- Home
- Membership
- George Washington's dirty tricks: how the American hero fooled Britain at Yorktown
George Washington's dirty tricks: how the American hero fooled Britain at Yorktown
Not all battles are won by superior firepower or numbers – sometimes sneaky strategies triumph over sheer might. Iain MacGregor recounts five clashes from history when subterfuge, misdirection and manipulation secured victory
Published: October 16, 2026 at 3:30 PM
Save
- Share on facebook
- Share on twitter
- Share on whatsapp
- Email to a friend
1. Dangerous assumptions
Hannibal lured Roman troops into the perfect trap at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC
Ad
On the morning of 21 June 217 BC, during the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), the Roman army of consul Gaius Flaminius marched along the northern shore of Lake Trasimene in central Italy. They were approaching what appeared to be the encampment of a retreating Carthaginian force under Hannibal Barca, then about 30 years old and already Rome’s most dangerous enemy. The Romans believed that they were about to force a decisive battle. In reality, they were walking into one of the greatest ambushes in military history.
The crisis had begun the previous autumn when Hannibal had achieved the seemingly impossible, crossing the Alps with his multinational army and war elephants, then defeating Roman forces at the battle of Trebia in December 218 BC. Determined to restore Roman prestige, Flaminius pursued the Carthaginian forces south through Italy.
Carthaginian troops attack a Roman army from the hills above Lake Trasimene, as depicted in an 18th-century engraving illustrating Polybius’ Histories | Credit: Getty Images
As Livy (Titus Livius) observed in his seminal History of Rome, written two centuries later, Flaminius “had more regard for victory than for either prudence or the gods”. Rather than avoid battle, he encouraged pursuit, burning farms, destroying crops and leaving a conspicuous trail of devastation. Hannibal understood exactly the kind of opponent he was facing: ambitious, aggressive and desperate for victory.
So, in selecting the location for his inevitable clash with the Romans, the Carthaginian general “chose the ground with great skill”, as the Greek scholar Polybius remarked in his Histories the following century. A narrow road ran between the lake and wooded hills to the north. During the night, 40,000–50,000 of Hannibal’s men concealed themselves in the high ground while a smaller but visible force blocked the route ahead. When the Roman column, numbering perhaps 25,000–30,000 soldiers, marched on the Carthaginian camp shortly after dawn, the trap was sprung.
An ancient bust of Hannibal, who turned terrain into a potent weapon in the summer of 217 BC | Credit: Getty Images
Carthaginian infantry, Numidian cavalry, Iberian warriors and Gallic tribesmen attacked simultaneously from the front, flanks and rear: “The enemy appeared on all sides at once,” as Livy described the assault. Units became isolated before many Romans even realised that the battle had begun. Ancient sources suggest that as many as 15,000 Romans were killed – including Flaminius himself – with thousands more captured. The battle lasted only a few hours.
Hannibal’s victory at Trasimene was particularly remarkable in that the battle was effectively won before the first spear was thrown or sword swung. By manipulating Roman expectations and turning terrain into a weapon, he persuaded his enemy to make a fatal assumption about how the clash would unfold. Few commanders in history have demonstrated more clearly that the most decisive battlefield can be the opponent’s mind.
- Read more | Have archaeologists just found proof of ancient Carthage's legendary anti-Roman war weapon?
2. Incendiary ideas
Using diplomacy, deception and a fiery secret weapon, Byzantine forces broke the siege of Constantinople in AD 717–18
In August 717, one of the most ambitious military operations of the early medieval world was launched. The Umayyad Caliphate, the powerful Islamic realm stretching from Spain to central Asia, sent a vast expedition to capture Constantinople (now Istanbul), capital of the Byzantine empire.
Leading the assault was Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik, one of the Arab world’s most experienced commanders. Many contemporary sources suggest that his army numbered well over 100,000 men, supported by a fleet of perhaps 1,800 ships, though the exact figures remain disputed. The prize was immense. Constantinople commanded the Bosporus, controlled key trade routes between Europe and Asia, and was the political and spiritual heart of the Christian east.
A gold solidus coin of Byzantine emperor Leo III, whose tactics bested an Arab force besieging Constantinople | Credit: Trustees of the British Museum
The city’s prospects appeared bleak. Years of political instability had weakened the Byzantine empire, and its new ruler, Leo III the Isaurian, had seized the throne only months earlier. But Leo recognised that straightforward military resistance would not be enough. Instead, he directed Byzantine diplomats to quietly exploit divisions among the besiegers and their allies, while his intelligence networks monitored Arab movements and the defenders concealed their true resilience. As one account notes, Leo had already demonstrated his talent for deception: before becoming emperor, he had encouraged Arab hopes of his cooperation in taking the Byzantine capital – before turning the tables and seizing the throne for himself.
As well as a flair for subterfuge, the Byzantines possessed one of history’s most closely guarded military secrets: the mysterious incendiary compound known as ‘Greek fire’, its precise composition still unknown today. Propelled from tubes mounted on warships, it continued burning even on water. Arab sailors expected a conventional naval battle, followed by a blockade to effect a debilitating siege of Constantinople. Instead, they found their ships engulfed by flames. The physical damage was severe, but the psychological effect was arguably greater.
The effects of ‘Greek fire’, depicted in a 12th-century manuscript illustration. Leo III’s use of this weapon may have weakened his enemy psychologically | Credit: Getty Images
As autumn turned to winter, the siege became a contest of endurance. The attackers expected Constantinople to weaken; instead, supply problems, disease and an exceptionally harsh winter devastated their own troops. Reinforcements and provisions failed to arrive in sufficient numbers, while Byzantine diplomacy persuaded the Bulgars, led by Khan Tervel, to attack Arab forces operating around the city.
After a year of fighting, the siege collapsed in August 718. Thousands of besiegers had perished, much of the Umayyad fleet had been destroyed, and Maslama’s surviving forces withdrew. Constantinople had survived.
The victory preserved the Byzantine empire for another seven centuries, and halted the caliphate’s expansion into south-eastern Europe. It also showed that deception, intelligence and psychological warfare could be as decisive as powerful armies. In persuading a stronger enemy to misunderstand both the city’s strength and its secret weapons, Leo III won one of history’s most consequential defensive victories.
3. Power of misdirection
George Washington tricked enemy leaders into looking the wrong way to overpower the British stronghold of Yorktown in 1781
By 1781, the American War of Independence had been raging for more than six years. Britain still possessed the world’s most powerful navy, controlled major coastal cities and maintained roughly 30,000 troops in North America. Many British politicians believed that the rebellion could still be crushed. Yet within a matter of months, a carefully orchestrated deception forced the surrender of an entire British field army – and effectively decided the war.
The key figures involved were General George Washington, commander of the Continental Army, and his French ally, Lieutenant General Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau. During the summer of 1781, both men remained near New York City facing General Sir Henry Clinton, Britain’s commander-in-chief in North America.
Troops led by George Washington and his French counterparts tricked the British into believing that they planned to attack New York – instead they hit Yorktown, Virginia, as shown in this contemporary engraving | Credit: Topfoto
Everything appeared to suggest that New York would be the target of the next major Allied offensive. Troops were moved, supplies accumulated, and intelligence leaks reinforced the impression. It was a bluff. As Washington reportedly explained: “If we do not deceive our own men, we will never deceive the enemy.”
Clinton saw what Washington wanted him to see. In reality, the Allied commanders were secretly preparing an assault elsewhere. Their true objective was to defeat Lieutenant General Lord Charles Cornwallis, who had established a force of approximately 8,000–9,000 British and German troops at Yorktown, Virginia. Standing on the York river that flows into Chesapeake Bay, Yorktown appeared secure so long as the Royal Navy retained control of the coast. The entire Allied plan depended upon preventing the British high command from recognising the danger until it was too late.
In August, while British attention remained fixed on New York, Washington and Rochambeau began moving more than 4,000 American and a similar number of French troops south. Simultaneously, a powerful French fleet under Admiral François Joseph Paul de Grasse sailed for the Chesapeake. On 5 September, de Grasse defeated a British relief fleet at the battle of the Chesapeake, closing Cornwallis’s escape route and trapping his forces.
George Washington combined with French leader Comte de Rochambeau to defeat the British | Credit: Getty Images
By the end of September, some 17,000 Franco-American troops had surrounded Yorktown. After a three-week siege, Cornwallis surrendered on 19 October 1781, handing over more than 7,000 soldiers – one of the largest British capitulations of the 18th century. The following day, he wrote to Clinton: “I have the mortification to inform your Excellency that I have been forced to give up the posts of York and Gloucester, and to surrender the troops under my command.”
Yorktown was not simply a military victory – it was a triumph of deception. Through carefully managed intelligence, strategic misdirection and close Franco-American coordination, Washington persuaded the British command to focus on the wrong battlefield at the decisive moment. Britain continued fighting until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 but, after Yorktown, the political will to continue the war effectively collapsed.
4. Element of surprise
By overturning the expectations of an offensive, the German Kaiserschlacht was able to shatter Allied lines on the Somme in 1918 – for a time, at least
In early 1918, Germany spied a narrow window of opportunity to win the First World War. The collapse of imperial Russia and the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918 allowed Germany to transfer some 50 divisions from the eastern front to the west. For the first time in years, the German high command believed that it could achieve local superiority. Yet General Erich Ludendorff and Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg knew that the advantage would be short-lived.
Since declaring war on Germany on 6 April 1917, the US had been steadily building its presence in France, with around 10,000 American troops arriving daily by the spring of 1918. Germany needed a decisive victory before Allied manpower became overwhelming. As Ludendorff put it: “We should strike at the earliest moment… before the Americans can throw strong forces into the scale. We must beat the British.”
Erich Ludendorff (right). His 1918 Kaiserschlacht attacks took the Allies by surprise | Credit: Getty Images
The German strategy intended to achieve this was the Kaiserschlacht (Kaiser’s Battle), a series of offensives designed to break the stalemate on the western front. The opening blow, Operation Michael, was launched against the British Fifth Army along the Somme at 4.40am on 21 March 1918. Success depended on achieving something almost unheard of after years of trench warfare: complete tactical surprise.
Since 1914, major offensives had generally been preceded by days of artillery bombardment that advertised an attack long before it began. Ludendorff sought to overturn those expectations. Troops were secretly concentrated behind the front, wireless communications were restricted and dummy positions were used to conceal preparations. Most importantly, more than 6,600 German guns unleashed a sudden bombardment designed to paralyse enemy headquarters, artillery batteries and communications rather than simply destroy trenches. Behind the shellfire surged elite Sturmtruppen units trained to infiltrate weak points, bypass strongholds and penetrate deep into the Allied rear.
The effect was dramatic. Cloaked by dense morning fog, German forces smashed through British positions and advanced farther than any army had on the western front since 1914. In places, they pushed nearly 40 miles west, capturing tens of thousands of prisoners and threatening the vital rail hub of Amiens. Allied commanders were shocked by the speed and scale of the assault.
A British camp in 1918 after being taken by German troops advancing in the Somme at a pace and scale that shocked Allied commanders | Credit: Alamy
Yet surprise alone could not deliver victory. German infantry outpaced their supply lines, communications broke down and elite stormtrooper formations suffered heavy casualties. Though the offensive gained significant territory, it failed to destroy the British Army, seize the Channel ports or divide the Allied coalition. By July 1918, Germany’s final reserves had largely been expended, leaving Ludendorff unable to resist the Allied counter-offensives that followed.
The Kaiserschlacht ultimately failed, but it marked a turning point in military deception. Surprise was no longer a battlefield trick employed by a gifted commander. It had become an industrialised system involving intelligence, communications, logistics, artillery science and carefully coordinated operational planning. The offensive did not win the war, but it showed how modern armies could manipulate an enemy’s expectations on a vast scale.
5. Making the impossible possible
Heavy artillery couldn’t be installed and fired in the jungle-clad hills above Dien Bien Phu – or so the French believed in 1954
After almost seven years of war against the communist-led Viet Minh rebels in what’s now Vietnam, France was struggling to maintain its colonial grip on Indochina. Seeking a decisive battle, French general Henri Navarre, appointed commander-in-chief in May 1953, approved the occupation of Dien Bien Phu, a remote valley in north-west Vietnam near the Laotian border.
The plan, launched under Operation Castor in November 1953, seemed straightforward: establish a heavily fortified base supplied by air, then lure the Viet Minh into a conventional battle where French artillery, armour and air power could destroy them.
Viet Minh troops set up loudspeakers at Dien Bien Phu, using them to urge French troops to concede defeat – and, after 56 days of fighting, they did | Credit: Getty Images
At first, things went as planned. The French garrison commanded by Colonel Christian de Castries eventually numbered around 16,000 troops including French regulars, Foreign Legionnaires, Moroccan and Algerian units, and Vietnamese auxiliaries. The base was divided into strongpoints with female codenames including Beatrice, Gabrielle, Anne-Marie, Dominique and Isabelle. The French were confident they had chosen the battlefield well.
Yet General Võ Nguyên Giáp, commander of the Viet Minh, had already begun turning that assumption into a fatal weakness. His deception involved reinforcing French beliefs about what was and wasn’t possible in this terrain. For example, French military planners thought that heavy artillery couldn’t be sited in the steep, jungle-covered hills surrounding the valley.
During late 1953 and early 1954, though, an estimated 50,000–70,000 labourers and porters helped move Viet Minh artillery, ammunition and supplies through mountains and dense jungle. Many loads were transported by bicycle, handcart or sheer muscle. Guns were dismantled, hauled uphill and concealed in reinforced caves and camouflaged positions overlooking the valley.
The French knew that the Viet Minh possessed artillery. What they failed to grasp was where Giáp intended to put it. “No Viet cannon will be able to fire three rounds before being destroyed by my artillery,” declared Colonel Charles Piroth confidently before the battle.
A poster printed by the Viet Minh celebrates victory over French forces at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 | Credit: Getty Images
That illusion was shattered on 13 March 1954, when Viet Minh artillery suddenly opened fire. Within hours, outpost Beatrice had been overrun. French airfields quickly became unusable, while anti-aircraft guns made aerial resupply increasingly hazardous. The fortress designed to dominate the valley found itself trapped inside it. As the siege continued, Giáp employed trench systems that crept ever closer to French positions, echoing the tactics of the First World War.
After 56 days of fighting, on 7 May 1954 the French garrison collapsed. More than 10,000 French troops were captured, and total casualties on both sides exceeded 30,000. The defeat shocked France, accelerated negotiations at the Geneva Conference, and led to the partition of Vietnam at the 17th Parallel later that year.
Giáp did not persuade French military planners through any single deception. Instead, he exploited their conviction that the jungle-covered hills around Dien Bien Phu were impassable to heavy artillery. Then he hauled dismantled guns into camouflaged hillside positions and launched an attack that proved utterly decisive.
Iain MacGregor is a historian and author. His latest book is Battle: The Moments That Transformed Warfare from Ancient Greece to Ukraine (October, 2026)
Ad
This article was first published in the November 2026 issue of HistoryExtra Magazine
Ad
Ad
Loading...
Ad
Loading...