Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMichael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
DoubleVlad View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Sep-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people
    Posted: 22-Sep-2014 at 20:34
In reality, we must use the time elapsed from an influential person's period of influence to the present day as the most important indicator of influence. Yes, Hitler and Napoleon and George Washington were very influential, but they cannot be considered more influential than Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Muhammad, &c. A person may have only had an influence of a magnitude 10 times lower than another, but simply because their influence came earlier, there influence has been magnified to a greater significance. It is a domino effect; just because one domino was able to push down other dominoes quicker and with more force does not mean that it had a greater impact than the very first domino that the butterfly landed on and knocked over. Time is the most powerful entity when analyzing history, and it must be employed to its full power here in order to provide a more accurate picture of how influential certain persons have been on the ebb and flow of history.
"Every action has its consequences that will never fade; whether they are good or bad depends upon what attitude we employ."   ~DoubleVlad
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2014 at 12:18
It is surprising that emperor Asoka is ignored in the list. He belongs to 4th century BC. He conquered almost entire present India as well as Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan. Later he advocated peace and spread Buddhism in Asia including China. He was not only a military ruler but also a crusader of peace, whose influence is felt even today, even after about two and half millenniums. Who else is more qualified to be in the list?
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 06:18
Originally posted by gcle2003

If you're a Hessian, and the Landgrave decides to support his friend from Hanover in North America, so you go and fight there, why does that make you a mercenary, but not the Frenchman who goes because his King tells him to? Both are being paid.

By any standard that classes the 'Hessians' as mercenariesthe French fighting at Yorktown were also mercenaries.

The Hessian units were placed in the British army, under British command payed for by the British crown, the French army operated as an army still under French funding and command, not as a unit subordinated to the Americans. That's your difference.
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:38
BTW in all honesty I wouldn't have put him at the top either.
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:37

I thought the list that Washington was put top off was supposed to be of the greatest generals. I'd agree that if influential replaces capable it changes the assessment considerably. I still wouldn't put him at the top of influential military leaders. Not nearly as influential as say Augustus (another one not particularly distinguished as a military commander).


My arguments were largely in response to the bemused mockery of some of the forrumers.  I was largely attempting to demonstrate that George Washington was arguably one of the most influential leaders.

 

That Washington is a good candidate for history's most vaunted front man is something I'll unreservedly grant you.

 

But weren't they all front men?  Any great commander/leader has a number of subordinates who are extremely capable if not brilliant in their own right.

 

By then, what army? How about a "well-regulated militia"?

 

The remaining continental army which was at the time of Washington's order to disband several thousand strong.

 

If you're a Hessian, and the Landgrave decides to support his friend from Hanover in North America, so you go and fight there, why does that make you a mercenary, but not the Frenchman who goes because his King tells him to? Both are being paid.


Your argument would have been sound had the Hessiens been sent to America purely in support of the crown.  Yet it is true that the British paid an exhorbitant amount of money for the Hessians.  Hesse Cassell was a princedom which thrived on 'leasing' its highly professional military to the highest bidder and the price was considerable to say the least.  In fact the British looked for alternatives to the Hessians on account that their price was seen by many in parliament to be too high.  If you wish to split hairs then the Hessians were soldiers serving what was essentially a mercenary nation.

 

 



Edited by Laelius
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 14:06
yeah, allies would be a better term than mercenaries.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 13:02
Originally posted by Laelius

We're discussing his record as a general, not a politician, aren't we? Why would it be any different? All of the significant battles of the war  were won by other people, with of course the key battle being the defeat of the Royal Navy by the French in Chesapeake Bay.

 

The topic of the thread is most influential, not most capable...

It seems to have got away from that. I thought the list that Washington was put top off was supposed to be of the greatest generals. I'd agree that if influential replaces capable it changes the assessment considerably. I still wouldn't put him at the top of influential military leaders. Not nearly as influential as say Augustus (another one not particularly distinguished as a military commander).

If you're going to focus on the influence they had on history, then minor military figures like Monk (the Duke of Albemarle) come into play: the restoration of the English monarchy was a pretty significant event. Or John Churchill, who could have stuck with James II but didn't.

Churchill (Marlborough) was of course himself a pretty capable military leader as well as an influential one. If we were picking teams of generals I'd certainly pick Marlborough ahead of Washington (though I'm not saying first pick).

I grant he has a place in history as a politician, more during the revolution than as first President. If he hadn't become President, who would have? Adams, Jefferson? Both of them had more impact on the development of the constitution than Washington did anyway (Adams more through the appointment of Marshall than directly).

 

First theoffice of the Presidency was created with George in mind second he was a prominent unifying figure during the constitutional convention and finally he created the standard against which other presidents are measured.  Besides how many great leaders became great without their trusted subordinates and allies?  History always focuses on the front man.

That Washington is a good candidate for history's most vaunted front man is something I'll unreservedly grant you.

Despite the legends, Washington had no more chance of being made king than getting away with chopping down the cherry tree. There were too many brighter and more manipulative politicians around for that.

 

The army was completely behind him, who would have stopped him?

By then, what army? How about a "well-regulated militia"?

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

 

In the sense that they "rented" from Hesse-Calless.

Apart from the fact that most of the 'Hessians' were in fact Hanoverians',  the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassell like the Duke of Brunswick was a close ally of Hanover through most of the 18th century.  'Mercenary' as a kind of derogatory term means not someone fighting for money, but someone fighting for some other country/ruler  than his own, for money.

If you're a Hessian, and the Landgrave decides to support his friend from Hanover in North America, so you go and fight there, why does that make you a mercenary, but not the Frenchman who goes because his King tells him to? Both are being paid.

By any standard that classes the 'Hessians' as mercenaries the French fighting at Yorktown were also mercenaries.

(And wasn't von Steuben a mercenary?)

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2005 at 20:45

We're discussing his record as a general, not a politician, aren't we? Why would it be any different? All of the significant battles of the war  were won by other people, with of course the key battle being the defeat of the Royal Navy by the French in Chesapeake Bay.

 

The topic of the thread is most influential, not most capable...

 

I grant he has a place in history as a politician, more during the revolution than as first President. If he hadn't become President, who would have? Adams, Jefferson? Both of them had more impact on the development of the constitution than Washington did anyway (Adams more through the appointment of Marshall than directly).

 

First the office of the Presidency was created with George in mind second he was a prominent unifying figure during the constitutional convention and finally he created the standard against which other presidents are measured.  Besides how many great leaders became great without their trusted subordinates and allies?  History always focuses on the front man.

 

Despite the legends, Washington had no more chance of being made king than getting away with chopping down the cherry tree. There were too many brighter and more manipulative politicians around for that.

 

The army was completely behind him, who would have stopped him?

 

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

 

In the sense that they "rented" from Hesse-Calless.



Edited by Laelius
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2005 at 05:52

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by gcle2003

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Probably because they were mercenaries.

Well, yes, I pointed that out. I suppose what I really meant was why do people routinely talk about the Hessian mercenaries, but not say 'Scottish mercenaries' or 'Irish mercenaries' or (on the other side) 'French mercenaries'. In fact the Indians who fought in the war aren't usually described as 'mercenaries' either, although they were.

 

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 15:43
Originally posted by gcle2003

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all theKing's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Probably because they were mercenaries.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 15:05
Originally posted by Laelius

The british military was very decent perhaps second only to Napoleon elites before Russia. What was in america was simply a second rate british army, the better army was engaged in war against France. I don't see how the americans would have defeated the british if they were fully engaged there.

 

Completely false, Howe's invasion force was composed of some of the best troops in the Empire.  Heck nearly 1/4 of British military forces initially engaged in putting down the revolution were the famed Hessian mercenaries.

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Don't forget George III was Elector of Hanover as well as King of England, etc. The King's German Legion, recruited from his German subjects, was part of the elite in the Napoleonic wars too.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 14:53
Originally posted by poirot

Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Illuminati

A bunch of farmers beat the best military there was,

no the british army was most definately not the best military of the late 18th century...

I am going to side with Temujin on this debate.  The British Army in the late 18th century was composed mostly of the scums of the British Empire.

I'll side with him too. 'Scum' is irrelevant since most armies of the time consisted mainly of society's 'scum': some pretty good ones consistes of 'scum'. However, the 18th century British army was in no way the best in the world. It was another thirty years before Wellington licked it into reasonable shape, and even then I'd hesitate to claim it was the best.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 14:48

Originally posted by Illuminati

The success of the American revolution changed the world. A bunch of farmers beat the best military there was,

The French army and navy were a bunch of farmers?

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 14:43

Originally posted by Laelius

For those of you who have a problem with Washington let me ask you this.  How would history be different if Washington had not been the Commander in Chief of the American Colonies?

We're discussing his record as a general, not a politician, aren't we? Why would it be any different? All of the significant battles of the war  were won by other people, with of course the key battle being the defeat of the Royal Navy by the French in Chesapeake Bay.

I grant he has a place in history as a politician, more during the revolution than as first President. If he hadn't become President, who would have? Adams, Jefferson? Both of them had more impact on the development of the constitution than Washington did anyway (Adams more through the appointment of Marshall than directly).

 

if it were instead a lesser man such as an Oliver Cromwell?  The fact that he resigned his commission peacefully says a great deal about his character and ensured allowed the survival of the fledgling American democracy. 

If you wish for me to spell it out for you then let me ask you this, would the Liberal revolts of Europe in the mid 19th century have happened if Washington appoints himself king?  Would the French revolution have occurred?

Despite the legends, Washington had no more chance of being made king than getting away with chopping down the cherry tree. There were too many brighter and more manipulative politicians around for that.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2005 at 20:51
I'd replace Eisenhower with Patton and MacArthur with Sherman.  Also Turrene could be a little higher on the list.  The tactics he developed highly influenced Napoleon and Nathaniel Greene among others, Nathaniel Greene actually modeled himself after Turrene.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 12:04
Originally posted by Laelius

Would this Kociuszko be the same gentleman who served with distinction in the American revolution?

Yes, the same person. After american victory he came back to Poland.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 10:50

Would this Kociuszko be the same gentleman who served with distinction in the American revolution?

 

American Revolutionary War

Kościuszko Monument in NY
Enlarge
Kościuszko Monument in NY

Kościuszko was recruited in France by Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin and in August 1776 he arrived in America. Based on their recommendation the Congress commissioned him a Colonel in 1776. Due to recommendation of Prince Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski and General Charles Lee Kościuszko was named head engineer of the Continental Army.

His first task in America was the fortification of Philadelphia. On September 24, 1776, Kościuszko was ordered to fortify the banks of the Delaware River against a possible British crossing. In the Spring of 1777 he was attached to the Northern Army under General Horatio Gates. As the chief engineer of the army he commanded the construction of several forts and fortified military camps along the Canadian border. His work made significant contributions to the American successful retreat from the battle of Ticonderoga and victory at Saratoga in 1777.

After the battle Kościuszko, then regarded as one of the best engineers in American service, was put in charge by George Washington of military engineering works at the stronghold in West Point on the Hudson River. Then he asked to be transfered to the Southern Army, where he also made significant contributions to the American victories.

After seven years of service, on October 13, 1783, Kościuszko was promoted by the Congress to the rank of Brigadier General. He was also granted American citizenship, 2.5 square kilometres of land in America, and a large sum of money. He used the money to help some black slaves gain their freedom. He was also admitted to the prestigious Society of the Cincinnati, one of only three foreigners allowed to join, and to the American Philosophical Society.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 17:37
I suspect peasents are more romantic.  Here in the US when discussing the American Revolution the focus is always on those buck skinned frontiersmen...
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 17:04
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Mosquito

Some of your countrymen Temujin fought there too.

 how was their performance?

Sorry for saying that but they are in shadow of peasants. Everyone focuses on those paesants and neglect regular forces. I wish i know somthing about those Wurttenbergians but majority of historians dont even write about polish troops, only about paesants. In school i was even told that there were only paesants.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 16:57
Originally posted by Mosquito

Some of your countrymen Temujin fought there too.

 how was their performance?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.