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  <12345>
Author
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people
    Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 02:24
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.

 

 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.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 03:59
I would argue that the Prussians had a better army (the British had the best navy, but on land, the Prussians were far superior.)
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
aknc View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 07:11
jesus is a little way off
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 09:34
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.
Vae victis!
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: 11-Jun-2005 at 10:57

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.


BTW the claim that the army was composed entirely of scum is false, though they did have their share of convicts the majority came from the British lower classes.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 12:02
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 wasengaged in war against France. I don't see how the americans would have defeated the british if they were fully engaged there.



The Hessians aren't famed because they were good, but rather because the drunken stupor they had before the battle of Trenton, where only a fraction of them were able to stand up straight.
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: 11-Jun-2005 at 21:31

The Hessians aren't famed because they were good, but rather because the drunken stupor they had before the battle of Trenton, where only a fraction of them were able to stand up straight.

 

also a gross misconception.  As the American troops converged on Trenton they encountered a Hessian outpost which began skirmishing noisily with the approaching American army.  By the time the American troops reached the town square the Hessians were already formed up.  Several factors contributed to the American victory including their heavy use of cannon.  European armies typically deployed 2-3 cannon per 1,000 troops whereas the continental army had around 9-10 guns per 1,000.  The heavy use of cannonry played havoc with Hessian lines in the relatively narrow avenues of Trenton.  A second factor was weariness on account of the Hessians.  They had been under harrasment from the New Jersey militia for weeks and were on alert for most of that time.  By Dec. 26 they were simply worn out.  third of course surpise they had been shocked to be attacked by an enemy they had thought beaten.  Finally the death of their revered Colonel Rall also contributed to the surrender.

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 02:46

Originally posted by poirot

I would argue that the Prussians had a better army (the British had the best navy, but on land, the Prussians were far superior.)

 

You certainly wouldn't have a clue about what you are talking about. The revolutionary and napoleonic armies were without equal, The Prussian was routinely defeated from 1792 to 1815.  Davout corps would defeat an entire prussian army twice it's size.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 02:47
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.

Back to Top
Degredado View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 14:37

Originally posted by Exarchus


And Washington is very overated, without La Fayette he was nothing. Before the American war of independance, do you guys even know of the Battle of Monogahela? The American forces came to seize the French lands in Louisiana under the general Braddock

Colonial militias then still loyal to the English crown, actually (if it's a battle in the French and Indian War)

Anyhoo they forgot Prince Henry, and I would like to know why Vasco da Gama ranks so below Columbus.

Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 17:30
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
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 17:37
and I would like to know why Vasco da Gama ranks so below Columbus.


I think the name 'Micheal Hart' provides a huge clue
Arrrgh!!"
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: 12-Jun-2005 at 17:46

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.

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: 12-Jun-2005 at 19:31
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.

In numbers or in quality?

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 21:26
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.

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 21:33
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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.

 

 Russia was never a decent fighting forces in those, Prussia became an army of automatons after frederick. Austria was actually good.

I'll put it like that Austria, France, England, Prussia.

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: 13-Jun-2005 at 15:14
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
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 21:56
Originally posted by Temujin

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.

 

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. 

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: 14-Jun-2005 at 15:19

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.

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: 14-Jun-2005 at 20:27

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.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

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 0.156 seconds.