Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people

Originally posted by Mosquito If you mean leadership and tactics i wouldnt rank Russians before Prussians. Dont forget that Russian army was defeated by the bunch of polish paesants armed with scythes in the battle of Raclawice. In my opinion Prussian army was the best 18th century army.

Ok, if the Polish peasants did defeat a Russian regular army, how good was the regular Polish army?

of coruse it's very arguably if the Russians or Prussians were the better army, but i descide on direct comparison, Russians won Gross-J�gersdorf, Kunersdorf and Kay (Zorndorf is claimed a Prussian victory but if you look at the course of the battle it's clear that it was more like a draw if anyhting, pretty similar to Borodino) even against Frederick in person. but of course this is my personal opinion.

Suvorov was a bloody massmurderer of civilian population. Being not able to take Warsaw slaughtered 10.000 civilians of Praga, on the opposite side of the of the river, to convice Warsaw to surrender. If he was so skilled he would take the city without need to commit such war crimes.

Mongols did that too and it worked well for them, actually this is a quite smart move which speaks in favour of Suvorov, but i agree that in a pretty chivalric age of warfare this was not his greatest deed.

Edited by Temujin

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Suvorov was still one of the very best commanders of the 18th century though, surely up there with Frederick. (<-that's and opinion, so you can't argue )

Suvorov was a bloody massmurderer of civilian population. Being not able to take Warsaw slaughtered 10.000 civilians of Praga, on the opposite side of the of the river, to convice Warsaw to surrender. If he was so skilled he would take the city without need to commit such war crimes.

Originally posted by poirot 14. Adolf Hitler and 79. Erwin Rommel Granted, Hitler did conquer most of the European mainland, but his inability to listen to better trained officers such as Rommel led in part to his ultimate demise.

That, and listening to idiots like Goering....

BTW, since when was Justinian a Catholic?

Originally posted by Mosquito Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by Mosquito In numbers or in quality? leadership and tactics. If you mean leadership and tactics i wouldnt rank Russians before Prussians. Dont forget that Russian�army was defeated by the bunch of polish paesants armed with scythes in the battle of Raclawice. In my opinion Prussian army was the best 18th century army.

Suvorov was still one of the very best commanders of the 18th century though, surely up there with Frederick. (<-that's and opinion, so you can't argue )

Edited by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl Pretty much nonsense, France did won many battles namely the battle of Hastenbeck, where combined Prussian and  Hoverian were defeated. Suvorov is overrated, he was never a great general but only one fighting weak ottomans armies.

no they did not won many battles, Hastenbeck was before the prussians took over command of the armies of Hanover, Brunswick and Hessen-Kassel, and the prince of Brunswick did defeat the major French generals with the troops from those petty German principalities and outnumbered more often than the French did won a battle... Suvorov and Ottomans are in fact underrated, you cannot udnerstand this all because your usual French nationalism overwrites your logical thinking.

and there were no Prussians at Hastenbeck, only a bad British commander.

Originally posted by Mosquito In numbers or in quality?

leadership and tactics.

 

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl Pretty ridiculous list, French forces was always at the top at any time.

that was a really ridiculous and biased statement...France has hardly won a battle durign the seven years war and lacked decent command.

Russia was never a decent fighting forces, Prussia became an army of automaton after frederick.

does Suvorov rign a bell? and did you knew that Russia never lost a battle during the 7 years war and their armies were traiend by Prussian officers. Prussia comes second because after Fredericks death Prussia still had an experienced army and commanders at their disposal. Austria is third because they also have decent commanders and a descent army. Britain on the continent sucked hell during the early 7 years war, they only won after a Prussian fieldmarshall took over command.

Edited by Temujin

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl  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. if we talk about the time 1770-1790s, the top 3 land armies would be 1. Russian, 2. Prussian, 3. Austrian.

 

Pretty ridiculous list, French forces was always at the top at any time. Russia was never a decent fighting forces, Prussia became an army of automaton after frederick. Austria was actually good.

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl  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.

if we talk about the time 1770-1790s, the top 3 land armies would be 1. Russian, 2. Prussian, 3. Austrian.

Let's steer the argument elsewhere and focus on other discrepancies.  I think that we have argued enough about Washington.  The ranking of 199 more characters waiting to be reviewed by everybody

Originally posted by Exarchus Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl   Anyway this is hart's opinion which i disagree with. People like Bismarck and Louis IV who have radically changed europes landscape and military are missing. Don't you rather mean Louis XIV? I can't think of any special accomplishment from Louis IV.

LOL, yep, that was a typo.