DEBATE: Why is Napoleon Bonaparte a more effective leader than George Washington?

This is not really a good topic to debate with. Napoleon Bonaparte had established nations, massive armies, and a seemingly endless supply of resources to work with compared to George Washington who had a fledgling nation that was poor and had just gotten out of a war with the one of the strongest countries on the face of the earth. During the war he lost his battles because of a lack of logistics and modern training. And even while he was an officer in the British army he wasn't involved in many large battles.

So its kind of hard to compare the both of them. Had they had the same size armies with the same training I would say Napoleon would have won. He was a gifted tactician while George Washington was more of an inspirational man rather than a tactician.

Knowing how he treated his troops during his Egyptian and Russian campaigns, had Napoleon been given an assignment to "lead" a group of colonial fighters, he would have soon been a victim of "friendly fire".

Because Napoleon won his wars and retired happy while George Washington lost and died in prison.

How does one define "effective", getting those under them to do more and be more loyal? Or win more battles?