, when you're looking at Washington vs. Napoleon. They're two great generals, very different guys. They produced very different results."
After all, Washington became a president who knew when to walk away, but Napoleon became an emperor who was ultimately taken away.
"You see the whole picture," says Machowicz, "and that's the challenge. When you look at a person's life, especially like Washington, it's interesting to see his journey as a man and as a warrior, as a general and as a leader, the values that he brought to it, the love that his men had for him. It's incredible."
Season three also features the show's first female warrior, Joan of Arc, and its first fantasy match-up, "Zombies vs. Vampires."
Below find a clip from the season premiere:
only in the states would someone place washington ahead of napoleon bonaparte. next, we'll be hearing that lincoln was greater than christ and that the lost city of atlantis is really washington, DC. Even by american standards, this whole first episode is extraordinary hubris. Intellectually, washington couldn't shine bonaparte's cutlass.
I am an American and I would have to agree with the previous post. Washington was simply not in the same league as Napoleon.
Washington was victorious and Napolean ultimately was defeated. Winner takes all in my book. History doesn't lie.
How the F, Washington won is bull s h it. This ra-ra-ra American bias is killing this show and its objectivity. If the two were to engage in battle on either sides of the Atlantic, Napoleon wins it hands down every time. In terms of numbers alone, the French Army of Napoleon's era outnumbers the minutemen or volunteers or whatever Washington had for infantry at the time. The organization of striking force devides, conquers and devestates a "hybrid" attack force of sock holed farmers. And to use Napoleon's impulses as a weakness is totally bogus and a complete cop-out by MAC. Nice to see Dorian taking up Max's roll of clown on DWS3. Napoleon's impulsiveness was a strength as it takes that type of thinking to get the job done at the expense of many lives. One on one GW wins 3 of 5 from Napoleon. Squadron on squadron, it's not even close! Btw, Washington was a hero of mine, and I can't stand Napoleon, but even I can admit when a hero is lost.
Please put my Ancestor Admiral Horatio Nelson On....
Napoleon should have won. It seems to me that DWS3 tweeks the X-factors, interprets them in a biased manner that gives the upper hand to the American fighter, to up the TV ratings.
For instance, giving a higher Generalship X-factor to Washington was a mistake.
Consider that Washington had many victories against the British under comparatively favourable circumstances and against a logistically challenged ennemy. Washington was always fighting on home soil, with ample available locally-raised militias and no need to support a major logistical effort. Meanwhile, the British were stretched to their limit, had to rely on replenishments of troups, ammo and food stock from their bases back in Britain, way across the Atlantic. Also, not to forget that for the biggest American victories, especially Yorktown, the French expeditionary forces did a good part of the fighting.
Compare this with Napoleon, who fought outside of France, often in hostile territory, on extensive campaigns requiring a major logistical effort. Yet, despite this disadvantage, Napoleon won many brilliant victorie, often against numerically superior forces.
There is also the need to factor that Napoleon would have enjoyed a 25 year technological advantage - better weapons, newer improved battlefield maneuvering techniques. (Note: end of American revolution was 1781; Napoleon was active until 1815).
It would have been more realistic to do the simulation in a neutral territory, where nobody gets the home territory advantage. I'm sure that under such a scenario Washington would have been crushed.
The fact of the matter is that George Washington, personally, won very few battles that he oversaw. I think out of numerous battles he only oversaw three victories. He was general, the overarching leader because of his stature and his charisma, not of his military record. On the other hand Napoleon, never lost in battle, unless heavily, heavily outnumbered. Every battle he oversaw was almost always a victory, his empire fell apart because his appointed generals were not as successful as him and he was heavily, heavily outnumbered in Russia. I think if they had factored in this, plus the clear technological advantage Napolean had over Washington.
There's one thing you're all forgetting. The Russian's claim victory over Napoleon... and who was in charge the Russians? Kutuzov. He studied Washington's tactics vs. the Brits. As brilliant as Napoleon was his overall grand strategy couldn't work. Napoleon couldn't understand political ramifications.
Hahaha this is a joke right???
Washington was a great leader no 2 ways about it. winning the civil war was no small feat but he had alot of help from Napoleons people the French also the English were fighting a war from Europe having to ship new troops, supplies and equipment from England making them at a severe disadvantage.
Napoleon on the other hand is with out a doubt one of if not the greatest general of all time put it this way Napoleon won more battles than Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca, Julius Caesar and Frederick the Great COMBINED!! thats alot of wins and yes all 4 of the men listed are better generals maybe not leaders but much better generals than Washington.
To say that Washington is any where near Napoleon as a general or a leader is absolute crap it would have been a no contest Napoleon would have wiped Washington like a dirty ***!!!!
it just proves that Deadliest Warrior doesnt know anything or just appeals to the US viewers.